4. descriptionoftheenvironment - gujarat …gpcb.gov.in/pdf/nhai_jetpur_somnath_eia_part_2.pdfnear...

4-1

4. DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTThe present chapter describes the physical, biological, social and cultural environment along the project corridor and its immediate influence area.

4.1 STUDY REGION DELINEATION

The study region has been divided into:

Corridor of Direct Impact: This includes the area adjacent to the existing road, roughly 30m on either side of the existing centerline. Minor alignment changes, widening, curve improvements, etc. is expected to directly affect the land and assets located in this region.

Corridor of Indirect Impact: This includes the region within 15km offset of the road centerline on either side.

4.2 COLLECTION & COLLATION OF DATA ON ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL FEATURES

The data on the various environmental and social components relevant to decisions about project location, design and operation have been assembled from:

Primary Survey of the corridor, and Secondary information collected from various organizations, institutes, publications, etc.

4.2.1 Primary Data Collection

The primary data collection along the project corridor has been carried out with respect to the following features:

Environmental Features: Environmental features that may be directly impacted are trees along the roadside, water bodies like ponds, wells and water crossings, agriculture lands, plantations, ecological sensitive areas like coastal areas, forests. Apart from these, community resources like educational institutions; hospitals etc. have also been recorded.

Social Features: Social features that may be affected include loss of land and structures within the proposed RoW. The type of structures i.e. residential, commercial, mixed uses (residential cum commercial), public, educational institutions and health facilities have been recorded. The structures have been further classified as kutcha, semi-pucca and pucca. To ascertain the impact on land and structures, the RoW limits are being verified on the field.

Cultural Component: The cultural properties along the project corridor including shrines, temples, mosques, churches and graveyards have been listed.

Almost all site specific information has been collected through primary survey.

4-2

Final Feasibility ReportPreparation of Feasibility– cum-Preliminary Design for 4/6 Laning of Jetpur-Somnath section of NH 8D, Package No: NHAI/DBFOII/DPR/02

VOLUME III: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

4.2.2 Secondary Data Collection

Secondary data collection has been collected primarily on regional environmental and social features from various Government Agencies/Institutions and through literature reviews. Such information includes Hydrogeological Atlas of Gujarat, Central Ground Water Board. Information on climate available from IMD data, information on soil & geology has been obtained from available maps (from National Atlas & Thematic Mapping Organisation -NATMO) and also from respective websites.

For Socio-economic profile of the influence area along the project corridor, the database for analysis has been taken from Census of India (1991 & 2001) and other secondary sources.

4.3 LAND ENVIRONMENT

4.3.1 Physiography and Terrain

The project region is located in Rajkot and Junagadh district in Gujarat. Rajkot district is situated in the central part of the Saurashtra Peninsula. It lies between the parallels of latitude 21°31’ and 23°10’ and the meridians of longitude 70°1’ and 71°30’. Rajkot district is a part of Kathiawar Peninsula and is sub-divided into five sub-micro regions such as Maliya Coastal Plain, Rajkot Alluvial Plain, Rajkot Stony –Waste Land, Bhadar River Plain and Vinchhiya Upland. The project corridor falls in the Bhadar River plain. The eastern part of the region is above 200 metres while the western part has an altitude of 100 metres above M.S.L. The general slope of the region is towards south-west. The district is bounded on the west by Junagadh district.

Junagadh district is situated at Saurashtra region and form part of the Kathiawar peninsula. It lies between the parallels of latitude 20°41’ and 21°41’ and the meridians of longitude 69°56’ and 71°13’. It is sub divided into four sub-micro regions namely, Junagadh coastal plain, Bhadar, Ojat and Harna river plain, Girnar hills and Junagadh Gir forested Region. The elevation of the region falling in Mangrol, Manavadar, Keshod, Malia and Patan-Veraval talukas varies between 5 metres and 52 metres above the M.S.L in the Junagadh Coastal Plain. Some parts of Mangrol, Manavadar, Keshod, Malia, Patan-Veraval, Vanthali, Junagadh talukas falls in the Bhadar, Ojat and Harna River Plain which elevates between 45 metres and 241 metres above M.S.L.

The proposed alignment traverses through fertile plain terrain along its entire length. The physiography of the project area is depicted in Figure 4-1.

4-3



PHYSIOGRAPHY

5 0 5 10 15

Kilometre

Sea

Less than 10

More than 600

300 - 600

150 - 300

80 - 150

20 - 80

10 - 20

(in metres per km)

Below 1010 - 5050 - 100100 - 150150 - 300300 - 450450 - 600

(in metres)

Above 600

ELEVATION

Above 600

(in metres)

450 - 600300 - 450150 - 300100 - 15050 - 10010 - 50Below 10

SLOPE

10 - 20

20 - 80

80 - 150

150 - 300

300 - 600

More than 600

Less than 10

Sea

Somnath

Jetpur

MaliaMiyana

Wankaner

Padadhari

Rajkot

Lodhika

Kotda Sangani

Jasdan

GondalJam Kandorna

Upleta

Dhoraji

Junagarh

Ranavav

Porbandar

Manavadar Vanthli

Maliya

Mangrol

Talalachorwad

Una

Morbi

Project Corridor

Buffer Zone (Upto 15 km from corridor)

Taluka boundry

Arabian Sea

Figure 4-1: Physiography of the Project Area

4.3.2 Geology

The project region in the Rajkot district falls in Bhadar River Plain. The geological structure of this region is composed of Deccan Trap and Trap Dykes. The geological structure of Junagadh district consists mainly of Alluvium, blown sand in the Junagadh Coastal Plain. Small tracts of Dwarka beds, Nari and Gaj Series, Sub-Nummulitic Beds, Deccan Trap and Inter-Trappean Beds are also observed in this region. It has Oethids-Aquepts and Orthents-Ochrepts types of soil cover.

4-4



BauxiteCalcite

Gypsum

Limestone

ChalkOchreSalt

Lead / Zinc / CopperSandstone & Other building stone

Nepheline Syenite

Recent: Alluvium, Blown Sand & Miliolite Sand.

ROCKS

Sub-Recent Pleistocene: Limestones, Sandstones, Shales and Laterite & Bauxite

Upper Cretaceous to Palaeocene: Diorites, BasicIntrusives.Deccan Trap: Felsite, Rhyolite & Pitchstone Flows,Basalts Andesite, Trachyte Flows.

Holocene Deposits

Mesozolcs

MINERALS

AgateQuartz and silica sand

Fire Clay

GEOLOGY

Upleta

Ranavav

Porbandar

Manavadar

Mangrol

Somnath

Jetpur

Wankaner

Padadhari

Rajkot

Lodhika

Kotda Sangani

Jasdan

GondalJam Kandorna

Dhoraji

JunagarhVanthli

Maliya

Talalachorwad

Una

5 0 5 10 15

Kilometre

Sea

Morbi

Taluka boundry

MaliaMiyana


Project Corridor

Arabian Sea

Figure 4-2: Geology of the Project Area

4.3.3 Soil

The geographical formation of Saurashtra region is of volcanic origin, hence the soils of Rajkot district are derived from trap rock. The land of the project region that falls in Rajkot district is mainly divided into two types:

Salty land is mainly the type of land in Morbi and Maliya and black, loamy soil is mainly present in Jetpur and Dhoraji talukas. The soil of the project region that falls in Jetpur taluka is red soil. In Junagadh district, the soils are formed partly from sedimentary rocks and partly from igneous rocks. They are calcareous in nature, rich in potassium content but deficient in nitrogen and humus. The main types of soils in the district are black, medium black, alluvial soil in the low-lying area, calcareous and brackish. The black soil is found in parts of Vanthali, Manavdar and Keshod talukas excepting the Ghed area. Most of the villages in Junagadh, Malia talukas have medium black soil. The alluvial soil in the low-lying area, known as ‘Ghed’, comprises parts of Keshod, Mangrol and remains inundated during monsoon. The brackish soils are mostly found near the coastal belt of Mangrol, Malia and Veraval talukas and represent the degeneration of

4-5



coastal alluvial soil due to ingress of sea water. The different soil types in the project region have been depicted in Figure 4-3.

Salorthids

Ustorthents

Ustipsamments

Ustochrepts

Ustropepts

Chromusterts

Orthids

Orthents

SOIL TYPES:

SOIL

Sea

5 0 5 10 15

Kilometre

Somnath

MaliaMiyana

Wankaner

Padadhari Rajkot

Lodhika

Kotda Sangani

Jasdan

GondalJam Kandorna

Upleta

Dhoraji

Jetpur

Junagarh

Ranavav

Porbandar

Manavadar

Vanthli

Maliya

MangrolTalala

chorwad

Una

Morbi

Taluka boundry


Project Corridor

Arabian Sea

Figure 4-3: Soil of the Project Area

4.3.4 Land Use

The geographical area in the two districts can be divided into two major classes: arable land: that includes net sown area, fallow land and non-arable land: that includes forest, area not available for cultivation and other uncultivable land excluding current fallow. The proposed alignment runs through two districts, major portion being through Junagadh. The alignment mainly runs through agriculture land; water bodies in the form of ponds, rivers and canals also fall within the proposed Right of Way (ROW). At places, the alignment also runs through a few settlements and structures.

4-6



The land use on either side of the cross roads is mostly agricultural, only at certain locations structures are being affected. The locations where comparatively more number of structures are present along the alignment are – Jetpur, Junagadh, Vanthali and Somnath. The land use of the project corridor is shown in Figure 4-4.

Arable Land Irrigated

Open Scrub

Unculturable Waste Land

Forest

Urban Settlements

Water Bodies

Arable Land Unirrigated

Somnath

Jetpur

MaliaMiyana

Wankaner

Padadhari Rajkot

Lodhika

Kotda Sangani

Jasdan

GondalJam Kandorna

Upleta

Dhoraji

Junagarh

Ranavav

Manavadar Vanthli

Maliya

Mangrol

Talalachorwad

Una

MorbiLANDUSE

Sea

Project Corridor

5 0 5 10 15

Kilometre

Porbandar

Taluka boundry


Arabian Sea

Figure 4-4: Land use of the Project Corridor

The total landuse of the project corridor within the RoW is broadly classified and presented in Table 4-1.

Table 4-1: Landuse in the Project RoW S. No. Land Use % To Total

1 Agriculture 38.3 2 Commercial 15.6 3 Residential 13.8 4 Mixed 32.3

Total 100

4-7



4.4 AIR ENVIRONMENT

4.4.1 Climate and Meteorology

The climate of both the districts is characterized by a hot summer and dryness in the non-rainy seasons. The cold season from December to February is followed by the hot season from March to May. The south-west monsoon season is from June to September and is followed by the post monsoon season from October to November.

