18 Jul 2018 185757983R8NS762WFeasibilityReport

DEVELOPMENT OF FISHING HARBOUR AT
VELLAPALLAM, NAGAPATTINAM DISTRICT,

TAMIL NADU
For
DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES
TAMIL NADU
INDOMER COASTAL HYDRAULICS (P) LTD.

(ISO 9001: 2015 CERTIFIED, NABET- QCI, CDC - MoST & NABL ACCREDITED)
63, GANDHI ROAD, ALWAR THIRUNAGAR, CHENNAI 600 087.
Tel: + 91 44 2486 2482 to 84; M: + 91 99401 41650; Fax: + 91 44 2486 2484
Web site: www.indomer.com, E-mail:[email protected]
Department of Fisheries Development of Fishing Harbour
Government of Tamil Nadu at Vellapallam INDOMER
CONTENTS Page
Contents I
List of Tables II
List of Figures III
1 INTRODUCTION 1
2 FISHERIES IN TAMIL NADU 2
2.1 Marine fisheries 2
2.2 Species wise fish production 4
3 DEVELOPMENT OF FISHING HARBOUR AT VELLAPALLAM 6
4 SELECTION OF LOCATION FOR DEVELOPMENT OF FISHING HARBOUR 7
5 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL SCREENING 11
5.1 Environmental screening 11
5.1.1 Natural calamities 11
5.1.2 Coastal waters 17
5.1.3 Clay deposition 17
5.1.4 Tsunami impact 20
5.1.5 Littoral drift 20
5.2 Socio economic screening 20
6 PLANNING OF LAYOUT AND FACILITIES 25
6.1 Vellapallam-fishing village 25
6.2 Stake holders meeting 25
6.3 Design of marine facilities 25
6.4 Basin/Channel Design/ Maintenance 31
6.5 Breakwaters 32
6.6 Layout-Ground Realities 33
6.7 Development of onshore facilities - Area Requirements 33
6.8 Summary of facilities provided in the layout 34
7 STAKE HOLDERS MEETING (SHM) 37
8 TENTATIVE COST ESTIMATION 47
8.1 Background 47
8.2 Summary of cost estimates 47
Feasibility Report Page i

LIST OF TABLES
Table
2.1 Marine Fisheries Statistics (2012-13)
2.2 Estimation of species wise fish production along Tamil Nadu coast- Demersal
(Quantity in tonnes)
2.3 Estimation of species wise fish production along Tamil Nadu coast - Pelagic
5.1 Past history of natural calamities
5.2 Details of cyclones that crossed Tamil Nadu coast during the period 1950 - 2000
5.3 Cyclonic storm that crossed the coast between Chennai and Nagapattinam (1946-2011)
5.4 Details of Cyclonic Storms / Depressions affected Coromandel Coast of Tamil Nadu
5.5 Year wise average rain fall received in Nagapattinam District
5.6 Sediment size distribution
5.7 Housing facilities
5.8 Fishing crafts
5.9 Fishing gears
5.10 Fishing Days & Mode of Fish Marketing
5.11 Basic Amenities of the Marine Fishing Villages
5.12 Details of Fisher folk Population
5.13 Details of Marine Fisherfolk by Age Group
5.14 Educational Status
5.15 Employment Status of Fisherfolk
5.16 Income Status of Fisherfolk Families
6.1 Fleet details/ fishing cycle
6.2 Summary of wharf length
7.1 Stake holders demand Vs Acceptance status
8.1 Revised block cost estimates
Feasibility Report Page ii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
4.1 Location map
4.2 Satellite imagery of the project region
5.1 India Climatic disasters risk map
5.2 India - Seismic zone map
5.3 Seabed sediment sampling locations
5.4 Thickness of deposition of silty clay
6.1 Layout of the fishing harbor
Feasibility Report Page iii

1. INTRODUCTION
Tamil Nadu has a long coastline of 1076 km and it has more than 608 traditional coastal
fishing villages right from the historical period. The fisheries statistics for the year 2011-12
shows large fish landing exceeding 0.42 million tons. Based on the report prepared by Tamil
Nadu Marine Fisheries Census for the Year 2010, Department of Fisheries, Government of
Tamil Nadu, about thirty seven thousand fishing vessels, boats and small crafts are engaged
in fishing along the Tamil Nadu coast between Neerodai at south and Pulicat Lake at north.
Nagapattinam district alone contributes around 16.57% of the total production of the state
occupying the second place among the thirteen coastal districts of Tamil Nadu.
Tamil Nadu government is keen to expand the fishing harbours and fish landing centres to
give a new dimension to the livelihood of the fishing community. The new fishing harbours
are mooted with ancillary facilities like fish processing unit, auction hall, net mending centres,
cold storage etc. Following this plan, Government of Tamil Nadu has already completed
construction of few fishing harbours and fish landing centres.
As the continuation of development, the Department of Fisheries, Government of

Tamil Nadu has taken up a project to setup a Fishing Harbour at Vellapallam.
Feasibility Report Page 1

2. FISHERIES IN TAMILNADU
Tamil Nadu covers a land area of about 130,058 sq.km and it occupies the 11 th largest state
in India and 7th largest in population. The State has around 190,000 sq.km area of Exclusive
Economic Zone (EEZ) and 41,412 sq.km area of continental shelf.
Fisheries have emerged as an important food production sector of the State contributing to
the livelihood as well as to the food security of a large section of the people. Tamil Nadu is
one of the foremost states in India showing steady increase in fish production and optimum
utilization of resources and is pioneering many innovative developmental and welfare
schemes.
The Government is committed to protect the traditional fishing rights of Tamil Nadu
fishermen, which among others include facilitating deep sea fishing, providing infrastructure
facilities such as construction of fishing harbours and fish landing centres, implementing
innovative schemes such as conversion/purchase of new mechanized fishing vessels for Tuna
fishing, establishing Fish Processing Parks in the coastal districts etc.
The vast fishery resources in marine sector offer tremendous scope for fisheries development
in the State.
2.1. Marine fisheries
The details of the Marine Fisheries sector are given in Table 2.1, the estimation of species
wise fish production along Tamil Nadu coast - Demersal varieties are given in Table 2.2 and
estimation of species wise fish production along Tamil Nadu coast - Pelagic varieties are
given in Table 2.3.

