This study evaluates the biodiversity within a 10 km radius of a proposed cement grinding unit in Prakasha Village, Nandurbar District, Maharashtra, India, to assess potential ecological impacts. The region, characterized by a semi-arid tropical climate and agricultural landscape, supports moderate floral and faunal diversity. A total of 30 plant species across 14 families, dominated by Fabaceae, and 60 faunal species, including birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and insects, were recorded. Notable species include the Critically Endangered Gyps bengalensis (White-backed Vulture) and Near Threatened Mycteria leucocephala (Painted Stork). Aquatic ecosystems revealed diverse macrophytes, phytoplankton, zooplankton, and fish, indicating functional aquatic habitats. No Rare, Endangered, or Threatened (RET) floral species were identified, but protected faunal species under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, and CITES highlight conservation priorities. Potential industrial impacts, such as dust emissions and groundwater extraction, necessitate mitigation measures like green belt development and pollution control to ensure sustainable development.

Keywords: biodiversity, cement grinding unit, Prakasha village, floral diversity, faunal diversity, conservation, aquatic ecology, environmental impact

Development is critical for national progress but often leads to biodiversity loss and environmental degradation.¹ These losses disproportionately affect certain communities while others benefit, exacerbating ecological and social inequities. Biodiversity supports essential ecosystem services, yet global trends show accelerating declines due to land-use changes, climate change, invasive species, overexploitation, and pollution.¹ This study assesses the flora, fauna, and aquatic biodiversity within a 10 km radius of a proposed cement grinding unit in Prakasha Village, Nandurbar District, Maharashtra, to guide sustainable industrial practices.²

Project description

The cement grinding unit is situated in Village Prakasha, District Nandurbar, Maharashtra, near the Gujarat-Maharashtra interstate boundary, approximately 1.6 km away. The 10 km study area consists mainly of rural settlements, agricultural lands, and scattered social infrastructure, with no major urban centers or ecologically sensitive zones nearby. The site is mapped under Topo Sheet Nos. F43O6 and F43O7. Key landmarks in the vicinity include an Ayurvedic Hospital (SE), Primary Health Center in Korit (SSE), Kedareshwar Mandir (S), Gautmeshwar Mahadev Mandir (SE), R.P. Torde IOCL Petrol Pump (S), and Korit Post Office (SSE). The region is predominantly agricultural and rural, with dispersed villages and no forests, wildlife sanctuaries, or critically polluted zones within a 10 km radius. Water sources are likely groundwater-dependent, as no major rivers or reservoirs are mentioned. Road networks connect the site to nearby villages and district centers. Clinker will be sourced from JSW Cement, JK Cement (Bardoli), and Wonder Cement (Dhule) via road transport, while fly ash will be supplied from thermal power plants. To mitigate environmental impact, a green belt spanning 0.23 hectares—covering one-third of the plant area—will be developed using native plant species to compensate for vegetation loss and support small wildlife. Dust emissions will be controlled through bag filters and electrostatic precipitators, maintaining levels below permissible limits <30 mg/Nm³.³ Water consumption is estimated at 22 KLD, sourced from groundwater, with treatment and reuse systems implemented to prevent contamination and excessive extraction.

Study area

The 10 km radius around the site primarily encompasses rural settlements, agricultural fields, and scattered social infrastructure such as schools, health centers, and religious places, with no major urban or industrial centers nearby. Ecologically, the region surrounding the project site is characterized by a semi-arid tropical climate with annual rainfall ranging between 600–800 mm, mostly received during the southwest monsoon season. The topography is relatively flat, with soils predominantly being alluvial and loamy, suitable for agriculture but not particularly rich in organic content. Vegetation in the area is largely limited to agricultural crops like cotton, groundnut, millets, and pulses, along with common weed species such as Parthenium hysterophorus and Cynodon dactylion. Sparse tree cover includes hardy species like neem (Azadirachta indica) and babool (Acacia nilotica), typically found around village peripheries. There is no forest cover or protected areas within the 10 km radius, indicating a low presence of native biodiversity habitats. The area supports only common and widespread species typical of rural and agricultural landscapes. Birds such as house sparrows, pigeons, crows, mynas, and kites are commonly observed, while mammals include jackals, hares, rodents, and stray cattle.^4,2 Reptiles like lizards and snakes, including some venomous species, may also be present. Insect diversity is expected to be moderate, with pollinators such as bees and butterflies, as well as agricultural pests. However, there is no evidence of endangered, rare, or protected species under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, suggesting that the area does not serve as a critical habitat for conservation-dependent wildlife. Additionally, no major rivers, wetlands, or reservoirs are present within the study radius, with local water needs being met primarily through groundwater extraction via borewells and dug wells.⁵

