Scanned by CamScanner Scanned by CamScanner Scanned by CamScanner Scanned by CamScanner Scanned by CamScanner Scanned by CamScanner Scanned by CamScanner Scanned by CamScanner Scanned by CamScanner Scanned by CamScanner Scanned by CamScanner Scanned by CamScanner Scanned by CamScanner Scanned by CamScanner Ecological Sensitivity Assessment Studies for preparing Biodiversity Monitoring and Management Plan

For Port Trust Visakhapatnam

Prepared by ENVID Group, Department of Environmental Sciences, College of Science & Technology, , Visakhapatnam Scanned by CamScanner 1.INTRODUCTION

1.1. General Out of 13 major ports is one among situated on East coast of . The first South East Asian port which got ISO certifications for Quality (ISO 9001), Environment (ISO 14001) and Safety (OHSAS 18001). The Port is existing from 1933 till date taking an amazing role in building the nation duly serving industrial, commercial and Agricultural Sectors. The location of the port is very ideal in the sense that it affords protection from cyclones which strike the east coast regularly, by a high promontory into the sea, known as Dolphin’s Nose Hill which is to the north of the entrance channel. The low tidal range of a maximum of 1.82 meters is also advantageous for the location of the port. Till the end of the 19th century, major commercial activity in Visakhapatnam was centered on the deep-water port with ships anchored off the sheltered coast. Post world war-I, the Bengal-Nagpur Railways constructed the Inner Harbor and the actual development of Visakhapatnam took place during 1927-33 that resulted in Vizag gaining importance as a hub of maritime/industrial activity. One more multi commodity berth EQ-4 was added to it in 1955. To meet the requirement of Oil Companies facilitating the discharge of crude and petroleum products two berths OR-1 & OR-2 were developed in the year 1957. Subsequently 4 more berths were added in the Inner Harbor between years 1965 to 1968. During the year 1976 Outer Harbor has been developed. The outer harbor is having Ore Berth (OB-I & OB-II), General cargo berth (GCB), LPG berth, OSTT, Container terminal and dredger berth. The Visakhapatnam port is presently handling coal at west quay of Inner harbour. However due to depth constraints in the inner harbour the larger size vessels of coal are lightened / handled at outer harbour due to availability of deeper dredge depths in the outer harbour. The coal at GCB is unloaded from the ships on the wharf using floating cranes and the unloaded cargo is loaded in to the trucks using loaders and stacked in the back up area of the berth and at East Yard until it is lifted to the concerned parties. Handling of COAL at GCB by conventional method and transportation through trucks from the berth to the stack yard are observed to be the main sources of Air pollution. Therefore, To minimise the dust, coal handling is totally mechanised and is being operated by Vedanta on PPP (Public –Private Partnership) mode. Iron ore is handled at ore berth in outer harbour. The ore received from wagons is unloaded at ore handling plant and stacked. The handling of ore is done through fully mechanised facility. The conveyor passing through city and having interface was covered. However small quantity of iron ore fines is handled at west quay of inner harbour. Fertiliser is handled at east quay of inner harbour, which is away from the city. The Visakhapatnam port trust in the earlier years of inception used to handle very less cargo and habitations were very much scattered with less Page | 1 population. Subsequently, due to the establishment of major industries in Visakhapatnam and its surroundings public habitation around Port increased abnormally while the port activities had increased steadily over a period of time. The Port of Visakhapatnam, right from its inception, handles maximum cargo compared to other major ports for the past 7 years and thus is classified as a premier Port of India has been handling dry bulk cargo and the share of dusty cargo is about 50% of the total cargo. More or less the same level is being maintained for the past two decades. Handling of dusty cargo is neither unique to port of Visakhapatnam nor to other Indian seaports. It is a global practice that has existed for over few decades. Sea Ports that act as gate ways to sea borne domestic and international trade are required to handle variety of cargoes required by the industries and Port of Visakhapatnam handling large volumes of coal, iron ore, fertilizer is no exception. With volumes of cargo going up the dust levels have also increased correspondingly and VPT is making all efforts to mitigate the same by taking certain environment protection measures such as dust suppression systems by water sprinkling. Therefore VPT committed to convert the present semi mechanized system into a fully mechanized system with in- built dust suppression system to minimize the emission of dust into the surrounding environment as it was found out through a scientific study carried out by an independent agency that the factors influencing the generation of dust pollution are mainly due to non- mechanized method of handling of dry bulk cargo such as coal, iron ore, fertilizer etc., contributing for dust emissions during loading/unloading and transportation through trucks. 1.2. Scope of Work To assess the existing status of ecological aspects in and around the project site and to prepare suitable bio diversity monitoring and management plan for Visakhapatnam Port. The sampling and analysis of Terrestrial Ecology was carried out by MECON for the development of Multipurpose terminal in the inner harbour and the same data was considered here. Marine ecology study was conducted on 7 sub tidal (offshore) locations and 2 beaches ecological transects. The sampling and analysis was carried out by Terracon Ecotech' Pvt. Ltd. (TEPL) an India’s leading ecological solutions & natural resource management strategic consultancy firm during March- May 2016 The following attributes were studied by using the appropriate methods of marine/coastal sampling as per standard guidelines. • Primary Productivity • Phytoplankton • Zooplankton • Benthic fauna • Nekton • Beach ecology (Intertidal survey & costal survey) • Bio-accumulation of heavy metals The report was prepared for the Visakhapatnam Port Trust (VPT) for its project activities Viz, Strengthening, Deepening and Modification by the ENVID group of Andhra University, Department of Environmental

Page | 2

Sciences using both primary and Secondary data collected from multiple and varied sources. The secondary data corresponding to project region were gathered from published literature, District Forest Department and Social Forestry Division. The authenticity of field observations are confirmed through discussions with local people and based on secondary data collected from different Government offices like Forest Department, Wildlife Department and Fisheries Department etc. The status of individual fauna species are ascertained as per the schedules in Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act.