Table 2.1. Marine Fisheries Statistics (2012-13)
Coastal length 1076 km
Number of Coastal districts 13
Number of Fishing Villages 608

Marine Fisherfolk Population 8.11 lakh *
Fishing Crafts Registered (online)
1. Mechanized Fishing boats 5600

2. Traditional Crafts (motorized
27426
andnon motorized)
Infrastructure Facilities
3 (Chennai, Thoothukudi and
Major Fishing Harbours
Chinnamuttom)
Major Fishing Harbours under 6 (Thengapattinam, Colachel, Muttom,
construction Nagapattinam, Pazhayar and Poompuhar)
Medium Fishing Harbours 5
Jetties 8
Beach landing centres 363

Marine fishing production (2012-13) 4.28 lakh ton
Export (2012-13) 77,791 MT ** (Value Rs. 2995 crore)
*Source: Tamil Nadu Marine Fisher folk Census 2010,
** MPEDA (Tentative figure)

2.2. Species wise fish production
Table 2.2. Estimation of species wise fish production along Tamil Nadu coast- Demersal
Sl. Years
Name of the Fish
No. 2001-2002 2006-2007 2011-2012
1 Sharks 3604 6780.91 9089.46
2 Skates & Rays 17640 15109.35 8920.06
3 Eels 531 5895.6 24.93
4 Cat fishes 2551 8462.62 4438.05
5 Saurida&Saurus 1079 393.57 1194.86
6 Perches 19062 19428.14 27655.8
7 Red Mullets 9135 10229.74 15172.11
8 Polynemids 2162 1048.12 2005.66
9 Sciaenids 10207 10331.44 13570.19
10 Leiognathus- 37512 25712.04 34053.49
11 Silverbellies
Gazza 0 0 341.39
12 Lactarius 901 580.24 200.9
13 Pomfrets 2026 2397.94 2219.02
14 Bregmaceros 38 1592.11 2219.02
15 Soles 2209 217.65 7638.6
16 Penaeid Shrimps 21079 44454.28 32090.51
17 Non-Penaeid Shrimps 4671 1341.36 8577.38
18 Lobsters 1524 256.05 682.78
19 Crabs 15101 26164.37 28889.99
20 Turtle 0 0 0
21 Cephalopods 9169 10844.66 6571.73
22 Miscellaneous 91631 47878.77 27724.06
Total 251832 239119 233279

Table 2.3. Estimation of species wise fish production along Tamil Nadu coast - Pelagic
Sl. Years
Name of the Fish
No. 2001-2002 2006-2007 2011-2012
1 Chirocentrus 6955 18212.16 16241.91
2 Oil sardines 0 1539.62 34138.84
3 Lesser sardines 44788 43294.69 15677.9
4 Hilsailisha 1560 63.37 12.47
5 other Hilsa 0 120.7 0
6 Anchoviella 3147 10590.05 17513.89
7 Thrissocles 2312 8119.88 4864.78
8 Other Clupeids 3575 7961.58 19928.55
9 Harpodonnehereus 36 0 0
10 Hemirhamphus & 4212 1630.39 2603.9
11 Belone
Flying fish 1858 1566.27 4182.01
12 Ribbon fish 974 343.22 3607.59
13 Caranx 0 0 14555.02
14 Chorinemus 1452 1071.52 1877.64
15 Trachynotus 0 182.49 1024.17
16 Other carangids 2943 108.63 0
17 Elacate 2720 118.23 1559.25
18 Mackeral 14799 20674.3 12418
19 Seer 8749 7631.26 11610.55
20 Tunnies 4599 2437.63 7215.17
21 Sphyraena 2562 4034.9 3394.21
22 Mugil-mullets 878 0 2731.11
23 Lethrinus 0 6619.61 6955.79
24 Sillago 0 845.72 4992.8
25 Balistis 0 5745.23 5590.23
26 Ora 0 189.52 256.04
27 Spotted Ray 0 0 0
28 Drepane 0 0 804.49
29 Ceryphaena 0 0 0
Total 108119 143100 193756

3. DEVELOPMENT OF FISHING HARBOUR AT VELLAPALLAM
Vellapallam and the surrounding villages have at least 2000 active fishermen, and 500
women fish vendors and utilize about thirty mechanized trawlers anchored off the coast, 600
motorized boats and a hundred Catamarans.
The daily value of fish traded in the village varies between three to four lakhs and five to
seven lakhs with the peak season falling between June and July (PRAXIS, 2005). About 50
percent of the fish catch is sold to private companies who process and sell the fishes to
outside traders while the remaining 50% is controlled by the women fish vendors of the
village who sell locally or in regionally important markets such as Thiruthuraipoondi,
Thalainayar, Thirupoondi and Vadamazhi.
The Tsunami of December 2004 resulted in heavy disastrous effects in terms of human loss,
damages to property including the fishing gears, boats etc. and the coastal fishing villages in
the entire Nagapattinam district had to bear the brunt of the Tsunami attack. Vellapallam is
one among the fishing villages that was worst affected.
The proposed project initiated by the Government of Tamil Nadu is intended to provide safe
haven for the fishing vessels to carry on the activities in a protected basin and thus fulfilling
the long term aspirations of the people of Vellapallam and its neighbouring five coastal
villages.

