marine eia in association with the revised outfall...

NIO/CON-1/2016 CNP2992

DISTRIBUTION RESTRICTED

Marine EIA in Association with the Revised Outfall Location for Release of Treated Industrial Effluent of MIDC Tarapur into Coastal Waters. PREPARED FOR Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Mumbai

APRIL 2016

Marine EIA in Association with the Revised Outfall Location for Release of Treated Industrial Effluent of MIDC Tarapur into Coastal Waters. Project Leader V. S. Naidu

April 2016

CONTENTS Project team i Executive summary ii List of tables viii List of figures xii 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Background 1 1.2 Objectives 1 1.3 Scope of studies 2 1.3.1 Modeling of Hydrodynamics and pollutant dispersion 2 1.4 Approach 2 2 PROJECT DETAILS 4 3 AREA DESCRIPTION 7 3.1 Climate 7 3.2 Bathymetry 7 3.3 Tides 8 4 PREVAILING MARINE ENVIRONMENT 9 4.1 Physical Processes 9 4.1.1 Tides 9 4.1.2 Currents 10 4.2 Water quality 10 4.2.1 Temperature 11 4.2.2 pH 11 4.2.3 Suspended Solids (SS) 12 4.2.4 Salinity 13 4.2.5 DO and BOD 13 4.2.6 Nitrogen and Phosphorous compounds 15 4.2.7 PHc and Phenols 16 4.3 Sediment quality 17 4.3.1 Texture 17 4.3.2 Heavy metals 18 4.3.3 Organic carbon (Corg

4.3.4 PHc 18 ) and Phosporus 18

4.4 Flora and fauna 19 4.4.1 Pathogenic Bacteria 20 4.4.2 Phytoplankton 21

4.4.3 Mangroves 24 4.4.4 Zooplankton 26 4.4.5 Macrobenthos 32 4.4.6 Fishery 35 4.4.7 Corals and associated flora and fauna 37 4.4.8 Birds 37 4.4.9 Reptiles and mammals 37 5 EFFLUENT RELEASE LOCATION 38 5.1 Far-Field dilution model studies 38 5.1.1 Model description and set-up 39 5.1.2 Modeling of tides and currents 40 5.1.3 Modeling of the fate of pollutants 40 5.2 Near-Field dilution 43 5.2.1 The diffuser system and the dilutions available 46 6 POTENTIAL MARINE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 48 6.1 Construction phase 48 6.1.1 Physical processes 48 6.1.2 Water quality 48 6.1.3 Sediment quality 48 6.1.4 Flora and Fauna 49 6.1.5 Miscellaneous 50 6.2 Operational phase 50 6.2.1 Physical processes 50 6.2.2 Water quality 50 6.2.3 Sediment quality 51 6.2.4 Flora and fauna 51 7 MITIGATION MEASURES 52 8 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 53 8.1 Marine environmental quality criteria 53 8.2 Pollution control 53 8.3 Periodic monitoring 53 9 RECOMMENDATIONS 55

i

PROJECT TEAM SPECIALIZATION

Dr. V.S.Naidu Physical Oceanography

Dr. Anil Chaubey Geophysical Oceanography

Dr. Soniya Sukumaran Biological Oceanography

Dr. Anirudh Ram Jaiswar Chemical Oceanography

Dr. Rakesh PS Biological Oceanography

Dr. Sabhyasachi Sautya Biological Oceanography

Mr. Abhay Fulke Biological Oceanography

Dr. Haridevi CK Biological Oceanography

Mr. D.S.Bagde Technical Cell

Mr. Mohammed Ilyas Technical Cell

Mr. Jairam G. Oza Technical Cell

Mr. Jubin Thomas Physical Oceanography

Miss. Aditi Mitra Physical Oceanography

Mr. Amol Abhale Physical Oceanography

Mr. Dinesh Gupta Physical Oceanography

Mr. Rohan Lahane Physical Oceanography

Miss Suvarna Pisal Physical Oceanography

Mr. Nageshwar Rao Chemical Oceanography

Mr. Angad Gaud Chemical Oceanography

Miss Meena Chauhan Chemical Oceanography

Mr. Mintu Chowdhury Biological Oceanography

Mr. T. Srinivas Biological Oceanography

Miss Heidy Dias Biological Oceanography

ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC) has established

several Industrial Estates all over the state. MIDC-Tarapur is one of the units

situated on the southern bank of Ucheli Creek at Tarapur. The effluents

amounting to 25 MLD are presently being treated in a Common Effluent

Treatment Plant (CETP) and released in to the coastal waters off Navapur

through a submarine outfall. This facility was planned several years ago but the

effluent quantity of the industrial estate has increased multifold and it is

expected to reach about 80 MLD in near future for which the present discharge

location and release mode are not tenable.

MIDC had approached CSIR-NIO in 2010 to study and suggest a safe

disposal location for the treated effluents to a tune of 80 MLD for the existing

quantity expandable to 120 MLD to cater for future needs and impact on marine

environment due to its implementation. After a detailed field & laboratory study,

the NIO submitted its report suggesting a discharge location at offshore.

However, when it was submitted to the Maharashtra Maritime Board (MMB) for

clearance, it suggested a new location for discharge as the proposed location

interferes with the Proposed Namdgaon / Navapur Port . Now the MIDC again

approached the NIO to study the new location suggested by MMB whether it is

suitable for discharge of the enhanced 120 MLD effluents.

The objectives of the study are to a) assess the prevailing ecology of the

Ucheli Creek and associated coastal waters using available data set b) suggest a

suitable location and mode for release of 80 MLD for the existing quantity

expandable to 120 MLD treated effluent to cater for future needs in the coastal

water off Tarapur c) assess the adverse impacts of release of effluent on aquatic

environment d) recommend adequate aquatic environment management plan.

iii

Scope of studies included study of physical processes, water quality,

sediment quality, biological characteristics to establish the baseline quality of the

area and modeling of hydrodynamics and pollutant dispersion to suggest a

suitable disposal location and mode, predict the impacts on the environment due

to the release and mode of release.

The data generated during field studies in association with the information

provided by MIDC and data-base of NIO were utilized to recommend suitable site

and mode for release of treated effluent in a manner that the coastal and

estuarine ecology would not be adversely influenced. Modeling the effluent

spread and impact at selected locations by using a calibrated 2D model for

selected pollutants was undertaken.

The approach then was i) to study the existing water quality, sediment

quality and biological characteristics of the area consisting the creek and

adjoining coastal water during two different seasons to establish the baseline ii)

to study the physical processes such as bathymetry, tide, current and circulation

in the coastal water to select a location suitable for the discharge quantity iii) to

predict the dilution and effluent spread using a calibrated 2D mathematical model

with the inputs such as quantity of the effluent and qualities of both the effluent

and ambient waters iv) to highlight the probable impacts on the existing water

quality and biodiversity due to the effluent when released at the suggested

location and mode v)to indicate mitigation for the adverse impacts predicted, if

any.

A calibrated 2D mathematical model was used to delineate the suggested

modes of discharge for the existing quantity (80 mld). The modeling is further

extended to check its suitability for enhanced discharge at the suggested

location. The results indicated that the effluent will be advected upstream and

downstream depending on the tide phase and a small area of 100m x100 m at

iv

the discharge location will only witness increased pollutant concentration

perpetually and the area around the diffuser will have sporadic peaks upto a

distance of 200m depending on the tidal conditions, the increase of pollutant

concentration in area beyond this will be inconsequential even with the discharge

enhanced to 120 MLD.

On the basis of the model results for the release at the suggested point,

the point with geographical coordinates 19°48'21.59"N;72°37'25.35"E with a

water depth of 12m with respect to CD is found suitable for the projected future

release quantity of 120 MLD. A conceptual design of the diffuser was also

suggested which can be used both for the present discharge of 80 MLD and

future total discharge of 120 MLD.

The total length of the pipe line from the land fall point to the suggested

offshore discharge point works out to be 7.1 Km of which 0.9 km would be in the

intertidal and remaining 6.2 km would be in the subtidal stretch. The gravity flow

is not suitable for such large length of pipeline and pumping the effluent as

suggested in the diffuser design is an important need. Since pumping has to be

resorted to, the pipeline should not have any air vents as in the case of present

discharge line. This in turn also eliminates the obnoxious odours emanating from

these vents.

Pipe-laying through roughly a stretch of 0.9 km intertidal and 6.2 km

subtidal areas involving movement of machinery, vessels, workforce etc, has a

potential to adversely influence the coastal environment. Assuming that the pipe-

laying would require a corridor width of 20 m, the total marine area that would be

negatively impacted would be roughly 14.2 ha.

The total loss of 361.8 kg benthic biomass and 876.84 x105 populations

expected due to pipe-laying is significantly low when compared with the overall

potential of the coastal waters off Tarapur. The major groups affected in the

v

intertidal would be polychaets and brachyurans during premonsoon. During

postmonsoon polychaetes, oligochaetes and amphipods constitute the disturbed

groups. In subtidal stations only polychaete during premonsoon and decapod

larvae and polychaete during postmonsoon will be the major groups affected by

the pipe laying. Part of this would be permanent loss(about 4% of subtidal loss

for the pipe size of 0.9 m) the remaining area will be available for recolonising of

the benthic organisms, however, recolonising of benthic organisms is a slow

process and would depend on environmental factors.

A small area (about 500 sq m) around the discharge point would always

have high BOD and COD as plume surfaces. This area would have minimal DO

as a consequence. As the effluent is lighter and pops up to surface, the benthic

fauna are not likely to be impacted. The fishery will not be adversely effected

provided the two criteria namely i) maintaining the effluent quality and quantity

prescribed by MPCB and ii) confirming to the specifications of the multiport

diffuser.

No localized negative impact due to the release of effluent on the

sediment quality is expected as the dissolved constituents would take longer time

to adsorb to the particulates and settlement of such particulates would be then in

a wider subtidal expanse.

The release of treated effluent as per the standards of MPCB would not

affect the water and sediment qualities of the coastal waters off Tarapur if

released adhering to the specifications of the diffuser at the location suggested ,

hence, the flora and fauna would not be largely affected since sufficient dilution is

available. However, a small area surrounding the diffuser will have sporadic high

concentration of pollutants particularly at low water slack when currents are too

weak to induce proper advection. However in subsequent ebb/flood the

pollutants are disposed and the effect on biota is not expected.

vi

The MIDC Industrial Estate at Tarapur houses varied types of industrial

establishments. The levels and types of pollutants in the effluent of any given

single industry depend on the product and the raw materials used for its

production. A CETP normally collects, treats and releases all the effluents

through the mode suggested by the EIA study. However, the effluent treatment in

such huge CETPs would only consider primary treatment (removal of floatables

and grit, secondary treatment (pH adjustment by adding acid or alkali as the case

may be) and tertiary treatment (reduction of CBOD in lagoons by bacterial

treatment). There can be umpteen number of other industrial pollutant species

which cannot be treated when all the effluents from different industries are

combined and the total volume to be treated becomes huge and the

concentration of such pollutant will decrease in effect keeping the load constant.

The reduced concentrations make their removal difficult. The practical and

environmentally suitable approach would then be to identify such species of

polluting components and remove/recover/treat such components at individual

industry level before accepting the effluent at CETP for further treatment.

Recommendations

The results of model studies conducted for the area off Tarapur indicated

that the location 19° 48 ' 21.59" N;72° 37' 25.35"E having a depth of 12 m below

CD is adequate and suitable for release of industrial effluents, up to a total

quantity of 120 MLD, confirming to MPCB norms. The suggested diffuser setup

with 8 ports of 0.26m diameter would provide initial dilutions of 68-110 times

when the discharge quantity is 80 MLD and 53-81 times when the quantity

increases to 120 MLD. The location, however, can be shifted by a distance of

100m on engineering consideration provided the new location offers a minimum

depth of 12m with respect to CD. The quality of the treated effluent should always

be ensured as per the MPCB guidelines and records should be maintained.

Periodic monitoring of the costal water off Tarapur/Navapur region should be

undertaken i) after 6 months and ii) after 1 year of the commencement of release.

In case of the impact of pollutants are observed, in the monitoring results,

corrective measures should be taken up. Environmental monitoring plan should

vii

be as per the suggestion provided in this report.

viii

List of tables 4.2.1: Water quality at station 1(Ucheli Creek) during 2010.

4.2.2: Water quality at station 2 (Ucheli Creek) during 2010.

4.2.3: Water quality at station 3 (Ucheli Creek mouth) during 2010

4.2.4: Water quality at station 4 (off Tarapur) during 2010






4.3.1: Sediment quality in Ucheli Creek and Off Tarapur during January 2010

4.3.2: Sediment quality in Ucheli Creek and off Tarapur during May-2010

4.4.1: Bacterial counts (CFU/ml) in water of Ucheli Creek and coastal sea off

Tarapur during January 2010

4.4.2: Bacterial counts (CFU/g) in sediment of Ucheli Creek and coastal sea off

Tarapur during January 2010

4.4.3 Bacterial counts (CFU/ml) in water of Ucheli Creek and coastal sea off

Tarapur during May 2010

4.4.4 Bacterial counts (CFU/g) in sediment of Ucheli Creek and coastal sea off

Tarapur during May 2010

4.4.5 Range and average (parenthesis) of phytopigments in Ucheli Creek and

coastal water off Tarapur during January 2010

4.4.6 Range and average (parenthesis) of phytopigments in Ucheli Creek and

coastal water off Tarapur during May 2010

4.4.7 Phytopigment distribution in Ucheli Creek and coastal water off Tarapur

during January 2010

4.4.8 Phytopigments distribution in Ucheli Creek and coastal water off Tarapur

during May 2010

4.4.9 Range and average (parenthesis) of phytoplankton cell count, total and

major genera in Ucheli Creek and coastal water off Tarapur during

January 2010

ix

4.4.10 Range and average (parenthesis) of phytoplankton cell count, total and

major genera in Ucheli Creek and coastal water off Tarapur during May

2010

4.4.11 Distribution of phytoplankton population in Ucheli Creek and coastal

water off Tarapur during January 2010

4.4.12 Distribution of phytoplankton population in Ucheli Creek and coastal

water off Tarapur during May 2010

4.4.13 Composition (%) of phytoplankton population in Ucheli Creek and


4.4.14 Composition (%) of phytoplankton population in Ucheli Creek and


4.4.15 Range and average (parenthesis) of zooplankton in Ucheli Creek and


4.4.16 Range and average (parenthesis) of zooplankton in Ucheli Creek and


4.4.17 Composition (%) of zooplankton distribution in Ucheli Creek and coastal


4.4.18 Composition (%) of zooplankton distribution in Ucheli Creek and coastal


4.4.19 Composition (%) of zooplankton population in Ucheli Creek and coastal


4.4.20 Composition (%) of zooplankton population in Ucheli Creek and coastal


4.4.21 Abundance (no/100m3

4.4.22 Abundance (no/100m

) and incidence (%) of Decapod larvae, Acetes

sp. and Lucifer sp. in Ucheli Creek and coastal water off Tarapur area

during January 2010 3

4.4.23 Abundance (no/100m

) and incidence (%) of Decapod larvae, Acetes

sp. and Lucifer sp. in Ucheli Creek and coastal water off Tarapur

during May 2010 3) and incidence (%) of Fish eggs and Fish

larvae in Ucheli Creek and coastal water off Tarapur during January

x

2010

4.4.24 Abundance (no/100m3

4.4.25 Range and average (parenthesis) of intertidal macrobenthos in Ucheli

Creek and coastal water off Tarapur during January 2010

) and incidence (%) of Fish eggs and Fish

larvae in Ucheli Creek and coastal water off Tarapur during May 2010

4.4.26 Range and average (parenthesis) of intertidal macrobenthos in Ucheli

Creek and coastal water off Tarapur during May 2010

4.4.27 Intertidal macrobenthos in Ucheli Creek and coastal water off Tarapur

during January 2010

4.4.28 Intertidal macrobenthos in Ucheli Creek and coastal water off Tarapur

during May 2010

4.4.29 Composition (%) of intertidal macrobenthos in Ucheli Creek and


4.4.30 Composition (%) of intertidal macrobenthos in Ucheli Creek and


4.4.31 Range and average (parenthesis) of subtidal macrobenthos in Ucheli

Creek and coastal water off Tarapur during January 2010

4.4.32 Range and average (parenthesis) of subtidal macrobenthos in Ucheli

Creek and coastal water off Tarapur during May 2010

4.4.33 Composition (%) of subtidal macrobenthic fauna in Ucheli Creek and


4.4.34 Composition (%) of subtidal macrobenthic fauna in Ucheli Creek and


4.4.35 Marine fish production of Maharashtra and contribution of Thane

District during 1980-2010

4.4.36 District-wise annual marine fish production (t) of Maharashtra State

during 2004-2010

4.4.37 Zone-wise annual marine fish production (t) of Thane district during

2004-2010

4.4.38 Species wise marine fish production (t) of Maharashtra state during

2005-2010

xi

4.4.39 Species wise marine fish production (t) of Thane District during 2005-

2010

4.4.40 Species wise marine fish production of Popharan Dandi during 2005-

2010

4.4.41 Species wise, quarterly marine fish production of Thane District during

2009-2010

4.4.42 Species wise, quarterly marine fish production of Popharan Dandi

2009-2010

4.4.43 Village-wise boat operation in Phopharan- Dandi area

4.4.44 Fish catch (species, effort and yield ) at different tidal conditions during

field studies in Pophran-Dandi (January 2010)

4.4.45 Fish catch (species, effort and yield ) at different tidal conditions during

field studies in Pophran-Dandi (May 2010)

xii

List of figures and Plates 1.1.1: District Map of Palghar.

1.1.2: Present CETP Outfall at off Tarapur.

1.3.1: Map showing the coastal area and creeks between Satpati and Tarapur.

1.3.2: Station location map.

2.1.1: Layout plan of MIDC Tarapur

4.1.1: Current speed and resolved current components at station 6 during January 2010

4.1.2: Current speed and resolved current components at station 4 during May 2010

4.1.3: Drogue trajectory at station 6 during a typical flood tide (22 May 2010)

4.2.1: Diurnal variation of water quality at station 2 (Ucheli Creek) on 9 January 2010

4.2.2: Diurnal variation of water quality at station 6 (off Tarapur) on 7 January 2010 where

surface denotes ° and bottom denotes •

4.2.3: Diurnal variation of water quality at station 2 (Ucheli Creek) on 19 May 2010 where


4.2.4: Diurnal variation of water quality at station 6 (off Tarapur) on 22 May 2010 where


5.1.1: Terrain features of Study domain-Zoomed.

5.1.2: Computational grid of Study domain at proposed outfall –Zoomed.

5.1.3: Contours of computed bathy depths (m) of global domain.

5.1.4: Contours of computed bathy depths (m) of study domain- Zoomed.

5.1.5: Boundary tides.

5.1.6: Tide calibration at Satpati.

5.1.7: Comparison of observed and modeled currents of March 2011.

5.1.8: Simulated currents (at 13:00:00 hrs of 17/03/2016) during neap tide-( Flood).

5.1.9: Simulated currents (at 20:30:00 hrs of 17/03/2016) during neap tide-( Ebb).

5.1.10: Simulated currents (at 06:45:00 hrs of 11/03/2016) during spring tide -(Flood)

5.1.11: Simulated currents (at 12:45:00 hrs of 11/03/2016) during spring tide-(Ebb).

5.2.1: Observation points around the discharge location.

5.2.2: BOD dispersion (at 03:30:00 hrs of 11/03/2016) during spring tide-(LLW).

5.2.3: BOD dispersion (at 06:45:00 hrs of 11/03/2016) during spring tide-(PeakFlood).

5.2.4: BOD dispersion (at 12:45:00 hrs of 11/03/2016) during spring tide-(Peak Ebb).

5.2.5(a): Variation of excess BOD at different location around DP.

5.2.5(b): Variation of excess BOD at different location around DP.

xiii

5.2.6: BOD dispersion (at 03:30:00 hrs of 11/03/2016) during spring tide-(LLW).

5.2.7: BOD dispersion (at 06:45:00 hrs of 11/03/2016) during spring tide-(Peak

Flood).

5.2.8: BOD dispersion (at 12:45:00 hrs of 11/03/2016) during spring tide-(Peak Ebb).

5.2.9(a): Variation of excess BOD at different location around DP.

5.2.9(b): Variation of excess BOD at different location around DP.

5.4.1: Proposed DP Location.

Plate 4.4.1: A view of mangroves strands dominated by Avicennia marina along the

intertidal area upstream of station 2 in Ucheli Creek.

Plate 4.4.2: Mangroves cover along the intertidal area south west of Tarapur

Power Station

1

1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC) has several

Industrial Estates all over the state. MIDC-Tarapur is situated on the western

side of Tarapur district (Figure 1.1.1). At present the effluents amounting to 25

MLD are being treated in a Common Effluent Treatment Plant (CETP) and

released into the coastal water off Navapur as shown in the Figure 1.1.2. This

facility was planned several years ago but the effluent quantity of the Industrial

estate has increased multifold and the present effluent quantity is about 80

MLD. Work for new CETP with output capacity of 50 MLD is under progress

and it will be operational within 6 months from now. The present discharge

location is not tenable for the release of the enhanced quantity. Hence a new

location should be selected in the coastal waters of Navapur to discharge

these effluents.

MIDC had approached NIO to study and suggest a safe disposal

location for the treated effluents to a tune of 80 MLD for the existing quantity

expandable to 120 MLD cater for future needs and impact on marine

environment due to the same. NIO had suggested an outfall location in its

earlier report in 2012. The MIDC submitted the proposed release location to

Maharashtra Maritime Board (MMB) for approval. Since the proposed

location interferes with proposed Nandgaon / Navapur Port , it has suggested

a new location for treated effluent disposal. Now MIDC again approached the

NIO for conformity of the new location.

1.2 Objectives a) To assess the prevailing ecology of the Ucheli Creek and associated

coastal waters basing on the earlier data set.

b) To suggest a suitable location and mode for release of existing 80

MLD and to release expandable 120 MLD treated effluent to cater for future

needs in the coastal water off Tarapur.

c) To assess the adverse impacts of release of effluent on aquatic

environment.

d) To recommend adequate marine environment management plan.

2

1.3 Scope of studies

Ucheli Creek (Tarapur Creek / Navapur Creek), the extension of

Banganga river (Figure 1.3.1) was seldom studied due to its shallow

meandering course and rocky nature of the mouth which is not navigable

during low waters particularly in the mouth region.

Though the existing release is in the coastal water, the creek water

quality and aesthetics appear to be impacted by the release. There are two

possible reasons i) the present effluent generation is far larger than the

existing treatment and disposal facility due to which the excess effluent finds

its way to the creek as point discharges ii) the location of the existing disposal

point is in an area of shallow water through which the flood water enters the

Ucheli Creek.

The data on physical characteristics ( tides, currents and circulation),

water quality ( temperature, salinity, pH, SS, DO, BOD, nutrients, PHc ),

sediment quality ( texture, metal concentrations, PHC, Organic Carbon and

biological characteristics ( chlorophyll a, Phytoplankton, zooplankton,

macrobenthos, fisheries ) collected in 2010 for two seasons ( pre and post

monsoon ) will be used in this study. The station location map is shown in

Figure 1.3.2.

1.3.1 Modeling of Hydrodynamics and pollutant dispersion

The data collected in 2010 in association with the information provided

by MIDC and data-base of NIO would be utilized to run the model to confirm

the suitability of the proposed location suggested by the MMB. Modeling the

effluent spread and impact at selected locations by using a calibrated 2D

model for selected pollutants will be undertaken.

1.4 Approach

Release of the treated effluent in to the adjoining Ucheli Creek is not an

option as the creek does not possess suitable exchange to sea due to the

shallow mouth region which totally dries during all low waters. The existing

submarine disposal location for the release of 25 MLD treated effluent will not

3

be able to cater for the augmented quantity of effluent release.

The approach then be i) existing physical characteristics, water quality,

sediment quality and biological characteristics will be established using the

data collected in 2010 ii) to predict the dilution and effluent spread using a

calibrated 2D mathematical model with the inputs such as quantity of the

effluent and qualities of both the effluent and ambient waters iii) to highlight

the probable impacts on the existing water quality due to the effluent when

released at the suggested location and mode iv)to indicate mitigation for the

adverse impacts predicted, if any.

4

2 PROJECT DETAILS

MIDC has developed 1130 hectares of land as Tarapur industrial Area,

near Boisar, which is situated at a distance of 105 km from Mumbai and 16

kms from Mumbai Ahmedabad National Highway NH-8. This industrial area

was established in the year 1972. Layout plan is presented in the Figure

2.1.1.