1.3. Project Location The proposed project site is located on the shore of in . The Google image of the Visakhapatnam port is shown in Figure 1.

Page | 3

Figure.1: Google Image of the Visakhapatnam port

Page | 4

The study area is located on the western shore of the Bay of Bengal. About 36% of the study area is covered by the sea. About 31% is covered by Visakhapatnam city and the Port. The southern boundary nearest National Park, Kambalakonda National Park is 7.85 km north-north-east of the project site. The intervening area is covered by Visakhapatnam city. The project site is a operating berth within the port. The only plants growing at the project site are few saplings of peepal (Ficus religiosa) and banyan (Ficus bengalensis) growing on the buildings. Visakhapatnam Port is a very busy port within a major city. So obviously there is hardly any fauna other than a few common birds found in almost every city and such as rat & mice. Most of the study area comprises of Visakhapatnam city. A forested steep ridge the “Dolphin’s Nose” is located on the southern side of the port (i.e. ~2km south of the project site). Due to the steep slope with thin soil cover the vegetation comprises of small trees such as Chloroxylon swietenia, Acacia spp., Ficus spp., Lannea coromandelica, Murraya koenigii, Zizyphus spp. etc. On the other hand Kambalakonda Wildlife Sanctuary (which is located across Visakhapatnam city from the port) is rich in flora & fauna. 73 species of trees, 39 species of herbs & shrubs, 18 species of climbers, 2 species of bamboos and 7 species of grasses are known from the sanctuary. There is an area of about 55 ha on the north-western side of the port’s boundaries which is covered by mangroves. This mangrove area is within VPT’s land extending along the banks of Mehadri Gedda River and small tidal channels linked to the river. The mangroves nearest to the port are located just about 110 m outside the port’s boundary and about 2.75 km from the proposed project site. The Avicennia marina and Excoecaria agallocha are dominant tree species found along the creek whereas Acanthus ilicifolius L. is distributed sparsely among the mangroves. Mangrove associates, namely Aeluropus lagopoides, Cressa cretica, Heliotropium curassavicum, Sarcolobus carinatus, Sesuvium portulacastrum, Suaeda maritime and S. nudiflora , were also recorded from the area. Nine true mangrove species with five mangrove associates were reported from the study area. In most of the study area, due to lack of suitable habitat diversity of animals is low. However the Kambalakonda Wildlife Sanctuary is a major habitat

2. METHODS OF COLLECTION & ANALYSIS Terrestrial Ecology Ecology of the area was studied by actual field studies / observations and collecting information from published literature (particularly the book “Flora of Visakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh by G.V. Subba Rao & G.R. Kumari (ed. P.S.N. Rao; Pub. Botanical survey of India) and records of the State Forest Department Quantitative assessment was not done for mammals, reptiles and other vertebrate species. Most of the data gathered from authenticated secondary data as well as local villager’s information. Scheduling of species done according to Indian Wildlife Protection act (1972) and checked the local and national status of the species. List of flora and

Page | 5 fauna from Forest Department, Previous studies for EIA and other NGOs research in the study area and local villager’s information was taken into consideration while preparing the list and other parts of the report. A detailed survey of flora and fauna was carried out from March to May 2016. The present study period supports good number of herbaceous species which are under blooming and can be easily identified during this season

Survey Types used: 1. Reconnaissance survey (Near Agricultural, Human habitations and Road side) 2. Quadrate and Line transact method for trees, shrubs and herbs. 3. Belt transects method for road side trees and butterflies. 4. Point count method for birds. 5. Direct and Indirect evidences for Mammals and other faunal species The marine ecology study was conducted at 7 sub tidal (offshore) locations and 2 beaches ecological transect, the details of which are given below: • The sample collection for primary productivity, plankton (phytoplankton & zooplankton) and benthos was done at all seven stations. • For intertidal sampling two transects were selected, one in the north east and one southwest of the port. • The beach ecology was also studied. • Beach organisms were collected for determination of bio-accumulation of heavy metals. • Fishery data was collected from the local fish market and the State Fisheries Department. • Marine turtle information was collected from the local office of the State Forest Department and published literature. The sub tidal study area locations with co-ordinates are given in Table 1. Table 1: Sub- tidal (offshore) Study Area Locations S. No Location Co-ordinates

170 42'03.2" N ME-1 Inner Harbour between East Quay & West Quay 830 16' 54.5" E 170 41' 34.4" N ME-2 Turning Circle, Inner Harbour 830 16' 52.3" E 170 41'10.6" N ME-3 Turning Circle, Outer Harbour 830 18' 10.3" E 170 42' 53.9" N ME-4 —0.3km Off Ramakrishna Beach (North of Port) 830 19' 52.7" E 17° 42' 08.6"N ME-5 —2 km off Ramakrishna Beach (North of Port) 83° 20' 14.4"E. 17°39' 33.4" N ME-6 —0,2 kin Off Beach (South of Port] 83° 17' 02.9" E 17° 38'50.6' N ME-7 —2.5 km Off (South of Port] 83 0 IT 44.1" E *ME- Marine Ecology

Page | 6

The beach ecology transect locations with co-ordinates are given in the below. Table 2: Beach Ecology Transect Transect no. Location Co-ordinates I R.K. Beach (Near Submarine Museum) I N17°43.048' E83°19.822'

II Yerada Beach N17°39.078' E83°15.812' Coastal Survey

Start N 17'38'57.67"; E 83°15'38.44" A 5-6 km southwest of the port End N 17°39'15,37"; E 83°16'6.84"

Start N 17°43'7.76"; E 83°20'2.75" 14 5-6 km northeast of the port End N 17°42'5331"; E 83°19'31.94"

