model conformity study and monitoring for condenser ... · model conformity study and monitoring...

DISTRIBUTION RESTRICTED NIO/SP-17/2014 SSP 2947

MODEL CONFORMITY STUDY AND MONITORING FOR CONDENSER COOLING WATER DISCHARGE FROM CGPL IN THE COASTAL WATERS OF MUNDRA DURING PREMONSOON

SPONSORED BY Coastal Gujarat Power Limited, New Delhi February 2016

MODEL CONFORMITY STUDY AND MONITORING FOR CONDENSER COOLING WATER DISCHARGE FROM CGPL IN THE COASTAL WATERS OF MUNDRA DURING PREMONSOON Project Leader Soniya Sukumaran Associate Project Leaders V.S.Naidu M. A. Rokade February 2016

CONTENTS Project team i Executive Summary ii List of tables vii List of figures x Plates xii 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Background 1 1.2 Objectives 2 1.3 Approach strategy 3 1.4 Studies undertaken 3 1.4.1 Period of study 4 1.4.2 Station locations 4 1.4.3 Sampling frequency 5 1.4.4 Physical processes 5 1.4.5 Water quality 5 1.4.6 Sediment quality 6 1.4.7 Flora and fauna 7

2 PROJECT INFORMATION 8 2.1 Cooling water system 8 2.2 Desalination plant 8 2.3 Effluent disposal system 9 3. GULF OF KACHCHH 11 3.1 Land environment 11 3.2 Meteorological conditions 11 3.3 Marine environment 12 3.3.1 Physical processes 12 3.3.2 Water quality 13 3.3.3 Sediment quality 14 3.3.4 Flora and fauna 14 4 SITE SPECIFIC MARINE ENVIRONMENT 17 4.1 Area description 17 4.2 Physical processes 18 4.2.1 Tides 18 4.2.2 Currents 19 4.2.3 Circulation 19 4.2.4 Temperature and Salinity observations 20 4.3 Water quality 21 4.3.1 Temperature 21 4.3.2 pH 22 4.3.3 Suspended Solids 23 4.3.4 Salinity 24

4.3.5 DO and BOD 25 4.3.6 Phosphorus compounds 27 4.3.7 Nitrogen compounds 28 4.3.8 Petroleum hydrocarbons 31 4.4 Sediment quality 32 4.4.1 Texture 32 4.4.2 Heavy metals 33 4.4.3 Organic carbon (Corg) 34 4.4.4 Phosphorus 34 4.4.5 Petroleum hydrocarbon 35 4.5 Flora and fauna 36 4.5.1 Seaweeds, seagrasses and mangrove ecosystem 37 4.5.2 Phytoplankton 38 4.5.3 Zooplankton 41 4.5.4 Macrobenthos 45 4.5.5 Fishery 48 4.5.6 Corals and associated biota 50 4.5.7 Birds 51 4.5.8 Reptiles 51 4.5.9 Mammals 51

5 EFFLUENT RELEASE 52 5.1 Earlier study by HR Wallingford 52

5.2 Present Study 52 5.2.1 Hydrodynamic model studies 52 5.2.2 Modeling of Temperature 54 6 ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 58 6.1 Hydrodynamics 58 6.2 Comparative assessment 58 6.2.1 Water quality 58 6.2.2 Sediment quality 63 6.2.3 Flora and fauna 65

7 CONCLUSIONS 71

i

PROJECT TEAM

Dr. Soniya Sukumaran Biological Oceanography Dr. V S Naidu Physical Oceanography

Dr. M. A. Rokade* Chemical Oceanography Dr. Chaubey A.K Geophysical Oceanography

Dr. Anirudh Ram Chemical Oceanography Rakesh P.S Biological Oceanography D. S. Bagde Technical Cell Mohammed Ilyas Technical Cell Jairam G. Oza Technical Cell Heidy Dias Biological Oceanography Srinivas Tatiparthi Biological Oceanography Ms.Carolyn Karishma Marcilia Silveira Biological Oceanography Mr. Mintu Chowdary Biological Oceanography Ms.Revati Hardikar Biological Oceanography Nageshwar Rao Chemical Oceanography Samata Jadhav Chemical Oceanography Dinesh Gupta Physical Oceanography Rohan Lahane Physical Oceanography

* Retired

ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 Introduction Coastal Gujarat Power Limited (CGPL), Tata Power’s wholly-owned subsidiary, has implemented the 4000 MW (800 x 5 units) UMPP near the port city of Mundra in the state of Gujarat in India. CSIR-National Institute of Oceanography (CSIR-NIO) had carried out the marine EIA for discharge channel during December 2008, as a part of Marine EMP, as per condition no 1.c of Consent to establish issued by GPCB, vide letter no. PC/CCA-Kutch-437/21029 dated 17th July 2007. CGPL commenced operations in March 2012. In order to assess the performance of the condenser cooling water discharge system, it was decided by CGPL to carry out Model confirmatory study. Detailed field investigations were conducted during December 2013 (postmonsoon) and the results were compared with the baseline data of December 2008 (pre-development). The report submitted by CSIR-NIO subsequently recommended that another study was required during the critical season i.e. premonsoon for more reliable conclusions. Therefore, based on the request of CGPL, CSIR-NIO made observations in the same study area during April 2015 (premonsoon). The resultant data is compared with that of December 2013 (postmonsoon) and December 2008 and results are discussed in the this report. The objectives of the study are 1) to study and confirm the efficiency of the condenser cooling water discharge system at Vandh 2) to monitor the current status of prevailing ecology around the condenser cooling water discharge system with respect to water quality, sediment quality, flora and fauna and 3) to assess the impacts, if any, due to the discharge of condenser cooling water on marine ecology with respect to the baseline of December 2008 and as well as with that of December 2013 and to suggest mitigation measures for adverse impacts identified if any. 2 Studies undertaken

A total of 12 subtidal sampling stations were selected so as to conduct sampling in a grid manner around the effluent disposal point. Information on bathymetry for the area is taken from the Chart No. 2055 of the National Hydrographic Office (NHO) and local close grid mapping supplied by Tata Consulting Engineers Ltd (TCE). The locations of pre-development investigation (December 2008) were also considered to obtain comparative information for offshore and nearshore areas likely to be impacted by the project as well as to create general ecological database for the wider region. Intertidal macrobenthos and sediment quality were studied at two transects. The field investigations were conducted during April 2015 (premonsoon).

3 Site specific marine environment

Tides measured from 8 to 17 April 2015 indicated that the maximum tide observed was 5.2 m. The results were comparable with Mundra tide. The current speeds varied between 0.7 to 1.0 m/s during April 2015. Comparison of the currents observed during the present monitoring study with the earlier observations indicated that the effect of channel currents on the flow pattern in the nearshore area was negligible. The drogue released at the channel mouth during ebb to flood moved along the channel and the excursion length

iii

was 2.24 km in 5 h. Drogue released in the middle of the channel during flood to ebb moved outside the mouth and travelled westward parallel to the coast with an excursion length of 9.5 km.

Water temperature was measured in the discharge channel using a Valeport make CTD. The temperature during flood tide ranged between 31.0 to 32.5°C. During ebb, in the discharge channel, the temperature values varied between 26.8 to 32.5°C. From these results, it can be inferred that the dispersion of the temperature in the channel during high water was minimum and higher during low water. Observations using CTD at station 2 for over 12 hours showed that the temperature ranged between 26.8 and 32.0°C. According to the CTD observations salinity varied between 37.5 ppt and 38.5 ppt. Salinity variations due to outfall were not found in the channel.

Manual observations of seawater temperature over a tidal cycle at the outfall location indicated a maximum increase of 6°C during flooding against a baseline temperature of 28.0°C. Stagnation occurring during flood tide caused the water temperature rise to 34 ºC. The pH ranged from 8.3 to 8.4. The SS in the region varied widely (27-118 mg/l). The salinity structure of the study region was comparable between the pre- and post-power plant development periods. The DO in the waters off Vandh was generally >5.5 mg/l with an average of 6.5 mg/l. DO saturation levels were high (101-111%). The BOD around Vandh was low (2.2-5.0 mg/l). Nutrient levels were low and comparable with pre-development data. PHc during the present monitoring study varied in the range of 1.9 –19.7 µg/l. The concentrations of chromium, nickel, copper, zinc and mercury were variable and did not indicate incremental built-up of anthropogenic metals in the sediment of the region in the post power plant operation period. Concentration of organic carbon, PHc and phosphorus in sediments did not indicate its enrichment in the coastal waters in the post-power plant project development period.

The levels of chlorophyll a (0.6 – 3.8 mg/m3; av 2.0 mg/m3) and phaeophytin (0.0 – 1.3 mg/m3; av 0.5 mg/m3) varied widely in the coastal ecosystem off Vandh. A total of 60 genera were identified (av 23). Genera like Cylindrotheca closterium (21.4%), Thalassiosira (12.2%), Pseudo-nitzschia (10%) were the most dominant. Zooplankton standing stock in terms of biomass (0.2 – 8.0 ml/100m3; av 1.6 ml/100m3) and abundance (1.6–40.3 x 103/100m3; av 9.8 x 103/100m3) indicated considerable spatial and tidal fluctuations in the coastal waters off Vandh. 25 zooplankton faunal groups were identified. Numerically dominant group of the zooplankton community was copepoda (85%). The faunal group diversity of zooplankton at different stations was closely comparable. Abundance of decapod larvae, fish eggs and larvae showed higher values during the present study as compared to December 2013 across almost all zones.

Of the two transects sampled, Transect I was in the intertidal zone adjacent to the

effluent channel. Transect II was situated far away from the discharge channel and hence was treated as a control transect. The number of macrobenthic groups present in Transect

iv

I during the current study was 12 which was comparable to that of December 2008 (9 groups) and of December 2013 (11 groups). The intertidal macrofauna was constituted mainly by polychaetes, amphipods and pelecypods. The subtidal macrofaunal standing stock in terms of density and biomass ranged from 25-750/m2 and from 0.001-1.3 g/m2 (wet wt) respectively. The fish landings at Mundra, Modhva and Tragadi contributed about 3.5%, 2.5% and 2.9% to the total landings of the district in 2013-14. A perusal of the landing data of the past five years reveal that the contribution of Modhva and Tragadi to the marine fish landings of Kachchh had increased in 2013-14 as compared to 2008-09. Experimental fishing indicated the presence of fish/shellfish in the discharge channel. The Tunda/Vandh region does not sustain reef building corals as the intertidal area is largely sandy/muddy. 4 Effluent Release The numerical modeling exercise was undertaken for the field conditions prevalent during December 2013 (winter season). Before the project was established, for the EIA study, modeling was carried out by the HR Wallingford, UK. They used a 3D numerical model to simulate the temperature field in the effluent-receiving waters. They concluded that near-ambient conditions would be attained at a distance of 3 km from the outfall channel alignment. The time series of the modeled temperature indicated that the temperature of the seawater in the intake channel would vary between 0.2°C and 1.4°C with respect to ambient. The rejects from the RO plant (1727 m3/h) with high salinity are mixed with the power plant effluent before release. However, considering the high volume of once through return seawater, the RO rejects are diluted within the system itself as evident from the CTD observations which indicated that the salinity variations within the channel (37.5 to 38.5 ppt) and outside the channel were minor. Hence the impact of power plant effluent on salinity at the outfall location is negligibly small. Hence, the dispersion of salinity was not modeled.

As per the present modeling studies (April 2015), the ambient temperature is attained at a distance of 1-1.2 km depending on the tidal phases. Observed temperatures in the channel varied from 26.8 to 32.5°C while predicted values varied from 28.0 to 34°C. Just outside the channel, the observed (CTD) values ranged between 27.8 to 31.5°C and model output was between 28 to 32°C. The model overestimated the temperature in the upstream of the channel. However in the downstream of the channel the model simulations and observations are more or less in agreement. From the results it is concluded that even though model simulations show near ambient conditions would be attained at 1.2 km from the outfall channel, the CTD observations revealed that the near ambient conditions were attained at around 600 m from the mouth of the channel during April 2015.

v

5 Assessment of environmental impacts The results of the present study (April 2015) that represents the premonsoon season as well as that of December 2013 (representative of the postmonsoon season) are compared with pre-development period (December 2008) to evaluate the impacts of effluent release on the coastal ecology.Current meter recordings and modeling results indicated that currents were not altered off the channel mouth due the construction of the discharge channel. Further, the study indicates that the increase of water temperature in the outfall channel was upto 6°C above ambient. However, the temperature was found to have attained ambient conditions around 600 m from the mouth of the channel. Since the difference in outfall salinity and ambient salinity was very small, it was unaltered both in the channel and in the adjoining marine zones.

Physical oceanographic observations indicated the absence of marked differences in water temperature in the post-plant operations except near the Discharge point (station 1A). The elevated temperature (6°C) at station 1A was due to the influence of return seawater effluent from the power plant released in the discharge channel. The temporal observations at stations 1A and 2 indicate that even though the water temperature was consistently high and had increased by about 6°C in the discharge channel, ambient temperatures prevailed at the mouth of the channel over the tidal cycle. Thus, the field data closely supports the predictions of numerical modeling. There were no perceptible changes in water and sediment quality of the coastal zone off Vandh in the post operational phase of the CGPL Power plant and the observed deviations were within the natural variability inherent to the coastal areas.

The overall results were indicative of some decrease in phytoplankton population,

zooplankton biomass and their abundance during December 2013 and April 2015. However, considering the complexity of biological systems, high ranges of their variations and inherent uncertainties in primary and secondary productivities associated with given water mass; being controlled by a variety of environmental factors, further monitoring is necessary to draw definite conclusions. Further, the macrobenthos, which is more exposed to environmental perturbations due to their sedentary nature – warm return seawater from the power plant in the present case, have not shown adverse impact and, on the contrary, revealed comparable biomass and populations which tend to suggest the absence of negative impact on biota in the coastal waters off Vandh during both the sampling seasons. The results of the hydro-sedimentological studies indicate that adverse conditions for fishes were not present during both the sampling periods (December 2013 and April 2015) in the coastal waters adjacent to the discharge channel. In the discharge channel, temperatures upto 32.5°C/34°C were observed by CTD/manual measurements at certain phases of the tide. However the results of the experimental fishing in the discharge channel indicated that these spikes in water temperature probably had little impact on the fishes present in the channel during the sampling period.

vi

The mangrove cover in the area has been mapped using satellite (IRS) LISS IV images. Comparison of images collected in 2005 (pre-project development period) and 2014 (post project development period) show that even though the dense mangrove cover is unaltered with time, the sparse mangrove cover has increased in the north and south of the intertidal region as compared with the pre-project development period. This shows that any adverse impact of effluent on mangroves was absent in the region.

6 Conclusions The CTD measurements and modeling results of the present study concluded that subsequent to the continuous release of return seawater effluent at temperature 7°C above ambient in the outfall channel, near ambient conditions were being attained at a distance of 600 m from the channel mouth. This distance is much shorter than prediction of 3 km by HR Wallingford based on the modeling studies conducted by them prior to the establishment of the CGPL power plant. Extensive field observations conducted during December 2013 and April 2015 and its comparison with the results of pre-project baseline ascertains absence of appreciable changes in water and sediment qualities of the coastal zone off Vandh and the observed deviations were within the natural variability inherent to the coastal areas. Though some reduction was evident in the abundance of phytoplankton in the nearshore waters, the coastal segment off Vandh provided a healthy environment for phytoplankton production. Some negative impact on zooplankton standing stock was also indicated. Abundance of fish eggs and larvae were comparable between pre and post-development periods in the nearshore and offshore zones. The macrobenthic biomass, population and group diversity parameters of April 2015 were comparable with pre-development period.

The presence of variety of fish/shellfishes in the discharge channel evidenced through experimental fishing indicated that the spikes in water temperature probably had little impact on the fishes present in the channel during the sampling period. Satellite imagery showed that not only the dense mangrove cover is unaltered with time; the sparse mangrove cover has increased in the north and south of the intertidal region as compared with the pre-project development period. Well planned consistent monitoring using similar hydro-sedimentological and biological parameters during the critical season i.e. premonsoon (April-May) is recommended for future environmental management of the coastal zone off Vandh.

vii

LIST OF TABLES

3.2.1 Details of cyclonic storms along North Gujarat coast (1893-2011)

3.3.1 Water quality of the Gulf during premonsoon (1993-2010)

3.3.2 Water quality of the Gulf during postmonsoon (1993-2013)

3.3.3 Subtidal sediment quality of the Gulf during premonsoon (1994-2010)

3.3.4 Subtidal sediment quality of the Gulf during postmonsoon (1993-2013)

3.3.5 List of intertidal algae of the Gulf

3.3.6 Biological characteristics of the Gulf during premonsoon (1981-2010)

3.3.7 Biological characteristics of the Gulf during postmonsoon (1984-2013) 3.3.8 Mangrove areas and species status of Gujarat

3.3.9 Distribution of corals in the Gulf

3.3.10 List of water birds in the Gulf 4.3.1 Water quality at station 1 off Vandh 4.3.2 Water quality at station 1A near Disposal point (500 m)

4.3.3 Water quality at station 1B near Disposal point (1000 m)

4.3.4 Water quality at station 2 off Vandh









4.3.13 Difference in water temperature (°C) between the (Av) baseline (December 2008) and during the subsequent monitoring (December 2013) at each station

viii

4.3.14 Difference in Salinity (ppt) between the (Av) baseline (December 2008) and during the subsequent monitoring (December 2013) at each station

4.3.15 Difference in water temperature (oC) between the (Av) baseline (April 2006 and2007)

and during the subsequent monitoring (April 2015) at each station 4.3.16 Difference in Salinity (ppt) between the (Av) baseline (April 2006 and 2007) and during the subsequent monitoring (April 2015) at each station 4.4.1 Concentration of selected metals, Organic Carbon and P (µg/g; except Al, Fe,Org Carbon in (%), dry wPPt) in Surface sediment off Vandh during December 2013 4.4.2 Concentration of selected metals, Organic Carbon and P (µg/g; except Al, Fe, Org Carbon in (%), dry wt) in surface sediment of Mundra during April 2015 4.5.1 Range and average of phytopigment (parenthesis) at different stations off Vandh during December 2008, December 2013 and April 2015 4.5.2 Range and average (parenthesis) of phytoplankton population at different stations off Vandh during December 2008, December 2013 and April 2015 4.5.3 Composition (%) of phytoplankton genera off Vandh during December 2008

4.5.4 Composition (%) of phytoplankton genera off Vandh during December 2013

4.5.5 Composition (%) of phytoplankton genera off Vandh during April 2015

4.5.6 Range and average (parenthesis) of zooplankton production off Vandh during December 2008, December 2013 and April 2015 4.5.7 Distribution of zooplankton off Vandh during December 2008, December 2013 and April 2015 4.5.8 Composition (%) of zooplankton off Vandh during December 2008

4.5.9 Composition (%) of zooplankton off Vandh during December 2013

4.5.10 Composition (%) of zooplankton off Vandh during April 2015

4.5.11 Range and average (parenthesis) of decapod larvae, fish eggs and fish larvae off Vandh during December 2008, December 2013 and April 2015 4.5.12 Range and average (parenthesis) of intertidal macrobenthos at different water level off Vandh during December 2008 , December 2013 and April 2015

ix

4.5.13 Composition (%) of intertidal macrobenthic fauna off Vandh during December 2008 4.5.14 Composition (%) of intertidal macrobenthos off Vandh during December 2013.

4.5.15 Composition (%) of intertidal macrobenthos off Vandh during April 2015

4.5.16 Range and average (parenthesis) of subtidal macrobenthos different stations off Vandh during December 2008, December 2013 and April 2015 4.5.17 Composition (%) of subtidal macrobenthos off Vandh during December 2008.

4.5.18 Composition (%) of subtidal macrobenthos off Vandh during December 2013.

4.5.19 Composition (%) of subtidal macrobenthos off Vandh during April 2015.

4.5.20 Marine fish landings (t x103/y) of Gujarat State and Kachchh District.

4.5.21 Composition of marine fish landings (t /y) of Kachchh District during 2013-14

4.5.22 Marine fish landings (t x 103/y) of Mundra, Modhva and Tragadi and its comparison With the landing at Kachchh District 4.5.23 Composition of marine fish landings (t/y) at Mundra during 2008-2014

4.5.24 Composition of marine fish landings (t/y) at Modhva during 2008-2014

4.5.25 Composition of marine fish landings (t/y) at Tragadi during 2008-2014

4.5.26 District wise fishing villages, fishermen, boats and fishing gears (2003) of Kachchh District 4.5.27 Village wise fishermen, boats and fishing gears around Mundra.

4.5.28 Check list of birds recorded in the study area (Mundra)

x

LIST OF FIGURES

1.4.1 Gulf and the surrounding region

1.4.2 Sampling locations

2.1.1 Schematic layout of outfall channel

4.2.1 Tide collected at Kotdi creek during 4 to 12 January 2006

4.2.2 Observed tide at Kotdi creek during 1 to 30 April 2006

4.2.3 Tide observed at station 2 from 13 to 19 December 2013

4.2.4 Tide observed at station 2 from 08 to 17 April 2015

4.2.5 Current speed and components at station 5 during January 2006

4.2.6 Current speed and components at station 5 during April 2006

4.2.7 Current speed and direction at station 2 during December 2008

4.2.8 Current speed (a) and direction (b) at station 2 during December 2013

4.2.9 Current speed (a) and direction (b) at station 2 during April 2015

4.2.10 Drogue trajectory at station 2(Ebb-Flood-Ebb) during January 2006

4.2.11 Drogue trajectory at station 2(Flood-Ebb-Flood) during January 2006

4.2.12 Drogue trajectory at station 2( Ebb-Flood) during December 2008

4.2.13 Drogue trajectory at station 2(Flood-Ebb) during December 2008

4.2.14 Drogue trajectory conducted at station1A (Fld-Ebb) on 14.12.2013

4.2.15 Drogue trajectory conducted at station 1A(Ebb-Fld) on 17.12.2013

4.2.16 Drogue trajectory conducted at station 2 (Ebb-Fld) on 16.04.2015

4.2.17 Drogue trajectory conducted at station 2 (Fld-Ebb) on 13.04.2015

4.2.18 Locations of CTD observations during flood on 09/04/2015

4.2.19 Temperature and salinity profiles during flood on 09/04/2015

4.2.20 Locations of CTD observations during ebb on 09/04/2015

4.2.21 Temperature and salinity profiles during ebb on 09/04/2015

4.2.22 Diurnal CTD observations on 10/04/2015 at Station 2

xi

4.2.23 Temperature Observation conducted at station 1A (Fld-Ebb) on 14.12.2013

4.2.24 Temperature Observation conducted at station 1A(Ebb-Fld) on 17.12.2013

4.2.25 CTD locations

4.2.26 Temperature observed by using CTD near the channel mouth

4.3.1 Water quality at station at station 1A on 15th December 2013

4.3.2 Water quality at station 2 on 13th December 2013

4.3.3 Water quality at station at station 1A on 11th April 2015

4.3.4 Water quality at station 2 on 8th April 2015

4.5.1 Temporal variation in phytopigment at station 1A on 15.12.13

4.5.2 Temporal variation in phytopigment at station 2 on 13.12.13

4.5.3 Temporal variation in phytopigment at station 1A on 11.04.15

4.5.4 Temporal variation in phytopigment at station 2 on 08.04.15

4.5.5 Temporal variation in zooplankton at station 1A on 15.12.13

4.5.6 Temporal variation in zooplankton at station 2 on 13.12.13

4.5.7 Temporal variation in zooplankton at station 1A on 11.04.15

4.5.8 Temporal variation in zooplankton at station 2 on 08.04.15

4.5.9 Mangrove classification from the IRS-LISS IV image collected 0n 16 March 2005

4.5.10 Mangrove classification from the IRS-LISS IV image collected on 07 January 2014

5.1.1 Layout of intake and outfall channels

5.1.2 Contours of computed bathy depths in the study domain (m)

5.1.3 Boundary input tides / input boundary conditions

5.1.4 Comparison of computed and observed tides.

5.1.5 Comparison of computed and observed currents.

5.1.6 Simulated currents (at 18:30:00 hrs of 13/04/2015) during neap tide-(peak flood)

5.1.7 Simulated currents (at 01:00:00 hrs of 14/04/2015) during neap tide-(PE)

5.1.8 Simulated currents (at 12:00:00 hrs of 19/04/2015) during spring tide-(peak flood)

xii

5.1.9 Simulated currents (at 18:30:00 hrs of 19/04/2015) during spring tide - (PE)

5.2.1 Temperature dispersion (at 15:00:00 hrs of 13/04/2015) during neap tide - (LLW) - when discharge water temp is 7°C above ambient 5.2.2 Temperature dispersion (at 09:00:00 hrs of 10/04/2015) during spring tide - (LLW) - when discharge water temp is 7°C above ambient

5.2.3 Temperature dispersion (at 12:00:00 hrs of 15/04/2015) during spring tide - (PF) - when discharge water temp is 7°C above ambient 5.2.4 Temperature dispersion (at 15:30:00 hrs of 16/04/2015) during spring tide - (HHW) – when discharge water temp is 7°C above ambient 5.2.5 Temperature dispersion (at 18:30:00 hrs of 16/04/2015) during spring tide - (PE) - when discharge water temp is 7°C above ambient 5.2.6 Observation points at and around the outfall discharge channel location 5.2.7a Variation of excess Temperature at different location at and around outfall channel location - when discharge water temp is 7°C above ambient 5.2.7b Variation of excess Temperature at different location at and around outfall channel location - when discharge water temp is 7°C above ambient

PLATES

1 Newly formed mangrove patches near the channel

2 Fishes caught by experimental fishing in the discharge channel during April 2015

1

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Background Tata Power is India's oldest and largest private sector power utility with an installed generation capacity of 8560 MW in India and a presence in all the segments of the power sector viz Generation (thermal, hydro, solar and wind), Transmission and Distribution. It has successful public-private partnerships in Generation, Transmission and Distribution in India namely "Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd." with Delhi Vidyut Board for distribution in North Delhi, 'Powerlinks Transmission Ltd.' with Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. for evacuation of Power from Tala hydro plant in Bhutan to Delhi Maithon Power Ltd.' with Damodar Valley Corporation for a 1050 MW Mega Power Project at Jharkhand.

Coastal Gujarat Power Ltd. (CGPL), Tata Power’s wholly-owned subsidiary, has implemented the 4150 MW (800 x 5 units) Ultra Mega Power Project (UMPP) near the port city of Mundra in the state of Gujarat in India. This UMPP is India’s first plant with 800 MW unit thermal power plants using supercritical technology, and is considered to be the most energy-efficient, coal-based thermal power plant in the country. This project is designed to be run on imported coal. This project is expected to benefit close to 16 million consumers apart from industry and agriculture. The existing power plant is supplying power to five states namely Gujarat, Rajasthan and Maharashtra in Western India and to Haryana and Punjab in Northern India, which are currently facing shortage of electricity.

CGPL has obtained necessary Environment and CRZ clearances with subsequent amendments required for operation of the plant. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research-National Institute of Oceanography (CSIR-NIO) had carried out the marine EIA for discharge channel, as a part of Marine Environment Management Plan (EMP) during December 2008. The effluent generated by CGPL (6.28 x 105 m3/h) is conveyed through an open channel and discharged to the Gulf of Kachchh (Gulf). As per condition no 1.c of Consent to Establish issued by GPCB, vide letter no. PC/CCA-Kutch-437/21029 dated 17th July 2007, certificate from CSIR-NIO confirming the location of the outfall channel as recommended in the Marine EIA report was required for CGPL. Accordingly, the certificate was issued by CSIR-NIO on 24.08.2011 after confirming that the alignment of the discharge channel corresponded with the geographical positions mentioned in the CSIR-NIO EIA report. CGPL commenced operations in March 2012. In order to assess the performance of the condenser cooling water discharge system, it was decided by CGPL to carry out a Model Confirmatory Study and approached the CSIR-NIO for the model confirmatory study. Detailed field investigations were conducted during December 2013 (postmonsoon) and the results were compared with the baseline data of December 2008 (pre-development). The report submitted by CSIR-NIO subsequently recommended that another study was required during the critical season i.e. premonsoon for more reliable conclusions. Therefore, based on the request of CGPL, CSIR-NIO made observations in the same study area during April 2015 (premonsoon). The resultant data is compared with that of December 2013 (postmonsoon) and December 2008 and results are presented in the report.

2

1.2 Objectives 1. To study and confirm the efficiency of the condenser cooling water discharge system

using appropriate methods like measurement of temperature and salinity at a series of points along the discharge channel and in the receiving water body during both ebb and flood phases of tides.

2. To monitor the prevailing status of ecology around the condenser cooling water discharge system with respect to water quality, sediment quality, flora and fauna.

3. To assess the impacts, if any, due to the discharge of condenser cooling water on marine ecology with respect to the baseline data of December 2008 as well as with that of December 2013 and to suggest mitigation measures for adverse impacts identified if any.

II) Scope of work a) Part 1: Monitoring Time series study for water quality parameters will be undertaken in a grid area around the condenser cooling water discharge system at CGPL site. The hourly sampling near the effluent release location will be undertaken over a tidal cycle while other stations will be spot sampled. The samples will be analysed for the following: Water quality Water quality at previously monitored locations in the coastal waters during 2008 and 2013 will be assessed for temperature, salinity, suspended solids, pH, Dissolved Oxygen (DO), Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), phosphate, nitrate, nitrite, ammonia, Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PHc). Sediment Quality Sediment samples from various locations in the subtidal and intertidal areas will be analysed for texture, organic carbon (Corg) , phosphorus, PHc and selected metals (aluminium, chromium, iron, cobalt, nickel, copper, zinc, lead, cadmium and mercury). Biological characteristics The status of flora and fauna will be established based on phytoplankton pigments, abundance and generic diversity; zooplankton biomass, abundance and their group diversity; intertidal and subtidal macrobenthic biomass, population, group diversity. Present status of mangroves will be compared with pre-development period using satellite imagery. Assessment The data from the proposed field study will be analysed to meet the objectives as stated above. Based on the monitoring results and the impact if any due to the cooling water discharge or any other source, on marine ecology, will be assessed. b) Part II: Efficiency of cooling water discharge system at CGPL site Tides: Available information on tides for the region and the project area in particular will be used in addition to short term measurements at a suitable location. Currents: Currents will be measured by deploying self recording current meter for about 7 days.

3

Circulation: Circulation in the project area will be evaluated based on drogue trajectories. The dispersion of effluent will be studied by measuring temperature of the water column at regular intervals in the vicinity of the outfall using a Conductivity Temperature Depth (CTD) probes. Modeling of the temperature will be undertaken by using a calibrated 3D model and the results will be compared with the observed values. 1.3 Approach strategy

Severity of negative impacts of developments in the coastal zone on associated marine ecology varies widely depending on many factors such as the extent, period and type of disturbance, anthropogenic perturbations, capacity of the receiving water to assimilate contaminants and extent of its ecological sensitivity. Assessment of impacts of an activity on marine environmental quality is often achieved by comparing the results of monitoring with the data obtained prior to the commencement of an activity. It is preferred to collect such data at same locations and in the same month as the pre-activity monitoring programme so that naturally occurring spatial changes are taken into consideration. Hence, the primary requirements for assessing such impacts are general baseline information for the Gulf as a whole and intensive site-specific data for the Tunda-Vandh area. CSIR-NIO has been conducting general and site specific studies in the Gulf (Figure 1.4.1) since 1990 with more frequent investigations in recent years due to several proposed and ongoing developments bordering the Gulf, particularly along the southern coast. Thus, the site specific studies as detailed below conducted from time to time have resulted in a fairly extensive database for the Gulf.

The published scientific literature and available technical reports indicated that

apart from the studies conducted by CSIR-NIO during 1998-2013 detailed information related to the ecology off Mundra was rather scanty. This information was assessed to plan field data acquisition for the present study.

1.4 Studies undertaken

Subtidal stations covering an area of 100 km2 off Vandh were considered for sampling. Intertidal area in the vicinity of the effluent release channel as well as selected intertidal transect (as controls) away from discharge channel were investigated. The 12 subtidal sampling stations that were selected so as to conduct

Area Premonsoon Postmonsoon Okha 1993,1995,2002,2004,2006,

2007,2010 1995,1999,2002,2004, 2009

Salaya 1995,2002,2008,2009,2010 2002 Vadinar 1994,1996,2005-2010 1994,1995,2000,

2004-2006 Sikka 1994,2002,2003, 1993,1996,2002 Bedi 1997 1997 Navlakhi 1996,2002 1994,2002 Kandla 1998,2002,2010 1996,2002,2004,2006 Mundra 1997,1999,2000,2002,2003,

2006-2008,2010 1999,2002-2004,2006,2007, 2008, 2013

4

sampling in a grid manner around the effluent disposal point during December 2013, were again sampled during April 2015 (present study). Stations were selected to represent the areas that may be influenced by the effluent at different phases of tide. Information on bathymetry for the area was taken from the Chart No. 2055 of the National Hydrographic Office (NHO) and local close grid mapping supplied by Tata Consulting Engineers Ltd (TCE). The locations of pre-development investigation (December 2008) were also considered to obtain comparative information for offshore and nearshore areas likely to be impacted by the proposed project as well as to create general ecological database for the wider region. Intertidal macrobenthos and sediment quality were studied at two transects between the High Tide Line (HTL) and the Low Tide Line (LTL), the geographical locations being similar to that of December 2013. These are also shown in Figure 1.4.2.

1.4.1 Period of study

The field investigations were planned in such a manner so as to get a detailed picture of the aquatic environmental characteristics during April 2015 (premonsoon).

1.4.2 Station locations

A total of 12 stations selected for marine environmental investigations are listed below and shown in Figure 1.4.2. Intertidal sediment was sampled along each transect in the area between the LTL and HTL.

Station/ Transect

Latitude Longitude

1 22°46’38.00”N 69°26’00”E 1A 22°46’52.00”N 69°29’23.10”E 1B 22°46’36.00”N 69°30’30.00”E 2 22°46’14.34”N 69°28’45.36”E 3 22°46’15.48”N 69°31’39.48”E 4 22°43’31.92”N 69°25’49.14”E 5 22°43’31.92”N 69°28’43.86”E 6 22°43’31.92”N 69°31’39.42”E 7 22°44’18.00”N 69°34’54.00”E 8 22°43’20.79”N 69°34’01.72”E 9 22°47’30.00”N 69°24’06.00”E 10 22°45’0.42”N 69°23’28.03”E TI 22°47’14.10”N 69°29’46.20”E TII 22°48’17.46”N 69°24’28.02”E

The data of the present study were grouped as shown in the table below to

represent the different domains off Vandh.

5

Area Station Discharge Point 1A Nearshore 1,2,3,7,9 Offshore 4,5,6,8,10

1.4.3 Sampling frequency

Water quality and biological characteristics were assessed at stations 1A and 2 over a period of 12 h with 1 h sampling frequency for water quality and 2 h for biological characteristics. Other stations were spot sampled in duplicate at an interval of 30 min. Subtidal and intertidal sediments were collected in quadruplicate at each station/transect wherever possible. 1.4.4 Physical processes a) Tide Available information on tides for Mundra and surrounding region was assessed. Also tide data for 9 days was collected using a tide gauge. b) Currents Currents were measured by deploying an Aanderaa (RCM 9) current meter at station 2 for about 9 days. c) Circulation Circulation was estimated by deploying a neutrally buoyant biplane drogue at prefixed location (Station 2) and tracking it over the desired time. The position of the drogue was periodically fixed with a GPS (Garmin handheld GPS 12). These positions were then plotted to obtain the trajectories. Water temperature and salinity was measured along the drogue path. d) Satellite imagery Two Satellite images i) IRS P6 & ii) IRS Resourcesat-2 were used. Spectral resolution of both images is 5.8 and sensor is Linear Image Self Scanner-IV (LISS-IV). Using Arc-GIS 9.2, the study area has been selected and geo-referenced and the projection was set to UTM WGS1984. For atmospheric correction and supervised classification, ERDAS IMAGE processing software was used. 1.4.5 Water quality a) Sampling procedure Surface water samples for general analyses were collected using a clean polyethylene bucket while an adequately weighted Niskin sampler with a closing mechanism at a desired depth was used for obtaining subsurface water samples. Sampling at the surface and bottom (1 m above the bed) was done when the station depth exceeded 3 m. A glass bottle sampler (2.5 l) was used for obtaining samples at a depth of 1 m below the surface, for the estimation of PHc. b) Methods of analyses Majority of the water quality parameters were analysed within 24 h of collection in the temporary shore laboratory established at Vandh. Colorimetric measurements were made on a Schimadzu (Model 1201) spectrophotometer. RF-5301 Schimadzu

6

Spectrofluorometer was used for estimating PHc. The analytical methods of estimation were as follows: i) Temperature: Temperature was recorded using a mercury thermometer with an accuracy of 0.1 ºC. ii) pH: pH was measured on a microprocessor controlled pH analyser. The instrument was calibrated with standard buffers just before use. ii) SS: A known volume of water was filtered through a pre-weighed 0.45 m Millipore membrane filter paper, dried and weighed again. iii) Salinity: A suitable volume of the sample was titrated against silver nitrate (20 g/l) with potassium chromate as an indicator. The salinity was calculated using Standard Tables. iv) DO and BOD: DO was determined by Winkler method. For the determination of BOD, direct unseeded method was employed. The sample was taken in a BOD bottle in the field and incubated in the laboratory for 3 d after which DO was again determined. v) Phosphate: Acidified molybdate reagent was added to the sample to yield a phosphomolybdate complex that was then reduced with ascorbic acid to a highly coloured blue compound, which was measured at 882 nm. vi) Nitrite: Nitrite in the sample was allowed to react with sulphanilamide in acid solution. The resulting diazo compound was reacted with N-1-Naphthyl-ethylenediamine dihydrochloride to form a highly coloured azo-dye. The light absorbance was measured at 543 nm. vii) Nitrate: Nitrate was determined as nitrite as above after its reduction by passing the sample through a column packed with amalgamated cadmium. viii) Ammonia: Ammonium compounds (NH

3+ and NH4

+) in water were reacted with

phenol in presence of hypochlorite to give a blue colour of indophenol. The absorbance was measured at 630 nm. ix) PHc: Water sample (2.5 l) was extracted with hexane and the organic layer was

separated, dried over anhydrous sodium sulphate and reduced to 10 ml at 30o C under

low pressure. Fluorescence of the extract was measured at 360 nm (excitation at 310 nm) with Saudi Arabian crude residue as a standard. The residue was obtained by evaporating lighter fractions of the crude oil at 100 ºC. 1.4.6 Sediment quality Surficial sediment for the determination of texture, heavy metals, Corg, phosphorus and PHc was collected at all water quality stations as well as intertidal transects. a) Sampling procedure Subtidal sediment was obtained by a van Veen grab of 0.04 m2 area. Intertidal sediment was sampled using quadrats (0.04 m2 area).

b) Methods of analyses: i) Texture: The sediment was dried at 60o C and analysed for particle size following the procedure of Buchanan. ii) Metals: Sediment was brought into solution by treatment with conc HF-HClO4-HNO3-HCl and the metals were estimated on a Perkin Elmer (Analyst 300/600) Atomic

7

Absorption Spectrophotometer (AAS) by flame/graphite furnace. Mercury was estimated by flameless AAS technique after digesting the sediment with aquaregia. iii) Corg: Percentage of Corg in the dry sediment was determined by oxidising organic matter in the sample by chromic acid and estimating excess chromic acid by titrating against ferrous ammonium sulphate with ferroin as an indicator. iv) Phosphorus: Digested sample [Section b (ii)] was used for estimating phosphorus in the sediment. The method used was similar to that described under Section (V). v) PHc: Sediment after refluxing with KOH-methanol mixture was extracted with hexane. After removal of excess hexane, the residue was subjected to clean-up procedure by silica gel column chromatography. The hydrocarbon content was then estimated by measuring the fluorescence as described under Section (ix).

1.4.7 Flora and fauna a) Sampling procedure Polyethylene bucket and Niskin sampler respectively, were used for sampling surface and bottom waters for the estimation of phytoplankton pigments and population. Sample for phytoplankton cell count was fixed in Lugol’s iodine and a few drops of 3% buffered formaldehyde. Zooplankton were collected by oblique hauls using a Heron Tranter net (Mesh size 0.33 mm, mouth area 0.25 m2) with an attached calibrated digital flow meter (General Oceanic). All collections were of 5 min duration. Samples were preserved in 5% buffered formaldehyde. Sediment samples for subtidal macrobenthos were collected using a van-Veen grab of 0.04 m2 area. Intertidal collections between the HTL and the LTL were done with quadrats. Samples were preserved in 5% buffered formaldehyde - Rose Bengal. b) Methods of analyses: i) Phytoplankton pigments: A known volume of water was filtered through a 0.45 µm Millipore glass fibre filter paper and the suspended solids retained on the filter paper were extracted in 90% acetone and refrigerated overnight in dark. For the estimation of chlorophyll a and phaeophytin, the extinction of the acetone extract was measured at 665 and 750 nm before and after treatment with dilute acid using a fluorometer (Turner design, Trilogy). ii) Phytoplankton population: The cells in the sample preserved with Lugol’s solution were allowed to settle and transferred into a Sedgwick Rafter slide. Enumeration and identification of phytoplankton were done under a microscope. iii) Zooplankton: Volume (biomass) was obtained by displacement method. A portion of the sample (25-50%) was analysed under a microscope for faunal composition and population count. iv) Fish eggs, fish larvae and decapod larvae: These groups were sorted out from zooplankton samples and counted. v) Macrobenthos: Sediment was sieved through a 0.5 mm mesh sieve and animals retained were preserved in 5% buffered Rose Bengal formaldehyde. Total population was estimated as number of animals in 1 m2 area and biomass was determined on wet weight basis (g/m2).

8

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION The CGPL is operating a 4000 MW coal fired super critical thermal power plant at Vandh, Gujarat. Five units of 800 MW each have been recently commissioned sequentially from March 2012 to March 2013. The CGPL power plant is located at Tunda-Vandh villages in Mundra Taluka, Kachchh district of Gujarat coastal area. The site is located in the close vicinity of the Mundra Port and Special Economic Zone (MPSEZ), which is located 25 km west of Mundra Port and 1.5 km from the coast of Gulf of Kachchh. Tunda is accessible by road on NH-8A highway extension between Gandhidham and Mandavi towns and state highway SH-6 near Kandagra. As recommended by the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) of the MoEF, a common intake channel was constructed by M/S Adani Power to supply seawater to CGPL as well as the power plant of Adani Power. To facilitate common intake, the location of the outfall channel of CGPL was changed. In order to assess the performance of the condenser cooling water discharge system, it was decided by CGPL to carry out Model Confirmatory Study, as stated earlier. The discharge channel has been designed to achieve near baseline conditions with respect to temperature over length of about 1950 m for release of condenser cooling water at temperature of 7°C above ambient and at the rate of 6.30 x 105 m3/h. This discharge channel receives water/ effluent from following sources. 2.1. Cooling water system A once through cooling system with seawater has been adopted for the plant. The circulating system is so designed to attain discharge temperature of +7 ºC above ambient seawater temperature. The end weir of cooling water channel is located at 22°47’24.65’’ N, 69° 30’1.26’’ E. The outer end of the discharge channel is situated at 22° 46’ 14.31’’N, 69° 28’45.396’’ E. The layout of the outfall channel is given in Figure 2.1.1 and its dimensions are as follows.

2.2 Desalination plant 25 MLD capacity of Desalination plant has been established to cater the demand of fresh water for the power plant. Reverse Osmosis (RO) has been chosen as the technology for desalination.

Outfall channel

Initial reinforced concrete channel (from plant to pre-cooling channel)

2893 m long and 84 m wide (rectangular section with depth 3.6 m at near plant and 4 m at near pre-cooling channel) (bed slope 1:8000)

Pre-cooling channel (from initial channel to the retaining wall)

1950 m long with base width of 250 m with slide slope of 1:2.5 and depth 4 m

Outer outfall channel (from retaining wall into Gulf of Kachchh)

3000 m long with base width of 100 m

9

The desalination plant consists of the following systems: 1. Intake pumping system for RO plant from intake channel; 2. Clarification plant with sludge disposal systems; 3. Chlorination for disinfection; 4. Two-stage filtration consisting of pressure sand filters and dual media filters; 5. I-pass RO plant to meet service water requirement and DM plant feed requirement; 6. I-pass RO treated water storage tank; 7. II-pass RO to get DM water for Steam Generator Cycle; 8. Chemicals storage, handling, preparation and dosing; 9. Chemical laboratory; 10. Instrumentation and control and; 11. Reject disposal along with filter backwash and sludge. Seawater (approx. 3,000 m3/hr) for the 25 MLD module of the desalination plant is being drawn from intake channel. The PT (pre-treatment) plant consists of 2 x 50% capacity lamella clarifiers to remove the heavier suspended and settleable solids. The chemical treatment facility is equipped with real-time flow-rate adjustment and adequate redundant capacity. Chlorination is being done at the inlet i.e. stilling chamber and then flows into flash mixers for coagulation and flocculation chambers. The sludge is removed and discharged into sludge sump. The clarified water is then stored in a clarified water storage tank and this clarified water is pumped through 5 x 50% capacity filter feed pumps. Two stage filtration is established to achieve the required SDI (Silt Density Index) for the RO plant. The first stage filtration is through dual media filters and second stage filtration is done in horizontal pressure filters to remove suspended solids. The backwash requirement for these filters is met from I-pass RO reject. The filter backwash and sludge from clarifiers is mixed in the sludge sump and disposed to the cooling water outfall channel. After the double stage filtration, finer particles are removed by micron cartridge filters. RO system uses a semi-permeable composite polyamide membrane to separate and remove dissolved solids, organics, pyrogens, sub-micron colloidal matter, viruses and bacteria from water to the extent of 98 to 99.5%. I-pass RO plant has a permeate recovery of 40%. Suitable energy recovery devices are installed for I-pass RO high pressure pumps to achieve power saving. The desalinated water is processed further through re-mineralization and chlorination before it is used for potable water purposes. I-pass RO permeate is stored in a permeate water storage tank of 20,000 m3 capacity and caters to the plant service water requirement. Part of the I-pass RO permeate is fed to II-pass RO which feeds DM plant to produce DM water for SG feed cycle make-up. The desalination plant is fully automated plant with multiple PLC’s and SCADA control systems. 2.3 Effluent disposal system Desalination plant reject is partly utilized for pre-treatment plant backwash and the balance is led into the discharge channel. The desalination plant reject water (1727 m3/h) with high TDS gets released in the CW discharge channel. Pre-treatment plant filter backwash and clarifier sludge is collected and disposed off to the discharge channel. The power plant being once through cooling type, the seawater is led back to

10

the Gulf at the rate of about 6.28 x 105 m3/h. Quality of effluent discharged at CGPL channel for the month of December 2013 and April 2015 are given below.

Parameter Average for

December 2013 Average for April 2015

pH 8.1 8.1

Temperature Difference 0C 4.48 4.5

Free Available Cl2 mg/ L BDL BDL

11

3.0 GULF OF KACHCHH The Tunda-Vandh and surrounding region forms an integral part of the Gulf.

Hence, the knowledge of general ecology of the Gulf is necessary for comparing the site-specific environmental conditions with that of the parent body. The Gulf (Figure 1.4.1), which occupies an area of 7300 km2, has maximum depth that varies from 20 m at the head (Kandla - Navlakhi) to 60 m in the outer regions. The actual fairway however is obstructed due to the presence of several shoals, needing periodic dredging in some areas, to facilitate navigation to the Kandla Port. 3.1 Land environment

The coastal configuration of the Gulf is very irregular with numerous islands, creeks and bays. The coastal area of the Gulf (within 20 km from the shoreline) falls under the Kachchh (6749.77 km2), Jamnagar (4863.53 km2) and Rajkot (576.71 km2) Districts. Cotton is the dominant crop in the Kachchh District while it is oil seeds in the Jamnagar and Rajkot Districts. Bajra, pulses, wheat, sugarcane etc are the other common crops in the region. 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 a more

reliable 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 conditions are of considerable concern in Jodia and Okhamandal Talukas of the Jamnagar District and severe in Lakhpat and Anjar Talukas of the Kachchh District.

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 except for lignite mining, thermal power plant, fertilizer plant and Mundra and Kandla Ports, there are no major industries in the district. Okha and Bedi are the two important intermediate ports in the Jamnagar District. 3.2 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 source of freshwater resource to the region. The average rainfall at Mundra is 414 mm/y on the northern coast and 490 mm/y at Mithapur on the southern coast.

The wind records at Okha indicate that (a) the speed varies between 0 and 30 km/h during November-February; the predominant direction being NW - NE, (b) the speed marginally increases during March-April with the change in direction to NW-SW, (c) maximum speeds (40-50 km/h) occur during May with predominant SW-W direction and (d) maximum speeds can reach upto 70 km/h with predominant SW-W direction during depressions in June - September.

12

Cyclonic disturbances strike North-Gujarat, particularly the Kachchh and

Saurashtra regions, periodically. These disturbances generally originate over the Arabian Sea and sometimes the Bay of Bengal. The details of number of cyclonic storms, which struck the north Gujarat region during the last 100 y, are given in Table 3.2.1. Generally during June, the storms are confined to the area north of 15oN and east of 65oE. In August, in the initial stages, they move along the northwest course and show a large latitudinal scatter. West of 80oE, the tracks tend to curve towards north. During October the direction of movement of a storm is to the west in the Arabian Sea. However, east of 70oE some of the storms moves north-northwest and later recurve northeast to strike Gujarat-north Mekran coast. 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 except during monsoon period. Visibility is good throughout the year. However, average visibility of less than 1 km can be expected for a few days during the winter months. 3.3 Marine environment

Within the Gulf, though water depths of 25 m exist in the broad central portion upto the longitude 70oE, the actual fairway in the outer Gulf is obstructed by the presence of several shoals. 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 other 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. They are broad-valleyed and their riverbed is mostly composed of coarse sand and gravel. The Gulf is characterised 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.