4. SELECTION OF LOCATION FOR DEVELOPMENT OF FISHING HARBOUR
Vellapallam is a small fishing village located approximately 27 km south of Nagapattinam

town located between the Pilgrimage centre Velankanni and the east coast tip Vedaranyam.
The location map is shown in Fig. 4.1. The satellite imagery of the project region is shown in
Fig. 4.2.
Transportation: Vellapallam can be directly reached by ECR road, by rail to the nearby town
Vedaranyam and by air to nearest cities Madurai and Trichy.
 Vellapallam is located at 25 km east of Thiruthuraipoondi and local buses are available

from Thiruthuraipoondi. There are buses to Thiruthuraipoondi from the important
towns and cities of Tamil Nadu such as Chennai, Trichy, Coimbatore, Madurai etc.
 The railway station located near Vellapallam is the Vedaranyam railway station (17 km)
and Thiruthuraipoondi Railway Station (25 km).
 The airports located near Vellapallam are Trichy Airport (130 km), Chennai Airport (300
km) and Madurai Airport (200 km).
Vellapallam village was one of the coastal villages, which suffered extensive damages when
Tsunami waves hit the coast of Tamil Nadu during December 2004. The main objective of the
development of a fishing harbour at Vellapallam is to develop a protected fishing harbour
basin in order to facilitate fishing operation at all stages of weather conditions including
cyclonic weather and Tsunami. After detailed evaluation of various terrestrial and marine
environmental parameters, availability of backup land, road connectivity etc., the present site
has been selected. The suitability of the site was finalized after discussion with the Stake
holders from the neighbouring villages at a meeting held on 17.06.15.

Morphology: The coast is oriented in N 5°W direction. This coastal region is generally
composed of alluvial sediments brought by the storm drain. This region depicts a distinct
depositional form of the coast, located near the southern most end of the east coast, where
the influence of Bay of Bengal ends. The tip of the southern end called Point
Calimere/Vedaranyam/KodiMunai lies 15 km south of the proposed location of fishing
harbour. A large wet land and brackish water lagoon is present at Point Calimere. The
offshore of the Vellapallam region remains shallow and there is a formation of a shallow spit
between Point Calimere (India) and Point Pedaro (Srilanka) called Palk strait. The available
literature shows that this offshore region functions as a littoral sink for the littoral drift
moving along the east coast of India during Southwest monsoon and the littoral drift moving
around the Srilankan Island towards the Indian Coast.
During the southwest monsoon the coast is considerably protected from waves by the Jaffna
peninsula of the Srilanka Island. The wind effect is more on the coast because of the
funneling effect caused by the two land masses viz. India and Srilanka. Such strong winds
often generate local waves and hence the sea remains at times choppy during southwest
monsoon with short crested waves. However, this region receives unobstructed high waves
during the northeast monsoon. The wave climate is relatively calm compared to the northern
part of the east coast. The waves approach nearly parallel to the coast and hence the net
volume of littoral drift is very low along this stretch leading to classification of this coast as a
nodal drift region with negligible annual net drift.
Oceanography: The oceanography of this region is influenced by 3 climatic conditions, viz.,

southwest monsoon from June to September, northeast monsoon from mid October to
February and fair weather period from March to May. However this segment of the coast is
more influenced by northeast monsoon.
Prominent features within 10 km radius: Some of the prominent features both on the
coast and land within 10 km radius of the proposed site of development are given below.
 Nallar river (the mouth remains closed most of the time-open during NE monsoon
period)
 Thalainayar reservoir

 Thalainayar reserved forest

 Kodiyakarai sanctuary
The planning process will take into account the proximity of these locations to ensure that
the proposed development is in accordance with the stipulations and guidelines available for
such development projects.

GALLERY
South view of the project region North view of the project
Nallar river mouth Nallar river - inside
Discussion with village people Entrance to seashore

5. ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL SCREENING
5.1. Environmental screening
5.1.1. Natural calamities
The past history shows that Nagapattinam district is exposed to natural calamities
particularly due to storms, cyclones, storm surge and tsunami. The damage is caused mainly
due to cyclones than any other natural calamities. The past history of the natural calamities
over the last sixty years is shown in Tables 5.1 to 5.4. The general climatic disasters risk map
is shown in Fig. 5.1 and the seismic zone map of India is shown in Fig. 5.2.
Table 5.1. Past history of natural calamities
Sl. Date of
Calamity Damages caused
No. occurrence
Storm wage in land Damages caused to country crafts, FRP Vessels and
1 30.11.1952
upto 5 miles shore side structures.
2 08.12.1967 Cyclone 7 lives and 15000 rendered homeless.
560 lives and 196 missing and damages to Port,
3 12.11.1977 Cyclone Irrigation systems, Road, Power supply and
communication including large No. of houses.
Floods due to heavy Crops damaged in large scale and affected normal
4 01.12.1984
rain. life due to heavy floods.
5 15.11.1991 Heavy rainfall Crops damaged.
Cyclone speed 1100 people lost their live hood Heavy damage to
6 04.12.1993
188 kmph crop.
6065 life loss. 12821 cattle loss. 791 missing, 1922
7 26.12.2004 Tsunami waves injured. Houses loss and damages to shops and
building, business people.
Nisha Cyclone speed 20 Life Loss, 1174 cattle, 3 injured and 4,58,949
8 27.11.2008
80 kmph houses were damaged.
10 Life loss, 1492 Cattle loss, 56025 Huts, Pucca and
11/2010
Katcha houses were damaged. Paddy 76419 Hects,
9 and Heavy rain fall
461 Hects Horticulture and 28 Hects Ground nut
12/2010
crops were also damaged.
Hut damages partly 1468, Fully 24. Cattle loss 49.
10 31.12.2011 Thane Cyclone Crop loss 50,931.58 Hectares in all of Paddy, Sugar
cane, Banana and Ground nut.