Page | 7

Page | 8

2.1. Primary Productivity Water samples we recollected from 7 different locations and transferred to 125 mi Dissolved Oxygen (DO) bottles (one light and one dark bottle). The experiment was performed using dark and light bottle method. One bottle was fixed with Winkler reagent for initial oxygen. The other light bottle and dark bottle were kept in a bucket containing same water sample for 24 hours. After 24 hours, both samples were fixed with Winkler A and B and the DO were analyzed. The increase in dissolved oxygen of water as a result of photosynthesis was measured in light bottle; simultaneously decrease in oxygen of dark bottle was measured to estimate the respiration in the same sample. The sample collection for primary productivity is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Sample Collection for Primary Productivity 2.2. Phytoplankton Niskin water sampler was used for collection of water samples. Phytoplankton samples were collected from 7 different locations in 250 ml plastic bottles and immediately preserved in Lugolis solution. Phytoplankton samples were allowed to settle; 1 ml of aliquot of sample was taken for quantitative population analysis and Bio-diversity indices. Organisms were counted under microscope using standard identification key. The phytoplankton sample collection is shown in the Figure 4.

Page | 9

2.3. Zooplankton Zooplankton samples were collected by Heron-Tranter plankton net. Samples were collected from 7 different locations in 250 ml bottles and immediately preserved in 5 % formaldehyde solution. Samples were allowed to settle; 1ml of sample was taken for quantitative analysis of density, bio-diversity indices and tital trio-mass. Organisms were counted under microscope using standard identification key. The zooplankton sample collection is shown in the Figure 5.

Figure. 5: Zooplankton sample Collection

2.4. Benthic Fauna Aquatic sediment samples for macro-benthos were collected by using Van-veen grab sampler at 7 locations. Benthic organisms was separated out using 500 micron mesh sieve and preserved in rose Bengal and 5% formalin solution. Samples were sorted-out separately, and macro benthic specimens were identified to the lowest possible level under a stereoscopic microscope. All identified specimens were referred by quantitative analysis of density, bio-diversity indices & total bio-mass. After analysis sample was preserved in 10% formalin and density was expressed in no/m2. Samples of benthic organisms was preserved and used for determination of bio accumulation of heavy metals. The sub tidal benthos sampling is shown in the Figure 6.

Figure 6: Sub-tidal Benthos Sampling

Page | 10

2.5. Nekton & Marine Fauna Fishery resource and local catch was identified by examining local fishermen's catches as well as fish catch statistics data was collected from Fisheries Department. The occurrence of any rare/endangered marine fauna information was collected from the records of the local office of the State Forest Department and published literature. 2.6. Beach Ecology 2.6.1 Intertidal Survey Two transacts were selected for estimation of Macro benthos organism, one transect on R.K. Beach (near Submarine Museum) & another on Yerda beach. Each transect have 3 (three) sampling points. The sampling point was in the dunes well away from the water line. The sampling point was in the inter-tidal zone and the 3rdjust beyond the inter-tidal zone. Standard size quadrants were marked out at the sampling points and the sediment within the quadrants up to a depth of 30 cm was scooped out. Macro benthic organisms were separated out using 500micron mesh sieve and preserved in rose Bengal & 5% formalin solution. Samples were sorted-out separately, and macro benthic specimens were identified to the lowest possible level under a stereoscopic microscope. All identified specimens were referred by quantitative analysis of density, bio-diversity indices & total bio-mass. 2.6.2 Marine Turtle Marine turtle nesting information was collect from the local office of the State Forest Department and Visakha society for the protection and care of animal (sea turtle protection program 2013-14 & 2014-15). As per available information Visakhapatnam beach is rarely considered as a nesting ground. 2.6.3 Coastal Floral & Faunal Survey

Figure 7: Location of Transects for Coastal Flora and Fauna Survey

Page | 11

To understand the floral and faunal composition at the coast, two transects parallel to the coast were taken. Both transects (of 1km each) were taken between port and —5 km to the North East and South West directions. On each transect, the belt transect of (2 X 20) m was walked for quantification of coastal flora and fauna. Besides these free listing of the species, observed during the walk, was noted. The components of flora and fauna which was considered during the study are given in the Table 3.

Table 3: Components of Flora and Fauna A Flora Algae, Trees, Shrubs, Climbers and Herbs B Fauna Birds, Butterflies, Mammals, Reptiles, Crustaceans, Molluscs

3. RESULTS & INTERPRETATIONS 3.1. Primary Productivity The net primary productivity is given in the Table 4. Table 4: Primary Productivity NET Primary Productivity Gross Primary Productivity Station (2 day) .mg/m3 (2 day) mg/m3 1 -0.44836 -0.73511 2 0.834167 0.093844 3 -0.02085 -0.29717 4 0.709042 -0.06256 5 0.719469 -0,06256 , 6 0.422297 -0.14077 7 1.42851 0.5005

3.1.1 Interpretation The study area measured Primary productivity was found very low at all stations except station 7, which indicates poor phytoplankton diversity. 3.2. Phytoplankton Species with Diversity index The observed Phytoplankton species is given in the Figure 8.

Figure 8: Observed Phytoplankton species The phytoplankton cell count is given in the Table.5 below. Page | 12

Table 5: Phytoplankton Cell Count

S.No. Species21 Stn.1 Stn.2 Stn.3 Stn.4 Stn.5 Stn.6 Stn.7 1 Cells/l Cells/l Cells/l Cells/l Cells/l Cells/l Cells/l Cells/l 2 Protoperidinium 380000 306667 213333 80000 140000 66667 46667 sp 3 Choetoceros spp 156666 740000 800000 106666 660000 733333 933333 4 Coscinodiscus spp 520000 413333 253333 380000 206667 220000 133333 5 Nitzchia spp 220000 100000 26667 100000 86667 53333 60000 6 Noviculo spp 86667 40000 - 20000 - - 20000 7 Rhizosolenia spp 33333 ------280666 160000 129333 164666 109333 107333 119333 Total 7 0 3 7 4 3 3

