Elkhair Oil Terminal (Phase II) Environmental Baseline Study

Elkhair Oil Terminal (Phase II) Environmental Baseline Study.

Item Type Report

Download date 30/09/2021 14:40:23

Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/1834/6799 Elkhair Oil Terminal (Phase II) Environmental Baseline Study

Prepared by: Institute Of Marine Research (IMR), Red Sea University & Faculty Of Marine Sciences and Fisheries, Red Sea University

November 2014

Table of Contents

List of Figures ...... v List of Tables ...... vii Chapter 2 - Introduction ...... 1 1.1 General: ...... 1 1.2 Characteristics of Sudanese Red Sea Coast: ...... 1 1.3 Objectives of the study: ...... 2 Chapter 3 - Methodology ...... 3 2.1 Study area: ...... 3 2.2 Work plan: ...... 4 2.2.1 Field work: executed in the period from 4 – 19/5/2014...... 4 2.2.1.1 Field work at littoral zone: ...... 4 2.2.1.1.2 Samples were collected from the field, for laboratory analysis these include: ...... 4 2.2.1.2 Field work at sublittoral zone...... 4 2.2.2.1 Physical parameters ...... 5 2.2.2.2 Chemical variables : ...... 5 2.2.2.3 Sediment Characteristics: ...... 5 2.2.3 Socioeconomic survey: ...... 6 2.3 Legal Framework and Institutional Arrangement: ...... 6 2.3.1 National Level Laws, Policies and Institutions: ...... 6 2.3.2 The Interim National Constitution: ...... 6 2.3.3 Schedule A: ...... 7 2.3.4 Schedule C: ...... 7 2.3.5 Environmental Protection Act (EPA) 2001: ...... 7 2.3.6 International and Regional Conventions: ...... 8 2.3.7 International Conventions: ...... 9 2.3.8 Regional Conventions: ...... 9 2.3.9 Regional Convention on the Conservation of the Environment of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, 1982: ...... 10

ii 2.3.10 Protocol Concerning the Conservation of Biological Diversity and the Establishment of Network of Protected Areas in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, 2005: ...... 10 2.3.11 Protocol Concerning the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-Based Activities (LBA) in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden 2005: ...... 10 2.3.12 Protocol Concerning the Regional Cooperation in Combating Pollution by Oil and other Harmful Substances in Cases of Emergency, 1982: ...... 11 2.3.13 Red Sea State (RSS) Laws: ...... 11 2.3.14 Environmental Institutions:...... 12 Chapter 4 - Results ...... 14 3.1 littoral zone: ...... 14 3.1.1 Physical and chemical characteristics of sea water at the study area: ...... 14 3.1.2. Phytoplankton community ...... 21 3.1.3 Zooplankton communities: ...... 23 3.1.4. Sediments characteristics ...... 24 3.2 Macro-flora analysis: ...... 29 3.2.1. Seaweeds: ...... 29 3.2.1.1. Seaweeds species diversity: ...... 29 3.2.1.2. Zonation and species association: ...... 29 3.2.1.3. Seaweeds percentage cover: ...... 30 3.2.2. Seagrass: ...... 32 3.2.2.1. Species composition and distribution: ...... 32 3.2.2.2. Seagrass percentage cover: ...... 32 3.2.2.3. Seagrass shoot density: ...... 33 3.3. Macro-fauna analysis: ...... 34 3.3.1. Epifauna and infauna: ...... 34 3.4 Fish population occurrence: ...... 36 3.4.1 Fish larvae: ...... 36 3.2. Sublittoral zone: ...... 38 3.2.1 Reef slope coral survey: ...... 38 3.2.1.1 Benthic Cover ...... 38 3.2.1.2. Coral diversity: ...... 41

iii 3.2.2 Reef slope fishes: ...... 43 3.2.3. Reef slope Macro-invertebrates: ...... 49 3.3 Reef crest survey: ...... 52 3.4 Back reef survey: ...... 53 3.4.1 Back reef fishes: ...... 53 3.4.2 Back reef invertebrates ...... 61 3.5 Socioeconomic survey: ...... 66 3.5.1 EOT workers questionnaire analysis: ...... 66 3.5.2 Fishermen questionnaire analysis: ...... 68 Chapter 5 - EIA ...... 71 4.2:Impact identification: ...... 71 4.2.1: Expected impacts during construction phase: ...... 71 4.2.1.1: Impact of dredging on the marine environment: ...... 71 4.2.1.1.1: Impact of dredging on seawater characteristics: ...... 72 4.2.1.1.2:Impact of dredging on benthic communities: ...... 72 4.2.1.1.3:Impact of dredging on sediment: ...... 72 4.2.1.1.4:Impact of dredging on biota assemblages: ...... 73 4.2.1.1.5:Impact of dredging on marine fishes and birds: ...... 73 4.2.1.2: Impact of filling on the terrestrial environment: ...... 73 4.2.1.3: Impact on socioeconomic environment: ...... 73 4.2.2: Expected impact during operation: ...... 74 4.2.2.1: Impact on the marine environment: ...... 74 4.2.2.2: Impact on the terrestrial environment: ...... 74 4.2.2.3: Impact on the socioeconomic environment: ...... 74 4.2.3: Mitigation measures:- ...... 75 4.2.3.1: Mitigation measures during construction: ...... 75 4.2.3.2: Mitigation measures during operation: ...... 75 4.2.4: Environmental management plan: ...... 76 Bibliography ...... 77 Appendix A - Benthic classification ...... 81

iv List of Figures Figure 1 Satellite Image the location of the study area ...... 3 Figure 2 : Average values of air temperatures at the study area ...... 15 Figure 3 : Average values of water temperatures at the study area ...... 16 Figure 4: Average values of transparency (m) at the study area...... 16 Figure 5: Average values of salinity at the study area ...... 17 Figure 6: Average values of dissolved Oxygen at the study area ...... 17 Figure 7: Average values of pH at the study area ...... 18 Figure 8: Average values of phosphate concentrations at the study area ...... 18 Figure 9: Average values of nitrite concentration at the study area...... 19 Figure 10: Average values of silicate concentration at the study area...... 19 Figure 11: Average values of carbonate at the study area ...... 20 Figure 12: Average values of bicarbonates at the study area ...... 20 Figure 13: Average values of magnesium at the study area...... 21 Figure 14: Average values of TSS at the study area...... 21 Figure 15: Composition and distribution of major phytoplankton groups at the study area...... 23 Figure 16: composition and distribution of major zooplankton groups at the study area...... 24 Figure 17: Average of soil temperatures at the study area...... 25 Figure 18: Average of water depth at the study area...... 25 Figure 19: Average of soil pH at the study area...... 26 Figure 20: Average of soil ECe (mol/hos) at the study area...... 26 Figure 21: Average of soil salinity (‰) at the study area...... 27 Figure 22: Average of moisture Content (%) at the study area...... 27 Figure 23: Average of organic carbon (%) at the study area...... 28 Figure 24: Average of sediment characteristics at the study area...... 29 Figure 25: The mean Percentage Cover (%) of seagrass species at the study area...... 33 Figure 26: The Mean Shoot Density (Shoot/m2) of seagrass species at the study area...... 34 Figure 27: The percentages of epifaunal groups at the study area...... 35 Figure 28: The percentage (%) of infaunal groups at the study area...... 36 Figure 29: Substrate code and mean percentage coverage for at 5m depth at study area...... 39 Figure 30: Substrate code and mean percentage coverage at 10m depth at study area...... 40

v Figure 31: Percentage cover of living and non-living substrate at 5m depth at study area...... 40 Figure 32: Percentage cover of living and non-living substrate at 10m depth at study area...... 41 Figure 33: Butterflyfishes and angelfishes species at 10 M depth at the study area...... 47 Figure 34: Butterflyfishes and angelfishes species at 5 M depth at the study area...... 48 Figure 35: Fish families t 10 M depth for five transects at DamaDama fringing reefs...... 48 Figure 36: Fish families at 5 M depth at the study area...... 49 Figure 37: Number of invertebrates along the transect at 5 M depth at study area...... 51 Figure 38: Number of invertebrates along the transect at 10 M depth at study area...... 51 Figure 39: Number of invertebrates species at the study area...... 53 Figure 40: Abundance of fish families at transect TSL1...... 59 Figure 41: Abundance of fish families at transect TSL2...... 59 Figure 42: Abundance of fish families at transect TSL3...... 60 Figure 43: Abundance of fish families at transect TSL4...... 60 Figure 44: Abundance of fish families at transect TSL5...... 61 Figure 45: Density of invertebrates at transect TSL1...... 64 Figure 46: Density of invertebrates at transect TSL2...... 64 Figure 47: Density of invertebrates at transect TSL3...... 65 Figure 48: Density of invertebrates at transect TSL4...... 65 Figure 49: Density of invertebrates at transect TSL5...... 66

vi List of Tables

Table 1 : The physical and chemical characteristics of sea water at the study area...... 14 Table 2: Composition and distribution of phytoplankton groups at the study area ...... 22 Table 3: Composition and distribution of zooplankton groups at the study area ...... 23 Table 4: Means of sediment physical and chemical parameters at the study area...... 24 Table 5: Means of sediment characteristic at the study area...... 28 Table 6: Seaweeds species diversity at the project site...... 30 Table 7: Average percentage covers (%) and distributional pattern of seaweeds species at the study area...... 31 Table 8: The Species Composition and Distribution of seagrass at the study area...... 32 Table 9: The Mean Percentage Cover (%) of seagrass species at the study area...... 32 Table 10: The Mean Shoot Density (Shoot/m2) of seagrass species at the project Site...... 33 Table 11: Mean density (individual\m2) of faunal organisms at the study area...... 35 Table 12: Littoral zone fish species occurrence at the study area ...... 37 Table 13: Littoral pelagic fishes occurrence ( close to reefs) at study area...... 37 Table 14: Substrate code and percentage coverage at 5m depth at study area...... 38 Table 15: Substrate code and percentage coverage at 10m at study area ...... 39 Table 16: Coral species recorded from the study area ((+|) present, (-) absent)...... 41 Table 17: Fish families at 5 M depth at the study area...... 43 Table 18: Butterflyfishes and angelfishes specie at 5 M depth at the study area...... 44 Table 19: Fish families at 10 M depth at the study area...... 44 Table 20: Butterflyfishes and angelfishes species at 10 M depth at the study area...... 44 Table 21: Fish families and species encountered at the reef slope in the at the study area...... 45 Table 22: Number of invertebrates in at 5m depth at the study area ...... 49 Table 23: Invertebrates at 10m depth at the study area...... 50 Table 24: Number of invertebrates at the study area...... 52 Table 25: Fish species at transect TSL1...... 54 Table 26: Fish species at transect TSL2...... 55 Table 27: Fish species at transect TSL3...... 56 Table 28: Fish species at transect TSL4...... 57 Table 29: Fish species at transect TSL5...... 58

vii Table 30: Invertebrate species at transects TSL1...... 61 Table 31: Invertebrate species at transects TSL2…………………………………..…………...62 Table 32: illustrates invertebrate species at transects TSL3………………………………...….62 Table 33: illustrates invertebrate species at transects TSL4……….…………………………..63 Table 34: illustrates invertebrate species at transects TSL5…………………………………...63 Table 35: Job classification for EOT`s manpower...... 66 Table 36: Years of work experience of EOT manpower...... 67 Table 37: Staff years of experience in EOT...... 67 Table 38: Perception of the terminal staff on the project economic impact ...... 67 Table 39: Perception of the terminal staff on the social impact of the project...... 67 Table 40: Perception of the terminal staff on the negativity of the environmental impact likely to be produced by the project...... 68 Table 41: Job profile of the fishermen community...... 68 Table 42: Years of work experience of fishermen community...... 69 Table 43: Years of experience in fishing activities...... 69 Table 44 : Perception of the fishermen on the project economic impact...... 69 Table 45: Perception of the fishermen on the social impact of the project...... 69 Table 46: Perception of the fishermen on the impact of the project on fishing and fishing activities...... 70

viii Chapter 2 - Introduction

1.1 General: A remarkable expansion & development plans were carried out by the Sea Ports Corporation during the last decade. As a result several new platforms and oil terminals have been constructed south & north Port Sudan harbour, with the intention of increasing its carrying capacity and handling efficiency. Now two oil terminals are operating in the Sudanese coast i.e. Bashayer and Alkhair oil terminals, however ,with the rising development in oil industry in Sudan and in order to meet the expected growth of oil trade (downstream , upstream), construction of additional platform in Alkhair oil terminal was decided ; such project or any similar coastal devolvement installations are expected to have an adverse impacts on the marine & coastal environment, unless proper mitigation & precautions measures are considered. With this respect a contract was signed between Sea Ports Corporation ( as the first party ) and the Institute of Marine Research & The Faculty of Marine Sciences & Fisheries – Red Sea University ( as the second party ) to conduct an environmental impact assessment study for the above mentioned project.