3.3.1 Physical processes

Tides in the Gulf are of mixed, predominantly 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, upstream of Vadinar. The tidal elevations (m) along the Gulf are as follows:

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

13

The phase lag between Okha and Kandla is 2 h to 2 h 25 min while between Okha and Navlakhi it is 3 h to 3 h 20 min. Due to high tidal ranges in the inner regions, the vast mudflats and coastal lowlands that get submerged during high tide, are fully exposed during 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) but increase considerably (2.0-2.5 m/s) in the central portion of the Gulf. The spring currents are 60 to 65 % stronger than the neap currents. The bottom currents are also periodic with a velocity normally 60-70 % of the surface currents. With high tidal range, negligible land run-off and irregular topography, the waters are vertically homogeneous in terms of salinity and temperature. 3.3.2 Water quality

The general water quality of the Gulf is illustrated in Tables 3.3.1 and 3.3.2. The annual variation of water temperature is between 23 and 30 ºC though localised higher temperatures upto 35 ºC can result in isolated water pools formed in shallow intertidal depressions, during low tide. SS is highly variable (5-700 mg/l), spatially as well as temporally, and largely result from the dispersion of fine sediment from the bed and the intertidal mudflats, by tidal movements. Evidently, nearshore shallow regions invariably sustain higher SS as compared to the central portions. The region between Okha and Sikka has low SS varying within a narrow range (10-50 mg/l) whereas the inner Gulf areas contain markedly higher SS, sometimes in excess of 100 mg/l.

Average pH of the Gulf water is remarkably constant (8.0-8.3) and is within the

range expected for the coastal tropical seas. The evaporation exceeds precipitation leading to salinities markedly higher than that of the typical seawater. This is particularly evident in the inner Gulf where salinities as high as 40 ppt have been reported to commonly occur off Kandla and Navlakhi. Although the salinities decrease considerably for a brief period in some creeks of the Little Gulf of Kachchh under the influence of monsoonal runoff, the impact of this decrease in salinity in the Gulf proper is small and salinities exceed 36 ppt off Sikka and Mundra during normal monsoon periods.

The average DO is fairly high (4.3-7.1 mg/l) and the BOD is low (<0.1-4.0 mg/l)

indicating good oxidising conditions. Hence, the organic load in the water column is considered to be effectively oxidised. The nutrients (PO4

3--P, NO3--N, NO2

--N, NH4+-N)

are more or less uniformly distributed in the Okha-Sikka-Mundra segment and their concentrations indicate healthy natural waters. Their levels however are marginally high in the Kandla-Navlakhi segment. The networks of creeks of the Little Gulf of Kachchh sustain high natural concentrations of nutrients perhaps due to high regeneration rates. As expected for an unpolluted coastal environment, the concentration of PHc is low.

14

3.3.3 Sediment quality Central portion of the Gulf extending from the mouth to upstream of Sikka is

rocky with sediments confined only to the margins. The nearshore sediment that consists of light gray silt and clay and fine sand with patches of coarse sand in-between, are poorly sorted with highly variable skewness. The major source of this sediment is considered to be the shore material and the load transported by the Indus River. The portion of sediment derived from the hinterland is considered to be small because of the low run-off. Moreover, the streams discharging in the Gulf (during brief monsoon season) are short with dams constructed on many of them.

The concentrations of heavy metals such as chromium, manganese, cobalt,

nickel, copper, zinc, mercury and lead though variable (Tables 3.3.3 and 3.3.4), indicate natural background levels and there is no evidence of gross sediment contamination. The concentrations of PHc are also low though large quantities of petroleum crude and its products are off-loaded / loaded at Vadinar, Sikka and Kandla respectively.

3.3.4 Flora and fauna

The Gulf abounds in marine wealth and is considered as one of the biologically richest marine habitat along the west coast of India. Quantitative information for selected biological characteristics of the Gulf is given in Tables 3.3.5 to 3.3.10. The marine flora is highly varied, which includes sand dune vegetation, mangroves, seagrasses, macrophytes and phytoplankton. The dominant species of sand dune flora are Euphorbia caudicifolia, E. nerifolia, Aloevera sp, Ephedra foliata, Urochodra setulosa, Sporobolus maderaspatenus, Eragrostis unioloides, Calotropis procera, Fimbristylis sp, Indigofera sp and Ipomoea pes-caprae. The common seagrasses found growing on the mud flats are Halophila ovata, H. beccarii and Zostrea marina.

The most common marine algal species are Ulva fasciata, U. reticulata,

Enteromorpha intenstinalis, Dictyota sp, Hypnea musciformis, Sargassum tenerrimum, S. ilicifolium, Gracilaria corticata, Cystoseira sp, Padina tetrastomatica, Corallina sp, Laurencia sp, Caulerpa racemosa, C. peltata, Bryopsis sp, Turbinaria sp, Ectocarpus sp, Acanthophora sp, Chondria sp, and Codium sp (Table 3.3.5). The primary production of the water column as assessed from chlorophyll a concentrations is generally good in the outer Gulf but decreases in the inner regions (Tables 3.3.6 and 3.3.7). The major phytoplankton genera are Rhizosolenia, Synedra, Chaetoceros, Navicula, Nitzschia, Pleurosigma, Thalassiothrix, Biddulphia, Stauroneis, Coscinodiscus and Skeletonema.

The Gulf has a vast intertidal area with rich biota. Sheltered bays, creeks and

mud flats provide ideal sites for mangrove vegetation over an estimated area of about 1036 km2 (Table 3.3.8). The formations are of open scrubby type, with isolated and discontinuous distribution from Kandla- Navlakhi in the northeast to Jodia, Jamnagar, Sikka, Salaya and Okha in the southwest, as also at Pirotan, Poshitra, Dohlani and Dwarka. Vast stretches of mangroves also exist along the northern shore of the Gulf. The dominant species of mangroves are Avicennia marina var acutissima, A officinalis, Bruguiera parviflora, B gymnorrhiza, Rhizophora mucronata, R apiculata, Aegiceras

15

corniculatum and Sonneratia apetala along with the associated species of Salicornia brachiata, Suaeda fruticosa, Artiplex stocksii.

The marine fauna of the Gulf is rich, both in variety and abundance. Sponges

having an array of colours are seen, both in the intertidal and subtidal biotopes. The common species of sponge is Adocia sp, associated with coral reef fauna. In sandy and silty mud shores, Tetilla dactyloidea (Carter) is common. The most frequently encountered hydrozoans are Sertularia sp and Plumularia sp. The giant sea anemone (Stoichactis giganteum) is a common sight in the coral ecosystem. Sea anemones, belonging to Anemonia, Bunodactis, Paracondylactis, Anthopleura and Metapeachia, are wide spread. A zoantharian, Gemmaria sp, is found forming extensive hexagonal green mats in the coral pools. Another interesting actiniarian is the Cerianthus sp found in tubes in the soft mud.

One of the most interesting biotic features of the Gulf is the presence of living

corals, thriving as patches, rather than reefs, either on the intertidal sand stones or on the surface of wave-cut, eroded shallow banks along the southern shore of the Gulf. The species diversity however is poor with identification of 36 species of Scleractinian and 12 species of soft corals (Table 3.3.9). A number of polychaete worms, both sedentaria and errantia, with the dominant genera of Eurythoe, Terebella, Polynoe, Iphione and Nereis are rather common. Amongst a variety of sipunculid and echiuroid worms, the dominant species are Dendrostromum sp, Asphidosiphon sp and Ikadella misakiensis (Ikeda). The intertidal crustacean fauna is very rich and equally diverse with spider crab (Hyas sp) and furry crab (Pillumnus sp), as specialities.

Amongst the invertebrate component of the marine fauna of the Gulf, the molluscs have the highest representatives. As many as 92 species of bivalves, 55 species of gastropods, 3 species of cephalopods and 2 species each of scaphopods and amphineurans have been reported. The most notable members of the molluscan fauna are octopus, pearl oyster and a variety of chanks, including the sacred chank. The echinoderm fauna, represented by 4 classes and 14 genera have the commonest genera of Astropecten, Asteria, Temnopleura and Holothuria. The subtidal benthic fauna of the Gulf is dominated by polychaetes, crustaceans, echinoderms, gastropods and bivalves, with an average biomass of 25 g/m2.

The Gulf has a variety of exploitable species of finfishes and shellfishes. Sciaenids, polynemids, perches, eels, cat-fishes, elasmobranchs and prawns are the commercially important groups with an average catch of 1.4x105 t/y. Fishing grounds for Ghol, Karkara, Khaga, Dhoma, Magra and Musi exist in the Gulf. The Gulf region offers plenty of facilities for feeding, breeding and shelter to a variety of birds (Table 3.3.10). In the mangrove forests lining the islands and along the coast, the birds find a near perfect environment. In addition, they are well placed to reach their food supply i.e. the shoals of fish, squids, mud-skippers and other animals, during low tide. All along the creeks and around islands, mangrove trees and mudflats are seen crowded with Grey Herons, Pond Herons, Painted Storks, Large and small Egrets, Reef Heron, Darters, Cormorants, Flamingos, Lesser Flamingos, etc during the periods of seasonal migration (November-March).

16

A large number of migratory birds pass through the Gulf and a small population

of most species comprising mainly of juveniles and non-breeding adults take shelter in this area during summer. Salt works spread-out along the coast, are also important for feeding and breeding of birds. They act as alternate sites for them to roost during high tide.

Because of its high biogeographical importance and rich flora and fauna, several areas along the southern Gulf are notified (Figure 1.4.1) under the Marine National Park (16289 ha) and the Marine Sanctuary (29503 ha).

17

4.0 SITE SPECIFIC MARINE ENVIRONMENT 4.1 Area description

The assessment domain of the present study involved the section of the Gulf off Tunda-Vandh. The coastal stretch of the Gulf has variegated topography with vast intertidal mudflats criss-crossed by numerous creeks, which transport seawater several kilometres inland due to high tidal ranges. In general, Bocha, Navinal, Baradi Mata and Kotdi creeks are the major tidal inlets in the vicinity of the Mundra Port area, which are broad but shallow and navigable only during flood tide. Occurrence of a large number of creeks has created a number of islets; the prominent being the Navinal and Bocha Islands. These two islands are separated by the Navinal creek, which in the interior joins the Bocha as well as the Baradi Mata creeks. The intertidal mudflats and many of the creeks of the surrounding area harbour mangroves and associated biota though several areas have suffered damage due to anthropogenic pressures. Large stretches of mangroves also suffered destruction during the cyclone of June 1998.

The region is semi-arid with average annual rainfall of <400 mm. The

precipitation being erratic, the agricultural produce, which is dependent on rains, fluctuates considerably. As a result, the farming which has been the major occupation of the local inhabitants is gradually declining with the people shifting over to other occupations such as services, construction work etc. May and June are generally the hottest months with a mean maximum temperature of about 37 ºC. The coldest month is January with a mean minimum temperature of around 10 ºC. In the winter season, the lowest temperatures can be below 5 ºC under the influence of cold waves. The relative humidity is moderate (55%) most of the time though higher humidity (70-80%) occurs during monsoon months.

The wind records of Bhuj indicate that (a) during November-February the wind

speed varies between 0 and 30 km/h; the predominant direction being NW-NE, (b) the wind direction changes to NW-SW during March-April with a marginal increase in wind speed, (c) during May the predominant direction is SW-W with maximum speeds between 40 and 50 km/h, and (d) during monsoon (June-September) the wind direction is predominantly SW-W and maximum speeds can reach 60 - 70 km/h.

Nagmati, Bhukhi and Phat Rivers are the major drainage streams of Mundra

Taluka, which originate from the slopes of the central highland. These rivers are however dry and carry land runoff to the Gulf in brief spells only during monsoon. The ground water is the major source for domestic use. The quality and availability however is variable depending on the rainfall, topography and hydrological setting. The level of water suitable for drinking and irrigation ranges from 5 to 35 m below the ground. The water at greater depths tends to be saline. Increased rate of extraction and scanty rainfall in recent years has not only led to groundwater depletion but seawater ingress has occurred in many areas along the coast. In recent years the fresh water supply through the Narmada Canal Lines has become a boon to the region.

The fertility of the coastal soil is affected by salinity. The vegetation mainly

consists of trees, shrubs, under shrubs and climbers with stunted growth with an admixture of xerophytes and thorny species. The dominant floral species are of

18

Phoenix sylvestris, Achras zapota, Prosopis juliflora, Acacia senegal, Mytenus emarginatea and Acacia nilotica. The shrub community is dominated by the species of P. juliflora and Indigofera oblongifolia.

The region between Mundra and Mandvi on the northern coast of the Gulf of

Kachchh is interspersed with numerous creeks and islets. Some of these islets exhibit mangrove vegetation in their lower fringes whereas some are made up of sand and sand dune vegetation.

The CGPL power plant is located between two ephemeral rivulets namely Khari

Nadi in the west and Wae, a contributory of Nagavati river in the east. There are two moderate size villages Tunda and Vandh in the vicinity of the project site. Some of the sandy beaches are used by local fisher folk for beaching their shallow draft crafts and land above high water line for drying fish. The prominent vegetation is mainly composed of Babool (Prosopis juliflora). Mundra, the nearest major town is approximately 28 km in the E-NE direction.

4.2 Physical processes 4.2.1 Tides

Tide levels recorded at Mundra port are compared with the predicted tide at Kandla Port in the following table: A comparison between the data sets for the two ports indicates that the time of occurrence of flood and ebb tide at Mundra lead by 27 and 46 min respectively with respect to the Kandla tide. The tidal range ratio (Mundra: Kandla) is 0.83 and 0.88 for spring and neap tides respectively.

The mean sea level at the Mundra Port (Bocha creek) is estimated at 3.31 m (above CD) which is comparable to that reported for Navinal Point (3.38 m) in the Admiralty Tide Tables. Tide was also measured at Kotdi creek during January 2006 (Figure 4.2.1). The tidal ranges during this period varied from 1 to 3.5 m with the time lag of 5 to 10 min as compared to the phase of the tide at the Mundra Port. The tide recorded during April 2006 (Figure 4.2.2) at both the mouth of Kotdi creek and inside Kotdi creek indicated that the site of measurement inside the creek was about 1.8 m above CD. During this period the spring low water at Kotdi mouth was 1.0 above CD which indicated that the tidal flow was not available in the Kotdi creek for about 1.5 h at the end of the spring ebb and a similar duration in the beginning of the following flood. This renders the creek partially dry and partially stagnant for about 3 h in a flood tide. The neap tide is of comparable magnitude in the creek as well as the mouth area of the creek.

Mundra Kandla Spring high water (m) 6.09 7.04 Neap high water (m) 5.65 6.84 Neap low water (m) 1.81 2.50 Spring low water (m) 0.37 0.17

19

The CGPL outfall channel is 28 km away from Mundra. In the postmonsoon study, tide was measured from 13 to 20 December 2013 at station 2 near mouth of the channel using self-recording tide gauge. The results are presented in Figure 4.2.3. The results suggest that tidal range during the period was 5.8 m during spring and 4.5 m during neap. In the present study, which represents premonsoon season, tide was measured from 8 to 17 April 2015. The maximum tide observed was 5.2 m (Figure 4.2.4). The results were comparable with the Mundra tide.

4.2.2 Currents

The currents in the Gulf and associated creeks are largely tide induced and oscillations are mostly bimodal reversing in direction with the change in the tidal phase. Influence of wind on variations in current is minor. The current reversals are quite sharp occurring within 30 - 60 min. Currents were recorded at station 2 (from 4 to 13 January 2006, 5 to 15 April 2006, and 2 to 6 December 2008) are presented in Figures 4.2.5 to 4.2.7. The U component of the currents (Northward) was stronger than the V component indicating weak lateral transport, as expected. The maximum current speed varied from 0.5 to 1.2 m/s. The predominant direction of the current was 45o during flood and 220o during ebb.

During the postmonsoon study, currents were recorded at station 2 near mouth

of the outfall channel from 12 to 19 December 2013. The results showed that the current speeds varied between 0.45 to 0.9 m/s and the direction ranged from 100o to 300o (Figure 4.2.8) depending on flood and ebb conditions. In the current monitoring study (premonsoon), the currents were recorded from 08 to 17 April 2015 and results are presented in Figure 4.2.9. The direction veered between 100o and 300o. This indicated that, at this position, currents were parallel to the coastline. When the currents observed during the present monitoring were compared with the earlier observations, it appeared that the influence of seawater ingress and exit via the discharge channel on the flow pattern in the nearshore area was negligible.

4.2.3 Circulation The drogue studies conducted from station 2 during January 2006 and December 2008 (Figures 4.2.10 to 4.2.13) indicated that the circulation is generally elliptical with the major axis in the east-west direction. These trajectories suggest that the excursion lengths are in the range of 10 to 15 km depending on the tidal phase (neap or spring). During the postmonsoon monitoring, drogue study was conducted at Station 1A which was in the upstream zone of the discharge channel near outfall location. The drogue trajectory of 14 December 2013 conducted during flood to ebb (Figure 4.2.14) indicated that the excursion length of the drogue was 7.3 km in 05.30 h. The drogue traversed from beginning of the channel crossed the channel and moved towards west along the coastline. Drogue study was also conducted during ebb to flood (Figure 4.2.15). The results show that the drogue released at outfall location reached only 1.1 km in 4 h 45 min and moved towards western branch of Modhva creek situated at the middle of the channel. The drogue under the combined influence of the outfall flow and tidal forcing was deflected towards west. Hence the results show that the effluent may

20

travel towards Modhva creek during specific period. During the present monitoring (premonsoon), the drogue studies were conducted on 13 April 2015 and 16 April 2015 representing ebb and flood conditions respectively. The drogue released at the mouth during ebb to flood moved along the channel and the excursion length was 2.24 km in 5 h (Figure 4.2.16). Drogue released in the middle of the channel during flood to ebb moved outside the mouth and travelled westward parallel to the coast (Figure 4.2.17). The excursion length was 9.5 km. 4.2.4 Temperature and Salinity observations

During present monitoring, which represents the premonsoon season, water temperature was measured in the discharge channel using a Valeport make CTD on 9th April 2015 and at station 2 on 10th April 2015. First, the CTD data collection was conducted during the flood tide and station locations are plotted and presented in the Figure 4.2.18. The data was collected at 10 locations (C1-C10). The temperature observations at these locations are shown in Figure 4.2.19. From the Figures, it was observed that the temperature during flood tide varied in the narrow range and values ranged between 31.0 to 32.5 ºC. It can be inferred that the maximum temperature at the high water at release location was 32.5ºC. The Figure C1 (Figure 4.2.19) clearly shows that the top layer of around 20 cm had high temperature of 32.5ºC. However, below this layer a temperature of 31.4ºC was recorded. CTD observations were carried out during ebb tide at the same locations and indicated as C11-C20 which are shown in Figure 4.2.20. It was observed that during ebb, in the discharge channel, the temperature values varied between 26.8 to 32.5ºC (Figure 4.2.21). Lowest value was found at the end of the channel while highest value was observed at release location. From the above results, it can be inferred that the dispersion of the temperature in the channel during high water is minimum and greater during low water.

Temperature was also observed using CTD at station 2 on 10th April 2015 from

0836 h to 1726 h and results are shown in Figure 4.2.22. From the figure, it was observed that the temperature ranged between 26.8 and 32.0ºC. Maximum temperature of 32.0 ºC was observed at 1137 h, 40 minutes before the Full Ebb condition. Minimum temperature of 26.8 ºC was noticed at 1326 h. Within 2 hours, temperature drop of 5o C was found at this location as station 2 is situated at the confluence of the channel and the Gulf. This drop was due to the intrusion of cool deep water into the channel during high tide due to the tide reversal. According to the CTD observations (Figures 4.2.19 to 4.2.22), salinity varied between 37.5 ppt and 38.5 ppt. Salinity variations due to outfall were not found in the channel. Temperature was also observed during postmonsoon (December 2013) at regular intervals in the discharge channel during the drogue study. The results are presented in the Figure 4.2.23 which shows that the water temperature varied from 26 to 30ºC in the discharge channel. During flood condition, the temperature varied in a narrow range between 28 and 30ºC (Figure 4.2.24). These observations indicate a decrease of nearly 3ºC at the mouth of the channel as compared to the temperature at the release site. Temperature was also observed at 4 locations just outside the mouth of the channel (Figure 4.2.25). The results indicate a temperature variation between 24.8 and 25.0ºC suggesting that the channel discharge has no measurable impact on

21

the temperature of the receiving water of the Gulf (Figure 4.2.26). The temporal observations at station 2, located at the zone where the discharge channel meets the sea, demonstrated that the water temperature varied from 24.1ºC to 26.9ºC and this variation was more or less in accordance with the changes in air temperature. 4.3 Water quality The water quality was assessed around Vandh at 12 subtidal stations during April 2015. Since the water quality can vary temporally in areas swept by strong tides, hourly measurements were conducted at stations 1A and 2 to assess tidal variability of selected water quality parameters and other stations were monitored with spot sampling. The observations of the present study are compared with December 2008 and 2013 data and are presented in Tables 4.3.1 - 4.3.16 and Figures 4.3.1 and 4.3.4. 4.3.1 Temperature

Since most aquatic animals are cold blooded, water temperature regulates their metabolism and ability to survive and reproduce effectively. Hence artificially induced changes such as those by warm water releases may alter indigenous ecosystems. During the December 2013 and April 2015, the water temperature in the discharge channel and the nearby coastal segment varied as given below.

Considering April/May as the hot and December as the cold months in the

Kachchh region, an average annual range in water temperature is 6-7ºC. The maximum temperature recorded during the present monitoring (April 2015) was 34.0 ºC at the Discharge Point (station 1A) when the air temperature was 31.5ºC. This location is near to the site of release of return seawater. The differences in the water temperature between December 2008 (pre-development) as baseline (26ºC) and December 2013 (post-development) are presented in Table 4.3.13. Similarly the differences in the water temperature observed during April 2006 and April 2007 (pre-development) as baseline (28ºC) and the subsequent monitoring during April 2015 (post-development) are presented in Table 4.3.15. The positive and negative signs indicate the values higher or lower with respect to the baseline. These results indicated increase in water temperature by 4.7ºC during a particular set of observations near the Discharge Point (Table 4.3.13) during December 2013. Similar comparison during April 2015 indicated a maximum increase of 6ºC during flooding against a baseline temperature of 28.0ºC (Table 4.3.15). However, in the nearshore and offshore segments, resultant minor changes (<3ºC) in temperatures were probably related to the fluctuations in the prevailing air temperature and wind that largely controls the temperature of water of shallow water bodies. However it is clear from these tables that water temperatures were higher near the discharge point. It was also observed that during flood tide when

Zone Water temperature (ºC )

December 2013 April 2015 Min Max Av Min Max Av

Discharge Point 29.0 30.7 30.0 30.3 34.0 32.5 Nearshore 23.0 26.9 25.1 26.0 31.0 27.7 Offshore 25.8 26.7 26.2 25.8 28.0 26.9

22

stagnation occurs in the inner channel, the water temperature rises to 34.0 ºC. The range and average water temperature in the study area for the period 2006 – 2015 is represented in the table that follows:

From these results it is apparent that the average water temperature of the study

area varied in the range 20.8 – 29.2ºC during 2006-2015 thereby indicating absence of marked change in the temperature of the region in relation to the coastal area. The data also indicate that during the pre- and post-power plant installation periods the average water temperatures were comparable. An upper threshold limit of 35o C is generally considered for tropical aquatic species though some may be less tolerant. In this respect the temperature of the nearshore and offshore region has not exceeded this threshold during April 2015 and in the past as well. The present monitoring indicates that the impact of the release is limited to the adjacent areas of the effluent release site during both postmonsoon and premonsoon periods. The diurnal variations in water temperature at station 1A indicated temperature rise of 4.7 ºC above ambient during December 2013 while elevated temperatures upto 6.0 ºC were observed during April 2015 (Figures 4.3.1 and 4.3.3). At station 2 the water temperature was 3.0 ºC above ambient during April 2015 .

4.3.2 pH The carbonate system regulates the pH of natural waters. Seawater has limited

variability (7.8 – 8.3) because of its high buffering capacity. In shallow, biologically active tropical waters, large diurnal pH changes – from 7.3 to 9.5, can occur naturally when coupled with photosynthesis during the day and high respiration during night hours. Though pH range of 5 to 9 is not directly harmful to aquatic life, such changes can make some pollutants more toxic. The pH in different segments of the study area during December 2013 and April 2015 varied as given below.

Period Temperature (ºC)Min Max Av

January 2006 19.0 23.0 20.8 April 2006 25.9 29.0 27.3 April 2007 27.5 29.1 28.4 October 2007 28.1 30.1 29.2 December 2008 24.5 27.5 26.0

December 2013 23.0 30.7 26.3

April 2015 25.8 34.0 28.9

Zone pH



23

In December 2013 and April 2015 the average pH were 8.1 and 8.4 respectively. A

marginal increase in pH was evident during the monitoring which can be a natural variation. The pH of the DP waters was closely comparable with the open Gulf waters. The variation in the range and average pH of the study area over the period 2006-2015 is given below.

Table : Range and average pH in the study area during 2006-2015

Period pH

Min Max AvJanuary 2006 8.0 8.3 8.1April 2006 7.8 8.0 8.0April 2007 7.7 8.0 7.9October 2007 8.1 8.3 8.2December 008 7.9 8.1 8.0December 2013 8.0 8.3 8.1April 2015 8.3 8.5 8.4

Temporal changes in pH at stations 1A and 2 (Figures 4.3.1 - 4.3.4) indicated minor fluctuations and do not seem to be influenced by the cooling water discharge. Overall, the pH recorded during December 2013 and April 2015 was closely comparable with the past results including the baseline. 4.3.3 Suspended Solids

Suspended Solids (SS) of natural origin mostly contain clay, silt and sand of sea bottom and shore sediments dispersed in water by strong tidal currents and contribution of plankton is minor. For nearshore areas, clay and vegetation matter form important component of SS. Anthropogenic discharges add a variety of SS depending upon the source. Since the major contribution comes from the disturbance of bed and shore sediment, energy of the region such as tidal currents is the vital influencing factor for SS and typically leads to high values in the bottom water.

The immediate effect of SS is an increase in turbidity which reduces light intensity

and the depth of photic zone leading to decrease in primary production and fish food. SS in the water column also adversely affects certain sensitive organisms such as corals through mortality, reducing growth rate and resistance to diseases, preventing proper development of fish eggs and larvae, modifying natural movement and migration and reducing abundance of available food. SS settling on the bed can damage the benthic invertebrate population, interfere with spawning etc. Organic content in SS increases oxygen demand in the water column and its settlement on the bed can make the sediment suboxic. SS in different segments of the study region and the coastal area varied during December 2013 and April 2015 as given below.

24

The average concentration of SS at different segment varied from 40 to 61 and

52 to 60 mg/l during December 2013 and April 2015 respectively. Such wide variations were due to variable tidal currents in space and time which are the main factors contributing to the dispersal of fine sediment in water. The burden of average SS in water of the study region over the period 2006 – 2015 is given below.

Period SS (mg/l)

Min Max Av January 2006 30 214 57 April 2006 16 49 28 April 2007 28 252 70 October 2007 18 209 83 December 2008 22 54 34

December 2013 30 148 55 April 2015 27 118 58

The average SS in the study region has been variable (28-83 mg/l) during 2006-

2015 and is natural in origin. The concentration of SS in the study region has remained comparable during the pre- and post-development phases of the power plant. The SS in the coastal waters of Vandh varied from 30-148 mg/l during December 2013 and 27-118 mg/l during April 2015. Comparisons with baseline values April 2006 and December 2008 indicated that SS has increased in the present study.

4.3.4 Salinity Salinity is an indicator of the extent of freshwater/industrial discharge inflow in nearshore coastal waters as well as excursion of salinity in inland water bodies such as creeks and bays. Normally seawater salinity is 35–36 ppt which may vary depending on competition between evaporation and precipitation. Flora and fauna inhabiting inshore and coastal waters are generally acclimatized to a certain range of salinity where they thrive. Evidently, wide changes in salinity, such as in monsoon, can result in adaptation with modification and dominance of selected species in the lower order while higher order biota may migrate. Sudden changes in salinity may even cause mortality of organisms including fish due to salinity shock. The salinity in different segments of the study region and the coastal area during the two sampling seasons varied as given below.

Zone SS (mg/l)


Discharge Point 33 50 40 48 71 60 Nearshore 30 148 55 31 118 60 Offshore 30 93 61 27 85 52

25

Table: Variation in salinity (ppt) in the study area during December 2013 and April 2015.

Gulf is an area of negative water balance with salinities commonly exceeding 36 ppt throughout the region (Tables 4.3.1 and 4.3.12). Due to the return seawater which also contains high saline rejects from the RO unit released in the discharge channel, the salinity of the area can potentially increase. In order to assess increase if any, the difference in salinity (ppt) between the baseline (December 2008) (36.6 ppt) and the subsequent monitoring (December 2013) is calculated and presented in Table 4.3.14. Similar observations between the baseline (April 2006 and April 2008) ( 36.3 ppt) and the subsequent monitoring (April 2015) is calculated and presented in Table 4.3.16. The tables indicated that salinity variations were minor. Minor changes in salinity in the same month of different years are common to coastal waters and marine biota is acclimatized to such variations. The range and average salinity of the study region over the period 2006-2015 is given below.

Period Salinity (‰)

Min Max Av

January 2006 36.5 37.8 37.2 April 2006 36.4 37.3 36.9 April 2007 35.0 36.9 35.8 October 2007 34.0 35.2 34.5 December 2008 35.9 38.0 36.6

December 2013 35.5 37.0 36.4 April 2015 37.5 37.9 37.2

The long term data sets in the above table indicate that the average salinity of the study area ranged between 34.5 to 37.2 ppt and the present salinity values fall within this range. Minor variations in surface and bottom samples suggested that the water in the study area was vertically well mixed (Figures 4.3.1 and 4.3.4). Some variation in salinity over short timescales however is evident from these plots. This is also supported by CTD data discussed in Section 4.2.4. Thus, the salinity structure of the study region is comparable between the pre- and post-power plant periods. 4.3.5 DO and BOD DO is an important parameter in water quality since it is an indicator of ability of a water body to support a well balanced biodiversity. DO in a water body is a balance

Zone Salinity (ppt)



26

between replenishment through photosynthesis and dissolution from the atmosphere and its removal through respiration. In unpolluted waters the rate of consumption of DO is lower than the rate of replenishment resulting in maintenance of adequate concentrations. Release of anthropogenic discharges containing organic matter such as sewage can consume DO more than that the water body can replenish creating under-saturation which, in extreme cases, may lead to onset of septic conditions with mal-odorous emissions thereby degrading the ecological quality. Below 2.9 mg/l concentration of DO, good and diversified aquatic life may not be maintained since feeding of many organisms is diminished or stopped and their growth is retarded at low DO levels. Embryonic and larval stages of aquatic life are especially vulnerable to reduced conditions and may also result in retarded development and even partial mortality. It is considered that the level of DO should not fall below 4.3 mg/l for prolonged periods and recommended minimum level for tropical marine fish is 5 mg/l or 75 % saturation level. The concentration of DO (mg/l) in the three segments of the study region recorded in the two monitoring periods ranged as given below.

It is evident from the above table that the DO concentration in the study region

varied in the range of 4.4-8.0 mg/l (av 6.7 mg/l) and 6.1 – 7.1 mg/l (av 6.5 mg/l) in December 2013 and April 2015 respectively. The average concentration of DO in different marine zones of Vandh during April 2015 was broadly comparable with the baseline for the area (April 2006 – April 2007) and post development phase (December 2013) as evident from Table given below.

Temporal measurements of DO at stations 1A and 2 for 12 h indicated random variations over the period of measurements but the values on most occasions were above 5.5 mg/l (Figures 4.3.1-4.3.4). This indicates a good oxidising environment. The BOD of 1-3 mg/l is common for coastal and inshore waters and can be upto 5 mg/l in areas of high biological productivity. This is because all natural waters contain some

Zone DO (mg/l)



Period DO (mg/l) BOD (mg/l)

Min Max Av Min Max Av January 2006 2.6 8.0 6.3 0.5 4.0 1.5 April 2006 6.6 7.0 6.9 0.8 5.2 3.0 April 2007 4.1 7.1 3.7 0.2 4.5 2.0 October 2007 3.7 8.4 6.1 0.2 4.6 1.8 December 2008 4.1 7.7 5.9 <0.2 5.4 2.4 December 2013 4.4 8.0 6.7 0.3 5.0 2.8 April 2015 6.1 7.1 6.5 2.2 5.0 3.8

27

oxidizable organic matter of natural origin that includes a variety of organic compounds in minute quantities, some of which is derived from land drainage. Comparison of baseline data (December 2008; April 2006 and 2007) with the results of the subsequent monitorings indicated that the DO and BOD of Vandh region had not significantly changed in the post-operational phase of plant. Considering that the DO in water is a function of several parameters including primary productivity, BOD, salinity, temperature and turbulence, some variations in DO are expected in natural waters. In uncontaminated natural water, DO (mg/l) is generally close to saturation values since its replenishment is more than that is consumed. DO saturation based on averaged DO varied from 100-104% and 101-111% during December 2013 and April 2015 respectively as given in the Table below indicating healthy and very good oxidising conditions in the coastal system off Vandh that can support diverse ecosystems. The range and average of DO saturation percentages in the study area are given below. 4.3.6 Phosphorous compounds Among several inorganic constituents, phosphorus and nitrogen compounds have a major role to play in primary productivity. However, their high concentrations can lead to excessive growth of algae which in extreme conditions result in eutrophication. Dissolved phosphorus invariably occurs as phosphate (PO4

3--P) in water and its important sources in coastal environment are domestic sewage, detergents, effluents from agro-based and fertilizer industries, agricultural runoff, organic detritus such as leaves, cattle waste etc. The range of concentrations of PO4

3--P (µmol/l) in the study area obtained during the past two monitoring periods are given in the following Table:

The concentrations varied in a narrow range during both the periods and above results indicated no gross change in the concentration and distribution of phosphate of Vandh after the plant has become operational. The temporal trends (Figure 4.3.1 and 4.3.4) in some instances indicated some increase in the concentration of PO4

3--P in the bottom waters suggesting its release from the bed sediments at station 2 and 1A. Such release is often recorded in the Gulf. Solubilisation of FePO4, Ca3(PO4)2 CaHPO4, Mg3(PO4)2 etc in sediment during heterotrophic decomposition of organic acids function as chelating agents releasing free phosphate ions.

Zone DO saturation (%)


Discharge Point 103 104 104 100 117 111 Nearshore 83 122 100 98 110 104 Offshore 94 118 103 94 107 101

Zone PO4

3--P (µmol/l) December 2013 April 2015 Min Max Av Min Max Av


28

The above results indicated no gross change in the concentration and distribution of phosphates off Vandh in the pre- and post-operational phase of the power plant.

4.3.7 Nitrogen compounds Nitrogen cycle involving elementary dissolved nitrogen; oxides: NO3

-, NO2-, and

reduced forms: NH4+, NH3; plays a significant role in sustaining life in aquatic environment.

NO3- is the end product of oxidation and the most stable form at pH 7. The principal

source of nitrogen in marine environment is nitrogen fixation to N2O and NH3 via atmosphere. NO2

- occurs in seawater as an intermediate product of nitrate reduction in microbial processes i.e. denitrification at low oxygen levels at which NO2

- is further transformed into NH3 and N2 under anoxic conditions. Unionised ammonia NH3 is in equilibrium with ammonium ion (NH4

+) in water. Its toxicity is largely due to NH3 (unionized) which is influenced by pH, total concentration of NH3, water temperature and ionic strength. Levels of 0.2 to 2 mg/l NH3 have been reported to be lethal to a variety of fish species. The range of concentrations of NO3

--N (µmol/l) in the study area in different segments are as given below. As expected for coastal region, the concentration of NO3

--N varied over a wide range during December 2013 (2.1-12.8 µmol/l; av 6.6 µmol/l) and during April 2015 (0.5-7.0; Av 2.0 µmol/l) and was of the order expected for the Gulf. The range and average of NO3

--N concentrations in the study area during the period 2006-2015 are presented below.

Period PO4

3--P (µmol/l) Min Max Av

January 2006 0.4 2.3 1.6 April 2006 0.5 1.5 1.0 April 2007 0.4 2.3 1.4 October 2007 0.5 2.1 1.2

December 2008 1.3 3.5 2.1

December 2013 0.2 1.9 1.0

April 2015 0.4 3.1 1.1

Zone NO3

--N (µmol/l) December 2013 April 2015 Min Max Av Min Max Av


29

These results indicate wide fluctuations in NO3

--N in the study area even prior to plant operation of the CGPL with values fluctuating in the range 1.9-12.6 µmol/l in the period 2006-2008. Such fluctuating trend is also evident in the present study. The decrease of NO3

--N during April 2015 suggests the possibility of increase in productivity at the primary level of study region. The concentrations of phosphate in marine waters can vary because of its uptake by phytoplankton, regeneration, addition from external sources and its involvement in absorption-adsorption and chemical reactions. Nitrate on the contrary does not participate in such reactions in oxic waters and its concentration is mainly controlled by uptake by phytoplankton, regeneration and fluxes through external sources. Nitrite occurs in low concentration – generally less than 2 µmol/l, in natural surface coastal waters since it is unstable and oxidized to nitrate under oxic environment. The concentrations of NO2

--N in the study area and the coastal region during the present study are as given below.

The above results indicate that the concentrations of NO2

--N varied from 0.1 to 0.6 µmol/l during December 2013 and 0.1 to 0.7 µmol/l during April 2015 and were comparable to the baseline data (2006 to 2008). These results indicated that the concentrations of NO2

--N off Vandh were low. The concentrations NO2--N in the study

area varied as follows:

Period NO3

--N (µmol/l)Min Max Av

January 2006 1.9 12.6 6.5April 2006 3.2 6.2 4.0April 2007 2.7 10.1 5.6October 2007 2.2 11.4 8.0December 2008 5.2 10.6 7.0December 2013 2.1 12.8 6.6April 2015 0.5 7.0 2.0

Zone NO2

--N (µmol/l) December 2013 April 2015 Min Max Av Min Max Av


30

These results indicate no appreciable change in the concentration as well as

distribution of nitrite of Vandh over the years and suggest a good oxidizing marine environment. Similar to nitrite, ammonia is unstable in the natural surface waters and is oxidised to nitrate via nitrite. The concentrations of NH4

+-N in the study area and the coastal region during the present study are as given below

The concentration of NH4

+-N in natural coastal waters is generally of the order of 0.2-1 µmol/l. The concentration of NH4

+-N at different zones varied in a narrow range of 0.1-1.2 µmol/l and 0.7-3.8 µmol/l during December 2013 and April 2015 respectively

.

The above results indicate that the average NH4

+-N (0.7 µmol/l) off Vandh between December 2013 and baseline (2006-2008) were comparable. However, stray high values of 6.1 µmol/l in January 2006 and 4.3 µmol/l in October 2007 and 3.8 µmol/l in April 2015 have been recorded. Such high values are not unusual in the Gulf and have been occasionally recorded off Okha, Salaya, Sikka, Bedi and Mundra in the coastal and outer Gulf in the past. Overall, the levels of NH4

--N were low and had remained comparable over the years in line with unpolluted status of the Gulf waters.

Period NO2

--N (µmol/l) Min Max Av

January 2006 0.2 0.5 0.4 April 2006 0.3 0.5 0.4 April 2007 0.2 0.8 0.4 October 2007 0.1 0.5 0.3

December 2008 0.2 0.6 0.4

December 2013 0.1 0.6 0.2

April 2015 0.1 0.7 0.3

Zone NH4

+-N (µmol/l) December 2013 April 2015 Min Max Av Min Max Av


Period NH4

+-N (µmol/l)Min Max Av

January 2006 ND 6.1 0.4April 2006 0.3 1.2 0.7April 2007 ND 0.7 0.3October 2007 ND 4.3 0.8

December 2008 0.1 1.3 0.7

December 2013 0.2 1.3 0.7

April 2015 0.7 3.8 1.6

31

The diurnal variations in NH4+-N at stations 1A, and 2 (Figures 4.3.1-4.3.4) did not

indicate any significant trend. In marine algal cells, N and P are present in a molar ratio of 16:1. The ratio

varies in the coastal water, but its magnitude suggests the growth limiting nutrient. The N:P ratio during the present study as given in the below Table varied from 0.7 to 7.4 with an average of 2.4 suggesting the nitrogen is a limiting factor for the algal growth in the coastal system off Vandh.

Overall assessment indicated that the concentrations of nutrients off Vandh

during December 2013 (post-monsoon) and April 2015 (pre-monsoon) were comparable with the baseline indicating that the plant operations have not influenced their levels.

4.3.8 Petroleum hydrocarbons Naturally occurring hydrocarbons in aquatic environment are in trace amounts of simple forms produced by microbes. PHc derived from crude oil and its products are added to marine environment by anthropogenic activities namely production of crude oil and its products, their transport, ship traffic, etc. Prominent land-based sources are domestic and industrial effluents, atmospheric fallout of fuel combustion products, condensed vapours etc. PHc can cause severe damage to the aquatic life when there are sudden discharges in large quantities during accidents such as tanker collision, pipeline rupture, fire etc. The average concentration of PHc in the study area varied as given in the below Table.

The concentration of PHc during the present monitoring (April 2015) varied in the range 1.9 –19.7 µg/l indicating its random variation in the discharge channel as well as the coastal area. This range is 5.5-38.2 µg/l for the monitoring conducted during December 2013. The overall values are lower than that recommended for water quality criteria (100 µg/l ) in terms of oil & grease) for designated best use for salt pans, shell fishing, mariculture and ecologically sensitive zones by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB). The range and average concentration of PHc in the study area during the period 2006-2008 and subsequent monitorings are compared in the following table:

Zone N:P ratio



Zone PHc (µg/l)



32

Table : Range and average PHc in the study area during 2006-2015.

Period PHc (ug/l)

Min Max Av January 2006 2.4 22.6 15.5April 2006 9.8 28.1 20.3April 2007 5.4 19.2 11.5October 2007 30 79.4 50.5December 2008 0.8 3.1 1.6 December 2013 5.5 38.2 16.3April 2015 1.9 19.7 6.0

The earliest measurement available for the region is that of January 2006 wherein the concentration of PHc in the range 2.4-22.6 µg/l were recorded. In the subsequent years the values varied widely with no evidence for any systematic increase with time. As compared to December 2008, PHc concentrations seemed to have registered an increase in the current study (December 2013 and April 2015). Such observations are not uncommon and are the consequence of patchy distribution of hydrocarbons; being insoluble in water. Moreover, higher values than the present study have been observed in October 2007. 4.4 Sediment quality Several contaminants on entering the aquatic environment are adsorbed by SS in water and transported to the sediment on settling. Thus the sediment of areas receiving anthropogenic pollutants such as trace metals, hydrocarbon residues, chlorinated pesticides etc sustain high concentration of pollutants relative to the baseline. Hence, aquatic sediments are useful indicators of anthropogenic pollution. Results of sediment analysis with respect to texture, metals, organic carbon, phosphorus and PHc of the present study are given in Tables 4.4.1and 4.4.2. 4.4.1 Texture The sediment texture of the coastal area varied considerably in space and time. This often happens in tide dominated coastal areas where strong currents and waves redistribute the sediment. The texture of the intertidal sediment also varied considerably in space and time though the dominance of sand prevailed on most occasions. The texture of sediment generally influences the concentration of trace metals and other trace constituents. Thus, sediments with high clay content often exhibit relatively high levels of trace constituents by virtue of the availability of large surface area for their absorption from the water column. The bed sediment of Vandh was heterogeneous with the texture varying over short distances (Tables 4.4.1 and 4.4.2). The sand content was as high as 92.6-99.4 % at stations 1 to 9 while at station 5 it was only 3.7 % with the dominance of silt (89.5 %) in April 2015. Systematic change in the sediment texture from the shore (station 2, 3, 7 and 9) to offshore (stations 4, 5, 6, 8,and 10) was absent with random variations from one station to the next. Silt dominated wherever the sand percentage was low. The sediment of the region had extremely low clay content in December 2013 (1.2-5.6 % )

33

and in April 2015 ( 0.2-6.8 % ). The intertidal sediment was sandy silt with sand and silt content of (98.4-99.2 %) and 0.4 % respectively during April 2015. In line with the subtidal sediment, the intertidal zone also sustained low clay content in December (3.2-3.6 %) as against in April 2015 (0.4-0.7 %). 4.4.2 Heavy metals Bed sediments of uncontaminated coastal areas have metal concentrations which are derived from rocks and soils of the surrounding land mass which form the baseline. Apart from texture, the concentration of trace metals in sediments also depends on the iron and manganese content. The available results (µg/g; dry wt) of the present monitoring and its comparison with previous available data for selected trace metals are represented in the below table.

The earliest data on trace metals in sediments of Vandh pertains to 2006 about 4 years before the power plant was put into operation at Vandh. These results indicate that though the concentrations of chromium, nickel, copper, zinc and mercury were variable they did not indicate incremental built-up of anthropogenic metals in the sediment of the region in the post-power plant operation period. The variations in trace metals can be due to several factors such as varying sediment texture and concentrations of aluminium, iron and manganese in space and time in the surficial sediment of the region. These data indicate wide variations in the concentration of metals in the intertidal sediment (Tables 4.4.1 and 4.4.2) perhaps due to wide variations in the concentrations of aluminium and iron as in the case of subtidal sediment.

Elements Jan 2006 Apr 2006

Apr 2007

Oct 2007

Dec 2008

Dec 2013

April 2015

Al (%) 1.2-9.0 1.0-6.8 1.2-6.6 0.6-7.6 0.4-1.3 0.4-5.6 0.5-5.8

Cr (µg/g) 17-69 5-67 20-115 2-70

32-45

15-17 7-104

Mn (µg/g) 296-928

677-1566

260-1244

296-1566

253-799 182-740 159-637

Fe (%) 1.4-8.9 1.3-5.0 0.4-5.0 0.3-1.4 0.4-3.1 0.6-5.3 0.6-4.0

Co (µg/g) 11-38

5-58

6-28 - 2-6

4-14 2-17

Ni (µg/g) 9-61 6-58 11-58 3-39

5-9

6-27 4-42

Cu (µg/g) 10-42

4-32

6-33 2-26 6-10 4-15 2-22

Zn (µg/g) 94-767

162-242

21-80 3-91

18-28

5-35 1-70

Hg (µg/g) -

ND-0.04

0.01-0.04

0.01-0.03

- ND-0.09 0.05-0.11

34

4.4.3 Organic carbon (Corg) Generally, organic matter in natural aquatic sediments originates from terrestrial runoff and remains of organisms inhabiting the region. Anthropogenic organic inputs such as sewage can increase the content of organic matter to abnormal levels in sediments. Organic matter settling on the bed is scavenged by benthic organism to a large extent. The balance is decomposed in the presence of DO by heterotrophic microorganisms. Hence, DO in sediment-interstitial water is continuously consumed and anoxic conditions develop if the organic matter is more than that can be oxidised through oxygen as an oxidant. Such anoxic conditions are harmful to benthic fauna. The content of organic carbon (%; dry wt) in sediments of the Vandh and the coastal area during December 2013 and April 2015 varied as given below.

Zone Organic carbon (%)

December 2013 April 2015Discharge Point 0.3 0.2 Nearshore 0.2-0.4

(0.2) 0.2

Offshore - 0.1 Thus, during the study period, the concentration of organic carbon in sediments of the region varied in 0.1 – 0.7 % (Table 4.4.2) which was very low and compared well with the past results as can be seen in the table below. The results presented in the above table and those recorded during the present study indicate that though Vandh receives large volume of return sea water from power plant, there is no accumulation of organic carbon in the sediment. 4.4.4 Phosphorus Naturally occurring phosphorus in marine sediments is derived from the geological sources through which the river flows, while, the anthropogenic phosphorus is the result of sewage and industrial discharges, agricultural runoff etc. The concentration of phosphorus (µg/g; dry wt) in sediments of the Vandh coastal area varied as given below.

Period Concentration

(%) April 2006 0.6 December 2008 0.2 December 2013 0.3 April 2015 0.2

35

Zone Phosphorus (µg/g)

December 2013 April 2015Discharge Point 228 210 Nearshore 158-600

(416) 494

Offshore - 199

The concentrations of phosphorus in selected zones (228-416 µg/g during December 2013 and 199-494 µg/g) was variable. The past results of concentration of phosphorus in sediments as given below indicated that concentrations though variable were comparable to those recorded in the sediment of the Gulf and did not indicate its enrichment in the coastal area in the post-power plant period.

These concentrations varied from 158 to 800 µg/g and 193 to 857 µg/g during December 2013 and April 2015 respectively in the subtidal sediments and were considered as lithogenic source, though higher to those recorded earlier (April 2006 to December 2008). The data (µg/g; dry wt) presented in Tables 4.4.1 and 4.4.2 for the intertidal sediment (429-800 µg/g during December 2013 and 142-1138 µg/g during April 2015) also indicated the absence of accumulation of anthropogenic phosphorus. 4.4.5 Petroleum hydrocarbon Though large accidental releases of oil are easily sighted as slicks on the sea surface, minor chronic releases such as through effluents often go unnoticed. Petroleum in the marine environment undergoes weathering leading to its removal from the sea surface and the residue left after the petroleum weathers, is absorbed by suspended particulates and ultimately transferred to the sediment. Hence, sediment serves as a useful indicator of cumulative effect of oil contamination. The PHc content (µg/g; wet wt) in the sediment of the study region during the two monitoring periods varied as given below.

Zone PHc (µg/g)

December 2013 April 2015Discharge Point 0.2 0.2 Nearshore 0.03-0.4

(0.2) 0.2

Offshore - 0.1


(µg/g) April 2006 188 -631 December 2008 381 - 724 December 2013 158-800 April 2015 193-857

36

Thus, the concentration of PHc in sediments of the discharge channel and nearshore region varied from 0.03 to 0.4 µg/g and 0.1 to 0.3 µg/g (wet wt) during December 2013 and April 20015 respectively and there was no evidence for increase in the sediment burden of PHc due to the operations of the power plant. The past records of PHc in sediments (µg/g; wet wt) of the region available from 2006 are compared with the present data and given below.

From these results it can be concluded that the PHc concentration in the coastal

waters of Vandh has remained low. The maximum value of about 1.2 µg/g (wet wt) was recorded during December 2008. The results are comparable with the levels normally recorded in sediments off the west coast of India and reveal the absence of PHc accumulation in the sediment of the study area. In areas receiving anthropogenic petroleum residues such as oil terminals, the PHc concentration in sediment often exceeds 10 µg/g (wet wt). 4.5 Flora and fauna Apart from changes in the physico-chemical characteristics of water and sediment environment that a coastal development may induce, the ultimate concern is invariably the biological resource. The important natural factors which influence flora and fauna in coastal areas are tides, currents, freshwater flow, water quality and sediment characteristics. Floral and faunal components in estuaries and coastal waters are highly diverse inhabiting a variety of ecosystems. The basic process in an aquatic ecosystem is the primary productivity. The transfer of energy from the primary source through a series of organisms is defined as the food chain, which are of two basic types; the grazing food chain and the detritus food chain. The anthropogenic stress may cause the communities to exhibit low biomass and high metabolism. In addition, due to depressed functions of less tolerant predators, there may be also a significant increase of dead organic matter deposited in sediments of ecosystems modified under stress.