The phytoplankton species list with diversity index is given in the Table 6. Table 6: Phytoplankton Species List with Diversity Index

Station Phytoplankton genera Cells / I Shannon Wiener Index Protoperidiniumspp 380000 Chaetocerosspp 1566667 1 Coscinodiscusspp 520000 0.0013 Nitzchiaspp 220000 Naviculaspp 86667 Rhizosoleniaspp 33333 Protoperidiniumspp 306667 Chaetocerosspp 740000 2 Coscinodiscusspp 413333 1.288 Nitzchiaspp 100000 Naviculaspp 40000 Protoperidiniumspp 213333 3 Chaetocerosspp 800000 0.994 Coscinodiscusspp 253333 Nitzchiaspp 26667 Protoperidiniumspp 80000 Chaetocerosspp 1066667 4 Coscinodiscusspp 380000 0.005 Nitzchiaspp 100000 Naviculaspp 20000 Protoperidiniumspp 140000 5 Chaetocerosspp 5 660000 1.084 Coscinodiscusspp 206667 Nitzchicispp 86667 Protoperidiniumspp 66667 6 Chaetocerosspp 733333 0.907 Coscinodiscusspp 220000

Page | 13

Phytoplankton i Shannon Wiener Station Cells / I genera Index Nitzchiaspp 53333 Protopericiiniumspp 46667 Chaetocerosspp 933333 7 Coscinodiscusspp 133333 0.783 Nitzchiaspp 60000 Noviculaspp 20000

3.2.1 Interpretation Phytoplankton is primary source of food in the marine environment. The concentration and numerical abundance of the phytoplankton indicate the fertility of a region. The Diversity Index (Shannon Wiener Index) greater than l.0 indicates good species diversity. At many stations diversity index is less than 1.0 indicating poor species diversity. Floral diversity fluctuates from 4-6 genera. The common species found were Chaetoceros spp, Protoperidinium spp and Coscinodiscus sppa which are stress tolerant. At station2 and 5 diversity index is 1 showing good species diversity.

3.3. Zooplankton Species with Diversity index The observed Zooplankton species is given in the Figure 9.

Copepod Decopods Fishegg

Pteropods Cladocera

Page | 14

Figure 9: Observed zooplankton species The zooplankton species list with diversity index is given in the table. Table 7: Zooplankton Species List with Diversity Index Station Biomass (ml) Planktons Groups Rank Shannon Wiener Index Copepod 1 Decapod 1 0.1 Cheatognath 1.514 Lamillibranchs 2 Polychaete Gastropod Copepod 1 Decapod Cheatognath Lamillibranchs 3 Polychaete Gastropod 2 1 Pteropod 2 1.110 Cladocera Lucifer spp Fish eggs Appendicularia Ostracods Siphanophore Copepod 1 Decapod 3 Cheatognath Lamillibranchs 2 3 0.3 Polychaete 1.195 Gastropod Pteropod Lucifer spp Fish eggs Appendicularia Copepod 2 Decapod 3 Cheatognath Lamillibranchs Polychaete Gastropod 4 3 Pteropod 1 1.380 Cladocera Lucifer spp Fish eggs siphanophore Medusae Phoronids 5 0.5 Copepod 1 1.403

Page | 15

Station Biomass (ml) Planktons Groups Rank Shannon Wiener Index

Decapod 3 Cheatognath Pteropod 2 Cladocera Fish eggs Cirripedia Amphipoda Copepod 1 Decapod 3 Cheatognath Lamillibranchs Polychaete Gastropod Pteropod 2 6 1 Cladocera 1.187 Lucifer spp Fish eggs Appendicularia Siphanophore Cirripedia Amphipoda Medusae Copepod 1 Decapod Lamillibranchs 2 Polychaete 7 1 Gastropod 0.958 Pteropod Cladocera Lucifer spp Appendicularia Medusae

3.3.1 Interpretation The concentration and the numerical abundance of the zooplankton indicate the fertility of a region. Various zooplankton groups were observed and their Shannon-Wiener index is shown in table 7. Faunal diversity showed maximum 2 types of groups. The common forms were Copepod spp and Pteropods. The Shannon-Wiener index was found to be greater than at all stations except station 7, and the observed ranges are in between 1.1to1.5. This shows that the population density of zooplankton is found to be good at the time of sampling. Large population of zooplankton could graze the phytoplankton population tone are extinction. This in turn would cause lowering of the density of phytoplankton in that area.

Page | 16

3.4. Benthic Organisms with Diversity Index The benthic organisms list with diversity index is given in the Table 8. Table 8: Benthic Organisms List with Diversity Index

Benthos Shannon Station Biomass(g) No. Rank (Groups) Wiener Index

1 0.478 Polychaete worms 1 0.562 Mytilusspp 3 1

2 0.090 Polychaete worms 7 - -

Polychaete worms 45 1 3 0.134g 0.329 Bivalve 3 Gastropod 1

4 0.075 Mytilusspp 1 0.693 Copepod spp 1

5 _ _ _ _

6 0.032 Polychaete worms 7 - -

7 0.006g Polychaete worms 3 - -

3.5. Intertidal Benthic Organisms with Diversity Index The intertidal benthic organisms list with diversity index is given in the Table 9. Table 9: Intertidal Benthic Organisms List with Diversity Index Shannon Benthos SN Station Biomass(g) No. Rank (Groups) Weiner Index 1 Yarda beach L.W 0.004 Polychaete worms 2 - - 2 Yarda beach 0.005 Polychaete worms 3 - - 3 YardaM.W beach - - - - - 4 R.K beachH.W L.W 0.018 Polychaete worms 5 - - 5 R.K beach M.W 0.021 Polychaete worms 6 - - 6 R.K beach H.W 0.005 Copepod spp 2 1 0.637 Polychaete worms 1

