GOVERNMENT OF Department of Fisheries

Mookaiyur

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT STUDY FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF FISH LANDING CENTRE AT MOOKAIYUR, DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU

WAPCOS LIMITED (A GOVERNMENT OF UNDERTAKING) Flat No: 2C, II nd floor, Jai Durga Apartment, 38/2, First Avenue, Ashok Nagar, -600 083. Tel.: 24710477 / Tel Fax: 044-24714424 E-mail: [email protected]

MAY 2014 EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Department of Fisheries

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CHAPTER – 1 : INTRODUCTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION 1 of 8 1.2 NEED FOR THE PROJECT 1 of 8 1.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE EIA STUDY 2 of 8

1.4 METHODOLOGY FOR THE EIA STUDY 2 of 8 1.5 OUTLINE OF THE REPORT 8 of 8

CHAPTER – 2 : PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 GENERAL 1 of 9 2.2 FISHING VILLAGES 1 0f 9

2.3 MARINE FISH PRODUCTION 2 of 9 2.4 FISH PRODUCTION IN RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT 2 of 9

2.5 MOOKAIYUR FISH LANDING CENTRE 2 of 9 2.6 SITE DETAILS 7 of 9 2.7 PROPOSED FACILITIES IN THE MOOKAIYUR FISH LANDING CENTER 8 of 9

CHAPTER – 3 : ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE STATUS

3.1 GENERAL 1 of 62

3.2 METEOROLOGY 2 of 62 3.3 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY 4 of 62

3.4 NOISE ENVIRONMENT 9 of 62

3.5 LANDUSE PATTERN 9 of 62

3.6 PHYSICAL OCEANOGRAPHY 13 of 62 3.7 MARINE ENVIRONMENT 14 of 62

WAPCOS Centre for Environment Page 1 of 8 Contents

EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

3.7.1. MATERIALS AND METHODS 16 of 62 3.7.2. WATER ANALYSIS 17 of 62 3.7.3 SEDIMENT ANALYSIS 18 of 62 3.7.4 BACTERIOLOGICAL METHODS 19 of 62

3.7.5 PHYTOPLANKTON 21 of 62 3.7.6. ZOOPLANKTON 21 of 62 3.7.7. BENTHIC COMMUNITY 22 of 62 3.8 WATER QUALITY 22 of 62 3.9 SEDIMENT CHARACTERISTICS 29 of 62 3.10 HEAVY METALS IN WATER 30 of 62 3.11 SOIL TEXTURE (%) 33 of 62 3.12 HEAVY METALS IN SEDIMENT 35 of 62 3.13 MICROBIOLOGY 38 of 62

3.14 BIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS 42 of 62 3.15 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 54 of 62 3.16 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS 56 of 62

CHAPTER – 4 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

4.1 GENERAL 1 of 21 IMPACTS ON MARINE ENVIRONMENT DURING CONSTRUCTION 4.2 PHASE 1 of 21 4.2.1. Direct effects due to dredging 2 of 21

4.3 IMPACTS ON NOISE ENVIRONMENT 7 of 21

4.4 CUMULATIVE AND MID-TERM EFFECTS 10 of 21

4.5 LONG-TERM EFFECTS 12 of 21

4.6 OTHER TYPES OF IMPACTS 13 of 21

WAPCOS Centre for Environment Page 2 of 8 Contents

EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

4.7 IMPACTS ON LAND ENVIRONMENT 14 of 21 4.7.1 impacts due to construction activities 14 of 21 4.7.2 operation phase 15 of 21

4.7.3.impacts on land use pattern of the area 16 of 21

4.7.4.impacts on insects, invertebrates and other fauna 16 0f 21

4.8 IMPACTS DUE TO RECLAMATION 18 of 21 4.9 IMPACTS ON AIR ENVIRONMENT 18 of 21 4.10 IMPACTS ON TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY 20 of 21

4.11 IMPACTS ON SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 21 of 21

CHAPTER – 5 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

5.1 GENERAL 1 of 5 5.2 LAND ENVIRONMENT 1 of 5 5.3 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL 2 of 7 5.4 WATER ENVIRONMENT 2 of 7 5.5 AIR ENVIRONMENT 3 of 7 5.6 CONTROL OF NOISE 4 of 7 5.7 GREENBELT DEVELOPMENT 5 of 7

CHAPTER-6 RISK ASSESSMENT

6.1 RISK ASSESSMENT 1 of 4 6.2 HSE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 1 of 4 6.3 EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS 2 of 4 6.4 DISASTER IMPACTS 3 of 4 6.5 EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PLAN 3 of 4

WAPCOS Centre for Environment Page 3 of 8 Contents

EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

CHAPTER 7- ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAMME

7.1 THE NEED 1 of 7 7.2 AREAS OF CONCERN 1 of 7 7.3 MARINE WATER & SEDIMENT QUALITY 2 of 7 7.4 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY 4 of 7 7.5 NOISE 5 of 7

7.6 GREENBELT DEVELOPMENT 5 of 7 7.7 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAMME 5 of 7

CHAPTER 8- CONCLUSIONS 1 of 2 ANNEXURE – I NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS (NAAQS)

ANNEXURE – II AMBIENT NOISE STANDARDS ANNEXURE – III MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE LEVEL OR CONDITION OF WATER POLLUTANTS DISCHARGED INTO THE ENVIRONMENT

TABLES TABLE 1.1 SCOPING MATRIX FOR THE EIA STUDY OF PROPOSED FISH LANDING CENTER

TABLE 1.2 SUMMARY OF DATA COLLECTION FROM VARIOUS SOURCES

TABLE 2.1 COASTAL LENGTH OF DISTRICTS

TABLE 2.2 DETAILS OF MARINE FISHING VILLAGES OF TAMIL NADU

TABLE 2.3 LIST OF MARINE FISHING VILLAGES OF RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT

TABLE 2.4 ANNUAL MARINE FISH PRODUCTION FOR RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT

TABLE 2.5 BASIC FISHERY INFORMATION IN RESPECT OF RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT

TABLE 2.6 SALIENT FEATURES OF THE PROPOSED FISH LANDING CENTRE

TABLE 3.1 AVERAGE METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS IN THE PROJECT AREA DISTRICT

WAPCOS Centre for Environment Page 4 of 8 Contents

EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

TABLE 3.2 DETAILS OF AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MONITORING STATIONS

TABLE 3.3 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MONITORING RESULTS - NEAR YAKAPAR TEMPLE

TABLE 3.4 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STATUS – NO2 (UNIT : µG/M3)

TABLE 3.5 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STATUS – SO2 (UNIT : µG/M3)

TABLE 3.6 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STATUS – PM10 (UNIT : µG/M3)

TABLE 3.7 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STATUS – PM2.5 (UNIT : µG/M3)

TABLE 3.8 EQUIVALENT NOISE LEVELS IN THE STUDY AREA (UNIT : DB(A))

TABLE 3.9 LANDUSE PATTERN OF THE STUDY AREA

TABLE 3.10 TIDE CHARACTERISTICS OF MOOKAIYUR AREA

TABLE 3.11 SAMPLING STATIONS AND THEIR GEOGRAPHICAL COORDINATES

TABLE 3.12 PHYSICO - CHEMICAL PROPERTIES OF WATER

TABLE 3.13 NUTRIENTS IN WATER

TABLE 3.14 PETROLEUM HYDROCARBON IN WATER & SEDIMENT

TABLE 3.15 HEAVY METALS IN WATER

TABL E 3.16 SOIL TEXTURE, TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON & pH OF SEDIMENT

TABLE 3.17 HEAVY METALS IN SEDIMENT

TABLE 3.18 MICROBIAL POPULATIONS IN WATER

TABLE 3.19 MICROBIAL POPULATIONS IN SEDIMENT

TABLE 3.20 BIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS

TABLE 3.21 PHYTOPL ANKTON

WAPCOS Centre for Environment Page 5 of 8 Contents

EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

TABLE 3.22 ZOOPLANKTON

TABLE 3.23 FINFISH EGGS

TABLE 3.24 FINFISH LARVAE

TABLE 3.25 MACROBENTHOS

TABLE 3.26 MEIOBENTHOS

TABLE 3.27 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE IN THE STUDY AREA VILLAGES

TABLE 3.28 LITERACY PROFILE IN THE STUDY AREA

TABLE 3.29 OCCUPATIONAL PROFILE IN THE STUDY AREA VILLAGES

TABLE 3.30 AGE WISE POPULATION DISTRIBUTION OF MOOKAIYUR VILLAGE

TABLE 3.31 COMMUNITY WISE POPULATION DISTRIBUTION OF MOOKAIYUR VILLAGE

TABLE 3.32 EDUCATIONAL STATUS OF FISHERMEN OF MOOKAIYUR VILLAGE

TABLE 3.33 EMPLOYMENT STATUS OF FISHERMEN OF MOOKAIYUR VILLAGE

TABLE 3.34 HOUSING DETAILS OF MOOKAIYUR VILLAGE

TABLE 3.35 DETAILS OF FISHING CRAFTS OF MOOKAIYUR VILLAGE

TABLE 3.36 MODE OF MARKETING OF FISHES IN MOOKAIYUR VILLAGE

TABLE 4.1 AVERAGE NOISE LEVELS GENERATED BY THE OPERATION OF VARIOUS CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT TABLE 4.2 PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS DUE TO THE OPERATION OF VARIOUS CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT TABLE 4.3 VARIATION IN NOISE LEVEL DUE TO VEHICULAR MOVEMENT

TABLE 4.4 COST ESTIMATES FOR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

TABLE 4.5 FUEL COMBUSTION DURING CONSTRUCTION PHASE

WAPCOS Centre for Environment Page 6 of 8 Contents

EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

TABLE 4.6 SHORT-TERM (24 HR) INCREASE IN CONCENTRATION OF SO2 (G/M3)

TABLE 5.1 COST ESTIMATES FOR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

TABLE 5.2 COST ESTIMATES FOR SANITARY FACILITIES FOR LABOUR CAMPS

TABLE 5.3 MAXIMUM EXPOSURE PERIODS FOR DIFFERENT NOISE LEVELS AS PER OSHA

TABLE 5.4 RECOMMENDED SPECIES FOR GREENBELT DEVELOPMENT

TABLE 7.1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAMME FOR IMPLEMENTATION DURING PROJECT CONSTRUCTION PHASE TABLE 7.2 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAMME FOR IMPLEMENTATION DURING PROJECT OPERATION PHASE

FIGURES LOCATION MAP OF MOOKAIYUR FISH LANDING CENTRE Fig 2.1 PROPOSED LAYOUT FOR THE MOOKAIYUR FISH LANDING CENTRE Fig 2.2 CRZ MAP OF THE PROJECT AREA Fig 2.3

Fig 3.1 STUDY AREA MAP

Fig 3.2 RAW IMAGE OF THE PROPOSED MOOKAIYUR FISH LANDING CENTRE

Fig 3.3 CLASSIFIED IMAGE OF THE PROPOSED MOOKAIYUR FISH LANDING CENTRE MARINE SAMPLING LOCATIONS FOR WATER AND SEDIMENT QUALITY AND BIOTA Fig 3.4 PHOTOS OF SAMPLING LOCATIONS Fig 3.5 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE IN THE STUDY AREA VILLAGES Fig 3.6 LITERACY PROFILE IN THE STUDY AREA VILLAGES Fig 3.7

OCCUPATIONAL PROFILE IN THE STUDY AREA VILLAGES Fig 3.8 REPRESENTATIVE MAP OF FISH LANDING CENTER AND AREA TO BE DREDGED Fig 4.1

WAPCOS Centre for Environment Page 7 of 8 Contents

EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre Department of Fisheries at Mookaiyur , Ramanathapuram District

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. INTRODUCTION

The proposed Mookaiyur Fish Landing Centre is to be located in Mookaiyur fishing village which is one of the oldest Fish Landing Centre where fishing activities are predominantly carried out. Fishing boats from neighbouring villages Narippaiyur, T.Mariyur and Oppilam also land their crafts in Mookaiyur. In order to support the fishermen livelihood of Mookaiyur and nearby villages, the Fisheries Department, Government of Tamil Nadu intends to reconstruct the existing fish landing center along with a Breakwater and Wharf that will enable access to fishermen throughout the year.

2. PROJECT PROPOSAL

The proposed Fish Landing Center at Mookaiyur is being developed with the landing facilities viz., fish drying platform, fish auction hall, protection wall, net mending shed etc., which were badly damaged/collapsed due to various natural phenomenon. These structures are being reconstructed for sustenance of the livelihood of the local population.

3. SITE DETAILS

The proposed Mookaiyur Fish Landing Centre is to be located at village Mookaiyur, Taluka, District Ramanathapuram. At present all the fishing activities are carried out in and around Mookaiyur area located behind the three islands, namely Nalla tanni, Uppu tanni and Shalli. These islands are fringed with coral formation and rocky outcrops on the sea side. These islands provide adequate shelter to the fishing boats on the leeside during the rough weather. River Gundar meets the sea East of Mookaiyur village, wherein the mouth of the river is seen to be blocked by the siltation during non-monsoon season. The project site is located at about 3 km from the periphery of Biosphere Reserve (GoMBR). Although Mookaiyur is located in the Gulf of Mannar National Park area, this village is in

i Executive Summary WAPCOS Centre for Environment

EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre Department of Fisheries at Mookaiyur , Ramanathapuram District

the buffer zone away from the core area (21 islands) and therefore this area is a permissible area for fishing and fishing related activities.

4. Environmental Impacts

The marine survey in the project area indicates that ecologically sensitive chemical parameters such as Oxygen, BOD, nutrients and heavy metals were at the optimal concentration coincided with the seasonal variation. The present study revealed that the DO concentration remained fairly well prescribed within the range of the values of water quality. The sand, silt and clay fraction at each of the stations along with their textural classification indicates that the sand and silt percentage was higher during this survey. The observations made during this survey revealed that the water is well oxygenated and nutrients are adequate supporting fairly good plankton population, the base of the food chain. Thus, the water is biologically productive at primary and secondary levels and the benthic fauna is moderately rich in diversity. The coastal waters are highly dynamic and show good mixing which minimizes any likely impact of discharges in the region. This has also reflected in the turbidity and TSS level in the study area which exhibit only normal values during this survey in this coast. Similarly the levels of heavy metals and petroleum hydrocarbon were found to be below permissible level. The biological and ecological observations made are reflecting predominantly the scenario of the normal coastal waters.

5. Environmental Management Plan

In the proposed project, in order to decrease the impact due to direct behavioral and long-term impact on the environment, the following recommendations are suggested

 More extensive use of multi-season pre and post-dredging biological surveys to assess animal community impacts;

ii Executive Summary WAPCOS Centre for Environment

EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre Department of Fisheries at Mookaiyur , Ramanathapuram District

 Incorporation of cumulative effects analysis into all dredging project plans;

 Increased use of landscape-scale planning concepts to plan for beneficial use projects most suitable to the area's landscape ecology and biotic community and food web relationships, like planting of trees and estuary associated species;

 Identification of turbidity and noise thresholds to assess fish injury risks

 Further analysis and synthesis of the spatial and temporal distribution of fish and shellfish spawning, rearing and migration behaviors. Such an analysis could improve the identification of potential dredging environmental windows and further evaluate the applicability of accepted dredging environmental windows based on best available science.

 The site-specific selection of dredging equipment and methods and operational procedures, can mitigate some of the negative direct effects of dredging. The use of a closed or sealed bucket clamshell dredge can be used to minimize the effects of increased turbidity and contain contaminated materials.

In view of the above, it is concluded that the proposed reconstruction of the Mookaiyur Fish Landing center will have a positive impact on the overall livelihood of the local population.

iii Executive Summary WAPCOS Centre for Environment

EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre Department of Fisheries at Mookaiyur , Ramanathapuram District

CHAPTER-1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 INTRODUCTION

The proposed Mookaiyur Fish Landing Centre is to be located in Mookaiyur Village which is a fishing village located in of Ramanathapuram District in Tamil Nadu. The geographic location of Mookaiyur village is Latitude of 9°07′05″N and Longitude of 78°28′45″E. This village has the oldest Fish Landing Centre and fishing activities are predominantly carried out in and around this village. Fishing boats from neighboring villages Narippaiyur, T.Mariyur and Oppilan also land their crafts in Mookaiyur.

In order to support the fishermen livelihood of Mookaiyur and nearby villages, the Fisheries Department, Government of Tamil Nadu intends to reconstruct the existing fish landing centre and also intends to develop a Breakwater and Wharf at Mookaiyur which will give access to fishermen in all seasons of the year.

1.2 NEED FOR THE PROJECT

Fishing is being carried out using mechanized boats that are being operated from and Pamban at present due to non-availability of adequate landing and berthing facilities.

Mookaiyur being a traditional fishing village the landing facilities viz., fish drying platform, fish auction hall, protection wall, net mending shed etc., were badly damaged/collapsed due to various natural phenomenon hence these structures shall have to be reconstructed for sustenance of the livelihood of the local population.

In view of the above, Fisheries Department, Government of Tamil Nadu has proposed to reconstruct the fish landing centre with various facilities. WAPCOS Limited has been assigned the work of preparation of Feasibility and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) studies. The present document

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 1 - 1 Chapter 1

EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre Department of Fisheries at Mookaiyur , Ramanathapuram District

presents the EIA Study Report for the proposed fish Landing centre at Mookaiyur, Kadaladi Taluk in District of Ramanathapuram.

1.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE EIA STUDY

The main objective of the EIA study is to assess the positive as well as negative environmental impacts likely to accrue as a result of the proposed reconstruction of fish landing centre. After identifying the negative impacts, if any suitable management plan shall be suggested to ameliorate the adverse impacts. Thus, the key objectives of the EIA study are to:

 Ensure sustainable development with minimum environmental degradation;

 To prevent long-term environmental negative impacts by incorporating a suitable Environmental Management Plan (EMP);

 Suggest an Environmental Monitoring Programme, and

 Estimate budgetary requirements for implementation of the EMP and Environmental Monitoring Programme.

1.4 METHODOLOGY FOR THE EIA STUDY

The purpose of this section is to enumerate the steps carried out in an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) study. The same are briefly described in the following paragraphs.

Scoping Matrix

A list of all likely impacts likely to accrue as a result of operation and construction of the proposed fish landing center has been prepared. In the next step, a manageable number of attributes which are likely to be affected as a result of the proposed project were selected. The various criteria applied for the selection of the important impacts are as follows: - Magnitude of impact - Extent of impact - Significance of impact - Special sensitivity of impact

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 1 - 2 Chapter 1

EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre Department of Fisheries at Mookaiyur , Ramanathapuram District

Based on the preliminary site visit and applying the above mentioned criteria a “Scoping Matrix” was prepared for identification of impacts from as many sources possible on the different environmental aspects.The scoping matrix derived for the present EIA study is delineated in Table-1.1. TABLE-1.1 Scoping Matrix for the EIA study of proposed fish landing center S. No. Activity Likely Impacts A. Actions affecting coastal marine ecology 1. Location of fisheries capture  Displacement of fishermen families zone along side harbour facilities 2. Oil spill/leakage within port  Damage to marine ecology area 3. Dredging activities  Short term increase turbidity level at dredging site causing decreased light penetration, adversely affecting the photosynthetic activity.  Alteration of bottom surface, which may be unfavorable for sustenance of benthic flora and fauna. B. Actions affecting Recreational/Resort/ Beach along the coastal zone 1. Location of harbour too close  Visible turbidity of disclosing of beach to the recreational areas water. 2. Escape of liquid and solid  Silt deposition along the shoreline wastes from the harbor C. Actions affecting the physio-chemical aspects 1. Dredging activities  Partitioning of contaminants from sediments to the water column  Generation of turbidity plumes as a result of dredging 2. Construction activities  Noise pollution and adverse impacts on aquatic flora 3. Ship movement  Pollution due to oil spills 4. Groundwater abstraction  Increase in sea water intrusion D. Factors affecting socio-economic environment 1. Increase in handling  Boost local economy mechanized vessels  Improvement in employment potential capacity.  Upgradation of infrastructure facilities 2. Land acquisition  Acquisition of private land 3. Traffic  Traffic congestion

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 1 - 3 Chapter 1

EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre Department of Fisheries at Mookaiyur , Ramanathapuram District

The above mentioned “Scoping Matrix” has been used as a guideline for collection of data for various aspects of Environment to assess its baseline status.

Environmental Baseline study

Before the start of the project, it is essential to ascertain the baseline levels of appropriate environmental parameters which could be significantly affected by the implementation of the project. The planning of baseline survey emanates from short listing of impacts prepared during identification. The baseline study involves both field work and review of existing documents, which is necessary for identification of data which may already have been collected for other purposes.

As per the Ministry of Environment & Forests (MOEF) guidelines, the Study Area for the EIA study has been considered as the 10 km radius keeping the proposed fish landing center as the centre. The baseline data on various environmental parameters like land use pattern, water quality, noise, meteorology, air quality, demography and socio-economics, terrestrial ecology and marine ecology was collected through field studies, literature review and collection of secondary data as available with various departments and locals.

The methodology adopted for various aspects of data collection is briefly described in the following paragraphs:

Marine Ecology

The marine ecological survey was conducted in the month of January 2014. The surface as well bottom water samples were collected using mechanized vessels. Each location was fixed on benchmark and after reaching the site, the vessel was anchored.

Parameters like temperature, salinity and dissolved oxygen were estimated by an YSI temperature, salinity oxygen meter respectively at the site itself.