Meteorological data has been collected from three meteorological stations of the IMD nearest to the site – Rajkot, Keshod (Junagadh) and Veraval (Junagadh).

Temperature: The mean maximum temperature in the region reaches 41 C in the warmer months from March to June. During the winter season, in December-January, the minimum temperature dips to 12.2 C and the maximum temperature remains around 29 C. The lowest average monthly minimum temperature is around 21 C. The average monthly maximum and minimum temperature of the project region as recorded during the period 2007 by the Indian Meteorological Department (IMD) is presented in Table 4-2 below.

Table 4-2: Temperature of the Project Region Months Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.

RajkotMean Minimum 12.2 16.9 18.8 22.9 25.9 27 25.6 24.5 24.2 21.7 19.2 14.1 Mean Maximum 28.9 32.1 35.6 41.1 41.2 38.1 33.3 31.6 33.2 35.8 34.4 29.7 KeshodMean Minimum 12.3 16.2 18.2 22.7 25.9 - - - - - - - Mean Maximum 29.3 32 35.5 38.6 36.6 - - - - - - - Veraval Mean Minimum 16.2 18.9 20.4 24 27 27.7 27.7 25.7 25.9 23.1 21.1 18 Mean Maximum 30 30.1 32.9 33.5 32.3 33.3 31.6 29.9 31.3 34.2 33.4 30.7 Based on IMD Observation from 2007

Humidity: The maximum humidity is observed to be 92.00 percent (Veraval) during the month of August. The minimum humidity is recorded at Rajkot (26 percent) during the month of January. The monthly variation of humidity in the project region is presented in Table 4-3 below.

Table 4-3: Monthly Average Humidity of the Project Region (in %)

Time (hrs) Months

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Rajkot 8.30 55 79 62 76 76 80 88 91 89 72 74 66 17.30 26 36 22 19 32 56 69 76 65 35 36 36 Keshod 8.30 56 68 54 68 69 - - - - - - - Veraval 8.30 54 73 60 73 82 84 88 92 86 65 67 58 17.30 51 64 67 72 74 80 85 88 80 65 68 54 Based on IMD Observation from 2007

4-8



Rainfall: Maximum rainfall occurs under the influence of the South West monsoons (June-September). The annual rainfall is around 1097mm. The rainfall and temperature of the project area is depicted in Figure 4-5.

Table 4-4: Rainfall in the Project Districts (in mm)]

StationMonths

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Rajkot 0 1 0 0.1 0 195.4 372.6 521.4 324.7 0 29.2 0

Keshod 0 4.2 0 0 0 - - - - - - - Veraval 0 0.5 0 0 0 211.3 142.2 1097.2 255.8 0 0 0

Based on IMD Observation from 2007

Wind Speed: The most predominant wind speed in the region is 1-19 Kmph. Wind speed above 62 kmph is not found to occur, those in the range of 20-61 kmph is also rare for Keshod. Calm (0 kmph) conditions also prevail in Veraval.

Table 4-5: Wind Speed in the Project Region

Months No of days with Wind Speed (Kmph)

Keshod Veraval 62 or more 20-61 1-19 0 62 or more 20-61 1-19 0

Jan- 3 27 1 - 3 22 6 - - - - - 4 27 -

Feb - 3 25 - - - 28 - - - - - - 11 17 -

Mar- 3 28 - - 2 29 - - - - - - 16 15 -

Apr- - 30 - - 1 24 5 - - - - - 17 13 -

May - 10 21 - - 4 26 1 - - - - - 15 16 -

Jun- - - - - 14 14 2 - - - - - 20 10 -

Jul- - - - - 22 8 1 - - - - - 25 6 -

Aug- - - - - 15 9 7 - - - - - 17 14 -

Sept - - - - - 2 18 10 - - - - - 6 24 -

Oct - - - - - - 31 - - - - - - 10 19 2

Nov - - - - - - 24 6 - - - - - 5 23 2

Dec - - - - - 4 26 1 - - - - - 2 29 -


4-9



Table 4-6: Mean Wind Speed (Kmph)

StationMonths

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Keshod 11.54 11.42 13.35 12.6 17.03 - - - - - - - Veraval 12.16 13.49 15.15 14.5 15.2 20.3 25.15 19.64 10.8 11.68 9.9 13.795


Mean Minimum temperature Winter

Above 600

Below 500

500 - 600

RAINFALL(in mm)

Mean Maximum temperature Summer

40C O

10 CO

40C O

12.5C O

40 CO

CLIMATIC CONDITIONS

Project Corridor

5 0 5 10 15

Kilometre

Somnath

Jetpur

MaliaMiyana

Wankaner

Padadhari Rajkot

LodhikaKotda Sangani

Jasdan

GondalJam Kandorna

Upleta

Dhoraji

Junagarh

Ranavav

Porbandar

Manavadar Vanthli

Maliya

Mangrol

Talalachorwad

Una

Morbi

Taluka Boundry

Sea


Arabian Sea

Figure 4-5: Climate of the Project Area

4.4.2 Air Quality

The air polluting sources in the project region primarily consist of industries and the vehicles plying on the roads. A total of ten (10) ambient air monitoring stations were identified based on the different existing land use pattern to study the ambient air quality along the project corridor. The ambient air quality in the corridor was found to be in compliance with the ambient air quality norms stipulated by CPCB/GPCB. The ambient air quality monitoring stations have been depicted in Figure 4-6.

4-10



To Bhavnagar

To Rajkot

Keshod Town

GIRNAR

To Porbandar

State Highway

To Porbandar

To Porbandar

LEGEND:Existing RoadProposed AlignmentRailway Line

NH 8B

Air QualityWaterbody Forest

Taluka Boundary

River

GIR RESERVE FOREST

RESERVE FOREST

RF

District Boundary

RAJKOTDISTRICT

JUNAGADHDISTRICT

AQ-1Jetpur Bypass(Ch. 0+100)

Jetalsar high school(Ch. 7+900) AQ-2

Sillicate ind.(Ch. 24+900) AQ-3

Vivekanand

(jaydeep El.)(Ch. 27+000)AQ-4

T-Juction

(yogiraj motor)(Ch. 36+500)

AQ-5

T-Juction

(Ch. 45+800)

AQ-6

Vanthali village

(Ch. 61+200)AQ-7

Kanza village

(Ch. 62+200) AQ-8Agatral village

(Ch. 84+700)

AQ-9Panidhra village

(Ch. 126+700)

AQ-10T- Junction

Figure 4-6: Air Quality Monitoring stations

4-11



The results of ambient air quality monitoring are as follows:

Table 4-7: Ambient Air Quality Results

Monitoring Location &

Code

Chainage(km)

Location Reference

Area Category

Pollutant Concentration (μg/m3) 24 hourly mean values

RSPM TSPM SO2 NO2 HC CO

Jetpur Bypass 0+100

Start point of Jetpur Bypass after crossing Jetpur taking NH-8B and near the junction where the road goes towards Jetpur City, near the Dye and Polymer Industry.*

Industrial 184.73 354.55 13.28 22.05 Nil 763

JetalsarHighschool 7 + 900 Shops at Jetalsar Residential

& Rural 152.39 286.27 11.87 18.33 Nil 1526

Vivekanand silicate Ind. 24 + 900 Vivekananda

Silicate Industry Industries 121.89 230.05 9.02 13.67 Nil 1335

T-Junction (Jaydeep

Electricals) 27 + 000

At the T Junction continuing from Jungadh Bypass where one road goes to Dhoraji on the RHS and and the other road goes to Junagadh city on LHS

Residential & Rural 190.63 399.92 16.95 28.4 Nil 1144

T-Junction (Yogiraj Motor) 36 + 500

End of Junagadh Bypass at the T Junction where the road on RHS goes to Keshod and on the LHS goes to Jungadh City


Vanthali Village 45 + 800 Vanthili Junction* Residential

& Rural 159.04 287.44 15.7 22.86 Nil 1335

Kanza Village 61 + 200 At the Junction near Kanza Village


Agatrai Village 62 + 200 At the Junction near Agatrai Village*


Panidhra Village 84 +700

At the Junction near Panidhra Village


4-12



Monitoring Location &

Code

Chainage(km)

Location Reference

Area Category

Pollutant Concentration (μg/m3) 24 hourly mean values

RSPM TSPM SO2 NO2 HC CO

T-Junction 126 + 700

At T Junction near Somnath where the road on RHS goes to Somnath and on LHS goes to Bhavnagar*


NAAQ Norms* (8/24 hourly

Mean) 150 500 120 120

The TSPM range is 230.00μg/Nm3 to 399.00 μg/Nm3. The total particulate concentration at 50% of location is less than 288 μg/Nm3. The higher concentration of TSPM at some locations is due to higher concentration of RSPM in the ambient. In most of the samples, RSPM is 50% higher than the prescribed standard. All gaseous pollutants viz. SO2, NO2, HC and CO are well within the prescribed limit.

4.5 WATER ENVIRONMENT

Surface Water: The project region falls in Rajkot and Junagadh district. Junagadh district is prosperous in water on account of rivers, reservoirs and lakes. The principal rivers of the district falling along the project region are Uben, Ojat, Hiren, Meghal and Raval. The slope of the district is towards south. The rivers that cross the project road are– Uben river at Ch 14/200, Lol river at Ch 29/200, Sonrakh river at Ch 30/800, Kalve river at Ch 35/000, Vali river at Ch 47/000, Ozat river at Ch 48/000, Badodari river at Ch 61/100, Meghal river at Ch 102/000 and Devka river at Ch 117/000. All the rivers are non perennial, rainfed. The rivers are used for washing and cleaning. The hydrology of the project area is depicted in Figure 4-8.

Ground Water: As per the discussion with the officials of Gujarat Pollution Control Board, the talukas falling in the project of both Rajkot and Junagadh districts are in Grey zone (restricted zone). This categorization is attributed to the level of extraction of ground water against increased domestic, industrial and irrigation requirements. The extraction is higher in the region of Saurashtra.

In the year 2002, both the districts were categorised as Grey zone and the availability of the ground water along the corridor varied between from 5 to 20 m below ground level (bgl) during pre-monsoon (May 2002), while during post monsoon (November 2002) it has varied from less than 5 to 10 m bgl . Ground water depth mostly depends on aquifer geology, geomorphology and

Devka River Crossing the Project Road

4-13



rainfall. South-West monsoon is the main source of ground water recharge for the entire area of the corridor. Ground water is also a source of irrigation in the area. Drinking water is available through borewell.