Table 5.2. Details of cyclones that crossed Tamil Nadu coast during the period 1950 - 2000
District Intensity Jan Mar Apr May Oct Nov Dec Total
Kancheepuram Cyclone 1 0 0 0 3 6 1 11
Thiruvallur Severe
(Chengalpat) 0 1 0 1 1 4 0 7
Cyclone
Cuddalore Cyclone 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 4
Villupuram Severe
(South Arcot) 0 0 0 1 1 2 3 7
Cyclone
Cyclone 0 0 0 1 1 3 0 5
Nagapattinam
Tiruvarur Severe
1 0 0 0 0 4 5 10
Cyclone
Cyclone 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2
Ramanathapuram Severe
0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2
Cyclone
Cyclone 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tuticorin
Tirunelveli Severe
0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3
Cyclone
Cyclone 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Kanyakumari Severe
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Cyclone
Cyclone 2 0 1 2 4 11 1 21
Total (Break Up) Severe
1 1 0 2 2 14 10 30
Cyclone
Table 5.3. Cyclonic storm that crossed the coast between Chennai and Nagapattinam (1946-
2011)
Max
Sl. Max estimated
Year Month Period ECP Hpa
No. intensity wind speed -
kmph
1 1946 Nov 14-21 CS 83 -
2 1952 Nov 26-30 SCS 200 -
3 1958 Nov 18-28 CS 91 996.0
4 1960 Nov 18-20 CS 109 995.7
5 1962 May 15-22 CS 83 994.0
6 1963 Oct 19-24 SCS 139 984.2

Max
Sl. Max estimated
Year Month Period ECP Hpa
No. intensity wind speed -
kmph
7 1964 Nov 03-08 SCS 116 995.8
8 1966 Apr / May 28-04 SCS 116 996.7
9 1966 Nov 01-11 SCS 189 961.0
10 1966 Nov 25-30 SCS 114 991.5
11 1967 Dec 04-08 SCS 131 988.0
12 1969 Oct 21-23 CS 105 995.0
13 1972 Dec 01-08 SCS 131 984
14 1977 Nov 08-23 SCS 185 984.7
15 1984 Nov/Dec 27-02 SCS 78 990.3
16 1991 Nov 11-15 CS 100 990.0
17 1993 Dec 01-04 SCS 198 974.0
18 1994 Oct 29-31 SCS 65-85 (G-132) 990.0
19 1996 Nov/Dec 28-06 SCS 120 -
20 2000 Nov 26-30 SCS 189 -
21 2008 Nov 26-27 SCS 63 -
22 2011 Dec 30-31 SCS 140 -
SCS -Severe Cyclonic Storm
CS -Cyclonic Storm
Table 5.4. Details of Cyclonic Storms / Depressions affected Coromandel Coast of Tamil Nadu
Sl. Syste Date of Place of

Details of Damages
No m Crossing Crossing
Caused torrential rain in Tamil Nadu during the
period 3-6th Cuddalore recorded 38 cm rainfall on
4th and Ootacamund recorded 33 cm on 5th.
1 DD 4th Nov Cuddalore Floods and landslides due to heavy to very heavy
rain took a toll of 120 lives in Tamil Nadu of which
90 were in Nilgiris District. Considerable damage
to houses and crops were reported in Tamil Nadu.


Details of Damages
Heavy to very heavy rainfall occurred in many
places in Chingleput District in Tamil Nadu.
Chennai City recorded 25 cm rainfall on 13th SHAR
Crossed Andhra
experienced winds of hurricane strength for more
Coast close to
than 24 hours on 13th / 14th with peak wind speed
SHAR. System
14th Nov. in gusts reaching 174 kmph. Two rain bridges
2 SCS moved parallel
1984 between Sulurpet and Tada were washed away
and close to
disrupting the rain traffic between Chennai and
Tamil Nadu
Nellore. System claimed 54 lives in Tamil Nadu of
coast.
which 17 were in Chennai city. Damage to
property and crops in Madras District were put
around crores.
Widespread rain occurred over Tamil Nadu with
scattered heavy to very heavy falls. About 15,000
persons in Thanjavur District and 20,000 persons
North Tamil
in South Arcot District were affected by the
1st Dec. Nadu Coast
3 SCS cyclone. Standing crops in about 50,000 acres in
1984 North of
Mayiladuthurai and Nagapattinam taluks of
Karaikal.
Thanjavur District were submerged due to heavy
rains. Two villages were reported have been
marooned.
Gale force winds of 80-90 kmph were confined to
a strip of about 70 kms along the Coast and 15.20
Between
kms inland. Several stations in Tamil Nadu
15th Nov. Nagapattinam
4 CS reported rainfall exceeding 20 cm on 15th. Seven
1991 and Cuddalore
coastal Districts reported widespread damages to
near Karaikal
standing crops and properties due to inundation
by flood waters. About 300 people lost their lives.
Karaikal and neighbouring areas reported gale
force winds of 198 kmph in gusts. On account of
torrential rains in coastal Tamil Nadu. Extensive
damage to property and standing crops has been
reported. About 100 people lost their lives. Total
4th Dec.
5 VSCS Karaikal loss of property and damage to standing crops
1993
has been estimated to be about Rs. 700 crores.
The system affected a population of 4.5 lakhs.
Storm surge of 3-4 m occurred along the coastal
stretch of 50-60 kms with sea water inundation
inland upto about 22 kms.
Chennai City recorded winds of 80 kmph gusting
to 132 kmph at the time of landfall. Cyclone
31st Oct. caused heavy to very heavy rainfall in North Tamil
6 SCS Chennai
1994 Nadu. Due to gale force winds and heavy rains 69
persons lost their lives. Damage to crops.
Structures and roads were estimated around Rs.


Details of Damages
60 crores.
Impact of the cyclone was felt in the coastal belt of
6th Dec. North Tamil Nadu in the form of gale force winds
7 SCS Mahabalipuram
1996 exceeding 100 kmph over Chennai city and
suburbs. No loss of life has been reported.
Gales of the order of 100-110 kmph experienced
in Cuddalore / Pondicherry. Part of Nagapattinam
and Villupuram Districts. 10 persons lost their lives
8 VSCS 29th Nov. Cuddalore
in Tamil Nadu and 2 in Pondicherry. Loss to crop
and partial damage of Kutcha houses - No floods.
Rain Thozhdur 45 cms. Kilacheruvai 45 cms.
No serious damage reported in Tamil Nadu and
9 CS 26th Nov. Karaikal Karaikal but damages reported on 26th caused
widespread wind and heavy rainfall.
Temperature: The average maximum temperature is about 32.46° C and the average
minimum temperature is 24.75° C.
Rainfall: The northeast monsoon from October to December, contributes about 60% of the
total annual rainfall while the rest is met by southwest monsoon from June to September
and from March to May. The annual rainfall is 1250 mm and the monthly average rainfall in
the district is 108.87 mm. The yearwise average rainfall from 1991 to 2006 received in
Nagapattinam District is given in Table 5.5.