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 1 - 4 Chapter 1

EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre Department of Fisheries at Mookaiyur , Ramanathapuram District

Plankton samples were collected by filtering a known volume of water by a plankton not of <60 mesh size bolting silk. Surface water was collected using a clean bucket without causing any disturbances. Likewise, the bottom water samples were collected by Nansen bottle. Sediment samples were collected by a grab sampler operated from the vessel.

The data on various aspects like major aquatic floral and faunal species, rare and endangered species, fisheries, crabs, prawns, mangroves, etc. was also collected as a part of primary data collection. Apart from this, the secondary data/information as available from the reported literature have been appropriately utilized in the EIA report.

Terrestrial ecology

The major harbour activities will be concentrated near water front and marine ecology has been given more emphasis for data collection and impact analysis. However, the data on major species of flora and fauna within the study area has been also collected from the reported literature.

Ambient Air quality

Ambient air quality monitoring was conducted at four locations in the study area in the month of December 2013 to March 2014. The frequency of monitoring was twice a week for 12 consecutive weeks. The parameters

monitored were PM2.5, PM10, SO2 and NO2.

Noise Environment

Noise levels in the study area were recorded with A-weighted noise level meter at various sampling locations in the study area in the month of January 2014. The readings were taken during day and night time and equivalent noise levels were estimated and used in the EIA report.

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 1 - 5 Chapter 1

EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre Department of Fisheries at Mookaiyur , Ramanathapuram District

Socio-economic Aspects

The data on demography, socio-economics was collected from secondary data sources like Census handbook, Statistical handbook, and revenue records, etc.

Landuse pattern

The landuse pattern of the study area has been studied using digital satellite data, which was procured from National Remote Sensing Agency (NRSA), Hyderabad in the form of CD-ROM for IRS-1C, LISS III. Detailed ground truth studies were conducted for formulation of signature data set. A supervised classification was then conducted using the GIS & IMAGINE processing software packages available in house at WAPCOS Centre for Environment.

The summary of data collected from various sources as a part of the EIA study is outlined in Table-1.2.

TABLE-1.2

Summary of data collection from various sources

Aspect Mode of Data Parameters Frequency Source(s) collection monitored Meteorology Secondary Temperature, - India humidity, rainfall Meteorological Department Water quality Primary Physico-chemical Once Field studies biological parameters Ambient air Primary RPM, SPM, SO2, Twice a week Field studies quality NOx for twelve consecutive weeks Noise Primary Hourly noise and Once Field studies equivalent noise level Landuse Primary and Landuse pattern - NRSA and Ground Secondary truth studies Terrestrial Secondary Inventory of major Forest Department Ecology sources floral and faunal and literature species review

Rare and endangered species, if any

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 1 - 6 Chapter 1

EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre Department of Fisheries at Mookaiyur , Ramanathapuram District

Aspect Mode of Data Parameters Frequency Source(s) collection monitored Marine Primary and Presence and Once Field studies, and Ecology Secondary abundance of literature review various species Socio- Secondary Demographic and - Revenue economic data socio-economic, Department and aspects Public health Literature review cultural aspects

Assessment of Impacts

With knowledge of the baseline conditions, project characteristics, the intensity of construction and operation activities and current critical conditions, detailed projections were made for the influence of the proposed fish landing center on physio-chemical, biological and social environment in the area. The impacts on environment due to construction and operation activities of the proposed fish landing center were identified.

The various aspects of the environment covered as a part of the Impact

Assessment were:

 Land Environment  Air Environment  Noise Environment  Terrestrial Environment  Aquatic Ecology  Socio-Economic Aspects.

An attempt was made to predict future environmental scenario quantitatively to the extent possible. However, for non-tangible impacts, qualitative assessment has been done.

Environmental Management Plan

The Environmental Management Plan (EMP) was delineated to ensure that the adverse impacts likely to accrue are altogether removed or minimized to the extent possible. After selection of suitable and feasible environmental mitigation measures, the cost required for implementation of various environmental management measures has been estimated to have an idea of their cost-effectiveness.

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 1 - 7 Chapter 1

EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre Department of Fisheries at Mookaiyur , Ramanathapuram District

Environmental Monitoring Programme

A post-project environmental monitoring programme has been suggested to oversee the environmental safeguards, to ascertain the agreement between prediction and reality and to suggest the remedial measures not foreseen during the planning stage but during the operation phase and to generate data for further use. The equipment, manpower and cost required for the implementation of environmental monitoring programme were also suggested.

1.5 OUTLINE OF THE REPORT

The contents of the EIA report are arranged as follows:

Chapter 1: This chapter gives an overview of the need for the project, objectives and need for the EIA study etc.

Chapter 2: This chapter gives a brief description of the proposed project

Chapter 3: This chapter describes the baseline environmental conditions for various physic-chemical, biological and socio-economic aspects.

Chapter 4: This chapter describes the anticipated positive and negative impacts due to the reconstruction of the proposed fish landing centre.

Chapter 5: This chapter describes the Environmental Management Plans associated with the reconstruction and operation of the fish landing centre.

Chapter 6: This chapter describes the Associated Risks for the proposed study

Chapter 7: This chapter describes the Environmental Monitoring programme for reconstruction of the proposed fish landing centre.

Chapter 8: This chapter gives the conclusions of the proposed study

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 1 - 8 Chapter 1

EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre Department of Fisheries at Mookaiyur , Ramanathapuram District

CHAPTER-2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 GENERAL

Tamil Nadu is one of the important maritime states with rich inland and marine fishing resources, with a coastline of 1076 km and an estimated continental shelf area of 41,412 sq.km and Ramanathapuram has the longest coastal length of 236.80 Kms. The coastal length of districts of Tamil Nadu is given in Table-2.1 below.

Table-2.1

Coastal length of districts Si. No District Coastal length (Kms) 1 Chennai 19.00 2 Thiruvallur 27.90 3 Kancheepuram 87.20 4 57.50 5 Villupuram 40.70 6 187.90 7 Thanjavur 45.10 8 47.20 9 Pudukottai 42.80 10 Ramanathapuram 236.80 11 Thoothukudi 163.50 12 Tirunelveli 48.90 13 Kanyakumari 71.50 TOTAL 1076.00 Source: Tamil Nadu Marine Fisher folk census 2010- Department of Fisheries

2.2 FISHING VILLAGES

Out of the 608 fishing villages of Tamil Nadu, 180 fishing villages are located in Ramanathapuram District. The details of the fishing villages of Tamil Nadu and details of fishing villages in Ramanathapuram district are is given in Table- 2.2 and 2.3 respectively:

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 2 - 1 Chapter 2

EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre Department of Fisheries at Mookaiyur , Ramanathapuram District

Table-2.2 Details of Marine fishing villages of Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Sl.No District Villages 1 77 2 Chennai 44 3 Kancheepuram 44 4 Villupuram 19 5 Cuddalore 49 6 Nagapattinam 53 7 Tiruvarur 13 8 Thanjavur 27 9 Pudukottai 32 10 Ramanathapuram 180 11 Thoothukudi 21 12 Tirunelveli 7 13 Kanyakumari 42 Total 608 Source: Tamil Nadu Marine Fisher folk census 2010- Department of Fisheries

Table-2.3 List of Marine fishing villages of Ramanathapuram District. S.P.Pattinam Kalkinatruvalasai Theerthandathanam Vattanvalasai Pasipattinam Akidavalasai Dhamotharanpattinam Naduvalasai Narendal Usilankattuvalasai M.R.Pattinam Devarnagar Fishermen Migrated Nambaiyavalasai ThondiPudhukudi Thoppuvalasai (Uchipuli) P.V. Pattinam Dhargavalasai Nambuthalai Alagathavalasai Lanjiyadi Kenikaraivalasai Soliakudi Fishermen Migrated Erumeni Sambai (ThiruvadanaiTk.) Prappanvalasai V.S.Madam Kuncharvalasai Pudhupattinam Manakudi Munaikadu Karankadu Mullimunai Kalangium Nagar Pudhukadu Pamban

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 2 - 2 Chapter 2

EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre Department of Fisheries at Mookaiyur , Ramanathapuram District

Kadalore Vallathadi Morepannai Francisnagar North Akkalmadam Thiruppalaikudi South Nalupanai Sambai (Ramnad Tk.) Anthoniyarpuram Pathanenthal Soosaiapparpattinam Muthuregunathapuram Kannamunai Fishermen Migrated Villundi North Saveriyarnagar DevipattinamSouth Victorianagar Palanivalasai Ariyangundu Mudiveeranpattinam Kudiyiruppu Pudhukudiyiruppu (Ramnad Tk.) Erakadu Pudhuvalasaichathiram Vadakkadu Sogaiyanthoppu Pillaikulam Samythoppu Narikuzhi Settiyanai Mangadu Krishnapuram Sambai (Rameswaram Tk) Iraniyanvalasai Pisasumunai Fishermen Migrated AmmankoilKudiyiruppu Olaikuda Anandhapuram Sudukattanpatti Athankarai Rameswaram Nagachi Verkodu NagachiDevarnagar Karaiur Cherankottai Kuppaivalasai Ramakrisnapuram Kuppachivalasai Natarajapuram Kuthukkalvalasai Mugundhirayarchatram Chittankadu Dhanushkodi Vellaiyanvalasai Naduthurai Mottaiyanvalasai Gundukal Kalimangundu Thoppukadu Kattaiyanperanvalasai Chinnapallam Kattaiyanvalasai Therkuvadi Shanmugavelpattinam Thonithurai Fishermen Migrated Aachaneyarpuram Maraikayarpattinam Sivagamipuram Mandapam Samathuvapuram Pakkiriyappapallivasal Vedhalai Sethukarai Valayarvadi Kilakkuputhunagar Seniappa Dharga Meenavarkuppam Thuthivalasai Keezhakarai Manthoppu PannattarStreet Salaivalasai Bharathinagar Soorankattuvalasai Mayakulam

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 2 - 3 Chapter 2

EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre Department of Fisheries at Mookaiyur , Ramanathapuram District

Agasthiyarkoottam Mangaleshwarinagar Nadunmankadu Chinna Ervadi Palkulam Sadaimuniyanvalasai Athiyaman Kalpar Sathakonvalasai Mottaikizhaavanvalasai Edayarvalasai Pitchaimoopanvalasai Manangudi Meyyappanvalasai Nagachi Amman kudiyiruppu Adhamcherry Nochiyurani Adanchery Naraiyurani Pudhumadam Keezhamunthal Kumbaram Munthal Colony Fishermen Migrated Karan T. Mariyur Five acre Oppilan Sethunagar Mookaiyur Muthupettai Narippaiyur(North) Narippaiyur(South) North Pudhukudiyiruppu Ilangamani Salaithottam Kamarajapuram Kollanthoppu (Ramnad Tk.) Periyanayakipuram Mutharaiyar nagar Veppamarathupanai Thazhaithoppu Vellapatty Indhira nagar Manickamnagar Thinaikulam Pudhukudiyiruppu (Kadaladi Tk.) Fishermen Migrated Thoppuvalasai (Kalimangundu) Karichankundu Fishermen Migrated Kalkadu Krishnapuram (Kadaladi Tk.) Velayuthapuram Pannaikarai Marivalasai Kollanthoppu (Kadaladi Tk.) Fishermen Migrated Rochmanagar Athiyatchapuram Kannirajapuram(North) Vellari Odai Kumbaram(North) Periyapattinam pudukudiruppu Source: Tamil Nadu Marine Fisher folk census 2010 -Department of Fisheries

2.3 MARINE FISH PRODUCTION

During the last 10 year period (2002-2003 to 2011-12), the fish production in Tamil Nadu ranged from 3,07,693 tons to 4,26,735 tons with an average fish production of 3,89,303 tons. Among the 13 coastal districts, Ramanathapuram District ranks first with an average fish production of 87,345 tons. The percentage contribution to the total fish landings from

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 2 - 4 Chapter 2

EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre Department of Fisheries at Mookaiyur , Ramanathapuram District

Ramanathapuram District alone is 22.43%. The detail of fish production for 10 year period is given in Table-2.4.

Table-2.4 Annual marine fish production for Ramanathapuram District.

S. No Year Ramanathapuram 1 2002-2003 1,08,278 2 2003-2004 1,05,260 3 2004-2005 84,985 4 2005-2006 81,832 5 2006-2007 77,311 6 2007-2008 78,542 7 2008-2009 81,570 8 2009-2010 82,385 9 2010-2011 86,452 10 2011-2012 86,841 AV 87,345 Source: Fisheries Statistics of Tamil Nadu 2011-2012.

2.4 FISH PRODUCTION IN RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT

Ramanathapuram is one of the major coastal Districts with 78 fish landing centers of which 8 are major landing centers and 70 are minor landing centers. The total fishermen population is about 1,38,618 which includes 31748 active fishermen and 7148 active fisherwomen. The fishing crafts operating in the district is 7678 comprising of 854 mechanised fishing vessels and 6824 of traditional fishing boats. The basic information of the existing status of marine fishery industry for Ramanathapuram District is given in Table-2.5.

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 2 - 5 Chapter 2

EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre Department of Fisheries at Mookaiyur , Ramanathapuram District

TABLE-2.5 Basic Fishery information in respect of Ramanathapuram District S.No Parameter Number 1 Length of Coastline(Km) 236.8 2 No. of fishing villages 184 a Total population of fishing villages 1,38,618 b Fisherman population of fishing villages 31748 c Fisherwomen population of fishing villages 7148 3 Fishing fleet a Mechanised fishing vessel 854 b Non mechanized fishing vessel 6824 Total 7678 4 Marine Fish production 81832 5 Infrastructure facilities a Ice plant 17 b Chilled storage 2 c Shrimp processing plant 167 d Boat yards 4 e Freezing plants 1 f Peeling plants 9 6 Co-Operative societies 104 Source: Fisheries Statistics of Tamil Nadu 2011-2012.

2.5 MOOKAIYUR FISH LANDING CENTRE

Mookaiyur a fishing center in Ramanathapuram District includes fishing villages like Mookaiyur, , Naripalyyur, Oppilam, T Mariyur and Roachmanagar. It is located about 6 km from Sayalkudi, can be reached by road and buses. The fishermen cooperative society is functioning at Sayalgudi and its main activity includes selling of requisites to fishermen, marking the landings and provide financial assistance to its members. Various infrastructure facilities such as road and transport, electricity, telecommunications, water supply etc are available at Mookaiyur.

According to the Department of Fisheries, Government of Tamil Nadu, 120 mechanised fishing vessels are currently engaged in fishing operation from Mookaiyur and are operating at Rameswaram, Pamban and

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 2 - 6 Chapter 2

EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre Department of Fisheries at Mookaiyur , Ramanathapuram District

areas and only motorised and non-mechanised boats are operating at Mookaiyur due to non availability of landing and berthing facilities.

2.6 SITE DETAILS

The proposed Mookaiyur fish landing center is to be located at village Mookaiyur, Kadaladi Taluka, District Ramanathapuram. At present all the fishing activities are carried out in and around Mookaiyur area located behind the three islands, namely Nalla tanni, Uppu tanni and Shalli. These islands are fringed with coral formation and rocky outcrops on the sea side. These islands provide adequate shelter to the fishing boats on the leeside during the rough weather. River Gundar meets the sea East of Mookaiyur village, wherein the mouth of the river is seen to be blocked by the siltation during non-monsoon season. The project site is located at about 3 km from the periphery of Gulf of Mannar Biosphere Reserve (GoMBR). Although Mookaiyur is located in the Gulf of Mannar National Park area, this village is in the buffer zone away from the core area (21 islands) and therefore this area is a permissible area for fishing and fishing related activities. The proposed expansion of the existing fish landing center falls under the CRZ-I, III & IV of the CRZ classification.

The project location map is enclosed as Figure-2.1. The salient features of the proposed project site are listed in Table-2.6.

TABLE-2.6 Salient features of the proposed Fish Landing Centre Particulars Details Latitude 09 o07’40.92’’N Longitude 78o28’’55.50’E Nearest highway NH-49 Nearest railway station Parmakudi Nearest airstrip Nearest settlement Village Mookaiyur

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 2 - 7 Chapter 2

EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre Department of Fisheries at Mookaiyur , Ramanathapuram District

Figure 2.1 Location map of Mookaiyur Fish Landing Centre

2.7 PROPOSED FACILITIES IN THE MOOKAIYUR FISH LANDING CENTER

Based on the pre engineering and oceanographic surveys and land availability the layout plan of proposed Alternative-1 for the Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur has been proposed. The layout plan showing the proposed On-shore and Off-shore components is shown in Figure 2.2. The CRZ map demarcating the HTL and LTL of the project area are shown in Figure 2.3. The following are the on-shore and off-shore components proposed in the Mookaiyur Fish Landing centre:

1. Auction hall – 2 Nos. 2. Net mending shed – 2 Nos. 3. Ice Plant – 15 Tonne capacity – 2 Nos. 4. Fish drying unit 5. Gear Room 6. Workshop 7. Fuel station (Petrol/Diesel) 8. Power Room 9. Slipway 10. Boat repair yard

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 2 - 8 Chapter 2

EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre Department of Fisheries at Mookaiyur , Ramanathapuram District

11. Marine Provisionary Shop 12. Canteen 13. Administrative & Bank Building 14. Fresh water Sump 15. Bore water Sump 16. Pump house 17. Over head tank – 1 Lakh litres capacity 18. R.O plant 19. Sewage Treatment Plant 20. Solid waste collection area 21. Parking area 22. Security Room – 2 Nos. 23. Toilets – 2 Nos. (Gents and Ladies Toilet) 24. Radio / Telephone Communication 25. Compound wall & Gate

The above components has been proposed taking into consideration for making Mookaiyur a full fledged Fish landing centre in all the seasons. Detailed description and the design aspects are described in the feasibility report.

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 2 - 9 Chapter 2

EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre Department of Fisheries at Mookaiyur , Ramanathapuram District

Figure2.2 Proposed Layout for the Mookaiyur Fish Landing Centre

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 2 - 10 Chapter 2

EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre Department of Fisheries at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District

Figure2.3 CRZ map of the project area

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 2 - 1 Chapter 2

EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

CHAPTER-3

ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE STATUS

3.1 GENERAL

The assessment of baseline environmental setting is an essential component of any EIA study. Based on the “Scoping Matrix”, various parameters to be covered for assessment of baseline environmental setting has been identified. Assessment of environmental impacts due to construction and commissioning of a proposed fish landing centre requires a comprehensive and scientific consideration of various environmental aspects and their interaction with natural resources, namely, physico-chemical parameters i.e. meteorology, air quality, noise quality, land use and water quality, biological parameters i.e. terrestrial flora and fauna, marine flora and fauna, fish species, etc. and socio- economic parameters i.e. demography, occupational profile, etc.

As a part of the EIA study, a large quantum of related secondary data as available with departments like Forest, Fisheries, Revenue, etc. has been collected. Field surveys were conducted for primary data generation on various aspects including ambient air quality, water quality, noise, marine ecology, landuse pattern, etc. The Study Area considered for the EIA study has been considered as the area within radius of 10 km considering the proposed project site at the centre (Refer Figure-3.1). The major portion of the study area is under water. In such setting, impacts likely to accrue as a result of project construction and operation phases are expected to be occurring mainly on water front i.e. on marine environment. Thus, as a part of the EIA study, specific emphasis has been accorded to marine environment.

As a part of the EIA study, the baseline status has been ascertained for the following aspects:

 Meteorology  Ambient air quality  Noise environment  Landuse pattern  Waves

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 3-1 Chapter 3 EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

 Tides  Current  Water quality  Sediments  Marine Ecology  Demography and Socio-economics

Figure 3.1 Study Area Map

3.2 METEOROLOGY

The project area has four distinct seasons. The period from March to May comprises the summer season and in subsequent months from June to September, the area comes under the influence of south-west monsoons. The months of October to December, experience the north-east monsoon season,

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 3-2 Chapter 3 EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

while the area experiences a mild winter season which lasts from January and February.

Temperature

Large scale variations in temperature in various seasons are not observed in the area. The month of May and June is the hottest month of the year with mean monthly maximum temperature being 33.9C. The month of January, is the coolest month with a monthly minimum temperature of 20.9C.

Rainfall

The average annual rainfall in the project area district is 801 mm to 1000 mm. Most of the rainfall is received in the months from October to December under the influence of north-east monsoon.

Humidity

The humidity is generally high throughout the year. During monsoon months i.e. November to February, humidity ranges from 80% to 85%. During rest of the year, humidity, varies from 72% to 77%. The average humidity observed over the year is 77%.

The average meteorological conditions of the project area district are outlined in Table-3.1.

TABLE-3.1 AVERAGE METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS IN THE PROJECT AREA DISTRICT S. Month Temperature (oC) Rainfall (mm) Relative No. Max. Min. Humidity (%) 1. January 28.9 20.9 23.8 81 2. February 29.7 21.6 0.1 80 3. March 32.6 24.9 86.5 76 4. April 33.7 26.8 22.4 77 5. May 33.9 27.5 10.8 74 6. June 33.9 26.5 2.3 75 7. July 33.0 25.3 48.4 75

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 3-3 Chapter 3 EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

8. August 33.7 24.9 12.9 72 9. September 33.1 24.6 51.7 77 10. October 30.2 25.3 267.0 77 11. November 28.7 22.5 254.0 85 12. December 29.4 24.7 244.2 81

3.3 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY

The ambient air quality was monitored as a part of the EIA study. The ambient air quality monitoring has been carried out with a frequency of two samples per week at four locations in the month of December,13 to January,14.The parameters monitored as a part of the study are listed as below:

 Particulate Matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5)

 Particulate Matter less than 10 microns (PM10)

 Sulphur dioxide (SO2)

 Nitrogen dioxide (NO2).

The location and the results of the ambient air quality survey conducted during the period from December 2013 to March 2014, are given in Table-3.2 and 3.3 respectively. The ambient air quality standards specified by Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) are enclosed as Annexure I.