Table 4-8: Depth to ground water level along the corridor

S.No. District TalukaDepth to Water level (mbgl)

Pre Monsoon (May 2002) Post Monsoon (November 2002) 1 Rajkot Jetpur Greater than 20 m Greater than 20 m 2 Junagadh Junagadh Greater than 20 m Greater than 20 m 2 Junagadh Vanthali 10 – 20 m 5 – 10 m 3 Junagadh Keshod 10 – 20 m 5 – 10 m 4 Junagadh Mangrol Greater than 20 m 5 – 10 m 5 Junagadh Malia 10 – 20 m 5 – 10 m 6 Junagadh Veraval 5 – 20 m 5 – 10 m

Source: Central Ground Water Board

Water Quality: The water quality of Uben, Lol, Ozat, Megal and Devka rivers were taken for monitoring the surface water quality. Borewells are the major source of water for drinking and other domestic purposes in villages and towns. Samples from borewells at Sahajanand Swami Gurukul, at the junction near Panidhra Village and Jetpur Industrial Area have been taken for detailed analysis. The monitoring stations have been depicted in Figure 4-7.

4-14



To Bhavnagar

To Rajkot

Keshod Town

GIRNAR

To Porbandar

State Highway

To Porbandar

To Porbandar


NH 8B

Water QualityWaterbody Forest

Taluka Boundary

River

GIR RESERVE FOREST

RESERVE FOREST

RF

District Boundary

RAJKOTDISTRICT

JUNAGADHDISTRICT

WQ-1Uben River(Ch. 14+200)

N

WQ-2Lol River(Ch. 29+200)

WQ-3Sonrakh River(Ch. 30+800)

WQ-4Kalve River(Ch. 35+000)

WQ-5Vali River(Ch. 47+000)

WQ-6Ozat River(Ch. 48+000)

WQ-7Badodari River(Ch. 61+100)

WQ-8Meghal River(Ch. 102+000)

WQ-9Devka River(Ch. 117+000)

Figure 4-7: Water Quality monitoring stations

4-15



The results of the water quality analysis are given in Table 4-9 and Table 4-10.

Table 4-9: Water Quality Results

Sl.No. Parameter

River Borewell CPCBNorms

forSurfaceWaters

IS:10500 Norms

forDrinkingWaters

UBEN LOI OZAT MEGAL DEVKASahajanand

Swami Gurukul

At the Junction

near PanidhraVillage

JetpurIndustrial

Area

1 Colour Clear Colour Less 2 Odour Odour Less

3 Turbidity (NTU) None 5

4 ph (Unit) 7.7 7.36 7.72 7.8 7.9 7.58 7.4 7.78 5.5 to 9.0 6.5-8.5

5 Temperature (Deg. C) 28 31 33 32 31 32 32 31 40

6Total Dissolved Solids (mg/l)

593 571 445 480 266 925 1080 1430 2100 2000

7 Ether Soluble (Oil & Greece) NIL

8

Total Hardness as CaCO3(mg/l)

198 170 112 112 92 258 295 325 300

9 Chloride (mg/l) 124 208 172 168 86 335 380 482 1000 1000

10 Sulphate (mg/l) 48 61 51 40 38 110 118 154 1000 400

11 Phosphate (mg/l) 1 2 1 2 2 5.0

12

Bio Chemical Oxygen Demand (3 Days at 27 C) (mg/l)

NIL

13 Lead (mg/l) NIL 0.1 0.05 14 Arsenic (mg/l) NIL 0.2 0.05 15 Iron (mg/l) NIL 1.0

16 Total Coliforms(CFU/100 ml)

NIL

17 E. Coli Absent Source: Monitoring and Analysis by Vaibhav Enviro Consltants, Ahmedabad

Table 4-10: On-Site Sea Water Quality Monitoring Results (Arabian Sea near Somnath Temple) Sl No Parameters Concentration

1 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) 6.84 2 Temperature (deg C) 24 3 pH 7.11 4 Oil and Grease (either soluble) (mg/l) Nil 5 COD (mg/l) 20

4-16



Sl No Parameters Concentration6 BOD (mg/l) BDL7 Total Hardness (mg/l) 7400 8 Chloride (mg/l) 18504 9 Sulphate (mg/l) 4608

10 Phospate (mg/l) 7.0 11 Turbidity None 12 Lead (mg/l) BDL13 Iron (mg/l) BDL14 Arsenic BDL15 Total Coliforms (CFU/100 ml) 17

Source: Sampling and Analysis by Vaibhav Enviro Consltants, Ahmedabad

5

10

15

20

120

80

80

4010

20-50 Discontinuous aquifers withlimited thickness down to 300m or more5-20 Groundwater restricted to weathered residium tracture zone having secondary porosity.

Sandstone, Shale conglomerateLimestone, GritBlast with intertrappean Clay

Reservoir

Direction of groundwater flow

Water Table Contour (m.a.msl.)

Well, Tube-well Spring

Canal

Hard Rock Area

Saline Rock Area

GROUND WATER POTENTIAL

GROUND WATER HYDROLOGY

HYDROLOGY & IRRIGATION

(Yield in M hour)3

Sea

5 0 5 10 15

Kilometre

10

5

10

10

10

15

20

15

15

80

160

10

15

Somnath

MaliaMiyana

Wankaner

Padadhari Rajkot

Lodhika

Kotda Sangani

Jasdan

GondalJam Kandorna

Upleta

Dhoraji

Jetpur

Junagarh

Ranavav

Porbandar

Manavadar Vanthli

Maliya

MangrolTalala

chorwad

Una

Morbi

120

Taluka boundry


Project Corridor

Arabian Sea

Figure 4-8: Hydrology of the Project Area

Surface Water: The pH value ranged between 7.36-7.90. TDS content ranged between 170-1430 mg/l while Chloride values ranged from 86 to 482 mg/l respectively, well below the tolerance limits. Iron content is found to be nil. There is no significant presence of trace metals in

4-17



the surface waters. There is no faecal contamination as the Total Coliform bacteria and E.Coli are nil. Nil turbidity indicates that there is no sediment load in the water bodies and negligible soil erosion. Oil and grease, toxic constituents like phenolic compounds and cyanides are found to be absent.

While comparing with the CPCB Norms for Surface Waters, all parameters are found to be within the standard limits.

Ground Water: The ground water sources had agreeable colour, taste and odour. The pH value ranged between 7.40-7.78, generally above the neutral mark and within the permissible limits for drinking water. TDS value ranged between 31-32 mg/l, in some stations and is within the permissible limit for drinking water (500 mg/l). Chloride values ranged from 335mg/l to 482 mg/l, iron content was nil, thus within permissible limits. BOD is also absent. There is no significant bacteriological contamination of these sources. Total alkalinity is found to be within the permissible limits. Total Hardness ranged between 258-325 mg/l and exceeds the limit in Jetpur Industrial Area. Heavy metals like iron, zinc, arsenic, mercury, lead, cadmium, chromium and selenium are absent.

In general, the ground water quality in the project corridor is found to be in compliance with IS:10500 Standard for Drinking Water.

4.6 NOISE ENVIRONMENT

4.6.1 Noise Quality

To assess background noise levels in the study area, ambient noise monitoring is conducted. A total of fourteen (14) locations were identified along the project road, based on different categories of area.

Ambient noise level or sound pressure levels (SPL) are measured by a portable sound level meter having built in facilities to read noise level directly in dB(A). From the SPL values, equivalent continuous sound pressure level values (Leq) are calculated. Noise measurement is conducted as per IS: 4954 as adopted by CPCB.

Ambient noise level monitoring has been carried out during October 2008. At each location monitoring was conducted continuously over a period of twenty- four hours to obtain Leq values at uniform time intervals of 1 hour. Description of the noise monitoring stations and the Leq values at each station are given in Table 4-11.

The noise monitoring stations have been depicted in Figure 4-9

4-18



To Bhavnagar

To Rajkot

Keshod Town

GIRNAR

To Porbandar

State Highway

To Porbandar

To Porbandar


NH 8B

Noise Quality Waterbody Forest

Taluka Boundary

River

GIR RESERVE FOREST

RESERVE FOREST

RF

District Boundary

RAJKOTDISTRICT

JUNAGADHDISTRICT

JS-1Jetpur Bypass(Ch. 0+100)

Jetalsar high school(Ch. 7+900) JS-2

(Ch. 24+900)

JS-4

Alpha Vidya School

Baby Land School(Ch. 34+700)

JS-5(Ch. 45+300) JS-6Gurukul

(Ch. 126+700)

JS-14Verval-somnath)

N

Krishna Garden Hotel(Ch. 22+700) JS-3

Swami Narayan

(Ch. 45+300) JS-7Vanthali Juction

(Ch. 59+400)JS-8

Kanya Chatralay

(Ch. 61+200) JS-9

Nr. School InManekawada

(Ch. 62+200) JS-10Agatrai Village

(Ch. 99+900)JS-11Srijarka School

(Ch. 106+400)JS-12Vinoba Vidya Mandir

(Ch. 107+900)

JS-13Saraswati Vidya Mandir

T- Junction(Bhavnagar

Figure 4-9: Noise quality Monitoring Stations

4-19



Table 4-11: Noise Quality Results

Sl.No. Location

MoEFCategory

Noise Levels, dB(A) Day Time

(06:00-22:00 hrs.) Night Time

(22:00-06:00 hrs.) Overall

Leqmin. Leqmax. Leqmin. Leqmax. Leqmin. Leqmax.JS1 Jetpur Bypass Industrial 37.1 75.1 34.0 68.6 34.0 75.1 JS2 Shree Jetalsar High School Commercial 40.5 77.2 33.4 67.6 33.4 77.2 JS3 Krishna Garden Hotel Commercial 44.7 78.5 36.8 71.9 36.8 78.5 JS4 Alpha Vidhya School Residential 43.2 73.2 36.8 73.2 36.8 73.2 JS5 Babyland School Commercial 43.2 72.3 36.1 63.2 36.1 72.3 JS6 Swaminarayan Gurukul Residential 39.1 70.2 30.4 76.3 30.4 76.3 JS7 Vanthili Junction Commecrial 40.5 87.0 33.4 70.8 33.4 87.0 JS8 Kanya Chatralay Residential 40.5 69.2 34.0 65.1 34.0 69.2 JS9 Nr. School in Manekwada Residnetial 34.0 65.8 33.2 57.2 33.2 65.8

JS10 Agatrai Village Commercial 40.3 72.9 37.6 66.4 37.6 72.9 JS11 Srijarka School Residential 40.5 69.2 34.0 65.1 34.0 69.2 JS12 Vinoba Vidhya Mandir Residential 34.8 74.8 34.2 54.0 34.2 74.8 JS13 Saraswati Vidhya Mandir Residential 37.2 68.6 34.9 58.5 34.9 68.6

JS14 T-Junction (Bhavnagar - Veraval - Somnath) Commercial 34.4 71.8 33.8 68.3 33.8 71.8

Leq Day Norms* for Residential Areas 55 45 - Leq Norms* for Commercial Areas 65 55 -

Overall the Leq noise level range is 33.4 to 87.0 dB(A). During daytime, the noise level ranges from 34-87 dB(A). During the night time, the Leq range is 30 to 76.3 dB(A). The higher noise levels have been observed in commercial areas.