Table 5.5. Year wise average rain fall received in Nagapattinam District
Month Normal 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Jan 62.40 30.79 2.58 0.00 12.00 46.86 7.18 52.30 14.22 15.60 223.73 5.30 54.50 5.86 13.64 1.93 36.26
Feb 17.60 2.79 0.00 0.23 97.70 3.03 0.00 0.00 11.41 76.50 150.30 0.70 287.82 0.00 1.58 0.27 0
08
Mar 19.80 0.00 0.00 8.56 0.50 14.98 0.00 0.04 0.00 1.20 0.70 0.00 0.00 12.27 11.76 2.66 33.4
April 38.00 8.21 18.03 3.82 5.90 6.30 48.59 17.00 0.00 57.30 13.30 38.70 6.60 13.66 0.00 197.22 37.50
May 51.10 0.00 35.30 15.25 17.40 110.70 13.50 10.60 110.60 42.37 16.50 85.80 38.20 34.50 291.02 41.97 42.24
June 32.30 26.06 26.30 30.14 0.48 30.90 105.20 30.60 6.40 4.98 18.60 43.80 29.50 42.55 9.48 2.68 12.32
July 4.70 3.54 33.64 27.48 22.78 49.70 11.18 66.00 19.30 22.40 9.78 7.280 64.20 88.81 26.66 28.21 4.30
Aug 98.50 20.65 45.04 50.61 17.30 26.19 137.67 59.90 115.80 36.20 33.12 55.60 15.90 114.38 90.22 53.25 57.5
Sep 97.30 14.15 78.84 52.51 18.05 75.40 143.30 81.20 80.00 18.30 123.30 69.10 48.70 52.20 237.27 133.64 103.20
Oct 212.30 173.80 126.70 266.20 121.28 206.73 141.07 224.15 120.80 282.38 196.80 236.77 314.60 185.00 693.20 183.25 491.2
Nov 337.60 371.65 364.60 605.15 457.79 284.88 434.22 842.60 397.90 515.80 398.60 287.66 300.80 463.05 442.54 891.70 412.2
Dec 201.20 64.50 178.45 483.83 106.89 40.35 652.65 479.20 538.47 144.11 213.70 328.00 116.30 57.70 69.32 125.27 98.40
Total 1172.80 716 909 1543 878 896 1694 1863 1414 1217 1398 1251 1277 1069 1886 1662 1334
Feasibility Report October 2015 Page.16

5.1.2. Coastal waters
The water quality of this region shows that the nearshore water is well mixed without any
stratification and they do not differ substantially both in vertical and spatial directions. The
water in Vellapallam is turbid, nutrient rich and biologically productive at primary and
secondary levels.
5.1.3. Clay deposition
In general, the nature of the seabed at nearshore in Vellapallam is composed of sand and silt.
It is noticed that during southwest monsoon season, i.e. in June, July, August and September,
there is a large deposition of mud composed of silt and clay at nearshore. The accumulation
of mud is more severe at intertidal zone and upto 500 m offshore. This formation of clay
deposit vanishes with the onset of northeast monsoon i.e. in mid October. This seasonal
deposition of clay causes problem to fishermen as they find it difficult to push and beach
their crafts on the shore. The crafts also get damaged during the beaching process. The
formation of such clay deposits are noticed only along the coastal stretch between
Vedaranyam and Velankanni. The extent of deposition into the sea is more on the south side
near Vedaranyam and reduces towards north near Velankanni. In other places at further
north like Nagapattinam, Tharangambadi, Poompuhar etc. such monsoon clay depositional
phenomenon does not appear. The clay depositional problem appears to be a localized one
and requires further in depth study on the basis of site specific investigations. Efforts will be
made to address the issues in the next task module.
Such pattern and extent of clay deposition have to be studied in detail during the design of
the fishing harbour layout which otherwise may cause excess deposition inside the harbour
basin leading to frequent maintenance dredging. In order to understand the nature of clay
deposition the seabed sediments were collected in August 2015 (southwest monsoon
period) at 36 locations between Vedaranyam and Velankanni as shown in Fig. 5.3. The size
distribution of the seabed sediments are shown in Table 5.6.