TABLE-3.2 Details of ambient air quality monitoring stations Stations Location AQ1 Near Yakapar Temple AQ2 Middle School at Mookaiyur village AQ3 Old Church (North) AQ4 Antoniyur Church

TABLE-3.3 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Results Near Yakapar Temple S.NO Sampling Date Parameters monitored

SO2 NO2 PM10 PM2.5 (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) 1 26-27.12.13 7.4 10.7 34 13 2 30-31.12.13 8.2 11.9 37 14 3 02-03.01.14 7.8 11.3 35 13 4 05-06.01.14 9 13.0 41 15

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 3-4 Chapter 3 EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

5 09-10.01.14 8 11.6 36 14 6 12-13.01.14 8.5 12.3 38 14 7 16-17.01.14 9.4 13.6 43 16 8 19-20.01.14 8.7 12.6 39 15 9 23-24.01.14 8 11.9 40 15 10 26-27.01.14 9.1 13.6 45 17 11 30-31.01.14 7.5 11.2 37 14 12 02-03.02.14 7.8 11.6 39 15 13 06-07.02.14 8.3 12.4 41 16 14 10-11.02.14 8.5 12.7 42 16 15 14-15.02.14 7.6 11.3 38 14 16 18-19.02.14 8.1 12.1 40 15 17 22-23.02.14 7.2 11.1 38 15 18 26-27.02.14 8 12.3 42 16 19 02-03-03.14 6.8 10.5 36 14

Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Results Middle School at Mookaiyur village S.NO Sampling Date Parameters monitored

SO2 NO2 PM10 PM2.5 (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) 1 26-27.12.13 10.2 21.3 56 23 2 30-31.12.13 10.8 22.5 59 24 3 02-03.01.14 10.5 21.9 58 23 4 05-06.01.14 11.7 24.4 64 26 5 09-10.01.14 9.7 20.2 53 21 6 12-13.01.14 11.2 23.3 61 25 7 16-17.01.14 12 25.0 66 27 8 19-20.01.14 11 22.9 60 24 9 23-24.01.14 11 23.9 66 27 10 26-27.01.14 10.4 22.6 63 26 11 30-31.01.14 10 21.7 60 25 12 02-03.02.14 9.6 20.9 58 24 13 06-07.02.14 10.6 23.0 64 26 14 10-11.02.14 11.2 24.3 68 27 15 14-15.02.14 9.8 21.3 59 24 16 18-19.02.14 9.5 20.7 57 23 17 22-23.02.14 10 21.3 58 24 18 26-27.02.14 10.5 22.3 60 25 19 02-03-03.14 9 19.1 52 21

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 3-5 Chapter 3 EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Results Near Old Church (North) S.NO Sampling Parameters monitored

Date SO2 NO2 PM10 PM2.5 (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) 1 27-28.12.13 9 14.1 43 16 2 31-01.01.14 9.4 14.7 45 17 3 03-04.01.14 8.8 13.8 42 16 4 06-07.01.14 10 15.6 47 18 5 10-11.01.14 8.5 13.3 40 15 6 13-14.01.14 9.7 15.2 46 17 7 17-18.01.14 10.1 15.8 48 18 8 20-21.01.14 9.2 14.4 44 16 9 24-25.01.14 8.6 13.9 45 17 10 27-28.01.14 9.1 14.7 47 18 11 31-01.02.14 8.2 13.2 43 16 12 03-04.02.14 8 12.9 42 16 13 07-08.02.14 8.7 14.0 45 17 14 11-12.02.14 9.7 15.6 50 19 15 15-16.02.14 8.5 13.7 44 17 16 19-20.02.14 8 12.9 42 16 17 23-24.02.14 8.5 14.2 43 16 18 27-28.02.14 9 15.0 45 17 19 03-04.03.14 7.8 13.0 39 15

Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Results Near Antoniyur Church S.NO Sampling Parameters monitored

Date SO2 NO2 PM10 PM2.5 (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) (μg/m3) 1 27-28.12.13 9.5 17.3 48 19 2 31-01.01.14 10 18.2 51 20 3 03-04.01.14 9 16.4 45 18 4 06-07.01.14 9.8 17.8 49 20 5 10-11.01.14 8.7 15.8 44 18 6 13-14.01.14 10.3 18.7 52 21 7 17-18.01.14 11 20.0 56 22 8 20-21.01.14 9.4 17.1 47 19 9 24-25.01.14 10 18.9 55 22 10 27-28.01.2014 9.5 17.9 53 21

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 3-6 Chapter 3 EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

11 31-01.02.14 9 17.0 50 20 12 03-04.02.14 9.8 18.5 54 22 13 07-08.02.14 10.3 19.4 57 23 14 11-12.02.14 10.8 20.4 60 24 15 15-16.02.14 9.2 17.4 51 21 16 19-20.02.14 8.9 16.8 49 20 17 23-24.02.14 9.8 19.2 52 21 18 27-28.02.14 9.5 18.6 50 20 19 03-04.03.14 8.7 17.1 46 18

Observations on ambient NO2 levels

The summary of ambient NO2 levels is given in Table-3.4. TABLE-3.4 3 Ambient air quality status – NO2 (Unit : µg/m ) Station Maximum Minimum Average Near Yakapar 10.5 13.5 Temple 8.10 Middle School at 19.1 24.4 10.46 Mookaiyur village Old Church (North 12.9 15.8 8.88 Antoniyur Church 15.8 20.4 9.64

It can be seen from Table-3.4 that during the study period, NO2 concentration at all the four sampling stations was well below the limit prescribed for 3 residential, rural and other areas (80 µg/m ). The highest NO2 concentration of 19.1 µg/m3 was observed in the station at Middle School at Mookaiyur Village, which is well below the prescribed limit of 80 µg/m3 specified for residential, rural and other areas.

Observations on SO2 levels

The summary of ambient SO2 levels is given in Table-3.5. TABLE-3.5 3 Ambient air quality status – SO2 (Unit : µg/m ) Station Maximum Minimum Average Near Yakapar Temple 6.8 9.4 11.98 Middle School at 9 12 22.24 Mookaiyur village Old Church (North 7.8 10.1 14.21 Antoniyur Church 8.7 11 18.03

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 3-7 Chapter 3 EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

From the Table-3.5 that during the study period, SO2 concentration at all the four sampling stations was well below the limit prescribed for residential, rural 3 3 and other areas (80 µg/m ). The highest NO2 concentration of 9 µg/m was observed in the station at Middle School at Mookaiyur Village, which is well below the prescribed limit of 80 µg/m3 specified for residential, rural and other areas.

Observations on PM10 levels

The summary of ambient PM10 levels is given in Table-3.6. TABLE-3.6 3 Ambient air quality status – PM10 (Unit : µg/m ) Station Minimum Maximum Average Near Yakapar 34 45 39.00 Temple Middle School at 52 68 60.11 Mookaiyur village Old Church (North 39 50 44.21 Antoniyur Church 46 60 51.00

From the Table-3.6 that during the study period, PM10 concentration at all the four sampling stations was well below the limit prescribed for residential, rural 3 3 and other areas (100 µg/m ). The highest PM10 concentration of 68 µg/m was observed in the station at Middle School at Mookaiyur Village, which is well below the prescribed limit of 100 µg/m3 specified for residential, rural and other areas

Observations on PM2.5 levels

The summary of ambient PM2.5 levels is given in Table-3.7. TABLE-3.7 3 Ambient air quality status – PM2.5 (Unit : µg/m ) Station Maximum Minimum Average Near Yakapar Temple 13 17 14.79 Middle School at Mookaiyur 21 27 24.47 village Old Church (North 15 19 16.68 Antoniyur Church 18 24 20.47

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 3-8 Chapter 3 EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

From the Table-3.7 that during the study period, PM2.5 concentration at all the four sampling stations ranged between 13 to 27 g/m3 which is well below the limit prescribed for residential, rural and other areas (100 µg/m3). The highest 3 PM2.5 concentration of 24 µg/m was observed in the station at Middle School at Mookaiyur Village, which is well below the prescribed limit of 100 µg/m3 specified for residential, rural and other areas.

3.4 NOISE ENVIRONMENT

Baseline noise data has been measured using ‘A’ weighted sound pressure level meter. The survey was carried out in calm surroundings. Sound Pressure Level (SPL) measurement in the outside environment was made using sound pressure level meter. Hourly noise meter readings were taken at each site, and equivalent day time and night time noise levels were estimated. The day time and night time noise levels are presented in Table-3.8. The ambient noise standards are enclosed as Annexure - 4.

TABLE-3.8 Equivalent noise levels in the study area (Unit : dB(A)) Location Leq(day) Leq(night) Near Yakapar Temple 42 40 Middle School at Mookaiyur 48 41 village Old Church (North 44 40 Antoniyur Church 43 40

It may be seen from the Table-3.8 that the day time equivalent noise level ranged from a minimum of 42 dB(A) to a maximum of 48 dB(A). The night time equivalent noise level ranged from a minimum of 40 dB(A) to a maximum of 41dB(A). The day and night time equivalent noise level at various sites located close to residential areas were compared with Ambient Noise Standards (Refer Annexure-II) and were observed to be well below the permissible limit specified for residential area.

3.5 LANDUSE PATTERN

The landuse pattern of the study area, i.e. the area within 10 km radius of the project site has been studied based using satellite data for the study area.

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 3-9 Chapter 3 EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

The landuse pattern of the study area based on the revenue records and satellite data is given in Table-3.9.

TABLE-3.9 LANDUSE PATTERN OF THE STUDY AREA Category Area (ha) Area (%) Water body 15362 48.90 Water logged area 260 0.83 Marshy Area 260 0.83 Vegetation 8515 27.10 Settlements/Built up area 35 0.11 Agricultural Land 2537 8.07 Open Area 3871 12.32 Salt Pan 577 1.84 Total 31416 100.19

The landuse pattern of the study area has been studied using satellite data. The IRS, 1C-LISS III digital satellite data has been procured from National Remote Sensing Agency (NRSA), Hyderabad for assessing the landuse pattern of the study area. The raw satellite imagery has been processed in- house using ERDAS IMAGINE software. The signals of satellite imagery were verified by performing ground truthing and then final classification of satellite imagery was done. Based on this classification the landuse pattern of the study area was obtained. The raw and classified imagery of the study area is shown in Figure 3.2. and Figure 3.3 respectively.

It is observed from the Table-3.9, that the major portion of study area is occupied by water bodies (48.90%). Area under vegetation accounts for about 27.1% agricultural land 8.07% and open area 12.32% of the total study area respectively. The area under settlements and marshy land is about 0.11%, and 0.83% respectively. Water logged area is 0.83% and salt pan 1.84%

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 3-10 Chapter 3 EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

Figure 3.2 Raw image of the proposed Mookaiyur Fish Landing Centre

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 3-11 Chapter 3 EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

Figure 3.3 Classified image of the proposed Mookaiyur Fish Landing Centre

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 3-12 Chapter 3 EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

3.6 PHYSICAL OCEANOGRAPHY

WAVES

The ship observed wave data for the period 1961 to 1965 for the quadrant bounded by Latitudes 16.13 o to 18.13o and Longitudes 71.1o to 73.1oE was collected and analysed as a part of PFR preparation. The predominant directions of waves in the monsoons are SW and MSW. For non-monsoon season, the predominant direction is north-west quadrant. During monsoon months wave heights exceed 4m for about 6.5% and 5m for 1.5% of time. During non-monsoon months wave heights exceeded 2m for 6.5% and 3m height for 1.3% of the time.

TIDES

The tides at Mookaiyur bay are semi-diurnal in nature i.e. two high and two low waters occur everyday. The tidal range at site is low, the maximum being about 0.80 m. The predicted tide levels for Pamban pass as given in Indian Tide Table are applicable to the Mookaiyur site, as well as it is close to Pamban. The details are tabulated in table 3.10

TABLE 3.10 TIDE CHARACTERISTICS OF MOOKAIYUR AREA S. No Tide period Observed reading 1. Mean High water Springs 0.80 m 2. Mean High Water Neaps 0.48 m 3. Mean Sea Levels 0.50 m 4. Mean Low Water Neaps 0.32 m 5. Mean Low Water Springs 0.10 m 6. Mean Lower Low Water Springs 0.06 m

CURRENTS

The currents at the site are seasonal in character. Away from the coast, in the southern part of the region, the predominant current is south-easterly. From May to the end of September (SW monsoon), the average rate being about

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 3-13 Chapter 3 EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

0.5 knot from June to August. In December and January the predominant current is towards W / WSW with an average rate of 0.5 knot. In October and from February to the end of April the currents are variable. During the SW monsoon there is a branching, towards the NE from the northern flank of the general south easterly flow across the entrance to the gulf. This continues as a northerly flow through the narrow channels connecting the northern gulf with . In December and January (NE monsoon) the flow is southward through these channels which implies a mainly southwesterly flow across the gulf, turning more westerly as it converges with the W to WSW flow in the more open waters in the south. In the Pamban pass the current sometimes reaches 5-6 knots, making the passage difficult. The current may on occasions, be markedly different from these average conditions and rates up to 2 knots may occur with prolonged strong winds,

3.7 MARINE ENVIRONMENT

Mookaiyur is a small coastal village located in Ramanathpuram District of East Coast of India and 6 km away from Sayalgudi, Kadaladi Taluk. In the present survey, marine water, sediment and biological samples were collected from 12 stations at Mookaiyur. These stations were falls between latitude and longitude of 09°07'61.7"N and 78°28'94.04"E. Station 1, 2, 3 and 4 were located in near shore with the distance of 0.5 km intervals each towards the sea and 7, 8, 9 10,11,and 12 were located parallel to the above stations.

The geographical locations of the sampling stations are given in following table 3.11.

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 3-14 Chapter 3 EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

Figure 3.4 Marine sampling locations for water and sediment quality and Biota

TABLE 3.11 SAMPLING STATIONS AND THEIR GEOGRAPHICAL COORDINATES S. Depth St. Code Date Time Latitude Longitude No. (m) 1. MFH-1 08.01.2014 07:45 2.0 09°07’617” N 78°28’947” E 2. MFH-2 08.01.2014 07:55 2.0 09°07’623” N 78°28’823” E 3. MFH-3 08.01.2014 08:00 3.0 09°07’615” N 78°28’709” E 4. MFH-4 08.01.2014 08:10 4.0 09°07’605” N 78°28’618” E 5. MFH-5 08.01.2014 08:20 4.0 09°07’422” N 78°28’601” E 6. MFH-6 08.01.2014 08:25 4.0 09°07’461” N 78°28’694” E 7. MFH-7 08.01.2014 08:30 5.0 09°07’495” N 78°28’808” E 8. MFH-8 08.01.2014 08:35 5.5 09°07’517” N 78°28’931” E 9. MFH-9 08.01.2014 08:40 6.0 09°07’319” N 78°28’964” E 10. MFH-10 08.01.2014 08:45 5.5 09°07’309” N 78°28’835” E 11. MFH- 11 08.01.2014 08:50 6.0 09°07’287” N 78°28’731” E 12. MFH- 12 08.01.2014 08:50 6.0 09°07’295” N 78°28’622” E

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 3-15 Chapter 3 EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

NEAR SHORE LANDING CENTRE

LANDING CENTRE –RIGHT SIDE LANDING CENTRE –LEFT SIDE Figure 3.5 Photos of sampling locations

3.7.1 MATERIALS AND METHODS

Water and Sediment Sampling

Water samples were collected using Universal water sampler below the surface and transferred to the precleaned polypropylene and glass containers. Sediment samples were collected using a Peterson Grab, transferred to clean polythene bags and transported to the laboratory. The samples were air- dried. The plant root and other debris were removed and stored for further analysis.

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 3-16 Chapter 3 EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

3.7.2 WATER ANALYSIS

Temperature, Salinity and pH:

The physical parameters like pH, temperature and salinity were measured in- situ in field condition. The subsurface temperature was measured with a mercury thermometer having  0.02C accuracy and the pH of water was measured by a calibrated pH pen (pH ep-3 model). With the use of a hand refractometer (Erma Company, Japan), the salinity of samples was measured. Water samples collected for dissolved oxygen estimation were transferred carefully to BOD bottles. The DO was immediately fixed and these were brought to the laboratory for further analysis.

Preservation and Laboratory Analysis:

After collection, all samples were immediately cooled to 4C and then brought to the laboratory in an insulated ice box. In the laboratory, water samples were filtered through Whatman GF/C filter paper and analyzed for organic matter and all other nutrients. Unfiltered samples were used for the estimation of total nitrogen and total phosphorus. All the analyses were carried out as per internationally used standard procedures for samples of aquatic origin. Briefly, the methods of analyses were as follows:

Dissolved Oxygen (DO

The modified Winkler’s method described by Strickland and Parsons (1972) was adopted for the estimation of dissolved oxygen fixed at the collection site. The values were expressed in mg/l.

Nitrate and Nitrite:

The nitrate and nitrite content of samples were analysed by following the method described by Strickland and Parsons (1972). The nitrite was estimated from highly coloured azo dye formed by the addition of N (1- Napthyl) ethylene diamine dihydro-chloride and sulfanilamide into the solution was then measured at 543 nm in a spectrophotometer. Same procedure was followed for the estimation of nitrate. For this, nitrate was reduced to nitrite by

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 3-17 Chapter 3 EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

passing the sample through copper coated cadmium column. The calculated values were expressed in mol of Nitrogen/l

Inorganic Phosphate (IP):

The single solution mixed reagent procedure developed by Murphy and Riley (1962) was followed for the estimation of dissolved inorganic phosphate levels in water samples. This involves the conversion of phosphate into phosphomolybdic acid which was then reduced to molybdinum blue color complexes and then the intensity of colour was measured at 882 nm in a spectrophotometer. The calculated value was expressed in µmol of Phosphorus/l.

Total Phosphorus (TP):

The Total Phosphate in samples was estimated by employing the method described by Menzel and Corwin (1964). This procedure involves the conversion of organically bound phosphate into inorganic phosphate by wet oxidation of samples with potassium persulphate in an autoclave for 30 min at 15 lbs pressure. The converted inorganic phosphate was then estimated by using the method described by Murphy and Riley (1962). The subtraction of original dissolved inorganic phosphate from total phosphate yielded the organic phosphate in the water sample. The calculated value was expressed in µmol of Phosphorus/l.

Reactive Silicate:

The reactive silicate content of water was estimated by following the method of Strickland and Parsons (1972). In this method the intensity of blue color formed by silico-molybdate complex was measured in a spectrophotometer at 810 nm and the calculated values were expressed in µmol of Silica/l

3.7.3 SEDIMENT ANALYSIS

For the analysis of textural composition and pH, the air-dried sediment samples were used as such. For all other analyses of organic matter and

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 3-18 Chapter 3 EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

trace metals, sediment samples were ground to fine powder and dried in an oven at 110C to constant weight for an hour.

Total Organic Carbon (TOC):

The estimation of total organic carbon in sediment was performed by adopting the method of El Wakeel and Riley (1956). The procedure involves chromic acid digestion and subsequent titration with ferrous ammonium sulphate solution in the presence of 1, 10 phenonthroline indicator. The values calculated are expressed in mg C/g of sediment.

3.7.4 BACTERIOLOGICAL METHODS

Collection of samples

Surface water samples were collected in 100 ml sterile screw capped bottles for bacteriological assessment. Enough air space was left in the bottles to allow thorough mixing. Precautionary measures were taken to avoid contamination through handling. Sediment samples were collected by employing an alcohol rinsed air-dried small Peterson’s grab. The central portion of the collected sediment was aseptically transferred into sterile polyethylene bags using sterile spatula. All the samples were brought to the laboratory in portable icebox as soon as possible after collection and bacteriological analyses were done in the laboratory at CAS immediately after arrival, with necessary dilution.

Enumeration of Total Viable Counts (TVC):

TVC was enumerated by adopting the spread plate method using Zobell’s Marine Agar medium (EA123, Hi-Media, Mumbai). The samples (water and sediment) were diluted using the sterile sea water and 0.1 ml of the diluted sample was pippeted into the petriplates containing Zobell’s Marine Agar and it was spread using a ‘L’ shaped glass spreader. The plates after inoculation were incubated in an inverted position at a temperature of 28+2°C for 24 to 48 h. The colonies were counted and the population density expressed as colony forming unit (CFU) per ml or g of the sample. The bacterial colonies

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 3-19 Chapter 3 EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

were picked up from the pertidishes and re-streaked in appropriate nutrient agar plates thrice before a pure culture was established in agar slants.

Enumeration of Total Coliforms:

Macconkey agar with 0.15% bile salt, crystal violet and NaCl has been recommended in accordance with USP/Nfxi (1) for the detection, isolation and enumeration of coliforms and intestinal pathogens in water, dairy products, pharmaceutical preparations, etc. The agar weighing 51.5 g in 1000 ml distilled water was heated upto the boiling point to dissolve the medium completely and sterilized by autoclaving at 15 lbs pressure (121°C) for 15 min. suitably diluted samples were inoculated in the petriplates containing medium and were incubated for 48 h. After incubation, the colonies of E. coli appeared with pink colour.

M-FC agar is employed for detection and enumeration Fecal Coliforms by the membrane filter technique at higher temperature (44.5°C). The agar weighing 52 g was suspended in 1000 ml of distilled water and heated upto the boiling point to dissolve the medium completely, 10 ml of Rosolic acid (dissolved in 0.2 N NaOH) was added, heated with frequent agitation and boiled for 1 min. Then the medium was cooled to 50°C. Finally, the medium was poured into small 60 mm plates. Samples filtered by Millipore apparatus using 0.45µm Whatman filter papers were impregnated in the petriplates. After 48 h of incubation, the colonies of E. coli appeared with blue color.