4.7 BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT

4.7.1 Terrestrial Ecology

a) Forests

No reserve forests are identified within the direct influence area of the project corridor. Details of the forests in project influence area i.e., at the district level are provided below.

The forest areas of Gujarat are unevenly distributed. The major concentration of forests is found all along the eastern border of the state and the hilly portion of Saurashtra. The forests are found mainly in the district Junagadh. Tropical Dry Deciduous Forests thrive in the region having the rainfall between 600 mm to 1200 mm. These forests are found in the central part of the state in parts of Saurashtra in the districts of Junagadh. Northern Tropical Thorn Forests occur in the region with less than 600 mm rainfall. These forests are found in Rajkot and Junagadh districts. These forests contain spare and stunted growth of species like Acacia and thorn bushes etc. Littoral and Swamp Forest, Mangrove forest are found in the coastal creeks in the districts of Junagadh. The main species found in these forests is Avicenia sp. Out of 207 subtypes of forests, recorded by Champion and Seth, 31 subtypes, (14.7%) have been identified in the state.

4-20



b) Sensitive Ecological Habitats/ Ecosystems in the Indirect Influence Area

No sensitive ecological habitats or ecosystems are identified within the direct influence area of the project corridor. Girnar Forest, Gir National Park and Gir Wildlife Sanctuary are the three sensitive ecological habitats in the indirect influence area. The details are discussed below.

Girnar Forest: This forest is about 1km away from the project road (aerial distance). Moreover, this stretch of the existing road is proposed to be bypassed (Junagadh Bypass) in the opposite direction (right side) while the forest falls in the left side. The chief glory of Junagadh lies in the hills. The hills Karakio (593.14 metres) mounts guard over Visavadar, the hills Dundvies with Ratno (494.69 metres) and elsewhere. Lapla, Rozmal, Hadulidhar and Sayo breast the upper air. Then follow magnificent mass of the Mt. Girnar (1,117.4 metres) with its rugged sides with Datar (847.07 metres), the Lasa Pavadi (770.23 metres) and the Bhensla (697.99 metres).

The Gir – is far from the project road (more than 15 km away). The largest compact tract of dry deciduous forests in the semi-arid western part of India is the last abode of the Asiatic lion (Panthera leo persica). The sanctuary is internationally acclaimed for successfully saving this precious species from the brink of extinction. It was declared as a sanctuary in 1965. Subsequently, an area of 258.71 sq. km. was declared a National Park.

Gir has a topography made up of succession of rugged ridges, isolated hills, plateaus and valleys. Besides being the last abode of Asiatic lions, Gir forms a unique habitat for ratel, rusty spotted cat, pangolin, ruddy mongoose, civets, paradise flycatcher etc. There is an overwhelming presence of the omnipotent big cat and bird population.

Flora & Fauna of the forests: Teak, dudhlo, khair, ber, desi baval, dhav, hermo, sadad, timru, ashitro, saledi, modad, khakhro etc. Details of the flora of the study area are given in Annexure 4.3. The Gir forests support a rich biodiversity comprising 32 species of mammals, 300 species of birds and 26 species of reptiles and thousands of species of insects.

c) Flora and Fauna in the Study Area

Flora: The flora in the project area comprises of roadside trees, fruit trees in certain villages besides the vegetables and crops grown in the agriculture lands.

Roadside Plantation: A total of 18000 trees are present on either side of the project road. These include trees in Protected forest & non forest land (within existing ROW). There are about 9500 trees on non forest land. The common tree species found along the roadside are given in Table 4-12. Fruit trees are observed in certain locations along the corridor: Guava, mango, coconut, Safeda and banana garden.

Table 4-12: Road Side Tree Species Sl No Common Names Scientific Names

1. Amla Emblica officinalis 2. Arduso Ailanthus excelsa

4-21



Sl No Common Names Scientific Names 3. Bor Zizyphus glabrata 4. Desibaval Acacia nilotica 5. Gando baval Prosopis juliflora 6. Gundo Cordia dichotoma 8. Jambu Syzygium cumini 9. Karanj Derris indica

10. Khair Acacia chundra 11. Khajuri Phoenix sylvestris 12. Khijdo Prosopis cineraria 13. Limdo Azaditachta indica 14. Mitosaragavo Moringa oleifera 15. Piplo Ficus religiosa 16 Rayan Manilkara hexandra 17. Sag Tectona grandis 18. Sisam Dalbergia latifolia 19. Vad Ficus benghalensis

Notified Protected Forests: The roadside trees along the project road (within the existing RoW) in certain stretches are notified as protected forests. About 67.325 km of the project road stretch comprises the notified Protected forests. In Rajkot division 800 trees are present while in Junagadh division 7744 trees are present in these Protected forest sections. Tree enumeration has been conducted by concerned forest officials in both the forest divisions.

Chainagewise details have been provided below:

Table 4-13: Protected Forest Stretches Along the Project Road Protected Forests Chainage Side Length of the road (km)

Km 6 to Km 12.800 LHS & RHS 6.8 Km 42.650 to Km 66.200 LHS & RHS 23.55 Km 78.350 to Km 115.325 LHS & RHS 36.975 Total Protected Forests - 67.325

Fauna: Local Fauna in the project area includes reptiles like gecko, garden lizard owing to the large number of water bodies and fruit gardens in the area. Common animals like dogs, cats and cattle are also present. Avifauna includes peacock, myna, kingfisher, pigeon, kite, cattle, egret.

4.7.2 Marine Ecology

The fauna found in the coastal area are given in Table 4-14 below:

Table 4-14: Faunal Biodiversity of the Coastal Area Sr.No. Type of Fauna Family Scientific Name Local Name

1 Annelids Tachinidae Bonellia Bonellia 2 Annelids Naididae Tubifex Tubifex 3 Annelids Lumbricidae lumbricus terrestris Earth worm 4 Coelenterates Fungiidae Fungia repanda Correlium [disc coral] 5 Coelenterates Metridiidae Metridium senile Metridium

4-22



Sr.No. Type of Fauna Family Scientific Name Local Name 6 Porifera Clionaidae Cliona celata Cliona 7 Porifera Spongillidae Spongilla Spongilla 8 Porifera Veneridae Mercenaria mercenaria Snail 9 Mollusca Chitonidae Acanthopleura granulata Chiton

10 Mollusca Arcidae Anadara granosa Blood clam 11 Mollusca Sepiidae Sepia spp. Sepia 12 Arthropods Diogenidae Diogenes pugilator Hermit crab 13 Arthropods Pulicidae Xenopsylla cheopis Ratflea14 Arthropods Nephropidae Acanthacaris Lobster 15 Arthropods Penaeidae Fenneropenaeus chinensis Fleshy prawn 16 Arthropods Daphniidae Daphnia magna Daphnia 17 Arthropods Ostreidae Crassostrea madrasensis,

Pinctada spp. pearl oyster

18 Arthropods Scorpionidae Heterometrus spinifer Scorpion 19 Arthropods Sicariidae Loxosceles reclusa Brown Recluse Spider 20 Fish Carcharhinidae Galeocerdo cuvier Tiger shark 21 Fish Ray fish Potamotrygon motoro Trigon /motoro 22 Fish Tetraodontidae Tetraodontidae Puffer fish 23 Fish Synodontidae Synodus hoshinonis Lizard fish 24 Fish Clarias / catfish 25 Fish Synodontidae Harpadon nehereus Bombay duck 26 Fish Bramidae

StromateidaeBrama brama Pampus Argentues

Pacific Pomfret Silver Pomfret

27 Fish Pristidae Pristis pectinata Pristis / sawfish 28 Fish Delphinidae Tursiops Dolphin shark 29 Fish Squalidae Spiny dogfish,

Squalus acanthiasDogfish shark

30 Fish Trachipteridae Scalloped ribbonfish, Zu cristatus

Ribbon fish

31 Fish Holocentridae Sargocentron rubrum Red coat squirrel fish 32 Fish Sciaenidae Otolithes spp Big mouth croaker fish 33 Fish Clupeidae Tenualosa ilisha Hilsa

Source: Study Report by Vaibhav Enviro Consultants, Ahmedabad

However, it can be mentioned that no water body or cross drainage exists within the proposed right of way in CRZ area.

Phytoplankton and Zooplankton

Plankton is any of a large variety of organisms that drift in the pelagic zone of water bodies. Plankton that is able to undergo photosynthesis and other plantlike functions are called phytoplankton. Algae are phytoplanktons. Plankton that does not undergoes photosynthesis and act as consumers in the ecosystem is called zooplankton.

Phytoplankton: This consists of autotrophic, prokaryotic or eukaryotic that lives near the water surface.

4-23



Zooplanktons: This consists of small protozoan or metazoans, larvae of large animals, such as fish, crustaceans, and annelids.

During the survey and after detailed analysis of samples, following species of phytoplankton and zooplankton were identified and given in Table 4-15 below.:

Table 4-15: Details of Different Species of Phytoplankton & Zooplankton S. No. Local Name Faimly Scientific Name

1 Oscillatoria (Blue-green algae) Oscillatoria Oscillatoriaceae 2 Oedogonium

(Green algae) Oedogoniaceae Oedogonium foveolatum

Wittrock

3 Volvox (Protozoa) Volvocaceae Volvox aureus 4 Spirogyra (Green algae) Zygnemataceae Spirogyra 5 Microspora (Green algae) Mycotyphaceae Teratosphaeria microspora 6 Amoeba (Protozoa) Amoebidae Amoeba proteus 7 Anabaena

(Blue-green algae) Nostocaceae Anabaena spiroides

8 Pinnularia (Diatom) Pinnulariaceae Pinnularia Braunii 9 Paramecium

(Protozoa) Parameciidae Paramecium

10 Vorticella (Protozoa) Vorticellidae Vorticella Linnaeus 11 Closterium (Desmids) Closteriaceae Cylindrotheca closterium

Source: Sampling and Analysis by Vaibhav Enviro Consultants, Ahmedabad

Photographs of the different species found in the coastal area are provided in Annexure-4.2.

Benthos

Benthos are organisms which live on, in or near seabed, also known as the benthic zone. They live in or near marine sedimentary environments. Benthic organisms such as sea stars, oysters, clams, sea cucumbers, brittle stars etc are present in the study area.