1.2 Characteristics of Sudanese Red Sea Coast: The total length of the Red Sea is about 1900 km, of which about 650 km. border the Sudan; the Sudanese coastline, however, is more than 750 km. long due to embayment’s and headlands. The maximum width is 306 km. off Port Sudan the width is about 200 km. In profile there are three distinct depth zones: the shallow reef studded shelves of less than 50 m. the deep shelves of 500 – 1000 m. and the central trench of more than 1000 m. reaching a maximum depth of 3040 m. measured off Port Sudan (Schroeder, 1982). The major features of the Sudanese coast are coastal lagoons, fringing reefs, barrier reefs and atolls. The coastal lagoons, locally known as “mersas” may cut obliquely into the coastal plain for more than four kilometers, as for example the natural harbor of Port Sudan, or may be restricted to the fringing reef without reaching the coastline or barely indenting it, as at Mersa Kuwai, depths may be several tens of meters, as in the harbour of Port Sudan, or less than one meter as in Mersa Haloot. Fringing reefs, typically 1 -3 km wide, line most of the coast, with major interruptions at the entrances to the mersas and the Tokar Delta. Barrier reefs 1 – 4 km width, parallel much of the coast; they are separated from the fringing

1 reefs by a ship channel of 100 to 400 m, depth & 2 – 5 km width. Further offshore a few atolls arise with steep flanks from depths of 400 to 800 m, the best known example is Sanganeb reef. (Schroeder, 1982). As an ocean the Red Sea is quite unique this is of course, due to its partial isolation and confinement which range from 23 – 32 ◦C, high salinities which range from 38 – 41 %, high transparency values of up to 46 m. and this consequently lead to special marine life. There is a long variety of plants & animals, many of which are related to those in the Indian’s Ocean; however, a lot of them are found exclusively in the Red Sea, climatic conditions of the Sudanese Red Sea coast are typical arid zone environment, with higher temperature, ranges between 30 – 47◦c during Summer (May – September) and ≤ 20 – 27 ◦c during winter (October – January). Rain fall is generally scarce throughout the Red Sea coastal zone (Average annual of 55 mm) increasing southward, in the Sudanese Red Sea the Average annual rainfall ranges between 34 – 24 o mm, being mainly during winter (October – December). Humidity in Port Sudan ranges from 42 – 76 % with the maximum range of 72 – 76 % being reported during winter (Oct. – Jan) while the minimum mean levels (36 – 65 %) were recorded during summer (Jun. – Jul.). Evaporation rate in Port Sudan is generally high with a maximum of 9.1 mm/ day reported in July – August & lowest rate is about 3 mm day being detected during Dec – Jan. Winds direction in the Sudanese coast is almost northerly and north westerly throughout the Year The northeastern trade winds, blow during winter (Nov. – Mar.) at speed range of 50 – 80 km / hour) while the northwestern winds (at relatively much lower speed), locally known as “Haror”, prevail during summer months (Jun. – Aug.) (IMR, 2008).

1.3 Objectives of the study: Objectives of the baseline study are: 1.3.1 Provision of adequate baseline information required for the environmental impact assessment study for the planned expansion project at Elkhair oil terminal. 1.3.2 Identification & evaluation of the current status of marine environment at the study area & the prevailing condition that describe their ecological & biological features. 1.3.3 Inventory & evaluation of the key habitats & species biodiversity. 1.3.4 Evaluation of socioeconomic impact on the adjacent communities

2 Chapter 3 - Methodology

2.1 Study area: The proposed Elkhair Oil Terminal (Phase II) is located at the south side of the New Container Terminal Port Sudan, near the existing Elkhair Oil Terminal. The new terminal can accommodate 150,000DWT oil tanker (Figure.1).

O p e n s e a

S. Fringing reef

El Khair Petroleum Terminal Sampling station Diving site

Figure 1 Satellite Image of the location of the study area

3 2.2 Work plan: For reliable baseline study, field survey & laboratory work were conducted adopting standard methodologies & techniques to evaluate status of the marine environment, its physical, chemical & biological parameters, habitats and living resources at the study area.

2.2.1 Field work: executed in the period from 4 – 19/5/2014.

2.2.1.1 Field work at littoral zone: 2.2.1.1.1 The transects were established to cover almost all the study area (littoral zone) and suitable number of stations were selected along each transect, locations were determined using GPS.

2.2.1.1.2 Samples were collected from the field, for laboratory analysis these include: 2.2.1.1.2.1 Water samples for Physical and chemical parameters. 2.2.1.1.2.2 Water samples for plankton analysis 2.2.1.1.2.3 Sediment samples for sediment characteristics analysis. 2.2.1.1.2.4 Sediment samples for benthic fauna examination. 2.2.1.1.3 Field surveys for biotopes were conducted for the following: 2.2.1.1.3.1 Benthic-fauna, these include: 2.2.1.1.3.1.1 Epifauna estimation, applying rapid visual count (PERSGA ,2004)) . 2.2.1.1.3.1.2 Infauna density , determined according to (PERSGA ,2004)). 2.2.1.1.3.2 Macro -flora, these include: 2.2.1.1.3.2.1 Seaweeds survey, visual survey performed according to Baker and Wolff (1987) 2.2.1.1.3.2.2 Seagrasses survey was undertaken according to English et al. (1997) and PERSGA/GEF (2004). 2.2.1.1.3.3 Assessment and identification of fish population., were done using rapid visual count, (PERSGA ,2004).

2.2.1.2 Field work at sublittoral zone. 2.2.1.2.1 Transects were selected at the reef slope, reef crest and back reef, length of each transect is 100 m.

4 2.2.1.2.2 Reef check program (2002) was employed at 5 m. & 10 m. depths, for the following: 2.2.1.2.2.1 Density, diversity & distribution of fish population at the reef slope using rapid visual count. 2.2.1.2.2.2 Density, diversity & distribution of coral assemblage at the reef slope, these include: 2.2.1.2.2.2.1 Benthic cover estimation, applying point intercept method (Hodgson et al., 2006).. 2.2.1.2.2.2.2 Coral diversity, using the visual survey method of Kenchington (1978). 2.2.1.2.2.3 Density, diversity & distribution of invertebrate assemblage at the reef slope, employing rapid visual count. 2.2.1.2.2.4 Density, diversity & distribution of invertebrate assemblage at the back reef, using rapid visual count (Ormand et al. 1984). 2.2.1.2.2.5 Density, diversity & distribution of fish population at the back reef, using rapid visual count (Ormand et al. 1984). 2.2.2 Laboratory work: Conducted in the period 19/5/2014 – 12/6/2014 for the following measurements:

2.2.2.1 Physical parameters 2.2.2.1.1 Air temperature (C◦) measured using thermometer . 2.2.2.1.2 water temperature (C◦) measured using STD/CTD. 2.2.2.1.3 Salinity ( S‰) measured using STD/CTD. 2.2.2.1.4 Transparency measured using standard Secchi-Disc.

2.2.2.2 Chemical variables :

2.2.2.1.5 Dissolved oxygen (Do2) analysis, applying Winkler method 2.2.2.1.6 Nutrients i.e. Phosphate, nitrate, nitrite, analyzed according to APHA. 1992. 2.2.2.1.7 TSS analysis, according to Strickland . , J. D. H.(1968) 2.2.2.1.8 pH measured using pH-meter (digital)

2.2.2.3 Sediment Characteristics: Using standard set of sieves (Mac Cave and syviski,1991).

5 2.2.3 Socioeconomic survey: A questionnaire was designed to collect the data needed for the socioeconomic analysis. The structure of the questionnaire was mainly made up of 6 closed questions. Two stakeholder groups were targeted by the questionnaire, the first group was the workers at Elkhair Oil Terminal and the second group was the fishermen community at the project area. A total of 50 questionnaire forms were distributed for the two groups, 25 forms for each one. Statistical analysis of the questionnaire was performed with Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) version (16). The programme was used to calculate the percentage of each answer.

2.3 Legal Framework and Institutional Arrangement: This section aims to review Sudanese laws, policy and institutional arrangements, pertinent to conservation of the environment and natural resources, which should be given special deliberation when conducting an EIA as they provide the standards to be considered in assessing projects impacts. However, focus would be dedicated to those of relevance to the protection and management of coastal and marine environment. Therefore, reference would be made to some international, national, and state level legislations and institutions taking into account the concurrent powers between the last two levels.

2.3.1 National Level Laws, Policies and Institutions: This section reviews environmental regulations included in the Interim National constitution of 2005, the Environmental Protection Act of 2001, and international and regional conventions ratified by the federal government.

2.3.2 The Interim National Constitution: Sudan Interim National Constitution (INC) of 2005 acknowledged the link between environmental issues and socioeconomic integrity and clearly indicated that the issues of natural resources utilization and management are concurrent legislative subject between national and state level authorities. It therefore:

6 Guarantees the right of the Sudanese`s people to clean and diverse environment while imposing a duty on the citizens to preserve and enhance the country biodiversity, Precludes the state from pursuing any policy or taking or permitting any action which may adversely affect the existence of any special animals or vegetative life or their natural or adapted habitat, and Guarantees that the state shall promote legislation on sustainable utilization of natural resources and best practices with respect to their management. Furthermore, the INC of 2005 contained 5 schedules (A to F) that distinctively profiled the powers through the governmental levels. Two of these 5 schedules contain subject of relevance to this report. Below is a short account of these subjects:

2.3.3 Schedule A: provides that the national government has exclusive and executive powers on: • Natural land and national natural resources,

• Signing of international treaties on behalf of the Republic of the Sudan,

• National public utilities, and

• National economic policy and planning.

2.3.4 Schedule C: provided the states with fair legal support to manage their natural resources. It declared the exclusive legislative and executive powers of a state of Sudan on subjects such as: • State land and natural resources,

• Development, conservation, and management of state natural resources and forestry resources,

• Enforcement of state law, and

• Pollution control.

2.3.5 Environmental Protection Act (EPA) 2001: EPA is a framework law for environmental protection in Sudan. One of the most significant components of this law is the legislative provision for Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The law placed an obligation on economic projects to execute an EIA

7 study before initiating any developmental activities. EPA 2001 outlined the information required to be included in the EIA report and the competent authority for approval of the report. Generally the EIA should identify and evaluate positive and negative environmental and socioeconomic impacts likely to emanate from the project and to propose integrated mitigation measures to counteract these impacts. More specifically, the following information is required to be presented in the report: • Baseline profiling of the current environmental and socioeconomic conditions at the project site, • A legal framework, • Description of the project, • Assessment of potential positive and negative environmental and socioeconomic impacts likely to occur throughout the project phases, • The possible alternatives to the proposed project; • A management plan.

So in order for a project to get a license, the Higher Council for Environment and Natural Resources (HCENR), has to review its EIA report which would be approved or rejected. In addition to, legal requirement for environmental protection were also incorporated in other important sectoral legislations although with varying degree of transparency and strictness. Examples of these are: • The Forestry and Renewable Natural Resources Act 2002,

• Wildlife Conservation Act 1986,

• Investment Act 1998,

• National Maritime Transport Act 2010,

• Ministry of Petroleum Corporate Standards

2.3.6 International and Regional Conventions: International and regional conventions are included here because in the firest place they are binding on the national government of Sudan. Implementation of these conventions requires formulation of national legislations which is not achieved for all the

8 international and regional conventions ratified by Sudan. Below is a list of some prominent international environmental conventions adopted by the government of Sudan and should be considered when undertaking an EIA:

2.3.7 International Conventions: . The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity 1992, . The UN Convention to Combat Desertification, . The Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES) 1973, . Convention Concerning the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage; . The Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapons Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space, and Under Water; . United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 1992, . Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer; . Ramsar Convention (1971) for the protection of wetlands, . UN Convention on the Law of the Sea 1985, . Bamako Convention on the Ban of the Import into Africa and the Control of Trans boundary Movement and Management of Hazardous Wastes within Africa. . Conventions produced by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) which account to more than 55 conventions, protocols and agreements; plus hundreds of codes, guidelines and recommendations. These in particular are pertinent to the protection of the marine environment from shipping.

2.3.8 Regional Conventions: Sudan is a party to one regional convention and 3 protocols of significant bearing to coastal and marine environment. These agreements were made between the countries bordering the Red Sea to meet obligations of some international conventions such as the Law of the Sea conventions (known as UNCLOS I, II and III) and the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (1992).

9 2.3.9 Regional Convention on the Conservation of the Environment of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, 1982: This is shortly known as Jeddah convention 1982. It was signed in February 1982 and entered into force on August 20, 1985. The main objective of this convention is “to ensure conservation of the environment of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden by the promotion, on a regional basis, of environmental protection and natural resources management in the marine and coastal areas of the region. Jeddah convention promotes the regional cooperation among the signatory parties in regards to marine and coastal environmental protection. It specifically prioritizes the need for collaboration in the control of marine pollution, scientific and technical assistance, environmental management, and the development of environmental standards. In 1995 the Regional Organization for Conservation of the Environment of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden (PERSGA) was formally launched as an operational organization to implement the activities and priorities stipulated in the Jeddah Convention (1982), it’s Protocols and its Action Plan. Since then PERSGA has become recognized as the sole regional organization leading coastal and marine conservation activities and influencing environmental policy making in the Red Sea region.

2.3.10 Protocol Concerning the Conservation of Biological Diversity and the Establishment of Network of Protected Areas in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, 2005:

This Protocol recognizes the interconnected nature of marine ecosystems and the usefulness of MPAs for helping to sustain healthy populations of important species. The Protocol was prepared in cooperation with ROPME and the Gulf Cooperation Council, with EU support, and was created with the aim to complement existing international treaties, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity.

2.3.11 Protocol Concerning the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-Based Activities (LBA) in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden 2005:

This protocol addresses the rising threats from land-based sources of pollution (such as sewage and industrial effluents) to both the marine environment and human health. The Protocol responds to emerging LBA issues from recent global summits and aligns itself

10 with the articles contained in section 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982) as well as the UNEP-GPA goals. Furthermore, PERSGA’s maturing ICZM work in its Member States potentially lays a solid foundation for addressing the national- regional character of LBA activities in terms of land-based pollution affecting the marine environment.

2.3.12 Protocol Concerning the Regional Cooperation in Combating Pollution by Oil and other Harmful Substances in Cases of Emergency, 1982:

This protocol was signed along with Jeddah Convention in February 1882 since marine pollution by oil and other harmful substances is an urgent and important issue in the region. This protocol arrange for responses to hazardous oil spills and the emergency actions that are needed as a result from the member states. It prioritizes the need for cooperative and effective measures to deal with such emergencies and enhance PERSGA members’ response mechanisms in order to protect the regional marine environment from adverse oil spill effects.

2.3.13 Red Sea State (RSS) Laws: In accordance with the federal system of governance and the provisions of the INC 2005 which consent to concurrent responsibilities on environmental management between the Federal and State governments, the RSS has formulated laws and regulations to regulate development and environment particularly where the provisions of the national laws are unable to regulate the unique natural resources of the state. Some of these laws with close bearing to EIA practice are listed below: • Red Sea State Law on Protection of the Environment 2006,

• Red Sea State Public Health Act 2001,

• Marine Fisheries Law, and

• Regulations and Development of Industries in the RSS 1998.