Chlorophyll `a', ‘b’, & ‘c’

The samples were filtered through Whatman GF/C filter papers and the chlorophyll was extracted into 90% acetone. The resulting colored acetone extract was measured in a spectrophotometer at different wavelengths and the same acetone extracts were acidified and measured for the phaeo- pigments. The methodology is described in detail in APHA manual (1989).

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 3-20 Chapter 3 EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

(Ca) Chlorophyll a = 11.85 E664 – 1.54 E647 – 0.08 E630

(Cb) Chlorophyll b = 20.7 E647 – 4.34 E665 – 4.42 E630

(Cc) Chlorophyll c = 5.15 E630 – 4.65 E665 – 16.3 E647 3.7.5 PHYTOPLANKTON:

Phytoplankton samples were collected from the surface waters of the study areas by towing a plankton net (mouth diameter 0.35 m) made of bolting silk [No.25 mesh size 48 µm) for half an hour. These samples were preserved in 5% neutralized formalin and used for qualitative analysis. For the quantitative analysis of phytoplankton, the settling method described by Sukhanovo (1978) was adopted. Numerical plankton analysis was carried out using Utermohl's inverted plankton microscope.

Phytoplankton was identified using the standard works of Hustedt (1930- 1966), Venkataraman (1939), Cupp (1943), Subramanian (1946), Prescott (1954), Desikachary (1959 and 1987), Hendey (1964), Steidinger and Williams (1970) and Taylor (1976) and Anand et al. (1986)

3.7.6. ZOOPLANKTON:

Zooplankton samples were collected from the surface waters of the study areas by horizontal towing of a plankton net with mouth diameter of 0.35 m, made of bolting silk (No. mesh size 33 mm) for half an hour. These samples were preserved in 5% neutralized formalin and used for quantitative analysis. The zooplankton was identified using the classical works of Dakin and Colefax (1940), Davis (1955), Kasthurirangan (1963) and Wickstead (1965) and Damodara Naidu (1981). For the quantitative analysis of zooplankton, a known quantity of water (100 l) was filtered through a bag net (0.33 mm mesh size) and filtrate was made up to 1 l in a wide mouthed enumerated using Utermohl’s inverted plankton microscope. The plankton density is expressed as number of organisms/m3.

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 3-21 Chapter 3 EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

3.7.7. BENTHIC COMMUNITY:

For studying the benthic organisms, sediment samples were collected using a Petersen grab. The wet sediment was sieved with varying mesh sizes for segregating the organisms. The sieved organisms were stains with Rose Bengal and sorted to different groups. The number of organisms in each grab sample was expressed in number per meter square. According to size, benthic animals are divided into three groups. (i) macrobenthos (ii) meiobenthos and (iii) microbenthos (Mare, 1942). Macrobenthos are organisms which are retained in the sieve having mesh size between 0.5 and 1 mm. For Meiobenthos, the lowest size attributed is 63 µm and the upper limit depends upon the mesh size of the sieve used for separating macrobenthos from meiobenthos.

The primary productivity in the study area was estimated following the dark and light bottle method (Strickland and Parsons, 1972). The dissolved oxygen concentration during the experiment was determined by following modified Winkler's method.

3.8. WATER QUALITY

Water Temperature

The water temperature ranged between 25.0 and 27.0°C. The maximum was recorded at MFH-12 and minimum at MFH-2 & 10 (Table-3.12).

Salinity

The water salinity varied from 30 to 31‰. The maximum salinity was recorded at MFH-4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11 and 12 and the minimum was at MFH-1 (Table 3.12).

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 3-22 Chapter 3 EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

pH

The water pH varied between 8.0 and 8.1 (Table 3.12). The minimum pH was recorded at MFH-4 & 9 and maximum was at MFH- 1,2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10 and MFH-12.

Total Suspended Solids

The TSS values ranged between 65.6 and 113.2 mg/l. The minimum value (65.6 mg/l) was recorded at MFH-10 and maximum (113.2 mg/l) was at MFH-1 (Table 3.12).

Turbidity

The turbidity values ranged from 11.5 to 23.4 NTU (Table 3.12). The maximum level was recorded at MFH-2 and the minimum was recorded at MFH-12

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 3-23 Chapter 3 EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

Dissolved Oxygen

The Dissolved Oxygen level in the water varied between 5.141 and 5.710mg/l. The minimum and maximum levels were recorded at MFH-5 and MFH-3 respectively (Table 3.12).

Biological Oxygen Demand

The BOD values ranged between 0.16 and 1.28 mg/l. The maximum value (1.28 mg/l) was at MFH-5 and minimum of 0.16 mg/l at MFH-3 (Table 3.12).

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 3-24 Chapter 3 EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

TABLE– 3.12. PHYSICO - CHEMICAL PROPERTIES OF WATER

Sl. Temp. Salinity TSS Turbidity DO BOD St. Code pH No. (°C) (‰) (mg/l) (NTU) (mg/l) (mg/l)

1. MFH-1 26.0 30.0 8.1 113.2 14.6 5.302 0.59 2. MFH-2 25.0 30.5 8.1 98.2 23.4 5.563 1.12 3. MFH-3 25.0 30.5 8.1 103.2 17.1 5.710 0.16 4. MFH-4 25.0 31.0 8.0 95.2 12.6 5.356 0.32 5. MFH-5 25.0 31.0 8.1 94.4 15.3 5.141 1.28 6. MFH-6 25.0 31.0 8.1 79.6 12.6 5.278 0.90 7. MFH-7 25.0 31.0 8.1 78.4 21.8 5.502 0.94 8. MFH-8 25.0 30.5 8.0 79.2 22.4 5.287 1.12 9. MFH-9 25.0 30.5 8.0 70.4 12.8 5.435 0.83 10. MFH-10 25.0 31.0 8.1 65.6 22.9 5.541 0.71 11. MFH- 11 26.0 31.0 8.1 66.4 11.7 5.322 0.76 12. MFH- 12 27.0 31.0 8.1 72.4 11.5 5.479 0.68

Nutrients

The life supporting processes in the sea requires an array of inorganic substances, but the role of nitrogen, phosphorus and silicon are considered vital in marine ecosystem. Among the nitrogenous nutrients, nitrite, nitrate and ammonia are the major constituents, which play key roles in the phytoplankton growth and proliferation.

Nitrite

The nitrite concentration varied from 0.077 to 0.709 µmol/l (Table 3.13). The minimum was recorded at MFH-11 and the maximum recorded at MFH-4.

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 3-25 Chapter 3 EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

Nitrate

Nitrate concentration varied from 6.501 to 11.855 µmol/l (Table 3.13). The maximum Nitrate concentration was recorded at MFH-7 and minimum at MFH- 2.

Ammonical Nitrogen

The ammonia concentration fluctuated from 0.025 to 0.181 µmol/l. The maximum concentration (0.025 µmol/l) was recorded at MFH-3 and the minimum (0.025 µmol/l) was at MFH-7 (Table 3.13).

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 3-26 Chapter 3 EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

Total Nitrogen

The Total nitrogen values ranged from 10.603 to 20.132 µmol/l. The maximum concentration was recorded at MFH-2 (20.132 µmol/l) and minimum at MFH-10 (10.603 µmol/l) (Table 3.13).

Inorganic Phosphate

The inorganic phosphate values fluctuated between 0.618 and 1.045 µmol/l. The maximum value was recorded at MFH-1 and the minimum was at MFH-10 (Table 3.13).

Total Phosphorus

The total phosphorus values ranged from 1.004 to 1.693 µmol/l. The maximum (1.693 µmol/l) value was at MFH-14 and the minimum (1.004 µmol/l) was recorded at MFH-11 (Table 3.13).

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 3-27 Chapter 3 EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

Reactive Silicate

The silicate values ranged between 3.008 and 14.867 µmol/l. The maximum (14.867 µmol/l) and minimum (3.008 µmol/l) values were recorded at MFH-11 and MFH-4 respectively (Table 3.13).

TABLE– 3.13 NUTRIENTS IN WATER

Station Parameter (µmol/l) S. No. Code NO2 NO3 NH4 TN IP TP SiO4 1. MFH-1 0.402 9.386 0.091 14.360 1.045 1.693 9.603 2. MFH-2 0.517 11.855 0.135 20.132 0.988 1.579 9.701 3. MFH-3 0.594 10.421 0.181 18.253 0.823 1.623 10.123 4. MFH-4 0.709 9.271 0.075 16.105 1.029 1.450 11.867 5. MFH-5 0.230 8.399 0.083 12.945 0.856 1.143 8.506 6. MFH-6 0.172 9.069 0.116 13.018 0.853 1.328 7.938 7. MFH-7 0.575 6.501 0.025 11.274 0.747 1.255 4.961 8. MFH-8 0.211 8.846 0.065 11.226 0.842 1.260 6.045 9. MFH-9 0.153 6.628 0.058 12.750 0.721 1.063 3.938 10. MFH-10 0.192 7.111 0.042 10.603 0.618 1.189 5.513 11. MFH- 11 0.077 6.537 0.034 12.079 0.721 1.004 3.008 12. MFH- 12 0.089 6.643 0.075 11.139 0.646 1.214 4.867

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 3-28 Chapter 3 EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

3.9. SEDIMENT CHARACTERISTICS

PETROLEUM HYDRO CARBON

In Mookaiyur Fishing Harbour areas, the PHC level in water fluctuated from 0.174 and 0.514 µg/l. The minimum was recorded at MFH-3 and the maximum was recorded at MFH-10 (Table 3.14).

In sediment, the PHC varied between 0.086 and 0.193 µg/g. The minimum and maximum concentrations were recorded at MFH-7 and MFH-6 respectively during this survey (Table 3.14).

These values indicate anthropogenic release of petroleum in the system. A part of PHC may also originate from the fishing activities transported by tidal ingress.

TABLE 3.14 PETROLEUM HYDROCARBON IN WATER & SEDIMENT

S. No. Station Code Water (µg/l) Sediment (µg/g)

1. MFH-1 0.223 0.129 2. MFH-2 0.193 0.096 3. MFH-3 0.174 0.119

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 3-29 Chapter 3 EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

4. MFH-4 0.239 0.091 5. MFH-5 0.257 0.136 6. MFH-6 0.239 0.086 7. MFH-7 0.258 0.193 8. MFH-8 0.452 0.150 9. MFH-9 0.325 0.153 10. MFH-10 0.514 0.142 11. MFH- 11 0.408 0.147 12. MFH- 12 0.321 0.158

3.10. HEAVY METALS IN WATER

The concentrations of trace metals such as cadmium, lead, mercury, copper and zinc were found to be very low but even at such low concentrations they can be bio accumulated by certain organisms and biomagnified up to the food chain.

Iron (µg/l)

The iron level varied from 20.69 to 37.73 µg/l. The maximum iron level was recorded at MFH-3 and the minimum of 20.69 µg/l was recorded at MFH-12 (Table 3.15).

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 3-30 Chapter 3 EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

Zinc (µg/l)

The zinc level in the study area varied between 14.60 and 27.80 µg/l. The maximum value was recorded at MFH-4 and the minimum of 14.60 µg/l was recorded at MFH-10 (Table 3.15).

Manganese (µg/l)

The manganese level varied between 0.63 and 3.88 µg/l. The maximum value was recorded at MFH-1 and the minimum value at MFH-9 (Table 3.15).

Lead (µg/l)

The lead level in the study area fluctuated between 1.68 and 3.82 µg/l. The maximum of 3.82 µg/l was observed at MFH-1 and minimum of 1.68 µg/l was recorded at MFH-8 during this survey (Table 3.15).

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 3-31 Chapter 3 EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

Cadmium (µg/l)

The cadmium level in the study area varied from 0.48 and 0.96 µg/l. The maximum cadmium was recorded at MFH-2 and minimum (0.18 µg/l) was recorded at MFH-2 (Table 3.15).

Chromium (µg/l)

The chromium level in the study area varied between 1.21 and 3.29 µg/l. The minimum and maximum values were recorded at MFH-11 and MFH-2 respectively during this survey (Table 3.15).

TABLE – 3.15. HEAVY METALS IN WATER (µg/l) Sl. Parameters No. Fe Zn Mn Pb Cd Cr

1. MFH-1 31.96 26.44 3.88 3.82 0.52 2.95 2. MFH-2 30.17 24.15 2.82 2.79 0.96 3.29 3. MFH-3 37.73 20.04 0.78 2.12 0.55 2.70

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 3-32 Chapter 3 EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

4. MFH-4 32.17 27.80 3.49 2.36 0.52 2.56 5. MFH-5 26.55 19.88 1.89 2.29 0.59 2.72 6. MFH-6 25.84 18.92 1.72 2.70 0.53 1.93 7. MFH-7 32.61 20.80 2.08 1.75 0.56 1.85 8. MFH-8 27.36 18.36 2.73 1.68 0.54 2.89 9. MFH-9 21.98 19.52 0.63 2.77 0.49 2.72 10. MFH-10 28.2 14.60 1.3 1.82 0.48 1.67 11. MFH- 11 21.85 17.60 1.9 2.79 0.55 1.21 12. MFH- 12 20.69 16.80 0.73 3.02 0.50 1.74

3.11 SOIL TEXTURE (%)

The sand content varied from 48.22 to 66.83% with the maximum value at MFH-5 and the minimum sand content in the station MFH-2; the silt content showed maximum of 45.44% at MFH-2 and minimum of 24.67% at MFH-5 and the clay was found to be maximum at MFH-1 (9…80 %) and minimum at MFH-1 (3.87 %) (Table 3.16).

Total Organic Carbon

Total organic carbon level was maximum (7.91 mgC/g) at MFH-9 and minimum (3.64 mgC/g) at the station MFH-3&8 respectively (Table 3.16).

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 3-33 Chapter 3 EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

pH

The pH in the sampling stations varied from 8.10 to 8.23. As evident from the following figure, the minimum level was recorded at MFH-3 & 6 and the maximum level was recorded at MFH-9 during this survey (Table 3.16).

TABLE– 3.16 SOIL TEXTURE, TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON & pH OF SEDIMENT Total S. Organic pH Station Code Sand (%) Silt (%) Clay (%) No. Carbon (mgC/g) 1. MFH-1 48.28 41.92 9.80 4.119 8.12 2. MFH-2 48.22 45.44 6.34 2.601 8.11 3. MFH-3 58.50 33.43 8.07 5.016 8.10 4. MFH-4 60.15 34.66 5.20 5.085 8.13 5. MFH-5 66.83 24.67 8.50 5.569 8.13 6. MFH-6 63.03 28.53 8.44 4.773 8.10 7. MFH-7 63.03 32.23 4.73 5.499 8.15 8. MFH-8 65.29 31.99 2.72 5.637 8.19

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 3-34 Chapter 3 EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

9. MFH-9 58.50 33.57 7.93 5.293 8.23 10. MFH-10 53.34 39.26 7.40 4.188 8.20 11. MFH- 11 60.44 31.25 8.31 4.878 8.19 12. MFH- 12 66.59 28.38 5.03 5.465 8.15

3.12 HEAVY METALS IN SEDIMENT

Heavy metals even in the dissolved form on entering the aquatic environment are absorbed by TSS in water and transported to the sediment on settling. Thus the sediment of areas receiving anthropogenic trace metals sustains their high concentrations relative to the baseline. Hence, aquatic sediments are useful indicators of trace metal pollution.

Iron (µg/g)

The iron level varied from 1084 to 5650 µg/g (Table 3.17). The maximum was recorded at MFH-11 and minimum was recorded at MFH-4 during this survey.

Zinc (µg/g)

The zinc in the sediments fluctuated from 11.65 to 42.12 µg/g with maximum of 42.12 µg/g at MFH-10 and minimum of 11.65 µg/g at MFH-4 (Table 3.17).

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 3-35 Chapter 3 EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

Manganese (µg/g)

The manganese concentration fluctuated between 12.05 and 38.26 µg/g. The minimum and maximum values were recorded at MFH-2 and MFH-6 respectively during this survey (Table 3.17).

Cadmium (µg/g)

The cadmium level in the sediment ranged from 1.87 to 3.13 µg/g. The maximum cadmium concentration of 3.13 µg/g was recorded at MFH-12 and minimum of 1.87 µg/g was recorded at MFH-4 (Table 3.17).

Nickel (µg/g)

The nickel fluctuated from 7.95 to 19.95 µg/g with a maximum of 19.95 µg/g at MFH-9 and minimum of 7.95 µg/g at MFH-5 during this survey (Table 3.17).

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 3-36 Chapter 3 EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

Chromium (µg/g)

The chromium level in the sediment varied between 10.55 and 34.54 µg/g. The maximum value was recorded at MFH-6 and minimum was recorded at MFH-2 (Table 3.17).

Lead (µg/g)

The lead level fluctuated from 12.45 to 29.15 µg/g with a maximum of 29.15 µg/g at MFH-10 and minimum of 12.45 µg/g at MFH-3 during this survey (Table 3.17).

TABLE –3.17 HEAVY METALS IN SEDIMENT

µg/g S. No. Station Code Fe Zn Mn Cd Ni Cr Pb

1. MFH-1 2842 15.68 18.32 1.98 11.50 13.65 21.32 2. MFH-2 2837 28.72 12.05 2.19 9.50 10.55 17.68 3. MFH-3 1289 14.32 18.78 2.25 10.98 26.56 12.45 4. MFH-4 1084 11.65 27.18 1.87 8.21 28.19 14.89 5. MFH-5 1747 29.21 14.65 2.74 7.95 27.44 19.32

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 3-37 Chapter 3 EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

6. MFH-6 2143 24.42 38.26 2.93 11.75 34.54 22.87 7. MFH-7 3265 24.77 32.15 2.15 10.30 22.95 20.47 8. MFH-8 2445 16.47 34.31 1.95 11.28 29.72 18.45 9. MFH-9 2130 33.92 22.64 2.45 19.95 27.05 27.32 10. MFH-10 2340 42.12 31.29 2.65 12.40 24.9 29.15 11. MFH- 11 5650 34.67 32.94 2.95 14.20 17.85 24.87 12. MFH- 12 2470 39.87 29.32 3.13 19.60 23.2 20.79

3.13 MICROBIOLOGY

Water sample

The Total Viable Count (TVC) varied from 10x104 to 24x105 with maximum at MFH-4 and minimum at MFH-10.

The Total Coliform varied between 15x103 and 26x104 with maximum at MFH-4 and minimum at MFH-10.

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 3-38 Chapter 3 EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

The Escherichia coli Bacteria in water sample fluctuated between 10x102 and 23x103 CFU/ml with maximum at MFH-2 and minimum at MFH-12 during this survey.

Faecal coliform varied from 80x101 to 21x103 CFU/ml with maximum at MFH-3 and minimum was recorded at MFH-11.

The Streptococcus faecalis varied from 80 to 15x102. The minimum and maximum values were observed at MFH-12 and MFH-3 respectively during this survey (Table 3.18).

TABLE – 3.18. MICROBIAL POPULATIONS IN WATER S. Station Code No. TVC TC EC FC SF 1. MFH-1 15x105 22x104 20x103 15x103 13x102 2. MFH-2 10x105 18x104 23x103 18x103 08x102 3. MFH-3 21x105 15x104 18x103 21x103 15x102 4. MFH-4 24x105 26x104 15x103 13x103 10x102 5. MFH-5 20x105 13x104 19x103 10x103 07x102

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 3-39 Chapter 3 EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

6. MFH-6 16x105 15x104 12x103 15x103 11x102 7. MFH-7 07x105 10x104 15x103 18x103 06x102 8. MFH-8 10x105 17x104 10x103 07x103 11x102 9. MFH-9 18x104 21x103 22x102 13x102 16x101 10. MFH-10 10x104 15x103 16x102 10x102 12x101 11. MFH- 11 16x104 18x103 13x102 08x102 15x101 12. MFH- 12 12x104 21x103 10x102 12x102 08x101

Sediment sample

The Total Viable Count (TVC) varied from 80x104 to 20x106 CFU/g with maximum at MFH-2 and minimum at MFH-11 of sediment samples collected in Mookaiyur Fishing Harbour areas.

The Total Coliform varied between 60x103 and 23x105 CFU/g, the maximum was recorded at MFH-2 and minimum was recorded at MFH-10.

The Escherichia coli Bacteria in sediment sample varied between 13x103 and 28x104 CFU/g with maximum at MFH-1 and minimum at MFH-12 during this survey.

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 3-40 Chapter 3 EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

Faecal coliform varied from 12x103 to 20x104 CFU/g with maximum at MFH-1 and minimum at MFH-10.

The Streptococcus faecalis varied between 10x102 and 20x103 CFU/g. The minimum was recorded at MFH-11 and maximum value was recorded at MFH-3 during this survey (Table 3.19).

TABLE – 3.19. MICROBIAL POPULATIONS IN SEDIMENT

S. No. Station Code TVC TC EC FC SF 1. MFH-1 12x106 18x105 28x104 20x104 11x103 2. MFH-2 20x106 23x105 20x104 15x104 16x103

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 3-41 Chapter 3 EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

3. MFH-3 15x106 11x105 15x104 18x104 20x103 4. MFH-4 13x106 20x105 22x104 14x104 12x103 5. MFH-5 10x106 16x105 13x104 10x104 18x103 6. MFH-6 14x106 10x105 21x104 16x104 16x103 7. MFH-7 17x106 14x105 17x104 10x104 12x103 8. MFH-8 08x106 12x105 15x104 18x104 15x103 9. MFH-9 13x105 10x104 14x103 15x103 22x102 10. MFH-10 16x105 06x104 19x103 12x103 18x102 11. MFH- 11 08x105 11x104 16x103 18x103 10x102 12. MFH- 12 14x105 16x104 13x103 20x103 13x102

3.14 BIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS

Chlorophyll ‘a’ (mg/m3)

The chlorophyll ‘a’ level fluctuated between 0.361 and 0.762 mg/m3. The maximum chlorophyll ‘a’ (0.762 mg/m3) was observed at MFH-4 and the minimum (0.361 mg/m3) was recorded at MFH-7 (Table-3.20).