The living community of an ecosystem comprises of consumers, producers and

decomposers and related non-living constituents interacting together and interchanging materials as a whole system. Important biological parameters which are considered for assessment in the present study are phytoplankton, zooplankton, benthos and fishes. The first two reflect the productivity of water column at the primary and the secondary levels. Benthic organisms being sedentary animals associated with the seabed, provide information regarding the integrated effects of stress, if any, and hence are good indicators of early warning of potential damage.


(µg/g) April 2006 ND - 0.4 December 2008 0.1-1.2 December 2013 0.03-0.6 April 2015 0.1-0.3

37

The biological parameters considered for the present monitoring study are phytoplankton pigments and cell count, zooplankton standing stock and population, macrobenthic biomass and population, mangroves and fishery status. The aggregate data presented in Tables 4.5.1 to 4.5.24 and Figures 4.5.1 to 4.5.8 is used to evaluate the status of flora and fauna in the coastal system off Vandh during April 2015 and compared with data collected during December 2013.

4.5.1 Seaweeds, seagrasses and mangrove ecosystem

Marine flora like algae and mangrove play a significant role in enriching nearshore sea by adding dissolved organic matter, nutrients and detritus besides serving as breeding as well as nursery areas for the larvae and juveniles of several marine animals. The marine alga Enteromorpha sp commonly occured in the intertidal area while seagrasses were dominated by Halophila ovata and Halodule uninervis on sandy stretches.

Mangrove ecosystem

Mangroves are salt tolerant forest ecosystem of tropical and subtropical intertidal regions of the world. Where conditions are sheltered and suitable, the mangroves may form extensive and productive forests like around Mundra, which are the marine reservoirs of a large number of species of plants and animals. The role of mangrove forests in stabilizing the shoreline or coastal zone by preventing soil erosion and arresting encroachment on land by sea is well recognised thus minimising water logging and formation of saline banks.

Vegetation of mangrove ecosystem can be divided into the following broad categories. (a) Mangroves (b) Salt marshes (c) Sand stands a) Mangroves

Mangrove forests are extensive along the coastal belt of Kachchh District occupying an area of 778 km2 as a dense forest; dominant species being Avicennia marina with almost pure stands at many places. In some localities these are associated with Avicennia officinalis, Rhizophora mucronata, Bruguiera gymnorrhiza, Ceriops tagal, Aegiceras corniculatum and Sonneratia apetata. Other associated mangrove flora includes species such as Salicornia brachiata, Suaeda fruticosa and Atriplex stocksii.

The areas around Kandla-Nakti, Hansthal, Navinal-Bocha, Baradi Mata-Kotdi

Creek complex, Kori Creek etc represent the best mangrove formations along the northern shore of the Gulf. The composition and ecological status of mangroves and obligate halophytes are given in Table 3.3.8. Mangroves are dominated by Avicennia marina and are of fringing type in regularly inundated zones along the water ways. Mangrove belts bordering short segments of Kotdi Creek/Baradimata Creek-2, are degraded and under pressure of camel grazing and cutting for firewood. The stray plants of Rhizophora mucronata also occur among Avicennia stands. Salvodora persica commonly occur in the supralittoral regions towards the HTL. Sesuvium portulacastrum is common at the HTL along the creeks. Beds of Salicornia brachiata

38

commonly habit the areas inland of regularly inundated zones or above the mean high tide line. The Salicornia stands are more dense towards waterways and become sparse in saline banks. Suaeda maritima is sparsely distributed in the saline bank regions.

The intertidal area in the immediate vicinity of the discharge channel falls under

saline bank and is devoid of mangrove vegetation. Very poor leaching of salts due to low frequency of inundation and poor rainfall result in salt encrustation of saline banks rendering them unsuitable for vegetation to grow except for stray halophytes like Suaeda maritima. The nearest mangrove patches are at least a kilometer away from the discharge channel.

The mangrove cover in the area has been mapped using satellite (IRS) LISS IV

images. The images collected in 2005, which represents the pre-project period and 2014, depicting the post project situation, have been classified for mangrove cover. The results are presented in the Figures 4.5.9 and 4.5.10. The results show that even though the dense mangrove cover is unaltered with time, the sparse mangrove cover has increased in the north and south of the intertidal region as compared with the pre-project period (Plate 1). This shows that any adverse impact of effluent on mangroves was absent in the region.

b) Salt marshes The vegetation of this zone consists predominantly of Aeluropes lagopoides, supported by Sporoblus sp. Cressa cretica also occur in dried salt marshes and salt pans. Presence of species such as Cyperus pangorei, Bergia adorata and Oldenlandia umbellata is probably an indication of retrogression due to the detrimental effect of salt works. c) Sandy stands In the sandy patches between the rocks, a few species such as Cyperus conglomerates and Asparagus demosus are identified. 4.5.2 Phytoplankton

Phytoplankton forms the vast array of minute and microscopic plants passively drifting in natural waters and mostly confined to the illuminated zone. In an ecosystem these organisms constitute primary producers forming the first link in the food chain. Phytoplankton long has been used as indicators of water quality. Some species flourish in highly eutrophic waters while others are very sensitive to organic and/or chemical wastes. Some species develop noxious blooms, sometimes creating offensive tastes and odours or anoxic or toxic conditions resulting in animal death or human illness. Because of their short life cycles, phytoplankton responds quickly to environmental changes. Hence their standing crop in terms of biomass, cell counts and species composition are more likely to indicate the quality of the water mass in which they are found. Generally, phytoplankton standing crop is studied in terms of biomass by estimating chlorophyll a and primary productivity and in terms of population by counting total number of cells and their generic composition. When under stress or at the end of

39

their life cycle, chlorophyll a in phytoplankton decomposes with phaeophytin as one of the major products.

Phytoplankton biomass is estimated in terms of concentration of phytopigments.

The chlorophyll a (0.6 – 3.8 mg/m3; av 2.0 mg/m3) and phaeophytin (0.0 – 1.3 mg/m3; av 0.5 mg/m3) concentrations varied widely in the coastal ecosystem off Vandh during April 2015 (Table 4.5.1). Vertical variations in phytopigments were negligible indicating their uniform distribution throughout the water column. This homogenous nature of the water mass in shallow coastal ecosystem perhaps provided stability for the biological processes. Phaeophytin is a measure of dead cells and is an indirect indicator of stress conditions leading to deterioration of chlorophyll a. Ratios of concentrations of chlorophyll a and phaeophytin in all the stations, except station IA, were more than 1 indicating that the prevailing environmental conditions were conducive for the growth of phytoplankton in the study area except in the vicinity of the effluent release. The temporal variation in phytoplankton pigment concentrations at station 1A did not show any marked variation during December 2013 (Figure 4.5.1) but minor increase in chlorophyll concentrations were observed during flooding during April 2015 diurnal observations (Figure 4.5.3). In general, marginal reduction in average chlorophyll a was evident during April 2015 than December 2013 (Table 4.5.1) both at stations 1A and 1B. However at station 2, phytopigment concentrations were generally lower during ebbing during December 2013 (Figure 4.5.2) as well as April 2015 (Figure 4.5.4). The spatial variations in the phytopigment distribution during December 2013 and April 2015 are given in the table below.

Zone December 2013 April 2015

Chl a (mg/m3)

Phaeo (mg/m3)

Chl a (mg/m3)

Phaeo (mg/m3)

Discharge Point 0.8-1.6 (1.2)

0.2-1.1 (0.6)

0.6-1.8 (1.1)

0.0-0.3 (0.2)

Nearshore 0.8-4.9 (2.2)

0.2-2.4 (1.0)

0.7-3.8 (2.6)

0.1-1.3 (0.5)

Offshore 0.6-1.8 (1.4)

0.1-1.4 (0.7)

1.1-3.8 (1.9)

0.0-0.9 (0.4)

The above table indicates that the concentrations of the phytopigments were

somewhat higher in the nearshore region during both sampling periods. Phytopigment values in the vicinity of the cooling water discharge were comparable with the offshore values during both sampling occasions. The comparison of their distribution in the area from 2006 to 2015 (present study) is given in the table below.

40

Year Chlorophyll a

(mg/m3) Phaeophytin

(mg/m3) January 2006

0.2-14.1 (1.6)

0.1-10.2 (2.3)

April 2006 0.2-1.5 (0.7)

0.2-5.1 (3.5)

April 2007 0.2-2.3 (0.4)

0.1-5.6 (2.4)

October 2007 0.9-3.0 (1.8)

0.1-2.3 (0.4)

December 2008 0.5 – 5.9 (1.6)

0.2-2.0 (0.6)

December 2013 0.6-4.9 (1.8)

0.1-2.4 (0.8)

April 2015 0.6-3.8 (2.0)

0.0-1.3 (0.5)

It is evident from the above table that average concentrations of chlorophyll a in

the sea off Vandh have not varied significantly over the years, though sporadic high values have been occasionally observed during January 2006. However, the average concentrations of phaeophytin revealed a gradual decrease from January 2006 to April 2015, thereby indicating a healthy and productive marine ecosystem off Vandh.

The distribution of phytoplankton population (47.8 – 259.8 x 103 no/l; av 127.7 x

103 no/l) revealed variable phytoplankton cell count during April 2015 (Table 4.5.2) which was in accordance with the trend in variation of chlorophyll a. The composition percentage of phytoplankton genera in the study area during December 2008, December 2013 and April 2015 are given in Tables 4.5.3, 4.5.4 and 4.5.5. A total of 47 genera were identified (av 16) during December 2013 (Table 4.5.4) whereas 60 genera were identified during April 2015 (Table 4.5.5). The increase in generic diversity could be due to improved expertise in phytoplankton identification.The change in species dominance could be attributed to the seasonal changes in the study area. Thalassiosira (54.9%), Fragilaria (16.5%) and Melosira (5.3%) were the most dominant algae during December 2013 while Cylindrotheca closterium (21.4%), Thalassiosira (12.2%), Pseudo-nitzschia (10%) were dominant during April 2015. In the present investigation the generic diversity varied from 16 to 33 (av 23) in the area (Table 4.5.5). The abundance and diversity of phytoplankton during December 2013 and April 2015 in different zones of the study area varied as follows.

41

Zone December 2013 April 2015

Cell count (nox103/l)

Total genera (no)


Total genera (no)

Discharge Point 36.8-147.0 (91.9)

18 47.8-179.4

(117.5) 16-23 (20)

Nearshore 19.0-525.6 (198.8)

9-19 (15)

46.6-259.8 (174.8)

17-29 (23)

Offshore 21.0-64.0 (37.0)

11-19 (15)

49.2-214.8 (99.1)

12-30 (22)

As per the above table, the abundance of phytoplankton in the discharge zone

was lower than the nearshore area but higher than the offshore stations during both sampling periods. Average phytoplankton diversity was comparable across all three zones with minor variations. The trends in cell counts and generic diversity of phytoplankton between the two study periods (2013 and 2015) were comparable. In line with the high variability of pigments, the average cell count (no x 103/l) of phytoplankton also varied dramatically over the years as evident from the following results.

These results reveal variable phytoplankton cell counts and generic diversity in

the region with marked increase during December 2008. These results indicate no regular trend in the distribution pattern of phytoplankton. This can be due to high patchiness and uneven distribution of phytoplankton cells in the coastal waters. Phytoplankton density of April 2015 showed an increase from April 2006 and 2007 which were the previous comparable season before commissioning of CGPL. The above table also indicates an increase in generic diversity since January 2006. Enhanced generic diversity in association with higher cell counts indicates good marine conditions for phytoplankton growth.

4.5.3 Zooplankton

Zooplankton includes arrays of organisms, varying in size from microscopic protozoans of a few microns to some jelly organisms with tentacles of several metres long. They play an intermediate role between phytoplankton and fish and are considered as the chief index of utilization of aquatic biotope at the secondary trophic level.

Year Cell count (nox103/l)

Total genera

(no) January 2006 415.2 13 April 2006 18.2 16 April 2007 53.3 20 October 2007 88.0 15 December 2008 502.5 16 December 2013 125.8 16 April 2015 127.7 23

42

Zooplankton standing stock in terms of biomass (0.2 – 8.0 ml/100m3; av 1.6 ml/100m3) and abundance (1.6–40.3 x 103/100m3; av 9.8 x 103/100m3) indicated considerable spatial and tidal fluctuations in the coastal waters off Vandh (Table 4.5.6). The temporal variations in distribution of zooplankton standing stock revealed no particular trend (Figures 4.5.5 and 4.5.8). Zone-wise variations in the zooplankton parameters are given below.

Zone

December 2013 April 2015

Biomass (ml/100m3)

Abundance (nox103/100

m3)

Total group

s (no)

Biomass (ml/100m3)

Abundance (nox103/100m3)

Total groups

(no)

Discharge Point

0.3-1.9 (0.8)

0.5-9.5 (2.7)

5-13 (8)

0.6-7.9 (3.2)

4.1-8.7 (7.1)

9-16 (14)

Nearshore 0.2-3.6 (1.5)

1.8-30.0 (11.3)

11-16 (14)

0.2-8.0 (1.5)

1.6-40.3 (14.3)

6-14 (11)

Offshore 0.1-1.1 (0.6)

1.2-7.5 (4.0)

10-14 (13)

0.4-4.9 (1.5)

4.5-17.1 (11.6)

8-16 (12)

As in the case of phytoplankton, the zooplankton biomass was comparable

between the discharge and other two zones during both seasons. Zooplankton abundance was lower in the discharge channel during both sampling periods. Zooplankton group diversity was lower in the discharge area during December 2013 but was higher during April 2015 as compared to the nearshore and offshore regions. The present study revealed better biomass and abundance of zooplankton for the study area as compared to 2013. The zooplankton standing stock recorded during the present study is compared with the results of earlier studies in the following table.

Year Biomass

(ml/100m3) Population

(nox103/100m3)

Total groups

(no) January 2006 1.6-13.1

(5.3) 5.1-141 (30.2)

13-21 (17)

April 2006 1.2-11.0 (4.5)

9.8-64.6 (22.1)

13-17 (15)

April 2007 0.5-17.2 (4.1)

2.7-207.6 (37.4)

11-18 (14)

October 2007 1.3-15.9 (9.1)

8.0-322.5 (85.0)

11-19 (15)

December 2008 0.4-14.1 (4.6)

2.3-86.2 (25.3)

9-19 (15)

December 2013 0.1-3.6 (1.0)

0.5-30 (7.2)

5-16 (13)

April 2015 0.2-8.0 (1.6)

1.6-40.3 (9.8)

6-16 (13)

43

Wide spatial variation in zooplankton biomass and population off Vandh is evident from the above results. These variations in zooplankton standing stock are invariably associated with factors like tide, patchiness in their distribution, seasonal changes and grazing pressure within the food chain. Such variations are common to dynamic coastal waters. The above table reveals that the zooplankton standing stock in terms of biomass, abundance and zooplankton group diversity displayed lower values in the recent observations as compared to previous years.

In the pre-development phase of the power plant, the numbers of zooplankton

groups present in the samples were 23 (Table 4.5.7). In December 2013 and April 2015, a total of 24 and 25 faunal groups were identified respectively (Table 4.5.7) though all of them did not occur together at any given location. Numerically dominant groups of the zooplankton community were copepods which comprised 60% (Table 4.5.8), 66% (Table 4.5.9) and 85% (Table 4.5.10) of zooplankton during December 2008, December 2013 and April 2015 respectively. The other common groups were decapod larvae, foraminiferans, siphonophores, medusae, ctenophores, chaetognaths, polychaetes, ostracods, amphipods, decapod larvae, Lucifer, gastropods, lamellibranchs, fish eggs and fish larvae. The group diversity of zooplankton varied from 6 to 16 (av 13 groups) during April 2015. It is also evident from the above that the faunal group diversity of zooplankton at different stations was closely comparable.

Breeding and spawning To identify breeding grounds of fishes and crustaceans, extensive field observations over a long duration are required. This approach was not possible during the present short term investigations. Hence, alternatively, decapod larvae, fish eggs and fish larvae were studied from zooplankton collections and taken as indices of probable existence of spawning grounds. i) Decapod larvae This group forms the major constituent of zooplankton and includes the larval stages of commercially important shrimps. During December 2013, the density varied from 0.03 to 88.8 x 103 no/100 m3 (av 1.4 x 103 no/100 m3) (Table 4.5.11). The average (nox103/100m3) abundance of this group off Vandh is summarized here which varied in accordance with season in line with zooplankton distribution.

Period Abundance

(nox103/100m3) January 2006 6.1 April 2006 2.3 April 2007 0.6 October 2007 19.0 December 2008 5.7 December 2013 1.5 April 2015 1.4

The table indicates that the abundance of decapod larvae was comparable in

the present study as compared to December 2013 and also with pre-development data

44

during same season (April 2006 and April 2007). Penaeid prawns have high fecundity and the number of eggs produced varies from species to species and size of the prawn. M. affinis, M. dobsoni, M. monoceros and P. stylifera breed throughout the year with individually delineated peak breeding period. The eggs are released while swimming in the columnar waters or near the bottom. The early development takes place in the open sea and post larvae enter the creeks/estuaries/backwaters and attain all the adult characters including secondary sexual characters. They return to the sea where maturation of the ovary and subsequent spawning takes place.

Generally, the spawning grounds of penaeid prawns are away from the coast. The spawning ground of M. dobsoni is reported to be at 20 – 30 m while that of M. affinis is at still deeper waters. Spawning ground of M. monoceros is reported to be at 50 – 65 m and that of P. stylifera at 18 – 25 m. M. affinis and P. stylifera prefer areas of soft mud and zones of rich plankton for mating and spawning. Acetes indicus is another common economically important species of shrimps. During January-April they form conspicuous aggregations near the shore and are fished on a large scale. Fishing grounds of these shrimps are mostly located in calm muddy intertidal zones or waters shallower than 5 m. The life span of Acetes is 3 – 10 months and the adults die soon after spawning. Breeding is continuous and surface water currents stimulate Acetes to swarm in shallow inshore waters when the wind blows moderately towards the coast. The Gulf has a varied representation of prawns and so far 27 species belonging to Penaeidea and Caridea are recorded. Out of these, species like P. penicillatus, M. brevicornis, M. kutchensis and Parapenaeopsis sculptilis are commercially important. M. brevicornis occur in high number along the northern shore of the Gulf between Mandvi and Luni where the substratum is sandy. Higher percentage of M. kutchensis are generally confined to the inner Gulf area because the substratum predominantly contains clayey silt. The Gulf segment off Mundra is generally composed of sandy silt (Section 4.4) which can influence the distribution of M. kutchensis a very hardy, euryhaline prawn with a probable preference for clayey silt substratum. Beside the substrate preference, another possible factor, which may control the distribution of prawns along the northern coast of the Gulf can be tidal currents which during the course of their movement into and out of the Gulf, may act as a hydraulic barrier. ii) Fish eggs and larvae Fish eggs were present at all stations except station 1B and ranged from 0 – 1182 no/100 m3 (av 47 no/100 m3). Fish larvae varied from 0-681 no/100 m3 (av 34 no/100 m3) (Table 4.5.11). The relative abundance of the fish eggs and fish larvae from 2006 to 2013 are summarized here.

45

The average abundance of fish eggs and larvae during April 2015 was higher than that of December 2008 and 2013. The above table indicates inconsistency in fish eggs and larvae production trends as well as high patchiness in their distribution (Table 4.5.11) which is the normal for coastal waters. The spatial variation in the abundance of decapod larvae, fish eggs and fish larvae are given below.

Zone

December 2013 April 2015 Decapod

larvae (no/100m3)

Fish eggs

(no/100 m3)

Fishlarvae

(no/100 m3)

Decapod larvae

(no/100 m3)

Fish eggs

(no/100m3)

Fish larvae

(no/100 m3)

Discharge Point

118-1712 (556)

1-24 (11)

0-2 (0)

339-908 (681)

0-1182 (320)

0-15 (6)

Nearshore 248-11910 (2535)

0-103 (24)

0-34 (6)

339-4976 (1030)

0-233 (36)

0-681 (73)

Offshore 242-1399 (642)

0-26 (4)

0-12 (4)

25-8877 (1906)

0-54 (11)

0-32 (7)

Abundance of decapod larvae, fish eggs and larvae showed higher values

during the present study as compared to December 2013 across almost all zones.

4.5.4 Macrobenthos Depending upon their size, benthic animals are divided into three categories,

microfauna, meiofauna and macrofauna. Benthic community responses to environmental perturbations are useful in assessing the impact of anthropogenic perturbations on environmental quality. Macrobenthic organisms which are considered for the present study are animal species with body size larger than 0.5 mm. Samples for macrobenthos were collected from intertidal segments as well as subtidal stations for the estimation of macrobenthic density, biomass and composition.

Period Fish eggs

(no/100 m3) Fish larvae (no/100 m3)

January 2006 6 19 April 2006 243 272 April 2007 18 33 October 2007 155 318 December 2008 18 16 December 2013 14 4 April 2015 47 34

46

a) Intertidal fauna Of the two transects sampled, Transect I was in the intertidal zone adjacent to the effluent channel. The intertidal macrobenthic standing stock at Transect I in April 2015, in terms of population and biomass (Table 4.5.12) varied from 25 to 1975 no/m2 (av 366 no/m2) and 0.006 to 3.6 g/m2; wet wt (av 1.5 g/m2; wet wt) respectively. The number of macrobenthic groups ranged from 1 to 6 (av 3). Transect II was situated far away from the discharge channel and hence was treated as a control transect. The intertidal macrobenthic standing stock at Transect II in April 2015, in terms of population and biomass (Table 4.5.12) varied from 25 to 475 no/m2 (av 206 no/m2) and 0.04 to 3.6 g/m2; wet wt (av 1.0 g/m2; wet wt) respectively. The number of macrobenthic groups ranged from 1 to 6 (av 3). However, Transect 1 located in the close vicinity of discharge channel sustained better standing stock of intertidal benthos as compared to Transect II, which is far away from discharge channel. Overall, polychaetes (60.7 %), amphipods (22.5%) and pelecypods (2.8%) were the dominant groups during April 2015 (Table 4.5.15). The number of macrobenthic groups present in Transect I during the current study was 12 which was comparable to that of December 2008 (9 groups) and that of December 2013 (11 groups) (Tables 4.5.13 and 4.5.14). The present macrobenthic values which are compared with the earlier studies are summarised here.

Period

Abundance (no/m2)

Biomass (g/m2; wet wt)

Faunal groups (no)

Range Av Range Av Range Av

January 2006

0 - 24464 3219 0 - 963.2 28.3 0 - 7 3

April 2006

0 - 13024 1354 0 - 103.0 10.0 0 - 8 3

April 2007

0 - 28600 2457 0 - 422.6 30.2 0 - 7 3

October 2007

0 - 17116 2224 0 - 222.9 17.4 0 - 9 4

December 2008

440-12848 3504 0.27-23.8 7.7 3-8 5

December 2013

0-3850 925 0-44.8 9.9 0-7 4

April 2015

25-1975 366 0.006-3.6 1.5 1-6 3

These results indicate that the average macrobenthic biomass was low during December 2008, December 2013 as well as April 2015. However the abundance of intertidal benthic organisms was lowest during the present study. The faunal group diversity was low during all sampling periods. Though, the region in general, sustains rich intertidal benthos, significant variation in the macrobenthic standing stock is clearly evident. Such drastic reduction in intertidal benthic standing stock of the study area observed presently needs to be monitored in future.

47

b) Subtidal macrobenthos During April 2015, the subtidal macrofaunal standing stock in terms of density

and biomass ranged from 25-750/m2 and from 0.001-1.3 g/m2 (wet wt) respectively (Table 4.5.16). The standing stock of subtidal macrobenthos in the study area both in terms of biomass (av 0.4 g/m2; wet wt) and population (170/m2) was low and varied widely. The spatial variation in the standing stock of macrobenthic biomass is given below.

Zone

December 2013 April 2015

Abundance (no/m2)

Biomass(g/m2; wet

wt)

Faunal groups

(no)

Abundance (no/m2)

Biomass (g/m2; wet

wt)

Faunal groups

(no)

Discharge Point

150-3350 (1645)

0.3-8.5 (3.7)

1-5 (3)

25-50 (38)

0.01-0.4 (0.2)

1-2 (1)

Nearshore 0-3225 (620)

0-24.0 (2.0)

0-6 (2)

25-750 (224)

0.004-1.3 (0.5)

1-5 (5)

Offshore Rocky bottom Rocky bottom

The macrobenthic parameters were higher in the vicinity of the discharge point as compared to the nearshore area during December 2013 sampling. However, during April 2015, the macrobenthic biomass, abundance and diversity values in the discharge channel were lower than the nearshore zone. The substratum of the offshore zone was rocky and therefore samples could not be obtained. The past values of subtidal macrobenthos production are compared with the present study (April 2015) as given below.

Period Population

(no/m2) Biomass

(g/m2; wet wt) Faunal groups

(no) Range Av Range Av Range Av

January 2006

0 – 2900 400 0 – 3.4 0.5 0 – 10 3

April 2006

0 – 1800 1354 0 – 10.6 1.8 0 – 7 4

April 2007

600- 1900 1200 0.3 – 3.4 2.3 4-9 7

October 2007

0-3100 600 0 – 34.1 3.9 0 -10 4

December 2008

25-1100 315 0.1-4.2 0.7 1-9 4

December 2013

0-3350 735 0-24.0 2.2 0-6 3

April 2015

25-750

170 0.001-1.3

0.4

1-5

1

The above table indicates wide variations in the faunal standing stock in the

region and no clear seasonal trend in the distribution is discernible, suggesting high patchiness in the distribution of subtidal macrobenthos. A substantial decrease in the

48

subtidal macrobenthic abundance, biomass and group diversity values is discernable during April 2015. The macrofaunal distribution in the coastal waters of Mundra during December 2008, December 2013 and April 2015 are presented in Tables 4.5.17, 4.5.18 and 4.5.19. In general, about 10 groups of subtidal macrobenthos were recorded off Vandh during December 2008, 15 groups were observed during December 2013 whereas during the present investigation 11 macrobenthic groups were recorded. The faunal composition in the present study indicated the dominance of amphipods (39.3%), polychaetes (24.9%) and sipunculids (21.9%) (Table 4.5.19). The subtidal macrofaunal standing stock and diversity needs to be monitored in future for a better understanding of their trend.

4.5.5 Fishery The prevailing fishery status of the region off Vandh is evaluated on the basis of data from the Department of Fisheries, Government of Gujarat. Vandh forms a part of the Kachchh District. Evidently, no large scale commercial fishing operations prevail off Tunda-Vandh and surrounding region except for minor land based hand-net and gill-net operations. However, along the northern coast of the Gulf, fishing by trawlers is common particularly off Mandvi, Modhwa, Mundra, Bhadreshwar and Tuna. Depending on the topography of the coast and type of fishing, necessary modifications are made to economise fishing operations by local operators. Small, plank built canoes and traditional crafts like the sail boat locally known as "Machuwa" are also deployed for fishing. The gear commonly used by these traditional crafts are drift nets, gill nets and large bag nets. Gujarat is a leading state in marine fish landings and during 2011-12 the total

landings were 6.9 x 105 t (Table 4.5.20). Landings at various centres of Kachchh

District contributed about 10.5 % to the total landings of the state. The total fish landing

in the district was around 8.1 x 104 t during 2002-03 followed by a decrease from 2004

till 2010 after which an increase in the landings were evident from 2010 onwards (Table 4.5.20). The composition of fish catch of Kachchh district indicated that the major fish groups were Bombay duck, sciaenids, perches and shrimps (Table 4.5.21). The landings at Mundra, Modhva and Tragadi contributed about 3.5%, 2.5% and 2.9% to the total landings of the district in 2013-14 (Table 4.5.22). A perusal of the landing data of the past five years reveal that the contribution of Modhva and Tragadi to the marine fish landings of Kachchh had increased in 2013-14 as compared to 2008-09 (Table 4.5.22). Navinal, Jarpara, Mundra, Chenkhedia, Luni, Bhadreshwar and Kukadasar are the seven major fish landing centres in the Mundra region. During 2013-14, the total catch for Mundra, Modhva and Tragadi was 1679, 1275 and 1458 t respectively and contributed less than 10% to the landings of the Kachchh District (Tables 4.5.23-4.5.25). Bombay duck, Coilia, small scianeids and shrimps formed major landings in recent years and the results are comparable with earlier data (2008-2012). District-wise details of fishing activities, total number of fishermen and fishing gears are given in Table 4.5.26 whereas total number of fishermen and fishing boats of Navinal, Jarpara, Dhrab, Mundra, Chenkhedia, Luni and Bhadreshwar are given in Table 4.5.27.

49

The results of some experimental fishing conducted in the discharge channel is given below.

Area/ (Type of Net)/Tide/Date

Catch (kg/h)

Total Species (no)

Common species

Junction of Discharge channel and Modwa creek (Rampani net) Ebb 08/04/2015

3.0 F- 10 P- 2 O- 2

Fishes: Drepane punctata, Sillago sihama, Cynoglossus arel, Hemiramphus far, Elops machnata, Liza parsia, Pomadasys maculatus, Opisthopterus tardoore, Valamugil seheli, Coilia dussumieri

Prawns: Penaeus indicus, Metapenaeus monoceros

Others: Matuta planipes, Charybdis annulata

Discharge Channel (Gill Net) Ebb 09/04/2015

3.5 F- 6 P- 2 O-2

Fishes: Johnius glaucus, Platycephalus indicus, Sillago sihama, Valamugil seheli, Coilia dussumieri, Ilisha megaloptera.


Others: Matuta planipes Junction of Discharge channel and Modwa creek (Gill Net) Ebb 10/04/2015

2.0 F- 9 P-3 O-1

Fishes: Coilia dussumieri, Sillago sihama, Johnius glaucus, Hemiramphus far, Valamugil seheli, Cynoglossus arel, Gerres limbatus, Ilisha megaloptera, Pellona ditchela.

50


Others: Neptunus pelagicus

Channel mouth (Gill Net) Fld 11/04/2015

0.5 F- 6 O-2

Fishes: Coilia dussumieri, Sillago sihama, Johnius glaucus, Rastrelliger kanagurta, Valamugil seheli, Ilisha megaloptera.

Others: Neptunus pelagicus, Matuta planipes

Channel Mouth (Gill Net) Fld 12/04/2015

2.5 F- 7 O-1

Fishes: Coilia dussumieri, Sillago sihama, Arius sp., Lutjanus rivulatus, Hemiramphus far, Valamugil seheli, Synaptura marginata.

Others: Matuta planipes

The above table indicated a comparable trend in the gill net catch at the channel

mouth (0.5-2.5 kg/h) and within the channel (2.0-3.5 kg/h) during April 2015. These catches included 8 to 14 species of fish/shellfish with channel mouth supporting higher diversity of fish catch. The above table and Plate 2 indicates the presence of fish/shellfish in the discharge channel. As indicated in Section 4.5.3, the abundance of fish eggs and larvae was low in the pre- as well as post-development period indicating that the study area was probably not a spawning and breeding ground for fishes. The results of the hydro-sedimentological studies (Sections 6.2.1 and 6.2.2) indicate that adverse conditions for fishes were not present during both the sampling periods (December 2013 and April 2015) in the coastal waters adjacent to the discharge channel. In the discharge channel, temperatures upto 32.5°C/34°C were observed by CTD/manual measurements at certain phases of the tide. However the results of the experimental fishing in the discharge channel indicated that these spikes in water temperature probably had little impact on the fishes present in the channel during the sampling period.

4.5.6 Corals and associated biota

The Tunda/Vandh region does not sustain reef building corals as the intertidal area is largely sandy or muddy. Coral growth in the subtidal region is also unlikely in view of the high suspended load in the water column, the conditions under which corals

51

do not thrive. Reef building corals were also not sighted in the subtidal area off Tunda/Vandh.

4.5.7 Birds

The saltpans, islands and intertidal coastal system with mangroves off Mundra offer plenty of facilities for feeding, breeding and shelter to a variety of birds. The mangroves were often seen crowded with Grey herons, Pond herons, Painted storks, Large and small egrets, Darters, Cormorants etc. During receding tide, hectic activity of various Gulls, Avocets, Whimbrel, Curlew, Terns, Egrets, Grebes, Plovers etc is common.

A study carried out during November 1999 revealed high avifaunal diversity in the Mundra region. On the whole, 140 species were documented; 85 terrestrial and 55 aquatic. Out of these, 71 are resident species, 44 migrants and another 25 resident migrant. Based on sightings, 21 species are reported to be abundant, 42 common, 51 rare and 26 very rare. The scientific name, common name, abundance status etc of the aquatic birds are given in Table 4.5.28. Exotic species like Greater Flamingo (Phoenica pterus ruber), Lesser Flamingo (P. minor) and Dalmatian Pelican (Pelecanus cripus) and Eurasian Spoon Bill (Platalea leucorodia) were commonly recorded, thus emphasising the importance of the study site. Dalmatian Pelican, Greater Flamingo, Lesser Flamingo and Spoon Bills commonly occured in salt pans.

4.5.8 Reptiles

In the Gulf, the reptiles are mainly represented by marine turtles Chelonia mydas and Lepidochelys olivacea which have their breeding and spawning ground on the sandy beaches along the coast as well as on the islands particularly along the southern Gulf. No turtle however was sighted in the waters off Tunda-Vandh during the study period.

4.5.9 Mammals

The mammals are chiefly represented by dolphin (Dolphinus delphis), whale (Balanoptera spp) and Dugong (Dugong dugon) in the Gulf especially along the Jamnagar coast but were not sighted during the study period.

52

5.0 EFFLUENT RELEASE The 4000 MW power project draws 6.3 x 105 m3/h of seawater out of which 6.28

x 105 m3/h is discharged back into the Gulf through an open 3 km long and 100 m wide (base) outfall channel. The seawater intake channel lies towards the east of the plant location and is about 6 km from the outfall channel. The numerical modeling exercise was undertaken for the field conditions prevalent during December 2013 (winter season). The power plant has Consent to Operate with the effluent temperature of 7ºC above ambient at the release. The thermal effluent should be sufficiently diluted before it reaches intake during flood tide conditions to avoid recirculation and also to minimize impact on resident flora and fauna. Before the project was established, for the EIA study, modeling was carried out by the HR Wallingford, UK. They used a 2D numerical model to simulate the temperature field in the effluent-receiving waters.

5.1 Earlier study by HR Wallingford

HR Wallingford was assigned with the modeling work to identify the intake and outfall locations before establishing the power plant. A 2D model was used to estimate the plume movement in the vicinity of the release location. Model bathymetry was selected based on the bathymetry survey conducted in April 2008. The eastern and western boundary conditions (water levels) were taken from the regional model of the Gulf of Kachchh. The other inputs were as follows: Average ambient temperature of seawater = 30°C Average ambient temperature during monsoon = 28.5°C Maximum excess temp rise over ambient in pump house <= 0.5°C Minimum wind speed = 1.5 m/s From the Model results, it was concluded that near-ambient conditions would attain at a distance of 3 km from the outfall channel alignment. The time series of the modeled temperature indicated that the temperature of the seawater in the intake channel would vary between 0.2°C and 1.4°C with respect to ambient. In the present study, a 2D numerical model was run to simulate the temperature dispersion of the effluent which has temperature 7°C above ambient for the actual channel geometry.

5.2 Present Study 5.2.1 Hydrodynamic model studies Basic governing equations

The basic governing equations of flow are solved numerically in simulation of tides and currents in the coastal environments. These equations are formulated based on incompressible flow and vertically integrated hydrostatic distribution since the vertical acceleration of the flow is much smaller than the pressure gradient. After applying these assumptions, the basic governing equations of flow momentum can be written in the conservation form as follows: Continuity equation

0

y

vH

x

uH

t

53

Momentum equations The two depth-averaged momentum equations can be written as

where, t = time; x, y are Cartesian co-ordinates; u and v are depth averaged velocity components in the x and y directions, respectively; f = Coriolis parameter; g = acceleration due to gravity; Kx, Ky diffusion coefficients in the x and y directions,

respectively; = water elevation with respect to mean sea level, H = total water depth at any instant. Model description

Dedicated software Hydrodyn - FLOSOFT and Hydrodyn - POLSOFT for prediction of tides and currents and dispersion (pollutant transport) processes in the seas and estuaries developed at Environ Software (P) Ltd, Bangalore, based on solving the hydrodynamic equations numerically through coupled way using the present state-of-art of technology are utilized for the studies. Model setup and calibration Boundary conditions

The region of study in the Gulf of Kachchh is selected between geographical coordinates: Longitude of 536528.937500 E - 579071.375000 E and Latitude of 2501049.00000 N - 2524325.00000 N for carrying out temperature simulations in the channel and vicinity of the outfall.

The model domain selected for the study is shown in (Figure 5.1.1) with the

intake and out fall points. The calibration points TL (22°45'53.9"N 69°28'53.3"E ) and CM (22°45'57.5"N 69°28'54.5"E) – points where the measurements for tides and currents were taken for the purpose of calibrating and validating the model are close to the Outfall point. The terrain features of the study domain for the model is given in Figure 5.1.1. The locations of the intake point and outfall of disposal point are also shown in this Figure, marked as outfall channel. The bathymetry is selected from the measured hydrographic chart data and checked with the measured bathymetry data supplied. The interpolated bathymetric depth contours for the model are shown in Figure 5.1.2. From the figure, it can be seen that the maximum depth contour is 40 m in the domain. Model calibration Tide and current measurements were carried out at points TL and CM. These values are compared with the model simulated / computed results to check the variation and thus calibrate the model. The model was run using the boundary tide (Figure 5.1.3). The model gets validated when the computed and measured values match within the permissible variation. The geographical location of these measurement stations/points are given in the table below:

bywyyx

bxwxyx

y

vK

yH

x

vK

xH

ygHfuH

y

Hv

x

vuH

t

vH

y

uK

yH

x

uK

xH

xgHfvH

y

uvH

x

Hu

t

uH

2

2

54

Measurement

Point Latitude, N Longitude, E

Measurements carried out for

TL 22°45'53.9"N 69°28'53.3"E Tides

CM 22°45'57.5" N 69°28'54.5"E Currents A comparison has been made between the measured and computed tides and velocities at the points TL and CM and is graphically shown in Figures 5.1.4 and 5.1.5 respectively. These figures indicate a good agreement between the model simulations and the field observations with a variation of less than <5% thereby validating the model. The model runs were carried out for a period of 15 days covering spring and neap tide conditions to obtain an insight into the basic hydrodynamic behavior of the study domain. Modeling for tides and currents The model clearly reproduces the tidal variation at various locations in the study region. Neap current vectors for the peak flood and peak ebb are presented in the Figures 5.1.6 and 5.1.7. Current vectors of spring peak flood and ebb are presented in Figures 5.1.8 and 5.1.9. From the Figure 5.1.6, it can be seen that velocity modeled is in the range 0.1 m/s – 1.3 m/s during neap tide Peak Flood condition and is in west direction at the intake and outfall point locations. Figure 5.1.7 indicates that the spatial variation in currents during neap tide Peak Ebb condition. From the figure, it is seen that the current velocity is in the range 0.1 m/s to 0.8 m/s and is in northeast direction. Figure 5.1.8 reveals the spatial distribution of currents during spring tide Peak Flood condition. The current velocity predicted is in the range of 0.1 m/s – 1.5 m/s. The direction of flow remains north-eastwards both at intake as well as outfall point locations. Figure 5.1.9 depicts the spatial variation of currents during spring tide Peak Ebb condition. Current velocity vector is in the range of 0.1 m/s to 1.03 m/s during spring tide Peak Ebb condition. 5.2.2 Modeling of Temperature The rejects from the RO plant (1727 m3/h) with high salinity are mixed with the power plant effluent before release. However, considering the high volume of once through return seawater, the RO rejects are released within the system itself as evident from the CTD observations which indicated that the salinity variations within the channel (37.5 to 38.5 ppt) and outside the channel were minor. Hence the impact of power plant effluent on salinity at the outfall location is negligibly small. Hence, the dispersion of salinity was not modeled.

Numerical modeling for dispersion of the temperature of the water discharged through the open outfall channel was carried out to simulate the extent of increase in temperature above the ambient that would result in the receiving water and predict the dilution that would occur in the channel. It is considered that discharge waters have a temperature increase of 7o C above ambient seawater. The ambient temperature for the sampling month April was considered to be 28ºC as obtained from the water quality monitoring records.

55

The point for discharge in the outfall channel is located at Latitude 22° 46' 14.105"N; Longitude 69° 28' 45.546 E (UTM Coordinates 549204.3 E 2518203.6 N ). The model set-up for hydrodynamic modeling was also used for pollutant dispersion studies. The computational runs were made to predict the changes in the flow regime and temperature dispersion considering the minimum as well as the maximum values of outfall water temperature for a period of 15 days during April 2015. The results of temperature distribution for neap low water, spring low water, spring peak flood, spring high water and spring peak ebb conditions are presented (Figures 5.2.1 to 5.2.5). Figure 5.2.1 shows the variation of temperature during neap tide (Lowest Low Water) condition during April 2015 for the channel outfall. It can be observed from the figure that the dispersion is around the disposal point with the central patch at the point of discharge having a higher temperature (excess temperature of 4.2ºC) but gradually attaining the ambient values at the end of the patch. After crossing the discharge channel the plume would move towards western direction. At the seaward end of the outfall channel, the plume would move towards southwest and it would reach near ambient conditions at around 1200 m distance. The temperature simulations in the channel show that the model results are over estimated than the temperature measurements. From Figure 5.2.2 that illustrates the variation of temperature during spring tide (Lowest Low Water) LLW condition of April 2015, it is evident that the temperature at the end of the channel would be around 32ºC. At this location temperature of 4 oC above ambient is observed. The ambient conditions prevail within a distance of 1000 m from the point of disposal. The figure shows the mixing Is minimum during this LLW condition. However near ambient conditions would be reached within 1 km with high gradient of temperature at the end of the channel.

During spring tide peak flood, near ambient conditions would be attained within the channel with high temperature gradients within the channel (Figure 5.2.3). However, during this period, plume would not move inside the western creek. Temperature distribution during the spring Highest High Water tide (Figure 5.2.4) indicates the movement of the plume towards the west channel of Modhwa creek. However, near ambient conditions are attained within the outfall channel much before reaching the mangrove habitat. This result is in agreement with the temperature observations carried along the drogue path in the earlier study. During the course of the drogue study during the flooding, it was observed that the float moved into the western Modhwa creek. In this case near ambient conditions are attained within the channel itself.

Figure 5.2.5 shows the variation of temperature during spring peak ebb condition of April 2015. The temperature at the end of the channel is around 32o C. The ambient temperature values are attained within a distance of 1200 m with lower gradients as

56

compared to the spring Peak Flood condition (Figure 5.2.3), from the point of channel mouth. Simulated temperatures at different locations as shown in Figure 5.2.6 in and outside the channel are stored and presented in Figures 5.2.7a and 5.2.7b. Locations 1 – 10 represent the channel temperatures while the others are outside the channel. Farthest locations from the channel mouth are 14, 16 and 19 in east, west and south directions. Under the continuous inflow of the effluent, the temporal variations at the outfall location varied between 33.5 and 34o C and at the end of the channel ranged between 28 and 32o C (Figure 5.2.7a). (Figure 5.2.7b) depicts the temporal variations of temperature in the Gulf off the mouth of the outfall channel. The temperature variation would be in a narrow range of 28 – 29 ºC in the eastward and westward ends. However, in the southward end (location 19), temperature would vary between 28 and 29.5ºC. Thus, on an average, near ambient conditions are attained at a distance of 1200 m from mouth of the outfall channel. CTD observations (Figure 4.2.19 and 4.2.21) indicated that the effluent attained near ambient conditions at about 600 m from the channel mouth in the low tide also. Hence actual dilutions attained are better than the model predictions. The present results are compared with the predictions of HR Wallingford (HRW). HRW considered the ambient seawater temperature as 30o C and the outfall temperature as 7o C above ambient and concluded that near ambient conditions would be attained at 3 km distance from the outfall channel mouth As per the modeling studies (April 2015), the ambient temperature is attained at a distance of 1-1.2 km from the outfall channel mouth depending on the tidal phases. From the results, it is concluded that the observed temperatures in the channel varied from 26.8 to 32.5°C while predicted values varied from 28.0 to 34°C. Just outside the channel, the observed values ranged between 27.8 to 31.5°C and model output was between 28 to 32°C. The modeled temperatures at different distances from the point of disposal are presented in the following table

Location Distance from

outfall (m)

Minimum temperature

(o C)

Maximum temperature

(o C)

(Effluent temp-Maximum temp)

∆t (o C) 1 110 33.8 34.0 1.0 2 343 33.5 33.8 1.2 3 587 33.4 33.8 1.2 4 972 33.0 33.6 1.4 5 1309 32.5 33.5 1.5 6 1680 32.2 33.4 1.6 7 2000 31.8 33.2 1.8 8 2300 31.4 33.1 1.9 9 2570 28.0 33.0 2.0 10 2760 28.0 32.0 3.0

57

The results show that when effluent is released at upstream end of the channel with temperature of 35°C, a drop of 3°C (i.e. 32°C) is found at 3 km distance (seaward end of the channel) during low tide and 31ºC with a drop of 4o C during high tide. The CTD observations reveal that the temperature ranged from 26.8 ºC to 32.5 ºC. The model simulations show the temperature varied between 28.0 ºC and 34 ºC. The model overestimated the temperature in the upstream of the channel. However in the downstream of the channel the model simulations and observations are more or less in agreement. From the results it is concluded that even though model simulations show near ambient conditions would be attained at 1.2 km from the outfall channel, the CTD observations reveal that the near ambient conditions would be found at around 600 m from the mouth of the channel during April 2015.

58

6.0 ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Adverse impacts due to the release of the condenser cooling water discharge by CGPL on the marine environment off Vandh on the physical processes, water quality, sediment quality and flora and fauna could arise because of a) deviation in the effluent quality and quantity from that permitted, b) low efficiency of the effluent disposal c) improper dispersion and advection of the effluent in the receiving waters leading to the deterioration in the prevailing marine environmental quality. The results of the present study (April 2015) that represents the premonsoon season as well as that of December 2013 (representative of the postmonsoon season) are compared with pre-development period (December 2008) to evaluate the impacts of effluent release on the coastal ecology. 6.1. Hydrodynamics The past records (December 2008) of current measurements at station 2, situated just outside the mouth of the discharge channel, show that the currents varied from 0.5 to 0.7 m/s. In December 2013, at station 2, current speeds ranged between 0.5 and 0.9 m/s. Similarly, in the present study (April 2015) the current speeds ranged from 0.7 and 1.0 m/s. Therefore, comparison between the three sets of data shows that the current pattern had not altered significantly off the channel mouth due to its construction. The model results also support this view. This study shows increase of temperature of the water in the outfall channel. The temperature increase was upto 4ºC above ambient. However, at the mouth around 600 m offshore, the temperature was found to have attained near ambient conditions. Since the difference in outfall salinity and ambient salinity is very small, it is unaltered both in the channel and in the adjoining marine zones. 6.2 Comparative assessment 6.2.1 Water Quality For the comparative assessment, the results of December 2008 are considered for pre-development phase of CGPL and December 2013 and April 2015 are used to describe post development phase of CGPL. The water quality of the study area is already discussed in detail under section 4.3.

Temperature: The past and present results of water quality at discharge point and adjacent nearshore and offshore segments are presented in the following Table

Parameters Period Coastal segment

Discharge Point

Nearshore Offshore

Pre-development Temperature (ºC)

December 2008 -

24.5-26.5 (25.4)

24.8-27.5 (26.6)

Post-development December 2013 29.0-30.7

(30.0) 23-26.9 (25.1)

25.8-26.7 (26.2)

April 2015 30.3-34.0 (32.5)

26.0-31.0 (27.7)

25.8-28.0 (26.9)

59

These results indicated the absence of marked differences in water temperature

in the post-plant operations except near the Discharge point (station 1A). The elevated temperature (3-4 ºC) during December 2013 and up to 6 ºC in April 2015 at station 1A was due to the influence of return seawater effluent from the power plant released in the discharge channel as described in the section 4.3.1. The present monitoring indicated that the impact of the effluent release was limited to the discharge channel only. The temporal observations at stations 1A and 2 indicated that even though the water temperature was consistently high and had increased by about 6°C in the discharge channel, ambient temperatures prevailed at the mouth of the channel over the tidal cycle (Figures 4.3.1 and 4.3.4). Thus, the field data closely supports the predictions of numerical modeling discussed in Chapter 5. pH: Based on the results in Table given below it can be concluded that the pH of water in the effluent release channel as well as the coastal segment varied in narrow ranges and pre- and post-plant operation values were closely comparable.


Discharge Point

Nearshore Offshore

pH Pre-development December

2008 -

7.9-8.1 (8.0)

8-8.1 (8.0)

Post- development December

2013 8.1-8.3 (8.1)

8.0-8.2 (8.1)

8.1-8.2 (8.1)

April 2015 8.3-8.4 (8.4)

8.3-8.4 (8.4)

8.3-8.5 (8.4)

Suspended Solids: The past and present results of SS at the study site are compared in the following Table


Discharge Point

Nearshore Offshore

Suspended Solids (mg/l)

Pre-development December

2008 -

18-26 (22)

30-54 (37)


2013 33-50 (40)

30-147 (55)

30-93 (61)

April 2015 48-71 (60)

31-118 (60)

27-85 (52)

Because of the high and randomly varying SS in the region it is not prudent to make an assessment about this parameter. Distribution of SS off Vandh was patchy and

60

sporadic high values particularly in the nearshore areas have been recorded (Tables 4.4.1 and 4.4.2). Salinity: The pre- and post-plant development salinity in the discharge channel and the nearshore as well as the offshore area varied as given in Table below.

From these results it is inferred that the salinity variations in the discharge channel, nearshore and offshore regions were minor during the pre- and post-plant development periods without any salinity stratification (section 4.3.4). Higher salinities during April 2015 are in line with the trend expected in the Gulf during premonsoon season. DO and BOD: The pre- and post-plant development DO in the discharge channel and the nearshore as well as the offshore area varied as given in Table below.