11 2.3.14 Environmental Institutions: The arrangement of the environmental institutions in Sudan follows the federal governance system characterized by the joint and concomitant powers of state and national authorities. The principal governmental body responsible for the environment at both levels is the Ministry of Environment which may also be in charge of managing other interrelated themes such as physical development and forestry as for the national level or such as tourism and wildlife as in the RSS example. At the national level the Higher Council for Environment and Natural Resources (HCENR) was established in 2001 by EPA 2001 to manage and liaise on environmental issues between international, national, and state levels. The Sudanese Standards and Metrology Organizations (SSMO), under the auspices of the Council of Federal Ministers, is the sole autonomous governmental authority for all standardization activities in the Sudan. The organization was established by the SSMO law in 1993 which included several items related to the environment. SSMO has, over the years, developed a package of national environmental standards for limiting noise, emissions to air, air quality, effluent discharges, health and safety, and hazardous waste. Besides, some federal working departments are present in the RSS which significantly contribute to managing the coastal and marine environment of the RSS. These are: The Commercial Maritime Authority of the federal Ministry of Transport mandated to inspect marine vessels and to control marine pollution, 1. The marine environment protection administration of the federal ministry of Environment and Physical Development as PERSGA national focal point,

2. Wildlife Conservation Administration, United Police Force, Ministry of Interiors mandated to manage Marine Protected Areas in RSS,

3. Fisheries Research Center of the Federal Ministry of Science and Technology mandated to manage marine fisheries resources, and

4. Forestry administration of the federal Ministry of Environment and Physical Development mandated to manage forestry resources of the RSS which include mangrove stands.

12 EPA 2001 also encourages states to establish its own council for environment and natural resources for environmental management, policy, and decision making. At the RSS levels 2 ministries contribute to the environmental management of the state natural resources. The Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation, and Animal Resources has the prime duty of managing natural vegetation and water resources through extension and rehabilitation programmes. The Ministry of Industry contains the Department of Industrial Security which is responsible of the environmental inspection and licensing. At the state grass root level the municipalities are in charge of waste management to preserve aesthetic values and to safeguard natural resources from degradation.

13 Chapter 4 - Results

3.1 littoral zone: In the littoral xone six transects were surveyed. Transect one to five represent the project site

(Elkhair) and transect six considered as the control area (Kilo 8).

3.1.1 Physical and chemical characteristics of sea water at the study area: The values of the physical and chemical parameters of seawater at the project site were presented in Table 1 and figures 2 to 13 below. Generally all values obtained were within the limits of the normal range of the season.

Table 1 : The physical and chemical characteristics of sea water at the study area. Parameters /Transect TL1 TL2 TL3 TL4 TL5 TL6 no Air temperature (C◦) 31.07 35.4 34.93 33.5 32.81 30.8 Water temperature (C◦) 29.8 30.7 31.13 31.17 30.83 29.67 Transparency (m) 7.4 12.0 3.9 3.9 4.5 4.0 DO (mg/l) 4.22 4.37 4.4 3.94 3.7 4 pH 8.21 8.22 8.25 8.26 8.24 8.26 Salinity (‰) 39.5 39.33 39.5 39 39.33 39 Po₄ (mg/l) 0.433 0.451 0.3 0.634 0.334 0.752 NO₂ (mg/l) 0.104 0.15 0.15 0.37 0.19 0.28 Sio₃ (mg/l) 0.4 3.17 3.52 2.58 3.18 1.97 CO₃ (PPm) 18533 38000 13500 12300 28200 20300 Hco₃ (PPm) 6640 9150 9713 6665 7726 7195 mg (PPm) 1322 1115.8 1257.4 1347.2 1145.6 1450 TSS (mg/l) 175.7 221.2 175.2 221.2 287.3 277.5

Air and water temperatures were within the normal range 30 C◦ to 47 C◦ known to preval during summer season(May – September ) at Port Sudan. As for DO the reported values were within the moderate values according to UNEP (1997). Saturation value is generally

14 fluctuates within the range of (4.80 to 6.50 ml O₂/l)). Dissolved oxygen at all sites was saturated at that temperature recorded. This is normal because the area is shallow in direct contact with the atmosphere in addition to the photosynthesis taking place during the day time . The pH values ware within the normal range (8.12 to 8.30). Nutrients values including nitrite, phosphate, silicate, bicarbonate, carbonate and magnesium measured in this study were also normal in conformity with previous records on concentrations of these parameters from the Red Sea .

35 )

◦ 34

Air Temperature (C Temperature Air 30

28 TL1 TL2 TL3 TL4 TL5 TL6

Transects

Figure 2 : Average values of air temperatures at the study area.

15 31.5

31 ) ◦ 30.5

29.5

29 Water Water Temperature (C

28.5 TL1 TL2 TL3 TL4 TL5 TL6 Transects

Figure 3 : Average values of water temperatures at the study area.

Transparency (m) 14 12 10 8 6 4

Transparency (m) Transparency 2 0 TL1 TL2 TL3 TL4 TL5 TL6 Transects

Figure 4: Average values of transparency (m) at the study area.

16 39.6 39.5 39.4 39.3 0 ) 39.2 39.1 silinty (% 39 38.9 38.8 38.7 TL1 TL2 TL3 TL4 TL5 TL6 Transects

Figure 5: Average values of salinity at the study area.

4.6

4.4

4.2 l \ 4

3.8 Do Ox mg 3.6

3.4

3.2 TL1 TL2 TL3 TL4 TL5 TL6 transects

Figure 6: Average values of dissolved Oxygen at the study area.

17 8.27 8.26 8.25 8.24 8.23 PH 8.22 8.21 8.2 8.19 8.18 TL1 TL2 TL3 TL4 TL5 TL6 Transects

Figure 7: Average values of pH at the study area.

0.8 0.7 0.6

l) 0.5 \

(mg 0.4 4

PO 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 TL1 TL2 TL3 TL4 TL5 TL6 Transects

Figure 8: Average values of phosphate concentrations at the study area.

18 0.4 0.35 0.3 l)

\ 0.25

(mg 0.2

No 2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 TL1 TL2 TL3 TL4 TL5 TL6 Transects

Figure 9: Average values of nitrite concentration at the study area.

3.5

l) 2.5 \

(mg 2 3

Sio 1.5

0.5

0 TL1 TL2 TL3 TL4 TL5 TL6 Transects

Figure 10: Average values of silicate concentration at the study area.

19 40000

35000

30000

25000

(ppm) 20000 3

Co 15000

10000

5000

0 TL1 TL2 TL3 TL4 TL5 TL6 Transects

Figure 11: Average values of carbonate at the study area.

12000

10000

8000

(ppm) 6000 ₃

Hco 4000

2000

0 TL1 TL2 TL3 TL4 TL5 TL6 Transects

Figure 12: Average values of bicarbonates at the study area.

20 1600 1400 1200 1000 800

mg (ppm) mg 600 400 200 0 TL1 TL2 TL3 TL4 TL5 TL6 Transects

Figure 13: Average values of magnesium at the study area.

TSS (mg/l) 350

300

250

200

150 TSS (mg/l 100

0 TL1 TL2 TL3 TL4 TL5 TL6

Figure 14: Average values of TSS at the study area.

3.1.2. Phytoplankton community The phytoplankton community at the project site consisted of 3 groups namely cyanobacteria. diatoms and dinoflagellates (Table:2; Figure:15). The cyanobacteria group was more abundant and diverse compared to the other 2 groups. Among the diatom group Haslea was the most abundant one and was recorded from 5 of the 6 transects investigated. Ceratium was the most abundant dinoflagellates present in all transects.

21 Table 2: Composition and distribution of phytoplankton groups at the study area

Phytoplankton Group TL1 TL2 TL3 TL4 TL 5 TL 6 Cyanobacteria Trichodesmium 14850 13503 36887 36960 27104 17078 Diatoms Chaetoceros 66 341 45 0 370 0 Coscinodiscus 33 0 0 0 0 0 Haslea 33 341 0 385 308 380 Nitzschia 66 0 0 0 0 0 Pseudo-nitzschia 50 0 0 165 370 76 Rhizosolenia 17 0 0 0 0 0 Thalassiothrix 33 0 0 0 0 0 Others Diatoms 215 0 89 0 123 152 Dinoflagellates Ceratium 83 750 312 550 62 152 Dinophysis 17 0 0 0 0 0 Prorocentrum 215 68 134 0 62 0 Protoperidinium 50 0 446 55 123 76 Cladopyxis 66 136 223 110 123 76 Others Dinoflagellates 33 68 89 0 0 76 Total density (cell/ l) 15827 15207 38225 38225 28645 18066

The results show the abundance of Trichodesmium spp (Cyanobacteria) which made up about 94% of the phytoplankton community. The blooms of Trichodesmium spp over all others species of diatoms and Dinoflagellates is one of the Red Sea normal features. It is well known that anthropogenic activities may enhance the occurrence and frequencies of the algal blooms. Secondly the high temperature and salinity of Red Sea made the phytoplankton very sensitive and vulnerable to the anthropogenic activities that affect the water characteristic such as the water temperature and transparency.

22 100

60 % Cyanobacteria 40 Diatoms Dinoflagellates 20

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Transects

Figure 15: Composition and distribution of major phytoplankton groups at the study area.

3.1.3 Zooplankton communities: Holoplankton and meroplankton were the two zooplankton groups recorded from the project site (table3 and figure 16). In all transect the meroplankton group was the most abundant compared to the holoplankton one.

Table 3: Composition and distribution of zooplankton groups at the study area

Species TL1 TL2 TL3 Tt4 TL5 TL6 total Cal Copepods 100 260 130 170 80 70 810 Sycl Copepods 50 20 50 40 30 30 220 Brachyuran Zoea 10 10 20 10 10 10 70 Fish eggs 80 30 350 130 50 50 690 Cladocerans 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Oikopleura 20 20 10 10 10 0 70 Shrimp Larvae 10 20 20 10 20 10 90 Sagitta 20 20 0 50 10 20 120 Cumaceans 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tintinnids 20 10 10 10 10 0 60 Gastropod Larvae 0 10 10 10 0 0 30 Radiolarians 10 50 10 20 5 5 100 Nauplii 50 10 20 10 10 20 120 Medusae 20 30 40 10 20 0 120 Polychaete Larvae 10 20 50 10 20 0 110 Unknown species 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

23 Zooplankton is considered an important component of aquatic ecosystems and plays the important role in the food web. Calanoida Copepods were the dominant groups. Within the zooplankton community, Calanoid copepods were the largest number; this result was confirmed in all research studies carried out in Red Sea. Calanoid copepods are the most important 60 groups in the southern Red Sea (Chiffings, 2003);

1000 900 Holoplankton 800 Meroplankton 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 TL1 TL2 TL3 TL4 TL5 TL6

Figure 16: composition and distribution of major zooplankton groups at the study area.

3.1.4. Sediments characteristics Table 4: Means of sediment physical and chemical parameters at the study area.

Factors/ Transects TL1 TL2 TL3 TL4 TL5 TL6 Soil temp. (C°) 31 31.1 31.45 32.3 31.6 31.2 Water depth (m) 7.3 0.5 12.35 8.4 7.1 1.6 pH 7.65 8.62 8.7 8.5 8.6 8.8 ECe (mol/hos) 257.1 98.5 105.25 116.3 106.7 112.2 Soil salinity. (‰) 11.5 2.5 1.5 11.0 5.0 15.7 Moisture Content (%) 28.4 29.6 30.1 21.6 27.1 18.2 Organic Carbon (%) 4.6 3.8 3 3.7 3.5 3.6

24 32.5

32 ) °

31.5

31 Soil Soil temperature (C 30.5

30 TL1 TL2 TL3 TL4 TL5 TL6

Figure 17: Average of soil temperatures at the study area. .

Water depth depth (m) Water 4

0 TL1 TL2 TL3 TL4 TL5 TL6

Figure 18: Average of water depth at the study area. .

25 9 8.8 8.6 8.4 8.2 8 pH 7.8 7.6 7.4 7.2 7 TL1 TL2 TL3 TL4 TL5 TL6

Figure 19: Average of soil pH at the study area. .

300

250

200

150

ECe (mol/hos) 100

0 TL1 TL2 TL3 TL4 TL5 TL6

Figure 20: Average of soil ECe (mol/hos) at the study area.

26 18 16 14 12 10 8

Soil salinity (‰) 6 4 2 0 TL1 TL2 TL3 TL4 TL5 TL6

Figure 21: Average of soil salinity (‰) at the study area. .

10 Moisture Content (%) Content Moisture

0 TL1 TL2 TL3 TL4 TL5 TL6

Figure 22: Average of moisture Content (%) at the study area. .

27 5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2

Organic Carbon (%) Carbon Organic 1.5 1 0.5 0 TL1 TL2 TL3 TL4 TL5 TL6

Figure 23: Average of organic carbon (%) at the study area. .

The percentages of the components of sediment texture varied among the transects. Generally the sediment at the project site was of sandy nature. Compared to Sand the silt was the next highest component of the sediment texture. Clay and gravels represented small fractions of the overall composition of sediment texture.

Table 5: Means of sediment characteristic at the study area.

Factors/ TL1 TL2 TL3 TL4 TL5 TL6 Transects Clay (%) 3.105 2.465 1.135 5.1 2.9 3.7 Silt (%) 29.42 18.11 9.275 56.5 28.0 49.5 Sand (%) 62.935 71.53 42.585 38.0 50.7 45.5 Gravel (%) 4.27 7.895 47.005 0.4 18.4 1.3

28 100% 90% 80% 70% Gravel (%) 60% 50% Sand (%) 40% Silt (%) 30% Clay (%) 20% 10% 0% TL1 TL2 TL3 TL4 TL5 TL6

Figure 24: Average of sediment characteristics at the study area.

3.2 Macro-flora analysis: The attributes of the benthic communities of the intertidal and subtidal areas at the project site were presented in the subsequent Tables and Figures. A total of 28 seaweed species, 4 seagrass species, and 13 epifauna and infauna species were reported.

3.2.1. Seaweeds: The seaweeds community at the project site forms 4 zones of variable degree of diversity and overlapping. These zones are the function of the natural gradients in substrate, water depth and wave action. Namely the zones are the Enteromorpha intestinalis zone at the intertidal, the Halimeda opuntia zone at the upper subtidal, the Padina pavonica zone at the reef back and the gelidiella acerosa zone at the reef crest areas.