Phaeopigment (mg/m3)

In the present study, the phaeopigment in water sample varied from 0.172 to 0.363 mg/m3 with maximum at MFH-4 and minimum at MFH-7 during this survey (Table 3.20).

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 3-42 Chapter 3 EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

Total Biomass (ml/100 m3)

The total biomass in water sample varied between 9.65 and 56.52 ml/100 m3. The minimum was recorded at MFH-6 and the maximum was observed at MFH- 1 (Table 3.20).

TABLE – 3.20. BIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS

PP Station Chl ‘a’ Phaeopigment TB S. No. (mg Code C/m3/hr) (mg/m3) (mg/m3) (ml/100m3) 1. MFH-1 0.497 0.237 56.52 2. MFH-2 0.427 0.203 22.15 3. MFH-3 0.596 0.284 23.57 4. MFH-4 0.762 0.363 10.18 Unable to 5. MFH-5 0.727 0.346 21.08 measure due 6. MFH-6 0.486 0.231 9.65 to rain 7. MFH-7 0.361 0.172 26.05 8. MFH-8 0.384 0.183 23.3 9. MFH-9 0.522 0.248 21.51 10. MFH-10 0.493 0.235 22.25

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 3-43 Chapter 3 EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

11. MFH- 11 0.621 0.296 12.48 12. MFH- 12 0.552 0.263 15.86

Phytoplankton

The phytoplankton density ranged from 652 to 9566 No/l. The maximum density was recorded at MFH-7 and minimum was recorded at MFH-6 during this survey (Table 3.21).

A total of 20 species of phytoplankton were identified from the study area with Chaetoceros currvisetus dominating (282/926 No/l, MFH-8) the populations. The diatom was the dominant group represented by species such as Asterionella glacialis, Coscinodiscus centralis, Coscinodiscus gigas, Planktoniella sol, Triceratium reticulatum, Chaetoceros currvisetus, Bellerochea malleus, Odontella sinensis, Rhizosolenia imbricata, Ceratium macroceros, Ceratium trichoceros and Pleurosigma normanii were found in all stations.

TABLE-3.21. PHYTOPLANKTON No/l Name of the Species MFH- Sl. No. MFH-1 MFH-2 MFH-3 MFH-4 MFH-5 6 1. Coscinodiscus gigas 44 68 55 105 62 72 2. Coscinodiscus centralis 25 12 11 18 19 23 3. Planktonella sol. 41 45 48 59 62 56 4. Ditylum brightwelli * * * * * * 5. Triceratium reticulatum 24 15 13 10 13 4 6. Chaetoceros currvisetus 153 186 176 199 172 125 7. Biddulphia sp. 10 5 * * * * 8. Odontella mobilensis 25 6 5 * * 3 9. Leptocylindrus sp. 13 * * * * 1

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 3-44 Chapter 3 EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

10. Rhizosolenia alata 53 23 30 23 13 25 11. Pleurosigma normani 31 17 23 25 22 15 12. Gyrosigma sp. * * * * * * 13. Thalassiothrix frauenfeldii 152 127 93 55 76 111 14. Thalassionema nitzschioides 153 127 169 118 95 84 15. Asterionella glacialis 24 42 50 * * * 16. Dinophysis caudata 27 28 23 57 73 48 17. Ceratium macroceros 15 13 28 40 16 15 18. Ceratium trichoceros 68 45 45 55 54 66 19. Protoperidinium sp. 2 4 3 * * 4 20. Noctiluca sp. 1 * * * * * Total 861 763 772 764 677 652 * - Organisms not present

No/l Name of the Species MFH- Sl. No. MFH-7 MFH-8 MFH-9 MFH-10 MFH-11 12 1. Coscinodiscus gigas 89 65 58 70 53 55 2. Coscinodiscus centralis 18 24 20 14 10 27 3. Planktonella sol. 130 133 111 98 111 129 4. Ditylum brightwelli * * 2 * * * 5. Triceratium reticulatum 16 8 15 3 5 10 6. Chaetoceros currvisetus 228 282 214 231 249 227 7. Odontella mobilensis * * 6 * 10 * 8. Rhizosolenia alata 68 47 57 74 38 35 9. Pleurosigma normani 23 16 10 14 26 17 10. Gyrosigma sp. * 6 * 4 * * 11. Thalassiothrix frauenfeldii 165 144 142 117 130 134 12. Thalassionema nitzschioides 120 106 107 105 105 119 13. Asterionella glacialis 16 19 10 23 11 5 14. Dinophysis caudata 14 12 5 16 10 7 15. Ceratium macroceros 45 47 53 51 33 29 16. Ceratium trichoceros 20 10 15 25 11 14 17. Protoperidinium sp. 4 7 * 5 * * Total 956 926 825 850 802 808 * - Organisms not present

Zooplankton

Zooplankton includes arrays of organisms, varying in size from microscopic protozoans of a few microns to some jelly organisms with tentacles of several metres long. They play an intermediate role between phytoplankton and fish

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 3-45 Chapter 3 EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

and are considered as the chief index of utilization of aquatic biotope at the secondary trophic level.

The zooplankton density ranged from 965 to 5,650 No/m3 (Table 3.22). The minimum density was recorded at MFH-6 and maximum density was observed at MFH-6.

In the present investigation, 28 species of zooplankton were recorded from all the stations monitored. The Copepod nauplii was found to be the dominant forms. The species such as Acartia spinicauda, Acartia erythraea, Pontella sp., Paracalanus parvus, Oithona rigida, Oithona brevicornis, Euterpina acutifrons, Copepod nauplii and Crustacean nauplii were found to be common in all stations monitored during this survey.

TABLE-3.22. ZOOPLANKTON No/m3 Name of the Species MFH- Sl. No. MFH-1 MFH-2 MFH-3 MFH-4 MFH-5 6 1. Evadne sp. 222 * * * * * 2. Rhincalanus sp. * 403 * * 575 * 3. Eucalanus sp. 226 * 196 * * 386 4. Paracalanus parvus * 201 * * * * 5. Pontella sp. * * * 204 * * 6. Pseudodiaptomus aurivilli * * * * * 193 7. Acrocalanus gracilis 679 * 393 * 192 * 8. Centropages furcatus 226 * * * * * 9. Temora discaudata * 201 * * * * 10. Labidocera minuta * * 196 * * * 11. Acartia danae 452 * * * * * 12. Acartia spinicauda 226 * 196 * 575 386

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 3-46 Chapter 3 EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

13. Acartia erythreae 226 * * 204 192 * 14. Oithona rigida 679 * 196 * * * 15. Oithona brevicornis * 403 * * 192 * 16. Corycaeus catus 226 * * * * * 17. Microsetella sp. 226 * 393 * 192 * 18. Macrosetella sp. * 201 * * * * 19. Euterpina acutiforns 679 * * * * * 20. Globigernia bulloides 452 * * 204 * * 21. Tintinnopsis cylindrica * * 196 * * * 22. Eutintinnus tennuis * * * 204 * * 23. Favella brevis * 201 * * * * 24. Crustacean nauplii 679 * 393 204 * * 25. Copepod nauplii 452 604 196 * 192 * Total 5650 2214 2355 1020 2110 965 * - Organisms not present

No/m3 Name of the Species MFH- Sl. No. MFH-7 MFH-8 MFH-9 MFH-10 MFH-11 12 1. Evadne sp. * 194 * * * * 2. Rhincalanus sp. 217 * * * * * 3. Paracalanus parvus * 388 * 222 * * 4. Pontella sp. 217 * * * 416 * 5. Acrocalanus gracilis 433 * 645 * 416 * 6. Nannocalanus minor * 194 * * * * 7. Centropages furcatus * * 215 * * * 8. Temora discaudata 217 * * * 416 * 9. Labidocera minuta * * * * * * 10. Acartia centrura 217 * * * * 198 11. Acartia spinicauda * * 430 * * * 12. Acartia erythreae 217 * * * * * 13. Oithona rigida * 194 * * * * 14. Oithona brevicornis * * * 445 * * 15. Corycaeus catus * * * * * 198 16. Microsetella sp. * * * * * 198 17. Microsetella norvegica * * 215 * * * 18. Euterpina acutiforns * 388 * * * 396 19. Eutintinnus tennuis * 194 * * * * 20. Crustacean nauplii 433 * 215 222 * 595 21. Copepod nauplii 650 777 430 1335 * * Total 2601 2329 2150 2224 1248 1585 * - Organisms not present

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 3-47 Chapter 3 EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

Finfish Eggs

The finfish egg (2 No/m3) was recorded only at MFH-1 (Table 3.23). The egg forms were completely absent in the other stations surveyed. The Liza tade was found to record in this survey.

Finfish Larvae:

The finfish larva (1 No/m3) was recorded only at MFH-9 (Table 3.24). The larval forms TABLE-3.23. FINFISH EGGS

No/m3 Name of the Species MFH- Sl. No. MFH-1 MFH-2 MFH-3 MFH-4 MFH-5 6 Mugilidae

1. Liza tade 2 No Eggs Total 2

No/m3 Name of the Species MFH- Sl. No. MFH-7 MFH-8 MFH-9 MFH-10 MFH-11 12 No Eggs

TABLE 3.24 FINFISH LARVAE

No/m3 Sl. No. Name of the Species MFH- MFH-1 MFH-2 MFH-3 MFH-4 MFH-5 6 No Larvae * - Organisms not present No/m3 Name of the Species MFH- Sl. No. MFH-7 MFH-8 MFH-9 MFH-10 MFH-11 12 No Larvae

Benthic Organisms

Benthic animals are divided into three categories, microfauna, meiofauna and macrofauna depending on their size. Macrobenthic organisms are animal species

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 3-48 Chapter 3 EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

with body size larger than 0.5 mm. Benthic community responses to environmental perturbations are useful in assessing the impact of anthropogenic perturbations on environmental quality.

Macrobenthos:

The macrobenthos density varied from 350 to 650 No/m2. The minimum was recorded at MFH-1 and the maximum was observed at MFH-12. In the present investigation, 26 species of macrobenthos were recorded from the study area and most of the species were found in all the stations. The Cossura coasta (125/400 No/m2, MFH-4) and Eunice sp. (125/350 No/m2, MFH-1) were found to be the dominant forms during this survey (Table 3.25).

TABLE-3.25. MACROBENTHOS

Sl. No/m2 No. Name of the Species MFH-1 MFH-2 MFH-3 MFH-4 MFH-5 MFH-6 Polychaetes

1. Autolytus charcoti * * * 50 * * 2. Armandia .intermedia * 25 * * 25 75 3. Capitella capitata 75 * 50 25 * * 4. Chone sp. * 75 * * 50 * Cirratulus 5. 50 * * 25 75 * chrysoderma 6. Cossura coasta * * 125 * 25 75 7. Euchone sp. * 50 * 50 25 * 8. Eunice sp. 125 * 75 * 25 50 9. Goniada emerita * 50 * * 25 100 10. Maldane sarsi * 25 * 25 75 *

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 3-49 Chapter 3 EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

11. Nereis sp. * 25 * * 75 50 12. Onuphis sp. 50 * 25 25 * * 13. Pygospio elegans * 50 * 25 50 * 14. Tharyx sp. * 25 * * * * 15. Prionospio pinnata * 100 * 75 25 * 16. Prionospio cirrifera * * 50 * * 50 17. Sabellides sp. 50 * * * 75 25 18. Syllis gracilis * * 75 * * * Bivalves 1. Anadara granosa * 25 * 50 * * 2. Anadara veligers * * * * 25 * 3. Meretrix meretrix * * 50 * 25 25 Gastropods 1. Turris indica * 50 * * * 75 2. Cerithedia cingulata * * 50 * 50 * 3. Turritella attenuata * 25 * 25 * * Amphipods 1. Gammarus sp. * * 50 * * 25 Isopods 1. Angeliera phreaticola * * * 25 * * Total 350 525 550 400 650 550 * - Organisms not present

No/m2 Name of the Species MFH- Sl. No. MFH-7 MFH-8 MFH-9 MFH-10 MFH-11 12 Polychaetes

1. Autolytus charcoti * * 25 * * 75 2. Armandia .intermedia 50 * * 50 * 25 3. Capitella capitata * 50 * * 100 * 4. Chone sp. * 25 50 * * 75 5. Cirratulus chrysoderma 75 * * 50 * 25 6. Cossura coasta * 50 75 * 50 * 7. Euchone sp. 25 * * 75 * 50 8. Eunice sp. * 100 * * 50 25 9. Goniada emerita 75 * * 100 50 * 10. Maldane sarsi * * 50 * 25 75 11. Nereis sp. 25 * 50 * * 50

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 3-50 Chapter 3 EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

12. Onuphis sp. * 50 * 25 50 * 13. Pygospio elegans 50 * * 75 25 * 14. Tharyx sp. * * * * * 50 15. Prionospio pinnata 25 50 * 100 * * 16. Prionospio cirrifera 50 * * * 75 25 17. Sabellides sp. * * 75 * * 50 18. Syllis gracilis * * * 25 25 * Bivalves 1. Anadara granosa * * 50 * * * 2. Anadara veligers * 50 * * * * 3. Meretrix meretrix 50 * 25 25 * * Gastropods 1. Turris indica * * 25 * * 50 2. Cerithedia cingulata * 50 * * 25 50 3. Turritella attenuata * * 50 * * 25 Amphipods 1. Gammarus sp. * 25 * 50 * * Isopods 1. Angeliera phreaticola * * * 50 * * Total 425 450 475 625 475 650 * - Organisms not present

Meiobenthos:

The meiobenthos in the bottom sediment ranged between 8 and 21 No/10 cm2 (Table -3.26). The minimum density of meiobenthos was recorded at MFH-6 and the maximum was recorded at MFH-1 & 10. Most of the species were found in all the stations. Totally 23 species of meiobenthos were recorded in the present study period. The Ammonia becarii (7/21 No/10 cm2, MFH-10) was found to be the dominant forms during this survey.

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 3-51 Chapter 3 EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

TABLE-3.26. MEIOBENTHOS

No/10 cm2 Sl. No. Name of the Species MFH- MFH-1 MFH-2 MFH-3 MFH-4 MFH-5 6 Nematodes

1. Enoploides sp. 1 1 * * 1 * 2. Pselionema sp. 1 * 1 * 1 * 3. Viscosia sp. * * 1 * * * Foraminiferans 1. Ammonia beccarii 5 3 6 2 6 4 2. Bolivina abbreviata * 1 * 1 * * 3. Cornoboides advena 4 3 2 3 2 2 4. Eponides sp. * * * 1 * * 5. Hauerina sp. 1 2 * 2 1 * 6. Pararotalia minuta * 1 1 * * * 7. Rosalina bradyi 4 2 1 3 4 1 8. Rosalina globularis * 1 * * * * 9. Triloculina transversestrita * * 1 * * 1 10. Spirolina sp. 1 * * * * * 11. Spiroloculina sp. 1 * 1 * * * 12. Triloculina sp. * 1 * * * * Oligochaetes 1. Grania pusilla * 1 * * * * 2. Euterpina acutifrons 1 1 * 1 2 * 3. Microsetella sp. 2 * 1 * 1 * Ostrocodes 1. Cyprideis sp. * 1 * 1 * * 2. Cypridina sp. * * 1 * * * 3. Eucythere arges * 1 * * * * Total 21 19 16 14 18 8 * - Organisms not present

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 3-52 Chapter 3 EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

No/10 cm2 Name of the Species MFH- Sl. No. MFH-7 MFH-8 MFH-9 MFH-10 MFH-11 12 Nematodes

1. Enoploides sp. * 1 * 1 * * 2. Pselionema sp. * * 1 * * 1 3. Viscosia sp. * * 1 1 * 1 Foraminiferans 1. Ammonia beccarii 3 3 5 7 3 2 2. Bolivina abbreviata * 1 2 1 * 1 3. Cornoboides advena * 3 1 3 3 3 4. Discorbis sp. * * 1 * * * 5. Eliphidium sp. * * * 1 * * 6. Eponides sp. * * * * * 1 7. Hauerina sp. * 1 * * * 2 8. Pararotalia minuta 1 * * 1 * * 9. Rosalina bradyi 2 1 1 2 3 2 10. Rosalina globularis 1 * 1 * * 1 11. Triloculina transversestrita 2 * 3 * 2 * 12. Spiroloculina sp. * * * * 1 * 13. Triloculina sp. * * * 1 * * Oligochaetes 1. Euterpina acutifrons * 1 * 2 * 1 Microsetella sp. * 1 * 1 * * Ostrocodes 1. Cyprideis sp. * * 1 * * 1 2. Cypridina sp. * * * * * 1 Total 9 12 17 21 12 17 * - Organisms not present

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 3-53 Chapter 3 EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

3.15. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION:

The surface water temperature varied from 25.0 to 27.0C. The variation of temperature noticed at various stations may be as a result of season, geographical location and sampling time. The salinity varied from 30.0 to 31.0 ‰. Hydrogen ion concentration in surface waters remained alkaline and the maximum value of 8.1 was recorded at MFH-1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11 and MFH-12. The observations made on the prime physical factor TSS and turbidity were within the permissible level. The observed turbidity ranged between 11.5 and 23.4 NTU. The TSS values fluctuated from 65.6 to 113.2 mg/l. The maximum TSS and turbidity values were found to record at MFH-1 and MFH-2 respectively.

The ecologically sensitive chemical parameters such as Oxygen, BOD, nutrients and heavy metals were also at the optimal concentration coincided with the seasonal variation. The Dissolved Oxygen and BOD were found to be normal level. The observed oxygen level was fluctuated from 5.141 to 5.71 mg/l, the maximum DO level was recorded at MFH-3 during this survey and the minimum was recorded at MFH-5. The present study revealed that the DO concentration remained fairly well prescribed within the range of the values of water quality.

The BOD level was found to be ranged from 0.16 to 1.28 mg/l, the maximum BOD observed at MFH-5 during this survey. In the present investigation, the ammonia concentration was ranged between 0.025 and 0.181 µmol/l. The concentration of nitrite fluctuated from 0.077 to 0.709 µmol/l. The nitrate values ranged from 6.501 to 11.855 µmol/l and the total nitrogen varied between 10.608 and 20.132 µmol/l. The inorganic phosphate ranged from 0.618 to 1.045 µmol/l. The observed total phosphorus values ranged between 1.004 and 1.693 µmol/l. The silicate concentration ranged from 3.008 to 14.867 µmol/l.

In the present survey, Petroleum Hydrocarbon varied between 0.174 and 0.514 µg/l and in sediment it varied from 0.086 to 0.193 µg/g at all locations

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 3-54 Chapter 3 EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

monitored. The higher concentration of Petroleum Hydrocarbon was recorded at station MFH-10 and MFH-7 during this survey.

The concentrations of cadmium in water ranged between 0.48 and 0.96 µg/l. The concentrations of lead varied from 1.68 to 3.82 µg/1. The chromium varied from 1.21 to 3.29 µg/1, iron from 20.69 to 37.73 µg/l and the zinc from 14.60 to 27.80 µg/l. The concentration of manganese varied from 0.63 to 3.88 µg/l.

The sand, silt and clay fraction at each of the stations along with their textural classification indicates that the sand and silt percentage was higher during this survey.

The concentrations of cadmium in sediments ranged from 1.87 to 3.13 µg/g. The concentrations of lead varied from 12.45 to 29.15 µg/g. The chromium varied between 10.55 and 34.54 µg/g, iron from 1084 to 5650 µg/g, the zinc from 11.65 to 42.12 µg/g. The concentration of manganese varied from 12.05 to 38.26 µg/g and the nickel level varied from 7.95 to 19.95 µg/g.

The microbial population showed general trend in water and sediment samples during this survey. The observed maximum Total Coliform 26x104 CFU/ml was found to record in water at MFH-4. However, the higher count was recorded in the sediment samples (23x105 CFU/g) of MFH-1.

The maximum Chlorophyll ‘a’ 0.762 mg/m3 and Phaeopigment 0.363 mg/m3 were noticed at MFH-4 during this survey. Phytoplankton population density varied from 652 to 956 No/l. The higher phytoplankton density 956 No/l was recorded at MFH-7 during this survey. The zooplankton density ranged from 965 to 5650 No/m3. The higher zooplankton density was recorded at MFH-1 during this survey. A total of 20 species of phytoplankton and 28 species of zooplankton were found to record during this survey.

The numerical abundance of the macrobenthic fauna ranged from 350 to 6505 No/m2 and the meiobenthic fauna fluctuated from 8 to 21 No/10 cm2. Among, the macrobenthos and meiobenthos, Cossura coasta, Eunice sp. and Ammonia becarii were found to be the dominant species in this survey

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 3-55 Chapter 3 EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

respectively. A total of 26 species of macrobenthos and 23 species of meiobenthos were found to record during this survey.

The observations made during this survey revealed that the water is well oxygenated and nutrients are adequate supporting fairly good plankton population, the base in the food chain. Thus, the water is biologically productive at primary and secondary levels and the benthic fauna is moderately rich in diversity. The coastal waters are highly dynamic and show good mixing which minimizes any likely impact of discharges in the region. This has also reflected in the turbidity and TSS level in the study area which exhibit only normal values during this survey in this coast. Similarly the levels of heavy metals and petroleum hydrocarbon were found to be below permissible level. The biological and ecological observations made are reflecting predominantly the scenario of the normal coastal waters.