From this table it is evident that pre- and post-plant development DO remained comparable in the study area suggesting that the plant operations had not affected the DO levels in the region. The study region sustained good oxidising condition with high DO (av 6.5 mg/l)


Discharge Point

Nearshore Offshore

Salinity

(ppt)

Pre-development

December 2008

- 35.7-38.0

(36.7) 35.9-37.2

(36.5)


2013 36.3-37.0

(36.6) 35.5-37.0

(36.4) 35.5-36.5

(36.0)

April 2015 35.7-37.5

(36.6) 36.4-37.9

(37.2) 37.4-37.9

(37.6)


Discharge Point

Nearshore Offshore

DO (mg/l)


2008 -

5.4-7.7 (6.0)

4.1-6.4 (5.4)


2013 4.4-7.4 (6.3)

5.7-8.0 (6.6)

6.0-7.7 (6.7)

April 2015 6.1-7.1 (6.6)

6.1-7.0 (6.5)

6.1-7.0 (6.5)

61


Discharge Point

Nearshore Offshore

BOD (mg/l)


2008 -

0.3-2.4 (0.9)

0.2-3.8 (2.2)


2013 1.9-4.1 (3.3)

0.3-5 (2.6)

1.6-4.7 (3.2)

April 2015 3.1-3.5 (3.3)

2.2-4.1 (3.5)

3.8-5.0 (4.1)

As discussed in Section 4.3.5 and evident from Tables 4.3.1 to 4.3.11, the BOD of the study area was low and comparable with the earlier baseline data indicating the absence of anthropogenic organic contamination in the area. Phosphorous compounds: The past and present results of water quality in the study region are presented in the Table below


Discharge Point

Nearshore Offshore

PO43--P

(µmol/l)


2008 -

1.3-3.5 (2.1)

1.5-2.5 (2.0)


2013 0.8-1.2 (0.9)

0.2-1.9 (1.0)

0.8-1.3 (1.0)

April 2015 0.5-1.2 (0.8)

0.4-2.2 (1.0)

0.4-3.1 (1.4)

From these results it is evident that the PO4

3--P concentration at discharge point, nearshore and offshore regions varied in narrow ranges in pre- and post-plant period indicating the absence of influence of plant operations on this nutrient. Nitrogen compounds: As discussed in Section 4.3.7, nitrate is the major form of dissolved nitrogen compound in the marine environment though nitrite and ammonia also occur in small concentrations. Their relative concentrations have been discussed in detail in Section 4.3.7. The concentrations of NO3

--N during the two periods are presented in the Table below.

62

From these results it is apparent that there was no significant change in the

concentration of NO3--N in the post-operational phase of the plant. The concentrations

of NO2--N in the pre- and post-plant development during the present study are given in

table below.

These results indicated that the concentrations of NO2

--N in the study area were low (0.1 to 0.7 µmol/l, post-plant development) and had remained comparable with the pre development (0.2 to 0.6 µmol/l) phase.The concentrations of NH4

+-N in the pre- and post-plant development varied as given in the below table.

Parameter Period Coastal segment

Discharge Point

Nearshore Offshore

NO3--N

(µmol/l)


2008 -

5.2-10.6 (6.7)

6.8-7.8 (7.4)


2013 4.4-6.4 (5.4)

2.1-12.8 (7.7)

4.1-7.3 (5.9)

April 2015 0.5-2.0 (1.4)

0.6-7.0 (2.3)

0.9-4.4 (2.1)


Discharge Point

Nearshore Offshore

NO2--N

(µmol/l)


2008 -

0.3-0.6 (0.5)

0.2-0.3 (0.3)


2013 0.1-0.4 (0.2)

0.1-0.6 (0.3)

0.1-0.5 (0.1)

April 2015 0.1-0.6 (0.3)

0.1-0.7 (0.3)

0.2-0.5 (0.3)


Discharge Point

Nearshore Offshore

NH4+-N

(µmol/l)


2008 -

0.1-1.3 (0.6)

0.4-1 (0.7)


2013 0.2-0.7 (0.4)

0.1-1.2 (0.8)

0.2-0.9 (0.4)

April 2015 0.9-3.8 (2.1)

0.7-2.3 (1.3)

0.8-1.8 (1.2)

63

Petroleum hydrocarbons: The pre- and post-plant development PHc concentrations in water of the study area are given in the Table below.


Discharge Point

Nearshore Offshore

Pre-development

PHc (ug/l)

December 2008

- 3.1-1.8 (2.1)

0.8-2.2 (1.0)


2013 8.9-33.8 (21.4)

6.9-38.2 (16.9)

5.5-11.5 (9.5)

April 2015 1.9-3.9 (2.9)

2.1-19.7 (8.2)

2.0-4.7 (3.6)

These results indicate that the PHc concentration in the study area, subsequent to the power plant operations, showed an apparent increase in the nearshore areas during December 2013. However, due to high patchiness in the occurrence of PHc in water, such marginally higher values can be a chance occurrence as often observed in the Gulf. Moreover, these values are below the levels prescribed by CPCB for SW1 waters (0.1 mg/l). However, during April 2015 lower values of PHc were observed in the different segments of the study area. Thus, it is evident that there were no perceptible changes in water quality of the coastal zone off Vandh in the post operational phase of the CGPL Power plant and the observed deviations were within the natural variability inherent to the coastal areas. 6.2.2 Sediment quality Due to surface sediment movement and transport due to tidal currents and monsoon runoff, the marine sediment is liable to change in character spatially as well as temporally which can result in significant changes in the concentration of contaminant. This needs to be considered while reviewing the results of sediment contamination as discussed in Section 4.4. Nevertheless, the concentrations of contaminants at selected stations in pre-operation (December 2008) and post-operation (December 2013 and April 2015) phases of the CGPL Power plant are discussed in this section.

64


Discharge Point Nearshore Offshore

Cr (µg/g)

Pre-development

December 2008 - 32-34(37) -

Post- development December 2013 38 15-57 (41) -

April 2015 25 7-104 (54) 23

Ni (µg/g)

Pre-development

December 2008 - 5-9(6) -

Post- development December 2013 21 6-27 (18) -

April 2015 12 6-42 (22) 8

Cu (µg/g)

Pre-development

December 2008 - 6-10(8) -

Post- development

December 2013 4 4-15 (10) - April 2015 4 2-22 (8) 3

Zn (µg/g)

Pre-development

December 2008 - 18-28(24) -

Post- development

December 2013 25 5-35 (26) - April 2015 9 9-70 (40) 1

Hg (µg/g)

Pre-development

December 2008 - ND -

Post- development December 2013 0.09 0-0.09 (0.04) -

April 2015 0.07 0.05-0.11 (0.07) 0.09 Examination of these data indicated that though there is considerable scatter in concentration of some of these metals there was no enhancement in levels in the post operation stage of the plant. Organic carbon & phosphorus: The percentage of organic carbon and phosphorus (µg/g; dry wt) in the sediments of the study region during pre and post development period is given in the following table.

65

Thus the organic carbon in sediments of the study area was very low during pre- as well as post-operational phases of the plant. The concentration of phosphorus varied considerably but the values indicated absence of built-up of phosphorus in sediments of the estuary. The concentrations of PHc (µg/g; wet wt) recorded in the sediment of the Vandh area were very low during pre- as well as post-operational phases of the plant. 6.2.3 Flora and fauna In the following section the biological data observed during premonsoon (April 2015) is compared with postmonsoon (December 2013) and pre-development (December 2008) data to evaluate adverse impacts due to the release of the effluent on flora and fauna of the coastal zone. i) Phytoplankton The phytoplankton standing stock of December 2008 (pre-development of CGPL) is compared with December 2013 and April 2015 (post-development phase of CGPL) in the table given below.


Discharge Point

Nearshore Offshore

Org carbon


2008 - 0.1-0.3 (0.2) -


2013 0.3 0.2 -

April 2015 0.2 0.1-0.7 (0.2) 0.1

Phosphorus

Pre-development

December 2008

- 381-640 (479) -


2013 228 158-600 (416) -

April 2015 210 193-857 (494) 199

PHc

Pre-development

December 2008

- 0.1-1.2(0.5) -


2013 0.2 0.03-0.4 (0.2) -

April 2015 0.2 0.1-0.3 (0.2) 0.1

66


Discharge Point

Nearshore Offshore

Chlorophyll a (mg/m3)


2008 -

1.0-5.9 (3.4)

0.5-1.0 (0.8)


2013 0.8-1.6 (1.2)

0.8-4.9 (2.2)

0.6-1.8 (1.4)

April 2015

0.6-1.8 (1.1)

0.7-3.8 (2.6)

1.1-3.8 (1.9)

Phaeophytin (mg/m3)


2008 -

0.2-2.0 (0.8)

0.2-0.6 (0.4)


2013 0.2-1.1 (0.6)

0.2-2.4 (1.0)

0.1-1.4 (0.7)

April 2015

0.0-0.3 (0.2)

0.1-1.3 (0.5)

0.1-1.3 (0.5)



2008 -

118.4-6432.8 (963)

32.8-62.4 (41.9)


2013 36.8-147

(91.9) 19-525.6 (198.8)

21.0-64.0 (37.0)

April 2015

47.8-179.4 (117.5)

46.6-259.8 (174.8)

49.2-214.8 (99.1)

Total Genera (no)


2008 -

13-17 (16)

15-19 (17)


2013 18*

9-19 (15)

11-19 (15)

April 2015

16-23 (20)

17-29 (23)

12-30 (22)

The above table indicates that chlorophyll a and phaeophytin concentrations

varied in comparable ranges during the pre and post-development phase in the nearshore and offshore segments. The concentration of phytopigments near the discharge point was similar to that of the offshore zone. The phytoplankton generic diversity was broadly comparable between the December 2008 and 2013. Generic diversity was higher during April 2015 as compared to the previous two sampling periods. However phytoplankton abundance was lower in the nearshore zone during the post-development phase. The phytoplankton cell density at the discharge location was lower than the nearshore zone but higher than the offshore segment during December 2013 and April 2015.

67

A system having chlorophyll a: phaeophytin ratio >1 is considered as a healthy environment for phytoplankton growth. During the pre-development year this ratio was 3.9 in the nearshore zone which had reduced to 2.6 in December 2013 and 2.9 in April 2015. The ratio was higher in the offshore segment during December 2013 (2.7) and April 2015 (2.2) as compared to December (2008). Therefore it can be concluded that in general, the coastal segment off Vandh provided a healthy environment for phytoplankton production. ii) Zooplankton The zooplankton standing stock of CGPL post-development phase (December 2013) is compared with the pre-development phase in the Table given below.


Discharge Point

Nearshore Offshore

Biomass (ml/100 m3)


2008 -

1.1-11.8 (5.2)

0.4-14.1 (4.0)


2013 0.3-1.9 (0.8)

0.2-3.6 (1.5)

0.1-1.1 (0.6)

April 2015

0.6-7.9 (3.2)

0.2-8.0 (1.5)

0.4-4.9 (1.5)

Population (nox103/100

m3)


2008 -

2.3-86.2 (37.7)

3.6-39.3 (12.9)


2013 0.5-9.5 (2.7)

1.8-30 (11.3)

1.2-7.5 (4.0)

April 2015

4.1-8.7 (7.1)

1.6-40.3 (14.3)

4.5-17.1 (11.6)

Total Group (no)


2008 -

12-19 (15)

9-17 (14)


2013 5-13 (8)

11-16 (14)

10-14 (13)

April 2015

9-16 (14)

6-14 (11)

8-16 (12)

Zooplankton production in terms of biomass and abundance was significantly

lower in the nearshore and offshore segments of the study area during both the post development sampling periods as compared to December 2008. Zooplankton biomass and abundance of the discharge location was lower in December 2013 and higher in April 2015 than that of the offshore stations. The zooplankton group diversity in the

68

vicinity of the effluent discharge was lower than the other two segments during December 2013 but vice-versa during April 2015. Thus, the mixed results do not suggest any specific trend in zooplankton standing stock. However, such trends in zooplankton could be attributed to high patchiness and uneven distribution in the highly dynamic Gulf ecosystem.

The comparative abundance of decapod larvae, fish eggs and fish larvae in the different segments of the coastal waters off Vandh before and after the commissioning of the CGPL plant is given below.

From the table it can be inferred that the abundance of decapod larvae had declined in the nearshore and offshore zones during December 2013 and April 2015 as compared to December 2008. Decapod larvae were present in appreciable numbers in the discharge channel and their abundances were comparable to that of the offshore zone during December 2013. Abundance of fish eggs and larvae were comparable between pre and post-development periods in the nearshore and offshore zones. During April 2015, higher number of fish eggs was present in the discharge channel as compared to


Discharge Point

Nearshore Offshore

Decapod larvae counts

(no/100m3)


2008 -

670-9462 (6185)

408-10101 (5267)


2013 118-1712

(556) 248-11910

(2535) 242-1399

(642) April 2015

339-908 (681)

339-4976 (1030)

25-8877 (1906)

Fish eggs counts

(no/100m3)


2008 -

0-239 (29)

0-25 (6)


2013 1-24 (11)

0-103 (24)

0-26 (4)

April 2015

0-1182 (320)

0-233 (36)

0-54 (11)

Fish larvae counts

(no/100m3)


2008 -

0-78 (8)

6-56 (24)


2013 0-2 (0)

0-34 (6)

0-12 (4)

April 2015

0-15 (6)

0-681 (73)

0-32 (7)

69

the other two segments. The number of fish larvae was low across all three sampling periods with a high value of 73 no/100m3 in the nearshore waters during April 2015. iii) Macrobenthos Among the two intertidal transects sampled, Transect I was aligned parallel to the discharge channel. Transect II was located away from the development but had similar geographical features and therefore was considered as the control site. A perusal of Table 4.5.10 indicates that the values of intertidal macrobenthic abundance and group diversity of December 2013 and April 2015 were lower than December 2008 in both the transects. Also the intertidal macrobenthic values were higher at the impacted Transect 1 as compared to the control Transect 2 during December 2008 as well as April 2015. The subtidal macrobenthos of December 2008 is compared with December 2013 in the table given below.


Discharge Point

Nearshore Offshore

Biomass (g/m2; wet

wt)


2008 -

0.01-4.2 (0.7)

*

Post-development December

2013 0.3-8.5 (3.7)

0-24 (2.0)

*

April 2015

0.01-0.4 (0.2)

0.004-1.3 (0.5)

*

Population (no/m2)


2008 -

25-1100 (315)

*


2013 150-3350

(1645) 0-3225 (620)

*

April 2015

25-50 (38)

25-750 (224)

*

Faunal Group (no)


2008 -

1-9 (4)

*


2013 1-5 (3)

0-6 (2)

*

April 2015

1-2 (1)

1-5 (5)

*

* Rocky substratum As the offshore region off Vandh was rocky, macrobenthic values for comparison

is not available. Macrobenthic values in the nearshore area were comparable during the both periods. Also as compared to the nearshore zone, macrobenthic biomass and

70

abundance were higher in the discharge channel during December 2013 indicating that the higher temperatures in the discharge channel were not detrimental to the proliferation of macrobenthos during that period. The macrobenthic biomass, population and group diversity parameters of April 2015 were comparable with pre-development period (December 2008) but lower than the postmonsoon post-development period. Experimental fishing in the outfall channel did not indicate any loss of fishery potential due to the tide depended temperature variations (32.4-34° C).

The overall results were indicative of some decrease in phytoplankton

population, zooplankton biomass and their abundance during December 2013 and April 2015. However, considering the complexity of biological systems, high ranges of their variations as evident from Tables 4.5.1 to 4.5.15, and inherent uncertainties in primary and secondary productivities associated with given water mass; being controlled by a variety of environmental factors, further monitoring is necessary to draw definite conclusions. Further, the macrobenthos, which is more exposed to environmental perturbations due to their sedentary nature – warm return seawater from the power plant in the present case, have not shown adverse impact and, on the contrary, revealed comparable biomass and populations which tend to suggest the absence of negative impact on biota in the coastal waters off Vandh during both the sampling seasons.

71

7 CONCLUSIONS

The physical observations, CTD measurements and modeling results of the present study concluded that subsequent to the continuous release of return seawater effluent in the outfall channel, near ambient conditions were being attained at a distance of 600 m from the channel mouth. This distance is much shorter than prediction of 3 km by HR Wallingford based on the modeling studies conducted by them prior to the establishment of the CGPL power plant. The dispersion of temperature in the channel during high water was minimum and greater during low water. CTD observations also indicated that salinity variations due to outfall were not found in the channel. Comparison between the three sets of data (December 2008, December 2013 and April 2015) shows that the current pattern had not altered off the channel mouth due to its construction. CTD observations indicated that the water temperature during flood tide varied between 31.0 to 32.5 ºC and during ebb between 26.8 to 32.5 ºC in the discharge channel. Extensive field observations conducted during December 2013 and April 2015 and its comparison with the results of pre-project baseline ascertains absence of appreciable changes in water and sediment qualities of the coastal zone off Vandh and the observed deviations were within the natural variability inherent to the coastal areas in the highly dynamic Gulf coastal ecosystem. Though some reduction was evident in the abundance of phytoplankton in the nearshore waters, the coastal segment off Vandh provided a healthy environment for phytoplankton production. Some negative impact on zooplankton standing stock in the close vicinity of the outfall location was also indicated. However, except in the vicinity of the discharge point the zooplankton group diversity was comparable spatially during both phases. Inconsistent biological trends were observed probably due to complexity of biological systems being controlled by a variety of environmental factors.

The presence of good variety of fish/shellfish in the discharge channel evidenced through experimental fishing indicated that the spikes in water temperature probably had little impact on the fishes present in the channel during the sampling period. Satellite imagery showed that even though the dense mangrove cover is unaltered with time, the sparse mangrove cover has increased in the north and south of the intertidal region as compared with the pre-project period. Well planned consistent monitoring using similar hydro-sedimentological and biological parameters during the critical season i.e. premonsoon (April-May) is recommended for future environmental management of the coastal zone off Vandh.

Table 3.2.1: Details of cyclonic storms along North Gujarat coast (1893-2011)

Year Month Intensity Point of Origin

Track followed

1893 Nov Str-SStr Arabian Sea Veraval-Bhavnagar

1894 Oct SStr Arabian Sea Jafarabad-S.Gujarat

1896 Nov SStr Indian Ocean Off Jafarabad-Bhopal-Allahabad

1897 Jul Depr Arabian Sea Off Jafarabad-Veraval-Gulf of Kachchh

1897 Sep Depr Off Diu Veraval-Off Dwaraka-NW

1903 Jul Str Arabian Sea Off Jafarabad-Veraval-North

1909 Sep Depr Bay of Bengal Surat-Jafarabad-Kandla-NW

1920 Jun SStr Arabian Sea Veraval-Ahmedabad

1925 Jun Depr Arabian Sea Off Veraval-Kandla-Bhopal-Allahabad

1925 Jun Depr Arabian Sea Bharuch-Bhavnagar-Okha

1926 Sep Depr Off Veraval Veraval-N-W-N

1933 May Depr Arabian Sea Veraval-N

1934 Oct Depr Arabian Sea Dissipated Off Jafarabad

1935 Jun Depr Bay of Bengal Gulf of Khambhat

1944 Aug Str Bihar Ahmedabad-Kandla-Off Jafarabad-W

1944 Oct Depr Bay of Bengal Pune-Mumbai-Off Jafarabad-Ahmedabad

1947 Apr SStr Off Cochin Arabian Sea-Bharuch-along the West coast

1948 Sep SStr Bay of Bengal Mumbai-Off Diu-Porbandar

1954 Jul Depr Off Jafarabad Vadinar-Karachi

1959 Oct Depr-Str Arabian Sea Jafarabad-Veraval-across the Arabian Sea-Oman

1960 Jul Depr Off Veraval Off Dwarka-Mandwa

1962 Sep Depr Bay of Bengal Surat-Jafarabad-Dwarka-Mandwa

Table 3.2.1 (Contd 2)

Year Month Intensity Point of Origin

Track followed

1964 Aug Str Arabian Sea Jafarabad

1969 Jun Depr Arabian Sea Jafarabad-Bhavnagar

1973 Jul Depr Off Diu Veraval-Porbandar-Vadinar-N

1975 Jun Depr Off Jafarabad Okha-W

1976 May-Jun SStr Arabian Sea Jafarabad-Ahmedabad

1982 Nov Depr Arabian Sea Veraval-Ahmedabad-NE

1983 Jun Depr Off Veraval Veraval-Rajkot

1985 Oct Depr Off Mumbai Jafarabad-W of Bhavnagar Jafarabad-Surat-NE

1989 Jun Depr Off Veraval Junagadh-Rajkot-Navlakhi-Vadinar-NW

1996 Jun SStr Kandla Kandla-Rajkot

1996 Oct SStr Arabian Sea Kandla-Veraval-Jafarabad

1998 June SStr Arabian Sea Porbandar-Jamnagar-Kandla

1999 June SStr Arabian Sea Porbandar-Dwaraka-Jakhau

2001 May Depr Arabian Sea Porbandar-Dwarka

2004 May Depr Arabian Sea NW-N- Veraval

2004 Oct Depr Arabian Sea NW-NE-Jakhau

2005 Sep Depr Arabian Sea NW-NE-Porbandar

2006 Sep Depr Arabian Sea N-NE-Dwarka

2009 Jun Depr Arabian Sea N-NW-Veraval

2009 Jun Depr Arabian Sea N-Mandvi

2009 Nov Depr Arabian Sea NW-NE-Mumbai

2011 Jun Depr Arabian Sea NW-NW-Dwarka Intensity (Wind speed) Depression (Depr): Upto 61 km/h. Storm (Str): 62-87 km/h. Severe Storm (SStr): 89-117 km/h.

Table 3.3.1: Water quality of the Gulf during premonsoon (1993-2010)

Parameter Level Okha Salaya Feb

1993 Mar 1995

Apr2002

July 2004

March 2006

Mar 2007 Mar 2010 Feb 1995 Apr 2002 April 2008

April 2009

April 2010

Temp (oC) S 25.5-26.5 (26.0)

25.3-25.5 (25.4)

24.9-27.5 (26.2)

31.0* 25.2-26.0 (25.6)

- 25.0-25.0 (25.0)

24.0-26.0 (25.0)

25.0-27.5 (26.2)

29.0-29.2 (29.2)

29.0-29.5 (29.2)

29.8-30.2 (30.0)

B 25.8-26.5 (26.1)

24.9-25.0 (25.0)

24.9-27.5 (26.2)

30.4* 25.0-25.4 (25.2)

- 24.5-24.5 (24.5)

23.0-25.0 (24.0)

25.9-26.3 (26.3)

29.0-29.0 (29.0)

29.2-29.6 (30.0)

29.0-29.8 (30.0)

pH S 8.0-8.3 (8.2)

8.0* 8.0-8.2 (8.1)

8.1* 8.1-8.2 (8.2)

- 7.9-7.9 (7.9)

7.9-8.2 (8.1)

8.2-8.4 (8.3)

8.0-8.2 (8.2)

8.0-8.2 (8.1)

7.8-7.8 (7.8)

B 8.2-8.3 (8.3)

8.0* 8.2-8.2 (8.2)

8.1* 8.1-8.2 (8.2)

- 7.9-7.9 (7.9)

8.0-8.3 (8.2)

8.3-8.4 (8.3)

8.2-8.3 (8.3)

8.0-8.2 (8.1)

7.8-7.8 (7.8)

SS (mg/l) S 27-31 (29)

17* 16-29 (23)

78 26-34 (30)

- 29*

19-38 (28)

15-33 (24)

34* 23*

32*

B 31* 16* 16-35 (26)

84 28-78 (48)

- 42*

21-46 (33)

16-56 (36)

44* 22*

37*

Salinity (ppt) S 37.2-38.5 (37.9)

36.2* 37.5-38 (37.7)

35.7* 35.8-36.6 (36.2)

36.1-36.5 (36.3)

36.5-36.5 (36.5)

36.1-37.5 (36.8)

37.6-38.4 (38.0)

35.0-35.9 (35.5)

35.2-35.4 (35.3)

37.4-38.0 (37.8)

B 36.8-38.5 (37.7)

36.8*

37.5-38.0 (37.7)

35.6*

35.6-36.7 (36.1)

36.1-36.4 (36.3)

36.8-36.9 (36.8)

36.2-37.5 (36.8)

37.9-38.4 (38.1)

35.2-36.8 (35.8)

37.0-37.0 (37.0)

37.6-38.0 (37.8)

DO (mg/l) S 4.1-5.1 (4.7)

5.7-6.1 (5.9)

3.1-7.4 (3.3)

5.8* 5.9-6.6 (6.4)

6.1-7.1 (6.6)

6.3-6.3 (6.30

6.1-7.7 (6.9)

2.6-8.0 (5.3)

6.3-6.7 (6.6)

5.0-6.0 (2.9)

6.1-6.4 (6.4)

B 4.1-4.7 (4.4)

6.6 (6.6)

3.6-8.3 (5.9)

6.3* 5.9-6.6 (6.4)

6.4-6.9 (6.6)

5.9-6.6 (6.3)

4.1-7.1 (5.6)

2.6-8.0 (5.3)

2.1-6.4 (5.3)

5.0-6.0 (5.4)

6.1-6.4 (6.4)

BOD (mg/l) S 1.4-3.0 (2.5)

1.5*

0.2-3.5 (1.8)

3.8*

<0.2*

1.6-2.5 (1.9)

4.3* 1.1-4.3 (2.7)

1.0-4.3 (2.6)

2.5* 2.2*

2.6*

B 0.2*

- 0.3-4.2 (2.2)

3.0*

<0.2*

1.6-2.3 (2.0)

1.9* 0.3-0.6 (0.5)

<0.2-1.9 (1.0)

2.0* 1.8*

2.8*

PO43--P

(µmol/l) S 0.3-1.7

(1.0) 0.6-0.9 (0.7)

0.3-1.6 (0.9)

0.4* 1.0-1.8 (1.3)

1.0-1.8 (1.4)

ND-0.3 (0.1)

0.7-1.4 (1.1)

0.4-1.1 (0.7)

0.7-1.1 (0.9)

0.4-1.1 (0.7)

0.2-0.3 (0.3)

B 0.5-2.2 (1.3)

0.6-1.4 (1.0)

0.6*

1.0-2.1 (1.4)

1.1-3.4 (1.9)

0.6-0.7 (0.6)

0.7-1.4 (1.1)

0.9-1.3 (1.1)

0.6-1.5 (1.0)

0.8-1.0 (0.9)

0.1-0.4 (0.3)

Table 3.3.1(Contd 2)

Level Vadinar Sikka

Mar 1994 Mar 1996 Apr 2005 Apr 2006 Apr 2007 Apr 2008 Apr 2009 Apr 2010 Apr 1994 Apr 2002 Apr 2003 Temp (oC) S 26.0-28.5

(27.0) 25.0-29.2

(27.1) 26.5-29.0

(27.3) 27.0-28.2

(27.7) 26.2-28.0

(27.3) 27.2-28.8

(28.4) 26.5-29.5

(28.5) 28.8-31.8

(29.9) 25.4-27.8

(26.8) 24.4-27.6

(26.0) 28.0-28.7

(28.4) B 26.0-27.5

(27.0) 24.6-29.3

(26.8) 26.0-29.0

(27.0) 26.8-28.2

(27.3) 26.0-27.5

(26.8) 27.0-28.8

(27.9) 27.0-29.0

(27.6) 24.9-31.0

(29.6) 25.3-27.8

(26.6) 24.0-27.5

(25.8) 26.9-27.0

(27.0) pH S 7.8-8.0

(7.9) 8.0-8.3 (8.0)

8.0-8.2 (8.2)

7.9-8.2 (8.1)

7.7-7.9 (7.8)

8.2-8.3 (8.2)

7.9-8.1 (8.1)

7.7-7.9 (7.8)

8.0-8.1 (8.0)

8.0-8.4 (8.2)

8.1-8.1 (8.1)

B 7.8-8.0 (8.0)

8.0-8.3 (8.2)

8.1-8.2 (8.2)

7.9-8.2 (8.1)

7.8-7.9 (7.8)

8.2-8.3 (8.2)

7.9-8.2 (8.1)

7.8-7.9 (7.8)

8.0-8.1 (8.1)

8.2-8.4 (8.3)

8.2-8.2 (8.2)

SS (mg/l) S 18-35 (22)

9-17 (13)

93-94 (94)

16-25 (20)

18-24 (20)

18-25 (21)

- 19-27 (27)

18-29 (23)

14-17 (16)

18-22 (20)

B 22-26 (24)

8-20 (13)

96-154 (116)

25-26 (26)

18-66 (31)

20-86 (41)

14-23 (17.6)

20-32 (31)

19-32 (21)

16-50 (33)

6-18 (12)

Salinity (ppt) S 37.4-38.6 (37.9)

36.6-37.4 (37.0)

37.4-38.5 (37.7)

36.9-38.0 (37.2)

35.9-36.4 (36.2)

35.0-36.5 (35.5)

35.2-37.7 (36.6)

37.2-38.3 (37.8)

37.1-37.7 (37.3)

36.9-38.5 (37.7)

39.2-39.4 (39.3)

B 37.3-38.3 (37.9)

36.4-37.8 (37.2)

37.4-38.3 (37.8)

36.7-37.6 (37.2)

36.1-36.4 (36.3)

35.0-36.1 (35.5)

35.5-37.7 (36.6)

37.0-38.5 (37.9)

36.9-37.5 (37.2)

37.4-38.5 (37.9)

39.4-39.4 (39.4)

DO (mg/l) S 4.9-7.6 (6.6)

5.4-7.6 (6.6)

4.7-7.0 (6.1)

6.1-7.4 (6.6)

6.0-8.4 (7.4)

5.7-7.0 (6.4)

5.0-8.4 (6.0)

5.9-7.4 (6.6)

4.6-6.9 (6.3)

2.6-8.0 (5.3)

6.6-6.9 (6.7)

B 5.4-7.0 (6.3)

5.7-7.9 (6.7)

4.7-7.3 (6.1)

5.4-7.9 (6.6)

6.4-8.1 (7.1)

4.7-6.7 (6.3)

4.1-8.4 (6.1)

4.6-7.4 (6.1)

4.9-6.9 (6.1)

2.3-7.7 (5.0)

6.6-6.9 (6.7)

BOD (mg/l) S 1.7-3.3 (2.5)

1.0-1.7 (1.4)

1.4-4.0 (2.6)

2.2-3.3 (2.7)

3.4-4.8 (4.1)

2.8-4.3 (3.3)

2.8-4.0 (2.3)

1.2-5.5 (3.2)

2.7-3.8 (3.2)

1.0-4.1 (2.5)

-

B 0.2-0.7 (0.5)

0.3-1.3 (0.8)

0.6-2.9 (1.5)

1.6-3.0 (2.4)

0.3-4.4 (2.5)

1.7-2.7 (2.3)

1.6-3.5 (2.2)

0.6-4.2 (2.9)

2.0-2.1 (2.1)

<0.2-3.4 (1.8)

0.6-0.9 (0.8)

PO43--P (µmol/l) S ND-2.9

(0.5) 1.0-2.8 (1.7)

0.3-1.6 (0.7)

0.1-0.8 (0.4)

2.1-7.5 (4.2)

0.1-1.1 (0.5)

0.2-1.1 (0.7)

0.1-0.6 (0.3)

0.2-4.1 (0.8)

0.6-0.8 (0.7)

0.2-0.4 (0.3)

B 0.3-3.1 (0.8)

1.4-2.8 (2.1)

0.3-1.6 (1.2)

0.6-1.2 (1.0)

2.5-10.0 (5.8)

0.9-2.1 (1.3)

0.4-1.4 (1.0)

0.1-0.9 (0.7)

0.6-1.1 (0.7)

0.3-1.2 (0.7)

1.0-1.0 (1.0)


Parameter Level Okha Salaya

Feb 1993

Mar 1995

Apr 2002

July 2004

March 2006

March 2007

Mar 2010

Feb 1995

Apr 2002

April 2008

April 2009

April 2010

PTotal (µmol/l) S - - - - - - - - - - - - B - - - - - - - - - - - -

NO3--N

(µmol/l) S 1.2-4.4

(2.8) 6.9-7.9 (7.4)

4.2-10.7 (7.4)

13.0* 2.8-8.2 (4.6)

3.3-6.8 (5.2)

2.2-2.4 (2.3)

1.1-3.6 (2.3)

0.7-6.0 (3.3)

4.5-6.8 (5.7)

10.3-15.6 (12.2)

1.0-1.5 (1.4)

B 1.4-4.1 (2.8)

5.4-6.1 (5.8)

3.3-6.8 (5.0)

11.8* 2.3-8.2 (4.5)

3.2-6.7 (4.7)

2.0-2.2 (2.1)

1.1-4.1 (2.6)

1.1-5.4 (3.2)

3.2-7.0 (4.9)

11.2-13.0 (11.9)

1.1-2.1 (1.7)

NO2--N

(µmol/l) S 0.1-0.4

(0.3) 0.5-0.6 (0.5)

0.2-0.7 (0.4)

0.8* 03-0.5 (0.5)

0.4-1.3 (0.9)

0.2-0.2 (0.2)

0.1-0.6 (0.4)

0.1-0.5 (0.3)

0.3-0.5 (0.4)

0.1-0.3 (0.2)

0.1-0.1 (0.1)

B 0.2-0.4 (0.3)

0.2-0.4 (0.3)

0.2-0.9 (0.5)

0.9* 0.5-0.5 (0.5)

0.5-1.3 (1.0)

0.1-0.2 (0.2)

0.1-0.6 (0.4)

0.2-0.4 (0.3)

0.3-0.5 (0.2)

0.1-0.3 (0.2)

0.1-0.1 (0.1)

NH4+-N

(µmol/l) S ND-2.9

(1.5) 0.1-0.4 (0.3)

0.1-0.2 (0.1)

2.4* ND-1.1 (0.3)

0.2-0.2 (0.2)

0.4-0.5 (0.4)

ND-10.5 (5.2)

0.1-0.1 (0.1)

0.1-0.3 (0.2)

0.2-1.2 (0.6)

1.0-1.4 (1.3)

B ND-2.0 (1.0)

ND-0.2 (0.1)

0.1-0.1 (0.1)

2.2* 0.1-1.1 (0.3)

ND-0.3 (0.2)

0.5-0.5 (0.5)

ND-5.0 (2.5)

0.1-0.1 (0.1)

0.1-0.3 (0.2)

0.3-0.3 (0.3)

1.0-1.4 (1.1)

NTotal (µmol/l) S - - - - - 22* - - - - -

B - - - - - 13.5* - - - - -

PHc (µg/l) 1m - 13.3* 1.0-5.7 (3.3)

54.2* 4.8-55.5 (23.8)

- 5.4* - 0.8-2.3 (1.5) 19.4* 11.0*

10.4*


Parameter Level Vadinar Sikka Mar 1994 Mar 1996 Apr 2005 Apr 2006 Apr 2007 Apr 2008 Apr 2009 Apr 2010 Apr 1994 Apr 2002 Apr 2003PTotal (µmol/l) S 0.8-3.2

(2.0) - - - - - - - - - -

B 1.4-3.2 (2.3)

- - - - - - - - - -

NO3--N

(µmol/l) S 0.1-1.4

(0.6) 1.4-8.4 (4.3)

3.0-44.0 (20.4)

0.2-8.0 (4.7)

0.6-7.6 (3.2)

1.6-6.4 (4.3)

3.2-58.9 (27.1)

0.7-16.2 (5.7)

4.0-7.6 (5.3)

0.1-4.3 (2.2)

0.3-1.3 (0.8)

B 0.1-1.4 (0.9)

2.4-7.8 (4.1)

3.0-44.0 (20.2)

0.6-17.3 (6.8)

0.5-7.3 (3.2)

3.2-6.3 (4.3)

7.4-54.9 (26.0)

0.5-18.7 (6.4)

4.0-6.3 (5.1)

0.1-2.3 (1.2)

1.2-1.5 (1.4)

NO2--N

(µmol/l) S 0.1-0.3

(0.2) ND-0.4 (0.3)

0.1-0.8 (0.4)

0.1-0.4 (0.3)

0.1-0.5 (0.2)

0.2-3.5 (0.4)

0.1-0.4 (0.4)

0.1-3.1 (0.2)

0.2-0.5 (0.3)

0.1-0.2 (0.1)

0.2-0.2 (0.2)

B 0.1-0.6 (0.3)

ND-0.4 (0.3)

0.1-0.6 (0.4)

0.1-0.7 (0.3)

0.1-1.2 (0.3)

0.2-0.9 (0.5)

0.1-0.5 (0.2)

0.2-0.7 (0.1)

0.1-0.5 (0.3)

0.1-0.2 (0.1)

0.2-0.2 (0.2)

NH4+-N

(µmol/l) S 0.5-0.9

(0.7) 0.1-0.9 (0.5)

0.1-1.3 (0.3)

0.1-1.3 (0.4)

0.1-7.3 (1.3)

0.1-3.2 (0.3)

0.2-8.0 (1.0)

0.8-1.8 (1.2)

0.1-1.2 (0.4)

0.1-0.2 (0.1)

0.9-2.0 (1.5)

B 0.5-0.9 (0.7)

ND-2.9 (1.2)

0.1-1.3 (0.3)

0.1-1.2 (0.4)

0.2-14.9 (0.7)

0.1-0.4 (0.2)

0.1-4.5 (0.7)

0.7-1.6 (1.3)

0.1-0.6 (0.4)

0.1-0.1 (0.1)

ND

NTotal (µmol/l) S 13.4-26.6 (20.0)

- - - 16.4-32.4 (24.9)

35.6*

- - - - -

B 13.8-15.9 (14.9)

- - - 13.7-17.1 (15.5)

27.0* - - - - -

PHc (µg/l) 1m 3.9-5.7 (4.8)

3-12 (7)

5.5-8.4 (7.4)

11.8-16.7 (15.2)

5.6-22.3 (15.1)

23.0-41.3 (40.1)

4.8-15.0 (7.6)

4.8-9.6 (8.1)

8-18 (10)

2.0-2.0 (2.0)

0.4-0.7 (0.6)

Table 3.3.1 (Contd 5) Parameter Level Bedi Navlakhi Kandla

Mar 1997 Mar 1996 Apr 2002 Feb 1998 Apr 2002 Feb 2010 Temp (oC) S 21.5-24.5

(23.0) 25.9-26.5

(26.0) 27.8-30.5

(28.7) 22.5-24.0

(23.1) 27.0-29.0

(27.9) 21.5‐26.0 (24.1)

B 22.0-23.9 (23.0)

25.0-25.9 (25.5)

26.0-29.5 (28.5)

22.5-25.5 (23.4)

26.5-29.0 (27.7)

21.5‐25.5 (23.4)

pH S 8.1-8.3 (8.2)

8.1-8.2 (8.2)

8.0-8.3 (8.2)

7.8-8.0 (8.0)

8.0-8.2 (8.1)

8.3‐8.5(8.4)

B 8.0-8.3 (8.2)

8.1-8.2 (8.2)

8.1-8.3 (8.2)

7.9-8.0 (8.0)

8.0-8.2 (8.1)

8.4‐8.5 (8.5)

SS (mg/l) S 21-45 (27)

30-41 (36)

75-275 (149)

105-214 (149)

80-366 (162)

19‐1913 (528.4)

B 18-45 (28)

47-204 (126)

80-385 (214)

101-272 (184)

115-410 (217)

18‐430(189.1)

Salinity (ppt) S 37.5-38.6 (38.1)

39.3-40.1 (39.7)

41.0-44.4 (42.7)

37.5-38.0 (37.8)

38.4-39.9 (39.4)

37.7‐41.3 (40.2)

B 37.3-38.6 (38.0)

38.5-40.1 (39.3)

41.5-45.0 (43.3)

37.4-37.9 (37.6)

38.4-40.2 (39.4)

38‐41.3(40.2)

DO (mg/l) S 6.0-7.6 (6.60

4.1-7.1 (5.6)

2.6-7.4 (4.4)

3.6-7.1 (5.70

2.9-7.4 (5.1)

6.3‐7.9 (7.1)

B 6.1-7.1 (6.4)

6.1-7.1 (6.6)

2.9-6.7 (5.0)

3.6-6.9 (5.6)

2.6-7.0 (5.3)

3.1‐8.5 (7.1)

BOD (mg/l) S 1.0-3.1 (1.9)

<0.1-1.8 (0.9)

0.3-1.2 (0.7)

- 0.2-4.4 (2.7)

0.2‐3.5(1.4)

B 0.3-2.3 (1.6)

0.2-1.2 (0.7)

0.3-3.5 (2.0)

- 0.4-3.5 (2.2)

0.2‐2.5 (1.0)

PO43--P (µmol/l) S 1.0-2.7

(1.8) 0.3-1.8 (1.2)

0.6-4.1 (2.0)

3.8-8.5 (6.7)

0.4-1.9 (1.2)

0.3‐3.9 (1.7)

B 0.9-3.2 (1.8)

1.6-2.7 (2.1)

1.0-3.5 (2.4)

2.8-8.5 (6.1)

1.5-2.2 (1.8)

0.3‐3.6 (1.8)

Table 3.3.1 (Contd 6) Parameter Level Mundra

Mar 1997 Feb 1999 Mar 2000 Apr 2002 June 2003 Apr 2006 Apr 2007 Apr 2008 Mar 2010Temp (oC) S 22.9-24.0

(23.6) 23.3-28.5

(24.7) 22.0-25.5

(24.1) 25.3-27.5

(26.9) 28.4-29.8

(29.3) 25.8-27.8

(27.0) 27.5-29.0

(28.4) 24.5-27.0

(26.1) 27.0-29.0

(28.2) B 22.8-23.5

(23.1) 23.2-25.8

(24.2) 22.0-25.5

(23.6) 24.0-29.8

(27.0) 28.7-29.7

(29.2) 25.6-27.6

(26.8) 27.5-28.5

(28.1) 24.5-26.4

(25.9) 27.0-28.8

(27.9) pH S 8.1-8.2

(8.2) 7.7-8.2 (8.2)

8.1-8.3 (8.3)

8.2-8.2 (8.2)

7.9-8.0 (8.0)

7.9-8.0 (8.0)

7.8-7.9 (7.8)

8.0-8.3 (8.2)

7.9-8.0 (8.0)

B 8.1-8.2 (8.2)

8.1-8.2 (8.2)

8.2-8.3 (8.3)

8.1-8.2 (8.2)

8.0-8.0 (8.0)

8.0-8.0 (8.0)

7.8-7.9 (7.8)

8.0-8.3 (8.2)

7.9-8.0 (8.0)

SS (mg/l) S 25-33 (30)

22-32 (25)

20-72 (32)

16-25 (24)

178-190 (184)

30-36 (27)

28-48 (38)

45-85 (65)

29-31 (30)

B 19-98 (53)

30-54 (40)

24-118 (61)

17-35 (27)

260-440 (350)

30-32 (22)

34-252 (134)

75-85 (80)

30-30 (30)

Salinity (ppt) S 35.8-38.6 (37.6)

35.9-38.1 (37.3)

37.4-38.3 (37.9)

37.6-38.2 (38.0)

37.7-38.6 (38.4)

36.5-37.3 (36.8)

34.4-36.8 (36.2)

36.4-38.3 (37.0)

35.2-37.3 (36.7)

B 36.1-38.5 (37.9)

36.0-38.2 (37.5)

37.6-39.0 (38.0)

37.5-38.3 (38.0)

37.7-38.6 (38.3)

36.5-37.3 (36.8)

35.7-36.9 (36.3)

36.4-37.9 (36.4)

36.6-37.3 (36.8)

DO (mg/l) S 5.9-7.6 (7.0)

2.6-8.1 (5.6)

2.4-7.3 (5.1)

3.6-8.6 (5.6)

2.1-6.6 (5.4)

6.4-7.1 (6.9)

5.1-7.0 (6.3)

5.0-7.3 (6.1)

5.8-6.9 (6.6)

B 5.3-7.3 (7.0)

2.6-8.1 (6.1)

2.4-7.6 (5.7)

5.7-8.4 (6.0)

2.7-6.3 (5.4)

5.9-7.1 (6.7)

4.1-6.6 (6.1)

4.1-6.7 (5.1)

6.1-6.9 (6.4)

BOD (mg/l) S 0.9-1.9 (1.3)

<0.1-4.4 (2.3)

0.8-3.4 (1.8)

0.6-3.4 (2.9)

2.1-2.7 (2.4)

2.3-5.2 (3.8)

0.6-2.4 (1.5)

3.4-4.3 (3.0)

2.6-2.9 (3.0)

B <0.1-1.8 (0.8)

<0.1-3.8 (1.8)

0.9-3.1 (1.2)

0.1-5.1 (4.9)

1.5-1.8 (1.7)

1.9-3.6 (2.7)

1.1-2.7 (1.8)

2.4-3.0 (2.3)

1.3-2.2 (2.0)

PO43--P (µmol/l) S 0.7-2.7

(1.3) 0.4-4.4 (1.8)

0.8-11.7 (1.9)

0.2-0.5 (0.3)

1.1-3.0 (1.8)

0.4-1.4 (0.8)

0.5-1.9 (1.0)

1.4-2.9 (2.3)

0.4-0.5 (0.5)

B 1.2-1.9 (1.5)

0.6-3.2 (1.6)

0.9-3.1 (2.0)

0.2-0.7 (0.4)

1.6-2.8 (2.0)

1.1-2.0 (1.3)

1.2-2.1 (1.6)

1.5-2.2 (1.8)

0.4-0.6 (0.5)

Table 3.3.1 (Contd 7) Parameter Level Bedi Navlakhi Kandla

Mar 1997 Mar 1996 Nov 2002 Feb 1998 Apr 2002 Feb 2010 PTotal (µmol/l) S 1.7-4.0

(2.6) - - - - 1.1-25.0

(3.5) B 1.8-5.4

(3.0) - - - - 0.8-20.0

(4.3) NO3

--N (µmol/l) S 3.2-15.1 (6.7)

0.6-4.3 (2.4)

3.3-7.3 (5.3)

8.0-10.7 (9.4)

5.5-12.1 (7.7)

0.4-50.2 (14.1)

B 3.6-12.9 (6.1)

ND-1.0 (0.5)

3.4-8.7 (5.9)

7.4-9.9 (8.6)

5.0-8.3 (7.1)

1.7-52.3 (14.2)

NO2--N (µmol/l) S 0.2-0.6

(0.4) 0.1-0.4 (0.3)

0.3-0.7 (0.5)

0.4-0.6 (0.5)

0.5-0.9 (0.7)

0.2-2.0 (0.7)

B 0.2-0.5 (0.4)

0.4-1.1 (0.7)

0.2-0.6 (0.4)

0.4-0.9 (0.6)

0.2-0.4 (0.3)

0.3-0.9 (0.5)

NH4+-N

(µmol/l) S 0.1-1.2

(0.6) 0.9-1.2 (1.1)

0.2-0.5 (0.3)

0.2-0.9 (0.6)

0.2-1.9 (0.5)

0.2-7.8 (2.2)

B 0.1-1.2 (0.4)

0.6-1.9 (1.2)

0.1-0.8 (0.4)

0.5-0.9 (0.7)

0.2-2.1 (0.5)

0.2-4.1 (1.4)

NTotal (µmol/l) S 3.2-16.7 (6.9)

- - 16.4-59.3 (29.6)

- 6.2-1616 (562.3)

B 3.3-16.4 (7.1)

- - 17.1-82.9 (35.7)

- 2.8-640 (481.2)

PHc (µg/l) 1m 1.5-4.8 (2.7)

1.0-2.1 (1.6)

1.9-5.9 (3.9)

2.6-3.5 (2.9)

1.4* 18-164 (52.2)

Table 3.3.1 (Contd 8) Parameter Level Mundra Mar1997 Feb 1999 Mar2000 Apr 2002 June 2003 Apr 2006 Apr 2007 Apr 2008 Mar 2010PTotal (µmol/l) S 1.6-2.0

(1.8) 0.7-1.5 (1.2)

- - 2.0-2.9 (2.5)

- - - -

B 1.7-1.8 (1.7)

1.1-1.7 (1.5)

- 2.4-2.5 (2.5)

- - - -

NO3--N (µmol/l) S 1.4-6.9

(4.0) ND-3.4

(2.1) 1.1-4.9 (2.8)

18.0-18.5(18.3)

1.0-5.1 (3.1)

2.4-5.3 (3.9)

3.3-8.0 (5.8)

3.2-7.3 (5.0)

0.2-1.6 (0.7)

B 2.7-5.4 (3.7)

0.3-6.6 (2.0)

1.3-5.4 (3.0)

5.0-20.2 (19.0)

1.2-4.6 (3.0)

2.3-5.5 (4.3)

3.2-8.3 (5.7)

2.8-8.2 (4.8)

0.4-1.0 (0.7)

NO2--N (µmol/l) S 0.2-0.9

(0.4) 0.1-0.9 (0.4)

0.2-0.9 (0.5)

ND-0.2 (0.1)

0.2-0.5 (0.4)

0.2-0.6 (0.4)

0.2-0.8 (0.5)

0.3-0.4 (0.3)

0.2-0.2 (0.2)

B 0.3-0.8 (0.5)

0.1-0.6 (0.5)

0.3-1.3 (0.5)

ND-0.3 (0.2)

0.2-0.4 (0.4)

0.3-0.5 (0.4)

0.2-0.4 (0.3)

0.3-0.4 (0.4)

0.1-0.2 (0.1)

NH4+-N (µmol/l) S 0.5-1.7

(1.0) 0.4-6.4 (1.9)

ND-0.6 (0.4)

0.1-0.2 (0.2)

ND-1.9 (0.8)

0.2-1.5 (0.9)

ND-0.2 (0.1)

0.1-0.6 (0.3)

0.1-0.8 (0.3)

B 0.3-2.8 (1.4)

0.4-1.5 (1.0)

0.1-0.7 (0.5)

0.1-0.5 (0.3)

0.2-2.8 (1.4)

0.3-1.0 (0.6)

ND-0.6 (0.4)

0.3-0.4 (0.4)

0.1-0.9 (0.3)

NTotal (µmol/l) S 7.1-8.0 (7.8)

52.4-60.4(55.9)

- - 7.8-11.1 (9.5)

- - - 9.2-12.1 (10.7)

B 5.6-8.6 (7.0)

37.6-57.1(51.1)

- - 7.3-8.5 (7.9)

- - - 11.9-12.9(12.4)

PHc (µg/l) 1m 2-3 (2)

0.7-4.4 (1.8)

1.3-9.9 (3.3)

3.3-4.1 (3.7)

4.5-4.7 (4.6)

10.6-24.9(19.7)

111.4* 8* 5.7-6.8 (6.3)

Table 3.3.2: Water quality of the Gulf during postmonsoon (1993-2013)

Parameter Level Okha Vadinar Nov

1995 Nov 1999

Nov2002

Jan2004

Oct2004

Oct2009

Nov 1994

Nov1995

Jan2000

Jan2004

Nov2005

Nov2006

Temp (oC)

S 25.0-25.1 (25.1)

26.0-26.0 (26.0)

25.5-28.8 (26.7)

23.6-23.6 (23.6)