Table. 5.6. Sediment size distribution
UTM Coordinates
Distance
WGS 84 Water
from the Sand Silt Clay
Station No. (Zone 44) depth,
shore, % % %
Easting Northing m
km
(m) (m)
B1 (Vellapallam Beach) 375450 1163136 - - 99.4 0.6 -
B2 (Vellapallam – 0.5 km – North) 375425 1163631 - - 94.4 5.6 -
B3 (Vellapallam – 2 km – North) 375295 1165619 - - 98.3 1.7 -
B4 (Vellapallam – 1 km – South) 375481 1162134 - - 92.5 7.5 -
B7 (Kovilpathu – 1.5 km – North) 375218 1166535 - - 98.9 1.1 -
B9 (Vanavanmahadevi South) 375397 1164234 - - 99.0 1.0 -
B10 (Vanavanmahadevi – 1 km –
375335 1164912 - - 97.9 2.1 -
North)
B11 (Vedaranyam Beach) 376382 1147677 - - 99.1 0.9 -
B12 (Velankanni Beach) 374624 1181352 - - 99.9 0.1 -
B13 (Vettaikaraniruppu – 3 km North) 375136 1168602 - - 99.0 1.0 -
B14 (Nalluvethapathi – River mouth) 375476 1160020 - - 98.8 1.2 -
VV – S1 378248 1147130 1.5 4.5 - 60.6 39.4
VV – S2 378113 1148124 1.5 4.0 - 67.2 32.8
VV – S3 377989 1149118 1.5 4.0 - 67.2 32.8
VV – S4 377878 1150079 1.5 3.5 - 68.3 31.4
VV – S5 377768 1151107 1.5 3.5 - 62.5 37.5
VV – S6 377670 1152103 1.5 3.4 - 52.4 47.6
VV – S7 377579 1153099 1.5 3.4 - 57.1 42.9
VV – S8 377496 1154096 1.5 3.0 - 60.4 39.6
VV – S9 377422 1155093 1.5 3.0 - 63.4 36.6
VV – S10 377356 1156091 1.5 3.0 - 61.1 38.9
VV – S11 377298 1157089 1.5 3.0 - 64.5 35.5
VV – S12 377246 1158088 1.5 3.0 - 54.6 45.4
VV – S13 377198 1159087 1.5 3.7 - 64.7 35.3
VV – S14 377154 1160086 1.5 3.7 - 58.1 41.9
VV – S15 377111 1161086 1.5 3.7 - 60.5 39.5
VV – S16 377067 1162085 1.5 4.0 - 56.5 43.5
VV – S17 377022 1163084 1.5 4.0 - 59.7 40.3
VV – S18 376975 1164083 1.5 4.0 - 57.5 42.5
VV – S19 376928 1165082 1.5 4.0 - 56.0 44.0
VV – S20 376881 1166082 1.5 4.0 - 46.8 53.2
VV – S21 376833 1167081 1.5 4.3 - 52.4 47.6
VV – S22 376787 1168080 1.5 4.3 - 54.0 46.0

UTM Coordinates
Distance
WGS 84 Water
shore, % % %
Easting Northing m
km
(m) (m)
VV – S23 376752 1169080 1.5 4.5 - 48.6 51.4
VV – S24 376695 1170078 1.5 4.5 - 52.4 47.6
VV – S25 376651 1171078 1.5 4.6 - 54.0 46.0
VV – S26 376608 1172077 1.5 4.0 - 55.1 44.9
VV – S27 376566 1173096 1.5 4.0 - 50.4 49.6
VV – S28 376526 1174096 1.5 4.2 - 58.8 41.2
VV – S29 376488 1175096 1.5 4.2 - 54.0 46.0
VV – S30 376454 1176096 1.5 5.0 - 55.6 45.4
VV – S31 376423 1177096 1.5 5.0 - 56.4 43.6
VV – S32 376394 1178096 1.5 5.0 - 43.2 56.8
VV – S33 376369 1179097 1.5 5.0 - 45.1 54.9
VV – S34 376346 1180098 1.5 4.5 - 54.3 45.7
VV – S35 376326 1181098 1.5 4.5 - 52.4 47.6
VV – S36 376306 1182099 1.5 5.0 - 54.6 45.4
VV – S37 (Vellapallam) 376585 1163572 1.0 4.0 - 57.0 43.0
VV – S38 (Vellapallam) 378418 1163394 3.0 4.0 - 61.2 38.8
VV – S39 (Vellapallam) 380441 1163382 5.0 4.0 - 60.5 39.5
VV – S40 (Vellapallam) 376691 1154326 1.0 3.5 - 60.4 39.6
VV – S41 (Vellapallam) 376336 1154349 0.5 3.5 - 60.4 39.6
VV – S42 (Velankanni) 375167 1181996 0.5 5.0 - 58.1 41.9
*VV-Vedaranyam - Velankanni
The thickness of deposition of silty clay at nearshore based on the difference in depth arrived
from low frequency and high frequency depths obtained from the dual frequency echo
sounder is shown in Fig. 5.4. The silty clay materials are found upto 1500 m offshore and the
process is seen that the spread of clay deposit extents from Vedaranyam to Velankanni.
The characteristics of bed sediment, their movement, source and sink aspects, wave climate,
current pattern etc. will be taken into consideration while designing the breakwater.

5.1.4. Tsunami impact
damages to property including the fishing gears, boats etc. in Vellapallam, Nagapattinam
district was the most affected part in Tamil Nadu, accounting for 6,064 out of the total
casualties of 8009 in the state. A large number of the casualties were from the fishing
community, who were living close to the seashore. The property losses impacted the fishing
industry, as most of the boats were damaged by the inundation besides heavy loss of cattle,
houses and property. The fisheries sector suffered very severe damages in this region. All
boats beached on the shore were washed into the sea.
5.1.5. Littoral drift
This particular coast is exposed with relatively low littoral drift and it almost remains a nodal
littoral drift. However, there will be marginal erosion expected on the north side of the
northern breakwater and deposition on the south side of the southern breakwater. Beach
stabilization aspect that may be required on the northern side will be studied and
appropriate remedial measures will be suggested.
5.2. Socio economic screening
Vellapallam village
Social Status: There are six coastal Taluks in Nagapattinam District and they are Kilvelur,
Nagapattinam, Tharangambadi, Vedaranyam, Sirghazhi and Poompuhar. The fishing harbour
proposed to be constructed at Vellapallam will serve six fishing villages viz. Kameswaram,
Vilunthamavadi, Vanavanmahadevi, Vellapallam, Naluvedhapathi and Pushpavanam.
The socio economic status of Vellapallam village and its neighbouring coastal villages such
as employment status, fishing crafts, Housing facilities, education, literacy, income details etc.
are furnished in Tables 5.7- 5.16.