3.16 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS

Population and Demographic Profile

The proposed project is located in the District Ramanathpuram. The study area comprises of about 10 village of Kadaladi Taluk. The total population in the study area is 36812 persons as per Census of India 2011. The distribution of population and demographic profile in the study area villages is outlined in Table 3.27 and Figure 3.6. Table 3.27 Demographic profile in the study area villages Total Total Total Total Name of the Village S.No Household Population Male Female 1 Silliyanvagaikkulam 720 2830 1397 1433 2 Archanaipagam Usilangulam 650 2575 1314 1261 3 Kadugusandai 638 2687 1368 1319 4 Iruveli 147 556 287 269 5 Kannirajpuram 1168 5086 2593 2493 6 Narippaiyur 2130 9861 5010 4851 7 Kuthiraimozhi 141 591 287 304 8 Mookkaiyur 567 2660 1396 1264 9 Periakulam 1047 4869 2455 2414 10 Mariyur 1253 5097 2510 2587

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 3-56 Chapter 3 EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

Total Total Total Total Name of the Village S.No Household Population Male Female Total 8461 36812 18617 18195 Source: Primary Census Abstract, 2011

Figure 3.6 Demographic profile in the study area villages

The distribution of male and female population in study area villages comprises of about 50.6% and 49.4% respectively. The population comprising of infants and children below the age of 6 years constitute about 11.2% of the total population in the study area villages. The sex ratio and average family size in the study area villages is 977 and 4 persons per family respectively.

LITERACY LEVELS

The details of literate population amongst the total population of study area villages are shown in Table 3.28 and figure 3.7. As per this table, it is observed that about 68.4% of the total population in the study area villages is literate, while about 31.6% are illiterate. Among the literate population, males and females comprise about 55.3% and 44.7% of the total literate population. Further, among the illiterate population, males and females comprise about 40.3% and 59.7% of the total illiterate population. Table 3.28 Literacy profile in the study area

Name of the Total Population Male Female S.No villages Population Literate Literate Literate 1 Silliyanvagaikkulam 2830 1770 1002 768 2 Archanaipagam 2575 1439 849 590

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 3-57 Chapter 3 EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

Usilangulam 3 Kadugusandai 2687 1693 961 732 4 Iruveli 556 362 208 154 5 Kannirajpuram 5086 3783 2066 1717 6 Narippaiyur 9861 7324 3999 3325 7 Kuthiraimozhi 591 420 220 200 8 Mookkaiyur 2660 1805 1019 786 9 Periakulam 4869 3190 1784 1406 10 Mariyur 5097 3393 1826 1567 Total 36812 25179 13934 11245 Source: Census of India 2001

Figure 3.7 Literacy profile in the study area villages

Occupational Profile

The details on occupational profile in the study area villages are given in Table 3.29. As per this table it is observed that 43.0% of the total population is engaged in some form of economically productive activity or vocational activity, and have been designated as Total Working population. On the other hand, the Non-workers or persons who are dependent on the population, which is engaged in economically productive work accounts for about 57.0% of the total population. Among the population that is working about 71.0% has been designated as Main workers while the remaining 29.0% has been designated as Marginal workers.

Table 3.29 Occupational profile in the study area villages Total Name of the Total Main Marginal Non S. No Working Village Population Workers Workers Workers Population 1 Silliyanvagaikkulam 2830 1293 935 358 1537 Archanaipagam 2 Usilangulam 2575 1336 1129 207 1239 3 Kadugusandai 2687 1474 613 861 1213

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 3-58 Chapter 3 EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

4 Iruveli 556 341 296 45 215 5 Kannirajpuram 5086 2277 1774 503 2809 6 Narippaiyur 9861 3751 2777 974 6110 7 Kuthiraimozhi 591 207 16 191 384 8 Mookkaiyur 2660 1229 1096 133 1431 9 Periakulam 4869 1821 1273 548 3048 10 Mariyur 5097 2109 1337 772 2988 Total 36812 15838 11246 4592 20974 Source: Census of India 2001

Figure 3.8 Occupational profile in the study area villages

Fishermen profile of Mookaiyur Village

In Mookaiyur fishing village as per the Tamil Nadu Fisher Folk Census 2010, the total number of families are 122, with a total population of 595, whereas when compared with 2000 census, the number of families were 128 with a total population of 672. Hence, there is a decrease in population from the year 2000 to 2010. The details of fisher folk population for the year 2000 to 2010 are given in Table-3.30. Table-3.30 Age wise population distribution of Mookaiyur Village Adult (18 years and Children (0-17 years) Total Population Total Year Above) Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Families 2000 114 100 214 246 212 458 360 312 672 128 2010 79 106 185 221 189 410 300 295 595 122

Religion and Community - Family wise

In Mookaiyur fishing village, as per Tamil Nadu Fisher Folk Census 2010, out of 122 families 90 families are Christians and the rest 32 families are .

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 3-59 Chapter 3 EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

Among the fisher folk population, 73.8% are Christians and 26.2% are Hindus. The details of Religion and community family wise are given in Table-3.31. Table-3.31 Community wise population distribution of Mookaiyur village Religion Community Year Popula- Total Hindu Christian Muslim Forward B.C M.B.C S.C S.T tion Families 2000 55 617 0 672 128 0 55 577 40 0 2010 32 90 0 595 122 1 32 87 2 0

Educational status

During the year 2000, out of the population of 672, the number of literates were only 351 forming 52.2%, whereas during 2010, the number of literates were 556 in the population of 595 and the literacy rate was 93.4%. Hence, the literacy rate has increased considerably in the last decade. The details of Educational Status of Fisher folk of Mookaiyur is given in Table-3.32. Table-3.32 Educational Status of Fishermen of Mookaiyur village Primary Middle High Hr.Sec. Total Year Degree Others School School School School Literate 2000 232 89 16 9 5 0 351 2010 362 107 37 31 18 1 556

Employment Status of Fisher folk

During the year 2000, 214 fishermen were engaged in sea fishing. In 2010, the number of men who were engaged in sea fishing was 188 and in addition to this 3 men and 4 women were engaged in brackish water fishing. Totally 195 are employed in fishing activities. A reduction in the number of sea fishing fishermen is observed, since many fishermen have migrated to Rameswaram and Pamban for anchoring their boats. The details of Employment status of Fisher folk is given in Table-3.33.

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 3-60 Chapter 3 EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

Table-3.33 Employment status of Fishermen of Mookaiyur village Fishing Fresh Dried Brackish Hand Fish Fish Processed Year Sea Water Picking Trade Trade M F M F M F M F M F 2000 214 0 0 0 0 0 0 2010 188 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

Employed in Self Net Allied Others Employe Total Year Making Activities Govt. Private d M F M F M F M F M F M F M F 2000 0 0 0 0 30 2 0 0 0 0 246 2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 194 5

Housing Facilities

The number of houses in Mookaiyur during the year 2000 was 128, 94 houses were constructed by the Government under the free housing scheme. 10 houses were thatched houses, 20 were tiled houses, and 4 were concrete. During 2010, the number of houses were 117, the number of fishermen families who lived in own houses were 107 and 10 families were living in rented houses. The details of housing facilities in Mookaiyur is given in Table-3.34.

Table-3.34 Housing details of Mookaiyur village

Free House Type of houses Own Rented Total Year House House Houses Government Tsunami Thatched Tiled Concrete Others Total

2000 128 0 128 94 10 20 4 0 128 2010 107 10 117 28 9 40 12 65 0 117

Fishing crafts

In Mookaiyur during the year 2000 there were only 29 wooden vallams without engine. During 2010, the number of wooden vallams was 72. Within 10 years there was an increase of 43 boats and all the wooden vallams are with In Board Engine (IBE). The detail of fishing crafts in Mookaiyur village is given in Table-3.35.

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 3-61 Chapter 3 EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

Table-3.35 Details of Fishing crafts of Mookaiyur village

Wooden Cattamaran FRP Cattamaran Wooden Vallam

Year MFB With Engine With Engine With Engine WoE WoE WoE OBM IBE OBM IBE OBM IBE

2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29

2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 72 0

FRB Vallam Type of Fuel used Total Total crafts wise Year With Engine Non- Motorised with WoE ( in Nos.) Motorised OBM IBE OBM IBE Diesel Kerosene

2000 0 0 0 29 0 0 0 0

2010 0 0 0 0 0 72 72 0

Fishing Days & Mode of Fish Marketing

As per the fisher folk census 2010, 188 fishermen go for daily fishing. Marketing of fish is done as whole sale, retail sale and by auction. Retail sale is done by 70 persons, whole sale is done by 12 persons and auctioning is done by 3 persons. The detail of fishing days in a month and mode of marketing in Mookaiyur village is given in Table-3.36. Table-3.36 Mode of marketing of fishes in Mookaiyur village

Fishing Days in a Month Mode of Marketing

y

5 8

Year

- -

2 6

Day

Man

Sale

Days Days

Street

Single Whole

Above

8 days 8

Middle

Vendor

Societ

Auction Retail Sale Retail 2000 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2010 188 0 0 0 0 0 70 12 0 3

NA: Data not available

WAPCOS Centre for Environment 3-62 Chapter 3 EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

CHAPTER-4

ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

4.1 GENERAL

This chapter aims to predict/forecast impacts of the activities that interfere with natural marine environment. The basis for determining the change in future environmental quality in Marine environment is the current baseline data collected through field studies. The impacts due to the construction and operation of the fish landing center has been categorized as

 Short term, during the construction period,  Midterm, during the end of construction and beginning of operation period and  Long term, during the operation period.

The predictions are focused on the activities, which are likely to have significant impacts due to the construction and operation of the Fish landing center at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District.

4.2 IMPACTS ON MARINE ENVIRONMENT DURING CONSTRUCTION PHASE

DREDGING

It is proposed to dredge from the mouth of the River Gundar till the end of the tributary for a width of 200 m. The proposed average dredging depth is -4m for easy entry and exit of fishing vessels as per IS Code. The area earmarked for dredging in the proposed FLC is given below in Figure 4.1. i. The width of channel proposed for dredging is 150m on either side from sea mouth upto diaphragm wall with dredging depth upto -4m. ii. The width along the diaphragm wall is 200m with dredging depth upto -4m. iii. The width from the diaphragm wall to the left and right tributaries of Gundar River is 100m with dredging depth upto -4m.

WAPCOS Centre for Environment Chapter 4 4-1

EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

iv. Since Gundar River is not perennial, it is requires maintenance dredging periodically so that the accumulated silt can be removed to enable easy movement of fishing vessels.

Figure 4.1 Representative map of fish landing center and area to be dredged

4.2.1. DIRECT EFFECTS DUE TO DREDGING

The identified major direct effects due to dredging includes entrainment of organisms, increased turbidity at the dredging site, fish injury associated with exposure to suspended sediments, decreased dissolved oxygen and fish behavioral effects due to the effects of noise. Environmental windows are used to constrain dredging and disposal operations to specific periods of operation in order to protect sensitive biological resources and their habitats from detrimental effects.

Impact of dredging on water quality, benthic habitat, turbidity and biota

The potential environmental effects due to dredging are

 Dredging process itself  Disposal of the dredged material.

During the dredging process effects may arise due to the excavation of sediments at the bed, loss material during transport to the surface, overflow from the dredger. The extent to which dredging might effect the environment is highly varied and site specific, depending upon a number of factors viz:

WAPCOS Centre for Environment Chapter 4 4-2

EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

 Magnitude and frequency of dredging activity.  Method of dredging and disposal.  Channel size and depth.  The size, density and quality of the material.  Background levels of water and sediment quality, suspended sediment and turbidity.  Tidal range.  Current direction and speed.  Rate of mixing.  Seasonal variability and meteorological conditions, affecting wave conditions and freshwater discharges.  Presence and sensitivity of animal and plant communities (including birds, sensitive benthic communities, fish and shellfish).

Short-term increases in the level of suspended sediment can give rise to changes in water quality which can effect marine flora and fauna, both favourably and unfavourably, such as increased turbidity and the possible release of organic matter, nutrients and or contaminants depending upon the nature of the material in the dredging area. Settlement of these suspended sediments can result in the smothering or blanketing of benthic communities and/or adjacent intertidal communities. The impact of dredged material disposal largely depends on the nature of the material (inorganic, organically enriched, contaminated) and the characteristics of the disposal area.

The evaluation of the environmental effects of dredging and disposal shall be taken into account for both short-term and long-term that may occur both at the site of dredging and landfilling (near shore).

During the dredging process, adverse impacts are also anticipated on account of excavation of sediments at the bed, loss of material during transport to the surface, overflow from the dredger whilst loading and loss of material from the dredger and/or pipelines during transport.

WAPCOS Centre for Environment Chapter 4 4-3

EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

Impacts on Suspended sediments and turbidity levels

During the construction phase Piling and extraction of construction material will increase in the turbidity levels, which may affect the marine water quality, This is mainly because the dredged material gets released during one or all the operations mentioned below:  excavation of material during dredging operations .  loss of material during transport to dumping ground  overflow from the dredger while loading  loss of material from the dredger during transportation.

The cumulative impact of all the above operations is increase in turbidity levels. Good dredging practices can however, minimize turbidity. It has also been observed that slope collapse is the major factor responsible for increase in the turbidity levels. If the depth of cut is too high, there is possibility of slope collapse, which releases a sediment cloud. This will further move outside the suction radius of dredged head. In order to avoid this typical situation, the depth of cut be restricted to:

 H/C < 5.5 where,  - unit weight of the soil H - depth of soil C - Cohesive strength of soil

The dredging and deposition of dredged material may affect the survival and propagation of benthic organisms. The macro-benthic life which remains attached to the stones, boulders etc. gets dislodged and is carried away downstream by turbulent flow. The benthic fauna gets affected during the construction and dredging operations However, in due course of time the area gets recolonized, with fresh benthic fauna. The density and diversity of benthic fauna, will however, be less as compared with the pre-dredging levels.

When dredging and disposing of non-contaminated sediments, the key impacts are the increase in suspended sediments and turbidity levels. Any dredging method releases suspended sediments into the water column,

WAPCOS Centre for Environment Chapter 4 4-4

EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

during excavation itself and during the flow of sediments from hoppers and barges. In many cases, locally increased suspended sediments and turbidity associated with dredging and disposal is obvious from the turbidity ‘plumes’ which may be seen trailing behind dredgers or disposal sites.

Increase in suspended sediments and turbidity levels from dredging and disposal operations may under certain conditions have adverse effects on marine animals and plants by reducing light penetration into the water column and by physical disturbance.

Increased suspended sediments can affect young fish, if suspended sediments become trapped in their gills increased fatalities of young fish have been observed in highly turbid water. Adult fish are likely to move away from or avoid areas of high suspended solids, such as dredging sites, unless food supplies are increased as a result of increases in organic material. The increase in turbidity could marginally affect the fisheries in the area.

The increase in turbidity results in a decrease in the depth that light is able to penetrate the water column which may affect submerged plants, by temporarily reducing productivity and growth rates. However, the project is proposed within the Bharathi Dock, and benthic fauna is not well developed in this areas, hence impacts on this account is not expected to be significant.

The degree of re-suspension of sediments and turbidity during dredging and disposal depends on:

 sediments being dredged (size, density and quality of the material)

 method of dredging (and disposal)

 hydrodynamic regime in the dredging and disposal area (current direction and speed, mixing rate, tidal state) and

 Existing water quality and characteristics (background suspended sediment and turbidity levels).

In most cases, sediment re-suspension is only likely to present a potential problem if it is moved out of the immediate dredging location by tidal

WAPCOS Centre for Environment Chapter 4 4-5

EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

processes. In general, the effects of suspended sediments and turbidity are generally short term (<1 week after activity) and near-field (<1km from activity). These are of concern only, if sensitive species are located in the vicinity of the maintained channel. Since, no sensitive species are observed in the areas to be dredged, hence, no adverse impacts are anticipated. Dredged material is proposed to be disposed off at designated site in deep sea. The designated sites for disposal of dredged material are given in Figure-5.1.

Impacts on marine water quality

Redox potential (eH) and pH are two variables that control the characteristics of chemicals and heavy metals in water and sediment. As long as the pH remains around 8 and eH< 150 mV, most of the chemicals and metals will remain bound to the solid phase without being released into the surrounding water. Only anoxic conditions reduce the eH below this level and hence if dissolved oxygen level is normal no leaching of chemicals and heavy metals will occur.

In the present survey sites pH was 8.1 to 8.2 and dissolved oxygen was 3.7 to 5.3 mg/l which is ideal for a marine ecosystem. Dissolved oxygen levels are not reduced to anoxic conditions. Under these circumstances, there is no possibility of any of the chemicals or metals being leached into the water. Moreover, sediment samples collected from all the sites were uncontaminated. As such no adverse impact due to dredging or dumping on the chemical characteristics of water or sediment is expected.

Impacts due to dredging and disposal of organic matter and nutrients

The release of organic rich sediments during dredging or disposal can result in the localized removal of oxygen from the surrounding water. Depending on the location and timing of dredging, this may lead to the suffocation of marine animals and plants within the localized area or may deter migratory fish or mammals from passing through. However, removal of oxygen from the water is only temporary, as tidal exchange would quickly replenish the oxygen supply. Therefore, in most cases where dredging and disposal is taking place

WAPCOS Centre for Environment Chapter 4 4-6

EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

in open coastal waters, this localized removal of oxygen has little, if any, effect on marine life.

Impacts due to contaminated sediments

Another possible impact is the release of toxicants from the sediment if the sediment is contaminated. In the case of contaminated sediment acute toxicity, chronic toxicity and bioaccumulation are the possible effects. But all these are short term and insignificant and no serious effects have been reported from any earlier instances or experimental studies.

In various sampling locations covered as a part of the study, sediment samples analyzed did not show the presence of any appreciable levels of contamination and hence may not pose any such problems.

Recovery of benthic communities following dredging activities Certain marine species and communities are more sensitive to disturbance from dredging than others. The recovery of disturbed habitats following dredging ultimately depends upon the nature of the new sediment at the dredge site, sources and types of recolonising animals, and the extent of the disturbance. Since the quantity of dredging is 38,641 Cum the impact on loss of benthic fauna will be minimal. The project area is bestowed with adequate population of benthic fauna and hence the time taken for recolonisation shall be within 6 months. In areas of soft sediment environments recovery of animal communities generally occurs relatively quickly and a more rapid recovery of communities has been observed in areas exposed to periodic disturbances, such as maintained channels and bay area.

4.3 IMPACTS ON NOISE ENVIRONMENT

It has been documented that underwater noise can influence fish behavior. This is likely to be linked to the importance of sound to fish when they hunt for prey, avoid predators and engage in social interaction.

WAPCOS Centre for Environment Chapter 4 4-7

EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

The main concern in pile driving and associated activities during construction of a jetty is noise. Pile driving is believed to be having a lesser impact on the other biota compared to other types of construction activities.

High intensity sound that can be generated during pile driving is found to be above 187 dB SEL re 1μPa (where dB = decibels; SEL= sound exposure level, a constant sound level over one second; and μPa = micro Pascals a measure of pressure fluctuation, with 1 μPa as the water pressure reference level) can result in physical injury to fish. These can include change in hearing capability or actual damage to the inner ear, damage or destruction of the swim bladder, other cellular and molecular effects, and possible adverse effects on eggs and larvae.

Behavioral effects such as fish leaving or avoiding an area have been observed. Cumulative stress induced impacts related to sound level and duration causing fish to be more susceptible to things like infection, predation, and slower growth rate may also result.

The other major sources of noise during construction phase is due to operation of various construction equipment. The noise levels generated by various construction equipments are given in Table-4.1.

Under the worst case scenario, considered for prediction of noise levels during construction phase, it has been assumed that all the equipments are operating at a common point. Likewise, to predict the worst case scenario, attenuation due to various factors too have not been considered for noise modeling. TABLE-4.1 Average noise levels generated by the operation of various construction equipment Equipment Noise level [dB(A)] Floating pontoon with mixer 70 machine and crane Winch machine 80 Transit mixer 75 Dumpers 75 Generators 85 Batching plant 90

WAPCOS Centre for Environment Chapter 4 4-8

EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

Air compressors 90 Pile drivers 115

Modeling studies were conducted to assess the increase in noise level due to operation of various construction equipment, and the results are given in Table-4.1.

TABLE-4.2 Predicted noise levels due to the operation of various construction equipment Distance Ambient Increase in Noise level Increase in (m) noise level noise level due to ambient noise (dB(A)) due to construction level due to construction activities construction activities (dB(A)) activities (dB(A)) (dB(A)) 30 45 70 70 25 50 45 66 66 21 100 45 60 60 15 200 45 54 55 10 500 45 46 49 4 1000 45 36 46 1 1500 45 36 45.5 0.5 2000 45 34 45 -

It is clear from Table 4.3 that at a distance of 100 m and 200 m from the construction site, the increase in noise levels will be about 10 dB(A) and 15 dB(A) respectively.