27.4-27.8 (27.6)

27.6-29.0 (28.3)

28.8-29.0 (29.0)

24.0-30.0 (26.8)

22.5-22.5 (22.5)

22.0-22.0 (22.0)

27.0-29.0 (28.0)

28.0-29.0 (28.4)

B 25.0-25.2 (25.1)

26.0-26.0 (26.0)

25.2-27.5 (26.5)

23.7-23.7 (23.7)

27.6-28.0 (27.8)

27.4-28.9 (28.2)

29.0-29.2 (29.1)

24.0-29.9 (26.7)

22.5-22.5 (22.5)

21.7-21.7 (21.7)

26.9-28.9 (27.8)

26.9-28.9 (28.2)

pH S 8.1-8.1 (8.1)

8.0-8.0 (8.0)

8.1-8.3 (8.3)

8.2-8.2 (8.2)

8.2-8.2 (8.2)

7.7-7.8 (7.8)

8.1-8.2 (8.1)

8.0-8.3 (8.2)

8.2-8.3 (8.3)

8.2-8.2 (8.2)

8.2-8.2 (8.2)

8.0-8.1 (8.1)

B 8.0-8.1 (8.1)

8.0-8.1 (8.0)

8.2-8.3 (8.3)

8.2-8.2 (8.2)

8.3-8.3 (8.3)

7.7-7.8 (7.8)

8.0-8.2 (8.1)

8.0-8.3 (8.1)

8.2.-8.3 (8.3)

8.2-8.2 (8.2)

8.2-8.2 (8.2)

8.0-8.1 (8.1)

SS (mg/l)

S 7-25 (16)

59* 4-10 (7)

22* 18-22 (20)

64* 16-29 (22)

13-21 (16)

25-25 (25)

22* 85-89 (88)

16-40 (19)

B 14-24 (19)

68* 6-308 (69)

90* 22-46 (34)

68* 18-29 (24)

8-16 (12)

23-24 (24)

58* 83-96 (88)

16-26 (26)

Salinity (ppt)

S 35.4-35.7 (37.6)

36.8-36.9 (36.8)

37.1-38.4 (37.6)

36.0-36.2 (36.1)

35.9-36.3 (36.1)

36.8-37.0 (37.0)

34.3-34.6 (34.6)

36.2-37.8 (36.9)

37.4-38.0 (37.7)

37.0-37.0 (37.0)

36.1-37.3 (36.6)

35.4-35.9 (35.8)

B 37.4-37.7 (36.8)

36.7-36.8 (36.8)

37.1-38.2 (37.6)

35.7-35.9 (35.8)

35.8-36.2 (36.0)

36.8-37.0 (37.0)

34.3-34.6 (34.6)

36.6-37.4 (37.0)

37.4-39.6 (38.0)

37.0-37.0 (37.0)

36.1-37.5 (36.7)

35.4-35.9 (35.8)

DO (mg/l)

S 6.1-6.7 (6.4)

5.1-5.4 (5.3)

3.6-7.0 (6.0)

6.4-6.4 (6.4)

5.4-6.1 (5.7)

6.1-6.7 (6.6)

5.9-6.9 (6.1)

5.7-7.9 (6.9)

7.6-8.1 (7.7)

6.4-6.9 (6.7)

5.9-7.4 (6.6)

4.4-7.0 (6.1)

B 6.1-6.4 (6.3)

4.6-5.4 (5.0)

3.9-6.9 (6.0)

6.4-6.9 (6.7)

5.7-6.1 (5.9)

6.4-6.7 (6.6)

6.1-7.1 (6.6)

5.7-7.6 (6.6)

7.1-7.6 (7.6)

6.9-7.1 (7.0)

5.6-7.1 (6.4)

4.4-7.0 (6.1)

BOD (mg/l)

S 1.0-4.0 (3.0)

- 0.1-2.5 (0.8)

2.9* 2.9-3.5 (3.2)

4.0* 1.5-2.5 (2.0)

0.8-1.8 (1.2)

2.9-3.6 (3.0)

1.0* 2.2-3.7 (2.8)

<0.2-1.9 (2.8)

B 0.3-1.5 (0.9)

- 0.1-1.5 (0.9)

2.9* 2.9-3.5 (3.2)

1.3* 0.3-1.0 (0.7)

0.5-2.2 (1.0)

2.3-2.6 (2.5)

1.6* 0.9-2.8 (2.0)

1.3-2.9 (2.2)

PO43—P

(µmol/l) S 1.2-1.3

(1.3) 1.8-1.8 (1.8)

0.9-2.2 (1.9)

1.1-1.1 (1.1)

0.9-1.0 (1.0)

- 1.0-2.4 (1.4)

0.6-1.7 (1.1)

1.4-1.7 (1.6)

1.2-1.2 (1.2)

0.1-1.5 (0.8)

0.8-2.4 (1.3)

B 1.3-1.3 (1.3)

2.1-2.2 (2.2)

0.8-2.3 (1.9)

1.1-1.1 (1.1)

1.2-1.5 (1.4)

- 0.1-2.7 (0.5)

0.7-2.3 (1.5)

1.7-1.8 (1.7)

1.2-1.4 (1.3)

0.1-1.8 (1.2)

1.3-2.1 (1.6)

Table 3.3.2 (Contd 2) Parameter Level Sikka Bedi Salaya Navlakhi

Dec1993 Oct 1996 Nov2002 Oct 1997 Nov 2002 Nov1994 Nov2002Temp (oC) S 25.1-25.9

(25.3) 29.0-29.8

(29.4) 25.0-27.4

(26.2) 28.0-30.1

(29.2) 23.0-27.9

(25.4) 25.5-26.1

(25.8) 23.0-27.5

(25.7) B 24.6-25.7

(25.1) 29.0-29.2

(29.1) 26.0-26.8

26.4) 28.0-30.9

(29.1) 23.0-26.4

(24.7) 24.7-26.5

(25.2) 24.0-27.0

(25.6) pH S 8.1-8.3

(8.2) 8.1* 8.2-8.3

(8.2) 8.2-8.4 (8.3)

8.1-8.3 (8.2)

7.8-7.9 (7.9)

8.3-8.6 (8.5)

B 8.2-8.3 (8.3)

8.1* 8.3-8.3 (8.3)

8.2-8.4 (8.3)

8.2-8.3 (8.2)

7.9*

8.3-8.6 (8.5)

SS (mg/l) S 15-23 (19)

40* 10-34 (22)

32-63 (44)

28-304 (166)

698* 16-1100 (742)

B 17-24 (21)

36* 20-36 (22)

26-136 (78)

208-490 (349)

689* 80-190 (126)

Salinity (ppt) S 37.1-38.5 (38.0)

36.3* 37.1-38.6 (37.8)

36.3-37.8 (37.1)

41.2-46.3 (43.7)

32.1-32.8 (32.4)

37.3-39.0 (38.1)

B 35.5-37.8 (36.9)

36.5* 37.0-38.7 (37.8)

36.3-37.8 (37.3)

41.6-45.8 (43.7)

32.1-32.1 (32.1)

37.5-39.0 (38.0)

DO (mg/l) S 5.1-7.7 (6.0)

6.1-6.4 (6.2)

3.7-6.7 (5.1)

5.2-7.0 (6.1)

4.3-7.3 (5.7)

6.9-6.9 (6.9)

6.9-10.8 (8.9)

B 5.0-7.9 (5.9)

6.1-6.4 (6.3)

3.0-6.3 (4.6)

5.0-6.7 (5.9)

3.7-7.1 (5.4)

6.9-7.1 (6.9)

5.1-10.9 (8.1)

BOD (mg/l) S 2.0-2.4 (2.2)

4.8* <0.2-1.5 (0.8)

2.2-6.3 (4.9)

0.9-1.4 (1.2)

2.0* 0.1-2.5 (0.8)

B 0.7-1.6 (1.1)

2.6* <0.2-1.1 (0.5)

0.7-4.7 (2.5)

0.5-1.5 (1.0)

<0.1* 0.1-1.5 (0.9)

PO43--P (µmol/l) S 0.7-4.0

(1.6) 0.9-1.2 (1.1)

0.8-2.8 (1.8)

1.0-3.0 (2.1)

0.2-2.0 (1.1)

1.5-2.0 (1.7)

0.9-2.2 (1.9)

B 1.2-1.8 (1.5)

1.9* 1.5-2.3 (1.9)

1.3-5.2 1.2-4.1 (2.6)

2.0-2.1 (2.0)

0.8-2.3 (1.9)


Parameter Level Okha Vadinar Nov 1995 Nov 1999 Nov 2002 Jan

2004 Oct 2004 Oct 2009 Nov 1994 Nov 1995 Jan 2000 Jan 2004 Nov 2005 Nov 2006

PTotal (µmol/l)

S - - - -

- - - - - - -

B - - - - - - - - - - -

NO3-N (µmol/l) S 3.6-6.6

(5.1) 3.4-9.5 (9.0)

7.9-13.0 (9.5)

4.8-8.7 (6.8)

3.8-5.3 (4.8)

7.7-9.0 (8.4)

3.1-7.9 (5.5)

2.1-10.6 (6.7)

7.7-8.7 (8.2)

2.9-3.3 (3.1)

0.3-8.2 (5.7)

6.7-9.0 (8.3)

B 4.6-7.2 (5.9)

9.3-9.7 (9.5)

7.1-12.1 (9.2)

6.5-6.9 (6.7)

4.0-5.7 (4.7)

6.2-9.2 (8.0)

3.3-7.3 (4.6)

4.2-11.1 (8.0)

7.2-10.0 (8.9)

2.7-3.6 (3.2)

0.6-7.6 (5.6)

7.0-8.3 (7.5)

NO2-N (µmol/l) S 0.6-0.7

(0.7) 0.3-0.4 (0.4)

0.4-0.5 (0.4)

0.3-0.3 (0.3)

0.3-0.6 (0.5)

0.3-0.7 (0.6)

0.4-1.1 (0.8)

0.1-0.5 (0.3)

0.3-0.3 (0.3)

0.3-0.3 (0.3)

0.1-0.5 (0.3)

0.2-0.4 (0.3)

B 0.6-0.7 (0.7)

0.2-0.2 (0.2)

0.4-0.6 (0.5)

0.2-0.3 (0.3)

0.5-0.8 (0.7)

0.4-0.7 (0.6)

0.6-0.9 (0.8)

0.1-0.4 (0.3)

0.3-0.4 (0.4)

0.2-0.3 (0.3)

0.1-0.5 (0.2)

0.3-0.5 (0.4)

NH4+-N (µmol/l) S ND 0.8-1.7

(1.3) 0.3-1.8 (0.6)

0.8-2.1 (1.5)

0.6-1.5 (1.1)

0.1-0.4 (0.2)

0.3-2.8 (1.1)

0.1-1.5 (0.6)

0.2-0.5 (0.3)

1.0-1.3 (1.2)

0.1-2.2 (0.4)

0.2-1.5 (0.6)

B - 0.6-0.8 (0.7)

0.2-7.8 (1.2)

ND-0.2 (0.2)

0.3-1.8 (1.1)

0.1-0.4 (0.2)

0.4-4.9 (1.3)

ND-1.2 (0.6)

0.1-0.2 (0.2)

ND-1.2 (0.6)

0.1-1.1 (0.2)

0.2-1.1 (0.5)

NTotal

(µmol/l)

S - 56* - - 25.1* 38.1-100.5 (69.3)

- - - - -

B - 62* - - 21.2* 80.5-124.9 (102.7)

- - - - -

PHc (µg/l)

1m 0.5-0.7 (0.6)

1.8* 0.7-1.5 (1.2)

- 4.8-14.7 (9.8)

2.7* 2-5 (4)

4-5

0.1-0.3 (0.2)

- 4.6-32.1 (19.5)

14.3-17.7 (16.0)


Parameter Level Sikka Bedi Salaya Navlakhi Dec 1993 Oct 1996 Nov 2002 Oct 1997 Nov 2002 Nov 1994 Nov 2002

PTotal (µmol/l)

S - - - 1.6-3.8 (2.7)

- - -

B - - - 1.8-5.7 (4.2)

- - -

NO3--N

(µmol/l) S

4.4-8.1 (6.5)

17.1-18.1 (17.6)

8.0-12.3 (10.1)

2.9-16.7 (7.4)

6.9-15.2 (11.0)

25.4-38.4 (31.9)

8.8-12.3 (10.6)

B 3.7-8.1 (6.1)

16.5-18.9 (17.7)

7.5-11.5 (9.5)

2.4-15.1 (8.9)

8.1-12.2 (10.1)

30.4-30.8 (30.6)

8.0-12.3 (9.8)

NO2--N

(µmol/l) S

0.2-1.1 (0.4)

0.2-0.6 (0.4)

0.2-0.4 (0.3)

0.1-1.5 (0.9)

0.3-0.7 (0.5)

0.1-0.2 (0.1)

0.1-0.3 (0.2)

B 0.1-2.8 (0.4)

0.4-0.6 (0.5)

0.1-0.7 (0.4)

0.3-1.6 (1.1)

0.2-0.9 (0.5)

0.1-0.1 (0.1)

0.1-0.3 (0.2)

NH4+-

N(µmol/l) S

2.0-7.8 (3.7)

0.3-0.5 (0.4)

0.3-1.0 (0.6)

0.4-2.1 (1.2)

0.5-2.4 (1.4)

0.8-3.0 (1.9)

0.3-1.5 (0.6)

B 1.6-4.8 (3.2)

0.5 0.1-0.8 (0.4)

0.4-3.9 (2.1)

ND-3.1 (1.5)

1.1-1.3 (1.2)

0.2-1.0 (0.6)

NTotal

(µmol/l) S - - -

3.7-17.9 (10.0)

- - -

B - - - 7.1-17.1 (13.3)

- - -

PHc (µg/l)

1m 5-7 (6)

2.3* 0.9-1.7 (1.3)

1.2-8.0 (5.1)

1.3-3.0 (2.1)

- 0.9-1.4 (1.1)

Table 3.3.2 (Contd 5) Parameter Level Kandla Oct 1996 Nov 2002 Jan 2004 Oct 2004 Dec 2006

Temp (oC) S 29.5-29.5 (29.5)

24.8-30.0 (27.2)

20.1-20.1(20.1)

27.5-27.5(27.5)

20.4-23.4 (21.9)

B 29.5-30.5 (30.0)

24.9-29.0 (26.9)

19.9-19.9

27.9-27.9(27.9)

20.2-23.2 (21.6)

pH S 8.0-8.2 (8.1)

7.9-8.3 (8.2)

8.2-8.2 (8.2)

8.1-8.1 (8.1)

7.6-7.8 (7.7)

B 8.0-8.1 (8.0)

8.1-8.3 (8.2)

8.2-8.2 (8.2)

8.2-8.2 (8.2)

7.8-7.9 (7.9)

SS (mg/l) S 156-336 (244)

28-104 (60)

164* 66* 8-120 (59)

B 252-373 (312)

42-94 (72)

178* 254* 186-455 (312)

Salinity(ppt) S 40.0-40.4 (40.2)

36.5-40.1 (38.3)

38.2-38.2(38.2)

36.6-36.9(36.8)

35.1-36.3 (35.7)

B 40.2-40.2 (40.2)

37.4-40.1 (38.4)

38.0-38.0(38.0)

36.4-36.4(36.4)

35.2-36.2 (35.6)

DO (mg/l) S 6.1-6.7 (6.4)

8.7-11.1 (9.9)

6.4-6.4 (6.4)

5.4-6.1 (5.9)

4.9-7.9 (7.1)

B 6.7-6.7 (6.7)

8.3-11.4 (10.0)

6.4-6.9 (6.7)

6.3-5.7 (5.4)

6.3-7.9 (7.3)

BOD (mg/l) S 3.9-4.1 (4.0)

0.2-5.9 (2.1)

0.6* 1.0-1.0 (1.0)

0.3-2.1 (1.7)

B 3.2-3.5 (3.4)

0.2-4.5 (1.6)

0.6* 1.1* 0-1.9 (0.9)


Parameter Level Mundra Sep1999 Nov2002 Oct 2003 Dec2004 Jan 2006 Oct 2007 Dec 2008 Dec 2013

Temp (oC) S 28.5-31.0 (29.9)

24.0-27.0(25.5)

28.5-30.0(28.8)

24.0-24.0(24.0)

19.9-23.2(21.4)

29.5-30.1(29.8)

24.6‐27.5( 26.1)

23.0‐30.7(26.0)

B 28.5-31.6 (30.1)

23.2-26.9(25.5)

28.0-29.9(28.7)

23.5-23.5(23.5)

19.9-23.0(21.3)

29.5-29.7(29.6)

24.5 ‐ 27.5 (25.9)

23.0‐30.0 (26.0)

pH S 7.9-8.3 (8.2)

8.0-8.3 (8.1)

8.1-8.2 (8.1)

8.4-8.4 8.4

8-8.2 (8.1)

8.1-8.2 (8.1)

7.9‐8.1 (8.0)

8.0‐8.3 (8.1)

B 7.9-8.3 (8.2)

8.1-8.3 (8.2)

8.1-8.2 (8.2)

8.4-8.4 8.4

8-8.2 (8.1)

8.2-8.2 (8.2)

7.9‐8.1(8.1)

8.0‐8.2(8.2)

SS (mg/l) S 49-170 (108)

30-162 (96)

38-86 (62)

44* 58-82 (57)

18-54 (36)

20‐38 (30.0)

30‐145 (51.5)

B 70-207 (128)

108-214 (161)

72-166 (95)

60* 64-214 (86)

31-107 (69)

18‐54 (37.7)

30‐147 (59.8)

Salinity(ppt) S 36.9-39.2 (38.2)

40.7-42.4(41.5)

36.5-37.0(36.7)

37.2-37.8(37.5)

36.5-37.2(36.9)

34.9-35.9(35.4)

35.7‐38.0 (36.5)

35.7‐37.0 (36.3)

B 37.1-39.0 (38.2)

41.0-42.3(41.6)

36.2-37.0(36.7)

37.4-37.6(37.5)

36.5-37.2(36.9)

35.0-36.3(35.3)

35.9‐37.4 (36.6)

35.9‐37.0 (36.4)

DO (mg/l) S 2.1-8.1 (5.1)

2.3-7.1 (5.1)

5.4-7.7 (6.4)

7.0-7.0 (7.0)

2.9-7.7 (6.0)

3.7-6.7 (5.6)

3.1‐5.4(4.2)

4.6‐8.0(6.7)

B 2.9-7.3 (5.0)

3.1-7.6 (5.3)

4.1-7.4 (5.9)

6.7-7.0 (6.9)

2.9-7.7 (6.0)

5.7-6.4 (6.0)

2.9‐4.5 (4.1)

5.7‐8.0 (6.8)

BOD (mg/l) S <0.1-4.1 (1.4)

0.8-1.3 (1.0)

2.3-4.8 (3.6)

2.6* 0.5-4.3 (1.2)

0.2-2.6 (1.3)

0.3‐3.2 (2.6)

0.3‐4.7 (2.9)

B <0.1-4.0 (0.9)

0.9-2.0 (1.4)

0.9-2.3 (1.6)

1.7* 0.5-2.1 (0.7)

0.2-1.4 (0.8)

0.2‐3.8 (2.2)

0.9‐4.4 (2.7)


Parameter Level Kandla

Oct 1996 Nov2002 Jan 2004 Oct 2004 Dec 2006

PO43--P(µmol/l) S 0.8-1.3

(1.1) 0.4-3.1 (1.7)

1.8-1.8 (1.8)

1.9* 0.2-2.2 (1.2)

B 1.2-1.6 (1.4)

1.9-2.6 (2.2)

2.0-2.1 (2.1)

2.3-2.5 (2.4)

1.5-2.5 (2.1)

NO3--N (µmol/l) S 7.3-9.9

(9.6) 5.4-18.7 (10.4)

10.5-12.1(11.3)

5.4-5.8 (5.6)

5.3-10.4 (7.6)

B 10.9-11.5 (11.2)

5.9-18.4 (10.4)

12.6-12.7(12.7)

5.0-5.3 (5.1)

5.8-10.7 (8.0)

NO2--N (µmol/l) S 0.8-0.9

(0.9) 0.1-0.5 (0.3)

ND-0.1 (0.1)

0.4-0.6 (0.5)

0.2-0.5 (0.4)

B 0.6-0.9 (0.8)

0.2-0.5 (0.3)

ND 0.5-0.5 (0.5)

0.3-0.6 (0.5)

NH4+-N (µmol/l) S 0.5-1.1

(0.8) 0.2-1.3 (0.7)

2.1-2.6 (2.4)

1.6-3.7 (2.6)

0.9-2.6 (1.5)

B 0.5-0.9 (0.7)

0.2-1.1 (0.5)

2.3-2.7 (2.5)

2.0-2.9 (2.4)

1.0-1.7 (1.4)

NTotal (µmol/l)

S - - - - -

B - - - - - PHc (µg/l) 1m 1.6-2.0

(1.8) 0.7-1.9 (1.1)

- 13.8* 15.5-37.4 (24.4)


Parameter Level Mundra

Sep1999 Nov2002 Oct2003 Dec2004 Jan 2006 Oct 2007 Dec 2008 Dec 2013

PO43--P(µmol/l) S 0.5-2.5

(1.4) 1.0-1.6 (1.3)

0.5-1.3 (0.9)

1.3-1.4 (1.4)

0.4-1.9 (1.6)

0.5-0.9 (0.7)

1.3‐3.5(1.9)

0.2‐1.7(1.0)

B 0.7-3.0 (1.7)

1.6-2.1 (1.8)

0.8-1.3 (1.1)

1.5-1.7 (1.6)

0.8-1.9 (1.6)

1.0-1.6 (1.3)

1.7‐3.5 (2.3)

0.3‐1.9 (1.1)

NO3--N (µmol/l) S 0.7-10.0

(4.3) 6.9-28.6 (17.7)

1.3-3.7 (2.5)

4.3-5.4 (4.9)

1.9-2.1 (2.0)

5.1-9.1 (7.2)

5.2‐10.6 (7.0)

2.0‐12.8 (5.5)

B 0.3-7.1 (4.0)

17.0-25.9(21.4)

0.2-3.3 (2.0)

3.1-4.2 (3.7)

1.8-2.1 (2.0)

3.9-10.4 (7.2)

5.9‐9.6(7.1)

2.1‐10.7(5.6)

NO2--N (µmol/l) S 0.1-0.9

(0.4) 0.3-0.6 (0.4)

0.2-0.6 (0.4)

0.3-0.3 (0.3)

4.7-9.1 (7.2)

0.2-0.3 (0.2)

0.2‐0.6 (0.4)

0.1‐0.5 (0.2)

B 0.2-1.0 (0.4)

0.2-0.8 (0.5)

0.1-0.3 (0.2)

0.3-0.3 (0.3)

4.7-8.7 (7.0)

0.2-0.4 (0.3)

0.2‐0.5 (0.3)

0.1‐0.4 (0.2)

NH4+-N (µmol/l) S ND-3.6

(0.6) 1.1-5.4 (3.2)

0.2-3.9 (1.6)

0.5-1.3 (0.9)

0.2-0.4 (0.3)

0.1-3.0 (0.8)

0.1‐1.3 (0.6)

0.1‐1.3 (0.7)

B ND-2.1 (0.5)

0.7-2.1 (1.4)

0.1-1.4 (0.5)

0.1-0.2 (0.2)

0.2-0.4 (0.3)

0.1-2.4 (0.9)

0.4‐1.2 (0.8)

0.2‐1.2 (0.6)

NTotal (µmol/l)

S - - 8.7-12.8 (10.8)

- 0.2-6.1 (0.6)

- ‐ ‐

B - - 6.1-8.0 (7.1)

- 0.2-6.1 (0.6)

- ‐ -

PHc (µg/l) 1m 0.3-2.5 (1.1)

1.3-4.6 (2.9)

8.6-19.4 (14.0)

26.3* 53.5-86.1(65.9)

15.1-53.4 (34.3)

1.8‐3.1 (1.6)

6.9‐38.2 (15.4)

Phenol (µg/l) S - - - - - - 18.9‐52.5(14.4)

-

Average given in parenthesis,

ND: Not Detected, * Single value

Table 3.3.3: Subtidal sediment quality of the Gulf during premonsoon (1994-2010)

Parameter

Premonsoon

Okha Sikka Bedi Mar 1999 Apr 2002 Mar 2008 Mar 2010 Apr 1994 Mar 1997 Apr 2002 Apr 2003 Mar 1997

Al (%) 0.8-2.0 (1.6)

1.8-8.1 (4.9)

8.2 1.3 - 1.5-5.7 (3.4)

4.7 0.4-8.4 (5.2)

2.9-6.6 (4.4)

Cr (µg/l) 12-39 (20)

20-112 (67)

101 41 27-127 (48)

28-112 (75)

68 6-51 (23)

48-189 (133)

Mn (µg/l) 257-1696 (639)

425-726 (580)

801 416 443-936 (633)

408-987 (692)

590 508-3065(1450)

493-775 (664)

Fe (%) 0.9-1.1 (1.0)

0.8-4.4 (2.5)

4.5 0.5 2.0-6.1 (3.0)

1.0-4.6 (3.2)

2.3 0.1-9.8 (3.3)

2.0-5.2 (3.8)

Co (µg/g) 20-29 (24)

1-29 (10)

36 7 37-65 (38)

11-36 (25)

9 12-47 (26)

28-53 (41)

Ni (µg/g) 11-17 (15)

10-60 (33)

79 56 21-75 (34)

11-67 (51)

29 32-112 (68)

24-67 (51)

Cu (µg/g) 8-16 (12)

5-34 (16)

36 7 24-90 (32)

9-52 (34)

19 11-97 (44)

16-72 (40)

Zn (µg/g) 17-25 (22)

13-92 (43)

88 23 39-101 (59)

15-84 (50)

23 109-401 (227)

39-122 (72)

Hg (µg/g) 0.04-0.12 (0.07)

0.009-0.04 (0.02)

- 0.01 - 0.09-0.40 (0.17)

0.009 ND-0.26 (0.07)

0.1-0.3 (0.2)

Pb (µg/g) - - - - ND-5 (1.2)

- - - -

Corg (%) 0.1-0.8 (0.3)

0.2-0.7 (0.7)

- 0.2 - 0.1-0.8 (0.4)

0.4 0.2-1.0 (0.6)

-

P (µg/g) 425-736 (646)

349-545 (455)

768 470 - 580-832 (731)

470 210-953 (525)

-

PHc (µg/g) ND-3.1 (1.2)

0.7-1.4 (1.0)

- - 0.3-1.0 (0.5)

0.08-0.33 (0.20)

0.7 0.1 (0.1)

0.3-1.0 (0.4)


Parameter

Premonsoon Kandla Mundra

Mar 1996 Feb 1998 Apr 2002 Apr 2010 Mar 1999 Mar 2000 Apr 2002 Jun 2003 Apr 2006 Apr 2008 Apr 2008 March 2010Sand (%)

- - - 23.7-37.8

(29.3) - - - -

57.2-98.8 (73.2)

93.2 57.4-98 (83.73)

35.80-95.60(60.30)

Silt (%) - - -

57.2-71.1(65.63)

- - - - 0.4-30.8 (18.3)

3.8 0.8-37.2 (13.87)

3.0-59.40 (35.20)

Clay (%) - - -

5-5.2 (5.1)

- - - - 0.8-12.6

(8.5) 3.0

1.2-5.4 (2.8)

1.2-7.2 (4.5)

Al (%) 1.7-6.9 (4.6)

1.7-7.9 (5.4)

7.5 5-6.5 (5.8)

0.5-9.3 (5.7)

2.4-8.5 (4.6)

8.7 1.4-9.6 (4.9)

1.6-5.9 (4.0)

3.4 2.3-5.6 (3.5)

0.7-7.2 (3.6)

Cr (µg/l) 9-103 (63)

26-76 (45)

98 75-86 (79)

7-175 (110)

26-139 (86)

140 27-123

(73) 9-66 (44)

24 28-77 (47)

1.0-83 (45)

Mn (µg/l) 594-1321 (985)

428-757 (597)

623 418-590 (530)

431-900 (700)

316-837 (603)

681 536-1182(767)

677-1566 (976)

471 495-749

(593)340-760

(507)Fe (%) 0.9-4.7

(2.9) 1.2-6.2 (4.1)

3.6 2.1-4.4 (3.5)

1.1-5.0 (3.5)

1.5-46 (38)

5.0 1.3-5.1 (3.6)

1.5-4.6 (3.3)

0.9 1-2.9 (1.7)

0.2-4.4 (1.9)

Co (µg/g) 9-31 (23)

16-32 (26)

18 5-22 (16)

15-70 (35)

15-39 (29)

27 ND-20

(8) 4-16 (11)

7 5-13 (8)

1-14 (5)

Ni (µg/g) 15-58 (41)

9-60 (38)

45 20-47 (37)

ND-68 (39)

15-59 (38)

64 7-59 (35)

13-40 (25)

7 39-73 (54)

5-56 (24)

Cu (µg/g) 11-45 (28)

6-51 (32)

31 17-32 (25)

6-47 (24)

6-44 (26)

54 5-44 (19)

4-26 (17)

9 6-25 (13)

6-33 (17)

Zn (µg/g) 18-89 (60)

12-77 (58)

50 63-159

(98) 14-106

(62) 33-92 (70)

76 31-151

(87) 162-242

(209) 47

12-63 (29)

5-59 (32)

Hg (µg/g) 0.13-0.26 (0.18)

0.07-0.13 (0.11)

0.04 0.04-0.07

(0.06)0.07-0.66

(0.62)0.19-0.76

(0.34)0.02

ND-0.05 (0.03)

0.01-0.03 (0.02)

- 0.01-0.02

(0.02)0.01-0.03

(0.02)Pb (µg/g) 6.8-17.2

(12.3) - - - - - - - - - - -

Corg (%) - - 0.7

0.5-0.8 (0.6)

0.1-0.9 (0.5)

0.1-0.7 (0.4)

0.9 ND-0.8

(0.4) 0.2-0.6 (0.5)

- 0.4-0.5 (0.4)

0.9-2.2 (1.5)

P (µg/g) - - 417

406-731 (579)

341-882 (607)

493-755 (633)

589 465-1822

(751) 194-549

(415) 569

395-497 (458)

411-919 (651)

PHc (µg/g) 0.2-21.6 (3.0)

0.1-0.4 (0.2)

<0.1 0.2-0.5 (0.3)

0.1-2.8 (1.8)

0.7-1.7 (1.3)

0.2 ND-0.4

(0.2) 0.1-0.1 (0.1)

- - 0.3-0.8 (0.5)

Dry wt basis except PHc which is wet wt basis, ND : Not Detected, Average in parenthesis


Parameter

Premonsoon

Vadinar Salaya Navlakhi Apr 1994

Mar 1996

Apr 2005

Apr2006

Apr2007

Apr2008

Apr2009

Apr 2010

Apr2002

Apr2008

Apr2009

Apr2010

Apr2002

Sand (%) -

- 54.6-78.6 (65.4)

2.4-62.8 (41.6)

1.4-72.8 (25.2)

- 60.0-69.2 (64.44)

10.1-94.2 (51.74)

- 1.2-15.1 (8.15)

38.60-92.40 (65.5)

53.80-75.40 (64.60)

-

Silt (%) -

- 21-45 (34.14)

27.0-91.8 (50.5)

18.8-91.8 (68.0)

- 25.8-32.4 (29.4)

2.6-82.1 (41.74)

- 71.1-86 (78.55)

5.60-54.60 (30.10)

19.40-41.40 (30.40)

-

Clay (%) -

- 0.3-0.7 (0.4)

5.8-10.2 (7.9)

5.4-9.0 (7.4)

- 5-8 (6.0)

3.2-9.4 (6.5)

- 12.8-13.8 (13.3)

2.0-6.8 (4.4)

4.80-5.20 (5.0)

-

Al (%) 3.7-9.6 (7.0)

5.0-6.2 (5.5)

3.7-6.2 (5.2)

5.0-7.4 (5.8)

6.5-7.9 (7.1)

6.0-8.7 (7.9)

5.1-7.7 (6.5)

2.2-7 (5.3)

6.8 0.3-7.3 (3.8)

3.5-5.8 (4.7)

3.7-5.8 (4.8)

7.3

Cr (µg/l) 30-87 (63)

41-59 (47)

45-128 (82)

84-165 (114)

96-119 (107.6)

86-194 (113)

78-136 (107)

52-122 (92)

87 37-46 (42)

39-138 (89)

105-113 (109)

113

Mn (µg/l) 517-1229 (802)

287-512 (399)

296-853 (699)

618-913 (739)

816-1224 (987)

682-720 (706)

502-1075 (726)

669-768 (699)

677

495-667 (581)

713-801 (757)

698-1120 (909)

808

Fe (%) 1.4-4.3 (3.2)

3.6-4.9 (4.1)

2.0-8.4 (4.7)

4.7-5.7 (5.1)

4.8-6.6 (5.3)

3.4-4.2 (3.9)

3.8-5.4 (4.5)

0.3-2.8 (1.9)

3.7 0.7-4 (2.4)

3.4-5.5 (4.5)

2.4-3.6 (3.0)

5.0

Co (µg/g) 24-44 (36)

2-78 (44)

23-34 (31)

113-128 (119)

29-35 (31)

34-38 (36)

19-26 (23)

28-34 (32)

20 34-35 (35)

16-29 (23)

28-34 (31)

24

Ni (µg/g) 31-61 (47)

59-70 (64)

48-68 (62)

64-82 (73)

67-76 (73)

33-42 (38)

43-59 (52)

39-71 (57)

48 9-53 (31)

28-58 (43)

57-71 (64)

65

Cu (µg/g) 32-70 (51)

41-51 (44)

19-41 (33)

41-49 (44)

45-57 (48)

37-44 (42)

34-44 (39)

31-45 (39)

29 9-50 (30)

25-51 (38)

35-51 (43)

50

Zn (µg/g) 44-134 (92)

48-94 (77)

61-507 (236)

113-128 (119)

56-72 (63)

81-1361 (732)

51-116 (77)

34-96 (70)

61 16-80 (48)

40-74 (57)

58-84 (71)

74

Hg (µg/g)

- - 0.01-0.08 (0.05)

0.02-0.03 (0.03)

0.02-0.05 (0.04)

0.01-0.03 (0.02)

0.01-0.03 (0.02)

0.04-0.05 (0.05)

0.05 0.01-0.01 (0.01)

0.03-0.03 (0.03)

0.03-0.04 (0.04)

0.05

Cd ( µg/g)

- - - - 0.07-0.12 (0.10)

0.13-0.22 (0.18)

- - - - - - -

Pb (µg/g) 1-12 (7)

17-21 (20)

- - 12.1-14.4 (13.2)

6.5-22.8 (15.2)

- - - - - - -

Corg (%)

- - 0.7-0.8 (0.5)

0.5-0.8 (0.7)

0.3-0.8 (0.6)

0.7-1.4 (1.0)

0.4-0.8 (0.6)

0.6-1.0 (0.8)

ND-0.8 (0.4)

0.8-0.9 (0.9)

0.3-0.5 (0.4)

0.6-0.9 (0.8)

0.5

P (µg/g)

- - 990-1143 (1074)

716-964 (808)

224-498 (374)

905-980 (933)

492-920 (811)

608-844 (685)

465-1822 (751)

752-1017 (885)

846-965 (906)

831-938 (885)

581

PHc (µg/g) 0.2-2.3 (0.6)

0.2-0.4 (0.3)

0.1-0.3 (0.18)

0.2-0.3 (0.23)

0.3-0.5 (0.4)

1.0-6.4 (4.7)

0.1-0.1 (0.1)

0.02-0.9 (0.5)

ND-0.4 (0.2)

0.4-0.4 (0.4)

0.1-0.1 (0.1)

0.3-0.4 (0.4)

0.6

Table 3.3.4: Subtidal sediment quality of the Gulf during postmonsoon (1993-2013)

Parameter

Postmonsoon

Okha Vadinar Sikka Nov 95 Nov 99 Nov 2002 Nov 2004 Oct 2009 Nov 94 Nov 95 Nov 2004 Nov 2005 Nov 2006 Dec 93 Oct 96 Nov 2002

Sand (%) - - - - 97.8 - - - 3.3-66.6 (35.8)

1.9-58.5 (22)

- - -

Silt (%) - - - - 0.6 - - - 19.8-86.1(52.6)

25.2-91.4(66.8)

- - -

Clay (%) - - - - 1.6 - - - 8.4-14.2 (11.7)

6.0-16.0 (8.8)

- - -

Al (%) 0.8-3.4 (2.2)

1.6-4.3 (2.5)

0.4-5.1 (2.8)

3.7-6.1 (4.5)

0.6 4.1-9.6 (6.9)

4.7-5.8 (5.2)

2.1-11.0 (6.9)

5.1-8.8 (6.7)

5.2-8.0 (6.9)

- 4.8-5.2 (5.0)

5.0-7.8 (6.4)

Cr (µg/g) 18-49 (31)

ND-55 (19)

9-92 (51)

36-68 (48)

14 30-69 (52)

38-65 (49)

40-118 (94)

66-76 (71)

82-100 (90)

29-104(68)

80-137 (102)

154-197 (176)

Mn (µg/g) 340-700 (592)

290-470 (389)

607-610 (609)

365-497 (415)

431 743-1222(924)

720-1010(815)

210-1103(596)

586-999 (746)

820-1359(1050)

497-900(775)

1117-1539(1258)

817-1054(936)

Fe (%) 1.5-3.0 (2.4)

0.9-2.6 (1.5)

0.3-3.3 (1.8)

1.4-2.1 (1.7)

0.1 1.4-3.5 (2.7)

1.9-3.6 (2.7)

0.8-5.6 (3.8)

4.1-5.0 (4.6)

5.1-6.9 (6.0)

2.0-6.5(4.8)

4.1-4.7 (4.7)

4.7-5.8 (5.3)

Co (µg/g) 7-27 (19)

21-38 (30)

ND-8 (4)

4-96 (35)

1 24-44 (34)

20-70 (45)

6-23 (17)

34-39 (36.8)

31-37 (34)

37-65 (54)

31-48 (37)

ND-18 (9)

Ni (µg/g) 13-29 (20)

10-28 (17)

ND-34 (17)

14-28 (19)

6 38-61 (49)

33-50 (38)

35-73 (55)

42-65 (55)

67-77 (74)

21-75 (58)

65-86 (70)

58-67 (63)

Cu (µg/g) 8-26 (16)

5-24 (12)

5-43 (24)

20-21 (21)

4 33-70 (52)

36-65 (48)

7-59 (41)

35-47 (41)

33-48 (42)

27-90 (73)

50-85 (62)

64-92 (78)

Zn (µg/g) 21-32 (28)

15-44 (25)

62-69 (66)

27-63 (41)

23 79-134 (110)

69-131 (101)

63-154 (126)

26-84 (47)

22-39 (32)

39-101(75)

88-93 (91)

83-85 (84)

Hg (µg/g) 0.01-0.10 (0.04)

- 0.06-0.09 (0.07)

0.05-0.17 (0.09)

0.15 - - ND-0.02(0.01)

0.05-0.1 (0.07)

0.01-0.02(0.02)

- - 0.09-0.11(0.10)

Pb (µg/g) 2-15 (10)

- - - - 6-12 (9)

6-10 (8)

- - - ND 3.5-11.8 (8.5)

-

Corg (%) - 0.1-1.6 (0.5)

0.2-0.6 (0.4)

0.4-0.7 (0.6)

0.3 - - - 0.3-0.8 (0.5)

0.4-0.9 (0.7)

- - 0.5-0.8 (0.7)

P (µg/g) - 410-709 (555)

626-688 (657)

594-738 (657)

746 694-815 (771)

- 76-985 (701)

584-823 (701)

395-584 (491)

- - 650-704 (677)

PHc (µg/g) ND-0.3 (0.1)

0.3-0.8 (0.4)

- 0.4-1.0 (0.7)

1.1 ND-0.9 (0.4)

0.2-1.0 (0.3)

0.2-1.0 (0.4)

0.4-0.8 (0.5)

0.5-0.9 (0.7)

0.3-1.0(0.6)

0.3-0.5 (0.4)

-


Parameter Postmonsoon

Bedi Navlakhi Kandla Oct 97 Nov 94 Nov 02 Oct 96 Nov 02 Dec 2010Sand (%) - - - - - 11.1-88.6

(52.4) Silt (%) - - - - - 6.8-82.5

(40.6) Clay (%) - - - - - 4.6-10.2

(7.1) Al (%) 2.9-6.6

(4.4) - 6.6 2.9-6.3

(4.4) 7.0 4.1-7.6

(5.6) Cr (µg/g) 48-189

(133) 75-194 (100)

94 50-103 (69)

83 97-195 (141.3)

Mn (µg/g) 493-775 (664)

549-1188 (944)

834 797-1321 (1033)

838 558-693 (611)

Fe (%) 2.0-5.2 (3.8)

1.4-3.6 (2.4)

3.8 1.6-3.4 (2.6)

3.5 2.5-5.7 (4.2)

Co (µg/g) 28-53 (41)

34-39 (36)

7 14-29 (23)

10 18-23 (22)

Ni (µg/g) 24-67 (51)

37-63 (51)

47 20-58 (40)

41 40-71 (55)

Cu (µg/g) 16-72 (46)

24-46 (34)

36 11-36 (25)

34 19-66 (39)

Zn (µg/g) 39-122 (72)

33-157 (78)

96 34-88 (61)

93 51-128 (87)

Hg (µg/g) 0.1-0.3 (0.2)

ND-0.40 (0.20)

0.11 0.13-0.26 (0.18)

0.08 0.06-0.07 (0.06)

Pb (µg/g) - 7.0-11.0 (10.0)

- 8.6-17.2 (12.9)

- -

Corg (%) - - 0.7 - 0.6 0.4-0.6 (0.5)

P (µg/g) - - 786 - 703 529-588 (552)

PHc (µg/g) 0.3-1.0 (0.4)

0.2-1.2 (0.5)

- 0.7-1.4 (1.0)

- 0.2-0.2 (0.2)


Parameter Mundra Salaya Sep 99 Nov 02 Oct 03 Dec 04 Jan 06 Dec 08 Dec 13 Nov 02

Sand (%) - - - - 3.3-66.6 (25.2)

98.2-98.6(98.4)

92.0-97.0 (93.8)

-

Silt (%) - - - - 19.8-88.6

(64.8) 0.4-1.0 (0.7)

1.2-4.8 (3.1)

-

Clay (%) - - - - 5.8-13.6 (10.0)

0.6-1.2 (0.9)

1.2-5.6 (3.2)

-

Al (%) 2.5-6.7 (5.6)

0.4 1.3-4.8 (3.1)

1.4-9.6 (4.3)

3.5-4.8 (4.0)

0.4-1.3 (0.9)

0.4-5.6 (3.1)

5.9

Cr (µg/g) 18-80 (53)

12 18-41 (30)

27-123 (73)

46-69 (61)

32-45 (37.0)

0.0-57.0 (29.4)

86

Mn (µg/g) 361-832

(684) 353

312-490(401)

536-1182(766)

641-928 (763)

253-799(459.7)

182.0-453(384.0)

611

Fe (%) 1.5-4.7 (3.8)

0.5 0.8-2.4 (1.6)

1.3-5.1 (3.6)

5.1-8.9 (7.5)

0.4-3.1 (1.4)

0.6-5.3 (2.7)

3.3

Co (µg/g) 11-34 (28)

ND 2-8 (5)

ND-20 (8)

13-38 (23)

2.0-6.0 (3.7)

4.0-14 (10.1)

8

Ni (µg/g) 15-59 (46)

ND 6-21 (14)

7-59 (35)

27-61 (48)

5.0-9.0 (6.3)

6.0-27 (17.0)

39

Cu (µg/g) 3-39 (27)

7 10-16 (13)

5-44 (20)

20-42 (3.3)

6.0-10.0(7.7)

0.0-15 (5.6)

41

Zn (µg/g) 13-79 (61)

15 20-48 (34)

31-151 (87)

132-250 (209)

18-28 (23.7)

0.0-35 (17.4)

68

Hg (µg/g) 0.3-0.69 (0.44)

0.08 - ND-0.01(0.01)

- 0 0.0-0.09 (0.03)

0.12

Pb (µg/g) - - - - - - - -

Corg (%) 0.1-0.8 (0.6)

0.1 0.1-0.2 (0.2)

ND-0.2 (0.1)

- 0.1-0.3 (0.2)

0.2-0.4 (0.3)

1.0

P (µg/g) 337-1402

(1027) 327

102-275(189)

469-1822(812)

- 340-415(378.7)

158-600 (402.1)

1049

PHc (µg/g) 0.1-0.4 (0.3)

- - ND-0.2 (0.1)

0.2-0.8 (0.5)

0.1-1.2 (0.5)

0.03-0.4 (0.2)

-

Dry wt basis except PHc which is wet wt basis, ND : Not Detected, Average in parenthesis

Table 3.3.5: List of intertidal algae of the Gulf

Name Status*

Chlorophyceae

Boodlea composita C

Bryopsis indica C

B. plumose C

B. ramulosa C

Caulerpa crassifolia C

C. cupressoides C

C. racemosa C

C. scalpelliformis C

C. sertularioides C

C. taxiformes C

C. verticillata C

Chaetomorpha indica C

Chamaedoris auirculata C

Cladophora glomerata C

C. prolifera C

Codium decorticatum R

C. dwarkensis C

C. elongatum C

Dictyosphaeria cavernosa C

Enteromorpha intenstinalis C

Halideda tuna C

Pseudobryopsis mucronata R

Spongomorpha sp. C

Udoea indica C

Ulva fasciata C

U. lactuca C

U. reticulata R

Valonia utricularis R

Valloniopsis spachynema R

Name Status*

Valonia utricularis R

Valloniopsis spachynema R

Phaeophyceae

Colpomenia sinuosa C

Cystoceira indica C

Dictyota atomaria C

D. bartayrisiana R

D. cervicornis R

D. ciliolate C

D. dichotoma C

D. divaricata R

Dictyopteris australis C

D. woodwardii C

Ectocarpus sp. C

Hinskia mitchelle C

Hormophysa triquetra R

Hydroclathrus clathratus R

Iyengaria stellata C

Myriogloea sciurus R

Nemacystus decipiens R

Padina gymnospora R

P. tetrastromatica C

Pocockiella sp. C

Rosenvingia intricata R

Sargassum johnstonii C

S. tenerrimum C

S. plagiophyllum R

S. swartzii C

S. wisghtii R

Spathoglossum asperum R

S. variabile C

Table 3.3.5 (Contd 2

*C: common; R: rare Source: Saurashtra University (1991)

Name Status*

Stoechospermum marginatum C

Spathoglossum asperum R

S. variabile C

Stoechospermum marginatum C

Turbinaria ornata R

Rhodophyceae

Acanthophora delilei C

A. specifera R

Amphiroa fragilissima R

Asparogopsis taxiformis C

Botroycladia leptapoda C

Calaglossa bombayance R

Ceramium sp. C

Champia indica C

Chondria ornata R

C.dasyphylla R

Coelarthrum opuntia C

Corallina officinalis C

Corynomorpha prismatica R

Cryptopleur sp. R

Dasya sp. R

Desmia hornmanni R

Gastroclonium iyengarii R

Galaxaura oblongata C

Gelidiella acerosa C

Gelidiospsis gracilis C

Gigartina sp R

Gracilaria corticata R

G. pygmaea C

Name Status*

G. verrucossa R

Grateloupia inica C

G. felicina R

Haloplegma sp. R

Halymenia floresia R

H. porphyroides C

H. venusta C

Helminthocladia clayadosii C

Heterosiphonia muelleri C

Hypnea cervicornis C

H. musciformis C

Hypoglossum spathulatum R

Laurencia papillosa C

L. pedicularioides C

Liagora cerenoides R

Lophocladia lallemandi R

Neurymenia fraxinifolia R

Polysiphonia sp. C

Rhodymenia australis C

R. palmate C

Scinaia indica C

S. furcellata R

Sebdenia polydactyla C

Spyridia alternans C

Soleria robusta C

Table 3.3.6: Biological characteristics of the Gulf during premonsoon (1981-2010)

Parameter Okha Salaya April 1981 March

1995 March 1999 April

2002 April 2003

March 2006

Feb 2007

March 2008

Mar 2010

April 2008

April 2009

April 2010

Phytoplankton Chlorophyll a (mg/m3)

1.1-6.9 (4.3)

0.5-1.1 (0.7)

0.5-1.1 (0.6)

0.5-2.7 (1.1)

0.1-0.2 (0.2)

0.2-0.4 (0.2)

0.2-0.4 (0.2)

0.8-1.5 (1.1)

0.6-0.8 (0.7)

0.9-1.3 (1.1)

1.2-1.9 (1.4)

1.8-2.3 (2.0)

Phaeophytin (mg/m3)

- 0.4-1.3 (0.7)

0.4-1.3 (0.7)

0.1-0.6 (0.2)

0.5-0.8 (0.6)

0.1-1.3 (0.8)

0.7-1.3 (0.9)

0.1-0.3 (0.2)

0.1-0.6 (0.2)

0.1-0.5 (0.3)

0.4-0.7 (0.6)

0.4-1.7 (0.8)

Cell counts (nox103/l)

- 36.6-45.6 (41.1)

49.2-775.2 (412.2)

16.5-116.5 (48.5)

15.3-24.0 (20.5)

- 8.8-16.0 (12.8)

43.0-61.6 (53.1)

10.4-28.0 (20.2)

19.2-37.6 (27)

44.8-89.6 (67.4)

168-220 (198.5)

Total genera (no)

- 8-8 (8)

7-8 (8)

14-21 (17)

15-19 (18)

- 9-15 (11)

13-17 (15)

8-14 (12)

14-16 (15)

15-17 (12)

14-22 (18)

ZooplanktonBiomass (ml/100m3)

0.3-0.6 (0.5)

0.4-0.7 (0.5)

6.9-7.2 (7.0)

0.3-7.5 (2.7)

1.5-4.5 (3.2)

0.5-4.0 (2.0)

1.3-7.0 (4.0)

0.4-0.6 (0.6)

0.3-0.9 (0.6)

1.3-12.7 (5.4)

0.9-3.8 (2.6)

0.9-3.3 (2.5)

Population (nox103/100m3)

- 0.2-0.4 (0.3)

0.4-1.0 (0.7)

2.0-29.3 (14.1)

6.5-13.0 (8.5)

2.5-47 (22.1)

0.8-21.8 (8.0)

2.3-16.0 (6.0)

1.5-9.8 (7.2)

15.5-109.4 (44.3)

14.7-280.9

(125.8)