The land use pattern in the region remains largely dominated by agriculture and rural habitation, with minimal industrial activity. No ecologically sensitive zones such as wildlife sanctuaries, national parks, or eco-sensitive zones have been identified in the vicinity. This suggests that the direct impact on biodiversity from the proposed cement grinding unit would likely be limited. However, given the nature of industrial operations, potential indirect impacts such as air pollution from particulate matter, groundwater over-extraction, and habitat modification could still affect the local environment if not properly managed.

The study was conducted from March 1 to May 31, 2025, within a 10 km radius, divided into a core zone (project site) and buffer zone. Data collection followed protocols by. ^6,14,7, Kumar et al, ^8,9 Floral and faunal surveys used field sampling and taxonomic identification, with conservation status assessed per IUCN Red List and Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.¹⁰ Aquatic biodiversity was evaluated via one-time winter sampling, analyzing macrophytes, phytoplankton, zooplankton, and fish using the Lackey Drop method.¹¹

Observations

The floral diversity recorded is moderate but not rich, dominated by commonly occurring species rather than rare or endangered ones. There is no indication of endemic or threatened species, suggesting limited conservation value in terms of flora within this radius. However, maintaining green belts and promoting native species such as Azadirachta indica, Ficus spp., and Moringa oleifera could enhance local biodiversity and ecosystem services.

Floral species

Thirty plant species across 14 families were recorded, with Fabaceae (e.g., Acacia nilotica, Tamarindus indica) dominant.¹² Trees (Ficus benghalensis, Mangifera indica), herbs (Oryza sativa), and shrubs (Gossypium sp.) reflect agricultural influenc.⁴ No RET species were found, indicating limited floral conservation value.¹³ This dominance indicates the prevalence of nitrogen-fixing plants, which are well-adapted to semi-arid conditions and agricultural practices.

1. Myrtaceae (4 species): Syzygium cumini , Psidium guajava , Eucalyptus sp. , Mangifera indica
2. Poaceae (Grass family) (4 species): Cynodon dactylon, Sorghum bicolor, Triticum aestivum, Oryza sativa
3. Moraceae (3 species): Ficus benghalensis , Ficus religiosa , Ficus racemosa

List of Flora observed in the study area

1. Trees dominate the landscape, including both wild/semi-wild species (Ficus spp., Azadirachta indica, Acacia nilotica) and cultivated or fruit-bearing trees (Mangifera indica, Psidium guajava, Manilkara zapota).
2. Herbs largely consist of agricultural crops (Oryza sativa, Sorghum bicolor, Triticum aestivum) and common weeds (Parthenium hysterophorus, Cynodon dactylon), indicating significant anthropogenic influence.
3. Shrubs include both native (Prosopis juliflora) and cultivated species (Gossypium sp., Cajanus cajan) Table 1.

Faunal species

Sixty species were documented: 38 birds, 9 mammals, 6 reptiles, 2 amphibians, 2 rodents, and 2 insects.¹⁴ Key species include Gyps bengalensis (Critically Endangered) and Mycteria leucocephala (Near Threatened).¹⁵ Protected species under WPA 1972 and CITES include Pavo cristatus and Varanus bengalensis¹⁶ Table 2.

The analysis interprets the data based on species diversity, conservation status, legal protection under Wildlife Protection Act (WPA) 1972, IUCN Red List status, and CITES listings, providing insights into the ecological significance, anthropogenic influence, and potential impacts of industrial activity on local fauna.

Birds

1. Waterbirds: Several species such as Mycteria leucocephala (Painted Stork – NT), Ciconia episcopus (Woolly-necked Stork – VU), Sterna aurantia (River Tern – NT), and Phalacrocorax niger (Little Cormorant) indicate the presence of seasonal wetlands or water bodies within or near the study area.
2. Migratory Birds: Species like Anas poecilorhyncha (Spot-billed Duck), Tringa hypoleucos (Common Sandpiper), and Saxicoloides fulicatus (Indian Robin) may be migrants or seasonal visitors, suggesting the region's ecological connectivity with migratory flyways.
3. Raptors: Presence of raptors like Elanus caeruleus (Black-shouldered Kite – Schedule I), Milvus migrans (Black Kite – Appendix II), and Gyps bengalensis (White-backed Vulture – CR, Schedule I) highlights the availability of prey base and open habitats. The Critically Endangered White-backed Vulture is a conservation priority.
4. Protected Birds: Several species including Pavo cristatus (Indian Peafowl – Schedule I), Athene brama (Spotted Owlet – Appendix II), and Psittacula krameri (Rose-ringed Parakeet – Appendix II) are legally protected under WPA 1972 and CITES.