4.8 COASTAL REGULATION ZONE

The western end of the corridor ends at Somnath near the temple close to the western coastline of Gujarat.

As per the guidelines of Gujarat Coastal Zone Management Authority for obtaining CRZ clearance, a map clearly demarcating HTL and LTL along with other proposed activities, landuse within 5 km radius, latitude and longitude had been prepared by an external agency authorized by MOEF and submitted with the State Department, Gandhinagar. The CRZ locations for the project corridor have been presented in the map below. Recommendation for the project has beenr ecieved from the State Coastal Zone Management Authority.

4-24



Figure 4-10: Coastal Zone Locations along the Project Corridor

4.9 SOCIAL & CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT

4.9.1 Social Environment

The project corridor passes through seven talukas and two Districts, namely Rajkot and Junagarh. 54 villages and 7 urban areas would be directly impacted, 5 in Rajkot and the remaining in Junagarh District. Details of each of the districts are presented in Table 4-16. ReferAnnexure-4.1.

Table 4-16: Number of Settlements along the Project Corridor S. No District Taluka Urban Village

1 Rajkot Jetpur 1 5 2 Junagadh Junagadh 1 19 Vanthali 1 7 Keshod 1 7 Malia 1 6 Mangrol 1 2

Patan- Veraval 1 10 Total 6 7 54

4-25



Figure 4-11: Number of Settlements along the Project Corridor

4-26



Therefore, in order to understand the socio-economic profile of the influence area of the project corridor, a micro-level analysis is essential. The aerial unit for analysis of the socio-economic profile of the influence area of the project corridor includes all traversed villages, urban and forest areas. Though the corridor passes through two administrative districts, for better appreciation, all socio-economic characteristics have been analyzed.

4.10 SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE

The socio-economic profile along the project corridor takes into account the social as well as the economic aspects:

Population Distribution; Density of Population; Gender Ratio; Share of Vulnerable Groups and Literacy Rate Workforce Participation Ratio and Sector-wise Distribution of Workers

4.10.1 Population Distribution

The project influence area comprises of 7 talukas falling under two districts namely Rajkot and Junagadh. The growth rate of population in the project influence area is 3.17 % which is higher than the average growth rate of population in the state (2.06%). The highest population growth rate is 4.66% recorded in Veraval taluka of Junagadh district followed by 4.46% in Junagadh taluka. In rest of the talukas, growth ranges between1% to 2%. Jetpur taluka of Rajkot district has registered the lowest growth rate of 0.77%. Talukawise demographic characteristics in project influence area are presented in Table 4-17

4-27



Figure 4-12: Population Distribution

4-28



Table 4-17: Population Distribution in Talukas along the Project Corridor, 2001

District TalukaPopulation

AAGR (91-01) 1991 2001

Rajkot Jetpur 122699 132423 0.77 Rajkot 2514122 3169881 2.34

Junagadh

Junagadh 200703 310628 4.46 Vanthali 41976 51987 2.16 Keshod 89905 104251 1.49 Mangrol 9735 11735 1.89 Malia 30778 36941 1.84 Veraval 141014 222458 4.66

Junagadh 2394859 2448173 0.22 Project Influence Area 636810 870423 3.17 Gujarat State 41310000 50671017 2.06 Source: Population Totals of Gujarat, Census of India, 2001 and 1991; Note: Figures are rounded of to first decimal place

4.10.2 Population Density

The project influence area has population density of 741 persons per sq.km in 1991 and 1012 persons per sq.km in 2001. In 2001 the population density varies from 261 persons per sq.km to 2017 persons per sq.km amongst all the talukas. Due to high population growth rate there had been a remarkable increase in the density of Veraval (1910 persons per sq.km) taluka of Junagadh district which experiences the highest density. (Table 4-18).

Table 4-18: Population Distribution and Density along Project Corridor, 2001

District Taluka Area (Sq Km) Population Density (Persons/Sq Km)

1991 2001 1991 2001 Rajkot Jetpur 108.76 122699 132423 1128 1218 Rajkot 11200.00 2514122 3169881 224 283

Junagadh

Junagadh 154.04 200703 310628 1303 2017 Vanthali 143.97 41976 51987 292 361 Keshod 167.72 89905 104251 536 622 Mangrol 44.94 9735 11735 217 261 Malia 123.94 30778 36941 248 298 Veraval 116.48 141014 222458 1211 1910

Junagadh 8800.00 2394859 2448173 272 277 Project Influence Area 859.84 636810 870423 741 1012 Gujarat State 196024.00 41310000 50671017 211 258 Source: Census of India, 2001

4-29



Figure 4-13: Population Density

4-30



4.10.3 Sex Ratio

As per the Census estimates (2001) number of Sex ratio (females /1000 male) of project influence area is 934 which is higher than the state average of 920. All the districts have shown a decrease in sex ratio from 1991-2001 (Refer Table 4-19). Amongst all the talukas, Malia taluka registered the highest sex ratio with an increase from 962 in 1991 to 964 in 2001 followed by Veraval. A decline in sex ratio is observed in five talukas of project influence area during 1991-2001 in accordance with the decline observed at state level.

Table 4-19: Sex Ratio along Project Corridor, 2001

District TalukaSex Ratio

1991 2001 Rajkot Jetpur 922 906 Rajkot 946 930

Junagadh

Junagadh 943 931 Vanthali 914 911 Keshod 929 933 Mangrol 962 938 Malia 962 964 Veraval 961 956

Junagadh 959 955 Project Influence Area 940 934 Gujarat State 934 920 Source: Population Totals of Gujarat, Census of India, 2001 Note: Figures are rounded of to first decimal place

4-31



Figure 4-14: Sex Ratio

4-32



4.10.4 Vulnerable Population

Distribution of scheduled caste and scheduled tribe population is presented in Table 4-20. The percentage distribution of scheduled caste is higher than scheduled tribes in project influence area. About 66846 SC (1.86 percent of the total SC population in the State) and 5398 ST population resides in the project influence area. Mangrol, Vanthali and Keshod Taluka has a higher percentage of SC population (percentage of SC population to total population in the state), ranging between 11 to 13 percent (Table 4-20)

Table 4-20: Share of Vulnerable Groups along Project Corridor, 2001

District TalukaPopulation 2001 % to Total Population

SC ST SC STRajkot Jetpur 9114 208 6.88 0.16 Rajkot District 244364 13163 7.71 0.42

Junagadh

Junagadh 22014 2690 7.09 0.87 Vanthali 6566 101 12.63 0.19 Keshod 11203 733 10.75 0.70 Mangrol 1549 0 13.20 0.00 Malia 3416 107 9.25 0.29 Veraval 12984 1559 5.84 0.70

Junagadh District 235624 18832 9.62 0.77 Project Influence Area 66846 5398 7.68 0.62 Gujarat State 3592715 7481160 7.09 14.76 Source: Population Totals of Gujarat, Census of India, 2001 and 1991;

Figure 4-15: Vulnerable Population

4-33



4.10.5 Literacy Rate

As per the Census estimates (2001), 69 percent of the population are literate in the State, where as the average literate rate is lower (67 percent) in the project influence area. Within the project influence area, Junagadh taluka has the highest literacy rate (73 percent) followed by Jetpur (70 percent) and Keshod (68 percent). The lowest literacy rate was observed in Malia (55 percent) and Veraval (59 percent) (Table 4-21).

Table 4-21: Literacy Rate along Project Corridor, 2001

District TalukaLiterates Literacy Rate (%)

1991 2001 1991 2001 Rajkot Jetpur 74341 92772 61 70 Rajkot district 1419681 2033946 56 74

Junagadh

Junagadh 133075 225781 66 73 Vanthali 23501 32498 56 63 Keshod 55200 70421 61 68 Mangrol 5359 7180 55 61 Malia 13758 20292 45 55 Veraval 69441 130359 49 59

Junagadh District 1217725 1408878 51 68 Project Influence Area 374675 579303 59 67 Gujarat State 21131400 29827750 51 69 Source: Census of India, 2001

4-34



Figure 4-16: Literacy Rate

4-35



4.10.6 Workforce Participation

The given table describes the average annual growth rate and work participation rate at district and taluka level (within the project influence area). The average WPR in project influence area is 34 percent in 2001. Mangrol of Junagadh district has the highest WPR (48 percent) followed by Malia (44 percent) and Vanthali (43 percent). The lowest WPR is recorded in Veraval (31 percent) and Junagadh (32 percent), followed by Jetpur (34 percent).

During the decadal period (1991-2001), the growth rate in the number of workers is observed to be higher (6 percent) in Mangrol, Malia and Veraval talukas of Junagadh district and lower (3 percent) in Jetpur and Keshod talukas of Rajkot and Junagadh districts respectively.

Table 4-22: Workforce Participation Ratio along Project Corridor, 2001

District TalukaTotal Workers AAGR of Workers

(1991-01) WPR

1991 2001 1991 2001 Rajkot Jetpur 34778 44885 3 28 34 Rajkot District Total 927237 1244806 3 37 39

Junagadh

Junagadh 59991 99231 5 30 32 Vanthali 14957 22414 4 36 43 Keshod 28126 38116 3 31 37 Mangrol 3251 5631 6 33 48 Malia 9552 16432 6 31 44 Veraval 39170 69970 6 28 31

Junagadh District Total 922375 1000842 1 39 41 Project Influence Area 189825 296679 5 30 34 Gujarat State 16620519 21255521 2 40 42 Source: Population Totals of Gujarat, Census of India, 2001; Note: Figures are rounded of to first decimal place

4-36



Figure 4-17: Workforce Participation

4-37



Type of Workers

Table 4-23 shows the types of workers in the project influence area. As per the Census estimates (2001), Jetpur taluka of Rajkot district has 91 percent of main workers. The percentage of main workers in the 6 talukas of Junagadh district within the project influence areas ranges between 70 percent (in Mangrol) and 91 percent (in Junagadh). About 30 percent of total workers are marginal workers in Mangrol and Malia talukas of Junagadh district (Table 4-23).

Table 4-23: Type of Workers within the Project Influence Area, 2001

District TalukaMain Workers 2001 Marginal Workers 2001

No. % No. %Rajkot Jetpur 40883 91 4002 9 Rajkot District 1076436 86 168370 14

Junagadh

Junagadh 90052 91 9179 9 Vanthali 18675 83 3739 17 Keshod 31865 84 6251 16 Mangrol 3950 70 1681 30 Malia 11615 71 4817 29 Veraval 62130 89 7840 11

Junagadh District 785530 78 215312 22 Project Influence Area 259170 87 37509 13 Gujarat State 17025074 33.6 4230447 8.35 Source: Population Totals of Gujarat, Census of India, 2001; Note: Figures are rounded of to first decimal place

4.10.7 District wise land use

District and Block wise land use is presented in the Table 4-24 below.