A total of 1960 big and small size plots are carved out in the industrial

area. Various types of industries are established and almost 40% units are

chemical industries. The major industrial units in the area include steel

industries such as, M/s Jindal Steel, M/s Viraj Steel, M/s Tata Steel, M/s

Tungbhadra Steels, Textile industries like M/s Mudra, M/s Pantaloon, M/s

Siyaram, M/s Bombay Rayon Fashion Ltd, M/s Mandana Textiles, M/s Dicitex

and Pharma industries include M/s Lupin, M/s Arti Drugs, M/s Sarex, M/s

Calyx Pharma. Other indutries M/s Galaxy Surfactants, M/s Lyka labs, M/s

Camlin, M/s Amul etc are also present in this area.

The industry statistics as on 2009-10 are as under:-

Category

Large Scale

Medium Scae

Small Scale

Total

Red

48

52

437

537

Orange -

03

83

86

Green

05

17

539

561

Total

53

72

1059

1184

Then red category industries include Dye and Dye intermediates, bulk

drugs and pharmaceuticals, Iron and steel (galvanizing and pickling),

pesticides, textiles engineering etc.

MIDC has provided almost all basic infrastructural facilities in Tarapur

Industrial area such as asphalted roads, street light, water supply,

underground effluent collection, disposal system and amenities such as

common facility centre, police station, fire station etc. Tarapur Indl. Area is

now fully developed.

5

Presently 25 MLD of the treated wastewater is being released to the

coastal waters through a submarine diffuser under gravity at a location with

shallow depths. The present submarine outfall is situated at a shallow location

finalized by M/s. CWPRS approx 500 m from HTL. Several water intensive

textile and chemical units are being established and also large numbers of

industries are under expansion & diversification which results in augmented

treated wastewater to the tune of 80-120 MLD. Resulting this, pollution of the

coastal area is increased due to increase in discharge of effluent. Since the

present location is shallow the enhanced quantity cannot be released at this

location.

MIDC Tarapur approached NIO in 2010 to select an outfall location for

their enhanced quantities. The NIO suggested a location 19o 47’ 24” N; 72o

• Construction of 3.50m wide Temporary approach road using initial lining of

2mm Geo textile film.

37’ 36” E which is 7 km away from the HTL. The MIDC has submitted the

report to the Maharashtra Maritime Board for clearance. Since the proposed

outfall falls under the Navapur port area, it suggested a new location 19° 48 '

21.59" N;72° 37' 25.35"E” at almost same depth contour. NIO is studying the

suitability of the location for discharge of enhanced quantitites.

To minimise the pollution at Navapur sea and proper disposal of

treated effluent, it is proposed to lay 1000mm OD HDPE marine outfall

pipeline from Landfall point to Outfall point in Arabian sea at 7.10Km into the

deep sea with proper diffuser system.

The proposed work includes following:

• Conducting Marine Hydro-graphic (Bathymetry) survey.

• Providing High Density 1000 mm dia. OD Polyethylene Pipes and specials

suitable for Working Pressure of 6 kg/cm2, Extruded from Certified PE-100

High Stress Crack Resistance Pre-compounded Granules, confirming to BIS-

14333 latest amendment, in 12m length. Shall be laid in Three zones i.e. Land

Fall Point till the end of Inter-tidal area (0.90KM). Inter-tidal area up to the

point where the Sea Water depth is minimum 5 meters(4.10KM)and up to

Diffuser at Disposal point (2.10KM) at 2.50m depth below sea bed.

6

• Providing erecting and placing RCC Primary and Secondary blocks as per

design.

• Deploying suitable Dredging Equipment and carrying out In-water Dredging in

the open Sea.

• Stringing, Block fixing, floating, aligning and sinking on the pre-excavated

trench bed / sea bed.

• Conducting Performance and Reliability Test Runs

7

3 AREA DESCRIPTION

The coastal land forms in the Maharashtra coast are composed of

strips of plains between the sea and the hilly terrain of the Western Ghats.

Hence coastal plain lands are very limited in Maharashtra. The west flowing

rivers in these areas are short, meandering and shallow. Most of them are

ephemeral but a few of them receive fresh water from the dams/weirs

released mainly for industrial and domestic use of the down stream locations.

Tarapur is an industrial town and houses a Nuclear Power Plant and an

industrial cluster of Boisar-Tarapur MIDC. Ucheli Creek about 10 km long,

originates at Dandi village and flows west ward opening into Arabian Sea at

Navapur. The mouth region is narrow and shallow with sand bars obstructing

flow during low waters.

3.1 Climate

The general climate of the region is typical of that of the west coast of

India, with plentiful of rain during SW monsoon, oppressive weather in the hot

months and high humidities throughout the year. The summer season from

March to May is followed by the southwest monsoon season from June to

September. October and November months form the post monsoon season

followed by cold season in December to February.

The region receives a yearly rainfall of 260-300 cm, 90% of which

occurs during July-September. Being a coastal area, the diurnal and seasonal

variations in temperature are not large. May is the hottest month with a mean

daily maximum temperature at 31.7o C and mean daily minimum temperature

at 26.4o

Intertidal extent of Tarapur is aroubt 2 km from the high tide line. A bay

like formation is found in the coastal waters with a maximum depth of 3m. 10

C. The onset of southwest monsoon in June brings down the

temperatures slightly. After withdrawal of monsoon by the end of September,

temperature increases and it drops in the middle of January.

3.2 Bathymetry

8

m and 20 m depth contours are found at around 5 km and 13 km distances

respectively from the HTL. The contours mosly run parallel to the coastline.

Subtidal regions are mostly rocky in nature. A Navapur port is situated in the

coastal waters. A shallow water patch of 2 m depth is found at 1.1 km from

the low tide line.

3.3 Tides

Tides are manifested by the gravitational pull of astronomical bodies

(mainly Sun and Moon) on the water body. Tides along Maharashtra coast are

predominantly semidiurnal with a diurnal inequality. The tidal ranges

progressively increase from Mumbai to Tarapur. The tidal ranges also

decrease progressively from mouth area to the head of the Creek.

The following Table illustrates the tidal characteristics of Mumbai to Dahanu.

Location MLWS MLWN MSL MHWN MHWS

Mean Neap

Mean Spring

Range Range Mumbai

0.76

1.86

2.51

3.30

4.42

1.44

3.66

Tarapur

0.9

2.0

2.8

3.7

4.8

1.7

3.9

Dahanu

1.2

2.0

2.8

3.7

4.7

1.7

3.5

.

9

4 PREVALING MARINE ENVIRONMENT

This section contains the results of the monitoring conducted during

post-monsoon (January) and pre-monsoon (May) of 2010. The results are

compared with the results of previous monitoring conducted by NIO during

2007-08.

4.1 Physical processes 4.1.1 Tides

Tides in the area are of mixed, predominantly semidiurnal type with a

large diurnal inequality. The predicted tide levels published by the

Maharashtra Maritime Board for the year 2010 are used to explain the

difference of the tidal amplitude and phase between Apollo Bunder, Satpati

and Dahanu.

Tide state Dahanu Satpati Apollo Bunder

Spring high water (m) 5.86 5.94 5.18 Neap high water (m) 2.95 3.08 2.85 Neap low water (m) 2.75 3.07 2.65 Spring low water (m) 0.07 0.24 0.07 Mean sea level (m) 2.96 3.09 2.5

A comparison between the tide timings of these three stations indicates

that the tide is felt at Apollo Bunder first then at Satpati and further at Dahanu.

The time lag at Dahanu with respect to Apollo Bunder works out to be around

90 to 105 min depending on the tidal phases. At Tarapur which falls between

Satpati and Dahanu on the coast it can be safely assumed that the lag would

be about 60 to 75 minutes with respect to Apollo Bunder tide for all practical

purposes.

Ucheli Creek experiences arrival of flood tide about 1 and 2 h during

neap and spring low waters respectively after that of the adjoining coastal

waters owing to the bar formation at the mouth of the creek. During periods of

low riverine discharge conditions the ebb period also gets truncated by a

similar duration. Though the spring and neap high water levels are

comparable inside and outside the creek mouth, the low water levels are

almost constant in the creek due to the bar at the mouth.

10

4.1.2 Currents

The currents 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 for flood to ebb but ebb slack lasted for an

extended period as the flood waters do not enter the creek immediately after

the reversal due to shallowness of the creek mouth area. Currents were

recorded at the coastal water station 6 during postmonsoon season (figure

4.1.1). The maximum peak flood current observed was 0.79 m/s during the

period of observation. The along shore components are dominant and

onshore-offshore components indicated a maximum of 0.18m/s and -0.25m/s

during tidal slacks.

The currents were recorded at the coastal water station 4 (Figure 4.1.2)

during premonsoon season to assess the feasibility of this location for effluent

disposal as an alternative. The maximum current recorded were 0.8m/s and

0.7m/s during the flood and ebb tides respectively. However, the currents

when resolved into components indicated maximum onshore component

(0.76 m/s) indicating the possibility of the effluent entering the creek during

flood.

The drogue studies conducted at station 6 on 22 May 2010 during a

typical flood tide is presented in figure 4.1.3 from which it can be observed

that the effluent when released at this location will not enter the creek.

4.2 Water quality

To understand the status of marine ecology of the study area, the

stations are grouped as under:

Segment Station

Ucheli Creek 1,2 Tarapur Bay 3,4,5 Open Sea 6,7,8,9

11

The results of water quality parameters of the present study are

presented in Tables 4.2.1 to 4.2.9 and Figure 4.2.1 to 4.2.4 and discussed in

the sections below.

4.2.1 Temperature

The water temperature of the region varies in line with the air temperature as expected but in a narrower range compared to that of air temperature. The minimum and maximum temperature recorded during the present study was in the range of 23.0-28.1 during postmonsoon and 25.8 to

35.0oC during premonsoon. The average temperature distribution in the creek

and coastal waters during the present study are compared with earlier data in the following table:

Segment Temperature ( oC)

February March January May 2007 2008 2010 2010 Ucheli Creek S 29.0 27.3 24.3 33.0

B - 26.9 - -

Tarapur Bay S 29.3 27.0 25.0 29.3 B - 26.5 23.9 29.1

Open Sea S 28.0 26.0 25.3 29.0 B 27.2 24.1 25.2 29.3

4.2.2 pH

The principal systems that regulate pH of water are the carbonate

consisting of CO2, H2CO3 and CO32-. Because of the buffering capacity of

seawater the pH of seawater generally varies in the range of 7.8 to 8.3. In the near shore water, influx of freshwater particularly during monsoon can affect the buffering effect and pH may vary.

The results of pH of Ucheli creek and coastal waters are presented in

table 4.2.1 to 4.2.9 and the average values are compared with earlier

studies in the table below:

12

Segment pH


B - 8.0 - 8.3

Tarapur Bay S 8.1 8.0 8.4 8.1 B - - 8.4 8.1

Open Sea S 7.7 7.7 8.4 8.3 B 7.7 7.8 8.4 8.3

Above data indicates that the pH of the study area varies in a narrow

range (8.1 -8.4) and are marginally higher when compared with the earlier

studies as given in the table.

4.2.3 Suspended solids

SS of natural origin mostly contains clay, silt and sand of bottom and

shore sediments, and plankton. 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 results of present studies of Ucheli creek and coastal waters are

presented in table 4.2.1 to 4.2.9. Average SS recorded during present study

and their comparison with earlier studies is presented in table below:

Segment SS (mg/l)

February March January May

2007 2008 2010 2010

Ucheli S 34 29 33 48

Creek

B - 48 - 70

Tarapur S 38 41 30 79

Bay

B - 47 180 91

Open S 26 118 55 66

Sea

B - 501 162 104

It is evident from the Tables 4.2.1 to 4.2.9 that SS in the study area varied

13

from 19 to 232 mg/l during postmonsoon and 3 to 126 mg/l during

premonsoon. The load of suspended solid in the open sea waters is high and

results from the dispersion of bed sediment in the water column when

compared to upper creek.

4.2.4 Salinity

Salinity is an indicator of freshwater incursion in Near shore coastal

water as well as excursion of salinity in land water bodies such as estuaries,

creeks and bays. Normally seawater salinity is 35.5‰, which may vary

depending on evaporation, precipitation and freshwater addition. During

premonsoon evaporation exceeds precipitation leading to salinities higher

than 35.5 ppt, while during monsoon and postmonsoon the salinities can be

markedly lower.

Salinity in the waters of Ucheli creek varied in the range 32.3 to 35.5‰

during postmonsoon and 32.3 to 40.3‰ during premonsoon (Tables 4.2.1 to

4.2.9 ). High salinity during premonsoon season may be due to absence of

freshwater influx in the creek coupled with salt pan rejects in to the creek

which has low flushing rate. Since the salinity calculations are dependent on

chlorinity estimations, influence of industrial discharges, that contain

chlorides, cannot be ruled out. Average salinity and its comparison in the

region with earlier records are given in the table below:

Segment Salinity(‰)

February March January May

2007 2008 2010 2010

Ucheli S 35.6 35.1 33.7 39.6

Creek

B - 35.2 - 39.3

Tarapur S 35.3 35.3 35.0 38.4

Bay

B - 35.3 34.6 38.4

Open S 35.0 34.6 34.6 35.7

Sea

B 34.8 35.0 34.2 35.8

4.2.5 DO and BOD

DO is of considerable interest in water quality investigations as its

concentration in water is an indicator of ability of a water body to support a

well-balanced aquatic life. DO in water is replenished through photosynthesis,

14

dissolution from the atmosphere and addition of oxygen rich water, such

asriver runoff. Simultaneously, the DO is consumed during heterotrophic

oxidation of oxidisable organic matter and respiration by aquatic flora and

fauna.

It is difficult to arrive the threshold limit of DO for aquatic life. Since

environmental conditions, waste loading and natural levels of DO vary

considerably the existent composite aquatic life has variable demand for DO

depending on their composition, age activity etc. However, it has been

observed that below 3 mg/l concentration of DO, good and diversified aquatic

life may not be maintained. It is considered that the level should not fall below

3 mg/l for prolonged period.

The DO in the Ucheli creek and coastal waters in the surrounding

region varies in a range of 2.2 to 14.4mg/l during postmonsoon and 4.1 to 6.7

mg/l during premonsoon (Tables 4.2.1 to 4.2.9 ).High concentrations of DO in

the Ucheli Creek during postmonsoon may be due to photosynthesis

supported by high content of chlorophyll. The average results of present study

are compared with earlier records, which are summarized as follows:

Segment DO(mg/l)


B - 2.9 - 5.4

Tarapur Bay S 7.7 2.4 6.4 6.2 B - 4.3 6.7 5.8

Open Sea S 7.5 6.1 6.5 6.4 B 7.5 3.7 6.1 6.3

All natural waters contain small quantities of organic matter, which is

oxidized leading to the consumption of DO. In marine waters, sustaining high

productivity, the BOD levels generally substantiate the content of organic

matter. BOD in the upper creek is ranging from 3.5 to 9.6 mg/l during

postmonsoon and <0.2 to 4.4 mg/l during premonsoon. Marginally high

concentration of BOD is observed during postmonsoon indicating some stress

may be due to release of sewage in the upper segment when compared with

15

earlier data. Average concentration of BOD of present study and its

comparison with earlier records are summarized below:

Segment BOD


B - 1.6 - 0.2

Tarapur Bay S 2.1 2.2 5.9 4.0 B - 2.1 6.3 2.7

Open Sea S 2.3 3.7 3.4 2.6 B 2.1 2.5 3.2 2.4

4.2.6 Nitrogen and phosphorus compounds

The principal source of nitrogen in marine environment is nitrogen

fixation to N2O and NH3 via atmosphere. N2O occurs in seawater as an intermediate product of nitrate in microbial processes i.e. gentrification at low

oxygen at which NO2- is further transformed into NH3 and N2 in anoxic

conditions. Unionized ammonia (NH3) is in equilibrium with ammonium ion

(NH4+) in water. Its toxicity is largely due to NH3, which is influenced by pH,

total concentration of NH3, water temperature and ionic strength. Level of 0.2 to 2 mg/l NH3 is lethal to a variety of fish species.

The results as evident in Tables 4.2.1 to 4.2.9 and Figures 4.2.1 to

4.2.4 indicate the concentration of nutrients in terms of phosphate (0.5 to

3.3µmol/l and 0.6 to 30.0 µmol/l), nitrate (7.5 to 23.2 µmol/l and 5.4 to 20.4

µmol/l), nitrite (ND to 6.4 µmol/l and ND to 5.0 µmol/l) and ammonia (0.1

to18.2µmol/l ND to 10.8 µmol/l) during postmonsoon and premonsoon

periods. High concentrations of PO43-P and NH4

+-N in the creek may be due

to sewage entering into the creek.

The average concentrations of nutrients in the different segments of

Ucheli creek and coastal waters of surrounding region during study period are

presented in the following table.

16

Segment

NO3--N (µmol/l) NO2

--N (µmol/l)

Feb Mar Jan May Feb Mar Jan May

2007 2008 2010 2010 2007 2008 2010 2010

Ucheli S 30.2 12.3 12.7 9.3 5.8 2.1 4.7 3.0

Creek

B - 8.3 - 11.1 - 21.6 - 0.2

Tarapur S 22.2 17.8 12.3 14.5 2.6 1.7 1.3 0.4

Bay

B - 14.9 13.1 16.7 - 0.6 1.0 0.9

Open S 9.2 10.6 18.5 16.5 0.2 0.8 0.8 0.2

Sea

B 8.6 11.0 15.1 16.7 0.3 0.7 1.2 0.2

Segment

NH4+-N (µmol/l) PO4

3-P (µmol/l)


2007 2008 2010 2010 2007 2008 2010 2010

Ucheli S 23.2 22.8 9.5 2.8 0.9 1.6 2.7 16.4

Creek

B - 21.6 - 1.5 - 1.8 - 1.8

Tarapur S 12.3 5.4 4.2 3.5 1.2 1.7 1.8 11.1

Bay

B - 2.0 0.7 5.3 - 3.0 2.1 14.2

Open S 0.2 - 2.2 2.5 0.9 2.0 1.1 4.7

Sea

B 0.6 - 1.9 4.6 1.2 2.4 2.0 4.9

4.2.7 PHc and phenols

Naturally occurring hydrocarbons in marine environment are in trace

amounts. PHc derived from crude oil and its products are added to marine

environment by anthropogenic activities i.e. production, transport, ship traffic

etc.

Phenols in marine environment generally originate through onshore

anthropogenic discharge as by-products in manufacturing process of coke,

paper and pulp processing, coal gas liquification and as a product from

hydrocarbons in petrochemical industries.

The concentration of PHc and phenols during postmonsoon and

premonsoon in the Ucheli creek and surrounding coastal waters varied from 4

to 11 and 3 to 10 µg/l and ND to 21 and 1 to 46 µg/l as evident from Tables

4.2.1 to 4.2.9 The average concentration of PHc and phenols in the study

area are as follows:

17

Segment

PHc (µg/l) Phenol (µmol/l)


2007 2008 2010 2010 2007 2008 2010 2010

Ucheli S 20 32 7 8 57 91 12 36

Creek

Tarapur S 25 21 7 5 15 34 9 25

Bay

Open S 11 11 7 6 21 17 4 12

Sea

Observed concentrations do not indicate gross contamination by PHc

and phenols. The values recorded in the region are normal generally

recorded in the coastal water

4.3 Sediment quality

Several contaminants on entering the marine environment are

absorbed by SS and are transported to the sediment on settling. Thus the

sediment receiving pollutants i.e. metals, organics etc sustain high

concentration of pollutants. Hence, aquatic sediments are useful indicators of

anthropogenic pollution.

4.3.1 Texture

Texture generally influences the concentration of trace metals and

other trace metals. Thus the sediment with high clay fraction exhibits relatively

high level of trace constituents.

The results of texture of sediment in the Ucheli creek and coastal

waters of the region are presented in Tables 4.3.1 and 4.3.2 and their average

values are compared with earlier results in the table below:

Period Texture

Subtidal Intertidal

Sand Silt Clay Sand Silt Clay

February 2007 48.3 43.7 8.0 - - -

March 2008 83.6 11.3 5.1 - - -

January 2010 20.0 71.9 8.1 92.0 6.7 1.3

May 2010 35.0 59.5 5.5 96.0 2.1 1.9

As evident from the table low content of clay is observed and comparable.

18

4.3.2 Heavy metals

Generally metal content in sediment represents a natural background

due to contribution by the lithogenic flux. The metallic pollutants, which may

enter the marine environment through external sources, may increase the

background levels indicating sediment contamination.

The concentration of metals in the subtidal and intertidal region of

Ucheli Creek and coastal waters as evident in Tables 4.3.1 and 4.3.2 varied

widely and does not indicate anthropogenic impact on sediment quality.

4.3.3 Organic carbon (Corg) & Phosphorus

Organic pollution resulting from sewage is often reflected by increased

level of Corg and phosphorus in sediment. The concentrations of Corg and P

(Tables 4.3.1 and 4.3.2) recorded in the creeks are commonly observed in

coastal sediment and do not indicate any anthropogenic stress on the

sediment quality.

The average values of Corg and P are presented below:

Period Corg (%) P (µg/g)

Subtidal Intertidal Subtidal Intertidal February 2007 0.7 - 334 - March 2008 0.7 - 1153 - January 2010 0.8 0.2 - - May 2010 0.9 0.3 521 766

4.3.4 PHc

Naturally occurring low PHc content is associated with vegetation

decay, erosion etc. PHc entering through the spillage of water partly

evaporates and the left over residue eventually sinks to the bottom due to

increase in density or incorporates with particulate matter. Thus bed sediment

may serve as a sink to PHc and its high level may indicate gross sediment

contamination. PHc concentration in Ucheli Creek and coastal waters vary in

narrow range of µg/g (Tables 4.3.1 and 4.3.2). The average values of PHc

and its comparison with earlier records is presented below:

19

Period PHc (µg/g) Subtidal Intertidal February 2007 2.0 - March 2008 0.4 - January 2010 3.1 6.8 May 2010 0.4 1.0

The above table indicates the natural variation in the region and does

not indicate any anthropogenic contamination in the region.

4.4 Flora and fauna

Establishment of biological status of marine ecosystems is an essential

pre-requisite to assess the impacts of existing as well as proposed

developments in the coastal zone. Despite many changes in the physico-

chemical properties of the water body and seabed sediment, the ultimate

consequences of pollutants may be reflected inevitably on the biological

system. Hence, the investigations of an ecosystem and particularly of its

communities constitute an important part of an ecological assessment. This

can be achieved by selecting a few reliable parameters from a complex

community structure.

The living community of an ecosystem comprises of producers,

consumers, and decomposers and related non-living constituents interacting

together and interchanging materials as a whole system. The basic process in

an aquatic ecosystem is its primary productivity. The transfer of energy from

the primary source through a series of organisms (defined as the food chain)

is of two basic types; the grazing food chain and the detritus food chain. The

environmental 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. Depending

upon the type, strength and extent of a stress factor; the ecosystem will react

to either re-establish the previous equilibrium or establish a new one, or it may

remain under prolonged disequilibrium.

The biological parameters considered for the present EIA study are

20

phytoplankton pigments and cell counts, zooplankton standing stock and

population, macrobenthic biomass and population and fishery status. The first

two parameters 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.

Assessment of mangroves, corals and pathogen bacteria are considered as a

part of overall ecological evaluation.

This segment of the Konkan Coast region of harbours a variety of

ecosystems and habitats, in areas such as creeks; mangroves; intertidal

foreshore sandy and muddy zones; coastal lagoons and islands. The

biological information available for the region is compiled in Tables 4.4.1 to

4.4.45.

4.4.1 Pathogenic bacteria

The principal source of waterborne diseases such as cholera, typhoid

and hepatitis is due to contamination of water by sewage and animal wastes.

Apart from potable water, bacterial contamination occurs in surface waters

such as those used for shell fishing areas, beaches, fisheries and recreational

facilities. Though 90 % of the intestinal bacterial population dies off within 2

days in natural waters, the remaining 10 % decline much more slowly.