Table 5.7. Housing facilities
Residential Status
SI.
Name of the Village Own Rented Total Free House Type of House
No
House House House Govt Tsunami Thatched Literoofed Tiled Concrete others Total
1 Kameswaram 220 22 242 1 176 57 0 2 182 1 242
2 Vilunthamavadi 147 1 148 2 109 28 1 1 118 0 148
3 Vanavanmahadevi 259 3 262 2 248 10 1 6 245 0 262
4 Vellapallam 359 3 362 2 345 13 1 1 347 0 362
5 Naluvedhapathi 471 2 473 32 17 353 1 45 73 1 473
6 Pushpavanam 191 134 325 14 164 127 13 10 173 2 325

Source: Tamil Nadu Marine Fisher folk Census 2010.
Table 5.8. Fishing crafts
SI. Wooden FRP

Village MFB
No Cattamaran Vallam
1 Kameswaram 0 28 70
2 Vilunthamavadi 0 27 67
3 Vanavanmahadevi 7 0 73
4 Vellapallam 2 12 160
5 Naluvedhapathi 0 16 36
6 Pushpavanam 0 3 82
Table 5.9. Fishing gears
No.of Type of Gears

SI. Name of the
Masula Gill Shore Trawl Cast
No Village Longliners Trap Others Total
Boats Net seine net net
1 Kameswaram 0 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 70
2 Vilunthamavadi 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 29
3 Vanavanmahadevi 0 79 1 1 1 0 1 0 83
4 Vellapallam 0 241 0 0 0 0 0 0 241
5 Naluvedhapathi 0 331 30 1 1 2 15 2 383
6 Pushpavanam 0 102 44 0 0 0 0 0 146


Table 5.10. Fishing Days & Mode of Fish Marketing
Fishing Days in a month Mode of Fish Marketing

SI.
Name of the Village Single 2-5 6-8 Above Middle Retail Whole Street
No Society Auction
Days Days Days 8 Days Man sale sale Vendor
1 Kameswaram 166 86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70
2 Vilunthamavadi 158 19 0 0 6 0 23 0 0 0
3 Vanavanmahadevi 173 92 0 0 66 2 15 0 0 0
4 Vellapallam 245 82 1 0 218 13 8 0 1 0
5 Naluvedhapathi 168 1 0 0 0 380 0 2 0 1
6 Pushpavanam 244 3 0 0 32 111 1 6 0 3

Table 5.11. Basic Amenities of the Marine Fishing Villages
Houses Sanitary Facility Drinking Water Facility

SI.
Name of the Village with Open Common
No Individual Common Govt. Bore Others
Electricity Well well/Tank
1 Kameswaram 221 189 18 4 228 1 0 0
2 Vilunthamavadi 130 120 28 26 121 1 0 0
3 Vanavanmahadevi 253 245 17 10 243 0 3 0
4 Vellapallam 357 346 15 7 340 0 5 10
5 Naluvedhapathi 465 40 348 239 28 23 4 177
6 Pushpavanam 311 157 165 107 10 0 15 190

Source: Tamil Nadu Marine Fisher folk Census 20
Table 5.12. Details of Fisher folk Population
Children Adults Family

Sl. Name of the Total Population Total
(0-17 years) (18years & above) size/persons
No. Village Families
Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total per house
1 Kameswaram 210 193 403 283 293 576 493 486 979 249 3
2 Vilunthamavadi 136 131 267 185 189 374 321 320 641 156 4
4 Vellapallam 371 358 729 398 444 842 769 802 1571 368 4
5 Naluvedhapathi 205 166 371 741 562 1303 946 728 1674 465 3
6 Pushpavanam 201 172 373 437 412 849 638 584 1222 327 3
Source: Tamil Nadu Marine Fisher folk Census-2010.

Table 5.13. Details of Marine Fisherfolk by Age Group
0-5 6-10 11-17 18-40 41-65 Above 65 Total

Sl. Name of the
No. Village
Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female
1 Kameswaram 64 48 57 55 89 90 210 213 69 75 4 5 493 486
2 Vilunthamavadi 43 36 26 33 67 62 132 134 50 47 3 8 321 320
3 Vanavanmahadevi 83 78 53 64 79 100 226 238 71 83 7 7 519 570
4 Vellapallam 112 116 123 102 136 140 300 342 92 97 6 5 769 802
5 Naluvedhapathi 26 21 62 60 117 85 404 312 285 235 52 15 946 728
6 Pushpavanam 46 40 71 49 84 83 276 283 145 117 16 12 638 584

Table 5.14. Educational Status
Higher
Sl. Primary Middle High Total
Name of the Village Sec. Degree Others Illiterate
No. School School School Literate
School
1 Kameswaram 489 162 83 26 4 2 766 101
2 Vilunthamavadi 0 153 229 45 18 0 445 117
4 Vellapallam 298 202 414 61 21 4 1000 343
5 Naluvedhapathi 660 330 300 173 92 58 1613 14
6 Pushpavanam
Table 5.15. Employment Status of Fisherfolk
Fres
Employed in
Sl. h Dried Net Allied Self Un
Name of the Fishin Process Other
N Fish Fish Makin Activiti Employe Employe
Village g ed s Gov Privat
o. Trad Trade g es d d
t e
e
1 Kameswaram 252 86 44 0 10 0 7 4 4 3 14
Vilunthamavad
2 178 27 0 0 0 0 1 5 0 13 0
i
Vanavanmaha
3 265 39 8 0 0 0 2 4 0 29 0
devi
4 Vellapallam 340 71 8 0 0 0 2 1 2 13 0
Naluvedhapath
5 526 32 399 1 0 0 0 5 1 11 0
i
6 Pushpavanam 321 7 168 0 1 7 0 5 0 0 20

Table 5.16. Income Status of Fisherfolk Families
Rs.24,000 Rs.35,000 Rs.50,000

Sl. Upto Above
Name of the Village to to to Total
No. Rs.24,000 Rs.1,00,000
Rs. 35,000 Rs. 50,000 Rs. 1,00,000
1 Kameswaram 408 0 0 2 0 410
2 Vilunthamavadi 223 0 1 0 0 224
3 Vanavanmahadevi 344 0 0 0 0 344
4 Vellapallam 436 1 0 0 0 437
5 Naluvedhapathi 975 0 0 0 0 975
6 Pushpavanam 573 1 1 0 0 575
Facilities
The public facilities available near Vellapallam are Banks, Post Office, Schools, SIFFS
Fishermen Cooperative society and Hospitals.