16.5-22.8

(20.4) Total groups (no)

- 6-8 (7)

10-11 (11)

9-20 (15)

12-13 (13)

8-15 (13)

5-17 (13)

11-15 (13)

10-16 (13)

10-14 (12)

14-19 (17)

13-20 (16)

Macrobenthos Biomass (g/m2; wet wt)

- 0.1 <0.1 0.1 2.2-3.7 (3.2)

0.21-0.69 (0.95)

- - 0-1.2 (0.3)

0.7-7.5 (3.8)

2.4-22.3 (10.4)

0.6-31.9 (15.5)

Population (no/m2)

2700 200 13 341 375-1250 (828)

110-290 (200)

90-140 (105)

- 50-675 (220)

175-1900 (1075)

825-2700 (1511)

325-4050

(1553) Total groups (no)

9 4 1 9 3-8 (7)

2-3 (3)

3-4 (4)

- 1-5 (3)

3-8 (6)

4-9 (7)

2-9 (6)


Parameter Vadinar

April 1994 March 1996

April 2002

May 2005 April 2005 April 2006 April 2007 April 2008 April 2009 April 2010

Phytoplankton


1.1-1.1

(1.1)

1.1-2.7

(1.3)

0.5-1.6

(0.8)

0.2-0.6

(0.3)

0.2-0.6

(0.2)

0.2-2.3

(0.7)

0.2-3.8

(1.4)

1.1-1.9

(1.6)

0.6-3.3

(1.7)

0.2-2.9

(1.7)

Phaeophytin (mg/m3)

0.8-1.6

(1.0)

0.1-3.8

(1.5)

0.2-1.3

(0.8)

0.1-1.7

(0.5)

0.1-0.8

(0.4)

0.2-4.7

(1.2)

0.1-7.7

(3.0)

0.1-0.8

(0.2)

0.2-1.8

(0.6)

0.1-2.9

(0.6)


47.2

(47.2)

15.8-42.8

(29.4)

2.5-29.6

(11.9)

6.1-71.2

(21.8)

4.0-60.4

(20.0)

12-44.8

(29.4)

65.6-343.2

(139.5)

42.4-88.8

(63.2)

38.4-397.9

(107.5)

68.0-300

(176)

Total genera

(no)

25

(25)

9-11

(10)

8-21

(13)

10-22

(17)

10-22

(16)

11-18

(15)

16-29

(22)

14-20

(17)

12-19

(16)

12-30

(19)

Zooplankton

Biomass (ml/100m3)

12.1-18.9

(15.5)

3.0

(3.0)

<0.1-3.7

(1.2)

0.9-12.5

(4.6)

0.9-11.6

(2.8)

1.1-10.3

(2.1)

0.2-7.4

(2.1)

0.3-5.2

(2.8)

0.2-6.3

(2.1)

0.2-4.7

(1.0)


12.8-16.8

(14.8)

1.6

(1.6)

0.2-23.9

(6.2)

1.6-36.3

(12.3)

1.1-29.7

(6.4)

8.9-175.9

(67.4)

0.7-32.3

(5.2)

6.5-134.8

(44.0)

2.3-76.2

(29.5)

2.2-39.4

(17.5)

Total groups

(no)

13-15

(14)

11

(11)

12-20

(16)

6-19

(16)

6-19

(11)

10-19

(16)

5-16

(10)

11-19

(15)

7-15

(12)

9-21

(14)

Macrobenthos

Biomass

(g/m2; wet wt)

6.1 3.0 10.3 3.1 0.05-22.8

(3.6)

0.5-12.0

(4.4)

0.1-12.3

(4.2)

0.2-4.0

(1.3)

<0.1-33.7

(3.4)

0.3-23.3

(3.3)

Population (no/m2) 2725 1392 3693 739 200-2050

(726)

250-4500

(1788.3)

150-2325

(1020.8)

125-1200

(503)

50-2150

(672)

300-.3700

(910)

Total groups

(no)

9 8 17 6 2-6

(3)

2-11

(6)

4-11

(7)

1-9

(5)

1-13

(4)

3-8

(5)


Parameter Sikka April 1994

March 1997 May 2001 April 2002

April 2003 Feb 2005 April 2005

Phytoplankton


1.1-2.7 (1.6)

0.5-1.1 (0.8)

0.5-4.8 (1.6)

0.5-1.1 (0.6)

0.1-0.2 (0.2)

0.2-0.4 (0.3)

0.2-0.4 (0.2)

Phaeophytin (mg/m3)

0.3-3.1 (1.2)

0.1-0.6 (0.3)

0.1-6.2 (1.0)

0.2-1.3 (0.8)

0.5-0.8 (0.6)

0.5-1.2 (0.7)

0.1-0.7 (0.3)


35.0-61.0 (58.0)

25.2-41.2 (33.2)

0.5-719 (122)

6.2-28.0 (14.6)

15.3-24.0 (20.5)

10.8-51.6 (28.4)

4.0-54.4 (10.1)

Total genera (no)

4-18 (9)

6-7 (7)

5-21 (18)

12-23 (18)

15-19 (18)

11-16 (14)

8-20 (12)

Zooplankton

Biomass (ml/100m3)

0.8-13.3 (3.3)

1.5-1.5 (1.5)

1.8-28.2 (8.4)

0.3-8.5 (4.1)

1.5-4.5 (3.2)

0.1-10.0 (2.0)

0.3-22.8 (6.8)


1.9-44.8 (9.9)

3.4-4.7 (4.1)

6.9-118 (31.9)

1.9-49.3 (22.8)

6.5-13.0 (8.5)

0.2-28.8 (5.6)

2.4-13.2 (19.1)

Total groups (no)

7-14 (12)

10-14 (12)

11-15 (14)

11-20 (16)

12-13 (13)

4-15 (12)

6-16 (10)

Macrobenthos

Biomass (g/m2; wet wt)

25.5 116.0 <0.1-3.04 (0.75)

2.7 (2.7)

2.2-3.7 (3.2)

0.1-4.11 (1.7)

0.2-19.2 (7.2)

Population (no/m2)

2525 8050 50-834 (292)

1782 (1782)

375-1250 (828)

100-1850 (918)

50-2925 (1138)

Total groups (no)

11 10 1-5 (3)

10 (10)

3-8 (7)

3-9 (6)

2-8 (6)

Table 3.3.6 (Contd 4) Parameter Bedi Navlakhi Kandla

March 1997 Feb 1987 April 2002

Feb 1987 March 1996 Feb 1998 April 2002 March 2010

Phytoplankton

Chlorophyll a

(mg/m3)

0.5-5.9

(1.5)

0.5-3.8

(1.6)

0.5-1.1

(0.7)

0.1-0.5

(0.4)

0.5-0.5

(0.5)

0.5-2.1

(1.1)

0.5-2.1

(1.1)

0.4-3.0

(1.7)

Phaeophytin

(mg/m3)

0.1-7.6

(1.5)

0.1-0.8

(0.4)

0.2-1.3

(0.8)

0.1-1.7

(1.0)

0.2-0.6

(0.3)

0.1-1.7

(1.0)

0.3-1.3

(0.8)

0.3-1.0

(0.6)

Cell counts

(nox103/l)

38.0-936.0

(159.0)

- 1.7-13.5

(7.2)

4.6-170.0

(67.7)

30.2-45.1

(36.2)

8.4-22.4

(14.5)

10.4-127.3

(73.4)

Total genera

(no)

7-15

(10)

- 7-19

(11)

7-15

(11)

6-8

(7)

9-19

(13)

7-24

(16)

Zooplankton

Biomass (ml/100m3)

0.5-25.5

(6.4)

18.8-95.0

(53.3)

0.5-3.2

(1.9)

17.0-56.3

(37.0)

4.4-18.5

(11.5)

3.8-24.1

(14.3)

1.6-6.3

(3.2)

2.3-32.6

(13.5)


1.6-220.0

(48.1)

59.0-192.0

(117.3)

2.8-34.1

(16.9)

31.0-98.5

(67.0)

4.2-18.7

(11.4)

13.7-117.1

(42.4)

11.8-139

(40.0)

18.7-845.4

(272.5)

Total groups

(no)

5-15

(10)

- 11-20

(15)

- 10-11

(11)

7-13

(10)

11-17

(14)

11-15

(13)

Macrobenthos

Biomass

(g/m2; wet wt)

7.8 <0.1 <0.1 6.4 0.4 <0.2 <0.1 0.8-7.0

(2.0)

Population (no/m2)

2944 72 25 264 978 26 143 300-800

(572.7)

Total groups

(no)

9 - 1 3 8 2 5 2-8

(5)


Parameter Mundra

March 1997 March 1999 March 2000 April 2002 June 2003 May 2005 April 2006 April 2007 April 2008 April 2010

Phytoplankton


0.3-1.1

(0.8)

0.5-2.7

(0.9)

0.5-1.6

(0.8)

0.5-1.6

(0.9)

0.2-4.1

(1.0)

0.2-2.1

(0.8)

0.2-0.9

(0.5)

0.2-2.3

(0.5)

1.0-2.3

(1.4)

0.5-2.1

(1.0)

Phaeophytin (mg/m3)

0.2-0.8

(0.4)

0.1-1.7

(0.6)

0.1-0.6

(0.4)

0.1-1.3

(0.7)

0.1-1.6

(0.5)

0.4-7.2

(2.6)

0.2-1.9

(1.2)

0.1-4.3

(2.2)

0.2-1.4

(0.5)

0.1-1.3

(0.4)


62.4-293.0

(189.4)

33.6-133.2

(79.6)

14.0-196.0

(57.0)

16.6-82.8

(45.8)

12.9-427

(90.8)

18.0-624

(96.2)

6.4-28.8

(18.2)

27.2-157.6

(49.0)

28.0-100

(51.7)

48.0-148.0

(74.4)

Total genera (no)

7-14

(12)

6-14

(10)

8-14

(11)

20-26

(24)

8-13

(10)

9-17

(13)

8-21

(16)

13-22

(17)

13-18

(15)

13-22

(17)

Zooplankton

Biomass (ml/100m3)

0.4-72.7

(32.0)

0.8-8.0

(4.3)

0.2-28.2

(6.4)

0.2-25.3

(9.1)

0.9-9.6

(2.7)

0.8-109.9

(12.3)

1.2-11

(4.5)

2.3-18.2

(7.3)

0.4-3.2

(1.6)

0.3-2.0

(0.8)


1.6-144.1

(74.8)

2.1-40.4

(19.6)

1.9-145.1

(25.0)

2.2-156

(45.5)

7.7-58.9

(18.7)

3.2-232.3

(37.4)

9.8-64.6

(22.1)

14.7-162.4

(61.9)

4.4-18.7

(8.9)

2.7-69

(4.3)

Total groups (no)

9-16

(12)

6-16

(12)

6-17

(10)

9-21

(15)

12-18

(15)

12-18

(16)

13-21

(17)

12-19

(17)

12-15

(14)

7-10

(8)

Macrobenthos

Biomass

(g/m2; wet wt)

4.4 0.2-2.0

(0.8)

0.1-43.1

(4.3)

12.8 0-4.5

(0.4)

<0.1-55.4

(6.5)

0.0-10.1

(2.6)

0.03-7.85

(1.4)

- -

Population (no/m2)

5700 302-515

(380)

100-20600

(2100)

3494 0-1300

(240)

0.1-6.6

(1.2)

0.0-2.2

(0.7)

0-1000

(205.2)

- -

Total groups (no)

7 5-5

(5)

2-7

(4)

15 0-6

(3)

1-7

(4)

0-7

(4)

0-6

(3)

- -

Average given in parenthesis

Table 3.3.7: Biological characteristics of the Gulf during postmonsoon (1984-2013)

Parameter Okha Dec 1981

Nov 1995 Nov 1999 Nov 2002 Jan 2003 Jan 2004 Oct 2004 Dec 2005 Oct 2009

Phytoplankton

Chlorophyll a

(mg/m3)

2.7-4.3

(3.5)

1.1-1.1

(1.1)

1.1-1.1

(1.1)

0.5-1.6

(0.7)

0.5-0.5

(0.5)

0.2-0.4

(0.3)

0.2-2.8

(0.7)

0.2-0.4

(0.2)

1.0-2.1

(1.7)

Phaeophytin

(mg/m3)

- 0.2-0.6

(0.3)

0.1-0.4

(0.2)

0.1-1.4

(0.6)

0.2-1.0

(0.5)

0.1-0.3

(0.2)

0.4-9.3

(3.1)

0.5-3.6

(1.6)

0.2-1.5

(1.1)

Cell counts

(nox103/l)

- 27.0-54.8

(41.8)

68.0-80.0

(74.0)

- 1.2-54.0

(21.0)

3.1-60.0

(19.0)

23.2-115.8

(64.1)

- -

Total genera

(no)

- 13-16

(15)

10-11

(11)

- 9-19

(12)

10-17

(12)

12-17

(14)

- 14-22

(18)

Zooplankton

Biomass

(ml/100m3)

0.5-0.9

(0.7)

0.4-0.8

(0.6)

0.4-1.0

(0.7)

0.2-2.6

(1.6)

2.2-8.2

(4.6)

1.0-56.9

(25.2)

8.7-25.4

(14.5)

2.8-8.6

(6.5)

0.8 -10.7

(5.0)

Population

(nox103/100m3)

- 0.5-0.5

(0.5)

6.9-7.2

(7.0)

0.6-22.8

(8.3)

26.1-86

(54.9)

20.5-69.4

(45.8)

11.2-49.4

(24.4)

6.4-14.6

(11.0)

4.0-48.0

(19.5)

Total groups

(no)

- 7-14

(12)

10-11

(11)

10-19

(16)

15-21

(16)

12-20

(15)

13-16

(15)

16-19

(17)

17-18

(18)

Macrobenthos

Biomass

(g/m2; wet wt)

- <0.1 0.5 1.89 0.5-24.9

(15.2)

0.2-5.2

(3.3)

0.04* 0.1-0.25

(0.2)

-

Population

(no/m2)

775 89 352 1963 600-2025

(1307)

213-2900

(1597)

94* 50-475

(263)

-

Total groups

(no)

5 3 4 10 2-6

(5)

2-6

(4)

3* 2-3

(3)

-

Table 3.3.7(Contd 2) Parameter Vadinar

Nov 1994 Nov 1995 Jan 2000 Nov 2002 Jan 2003 Jan 2004 Nov 2004 Nov 2005 Nov 2006

Phytoplankton

Chlorophyll a

(mg/m3)

0.5-0.5

(0.5)

0.5-1.1

(0.7)

0.5-1.1

(0.8)

0.5-1.6

(0.6)

0.5-0.5

(0.5)

0.2-0.2

(0.2)

0.2-0.8

(0.4)

0.2-0.9

(0.4)

0.2-1.5

(0.7)

Phaeophytin

(mg/m3)

0.2-1.0

(0.6)

0.1-0.6

(0.4)

0.1-0.6

(0.4)

0.1-1.3

(0.4)

0.2-1.0

(0.6)

0.1-0.2

(0.2)

0.1-1.0

(0.5)

0.3-2.9

(1.0)

0.1-1.4

(0.3)

Cell counts

(nox103/l)

- 9.4-32.7 (17.1)

17.2-28.8

(22.0)

3.8-26.4

(9.9)

9.6-70.0

(36.6)

2.0-20.1

(11.7)

2.0-12.0

(10.7)

8.8-72.0

(32.8)

15.2-34.4

(23.1)

Total genera

(no)

- 10-12

(11)

8-13

(11)

10-18

(14)

9-21

(14)

11-18

(15)

7-12

(10)

10-19

(14)

10-18

(15)

Zooplankton

Biomass

(ml/100m3)

2.1-6.4

(4.6)

1.6

(1.6)

0.6-7.3

(4.0)

0.4-2.5

(1.3)

4.2-11.9

(8.2)

0.1-1.9

(1.0)

0.3-6.7

(1.4)

0.3-8.1

(1.7)

0.2-10.6

(2.2)


3.7-52.7

(23.7)

7.2

(7.2)

8.7-41.1

(24.9)

2.5-12.2

(7.4)

23.4-125

(66.5)

0.2-9.6

(6.8)

1.4-37.1

(13.5)

7.2-46.6

(17.4)

4.8-91.7

(23.6)

Total groups

(no)

11-15

(13)

10

(10)

7-8

(8)

9-20

(16)

20-23

(22)

8-12

(9)

11-17

(14)

10-18

(14)

7-15

(12)

Macrobenthos

Biomass

(g/m2; wet wt)

- 1.2 0.2 1.26 0.0-35.5

(10.0)

<0.1-7.2

(2.6)

0.6-20.8

(1.7)

0.01-6.6

(1.2)

0.8-9.9

(4.0)

Population

(no/m2)

- 339 126 1163 0-7425

(2581)

25-1826

(471)

75-900

(350.3)

75-1475

(454.8)

775-2975

(1293.8)

Total groups

(no)

- 3 3 9 0-9

(5)

2 2-6

(4)

1-4

(3)

2-13

(7)


Parameter Sikka Bedi Navlakhi Dec 1993 Dec 2000 Nov 2002 Nov 2003 Oct 1997 Nov 2002 Nov 1986 Nov 1994 Nov 2002

Phytoplankton


0.5-4.3

(1.8)

0.5-3.7

(1.3)

0.5-1.1

(0.6)

0.2-0.6

(0.3)

0.5-1.6

(1.0)

0.5-1.6

(1.0)

1.1-4.6

(2.2)

0.5-1.6

(0.9)

0.5-1.6

(0.6)

Phaeophytin (mg/m3)

0.1-2.8

(0.9)

0.1-1.5

(0.6)

0.2-1.0

(0.4)

0.1-1.0

(0.6)

1.3-1.6

(1.4)

0.1-0.5

(0.4)

0.1-1.9

(1.0)

0.1-0.8

(0.4)

0.1-0.8

(0.4)


4.0-252

(90.0)

8.0-267

(85.4)

- 3.6-59.2

(21.4)

0.2-14.8

(7.5)

3.8-56.1

(22.5)

- 9.0-18.9

(13.1)

6.0-31.4

(14.5)

Total genera

(no)

4-12

(7)

8-13

(11)

- 7-10

(9)

6-7

(7)

10-16

(13)

- 7-9 (8) 8-20

(13)

Zooplankton

Biomass (ml/100m3)

3.9-29.9

(11.0)

5.0-32.4

(20.7)

0.5-5.7

(2.5)

2.4-11.4

(7.8)

1.8-7.5

(4.6)

3.9-8.9

(6.6)

13.2-55.2

(30.4)

1.8-13.5

(5.6)

0.8-5.4

(3.5)


1.93-71.3

(44.5)

12.8-83.4

(43.3)

2.3-37.0

(13.5)

27.8-91

(67.5)

9.9-14.9

(12.4)

12.8-24.5

(19.4)

2.0-13.0

(6.8)

4.4-31.4

(14.5)

5.5-38.3

(15.1)

Total groups

(no)

10-13

(12)

13-19

(16)

11-20

(16)

13-17

(15)

10-11

(11)

16-19

(17)

- 10-15

(12)

12-19

(16)

Macrobenthos

Biomass

(g/m2; wet wt)

12.8 0.02-2.1

(1.0)

14.4 2.2-3.7

(3.2)

0.1 5.7 0.1-43.1

(4.3)

0.1 <0.1-0.1

Population

(no/m2)

10914 150-777

(483)

544 375-1250

(828)

125 1125 100-20600

(2100)

60 13-125

(82)

Total groups

(no)

11 2-9

(4)

8 3-8

(6)

1 12 2-7

(4)

15 0-6

(3)


Parameter Kandla

Nov 1986 Oct 1996 Nov 2002 Jan 2003 Dec 2004 Jan 2004 Oct 2004 Dec 2005 Dec 2006

Phytoplankton


0.5-1.1

(0.8)

2.1-4.3

(3.2)

0.5-1.1

(0.8)

0.5-1.1

(0.9)

0.2-0.2

(0.2)

0.2-0.2

(0.2)

- 0.2-0.3

(0.3)

0.6-3.9

(2.3)

Phaeophytin (mg/m3)

0.1-1.3

(0.6)

0.1-0.6

(0.8)

0.2-1.9

(0.6)

1.2-2.3

(1.6)

0.2-1.0

(0.6)

0.1-0.5

(0.3)

- 1.6-2.5

(2.0)

0.3-3.6

(1.1)


- 25.2-37.5

(30.4)

3.6-28.1

(17.6)

37.4-138.4

(103.0)

0.8-45.2

(31.8)

3-11.2

(6.0)

26.4-33.6

(30.0)

- 6.0-59.2

(13.2)

Total genera

(no)

- 5-9

(7)

5-14

(10)

9-11

(10)

2-14

(7)

8-12

(11)

15-17

(16)

- 5-18

(13)

Zooplankton

Biomass (ml/100m3)

8.2-13.7

(11.8)

1.8-5.2

(3.5)

3.1-9.9

(5.2)

3.3-6.1

(4.7)

2.1-8.8

(5.9)

1.2-1.7

(1.5)

9.7-27.8

(18.8)

1.2-2.9

(2.1)

2.7-235.1

(33.9)


21.0-32.9

(25.5)

1.2-63.6

(32.4)

16.6-102.1

(40.7)

61.0-63.7

(62.4)

4.5-89.0

(42.6)

4.1-6.7

(5.4)

13.2-52.6

(32.9)

2.3-8.4

(5.3)

17.6-2599.1

(401.2)

Total groups

(no)

- 8-12

(10)

12-21

(18)

17-17

(17)

14-19

(17)

9-10

(10)

16-17

(17)

11-12

(12)

11-18

(14)

Macrobenthos

Biomass

(g/m2; wet wt)

0.2 0.4 0.1 0.1 1.2 0.1-1.1

(0.6)

0.2* <0.01-0.06

(0.03)

0.07-2.32

(0.9)

Population

(no/m2)

60 276 6.9 75 177 100-138

(119)

44* 25-25

(25)

125-1050

(542)

Total groups

(no)

2 3 4 2 2 3-5

(4)

4* 1-1

(1)

1-6

(3)


Parameter Mundra Sep 1999 Nov

2002 Jan 2003

Oct 2003 Jan 2004 Oct 2004 Dec 2005 Jan 2006 Oct 2007 Dec 2008 Dec 2013

Phytoplankton

Chlorophyll a

(mg/m3)

1.1-3.7

(2.6)

0.5-1.1

(0.5)

0.5-1.6

(1.0)

0.2-3.4

(1.0)

0.2-0.2

(0.2)

0.2-0.4

(0.3)

0.4-1.8

(1.0)

0.2-14.1

(1.6)

0.9-3.0

(1.8)

0.5‐2.9(1.6)

0.6‐4.9(1.8)

Phaeophytin

(mg/m3)

0.4-2.8

(1.3)

0.2-0.6

(0.3)

0.1-4.2

(1.8)

0.1-1.5

(0.4)

0.1-0.8

(0.3)

0.8-3.8

(2.2)

0.4-2.5

(1.4)

0.1-10.2

(2.3)

0.1-0.8

(0.4)

0.2‐1.5 (0.6)

0.2‐2.4 (0.8)

Cell counts

(nox103/l)

96.0-169.0

(150.0)

4.2-24.1

(11.2)

13-148

(53.8)

26-337

(111)

3.7-34.0

(14.6)

20.0-42.4

(28.0)

- 4.8-5762

(416)

44.8-208.8

(101.9)

32.8‐6432.8(502.5)

20‐525.6 (120.6)

Total genera

(no)

6-12

(9)

7-17

(11)

12-18

(15)

9-22

(15)

12-18

(14)

15-19

(17)

- 7-18

(13)

12-18

(14)

13‐19 (16)

9‐23 (15)

Zooplankton

Biomass

(ml/100m3)

0.1-2.5

(0.8)

4.5-15.4

(7.2)

4.0-6.8

(5.7)

1.1-21.8

(5.2)

0.8-3.0

(1.8)

17.4-46.6

(29.8)

1.8-7.1

(4.6)

2.2-13.1

(5.2)

5.3-29.3

(10.3)

0.4‐14.1 (4.6)

0.1‐3.6 (1.0)


0.1-11.0

(2.7)

7.5-60.6 (29.3)

58.2-150.3

(84.3)

11.7-81.5

(38.1)

6.3-22.0

(13.6)

11.5-93.2

(66.5)

3.1-93.4

(22.9)

5.1-141.0

(30.2)

36.8-322.5

(116.8)

2.3‐86.2 (25.3)

0.5‐41.5 (7.2)

Total groups

(no)

9-19

(12)

13-19

(15)

16-17

(17)

12-17

(15)

8-14

(10)

12-15

(14)

11-16

(14)

13-21

(17)

12-19

(15)

9‐19 (14.8)

5‐16 (13)

Macrobenthos

Biomass

(g/m2; wet wt)

0.6 0.3 0.1-15.5

(4.6)

1.4 1.4-2.7

(2.0)

0.01* 0.03* 0.9-63.2

(28.3)

0.3-85.0

(12)

0.01‐4.23 (0.7)

0‐24.0 (2.2)

Population

(no/m2)

713 325 125-1425

(652)

350 550-1450

(750)

75* 150* 0-18.0

(2.2)

0.2-17.1

(3.5)

25‐1100 (315)

0‐3350 (735)

Total groups

(no)

2 8 2-6

(4)

2 4-6

(5)

2* 3* 0-7

(3)

1-9

(4)

1‐9 (4)

0‐6 (3)

Average given in parenthesis

Table 3.3.8: Mangrove areas and species status of Gujarat

District 1992 1998

Mangroves areas (km2)

Kachchh 601.8 938.0 Jamnagar 13.12 98.3 Junagad 0.8 0.3 Bhavnagar 14.5 6.2 Bharuch 10.9 17.1 Surat 7.8 5.0 Valsad - 5.0

Total 767.0 1066.9

Status of occurrence of major species

Species 1992 1998

Avicennia sp Common Common Rhizophora sp Common Vulnerable Aegiceras sp Common Endangered Ceriops tagal Common Vulnerable Sonneratia apetala Common Vulnerable Bruigeria sp Common Absent

* Based on satellite data

Table 3.3.9: Distribution of corals in the Gulf

Species 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Esammocora digitata - - - - - - - + - - - - - - -

Acropora humilis - - + + - - + + - - - - - - -

A.squamosa - - - + - - - - - - - - - - -

Montipora explanata + - + + - + + - + + + + + + +

M.venosa - - - + - - + - - - - - - - -

M.turgescons - - - - - - + - - - - - - - -

M.hispida + + - + + - + + + + + - - - +

M.foliosa - - - + - - + - - - - - - - -

M.monasteriata - - - + - - + - - - - - - - -

Coscinaraea monile + + + + + + + + + - - - - - +

Siderastrea savignyana + - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Pseudosiderastrea tayami + - - - - - + + + + + + + + +

Goniopora planulata + + - - + + + - + + - + - - +

G.minor - - - + - - + - - - - - - - +

G.nigra + + - + + + + - - + - - - - +

Porites leutea + + + + - - + - - - - + - - +

P.lichen + - - - - - + - + - - + - + +

P.compressa + + - - - - - - - - - - - - +

Favia speciosa - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +

F.favus + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Favites complanata + + + + + + + - - + - - - + +


Species 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

F. melicerus + - + - - - - - + - - - - + +

Goniastrea pectinata + + + + + + + - + + + - + + +

Platygyra sinensis + + + + - - - - - + - - - + +

Hydnophora exesa + + + + - - - - - + - - + - +

Plesiastrea versipora - + - - - - + - - - - - - - -

Leptastrea purpurea - - - - - - - - - - - Sikka point

Cyphastrea serailia + + + + + + + + + + - - + + +

Symphyllia radian - + - + - + - - + - - - - - -

Acanthastrea simplex + + + + - - - - + + - - - - +

Mycedium elephantotus - - - + - - - - - - - - - - -

Paracyathus stokesi + - - - - - - - - - - - - 10 m

Polycyathus verrilli + - + - - - + - - - - - - - -

Tubastraea aurea + + + + + - - - + + - - - - -

Turbinaria crater + + - + - - + - - - - - - - +

T.peltata - + + + + + + - - + - - + + + 1 : Okha 2 : Dholio Gugar 3 : Dona 4 : Boria 5 : Mangunda 6 : Savaj 7 : Paga 8 : Manmarudi Langamarudi 9 : Ajad 10 : Bural reef 11 : Dhani 12 : Kalumbhar reef 13 : Narara reef 14 : Goose reef 15 : Pirotan island

Source: Pillai, C.S.G. and M.I. Patel (1988)

Table 3.3.10: List of water birds in the Gulf

English name Scientific name Status in the study

area Salt pans Gulf

Podicipedidae

Great Crested Grebe Podiceps cristatus LM -

Blacknecked Grebe Podiceps nigricollis M -

Pelecanidae

White Pelican Pelecanus onocrotalus LM LM

Dalmatian Pelican Pelecanus crispus M M

Phalacrocoracidae

Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo LM LM

Indian Shag Phalacrocorax fuscicolli LM LM

Little Cormorant Phalacrocorax niger LM R

Darter Anhinga rufa LM R

Ardeidae

Grey Heron Ardea cinerea LM R

Purple Heron Ardea purpurea LM -

Little Green Heron Ardeola striatus LM R

Pond Heron Ardeola grayii LM R

Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis - LM

Large Egret Ardea alba LM R

Smaller Egret Egretta intermedia LM -

Little Egret Egretta garzetta LM -

Indian Reef Heron Egretta gularis LM R

Night Heron Nycticorax mycticorax LM R

Ciconiidae

Painted Stork Mycteria leucocephala LM R

Blacknecked Stork Ephippiorhynchus asiaficus LM LM

Threskiornithidae

White Ibis Threskiornis aethiopica LM R

Black Ibis Pseudibis papillasa - R

Spoonbill Platalea leucorodia LM R


English name Scientific name status Inhabitation Salt pans Gulf

Phoenicopteridae

Flamingo Phoenicopterus roseus LM LM

Lesser Flamingo Phoenicopterus minor LM R

Anatidae

Ruddy Shel duck Tadorna ferruginea - M

Pintail Anas acuta M M

Common Teal Anas crecca M -

Spotbill Duck Anas poecilorhyncha LM LM

Shoveller Anas clypeata M -

Accipitridae

Brahminy Kite Haliastur indus LM R

Marsh Harrier Circus aeruginosus M M

Osprey Pandian haliaetus M M

Gruidae

Common Crane Grus grus M M

Demoiselle Crane Anthropoides virgo M M

Rallidae

Coot Fulica atra LM LM

Jacanidae

Pheasant - tailed Jacana Hydrophasianus chirurgus LM -

Haematopodidae

Oystercatcher Haematopus stralegus M M

Charadriidae

Redwattled Lapwing Vanellus indicus R R

Grey Plover Pluvialis sugotarola M M

Eastern Golden Plover Pluvialis dominica - M


English name Scientific name status InhabitationSalt pans Gulf

Large Sand Plover Charadrius leschenaultii M M

Ringed Plover Charadrius hiaticula R -

Kentish plover Charadrius alexandrinus R R

Lesser Sand Plover Charadrius mongolus M M

Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus M M

Curlew Numenius arquata M M

Blacktailed Godwit Limosa limosa M -

Bartailed Godwit Limosa lapponica M M

Spotted Redshank Tringa erythropus M M

Common Redshank Tringa totanus M M

Marsh Sandpiper Tringa stagnatilis M M

Greenshank Tringa nebularia M M

Green Sandpiper Tringa ochropus M M

Wood Sandpiper Tringa glareola M -

Terek Sandpiper Tringa terek M M

Common Sandpiper Tringa hypoleucos M M

Turnstone Arenaria interpres M M

Knot Calidris carutus - M

Eastern Knot Calidris tenuirostris - V

Sanderling Calidris alba - M

Eastern Little Stint Calidris ruficollis - V

Little Stint Calidris minuta M M

Dunlin Calidris alpina M M

Curlew-Sandpiper Calidris testacea M M

Broadbilled Sandiper Limicola falcinellus M M

Ruff and Reeve Philomachus pugnax M M

Rednecked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus M M

Recurvirostidae

Blackwinged Stilt Himantopus himantopus R -

Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta LM -



Dromadidae

Crab Plover Dromas ardeola M M

Burhinidae

Great Stone Plover Esacus magnirostris LM R

Laridae

Herring Gull Larus argentatus M M

Lesser Blackbacked

Gull Larus fuscus M M

Blackheaded Larus ichthyaetus M M

Brownheaded Gull Larus brunnicephalus M M

Blackheaded Gull Larus ridibunds M M

Slenderbilled Gull Larus genei M M

Whiskered Tern Chiildonias hybrida M M

Whitewinged Black Chiildonias leucopterus M M

Tern

Gullbilled Tern Gelochelidon nilotica M M Caspian Tern Hdroprogne caspia LM LM Common Tern Sterna hirunda M M Whitecheeked Tern Sterna repressa M M Brownwinged Tern Sterna anaethetus M M Little Tern Sterna albitrons M M Saunders Little Tern Sterna saundersi LM R Large Crested Tern Sterna bergii M M Indian Lesser Crested Tern Sterna bengalenis M M Sandwich Tern Sterna sandvicensis M M Indian skimmer Rynchops albicollis LM LM

Table 3.3.10 (Contd 5) R : Resident has been recorded breeding during the study. LM : Local migrant, has not been recorded breeding during the study, but is known to nest within the state. M : Migrant, does not breed in this area, spends the winter here

and also sometimes the summer. V : Not normally found in the area, one to few records only. Source: Saurashtra University (1991).


Alcedinidae

Common Kingfisher Alcedo atthis LM LM

Whitebreast Halcyon smyrnensisq LM LM

Blackcapped kingfisher Halcyon pileata M M

Table 4.3.1 Water quality at station 1 off Vandh

Air temperature (oC) given in parenthesis * Single value

Parameter December 2008 December 2013 April 2015

Level Min Max Av Min Max Av Min Max Av

Temperature (oC) S - - 24.6 - - 25.1 - - 28.1

B - - 24.8 - - 25.2 - - 28.0

- - (26.5) - - (25.0) - - (29.5)

pH S 8.0 8.1 8.1 - - 8.1 - - 8.3

B - - 8.0 - - 8.2 - - 8.3

SS (mg/l) S - - 32* - - 37* - - 63**

B - - 38* - - 36* - - 118*

Salinity (ppt) S 35.7 35.9 35.8 - - 36.8 - - 37.3

B 36.1 36.1 36.1 - - 37.0 - - 37.3

DO (mg/l) S 5.4 5.7 5.5 - - 7.7 - - 6.4

B 5.7 6.1 5.8 - - 8.0 - - 6.4

BOD (mg/l) S - - 2.9* - - 4.1* - - 2.8

B - - 1.6* - - 3.8* - - 2.2

PO43--P (µmol/l) S - - 1.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 - - 0.4

B - - 1.8 0.3 0.4 0.4 1.7 1.8 1.8

NO3 --N (µmol/l) S 5.2 7.5 6.3 2.3 2.4 2.4 - - 1.5

B 6.5 7.1 6.8 2.1 2.2 2.1 1.5 1.6 1.6

NO2--N (µmol/l) S - - 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2

B - - 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2

NH4+-N (µmol/l) S 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 1.2 1.3 1.2

B 0.7 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.8 0.7 - - 0.8

PHc (µg/l) 1m - - 1.3* - - 21.3* - -

Table 4.3.2 Water quality at station 1A near Disposal point (500 m)

Parameter Level December 2008 April 2015

Min Max Av Min Max Av

Temperature (oC) S 29.0 30.5 30.0 30.3 34.0 32.5

B 29.8 30.0 29.9 30.3 33.5 32.4

(19.0) (27.0) (24.8) (27.0) (31.5) (29.8)

pH S 8.1 8.3 8.1 8.3 8.4 8.4

B 8.1 8.2 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.4

SS (mg/l) S 38 50 44 48 71 60

B - - 33 - - 59

Salinity (ppt) S 36.3 37.0 36.7 35.7 37.5 36.6

B 36.3 36.8 36.6 35.9 37.5 36.5

DO (mg/l) S 4.4 7.4 6.2 6.1 7.1 6.5

B 6.4 7.0 6.7 6.4 7.1 6.5

BOD (mg/l) S 1.9 2.8 2.4 3.1 3.5 3.3

B - - 4.1 - - 3.1

PO43--P (µmol/l) S 0.8 1.2 0.9 0.5 1.2 0.8

B 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.6 1.2 0.8

NO3 --N (µmol/l) S 2.0 4.2 3.2 0.5 1.7 1.3

B 2.9 3.0 3.0 0.6 2.0 1.4

NO2--N (µmol/l) S - - 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.3

B - - 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.4

NH4+-N (µmol/l) S 0.2 0.7 0.4 0.9 3.8 2.0

B 0.4 0.5 0.4 1.0 3.7 2.2

PHc (µg/l) 1m 8.9 33.8 21.4 1.9 3.9 2.9


Table 4.3.3 Water quality at station 1B near Disposal point (1000 m)

Parameter LevelDecember 2013 April 2015


Temperature (oC) S - - 24.2 - - 32.0

B - - - - - 31.5

- - (26.0) - - (29.0)

pH S - - 8.1 - - 8.4

B - - - - - 8.4

SS (mg/l) S - - 44* - - 50*

B - - - - - 55*

Salinity (ppt) S - - 36.6 - - 37.7

B - - - - - 37.7

DO (mg/l) S - - 5.7 - - 7.0

B - - - - - 6.7

BOD (mg/l) S - - 0.3* - - 4.4*

B - - - - - 3.8*

PO43--P (µmol/l) S - - 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.5

B - - - 1.0 1.1 1.1

NO3 --N (µmol/l) S 6.0 6.7 6.3 1.4

B - - - 1.3 1.4 1.3

NO2--N (µmol/l) S - - 0.3 - - 0.3

B - - - - - 0.3

NH4+-N (µmol/l) S 1.2 1.3 1.2 3.4 3.5 3.4

B - - - 2.7 2.8 2.8

PHc (µg/l) 1m - - 36.9* - - 2.9*



Parameter Level December 2008 December 2013 April 2015

Min Max Av Min Max Av Min Max Av

Temperature (oC) S 25.0 26.5 25.7 24.0 26.9 25.1 26.5 31.0 27.9

B 24.5 26.0 25.5 24.1 26.0 25.1 26.5 30.0 27.7

(23.0) (27.6) (26.5) (19.0) (28.0) (25.4) (27.1) (30.0) (28.6)

pH S 7.9 8.1 8.0 8.0 8.1 8.1 8.3 8.4 8.4

B 7.9 8.1 8.0 8.0 8.1 8.1 8.4 8.4 8.4

SS (mg/l) S 20 24 22 38 43 40 31 74 52

B 18 26 22 30 31 30 49 76 63

Salinity (ppt) S 36.7 38.0 37.2 35.9 36.7 36.2 36.5 37.9 36.9

B 36.7 37.2 37.0 35.9 36.8 36.4 36.4 37.9 37.0

DO (mg/l) S 6.4 7.7 7.0 6.0 7.0 6.5 6.1 7.0 6.4

B 5.7 7.4 6.5 5.7 6.7 6.1 6.4 7.0 6.6

BOD (mg/l) S 0.3 2.4 1.4 1.3 2.5 1.9 -- - 4.1*

B 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.9 0.8 - - 3.8*

PO43--P (µmol/l) S 2.5 3.5 2.8 0.2 1.4 0.8 0.9 2.2 1.2

B 2.0 3.5 2.6 0.7 1.3 1.1 1.0 1.5 1.2

NO3 --N (µmol/l) S 5.5 10.6 8.0 8.0 12.8 9.4 2.1 7.0 3.1

B 6.9 9.6 7.8 7.2 10.7 8.8 2.1 3.5 2.7

NO2--N (µmol/l) S 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3

B 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2

NH4+-N (µmol/l) S 0.1 1.3 0.7 0.6 1.1 0.9 0.9 2.3 1.5

B 0.4 1.2 0.8 0.6 1.2 0.8 1.2 1.9 1.5

PHc (µg/l) 1m 3.1 1.8 2.5 6.9 7.6 7.3 12.1 19.7 15.9

Air temperature (oC) given in parenthesis




Temperature (oC)

S - - 26.0 23.0 24.8 23.9 - - 27.4

B - - 26.0 23.0 24.5 23.8 27.3 27.5 27.4

- - (29.8) (21.5) (24.5) (23.0) (26.8) (26.8) (26.8)

pH S - - 8.0 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.3 8.4 8.4

B - - 8.1 8.1 8.2 8.2 8.4 8.4 8.4

SS (mg/l) S - - 26* 36 49 43 36 48 42

B - - 34* 45 60 52 31 34 32

Salinity (ppt) S 36.5 36.8 36.7 36.3 36.8 36.6 - - 37.9

B 37.2 37.4 37.3 36.5 36.6 36.6 - - 37.9

DO (mg/l) S 6.1 6.4 6.2 - - 6.0 6.4 7.0 6.7

B - - 6.1 - - 6.0 6.4 7.0 6.7

BOD (mg/l) S - - 3.2* 0.3 0.3 0.3 3.8*

B - - 3.8* 0.9 0.9 0.9 4.1*

PO43--P (µmol/l)

S 1.5 2.1 1.8 1.0 1.2 1.1 0.8 1.7 1.3

B 2.4 2.5 2.5 1.3 1.4 1.3 0.4 1.1 0.8

NO3 --N (µmol/l)

S 5.3 5.4 5.3 3.6 5.2 4.4 0.9 1.0 1.0

B - - 5.9 4.6 6.0 5.3 0.6 2.1 1.4

NO2--N (µmol/l)

S 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.2 - - 0.2

B 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2

NH4+-N (µmol/l)

S 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.7 1.9 1.3

B 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.0 0.8 1.2 1.0

PHc (µg/l) 1m - - 1.6 25.5 38.2 31.9 2.1 15.8 9.0





Temperature (oC) S - - 27.5 - - 28.0 - - 28.0

B - - 27.5 - - 26.5 - - 27.5

- - (27.0) - - (28.0) - - (35.0)

pH S - - 8.0 - - 8.1 - - 8.4

B - - 8.0 - - 8.2 - - 8.4

SS (mg/l) S - - 38* - - 55* - - 33*

B - - 34* - - 67* - - 81*

Salinity (ppt) S - - 35.9 - - 35.7 - - 37.7

B - - 35.9 - - 35.9 - - 37.7

DO (mg/l) S 4.4 4.8 4.5 - - 6.7 6.4 6.7 6.5

B - - 4.1 - - 7.0 6.4 6.7 6.5

BOD (mg/l) S - - 1.9* - - 2.8* - - 3.8*

B - - <0.2* - - 2.2* - - 4.1*

PO43--P (µmol/l) S - - 1.5 0.9 1.0 1.0 - - 1.2

B - - 1.7 - - 1.1 3.0 3.1 3.0

NO3 --N (µmol/l) S 7.1 8.3 7.7 5.2 5.7 5.4 - - 1.9

B 7.3 8.3 7.8 6.1 6.9 6.5 - - 4.4

NO2--N (µmol/l) S - - 0.3 - - 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.3

B 0.2 0.3 0.2 - - 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2

NH4+-N (µmol/l) S 0.5 0.9 0.7 - - 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.0

B 0.4 0.9 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.5 1.7 1.8 1.7

PHc (µg/l) 1m - - 2.2* - - 5.5* - - 4.4*





Temperature (oC) S - - 26.5 - - 25.8 - - 27.5

B - - 26.0) - - 25.9 - - 27.0

- - (28.2) - - (26.0) - - (31.0)

pH S 8.0 8.1 8.1 - - 8.1 - - 8.4

B 8.0 8.1 8.1 - - 8.2 - - 8.4

SS (mg/l) S - - 30* - - 60* - - 29*

B - - 54* - - 93* - - 54*

Salinity (ppt) S 36.8 37.2 37.0 - - 35.9 - - 37.7

B 36.7 36.7 36.7 - - 36.1 - - 37.7

DO (mg/l) S 5.7 6.1 5.8 - - 6.4 - - 6.7

B - - 6.1 - - 6.4 6.4 6.7 6.5

BOD (mg/l) S - - 3.2* - - 4.7* - - 3.8*

B - - 3.8* - - 4.4* - - 5.0*

PO43--P (µmol/l) S 1.9 2.2 2.0 1.1 1.2 1.2 - - 1.4

B 2.5 2.5 2.5 1.2 1.3 1.2 - - 1.6

NO3 --N (µmol/l) S 6.4 6.5 6.4 4.9 5.3 5.1 - - 2.8

B 6.0 6.8 6.4 5.2 5.6 5.4 - - 2.2

NO2--N (µmol/l) S 0.2 0.3 0.3 - - 0.1 - - 0.2

B 0.3 0.3 0.3 - - 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3

NH4+-N (µmol/l) S 0.5 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.8 - - 0.8

B 0.7 1.0 0.9 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.9 1.0 1.0

PHc (µg/l) 1m - - 0.8* - - 10.8* - - 3.3*





Temperature (oC) S - - 26.0 - - 26.1 - - 27.0

B 24.8 26.5 25.7 - - 26.3 - - 26.5

- - (29.0) - - (27.0) - - (29.0)

pH S - - 8.0 - - 8.1 - - 8.4

B - - 8.1 - - 8.1 - - 8.5

SS (mg/l) S - - 32* - - 44* - - 27*

B - - 44* - - 76* - - 33*

Salinity (ppt) S 36.5 36.7 36.6 - - 36.5 - - 37.9

B 36.5 36.7 36.6 - - 36.3 - - 37.5

DO (mg/l) S - - 6.4 - - 6.4 - - 6.4

B 6.1 6.4 6.2 6.4 6.7 6.5 6.1 6.4 6.2

BOD (mg/l) S - - 3.2* - - 2.8* - - 3.8*

B - - 3.5* - - 2.8* - - 4.4*

PO43--P (µmol/l) S 1.9 2.1 2.0 - - 1.0 - - 1.3

B 2.3 2.5 2.4 1.0 1.3 1.1 - - 1.7

NO3 --N (µmol/l) S 7.9 8.2 8.0 - - 4.8 - - 1.2

B 6.8 8.9 7.9 5.4 5.8 5.6 - - 1.1

NO2--N (µmol/l) S - - 0.3 - - 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.4

B - - 0.2 - - 0.1 - - 0.4

NH4+-N (µmol/l) S 0.6 0.8 0.7 - - 0.2 - - 0.8

B - - 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.3 - - 1.0

PHc (µg/l) 1m - - 1.1* - - 11.5* - - 2.0*





Temperature (oC) S - - 25.5 - - 26.5

B - - 25.8 - - 26.0

- - (28.0) - - (28.0)

pH S - - 8.1 - - 8.4

B - - 8.2 - - 8.4

SS (mg/l) S - - 145* - - 58*

B - - 147* - - 72*

Salinity (ppt) S - - 36.1 - - 37.7

B - - 36.5 - - 37.7

DO (mg/l) S 6.1 6.4 6.2 6.7 7.0 6.9

B 6.4 6.7 6.5 6.4 6.7 6.5

BOD (mg/l) S - - 2.8* - - 3.8*

B - - 2.8* - - 3.1*

PO43--P (µmol/l) S - - 1.7 - - 1.1

B 1.7 1.9 1.8 - - 1.0

NO3 --N (µmol/l) S 7.4 7.6 7.5 1.0 1.1 1.0

B 6.4 6.9 6.6 0.9 1.0 0.9

NO2--N (µmol/l) S 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.7 0.6

B - - 0.4 - - 0.6

NH4+-N (µmol/l) S - - 1.1 - - 0.7

B 0.7 0.9 0.8 - - 1.2

PHc (µg/l) 1m - - 9.2* - - 5.1*



Parameter Level December 2013 April 2015 Min Max Av Min Max Av

Temperature (oC) S - - 26.5 - - 26.7

B - - 26.7 - - 26.5

- - (28.0) - - (28.0)

pH S - - 8.1 - - 8.4

B 8.1 8.2 8.2 - - 8.4

SS (mg/l) S - - 46* - - 40*

B - - 73* - - 73*

Salinity (ppt) S - - 36.1 - - 37.7

B - - 36.4 - - 37.5

DO (mg/l) S - - 6.4 - - 6.4

B 6.1 6.4 6.2 6.1 6.4 6.2

BOD (mg/l) S - - 2.8* - - 4.4*

B - - 1.6* - - 4.1*

PO43--P (µmol/l) S - - 1.0 - - 1.1

B 0.9 1.2 1.0 - - 1.3

NO3 --N (µmol/l) S 5.4 5.6 5.5 1.5 1.6 1.5

B 5.4 6.1 5.8 - - 0.9

NO2--N (µmol/l) S 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5

B - - 0.1 - - 0.5

NH4+-N (µmol/l) S 0.3 0.4 0.4 - - 1.6

B - - 0.3 - - 1.1

PHc (µg/l) 1m - - 9.0* - - 3.6*





Temperature (oC) S - - 25.5 - - 28.8

B - - 25.3 - - 28.5

- - (26.0) - - (29.5)

pH S - - 8.1 - - 8.3

B - - 8.2 - - 8.4

SS (mg/l) S - - 30* - - 88*

B - - 44* - - 98*

Salinity (ppt) S - - 36.5 - - 37.5

B - - 36.3 - - 37.5

DO (mg/l) S 7.7 8.0 7.8 - - 6.7

B 7.7 8.0 7.8 6.4 6.7 6.5

BOD (mg/l) S - - 5.0* - - 3.8

B - - 3.5* - - 3.5

PO43--P (µmol/l) S 0.8 0.9 0.8 - - 0.9

B 0.8 1.0 0.9 1.2 1.3 1.3

NO3 --N (µmol/l) S 5.2 5.3 5.2 2.9 3.0 3.0

B 5.6 5.7 5.7 1.2

NO2--N (µmol/l) S 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.1

B - - 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.1

NH4+-N (µmol/l) S - -- 0.6 - - 0.8

B - - 0.7 - - 0.9

PHc (µg/l) 1m - - 9.3* - - -






Temperature (oC) S - - 26.0 - - 25.8

B - - 25.9 - - 26.0

- - (27.0) - - (26.5)

pH S - - 8.1 - - 8.3

B - - 8.2 - - 8.4

SS (mg/l) S - - 30* - - 64*

B - - 66* - - 85*

Salinity (ppt) S - - 35.5 - - 37.4

B - - 35.9 - - 37.7

DO (mg/l) S 7.4 7.7 7.5 6.7 7.0 6.9

B 7.4 7.7 7.5 - - 6.7

BOD (mg/l) S - - 4.4* - - 3.8*

B - - 3.1* - - 3.8*

PO43--P (µmol/l) S 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0

B 0.8 0.9 0.8 - - 1.2

NO3 --N (µmol/l) S 7.0 7.3 7.2 2.3 2.5 2.4

B 6.3 6.5 6.4 - - 2.6

NO2--N (µmol/l) S - - 0.1 - - 0.2

B - - 0.1 - - 0.2

NH4+-N (µmol/l) S 0.3 0.4 0.3 1.7 1.8 1.7

B - - 0.4 1.2 1.3 1.3

PHc (µg/l) 1m - - 10.8* - - 4.7*

Table 4.3.13: Difference in water temperature (oC) between the (Av) baseline (December 2008) and during the subsequent Monitoring (December 2013) at each station.