Coliform bacteria such as Escherichia coli and faecal streptococci (genus

Streptococcus) are the 2 most important groups of non-pathogenic bacteria

found in sewage. Because of number of problems associated with the

determination of populations of individual pathogens, non-pathogenic bacteria

(such as coliforms) are used as indicators of water pollution. Untreated

domestic wastewater has about 3 million coliforms per 100 ml. Because

pathogens originate from the same source, the presence of coliforms

indicates potential danger.The microbial count in water and sediments in the

Coastal and Ucheli Creek during January 2010 and May 2010 is given in

Table 4.4.1 to 4.4.4 and summarized given below:

21

Area January 2010 May 2010

TVC TC FC TVC TC FC

Water(CFU/ml)

Ucheli 600-2600 180-340 150 - 6000-11000 120-520 70-300

Creek (1600) (260) 260 (8333) (280) (180)

(205)

Tarapur 800-1200 40-560 60-400 1600-4000 ND-400 ND-330

Bay (1000) (240) (153) (2533) (197) (153)

Coastal 600-600 ND-1380 ND 1200-9000 ND-160 ND-50

(600) (345) (3960) (25) (50)

Sediments(CFU/ml)

Ucheli 22x104 1100- - ND- 10x104 - 5000- 1000-

Creek 70x10 10000 4 1900 24x10 4 6000 2100

(49x104 (5550) ) (950) (17x104 ) (5500) (1550)

Tarapur 16x104 ND-760 - ND-600 90x104 - ND-2800 ND-1100

Bay 23x10 (393) 4 (373) 120x10 4 (933) (367)

(20x104 ) (100x104 )

Open 11x104 ND-10000 - ND 8x104-70x10 4 ND ND

Sea 13x10 (5000) 4 (27.5x104 )

(12x104 )

The average values of TVC in water was higher during May 2010

(AV 4942 CFU/ml) than January 2010 (av 1067 CFU/ml), whereas average

TC was higher during January 2010 (av 282 CFU/ml) than May 2010

(AV167/CFU/ml). However, FC count was comparable (av 119/CFU/ml)

during January and May 2010. Their concentration was much higher in

sediment than water. The water and sediments associated populations of

pathogen like bacteria are consistently high in Ucheli Creek region

indicating the existence of anthropogenic discharges in upper and middle

creek regions.

4.4.2 Phytoplankton

Phytoplankton’s are 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’s long have 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

22

death or human illness. Because of their short life cycles, plankton

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 their life cycle, chlorophyll in phytoplankton

decomposes with phaeophytin as one of the major products.

In general, the concentration of chlorophyll a in the study area varies

between 0.1 and 18.5 mg/m3 (av 3.3 mg/m3) during study period indicating

variable phytoplankton biomass (Tables 4.4.5 to 4.4.8). Season-wise, the

pigment values are higher (av 4.4 mg/m3) during April 2009 (premonsoon)

than May 2010 (av 2.4 mg/m3). The variations from the surface to the bottom

are negligible indicating their uniform distribution throughout the water column. This homogenous nature of the water mass perhaps provides stability for the biological processes. Temporal and tidal variation on the distribution of phytopigments is not discernable (Tables 4.4.7 to 4.4.8). The concentration of

phaeophytin (0.1 – 2.4 mg/m3) is also varied and exhibits mix trends.

Phaeophytin is a measure of dead cells and is an indirect indicator of stress conditions leading to deterioration of chlorophyll a. The relative concentrations of chlorophyll a and phaeophytin suggest a delicate balance between the growth and mortality of these algae in the area though the ratios of chlorophyll a to phaeophytin generally exceed 1. The details of chlorophyll a and phaeophytin are given in Tables 4.4.5 and 4.4.8 and their comparison with earlier data is made here. Overall, the relative concentration of chlorophyll a and phaeophytin off Tarapur- Ucheli Creek vary as follows:

Feb March Jan May 2007 2008 2010 2010 Chlorophyll a (mg/m2 ) Open Sea 0.6-13.7 2.3-2.9 0.3-3.5 0.3-3.2

(4.3) (2.7) (1.3) (1.5) Tarapur Bay 16.9-18.6 1.7-1.9 1.0-5.9 0.1-1.4

(17.8) (1.9) (2.1) (1.0)

23

Feb March Jan May 2007 2008 2010 2010 Ucheli Creek 0.4-23.9 3.0-5.2 10.8-17.1 1.5-18.5

(8.6) (4.1) (14.3) (7.9) Phaeophytin (mg/m2 ) Open Sea 0.3-12.6 0.1-0.9 0.5-1.6 0.1-1.4

(6.6) (0.6) (0.7) (0.8) Tarapur Bay 16.9-19.9 0.1-0.5 0.4-1.7 0.3-1.7

(18.4) (0.4) (0.9) (0.7) Ucheli Creek 1.8-12.8 0.5-1.9 1.0-2.4 0.4-1.9

(6.9) (1.1) (1.7) (0.9)

It is evident from the above table that average concentrations of chlorophyll a and phaeophytin have not changed significantly around Tarapur region and the sea around, though high values are occasionally observed in the Creek region. The average values of phaeophytin were lower than chlorophyll a during January 2010 indicating that the condition was favourable for phytoplankton growth. In line with the high variability of pigments, the

average cell count of phytoplankton (no x 103/l) also varies (Tables 4.4.9 to

4.4.14) correspondingly as evident from the following results:

Feb March Jan May 2007 008 2010 2010 Open 11.2-176.8 127.3-191.6 4.8-92.5 14.4-40.8 Sea (93.9) (159.5) (33.9) (22.4) Tarapur 308.0-937.0 91.2-96.0 5.6-136.8 10.4-20.0 Bay (622.8) (93.6) (50.7) (14.24) Ucheli 119.2-917.6 48.8-312.8 561.6-592.0 24.0-1156.0 Creek (395.5) (208.0) (576.8) (481.5)

These results reveal variable phytoplankton cell counts in the region

with marked increase during January 2010 especially at upper creek segment.

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. The following table also indicates

marked variations in the average genera of phytoplankton in the Creek

segment and off Tarapur.

24

Feb 2007

March 2008

Jan 2010

May 2010

Open Sea 9-22 14-16 4-16 4-15 (17) (15) (10) (9) Tarapur Bay 17-18 15-17 6-14 8-10

(18) (16) (11) (9) Ucheli Creek 10-20 13-18 8-11 9-14

(15) (16) (10) (12)

Thus the generic diversity varies from 4 to 16 in the area (Tables 4.4.9

and 4.4.12). Overall, 36 (January 2010) and 30 (May 2010) total genera of

phytoplankton are recorded from Tarapur region during the study period

(Tables 4.4.13 and 4.4.14). The populations are dominated by Navicula,

Nitzschia, Thalassiosira, Bacteriastrum, Biddulphia, Fragilaria, Pleurosigma, Rhizosolenia, Coscinodiscus, Cyclotella, Oscillatoria, Guinardia, Skeletonema

and Peridinium encountered during both the seasons. Genera like

Ankistodesmus, Bacillaria, Ceratoulina, Chaetocerus, Gyrosigma, Hemiaulus,

Oscillatoria, Plankanosperia, Spirulina, Streptoheca and Trichoneuium were

present during January 2010 where as genera like Amphiprora, Amphora,

Asterionella, Diploneis and Protoperidinium were noticed during May 2010.

The phytopigments, generic distribution and the dominance of

phytoplankton between the Creek segment and Coastal water are broadly

comparable with the general variability inherent to coastal waters.

4.4.3 Mangroves

Marine flora like algae and mangroves play a significant role in

enriching near shore sea by adding dissolved organic matter, nutrients and

organic detritus besides serving on nursery areas for the larvae and juveniles

of several marine animals.

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, which are

25

the reservoirs of a large number of species of plants and animals. The role of

mangrove forests in stabilizing the shoreline of the coastal zone by preventing

soil erosion and arresting encroachment on land by sea thereby minimizing

water logging and formation of saline banks is well recognized.

Ucheli Creek has mangrove vegetation in the middle and upper

reaches. The mouth region and open coast is devoid of mangroves. The

stunted mangroves occupy extensive area along the northern and southern

banks of the creek up to a length of 5.2 km along the creek length. Ucheli

Creek which is about 19 km long originates from Dandi and Navapur villages.

Area between Akarpati and Dandi/ Navapur is sandy and devoid of

mangroves. However, dense mangroves are present along with coastal water

especially north of Tarapur Atomic Power Station. Mangroves are also

present along with the middle and upper segment (from 190 48’ 04.69 N”, 720

41’ 19.36” E to 190 49’ 10.28” N, 720 43’ 18.20 E) of Creek and dominated by

the Avicennia marina.

The status of mangroves was assessed in terms of species, population

density, height of plant, Diameter at Breadth Height (DBH) and seedling

density and height. The observations of mangroves were conducted between

high water level (N 190 50’ 32.0”, E 720 39’ 21.0”) and low water level (N 190

50’ 36.5”, E 720 39’ 16.2”) in the intertidal area of Tarapur. The intertidal area

of Tarapur towards north is seen with rocky and muddy shore which harbor

the scattered and bushy mangroves strands dominated by Avicennia marina

followed by A. alba (Plate 4.4.1). The existence of a few big tress (height 5-9

m, DBH 0.75-1.9 m) of Sonneratia alba, were also observed (Plate 4.4.2).

The counts of mangroves plant are undertaken in the area of 10 x 10

m2 whereas the counting of seedlings are carried out in the area of sq. meter

(no/m2) which are presented in the following Table:

26

Mangroves Population Height of Seedling density Plant density (no/m2) (no/m2) Assessment 0-22 0.4-2.6 0-14

(14) (1.2) (8)

The above table indicates that there are no plants at some places

whereas, other places the plants are encountered with 22/100 m2

4.4.4 Zooplankton

Zooplankton includes arrays of organisms, varying in size from the

microscopic protozoans of a few microns to some jelly organisms with

tentacles several metres long. By virtue of sheer abundance and intermediate

role between phytoplankton and fish, zooplankton is considered as the chief

index of utilization of aquatic biotope at the secondary trophic level.

Zooplankton standing stock in terms of biomass (0.2 – 7.5 ml/100m

of the study

area. Through there is proper inundation in the mangroves strands, the scattered bushy vegetation may be due to rocky intertidal area accumulating some sandy clay in the region.

3,

av 1.9 ml/100 m3) and population (1.0 – 221.6x103 no/100m3; av 28.3 x 103

no/100 m3) reveals good secondary production (Tables 4.4.15 and 4.4.18)

though the distribution indicates considerable, seasonal spatial and temporal

fluctuations (Tables 4.4.17 to 4.4.18). The zooplankton standing stock in

different segments of the study area recorded during the present study is

comparable with the results of 2007-2008 as seen from the following table:

27

Feb March Jan May 2007 2008 2010 2010 Biomass(ml/100 m2 ) Open Sea 0.7-1.6 0.9-2.5 0.2-4.1 0.3-7.5

(1.1) (1.7) (0.9) (1.4) Tarapur Bay 4.2* 0.3-0.9 0.3-3.4 0.5-2.6

(0.6) (1.9) (1.4) Ucheli Creek 1.7-5.4 0.7-7.8 1.2-5.6 0.3-3.7

(3.4) (5.7) (3.2) (1.6) Population(nox103/100 m2

)

Open Sea 0.7-32.4 19.1-55.0 16.4-146.3 4.5-43.3 (17.3) (37.0) (60.5) (23.5) Tarapur Bay 18.5* 2.1-13.9 9.1-62.7 1.2-8.3

(8.0) (30.7) (4.2) Ucheli Creek 7.7-37.5 2.2-18.9 1.9-221.6 1.0-22.5

(21.7) (11.6) (30.1) (3.7) Total groups (no)

Open Sea 10-14 8-9 10-17 8-12 (11) (9) (13) (10) Tarapur Bay 13* 11-11 14-21 9-13

(11) (18) (11) Ucheli Creek 9-12 8-16 14-20 6-16

(10) (11) (18) (11) * Single value

Wide spatial variations in zooplankton biomass and population off

Tarapur are invariably associated with factors like segment of creek, tide,

patchiness in their distribution, seasonal changes and grazing pressure within

the food chain. Such variations are common to dynamic coastal waters.

A comparison of average zooplankton standing stock off Tarapur and

Ucheli Creek region area is given below.

Parameter Feb March Jan May 2007 2008 2010 2010 Biomass 0.7-5.4 0.3-8.0 0.2-5.6 0.3-7.5 (ml/100m3

(2.6) ) (3.4) (2.3) (1.5) Population 0.7-37.5 2.1-55 1.9-221 1-43 (nox103/100m3

(19.3) ) (17.2) (43.8) (12.7) Faunal groups (no) 9-14 8-16 10-21 6-16

(11) (10) (17) (11)

28

Comparison with the earlier data indicated that zooplankton standing stock in

the coastal waters off Tarapur was comparable during present study. The

variation in zooplankton standing stock was also due to variation in

phytopopulation and grazing pressure.

The zooplankton community structure reveals the dominance of

copepods, lamellibranches and decapod larvae (Tables 4.4.19 and 4.4.20). The other common groups were Lucifer, polychaetes, chaetognaths,

foraminiferans and gastropods. The community structure of major groups

between the pre and post monsoon phases along the Ucheli Creek and off

Tarapur is comparable and noticeable changes in ecology of zooplankton off

Tarapur are absent. A total of 24 and 22 faunal groups were encountered

respectively during January 2010 and May 2010 (Tables 4.4.19 and 4.4.20)

though all of them do not occur at any given location. The group diversity of

zooplankton varied from 8 to 21 (av 14 groups). The faunal group diversity of

zooplankton at different segments was variable and indicates an increasing

trend towards offshore segment.

In general, the coastal waters off Tarapur reveal significant spatial,

temporal and seasonal variations in zooplankton standing stock.

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. The adults caught during trawling were considered for comparison. The

available information on the breeding habits of the species found in the area

is also included as a supportive literature.

Decapods

This group forms the important constituent of zooplankton and includes

29

the larval stages of commercially important shrimps. During January 2010, the

population density (averages at 7792 no/100 m3) constituting 21.6% to the

total zooplankton population (Table 4.4.21). This average was 481 no/100 m3

during May 2010 contributing about 8.0% to the total zooplankton population (Table 5.4.22). The population of larvae was markedly high in the Ucheli Creek segment and in coastal water, the most common constituents being crab zoea, stages of Acetes and Lucifer sp, alpheids, megalopa and porcellenid larvae.

The distribution of decapod larvae, Acetes and Lucifer sp are given in Tables 4.4.21 and 4.4.22 and comparison of average of decapod larvae

(no/100m3) are summarized below.

Feb 2007 March 2008 Jan 2010 May 2010 Decapods(no/100 m2 ) Open Sea 52-854 422-1215 214-12599 52-2379

(389.3) (818.5) (4164.6) (617) Tarapur Bay 623* 384-450 846-6025 51-1926

(417) (1601) (551) Ucheli Creek 1135-14297 686-5328 638-173784 12-4639

(7820.9) (1978.8) (35036) (685)

All commercial penaeid prawns of the Indian waters breed in the sea in

relatively deeper waters in relation to the area of normal habitat of adult

prawns. 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 later most of the decapod larvae (with the

exception of P stylifera) 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 to 30 m

while that of M.affinis is at still deeper waters. Spawning ground of

30

M.monoceros is reported to be at 50 to 65 m and that of P.stylifera at 18 to 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 heavily. 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 to 10 months and the adults succumb to mortality 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.

Fish eggs and larvae

Fish eggs and larvae though less in number (av 37 no/100 m3 and 6

no/100 m3

The relative occurrence and abundance of larvae are more than fish

eggs during May 2010. During January 2010, the variation in fish larvae is

from 0 to 425 no/100m

respectively) during January 2009 and May 2009 are fairly

common among zooplankton (Tables 4.4.23 and 4.4.24). Fish eggs occur in 100% samples in January 2010 and decreased to 48% in May 2010.

3 (av 99 no/100m3) and decreased significantly (0 –

325 no/100m3; av 62 no/100m3) in May 2010.

The relative abundance(no/100 m3) of the fish eggs and fish larvae

from 2007 to 2010 and their averages are summarized in the following table:

31

Feb March Jan 2010 May 2010 2007 2008 Fish eggs Open Sea 22-160 22-38 3-492 1-34

(67) (30) (51) (13) Tarapur Bay 3* 0-2 0-17 0

(1) (5) Ucheli Creek 0-7 4-532 0-716 0

(1) (107) (56) Fish larvae Open Sea 14-41 --- 0-384 8-325

(24) (129) (99) Tarapur Bay 39* 8-23 2-425 5-203

(16) (124) (52) Ucheli Creek 9-808 0-7 0-6 0-6

(154) (1) (2) (1)

It is evident from the above table that occurrence and abundance of

fish eggs and fish larvae are more in the coastal region than the creek water

during both the seasons. A wide variation when compared to the data

between 2007 and 2010 is clearly evident.

Fish catch from the coastal waters off Tarapur is dominated by

Harpadon nehereus and Colia sp. However, the abundance of their eggs

larvae of the species are poorly represented in the zooplankton samples.

H.nehereus is a continuous breeder with intense activity from October to April

and slack from May to September. Breeding of the species is reported in

deeper waters (> 75 m) and the numbers of ova produced vary from 1.5 x 104

to 1.5 x 105

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

by a single individual.The mud skippers or gobids are not

economically important and larvae of this group dominate the area. Early

stages of the groups are common suggesting that they are local breeders.

4.4.5 Macrobenthos

32

body size larger than 0.5 mm. The presence of species in a given assemblage

and its population depends on numerous factors, both biotic and abiotic.

Samples for macrobenthos were collected from intertidal segments as well as

subtidal stations for the estimation of macrobenthic density, biomass and

composition.

Intertidal fauna: The intertidal macrobenthic standing stock in terms of

population (0-8475 no/m2) and biomass (0.003-67.06 g/m2

Season

; wet wt) varied

widely (Tables 4.4.25 and 4.4.28). These results indicate significant changes in the macrobenthic standing stock both in terms of biomass and population in different segments.

The season-wise distribution of intertidal macrobenthos during January

2010 and May 2010 is compared and presented in the table given below with

average in parenthesis.

Population Biomass Total groups

(no/m2) (g/m2; wet wt) (no) January 2010 25-8475 0.003-67.06 1-8

(1896) (8.7) (4) May 2010 0-5350 0-21 0-4

(752) (10.8) (2) Overall, postmonsoon (January) period harbours relatively higher benthic

biomass and population, whereas faunal composition is comparable. The

faunal composition of intertidal macrobenthos of the area is given in Tables

4.4.29 and 4.4.30. Thus, the distribution of major faunal groups between

different regions exhibits wide quantitative and qualitative variation. The

intertidal macrobenthos was mainly constituted by polychaetes, crustaceans

and mollusks. As evident from Tables 4.4.29 and 4.4.30 the total number of

faunal groups in the intertidal transects varied from 0 to 8 (av 3). Overall about

17 groups of intertidal macrobenthos were recorded off Tarapur during the

present investigation with relatively higher diversity during January 2010.

Their community structure was closely comparable with the earlier data

(2007-2008) indicating the absence of gross changes in intertidal ecology.

33

Subtidal macrobenthos: The faunal standing stock in terms of population

and biomass varied from 0 - 14975 no/m2 and from <0.01 – 46.37 g/m2

(wet

wt) respectively during the study period (Tables 4.4.31 and 4.4.32). The long term distribution of subtidal macrobenthos and its comparison with the present study is given below with average in parenthesis.

The above table indicates wide variations in the faunal standing stock

in the region and no clear seasonal trend in the distribution is discernible, due

to high patchiness and variability in the distribution of subtidal macrobenthos. The faunal diversity and its comparison with earlier data are summarized here.

Feb March Jan May 2007 2008 2010 2010 Biomass(g/m 2 ) Open Sea 0-0.2 Rocky <0.01-0.65 0-1.8

(0.07) bottom (0.1) (0.2) Tarapur Bay 0-3.5 Rocky <0.01-2.26 0-6.7

(1.07) bottom (0.7) (0.9) Ucheli Creek 0.13-41.2 2.93-36.1 3.47-46.37 2.3-33.4

(14.0) (21.13) (15.9) (13.3) Population (no/m2 ) Open Sea 0-150 Rocky 25-3275 0-125

(53.5) bottom (358) (55) Tarapur Bay 0-600 Rocky 25-750 0-500

(369) bottom (233.7) (157) Ucheli Creek 175-5000 1600-2700 2150-14975 725-2975

(1997) (2013.5) (7598) (1543)

34

Faunal groups (no)

Feb March Jan May 2007 2008 2010 2010 Open Sea 0-3 Rocky 1-6 0-2 (1) bottom (2) (1) Tarapur Bay 0-2 Rocky 1-6 0-4 (1) bottom (3) (2) Ucheli Creek 2-6 2-5 4-8 1-3 (4) (4) (6) (2)

These results indicate overall higher faunal diversity during Jan 2010

than May 2010. The faunal diversity and composition of study period was well

comparable with earlier data of 2007-2008.

In general, about 22 groups of subtidal macrobenthos were recorded

off Tarapur during the present investigation (Tables 4.4.33 and 4.4.34). Their

community structure was closely comparable with the earlier results indicating

absence of gross changes on subtidal ecology over the years. The faunal

composition indicates the dominance of polychaetes, crustaceans and

molluscans.

Comparison of intertidal and subtidal macrobenthos during January

2010 and May 2010 are given in the following table with the average in

parenthesis:

Zone Population Biomass Total

groups Major Overall

(no x

103/m2(g/m

) 2; wet

wt) (no) groups Group (no)

Intertidal

0-8475

0-67.06

0-8

Polychaetes,

17

(1324) (9.8) (3) Oligochaetes, Brachyurans, Gastropods, Amphipods

Subtidal

0-14975

0.003-46.33

1-8

Polychaetes,

22

(1189) (3.73) (3) Tanaids, Amphipods,

Decapod larvae,

Gastropods,

35

The intertidal region sustained better macrobenthic biomass than

subtidal, however, the population and faunal diversity was comparable with

the dominance of polychaetes at both the regions.

Overall, the study reveals low to moderate benthic standing stock and

diversity at all locations which can be attributed to the prevailing high turbidity

and prevailing environmental stress.

4.4.6 Fishery

The fishery status around Tarapur was evaluated on the basis of data

obtained from the Department of Fisheries, Government of Maharashtra and

other local sources (Tables 4.4.35 to 4.4.43) limited experimental fishing

operations were also conducted during the present study (Tables 4.4.44 and

4.4.45).

Maharashtra is a leading state in marine fish production and during

2009-10 the total fish landing was 415.767x103 t (Table 4.4.35). Thane District

however accounts for 12.7-29.2% (av 22.2%) of the total landing of the state,

for the last 20 years indicating good exploitable fishery potential of the north

Maharashtra coast. The Thane District landing which was around 121.5 x 103

t during 2009-10 (Table 4.4.36) was the second highest among the coastal

district. There are 6 zones in the Thane District and Tarapur region is a part of

Popharan - Dandi zone. The zone wise annual marine fish production of

Thane District for 2004-2010 is given in table 4.4.37. The fish landings at

Popharan – Dandi zone varied between 12.7x103 and 35.2x103 t (av 22.4x103

Species-wise marine fish landings of Maharashtra state for 2005-2010

are given in Table 4.4.38, Thane district and Popharan - Dandi zone are given

in Table 4.4.39 and Table 4.4.40 respectively. During 2009-10 the catch

composition of Maharashtra state reveals dominance of Bombay duck

(15.5%), penaeid prawns(9.7%), non- penaeid prawns(17.3%), ribbon

fish(7.1%), cat fishes(3.3%), Sardines(4.8%), Anchoviella(4.4%), Otolithes sp

(4%), Pomfret(2.4%), Mackeral(5.1%), upenoides(2.6%), cephalopods(3.6%),

and seer fish (2.0%). The catch composition of Thane District recorded the

predominance of Bombay duck which contributes 44.5% of the total catch

t) during 2004-10, amounting 21.8% of the district landings.

36

followed by non- penaeid prawns(16%), pompret(6.7%), Anchoviella(6.3%),

Thrissocles (3.6%), cat fishes (2.9%), seer fish (2.7%), sciaenids (2.7%) and

penaeid prawns(2.3%). The landings of the Popharan- Dandi recorded the

occurrence of 19 variety and also dominated by Bombay duck (65.3%) and

non- penaeid prawns (2.3%). The other major varieties were Anchoviella

(7.9%), sciaenids (2.8%) and promfret (2.1%). Species-wise quarterly fish

landings of Thane district is given in Table 4.4.41. Overall September to

November(Q III) period indicates the major landing whereas Q II (monsoon)

recorded the lowest landings. Species-wise quarterly fish landing calendar of

the Popharan- Dandi zone is given in Table 4.4.42 and reveals similar trend

alike District calendar.

The details of boats around Popharan- Dandi are given in Table 4.4.43.

There are currently 245 mechanized and 24 non- mechanized boats in

Popharan- Dandi zone.