3.5.1 Interpretation

Page | 17

Benthic faunal population in an environment depends on the nature of the substratum and the organic matter content of the substratum In present work faunal population consist of Polychaete worms at different stations. Diversity index ranges from 0.329 to 0.693.Presence of copepods pecies at some station might be belonging to benthic copepods. Station 5 and Yarda beach high water area found no animals as sand particles were coarse having larger particle size. 3.6. Heavy metals 3.6.1 Interpretation The gastropod sample was collect for Heavy metals analysis. As per observation copper and other metals are absent in observed gastropod sample. 3.7. Beach Ecology Transect A was taken on Yerada beach and transect B was taken at RK Beach in Vishakhapatnam; Transect A showed presence of good diversity of flora and fauna. Although Yerada beach is known as a tourist attraction, the level of human interference on the coastal area was low. Whereas the RK beach is situated very close to the cityand the coastline of RK beach was highly modified by human activities. Also, there was a huge problem of garbage accumulation on the RK beach. 3.7.1 Flora In flora, 4 trees, 2 shrubs, 10 herbs and 1 alga was observed during the study. Out of the 17 species observed, family Arecaceae was the most dominant family. 1pomeabiloba, Spinifexlittoreus and Boerhaviadiffusa are the only three species of flora found in Transect B. Ulvalactuca was the only algal species which was found during the complete study. It was found only on a patch of rock present on the transect B. A mangrove patch present near the port was surveyed. It showed presence of three species viz. Avecinia officinalis, Acanthus ilicifolius and Sessuvium portulachstrum. The species richness of flora was more in Transect A. The distribution pattern of coastal flora shows 1pomeabiloba as the most frequent, dominant and abundant plant species present in the study area followed by Spinifexlittoreus. The flora observed during the study period is shown in Figure 10.

Borassus flabelliferl pomeabiloba

Page | 18

Figure 10: Flora observed during the study period The list of flora observed during the survey is mentioned below in Table 10. Table 10: List of Flora

SN Botanical Name Habit Family

1 Acanthus ilicifolius Herb Acanthaceae 2 Aveciniaofficinalis Shrub Acanthaceae 3 Boerhaviadiffusa Herb Nyctaginaceae 4 Borassusflabellifer Tree Arecaceae 5 Cocosnucifera Tree Arecaceae 6 Cyperussp Herb Cyperaceae 7 Fimbristylissp Herb Cyperaceae 8 Indigoferasp Herb Fabaceae 9 Ipomoea biloba Shrub Convolvulaceae 10 Launaeasarmentosa Herb Asteraceae 11 Opuntiasp Herb Cactaceae 12 Phoenix sylvestris Tree Arecaceae 13 Prosopisjuliflora Tree Fabaceae 14 Sessuviumportulachstrum Herb Aizoaceae 15 Spinifexlittoreus Herb Poaceae 16 Typhaangustata Herb Typhaceae 17 Ulvalactuca Algae Ulvaceae

The species richness of flora is shown graphically in the Figure 11.

Figure 11: Species Richness of flora The graphical representation of distribution pattern of coastal flora is shown in the Figure 12.

Page | 19

Figure 12: Distribution Pattern of Coastal Flora

3.7.2 Fauna In fauna, 13 molluscs, 3 crustaceans, 2 butterflies and 3 bird species were observed during the study. The Transect A was more diverse area found during the study. Class bivalvia of was dominant. Species like Paphia textile and Sunettaeffosa were the species which were most common in the study area. In crab species, Fiddler crabs and Mottled Sally Lightfoot were the crabs which were seen only in transect A. The birds sighted during the study were also the most commonly sighted ones and are least concern according to IUCN. The species richness of fauna is more on Transect A.No butterfly species was seen during the survey on transect B. Considering the distribution pattern of the fauna, molluscs were the most frequently, densely and abundantly distributed group followed by crustaceans, birds and butterflies. The fauna observed during the study period is shown in Figure 13.

Ghost crab Black kite Figure 13: Fauna observed during the study period

Page | 20

The different types of fauna were observed during the survey. Table 11: List of Molluscs Molluscs SN Scientific Name Class Family 1 spirata Babyloniidae 2 Olivafaba Gastropoda Olividae 3 Paphia textile Bivalvia Veneridae 4 Sunnetaeffosa Bivalvia Veneridae 5 Neritaoryzarum Gastropoda Neritidae 6 Anadara gubernaculum Bivalvia Arcidae 7 Mesocibotabistrigata Bivalvia Arcidae 8 Carditacalyculata Bivalvia Carditidae 9 Donaxscortum Bivalvia Donacidae 10 Sepia aculeate Cephalopoda Sepiidae 11 Gastranapolygona Bivalvia Tellinidae 12 Meritrixmeritrix Bivalvia Veneridae 13 Placuna placenta Bivalvia Placunidae

The Arthropoda's from crustaceans group observed during the survey are given below in the Table 12. Table 12: List of Arthropoda- Crustaceans Arthropoda- Crustaceans SN Common Name Scientific Name Family 1 Fiddler crab Uca spp. Ocypodidae 2 Mottled Sally Lightfoot Grapsusgrapsus Grapsidae 3 Ghost Crab Ocypode spp. Ocypodidae

The list of butterflies observed during the survey is given below in the Table 13. Table 13: List of Insecta (Butterflies) Arthropoda - Insecta (Butterflies) SN Common Name Scientific Name Family 1 Common Lime Butterfly Papiliodemoleus Papilionidae 2 Common Bottleblue Graphiumsarpedon Papilionidae Table 14: List of Birds Birds SN Common Name Scientific Name Family 1 Black Kite Elanuscaeruleus Accipitridae 2 Common myna Acridotherestristis Sturnidae 3 House crow Corvussplendens Corvidae

Page | 21

The species richness of fauna is shown graphically in the Figure 14.