Table 4-24: Landuse along the Project Corridor District-wise Land Utilisation in Gujarat (2003-2004)

(Hundred Hectares)

District Net Area Sown

Gross Sown Area

Net Irrigated Area

GrossIrrigated

Area

% of Gross Irrigated to Gross Sown Area

Junagadh 5238 6022 1231 1545 25.7 Rajkot 7378 7559 1832 1984 26.2

Gujarat 96779 107910 29944 35728 33.1 Source: Census of India, 1991

The extent of Public Land adjacent to the project corridor was collected from the Department of Land Revenue. Knowledge of extent of land was required to restrict development within the public land and thereby reducing private land acquisition.

4.10.8 Cultural Environment

Baseline Information on Cultural Environment is presented for the project corridor. This includes heritage structures as well as those having local and regional significance.

4-38



Protected Sites & Monuments

There are no significant protected sites or monuments in the immediate vicinity of the project corridor. Within the 10 km offset of the corridor the following monuments are of State level significance. Also the famous Somnath temple is about 500m away from the end point of the project road. The main temple is far from the road.

Table 4-25: Protected and Conserved Monuments Located in the Project Districts

District TalukaPlaces of Interest /

ReligiousImportance

Distance(in KM) ASI protected Monuments Distance

(in KM)

Rajkot Dhoraji Dhoraji Fort 16.7 ---

Junagadh

Junagadh Uparkot 1.21 Ashokan Rock (Edicts) 2.15 Junagadh Girnar Hill Temple 5.59 Baba Pyare, Khapra Kodia caves Junagadh Mahabat Makbara 0.3 --- Junagadh Gir Sanctuary 15.48 --- Junagadh Sakar Bagh Zoo 0.15 --- Junagadh Swaminarayan Mandir 0.12 --- Junagadh Damodar Kund 2.87 ---

Manavadar Pipleshwar Mahadev --- Vanthali Step well 0.5 Mangrol --- Jami Masjid 17.09 Mangrol --- Bibi Masjid Mangrol --- Raveli Masjid Veraval Somnath Temple 1 ---

Source: Google earth, Census of India handbook and internet.

Cultural Properties of Local /Regional Significance

There are about 45 religious structures that exist along the project road; most of them are situated within 30 m from the edge of the carriageway.

5-1

5. PUBLIC CONSULTATIONPublic consultation has been taken up as an integral part of environmental assessment process throughout the project preparation stage of this project.

5.1 INTRODUCTION

Public consultation is a continuous two way communication process which involves promoting full public understanding of the project, its benefits, problems and solutions. Public consultation ensures participation of the project beneficiaries in decision making with respect to environment and social aspects. This contributes to the design considerations of the proposed project and is essentially a part of environmental and social assessment process.

The process benefits both the project proponent and potentially affected communities. The significance of the Public Consultation process is discussed below:

Educates the potentially impacted communities about the proposed course of action, the alternatives to it, the costs and benefits associated.

Solicits the views of the potentially affected communities regarding impact on environmental components due to the project and their significance.

Allow potentially affected communities to provide input into such matters as project design and selection of mitigation measures before irrevocable decisions are taken.

Serves as an important tool for collecting information about the natural, social and cultural environment as certain information are only available through these interactive grass root level discussions.

Since the residents have a much better knowledge of their circumstances, environment and living conditions, they sometimes contribute to the identification of new alternatives to the proposed alignment.

Provides insight into public acceptance of the project within the Corridor of Impact. Helps in lessening public resistance to change by involving them in decision making.

Consultation with community and their involvement at the project planning (screening) stage helped in informing and educating the stakeholders about the proposed action before the finalisation of design. It assisted in identifying the problems associated with the proposed project and the needs and values of the population likely to be impacted by the project.

The minutes of the consultations carried out in respective locations is presented in the next section.

The consultation process has been summarized in the following Table 5-1.

Table 5-1: Details of the Consultations along the project corridor S.No. Date/Venue of Consultation/Participants Issues Raised Remarks

1

25/11/2008 at Jetpur Bypass in District Rajkot at Land Developer Office cum Farm- Naran Bhai K Patel-farmer, Rampariya Suresh-Building Developer, Rajnikanth B Ranparita- Builder, Rupesh Valiji Bhai-Developer, Virji Bhai

The villagers told that the land required for road development beyond the railway track has many structures and thus it

5-2



S.No. Date/Venue of Consultation/Participants Issues Raised Remarks Vakeria-Farmer, Balvanth Bhai Jeena Dhami-Builder, Girish Kumar K Bhutani-Builder, Bhimji Bhai Patel-Owner of Patel,Harish Kumar Chandali-Secretary of Chambers of commerce

should be considered in the preparation of the design.

The negative impacts raised could be the loss of many medicinal and valuable plant species like Arjuna, Coconut, Neem, Peepal, Eucalyptus.

The villagers also stated that fair monetary compensation as per market price should be given to them for the loss of property or land.

The villagers demanded for the relocation of public utilities like well etc. and street lights along the road.

2

25/11/2008 at Village Vadala in district Junagadh at Panchayat Office- Pravin Bhai-Factory owner, Ashok Batuk Bhai-Pan shop owner, Bipin Bhai Chagan Bhai-Business, Ramesh Bhai Kapadiya-Business, Kanji Bhai Buta Bhai Gajera-Business, Vipul Bhai Kalu Kumbhani-Pan shop owner, Mansukh Bhai Mohan Bhai Dhumar-Shop, Ramesh Shirji Bhai Patoria-Business-Business, Kishor Bhai Natha Bhai Dhudhana-Resident cum Commercial Shop and Dinesh Bhai Takharsi Bhai Donaria-Commercial Godown

A group of villagers who are directly impacted by the project are consulted.

The villagers opine that the road should be widened on the LHS as RHS has dense structures.

The temple along the road can be enhanced and relocated in the Panchayat land available in the village.

The people have opposed the construction of the Toll Plaza as it would require more land acquisition.

The villagers have demanded fair monetary compensation.

Provision for an underpass should be included in the proposed project design. This would be helpful for the regular commuters and would ensure safety for the students.

3

26/11/2008 in Village Agatrai in Keshod Taluka in Junagadh district at Sarpanch House- Hingora Iqbal Ibrahim- Pan Shop, Krishan Dhiraj Lal Maru-Barber, Harun Ala Rakha-Tea Shop, Kishan Bhaguandi Kataria-Garage, Chandu Govind- Barber, Chawda Rajwala-Pan Shop, Atul Jayanti lal Parmar- Barber, Gahil Arvind Khinji-Cycle Store, Tida Nata Labari-Tea Shop and Hingara Amin Ibrahim- Cold Drink Shop.

A group of villagers including shop-keepers are consulted at this place.

The villagers are of the views that the project would involve loss of employment as their commercial establishments would be removed.

Villagers stated that fair compensation should be given to them as per the policy. They also hold the opinion that the project would benefit in the development of the village.

A cattle underpass requires to be constructed. An appropriate crossing should also be given to ensure the safety of school-going children.

The villagers also wanted a Higher Secondary School to be built in their area.

The land on the left hand side as well as on the right hand side is under PWD, but the construction is illegal.

4 26/11/2008 at Keshod Bypass in Junagadh district at a Farmer’s house- Babul Gela Barat-Farmer, Amba Premji

The villagers stated that the compensation provided by the

According to the villagers, the land

Consultation at Jetpur bypass

Consultation at Village Vadala

Consultation at Village Agatrai

5-3



S.No. Date/Venue of Consultation/Participants Issues Raised Remarks Barat-Farmer, Laxman Bhai Karman Bhai-Farmer, Nathi Ben Maran Bhai Moran-Farmer, Karsan Bhai Ranjhan Bhai Gajera-Farmer, Vilji Bhai Ramji Bhai- Farmer, Mansukh Bhai Amba Bhai-Farmer, Maldev Bhai-Owner of Mill.

government is too less and they have registered a case in the court against the compensation provided.

The people were of the opinion that the government should provide appropriate compensation as per market price of land i.e. Rs.20-25 lac per acre of land as this is the price of land along the road and on the bypass.

The villagers also stated that if residential structures fall in the bypass area, then the compensation for the cost of construction should be given by NHAI.

The villagers also wanted a less median width so that the land acquisition should be more on the other side and the residential structures along the road should also get correct compensation for new construction.

acquisition for the bypass had already been done and many farmers had registered a court case for fair compensation to be given to them after land acquisition. The villagers were not against the road developmentprovided they should be given fair compensation. They have not been given fair compensation till now by the government.

5

26/11/2008 at Village Kanza in District Junagadh district- Navneet Kumar Jhiladia-Mobile Shop owner, Irfan Iqbal Hasan Bhai- Pan Shop, Ramadev Singh-Pan Shop,Changan Bhai & Jeeva BHai Parmar

The villagers are in favor of the road development and find the project good for better economic condition as it would generate commercial activities.

The villagers demanded land to land compensation and money for construction of new shop. The land should be provided in the same village or nearby area or along the road.

The villagers also wanted cross sections to move to Gadhila village on LHS and to Kanjala village on RHS.

According to one of the villagers, a 25 year old Pan shop should be considered during the road development.

6

27/11/2008 at Jetalsar in Panchayat office in Junagadh district- J K Joshi-Book Stall, Hukah Bhai Manji Bhai Ghua-shop. Shiva Bhai maji Bhai Parmar-Resident, Arvind Bhai Manji Bhai- Motor Repair Shop, Hansraj Bhai Aryan Bhai Ghadiya-Pan Shop, Chandu Bhai Huka Bhai Puah-Pan Shop Owner, Valabh Bhai Natha Bhai Bhua-Motor Cycle Repair, Atul Bhai Mohan Bhai Saruiya- Pan Shop, Manu Narsi Maladiya-Tea Shop, Valabh Bhai Rudah Bhai-Pan Shop, Mansukh Bhai Devji Bhai Bhua-Tea Shop, Teja Ghusa Hanat-Electrician Shop, Daya Gopal Lakhani-Shop, Nukesh Jaithi-Pujari, Savita Ben Nandlan Ghua-Shop, Hans Ramji Bhai Luah, Paresh Ram ji Bhai Babaria-Pan shop, Sauji Mohan Bhai Babaria,Kalyan Bhai Ramji Bhai Veshno, Bipin Bhai Jadav Bhai Veshno, Hemant Bhai Ranjho Bhai Koldara

The villagers were in favor of the road development a sit would solve the problems of traffic.

The people wanted a community hall and public park to be constructed for all religions.