3.2.1.1. Seaweeds species diversity: A total of 28 macroalgal species was recorded for the project site of which 10 species were green macroalgae, 9 species were brown macroalgae and 9 were red macroalgae (Table ). Among the 4 zones mentioned above the Halimeda opuntia and the Padina pavonica zones were the most diverse and overlapping zones.

3.2.1.2. Zonation and species association: Macroalgal species at the project site did not exhibit a distinct zonal pattern instead species association overlapped together and the distributional pattern of individual

29 species seemed to be controlled by the availability of suitable substrate and water depth. For example species of green macroalgae inhibited the intertidal area starting from the water edge (e.g. E. intestinalis) at the shoreline and continued further inside the marine environment to the reef back (e.g. C. serrulata). Individual species of red macroalgae started to appear before the brown ones at about 25 m from the shoreline seawards (e.g. H. valentiae). Although few new growths of some brown species were encountered at the water edge, significant occurrence of mature brown macroalgae started at about 65m from the shoreline seawards with abundant occurrence (> 65% percentage cover for P. pavonica) at the reef back. Table 6: Seaweeds species diversity at the project site. No Green macroalgae Brown macroalgae Red macroalgae 1 Avrainvillea erecta Cystoseira myrica Acanthophora spicifera 2 Bryopsis sp Dictayota dichotoma Dasya sp 3 Caulerpa racemosa Hormophysa cuneiformis Digenea simplex 4 Caulerpa serrulata Hydroclathrus clathratus Galaxaura oblongata 5 Cladophora sp Padina pavonica Gelidiella acerosa 6 Dictyosphaeria cavernosa Sargassum sp 1 Gracilaria sp 7 Enteromorpha intestinalis Sargassum sp 2 Hypnea valentiae 8 Halimeda macroloba Sargassum sp 3 Jania rubens 9 Halimeda opuntia Turbinaria ornata Laurencia papillosa 10 Valonia ventricosa - -

In the reef crest where the wave energy was high only scattered individuals of the red macroalgae Digenea simplex, Galaxaura oblongata, Gelidiella acerosa, and few coralline and crustose red algae were found. Two prominent species associations were observed at the reef back of the project site. These were Sargassum-Hormophysa and Padina-Sargassum associations which also accommodate significant population of cystoseira myrica and floating mats of Cladophora spp besides some individuals of the red macroalgae.

3.2.1.3. Seaweeds percentage cover: Table (7) below shows the visually estimated percentage cover as well as the distributional pattern of seaweed species in the project site. In the intertidal area E. intestinalis scored the highest percentage cover (6%) among the species recorded for this area. In the subtidal area H. opuntia, that colonized most of the empty substrate left by

30 seagrass, was the dominant species with 44% cover. The next dominant species in this area, i.e H. valentiae, was found grown epiphytically on seagrass leaves, on H. opuntia, or on any other hard surfaces like shells or broken corals. In the reef back brown macroalgae dominated over the red and green ones. The highest percentage cover value in this area was recorded for P. pavonica (66.25%), Sargassum sp 3 (44%), Sargassum sp 1 (40%) and Sargassum sp 2 (35%) respectively. The exception in this area was the percentage cover value of the green alga Cladophora sp (65.75%) which approximated that of P. pavonica. The alga was encountered in form of balls and mats patchily floating in the reef back. Table 7: Average percentage covers (%) and distributional pattern of seaweeds species at the study area. No Species Cover (%) Intertidal Upper subtidal Mid and lower subtidal Reef back Reef crest 1 Avrainvillea erecta -- 1 -- -- 2 Bryopsis sp -- 1 -- -- 3 Caulerpa racemosa 4 ------4 Caulerpa serrulata -- 3.5 1 -- 5 Cladophora sp -- -- 65.75 -- 6 Dictyosphaeria cavernosa -- 4 -- -- 7 Enteromorpha intestinalis 6 ------8 Halimeda macroloba ------1.5 9 Halimeda opuntia -- 44 4 -- 10 Valonia ventricosa -- 1 -- -- 11 Cystoseira myrica -- 8.25 10 -- 12 Dictayota dichotoma -- 12 12.25 -- 13 Hormophysa cuneiformis -- -- 24 -- 14 Hydroclathrus clathratus -- -- 6.25 -- 15 Padina pavonica 1 14.20 66.25 -- 16 Sargassum spp 1 -- -- 40 -- 17 Sargassum spp 2 -- -- 35 -- 18 Sargassum spp 3 -- -- 44 -- 19 Turbinaria ornata -- 1 -- -- 20 Acanthophora spicifera -- 5 8 -- 21 Dasya sp -- 4 8 -- 22 Digenea simplex -- -- 2 2 23 Galaxaura oblongata ------1.5 24 Gelidiella acerosa -- -- 4 10 25 Gracilaria sp -- 1 -- -- 26 Hypnea valentiae -- 26.30 24 -- 27 Jania rubens -- 16 4 -- 28 Laurencia papillosa -- 6.60 17 --

31 3.2.2. Seagrass:

3.2.2.1. Species composition and distribution: Four species of seagrass belonging to 3 genera were recorded form the project site (Table 8). Three seagrass species were present in all the 6 transects and one species was present in 5 transects. Table 8: The Species Composition and Distribution of seagrass at the study area.

Transects Species TL1 TL2 TL3 TL4 TL5 TL6 Occurrence

Thalassia hemprichii + + + + + + 6

Halophila ovalis - + + + + + 5

Halophila stipulacea + + + + + + 6

Halodule uninervis + + + + + + 6 Total Number 3 4 4 4 4 4 + : Present, -:Absent

3.2.2.2. Seagrass percentage cover: The mean percentage cover of seagrasses at the project site ranged between a minimum of 2% for H. ovalis to a maximum of 79.3% for T. hemprichii (Table and Fig. ). The seagrass species could be arranged in order of decreasing percentage cover as follows: Thalassia hemprichii, Halophila stipulacea, Halodule uninervis, and Halophila ovalis.

Table 9: The Mean Percentage Cover (%) of seagrass species at the study area.

Transects Species TL1 TL2 TL3 TL4 TL5 TL6 Thalassia hemprichii. 36 67 7.5 79.3 65 48.7 Halophila ovalis. - 4.5 22.5 4.8 2 5.2 Halophila stipulacea. 11.5 25 43.1 59.2 65 45 Halodule uninervis. 45.9 45 38.8 34.3 35.6 40.7

32 90 80 70 60 50 Thalassia hemprichii. 40 Halophila ovalis. 30 Halophila stipulacea.

Percentage Cover (%) (%) Cover Percentage 20 Halodule uninervis. 10 0 TL1 TL2 TL3 TL4 TL5 TL6 Transects

Figure 25: The mean Percentage Cover (%) of seagrass species at the study area.

3.2.2.3. Seagrass shoot density: The shoot density of the seagrass species in the project site is illustrated in Table and Figure below. Similar to the results of the percentage covers the highest shoot density values were those recorded for T. hemprichii and the minimum values were those recorded for H. ovalis. Table 10: The Mean Shoot Density (Shoot/m2) of seagrass species at the project Site.

Transects Species TL1 TL2 TL3 TL4 TL5 TL6 Thalassia hemprichii 392 732 79 863 719 525 Halophila ovalis - 23 105 29 18 31 Halophila stipulacea 83 187 322 442 493 333 Halodule uninervis 712 694 584 527 542 619

33 1000 ) )

2 900 800 700 600 Thalassia hemprichii 500 400 Halophila ovalis 300 Halophila stipulacea 200 Halodule uninervis 100 Mean Shoot Density Mean Shoot Density (Shoot/m 0 TL1 TL2 TL3 TL4 TL5 TL6 Transects

2 Figure 26: The Mean Shoot Density (Shoot/m ) of seagrass species at the study area.

3.3. Macro-fauna analysis:

3.3.1. Epifauna and infauna: The relative occurrence of epifauna and infauna at the project site is presented. The epifauna groups: Porifera, Molluscs, Crustacea, Echinoderms, and Fish. While the infauna groups: Polychaetes, Molluscs, Crustacea, and Echinoderms. The mean density of each faunal group recorded at the project site is shown in Table (11). Among the epifaunal group Porifera scored the highest density value (5.833 individual\m2) followed by both Echinoderms (4.444 individual\m2) and Fish (4.444 individual\m2). For the infaunal group the highest density was that of the Molluscs (3.055 individual\m2) followed by the Polychaetes (2.00 individual\m2). It is noticed that there was no significant difference in the densities of Molluscan and Crustacean organisms present as epifauna or infauna. The differences between epifauna and infauna density of Porifera, Molluscs, Crustacea and Echinoderms were insignificant, Table (11).

Table 11: Mean density (individual\m2) of faunal organisms at the study area. Fauna Mean±SD p- value Epifauna Infauna Polychaetes 0.000 ±0.000 2.000 ± 2.869 ≤ 0.05 Porifera 5.833 ± 7.508 0.000 ±0.000 ≤ 0.05 Mollusca 1.722 ± 2.824 3.055 ±5.525 ≥ 0.05 Crustacea 2.111 ± 7.981 0.278 ±0.669 ≥ 0.05 Echinodermata 4.444 ± 9.211 0.167 ±0.514 ≥ 0.05 Fish 4.444 ± 3.129 0.000 ±0.000 ≤ 0.05 P > 0.05 = not significant The occurrence of epifaunal groups differed between transects (Figure:27). Transects TLS2 and TLS6 recorded contained all the 5 epifaunal groups recorded from the project site. TLS1, TLS4, and TLS5 contained 4 groups of the 5 groups and transect TLS3 contained 3 groups.

100.00% 90.00% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% Porifera 50.00% Mollusca 40.00% 30.00% Crustacea occurance %age 20.00% echinoderms 10.00% fish 0.00% TL1 TL2 TL3 TL4 TL5 TL6 Transects

Figure 27: The percentages of epifaunal groups at the study area.

The percentages of infaunal groups showed a marked variation between the transects (Figure 28) . However, transect TL4 rcorded all the infaunal groups detected at the study site. The polychaetes were rcorded at transects TL4,TL5, and TL6, while Molluscs were observed at transects TL2 to TL6. Crustacean individuals were recorded at transects TL1, TL2 and TL4 and Echinodermats were detected at transect TL2 and TL4.

70% 60% 50% Polychaetes 40% Molluscs 30% Crustacea 20% Echinoderms 10% 0% TL1 TL2 TL3 TL4 TL5 TL6

Figure 28: The percentage (%) of infaunal groups at the study area.

3.4 Fish population occurrence: Assessment and identification of littoral and sublittoral zone fishes were conducted employing standard methods of survey (PERSGA 2004). Fish species and families detected at the littoral zone of the study area , where about 9 species , however, the diversity recorded was relatively low and limited, table(12). Littoral plagic fishes observed at the study area were presented in table(13), about 11 species of plagic fishes were recorded at transects TL4, (control), at transect TL1, no plagic fishes were detected, at transect TL2 only 2 species were recorded, while 7 species were observed at TL3.

3.4.1 Fish larvae: An examination of zooplankton net extracted at the littoral zone of the study area

showed presence of larvae of shore line fish, these include ;Valamugill seheli, Siganus

rivulatus, however, larvae of Reef-associated pelagic fishes were also detected, these

include; Lutjanus gibbus and Lethrinus harak.

Table 12: Littoral zone fish species occurrence at the study area Families Species T L1 TL2 TL3 TL4 Gerreidae Gerres oyena - - + + SParidae Crenidens crenidens - - + + Clupeidae Sardinella melanure + + - - Carangidae Caranx mate caranx sexfaciatus ++ + -- ++

SParidae Rhabdosargus sarba + + - -

Sigaridae Siganus rivulatus - - + + Mugillidae Valamugil seheli - - - + Chanidae Chanos chanos - - + + Lutjanidae Lutjanus argentimaculatus - - - + + = Present. - = Absect

Table 13: Littoral pelagic fishes occurrence ( close to reefs) at study area. Families Species TL1 TL2 TL3 TL4 SPhyraenidae Sphyraena jello - - + + carangidae Carangoides bajad - - + + Lethrinidae Lethrinus harak - + + + Lethrinus lentjan - - - + Lutjanidae Lutjanus gibbus - + + + Lutjanus bohar - - - + Acanthuridae Noso unicornis - - - + Acanthurus gahm - - - + Holocentridae Holocentrus spinifer - - + + Searidae Scarus harid - - + + Serranidae Cephalopholis rogaa - - + + + = Present. - = Absect.

37 3.2. Sublittoral zone:

3.2.1 Reef slope coral survey: The average percentage cover of the benthic category studied (Hard Coral (HC), Soft Coral (SC), Recently Killed Coral (RKC), Fleshy Seaweeds (FS), Sponges (SP), Rock (RC), Rubble (RB), Sand (SD), Silt (SI) and Others (OT)) were highly variable throughout the studied area at depths 10m and 5m (tables:14 and table:15) and from Figure:29 to Figure:32. The average cover of total live corals (HC+SC) was 57.5 %. It ranged from 58.7% at 5m depth to 56.3% at 10m depth, whereas the living substrate (HC+SC, FS, SP, OT) ranged from 66.5% at 5m depth to 65.9% at 10m depth with an average of 66.2%. During the study period 55 species of hermatypic corals belonging to 30 genera were identified; 12 species are endemic (Table:16). Accordingly, the present status of Damadama fringing reef is very good compared to different reefs in the region and around the world. Hodgson and Liebeler (2002) stated that many of the healthiest reefs in the world have probably never had more than about 30% coral cover, and they found the mean coverage in the Indo-Pacific reefs around 35% during the period 1997-2001. Habibi et al. (2007) estimated coral cover in the range of 26- 50% for Indonesian reefs during the period 1997-2006.