Conservation concern

1. The presence of Critically Endangered White-backed Vulture (Gyps bengalensis) warrants special attention, as even occasional exposure to pollutants or habitat degradation can further threaten this species' survival in the region.
2. Similarly, the Near Threatened (NT) status of Painted Stork and River Tern suggests that any changes in wetland health or water quality could impact their populations.

Mammalian species

1. Generalist Species: Most mammals found are common and adaptable, such as Canis aureus (Jackal – Schedule I), Herpestes edwardsi (Common Mongoose – Schedule IV), Hystrix indica (Porcupine – Schedule I), and Lepus nigricollis (Indian Hare – Schedule II).
2. Primates: Presence of Macaca radiata (Bonnet Macaque – Schedule II, Appendix II) and Semnopithecus entellus (Common Langur – Schedule II, Appendix I) indicates proximity to forest edges or temple groves where these species are often found.
3. Rodents: Rattus rattus and Mus musculus, though not protected, play a role in agricultural pest dynamics and disease ecology.

Conservation & legal status

1. Some species like Semnopithecus entellus (Common Langur – Appendix I), Gyps bengalensis (Vulture – Appendix II), and Varanus bengalensis (Monitor Lizard – Appendix I) are listed in CITES Appendices, requiring strict international trade regulation.
2. Canis aureus (Jackal – Schedule I), Herpestes edwardsi (Mongoose – Schedule IV), and Vulpes bengalensis (Indian Fox – Schedule I) are also protected under Schedule I–IV of WPA 1972, indicating legal safeguards against hunting or disturbance.

Reptiles

1. Venomous Snakes: Presence of medically important species such as Naja naja (King Cobra – Schedule I, Appendix II), Daboia russelii (Russell’s Viper – Schedule I), and Ptyas mucosa (Indian Rat Snake – Schedule I, Appendix II) underscores the need for caution during construction and operation phases.
2. Monitor Lizard: Varanus bengalensis (Indian Monitor Lizard – Schedule I, Appendix I) is a large-bodied species that requires intact microhabitats and is vulnerable to poaching.
3. Common Species: Calotes versicolor (Garden Lizard) and Hemidactylus frenatus (House Gecko) are widespread and adapted to human-modified landscapes.

Amphibians

1. Hoplobatrachus tigerinus (Indian Bullfrog – Schedule IV) – Common in moist environments and agricultural fields.
2. No frogs or toads typical of perennial water systems were observed, possibly due to the lack of permanent water bodies in the region.

Amphibians are highly sensitive to environmental change and pollution, making them key indicators of ecosystem health. Their limited presence here aligns with the semi-arid climate and lack of wetlands.

Insects and ecosystem services

1. Apis cerana (Indian Honey Bee) – Important pollinator; no specific legal protection but ecologically vital.
2. Danaus chrysippus (Plain Tiger Butterfly) – Common butterfly species, plays a role in pollination and serves as an indicator of floral abundance.

While not legally protected, these species contribute to agro-ecosystem services, particularly pollination of crops and wild plants.

RET (Rare, Endangered and Threatened) species analysis of flora & fauna in the study area

No RET plant species were identified. Faunal RET species include Gyps bengalensis (CR), Mycteria leucocephala (NT), and Ciconia episcopus (VU), underscoring the need for conservation measures to mitigate industrial impacts.¹⁷ These findings emphasize the need for responsible industrial practices to protect sensitive species and maintain the ecological balance of the rural-agricultural landscape Table 3.

Aquatic biodiversity

Evaluation of the biological impulses on study area is an integral part of an environmental impact assessment as the consequences of perturbations in the environment ultimately may affect the habitat. Proposed project activity will not affect any breeding/nursery grounds of economically important living resources. Though organisms have evolved to withstand the change within certain limits, they may not be well adapted to manmade stresses. Thus, the monitoring program should sufficiently target the entire potential at risk. An essential pre requisite for the successful solution to these problems is to evaluate ecological impacts from the baseline information and undertake effective management plan. So, the objective of aquatic ecological study may be outlined as follows:

To characterize water bodies like fresh waters;

1. To understand their present biological status;
2. To characterize water bodies with the help of biota;
3. To understand the impact of industrial and urbanization activities; and
4. To suggest recommendations to counter adverse impacts, if any on the ecosystem. To meet these objectives following methods were followed:
5. Generating data by actual field sampling and analysis in these areas through field visits during study period.