The other source of noise during construction phase will be due to movement of trucks, which will transport the construction material. For prediction of worst scenario, it has been assumed that there will be an additional movement of 50 trucks/hour. The variation in noise level due to increase in vehicular movement is given in Table-4.3. TABLE-4.3 Variation in noise level due to vehicular movement S. Distance Ambient Increase in Noise level Increase in No. (m) noise noise level during ambient noise level due to construction level due to (dB(A)) construction phase construction activities (dB(A)) activities (dB(A)) (dB(A)) 1. 30 45 61 61 16 2. 50 45 57 57 12

WAPCOS Centre for Environment Chapter 4 4-9

EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

3. 100 45 51 52 7 4. 200 45 45 48 3 5. 300 45 41 47 2 6. 400 45 39 46 1

It is clear from Table 4.3, that the increase in noise level due to vehicular movement is not expected to be significant during construction phase. The increase in ambient noise level at a distance of 30 m, 50 m, 100 m and 200 m is 16 dB(A), 12 dB(A), 7 dB(A) and 3 dB(A) respectively. These noise levels have been assessed considering that there will be no attenuation due to various sources. However, if we consider the attenuation due to air, barrier, vegetation etc. then the increase in noise levels will be even less.

The nearest residential areas are at a distance of about 1 km from the proposed project site. Hence, no adverse impacts are anticipated on noise levels due to the proposed project.

4.4 CUMULATIVE AND MID-TERM EFFECTS

Long-term effects of dredging include the cumulative effects associated with the dredging or disposal of contaminated materials and the landscape-scale changes in estuarine/marine bathymetry and habitat characteristics resulting from dredging activities. Long-term landscape-scale changes that result from dredging include productivity changes, the conversions of shallow subtidal to deeper subtidal habitats, the conversion of intertidal to subtidal habitats and changes to estuarine circulation which, through salinity and other changes, can indirectly influence the distribution of estuarine and nearshore marine biota in the river mouth.

Contaminated sediments and water

Potential cumulative and long-term effects of dredging include delayed detrimental responses of biota to changes in habitat, water quality and other conditions that may occur after the actual dredging activity. For instance, contaminant mobilization, contaminant leaching, bioaccumulation and trophic transfer through the food web can occur during or as a result of the dredging

WAPCOS Centre for Environment Chapter 4 4-10

EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

or re-suspension of contaminated sediments that may not be immediately manifested in exposed biota.

Conversion of shallow subtidal to deeper subtidal habitats

Maintenance dredging converts shallow subtidal habitats to deeper subtidal habitats through periodic deepening to remove accumulated sediments. Depending upon deposition of sediment, maintenance dredging may occur at varying time intervals. Different dredging time lines likely represent different disturbance regimes both in terms of the ability of the benthos to recolonize prior to redisturibution and the magnitude of benthic productivity affected.

Conversion of intertidal to shallow subtidal habitats new construction dredging poses the risk of converting intertidal to subtidal habits. The periodic dredging of the mouth of the river Gundar may result in such a conversion Intertidal conversions pose the risk of impacting plant and animal assemblages uniquely adapted for a particular light, current and substrate regimes of intertidal areas. The loss of intertidal habitat may cause a potential reduction in coastal habitat carrying-capacity and connectivity.

Alterations to estuarine circulation and salinity structure, estuarine biota is most likely to be subjected to long-term shifts in critical factors such as salinity distribution if dredging significantly changes estuarine bathymetry in regions of sharp salinity gradients (e.g., within the region of salinity intrusion). Effects may be most evident among early life history stages of fishes and other marine biota. Deepening an estuarine channel can alter the degree and form of estuarine mixing as the extent of mixing of fresh waters and salt waters in estuaries is dependent, in part, on channel bathymetry, fluvial and tidal energy, substrate roughness and other lesser factors.

Productivity changes

The action of sediment removal and consequently the removal of plants and animals associated with the sediments reduces a certain level of productivity from the system. Such changes alter the degree of the habitat structure and ecosystem of the dredge site. Depending on sediment characteristics,

WAPCOS Centre for Environment Chapter 4 4-11

EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

recovery rates from a range from within three months to many years for slow developing macroinvertebrates. In general, consistent long-term productivity, recolonization and recovery rates depend on the seasonal and natural variabilities.

Direct biological effects

The direct biologic effects of both maintenance and capital dredging activities include entrainment mortalities, behavioral effects, contaminant release and noise effects that can induce behavioral change or cause injury and fitness risks. In the case of maintenance dredging, entrainment mortalities and behavioral and noise effects tend to be temporary and localized.

4.5 LONG-TERM EFFECTS

The lack of long-term pre- and post project monitoring and documentation of effects of individual dredging projects on the larger ecosystem make it difficult to conclusively identify effects. Conclusive identification of effects is further complicated by the dynamic nature of estuarine and nearshore marine ecosystems and the history of freshwater and marine dredging. The lack of documentation specific to the nature and timing of recolonization preclude the ability to make conclusive statements on long-term effects.

Dredge operational practices

The potential environmental effects of dredging can be categorized as impacts due to dredging process itself and those due to disposal of the dredged material. During the dredging process effects may arise due to the excavation of sediments at the bed, loss material during transport to the surface, overflow from the dredger whilst loading and loss of material from the dredger and/or pipelines during transport.

Dredging effects to marine resources can be further minimized through:

 Reducing the volumes of dredged materials removed;  Reducing the frequency of dredging;

WAPCOS Centre for Environment Chapter 4 4-12

EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

 Avoiding projects that convert intertidal to subtidal habitat;  Requiring that dredgers and barges completely contain dredged material to minimize turbidity increases;  Employing best management practices to reduce changes to ambient light conditions, and  Avoiding geoduct losses by avoiding dredging in geoduct tracts.

Technological tools such as the "Silent Inspector" should be considered particularly during the dredging of the river mouth area and other sensitive coastal habitats where organisms are at risk due to dredging proximal to sensitive habitats.

Impacts to benthic habitats

 Direct loss of benthic communities and habitats by removal or burial;  Indirect impacts on benthic communities and habitats from the effects of sediments introduced to the water column by the dredging and disposal;

4.6 OTHER TYPES OF IMPACTS

 Changes to shorelines, bathymetry and habitats through modified ecological and physical processes;  Introduction of invasive pest species translocated in dredging (or ancillary) equipment that can have both ecological as well as economic consequences;  Adverse effects of contaminant release and dispersion (including impacts associated with reclamation or onshore disposal of acid sulphate soils) on marine environmental quality;  Conflict with fisheries and impacts on fish, their habitats and fisheries production;  Changes to coastal processes and water circulation that impact on the community’s use of the coast and coastal waters; and  Impacts on the behaviour and survival of marine wildlife, including specially protected species.

WAPCOS Centre for Environment Chapter 4 4-13

EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

 Alterations to water currents and wave climates, which might effect navigation and conservation interests, and

 Reduction or improvement of water quality.

In addition to the above mentioned environmental effects that may occur as a direct result of dredging and disposal activities, the environmental effects that may occur as a result of the physical changes to bathymetry and hydrodynamic processes that dredging makes also need to be considered.

4.7 IMPACTS ON LAND ENVIRONMENT

4.7.1 Impacts due to construction activities

Pre-construction activities generally do not cause significant damage to environment. Preparatory activities like the use of existing access road, construction of storage sheds, etc. being spread over a large area, would have no further significant impact once the land is acquired and its existing use changes. Clearing, stripping and leveling of sites, construction of bunds for protection from flooding, earth filling and excavation for foundations, will lead to some disturbance to the habitat. The level of construction activities in the proposed project is not of such level and nature, to cause any significant adverse impact on this account.

The natural drainage in the area is such that the entire water would outfall in the marine water. This could lead to marginal increase in turbidity levels. However, based on experience in similar projects, this impact is not expected to be significant.

WAPCOS Centre for Environment Chapter 4 4-14

EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

4.7.2 OPERATION PHASE

Generation of garbage at landing center

The problem envisaged during operation phase could be the disposal of garbage or solid waste generated from various sources. The various sources include :

 Fishing trawlers and boats  Fish loading areas  Ice plant  Packing halls.

This could comprise floating materials, packaging, polythene or plastic materials, etc. Therefore, a system needs be devised whereby undue quantity of garbage is not permitted to accumulate in the fish landing center area and the same could be disposed off on the low lying areas in a scientific manner.

SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL

During construction phase, solid wastes so generated will contain mainly vegetable matter followed by paper, cardboard, packaging materials, wood boards, polythene, etc. The total solid waste to be generated would be of the order of 34 kg/day. Adequate facilities for collection and conveyance of municipal wastes generated at the disposal site shall be developed. A provision of Rs.1.42 million has been earmarked for the solid waste disposal. The details are given in Table-4.4.

TABLE-4.4 Cost estimates for solid waste management

S. Item Cost No. (Rs. million) 1. One covered tempo for conveyance of solid waste to the 1.00 landfill 2. Manpower cost for 2 persons @ Rs.5000/month for 1 year 0.12 3. Preparation of landfill site including surveying, levelling, 0.30 excavation, lining, etc. Total 1.42

WAPCOS Centre for Environment Chapter 4 4-15

EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

4.7.3. Impacts on land use pattern of the area

The construction and operation of the project will provide facilities for fish storage, packing, ice plant, etc. in the project area and its surroundings. The construction and operation of the project will further provide an impetus to the mushrooming of secondary and tertiary activities in the area. The project would require lot of ancillary developments like shops, restaurant, repair shops, etc. in and around the fish landing center. This will lead to conversion of barren land into commercial use. In some areas, even agricultural land may be used by the locals to avail greater economic opportunities presented as a result of the proposed fish landing center.

4.7.4. Impacts on Insects, Invertebrates and Other Fauna

Insects and invertebrates that are associated with the coastal sandy areas will be affected by the direct loss of habitat that these fauna rely on for food and shelter. There will also be some direct mortality of insects and invertebrates during the clearing of mangrove vegetation during construction works and although important this is considered a relatively minor impact since the area to be cleared shall be very small.

Generally, it is expected that mobile species and individuals will move away from the project area during construction. For non or less mobile species, it is considered that any direct mortality will be localised and restricted to the project footprint. Furthermore, surrounding habitat that shall not be disturbed is expected to support sustainable populations of all species such that there will be no long-term impacts on populations or species in region. It is unlikely that the piling and the proposed construction of the fish landing center would result in regional or sub-regional effects to the conservation status of the faunal assemblages.

Impacts due to effluents from labour camps

The average and peak labour strength likely to be deployed at the proposed fish landing center will be about 100 and 200 respectively. The proposed project area is situated close to village Mookaiyur, thus, most of the labour

WAPCOS Centre for Environment Chapter 4 4-16

EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

force will come from village Mookaiyur or from other nearby villages. The labour force engaged by the contractor could come from outside areas. A part of the labour population would stay in area. The balance are likely to stay in labour camps close to the project site during construction phase. It is assumed that about 50% i.e. 100 labourers will stay at the site. Based on this the total water requirement for the labours congregating in the area for constructing fish landing center who will stay during the construction phase are estimated as 25.6 M3 per day

About 100 labour would stay at the construction site, only during working hours. The water requirement for such labour shall be 4.5 m3/day @ 45 lpcd. Thus, total water requirement works out to (25.6 + 4.5) about 30 m3/day.

The sewage generated is normally taken as 80% of the total water requirement i.e. (0.8 x 30) 24 m3/day. The domestic water normally contains high BOD, which needs proper treatment and disposal, otherwise, it can have an adverse impact on the DO levels of the receiving body.

The disposal of sewage without treatment can cause problems of odour and water pollution.

In a typical sewage waste, BOD is the major pollutant. Normally untreated sewage would find its way to natural drainage system which ultimately confluences into the sea. However, these natural drains are seasonal in nature and are likely to remain dry in the non-monsoon months. During this period, the flow of untreated sewage from the labour colonies in these drains can lead to development of anaerobic conditions, with associated water quality problems. However, in the present case it must be mentioned that the total quantity of sewage (24 m3/day or 0.28 cumecs) generated by the labour during construction phase is quite small and is not expected to cause any adverse impact on the marine water quality. However, it is proposed to treat the sewage from labour camps before disposal.

WAPCOS Centre for Environment Chapter 4 4-17

EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

4.8 IMPACTS DUE TO RECLAMATION

About 9.5 ha of area is to be reclaimed by filling with dredged material. The chemical impacts due to the disposal or backfilling are dependent on the redox potential and pH. Normally, if pH remains around 8, heavy metals like zinc, copper and mercury will remain bound to the solid phase. The pH of the sediments as well as the marine water is slightly alkaline in the project area. In the post-project phase, after the reclamation of land, pH and redox potential in the adjacent water is not expected to change. In the post-project phase, since no change is anticipated in the pH and redox potential, heavy metals are likely to remain bound to the sediments. Thus, no impact on the marine water quality is anticipated due to dumping of murrum for reclamation.

It has been generally found that, if sediments are not toxic in-situ, they do not become so even after the disposal. The dredged material to be used for backfilling is non-toxic and uncontaminated, hence, adverse impacts on marine water quality are not anticipated.

4.9 IMPACTS ON AIR ENVIRONMENT

(a) Construction phase

Impacts due to fugitive emissions

The major pollutant in the construction phase is SPM being air-borne due to various construction activities. The vehicular movement generates pollutants such as NOx, CO and HC. But, the vehicular pollution is not expected to lead to any major impacts. The soils in the project area are sandy in texture, and are likely to generate dust as a result of vehicular movement. However, the fugitive emissions generated due to vehicular movement are not expected to travel beyond a distance of 200 to 300 m. The impact on air environment during construction phase is not expected to be significant, since, there are habitation in the vicinity of the site.

Impacts due to construction equipment

The combustion of diesel in various construction equipment could be one of the possible sources of incremental air pollution during the construction

WAPCOS Centre for Environment Chapter 4 4-18

EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

phase. The fuel utilization rates of various equipments expected to be in operation during construction phase is given in Table-4.5. Under the worst case scenario, it has been considered that equipment used for construction of berth and earthwork at each site, are operating at a common point.

TABLE-4.5 Fuel combustion during construction phase ------Equipment Fuel consumption No. of Total fuel rate (lph) units consumption (l) ------Dumpers 30 4 120 Generators 30 2 60 Batching plant 40 1 40 Dumpers 20 4 80 Loaders and unloaders 25 3 75 Excavators 25 2 50 Water tanker 8 5 40 ------Total 465 ------The major pollutant likely to be emitted due to construction of diesel in various

construction equipment shall be SO2. The short-term increase in SO2 concentration has been predicted using Gaussian plume dispersion model. The results are summarized in Table-4.6.

TABLE-4.6 3 Short-term (24 hr) increase in concentration of SO2 (g/m ) ------Wind Distance (km) Speed ------(m/s) 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 ------0.2 2.60x10-34 1.27x10-10 6.36x10-6 5.19x10-4 0.85 1.56x10-7 2.91x10-4 2.43x10-4 2.3x10-4 1.53 4.08x10-4 9.66x10-4 2.33x10-4 1.19x10-3 2.78 6.03x10-4 6.82x10-4 1.44x10-4 4.47x10-5 4.30 5.22x10-4 6.82x10-4 1.44x10-4 4.47x10-5 5.98 3.91x10-4 3.56x10-4 7.05x10-5 3.22x10-4 7.00 3.78x10-4 3.04x10-4 6.04x10-5 2.76x10-5 ------

It is evident from Table 4.6 that the maximum short-term increase in SO2 is observed as 0.00119 g/m3, which is at a distance of 200 m from the emission source. The incremental concentration is quite low and does not

WAPCOS Centre for Environment Chapter 4 4-19

EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

require any specific control measure. Thus, the operation of construction equipment is not expected to have any major impact on the ambient air quality as a result of the project.

(b) Operation phase

During operation stage apart from emissions generated due to vehicular movement, no other sources of air pollution are anticipated. The major source of air pollution in the post-project phase is the vehicular movement for transportation of fish catch to different destinations of markets. On an average about 10 to 20 trucks per day will move in the area. The pollution levels due to those are not expected to be significant to cause significant adverse impact on ambient air quality.

4.10 IMPACTS ON TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY

a) Impacts on terrestrial flora

The direct impact of construction activity for any project is generally limited in the vicinity of the construction sites only. The construction sites include berthing, storage and infrastructure facilities.

There is no forest with tree cover in the vicinity of the project site. The study area has no major forest cover. Hence, no significant impacts are envisaged on terrestrial flora as a result of the proposed project.

4.11 IMPACTS ON SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

(a) Construction phase

In the construction stage the peak labour force, skilled and unskilled labourers, is estimated at about 200. About 100 labour population are likely to come from nearby sites. The balance, i.e. 100 labour and their family members are likely to stay near construction sites. Thus, it is necessary to develop adequate infrastructure facilities, so that the requirements of the immigrating labour population are met.

WAPCOS Centre for Environment Chapter 4 4-20

EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre at Mookaiyur, Ramanathapuram District Department of Fisheries

Thus, the project would have a significant positive impact on the overall economy of the area.

Recommendations

To decrease the impact due to direct behavioral and long-term impact on the ecosystem, the following recommendations are suggested 1. More extensive use of multi-season pre and post-dredging biological surveys to assess animal community impacts; 2. Incorporation of cumulative effects analysis into all dredging project plans; 3. Increased use of landscape-scale planning concepts to plan for beneficial use projects most suitable to the area's landscape ecology and biotic community and food web relationships, like planting of trees and estuary associated species; 4. Identification of turbidity and noise thresholds to assess fish injury risks 5. Further analysis and synthesis of the spatial and temporal distribution of fish and shellfish spawning, rearing and migration behaviors. Such an analysis could improve the identification of potential dredging environmental windows and further evaluate the applicability of accepted dredging environmental windows based on best available science. 6. The site-specific selection of dredging equipment and methods and operational procedures, can mitigate some of the negative direct effects of dredging. For example: use of a closed or sealed bucket clamshell dredge can be used to minimize the effects of increased turbidity and contain contaminated materials.

WAPCOS Centre for Environment Chapter 4 4-21

EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre Department of Fisheries at Mookaiyur , Ramanathapuram District

CHAPTER-5

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

5.1 GENERAL

The Environmental Management Plan proposes to integrate the baseline conditions, impacts likely to occur, and the supportive and assimilative capacity of the system. The most reliable way to achieve the above objective is to incorporate the management plan into the overall planning and implementation of the project. The Environmental Management Plan (EMP) for the proposed fish landing center is classified into the following categories:

 Land Environment  Water Environment  Air Environment  Control of Noise  Greenbelt Development  Socio-Economic Environment

5.2 LAND ENVIRONMENT

The proposed project is to be constructed by reclaiming a part of the sea and land areas as well. The fish landing center construction would require construction materials that shall be procured from nearby quarries. The impacts of the construction phase on the environment would be transient in nature lasting only during the period of construction. The surface roads, which are proposed to be utilized during construction, shall be black topped to avoid fugitive dust. These measures will reduce the entrainment of fugitive emissions to a large extent. Adequate provisions shall be made for timely repair of roads. On completion of construction the roads should be black topped.

WAPCOS Centre for Environment Chapter 5 5-1

EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre Department of Fisheries at Mookaiyur , Ramanathapuram District

For the proposed fish landing center, the quarry sites likely to be utilized shall be operating quarries located at outside the study area. Thus, no specific management measures are required.

5.3 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL

During construction and operation phases, the solid wastes so generated will contain mainly organic matter followed by paper, cardboard, packaging materials, wood boards, polythene, etc. The total solid waste to be generated would be of the order of 1.0 t/day. Likewise, in the project operation phase, about 0.5 t/day of solid waste will be generated from domestic sources. It was also noticed that within the port area lot of domestic waste and solid waste was lying accumulated. These have generated by families staying close to the proposed project area. The development of harbour will be helpful in cleaning of debris and solid waste. Adequate facilities for collection and conveyance of municipal wastes generated at the disposal site shall be developed. A provision of Rs.1.9 million has been earmarked for the solid waste disposal. The details are given in Table-5.1.

TABLE-5.1

Cost estimates for solid waste management Cost S. No. Item (Rs. million) 1. One covered tempo for conveyance of solid waste 1.0 to the landfill 2. Manpower cost for 4 persons @ Rs.5000/month 0.5 for 2 years including 10% escalation/year 3. Preparation of landfill site including surveying, 0.4 levelling, excavation, lining, etc. Total 1.9

5.4 WATER ENVIRONMENT

The major source of water pollution in the construction and operation phases is the sewage generated by the workers and employees. During construction

WAPCOS Centre for Environment Chapter 5 5-2

EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre Department of Fisheries at Mookaiyur , Ramanathapuram District

phase about 24m3/day of sewage is expected to be generated. It is proposed to construct community toilets within the labour camps.

The sewage can be treated in septic tank and disposed off over land through absorption trenches. It is proposed to construct one septic tank for treatment of sewage generated during construction phase. These facilities shall be used during the operation phase of the fish landing center as well.

As a part of control of water pollution. 20 `Community toilets’ and 1 septic tank need to be constructed. The total cost required will be Rs.0.8 million. The details are given in Table 5.2.

TABLE-5.2

Cost estimates for sanitary facilities for labour camps S. No. Unit Rate (Rs./unit) Number Total cost (Rs.million) 1. Community toilets 30,000 20 0.6 2. Septic tanks 200,000 1 0.2 Total 0.8

Drinking water facilities and waste disposal facilities shall be located away from each other. The effluent from workshops, oil storage, etc. will contain oil and grease particles which shall be treated in an oil skimmer and suitably disposed after treatment. The oil skimmers should be made available at the berthing quay. The collected oily matter can be stored in cans, etc. and disposed off at designated landfill sites finalized in consultation with the district administration. An amount of Rs.0.5 million has been earmarked for this purpose.

5.5 AIR ENVIRONMENT

Control of Pollution due to increased vehicles

The major source of air pollution in the proposed project is the increased vehicular movement in the project construction and operation phases. The

WAPCOS Centre for Environment Chapter 5 5-3

EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre Department of Fisheries at Mookaiyur , Ramanathapuram District

movement of other vehicles is likely to increase, as the commissioning of the project would lead to significant development in the area. Thus, as a control measure, vehicles emitting pollutants above the standards should not be allowed to ply either in the project construction or in the operation phases. Vehicles and construction equipment should be fitted with internal devices i.e. catalytic converters to reduce CO and HC emissions.