3.2.1.1 Benthic Cover Table 14: Substrate code and percentage coverage at 5m depth at study area. Substrate Code/ TSL1 TSL2 TSL3 TSL4 TSL5 Coverage (%) HC 48.3 42.5 45 57.5 60.8 SC 0.8 21.3 15 1.7 0.8 RKC 0 0.6 6.9 7.5 1.7 FS 3.3 0 0 0 1.7 SP 1.7 6.3 6.3 0.8 5.8 RC 41.7 16.9 17.5 30.8 27.5 RB 0 2.5 3.1 0.8 0 SD 3.3 0 4.4 0.8 1.7 SI 0 0 0 0 0 OT 0.8 10 1.9 0 0 Total 100 100 100 100 100

Table 15: Substrate code and percentage coverage at 10m at study area Substrate Code/ TSL1 TSL2 TSL3 TSL4 TSL5 Coverage (%) HC 60.8 31.9 45.8 45 48.3 SC 0.8 20.6 14.2 7.5 6.7 RKC 0 3.1 5.8 15.8 4.2 FS 0 0 0 3.3 11.7 SP 5.8 8.1 8.3 1.7 2.5 RC 22.5 14.4 12.5 15 20.8 RB 2.5 11.9 7.5 5 1.7 SD 7.5 5 4.2 6.7 4.2 SI 0 0 0 0 0 OT 0 5 1.7 0 0 Total 100 100 100 100 100

120 OT

100 SI SD 80

% RB 60 RC Cover 40 SP

20 FS RKC 0 SC TSL1 TSL2 TSL3 TSL4 TSL5 HC Transects

Figure 29: Substrate code and mean percentage coverage for at 5m depth at study area.

120

100 OT SI 80 SD 60 RB Cover % 40 RC

20 SP FS 0 RKC TSL1 TSL2 TSL3 TSL4 TSL5 SC Transects

Figure 30: Substrate code and mean percentage coverage at 10m depth at study area.

120

100

60 Non-living cover Cover % 40 Living cover

0 TSL1 TSL2 TSL3 TSL4 TSL5

Transects

Figure 31: Percentage cover of living and non-living substrate at 5m depth at study area.

40 120

100

60 Non-living cover Cover % 40 Living cover

0 TSL1 TSL2 TSL3 TSL4 TSL5

Transects

Figure 32: Percentage cover of living and non-living substrate at 10m depth at study area.

3.2.1.2. Coral diversity: Table 16: Coral species recorded from the study area ((+|) present, (-) absent). Genus Species TSL1 TSL2 TSL3 TSL4 TSL5 Acropora Acropora clathrata _ _ + _ _ Acropora digitifera + + + _ + Acropora forskali + _ + + _ Acropora formosa + + _ + + Acropora grandis + + + + + Acropora haimei _ _ + _ + Acropora maryae + + + + + Acropora massawensis + _ _ _ _ Acropora nobilis + + + + + Acropora parapharaonis _ _ + + _ Acropora rufus + + + + + Acropora squarrosa _ _ + _ _ Acropora tenuis + + + _ + Acropora valida + + _ + + Acropora variabilis _ _ + + _ Acropora variolosa + + + + _ Acropora yongi + _ + + + Anacropora Anacropora spumosa _ _ + _ _ Montipora Montipora effusa + + + _ + Montipora meandrina _ _ + _ _ Leptoseris Leptoseris scabra + + _ + + Caulastrea Caulastrea tumida _ _ + + _ Cyphastrea Cyphastrea chalcidicum + + + + + Cyphastrea icrophthalma + _ + + _ Echinopora Echinopora irregularis + + + _ + Echinopora lamellosa _ _ + _ _

41 Erythrastrea Erythrastrea flabellata + + + + + Favia Favia lacuna _ _ + + _ Favia pallida + + + _ + Favia rotumana + _ + _ _ Favia stelligera + + + + + Favites Favites abdita + _ + + _ Favites complanata + + + + + Favites halicora _ _ + + _ Favites vasta + + + + + Goniastrea Goniastrea edwardsi + + + _ + Goniastrea peresi _ _ + _ + Leptastrea Leptastrea purpurea + + _ _ _ Leptastrea transversa _ _ + _ _ Montastrea Montastrea curta + _ + _ _ Oulophyllia Oulophyllia crispa + _ + + _ Platygyra Platygyra daedalea _ _ + + _ Platygyra lamellina + _ + + _ Platygyra sinensis + + + + + Plesiastrea Plesiastrea versipora + + + + + Ctenactis Ctenactis echinata _ _ + + _ Cycloseris Cycloseris erosa + + + + + Merulina Merulina ampliata + + + + + Acanthastrea Acanthastrea echinata + _ + + _ Blastomussa Blastomussa merleti + _ + _ _ Blastomussa wellsi + + + _ + Lobophyllia Lopophyllia corymbosa + + + + + Mycedium Mycedium elephantotus + _ + + _ Mycedium umbra + + + + + Seriatopora Seriatopora hystrix _ _ + + _ Stylophora Stylophora danae + + + + + Stylophora kuehlmanni + _ + _ _ Stylophora mamillata _ _ + _ _ Stylophora wellsi + + _ _ + Alveopora Alveopora verrilliana + _ + + _ Goniopora Goniopora ciliatus + + + + + Goniopora minor + + + + + Goniopora pearson _ _ + + _ Goniopora stokesi + + + _ + Porites Porites lichen + + + _ + Porites lopata + _ + + + Porites mayeri + _ + + _ Porites nodifera + + + + + Porites solida _ _ + + _ Siderastrea Siderastrea savignyana _ _ + + + Coscinaraea Coscinaraea monile + _ _ _ +

42 3.2.2 Reef slope fishes: Fish counts provide a reasonably accurate measure of relative abundance (Barratt and Modloy, 1990). Standardized visual censuses of fish within belt or strip transects is acceptable for quantitative measures (Branden et al., 1986) and can be used for temporal or spatial comparison (Sale and Sharp, 1983; Sanderson and Solonsky, 1986). From Table:17 and Table:19, we found that the total individuals of the target fish families which were counted are 371 and 356 at 5m and 10m depths respectively and this may be due the higher average of total live corals at 5m depth (58.7%) than at 10m depth (56.3%). The dominant fish families being Snappers (Lutjanidae), Sweetlips (Haemulidae), Butterflyfishes (chaetodontidae) and Parrotfishes (Scaridae). For the two families (Butterflyfishes and Angelfishes) and Acceding to Elamin (2003); Mohamed (2013) and Elamin et al. (2014) who considered them as a bio indicators for richness and healthiness of the corals, the total specimens of these families in the surveyed transects were 141 and 39 respectively. In the study area about six species belonging to Butterflyfishes were recorded, while just three species belonging to Angelfishes were found (Table:18 and Table:19). A total of 68 species belonging to 22 families were encountered in the study area, which means a very high diversity in compare to other studies Ali et al. (2000) who studied Abu Hashish fringing reefs and found just 25 species under 13 families (Table 20). This a high diversity may be due to the very good status of fringing reefs in Dama Dama.

Table 17: Fish families at 5 M depth at the study area. Fish families TSL1 TSL2 TSL3 TSL4 TSL5

Angelfishes (Pomacanthidae) 3 2 6 5 9 Butterflyfishes (chaetodontidae) 20 6 9 16 13 Sweetlips (Haemulidae) 17 0 2 31 60 Snappers (Lutjanidae) 61 0 8 11 15 Emperorfishes (Lethrinidae) 0 0 3 0 0 Groupers>30cm (Serranidae) 5 8 0 0 3 Parrotfishes >20cm (Scaridae) 3 37 5 9 4 Moray eel 0 0 0 0 0

43 Table 18: Butterflyfishes and angelfishes specie at 5 M depth at the study area. Fish families Species TSL1 TSL2 TSL3 TSL4 TSL5

Butterflyfishes Chaetodon auriga 2 0 0 1 0 (chaetodontidae) Chaetodon fasciatus 3 3 0 2 3 Chaetodon semilarvatus 2 0 2 2 4 Chaetodon austriacus 3 2 1 2 0 Gonochaetodon larvatus 4 1 0 1 0 Heniochus intermedius 6 0 6 8 6 Angelfishes Pygoplites diacanthus 3 1 6 5 9 (Pomacanthidae) pomacanthus imperator 0 1 0 0 0 pomacanthus asfur 0 0 0 0 0

Table 19: Fish families at 10 M depth at the study area.

Fish families TSL1 TSL2 TSL3 TSL4 TSL5

Angelfishes (Pomacanthidae) 5 1 2 3 3 Butterflyfishes (chaetodontidae) 27 14 10 12 14 Sweetlips (Haemulidae) 5 0 0 25 20 Snappers (Lutjanidae) 35 2 10 22 15 Emperorfishes (Lethrinidae) 17 0 6 1 0 Groupers>30cm (Serranidae) 11 20 8 5 7 Parrotfishes >20cm (Scaridae) 19 10 8 8 8 Moray eel 1 2 0 0 0

Table 20: Butterflyfishes and angelfishes species at 10 M depth at the study area. Fish families Species TSL1 TSL2 TSL3 TSL4 TSL5

Butterflyfishes Chaetodon auriga 3 2 4 1 1 (chaetodontidae) Chaetodon fasciatus 8 6 0 1 2 Chaetodon semilarvatus 2 0 1 2 2 Chaetodon austriacus 4 2 2 2 2 Gonochaetodon larvatus 0 0 0 0 0 Heniochus intermedius 10 4 3 6 7 Angelfishes Pygoplites diacanthus 5 1 1 3 3 (Pomacanthidae) pomacanthus imperator 0 0 0 0 0 pomacanthus asfur 0 0 1 0 0

44 Table 21: Fish families and species encountered at the reef slope in the at the study area.

Families Speices TSL1 TSL2 TSL3 TSL4 TSL5 Serranidae(Groupers) Cephalopholis hemistiktos + + - + + Cephalopholis miniata + + + + + Cephalopholis argus - + + + - Anthias squamipinnis - + + + + Lutjanidae(Snappers) Lutjanus ehrenbergi + + + + + Lutjanus fluviflamma - - - + - Lutjanus kasmira + - - + + Lutjanus argentimaculatus + - - - - Lethrinidae (Emperors) Lethrinus mahsena + - + - - Lethrinus ramak - - - + - Monotaxis grandoculis + - + - + Pomacentridae (Damselfishes) Abudefduf saxatilis + + - + + Abudefduf sexfasciatus + - + + + Amphiprion bicinctus - - - + - Amblyglyphidodon leucogaster - - + + - Chromis caerulea + + - - - Chromis dimidiata + + + + + Paraglyphidodon melas + - - + - Pomacentrus sulfureus + + + + + Labridae (Wrasses) Halichoeres hortulanus + + + + - Coris aygula - - + - - Cheilinus undulatus + - - - - Thalassoma lunare + + + + + Thalassoma klunzingeri + + - + + Gomphosus coeruleus + + + + - Anampses lineatus + - - + - Anampses meleagrides - - + - + Scaridae (Parrotfishes) Cetoscarus bicolor + + + + + Scarus ferrugineus + + + + + Scarus psittacus + + + + + Scarus collana - + - + + Bolbometopon muricatum + - - - +

45 Acanthuridae (Sureonfishes) Acanthurus nigricans - + + - - Acanthurus nigrofuscus - + + + + Acanthurus sohal + + + + + Naso lituratus + + - + + Naso unicornis + + + - - Zebrasoma veliferum + + - + + Zebrasoma xanthurum + + + + + Ctenochaetus striatus + - + + + Balastidae (Triggerfishes) Balistapus undulatus + + + + + Rhinecanthus assasi - + - - - Carangidae (Jacks) Carangoides bajad - + + - - Carangoides fulvoguttatus - + + + - Caranx melampygus - + + - - Chaetodonidae (Butterflyfishes) Chaetodon auriga + + + + + Chaetodon fasciatus + + - + + Chaetodon austriacus + + + + + Chaetodon semilarvatus + - + + + Chaetodon mesoleucos - + - - - Gonochaetodon larvatus + + - + - Heniochus intermedius + + + + + Caesionidae (Fusiliers) Caesio suevicus + - + + - Pomacanthidae (Angelfishes) Pygoplites diacanthus + + + + + pomacanthus imperator - + - - - pomacanthus asfur - - + - - Mullidae (Goatfishes) Parupeneus forsskali - - + + - Haemulidae (Grunts) Plectrohynchus gaterinus + - + + + Priacanthidae (Bigeyes) Priacanthus hamrur - + + - + Holocentridae (Squirrelfishes) Adioryx spinifer + + + + + Flammeo sammara + - + + + Cirrhitidae (Hawkfishes)

46 Paracirrhites forsteri + - - - + Monodactylidae (Monos) Paracirrhites forsteri + + - + + Sparidae (Porgies) Acanthopagrus bifasciatus + - - + + Tetraodontidae (Puffers) Arthron diadematus + + - + + Diodon hystrix + - - - - Dasyatididae (Electric rays) Torpedo fuscomaculata - - - - + Muraenidae (Morays) Gymnothorax javanicus + + - - -

+ = Present - = Absent TSL = Transect

12 TSL 1 TSL 2 10 TSL 3 TSL 4 8 7 TSL 5 Number of fishes of Number fishes 6

4 3 2 2 2 2 1 0 0 0 0

Fish species

Figure 33: Butterflyfishes and angelfishes species at 10 M depth at the study area.

47 10 9 TSL 1 9 TSL 2 8 TSL 3 7 6 TSL 4 6 TSL 5 5 Number of fishes of Number fishes 4 4 3 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Fish species

Figure 34: Butterflyfishes and angelfishes species at 5 M depth at the study area.

40 35 TSL 1 35 TSL 2 TSL 3 30 27 25 TSL 4 25 22 TSL 5 20 20 19 20 17 15

Number of fishes of Number fishes 14 14 15 12 10 10 11 10 10 8 7 8 8 8 5 5 6 5 5 2 3 3 2 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0

Fish Families

Figure 35: Fish families t 10 M depth for five transects at DamaDama fringing reefs.

48 70 TSL 1 60 61 60 TSL 2 TSL 3 50 TSL 4 TSL 5 40 37 31

Number of fishes of Number fishes 30 20 20 16 17 15 13 11 9 9 8 8 9 6 6 10 5 5 5 4 3 2 2 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Fish Families

Figure 36: Fish families at 5 M depth at the study area..