The results of experimental trawling carried out by NIO during January

2010 and May 2010 are given in Tables 4.4.44 and 4.4.45. Major fishing

activities were absent in the Ucheli Creek though the landing centre at Dandi

and Navapur in the mouth region of Ucheli Creek had resident population of

several trawlers. Majority of the boats fished in the open sea. Assessment of

fish catch during the study period indicated that offshore region sustained

higher fishery potential than the inshore and creek waters. Total fish catch

varied between 1.0-10.3 kg/h (av 6.9 kg/h) during May 2010. Seasonal and

segment-wise results of experimental fish catch are given below:

The above results confirm relatively low fishery in the creek and post

monsoon season yielded higher catch. The trawling results recorded a total of

22 species of fishes, 7 species of prawns and 4 other species (including

Periods

Zones January 2010 May 2010

Catch rate Total species Catch rate Total species

(kg/h) (no) (kg/h) (no)

Ucheli Creek 1.0-7.2 7-11 2.0-5.5 6-13

(4.0) (9) (3.8) (10)

Open Sea 9.2-10.3 17-22 8.7-8.9 16-20

(9.8) (20) (8.8) (18)

37

crabs, cephalopods etc) during the study period. The catch composition

represented by mainly Harpadon nehereis, Coilia dussumieri, Johneis glacus,

Arien caelatus, Thrichiurus lepturus, Thryssa mystax, Pampus argentus,

Ilisha megaloptera, Cynoglossus arel, Lepturacanthan savala,

Parapenaeopsis stylifera, solenocera crassicornis and charybdis annulata.

4.4.7 Corals and associated flora and fauna

The coastal water of Tarapur does not support corals as the intertidal

area is largely sandy or muddy. Coral growth in the subtidal region is unlikely

in view of the high suspended load in the water column, the conditions under

which corals do not thrive.

4.4.8 Birds

The Tarapur coast offers different marine habitats like rocky / sandy /

muddy intertidal and mangrove for a variety of resident and migratory birds.

The birds use these habitats as their active feeding ground especially during

low tide. Hectic activities of Gulls, Herons, Terns, Egrets, Kingfisher, Plovers,

Avocets, Curlews, Whimbrels, Sand pipers, Spoonbills and Bitterns are

frequently seen in these coastal habitats. A large number of migratory species

pass through Tarapur and a small population of them in the form of juveniles

and non-breeding adults take shelter in coastal areas during summer. The

intertidal areas also support significant populations of migratory shorebirds,

gulls and terns together with large feeding flocks of Phenicopterus rubber and

Phoeniconaias minor.

4.4.9 Reptiles and mammals

Marine turtles are not common along the Tarapur coast and have not

been sighted during field studies.

The marine mammals are chiefly represented by Dolphin and Porpoise

in the coastal waters off Tarapur. Whales are very rare and not sighted during

the study period.

38

5 EFFLUENT RELEASE LOCATION

The best and feasible option in this case would be to select a suitable

point in the coastal water with sufficient depth to provide initial dilution (near

field) which will be subjected to advective mixing by the tidal currents (far field)

there by reducing the pollutant concentrations to near ambient conditions with

in a reasonable distance.

The basic requirement of large quantities of effluent released is that not

only it should get diluted but also should not enter into rivers and creeks

before it attains sufficient dilution. The point selected in this case should be in

the north of the river mouth. Being in the flood direction it will be carried to

further north during flood. During ebb currents push it in to the sea and hence

would not enter into the inland water body, the Ucheli Creek in this case.

Quantity and quality of the effluent

The CETP at Tarapur is presently treating and releasing 25 MLD of

effluent in to open sea albeit in a shallow region through a pipeline system.

The total effluent load according to records made available has crossed 80

MLD, Which means that the remaining effluent finds its way in to the creek

through point discharges along the creek. To cater for the present needs and

also the expected expansion two different quantities of effluents (80MLD and

120 MLD) were considered for modeling purpose. This treated wastewater will

have to be released at a suitable location. A location (19° 48 ' 21.59" N;72°

37' 25.35"E”) with a depth of 12m below CD is selected for effluent discharge

location. 5.1 Far-field dilution- Model studies

Modeling the hydrodynamic processes is the first important step to

quantitatively assess the far-field dilution of contaminants in the receiving

water. The 2D model was used for this purpose. Giving inputs of bathymetry

of the creek and adjoining coastal waters extracted from the NHO chart of

the general region supplemented with limited observations and tides at

boundary, hydrodynamics of the region were modeled. After obtaining the

tides and currents at each grid points at regular intervals of time a sub

39

domain was selected with finer grid. Far-field dilution was calculated

introducing the discharges (i) present effluent generation of 80 MLD ii)

projected future effluent generation of 120 MLD at the selected off shore

location with the quality confirming to MPCB guidelines for marine discharge.

5.1.1 Model description and setup

Simulation of tides and currents in the creek and coastal waters of

Tarapur were carried out by solving the 2D shallow water equations of

continuity and momentum. These equations that describe the flow field are

based on incompressible flow and vertically integrated hydrostatic

distribution.

Hence, the vertical acceleration of the flow is assumed to be much smaller

than the pressure gradient.

A larger Domain from Mumbai to Hazira was run with the available tide

data from earlier studies and the pre calibrated model. The tide data

extracted near the boundaries of the larger model were utilized as input for

the smaller domain. The model was run by giving bathymetry and tide at the

Northern and southern boundaries. The western boundary condition was of

free flow. The eastern boundary is a closed boundary. The tides and currents

predicted at each grid were stored. After predicting the currents and tides at

each grid location, a smaller domain is selected with finer grid mesh.

The selected small computational domain of the model was between

the latitudes 190 42’ N and 190 53’ N and longitudes 720 33”E and 720 41’

The bottom roughness in the general area is expected to vary because

of changes in the bed topography and variation in sediment grain size.

According to the type of bed configuration, the Manning’s roughness

coefficient 5 was selected for computational purposes from the calibration

runs of the larger domain. The interpolated Chezy’s coefficient was calculated

E

(Figure 5.1.1). The domain was divided into small computational grids of

120x120 grids with the grid size of 150m x 158 m in x and y directions

respectively (Figure 5.1.2). The interpolated bathymetric depth contours of

the model domain are produced in Figure 5.1.3.

40

based on Manning’s roughness coefficient. Bathymetry of the study domain

is presented in Figure 5.1.4.

5.1.2 Modeling of tides and currents

The tide data is given at each time step as boundary condition for the

sub domain and the model was run for 10 days. Boundary tide is given in

Figure 5.1.5. The maximum tide is 5.7 m. The model was run from 02 March

to 18th

( ) ( ) ( )

∂∂

∂∂

+

∂∂

∂∂

=∂∂

+∂∂

+∂∂

ySHD

yxSHD

xVHS

yUHS

xHS

t yx

March 2016. The Tide was compared with the predicted tide at Satpati

and presented in Figure 5.1.6. The modeled tide is in good agreement with

the Satpati tide obtained from the tidal constituents. Now the model was run

for comparison of current direction as well as speed and presented in Figure

5.1.7. The results are in reasonable agreement with the measurements.

The results were stored at every 1 h interval. The modeled currents

representing peak flood and ebb are illustrated in Figures 5.1.8 to 5.1.11 for

the typical neap and spring tidal conditions. Currents increase from coast to

offshore. Near proposed outfall site the maximum currents would be between

0.8 m/s to 1.0 m/s during neap and 1.0 m/s to 1.5 m/s during spring. This

shows that currents have sufficient dilution characteristics in the region.

However in the creek regions, currents would be sluggist as expected.

5.1.3 Modeling of the fate of Pollutants

The basic governing equation of a pollutant transport in a well–mixed

region can be written as

+ (Sso-Ssi)

Where, S is pollutant concentration in mg/l, Dx and Dy are the

dispersion coefficients which are the function of local currents and water

depth, H is the total water depth, U is the velocity component in x direction

and V is the velocity component in y direction. Sso and SSi are source and sink

terms, respectively.

41

As the dispersion model is linked with the hydrodynamic model, the

instantaneous values of current speed, current direction, depth at each grid

generated at intervals of very small specified time steps are available to the

model to solve these equations. The initial and boundary conditions are

imposed on the model and the effluent quantity, pollutant concentration at the

discharge were incorporated.

The model was run for 10 days to create the initial conditions all over

the domain for the discharge at the proposed discharge point and the run was

performed again for 10 days with all the discharge (80 MLD) incorporated only

at the new discharge location. The spread for different parameters of the

pollutants due to this setup are discussed in the following sections.

The location was selected in the coastal waters off Tarapur with the geographical co-ordinates 19° 48 ' 21.59" N;72° 37' 25.35"E” with a depth of 12m below CD. It is considered that the effluents confirming to MPCB wastewater criteria when released at this location for two different quantities a) 80 MLD for the present case and b)120 MLD in case of future expansion, if permitted, were tested for feasibility.

Several observation points were set up in the model domain to record

the time series variations of the pollutants emanating from the discharge

(Figure 5.2.1).

a) Model run for 80 MLD effluent

The model was run for 10 days by introducing BOD concentration of

100 mg/l at proposed DP by considering the ambient BOD is 1 mg/l. The

results are presented in Figures 5.2.2 to 5.2.4. Figure 5.2.2 shows the

dispersion of the BOD when effluent is discharged into the coastal waters at

proposed release location during the slack low water condition of spring tide.

From the figure, it can be seen that the dispersion is compact and the excess

BOD value above the ambient is in the form of a compact elongated patch

around the outfall point stretching downstream following the current direction.

As expected, the excess BOD concentration is high at the point of discharge

DP location with the excess value coming down gradually as it moves away

42

from the outfall point. It can be seen that the contaminant disperses and

spreads over a compact area during this tide condition. The figure shows that

the maximum concentration at the release site would be 1.26 mg/l above

ambient. This high value is confined to the releasing grid which is around 50

m radius. At the edge of 200 m near ambient conditions would prevail.

The distribution of BOD concentration during peak flood of spring is

given in Figure 5.2.3. Plume would move towards north along the coast. In

case of peak ebb during spring the plume would move towards south along

the coastline (Figure 5.2.4). In all the cases, maximum concentrations are

found at the release site.

The time series variation in the BOD values at 20 locations mentioned

in the Figure 5.2.1 is shown graphically in Figure 5.2.5. It can be noticed that

maximum concentration at the release site would be 1.3 mg/l above ambient

and the variation in the excess BOD value (above the ambient) is restricted or

localized to area around the outfall point DP and there is no change in the

water quality away from the outfall point and in the rest of the domain. The

maximum BOD concentration at 100 m distance from proposed outfall would

be around 1 mg/l above ambient.

b) Model run for 120 MLD effluent

At present the quantity of the effluents generated is about 80 MLD and

in future the same set up of pipeline can be used for enhanced quantity of

effluents if need be. The effluent quantity of 120 MLD was imposed with the

same quality and the runs performed again to find the suitability of the

disposal point.

The discharge was introduced at a constant rate of 1.39 m3

The results are presented in Figures 5.2.6 to 5.2.8. Figure 5.2.6 shows

the dispersion of the BOD when effluent is discharged into the coastal waters

/s (with

quality stated above) in the grid containing the disposal location. The model was run for 10 days covering both spring and neap tides. The resulting spreads at different tidal stages (LW, Flood and Ebb for both spring tidal conditions) for this release are discussed in the following sections.

43

at proposed release location during the slack low water condition of spring

tide. From the figure, it can be seen that the dispersion is compact and the

excess BOD value above the ambient is in the form of a compact elongated

patch around the outfall point stretching downstream following the current

direction. As expected, the excess BOD concentration is high at the point of

discharge DP location with the excess value coming down gradually as it

moves away from the outfall point. It can be seen that the contaminant

disperses and spreads over a compact area during this tide condition. The

figure shows that the maximum concentration at the release site would be 2.2

mg/l above ambient. This high value is confined to the releasing grid which is

around 100 m radius. At the edge of 200 m near ambient conditions would

prevail.

The distribution of BOD concentration during peak flood of spring is

given in Figure 5.2.7. Plume would move towards north along the coast. In

case of peak ebb during spring the plume would move towards south along

the coastline (Figure 5.2.8). In all the cases, maximum concentrations are

found at the release site.

The time series variation in the BOD values at 20 locations mentioned

in the Figure 5.2.1 is shown graphically in Figure 5.2.9. It can be noticed that

maximum concentration at the release site would be 2.2 mg/l above ambient

and the variation in the excess BOD value (above the ambient) is restricted or

localized to area around the outfall point DP and there is no change in the

water quality away from the outfall point and in the rest of the domain. The

maximum BOD concentration at 100 m distance from proposed outfall would

be around 1.5 mg/l above ambient.

5.2 Near field dilution

The effluent when released at the suggested location gets initial

dilution due to release through a submarine diffuser (Near field dilution) and

attain further dilution due to advective mixing produced by the local currents

(far field dilution).

The flow-field of effluent released into a coastal system is controlled by

the momentum and buoyancy forces. If the release is made through a sub-

44

surface outfall, just above the bed, the mixing is initially achieved by the

momentum forces and later by the buoyancy forces. The dilution, which is

confined to the area of release (roughly 100 m radius), is termed as the near-

field dilution. Hence, the effective water column available above the release is

used for dilution of the effluent. When the buoyancy forces are no longer

operative, the dilution of effluent is caused due to advection and diffusion

processes, which are essentially influenced by the prevailing currents. This is

termed as the far-field dilution. Thus, the spreading of an effluent cloud

released in coastal environment is governed by advection caused by large

scale water movements and diffusion caused by comparatively small scale

random and irregular movements without causing any net transport of water.

Hence, the important physical properties governing the rate of dilution of an

effluent cloud in coastal waters are bathymetry, tides, and currents.

As stated earlier, it is important to design an effluent disposal scheme

in a manner to achieve maximum possible near field dilution. This is

particularly important in the present case since effluent is marginally lighter

(density: 996 kg/m3) than seawater (Density: 1024 kg/m3) and may tend to

surface on emerging from the diffuser ports. In such a situation bottom

release is the preferable as the complete water column above the diffuser

would be available for dilution. If the port is almost horizontal, the plume would

take larger trajectory so that the maximum dilution would be attained.

The near-field mixing was estimated using a Buoyant Jet Model. The

governing equations for the Buoyant Jet Model are as follows:

du 2gλ2 ∆ρ 2u∝ = sin θ - ds u ρo b

db 2 ∝ bgλ2 ∆ρ = - sin θ ds u2 ρo

dθ 2gλ2 ∆ρ = - cos θ ds u2

ρo

45

∆ρ 1 + λ2 dρ 2∝∆ρ d = sin θ - ds λ2 dy ρ dx dy = cos θ; = sin θ ds ds

where g = acceleration due to gravity

ρ = density of effluent

ρo = density of coastal water

∝ = constant

λ = entrainment coefficient

x = horizontal distance from Jet orifice

y = vertical jet coordinate

u = jet velocity

θ = angle of jet orifice with horizontal plane

ds = step increment

also co uo bo = c u b

where c = concentration at given time

b = width of jet/plume at given time

co uo bo represent concentration/mass density, jet velocity and jet width at

time t = 0.

The model also takes the ambient velocity into account while calculating initial

dilution using the equation

Dilution due to ambient currents = dilution in static medium [exp 0.938 * {log

(Ua/U) + 1.107}]

Where ua = ambient current speed and U = Jet velocity

46

The above equations were solved explicitly by Range Kutta integration

scheme by taking the following model inputs:

The model also takes the ambient velocity into account while

calculating initial dilution. The above equations were solved explicitly by

Range-Kutta integration scheme by taking the following model inputs:

Effluent density(kg/m3 996 ) Minimum water depth (m) 12 Seawater density (kg/m3 1024 ) Current velocity (av) (m/s) 0.5 Effluent discharge rate (m3 80000 and 120000 /d) Angle of release (deg) 15

Step increment (m) 0.001

5.2.1 The diffuser system and the dilutions available

The model calculates the plume width and dilutions along the vertical

distance of the water column from the diffuser. The calculations were made

for different number of ports and port sizes. Since the effluent is lighter than

the ambient seawater, more dilution is achieved when the port angle is kept at

the optimum level with reference to the bed plane. An 8 port diffuser system

with each port having a diameter of 0.26 m is suitable for the effluent

discharge. A port angle of 5o upwards with respect to the horizontal plane

gives the best results. The diffuser system can be used with 2m/s initial jet

velocity for the present release of 80 MLD which can be used with out altering

the pipeline and diffuser for the increased discharge at a later date. The

dilution available in this case would be 68 and 110 times at low water and

high water of spring respectively. This results in the BOD concentrations

ranging from 0.9 to 1.5 mg/l at the releage site. . When the discharge quantity

increases to 120 MLD, dilution of 53 (spring low water) to 81(spring high

water) times is achievable with initial jet velocity of 2m/s. This shows that the

BOD concentrations at the release site would vary from1.48 to 2.26 mg/l. The

port dia would be 0.33 m. The jet velocity in the study is defined as the

minimum jet velocity at the end of the diffuser.

47

From the above results of far-field and near-field dilutions, it is

concluded that the treated MIDC effluent of 80 mld can be released at location

19° 48 ' 21.59" N;72° 37' 25.35"E (Figure 5.4.1) through a multiport diffuser

having following specifications.

Port Dia = 0.26 m; Minimum jet velocity = 2 m/s; Angle = 5o

This location and the same diffuser set up can be used upto 120 mld

capacity. However, the minimum jet velocity should be maintained at 2 m/s.

; Elevation

from bed: 0.5 m. Distance between ports = 6 m; Number of ports = 8;

48

6 POTENTIAL MARINE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

The negative impacts that can occur on the coastal environment of

Navapur area, due to the proposed scheme, would be largely associated with

the construction and operational phases of the project.

6.1 Construction phase

Pipe-laying through a of 0.9 km intertidal stretch and 6.2 km subtidal

stretch that can experience movement of machinery, vessels, workforce etc,

has a potential to adversely influence the coastal environment. Assuming that

the pipe-laying would require a corridor width of 20 m, the total marine area

that would be negatively impacted would be about 14.2 ha.

6.1.1 Physical processes

Impact of pipe-laying on the physical processes in the intertidal and

subtidal zones depends upon methodology used. The physical processes

such as littoral transport and circulation in the vicinity of operations would be

temporarily disturbed. However, as the original contours would be restored

after completion of operations, no long-term impact is expected.

6.1.2 Water quality

The entry of SS, metals, pathogens, degradable organic matter, PHc,

etc through operational discharges and movement of boats and machinery

can degrade water quality through transient pulses. Trenching and pipe-laying

in the dynamic environment would result in re-suspension of fine-grained bed

sediments in the over lying water thereby increasing the turbidity significantly.

As the water of the coastal Tarapur is naturally muddy and turbid due to

strong tidal currents, the impact on water quality would be local, temporary

and limited to the period of pipe-laying.

6.1.3 Sediment quality

Suspension of sediment and its subsequent deposition elsewhere can

result in local changes in sediment texture. These impacts would be minor

and temporary.

49

6.1.4 Flora and fauna

Reduction in benthic flora and fauna, would occur in the localized area

notably along the pipeline corridor. Reduction in primary production at the

project site due to significant enhancement in turbidity is likely. The

macrobenthos damaged or destroyed during laying of the pipeline will recover

over a period of time when the construction activities are terminated.

However, there would be some permanent loss of habitat particularly in the

pipeline corridor in the section where the pipeline is anchored to the bottom.

Due to the hard surface provided by these anchors and the pipeline resting on

sea floor, organisms like barnacles, and other sedentary organisms may

colonise on them changing the community structure. .Based on the results of

the studies (average) at transect T1 for intertidal area, and station 6 and 8 for

subtidal stretch, the loss of macrobenthic standing stock for the corridor of

pipeline measuring 900m in intertidal and 6.2 km in subtidal zone with the

width of 20 m, will work out the estimated area of 1.8 ha of intertidal and 12.4

ha of subtidal which will result the loss of macrobenthos as follows:

Area Biomass Population

(kg) (no x105) Intertidal 174.2 416.16 Subtidal 173.6 426.3

The total loss of 361.8 kg biomass and 876.84 x105

populations is

significantly low when compared with the overall potential of the coastal

waters off Tarapur/Navapur segement. The major group affected in the

intertidal would be polychaete followed by brachyurans during premonsoon

and during postmonsoon polychaete followed by oligochaete and Amphipods

respectively. In subtidal stations only polychaete during premonsoon and

Decapod larvae followed by polychaete during postmonsoon were the major

groups affected by the pipe laying. Part of this would be permanent loss

(about 4% of subtidal loss for the pipe size of 0.9 m) the remaining area will

be available for recolonising of the benthic organisms, however, the

macrobenthos will recolonizing is a slow process and would depend on

environmental factors favourable for it once the construction activities are

over. In addition the impact on phytoplankton hampering the photosynthesis

50

activities due to significantly enhancement in SS would occur during the

period of construction only. The impact on marine ecology particularly benthos

would increase if the corridor is not restricted to the predetermined corridor of

20 m. Misuse of the intertidal area by work force employed during the

construction phase can locally degrade the intertidal sediment by increasing

BOD and populations of pathogens. The impact, however, will be minor and

temporary and recovery will be quick when the construction is over.

6.1.5 Miscellaneous

Aesthetics of the area would deteriorate due to the presence of

construction machinery and materials, make-shift huts for labor force etc. Left-

over solid waste generated during the construction would be a source of

nuisance, if not cleared from the site. The extent of impact on the ecology

would also depend on the duration of the construction phase. If the

construction is prolonged due to time overruns or improper planning, the

adverse influence would increase accordingly.

6.2 Operational phase

The impact on the ecology of coastal waters off Tarapur during

operation is essentially related to release of effluent.

6.2.1 Physical processes

As there would be no surface structure, the dynamics of the coastal

waters off Tarapur would remain unaltered.

6.2.2 Water quality

As the effluent is predicted to attain plume dilution of minimum 64

times, the water quality would not be influenced adversely beyond the

immediate vicinity of the effluent discharge location. Hence, the water quality

of the area would remain grossly unaltered by the release of effluent except in

the immediate vicinity particularly during tidal slack periods (during low waters

and high waters). When all the discharges are relocated at the offshore DP

and discontinued at the present near shore (existing) DP as well as the creek,

there would be a dramatic improvement in the creek and beach water quality.

However the sediment quality would take sometime (atleast one or two

51

monsoon seasons so that the sediment would progressively flush out.

6.2.3 Sediment quality

No localized negative impact due to the release of effluent on the

sediment quality is expected as the dissolved constituents would take longer

time to adsorb to the particulates and settlement of such particulates would be

then in a wider subtidal expanse.

6.2.4 Flora and fauna

The release of treated effluent as per the standards of MPCB would not

affect the water and sediment qualities of the coastal waters off Tarapur if

released adhering to the specifications of the diffuser at the location

suggested , hence, the flora and fauna would not be largely affected since

sufficient dilution is available. However a small area surrounding the diffuser

will have sporadic high concentration of pollutants particularly at Low Waters

when currents are too weak to facilitate proper advection.

52

7 MITIGATION MEASURES

The MIDC Industrial Estate at Tarapur houses varied types of industrial

establishments. The levels and types of pollutants in the effluent of any given

single industry depend on the product and the raw materials used for its

production. A CETP will collect, treat and release all the effluents through the

mode suggested by the EIA consultant. The effluent treatment in such huge

CETPs would only consider primary treatment (removal of floatables and grit,

secondary treatment (pH adjustment by adding acid or alkali as the case may

be) and tertiary treatment (reduction of BOD by lagoons and bacterial

treatment). There can be umpteen number of other industrial pollutant species

which cannot be treated when all the effluents from different industries are

combined when the total volume to be treated becomes huge.

The practical and environmentally suitable approach would then be to

identify recoverable/removable species of polluting components and

remove/recover/treat such specific components at individual industry level

before accepting the effluent at CETP for further treatment.

The effluent should be treated as per the standards of MPCB before it is

released to the coastal waters. The records of quality of treated effluent

should be kept and made available for inspection to concerned authorities.

The release of effluent should strictly adhere to the specifications of the

diffuser such as number of ports, port size, port angle and initial jet velocity at

the point suggested. Periodic monitoring of the costal water off Tarapur as

suggested in the monitoring programme will help in finding out the

perturbations in the water quality due to the release over the period.

53

8 ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN

Basic framework for efficient management of the marine environment

should address the following major issues:

(a) Marine environmental quality criteria.

(b) Pollution control.

(c) Periodic monitoring.

8.1 Marine environmental quality criteria

This report provides available information on the status of coastal

ecology of the region. The data presented in this report may be considered as

a baseline for the coastal waters off Tarapur. It is expected to maintain this

water and sediment quality in the respective seasons.

8.2 Pollution control

It should be ensured through regular monitoring that the quality of the

effluent meets MPCB norms before release to the coastal waters. Similarly,

the coastal water at the effluent disposal point should be monitored

periodically for water quality, sediment quality and biological characteristics.

All records must be maintained and should be available for inspection of the

designated agency.