Figure 14: Species Richness of Fauna

Figure 15: Distribution Pattern of Coastal Fauna

The overall coastal diversity of flora and fauna is fair and any development activity inside the port premises would not have much effect on the coastal diversity.

3.8. Fisheries Visakhapatnam is one of the important fish landing centres of Andhra Pradesh. Secondary fish data was procured from State Fishery Department, Fishery Survey of India & Department of Animal Husbandry Dairying &Fisheries. For supporting above data, local fish market and landing centre data were studied. The fishery departments at Visakhapatnam are shown in the Figure 16.

Page | 22

Figure 16: Fishery Department at Visakhapatnam The fish production data for the period 2006-07 to 2013-14 for nine major coastal States of India was procured from secondary source i.e. Department of Animal Husbandry Dairying &Fisheries. As per data, Andhra Pradesh has the highest fish production in India. The details of state wise fish production are given in Table 15. Table 15: State wise maximum contribution to production of fish in India (In Tonnes)

Coastal States 2006- 2007- 2008- 2009- 2010- 2011- 2012- 2013- of India 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Gujarat 747.33 721.91 765.9 771.52 774.902 • 783.72 788.49 793.42 Maharashtra 595.94 556.45 523.1 538.35 595.249 578.79 586.37 602.68 Goa 102.39 33.43 86.21 84.33 93.27 89.96 77.88 114.06 Karnataka 292.46 297.69 361.85 408.05 526.579 546.44 525.57 555.31 Kerla 677.63 667.33 685.99 663.12 681.613 693.21 679.74 708.65 Tamil Nadu 542.28 559.36 534.17 534.17 614.809 611.49 620.4 624.3 Andhra Pradesh 856.93 1010.08 1252.78 1293.85 1368.20 1603.17 1808.08 2018.42 Odisa 342.04 349.48 374.82 370.54 386.185 381.83 410.14 413.79 West Bengal 1359.1 1447.26 1484 1505 1443.25 1472.05 1490.02 1580.65 (Source: Department of Animal Husbandry Dairying & Fisheries) Visakhapatnam coastal marine fish and shrimp production data was procured from State Fishery Department. According to last five-year available data (Table 16), there was a continuous increase in the production of marine fish and shrimp. As per data analysis, Indian Mackerel (Rastrelliger kanagurta) and Tuna (Tunnies) are the most dominant fishes at Visakhapatnam coast. Subsequently, very less quantity Bombay duck (Harpodanneres) and Hilsa (Tenualosailisha) catch was observed.

Page | 23

Table 16: Total annual catch of marine fish & shrimp during 2010 to 2015 Visakhapatnam

SN Name of the fishes 2010- 2011- 2012- 2013- 2014-2015 2011 2012 2013 2014 1 Shark 607 460.225 342.316 119.2 80.84 2 Skates 114 253 207.323 196.872 120.21 3 Rays 545 256.442 218.68 141.653 132.74 4 Oil Sardine 1008 3491 3484 3854 5290.82 5 Other Sardine 741 1344 1870 2248 2540 6 Hilsa Shad 19 34 184 99 102 7 Other Shads 437 303 498.8 312 350 8 Thrisocies 439 587 429 1139 1241 9 Anchovies 2289 2216 3159 4663 4521 10 Other Clupeids 516 876 1174 2988 3100 11 Harpodanneres 127 28 0 0 0 12 Chriocentrus 495 520 397 290 320 13 Polynemids 839 1149 777 339 410 14 Chorinemus 367 562 441 257 260 15 Trichuridae 2004 1637 3644 7830 6845 16 Carangids 3545 4241.41 1897 2964 2857 17 Indian mackeral 7873 11669.38 15774 14090 12345 18 Other mackerals 2502 5036.82 3462 4057 5621 19 S.commerson 1599 914 592 503 680 20 S.guttatus 749 676 439 311.8 350 21 S.Ieneoitus 408 419 141 117 120 22 Tunnies 6496 6142.251 4090.865 10037.638 10998.54 23 Mugil 951 497 148 83.72 110.24 24 Eels 700 214.626 194.985 123.986 154.21 25 Cat fish 692 547 659 481 598 26 Threadfin breams 638 934 1447 838 911 27 Pigface breams 416 435 332 • 293 302 28 Other perches 1151 1156 1294 1605 1826 29 Scianids 562 362 153 320 540.14 30 Leoignathus 742 491 2329 1147 1325.54 31 Black Pomfrets 985 409 3618.364 1921.76 1628.55 32 Silver Pomfrets 729 524.516 285.31 363.207 251.47 33 Sole (flat fish) 662 219 303 358 421 34 P.monodon 1148 497.93 453.674 612.776 750.36 35 P.indicus 967 677.904 538.616 419.564 520.41 36 Meta peneaus 3707 1817.85 1125.315 4230.376 4829.23 37 Non peneaid prawn 1037 4188.081 7214.14 6120.457 5650.25 38 Mannecrustaceans 3341 1266.13 2299 2231.427 2310.84 39 Other crustaceans 14 34 49 56 46 40 Lobsters 410 220.748 17.911 5.056 11.95

Page | 24

41 Molluscans 471 380 41.81 96.4 100.82 42 Squids & cuttlefish 2468 688.07 2019.569 931.603 805.75 43 Mischallaneous Fish 12202 16983.231 13496.576 11110.9 15986.19 Total 67712 75358.614 81241.254 89906.395 97365.1

Figure 17: Graphical representation of total annual catch of marine fish & shrimp — Visakhapatnam

3.8.1 Visakhapatnam Fishing Harbour Visakhapatnam is well known as a hub of fishing activity. Local fishermen earn their livelihood wholly or partially from marine fishing. During fish market survey at Visakhapatnam fishing harbour a variety of fish were observed include Yellow fin tuna, Prawns, Mackerel, King fish, Sardine, Ribbon fish, Sole fish, etc. As per local fishermen the Yellow fin tuna (Thunnus albacares) are the dominant species, it contributing 20% -30% to the total catch of the region. The local and wholesale fish market at Visakhapatnam Fishing Harbour is shown in the Figure 18.