The villagers stated that fair compensation for land and money for construction of new house should be given to them.

The people wanted that the land should be provided under the guidelines of Panchayat and should be within the village, but there is no land available in the village at present. The people informed that land should be provided on the other side (LHS) because it is under the Gram Panchayat.

The people wanted that

The villagers wanted appropriate medical facilities in the area as the existing hospital did not have appropriate staff during emergency.

The villagers wanted an appropriate crossing to move safely on either side of the road with a proper Bus shelter, toilet and drinking water facilities.

The people did not want any over-

Consultation at Keshod Bypass

Consultation at Village Kanza

5-4



S.No. Date/Venue of Consultation/Participants Issues Raised Remarks compensation should be given to those structures too who have residence on government land.

The villagers opined that temple along the road should be relocated to some other nearby area.

The villagers wanted equal land acquisition on both the sides with compensation in terms of money or land.

The villagers stated that government land should be acquired on both the sides and relocation of shops should be considered.

bridge to be constructed and also were worried about their structures falling along the road.

7

28/11/2008 at Veraval Bypass-Chapadev Alpesh- Shopowner, Dardanadal Solanki-Shop owner, Pithal Lal Paltiath-Sarpanch

The villagers opine that the alignment for the proposed bypass is appropriate as it would save a number of commercial structures and also lessen accident cases.

The people believe that the land price would also increase along the road.

The villagers commented that the land along the bypass region is in small sections and the land to be acquired is only a part of it, as a result, the remaining portion would not be of any use to the land owner.

The villagers wanted the compensation in terms of money and would accordingly decide at the time of land acquisition.

The people demanded a hospital to be constructed in their area.

The people told that the road should pass through the old bypass, otherwise the farmers would be in a big problem.

The villagers on the other hand also favored the road development as it would save many commercial structures along the existing road.

8.

30/11/2008 at Panidhra village-Dinesh Dhaniv Bhai Ahir-Dhaba owner, Prabhat Shih K Gangada-Pan and Tea Shop Owner, Dalu Shih NK-Pan Shop, Bharat Shih Dhodia-Pan Shop owner

The villagers feel that the road development would reduce the number of accident cases in their area and also the flow of traffic would be better now.

The people were of the view that the land on the LHS is vacant, development is very minor and belong to government, therefore, the widening should be done on the LHS.

The people stated that the traffic flow at RHS is more.

The people wanted the compensation to be given at the rate of market price.

The people were also of the view that due to the loss of the commercial shops, the government should consider and provide an alternate source of livelihood to them.

9.1/12/2008 at Junagadh Bypass in Farm Land ( Village Shahpur)-Puroshtam Bhai Gordhan Bhai Vadodia-farmer, Jamna Das Bortha-Farmer, Gopal Devji- Farmer, Guni lal-

The villagers were of the opinion that the bypass should not pass through their agricultural land as it

Consultation at Jetalsar

Consultation at Veraval Bypass

Consultation at Village Panidhra

5-5



S.No. Date/Venue of Consultation/Participants Issues Raised Remarks Farmer, Suresh Kumar Ranji Bhai- Contractor, Samaji, Paroshatam Bhai Valji-Farmer, Jetha Bhai Valji Bhai-Farmer, jethi Bhai Valji Bhai-farmer,Valabh Bhai

would result in huge loss of irrigated land.

The people also stated that the compensation would vary from person to person as in people might demand for market price or land to land compensation.

The people discussed that the land had already been acquired by NHAI for the existing road and very les portion of land is available with the farmers that is falling in the bypass area. The people do not want any additional land acquisition further as they were not offered fair compensation earlier too. The bypass alignment should be designed through a kutcha road that runs parallel to the existing road.

The people viewed that the land should be taken from one end and not from the middle of the land.

10.

29/11/2008 at village Supasi in District Junagadh in Gram Panchayat office- Jathua hera Bhai Arjan Bhai-Shop owner, Mahendra Hera Solanki, Dr. Ram Bhai Vasanth, Vasha Menji Vada, LAxman Vera Rathod, Devsi arsi Salank, Narang Jeeva Kheer, Chandera Atul Desha, Khimji Rana Baran, Vijay Gakad, Anil Harjivan Lohar, Ismail Jamal Patel, Arshi Mora Parmar, Naga Naran Ram, Hera Naran Ram, Naga Arjan Jatua, Pratap Baju Ram, Ismal Kesham Noor Bhai, Jawerkhar Daya Ghar, keshar Amar Sinh Luwar, Alarakha Asam Tavani, Ajit AMar Ajam, Ramesh Daya Ghar Bapu, Ala Rakha Puja, Pooja Nagajan Solanki, Abadrum Nathu, Hasan Bhaiji , Noor Bhai Maji, Hussain Bali Hisa Khani, Abraiman Jamal Hisa Khani, Gani Ala Rakha, Ismail Ala Rakha, Devath Sarman Jathua, Bhura Dada Roo, Rajshi Govind Jathua, Jayanthi Jayram, Veno Bhai Vanmadi, Hala Muslim Samaj, Garbi Mandal Supasi, Supasi Hindu Shanshan, Laxman Pooja, Desa Arjun Kharan, Vali Meeraji, Hatam Mikardi, Sidhi Hasann, Kishad Mirr, Kantha Pooja, Shashi Kant Karji, Pradeep Soonarwala

The villagers opined that the project will ensure better flow of traffic, reduction of accident cases, increase in commercial activity and thus would be good for the development of the village.

The villagers demanded an appropriate crossing from LHS to RHS, proper street lights, service roads, Government Bank, Hospital and a proper roundabout for the way to village Adri at the existing Chokri. The people wanted that the existing facilities along the road should

The villagers opposed the development of an over bridge in the area and wanted fair compensation for the loss of existing shop. The compensation would vary from person to person.

The villagers were of the view that minimum width of the median should be considered. The median should have street lights on the entire stretch

There is mosque and a graveyard that is falling along the road and the villagers stated that the mosque should be considered during the design of the road as it could not be relocated.

The Sarpanch was of the opinion that the project should be an Access controlled road a same as that of Jaipur-Bhilwada section. The road should have underpasses for the villagers to

Consultation at Village Shahpur in Junagadh

Consultation at Village Supasi

5-6



S.No. Date/Venue of Consultation/Participants Issues Raised Remarks move freely for various facilities on either sides of the road.

11.

30/11/2008 at Vanthali Bypass in District Junagadh- Yusuf Haji Hussain, Mhoor Bhai Ismail(Deelip Bhai)-Farmer, Tara Bhai Chana Bhai-Farmer and Labourer, Dawood Ibrahim-Farmer, A.Sarthar and Shabir Ahmed,Usuf Ali, Pagaria Ritesh Remji Bhai-President-Nagar Palika

The people were of the opinion that the road development would solve the traffic flow problems and reduce the number of accidents.

The land to be acquired for Bypass is available in plots towards the end of the bypass and thus after the land acquisition, the remaining part of the land would be of no use to the farmer. Thus, the government should take the entire area and the compensation should be given in terms of market price.

The people wanted that the water logging problem in the area should be solved.

The land acquisition should be from either side of the agricultural land and not from the middle of the land.

The villagers wanted approach roads to be built for traveling to the villages.

12.

30/11/2008 at Manekwada Bypass in District Junagadh-Atrodia Kana Bhai Karan Bhai-Farmer, Kheema Bhai Samanth-Farmer, Dev Si Bhai Karan-Farmer, Atrodia Karsan Karan-Farmer.

Bypass land should be preferably taken from LHS as it belongs to the government. As per the villagers, if land acquisition is done, then government job should be provided to one member of the family.

Agricultural lands are available in small plots and as such if land is acquired then only small portion of land would be left for farming and that would be of no use. Few villagers also feel that the bypass should not be constructed and the existing road should be widened.

5.2 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS

Few consultations were carried out with various stakeholders who are likely to be affected due to the proposed project. Stake holder consultation included Govt department viz District Magistrate, Forest Department, Gujrat Pollution Control Board etc, affected persons along project corridor and cultural property consultation. The affected persons were consulted during conducting census and socio-economic surveys apart from specic meetings with the affected persons. Some of the stake holder consultation is summerized in Table 5-2 below:

Table 5-2: Details of the meetings with various Stakeholders along the project corridor SlNo

Name of the stakeholder Occupation Subjects Discussed

1 Village Manekwada in

Construction Labour

Bethar is a construction labour whose place of stay is 25 km from the place of work and takes him 30 minutes to travel by bus or auto-

Consultation at Vanthali Bypass

Consultation at Manekwada Bypass

5-7



SlNo

Name of the stakeholder Occupation Subjects Discussed

Keshod Taluka at Junagadh District- Bethar Bhai Vaghela.

rickshaw. He opined that there was a problem of drinking water in the area. He opines that the road should be widened.

2

Village Supasi in Patan Veraval Taluka at Junagadh District-Rajsi Rana-

Private Transport Owner He stays in Shantipara and works in Supasi Char Chowk. He has been

in this profession for 7 years now. During the road improvement, hE would like to be involved in Planning programs.

3

Jetpur in Rajkot District- Arvind Soraliya

School Teacher- Sardar Patel Academic Center for Education

He stays in Jai Park Society.i.e. 500 metres away from the school. He travel by his two-wheeler to the school. There should be proper road built in the area as the existing road is RCC make. He would like to be involved in the Planning and Monitoring stage during the road development.

4

Vanthali in Junagadh District- Kannayya Lal

Anaj Mandi Worker

He owns a Residential cum Commercial shop. It takes him a day for the transportation of goods. There is a problem of accidents in the area. There is no separate place to park the vehicles. The project is good for the development.

5Jetalsar in Rajkot District-Rai Singh Choudhary

Panchayat Member His place of stay is seven kms away from the place of work. The main

focus of development in the area is agriculture.

6Jetpur in Rajkot District- Kamal M Shah

Remica Tiles-Factory Owner

He stays in Navagadh i.e. 3 kms away from the place of stay. The raw material in his factory comes from Rajasthan.The employees in his factory usually travel by cycle or go walking to their residence.

7Village Bhanduri in Junagadh District- Joshi Bharti Ben

Anganwadi Worker

It takes her one hour to travel to the place of work as there is no direct transport mode available. She believes that the road condition should be improved and there should be appropriate crossing in the area.

8

Village Shahpur in Junagadh District- Chuni Bhai Panarah

Farmer The most expensive agricultural land in the area is near the major road. The major crops grown in the agricultural land are cotton, groundnut, wheat. Hi average income is Rs.50000 per acre. The village is connected to transport modes like bus, auto, tractor etc. The farmer suggests that there should not be too many turnings on the road.