8.3 Periodic monitoring

A comprehensive marine quality-monitoring program should be

implemented in a planned manner as given below:

Sampling locations

Water quality, sediment quality and biological characteristics at stations

in the Ucheli Creek and associated coastal waters as studied for EIA should

be periodically evaluated. Out of these, two locations (Station 6 and Station 7)

should be monitored over a tidal cycle with hourly measurements, for water

quality. Sediment samples should be collected once from all the intertidal and

subtidal locations.

Representative intertidal sites on either side of the effluent release location

towards the shoreline should be selected and designated as experimental

54

sites for monitoring the health of intertidal flora and fauna.

Parameters to be monitored Water quality: Water samples obtained from surface and bottom, when the depth exceeds 5 m, should be analysed for temperature, pH, salinity, DO,

BOD (or total organic carbon), nitrate, nitrite, ammonia, dissolved phosphate,

PHc and phenols.

Sediment quality: Sediment from subtidal and intertidal regions should be

analysed for grain size, Corg, phosphorous, chromium, nickel, copper, zinc,

cadmium, lead, mercury and PHc.

Flora and fauna: Biological characteristics should be assessed based on

Phytoplankton( phytopigments, populations and their generic diversity);

Zooplankton(biomass, population and group diversity; Benthic Fauna

(macrobenthic biomass, population and group diversity both subtidal as well

as intertidal; mangroves and fish quality.

Frequency of monitoring

The program of monitoring may be scheduled as follows:

The monitoring should be scheduled at i) after six months and ii) after

one year from the commencement of disposal. The further monitoring can be

decided by MPCB depending on the results of these monitoring.

The results from each monitoring should be compared with the

baseline water quality of the respective season to identify changes and

corrective measures should be taken.

55

9 RECOMMENDATIONS

The results of model studies conducted for the area off Tarapur indicated

that the effluent release location 19° 48 ' 21.59" N;72° 37' 25.35"E having a depth

of 12 m below CD is adequate and suitable for industrial effluents, up to a total

quantity of 120 MLD, confirming to MPCB norms. The suggested diffuser setup

with 8 ports of 0.26m diameter would provide initial dilutions of 68-110 times

when the discharge quantity is 80 MLD and 53-81 times when the quantity

increases to 120 MLD. The location, however, can be shifted by a distance of

100m on engineering consideration provided the new location offers a minimum

depth of 12m with respect to CD. The quality of the treated effluent should always

be maintained to the standards of MPCB and quality should be recorded.

Periodic monitoring of the costal water off Tarapur/Navapur region should be

undertaken i) after 6 months and ii) after 1 year of the commencement of release.

In case of the impact of pollutants are observed, in the monitoring results,

corrective measures should be taken up. Environmental monitoring plan should

be as per the suggestion provided in this report.

Table 4.2.1: Water quality at station 1(Ucheli Creek) during 2010

Parameter Level

January 2010 May 2010

Sample Sample Av Sample Sample Av

1 2 1 2

Temperature ( S O 23.0 23.0 23.0 32.5 32.5 32.5

C) (25.0) (25.0) (25.0) (33.0) (33.0) (33.0)

pH S 8.4 8.4 - 8.0 8.0 -

SS (mg/l) S 45* - - 35* - -

Salinity (ppt) S 32.2 32.4 32.3 39.9 40.3 40.1

DO (mg/l) S 11.5 12.8 12.2 5.4 5.7 5.5

BOD (mg/l) S 9.6* - - 1.5 3.8 2.7

PO43 - S -P (µmol/l) 3.0 3.3 3.1 29.7 30.0 29.9

NO3- S -N (µmol/l) 9.0 10.3 9.7 5.4 6.1 5.8

NO2- S -N (µmol/l) 5.6 5.7 5.7 3.6 3.8 3.7

NH4+ S -N (µmol/l) 10.5 11.4 11.0 3.4 3.9 3.6

PHc (µg/l) 1m 4.7* - - 7* - -

Phenols (µg/l) S 3* - - 45* - -

Air temperature given in parenthesis * Single value

Table 4.2.2: Water quality at station 2 (Ucheli Creek) during 2010

Parameter

Level January 2010 May 2010

Min Max Av Min Max Av

Temperature (O S C) 24.0 27.5 25.7 32.5 35.0 33.5

(20.0) (31.5) (25.7) (30.5) (35.0) (33.0)

pH S 8.2 8.5 - 8.0 8.3 -

B - - - 8.2 8.3 -

SS (mg/l) S 22* 41 79 60

B - - - 70*

Salinity (ppt) S 33.4 35.0 34.2 38.0 40.3 39.2

B - - - 38.2 39.9 39.3

DO (mg/l) S 3.8 14.4 9.1 4.8 6.3 5.3

B - - - 4.1 6.0 5.4

BOD (mg/l) S 3.5* <0.2 <0.2 <0.2

B - - - 0.2*

PO43 - S -P (µmol/l) 1.6 3.1 2.3 1.4 1.7 3.0

B - - - 1.4 2.2 1.8

NO3- S -N (µmol/l) 9.7 21.8 15.7 8.8 16.0 12.9

B - - - 10.3 11.6 11.1

NO2- S -N (µmol/l) 1.2 6.4 3.8 0.2 5.0 2.3

B - - - 0.1 0.3 0.2

NH4+ S -N (µmol/l) ND 18.2 9.1 ND 3.3 2.1

B - - - 1.1 1.9 1.5

PHc (µg/l) 1m 8* 6 9 8

Phenols (µg/l) S 21* 24 30 27

Air temperature given in parenthesis ND : Not Detected: * Single value

Table 4.2.3: Water quality at station 3 (Ucheli Creek mouth) during 2010

Parameter Level January 2010 April 2010


1 2 1 2

Temperature ( S O 26.5 26.5 26.5 29.0 29.0 29.0

C) B - - - 28.8 28.8 28.8

(27.0) (27.0) (27.0) (28.6) (28.6) (28.6)

pH S 8.3 8.3 8.3 7.8 7.9 7.9

B - - - 7.8 7.9 7. 9

SS (mg/l) S 38* 67*

B - - - 104*

Salinity (ppt) S 35.5 35.5 35.5 38.4 38.7 38.5

B - - - 38.0 38.5 38.3

DO (mg/l) S 6.1 6.4 6.2 6.3 6.3 6.3

B - - - 5.1 5.1 5.1

BOD (mg/l) S 6.1* 4.4*

B - - - 2.5*

PO43 - S -P (µmol/l) 1.6 3.0 2.3 9.7 10.8 10.3

B - - - 15.1 15.9 15.5

NO3- S -N (µmol/l) 7.5 9.4 8.5 15.2 16.3 15.8

B - - - 19.8 20.4 20.1

NO2- S -N (µmol/l) 2.8 3.2 3.0 0.6 0.6 0.6

B - - - 1.5 2.5 2.0

NH4+ S -N (µmol/l) 10.4 11.4 10.9 4.2 6.2 5.2

B - - - 9.4 9.8 9.6

PHc (µg/l) 1m 7.5* 6*

Phenols (µg/l) S 14* 28*


Table 4.2.4: Water quality at station 4 (off Tarapur) during 2010

Parameter

Level January 2010 May 2010


Temperature (O S C) 24.5 24.5 24.5 29.0 29.0 29.0

B 24.0 24.0 24.0 28.8 28.8 28.8

(25.5) (25.5) (25.5) (29.0) (29.0) (29.0)

pH S 8.3 8.4 - 8.0 8.2 -

B 8.4 8.4 - 8.0 8.2 -

SS (mg/l) S 33* 56*

B 226* 51*

Salinity (ppt) S 34.6 35.0 34.8 38.5 38.5 38.5

B 34.5 34.6 34.5 38.2 38.9 38.6

DO (mg/l) S 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.0 6.3 6.1

B 6.7 7.0 6.9 5.7 6.0 5.9

BOD (mg/l) S 5.8* 4.4*

B 6.4* 3.2*

PO43 - S -P (µmol/l) 0.7 1.8 1.3 9.2 10.2 9.7

B 2.0 2.1 2.0 13.7 14.1 13.9

NO3- S -N (µmol/l) 12.6 12.7 12.6 13.3 14.7 14.0

B 11.2 11.4 11.3 14.8 16.5 15.6

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

B 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.5

NH4+ S -N (µmol/l) 1.3 1.3 1.3 2.4 3.0 2.7

B 0.5 1.1 0.8 3.5 4.4 3.9

PHc (µg/l) 1m 8.1* 6*




Parameter Level

January 2010 May 2010


1 2 1 2

Temperature ( S O 24.0 24.0 24.0 29.8 29.8 29.8

C) B 23.8 23.8 23.8 29.6 29.6 29.6

(24.5) (24.5) (24.5) (30.0) (30.0) (30.0)

pH S 8.4 8.4 - 8.3 8.3 -

B 8.4 8.4 - 8.3 8.3 -

SS (mg/l) S 19* 114*

B 133* 119*

Salinity (ppt) S 34.3 35.0 34.6 38.0 38.2 38.1

B 34.6 34.8 34.7 38.2 38.2 38.2

DO (mg/l) S 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.3 6.3 6.3

B 6.4 6.7 6.6 6.3 6.3 6.3

BOD (mg/l) S 5.8* 3.2*

B 6.1* 2.5*

PO43 - S -P (µmol/l) 1.8 1.9 1.8 10.2 11.8 11.0

B 2.1 2.1 2.1 13.2 13.4 13.3

NO3- S -N (µmol/l) 14.5 17.4 15.9 13.8 13.8 13.8

B 14.8 15.0 14.9 13.7 15.0 14.3

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

B 0.8 1.3 1.1 0.1 0.3 0.2

NH4+ S -N (µmol/l) 0.3 0.5 0.4 2.0 3.0 2.5

B 0.4 0.8 0.6 2.0 2.8 2.4

PHc (µg/l) 1m 5.4* 3*




Parameter

Level January 2010 April 2010


Temperature (O C) S 23.5 26.0 25.2 25.8 30.1 25.9

B 23.0 25.8 24.4 26.2 30.1 28.4

( 22.0 ) ( 26.5) ( 24.2 ) (26.0) (32.5 ) (26.6 )

pH S 8.3 8.4 8.3 8.4

B 8.4 8.4 8.3 8.4

SS (mg/l) S 67 81 74 66 114 90

B 72 191 131 72 118 95

Salinity (ppt) S 33.6 35.0 34.6 34.7 35.7 35.2

B 34.3 34.6 34.6 35.0 35.7 35.3

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

B 2.2 7.4 5.2 6.1 6.7 6.4

BOD (mg/l) S 3.2 3.3 3.3 2.9 2.9 2.9

B 2.9 3.3 3.1 2.6 2.6 2.6

PO43 - -P (µmol/l) S 0.5 1.7 0.9 0.6 2.4 1.5

B 0.5 1.6 1.1 0.6 2.3 1.6

NO3- -N (µmol/l) S 11.2 23.2 18.2 12.3 17.9 13.2

B 10.2 22.2 17.1 12.3 16.2 14.2

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

B 0.1 1.3 0.5 ND 0.5 0.3

NH4+ -N (µmol/l) S 1.1 2.6 1.6 3.5 4.8 3.9

B 1.2 3.1 1.9 3.5 4.8 4.1

PHc (µg/l) 1m 8.1 11.0 9.5 9.0 9.6 9.3

Phenols (µg/l) S 1 11 6 23 46 35

Air temperature given in parenthesis


Parameter

Level January May 2010#

2010 Sample 1 Sample 2 Av

Temperature (O C) S 23.0* 26.5 26.5 26.5

M 23.5* - - -

B 23.3* 26.4 26.4 26.4

24.0* (26.8 ) (26.8 ) (26.8)

pH S 8.4* 8.4 8.4 8.4

M 8.4* - - -

B 8.4* 8.3 8.3 8.3

SS (mg/l) S 58* 3*

M 80* -

B 124* 98*

Salinity (ppt) S 34.8* 35 35 35

M 33.7* - - -

B 33.9* 35.2 35.2 35.2

DO (ml/l) S 6.4* 6.3 6.3 6.3

M 6.4* - - -

B 6.4* 6.3 6.3 6.3

BOD (mg/l) S - 2.9*

M - -

B - 2.6*

PO43 - -P (µmol/l) S 1.9* 12.1 12.4 12.3

M 2.1* - - -

B 2.2* 11.8 15.9 13.9

NO3- -N (µmol/l) S 18.3* 15.4 16.0 15.7

M 14.0* - - -

B 14.9* 13.2 13.5 13.3

NO2- -N (µmol/l) S 1.3* 0.3 0.3 0.3

M 1.7* - - -

B 1.7* 0.2 0.2 0.2

NH4+ -N (µmol/l) S 0.1* 4.2 6.2 5.2

M 0.3* - - -

B 0.4* 10.3 10.8 10.5

PHc (µg/l) 1m 4.3* 6*




Parameter

Level January 2010

May 2010

Sample Sample 2 Av

1

Temperature (O C) S 25.0* 32.5 32.5 32.5

M 25.0* - - -

B 25.0* 32.0 32.0 32.0

24.5* (34.0 ) (34.0) (34.0)

pH S 8.4* 8.1 8.1 8.1

M 8.4* - - -

B 8.4* 8.1 8.1 8.1

SS (mg/l) S - 59* - -

B - 97* -

Salinity (ppt) S 34.6* 36.4 36.6 36.5

M 34.6* - - -

B 34.6* 36.3 36.4 36.4

DO (mg/l) S 6.5* 6.4 6.4 6.4

M 5.2* - - -

B 6.5* 6.0 6.0 6.0

BOD (mg/l) S - 2.6* -

B - 2.8* -

PO43 - S -P (µmol/l) 0.9* 2.2 2.5 2.4

M 2.1* - - -

B 2.6* 2.4 2.6 2.5

NO3- S -N (µmol/l) 21.9* 17.7 17.7 17.7

M 20.9* - - -

B 19.6* 19.3 19.6 19.5

NO2- S -N (µmol/l) 0.5* 0.2 0.2 0.2

M 2.6* - - -

B 1.4* 0.1 0.2 0.2

NH4+ S -N (µmol/l) 4.5* 2.7 3.8 3.2

M 2.6* - - -

B 2.5* 3.0 4.2 3.6

PHc (µg/l) 1m 8.0* 5* -

Phenols (µg/l) S ND* 4* -

Air temperature given in parenthesis ND : Not Detected: * Single value


Parameter

Level January May 2010

Sample Sample

2010 Av

1 2

Temperature (O C) S 28.0* 31.0 31.0 31.0

M 28.0* - - -

B 28.1* 30.5 30.5 30.5

( 25.1)* (32.0) ( 32.0) (32.0)

pH S 8.4* 8.1 8.2 8.2

M 8.3* - - -

B 8.4* 8.1 8.1 8.1

SS (mg/l) S 32* 110* -

B 232* 126* -

Salinity (ppt) S 34.5* 36.1 36.4 36.3

M 33.7* - - -

B 33.7* 36.4 36.4 36.4

DO (mg/l) S 6.5* 6.4 6.4 6.4

M 3.6* - - -

B 6.5* 6.4 6.4 6.4

BOD (mg/l) S 3.5* 2.0* -

M 0.6* - -

B 3.5* 3.2* -

PO43 - S -P (µmol/l) 0.6* 1.6 1.6 1.6

M 1.4* - - -

B 2.0* 0.5 2.3 1.4

NO3- S -N (µmol/l) 15.5* 17.6 18.8 18.2

M 7.2* - - -

B 8.9* 19.4 19.8 19.6

NO2- S -N (µmol/l) 1.1* 0.1 0.1 0.1

M 2.1* - - -

B 1.3* 0.1 0.1 0.1

NH4+ S -N (µmol/l) 2.7* 2.7 5.8 4.2

M 2.6* - - -

B 2.6* 3.1 3.2 3.2

PHc (µg/l) 1m 6.7* 5* -

Phenols (µg/l) S ND* 1* -

Air temperature given in parenthesis

ND : Not Detected * Single value

Table 4.3.1 : Sediment quality in Ucheli Creek and Off Tarapur during January 2010

Station/Transect Sand Silt Clay Al Mn Fe Co Ni Cu Zn Hg Corg PHc*

(%) (%) (%) (%) (µg/g) (%) (µg/g) (µg/g) (µg/g) (µg/g) (µg/g) (%) (µg/g)

1 84.4 7.8 7.8 7.4 1180 6.0 65 114 73 224 - 0.3 5.5

2 - - - - - - - - - - - 0.2 1.9

3 69.2 24.8 6.0 12.9 1649 9.3 87 146 114 218 - 0.2 5.2

4 2.0 90.4 7.6 12.8 139 6.0 61 106 87 137 0.11 1.0 1.5

5 1.0 88.8 10.2 3.0 259 2.2 28 75 73 85 0.02 1.3 1.1

6 0.8 89.0 10.2 12.6 1110 6.0 63 126 114 134 0.06 1.3 1.4

7 2.0 90.0 8.0 15.4 1102 6.1 65 102 115 139 0.02 0.9 1.3

8 0.3 91.7 8.0 14.7 1145 6.2 64 103 115 151 0.01 0.7 3.6

9 0.3 92.3 7.4 18.1 992 5.9 66 101 108 148 0.06 1.1 6.6

II 98.4 0.2 1.4 10.2 1403 2.8 38 65 35 81 ND 0.2 7.6

III 85.6 13.2 1.2 4.5 308 1.2 46 95 15 55 ND 0.3 6.0

*Dry wt basis except PHc which is in wet wt.

.

Table 4.3.2 :Sediment quality in Ucheli Creek and off Tarapur during May-2010

Station/Transect Sand Silt Clay Al Mn Fe Co Ni Cu Zn Hg Corg P PHc*

(%) (%) (%) (%) (µg/g) (%) (µg/g) (µg/g) (µg/g) (µg/g) (µg/g) (%) (µg/g)

(µg/g)

1 98.0 1.2 0.8 3.9 1790 7.0 58 104 50 112 0.01 0.4 364 0.8

2 98.0 0.6 1.4 3.2 1394 5.6 47 86 53 103 0.01 0.4 695 0.6

3 57.4 34.0 8.6 6.3 1559 8.8 76 135 78 145 0.03 0.4 756 0.9

5 25.8 68.8 5.4 7.8 1189 7.5 79 134 114 149 0.04 0.9 155 0.2

6 0.1 92.9 7.0 5.3 634 3.4 45 90 97 85 0.03 1.4 75 0.3

7 0.2 93.6 6.2 7.0 804 5.0 58 102 116 96 0.08 1.2 745 0.3

8 0.1 91.7 8.2 9.9 971 6.2 77 118 118 110 0.04 1.4 540 0.2

9 0.2 93.4 6.4 7.8 795 5.5 64 104 110 97 0.05 1.2 841 0.2

I 95.4 2.4 2.2 3.4 1816 7.5 65 109 61 145 - 0.4 650 0.9

II 97.8 1.0 1.2 5.4 1261 4.6 54 97 54 90 - 0.2 751 0.9

III 94.8 3.0 2.2 7.0 1310 8.5 84 144 63 145 - 0.2 898 1.2

Dry wt basis except PHc which is in wet wt.

Table 4.4.1 : Bacterial counts (CFU/ml) in water of Ucheli Creek and coastal sea off Tarapur during January 2010

Type of bacteria Bacterial counts in water at station

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

TVC 26 x 10 6 x 102 10 x 102 12 x 102 8 x 102 6 x 102 6 x 102

2 TC 340 180 560 40 120 ND 1380

FC 260 150 400 ND 60 ND ND

ECLO 180 140 220 ND ND ND ND

SHLO 200 ND 180 ND ND ND ND

SLO ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

PKLO ND ND 60 ND ND ND ND

VLO 230 290 260 20 20 ND ND

VPLO 100 100 ND ND 20 ND ND

VCLO 130 190 260 20 ND ND 40

PALO ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

SFLO ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Table 4.4.2 : Bacterial counts (CFU/g) in sediment of Ucheli Creek and coastal sea off Tarapur during January 2010

Type of bacteria Bacterial counts in sediment at station

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

22 x 10 76 x 104 16 x

4 21x 10 23 x 104 13x 104 110x

4

TVC 10 104

4 TC 1100 10000 ND 520 600 10000 ND

FC 1900 ND ND 760 420 ND ND

ECLO 7000 ND ND ND ND ND ND

SHLO ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

SLO ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

PKLO 1000 ND ND ND ND ND ND

VLO 5200 ND ND ND 20 ND ND

VPLO ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

VCLO 5200 ND ND ND 20 ND ND

PALO ND ND ND 170 170 ND ND

SFLO ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Table 4.4.3 : Bacterial counts (CFU/ml) in water of Ucheli Creek and coastal sea off Tarapur during May 2010 Type of bacteria

Bacterial counts in water at station

TP1 TP2 TP3 TP4 TP5 TP6 TP7 TP8 TP9

Ebb Fld EBB FLD

TVC 180x 10 110x 102 60x 102 2 40x 10 2 16x 10 20x 102 12x 102 50x 102 2 90x 10 2 30x 10 16x 102

2 TC 520 200 120 400 ND 190 60 160 160 ND ND

FC 300 170 70 330 ND 130 10 40 50 ND ND

ECLO 170 80 90 170 ND 100 10 ND 200 ND ND

SHLO ND 100 10 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

SLO ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

PKLO 100 ND ND 60 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

VLO 1700 220 60 90 ND ND ND 200 ND ND ND

VPLO 100 ND ND 80 ND ND ND 20 ND ND ND

VCLO 1600 220 60 10 ND ND ND 180 ND ND ND

PALO 40 510 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

SFLO ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

ND- Below detectable level

Table 4.4.4 : Bacterial counts (CFU/g) in sediment of Ucheli Creek and coastal sea off Tarapur during May 2010 Types of Bacterial counts in sediment at station bacteria TP1 TP2 TP3 TP4 TP5 TP6 TP7 TP8 TP9 TVC 24x 10 10x 104 120x 104 90x 104 90x 104 8x 104 11x 104 21x 104 70x 104 4 TC 6000 5000 2800 ND ND ND ND ND ND FC 2100 1000 1100 ND ND ND ND ND ND ECLO 2000 3000 150 ND ND ND ND ND ND SHLO ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND SLO ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PKLO ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND VLO 1400 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND VPLO ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND VCLO 1400 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND PALO ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND SFLO ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Table 4.4.5: Range and average (parenthesis) of phytopigments in Ucheli Creek and coastal water off Tarapur during January 2010

Station/ Chlorophyll a Phaeophytin Ratio of Chl a to

(Date) (mg/m3 (mg/m) 3) Phaeo

S B S B S B

1 13.9-15.7 - 1.8-1.8 - 7.7-8.7 -

(09.01.10) (14.8) (1.8) (8.2)

2 10.8-17.1 - 1.0-2.4 - 5.1-14.3 -

(09.01.10) (13.9) (1.6) (9.4)

3 5.1-5.9 - 0.4-0.5 - 11.8-12.8 -

(08.01.10) (5.5) (0.5) (12.3)

4 1.2-2.0 1.1-1.3 0.5-1.7 0.7-1.1 1.1-4.0 1.2-1.6

(08.01.10) (1.6) (1.2) (1.1) (0.9) (2.6) (1.4)

5 1.0-1.9 0.9-0.9 0.9-1.2 0.8-0.8 1.1-1.6 1.1-1.1

(08.01.10) (1.5) (0.9) (1.1) (0.8) (1.4) (1.1)

6 1.0-3.5 0.8-2.2 0.5-0.9 0.5-0.9 1.1-5.0 1.1-2.4

(07.01.10) (1.8) (1.5) (0.7) (0.7) (2.9) (1.9)

7 1.0-1.0 - 0.6 0.8 1.7 1.1

(08.01.10) (1.0)

1.0* 0.6* 1.7*

8 1.9 1.0 0.5 1.6 3.8 0.6

(07.01.10)

2.1* 1.0* 2.1*

9 1.7 0.3 0.4 0.1 4.3 3.0

(07.01.10)

0.6* 0.1* 6.0*

* Value at mid depth

Table 4.4.6: Range and average (parenthesis) of phytopigments in Ucheli Creek and coastal


Station/ Chlorophyll a Phaeophytin Ratio of Chl a to (Date) (mg/m3) (mg/m3) Phaeo

S B S B S B 1 18.1-18.5 - 0.8-1.1 - 16.3-23.4 -

(19.05.10) (18.3) (0.9) (11.9) 2 1.5-8.1 1.6-2.1 0.4-1.9 0.7-0.8 0.9-4.7 2.3-3.2

(19.05.10) (3.8) (1.8) (1.1) (0.7) (3.4) (2.6) 3 0.1-1.2 1.0-1.4 0.5-1.6 0.7-1.7 0.2-0.8 0.8-1.5