A number of samples were investigated for enumeration of aquatic flora & fauna. In order to study aquatic flora and faunal life one time survey was conducted during the winter season.

Major component of the aquatic life under the study area are listed below.

1. Aquatic macrophytes
2. Phytoplankton and zooplankton
3. Aquatic vertebrates like fish, amphibians etc.

While considering assessment of aquatic pollution and its implications, it must be realized that, despite many changes in the physico-chemical properties of the water body, the ultimate consequences of pollutants may be reflected inevitably on the biological system. Hence, the investigations of an ecosystem and particularly of its communities constitute an integral part of any ecological assessment. This can be achieved by selecting a few reliable parameters from a complex community structure. The parameters considered have phytoplankton, zooplankton and status of fishery. The first two reflect the productivity of a water column at the primary and secondary levels, respectively. Ultimate commercial interest being fisheries, the status of the exploitable fishery resources was assessed. Information on larval stages of fishes was used to evaluate probable occurrence of spawning and breeding grounds of economically important species. To assess the planktonic profile of Phytoplankton and Zooplankton, 3 water samples were collected at sub surface level. The aquatic ecological study was conducted in different water bodies of the study area and the flora and fauna was recorded.

Macrophytes

Sixteen macrophytes (e.g., Nelumbo nucifera), 21 phytoplankton species (e.g., Navicula sp.), 8 zooplankton species (e.g., Daphnia sp.), and 24 fish species (e.g., Labeo rohita) were recorded.¹⁸ These suggest functional aquatic ecosystems supporting primary and secondary productivity.¹¹ The following macrophytes observed within the study area Table 4:

Phytoplankton

Phytoplankton are the major primary producers of organic matter in the aquatic ecosystem and especially oceans whose 90% productivity is from the planktons. Collectively, they directly or indirectly support the entire animal population. When the water column becomes shallow in spring, phytoplankton are exposed to higher light intensity in the upper sunlight. Light is one of the major abiotic factors that favor the growth of phytoplankton. The massive buildup of phytoplankton in spring directly contributes new organic carbon to support the zooplankton, which, in turn, benefits larger aquatic animals including fish, crustaceans, molluscs, birds. Phytoplankton samples were collected without filtering the water. To preserve, 0.3 mL lugol’s solution was added to 100 mL sample. Subsequently phytoplankton were concentrated by centrifugation and analyzed microscopically in laboratory. Identification of phytoplankton was done using standard taxonomic keys. The Lackey Drop (micro-transect) method (Lackey 1938) is a simple method for obtaining counts of considerable accuracy.¹¹

Chemicals/reagents used: Lugol’s iodine

Equipment used: Centrifuge tubes of 15ml capacity, cover slips, glass slides, dropper, plastic bottles (100 mL capacity)

Instruments used: Centrifuge and Microscope Table 5.

Zooplankton

The significance of zooplanktons is found in their role in transferring biological production from phytoplankton to larger organisms in the food web. A large number of phytoplankton species are grazed upon by the microscopic protozoans, tunicates, copepods and other crustaceans. These in turn become food for other animals further linking the food web. Therefore, variability in the production of planktons would affect the survival of young fish that depend on them. Sample collection was carried out in the similar method as that of phytoplankton.^19,20 The result of the zooplankton analysis is tabulated in Table 6 below.

Fish species

The list of fish & other species, which have been reported are tabulated in Table 7 below:

The ecological assessment of the 10 km radius around the proposed cement grinding unit in Village Prakasha, Nandurbar District, Maharashtra, indicates that the area is predominantly rural and agricultural, with a landscape shaped by human-modified habitats. The flora consists of 30 species, including trees like Ficus religiosa (Peepal), Azadirachta indica (Neem), and Mangifera indica (Mango), along with common herbs, shrubs, and agricultural crops such as rice, wheat, cotton, and groundnut. No Rare, Endangered, or Threatened (RET) plant species were recorded in the study area. While some species hold cultural and medicinal importance, the overall floral diversity reflects adaptation to semi-arid conditions and anthropogenic influence rather than natural forest ecosystems.