3.2.3. Reef slope Macro-invertebrates:

About 10 different species of Echinoderm, Mollucs and Crustacea were detected at the

study area transects(TSL1, TSL2, TSL3, TSL4 and TSL5(Control)), at 5m depth and 10m

depth . Generally the density of species detected at 5m depth was relatively higher than that

found at 10m depth. However, Giant Clam(Tridacna sp.) recorded higher abundance at both

depths, followed by Diadema urchins; Also Crown-of-thorns star (Acanthaster Sp.) were

seen in almost all transects at both depths (Table:22 and Table:23) , (Figure:37, Figure:38).

Table 22: Number of invertebrates in at 5m depth at the study area Species/Transects TSL1 TSL2 TSL3 TSL4 TSL5 Collector urchin (Tripneustes spp) 1 3 6 1 1 Pencil urchin (Heterocentrotus mammilatus) 3 1 1 2 0 Diadema urchins 2 6 5 5 5 Banded coral shrimp (Stenopus hispidus) 0 1 1 0 1

49 Triton shell (Charonia tritonis) 2 2 2 0 2 Crown-of-thorns star (Acanthaster) 1 1 0 1 0 Giant clam (Tridacna) 16 12 9 16 18 Lobster 0 0 0 0 0 Pink fish (Holothuria edulis) 3 2 2 3 3 Green fish (Stichopus chloronotus) 1 0 1 1 0 Thelenota ananas 3 0 1 1 0 Table 23: Invertebrates at 10m depth at the study area. Species/Transects TSL1 TSL2 TSL3 TSL4 TSL5

Collector urchin (Tripneustes spp) 1 0 2 1 0 Pencil urchin (Heterocentrotus mammilatus) 0 0 0 2 1 Diadema urchins 4 4 3 5 4 Banded coral shrimp (Stenopus hispidus) 1 1 1 0 0 Triton shell (Charonia tritonis) 1 0 1 0 0 Crown-of-thorns star (Acanthaster) 1 2 1 1 1 Giant clam (Tridacna) 6 7 5 16 4 Lobster 0 0 0 0 0 Pink fish (Holothuria edulis) 1 0 1 3 0 Green fish (Stichopus chloronotus) 1 0 0 1 0 Thelenota ananas 1 1 0 1 1

50 20 18 TSL 1 18 TSL 2 16 TSL 3 14 TSL 4 12 TSL 5 10 8 Number of of Number invertebrate 6 5 4 3 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Invertebrates species

Figure 37: Number of invertebrates along the transect at 5 M depth at study area.

8 TSL 1 7 TSL 2 6 TSL 3 TSL 4 5 4 4 TSL 5 4

3 Number of of Number invertebrate 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Invertebrates species Figure 38: Number of invertebrates along the transect at 10 M depth at study area.

51 3.3 Reef crest survey: According to the present survey, the abundance of marine invertebrate dominated by Mollusks, which comprised by, Tridacna species, Strombus, Trochus, Lambis and Scallop. In the Sudanese Red Sea coast about 250 Mollusk species have identified, these groups are filter feeder settle on the hard bottoms rather than the soft substrate, the reef crust bottom is suitable for such species settlement, on the other hand Mollusk species have resistance to the turbidity and sedimentation that might come from the coastal instructions. The most sensitive sessile species which Sea Animun comprised less number in the present survey, only in one transect by two individuals, however, such species might effected by crating. Echinoderms were comprised by Sea Cucumbers, Sea Urichines and Brittle Star, this less abundance may refer to the day time survey while most species these group are night grazers (Table:24; Figuer:39).

Table 24: Number of invertebrates at the study area.

Species TSL1 TSL2 TSL3 TSL4 TSL5 Trochus spp. 12 8 7 7 8 Strombus spp. 16 8 13 10 8 Tridacna spp. 17 11 6 7 3 Scallops spp. 12 0 0 0 0 Lambis spp. 8 6 7 7 2 Octopus 2 1 6 4 1 Sea cucumbers 4 3 2 5 3 Brittle stars 1 0 3 0 0 Urichins 1 0 0 0 0 Spongs 2 0 0 0 0 Animuns 2 0 0 0 0

52 18 Transect1 16 Transect2 14 12 Transect3 10 Transect4 8 Transect5 6 4 2 0

Species

Figure 39: Number of invertebrates species at the study area.

3.4 Back reef survey:

3.4.1 Back reef fishes: Numbers of fish species recorded at the back reef transects (TLS1, TLS2, TLS3, TLS4 and TLS1), were 27, 30, 31 , 32 and 32, these belong to 14, 18, 19, 18 and 18 fish families, respectively. At transect TLS1 (table:25 ; figure:43), Thalassom Sp. recorded higher log abundance score (5), while Labroides dimidiatus, Ctenochaetus striatus and Bolbometopon muricatum recorded the lowest (2).Similarly, Thalassom sp. , Acanthurus nigrican and Scarus Sp. showed highe log abundance score at TSL2(6) (table:26 ; figure:44),, while Rhinecanthus Sp. showed the lowest log abundance score. For transect TSL3(table:27 ; figure:45), Acanthurus sohal and Acanthurus nigrican showed higher log abundance score (6), compared to Zebrasoma Sp. and Siganus rivulatus which showed the lowest. Also Siganus rivulatus, Scarus Sp. and Chrysiptera Sp.,recorded higher log abundance score at transect TSL4(table:28 ; figure:46),, while Acanthurus Sp. recorded the lowest. However, at transect TSL5 (the control) (table:29 ; figure:47), Chrysiptera Sp., Thalassom Sp., Chaetodon Sp., Hipposcarus sp.and lutjanus sp. showed the highest log abundance score(6 ), compared to Plectropomus Sp. and Rhinecanthus Sp. which recorded the lowest log abundance score(2).

53 Table 25: Fish species at transect TSL1. Species Family English name Log 3 Abundance scale 5 Thalassoma Sp Labridae Wrasses Gomphosus caeruleus Labridae Wrasses 3 2 Labroides dimidiatus Labridae Wrasses 3 Halichoeres Sp Labridae Wrasses 5 Chrysiptera Sp Pomacentridae Damselfishes 3 Dascyllus Sp Pomacentridae Damselfishes 4 Chromis Sp Pomacentridae Damselfishes 4 Chaetodon Sp Chaetodontidae Butterflyfishes 3 Chaetodon semilarvatus Chaetodontidae Butterflyfishes 4 Chaetodon larvatus Chaetodontidae Butterflyfishes Acanthurus nigrican Acanthuridae Surgeonfishes 3 4 Acanthurus nigrofuscus Acanthuridae Surgeonfishes 3 Zebrasoma Sp Acanthuridae Surgeonfishes Acanthurus Sp Acanthuridae Surgeonfishes 3 Ctenochaetus striatus Acanthuridae Surgeonfishes 2 3 Scolopsis Sp Nemipteridae Spinecheeks 4 Rhinecanthus assis Balistidae Triggerfishes Rhinecanthus Sp Balistidae Triggerfishes 4 Scarus Sp Scaridae Parrotfishes 4 Scarus niger Scaridae Parrotfishes 3 Bolbometopon muricatum Scaridae Parrotfishes 2 Siganus rivulatus Siganidae Rabbitfishes 4 Lethrinus Sp Lethrinidae Emperors 4 Lethrinus elongates Lethrinidae Emperors 2 Lutjanus kasmira Lujanidae snappers 3 3 Synodus Sp Synodontidae Lizardfishes 4 Parupeneus Sp Mullidae Goatfishes

54 Table 26: Fish species at transect TSL2. Species Family English name Log 3 Abundance scale 6 Thalassoma Sp Labridae Wrasses Gomphosus caeruleus Labridae Wrasses 4 3 Labroides Sp Labridae Wrasses 3 Halichoeres Sp Labridae Wrasses Cheilinus Sp Labridae Wrasses 2 5 Chrysiptera Sp Pomacentridae Damselfishes Abudefduf Sp Pomacentridae Damselfishes 5 4 Chaetodon Sp Chaetodontidae Butterflyfishes 3 Chaetodon lineolatus Chaetodontidae Butterflyfishes 3 Heniochus intermedius Chaetodontidae Butterflyfishes Acanthurus nigrican Acanthuridae Surgeonfishes 6 Zebrasoma Sp Acanthuridae Surgeonfishes 3 Acanthurus Sp Acanthuridae Surgeonfishes 4 Acanthurus sohal Acanthuridae Surgeonfishes 3 3 Scolopsis Sp Nemipteridae Spinecheeks 2 Rhinecanthus assis Balistidae Triggerfishes Rhinecanthus Sp Balistidae Triggerfishes 1 Pesudobalistes fuscus Balistidae Triggerfishes 2 Scarus Sp Scaridae Parrotfishes 6 Scarus gibbus Scaridae Parrotfishes 4 Scarus niger Scaridae Parrotfishes 3 Siganus rivulatus Siganidae Rabbitfishes 6 Lethrinus Sp Lethrinidae Emperors 5 Lethrinus harak Lethrinidae Emperors 4 Lethrinus mahsena Lethrinidae Emperors 3 3 Synodus Sp Synodontidae Lizardfishes 5 Parupeneus Sp Mullidae Goatfishes Cirrhitus pinnulatus Cirrhitidae Hawkfishes 2 Plectorhynchus gaterinus Haemulidae Grunts 3 Acanthopagrus Sp Sparidae Porgies 5

55 Table 27: Fish species at transect TSL3. Species Family English name Log 3 Abundance scale 5 Thalassoma Sp Labridae Wrasses Gomphosus Sp Labridae Wrasses 4 4 Halichoeres Sp Labridae Wrasses 6 Chrysiptera Sp Pomacentridae Damselfishes Abudefduf Sp Pomacentridae Damselfishes 5 Dascyllus Sp Pomacentridae Damselfishes 3 Amphiprion bicinctus Pomacentridae Damselfishes 4 3 Chaetodon Sp Chaetodontidae Butterflyfishes 5 Heniochus Sp Chaetodontidae Butterflyfishes Acanthurus nigrican Acanthuridae Surgeonfishes 6 3 Acanthurus nigrofuscus Acanthuridae Surgeonfishes 2 Zebrasoma Sp Acanthuridae Surgeonfishes Acanthurus Sp Acanthuridae Surgeonfishes 3 Acanthurus sohal Acanthuridae Surgeonfishes 6 3 Scolopsis Sp Nemipteridae Spinecheeks 4 Rhinecanthus assis Balistidae Triggerfishes Rhinecanthus Sp Balistidae Triggerfishes 3 Scarus Sp Scaridae Parrotfishes 3 Siganus rivulatus Siganidae Rabbitfishes 2 Lethrinus Sp Lethrinidae Emperors 4 Lethrinus lentjan Lethrinidae Emperors 3 2 Synodus Sp Synodontidae Lizardfishes 4 Parupeneus Sp Mullidae Goatfishes Cirrhitus pinnulatus Cirrhitidae Hawkfishes 3 Plectorhynchus gaterinus Haemulidae Grunts 3 Acanthopagrus Sp Sparidae Porgies 2 3 Arothron Sp Tetraodontidae Puffers 3 Caranex Sp Carangidae Jacks 4 Lujanus Sp Lutjanidae Snappers 3 Epinephelus Sp Serranidae Groupers 3 Plectropomus Sp Serranidae Groupers Cephalopholis Sp Serranidae Groupers 4

Table 28: Fish species at transect TSL4. Species Family English name Log 3 Abundance scale 5 Thalassoma Sp Labridae Wrasses Gomphosus Sp Labridae Wrasses 3 3 Halichoeres Sp Labridae Wrasses 5 Chrysiptera Sp Pomacentridae Damselfishes Abudefduf Sp Pomacentridae Damselfishes 2 Dascyllus Sp Pomacentridae Damselfishes 4 Amphiprion bicinctus Pomacentridae Damselfishes 2 3 Chaetodon Sp Chaetodontidae Butterflyfishes 2 Heniochus Sp Chaetodontidae Butterflyfishes Acanthurus nigrican Acanthuridae Surgeonfishes 4 4 Acanthurus nigrofuscus Acanthuridae Surgeonfishes 2 Zebrasoma velferum Acanthuridae Surgeonfishes Acanthurus Sp Acanthuridae Surgeonfishes 1 Acanthurus sohal Acanthuridae Surgeonfishes 4 3 Scolopsis Sp Nemipteridae Spinecheeks 2 Rhinecanthus assis Balistidae Triggerfishes Pseudobalistes fuscus Balistidae Triggerfishes 2 Scarus Sp Scaridae Parrotfishes `5 Siganus rivulatus Siganidae Rabbitfishes 5 Lethrinus Sp Lethrinidae Emperors 3 Lethrinus nebulosus Lethrinidae Emperors 2 3 Synodus Sp Synodontidae Lizardfishes 4 Parupeneus Sp Mullidae Goatfishes Cirrhitus pinnulatus Cirrhitidae Hawkfishes 4 Plectorhynchus schotfs Haemulidae Grunts 2 Acanthopagrus Sp Sparidae Porgies 2 1 Arothron Sp Tetraodontidae Puffers 2 Caranex Sp Carangidae Jacks 4 Lujanus Sp Lutjanidae Snappers 1 Epinephelus Sp Serranidae Groupers 1 Cephalopholis miniata Serranidae Groupers

57 Taeniura Sp Dasyatididae Stingrays 2

Table 29: Fish species at transect TSL5. Species Family English name Log 3 Abundance scale 6 Thalassoma Sp Labridae Wrasses Gomphosus Sp Labridae Wrasses 4 4 Cheilinus Sp Labridae Wrasses 6 Chrysiptera Sp Pomacentridae Damselfishes Abudefduf Sp Pomacentridae Damselfishes 5 Dascyllus Sp Pomacentridae Damselfishes 4 Amphiprion bicinctus Pomacentridae Damselfishes 5 6 Chaetodon Sp Chaetodontidae Butterflyfishes 5 Heniochus Sp Chaetodontidae Butterflyfishes Acanthurus nigrican Acanthuridae Surgeonfishes 6 5 Acanthurus nigrofuscus Acanthuridae Surgeonfishes 5 Zebrasoma Sp Acanthuridae Surgeonfishes Acanthurus Sp Acanthuridae Surgeonfishes 4 Acanthurus sohal Acanthuridae Surgeonfishes 6 3 Scolopsis Sp Nemipteridae Spinecheeks 4 Rhinecanthus assis Balistidae Triggerfishes 6 Hipposcarus SP Scaridae Parrotfishes 5 Scarus sordidus Scaridae Parrotfishes 4 Bolbometopon muricatum Scaridae Parrotfishes Siganus rivulatus Siganidae Rabbitfishes 5 Lethrinus Sp Lethrinidae Emperors 5 Lethrinus harak Lethrinidae Emperors 6 3 Synodus Sp Synodontidae Lizardfishes 5 Parupeneus Sp Mullidae Goa tfishes Cirrhitus pinnulatus Cirrhitidae Hawkfishes 4 4 Arothron Sp Tetraodontidae Puffers 5 Caranex Sp Carangidae Jacks 6 Lujanus Sp Lutjanidae Snappers 4 Epinephelus Sp Serranidae Groupers 2 Plectropomus Sp Serranidae Groupers Taeniura Sp Dasyatididae Stingrays 4 2 Rhinobatos Sp Rhinobatidae Guitarfishes

58 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 aAbundance scale aAbundance 1 3 0.5 Log 0

Fish Families

Figure 40: Abundance of fish families at transect TSL1.