(21.05.10) (1.1) (1.2) (1.0) (1.2) (0.5) (1.1) 4 1.1-1.3 1.0-1.1 0.3-0.3 0.3-0.3 3.8-4.5 3.0-3.8

(21.05.10) (1.2) (1.1) (0.3) (0.3) (4.1) (3.4) 5 0.7-1.1 1.1-1.2 0.5-0.7 0.8-0.9 1.6-1.7 1.3-1.4

(21.05.10) (0.9) (1.2) (0.6) (0.9) (1.7) (1.4) 6 0.9-2.2 0.8-3.2 0.3-0.6 0.3-0.5 1.8-8.0 1.4-10.7

(23.05.10) (1.6) (1.7) (0.4) (0.4) (4.0) (4.3) 7 2.0-2.2 1.4-1.7 0.8-2.2 0.7-1.4 1.0-2.5 1.0-1.0

(23.05.10) (2.1) (1.5) (1.5) (1.0) (1.8) (1.0) 8 1.7-1.8 0.9-1.0 0.6-0.9 0.9-1.2 2.0-2.8 0.8-0.9

(18.05.10) (1.8) (1.0) (0.7) (1.0) (2.4) (0.9) 9 0.8-1.1 0.3-0.4 0.9-1.2 0.1-1.0 0.9-0.9 0.4-3.6

(18.05.10) (0.9) (0.4) (1.0) (0.5) (0.9) (2)

Table 4.4.7: Phytopigment distribution in Ucheli Creek and coastal water off Tarapur during January 2010

Station/ Time/ Chlorophyll a Phaeophytin Ratio of Chl a to (Date) (Tide) (mg/m3) (mg/m3) Phaeo S B S B S B 1 1500 13.9 - 1.8 - 7.7 - (09.01.10) (Eb) 1515 15.7 - 1.8 - 8.7 - (Eb) 2 0630 14.3 - 1.0 - 14.3 - (09.01.10) (Eb) 0830 10.8 - 1.2 - 9.0 - (Eb) 1030 13.3 - 1.6 - 8.3 - (Eb) 1230 17.1 - 1.5 - 11.4 - (Eb) 1430 13.3 - 1.4 - 9.5 - (Fl) 1630 16.2 - 2.0 - 8.1 - (Fl) 1730 12.3 - 2.4 - 5.1 - (Fl) 3 1330 5.1 - 0.4 - 12.8 - (08.01.10) (Fl) 1345 5.9 - 0.5 - 11.8 - (Fl) 4 1100 2.0 1.3 0.5 1.1 4.0 1.2 (08.01.10) (Eb) 1115 1.2 1.1 1.7 0.7 1.1 1.6 (Eb) 5 1000 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 1.1 1.1 (08.01.10) (Eb) 1015 1.9 0.9 1.2 0.8 1.6 1.1 (Eb) 6 0730 1.0 0.8 0.9 0.7 1.1 1.1 (07.01.10) (Eb) 0930 1.8 0.9 0.6 0.8 3.0 1.1 (Eb) 1130 3.5 1.9 0.7 0.8 5.0 2.4 (Eb) 1330 1.6 1.1 0.6 0.5 2.7 2.2 (Fl) 1530 1.6 1.3 0.5 0.6 3.2 2.2 (Fl) 1630 1.0 2.2 0.8 0.9 1.3 2.4 (Fl) 7 0845 1.0 0.9 0.6 0.8 1.7 1.1 (08.01.10) (Eb) 1.0* - 0.6* - 1.7* - 8 1645 1.9 1.0 0.5 1.6 7.8 0.6 (07.01.10) (Fl) 2.1* - 1.0* - 2.1* - 9 1315 1.7 0.3 0.4 0.1 6.8 3.0 (07.01.10) (Fl) 0.6* - 0.1* - 6.0* -

* Value at mid depth

Table 4.4.8: Phytopigments distribution in Ucheli Creek and coastal water off Tarapur during May 2010

Station/ Time/ Chlorophyll a Phaeophytin Ratio of Chl a to (Date) (Tide) (mg/m3 ) (mg/m3 ) Phaeo

S B S B S B 1 1100 18.1 - 1.1 - 16.3 -

(19.05.10) (Eb) 1130 18.5 - 0.8 - 23.4 - (Eb)

2 0730 1.5 - 1.6 - 0.9 - (19.05.10) (Eb)

0930 5.1 - 1.2 - 4.3 - (Eb) 1130 8.1 - 1.9 - 4.3 - (Eb) 1330 6.6 - 1.4 - 4.7 - (Fl) 1530 2.1 2.1 0.6 0.7 3.4 3.2 (Fl) 1730 1.7 1.8 0.4 0.8 4.0 2.4 (Fl) 1830 1.6 1.6 0.6 0.7 2.5 2.3 (Eb)

3 0800 1.2 1.0 1.6 0.7 0.8 1.5 (21.05.10) (Fl)

0815 0.1 1.4 0.5 1.7 0.2 0.8 (Fl)

4 0900 1.1 1.1 0.3 0.3 3.8 3.8 (21.05.10) (Eb)

0930 1.3 1.0 0.3 0.3 4.5 3.0 (Eb)

5 1030 0.7 1.1 0.5 0.8 1.6 1.4 (21.05.10) (Eb)

1045 1.1 1.2 0.7 0.9 1.7 1.3 (Eb)

6 0730 1.3 1.8 0.5 0.5 2.5 4.0 (23.05.10) (Fl)

0930 1.4 1.6 0.5 0.3 3.1 4.8 (Fl) 1130 2.2 3.2 0.3 0.3 8.0 10.7 (Eb) 1330 2.0 1.9 0.3 0.5 6.1 3.6 (Eb) 1530 1.7 0.8 0.6 0.5 3.0 1.4 (Eb) 1730 0.9 0.9 0.5 0.5 1.8 1.8 (Fl)

7 0645 2.2 1.4 2.2 1.4 1.0 1.0 (23.05.10) (Eb)

0700 2.0 1.7 0.8 0.7 2.5 1.0 (Eb)

8 1230 1.8 1.0 0.9 1.2 2.0 0.8 (18.05.10) (Fl)

1245 1.7 0.9 0.6 0.9 2.8 0.9 (Fl)

9 0930 0.8 0.3 0.9 0.1 0.9 3.6 (18.05.10) (Fl)

0945 1.1 0.4 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.4 (Fl)

Table 4.4.9: Range and average (parenthesis) of phytoplankton cell count, total and major genera in Ucheli Creek and coastal water off Tarapur during January 2010

Station Cell count Total genera Major genera (Date) (nox103/l) (no) S B S B S B 1 561.6* - 11* - Thalassiosira, - (09.01.10) Peridinium, Prorocentrum, Biddulphia 2 592.0* - 8* - Thalassiosira, - (09.01.10) Peridinium, Cyclotella, Coscinodiscus 3 136.8* - 14* - Thalassiosira, - (08.01.10) Lithodesmium, Peridinium, Navicula 4 53.6* 26.8* 12* 11* Thalassiosira, Navicula, (08.01.10) Guinardia, Fragilaria, Peridinium, Thalassiosira, Fragilaria Coscinodiscus 5 18.4* 5.6* 11* 6* Coscinodiscus, Thalassiosira, (08.01.10) Oscillatoria, Navicula, Thalassiosira, Nitzschia, Nitzschia Oscillatoria 6 22.8-155.2 35.2-42.4 6-13 8-9 Leptocylindrus, Thalassiosira, (07.01.10) (89.0) (38.8) (10) (9) Guinardia, Coscinodiscus, Chaetoceros, Guinardia, Skeletonema Rhizosolenia 7 28.0* 10.4* 15* 10* Melosira, Cyclotella, (08.01.10) Cyclotella, Thalassiosira Thalassiosira Coscinodiscus Coscinodiscus Gyrosigma 37.6** - 13** -- Coscinodiscus - Cyclotella Thalassiosira Navicula 8 67.2* 12.8* 16* 7* Leptocylindrus Thalassiosira (07.01.10) Chaetoceros Cyclotella Guinardia Coscinodiscus Nitzschia Biddulphia 21.6** - 9** - Coscinodiscus - Thalassiosira Cyclotella Nitzschia 9 58.0* 4.8* 9* 4* Oscillatoria Thalassiosira (07.01.10) Thalassiosira Cyclotella Peridinium Pleurosigma Ceratium Coscinodiscus 8.0** - 5** - Cyclotella - Pleurosigma Bacteriastrum Coscinodiscus * Single value ** Single as well as value at mid depth

Table 4.4.10: Range and average (parenthesis) of phytoplankton cell count, total and major genera in Ucheli Creek and coastal water off Tarapur during May 2010

Station Cell count Total genera Major genera (Date) (nox103 /l) (no) S B S B S B 1 1156* - 14* - Thalassiosira baltika - (19.05.10) Navicula Peridinium Ntzschia 2 28.8-500 24* 13-13 9* Thalassiosira baltika Thalassiosira baltika (19.05.10) (264.4) (13) Navicula Cyclotella Peridinium Coscinodiscus Rhizosolenia Ditylium 3 12.8* - 8* - Thalassiosira gravida - (21.05.10) Coscinodiscus granii Biddulphia Navicula 4 20* 10.4* 9* 9* Thalassionema Thalassiosira baltika (21.05.10) Guinardia Navicula Navicula Fragilaria Nitzschia Rhizosolenia 5 13.6* 14.4* 8* 10* Navicula Navicula (21.05.10) Thalassiosira Nitzschia Rhizosolenia Coscinodiscus Biddulphia Thalassionema 6 20.8-40.8 22.4-29.6 9-15 10-10 Protoperidinum Navicula (23.05.10) (30.8) (26) (12) (10) Thalassiosira baltika Thalassiosira Cyclotella Skeletonema Biddulphia Nitzschia 7 20.8* 20* 13* 7* Rhizosolenia Navicula (23.05.10) Melosira Thalassiosira baltika Cyclotella Coscinodiscus Navicula Guinardia 8 26.4* 14.4* 8* 7* Thalassiosira baltika Thalassiosira baltika (18.05.10) Navicula Rhizosolenia Bacteriastrum Cyclotella Peridinium Navicula 9 18.4* 22.4* 10* 4* Thalassiosira baltika Thalassiosira baltika (18.05.10) Navicula Campyloneis Biddulphia Cyclotella Coscinodiscus Navicula * Single value

Table 4.4.11: Distribution of phytoplankton population in Ucheli Creek

and coastal water off Tarapur during January 2010

Station/ Time/ Cell count Total (Date) (Tide) (no x 103/lt) genera

S B S B 1 1500 561.6 - 11 -

(09.01.10) (Eb) 2 1330 592.0 - 8 -

(09.01.10) (Fl) 3 1330 136.8 - 14 -

(08.01.10) (Fl) 4 1100 53.6 26.8 12 11

(08.01.10) (Eb) 5 1000 30.8 5.6 11 6

(08.01.10) (Eb) 6 1130 92.5 35.2 13 9

(07.01.10) (Eb) 1630 22.78 42.4 6 8 (Fl)

7 0845 28.0 10.4 15 10 (08.01.10) (Eb)

37.6* - 13* - 8 1645 67.2 12.8 16 7

(07.01.10) (Fl) 21.6* - 9* -

9 1315 58.0 4.8 9 4 (07.01.10) (Fl)

8.0* - 5* - * Value at mid depth

Table 4.4.12: Distribution of phytoplankton population in Ucheli Creek

and coastal water off Tarapur during May 2010

Station/ Time/ Cell count Total (Date) (Tide) (no x 103/lt) genera

S B S B 1 1100 1156.0 - 14 -

(19.05.10) (Eb) 2 0930 500.0 - 13 -

(19.05.10) (Eb) 1730 28.8 24.0 13 9 (Fl)

3 0800 21.6 - 8 - (21.05.10) (Fl)

4 0900 20.0 10.4 9 9 (21.05.10) (Eb)

5 1030 13.6 14.4 8 10 (21.05.10) (Eb)

6 0930 40.8 29.6 15 10 (23.05.10) (Fl)

1600 20.8 22.4 9 10 (Eb)

7 0645 20.8 20.0 13 7 (23.05.10) (Eb)

8 1230 26.4 14.4 8 7 (18.05.10) (Fl)

9 0930 18.4 22.4 10 4 (18.05.10) (Fl)

Table 4.4.13: Composition (%) of phytoplankton population in Ucheli Creek and


Algal genera Station

%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Ankistrodesmus - - - - - - 1.1 - - 0.04

Bacillaria - - 1.2 1.0 - - - - - 0.13

Bacteriastrum 0.4 0.4 - 1.0 - - - 0.8 1.1 0.39

Biddulphia 1.0 - 1.2 1.7 - - 2.1 3.1 - 0.76

Campyloneis - - - - - 0.1 1.1 - - 0.11

Ceratium - - - 1.0 - - - - 5.6 0.26

Ceratoulina - - - - - 0.1 2.1 - - 0.13

Chaetoceros - - 1.8 - - 16.8 1.1 7.9 - 1.33

Coscinodiscus - 1.1 1.2 2.3 20.1 0.7 11.6 9.4 5.1 2.57

Cyclotella 0.7 1.2 0.6 1.1 - 0.9 23.2 9.4 9.6 3.26

Ditylium 0.1 - - - 3.3 0.3 - - - 0.18

Fragilaria - - 0.6 6.9 - 0.1 - 1.6 - 0.52

Gramatophora - - - 1.1 - - - - - 0.04

Guinardia 0.3 - - 4.6 - 15.1 2.1 7.9 - 1.67

Gyrosigma - - - 1.1 - - 5.3 0.8 - 0.33

Hemiaulus 0.3 - 2.3 - - - - - - 0.26

Leptocylindrus - - - - - 23.1 - 21.3 - 1.96

Lithodesmium 0.1 - 7.0 2.3 - - 1.1 - - 0.72

Melosira - - - - - - 10.5 - - 0.43

Navicula 0.1 0.5 3.5 5.7 6.7 1.3 5.3 0.8 2.8 1.71

Nitzschia - - 0.6 5.7 10.0 0.5 5.3 7.9 - 1.48

Oscillatoria - - 0.6 - 20.0 0.5 1.1 2.4 31.1 2.10

Peridinium 21.4 11.4 3.5 4.6 3.3 3.0 1.1 - 11.3 11.96

Planktanosperia - - - - - - - 0.8 - 0.04

Planktoniella - - - - 3.3 - - - - 0.07

Pleurosigma - 0.3 - 3.4 3.3 0.2 2.1 1.6 6.2 0.93

Prorocentrum 1.1 0.5 - - 3.3 - 3.2 - 2.8 0.83

Rhizosolenia - - - - 6.7 2.2 - 3.1 - 0.96

Skeletonema - - - - - 23.2 1.1 3.1 - 0.94

Spirulina - - - 1.1 - - - - - 0.07

Streptotheca - - 0.6 - - - - - - 0.04

Surirella - - - - - 0.7 - 0.8 - 0.31

Thalassionema - - - - - 0.1 - - - 0.04

Thalassiosira 74.5 84.5 75.3 55.7 10.0 9.7 17.4 16.5 24.4 61.93

Thalassiothrix - - - - 10.0 1.4 2.1 - - 1.34

Trichoneuium - - 1.2 - - - - - - 0.08

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Table 4.4.14: Composition (%) of phytoplankton population in Ucheli Creek and


Algal genera Station

%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Amphiprora - - - - - - 1.5 1.3 - 0.08

Amphora - - - - 3.6 - - - - 0.04

Asterionella - 0.5 - - - 0.9 - - 1.6 0.12

Bacteriastrum 2.4 2.1 6.3 2.1 2.2 2.6 3.0 8.9 2.09

Biddulphia 0.3 1.6 6.3 3.6 5.8 8.6 4.5 2.5 7.8 1.74

Campyloneis 0.3 - - - - 1.0 - - 6.3 0.43

Ceratium - 0.5 - - - 0.9 - - - 0.08

Coscinodiscus - 3.7 6.3 5.7 4.3 5.0 7.6 1.3 3.1 1.70

Cyclotella 0.3 9.9 6.3 7.9 - 5.5 10.6 7.6 7.8 2.59

Diploneis - 1.6 - - 3.6 - 3.0 - 1.6 0.58

Ditylium - 1.6 - - - 2.5 - - 1.6 0.27

Fragilaria 1.7 1.6 - 7.2 - - 1.5 2.5 - 1.58

Gramatophora - - - - - 1.9 1.5 - - 0.08

Guinardia 1.7 1.0 - 12.8 - 3.1 10.6 2.5 - 2.16

Leptocylindrus 0.7 - - - - - - 1.3 - 0.43

Lithodesmium 1.0 - - - - 1.9 - - - 0.62

Melosira - 0.5 - - - 2.5 9.1 - - 0.50

Navicula 14.6 15.7 18.8 15.7 33.8 14.0 10.6 15.2 17.2 15.58

Nitzschia 5.6 2.1 - 6.4 12.2 10.3 4.5 6.3 7.8 4.60

Peridinium 7.6 7.3 - 3.6 - 1.0 1.5 5.1 4.7 7.07

Planktoniella - - - - - 1.9 1.7 - - 0.08

Pleurosigma 0.7 0.9 - 7.9 2.2 1.9 - - - 0.81

Prorocentrum - - - - - 1.9 - - - 0.08

Protoperidinium - - - - - 7.0 - - - 0.39

Rhizosolenia 3.8 3.7 6.3 7.2 9.4 2.4 6.1 5.1 3.1 3.83

Skeletonema - 1.5 - - 3.6 4.1 - 17.7 - 1.08

Surirella - - 6.3 - - 1.8 - - - 0.12

Thalassionema - - - 8.6 4.2 1.7 3.0 - 1.6 0.43

Thalassiosira 59.3 44.5 43.4 11.3 15.1 19.7 19.7 22.7 34.2 50.72

Thalassiothrix - 1.8 - - - 2.9 - - 1.6 0.15

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Table 4.4.15: Range and average (parenthesis) of zooplankton in Ucheli Creek and coastal water off Tarapur during January 2010

Station Biomass Population Total groups Faunal group and (Date) (ml/100m3) (nox103/100m3) (no) (%)

1 0.2-0.3 1.9-3.2 10-12 Decapod larvae (43.1), (09.01.10) (0.3) (2.6) (11) foraminiferans (22.3),

copepods (18.6), amphipods (10.5), lamellibranchs (2.5), polychaetes (0.8), gastropods (0.7), isopods (0.7), medusae (0.7).

2 0.5-4.1 3.4-221.6 10-17 Decapod larvae (77.7), (09.01.10) (1.4) (57.6) (14) copepods (10.1),

lamellibranchs (5.7), foraminiferans (3.1), gastropods (2.0), amphipods (0.7), polychaetes (0.2), fish eggs (0.2), medusae (0.1), appendicularians (0.1).

3 0.3-1.2 9.1-10.8 18-18 Copepods (62.5), (08.01.10) (0.8) (9.9) (18) decapod larvae (21.0),

lamellibranchs (14.3), chaetognaths (0.5), gastropods (0.4), polychaetes (0.2), ostracods (0.2), medusae (0.2), foraminiferans (0.1), siphonophores (0.1), amphipods (0.1), fish larvae (0.1), Lucifer sp. (0.1), appendicularians (0.1).


lamellibranchs (3.1), medusae (2.9), chaetognaths (2.5), siphonophores (1.9), fish larvae (0.2), gastropods (0.2), Lucifer sp. (0.1), ostracods (0.1), polychaetes (0.1.

Table 4.4.15(Contd 2)



lamellibranchs (7.0), gastropods (4.8), chaetognaths (2.5), siphonophores (2.4), medusae (1.0), fish larvae (0.6), Lucifer sp. (0.2), ostracods (0.1), polychaetes (0.1).


lamellibranchs (6.6), chaetognaths (1.4), siphonophores (0.6), gastropods (0.5), Lucifer sp. (0.4), fish larvae (0.3), fish eggs (0.3), medusae (0.3), ostracods (0.1), polychaetes (0.1).


lamellibranchs (6.2), chaetognaths (1.4), siphonophores (0.7), fish larvae (0.7), medusae (0.3), fish eggs (0.2), gastropods (0.2), Lucifer sp. (0.1), polychaetes (0.1), stomatopods (0.1).

Table 4.4.15( Contd 3)

Station Biomass Population Total groups Faunal group and (Date) (ml/100m3 (nox10) 3/100m3) (no) (%)

8 1.2-1.8 43.6-47.2 16-19 Copepods (75.8), (07.01.10) (1.5) (45.4) (18) lamellibranchs (20.4),

chaetognaths (1.2), decapod larvae (0.8), siphonophores (0.5), gastropods (0.4), medusae (0.4), Lucifer sp. (0.1), ostracods (0.1), polychaetes (0.1), fish larvae (0.1).


chaetognaths (0.8), lamellibranchs (0.4), Lucifer sp. (0.2), siphonophores (0.2), gastropods (0.1), fish larvae (0.1).

Table 4.4.16: Range and average (parenthesis) of zooplankton in Ucheli Creek

and coastal water off Tarapur during May 2010


1 0.4-0.6 1.0-1.4 8-9 Copepods (70.1), (19.05.10) (0.5) (1.2) (9) polychaetes (15.7),

isopods (4.8), lamellibranchs (4.2), decapod larvae (1.8), foraminiferans (1.6), gastropods (1.1), amphipods (0.5), Lucifer sp. (0.1).

2 0.3-7.5 1.0-22.5 8-12 Lamellibranchs (33.5), (19.05.10) (2.3) (6.2) (10) foraminiferans (24.5),

copepods (23.7), decapod larvae (14.2), gastropods (2.7), polychaetes (1.1), cumaceans (0.1), isopods (0.1).

3 1.2-2.6 2.7-7.1 9-11 Copepods (45.1), (21.05.10) (1.9) (4.9) (10) Lucifer sp. (27.7),

decapod larvae (22.9), gastropods (1.9), lamellibranchs (1.1), mysids (0.5), cumaceans (0.3), fish larvae (0.3), foraminiferans (0.1).


Lucifer sp. (8.8), lamellibranchs (1.1), gastropods (1.0), fish larvae (0.4), amphipods (0.1), cumaceans (0.1), mysids (0.1), polychaetes (0.1).

Table 4.4.16 ( Contd 2)



fish larvae (2.3), lamellibranchs (1.0), chaetognaths (0.8), gastropods (0.4), Lucifer sp. (0.2), cumaceans (0.1).


decapod larvae (4.6), chaetognaths (2.6), fish larvae (0.3), fish eggs (0.1), medusae (0.1).


Lucifer sp. (0.8), fish larvae (0.6), decapod larvae (0.5), fish eggs (0.2).


decapod larvae (0.6), fish larvae (0.4), Lucifer sp. (0.3), gastropods (0.1), chaetognaths (0.1).

9 1.1-1.9 15.0-17.1 12-13 Copepods (94.5), (18.05.10) (1.5) (16.1) (13) decapod larvae(3.0),

Lucifer sp. (1.0), chaetognaths (0.8), fish larvae (0.3), lamellibranchs (0.3).

Table 4.4.17: Composition (%) of zooplankton distribution in Ucheli Creek and coastal water off Tarapur during January 2010

Station Time (h) Biomass Population Total groups Faunal group and (Date) /tide (ml/100m3 (nox10) 3/100m3) (no) (%)

1 1500 0.3 3.2 10 Decapod larvae (42.9), (09.01.10) (Eb) foraminiferans (26.9),

copepods (16.8), amphipods (8.4), lamellibranchs (1.8), polychaetes (1.0), gastropods (0.9), isopods (0.7), medusae (0.5). 1515 0.2 1.9 12 Decapod larvae (43.5), (Eb) copepods (21.2), foraminiferans (14.8), amphipods (13.8), lamellibranchs (3.7), medusae (1.0), isopods (0.8), polychaetes (0.6), gastropods (0.4), fish eggs (0.1).

2 0630 4.1 22.2 16 Decapod larvae (78.4), (09.01.10) (Eb) copepods (10.3),

lamellibranchs (7.4), gastropods (3.6), appendicularians (0.1), polychaetes (0.1). 0830 1.2 97.8 17 Decapod larvae (91.6), (Eb) copepods (4.9), lamellibranchs (3.2), polychaetes (0.1), gastropods (0.1). 1030 0.5 1.0 13 Decapod larvae (78.4), (Eb) copepods (11.6), lamellibranchs (8.2), foraminiferans (1.0), gastropods (0.4), medusae (0.1), amphipods (0.1), fish larvae (0.1). 1230 0.6 21.2 11 Foraminiferans (50.0), (Eb) decapod larvae (27.5), copepods (9.0), amphipods (8.5), polychaetes (2.5), medusae (2.0), gastropods (0.2), isopods (0.1), cumaceans (0.1).