9Vanthali in Junagadh District-KD Kharadi

Police He stays in the Police Headquarters. The main problem of the existing road is the bad condition and traffic jam due to the reduced size of the bridges.

Consultation with a school teacher

Consultation with an anajmandi worker

5-8



5.2.1 Cultural Property Consultations

The proposed project corridor has many temples, shrines, dargahs along the stretch. Consultations were carried out at few cultural properties falling within the ROW and at few temples where somw part of the land is to be acquired.

5.2.1.1 Place of Consultation: Hanuman Mandir at Village Ektanagar, Timbavadi

The temple is a pucca structure and is 12-15 years old. Consultation was held with local people of community. Alternative relocation site for temple was preferred just along the proposed RoW or inside village, along with enhancement of structure.

5.2.1.2 Place of Consultation: Neelkanth Nagar

The temple is a semipucca structure and 5 -6 years old. Consultation was held with local people of community. They expressed plans for construction of temple. Alternative relocation site for temple was preferred just along the proposed RoW.

5.2.1.3 Place of Consultation: Yogi Park Society, Vanthali Highway

The temple is a pucca structure owned by the public and is 15-20 years old. Consultation was held with local people. They suggested that temple could be relocated inside the village. While a community meeting is to be done then only final decision can be taken.

5.2.1.4 Place of Consultation: Manekwada

The temple is a pucca structure owned by the public and is 10-15 years old. Consultation was held with local people and sarpanch of community. They suggested that alternative relocation site for temple is available inside the village.

5.2.1.5 Place of Consultation: Manekwada

Consultation was held with trustees of mandir. The temple is famous among adjoining communities and people from various villages visit it. Main mandir structure is located at distance of 29 meters from the carriageway. About 500 devotees visit temple daily. Trust members were reluctant for relocation of main temple. For compensation of land acquired for widening, they preferred to take land available at backside of existing temple and also construction of new compound wall at government expense.

5-9



5.2.1.6 Place of Consultation: Khodiya Maa Ashram

The temple is a pucca private structure about 13 years old.Consultation was held with priest and few devotees of temple. The main temple structure is at a distance of 30 m from the carriageway, but there is a hand pump of religious importance which is falling within the ROW at a distance of 25 meters. The hand pump is famous for generating sweet water, as a result, the villagers use this water for drinking purpose. On an average, 60-70 people visit the temple on daily basis. The priest of the temple is reluctant about the relocation of the temple, especially the hand pump.

5.2.1.7 Place of Consultation: Dargah at Agatrai

The dargah is a semi-pucca structure about 400-500 years old. Consultation was held with local people. They opposed the shifting or relocation of the structure and suggested that the dargah could be retained as a median during the widening of the project road. However, the people were in the favor of the project road because of the poor condition of the existing road.

5.2.1.8 Place of Consultation: Mugal Mata Mandir at village Panidhra

Consultation was held with local people. They agreed for relocation of temple in near by area provided all relocation expenses should be bared by government. However, permission from owner needs to be taken, as he was not available at time of consultation.

5.2.1.9 Place of Consultation: Hanuman Mandir at Village Koilana

Consultation was held with local people and sarpanch of the village. They agreed for relocation of structure if appropriate compensation provided. Site of relocation can be decided after discussion with all the community people. However, final decision of relocation will be taken only after community meeting.

5.2.1.10 Place of Consultation: Chandra Moleshwar at Somnath-Veraval Bypass

Consultation was held with MLA of the local area. He suggested that moderate opposition by local people can be faced for relocation of structure. If possible widening at other side must be considered. However, after detail discussion with community member’s final decision shall be taken.

5-10



5.2.1.11 Place of Consultation: Hanuman Shani Dev Mandir at Somnath

The temple is Pucca Government structure about more than 300 years old. Consultation was held with priest. He agreed for relocation of structure on area behind Somnath trust. However, government should take care of all expenses of relocation and shifting of utilities.

5.3 PUBLIC HEARING (IN ACCORDANCE TO PROCEDURES OUTLINED IN THE MOEF NOTIFICATION SEPT 2006 & IT’S SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS)

The project is category – A. Thus, the user agency (NHAI) had submitted application for Public Hearing to Regional Offices at two districts, namely Rajkot and Junagadh. The proceedings of the Public Hearing is provided below.

5.3.1 Public Hearing in Rajkot District

Gujarat Pollution Control Board, Rajkot has published advertisement on 14th November 2009 in Gujarati daily namely “Sandesh” and “Divyabhaskar” and in English daily “Times of India” where in it was circulated for the general public that Public Hearing for the Project in Rajkot district shall be carried out at Group Kumar School, Village-Jetalsar, Taluka Jetpur, District Rajkot on 15th

December 2009 at 11:00 hr.

The Project Proponent in coordination with GPCB, Rajkot had sent copy of the EIA Report along with Summary of the EIA (in English and Gujrati), Summary of the Project Report, Resettlement Action Plan (one hard copy and one soft copy of each) to District Magistrate, Zila Parishad, District Industries Office, Regional office of MoEF and MoEF, New Delhi. In addition to this, Project Proponent in coordination with GPCB, Rajkot had also sent copy of the Summary of EIA in Gujarati and in English to the village panchayat office of villages through which project corridor passes for wide publicity about the project.

Mr Pankaj Thakar, Additional District Mangitrate, Rajkot, Mr S M Jha, Regional Officer, GPCB-Rajkot, Mr H K Bhatt, DGM cum Project Director, NHAI, PIU-Rajkot, Mr Mehul Bhatt, Manager-Tech, PIU-Rajkot Dr S D Badrinath, Environmental Expert, LASA (Consultant) and Mr Debashis Pal, Sr Manager (Environment) were present during the Public Hearing at the aforesaid venue on 15th December 2009.

Mr Mehul Bhatt presented the project describing the proposed improvement, likely impacts due the project and mitigation measures proposed to minimize the anticipated impact, the land acquisition procedure and likely compensation package.

The Public Hearing Proceedings (including the minutes) for Rajkot district is enclosed as Annexure-5.1.

5-11



5.3.2 Public Hearing in Junagadh District

Gujarat Pollution Control Board, Rajkot has published advertisement on 3rd December 2009 and 4th December 2009 in Gujarati daily namely “Sandesh” and “Divyabhaskar” and on 4th December in English daily “Times of India” where in it was circulated for the general public that Public Hearing for the Project in Junagadh district shall be carried out at Shamaldas Gandhi Town Hall (Mahanagar Sevasadan Hall) Kalwa Chalk, District Junagadh-362001 on 5th January 2009 at 12:00 hr.

The Project Proponent in coordination with GPCB, Junagadh had sent copy of the EIA Report along with Summary of the EIA (in English and Gujarati), Summary of the Project Report, Resettlement Action Plan (one hard copy and one soft copy of each) to District Magistrate, Zila Parishad, District Industries Office, Regional office of MoEF and MoEF, New Delhi. In addition to this, Project Proponet in coordination with GPCB, Junagadh had also sent copy of the Summary of EIA in Gujrati and in English to the village panchayat offices of villages through which project corridor passes for wide publicty about the project.

Mr A M Parmar IAS, District Mangitrate, Junagadh, Mr G M Sadhu, Regional Officer, GPCB-Junagadh, Mr H K Bhatt, DGM cum Project Director, NHAI, PIU-Rajkot, Mr Mehul Bhatt, Manager-Tech, PIU-Rajkot, Dr S D Badrinath, Environmental Expert, LASA (Consultant) and Mr Debashis Pal, Sr Manager (Environment), LASA were present during the Public Hearing at the aforesaid venue on 5th January 2010.

Mr Mehul Bhatt presented the project describing the proposed improvement, likely impacts due the project and migigation measures proposed to minimize the anticipated impact, the land acquisition procedure and likely compensation package etc.

The Public Hearing Proceedings (including the minutes) for Junagadh district is enclosed as Annexure-5.2.

Compliance status of the Public Hearing for Rajkot district and Junagadh district is enclosed as Annexure-5.3.

5.4 CONCLUSION

The predominant means of livelihood in the project region is agriculture. There are land owners and agriculture labourers who do not own the land but get a share of the yield from the land owner.

Despite the fact that the proposed project would require significant area of agriculture land, the consultation process reflected that majority of villagers in the project area are in favour of the project as it would enhance the development of the region and improve infrastructure facilities. They are ready to part with their land but demand adequate and rightful compensation from the State Government.

6-1

6. ANTICIPATED IMPACTS &MITIGATIONMEASURESThis chapter assesses the nature, type and magnitude of the potential impacts likely on the various physical, biological and cultural environmental components along the project corridor, methods adopted for assessing impatssuch as use of model; details of mitigation & methods proposed to reduce adverse impacts.

6.1 INTRODUCTION

Road widening projects have typical potential impacts though these vary in accordance with the intensity of construction works involved, future scenario envisaged during the operation stage and the importance attached to the impacted environmental attributes. Since the project involves widening of the existing NH-8D from existing two lane to four lane, most of the impacts will be confined to the proposed RoW. Subsequent sections detail out the likely impacts on various environmental components & the various mitigations suggested.

6.2 LAND ENVIRONMENT

6.2.1 Anticipated Impacts

Physiography & Terrain: The project corridor traverses through plain to rolling terrain. A large stretch of the road passes through agricultural and barren lands. Widening to 4 lane will involve large quantities of earthwork as fill materials. Such modifications in the topography may lead to drainage problems both along the project corridor and at the borrow area sites. The road widening will involve about 472249 cum of cutting and 4774392 cum of filling.

Soil: The widening of the road to 4 lane would require acquisition of agriculture lands at places where the presently available RoW is inadequate to accommodate the proposed improvements. Establishment of labour camps, hot mix plants and movement of construction machinery shall avoid ecologically sensitive locations and construction and allied activities such as setting up of construction camps and movement of vehicle along haul roads would result in compaction of soil. Disposal of oil wastes from vehicle and construction equipment maintenance yards shall also lead to contamination of productive soil.

Besides, due to widening of the project corridor, adverse impacts on the soil would include: loss of topsoil, increase in soil erosion, soil instability, tipping of spoils generated from construction work and contamination of soil.

Borrow Areas: The investigation was aimed at locating the potential borrow areas for sub-grade/ embankment fill and granular sub-base along the project corridors within economic hauling distance. To obtain this information regarding probable borrow pits along the corridor and to obtain this objective, the offices of Rajkot Public Works Department and local people were contacted. Based on the information received and field surveys carried out, the consultants identified the borrow areas which are new ones /existing ones belonging to the government or

4. descriptionoftheenvironment - gujarat …gpcb.gov.in/pdf/nhai_jetpur_somnath_eia_part_2.pdfnear...

Documents