6 5 4 3 2 aAbundance scale aAbundance

3 1

Log 0

Fish Families

Figure 41: Abundance of fish families at transect TSL2.

59 5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 Abundance scale scale Abundance

3 1.5 1 Log 0.5 0 Jacks Grunts Puffers Porgies Wrasses Snappers Groupers Emperors Goatfishes Hawkfishes Lizardfishes Parrotfishes Rabbitfishes Spinecheeks Triggerfishes Damselfishes Surgeonfishes Butterflyfishes

Fish families

Figure 42: Abundance of fish families at transect TSL3.

5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 aAbundance scale aAbundance 1 3 0.5

Log 0 Scaridae Labridae Sparidae Mullidae Siganidae Balistidae Lutjanidae Cirrhitidae Serranidae Carangidae Lethrinidae Haemulidae Dasyatididae Acanthuridae Nemipteridae Synodontidae Pomacentridae Tetraodontidae Chaetodontidae

Fish Families

Figure 43: Abundance of fish families at transect TSL4.

60 7 6 5 4

abundance 3 3 3 2

Log 1 0 Scaridae Labridae Sparidae Mullidae Siganidae Lujanidae Balistidae Cirrhitidae Serranidae Carangidae Lethrinidae Haemulidae Dasyatididae Acanthuridae Scorpaenidae Nemipteridae Synodontidae Pomacentridae Tetraodontidae Pomacanthidae Chaetodontidae

Fish Families

Figure 44: Abundance of fish families at transect TSL5.

3.4.2 Back reef invertebrates Numbers of maso- invertebrates species identified at the back reef transects (TLS1, TLS2, TLS3, TLS4 and TLS1), were 7, 9, 7, 7 and 13, respectively. However, the species diversity and density recorded were normal. Tridacna sp. and Holothuria atra abundance were relatively higher; on the other hand, Crabs, Squids and Octopus presence were so rare; while Strombus sp. and black sponges were present, (table:30 to table:34) and (figure:48 to figure:52). Table 30: Invertebrate species at transect TSL1. Species E. Name Family N Conus sp Cone Shells Conidae 6 Mitra sp Mitre Shells Mitridae 3 Tridacna sp Giant Clamb Tridacnidae 9 Strombus sp Conch Shell Strombidae 2 Octopus cyanea Octopus Octopodidae 1 Grantessa hastifera Black sponge Heteropidae 6 Holothuria atra Black S. Cucumber Holothuriidae 3

Table 31: Invertebrate species at transects TSL2.

Species E. Name Family N Tridacna sp Giant Clamb Tridacnidae 10 Strombus sp Conch Shell Strombidae 6 Ophiolepis sp Brittle Stars Ophiuridae 3 Holothuria atra Black S. Cucumber Holothuriidae 12 Mitra sp Mitre Shells Mitridae 7 Grantessa hastifera Black sponge Heteropidae 10 Sepioteuthis sp Squid Loliginidae 1 Coenobita sp Crabs Paguridae 2 Conus sp Cone Shells Conidae 1

Table 32: illustrates invertebrate species at transects TSL3. Species E. Name Family N Tethya sp Goblet Spone Tethyidae 6 Tridacna sp Giant Clamb Tridacnidae 9 Holothuria atra Black S. Cucumber Holothuriidae 9 Holothuria scabra Sand Fish Holothuriidae 6 Strombus sp Conch Shell Strombidae 6 Grantessa hastifera Black sponge Heteropidae 9 Lambis truncata sebae Finger Conch Strombidae 1

Table 33: illustrates invertebrate species at transects TSL4.

Species E. Name Family N Tridacna sp Giant Clamb Tridacnidae 8 Strombus sp Conch Shell Strombidae 3 Echinostrphus sp Echinometrids Echinometridae 2 Holothuria scabra Sand Fish Holothuriidae 2 Holothuria atra Black S. Cucumber Holothuriidae 7 Grantessa hastifera Black sponge Heteropidae 4 Ophiolepis sp Brittle Stars Ophiuridae 1

Table 34: illustrates invertebrate species at transects TSL5.

Species E. Name Family N Strombus sp Conch Shell Strombidae 9 Tridacna sp Giant Clamb Tridacnidae 10 Holothuria scabra Sand Fish Holothuriidae 1 Ophiolepis sp Brittle Stars Ophiuridae 1 Sepioteuthis sp Squid Loliginidae 1 Tethya sp Goblet Spone Tethyidae 3 Lambis truncata sebae Finger Conch Strombidae 1 Conus sp Cone Shells Conidae 3 Holothuria atra Black S. Cucumber Holothuriidae 6 Echinostrphus sp Echinometrids Echinometridae 1 Grantessa hastifera Black sponge Heteropidae 8 Mitra sp Mitre Shells Mitridae 3 Cassiopea sp Upsidedown jellyfish Cassiopedae 3

63 10 9 8 7 6 5 4

² /m Individual 3 2 1 0

Figure 45: Density of invertebrates at transect TSL1.

14 12 ² 10 8 6 4 Individual /m 2 0

Figure 46: Density of invertebrates at transect TSL2.

64 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 ² ² /m Individual 2 1 0

Figure 47: Density of invertebrates at transect TSL3.

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 ² ² /m Individual 2 1 0

Figure 48: Density of invertebrates at transect TSL4.

65 12 10 8 6 4 ² ² /m Individual 2 0

Figure 49: Density of invertebrates at transect TSL5.

3.5 Socioeconomic survey: Of the 25 questionnaire forms distributed for each group only 13 forms of the questionnaires were collected back from EOT workers and 18 forms were collected back from the fishermen working in the project area. The subsequent Tables show the analysis of the filled up questionnaires.

3.5.1 EOT workers questionnaire analysis: The Tables to shows the results of the analysis of the questionnaire distributed to Elkhir Oil Terminal. Table:35 shows that the senior management staff constituted 7.7% of the total terminal manpower, the middle management staff represented 46.2%, the employees were 30.8% and the workers were 15.4% of total manpower. Table 31: Job classification for EOT`s manpower. Job classification Frequency Percentage (%) Senior manager 1 7.7 Middle staff 6 46.2 Employee 4 30.8 Workers 2 15.4 Total 13 100

Table:36 below indicates that the years of work experience of the terminal manpower range between 1 and 15 years. 15.4% of them were with 1 to 5 years of experience,

66 38.5% were with 5 to 10 years of experience and 46.2% were with 10 to 15 years of experience

Table 32: Years of work experience of EOT manpower.

Classification Frequency Percentage (%) 1-5 2 15.4 5-10 5 38.5 10-15 6 46.2 Total 13 100

More specifically years of work experience at EOT is shown in Table:37 below. 53.8% of the staff was working in the terminal for 5 years or less. And 46.2 % were working in the terminal for 10 years or less.

Table 33: Staff years of experience in EOT.

Classification Frequency Percentage (%) 1-5 7 53.8 5-10 6 46.2 Total 13 100

All the respondents (100%) believed that the construction of the new quay would have positive economic and social impacts on the Red Sea state (Table:38 and Table:39 ).

Table 34: Perception of the terminal staff on the project economic impact

Type of impact Answer Frequency Percentage (%) Positive Yes 13 100 Negative No 0 0

Table 35: Perception of the terminal staff on the social impact of the project.

Type of impact Answer Frequency Percentage (%) Positive Yes 13 100 Negative No 0 0

67 In contrast to the above consensus on the positive socioeconomic impact of the project, the perception of the respondents on the environmental impact of the project showed a significant variation as illustrated in Table:40 below. The majority of the terminal staff (61.5%) did not expect that the construction of the new quay may negatively impact the coastal environment. However 38.5% of them anticipated that the project would produce negative impacts on the coastal environment. Table 40: Perception of the terminal staff on the negativity of the environmental impact likely to be produced by the project.

Impact type Answer Frequency Percentage (%) Negative No 8 61.5 Yes 5 38.5 Total ------13 100

3.5.2 Fishermen questionnaire analysis: In this section the demographic data and the perception of the fishermen community on the impact of the project on the fishing activities and the coastal environment are presented. In Table:41 below the job profile of the fishermen community is highlighted. Of the group surveyed 27.8% were boat owners while 55.6% were fishermen and 16.7% were labors Table 41: Job profile of the fishermen community.

Classification Frequency Percentage (%) Boat owner 5 27.8 Fisherman 10 55.6 Labour 3 16.6 Total 18 100

From Table:42 below 50% of the fishermen had a work experience ranging between 5 to 10 years and 44.4% of them has been working for 10 to 15 years. However, small proportion (5.6%) of the fishermen community had a work experience of more than 15 years

68 Table 42: Years of work experience of fishermen community.

Classification Frequency Percentage (%) 5-10 9 50 10-15 8 44.4 More than 15 1 5.6 Total 18 100

The history of fishing activities in the project site could be inferred from Table:43 below. Half of the fishermen community (50%) has been practicing fishing for 5 to 10 years. Those with more experience of 10 to 15 years of fishing practice constituted 44.4% of the community

Table 43: Years of experience in fishing activities.

Classification Frequency Percentage (%) 1-5 1 5.6 5-10 9 50 10-15 8 44.4 Total 18 100

Nearly all of the fishermen community (94.4%) did not expect the project to generate any positive economic impact (Table:44). Similarly 77.8% of fishermen expected the project to cause negative social impact (Table:45).

Table 44 : Perception of the fishermen on the project economic impact.

Type of economic impact Answer Frequency Percentage (%) Positive Yes 1 5.6 Negative Yes 17 94.4 Total ---- 18 100

Table 45: Perception of the fishermen on the social impact of the project.

Type of social impact Answer Frequency Percentage (%) Positive Yes 4 22.2 Negative Yes 14 77.8 Total ------18 100

While almost all of the fishermen surveyed (94.4%) had the perception that the construction of the new quay would negatively influence fishing activities in the area, only 5.6% of them expected that this would have no effects on their activities (Table:46).

Table 46: Perception of the fishermen on the impact of the project on fishing and fishing activities.

Impact on fishing Answer Frequency Percentage (%) Positive Yes 1 5.6 Negative Yes 17 94.4 Total ------18 100

70 Chapter 5 - EIA

4.1 Introduction: The project area is located directly southern part of Elkhair oil terminal jetty and regarded as a new development of the oil terminal. Although the terminal has been operating since 2008, nevertheless, the marine environment is still in good condition. According to the baseline study conducted at the project area, the measurements of the physical, chemical and biological water characteristics were normal and comparable with the readings at the adjacent areas (e.g. Abuhashish). Similarly the phytoplankton communities' measurements showed normal results with remarkable abundance of the Cyanobacteria over all other species of diatoms and dinoflagellates which is one of the Red Sea normal features. Additionally, the dominance of calanoid copepods in the zooplankton population at the project site was in accord with other findings obtained from undisturbed areas along the Sudanese coast. On the other hand soil analysis showed that the sediment at the project area was of sandy nature.

4.2 Impact identification: The identification of the impacts that would be produced by this project during construction and operation phases is based on the worst scenario. This means that the EIA team presumes that no precautionary and mitigation measures would be undertaken to minimize these impacts.

4.2.1: Expected impacts during construction phase: Dredging to increase the water depth at the terminal jetty is the major activity undertaken during the project construction that would adversely impact the marine environment. Inappropriate disposal of the dredge (filling) in the coastal zone would also impact the coastal and marine environment. Other activities associated with construction phase such as camp construction and vehicles movement from and to the project site would disturb the coastal area near the project site. However, if appropriate precautionary measures were taken

4.2.1.1 Impact of dredging on the marine environment: The dredging operations would produce an adverse impact on the project area in terms of its physical, chemical and biological characteristics. These impacts are outlined in the following sections.

71 4.2.1.1.1 Impact of dredging on seawater characteristics: Dredging would increase the total suspended solid in the water column. Thus seawater transparency would significantly be reduced. Under turbidity condition some seawater parameters may be affected. Of these parameters are light penetrations and dissolve oxygen. Reduced light penetration would influence quality of light required by photosynthetic marine vegetation such as phytoplankton, seaweeds and seagrasses. Impaired photosynthesis due to bad light quality would ultimately minimize the marine primary productivity. In addition to, dredging freed materials trapped in the sediment, so the overall chemical characteristics such as salinity and pH may also be affected.

4.2.1.1.2 Impact of dredging on benthic communities: The impact of dredging on benthic communities is of twofold: Elimination of benthic communities: this is the direct impact of dredging as it excavates benthic biota together with the soil. Siltation: this is the indirect impact of dredging on benthic communities. Precipitation of suspended sediment on benthic communities would smother these communities thus affecting the biodiversity at the project site. Only species that can tolerate turbidity and siltation would survive and those which are sensitive to these perturbation would be eliminated.