Station Time (h) Biomass Population Total groups Faunal group and (Date) /tide (ml/100m3) (nox103/100m3) (no) (%)

1430 0.7 3.4 10 Copepods (48.5), (Eb) decapod larvae (18.6), amphipods (17.0), lamellibranchs (7.3), foraminiferans (6.5), isopods (0.8), gastropods (0.5), polychaetes (0.5), medusae (0.2), ostracods (0.1). 1630 1.4 27.1 14 Decapod larvae (77.8), (Fl) copepods (9.7), lamellibranchs (4.6), foraminiferans (4.2), fish eggs (2.6), gastropods (0.4), amphipods (0.2), appendicularians (0.2), polychaetes (0.1), isopods (0.1). 1730 1.0 21.7 15 Decapod larvae (66.3), (Fl) copepods (25.9), lamellibranchs (4.9), foraminiferans (1.3), gastropods (0.6), amphipods (0.5), appendicularians (0.1), polychaetes (0.1), cumaceans (0.1).

3 1330 1.2 10.8 18 Copepods (81.8), (08.01.10) (Fl) lamellibranchs (11.7),

decapod larvae (4.7), gastropods (0.5), chaetognaths (0.4), foraminiferans (0.2), medusae (0.1), fish larvae (0.1), siphonophores (0.1), amphipods (0.1), polychaetes (0.1), Lucifer sp. (0.1).



1345 0.3 9.1 18 Decapod larvae (40.4), (Fl) copepods (40.0), lamellibranchs (17.4), chaetognaths (0.5), ostracods (0.3), polychaetes (0.3), gastropods (0.3), medusae (0.2), foraminiferans (0.1), siphonophores (0.1), appendicularians (0.1), Lucifer sp. (0.1).

4 1100 2.7 31.1 14 Copepods (83.1), (08.01.10) (Eb) medusae (4.0),

lamellibranchs (4.0), chaetognaths (3.3), decapod larvae (2.9), siphonophores (2.0), gastropods (0.3), fish larvae (0.1), Lucifer sp. (0.1), ostracods (0.1). 1115 1.8 25.6 18 Copepods (87.1), (Eb) decapod larvae (5.2), lamellibranchs (2.1), medusae (1.7), siphonophores (1.6), chaetognaths (1.5), fish larvae (0.3), ostracods (0.1), Lucifer sp. (0.1), gastropods (0.1), polychaetes (0.1).

5 1000 1.9 45.1 21 Copepods (68.1), (08.01.10) (Eb) gastropods (10.4),

lamellibranchs (7.5), decapod larvae (5.5), chaetognaths (3.2), siphonophores (2.4), medusae (1.3), fish larvae (0.9), ostracods (0.2), polychaetes (0.1), Lucifer sp. (0.1), Acetes sp. (0.1).



1015 3.4 62.7 19 Copepods (76.9), (Eb) decapod larvae (9.6), lamellibranchs (6.7), siphonophores (2.3), chaetognaths (2.0), gastropods (0.8), medusae (0.7), fish larvae (0.3), Lucifer sp. (0.2), polychaetes (0.1), ostracods (0.1), ctenophores (0.1), mysids (0.1).

6 0730 2.4 16.4 14 Copepods (75.1), (07.01.10) (Eb) lamellibranchs (9.6),

decapod larvae (9.0), chaetognaths (1.8), siphonophores (1.2), medusae (1.0), Lucifer sp. (0.7), fish larvae (0.6), fish eggs (0.3), gastropods (0.3), ctenophores (0.1), polychaetes (0.1), stomatopods (0.1), foraminiferans (0.1). 0930 3.7 26.7 15 Copepods (80.9), (Eb) decapod larvae (13.0), Lucifer sp. (1.2), fish larvae (1.1), chaetognaths (1.0), lamellibranchs (0.9), siphonophores (0.8), gastropods (0.4), medusae (0.3), polychaetes (0.1), fish eggs (0.1), stomatopods (0.1). 1130 4.1 36.7 16 Copepods (69.7), (Eb) decapod larvae (25.3), chaetognaths (1.7), lamellibranchs (1.0), gastropods (0.8), siphonophores (0.4), fish larvae (0.3), Lucifer sp. (0.3), medusae (0.3), ctenophores (0.1).


Station Time (h) Biomass Population Total groups Major group (Date) /tide (ml/100m3 (nox10) 3/100m3) (no) (%)

1330 3.9 31.4 16 Copepods (81.5), (Fl) decapod larvae (15.0), chaetognaths (1.4), gastropods (0.7), lamellibranchs (0.4), fish larvae (0.3), Lucifer sp. (0.2), siphonophores (0.2), medusae (0.1), ostracods (0.1). 1530 3.9 28.2 16 Copepods (68.9), (Fl) decapod larvae (18.8), lamellibranchs (5.9), chaetognaths (2.3), fish larvae (1.7), gastropods (0.8), medusae (0.6), Lucifer sp. (0.4), siphonophores (0.3), ostracods (0.1), polychaetes (0.1). 1630 2.7 47.4 19 Copepods (79.8), (Fl) lamellibranchs (17.7), siphonophores (0.8), chaetognaths (0.8), decapod larvae (0.4), gastropods (0.1), ostracods (0.1), medusae (0.1), Lucifer sp. (0.1).

7 0845 2.6 35.4 20 Copepods (71.0), (08.01.10) (Eb) decapod larvae (16.4),

lamellibranchs (9.3), chaetognaths (1.3), siphonophores (0.6), fish larvae (0.3), medusae (0.2), fish eggs (0.2), gastropods (0.2), Lucifer sp. (0.1), stomatopods (0.1), ostracods (0.1), ctenophores (0.1).



0915 2.3 36.4 18 Copepods (57.5), (Eb) decapod larvae (34.6), lamellibranchs (3.2), chaetognaths (1.4), fish larvae (1.1), siphonophores (0.8), medusae (0.3), fish eggs (0.2), gastropods (0.2), polychaetes (0.2), Lucifer sp. (0.1), ostracods (0.1), ctenophores (0.1), foraminiferans (0.1), others (0.1). 1645 1.8 47.2 19 Copepods (81.7),

8 (Fl) lamellibranchs (14.5), (07.01.10) chaetognaths (1.5),

decapod larvae (0.8), medusae (0.5), siphonophores (0.3), gastropods (0.2), polychaetes (0.1), Lucifer sp. (0.1), ostracods (0.1), fish larvae (0.1), others (0.1). 1700 1.2 43.6 16 Copepods (69.5), (Fl) lamellibranchs (26.9), chaetognaths (0.9), decapod larvae (0.8), gastropods (0.6), siphonophores (0.6), medusae (0.3), fish larvae (0.1), ostracods (0.1), Lucifer sp. (0.1), others (0.1).

9 1315 5.6 146.3 17 Copepods (94.7), (07.01.10) (Fl) decapod larvae (3.4),

chaetognaths (0.7), lamellibranchs (0.4), Lucifer sp. (0.4), gastropods (0.2), fish larvae (0.1), others (0.1). 1330 5.2 11.3 18 Copepods (96.6), (Fl) decapod larvae (1.2), chaetognaths (0.9), siphonophores (0.5), lamellibranchs (0.3), fish larvae (0.1), medusae (0.1), Lucifer sp. (0.1), polychaetes (0.1), others (0.1).

Table 4.4.18: Composition (%) of zooplankton distribution in Ucheli Creek and coastal water off Tarapur during May 2010


1 1100 0.4 1.0 8 Copepods (52.0), (19.05.10) (Eb) polychaetes (24.9),

lamellibranchs (9.4), isopods (4.2), foraminiferans (3.5), decapod larvae (3.1), gastropods (1.9), amphipods (1.0). 1130 0.6 1.4 9 Copepods (83.2), (Eb) polychaetes (8.9), isopods (5.2), decapod larvae (0.9), gastropods (0.6), lamellibranchs (0.6), foraminiferans (0.3), Lucifer sp. (0.2), amphipods (0.1).

2 0730 2.7 22.5 8 Lamellibranchs (63.9), (19.05.10) (Eb) decapod larvae (20.6),

copepods (15.0), foraminiferans (0.3), gastropods (0.1). 0930 2.2 13.5 10 foraminiferans (72.1), (Eb) copepods (18.2), decapod larvae (5.3), polychaetes (3.2), gastropods (0.8), isopods (0.2), lamellibranchs (0.1). 1030 0.4 1.9 10 Copepods (68.8), (Eb) gastropods (26.0), decapod larvae (1.9), lamellibranchs (0.7), foraminiferans (0.7), cumaceans (0.7), isopods (0.5), amphipods (0.4), polychaetes (0.2), marine insects (0.1). 1130 0.7 1.0 9 Copepods (86.5), (Fl) gastropods (5.4), lamellibranchs (3.4), isopods (1.3), decapod larvae (1.1), foraminiferans (0.9), polychaetes (0.6), cumaceans (0.4), amphipods (0.4).

Table 4.4.18 (Contd 2)


1330 2.2 1.5 9 Copepods (43.5), (Fl) gastropods (27.3), foraminiferans (24.3), decapod larvae (3.1), lamellibranchs (0.8), fish larvae (0.4), isopods (0.3), cumaceans (0.2), polychaetes (0.1), 1530 7.5 1.4 12 Copepods (51.5), (Fl) foraminiferans (28.5), decapod larvae (13.1), gastropods (3.1), lamellibranchs (1.6), isopods (0.7), polychaetes (0.5), mysids (0.4), cumaceans (0.3), amphipods (0.1), Lucifer sp. (0.1), fish larvae (0.1). 1730 0.3 1.3 11 Copepods (57.0), (Fl) decapod larvae (36.1), lamellibranchs (1.7), polychaetes (1.5), gastropods (1.4), foraminiferans (1.1), Lucifer sp. (0.7), isopods (0.2), amphipods (0.1), mysids (0.1), fish eggs (0.1).

3 0800 1.2 2.7 9 Lucifer sp. (43.7), (21.05.10) (Fl) copepods (37.7),

decapod larvae (11.5), gastropods (2.7), lamellibranchs (2.6), fish larvae (0.8), cumaceans (0.6), foraminiferans (0.2), mysids (0.2).



0830 2.6 7.1 11 Copepods (47.9), (Fl) decapod larvae (27.2), Lucifer sp. (21.6), gastropods (1.6), mysids (0.7), lamellibranchs (0.5), cumaceans (0.2), fish larvae (0.1), isopods (0.1).

4 0900 0.5 1.2 11 Copepods (54.3), (21.05.10) (Eb) decapod larvae (28.2),

Lucifer sp. (13.1), gastropods (1.6), lamellibranchs (1.4), fish larvae (0.5), cumaceans (0.3), mysids (0.3), medusae (0.1), chaetognaths (0.1), amphipods (0.1). 0915 0.6 2.0 9 Copepods (74.9), (Eb) decapod larvae (16.8), Lucifer sp. (6.1), lamellibranchs (1.0), gastropods (0.6), fish larvae (0.3), polychaetes (0.1), amphipods (0.1), isopods (0.1).

5 1030 2.3 8.3 13 Copepods (94.4), (21.05.10) (Eb) fish larvae (2.4),

lamellibranchs (1.1), chaetognaths (0.8), decapod larvae (0.6), gastropods (0.4), Lucifer sp. (0.1), cumaceans (0.1). 1045 0.8 3.7 10 Copepods (85.3), (Eb) decapod larvae (9.7), fish larvae (1.8), lamellibranchs (1.1), chaetognaths (0.8), Lucifer sp. (0.6), gastropods (0.4), medusae (0.1), cumaceans (0.1).



6 0730 0.4 16.8 10 Lamellibranchs (67.9), (22.05.10) (Fl) copepods (17.3),

decapod larvae (14.1), fish larvae (0.3), fish eggs (0.2), Lucifer sp. (0.1). 0930 0.4 10.3 10 Lamellibranchs (60.9), (Fl) copepods (29.1), decapod larvae (9.1), fish larvae (0.4), fish eggs (0.3), Lucifer sp. (0.1). 1130 0.7 20.5 9 Lamellibranchs (56.4), (Eb) copepods (39.6), decapod larvae (3.5), fish larvae (0.2), fish eggs (0.1), chaetognaths (0.1). 1330 2.0 36.7 16 Copepods (85.6), (Eb) lamellibranchs (8.4), chaetognaths (2.8) decapod larvae (2.7), fish larvae (0.3), medusae (0.1). 1530 3.0 37.3 14 Copepods (85.8), (Eb) lamellibranchs (6.4), chaetognaths (5.4), decapod larvae (1.6), fish larvae (0.5), medusae (0.1), gastropods (0.1). 1730 0.3 4.5 16 Copepods (85.5), (Fl) lamellibranchs (6.6), chaetognaths (3.5), decapod larvae (2.9), gastropods (0.6), medusae (0.2), fish larvae (0.2) mysids (0.1), polychaetes (0.1), siphonophores (0.1), ostracods (0.1).



7 0645 1.1 8.4 6 copepods (79.2), (22.05.10) (Eb) lamellibranchs (16.9),

Lucifer sp. (1.4), decapod larvae (1.3), fish larvae (1.0), fish eggs (0.2). 0700 0.8 21.2 8 Copepods (55.7), (Eb) lamellibranchs (42.7), Lucifer sp. (0.5), fish larvae (0.5), decapod larvae (0.3), fish eggs (0.2).

8 1230 1.7 43.3 10 Copepods (60.6), (18.05.10) (Fl) lamellibranchs (38.2),

decapod larvae (0.5), Lucifer sp. (0.4), fish larvae (0.1), chaetognaths (0.1). 1245 3.7 40.8 11 Copepods (73.0), (Fl) lamellibranchs (24.8), decapod larvae (0.8), fish larvae (0.8), gastropods (0.3), Lucifer sp. (0.1), chaetognaths (0.1).

9 0930 1.1 15.0 12 copepods (96.0), (18.05.10) (Fl) decapod larvae (1.8),

Lucifer sp. (1.0), chaetognaths (0.6), fish larvae (0.2), lamellibranchs (0.2). 0945 1.9 17.1 13 copepods (93.2), (Fl) decapod larvae (3.9), chaetognaths (1.0), Lucifer sp. (1.0), fish larvae (0.4), lamellibranchs (0.3), medusae (0.1).

Table 4.4.19: Composition (%) of zooplankton population in Ucheli Creek and


Faunal group Station

%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Foraminiferans 22.28 3.09 0.13 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.05 <0.1 <0.1 2.85

Siphonophores - <0.1 0.10 1.85 2.31 0.60 0.72 0.46 0.22 0.70

Medusae 0.68 0.12 0.16 2.95 0.73 0.32 0.27 0.36 <0.1 0.62

Ctenophores - - <0.1 <0.1 0.05 <0.1 0.05 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Chaetognaths - <0.1 0.50 2.46 2.07 1.39 1.38 1.22 0.81 1.09

Polychaetes 0.83 0.21 0.18 0.10 0.07 0.06 0.11 0.08 <0.1 0.19

Ostracods - <0.1 0.16 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.09 <0.1 0.06

Copepods 18.60 10.11 62.50 84.92 76.91 76.19 64.19 75.80 95.60 62.78

Cumaceans <0.1 <0.1 - - - <0.1 - - - <0.1

Amphipods 10.50 0.65 0.08 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 1.25

Mysids - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.05 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - <0.1

Lucifer sp - <0.1 0.06 0.11 0.16 0.41 0.14 0.09 0.24 0.13

Decapods 43.13 77.72 21.00 3.93 6.77 13.10 25.65 0.84 2.50 21.63

Stomatopods <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.06 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Cephalopods - - - - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1

Gastropods 0.72 2.04 0.39 0.21 4.10 0.50 0.20 0.39 0.12 0.96

Lamellibranchs 2.51 5.71 14.30 3.10 6.06 6.61 6.20 20.40 0.41 7.26

Appendiculariae - 0.07 0.06 - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.01

Salps - - - - - <0.1 - - - <0.1

Fish Eggs <0.1 0.19 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.32 0.21 <0.1 <0.1 0.09

Fish Larvae - <0.1 0.07 0.23 0.48 0.34 0.68 0.06 0.10 0.22

Isopods 0.72 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.09

Prawn Larvae - - - - <0.1 - - - - <0.1

Marine Insects <0.1 <0.1 - - - - - - - <0.1

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Table 4.4.20: Composition (%) of zooplankton population in Ucheli Creek and



%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Foraminiferans 1.6 24.5 0.1 - - <0.1 - - <0.1 2.9

Siphonophores - - - - - <0.1 - - - <0.1

Medusae - - - - <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Ctenophores - - - - - <0.1 - - - <0.1

Chaetognaths - - - <0.1 0.8 2.6 - 0.1 0.8 0.5

Polychaetes 15.7 1.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - - <0.1 1.9

Ostracods - - - - - <0.1 - - <0.1 <0.1

Copepods 70.1 23.7 45.1 67.1 91.7 64.4 62.4 66.7 94.5 65.1

Cumaceans - 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 - - - - 0.1

Amphipods 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - <0.1 <0.1 0.1

Mysids - <0.1 0.5 0.1 - <0.1 - <0.1 - 0.1

Lucifer sp 0.1 <0.1 27.7 8.8 0.2 <0.1 0.8 0.3 1.0 4.3

Decapods 1.8 14.2 22.9 21.1 3.4 4.6 0.5 0.6 3.0 8.0

Stomatopods - - - - <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Cephalopods - - - - - <0.1 - - <0.1 <0.1

Gastropods 1.1 2.7 1.9 1.0 0.4 <0.1 - 0.1 <0.1 0.8

Lamellibranchs 4.2 33.5 1.1 1.1 1.0 27.8 35.4 31.7 0.3 15.1

Appendiculariae - - - - <0.1 <0.1 - - - <0.1

Fish Eggs - - - - - 0.1 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Fish Larvae - - 0.3 0.4 2.3 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.5

Isopods 4.8 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 - <0.1 - - <0.1 0.6

Marine Insects - <0.1 - - - <0.1 - - - <0.1

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Table 4.4.21: Abundance (no/100m3

January 2010

) and incidence (%) of Decapod larvae, Acetes sp. and Lucifer sp. in Ucheli Creek and coastal water off Tarapur area during

Station Decapod larvae Acetes sp. Lucifer sp. (no/100 m3 ) Incidence (no/100 m3) Incidence (no/100 m3) Incidence (%) (%) (%) 1 846-1384 100 - - - - (1115) 2 638-173784 100 - - 0-9 28.57 (44728) (2) 3 509-3683 100 - - 5-6 100 (2096) (6) 4 900-1325 100 - - 22-39 100 (1113) (31) 5 2463-6025 100 0-21 50 42-153 100 (4244) (11) (98) 6 214-9265 100 - - 32-331 100 (4078) (129) 7 5809-12599 100 - - 49-53 100 (9204) (51) 8 360-400 100 - - 30-54 100 (380) (42) 9 1398-4942 100 - - 64-559 100 (3170) (312) (Average in parenthesis)


) and incidence (%) of Decapod larvae, Acetes sp. and Lucifer sp. in Ucheli Creek and coastal water off Tarapur during May 2010

Station Decapod larvae Acetes sp. Lucifer sp. (no/100 m3 ) Incidence (no/100 m3) Incidence (no/100 m3) Incidence (%) (%) (%) 1 12-32 100 - - 0-2 50 (22) (1) 2 12-4639 100 - - 0-9 57.14 (874) (3) 3 309-1926 100 - - 1176-1529 100 (1118) (1353) 4 328-336 100 - - 120-156 100 (332) (138) 5 51-358 100 - - 7-24 100 (204) (16) 6 130-2379 100 - - 0-21 83.33 (961) (6) 7 52-108 100 - - 116-121 100 (80) (119) 8 194-331 100 - - 32-178 100 (263) (105) 9 276-673 100 - - 147-177 100 (475) (162) (Average in parenthesis)


) and incidence (%) of Fish eggs and Fish larvae in Ucheli Creek and coastal water off Tarapur during January 2010

Station Fish eggs Fish larvae Counts Incidence Counts Incidence (no/100 m3 ) (%) (no/100 m3) (%) 1 0-2 50 - - (1) 2 0-716 71.43 0-6 66.66 (110) (2) 3 2-4 100 2-12 100 (3) (7) 4 0-2 50 45-88 100 (1) (67) 5 7-17 100 172-425 100 (12) (299) 6 3-492 100 0-300 83.33 (99) (107) 7 63-91 100 107-384 100 (77) (246) 8 4-6 100 25-33 100 (5) (29) 9 17-27 100 77-186 100 (22) (132)

(Average in parenthesis)


) and incidence (%) of Fish eggs and Fish larvae in Ucheli Creek and coastal water off Tarapur during May 2010

Station Fish eggs Fish larvae Counts Incidence Counts Incidence (no/100 m3) (%) (no/100 m3) (%)

1 - - - -

2 - - 2-6 42.86 (2)

3 - - 9-22 100 (15)

4 - - 5-6 100 (6)

5 - - 68-203 100 (136)

6 5-30 66.66 8-172 100 (15) (69)

7 16-34 100 86-97 100 (25) (92)

8 8-11 100 50-325 100 (9) (187)

9 1-3 100 35-61 100 (2) (48)


Table 4.4.25: Range and average (parenthesis) of intertidal macrobenthos in Ucheli Creek and coastal water off Tarapur during January 2010

Transect Biomass Population Faunal group Major group

(g/m2; wet wt.) (no/m2) (no) I 0.16-67.06 175-8475 2-8 Polychaetes,

(14.8) (4042) (6) oligochaetes, amphipods.

II 0.006-14.58 125-2250 2-5 Oligochaetes, (3.02) (1054) (4) copepods, amphipods.

III 0.003-28.08 25-1225 1-6 Polychaetes, (8.24) (592) (3) gastropods, brachyurans.

Overall 0.003-67.06 25-8475 1-8 Polychaetes, Average (8.7) (1896) (4) oligochaetes,

amphipods, copepods.

(Average in parenthesis) Table 4.4.26: Range and average (parenthesis) of intertidal macrobenthos in Ucheli

Creek and coastal water off Tarapur during May 2010 Transect Biomass Population Faunal group Major group (g/m2; wet wt.) (no/m2) (no) I 0.1-21 25-3375 1-4 Polychaetes, (8.05) (1232) (2) brachyurans. II 0-1.8 0-575 0-2 Brachyurans, (1.7) (222) (2) tanaids. III 0-3.3 0-5350 0-3 Brachyurans, (22.6) (802) (2) gastropods. Overall 0-21 0-5350 0-4 Polychaetes, Average (10.8) (752) (2) gastropods.