level 1 1A 1B 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Tide Diff Tide Diff Tide Diff Tide Diff Tide Diff Tide Diff Tide Diff Tide Diff Tide Diff Tide Diff Tide Diff Tide Diff S Fl -

0.9

+3.0 Eb -

1.8

-2 Eb -

1.2 Eb

+0.5Fl -

0.2 Fl

+0.1Eb -

0.5 Fl

+0.5Fl -

0.5 Eb

+0 B -

0.8

-1.9 -

1.5

+0.7 -

0.1

+0.3 -

0.2

+0.7 -

0.7 -

0.1 S Fl -

0.9

+3.3 Eb -

1.8

-1.8 Fl

-3 Eb

+0.5Fl -

0.2 Fl

+0.1Eb -

0.5 Fl

+0.5Fl -

0.5 Eb

+0 B -

0.8

-1.9

-3

+0.7 -

0.1

+0.3 -

0.2

+0.7 -

0.7 -

0.1 S +3.7 Fl -1.5 B -1.2 S +4.3 -0.5 B -0.8 S +4.2 -0.9 B -1 S Fl +4.3 +0 B +3.8 -0.4 S +4.5 -0.7 B +4.0 -1 S +4.7 -1 B -0.8 S +4.3 -1.1 B -0.5 S +4.3 Eb +0.9 B +0 S Eb +4.0 -1.4 B -1.1 S +3.8 -0.5 B -0.8

Table 4.3.14: Difference in Salinity (ppt) between the (Av) baseline (December 2008) and during the subsequent monitoring (December 2013) at each station.

level 1 1A 1B 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Tide Diff Tide Diff Tide Diff Tide Diff Tide Diff Tide Diff Tide Diff Tide Diff Tide Diff Tide Diff Tide Diff Tide Diff S Fl

+0.2

-0.2 Eb

+0.1

-0.7Eb

+0.2Eb -

0.9Fl -

0.7 Fl -

0.1Eb -

0.5Fl -

0.5Fl -

0.1Eb -

1.0 B

+0.2

-0.3

-0.1 -

0.7 -

0.5 -

0.3 -

0.2 -

0.2 -

0.3 -

0.7 S Fl

+0.4

-0.2 Eb

+0.1

-0.5Fl

-0.3Eb -

0.9Fl -

0.7 Fl -

0.1Eb -

0.5Fl -

0.5Fl -

0.1Eb -

1.1 B

+0.2

-0.3

+0.1 -

0.7 -

0.5 -

0.3 -

0.2 -

0.2 -

0.3 -

0.7 S +0.1 Fl -0.3 B -0.1 S +0.1 -0.5 B -0.3 S +0.1 -0.5 B -0.3 S Fl -0.2 -0.3 B +0.2 -0.7 S +0.4 -0.5 B +0.2 -0.1 S +0.4 -0.5 B -0.1 S +0.4 -0.5 B -0.3 S +0.4 Eb +0.1 B +0.2 S Eb -0.3 -0.1 B -0.3 +0.1 S -0.3 -0.7 B -0.3

Table 4.3.15: Difference in water temperature (oC) between the (Av) baseline (April 2006 and 2007) and during the subsequent monitoring (April 2015) at each station.

level 1 1A 1B 2

Time Depth Tide Diff Time Depth Tide Diff Time Depth Tide Diff Time Depth Tide Diff S 1430 S Fl +0.1 700 S +2.5 0820 S Eb +4.0 800 S +0.5B 1430 B 0.0 700 B +2.3 0820 B +3.5 800 B -1.5S 1445 S Fl +0.1 800 S +3.0 0830 S Eb +4.0 900 S -0.5B 1445 B 0.0 800 B +3.0 0830 B +3.5 900 B -1.0S 900 S +4.0 1000 S Eb +3.0B 900 B +3.5 1000 B +2.0S 1000 S +5.0 1100 S 0.0 B 1000 B +4.5 1100 B -0.5S 1100 S +5.0 1200 S -1.5B 1100 B 1200 B -1.0S 1200 S Eb +2.3 1300 S -0.5B 1200 B 1300 B 0.0 S 1300 S +5.5 1400 S -0.8B 1300 B 1400 B 0.0S 1400 S +5.8 1500 S +0.5B 1400 B +5.5 1500 B +0.5S 1500 S +6.0 1600 S Fl 0.0 B 1500 B +5.5 1600 B +0.5S 1600 S +5.5 1700 S -0.5B 1600 B +5.0 1700 B -0.5S 1700 S +5.0 1800 S -1.0B 1700 B +5.0 1800 B -0.9S 1800 S Fl +5.2 1900 S -1.0B 1800 B +5.1 1900 B -1.0

Table 4.3.15:(Cont------)

Table 4.3.15:(Cont------) level 7 8 9 10

Time Depth Tide Diff Time Depth Tide Diff Time Depth Tide Diff Time Depth Tide Diff

S 0900 S Eb -1.5 0935 S Eb -1.3 1345 S Fl 0.8 0845 S Eb -2.2

B 0900 B -2.0 0935 B -1.5 1345 B 0.5 0845 B -2.0

S 0915 S Eb -1.5 0945 S Eb -1.3 1415 S Fl 0.8 0900 S Eb -2.2

B 0915 B -2.0 0945 B -1.5 1415 B 0.5 0900 B -2.0

level 3 4 5 6 Time Depth Tide Diff Time Depth Tide Diff Time Depth Tide Diff Time Depth Tide Diff

S 1040 S Eb -0.6 1245 S Eb 0.0 1145 S Eb -0.5 1030 S Eb -1.0

B 1040 B -0.7 1245 B -0.5 1145 B -1.0 1030 B -1.5

S 1545 S Fl -0.6 1300 S Eb 0.0 1200 S Eb -0.5 1045 S Eb -1.0

B 1545 B -0.5 1300 B -0.5 1200 B -1.0 1045 B -1.5

Table 4.3.16: Difference in Salinity (ppt) between the (Av) baseline (April 2006 and 2007) and during the subsequent monitoring (April 2015) at each station. level 1 1A 1B 2

Time Depth Tide Diff Time Depth Tide Diff Time Depth Tide Diff Time Depth Tide Diff S 1430 S Fl +1.0 700 S -0.2 0820 S Eb +5.0 800 S +1.6B 1430 B +1.0 700 B -0.4 0820 B +4.5 800 B +1.6S 1445 S Fl +1.0 800 S -0.4 0830 S Eb +5.0 900 S +0.8B 1445 B +1.0 800 B -0.2 0830 B +4.5 900 B +1.3S 900 S -0.2 1000 S Eb +0.8B 900 B -0.1 1000 B +1.1S 1000 S -0.6 1100 S +0.8B 1000 B -0.1 1100 B +0.8S 1100 S -0.6 1200 S +0.2B 1100 B 1200 B +0.6S 1200 S Eb -0.4 1300 S +0.4B 1200 B 1300 B +0.6S 1300 S 0.7 1400 S +0.4B 1300 B 1400 B +0.6S 1400 S 0.8 1500 S +0.8B 1400 B 1.2 1500 B +0.6S 1500 S 1.2 1600 S Fl +0.8B 1500 B 1.2 1600 B +0.6S 1600 S 1.2 1700 S +0.6B 1600 B -0.1 1700 B +0.2S 1700 S 1.0 1800 S +0.2B 1700 B 0.3 1800 B +0.1S 1800 S Fl 1.0 1900 S +0.2B 1800 B -0.2 1900 B +0.1

Table 4.3.16: (Cont------) level 3 4 5 6


S 1040 S Eb +1.6 1245 S Eb +1.4 1145 S Eb +1.4 1030 S Eb +1.6

B 1040 B +1.6 1245 B +1.4 1145 B +1.4 1030 B +1.2

S 1545 S Fl +1.6 1300 S Eb +1.4 1200 S Eb +1.4 1045 S Eb +1.6

B 1545 B +1.6 1300 B +1.4 1200 B +1.4 1045 B +1.2

Table 4.3.16: (Cont-----) level 7 8 9 10


S 0900 S Eb +1.4 0935 S Eb +1.4 1345 S Fl +1.2 0845 S Eb +1.4

B 0900 B +1.4 0935 B +1.2 1345 B +1.2 0845 B +1.1

S 0915 S Eb +1.4 0945 S Eb +1.4 1415 S Fl +1.2 0900 S Eb +1.4

B 0915 B +1.4 0945 B +1.2 1415 B +1.2 0900 B +1.1

Table 4.4.1: Concentration of selected metals, Organic Carbon and P (µg/g; except Al, Fe, Org Carbon in (%), dry wt) in Surface sediment off Vandh during December 2013

Station Code

Sand (%)

Silt (%)

Clay (%)

Al (%)

Cr (g/g)

Mn (g/g)

Fe (%)

Co (g/g)

Ni (g/g)

Cu (g/g)

Zn (g/g)

Hg (g/g)

Corg (%)

P (g/g)

PHc* (µg/g)

Subtidal

1 93.6 4.8 1.6 4.9 38 439 3.3 13 21 4 25 0.09 0.3 554 0.2

1A 97.0 1.8 1.2 1.5 15 248 1.5 8 10 ND ND 0.04 0.2 228 0.2

1B 93.2 1.2 5.6 5.6 41 453 3.7 13 27 15 32 0.04 0.2 505 0.1

2 94.4 3.8 1.8 0.4 ND 184 0.7 4 6 ND ND ND 0.2 158 0.03

3 92.6 4.6 2.8 3.8 55 740 5.3 14 26 12 35 0.02 0.4 600 0.3

4

Rocky Substratum 5

6

7 92.0 2.8 5.2 0.7 ND 182 0.6 5 6 ND ND ND 0.2 362 0.1

8 Rocky Substratum

9 93.6 2.4 4.0 4.7 57 442 3.8 14 23 8 30 0.04 0.3 408 0.4

10 Rocky Substratum

Intertidal

T-I 88.4 8.4 3.2 5.1 46 447 3.6 14 26 13 30 0.08 0.5 800 0.4

T-II 92.2 4.2 3.6 2.9 21 332 2.2 10 14 6 5 0.08 0.2 429 0.6

*PHc which is in wet weight basis

Table 4.4.2 : Concentration of selected metals, Organic Carbon and P (µg/g; except Al, Fe, Org Carbon in (%), dry wt ) in surface sediment of Mundra during April 2015 Station

Code Sand (%)

Silt (%)

Clay (%)

Al

(%)

Cr

(g/g)

Mn

(g/g)

Fe

(%)

Co

(g/g)

Ni

(g/g)

Cu

(g/g)

Zn

(g/g)

Hg

(g/g)

Corg

(%)

P (g/g)

PHc*

(g/g)

Subtidal

1 92.6 0.6 6.8 4.6 60 410 2.7 11 29 5

43 0.08 0.2 857 0.3

1A 99.1 0.7 0.2 1.3 25 210 0.8 4 12 4 9 0.07 0.2 210 0.2

1B 98.7 0.3 1.0 0.8 17 159 1.0 3 11 2 2 0.09 0.1 352 0.2

2 98.0 0.8 1.2 1.1 33 322 1.7 5 12 3 9 0.06 0.1 742 0.1

3 97.7 0.8 1.4 5.8 104 637 4.0 17 42 22 70 0.11 0.7 193 0.2

4 Rocky Substratum

5 3.7 89.5 6.8 0.9 23 167 0.7 3 8 3 1 0.09 0.1 199 0.1

6 Rocky Substratum

7 99.4 0.4 0.2 0.5 7 282 0.6 2 6 2 ND 0.05 0.1 455 0.2

8

9 98.8 0.2 1.0 3.6 66 414 2.5 12 23 6 38 0.06 0.1 222 0.2

10 Rocky Substratum

Intertidal

Tr-I 98.4 0.4 0.7 0.6 11 130 0.5 2 7 2 ND 0.06 0.1 142 0.3

Tr-II 99.2 0.4 0.4 0.5 7 123 0.5 1 8 2 ND 0.07 0.1 1138 0.5

*PHc which is in wet wt

Table 4.5.1: Range and average of phytopigment (parenthesis) at different stations off Vandh during December 2008, December 2013 and April 2015

Station Level December 2008 December 2013 Chlorophyll a

(mg/m3) Phaeophytin

(mg/m3) Chl a/Phaeo Chlorophyll a

(mg/m3) Phaeophytin

(mg/m3) Chl a/Phaeo

1 S 2.8-2.9 (2.9)

1.3-1.5 (1.4)

1.8-2.2 (2.0)

4.2-4.4 (4.3)

1.6-1.7 (1.7)

2.5-2.7 (2.6)

B 2.5-2.6 (2.6)

1.0* 2.5*

3.7-3.7 (3.7)

2.4-2.4 (2.4)

1.5-1.5 (1.5)

1A S - - - 0.8-1.3 (1.0)

0.2-0.7 (0.4)

1.3-4.3 (2.9)

B - - - 1.1-1.6 (1.3)

0.4-1.1 (0.7)

1.0-3.5 (2.3)

1B S - - - 3.6-4.0 (3.8)

1.0-1.0 (1.0)

3.7-4.2 (4.0)

B - - - - - -

2 S 1.0-4.7 (2.8)

0.7-1.7 (1.0)

1.6-5.3 (3.1)

0.8-4.9 (2.5)

0.4-1.5 (0.8)

1.6-4.4 (3.2)

B 1.0-5.9 (2.9)

0.2-2.0 (1.0)

1.6-4.9 (3.5)

1.9-4.0 (2.8)

0.5-1.9 (1.1)

1.4-3.6 (2.7)

3 S 1.6* 0.4* 3.7-4.4 (4.0)

1.3-2.1 (1.7)

0.5-0.6 (0.6)

2.6-3.5 (3.0)

B 1.7-1.9 (1.8)

0.2* 7.2-9.0 (8.1)

1.2-2.1 (1.6)

0.2-0.6 (0.4)

2.0-9.5 (5.8)

4 S 0.8-0.9 (0.9)

0.3-0.5 (0.4)

1.7-2.9 (2.3)

1.2-1.4 (1.3)

0.6-0.7 (0.7)

1.7-2.4 (2.0)

B 0.7-0.8 (0.8)

0.2-0.4 (0.3)

1.9-3.7 (2.8)

1.2-1.3 (1.3)

0.7-0.8 (0.8)

1.6-1.8 (1.7)

Table 4.5.1(contd 2)

Station Level December 2008 December 2013 Chlorophyll a

(mg/m3) Phaeophytin

(mg/m3) Chl a/Phaeo Chlorophyll a

(mg/m3) Phaeophytin

(mg/m3) Chl a/Phaeo

5 S 0.7-0.9 (0.8)

0.3-0.4 (0.4)

2.0-2.1 (2.1)

1.3-1.4 (1.4)

0.8-0.8 (0.8)

1.7-1.9 (1.8)

B 0.9-1.0 (1.0)

0.5-0.6 (0.6)

1.7-1.8 (1.8)

1.5-1.7 (1.6)

1.4-1.4 (1.4)

1.1-1.2 (1.2)

6 S 0.6-0.7 (0.7)

0.3* 1.9-2.3 (2.1)

1.2-1.5 (1.4)

0.7-0.9 (0.8)

1.6-1.6 (1.6)

B 0.5-0.6 (0.6)

0.2-0.5 (0.4)

1.3-2.4 (1.9)

0.7-1.1 (0.9)

0.1-0.3 (0.2)

4.5-5.3 (4.9)

7 S - - - 1.1-1.1 (1.1)

0.6-0.7 (0.7)

1.7-1.8 (1.8)

B - - - 1.1-1.2 (1.2)

0.6-0.6 (0.6)

1.8-1.8 (1.8)

8 S - - - 1.5-1.5 (1.5)

0.9-0.9 (0.9)

1.6-1.7 (1.7)

B - - - 0.6-1.5 (1.1)

0.1-0.5 (0.3)

3.3-8.0 (5.6)

9 S - - - 1.6-1.7 (1.7)

0.6-0.7 (0.7)

2.2-2.8 (2.5)

B - - - 1.7-1.7 (1.7)

1.3-1.5 (1.4)

1.1-1.3 (1.2)

10 S - - - 1.3-1.4 (1.4)

0.3-0.3 (0.3)

3.8-4.6 (4.2)

B - - - 1.5-1.8 (1.7)

0.7-1.0 (0.8

1.9-2.1 (2.0)


Station Level April 2015 Chlorophyll a

(mg/m3) Phaeophytin

(mg/m3) Chl a/Phaeo

1 S 3.3-3.6 (3.4)

0.8-1.3 (1.0)

3.6-4.2 (3.9)

B 3.8* 1.0-1.3 (1.2)

4.3-4.4 (4.4)

1A S 0.6-1.1 (0.8)

0.0-0.2 (0.1)

0.6-1.2 (0.8)

B 0.6-1.8 (1.3)

0.0-0.3 (0.2)

0.7-2.0 (1.4)

1B S 1.0-1.4 (1.2)

0.4-0.5 (0.4)

1.2-1.6 (1.4)

B 1.2-1.3 (1.2)

0.3* 1.3-1.5 (1.4)

2 S 0.7-2.1 (1.5)

0.1-0.7 (0.4)

0.9-2.4 (1.7)

B 1.3-2.4 (2.2)

0.3-1.0 (0.6)

1.5-3.6 (2.5)

3 S 2.1-2.5 (2.3)

0.1-0.3 (0.2)

2.2-2.5 (2.4)

B 2.0-2.3 (2.2)

0.1-0.4 (0.2)

2.2-2.4 (2.3)

4 S 1.8*

0.2-0.5 (0.3)

1.9-2.1 (2.0)

B 1.9* 0.6* 2.2*


Note: (-) indicates no sampling, * Indicate similar value for all replicates

Station Level April 2015 Chlorophyll a

(mg/m3) Phaeophytin

(mg/m3) Chl a/Phaeo

5 S 1.1-1.5 (1.3)

0.1-0.9 (0.5)

1.5-1.6 (1.5)

B 1.3-1.4 (1.3)

0.1-0.3 (0.2)

1.4-1.5 (1.4)

6 S 1.9-3.8 (2.9)

0.2* 2.0-3.9 (3.0)

B 2.3-2.6 (2.4)

0.0-0.2 (0.1)

2.3-2.7 (2.5)

7 S 1.2-2.5 (1.9)

0.1-0.4 (0.4)

1.3-2.7 (2.7)

B 1.8-2.5 (2.2)

0.3-0.5 (0.4)

2.0-2.7 (2.4)

8 S 1.6-2.6 (2.1)

0.2-0.6 (0.6)

1.7-2.9 (2.9)

B 1.9-2.2 (2.0)

0.1-0.6 (0.4)

2.0-2.5 (2.2)

9 S 2.8-3.3 (3.0)

0.3-0.5 (0.3)

2.9-3.5 (2.9)

B 3.2-3.6 (3.4)

0.6-0.8 (0.7)

3.5-4.0 (3.7)

10 S 1.9* 0.5* 2.1* B 1.7* 0.5-0.7

(0.6) 2.0*

Table 4.5.2: Range and average (parenthesis) of phytoplankton population at different stations off Vandh during December 2008, December 2013 and April 2015.

Station December 2008 December 2013

Date Level Cell count (nox103/l)

Total genera

(no)

Major genera Date Level Cell count (nox103/l)

Total genera

(no)

Major genera

1 02.12.08 S 656.0* 16* Fragilaria Thalassiosira Thalassionem

a Navicula

14.12.13 S 308.8* 15* Thalassiosira Fragilaria

Chaetoceros Thalassionem

a

B 473.6* 15* Fragilaria Thalassionem

a Navicula

Thalassiosira

B 291.0* 18* Thalassiosira Fragilaria

Thalassionema

Amphipleura

1A - S - - - 15.12.13 S 36.8* 18* Thalassiosira Peridinium Navicula

B - - - B 147.0* 18* Thalassiosira Chaetoceros Thalassionem

a Cylindrotheca

1B - S - - - 17.12.13 S 352.2* 23* Thalassiosira Fragilaria

Thalassionema

Cylindrotheca

B - - - B - - -

Table 4.5.2: (contd 2) Station December 2008 December 2013

Date Level Cell count

(nox103/l)

Total genera

(no)

Major genera Date Level Cell count

(nox103/l)

Total genera

(no)

Major genera

2 03.12.08 S 148.0-1922.4

(1035.2)

14-16 (15)

Fragilaria

Thalassiosira

Peridinium

Nitzschia

13.12.13 S 525.6* 14* Thalassiosira Fragilaria Pseudo-nitzschia

Lithodesmium B 118.4-

6432.8 (3275.6)

13-16 (15)

Fragilaria Thalassiosira

Navicula Nitzschia

B 520.0* 19* Thalassiosira Fragilaria

Chaetoceros Pseudo-nitzschia

3 04.12.08 S 165.6* 17* Fragilaria

Thalassiosira Skeletonema

Navicula

17.12.13 S 144.8* 17* Thalassiosira Fragilaria Melosira

Thalassiothrix

B 172.0* 15* Fragilaria Thalassiosira

Nitzschia Bacteriastrum

B 101.6* 18* Thalassiosira Skeletonema

Melosira Nitzschia

4 02.12.08 S 40.0* 18* Fragilaria Peridinium

Thalassiosira Thalassiothrix

14.12.13 S 38.4* 15* Melosira Thalassiosira

Pseudo-nitzschia

Cylindrotheca B 39.6* 16* Fragilaria

Peridinium Melosira

Thalassiosira

B 64.0* 19* Melosira Chaetoceros Lithodesmium



(nox103/l)

Total genera

(no)

Major genera Date Level Cell count

(nox103/l)

Total genera

(no)

Major genera

5 04.12.08 S 32.8* 15* Fragilaria Thalassiosira Pleurosigma

Navicula

16.12.13 S 38* 18* Melosira Synedra Nitzschia

Amphiprora B 36.8* 15* Fragilaria

Melosira Thalassionema

Biddulphia

B 40* 17* Melosira Thalassiosira Cylindrotheca

Nitzschia

6 04.12.08 S 62.4* 19* Fragilaria Melosira

ThalassionemaLeptocylindrus

16.12.13 S 21.0* 14* Prorocentrum Pseudo-nitzschia

Pleurosigma

B 40.0* 18* Fragilaria

Melosira ThalassionemaThalassiosira

B 42.0* 15* Melosira Cylindrotheca

Synedra

7 - S - - - 16.12.13 S 20* 15* Thalassiothrix Pseudo-nitzschia

Coscinodiscus B - - - B 33.0* 9* Bacillaria

Thalassiosira Thalassionema

Synedra



(nox103/l)

Total genera

(no)

Major genera


(nox103/l)

Total genera

(no)

Major genera

8 - S - - - 16.12.13 S 22.0* 11* Melosira Thalassiothrix Cylindrotheca Aulacoseira

B - - - B 39.0* 13* Melosira Coscinodiscus Thalassiothrix

Melosira 9 - S - - - 14.12.13 S 19.0* 13* Thalassiosira

Peridinium Cyclotella

B - - - B 24.0* 16* Cylindrotheca Coscinodiscus

Nitzschia Lithodesmium

10 - S - - - 14.12.13 S 21.6* 16* ThalassionemaPeridinium Cyclotella

B - - - B 44.0* 14* Melosira Coscinodiscus Cylindrotheca

Thalassionema

Table 4.5.2: (contd 5) Station April 2015


Total genera

(no)

Major genera

1 10.04.15 S 259.8* 24* Pseudo-nitzschia Cylindrotheca closterium

Thalassiosira Plagioselmis

B 209.8* 21* Cylindrotheca closterium Pseudo-nitzschia

Thalassiosira Navicula

1A 11.04.15 S 47.8-63.2 (55.5)

16-18 (17)

Cylindrotheca closterium Thalassiosira

Pseudo-nitzschia Navicula

B 179.4* 23* Cylindrotheca closterium Thalassiosira

Pseudo-nitzschia Fragilaria

1B 11.04.15 S 123.6 25 Cylindrotheca closterium Thalassiosira


B 123.6 23 Cylindrotheca closterium Pseudo-nitzschia

Thalassiosira Navicula



Total genera

(no)

Major genera

2 08.04.15 S 96.8-117.4 (107.1)

22* Cylindrotheca closterium Thalassiosira

Thalassionema Fragilaria

B 46.6-130.0 (88.3)

17-21 (19)

Cylindrotheca closterium Thalassiosira

Pseudo-nitzschia Guinardia

3 10.04.15 S 133.6-162.2 (147.9)

22-23 (23)

Cylindrotheca closterium Pseudo-nitzschia

Thalassiosira Chaetoceros

B 122.0-170.8 (146.4)

22-23 (23)


Thalassiosira Plagioselmis

4 09.04.15 S 63.6* 20* Thalassiosira Cylindrotheca closterium

Melosira Navicula

B 70.6* 21* Thalassiosira Cylindrotheca closterium

Coscinodiscus Melosira



(nox103/l)

Total genera

(no)

Major genera


Coscinodiscus Melosira

B 70.8* 21* Thalassiosira Thalassionema

Cylindrotheca closterium Guinardia

6 09.04.15 S 214.8* 33* Cylindrotheca closterium Leptocylindrus

Guinardia Ditylum brightwelii

B 126* 23* Cylindrotheca closterium Guinardia

Thalassiosira Pseudo-nitzschia



B 217.4* 26* Thalassionema Cylindrotheca closterium

Thalassiosira Nitzschia



(nox103/l)

Total genera

(no)

Major genera

8 09.04.15 S 131.8* 30* Pseudo-nitzschia Thalassiosira

Cylindrotheca closterium Skeletonema

B 119.8* 22* Thalassionema Thalassiosira


9 10.04.15 S 179* 24* Fragilaria Cylindrotheca closterium

Chaetoceros Navicula

B 214.8* 23* Cylindrotheca closterium Guinardia

Thalassiosira Fragilaria

10 10.04.15 S 67.4* 17* Cylindrotheca closterium Thalassiosira

Thalassionema Odentella

B 49.2* 12* Coscinodiscus Meuniera

Cylindrotheca closterium Navicula

Note: (-) indicates no sampling, * Indicate single observation.

Table 4.5.3: Composition (%) of phytoplankton genera off Vandh during December 2008

Algal genera Station

1 2 3 4 5 6 Avg Amphiprora 0.1 0.1 Amphora <0.1 0.2 0.8 0.1 Bacteriastrum <0.1 0.7 2 2.3 0.8 0.2 Biddulphia 0.3 0.1 0.2 3 2.3 2.3 0.2 Campyloneis <0.1 1.2 0.8 0.1 Ceratium 1.2 0.8 0.1 Ceratoulina 0.1 0.1 Corethron <0.1 0.5 1 1.2 0.8 0.1 Coscinodiscus 0.1 <0.1 0.2 1 1.6 0.1 Cyclotella 0.4 <0.1 0.5 3 1.2 0.8 0.2 Diploneis 1.2 0.8 0.1 Ditylium 0.1 <0.1 0.1 Fragilaria 94.4 92.6 80.2 28.7 47.1 45.1 90.1 Guinardia <0.1 0.2 1 0.8 0.1 Leptocylindrus <0.1 0.2 1 2.3 3.9 0.2 Licmophora 0.2 0.1 Lithodesmium 0.1 <0.1 0.2 2 1.2 1.6 0.2 Melosira 0.4 7.1 11.5 12 0.5 Navicula 0.7 0.2 0.9 2 3.5 1.6 0.4 Nitzschia 0.4 0.2 1.7 3 1.6 0.4 Peridinium 0.3 0.1 0.5 22 2.3 1.6 0.5 Planktoniella <0.1 0.2 1 0.8 0.1 Pleurosigma 0.1 <0.1 0.7 3 3.5 0.8 0.2 Prorocentrum 0.1 0.1 0.2 1 1.2 1.6 0.2 Rhizosolenia 0.1 <0.1 2 1.2 1.6 0.2 Skeletonema 1.4 0.1 Streptotheca <0.1 0.2 1 1.2 0.8 0.1 Surirella 0.1 <0.1 0.2 2.3 0.8 0.1 Thalassionema 0.9 0.1 0.5 2 2.3 8.6 0.5 Thalassiosira 1.2 6.4 9.7 8.1 9.2 3.1 0.6 Thalassiothrix 0.1 <0.1 0.5 5.1 1.2 3.9 0.3

Table 4.5.4: Composition (%) of phytoplankton genera off Vandh during December 2013 Algal Genera

Station 1 1A 1B 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Avg

Actinotychus 1.6 <0.1Amphipleura 1.2 1.4 0.3 1.3 0.5 Amphiprora 0.3 1.0 0.1 2.6 1.6 2.3 0.3 Amphora 1.0 0.4 0.5 0.3 1.3 2.7 2.6 3.2 1.5 1.6 4.7 1.2 0.9 Asteromphalus 1.3 <0.1Aulacoseira 3.3 0.1 Bacillaria 0.3 0.3 27.9 0.6 Ceratium 0.1 <0.1Ceratoulina 1.3 1.6 0.1 Chaetoceros 1.5 8.2 1.4 7.8 2.3 1.7 Coscinodiscus 0.4 0.9 0.1 2.6 1.8 2.6 1.6 6.4 11.5 9.3 17.1 1.4 Cyclotella 2.1 0.3 1.0 1.3 1.5 4.7 2.4 0.4 Cylindrotheca 0.5 5.3 2.7 0.8 4.5 7.8 6.4 6.3 6.6 11.6 15.9 2.7 Dactylostolen 1.5 <0.1Dictyocha 0.3 1.6 <0.1Diploneis 0.9 0.3 2.3 1.6 3.3 2.3 1.2 0.4 Ditylum 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.3 1.6 3.4 4.7 0.5 Fragilaria 28.4 14.6 21.2 13.6 0.0 16.5Grammatophora 3.2 0.1 Guinardia 0.2 0.5 0.8 2.6 0.2 Gyrosigma 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.1 Hemiaulus 0.5 0.1 Lithodesmium 1.0 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.3 8.0 1.3 1.6 1.9 1.6 7.0 2.4 1.1

Table 4.5.4: (Contd 2) Algal Genera

Station 1 1A 1B 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Avg

Mallomonas 1.0 <0.1Melosira 1.0 2.6 0.5 8.8 31.1 38.5 33.3 36.1 2.3 19.5 5.3 Meuniera 1.0 <0.1Navicula 0.8 4.6 0.5 0.2 0.6 1.6 2.6 3.2 1.6 4.7 2.4 1.0 Neodenticula 0.4 0.5 1.6 0.1 Nitzschia 0.4 1.4 0.4 3.6 2.9 6.4 4.8 1.9 4.9 7.0 4.9 1.4 Odontella 0.8 1.4 0.9 0.4 1.0 1.6 2.6 3.2 3.4 1.6 4.7 2.4 1.0 Peridinium 4.2 0.1 1.0 1.6 7.0 2.4 0.6 Pinnularia 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.1 Planktoniella 0.1 <0.1Pleurosigma 0.3 0.4 0.9 0.2 0.6 1.8 2.6 3.2 1.5 2.3 2.4 0.6 Prorocentrum 0.4 0.1 1.3 7.9 3.3 1.2 0.4 Protoperidinium 2.3 <0.1Pseudo-nitzschia 0.8 1.4 0.5 1.5 4.9 1.3 4.8 4.5 1.3 Rhizosolenia 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.8 2.6 3.2 1.5 2.3 1.2 0.4 Skeletonema 0.1 5.2 0.5 Streptotheca 0.5 <0.1Surirella 0.5 0.6 2.7 2.6 1.6 1.5 0.3 Synedra 0.1 1.0 0.5 0.6 2.7 6.4 4.8 3.8 3.3 2.3 2.4 0.8 Thalassionema 2.5 5.4 3.7 0.4 3.2 2.0 1.3 9.1 2.3 12.2 2.3 Thalassiosira 57.2 56.0 67.1 71.8 48.1 10.0 7.7 1.6 15.1 3.3 11.6 4.9 54.9Thalassiothrix 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.2 1.9 1.0 1.3 1.6 6.0 18.0 2.3 1.2 1.0 Tropidoneis 1.0 1.3 1.5 3.7 0.2 Other species 0.5 2.0 6.0 0.3

Table 4.5.5: Composition (%) of phytoplankton genera off Vandh during April 2015

Algal Genera

Stations Avg 1 1A 1B 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Alexandrium 0.9 0.8 0.5 0.2

Amphidinium 0.7 0.1

Amphiprora 0.4 2.4 0.6 0.7 0.4 0.1 0.9 0.5 0.8 0.5 5.1 0.8

Amphora 0.1 0.7 1.0 0.3 2.7 0.6 0.2 1.0 0.5

Ankistrodesmus 1.4 0.1

Asterionellopsis 0.7 1.5 0.2

Asteromphalus 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.6 0.2

Aulacoseira 0.1 <0.1

Bacillaria 0.1 1.5 1.1 0.4 1.4 0.2 1.5 1.6 0.5 0.7

Bacteriastrum 0.1 0.8 0.5 1.0 0.6 1.0 0.4

Bellerochia 1.0 0.3 0.4 0.2

Ceratium 1.9 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1

Chaetoceros 3.4 2.8 0.8 2.0 5.1 6.8 1.8 4.6 4.0 6.6 3.6

Corethron <0.1 0.3 0.3 0.1 <0.1

Coscinodiscus 0.5 0.2 0.8 0.5 7.6 5.4 1.2 4.1 2.4 2.0 13.7 2.0

Cryptomonas 0.8 0.1

Cyclotella 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.1 1.8 1.0 1.6 0.6 Cylindrotheca closterium

24.7 33.1 33.2 23.5 22.4 14.9 10.8 14.7 13.2 8.7 27.9 13.7 21.4

Dictyocha <0.1 0.7 1.6 0.2

Dinophysis 0.1 <0.1

Diploneis 0.2 0.1 0.5 1.5 0.1 0.6 0.2

Table 4.5.5: Contd.2

Algal Genera

Stations Avg 1 1A 1B 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Ditylum brightwellii 0.6 1.7 1.1 2.0 0.9 0.4 2.7 7.6 1.5 6.4 1.0 2.1

Eucampia 2.5 1.6 0.4

Euglena 0.7 0.1

Fragilaria 4.7 6.9 3.2 7.3 2.4 13.7 3.9

Gonyaulax 0.6 0.1

Gotius 0.1 <0.1

Guinardia 4.3 3.4 4.0 3.7 4.8 4.5 6.8 12.3 7.6 3.2 8.6 5.6

Gymnodinium 2.4 0.5 0.7 3.0 4.1 1.2 1.0 0.2 0.8

Gyrodinium 0.9 2.8 0.4 2.7 1.2 0.5 0.8 0.5 1.7 1.0

Heliotheca 0.6 0.8 0.1

Hemiaulus 1.4 0.3 2.3 1.0 1.6 1.5 0.7

Lauderia 0.8 1.0 2.0 2.8 3.5 1.1

Leptocylindrus 0.8 2.0 0.7 7.6 3.0 3.2 1.6 Lithodesmium undulatum

0.4 0.1 <0.1 0.1 1.5 0.1 0.2 3.4 0.3

Melosira 2.1 0.7 0.2 1.4 10.4 4.1 0.1 3.0 5.6 3.0 2.0

Meuniera 0.4 0.8 0.4 1.0 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.3 6.9 0.7

Navicula 6.8 3.4 4.9 3.1 3.1 8.9 1.4 7.0 7.6 4.8 4.6 8.6 5.1

Nitzschia 0.9 1.4 0.8 1.0 1.5 2.7 3.5 5.6 4.0 4.6 3.8 2.3

Odentella 1.7 0.8 0.2 0.8 1.2 2.7 1.6 1.1 0.4 1.8 2.6 8.6 1.5

Other 0.8 0.1

Peridinium 0.9 0.9 0.3 1.4 0.1 1.5 0.4

Plagiolemma 0.3 0.5 0.1

Plagioselmis 3.4 1.4 7.8 1.8


Algal Genera

Stations Avg1 1A 1B 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Planktoniella blanda 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.2 1.7 0.2

Pleurosigma 3.8 0.9 3.2 4.2 3.4 3.6 3.0 1.3 2.5 3.2 3.6 5.1 3.1

Prorocentrum 0.2 0.7 0.3 4.1 0.6 1.0 0.5

Protoperidinium 0.1 1.0 0.1 1.5 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.1 2.1 0.3

Pseudo-nitzschia 19.6 10.3 13.8 9.7 11.9 6.0 2.7 7.6 9.1 9.5 2.5 3.4 10.0

Pyramimonas 3.4 0.7 1.0 3.7 1.2

Rhizosolenia 1.4 2.2 0.9 2.3 2.1 1.5 2.7 3.5 1.5 3.2 0.1 0.3 1.8

Scrippsiella 0.7 0.1

Skeletonema 1.8 4.0 2.0 0.6

Surirella 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.9 1.4 0.2 0.6 1.8 0.5 1.0 0.5

Teleaulax 0.8 0.1

Thalassionema 2.1 3.4 1.9 6.1 6.1 7.5 8.1 3.5 11.2 11.1 1.5 6.9 5.4

Thalassiosira 11.9 15.8 18.6 17.4 8.5 17.9 17.6 9.4 11.7 9.5 6.6 12.0 12.2

Thalassiothrix 2.1 1.4 0.2 3.2 0.8 0.1 0.8

Triceratium <0.1 1.5 0.1 0.1 1.9 0.1

Warnowia 0.3 0.1 0.5 0.1

Table 4.5.6: Range and average (parenthesis) of zooplankton production off Vandh during December 2008, December 2013 and April 2015.

Station

December 2008 December 2013 Biomass


(nox103/100m3) Total

groups (no)

Major group (%)

Biomass (ml/10m3)


Total groups

(no)

Major group (%)

1

7.3-11.8 (9.6)

83.3-86.2 (84.8)

14-18 (16)

Copepods(82.4) decapod larvae(9.4) chaetognaths (2.5) foraminiferans (2.1) polychaetes (1.3) gastropods (1.3) appendicularian(0.6) ostracods (0.2) siphonophores (0.1) others (0.1)

0.3-0.5 (0.5)

41.5-6.3 (5.2)

13-14 (14)

Copepods (79.3) decapod larvae(10.7) ostracods (4.2) lamellibranchs (1.4) fish eggs(1.2) Lucifer sp.(1.1) chaetognaths (0.9) gastropods (0.5) polychaetes(0.2) appendicularians(0.2) siphonophores (0.1) amphipods(0.1) others (0.1)

1A - - - - 0.3-1.9 (0.8)

0.5-9.5 (2.7)

5-13 (8)

Copepods (72.7) decapod larvae (20.5) lamellibranchs (3.1) ostracods (2.4) fish eggs(0.4) amphipods(0.4) chaetognaths (0.2) siphonophores (0.1) gastropods (0.1) others (0.1)

Table 4.5.6: (Contd 2)

Station



(nox103/100m3)Total

groups (no)

Major group (%)

Biomass (ml/10m3)


Total groups

(no)

Major group (%)

1B - - - - 0.8-1.4 (1.1)

5.3-8.2 (6.7)

14-15 (15)

Copepods (66.3) decapod larvae (30.5) chaetognaths (1.3) Lucifer sp.(0.4) siphonophores (0.4) fish eggs(0.3) ostracods (0.2) polychaetes(0.2) gastropods (0.1) ctenophores(0.1) lamellibranchs (0.1) others (0.1)

2

1.1-8.6 (3.6)

2.3-27.8 (11.8)

12-19 (16)

Copepods (65.6), decapods larvae(22.0),chaetognaths (3.0), polychaetes (2.4) foraminiferans (2.1), gastropods (1.1) appendicularians (1.1) siphonophores (0.8) fish eggs (0.6) heteropods (0.4) ostracods (0.4) lucifer sp. (0.2) fish larvae (0.1) lamellibranchs (0.1), others (0.1)

0.2-3.3 (1.8)

1.8-30.0 (13.8)

11-16 (14)

Copepods (52.6), decapod larvae (29.9), ostracods (5.8) gastropods (3.7) chaetognaths (2.8), polychaetes (1.5) lamellibranchs (1.3), siphonophores (1.2) Lucifer sp.(0.9) ctenophores(0.1) others (0.2)


Station



(nox103/100m3) Total

groups (no)

Major group (%)

Biomass (ml/10m3)


Total groups

(no)

Major group (%)

3

1.8-2.9 (2.4)

11.3-21.7 (16.5)

14-14 (14)

Copepods (67.5), decapod larvae (25.9)

gastropods (4.1), chaetognaths (1.0), foraminiferans (0.7), siphonophores (0.3), polychaetes (0.1), appendicularians (0.1)

lamellibranchs (0.1), ostracods (0.1), others (0.1).

1.0-2.0 (1.5)

3.7-16.2 (10.0)

13-14 (14)

Copepods (65.2) decapod larvae (22.1) ostracods(6.9), lamellibranchs (1.8), ctenophores(1.5) chaetognaths (0.9), fish eggs(0.5) siphonophores (0.4), stomatopods(0.2) Lucifer sp.(0.2) polychaetes (0.1) gastropods(0.1) others (0.1)

4

1.6-14.1 (7.9)

4.3-39.3 (21.8)

16-17 (17)

Copepods (65.5), decapod larvae (24.1), appendicularians (3.3) foraminiferans (3.1) chaetognaths (2.3), gastropods (0.5) ostracods (0.5), lucifer sp. (0.2), fish larvae (0.1), heteropods (0.1), polychaetes (0.1), fish larvae (0.1), others (0.1).

0.8-0.9 (0.9)

4.8-5.3 (5.0)

11-13 (12)

Copepods (57.8), decapod larvae (24.3), ostracods (5.0) polychaetes (5.0), chaetognaths (3.8), lamellibranchs (2.3), gastropods(0.9) fish larvae (0.2), siphonophores (0.2), appendicularians (0.2) Lucifer sp.(0.1), stomatopods (0.1) others(0.1).


Station

Biomass (ml/100m3)


Total groups

(no)

Major group (%)

Biomass (ml/100m3)


Total groups

(no)

Major group (%)

5

1.6-2.1 (1.9)

11.4-12.7 (12.1)

14-17 (16)

Decapod larvae (68.3)

copepods (27.8) chaetognaths (1.2) gastropods (0.9), foraminiferans (0.7) polychaetes (0.3), ostracods (0.3), siphonophores (0.2) stomatopods (0.1), fish larvae (0.1),

0.8-1.1 (1.0)

2.9-5.2 (4.0)

13-13 (13)

Copepods(69.4), decapod larvae (19.1), chaetognaths (4.5), ostracods (2.8) lamellibranchs (1.6), polychaetes (0.8), gastropods(0.8) fish eggs(0.4) siphonophores (0.2), amphipods(0.1) Lucifer sp.(0.1), appendicularians (0.1) others (0.1)

6

0.4-3.7 (2.1)

3.6-6.2 (4.9)

9-11 (10)

Copepods (47.5), decapod larvae (46.6), chaetognaths (2.7), foraminiferans (1.5), stomatopods (0.7), fish larvae (0.5), ostracods (0.1) gastropods (0.1), siphonophores (0.1), polychaetes (0.1) others (0.1).

0.1-0.1 (0.1)

1.2-2.0 (1.6)

13-14 (11)

Copepods(70.0), decapod larvae (18.9), chaetognaths (7.5), lamellibranchs (1.0), gastropods(0.6) ostracods(0.5) fish eggs(0.2) amphipods (0.2) appendicularians (0.2) polychaetes (0.2), siphonophores (0.2), fish larvae (0.1), Lucifer sp.(0.1), foraminiferans(0.1) Acetes sp.(0.1) others (0.1)


Station



(nox103/100m3)Total

groups (no)

Major group

(%)

Biomass (ml/10m3)


Total groups

(no)

Major group (%)

7

- - - - 0.8-3.6 (2.2)

12.8-27.6 (20.2)

13-14 (11)

Copepods (64.6), decapod larvae (24.8), chaetognaths (3.4), ostracods(2.8) siphonophores (2.6), gastropods(0.7) lamellibranchs (0.4), polychaetes (0.2), Lucifer sp.(0.2), stomatopods(0.1) fish larvae (0.1), others (0.1)

8 - - - - 0.5-0.9 (0.7)

4.4-7.5 (5.9)

10-14 (12)

Copepods (83.0), decapod larvae (10.0), appendicularians (6.2), polychaetes (0.1), gastropods(0.1) others (0.2)

9 - - - - 0.8-0.9 (0.9)

5.9-8.5 (7.2)

13-14 (14)

Copepods(81.3), decapod larvae (11.0), heteropods(4.3) chaetognaths (1.5), Lucifer sp.(0.9), gastropods(0.3), ostracods (0.2), ctenophores(0.2), siphonophores (0.2), others (0.1)


Station



(nox103/100m3)Total

groups (no)

Major group

(%)

Biomass (ml/10m3)


Total groups

(no)

Major group (%)

10 - - - - 0.3-0.3 (0.3)

2.7-4.2 (3.5)

10-14 (12)

Copepods(72.7), decapod larvae (15.6), gastropods(4.2), chaetognaths (2.5), heteropods(1.6) ostracods(1.5), Lucifer sp.(0.6), polychaetes (0.4), lamellibranchs (0.3), siphonophores (0.2), foraminiferans(0.1), appendicularians (0.1), fish larvae (0.1), others (0.1)


Station (Date)

April 2015 Biomass


(nox103/100m3) Total Groups

(no) Major group

(%) 1

(10.04.2015) 0.7-1.3 (1.0)

7.7-13.9 (10.8)

10-14 (12)

Copepods (90.6), decapod larvae (7.3), mysids(0.6), polychaetes(0.5), fish larvae (0.2), chaetognaths(0.2), gastropods (0.1), lamellibranchs (0.1), ctenophores(0.1), siphonophores(0.1), ostracods(0.1), others (0.1).

1A (11.04.2015)

0.6-7.9 (3.2)

4.1-8.7 (7.1)

9-16 (14)

Copepods (34.8), mysids(29.9), lamellibranchs (17.6), decapod larvae (9.6), fish larvae (4.5), chaetognaths(2.9), fish eggs(0.1), gastropods (0.1), amphipods(0.1), foraminiferans(0.1), ctenophores(0.1), others (0.2).

1B (11.04.2015)

0.2-0.4 (0.3)

5.7-6.4 (6.1)

13-16 (15)

Copepods (67.2), decapod larvae (27.3), lamellibranchs (4.2), gastropods (0.6), ostracods(0.2), fish eggs(0.1), amphipods(0.1), cumaceans(0.1), others (0.2).


Station (Date)

April 2015 Biomass



(no) Major group

(%) 2

(08.04.2015) 0.6-8.0 (3.3)

1.6-19.9 (12.3)

7-14 (11)

Copepods (79.4), decapod larvae (12.7), lamellibranchs (2.8), gastropods (1.9), chaetognaths(1.3), ctenophores(0.6), polychaetes(0.3), siphonophores(0.3), ostracods(0.3), fish larvae(0.1), mysids(0.1), medusae(0.1), others (0.1).

3 (10.04.2015)

0.5-3.3 (1.9)

10.0-25.7 (17.9)

11-12 (12)

Copepods (85.2), decapod larvae (6.5), siphonophores(2.7), chaetognaths(2.4), fish eggs(1.9), polychaetes(0.4), gastropods (0.3), lamellibranchs (0.2), ctenophores(0.2), fish larvae(0.1), others (0.1).

4 (09.04.2015)

0.4-0.8 (0.6)

6.7-14.2 (10.5)

11-11 (11)

Copepods (90.7), decapod larvae (4.6), siphonophores(3.1), polychaetes(0.9), chaetognaths(0.5), gastropods (0.1), others (0.1).


Station (Date)

April 2015 Biomass



(no) Major group

(%) 5

(09.04.2015) 0.5-0.8 (0.7)

4.5-15.8 (10.2)

9-11 (10)

Copepods (95.0), decapod larvae (1.9), chaetognaths(1.3), gastropods (0.6), polychaetes(0.5), lamellibranchs (0.2), siphonophores(0.2), fish larvae(0.1), medusae(0.1) others (0.1).

6 (09.04.2015)

0.8-4.9 (2.9)

11.0-14.3 (12.6)

12-15 (14)

Copepods (93.9), decapod larvae (2.9), polychaetes(2.0), chaetognaths(0.3), fish eggs(0.2), ctenophores(0.2), fish larvae(0.1), gastropods (0.1), lamellibranchs (0.1), others (0.2).

7 (09.04.2015)

0.6-1.4 (1.0)

12.9-40.3 (26.6)

11-12 (12)

Copepods (91.2), decapod larvae (4.7), chaetognaths(1.6), siphonophores(1.1), medusae(0.5), fish larvae(0.4), polychaetes(0.2), ostracods(0.1), others (0.2).


Station (Date)

April 2015 Biomass



(no) Major group

(%) 8

(09.04.2015) 1.5-4.2 (2.9)

7.3-9.8 (8.5)

8-16 (12)

Copepods (89.3), lamellibranchs (2.8), decapod larvae (2.1), gastropods (1.7), polychaetes(1.6), chaetognaths(0.8), fish larvae(0.4), ctenophores(0.4), mysids(0.2), ostracods(0.2), siphonophores(0.2), fish eggs(0.1), medusae(0.1), others (0.1).

9 (10.04.2015)

0.2-0.3 (0.3)

2.3-5.1 (3.7)

6-11 (9)

Copepods (84.0), decapod larvae (10.0), lamellibranchs (2.2), gastropods (1.8), chaetognaths(0.9), fish eggs(0.3), fish larvae(0.3), ctenophores(0.2), polychaetes(0.1), foraminiferans(0.1), others (0.1).

10 (10.04.2015)

0.4-0.6 (0.5)

15.4-17.1 (16.3)

9-14 (12)

Decapod larvae (51.1), copepods (46.2), siphonophores(1.6), lamellibranchs (0.5), gastropods (0.2), polychaetes(0.1), chaetognaths(0.1), foraminiferans(0.1), others (0.1).

Table 4.5.7: Distribution of zooplankton off Vandh during December 2008, December 2013 and April 2015.