All the roads in the vicinity of the project site and the roads connecting the quarry sites to the construction site should be paved or black topped to minimize the entrainment of fugitive emissions. If any of the roads stretches cannot be black topped or paved due to some reason or the other, then adequate arrangements must be made to spray water on such stretches of the road.

5.6 CONTROL OF NOISE

The construction and operation phases are likely to increase the vehicular traffic in the area, which can lead to increase in the ambient noise levels mainly along the road alignment. It is proposed to develop a greenbelt along the road stretches near to the habitation sites. Three rows of trees will be planted.

During construction phase, the use of various construction equipment is the major source of noise. However, based on the modeling studies, the noise due to operation of various construction equipment is not likely to have any adverse impact on the habitations in nearby habitats. However, efforts need to be made to reduce the noise generated by the various construction equipment. The various measures that could be implemented are as follows:  Noise from air compressors could be reduced by fitting exhaust mufflers and intake mufflers.  Chassis and engine structural vibration noise can be dealt by isolating the engine from the chassis and by covering various sections of the engines.

WAPCOS Centre for Environment Chapter 5 5-4

EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre Department of Fisheries at Mookaiyur , Ramanathapuram District

 Noise levels from the drillers can be reduced by fitting of exhaust mufflers and the provision of damping on the steel tool.  Exposure of workers near the high noise levels areas can be minimized. This can be achieved by job rotation/automation, use of ear plugs, etc.

The effect of exposure of high noise levels on the workers operating the various construction equipment is likely to be harmful. It is known that continuous exposure to high noise levels above 90 dB(A) affects the hearing acuity of the workers/operators and hence, has to be avoided. To prevent the adverse impacts, the exposure to high noise levels should be restricted as per the exposure period outlined in Table-5.3. Workers operating in the high noise areas should be provided with earplugs.

TABLE-5.3

Maximum exposure periods for different noise levels as per OSHA Maximum equivalent continuous Unprotected exposure period (hrs) noise level (dB(A)) per day for an 8 hr/day and 5 days per week 90 8 95 4 100 2 105 1 110 0.5 115 0.25 120 No exposure permitted at or above this level

5.7 GREENBELT DEVELOPMENT

It is proposed to develop greenbelt around various project appurtenances, which will go a long way to achieve environmental protection and mitigation of pollution levels in the area.

WAPCOS Centre for Environment Chapter 5 5-5

EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre Department of Fisheries at Mookaiyur , Ramanathapuram District

Depending upon the topo-climatological conditions and regional ecological status, selection of the appropriate plant species has been made. Various criteria adopted for selecting the species for greenbelt development are: - plant should be fast growing; - preferably perennial and evergreen; - indigenous; - resistant to SPM pollution, and - should maintain the ecological and hydrological balance of the region.

The general consideration involved while developing the greenbelt are: - Trees growing upto 10 m or above in height with perennial foliage should be planted around the perimeter of the proposed project area. - Trees should also be planted along the road side in such a way that there is dust control. - Generally fast growing trees should be planted. - Since, the tree trunk area is normally devoid of foliage upto a height of 3 m, it may be useful to have shrubbery in front of the trees so as to give coverage to this portion.

Taking into consideration the above parameters, the greenbelt development plan has been evolved for the proposed alternatives to reduce the pollution levels to the maximum possible extent. The plantation will be at a spacing of 2.5 x 2.5 m. The width of the greenbelt will be 30 m. About 1,600 trees per hectare will be planted. The maintenance of the plantation area will also be done by the project proponents. The cost of plantation per hectare is estimated at Rs.50,000. About 2 ha of land is proposed to be afforested as a part of Greenbelt Development Plan. The total cost of afforestation works out to Rs.0.12 million.

The species recommended for greenbelt development are listed in Table- 5.4.

WAPCOS Centre for Environment Chapter 5 5-6

EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre Department of Fisheries at Mookaiyur , Ramanathapuram District

TABLE-5.4 Recommended species for greenbelt development Common Name Botanical Name Neem Azadirachta indica Mango Mangifera indica Salvadora Salvadora persica Baniyan Ficus bengalensis Cassia Cassia siamea Terminalia Terminalia catappa Karaunda Corissa carandas

WAPCOS Centre for Environment Chapter 5 5-7

EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre Department of Fisheries at Mookaiyur , Ramanathapuram District

CHAPTER-6

RISK ASSESSMENT

6.1 Risk Assessment

The proposed Fish Landing Center will encounter risks like any other existing fish landing center. In order to mitigate and reduce such risks it is proposed to the Department of Fisheries/Contractor and their personnel, during construction period to ensure that HSE (Health Safety and Environment) risks to personnel or assets are minimised.

6.2 HSE Management System

In order to ensure an effective HSE it is suggested that proper attention is to be paid to the health and safety of individuals working in a Fish Landing Center as well as the protection of the environment from the environmental impacts associated with construction activities. It is recommended that the Fish Landing Center should have an HSE policy and perform all work under a formal HSE Management system. This system should be adequately documented within a HSE Manual and be shown to be effective in implementing the aims and objectives of the FLC-HSE Policy.

In order to ensure that the HSE system is able to achieve the goals of safety there should be a design that will be ideally behaviour based and designed to deliver continual improvement utilizing the following rationale:  Plan the process,  Do the work,  Measure the outcome,  Review the lessons learned,  Improve the process

WAPCOS Centre for Environment Chapter 6 6-1

EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre Department of Fisheries at Mookaiyur , Ramanathapuram District

The system should additionally:

 Incorporate measures to demonstrate that all workers/labourers are medically fit and competent to perform their tasks safely  Ensure that all personnel are conversant with the working conditions at the worksite, the rules and standards related to the working environment and the HSE hazards and risks associated with the work programme.  Provide means whereby hazards have been identified, assessed and eliminated where possible, or are being controlled / mitigated through formal planning methods and procedures.  Allow for periodic review triggered by site or system changes that may affect the HSE risk of the work programme.  Ensure that all sub-contractors understand the principles and requirements of the system.  Require sub-contractors to have an equivalent HSE standard.  Contain a written HSE plan

The management of the Fish Landing Center should make all personnel fully aware that they are empowered and expected, to bring all health, safety and environmental risks which they believe not to be under adequate control to the immediate notice of their Supervisor so that prompt action may be taken to prevent injuries or other losses and provide a safe and healthy workplace.

6.3 Emergency Preparedness

Emergency could arise in case of Disasters like cyclone, storm, flood, thunder and lightning, earthquake and tsunami. In addition, there can be accident related disasters from fire, oil spills, and chemical induced and vehicular / operational accidents. Secondary hazards like epidemics can also cause serious disruption in normal activities.

WAPCOS Centre for Environment Chapter 6 6-2

EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre Department of Fisheries at Mookaiyur , Ramanathapuram District

6.4 Disaster Impacts

 Disasters like Storm, Flood, Earth Quake and Tsunami causes injury and loss of life and damage to public and personal properties, soil erosion, silting, water pollution and increase in water salinity in general.  Potential impacts of fires are the burns, injuries and even loss of human life and property, disrupt services like overhead power and communication lines.  Potential impacts due to accidents include injuries and burns which demand surgical interventions, poisoning or exposure to toxic material, trauma and even  Loss of human life, property damage includes damage/loss of fishing vessels/crafts and other surface vehicles, mechanical devices and equipments used during construction and operational phases.  The potential impacts of industrial /chemical induced accidents may be pollution of the surface / river / estuarine water quality and significant damage to aquatic life and serious air pollution due to release of obnoxious gases.

6.5 Emergency Preparedness Plan

Seismic factor should be taken into account while designing the infrastructure facilities for the proposed Fish Landing Center.

 Early warning message will be sent through radio communication to all vessels particularly those engaged in fishing as well as through public address system to the fishermen and FLC staff. Warning messages will also be sent through the local cable TV network.  Appropriate medical services and effective rescue operations are required on war footing to limit post incident casualties as also to combat epidemics (through mass immunization particularly against water borne diseases) and evacuate the marooned / trapped individuals to safer places.

WAPCOS Centre for Environment Chapter 6 6-3

EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre Department of Fisheries at Mookaiyur , Ramanathapuram District

 Proper steps are required to salvage the properties damaged from the debris and to protect the personal properties of the affected fishermen.  Suitable steps on war footing need to be adopted to restore all the essential services like electricity, water supply, telecommunication, transportation, etc.  Water quality monitoring mechanisms will have to be set up to prevent outbreak of epidemics.  Damage to road access due to land subsidence (secondary effects) should be immediately repaired and debris cleared with the help of PWD and local bodies.  The harbour authorities should make arrangements with the Indian National Centre for Ocean Information Services (INCOIS), Hyderabad for linking up with their Early Warning System (EWS) for Mitigation of Oceanographic Disasters viz.  In case of accidents, arrangement should be made with the local police, transport and taluk administration for extending support with the necessary mechanical devices like cranes, gas cutters, etc required for rescue operation as well as for clearing of the accident site.  Storage of fuel should be as per the rules and guidelines as laid down in the relevant statutes.  Adequate fire safety equipments e.g. extinguishers, dry chemicals, carbon dioxide, foam spray, water spray should be kept in the harbour complex.  Good cables should be used for preventing short circuits in wiring.

WAPCOS Centre for Environment Chapter 6 6-4

EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre Department of Fisheries at Mookaiyur , Ramanathap uram District

CHAPTER-7

ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAMME

7.1 THE NEED

Monitoring is an essential component for sustainability of any developmental project. It is an integral part of any environmental assessment process. Any development project introduces complex inter-relationships in the project area between people, various natural resources, biota and the many developing forces. Thus, a new environment is created. It is very difficult to predict with complete certainty the exact post-project environmental scenario. Hence, monitoring of critical parameters is essential in the post-project phase.

Monitoring of environmental indicators signal potential problems and facilitate timely prompt implementation of effective remedial measures. It will also allow for validation of the assumptions and assessments made in the present study.

Monitoring becomes essential to ensure that the mitigation measures planned for environmental protection function effectively during the entire period of project operation. The data so generated also serves as a data bank for prediction of post-project scenarios in similar projects.

7.2 AREAS OF CONCERN

From the monitoring point of view, the important parameters are resettlement and rehabilitation of project-affected persons, marine water quality, ambient air quality, noise, etc. An attempt is made to establish early warning system which indicate the stress on the environment. Suggested monitoring parameters and programmes are described in the subsequent sections.

WAPCOS Centre for Environment Chapter 7 7-1

EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre Department of Fisheries at Mookaiyur , Ramanathap uram District

7.3 MARINE WATER & SEDIMENT QUALITY

Construction phase

The chemical characteristics of marine water quality should be monitored once in three months and biological parameters once a year during project construction phase, close to the major construction sites. Both surface and bottom waters should be sampled and analysed. The parameters to be monitored are as follows:

Marine Water

Physico-chemical parameters - pH - Salinity - Conductivity - TDS - Turbidity - D.O. - BOD - Phosphates - Nitrates - Sulphates - Chlorides Biological parameters

- Light penetration - Chlorophyll - Primary Productivity - Phytoplanktons (No. of species and their density) - Zooplanktons (No. of species and their density) Sediments

Physio-chemical parameters

- Texture - pH - Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen - COD - Sodium - Potassium - Phosphates - Chlorides - Sulphates

WAPCOS Centre for Environment Chapter 7 7-2

EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre Department of Fisheries at Mookaiyur , Ramanathap uram District

Biological Parameters

- Benthic Meio-fauna - Benthic Macro-fauna

The marine water and sediment sampling and analysis be conducted by an external agency. A provision of Rs.0.6 million/year has been earmarked for this purpose. Assuming construction phase is to last for 2 years and considering as escalation of 10%, an amount of Rs. 1.26 million can be earmarked.

Operation Phase

The chemical characteristics of marine water quality should be monitored once in three months and biological parameters once a year during project operation phase. Both surface and bottom waters should be sampled and analysed. The parameters to be monitored are as follows:

Marine Water

Physico-chemical parameters

- pH - Salinity - Conductivity - TDS - Turbidity - D.O. - BOD - Phosphates - Nitrates - Sulphates - Chlorides Biological parameters

- Light penetration - Chlorophyll - Primary Productivity - Phytoplanktons (No. of species and their density) - Zooplanktons (No. of species and their density)

WAPCOS Centre for Environment Chapter 7 7-3

EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre Department of Fisheries at Mookaiyur , Ramanathap uram District

Sediments

Physio-chemical parameters

- Texture - pH - Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen - COD - Sodium - Potassium - Phosphates - Chlorides - Sulphates Biological Parameters

- Benthic Meio-fauna - Benthic Macro-fauna

The marine water and sediment sampling and analysis be conducted by an external agency. A provision of Rs.0.6 million/year has been earmarked for this purpose.

7.4 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY

Construction Phase

Ambient air quality monitoring is recommended to be monitored at three stations close to the construction sites. The monitoring can be conducted for three seasons. For each season monitoring can be conducted twice a week

for 4 consecutive weeks. The parameters to be monitored are PM2.5, PM10,

SO2 and NO2. An amount of Rs. 0.144 million/year would be required. Considering, construction phase of two years and escalation of 10%, an amount of Rs. 0.302 million/year can be earmarked for this purpose. The ambient air quality monitoring during project operation phase can be conducted by an agency approved by Tamilnadu Pollution control Board.

Operation phase

The ambient air quality monitoring will have to be conducted at three locations. Air quality could be monitored for three seasons in a year. High

WAPCOS Centre for Environment Chapter 7 7-4

EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre Department of Fisheries at Mookaiyur , Ramanathap uram District

volume samplers can be used for this purpose. The frequency of monitoring shall be twice a week for 24 hours for four consecutive weeks. The

parameters to be monitored are PM2.5, PM10, SO2 and NO2. The ambient air quality monitoring during project operation phase can be conducted by an agency approved by Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board. An amount of Rs. 0.15 million/year can be earmarked for this purpose.

7.5 NOISE

Personnel involved in work areas, where high noise levels are likely to be observed during project construction and operation phases. For such in-plant personnel, audiometric examination should be arranged at least once a year.

The noise level monitoring during construction and operation phases will be carried out by the project staff and a noise meter can be purchased. An amount of Rs.0.05 million has been earmarked for this purpose.

Neighborhood (upto radius of 1 km)

It is recommended that during project operation phase, monitoring of sensitive areas like schools and medicare centres be conducted within a distance of 1 km radius of the jetty to ascertain noise levels at receptors, taking note of any excessive build-up in any particular direction.

7.6 GREENBELT DEVELOPMENT

Sites of greenbelt development should be monitored once in every month during project operation phase to study the growth of various species and to identify the needs if any, such as for irrigation, fertilizer dosing, pesticides, etc. The monitoring can be conducted by project staff.

7.7 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAMME

The summary of Environmental Monitoring Programme for implementation during project construction and operation phases is given in Tables-7.1 and 7.2.

WAPCOS Centre for Environment Chapter 7 7-5

EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre Department of Fisheries at Mookaiyur , Ramanathap uram District

TABLE-7.1

Summary of Environmental Monitoring Programme for implementation during project construction phase S. Aspects Parameters to be Frequency of Location No. monitored monitoring 1. Marine water Physico-chemical pH, Salinity, EC, Once in three 3 to 4 sites parameters TDS, Turbidity, months Phosphates, Nitrates, Sulphates, Chlorides. Biological Light penetration, Once a year 3 to 4 sites parameters Chlorophyll, Primary Productivity, Phytoplanktons, Zooplanktons 2. Sediments Physico-chemical Texture, pH, Once in three 3 to 4 sites parameters Sodium, months Potassium, Phosphate, Chlorides, Sulphates Biological Benthic Meio- Once in a year 3 to 4 sites parameters fauna, Benthic Macro-fauna 3. Ambient air quality PM2.5, PM10, SO2 - Summer, Close to and NO2 Post- construction monsoon site(s) and Winter seasons.

- Twice a week for four consecutive weeks per season.

4. Noise Equivalent Noise During peak Construction Level construction Site(s) activities

WAPCOS Centre for Environment Chapter 7 7-6

EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre Department of Fisheries at Mookaiyur , Ramanathap uram District

TABLE-7.2

Summary of Environmental Monitoring Programme for implementation during project operation phase S. Aspects Parameters to be Frequency of Location No. monitored monitoring 1. Marine water Physico- pH, Salinity, EC, Once in three 3 to 4 sites chemical TDS, Turbidity, months parameters Phosphates, Nitrates, Sulphates, Chlorides. Biological Light penetration, Once a year 3 to 4 sites parameters Chlorophyll, Primary Productivity, Phytoplanktons, Zooplanktons 2. Sediments Physico- Texture, pH, Once in three 3 to 4 sites chemical Sodium, months parameters Potassium, Phosphate, Chlorides, Sulphates Biological Benthic Meio- Once in a year 3 to 4 sites parameters fauna, Benthic Macro-fauna 3. Ambient air PM2.5, PM10, SO2 - Summer, Villages quality & NO2 Post- monsoon & Winter seasons. - Twice a week for four consecutive weeks per season. 4. Noise Equivalent Noise Once per month Project area Level and sites within 1 km of the project area 5. Greenbelt Rate of survival Once per month Various Development and growth of plantation sites. various species

WAPCOS Centre for Environment Chapter 7 7-7

EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre Department of Fisheries at Mookaiyur , Ramanathapuram District

CHAPTER-8

CONCLUSIONS

The EIA Study was carried out to identify the impacts due to the proposed reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre. The conclusions of the study are as follows:

 The impact due to the reconstruction of the proposed Fish Landing Centre is both short term and long term. The impacts due to construction is mainly due to dredging and construction activities

 The identified major direct effects due to dredging is entrainment, turbidity, fish injury due to suspended sediments, decreased dissolved oxygen and fish behavioral effects due to noise.

 Environmental windows have been suggested to constrain dredging and disposal operations to specific periods of operation in order to protect sensitive biological resources and their habitats from detrimental effects.

 Long-term effects due to dredging include the cumulative effects due to dredging and disposal of contaminated materials and the landscape- scale changes in estuarine/marine bathymetry and habitat characteristics resulting from dredging activities.

 Long-term landscape changes due to dredging includes productivity changes, the conversion of shallow subtidal to deeper subtidal habitats, the conversion of intertidal to subtidal habitats and changes to estuarine circulation which, through salinity and other changes, can indirectly influence the distribution of estuarine and nearshore marine biota in the river mouth.

 The marine water quality and ecology in and around the project site is that of any normal coastal environment.

8-1

WAPCOS Centre for Environment Chapter 8

EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre Department of Fisheries at Mookaiyur , Ramanathapuram District

 The project area has biological features characteristics of any normal coastal area in the occurrence, abundance and bio diversity of biological community of phytoplankton, zooplankton, benthos and fishes. The area is devoid of mangrove vegetation, Seaweeds and coral reefs. No rare, endangered, threatened marine species were recorded.

In view of the above, it is concluded that the proposed reconstruction of the Mookaiyur Fish Landing center will have a positive impact on the overall livelihood of the local population.

8-2

WAPCOS Centre for Environment Chapter 8 EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre Department of Fisheries at Mookai yur, Ramanathapuram District

ANNEXURE- I

National Ambient Air quality Standards (NAAQS)

Concentration of Ambient Air

Ecologically Time Industrial, S. Sensitive area POLLUTANTS Weighted Residential Method of No. (notified by Average Rural and Measurement Central other area Government)

1 Annual* 50 20 -Improved west and Sulphur Dioxide Gacke 3 (SO2) , µg/m 24 hours ** 80 80 -Ultraviolet fluorescence

2 Annual* 40 30 - Modified Jacab & Hochheister Nitrogen Dioxide 3 (Na-Arsentire) (NO2) , µg/m 24 hours ** 80 80 -Chemiluminescene

3 Particulate Matter Annual* 60 60 -Gravimetric (Size less than 10, -TOEM µm) or PM10 , 3 µg/m 24 hours ** 100 100 -Beta attenuation

4 Particulate Matter Annual* 40 40 -Gravimetric (Size less than 2.5 -TOEM , µm) or PM2.5, 3 µg/m 24 hours ** 60 60 -Beta attenuation

Note:

* Annual arithmetic mean of minimum 104 measurement in a year at a particular site taken twice a week 24 hourly at a uniform intervals.

** 24 hourly or 08 hourly or 01 hourly monitored values, as applicable, shall be complied with 98% of the time in a year. 2% of the time, they may exceeded the limits but not on two consecutive days of monitoring.

WAPCOS Centre for Environment Page 1 of 3 Annexure

EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre Department of Fisheries at Mookai yur, Ramanathapuram District

ANNEXURE- II

Ambient Noise Standards

Limits in dB(A) Leq Area Code Category of Area Day time Night time A Industrial Area 75 70 B Commercial Area 65 55 C Residential Area 55 45 D Silence Zone 50 40

Notes:

1. Day time 6 AM and 9 PM

2. Night time is 9 PM and 6 AM

3. Silence zone is defined as areas upto 100 metres around such premises as hospitals, educational institutions and courts. The silence zones are to be declared by competent authority. Use of vehicular horns, loudspeakers and bursting of crackers shall be banned in these zones.

4. Environment (Protection) Third Amendment Rules, 2000 Gazettee notification, Government of India, date 14.2.2000.

WAPCOS Centre for Environment Page 2 of 3 Annexure

EIA Studies for reconstruction of Fish Landing Centre Department of Fisheries at Mookai yur, Ramanathapuram District

Annexure-III

Maximum permissible level or condition of water pollutants discharged into the environment

WAPCOS Centre for Environment Page 3 of 3 Annexure