Table 4.4.27: Intertidal macrobenthos in Ucheli Creek and coastal water off Tarapur during January 2010

Transect Biomass Population Faunal Major groups (level) (g/m²; wet wt.) (no/m²) groups (no) I 0.16-67.06 175-6725 2-6 Polychaetes, (HWL) (23.71) (2751) (5) oligochaetes. I 3.56-9.36 3450-8475 5-8 Polychaetes, (LWL) (5.90) (5333) (6) amphipods, isopods. II 0.06-14.58 125-2050 2-4 oligochaetes, (HWL) (5.2) (1020) (3) copepods, polychaetes. II 0.14-2.96 425-2250 3-5 Oligochaetes, (LWL) (0.85) (1087) (4) copepods, amphipods. III 0.005-15.55 50-500 1-3 Polychaetes, (HWL) (7.02) (257) (3) Brachyurans. III 2.98-28.08 500-1225 2-6 Gastropods, (MWL) (12.08) (901) (4) polychaetes III 0.003-12.73 25-1225 1-5 Polychaetes, (LWL) (5.64) (619) (3) amphipods. Overall 0.003-67.06 25-8475 1-8 Polychaetes, Average (8.7) (1896) (4) oligochaetes. (Average in parenthesis)

Table 4.4.28: Intertidal macrobenthos in Ucheli Creek and coastal water off Tarapur

during May 2010 Transect Biomass Population Faunal Major groups (g/m²; wet wt.) (no/m²) groups (no) I 0.1-16 25-125 1-2 Brachyurans. (HWL) (4.2) (76) (2) I 6.6-21 1700-3375 1-4 Polychaetes. (LWL) (11.9) (2388) (2) II 0-6.2 0-225 0-2 Brachyurans, (HWL) (2.7) (106) (1) Tanaids. II <0.01-1.8 25-575 1-2 Polychaetes. (LWL) (0.7) (338) (2) III 0-4.5 0-275 0-2 Brachyurans. (HWL) (2.1) (112) (1) III 7.5-125.3 200-5350 2-3 Gastropods. (MWL) (64.5) (2250) (3) III <0.01-3.3 25-75 1-2 Polychaetes, (LWL) (1.0) (44) (2) Gastropods. Overall 0-125.3 0-5350 0-4 Polychaetes, Average (10.8) (752) (2) Gastropods. (Average in parenthesis)

Table 4.4.29: Composition (%) of intertidal macrobenthos in Ucheli Creek and coastal water off Tarapur during January 2010

Faunal group Transect I Transect II Transect III

Av

HWL LWL HWL LWL HWL MWL LWL

Phylum Cnidaria

Hydrozoans 0.9 0.7 0.5

Anthozoans 0.9 0.05

Phylum Aschelminthes

Nematodes 1.9 0.6 0.2

Phylum Annelida

Polychaetes 77.9 67.9 11.1 9.7 48.6 38.2 68.7 57.5

Oligochaetes 16.4 0.5 45.4 38.5 0.7 0.9 11.4

Phylum Mollusca

Pelecypods 0.9 0.2 0.3

Gastropods 49.3 3.7

Phylum Arthropoda

Copepods 31.9 28.2 5.3

Cumaceans 0.2 7.5 3.1 0.9

Tanaids 0.5 2.8 3 5.1 1.7

Isopods 0.7 11.3 3.1 5.3

Amphipods 0.5 15.7 14.4 9.7 5.5 23.3 10.2

Mysids

Insect larvae 2.3 0.05

Decapod larvae 0.2 0.1 0.1

Brachyurans 2.9 0.4 6.8 1.2 34.2 4.2 2.6

Anomurans 1.4 0.1

Table 4.4.30: Composition (%) of intertidal macrobenthos in Ucheli Creek and coastal water off Tarapur during May 2010

Faunal group Transect I Transect II Transect III Av

HWL LWL HWL LWL HWL MWL LWL

Phylum Mollusca

Gastropods 5.7 93.6 29.4 39.9

Amphineura 0.3 0.1

Phylum Annelida

Polychaetes 16.6 93.2 5.7 92.6 0.3 56.8 48.7

Phylum Arthropoda

Brachyurans 84 76.4 94.6 5.6 7.1

Tanaids 12.2 3.8 5.4 0.6 0.8

Isopods 5.2 2.4

Anomurans 1.3 13.6 0.7

Cumaceans 3.8 0.2

Table 4.4.31: Range and average (parenthesis) of subtidal macrobenthos in Ucheli Creek and coastal water off Tarapur during January 2010

Station Biomass Population Faunal group Major group (g/m2; wet wt.) (no/ m2) (no) 1 15.0-46.33 9925-14975 7-8 Tanaids, (26.51) (12182) (7) Polychaetes. 2 3.47-8.88 2150-3750 4-5 Polychaetes, (5.41) (3014) (4) amphipods, isopods. 3 0.56-1.60 225-750 4-6 Polychaetes, (1.26) (413) (5) amphipods, pelecypods, tanaids. 4 0.0003-2.26 25-200 1-5 Polychaetes, (0.62) (144) (3) tanaids. 5 0.003-0.27 25-300 1-3 Decapod larvae, (0.09) (144) (2) polychaetes. 6 0.005-0.52 25-125 1-3 Polychaetes, (0.15) (81) (2) gastropods. 7 0.002-0.13 25-150 1-2 Polychaetes. (0.05) (81) (1) 8 0.08-0.65 75-3275 3-6 Decapod larvae, (0.24) (1170) (4) amphipods. 9 0.005-0.19 25-175 1-2 Polychaetes. (0.07) (100) (1) Overall 0.0003-46.33 25-14975 1-8 Tanaids, Average (3.82) (1925) (3) polychaetes. (Average in parenthesis)

Table 4.4.32: Range and average (parenthesis) of subtidal macrobenthos in Ucheli Creek and coastal water off Tarapur during May 2010

Station Biomass Population Faunal group Major group (g/m2; wet wt.) (no/ m2) (no) 1 8.5-33.4 1175-2975 1-2 Polychaetes. (18.9) (2206) (2) 2 2.3-22.8 725-1025 1-3 Polychaetes. (7.7) (881) (2) 3 0-6.7 0-75 0-2 Anomurans, (1.7) (32) (1) cumaceans. 4 ROCKY BOTTOM 5 0.07-0.28 125-500 2-4 Polychaetes, (0.14) (282) (3) Tanaids. 6 0.01-0.08 25-150 1-2 Polychaetes. (0.1) (69) (1) 7 0-1.8 0-25 0-2 Polychaetes, (0.5) (44) (1) gastropods. 8 0.01-0.18 25-125 1-2 Polychaetes. (0.07) (75) (1) 9 0-0.075 0-125 0-1 Polychaetes. (0.01) (31) (1) Overall 0-33.4 0-2975 0-4 Polychaetes. Average (3.64) (453) (2) (Average in parenthesis)

Table 4.4.33: Composition (%) of subtidal macrobenthic fauna in Ucheli Creek and coastal water off Tarapur during January 2010


AVG

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Phylum Protozoa

Foraminiferans 1.1 19 0.2

Phylum Cnidaria

Anthozoans 1.5 0.03

Phylum Rhyncocoela

Nemertine 0.05 1.5 0.07

Phylum Aschelminthes

Nematodes 4.2 0.03

Phylum Annelida

Polychaetes 25.7 71.3 51.5 56.3 26.4 69.1 92.6 1.6 75 33.7

Oligochaetes 2.5 1.3 2

Phylum Mollusca

Pelecypods 0.5 0.8 10.6 4.2 4.2 7.4 0.9

Gastropods 0.05 1.5 16 0.5 0.2

Phylum Arthropoda

Ostracod 9 4.2 0.5 0.14

Copepods

Cirripedia(Barnacle) 2.7 1.9

Cumaceans 0.05 4.6 0.5 0.2

Tanaids 57.2 1.3 10.6 17.4 6 40.8

Isopods 1.6 12.4 3.3

Amphipods 9.2 12.9 16.7 3.3 9.3

Mysids 4.2 1.6 0.1

Insect larvae 0.4 0.3

Insects 7.4 0.03

Decapod larvae 1.5 9 61.1 7.4 88.7 6.6

Brachyurans 0.1 0.08

Phylum Chordata

Fish larvae 2.1 0.1

Table 4.4.34: Composition (%) of subtidal macrobenthic fauna in Ucheli Creek and coastal water off Tarapur during May 2010

Faunal group

Station AVG

1 2 3 4# 5 6 7 8 9

Phylum Mollusca

Gastropods 19 29.5 0.5

Pelecypods 6.7 0.5

Phylum Annelida

Polychaetes 95.5 91.5 68.8 91.3 56.8 92 100 90.9

Phylum Arthropoda

Isopods 4.5 6.6 4.3

Tanaids 15.6 8.7 8 1.5

Peneaid 0.7 0.2

Cumaceans 40.6 0.4

Amphipods 8.9 13.6 0.9

Anomurans 1.5 40.6 0.7

(Average in parenthesis) # sampling unsuccessful

Table 4.4.35: Marine fish production of Maharashtra and contribution of Thane District during 1980-2010

Contribution of

Year Quantity Thane District

(tons)

tons (%)

1980-81 374160 - -

1981-82 288865 - -

1982-83 282256 - -

1983-84 310059 - -

1984-85 360222 - -

1985-86 377352 - -

1986-87 332407 - -

1987-88 293571 - -

1988-89 345848 - -

1989-90 402592 53300 13.2

1990-91 342323 45000 13.1

1991-92 344536 87800 25.5

1992-93 419581 104300 24.9

1993-94 353926 97400 27.5

1994-95 332934 79500 23.9

1995-96 423985 114400 27.0

1996-97 480954 102900 21.4

1997-98 453712 126700 27.9

1998-99 394883 89800 22.7

1990-00 397901 90200 22.7

2000-01 402769 73000 18.1

2001-02 414268 95300 23.0

2002-03 386680 63000 16.3

2003-04 420077 59700 14.2

2004-05 417854 53215 12.7

2005-06 445343 123591 27.8

2006-07 464090 107747 23.2

2007-08 419815 100479 24.0

2008-09 395963 109016 27.5

2009-10 415767 121514 29.2

Table 4.4.36: District-wise annual marine fish production (t) of Maharashtra State during 2004-2010

Marine fish production (t)

District

2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

Thane 53215 123591 107747 100479 109016 121514

(12.74) (27.75) (23.2) (24.0) (27.5) (29.2)

Greater 169871 160594 181888 184679 162681 159560

Mumbai (40.65) (36.06) (39.2) (43.9) (41.1) (38.4)

Raigad 40255 40044 39505 32488 33273 39435

(9.63) (8.99) (8.5) (7.7) (8.4) (9.5)

Ratnagiri 133597 105069 109055 85099 72318 75122

(31.97) (23.59) (23.5) (20.3) (18.3) (18.1)

Sindhudurg 20916 16045 25895 17070 18675 20136

(5.01) (3.61) (5.6) (4.1) (4.7) (4.8)

Total 417854 445343 464090 419815 395963 415767

(100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0)

Table 4.4.37: Zone-wise annual marine fish production (t) of Thane

district during 2004-2010

Name of Marine fish production (t)

2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

Zone

Dahanu 15087 28941 21594 13993 22971 28732

(28.3) (23.4) (20.0) (13.9) (21.1) (23.6)

Pophran 12736 35164 20211 19441 22363 24278

Dandi (23.9) (28.5) (18.8) (19.3) (20.5) (20.0)

Satpati 6800 11857 8445 7785 10834 7705

(12.8) (9.6) (7.8) (7.7) (9.9) (6.3)

Kelwa 3703 8391 9498 11106 11344 5936

(7.0) (6.8) (8.8) (11.1) (10.4) (4.9)

Basseien 6738 18571 26371 22452 20876 22069

(12.7) (15.0) (24.5) (22.4) (19.2) (18.2)

Uttan 8151 20667 21628 25702 20628 32794

(15.3) (16.7) (20.1) (25.6) (18.9) (27.0)

Total 53215 123591 107747 100479 109016 121514

(100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0)

Table 4.4.38: Species wise marine fish production (t) of Maharashtra state during 2005-2010

Species Marine fish production (t)

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

Elasmobranchs 6492 8669 8935 7236 5888

Eels 1714 3141 2864 1906 1351

Cat Fishes 10618 12452 12206 12681 13576

Chirocentrus 2623 2520 2800 2957 3531

Sardines 24614 38829 25690 22211 19933

Hilsa IIisha 1009 1014 1139 1378 1918

Anchoviella 24997 21988 21391 19843 18173

Thrissocles 3912 4535 5901 5592 6242

Other Clupeida 2848 1762 1642 1146 1581

Harpodon Neherus 76011 66587 59254 63163 64640

Perches 375 711 461 242 182

Red snapper 863 1109 958 874 390

Polynomids 460 900 1183 1031 808

Sciaenids 7053 8403 7094 5627 6453

Otolithes sp. 23404 22128 16687 14947 16636

Ribbon Fish 34073 48709 30254 32336 29649

Caranx 7358 8359 6339 10375 5672

Pomfret 9545 7207 10011 6725 10055

Black Pomfret 1465 1878 1697 1894 1770

Mackeral 11682 15823 25065 13179 21317

Seer Fish 7630 10263 8655 7980 8188

Tunnies 4042 5076 5476 3964 2872

Bregamceros macellendi 2382 986 408 476 440

Soles 6219 7025 5300 3590 4694

Carangids small 3445 3315 4459 3740 4169

Leognathus 693 1412 671 886 1792

Upenoides 10097 12294 11400 10714 10619

Penaeid Prawns 47039 42519 45352 45321 40488

Non-Penaeid Prawns 68498 51801 53869 58440 71925

Lobsters 628 771 555 471 611

Lactarius 1405 1871 2256 2769 3859

Cephalopoda 13612 16421 13665 10501 14780

Miscellaneous 28537 33612 26178 21768 21565

Total 445343 464090 419815 395963 415767

Table 4.4.39: Species wise marine fish production (t) of Thane District during 2005-2010


2004-05 2005-06 2006- 2007- 2008-09 2009-10

07 08

Elasmobranchs 844 1937 2226 2269 2668 2349

Eels 139 672 820 352 387 531

Cat Fishes 1190 2992 3032 3155 3713 3483

Chirocentrus 182 887 901 793 1558 2228

Sardines 82 315 398 199 60 174

Hilsa IIisha 99 541 302 240 673 1154

Anchoviella 3210 8834 6796 8096 8321 7604

Thrissocles 764 2415 2536 3906 3683 4427

Other Clupeida ---- 17 13 55 ---- 2

Harpodon 32100 66138 50639 42147 48568 54063

Neherus

Perches 31 26 153 85 49 23

Red snapper ---- ---- 34 6 1 2

Polynomids 284 273 113 172 182 313

Sciaenids 2134 3068 2743 2057 2158 3269

Otolithes sp. 349 1930 1656 1865 1677 1900

Ribbon Fish 438 1905 3432 2097 2704 1952

Caranx 248 764 685 700 506 333

Pomfret 1608 7132 3924 7265 4664 8199

Black Pomfret 17 197 290 189 356 111

Mackeral 5 66 7 160 253 437

Seer Fish 771 2431 2507 1948 2780 3327

Tunnies 93 731 348 146 164 244

Bregamceros ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 1

macellendi

Soles 14 118 123 8 2

Penaeid Prawns 1342 4798 4216 3663 5490 2742

Non-Penaeid 5988 12855 16286 15781 15867 19359

Prawns

Lobsters 65 338 349 241 97 390

Lactarius ---- 2 13 ---- ---- 12

Cephalopoda 55 15 122 80 131 652

Miscellaneous 1163 2312 3088 2689 2298 2231

Total 53215 123591 107747 100479 109016 121514

Table 4.4.40: Species wise marine fish production of Popharan Dandi during 2005-2010


2004-05 2005-06 2006- 2007- 2008- 2009-

07 08 09 10

Elasmobranchs 6 97 529 682 391 317

Eels ---- 74 193 ---- 7 49

Cat Fishes 87 146 621 194 357 269

Chirocentrus ---- 3 5 ---- 25 15

Sardines ---- 14 ---- ---- ---- ----

Hilsa IIisha ---- ---- ---- ---- 22 ----

Anchoviella 770 2588 1830 1938 2329 1907

Thrissocles 1 113 252 474 420 301

Other Clupeida ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----

Harpodon 10560 26431 10430 9571 12842 15863

Neherus

Polynomids 9 14 ---- ---- 21 70

Sciaenids 225 276 4 84 106 678

Otolithes sp. 6 511 535 603 278 315

Ribbon Fish 14 257 566 469 358 274

Caranx ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 9

Pomfret 1 710 191 589 725 514

Seer Fish ---- 20 ---- 4 12 20

Soles ---- ---- 32 12 ---- ----

Penaeid Prawns 318 1052 705 871 647 68

Non-Penaeid 542 2371 3565 3135 3391 3309

Prawns

Lobsters ---- 21 16 86 13 18

Lactarius ---- ---- 13 ---- ---- ----

Cephalopoda ---- ---- 16 2 27

Miscellaneous 197 456 724 713 417 255

Total 12736 35164 20211 19441 22363 24278

Table 4.4.41: Species wise, quarterly marine fish production of Thane District during 2009-2010

Variety Marine fish production (t)

Q.I Q.II Q.III Q.IV Total

Elasmobranchs 585 276 941 547 2349

Eels 51 48 325 107 531

Cat Fishes 1342 344 768 1029 3483

Chirocentrus 392 311 1330 195 2228

Sardines 37 5 109 23 174

Hilsa IIisha 224 163 667 100 1154

Anchoviella 1154 686 3872 1892 7604

Thrissocles 690 548 2331 858 4427

Other Clupeida ---- ---- ---- 2 2


Perches 7 3 12 1 23

Red snapper ---- ---- 2 ---- 2

Polynomids 124 61 31 97 313

Sciaenids 735 730 801 1003 3269

Otolithes sp. 314 222 1149 215 1900

Ribbon Fish 500 243 1015 194 1952

Caranx 16 75 128 114 333

Pomfret 1567 2393 3405 834 8199

Black Pomfret 24 26 56 5 111

Mackeral 90 55 204 88 437

Seer Fish 672 625 1561 469 3327

Tunnies 51 48 87 58 244

Bregamceros ---- ---- ---- 1 1

macellendi

Soles 1 1 ---- ---- 2

Prawns 800 161 1225 556 2742

Shrimps 4046 634 7233 7446 19359

Lobsters ---- 27 284 79 390

Lactarius ---- 12 ---- ---- 12

Cephalopoda 14 5 628 5 652

Miscellaneous 570 305 863 493 2231

Total 21147 12253 64813 23301 121514

Table 4.4.42: Species wise, quarterly marine fish production of

Popharan Dandi 2009-2010

Variety Marine fish production (t)

Q.I

Q.II

Q.III Q.IV Total

Elasmobranchs 58 20 168 71 317

Eels ---- ---- 49 ---- 49

Cat Fishes 158 1 53 57 269

Chirocentrus ---- 10 ---- 5 15

Anchoviella 49 182 1186 490 1907

Thrissocles 27 23 187 64 301

Other Clupeida ---- ---- ---- ---- ----


Polynomids 63 3 4 ---- 70

Sciaenids 134 19 87 438 678

Otolithes sp. 4 14 262 35 315

Ribbon Fish 9 12 211 42 274

Caranx --- ---- 9 ---- 9

Pomfret 345 91 74 4 514

Seer Fish ---- 13 7 ---- 20

Prawns ---- 4 36 28 68

Shrimps 113 88 1283 1825 3309

Lobsters ---- ---- 18 ---- 18

Lactarius ---- ---- ----- ---- ----

Cephalopoda ---- ---- 23 4 27

Miscellaneous 44 48 138 25 255

Total 1055 1192 17893 4138 24278

Table 4.4.43: Village-wise boat operation in Phopharan- Dandi area

Name of Mechanized Non- Fish Production (t)

Centre boats mechanized

2007-08

2008-09 2009-10

Boats

(2008-09)

Ghivali 25 ---- 2524 2975 3491

Ucheli/Dandi 126 8 8835 10990 11516

Navapur 27 6 1852 1935 2721

Murbe 67 10 6230 6463 6550

Table 4.4.44 : Fish catch (species, effort and yield ) at different tidal conditions during field studies in Pophran-Dandi (January 2010)

Zone Time (h)/ Total Total Common species

(Date) (Tide) catch Species

(kg/h) (no)

Creek 1700 7.2 F – 8 Fishes: Coilia dussumieri, Thryssa mystax, Trichiurus lepturus, Ilisha

(09.01.2010) (Fl) P – 2 megaloptera, Arius sp.,Cynoglossus arel, Gobidae sp.,Johnius glaucus

O – 1 Prawns: Solenocera crassicornis, Acetes sp.

Others: Charybdis annulata

1200 1.0 F – 5 Fishes: Coilia dussumieri, Johnius glaucus, Arius sp., Ilisha megaloptera,

(Eb) P – 1 Prawns: Gobidaesp.

O – 1 Others: Acetes sp.

Charybdis annulata

Off Dandi 1600 10.3 F – 15 Fishes: Coilia dussumieri, Thryssa mystax, Harpadon nehereus, Trichiurus

(07.01.2010) (Fl) P – 4 lepturus,Osteogeneiosus militaris,Johnieops vogleri, Johnius glaucus,

O – 3 Ilisha megaloptera, Cynoglossus arel, Pampus argenteus, Arius

caelatus., Thryssa sp.,Arius sp.Hilsa sp.,ScolidonSp.

Prawns: Exhippolysmata ensirostris,Parapenaeopsis sculptilis, Solenocera

crassicornis,Exopalaemon styliferus

Others: Charybdis annulata ,Matutra planipes,Squilla

Off Dandi 1100 9.2 F – 12 Fishes: Johnius glaucus, Coilia dussumieri, Harpadon nehereus, Arius caelatus.

(Eb) P – 3 Johnieops vogleri,, Ilisha megaloptera, Thryssa mystax, Trichiurus

O – 2 lepturus, Cynoglossus arel, Arius jella,Sardinella sp,Pampus sp

Prawns: Parapenaeopsis stylifera. Solenocera crassicornis, Acetes sp.

Others: Charybdis annulata,Squilla.

Table 4.4.45 : Fish catch (species, effort and yield ) at different tidal conditions during field studies in Pophran-Dandi (May 2010)

Zone Time (h)/ Total Total Common species

(Date) (Tide) catch Species

(kg/h) (no)

Creek 1700 5.5 F – 8 Fishes: Johnius glaucus, Coilia dussumieri, Thryssa vitrirostris, Cynoglossus

(19.05.2010) (Fl) P – 3 arel, Arius sp., Ilisha megaloptera, Gobidae sp.,

O – 2 Prawns: Parapenaeopsis stylifera,Solenocera crassicornis, Acetes sp.

Others: Charybdis lucifera,

1000 2.0 F – 4 Fishes: Coilia dussumieri, Johnius glaucus, Arius sp., Gobidae sp.

(Eb) P – 1 Prawns: Acetes sp.

O – 1 Others: Squilla

Off Dandi 0900 8.7 F – 14 Fishes: Harpadon nehereus, Coilia dussumieri, Arius caelatus, Ilisha

(23.05.2010) (Fl) P – 3 megaloptera, Cynoglossus arel, Trichiurus lepturus, Thryssa mystax,

O – 3 Pampus argeneus,Scoliodon laticaudus, Arius sp., Johnius

belangerii,Lepturacanthus savala,Gobidae sp,Johnius glaucus.

Prawns: Exhippolysmata ensirostris,Parapenaeopsis stylifera, Solenocera

Others: crassicornis,

Charybdis annulata,Sepia,Squilla.

1500 8.9 F – 11 Fishes: Coilia dussumieri, Johnius glaucus. Harpadon nehereus, Cynoglossus

(Eb) P – 2 arel, Thryssa mystax, Ilisha megaloptera, Lepturacanthus savala,Arius

O – 3 caelatus, Thryssa sp., Johnius vogleri, ,Gobidae sp,

Prawns: Parapenaeopsis stylifera, Solenocera crassicornis,

Others: Charybdis annulata, Charybdis lucifera ,Squilla.

Figure 1.1.1 District Map of Palghar

Figure 1.1.2: Present CETP Outfall at off Tarapur

Figure 1.3.2: Station location map

Figure 2.1.1 Layout plan of MIDC Tarapur

Figure 5.1.1: Terrain features of Study domain-Zoomed

Figure 5.1.2: Computational grid of Study domain at proposed outfall -Zoomed

Figure 5.1.3: Contours of computed bathy depths (m) of global domain

Figure 5.1.4: Contours of computed bathy depths (m) of study domain- Zoomed

Figure 5.1.5: Boundary tide

Figure 5.1.6: Tide calibration at Satpati

Figure 5.1.7: Comparison of observed and modeled currents of March 2011

Figure 5.1.8: Simulated currents (at 13:00:00 hrs of 17/03/2016) during neap tide-( Flood)

Figure 5.1.9: Simulated currents ( at 20:30:00 hrs of 17/03/2016) during neap tide-( Ebb)

Figure 5.1.10: Simulated currents (at 06:45:00 hrs of 11/03/2016) during spring tide -(Flood)

Figure 5.1.11: Simulated currents (at 12:45:00 hrs of 11/03/2016) during spring tide-( Ebb)

Figure 5.2.1: Observation points around the discharge location

Figure 5.2.2: BOD dispersion (at 03:30:00 hrs of 11/03/2016) during spring tide-(LLW)

Figure 5.2.3: BOD dispersion (at 06:45:00 hrs of 11/03/2016) during spring tide-(Peak Flood)

Figure 5.2.4: BOD dispersion (at 12:45:00 hrs of 11/03/2016) during spring tide-(Peak Ebb)

Figure 5.2.5(a): Variation of excess BOD at different location around DP

Figure 5.2.5(b): Variation of excess BOD at different location around DP

Figure 5.2.6: BOD dispersion (at 03:30:00 hrs of 11/03/2016) during spring tide-(LLW)

Figure 5.2.7: BOD dispersion (at 06:45:00 hrs of 11/03/2016) during spring tide-(Peak Flood)

Figure 5.2.8: BOD dispersion (at 12:45:00 hrs of 11/03/2016) during spring tide-(Peak Ebb)

Figure 5.2.9: (a) Variation of excess BOD at different location around DP

Figure 5.2.9: (b) Variation of excess BOD at different location around DP

Figure 5.4.1: Proposed DP Location

Plate 4.4.1: A view of mangroves strands dominated by Avicennia marina along the intertidal area upstream of station 2 in Ucheli Creek.

Plate 4.4.2: Mangroves cover along the intertidal area south west of Tarapur Power Station

marine eia in association with the revised outfall...

Documents