The faunal survey documented 60 species, including birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, rodents, and insects. Most of these are widespread and adaptable generalists commonly found in rural landscapes. However, the presence of certain species of conservation concern, such as the Critically Endangered White-backed Vulture (Gyps bengalensis), the Near Threatened Painted Stork (Mycteria leucocephala), and the Vulnerable Woolly-necked Stork (Ciconia episcopus), highlights the ecological relevance of the area. Several other species, including the Indian Peafowl, Jackal, Common Langur, and Monitor Lizard, are protected under various schedules of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, emphasizing the need for cautious development planning.

Despite the absence of dense forests or wetlands, the region supports important ecological functions such as bird migration corridors, pollination, and predator-prey dynamics. Potential impacts from industrial activities—such as air and noise pollution, groundwater extraction, and habitat modification —could affect sensitive species, particularly migratory birds and vultures. Therefore, it is essential to implement effective mitigation measures, including green belt development, dust and noise control, and regular biodiversity monitoring, especially for threatened species.

In conclusion, while the project site does not fall within an ecologically sensitive zone, its proximity to interstate boundaries and the presence of legally protected and globally threatened fauna necessitate adherence to Category-A environmental clearance norms. With appropriate management strategies and community involvement, the proposed industrial activity can be carried out in a manner that ensures sustainable development without compromising local biodiversity.

None.

The author declares there is no conflict of interest.

1. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-being. Island Press. 2005.
2. Rathoure AK. Ecological Status in and around Avadhan Industrial Area in Dhule District of Maharashtra, India. Int J Avian & Wildlife Biol. 2020a;5(2):39–47.
3. Rathoure AK. Zero liquid discharge treatment systems: prerequisite to industries. MOJ Eco Environ Sci. 2020b;5(1):1–10.
4. Kumar A, Aggarwal SG. Study of Common Property Resources (CPR) With Special Reference to Water and Biological Resources at Projected Area near Village Ninat, Bardoli, District-Surat. Oct Jour Env Res. 2013b;1(4):319–331.
5. Kumar A. Cumulative baseline status for Flora and Fauna with Ecological Impact Assessment for Sand Mining projects at Yamuna River in Sonepat and Baghpat Area. Oct Jour Env Res. 2015a;3(2):167–184.
6. Kumar A, Aggarwal SG. Ecology and Biodiversity status of Sachin gidc and its surroundings with Special reference to Conservation measures for Indian Peafowl (Pavo cristatus) schedule –I Bird species. Oct Jour Env Res. 2013a;2(1):82–100.
7. Kumar A, Srivastava M. Diversity of medicinal Plants in Uttarakhand and their conservation Strategy with special reference to Orchids. Proceeding of National Conference on Environmental Health: Challenges and Management. 2012. p. 139–142.
8. Kumar A, Srivastava M, Goyal S. The Biodiversity at Sandi Bird Sanctuary, Hardoi with Special Reference to Migratory Birds. Oct Jour Env Res. 2013;1(3):173–181.
9. Rathoure AK. Survey Methodology for Biodiversity Assessment: An Overview. In Current State and Future Impacts of Climate Change on Biodiversity. IGI Global. 2020c. p. 225–237.
10. Red List of Threatened Species. 2008.
11. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. American Public Health Association. 2012.
12. Jain SK. Rare and Endangered Species: Observation on rare, imperfectly known endemic plants. Botanical Survey of India. 1983.
13. Rathoure AK, Patel HC. Techniques to Assess Plant Diversity: Floral Biodiversity Assessment. In Current State and Future Impacts of Climate Change on Biodiversity. IGI Global. 2020d. p. 248–261.
14. Rathoure AK, Patel TK. Techniques to Assess Animal Diversity: Faunal Diversity Assessment. In Current State and Future Impacts of Climate Change on Biodiversity. IGI Global. 2020e. p. 238–247.
15. BirdLife International. Threatened Birds of the World 2004. Lynx Edicions and BirdLife International. 2004a.
16. IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1. IUCN Species Survival Commission. 2001.
17. Guidelines for Application of IUCN Red List Criteria at Regional Levels: Version 3.0. IUCN Species Survival Commission. 2003.
18. Kumar A, Eledath M. Baseline status for Flora and Fauna with aquatic biodiversity in Dahej area, district Bharuch Gujarat. Oct Jour Env Res. 2015b;3(1):080–093.
19. Jain SK. Medicinal Plants. Nation Book Trust. 1968.
20. Kumar A. Butterfly (Lepidoptera: Insecta) Diversity from Different Sites of Jhagadia, Ankleshwar, District-Bharuch, Gujarat. Oct Jour Env Res. 2013;1(1):9–18.