Faunal group

December 2008 December 2013 Station Station

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 1A 1B 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Foraminiferans + + + + + + + - - + - - - + + + + +

Siphonophores + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Medusae + + + + - - - - + + - + + - + - + -

Ctenophores - + - + - - - - + + + - + - - - + -

Chaetognaths + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Polychaetes + + + + + + + - + + + + + + + + + +

Cladocerans - - - - - - - + - - - - - - - - - -

Ostracods + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Copepods + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Cumaceans + + - - - - - - + - + - - - - - - -

Amphipods + + - + + - + + + + - - + + + + + -

Mysids - + - - + - - + - + - - - - + - + -

Lucifer sp. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Decapod larvae + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Stomatopods + + + + + + - + + + + + + - + - - -

Heteropods - + - + + - + - - - + + - - - - + +

Cephalopods - - - - + - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Gastropods + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +


Faunal group

December 2008 December 2013 Station Station

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 1A 1B 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Lamellibranchs + + + + + - + + + + + + + + + + + +

Appendicularians + + + + + - + - + + - - + + + + - +

Fish eggs + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + - -

Fish larvae + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Isopods + - - + - - + + - + - - - - - - - -

Acetes sp - - - - - - - - - - - - - + - - - -

Marine insects - + - - - - + - - - + + - + - - - -


Faunal Groups

April 2015 Station

1 1A 1B 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Foraminiferans + + + + + + - + - + + + Siphonophores + + + + + + + + + + - + Medusae - + + + + - + + + + + + Ctenophores + + - + + + - + - + + - Chaetognaths + + + + + + + + + + + + Polychaetes + + + + + + + + + + + + Ostracods + + + + + + - + + + - + Copepods + + + + + + + + + + + + Cumaceans - + + - - - - - - - - - Amphipods + + + + - - + + + - - + Mysids + + + + + + - + + + - + Lucifer sp. - + - + - - - - + + - - Decapod larvae + + + + + + + + + + + + Stomatopods + + + + - - + - + + - + Heteropods - + + + - + + - - - - + Cephalopods - - - + - - - + - - - - Gastropods + + + + + + + + - + + + Lamellibranchs + + + + + + + + - + + + Appendicularians - + - - + - - + - - - - Doliolids - - + - - - - - - - - - Fish Eggs + + + + + + + + + + + - Fish Larvae + + - + + + + + + + + + Isopods + + + + + - - + - - + - Acetes sp. - - + - - - - - - - - - Pycnogonids - + - - - - - - - - - -

Table 4.5.8: Composition (%) of zooplankton off Vandh during December 2008

Faunal groups Station

1 2 3 4 5 6 Avg Foraminiferans 2.1 2.1 0.7 3.1 0.7 1.5 1.7 Siphonophores 0.1 0.8 0.3 0.03 0.2 0.06 0.3 Medusae <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Ctenophores <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Chaetognaths 2.5 3 1 2.3 1.2 2.7 2.1 Polychaetes 1.3 2.4 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.7 Ostracods 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.3 Copepods 82.5 65.6 67.5 65.5 27.8 47.6 59.4 Cumaceans <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Amphipods <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Mysids <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Lucifer sp. 0.2 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 Decapod larvae 9.4 22 25.8 24.1 68.3 46.7 32.7 Stomatopods <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.7 0.1 Heteropods 0.4 0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.1 Cephalopods <0.1 <0.1 Gastropods 1.3 1 4 0.5 0.9 0.1 1.3 Lamellibranchs <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Appendicularians 0.6 1 0.1 3.2 <0.1 0.9 Fish Eggs <0.1 0.5 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 Fish Larvae <0.1 0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.1 Isopods <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 Marine Insects <0.1 <0.1 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Table 4.5.9: Composition (%) of zooplankton off Vandh during December 2013

Faunal group Station Avg1 1A 1B 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Foraminiferans <0.1 - - <0.1 - - - 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1Siphonophores 0.1 0.1 0.5 1.2 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.2 2.6 <0.1 0.2 0.2 0.9 Medusae - - <0.1 <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 - <0.1 - <0.1 - <0.1Ctenophores - - 0.1 0.1 1.5 - <0.1 - - - 0.2 - 0.2 Chaetognaths 0.9 0.2 1.3 2.8 0.9 3.2 4.5 7.5 3.4 <0.1 1.5 2.5 3.0 Polychaetes 0.2 - 0.2 1.5 0.1 4.1 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.1 <0.1 0.4 0.7 Cladocerans - <0.1 - - - - - - - - - - <0.1Ostracods 4.2 2.4 0.2 5.8 6.9 4.1 2.8 0.5 2.8 <0.1 0.2 1.5 3.2 Copepods 79.3 72.7 66.3 52.6 65.2 47.6 69.3 70.1 64.6 83.0 81.3 72.6 66.1Cumaceans - <0.1 . <0.1 - - - - - - - - <0.1Amphipods 0.1 0.4 <0.1 <0.1 - - 0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - <0.1Mysids - <0.1 - <0.1 - - - - <0.1 - <0.1 - <0.1Lucifer sp. 1.1 <0.1 0.5 0.9 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 <0.1 0.9 0.6 0.4 Decapod larvae 10.7 20.5 30.5 29.9 22.1 36.0 19.1 18.9 24.8 6.2 10.9 15.8 22.4Stomatopods - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 0.3 <0.1 - 0.1 - - - 0.1 Heteropods <0.1 - - - <0.1 0.1 - - - - 4.3 1.6 0.4 Gastropods 0.5 0.1 0.1 3.7 0.1 0.2 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.1 0.3 4.2 1.1 Lamellibranchs 1.4 3.1 0.1 1.3 1.8 3.0 1.6 1.0 0.4 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 1.0 Appendicularians 0.2 - <0.1 <0.1 - - 0.1 0.2 <0.1 0.4 - 0.1 0.1 Fish eggs 1.2 0.4 0.3 <0.1 0.5 0.8 0.4 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 - - 0.3 Fish larvae <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.1 Isopods <0.1 <0.1 - <0.1 - - - - - - - - <0.1Acetes sp. - - - - - - - 0.1 - - - - <0.1Marine insects <0.1 - - - <0.1 <0.1 - <0.1 - - - <0.1 <0.1Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Table 4.5.10: Composition (%) of zooplankton off Vandh during April 2015

Faunal Groups Station

Avg1 1A 1B 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Foraminiferans <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - <0.1 - <0.1 0.1 0.1 <0.1Siphonophores 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 2.7 3.1 0.2 <0.1 1.1 0.2 - 1.6 0.9 Medusae - <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 - 0.1 <0.1 0.5 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 Ctenophores 0.1 0.1 - 0.6 0.2 <0.1 - 0.2 - 0.4 0.2 - 0.2 Chaetognaths 0.2 2.9 <0.1 1.3 2.4 0.5 1.3 0.3 1.6 0.8 0.9 0.1 1.2 Polychaetes 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 0.4 0.9 0.5 2.0 0.2 1.6 0.1 0.1 0.6 Ostracods 0.1 <0.1 0.2 0.3 <0.1 - - <0.1 0.1 0.2 - <0.1 0.1 Copepods 90.6 34.8 67.2 79.4 85.2 90.8 95.1 93.9 91.2 89.4 84.0 46.2 85.1Cumaceans - <0.1 0.1 - - - - - - - - - <0.1Amphipods <0.1 0.1 0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1 <0.1Mysids 0.6 29.9 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 0.2 - <0.1 1.8 Lucifer sp. - <0.1 - <0.1 - - - - <0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1Decapod larvae 7.4 9.6 27.3 12.7 6.5 4.6 1.9 2.9 4.7 2.1 10.1 51.1 6.9 Stomatopods <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1Heteropods - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 - - - - <0.1 <0.1Cephalopods - - - <0.1 - - - <0.1 - - - - <0.1Gastropods 0.1 0.1 0.6 1.9 0.3 0.1 0.6 0.1 - 1.7 1.8 0.2 0.5 Lamellibranchs 0.1 17.6 4.2 2.8 0.2 <0.1 0.2 0.1 - 2.9 2.2 0.5 1.8 Appendicularians - <0.1 - - <0.1 - - <0.1 - - - - <0.1Doliolids - - <0.1 - - - - - - - - - <0.1Fish Eggs <0.1 0.1 0.1 <0.1 1.9 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 0.1 0.3 - 0.3 Fish Larvae 0.2 4.5 - 0.1 0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.3 <0.1 0.4 Isopods <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1 - - <0.1 - <0.1Acetes sp. - - <0.1 - - - - - - - - - <0.1Pycnogonids - <0.1 - - - - - - - - - - <0.1Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Table 4.5.11: Range and average (parenthesis) of decapod larvae, fish eggs and fish larvae off Vandh during December 2008, December 2013 and April 2015.

Station December 2008 December 2013

Decapod larvae

(no/100m3)

Fish eggs (no/100m3)

Fish larvae (no/100m3)

Decapod larvae (no/100m3)



1 6486-9462 (7974)

2-31 (17)

5-12 (9)

248-862 (555)

23-103 (63)

0-5 (2)

1A 118-1712 (556)

1-24 (11)

0-2 (0)

1B 1913-2199 (2056)

19-20 (19)

2-4 (3)

2 670-7411 (2606)

0-239 (68)

0-78 (13)

629-11910 (4120)

0-26 (5)

0-9 (5)

3 6486-9462 (7974)

2-3 (3)

1-3 (2)

1865-2545 (2205)

19-81 (50)

4-6 (5)

4 408-10101 (5255)

1-25 (13)

7-56 (32)

1043-1399 (1221)

0 11-12 (11)

5 7149-9356 (8253)

4-6 (5)

6-15 (11)

567-973 (770)

3-26 (15)

0-2 (1)

6 1270-3316 (2293)

0-1 (1)

7-48 (28)

277-327 (302)

0-8 (4)

0-3 (2)

7 2181-7836 (5008)

0-1 (1)

0-34 (17)

8 242-499 (370)

0-1 (1)

2-3 (2)

9 695-881 (788)

0 2-2 (2)

10 364-730 (547)

0 0-4 (2)

Overall Average

408-10101 (5726)

0-239 (18)

0-78 (16)

118-11910 (1542)

0-103 (14)

0-34 (4)


Stations

April 2015

Decapod larvae (no/100m3)



1 659-936 (798)

21-23 (22)

0-1 (1)

1A 339-908 (681)

0-1182 (320)

0-15 (6)

1B 1349-1962 (1656)

0 4-7 (6)

2 398-4976 (1564)

0-43 (18)

0-9 (2)

3 578-1734 (1156)

3-20 (12)

0-681 (341)

4 266-689 (478)

2-4 (3)

0-1 (1)

5 98-297 (197)

2-14 (8)

0-2 (1)

6 25-714 (369)

11-15 (13)

7-32 (19)

7 372-2146 (1259)

0-233 (117)

6-14 (10)

8 107-246 (176)

7-54 (31)

2-8 (5)

9 339-407 (373)

11-15 (13)

0-25 (12)

10 7742-8877 (8310)

0-4 (2)

0

Overall Average

25-8877 (1418)

0-1182 (47)

0-681 (34)

Table 4.5.12: Range and average (parenthesis) of intertidal macrobenthos at different water level off Vandh during December 2008 , December 2013 and April 2015.

Transect


(g/m2; wet wt.)

Population(no/m2)

Faunal groups

(no)

Major group

Biomass(g/m2;

wet wt.)

Population(no/m2)

Faunal groups

(no)

Major group

I HW

5.2-15.1 (11.3)

3124-12848 (6666)

4-7 (6)

Polychaetes,amphipods.

7.0-14.4 (11.1)

1150-2250 (1783)

3-4 (4)

Polychaetes,brachyurans,pelecypods

MW

0.7-15.3 (6.9)

792-10332 (3551)

4-7 (5)

Gastropods, polychaetes,amphipods.

4.7-44.8 (18.5)

2100-3850 (2693)

3-5 (4)

Polychaetes,brachyurans

LW

0.3-.09 (0.6)

440-660 (583)

3-4 (4)

Polychaetes,amphipods.

5.2-8.6 (6.4)

425-725 (324)

3-7 (5)

Amphipods, polychaetes,pelecypods

II HW

6.9-23.6 (17.5)

1408-3080 (2090)

5-6 (5)

Amphipods, polychaetes,

tanaids.

0-3.2 (1.1)

0-250 (116)

0-3 (2)

Polychaetes,amphipods

MW

4.9-10.8 (7.1)

2332-4312 (3113)

5-6 (6)

Polychaetes,amphipods, cumaceans.

0.1-42.9 (21.4)

50-225 (109)

2-4 (3)

Polychaetes,amphipods, brachyurans

LW

1.7-4.2 (2.8)

2552-9240 (5018)

5-6 (6)

Amphipods, cumaceans, polychaetes.

0.2-1.6 (0.7)

250-925 (525)

3-5 (4)

Polychaetes,amphipods, cumaceans

Over all Average

0.3-23.8 (7.7)

440-12848 (3504)

3-8 (5)

Amphipods, polychaetes,gastropods, cumaceans.

0-44.8 (9.9)

0-3850 (925)

0-7 (4)

Polychaetes,brachyurans


Transect

April 2015 Biomass

(g/m2; wet wt.) Population

(no/m2) Faunal groups

(no) Major group

T-I HW

0.7-1.1 (1.0)

575-1975 (1075)

2-3 (2)

Polychaetes

T-I MW

0.006-10.6 (4.7)

25-200 (113)

1-4 (2)

Amphipods anomurans polychaetes

T-I LW

0.1-0.9 (0.4)

225-675 (388)

3-6 (4)

Polychaetes amphipods

T-II HW

0.04-3.6 (1.1)

25-300 (163)

1-4 (2)

Polychaetes isopods

T-II MW

0.1-3.5 (1.2)

150-475 (294)

2-4 (3)

Amphipods

T-II LW

0.1-2.3 (0.7)

150-175 (163)

2-3 (2)

Amphipods polychaetes

Overall

average

0.006-3.6 (1.5)

25-1975 (366)

1-6 (3)

Polychaetes amphipods

Table 4.5.13: Composition (%) of intertidal macrobenthic fauna off Vandh during December 2008.

Faunal groups Transect I II

Avg HW MW LW HW MW LW Phylum Cnidaria Hydrozoans 0.4 0.4 0.1 Anthozoans 0.2 0.1 Phylum Mollusca Gastropods 69.1 1.9 1.4 0.7 12.1 Pelecypods 1.9 0.6 0.5 2.1 0.2 1.1 Phylum Annelida Polychaetes 48 14.2 64.2 26.8 42.4 12.3 31.3 Phylum Arthropoda Tanaids 6.4 2.5 7.5 14.2 2.5 1.8 4.9 Cumaceans 0.2 0.9 3.8 1.1 20.8 31.4 10.9 Amphipods 41.9 11.2 20.8 43.2 27.9 51.3 36.4 Isopods 0.3 0.6 3.2 0.5 0.6 Anomurans 0.2 0.04 Mysids 0.7 0.1 Pycnogonids 0.5 0.1 Brachyurans 0.9 0.9 1.9 11.1 1.8 0..5 1.9 Ostracods 0.2 0.04 Penaeids 0.2 0.04

Table 4.5.14: Composition (%) of intertidal macrobenthos off Vandh during December 2013.

Faunal Groups

Transect I II Avg

HW MW LW HW MW LW Phylum Nemertea Nemertines 2.5 0.1 Phylum Nematoda Nematodes 0.9 0.5 Phylum Mollusca Gastropods 0.4 0.6 7.7 0.9 Pelecypods 13.6 1.6 15.4 6.9 1.5 6.3 Phylum Sipuncula Sipunculids 2.5 0.1 Phylum Annelida Polychaetes 71.1 83.8 20.7 50 38.5 46.1 70.9 Phylum Arthropoda Amphipods 0.6 41 36.2 30.3 30.1 6.9 Brachyurans 14.5 11.9 2.5 15.6 10.8 Cumaceans 2.5 15.6 17.6 2.1 Decapod larvae 0.6 0.3 Isopods 0.4 5.2 6.9 3.2 0.9 Mysids 1.5 0.1

Table 4.5.15: Composition (%) of intertidal macrobenthos off Vandh during April 2015

Faunal Groups

Transect I II

Avg H.W M.W L.W H.W M.W L.W Phylum Nemertea Nemertean 1.6 0.3

Phylum Nematoda Nematodes 11.1 8.1 2.0 Phylum Mollusca Pelecypods 5.2 3.8 2.8 Phylum Annelida Polychaetes 92.4 16.7 43.5 142.3 10.6 30.8 60.7 Phylum Sipuncula Sipunculids 1.2 5.5 6.5 3.8 2.3 Phylum Arthropoda Amphipods 1.2 27.8 30.6 11.5 76.5 53.8 22.5 Brachyurans 11.1 7.7 4.3 1.7 Isopods 38.5 6.4 7.7 4.3 Pycnogonid 1.6 0.3 Tanaids 1.6 0.3 Anomurans 27.8 1.4 Cumaceans 4.8 0.6 Carideans 1.6 2.1 0.9

Table 4.5.16: Range and average (parenthesis) of subtidal macrobenthos different stations off Vandh during December 2008 , December 2013 and April 2015

Station December 2008 December 2013 Biomass

(g/m2; wet wt.)

Abundance(no/m2)

Faunal groups

(no)

Major group Biomass (g/m2; wet

wt.)

Population (no/m2)

Faunal groups

(no)

Major group

1 0.1-<0.01

(0.03)

25-75 (25)

1*

Polychaetes 0.4-1.9 (0.9)

200-900 (537)

3-6 (5)

Polychaetes, amphipods, sipunculids

1A - - - - 0.3-8.5 (3.7)

150-3350 (1645)

1-5 (3)

Polychaetes

1B - - - - 0.3-2.8 (1.5)

125-750 (395)

1-5 (4)

Polychaetes, amphipods

2 0.03-0.1 (0.1)

25-400 (194)

1-3 (2)

Polychaetes, amphipods

0.006-0.1 (0.03)

150-1100 (538)

1-2 (1)

Nematodes

3 0.83-4.2 (1.9)

425-1100 (725)

7-9 (8)

Brachyurans, amphipods, pelecypods, polychaetes.

0.3-1.6 (0.9)

500-600 (552)

2-3 (3)

Polychaetes, pelecypods

4 * * 5 * * 6 * * 7 - 0-0.02

(0.01) 0-50 (31)

0-1 (1)

Polychaetes

8 - * 9 - 0.2-24.0

(8.1) 300-3225

(1444)

2-3 (2)


10 * * Over all Average

0.1-4.2 (0.7)

25-1100 (315)

1-9 (4)

Polychaetes,brachyurans,amphipods.

0-24.0 (2.2)

0-3350 (735)

0-6 (3)


nematodes

Table 4.5.16: Contd. 2

Station April 2015

Biomass (g/m2; wet wt.)

Abundance (no/m2)

Faunal Group(no)

Major group

1 0.4-1.2 (0.8)

50-350 (213)

2-5 (3)

Amphipods sipunculids polychaetes

1A

0.01-0.4 (0.2)

25-50 (38)

1-2 (1)

Amphipods polychaetes

1B 0.007-0.1 (0.03)

25-50 (32)

1-2 (1)

Amphipods

2

0.04-1.3 (0.6)

125-750 (544)

2-3 (2)

Amphipods

3

0.004-0.4 (0.1)

50-100 (69)

1-3 (2)

Polychaetes sipunculids

4 *

5 *

6 *7 0.001-0.3

(0.2) 25-125

(57) 1-3 (1)

Isopods polychaetes

8 * 9 0.3-1.2

(0.8) 150-325

(238) 2-4

(2) Sipunculids amphipods

10 *

Overall Average

0.001-1.3 (0.4)

25-750 (170)

1-5 (1)

Amphipods

Note: (-) indicates no sampling, * Rocky Bottom

Table 4.5.17: Composition (%) of subtidal macrobenthos off Vandh during December 2008.

Note: - * Indicates rocky bottom.

Faunal Groups Station

1 2 3 4 5 6 Phylum Cnidaria Hydrozoans 1.8 * * *Phylum Mollusca Gastropods 4.3 Pelecypods 11.2 Phylum Annelida Polychaetes 76 77.3 10.3 Phylum Arthropoda Ostracods 9.8 3.4 Brachyurans 31 Pycnogonids 5.9 Tanaidaceans 8.7 Amphipods 24 12.9 21.5 Cumaceans 1.8

Table 4.5.18: Composition (%) of subtidal macrobenthos off Vandh during December 2013.

Faunal Groups Station 1 1A 1B 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Avg

Phylum Nematoda Nematodes 1.1 95.4 10.1Phylum Phoronida Phoronids 1.1 3.3 0.4 Phylum Mollusca Pelecypods 2.4 0.8 11.4 1.7 Phylum Sipuncula Sipunculids 10.5 1.1 Phylum Annelida Polychaetes 66.3 86.2 57 4.6 79.3 100 83.1 71.8Phylum Arthropoda Amphipods 12.9 9.9 28.6 2.4 * * * * 16.5 * 11.6Anomurans 0.4 0.1 Brachyurans 0.4 4.8 0.5 Cumaceans 1.1 0.1 Decapod Larvae 1.5 0.1 Isopods 3.5 2.3 2.4 1.4 Mysids 3.3 0.3 Ostracods 1.1 0.1 Stomatopods 0.4 0.1 Phylum Echinodermata

Ophiuroids 1.5 4.5 0.6 Note: - * Indicates rocky bottom.

Table 4.5.19: Composition (%) of subtidal macrobenthos off Vandh during April 2015. Faunal Groups Station Avg

1 1A 1B 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Phylum Mollusca Pelecypods 2.3 2.6 1.6

Phylum Annelida

Oligochaetes 9.1 0.5

Polychaetes 17.6 50 40 32.2 63.6 33.3 2.6 24.9Phylum Sipuncula Sipunculids 32.4 1.1 18.2 11.1 76.2 21.9Phylum Arthropoda Amphipods 36.3 50 60 63.2 * * * 11.1 * 15.8 * 39.3Brachyurans Anomurans Isopods 44.4 2.0Copepods 5.9 2.6 1.5ostracods 8.8 1.1 9.1 2.5carideans 2.9 0.5

Note: - * Indicates rocky bottom.

Table 4.5.20: Marine fish landings (t x103/y) of Gujarat State and Kachchh District.

Year Gujarat State

Kachchh District

Percentage to total

State landing 1991-92 530.0 61.4 11.6 1992-93 609.1 63.0 6.5 1993-94 619.8 63.2 10.2 1994-95 645.3 76.8 11.9 1995-96 598.4 72.6 12.1 1996-97 660.1 76.7 11.6 1997-98 702.4 71.8 10.2 1998-99 551.7 69.7 12.6 1999-00 671.0 75.0 11.1 2000-01 620.5 64.7 10.4 2001-02 650.8 80.0 12.3 2002-03 743.4 80.7 10.9 2003-04 609.1 72.0 11.8 2004-05 585.0 64.7 11.1 2005-06 663.9 62.4 9.4 2006-07 676.8 59.4 8.8 2007-08 680.8 58.7 8.6 2008-09 683.9 53.3 7.8 2009-10 687.4 60.4 8.8 2010-11 688.9 73.0 10.6 2011-12 692.4 72.8 10.5

Source: Department of Fisheries, Government of Gujarat

Table 4.5.21: Composition of marine fish landings (t /y) of Kachchh District during 2013-14


Name of the fish Total production (t)

Specieswise percentage

(%) White pomfret 805.8 1.6Black pomfret 123.9 0.2Bombay duck 4287.7 8.4Thread fin 106.9 0.2Jew fish 282.0 0.6Hilsa 41.7 0.1Other clupeids 2489.5 4.9Coilia 2048.6 4.0Shark 1829.6 3.6Mullet 441.1 0.9Cat fish 2225.0 4.3Eel 232.5 0.5Leather jacket 1.8 0.0Seer fish 338.5 0.7Indian salmon 52.1 0.1Ribbon fish 989.4 1.9Silver bar 1033.9 2.0Perches 4440.4 8.7Small sciaenids 4566.9 8.9Shrimps 7428.7 14.5Prawns(Medium) 1518.8 3.0Prawns(Jumbo) 207.0 0.4Lobster 127.4 0.2Crabs 2306.0 4.5Sqid fish 32.5 0.1Carangies/Mackerel 186.0 0.4Rani fish 148.8 0.3Sole 4871.5 9.5Miscellaneous 8055.8 15.7TOTAL 5121.9 100.0

Table 4.5.22: Marine fish landings (t x 103/y) of Mundra, Modhva and Tragadi and its comparison with the landing at Kachchh District.


Year Kachchh District Mundra Modhva Tragadi catch % catch % catch %

2008-09 58.7

1.9 3.2 0.9 1.5 0.8 1.4

2009-10 53.3 0.7 1.3 1.5 2.8 0.9 1.7

2010-11 73.0 0.8 1.1 1.4 1.9 1.2 1.6

2011-12 72.8 1.1 1.5 0.9 1.2 1.5 2.1

2012-13 64.3 1.0 1.6 0.6 0.9 2.1 3.3

2013-14 51.2 1.8 3.5 1.3 2.5 1.5 2.9

Table 4.5.23: Composition of marine fish landings (t/y) at Mundra during 2008-2014 Sr. no. Name of Fish 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

1 White pomfret 91.5 42.9 111.1 24.1 39.3 76.6 2 Black pomfret 0 0 0 0 9 0 3 Bombay duck 692 95.2 122.1 391.6 227.5 409.1 4 Jew fish 14.5 6 36.7 8.6 2.7 18.9 5 Hilsa 2 0 0 0 0 0 6 Other clupeids 44.2 49.7 70.3 91.7 53.3 142.3 7 Coilia 212.5 52.2 58.4 190.8 188.9 237.8 8 Shark 18.5 12.3 36.9 10.9 9.8 45.6 9 Mullet 47.6 48.4 45.7 2.6 7.2 10.5

10 Cat fish 113.5 48.1 58.2 49.1 31.6 72.8 11 Seer fish 7.7 7.9 1.2 1.3 0.5 5.4 14 Indian salmon 0 0 0 0 0 1.6 15 Ribbon fish 45.4 37.2 28.3 35.4 51 101.8 16 Silver bar 20.7 21.8 30.2 13.2 5.7 39.1 17 Perches 0 0.7 1.4 4.9 0.5 19.8 18 Small sciaenids 142.6 102.8 78.4 106.8 91.5 150.2 19 Shrimps 141.7 22.5 49.5 114.2 187.8 209.3 20 Prawns(Medium) 23.2 11.8 5.7 23.8 21.2 35.3 21 Lobster 2.6 3.6 0 0 2.1 0 22 Crabs 52.5 18 0.2 4.3 2 0 23 Squid fish 8 0 0 0 0 0 24 Miscellaneous 252 125.4 84.6 74.6 59.1 103.2

TOTAL 1932.8 706.4 819 1148 991 1679.2 Source: Department of Fisheries, Government of Gujarat

Table 4.5.24: Composition of marine fish landings (t/y) at Modhva during 2008-2014 Sr. no. Name of Fish 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

1 White pomfret 17.4 13.8 135.2 23 38.6 63.1 2 Bombay duck 168.6 578.3 383.5 264.6 159.5 285.2 3 Thread fin 0 0 5 3.7 0 12.0 4 Jew fish 2.8 0 22.6 3.4 0 18.4 5 Other clupeids 92 73.2 70.9 62.2 28.1 75.0 6 Coilia 75.9 310.8 152.5 153.5 84.5 203.7 7 Shark 15.9 32.7 51.4 31.2 7.6 43.4 8 Mullet 9.5 18.7 65.3 4.8 14.5 2.6 9 Cat fish 33.6 75.5 52.1 31.7 18 38.8 10 Seer fish 2.9 7.7 1.7 0.6 1.8 1.6 11 Ribbon fish 47.2 60 52.2 53.7 14.7 60.7 12 Silver bar 80 0 86.9 13.4 8.6 17.6 13 Perches 0 0 0 2.0 0 46.6 14 Small sciaenids 101.7 110.8 129.2 108.3 48.6 86.5 15 Shrimps 120 109.3 89.8 112.4 95.6 196.7 16 Prawns(Medium) 34.4 33.7 24.3 18.5 13.1 23.0 17 Prawns(Jumbo) 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 18 Lobster 9.3 6.3 6.5 9 2.5 7.4 19 Crabs 14.4 10.9 4.3 0 0.5 5.3 20 Miscellaneous 96.3 117.6 110.7 61.5 50.9 87.9

TOTAL 922 1559.5 1444 957.6 587.4 1275.6


Table 4.5.25: Composition of marine fish landings (t/y) at Tragadi during 2008-2014 Sr. no. Name of Fish 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

1 White pomfret 15.3 4.7 136.9 26.6 23.4 42.5 2 Bombay duck 161.1 276.9 204.5 489.5 217.6 384.6 3 Jew fish 0 0 29 0 0 2.3 4 Other clupeids 74.7 39.4 85 137.5 1359.7 97.1 5 Coilia 91.4 185.4 176.4 242.9 121.5 235.4 6 Shark 8.1 11 52.1 14.7 23.7 16.7 7 Mullet 6.6 21.1 57.7 8.9 5.6 4.6 8 Cat fish 30.9 38 46.1 66.6 48.7 59.8 9 Eel 0 0 0 0 0 1.1

10 Leather jacket 0 0 0 0 0 1.3 11 Seer fish 1.1 2 1.5 1.8 0.3 0 14 Ribbon fish 31.7 39.8 48.7 73.3 28.7 70.1 15 Silver bar 81 0 17 61 3.4 32.9 16 Perches 0 0 0 0 0 35.7 17 Small sciaenids 69.9 83.3 142.9 89 91.7 134.2 18 Shrimps 80.9 83.3 96.1 158.2 81.6 220.1 19 Prawns(Medium) 24 27.9 22.8 45.6 19.3 41.9 20 Prawns(Jumbo) 0 0 0 1.8 0 0 21 Lobster 15.1 5.8 0 0 3.2 0 22 Crabs 15.3 8.9 2.1 0 1.9 0 23 Miscellaneous 104.7 96.2 98.6 120.2 26.3 77.7 TOTAL 812.1 923.9 1217.5 1537.6 2056.5 1458.0


Table 4.5.26: District wise fishing villages, fishermen, boats and fishing gears (2003) of Kachchh District.

Parameter

Length of coast line (km) 406

Percentage of the state of the coast line 25.4

Fishing villages/cities (no) 73

Fishermen families (no) 3650

Total fishermen population (no) 18664

Active fishermen (no) 10615

Fishing boats (mechanised) (no) 1219

Fishing boats (non-mechanised) (no) 291

Total fishing gears (nets) (no) 25917

Trawlers (no) 11

Gill netters (no) 188

Source: Department of Fisheries, Government of Gujarat.

Table 4.5.27: Village wise fishermen, boats and fishing gears around Mundra.

Village Total fishermen Fishing boats Families Gents Ladies Total Mechanised Non-

mechanised Total

Navinal 22 62 53 115 9 - 9

Jarpara 101 307 278 585 20 - 20

Dharab 16 54 47 101 - - -

Mundra 71 180 146 326 80 - 80

Chenkhedia 74 248 230 478 24 - 24

Luni 227 619 660 1279 65 1 66

Bhadreshwar 194 541 554 1095 95 - 95

Total 705 2011 1968 3979 293 1 294

Source: Department of Fisheries, Government of Gujarat.

Table 4.5.28: Check list of birds recorded in the study area (Mundra)

No Scientific name Common English name T/W Abundancestatus

Migratorystatus

Family & species

Phasianidae

1 Francolinus pondicerianus

Grey francolin T C R

2 Pavo cristatus Indian peafowl T C R

Picidae

3 Dendrocopos mahrattensis

Yellow-crowned woodpecker

T VR R

Upupidae

4 Upupa epops Common hoopoe T R R

Coraciidae

5 Coracias garrulus European roller T R M

6 Coracias benghalensis Indian roller T C R

Alcedinidae

7 Alcedo hercules Common kingfisher W R R

8 Halcyon amayroptera White throated kingfisher W R R

Meropidae

9 Merops orientalis Green bee-eater T A R

10 Merops persicus Blue-cheeked bee-eater T R RM

Cuculidae

11 Eudynamys scolopacea

Indian Koel T C R

Centropodidae

12 Centropus sinensis Greater coucal T R R

Psittacidae

13 Psittacula krameri Rose-ringed parakeet T C R

Apodidae

14 Apus affinis House swift T R R

Strigidae

15 Bubo nipalensis Spot-bellied eagle-owl T R R

16 Athene brama Spotted owlet T C R



Migratorystatus

Caprimulgidae

17 Caprimulgus indicus Sykes’s nightjar T R RM

18 Caprimulgus asiaticus Indian nighjar T R R

Columbidae

19 Columba livea Blue rock pigeon T A R

20 Streptopelia senegalensis

Laughing dove T A R

21 Streptopelia tranquebarica

Red collared-dove T R R

22 Streptopelia decaocto Eurasian collared-dove T C R

Otididae

23 Chlamydotis macqueeni Houabara bustrad T VR M

Gruidae

24 Grus leucogeranus Common crane W/T C M

Pteroclidae

25 Pterocles alchata Chestnut-bellied sandgrouse

T C R

Scolopaciadae

26 Limosa limosa Black-tailed godwit W R M

27 Limosa lapponica Bar-tailed godwit W C M

28 Numenius phaeopus Whimbrel W A M

29 Numenius arquata Eurasian curlew W A M

30 Tringa erythropus Spotted redshank W R M

31 Tringa totanus Common redshank W A RM

32 Tringa stagnatilis Marsh sandpiper W C M

33 Tringa nebularia Common greenshank W C R

34 Tringa glareola Wood sandpiper W R M

35 Xenus cinereus Terek sandpiper W C W

36 Actitis hypoleucos Common sandpiper W A RM


No Scientific name Common English name T/W Abundance status

Migratory status

37 Calidris tenuirostris Sanderling W C M

38 Calidris minuta Little stint W R M

39 Calidris temminckii Temminck’s stint W R M

40 Calidris alpina Dunlin W C M

41 Philomachus pugnax Ruff W R M

42 Phalaropus lobatus Red-necked phalarope W R M

43 Vanellus malarbaricus Yellow-wattled lapwing T R R

44 Vanellus indicus Red-wattled lapwing W/T A R

Charadriidae

45 Haematopus ostralegus Eurasian oystercatcher W R M

46 Himantopus himantopusBlackwinged stilt W R R

47 Recurvirostra avosetta Pied avocet W R RM

48 Pluvialis apricaria Eurasian golden plover W R M

49 Pluvialis squatarola Grey plover W R M

50 Charadrius hiaticula Common ringed plover W C RM

51 Charadrius alexandrinus

Kentish plover W C RM

52 Charadrius leschenaultiiGreater sand plover W C M

Glareolidae

53 Dromas ardeola Crab-plover W R M

Laridae

54 Rynchops albicollis Indian skimmer W VR R

55 Larus argentatus Herring gull W VR R

56 Larus brunnicephalus Brown-headed gull W R RM

57 Larus genei Slender Billed tern W A RM

58 Gelochelidon nilotica Gull-billed tern W A RM

59 Sterna caspia Capian tern W R RM



Migratorystatus

60 Sterna aurantia River tern W C R

61 Sterna bergii Great crested tern W R R

62 Sterna albifrons Little tern W R R

63 Chlidonias hybridusWhiskered tern W C RM

Acipitridae

64 Pandion haliaetus Osprey W/T VR RM

65 Pernis ptilorhyncus Oriental honey buzzard T VR RM

66 Elanus caeruleus Black-shouldered kite T VR R

67 Haliastur indus Brahminy kite T VR R

68 Circaehr gallicus Shorat-toed snake-eagle

69 Circus aeruginosus Eurasian marsh harrier T/W VR M

70 Circus macrourus Pallid harrier T VR M

71 Accipiter nisus Eurasian sparrowhawk T R M

72 Aquila rapax Tawny eagle T VR R

73 Hieraaetus fasciatus Bonelli’s eagle T VR R

Falconidae

74 Falco tinnunculus Common kestrel T VR RM

75 Falco chicquera Red-headed merlin T VR R

76 Falco subbuteo Northern hobby T VR RM

77 Falco jugger Lagger falcon T VR RM

Ardeidae

78 Egretta garzetta Little egret W C R

79 Egretta gularis Western reef heron W RM

80 Ardea cinerea Grey heron W RM

81 Casmerodius albus Great egret W RM

82 Mesophoyx intermedia Intermediate egret W RM

83 Bubulcus ibis Cattle egret T R

84 Ardeola grayii Indian pond-heron W R


No Scientific name Common English name

T/W Abundancestatus

Migratorystatus

85 Phoenicopterus ruber Greater flamingo W R

86 Phoenicopterus minor Lesser flamingo W R

Threskiornithidae

87 Threskiornis melanocephalus

Asian white ibis W R

88 Pseudibis papillosa Black ibis W/T R

89 Platalea leucorodia Eurasian spoonbill W RM

Pelecanidae

90 Pelecanus crispus Dalmatian pelican W M

Ciconiidae

91 Mycteria leucocephala Painted stork W RM

Laniidae

92 Lanius collurio Rufous-tailed shrike T M

93 Lanius vittatus By-backed shrike T R

94 Lanius schach Long-tailed shrike T R

95 Lanius excubitor Great grey shrike T RM

Corvidae

96 Corvus slendens House crow T R

97 Corvus macrorhynchos Jungle crow T R

98 Pericrocotus cinnamomeus

Small minivet T R

99 Dicrurus macrocercus Black drongo T R

100 Aegithina tiphia Marshall’s lora T R

101 Tephrodornis pondicerianus

Lesser woodshrike T R

Muscicapidae

102 Ficedula zanthopygia Red-throated flycatcher T M

103 Saxicoloides fulicate Indian robin T R

104 Phoenicurus ochruros Black redstart T M

105 Oenanthe pleschanka Pied wheatear T M



Migratorystatus

106 Oenanthe deserti Desert wheather T M

107 Oenanthe isabellina Isabelline wheather T M

Sturnidae

108 Strunus pagodarum Brahminy starling T R

109 Strunus roseus Rosy starling T M

110 Acridotheres tristis Common myna T R

111 Acridotheres ginginianus

Bank myna T R

Hirundinidae

112 Hirundo rustica Barn swallow T R RM

113 Hirundo smithii Wire-tailed swallow T R R

114 Hirundo daurica Red-rumped swallow T C R

Pycnonotidae

115 Pycnonotus leucotis White-eared bulbul T A R

116 Pycnonotus cafer Red-ventled bulbul T C R

Cisticolidae

117 Prinia buchanani Rufous-fronted prinia T C R

118 Prinia sylvatica Jungle prinia T R R

Zosterops

119 Zosterops palpebrosus

Oriental white-eye T C R

Sylviidae

120 Acrocephalus dumetorum

Blyth’s reed warbler T C M

121 Acrocephalus arundinaceus

Great reed warbler T C M

122 Hippolais caligata Booted warbler T VR M

123 Orthotomus sutorius Common tailorbird T A R

124 Turdoides caudatus Common babbler T A R

125 Sylvia curruca Lesser whitethroat T A M



Migratorystatus

126 Sylvia hortensis Orphean warbler T R M

Alaudidae

127 Mirafra cantillans Singing bush- lark T R R

128 Eremopterix grisea Ashy- crowned sparrow- lark

T R R

129 Calandrella cheleensisAsian short- toed lark T C M

130 Calandrella raytal Sand short-toed lark T C M

131 Galerida cristata Crested lark T R R

132 Alauda gulgula Eastern skylark T VR R

Nectariniidae

133 Nectarinia asiatica Purple sunbird T A R

Passeridae

134 Passer domesticus House sparrow T A R

135 Passer sp. Yellow throated sparrow

136 Motacilla cinerea Grey wagtail

137 Motacilla alba White wagtail W/T VR M

138 Anthus campestris Tawny pipit T VR M

139 Ploceus philippinus Baya weaver T C R

140 Lonchura malabarica Plain munia T A R

T/W T: Terrestrial bird, W: Water bird, Abundance status – A: Abundance,

C: Common, R: Rare, VR: Very rare. Migratory status – R: Resident, M: Migrant, RM: Resident with migrant population.

Figure 1.4.1 Gulf and the surrounding region

Figure 1.4.2 Sampling locations

Figure 2.1.1: Schematic layout of outfall channel

Figure 4.2.1: Tide collected at Kotdi creek during 4 to 12 January 2006

Figure 4.2.2: Observed tide at Kotdi creek during 1 to 30 April 2006

Figure 4.2.3: Tide observed at station 2 from 13 to 19 December 2013

12/13/13 10:43 12/14/13 20:03 12/16/13 5:23 12/17/13 14:43 12/19/13 0:03 12/20/13 9:23

1

2

3

4

5

6

Date and time (mm/dd/yy hh:mm)

Ele

vatio

n (

m)

4/8/15 11:07 4/10/15 18:40 4/13/15 2:13 4/15/15 9:47 4/17/15 17:20

1

2

3

4

5

6

Date and Time(mm/dd/yy hh:nn)

Ele

vatio

n(m

)

Figure 4.2.4: Tide observed at station 2 from 08 to 17 April 2015

Figure 4.2.5: Current speed and components at station 5 during January 2006

Figure 4.2.6: Current speed and components at station 5 during April 2006

Figure 4.2.7: Current speed and direction at station 2 during December 2008

12/12/13 18:00 12/15/13 12:40 12/18/13 7:20 12/21/13 2:00

0

100

200

300

4000

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1(a)

(b)

Date and time (mm/dd/yy hh:mm)

Sp

eed

(m

/s)

Dir

ectio

n (

deg

)

Figure 4.2.8: Current speed (a) and direction (b) at station 2 during December 2013

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

4/8/15 12:00 4/10/15 19:33 4/13/15 3:06 4/15/15 10:40 4/17/15 18:13

0

100

200

300

400

Speed and direction(mm/dd/yy hh:nn)

Dire

ctio

n(d

eg

)S

pee

d(m

/s)

Figure 4.2.9: Current speed (a) and direction (b) at station 2 during April 2015

Figure 4.2.10: Drogue trajectory at station 2(Ebb-Flood-Ebb) during January 2006

Figure 4.2.11: Drogue trajectory at station 2(Flood-Ebb-Flood) during January 2006

Figure 4.2.12: Drogue trajectory at station 2( Ebb-Flood) during December 2008

Figure 4.2.13: Drogue trajectory at station 2(Flood-Ebb) during December 2008

Figure 4.2.14: Drogue trajectory conducted at station1A (Fld-Ebb) on 14.12.2013

Figure 4.2.15 Drogue trajectory conducted at station 1A (Ebb-Fld) on 17.12.2013

Figure 4.2.16: Drogue trajectory conducted at station 2 (Ebb-Fld) on 16.04.2015

Figure 4.2.17: Drogue trajectory conducted at station 2 (Fld-Ebb) on 13.04.2015

Figure 4.2.18: Locations of CTD observations during flood on 09/04/2015

F

Figure: 4.2.19: Temperature and salinity profiles during flood on 09/04/2015

Figure 4.2.20: Locations of CTD observations during ebb on 09/04/2015

Figure 4.2.21: Temperature and salinity profiles during ebb on 09/04/2015

Figure 4.2.22: Diurnal CTD observations on 10/04/2015 at Station 2

Figure 4.2.23: Temperature Observation conducted at station 1A (Fld-Ebb) on 14.12.2013

Figure 4.2.24: Temperature Observation conducted at station 1A(Ebb-Fld) on 17.12.2013

Figure 4.2.25: CTD locations

Figure 4.2.26: Temperature observed by using CTD near the channel mouth

24.84 24.88 24.92 24.96 25 25.04 25.08

4.4

4

3.6

3.2

2.8

2.4

Graph 1

CTD 1

CTD2

CTD3

CTD4

Temperature(deg C)

De

pth

(m)

19.0

21.0

23.0

25.0

27.0

29.0

31.0

8.0

8.1

8.2

8.3

8.4

36.0

36.2

36.4

36.6

36.8

37.0

37.2

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

730 930 1130 1330 1530 17300.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

730 930 1130 1330 1530 17300.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Shr hr

Eb

AT

Temperature (oC) pH

Salinity (ppt) DO (mg/l)

PO43- - P (µmol/L)

NO2- - N (µmol/L)

NO3- - N (µmol/L)

NH4+ - N (µmol/L)

FlEb

Fl

Figure 4.3.1: Water quality at station at station 1A on 15th December 2013

18.0

20.0

22.0

24.0

26.0

28.0

30.0

7.9

8.0

8.1

8.2

35.5

36.0

36.5

37.0

37.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

800 1000 1200 1400 1600 18000.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

800 1000 1200 1400 1600 18000.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

SB

hr hr

Eb

AT

Temperature (oC) pH

Salinity (ppt) DO (mg/l)

PO43- - P (µmol/L)

NO2- - N (µmol/L)

NO3- - N (µmol/L)

NH4+ - N (µmol/L)

FlEbFl

Figure 4.3.2: Water quality at station 2 on 13th December 2013

27.0

28.0

29.0

30.0

31.0

32.0

33.0

34.0

35.0

Te

mpe

ratu

re(o

C)

8.25

8.30

8.35

8.40

8.45

pH35.6

36.0

36.4

36.8

37.2

37.6

Sa

linity

(p

pt)

6.1

6.3

6.5

6.7

6.9

7.1

DO

(m

g/L)

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

PO

43--P

(µ

mo

l/L)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

NO

2- -N

(µ

mo

l/L)

700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 19000.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

NO

3- -N

(µ

mo

l/L)

700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 19000.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

S

B

NH

4+ -

N (

µmol

/L)

Eb Fl Eb Fl

Figure 4.3.3: Water quality at station 1A on 11th April 2015

26.0

27.0

28.0

29.0

30.0

31.0

32.0

Te

mp

era

ture

(o C)

8.25

8.30

8.35

8.40

8.45

pH

36.0

36.4

36.8

37.2

37.6

38.0

Sa

linity

(p

pt)

6.0

6.2

6.4

6.6

6.8

7.0

7.2

DO

(m

g/L)

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

PO

43--P

(µ

mol

/L)

0.20

0.22

0.24

0.26

0.28

0.30

NO

2- -N

(µ

mo

l/L)

800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 20000.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

NO

3- -N

(µ

mo

l/L)

800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 20000.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

S

B

NH

4+-N

(µm

ol/L

)

Eb Fl Eb Fl

Figure 4.3.4: Water quality at station 2 on 8th April 2015

0

1

2

3

4Chl a

Phaeo

S S S S B S B S B S S 0730 0930 1130 1230 1330 1530 1730 1830

Fl Eb

Con

cent

rati

on(m

g/m

3)

Figure 4.5.1: Temporal variation in phytopigment at station 1A on 15.12.13

0

2

4

6

8

10Chl a

Phaeo

S B S B S B S B S B S B S B S B0800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1700 1800 1900

Fl Eb

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n(m

g/m

3)

Figure 4.5.2: Temporal variation in phytopigment at station 2 on 13.12.13

0

1

2

3

4Chl a

Phaeo

FlEb

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n(m

g/m

3)

Figure 4.5.3: Temporal variation in phytopigment at station 1A on 11.04.15

0

2

4

6Chl a

Phaeo

FlEb

Con

cent

ratio

n(m

g/m

3)

Figure 4.5.4: Temporal variation in phytopigment at station 2 on 08.04.15

0

5

10

15

20

25Biomass

Population

Total groups

Time 0730 0930 1130 1330 1530 1730 1830 (Fl) (Eb)

Bio

mas

s (m

l/10

0m3 ),

Po

pula

tion

(no

x103

/10

0m3 ),

To

tal g

roup

s (n

o)

Figure 4.5.5: Temporal variation in zooplankton at station 1A on 15.12.13

0

10

20

30

40

50Biomass

Population

Total groups

Time 0800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 1900 (Fl) (Eb)

Bio

mas

s (m

l/10

0m3 ),

Po

pula

tion

(no

x103

/10

0m3 ),

To

tal g

roup

s (n

o)

Figure 4.5.6: Temporal variation in zooplankton at station 2 on 13.12.13

0

5

10

15

20

25

Biomass

Population

Total groups

Time 0700 0900 1100 1200 1500 1700 1800 (Eb) (Fl)

Bio

mas

s (m

l/100

m3

), P

opu

latio

n (

nox

103

/10

0m3 ),

To

tal g

roup

s (n

o)

Figure 4.5.7: Temporal variation in zooplankton at station 1A on 11.04.15

0

10

20

30

40

50

Biomass

Population

Total groups

Time 0800 1000 1100 1200 1400 1600 1800 (Eb) (Fl)

Bio

mas

s (m

l/100

m3

), P

opu

latio

n (

nox

103

/10

0m3 )

,

T

ota

l gro

ups

(no)

Figure 4.5.8: Temporal variation in zooplankton at station 2 on 08.04.15

Figure 4.5.9: Mangrove classification from the IRS-LISS IV image collected on 16 March 2005

Figure 4.5.10: Mangrove classification from the IRS-LISS IV image collected on 07 January 2014

Figure 5.1.1: Layout of intake and outfall channels

Figure 5.1.2: Contours of computed bathy depths in the study domain (m)

Figure 5.1.3: Boundary input tides / input boundary conditions

Figure 5.1.4: Comparison of computed and observed tides.

Figure 5.1.5: Comparison of computed and observed currents.

Figure 5.1.6: Simulated currents (at 18:30:00 hrs of 13/04/2015) during neap

tide-(peak flood)

Figure 5.1.7: Simulated currents (at 01:00:00 hrs of 14/04/2015) during neap

tide-(Peak Ebb)

Figure 5.1.8: Simulated currents (at 12:00:00 hrs of 19/04/2015) during spring

tide-(peak flood)

Figure 5.1.9: Simulated currents (at 18:30:00 hrs of 19/04/2015) during spring

Tide-(Peak Ebb).

Figure 5.2.1: Temperature dispersion (at 15:00:00 hrs of 13/04/2015) during neap tide - (LLW ) when discharge water temp is 70 C above ambient.

Figure 5.2.2: Temperature dispersion (at 09:00:00 hrs of 10/04/2015) during spring tide -

(LLW) – when discharge water temp is 70 C above ambient.

Figure 5.2.3: Temperature dispersion (at 12:00:00 hrs of 15/04/2015) during spring

tide - (Peak Flood) when discharge water temp is 70 C above ambient.


tide - (HHW) – when discharge water temp is 70 C above ambient.


tide - (Peak Ebb) – when discharge water temp is 70 C above ambient

Figure 5.2.6: Observation points at and around the outfall discharge channel location.

Figure 5.2.7a: Variation of Temperature at different location at and around Outfall channel location – when discharge water temp is 70 C above ambient.

Figure 5.2.7b: Variation of Temperature at different location at and around outfall

channel location – when discharge water temp is 70 C above ambient

Plate 1: Newly formed mangrove patches near the channel

Plate 2: Fishes caught by experimental fishing in the discharge channel during April 2015

model conformity study and monitoring for condenser ... · model conformity study and monitoring...

Documents