4.2.1.1.3 Impact of dredging on sediment: Dredging will alter the composition of marine sediment at the vicinity of the project and in the direction of the sediment plume. Water movement i.e. current and waves will carry suspended sediment particles and precipitate it elsewhere. In the case of Elkhair Oil Terminal the direction of the water movement was to the south towards Kilo 8 where significant assemblages of seaweeds and seagrasses were present. High level of siltation on seaweeds and seagrasses was observed during field studies at Kilo 8. Species vary in their ability to tolerate siltation. Red and brown seaweeds may be more tolerable to siltation compared to green seaweeds due to their thallus architecture which enable them to trap sediment and survive under turbid conditions. Similarly species of seagrasses were also reported to have varied degree of tolerance to siltation. As in Erftemeijer and Lewis (2006) the seagrass species around the project site could be arranged according to their sensitivity to siltation as follows Halophila ovata, Cymodocea rotundata, and Halodule uninervis starting with the most sensitive to the least.

72 4.2.1.1.4 Impact of dredging on biota assemblages: Corals, sea grasses, seaweeds and mangrove will be seriously impacted through sedimentation and/or actually be completely destroyed by dredging processes, however, the biota assemblages mentioned above will be subjected to a temporal impact through sedimentation at the areas located closely to the dredged areas. The nearby mangrove stands at kilo-tamania as an important ecosystem will be adversely impacted through sedimentation &turbidity, yet, the impact is described as temporal. On the other hand the marine fauna in the area will adversely be impacted particularly the benthic fauna, where considerablePopulation will be eradicated in the dredged area and the ones left at the adjacent area will temporallybe impacted mainly through heavy sedimentation & turbidity .

4.2.1.1.5 Impact of dredging on marine fishes and birds: Dredging operations, vehicles & workers movements will cause in addition to noise disturbance, a considerable destruction &disturbance for the feeding ground of the population of marine fishes and birds in the area, thus, a temporal adverse impact was expected.

4.2.1.2 Impact of filling on the terrestrial environment: Considerable amount of the dredged materials would be generated from dredging operation and may be dumped at the shore line. Dumping of the dredge and the excavated materials at the shore line or nearby would change the landscape of the location. Inappropriate filling operation particularly in the coastal environment would cause burial of vegetation and benthic communities leading eventually to poor biodiversity. However, air pollution due to dust and vehicle carbon dioxide emissions resulting from dumping process is another adverse hazards, though, the impact is considered as temporal.

4.2.1.3 Impact on socioeconomic environment: Fortunately there is no residence community around the project area; the location of the project has been planned as a second phase for Al-khair oil terminal established in 2008. Also there was no fishing activities close to the area, however, at the upper coastal plain nomadic activities are practiced and these may temporary be affected.

73 The extension of the terminal enclosed more coastal land within the boundaries of the terminal. This would greatly curtail the space available for the public beach at Kilo 8 where significant number of the residents of Port Sudan city used to visit during the weekends. Kilo 8 is the nearest picnic and leisure time location to Port Sudan. It is feared that the limited space would no longer accommodate that number. Although the impact on cultural heritage traditions and livelihood in a short time scale will not be touchable or observed, nevertheless, the change in traditions and livelihood at the area in the long time scale will be pronounce since the urbanization of the area was expected.

4.2.2 Expected impact during operation: As previously mentioned this project is phase 2 of Al khair oil terminal established in 2008, reference to the baseline study of the location the marine environment status could be described as good, putting into consideration that the terminal was operating since 2008. However, the operation activities is expected to increase, i.e. shipping movements, traffic, storage, waste & pollution (marine terrestrial, atmospheric), and consequently the adverse impact will increase.

4.2.2.1 Impact on the marine environment: The increase in shipping movement & activities is expected to have additional stress on the marine environment, these include, Ballast water, liquid sewage, domestic garbage, ships emissions and oil leakage risks.

4.2.2.2 Impact on the terrestrial environment: Stress on the terrestrial environment will increase due to increase in traffic, noise, gas emissions. Similarly there will be increase in domestic garbage from ships and workers, and an increase in sewage discharge coming from dining halls, bath rooms, etc.

4.2.2.3 Impact on the socioeconomic environment: The project is expected to promote infrastructure development & related services .e.g. electrical, transportation, communication, health; however, new jobs opportunities could encourage settlement of communities around the area.

74 4.2.3 Mitigation measures:-

4.2.3.1 Mitigation measures during construction: Since the construction work includes establishment of storage area north of the jetty at the supra- littoral zone an embanking boundary should be established around the selected area, then the dredged material should be pumped beyond the boundary ,these of course will confine the excavated material in restricted area. Also opening of entry passage through the fringing reef for ships movements southern to the jetty, such opening will greatly enhance water exchange in the area & mitigate any expected adverse impact in physical, chemical & biological characteristics of the area. • Proper disposal and/or reuse of the dredge should strictly be undertaken. Under no conditions should the dredge be disposed of in the shallow coastal water or on the coastal land where seawater movement could carry the sediment to new location such as the mangroves. • Vehicle movement should be controlled. Specific speed should be enforced to minimize the dust emission from vehicles movements. • Specific route should be established for vehicle movement to reduce their effect on coastal resources • Strict waste management plan should be implemented at the camp site.

4.2.3.2 Mitigation measures during operation: The hazards of oil spills and leakage should be put into consideration, thus, standard safety facilities and measures must be ready together with an oil contingency plan. Employees in safety and inspection department should be well trained and competent to do the job. • Equipments and chemicals required for tier one oil spill should be available at the Terminal • Control on ballast water discharge should be undertaken as specified in international environmental law. • Waste reception facilities should be provided to collect ship wastes.

75 4.2.4 Environmental management plan: The authority of the oil terminal should develop and adopt an environmental management plan.

76 Bibliography

• Ali, S. M.; El Hag, A. D.; Eltayeb, M. M.; Gaiballa, A. K.; Mohamed, M. H.; Ibraheem, M.Y; Elamin, S. M; Mohamed, M. O; Mohamed, K. A and Mohamed, I. H. (2000). Environmental Evaluation of the eastern part of Port Sudan Harbour. A study requested by Sea Ports Corporation, Port Sudan. • Al-Kandari, Manal; Al-Yamani, Faiza and Al-Rifaie, Kholood (2009). Marine Phytoplankton Atlas of Kuwait’s Waters. Lucky Printing Press, Kuwait. • APHA. 1992. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. 18th ed.

American Public Health Association, Washington, DC.

• Barratt, L. and Medley, P. (1990). Managing multi-species ornamental reef fisheries. Progress in Underwater Sciences. 15:55-72. • Branden, K. L.; Edgar, G. J. and Shepherd, S. A. (1986). Reef fish populations of the Investigator Group, South Australia: a comparison of two census methods. Trans. R. Soc. S. Aust., 110: 69-76. • Bryan, Leslie A. Principles of Water Transportation. New York, NY: The Ronald Press Company, 1939. • Chiffings, T. (2003). Marine Region 11: Arabia Seas. A Global Representative System of Marine Protected Areas. (Accessed 12/1/04). • Elamin, S. M. (2003). Chaetodontidae as indicator of survival of Abu Hashish corals, Red Sea. M. Sc. Thesis. Institute of Environmental Studies, University of Khartoum. • Elamin, S. M., Mohamed, A. B. And Mahmoud, Z. N. (2014). Butterflyfishes (chaetodontidae) From Abu Hashish F Ringing Reefs, Port Sudan, Red Sea. Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare, 4(12), 40-47. • Elert, G., & Tetruashvili, S. (2006). Resistivity of Water. In The Physics Factbook. Retrieved from http://hypertextbook.com/facts • EPA. (2012). 5.9 Conductivity. In Water: Monitoring and Assessment. Retrieved from http://water.epa.gov/type/rsl/monitoring/vms59.cfm

77 • Habibi, A.; Setiasih, N. and Sartin, J. (2007). A decade of Reef Check monitoring: Indonesian coral reefs, condition and trends. The Indonesian Reef Check Network, 32 pp. • Heinelt, H. and Smith, R., Sustainable innovation and participation governance. A cross- national study of the EU Eco-Management and Audit scheme, Ashgate Publishing Company, USA2003 • Hershman, Marc J. Urban Ports and Harbors Management. New York: Taylor & Francis, 1988. • Hodgson, G. and Liebeler, J. (2002). The global coral reef crisis – trends and solutions – 5 years of Reef Check. Reef Check Foundation, USA. 80 pp. • Karlson, B., Cusack, C. and Bresnan, E. (2010). Microscopic and molecular methods for quantitative phytoplankton analysis. UNESCO, Paris. 110 pp. • Kendall, Lane C. The Business of Shipping. Centreville, MD: Cornell Maritime Press, 1986. • Lueck, R.G. (1990) "Thermal Inertia of Conductivity Cells: Theory", JAOT V7(5)741- 755. • Lueck, R.G. (1990) "Thermal Inertia of Conductivity Cells: Theory", JAOT V7(5), 741- 755. • Miller, R. L., Bradford, W. L., & Peters, N. E. (1988). Specific Conductance: Theoretical Considerations and Application to Analytical Quality Control. In U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper. Retrieved from http://pubs.usgs.gov/wsp/2311/report.pdf • Mohamed, A. B. (2013). Counting and recording butterflyfishes from Abu Hashish fringing reefs. B.Sc. Dissertation. Faculty of Marine Sciences and Fisheries, Red Sea University. (in Arabic). • Morison, J. and R. Andersen, N. Larson (1993) "The Correction for Thermal-Lag Effects in Sea-Bird CTD Data", JAOT 1994, V11(4), 1151-1164. • Morison, J. and R. Andersen, N. Larson (1993) "The Correction for Thermal-Lag Effects in Sea-Bird CTD Data", JAOT 1994, V11(4), 1151-1164. • Nath, B., Hens, L., Compton, P., Devuyst, D., Environmental Management in practice. Volume 1. Instruments for environmental management., Rout ledge, London, 1998.

78 • National Institute of Ocean Technology (NIOT), Manual for Environmental Impact Assessment of Ports and Harbours, for the department of Ocean Development under the integrated Coastal and Marine Area management Program, Chennai, 2000. • Nicholson, B.L., Perakis, A.N., Bulkley, J.W., Environmental assessment, Sea born Petrochemical Spill Analysis Within the United States, 1992-1999, Environmental Management, Vol 31, No 4, 2003. • ORMOND, R; DAWSON, A; PRICE, A and PITTS, R(1984). Report on the

distribution of habitats and species in the Saudi Arabia Red Sea. Report No.4, Part 1.

IUCN, Gland; MEPA, Jeddah; and PERSGA, Jeddah. 273 pp.

• ORMOND, R; DAWSON, A; PRICE, A and PITTS, R(1984). Report on the distribution

of habitats and species in the Saudi Arabia Red Sea. Report No.4, Part 1. IUCN, Gland;

MEPA, Jeddah; and PERSGA, Jeddah. 273 pp.

• Perlman, H. (2014). Electrical Conductivity and Water. In The USGS Water Science School. Retrieved from http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/electrical-conductivity.html • Peter, V. 1986 Red Sea Invertebrates. IMMEL publishing. Ely Hous. 37

Dover street. London WIX 3RB.

• Petts J., Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment. Volume 1 Environmental Impact Assessment: process, methods and potential., Blackwell science LTD, Oxford, 1999. Regulation (EC) No 761/2001 of the European Parliament and the Council of 19 March 2001 allowing voluntary participation by organizations in a community eco- management and audit scheme (EMAS). • Randall, J. E. (1992). Red Sea Reef Fishes. Published by Immel Publishing limited .London. • Reef Check Programme. (2002). Multimedia (CD- Room ). • RUSS, G.(1984b). Distribution and abundance of herbivorous grazing fishes in the

central Great Barrier Reef II. Patterns of zonation of mid-shelf and outer- shelf reefs.

Marine Ecology Progress Series 20:35-44.

79 • RUSS, G.(1984Ba). Distribution and abundance of herbivorous grazing fishes in the

central Great Barrier Reef I. Level of variability across the entire continental shelf.

Marine Ecology Progress Series 20:23-34.

• Sale, P. F. and Sharp, B. J. (1983). Correction for bias in visual transect censuses for coral reef fishes. Coral reefs 2:37-42. • Sanderson, S. L. and Solonsky, A. C. (1986). Comparison of a rapid visual and a strip transect technique for censusing reef fish assemblages. Bull. Mar. Sci., 39: 119-129. • Tomas C. R. (1997). Identifying Marine Phytoplankton. Academic Press, New York. 858 pp. • UNESCO (1981): Background papers and supporting data on the Practical Salinity Scale, 1978. UNESCO technical papers in marine science 37:1-144 • UNESCO (1981): Background papers and supporting data on the Practical Salinity Scale, 1978. UNESCO technical papers in marine science 37:1-144. • UNESCO (1983): Algorithms for computation of fundamental properties of seawater. UNESCO technical papers in marine science 44:1-55. • UNESCO (1983): Algorithms for computation of fundamental properties of seawater. UNESCO technical papers in marine science 44:1-55. • Wetzel, R. G. (2001). Limnology: Lake and River Ecosystems (3rd ed.). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. • Wetzel, R. G. (2001). Limnology: Lake and River Ecosystems (3rd ed.). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Appendix A - Benthic classification

Table 36: Benthic classification categories (Hodgson et al., 2006). Hard coral (HC) Includes besides Scleractinia also fire coral (Millepora), blue coral (Heliopora) and organ pipe coral (Tubipora) because these are reef builders. Soft coral (SC) Include zoanthids, but not sea anemones (the latter go into “Other”). Recently killed coral Coral that died within the past year. The coral may be (RKC) standing or broken into pieces, but appears fresh, white with corallite structures still recognizable, only partially overgrown by encrusting algae etc. Nutrient indicator Fleshy Various blue green algae, Ulva and bubble algae to record Algae (FS) blooms of algae that might be response to high levels of nutrient input. Algae such as Sargassum and Halimeda are considered to be part of a healthy reef and are therefore not recorded for this category. Sponge (SP) All sponges to discover possible sponge blooms that could be the response to disturbance. Rock (RC) Any hard substrate whether it is covered in e.g. turf or encrusting coralline algae, barnacles, oysters etc. and all coral dead for more than one year. Rubble (RB) Rocks and coral pieces of the size 0.5 – 15 cm in diameter (if larger, then it is considered rock). Sand (SD) Rocks smaller than 0.5 cm in diameter that falls quickly to the bottom when being dropped. Dead Coral (DC) Coral that died within the past years. Other (OT) Any other sessile organisms including sea anemones, tunicates, gorgonians or non-living substrate.