Figure 18: Local and wholesale fish market at Visakhapatnam Fishing Harbour

Page | 25

During local fish market survey some variety of dry fishes are observed. The local women are engaged fulltime in procuring, drying, packing and marketing of dried fish at Visakhapatnam, These activities provide employment and economic security to local fisherman. Small shrimp such as acetes, ribbonfish, seerfish, mackerel, sardines, flatfishes, and sciaenids are mainly used in the dried form.The dry fish market at Visakhapatnam Fishing Harbour is shown in the Figure 19.

Figure 19: Dry fish market at Visakhapatnam Fishing Harbour

3.9. Marine Turtle Visakhapatnam has emerged as a growing tourism hot spot in last few years. Major reasons behind the loss of coastal and aquatic environment are increase in pollution, infrastructure development and tourism. Therefore, it is difficult for sea turtles to nest here and so this beach is rarely considered as a nesting ground.

3.9.1 Reasons for the Loss of Nesting Beaches ➢ Water pollution ➢ Beach erosion ➢ Discharge of untreated sewage water ➢ Coastal sand mining ➢ Exotic plantations 3.9.2 Threats for the Nesting ➢ Uncontrolled fishing during nesting seasons ➢ Non-use of turtle excluder device ➢ Increased marine traffic ➢ Offshore developmental activity ➢ Threats from domestic dogs, wild boars & human being ➢ Incidental catch in mechanized fisheries

3.9.3 Activities Supporting Conservation ➢ Prepare detailed sea turtle conservation action plan in collaboration with all enforcement departments, industries and communities ➢ Prohibition of discharge of crude oil, pesticides, heavy waters, heavy metals and other poisonous effluents to coastal areas and near turtle nesting beaches

Page | 26

➢ Prohibition of discarding of fishing lines, nets, plastic bags other trash into the water or on the beach which results in incidental mortality of sea turtles ➢ Organized cleaning up of the beach and near shore waters by local forest and fisheries departments and other governmental agencies. This should be taken up prior to the breeding season of sea turtles as well as to educate people about marine turtles ➢ Tourism infrastructure development should only be permitted beyond 200 meters from the high tide line or on the landward slope of the sand dune rather than the seaward slope ➢ Environmental and ecological impact assessment studies must be conducted before taking up any afforestation programmes along the coast ➢ Plantation of exotic vegetation should be avoided on beaches that are known to be sea turtle nesting grounds

3.9.4 Role of Stakeholders in Sea Turtle Conservations ➢ Industries and communities can support sea turtle conservation activities ➢ Not to disturb or harass sea turtle while coming for nesting ➢ Local fisherman should avoid shoreline netting and fishing during breeding season from January to March

Page | 27

EMP for Ecological and Biodiversity Protection

This report was prepared for the Visakhapatnam Port Trust (VPT) for its project activities described above and was prepared by the ENVID Group of the Andhra University Department of Environmental Sciences. The present study is aimed at understanding the impacts of the above proposed activities of the Visakhapatnam Port Trust (VPT) on the surrounding Ecosystems and biological diversity of the region. The study area is located on the western shore of the Bay of Bengal. About 36% of the study area is covered by the sea. About 31% is covered by Visakhapatnam city and the Port. The landward part of study area is partly urban and partly rural. The rural areas comprises of forests (only on the hills), tidal creeks & marshy areas, agricultural land, waste / barren lands and rural settlements. The nearest National Park, Kambalakonda National Park is about 8 km away. The intervening area is covered by Visakhapatnam city. Ecologically, the Core and Buffer areas of the project together comprises of X distinct ecosystems, which include, Meghadri riverine system the upper reaches of which is of fresh water regime; and the downstream creek is of estuarine/brackish water regime. Vast extents of marshy swamps are associated with the meghadri riverine system and harbour several marshy habitats niche was mostly reclaimed for industrial and developmental land uses. The Meghadri river mouth I the present project area, is a confluence of point of three major drains that opens in to the sea id are highly influenced by the tidal effects. The mouth, together with the region of branching of le three major arms are popularly known as Entrance Channel, and the North-eastern Arm of this 'trance channel is used as Inner Harbour for the VPT. Therefore, the project region comprises of riverine ecosystem; estuarine ecosystem; marshy swamp wetlands and marine ecosystem, while forest ecosystem and some engineered ecosystems like industrial and urban systems. The Baseline data on the biotic components (Flora and Fauna) of these ecosystems are presented in the reports (Annexures I and II) based on which, the impacts of the proposed project activities on the ecosystems and their components are identified and mitigation measures are suggested, for incorporation in the Environmental Management Plan. The ecosystems or major habitats associated with the project area are shown in Fig. 1.

The project area (inner Harbour) along with the other two arms of the VEC together forms a major estuatrine zone and for the purpose of this study is considered as Esuarine Ecosystem or Ecological Management Zone-I (EMZ- l). The swampy lands between and the surrounding areas of the three arms of the VEC and the drainage network within this region is a zone with salinity varying from oligohaline to polyhaline, and this zone is considered as Mangrove Zone or Ecological Management Zone — II (EMZ-I/). The upstream of the Meghadri Rver course up to the Meghadri reservoir, and the river course associated flood plains are considered as the Riparian Zone or Ecological Management Zone — III (EMZ-III). The coastal beach area, far north of the Fishing harbor, from the RK Beach to Rishikonda beach, the sandy zone is the Sporadic Nesting area for the sea turtles (Mostly, for Olive Ridleys; occasionally for Hawksbill and rarely for Green turtles). This zone is considered as the Ecological Management Zone - IV (EMZ-iv). Of these four EMZs, the only zone on which the project proponent (VPT) has direct control for its management and the core project area is located is EMZ-I. EMZ- II and III, are managed by different departments, including industrial establishments. EMZ-IV is totally under the control of GVMC (Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation) and VUDA (Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority). Therefore, ecological management in the zone II to IV are proposed to be implemented under the Joint Management of the respective agencies or departments or industries. The biotic and a biotic component of these zones are presented in the Environmental and Ecological Sections of the report and based on the composition of the respective ecological communities, the state of the zones were determined, and the management plans were drawn. EMZ — 1: As state earlier, the core project area is one of the major part of this zone. This zone is mostly dominated by the aquatic system, mostly marine waters, and being a busy navigational region, higher vertebrate species are rare. The low primary productivity, and the composition of the Planktonic communities, indicate that the waters of the zone had greater accumulation of the pollutants (Please see water quality report). This is mostly due to lower circulation of the tidal waters and decimating freshwater flows from the landward region in to the tidal creek, VEC. Project operational time activities proposed are the same activities that have been in practice for the past several decades. The only change will be in reconstruction of the worn-out berths and to increase the depth of the channel so as to make it suitable for larger vessels. Thus, demolition of the worn-out berths generate large volumes of demolition waste, while deepening the navigating channel generates large amounts of dredge wastes. The disposal strategies adopted, are examined and found that these wastes do not cause any ecological problem, either in the inner harbour channel or to any other ecosystem associated with the project area. On the other hand deepening of the channel by 14 m, brings in 30% more waters in to the channel, and also shall have a cleansing effect of the benthic region. As the aquatic communities reported in the region are highly resilient populations, there shall not be any adverse affect on any species. If greater amounts of freshwater flows are managed, the project area's waters may result in fast restoration of the ecology.

I. Mitigation Measures: A. After deepening the channel, based on the physic-chemical characteristics, including oil, of the new sediments, the quality of the sediments owl may! will be monitored so as to ensure the VPT activities in the project area are least polluting; B. In order to ensure the freshwater flows from the Meghadri river and the drains connected to the VEC arms, desiltatlon works shall be taken up during premonsoon season. EMZ — II: This region is a typical muddy swamp region which has high silty soils with high salinity, interspersed with several al order drains finally connecting to the VEC arms. Although much of this land was converted several decades ago, an extent up to 30 ha is available for developing mangroves in this region. As this region is an intermediate zone between the Visakhapatnam Bowl area drainage network and the VEC mouth, mangroves in this zone help in filtering and remediating the pollution to a large extent. Thus, the water quality in the estuarine channels will improve.

II, Mitigation Measures: A. Developing mangrove vegetation in an extent up to 15acres/6ha of land. The species may include Avicennia marina; A. Alba; Rhizophora spp.; Exocarea agollacha; along with other mangrove associate species. B. A monitoring system will be established to assess the biomass and carbon stocks of this region, along with the quality of the waters, soils and sediments of this zone.

EMZ-III: This zone is a riparian zone of Meghadri river, a small river with a catchment of 368 km2, over which medium size reservoir with a capacity of 33 Mrn3 is existing, and the over flow from the reservoir, after a 13 km course joins the VEC. Most of the flood plain areas of this riparian zone were converted to different land uses by different agencies. The freshwater flow from this river is vital to the estuarine ecology of the VEC and the mangrove zone. Therefore, as stated in the mitigation measures for EMZ-1, desiltation and stabilization of the Meghadri river course from the reservoir out let to the boundary of the mangrove zone need to be addressed. Mitigation Measures: A. High level Environment monitoring committee with the participation of the government line departments and other user agencies will be set up to periodically examine the siltation in the river beds and ensure free flow of water; B. VPT shall provide funds for the desiltation of the Meghadri river system once in every two years during premonsoon time or as and when necessary as recommended try the monitoring committee. C. VPT shall strengthen the banks of the river course and other drains with better using native varieties of riparian species of trees and soil stabilizers. EMZ — IV: This zone is not directly connected to the project area and is a highly urbanized area with high recreational and tourism activities of the city. However, since this zone is of ecological importance due to its use for nesting by Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 specified Schedule —I species of sea turtles. None of the project activities disturb the nesting habitats, however, in view of the VPT Environmental Policy, the VPT shall follow the following mitigation measures: A. VPT shall collaborate with AP State Wildlife Division and support the relocation and protection of the sporadic nests of the sea turtles in the EMZ=IV region; B. The VPT shall, in collaboration with Coast Guard and the AP Wildlife Department, monitor all major vessels and fishing trawlers use Turtles Exclusion Devise (TEDs) in their deep-sea fishing nets, so as to ensure that the mortality of adult and matured turtles are reduced effectively in the VPT Off=shore region. The overall Ecological Management of the four zones will be carried out by a separate Environmental Cell of VPT duly engaging the experts and monitoring activities will be carried out by third party agencies (Accredited Consultants and Contracting Firms), while reviewed by the VPT Environmental Monitoring Committee. The Budget proposed for the Ecological Management is proposed in Table 1.

Table 1. Budget (Rs. In Lakhs) proposed for the Ecological Management of the Project: Capital Annual Item. EMZ Mitigation Measure Costs Requiring No. (Tentative) (Rs.) 1 I and II Waters, Sediments and Soil Monitoring 1, 00, 000 2 II Mangrove Plantations in 15 Acre/6ha. 25, 00, 000 2, 50, 000 3 III Desiltation of the Meghadri river bed and drain 5, 00, 000 4 III Belt Plantations along the Meghadri river banks 10, 00, 000 1, 00, 000 Funds for Sea turtle rookery and awareness programmes on TEDs, monitoring in 5 IV 5, 00, 000 collaboration with the Coast Guard and AP WL Department/ 6 Annual Ecological Monitoring 3, 00, 000 Total 40, 00, 000 12, 50, 000 Note: the above budget is tentative which may be considered under above as per actual costs.