6. PLANNING OF LAYOUT AND FACILITIES
6.1. Vellapallam-fishing village
This project is basically aimed at developing a sheltered basin for the fishing vessels by
means of a breakwater system plus matching beach landing facilities for FRPs and
appropriate fish landing wharfs, idle berthing wharfs, outfitting and repair wharfs etc. for
MFVs so as to enable the fishermen do fishing activities in a safe marine environment.
The proposed fishing harbour at Vellapallam caters to the needs of Vellapallam and the
neighboring 6 villages namely Vilunthamavadi, Vanavanmadevi, Kameswaram, Pushavanam,
Naluvethapathi and Pallivasal. The facilities are planned to meet the requirements of 1000
FRPs and 100 MFVs taking into account the future requirements.
6.2. Stake holders meeting
To assess the requirements of fishing community a Stake Holders Meeting was held on
17.06.15 when two typical layout options broadly indicating the proposed facilities one
enclosing the Nallar River in between two breakwaters and the other on the southern side
of the river at about 250 m as a fully protected harbour with two breakwaters were
exhibited. The development proposal was well received with active participation of fishing
community. The requirements were mostly in line with the facilities included in the layout
and the appropriate option was the main issue to be decided from technical and operational
considerations.
6.3. Design of marine facilities
The parameters that will govern the assessment of coastline requirement for the
development of water front facilities are:

 Beach landing space for FRPs.

 Landing wharf for unloading catch for MFVs
 Idle berthing wharf for berthing after unloading
 Outfitting wharf with installations to supply fuel, ice etc
 Repair wharf for carrying out minor adjustments/repair before sailing
 Boat repair facility yard
These are assessed based on the number of crafts and fishing cycle as shown in Table 6.1.
Table 6.1. Fleet details/ fishing cycle
Length Landing per boat

Boats Fishing trip (days)
(m) (kg)
17 50 4 340
18 50 5 450
FRPs less than
1000 1 (daily basis) 30
10 m long
Source: Department of Fisheries
Design data
 20% of the FRP vessels may not go to fishing and 10% for trawlers because of
maintenance, minor repairs etc.
 The MFV - 17 m and MFV - 17 m will go on 4 and5 days trip respectively and FRPs on
daily basis
 During peak season 40% trawlers will arrive in a day with 20% increase in catch
 Turnaround time for MFVs (docking, undocking, loading etc) is assumed to be 9 to 10

minutes depending on the type of vessels
 The average landing wharf length for a boat consists of average length of the boat +
10% spacing between the boats to facilitate safe maneuvering
 Unloading rate for FRPs varies
 Unloading rate for trawlers 4500 kg/hour

Wharf/Beach landing
Below 10 m size FRP - 1000 numbers - Beach landing
Generally, for traditional boats (smaller FRP vessels) whose fishing cycle is 1 day, full- fledged
landing facilities are not provided and they are beached perpendicular to the coast unlike in
the case of big trawlers which get berthed alongside the marginal wharf (wharf). During
various interactions and at the stake holders meeting held in July 2015, the local fishermen
expressed their intention to have adequate beach landing area. Accordingly, a coastline of
450m has been provided, a little more than optimum to meet future requirements. Being
basically a facility for FRPs, catamarans and other such vessels the provision of 450m
coastline as beach landing facility is more than justified. Furthermore, very small crafts are
likely to continue using the Nallar River for fishing operations.

MFVs-Landing wharf
15 m long trawlers - 50 Nos.
 No. of boats operating per day = 0.9 x (50/5) (4 days trip)

= 9
 No. of arrivals per hour = 9/6 hrs = 1.5
 No. of arrivals in peak hour = 1.2 x 1.5 = 1.8 say 2 numbers
 Average landing per boat = 340 kg
 Peak landing per boat with
Additional 20% catch = 340 x 1.2 = 408 kg
 Total turnaround time for a vessel = 9 mins (based on ground
conditions)
 No of berths to handle = 2 x 9/60 =0.3 say 1 number
Length of the landing wharf = 1(15 +1.5) = 16.5 say 20 m
17 m long trawlers-50 Nos.
 No. of boats operating per day = 0.9 x 50/4 (5 days trip)

= 11.25
 No. of arrivals hour = 11.25/6 hrs 1.9 say 2 numbers
 No. of arrivals in peak hour 1.2 x 2=2.4 say 3 numbers
Additional 20% catch = 450 x 1.2 = 540 kg
 Total turnaround time for a vessel = 9 mins
(Based on ground conditions)
 No of berths to handle = 3 x 9/60 = 0.45 = 1 no. approx
Length of the landing wharf = 1 (17 + 1.7)
= 18.7 m say 20 m
Total length of Landing wharf = 40 m

Outfitting wharf
15 m long
 No of boats requiring outfitting in peak season = 10

 Time taken for each boat to receive fuel, water, ice = 15 minutes
 No of berth required for outfitting in 8 hrs = 10 x 15/(8 x 60) = 1
Length of outfitting jetty = 1 (16.5) = say 17 m
17 m long
 No of boats required outfitting in peak season = 10

 No of berth required for outfitting in 8 hrs = 10 x 15/ (8x60) = 1
Total length of outfitting wharf = 37 m say 40 m
Repair wharf
 Provision is made for one 17 m vessel

17 m = 1 (17 + 2) = 19 m
 Total repair wharf required = 20 m
Repair wharf = 20 m
Idle berthing wharf length
For design purposes, it is generally assumed that only 50 percent of the total vessels will
need to be considered. On this basis, the requirements are evaluated.
Assuming the boats berth 5 abreast:
15 m Long
Idle berthing length required = 0.9 x (15 + 1.5) x (50/2) x (1/5)

= 74.25 say 80
17 m long
Idle berthing length required = 0.9 x (17+1.7) x (50/2) x (1/5)

= 84.15 m say 85 m
Total idle berthing wharf = 80 m + 85 m = 165 m
The landing wharf - 40 m, outfitting wharf - 40 m, and repair wharf - 20 m in all 100 m will
be available to function as idle berthing wharf and hence a provision of 100 m only is made
instead of 165 m for exclusive idle berthing within the available coast length of 700 m.
However, since there is every likelihood of more than 100 MFVs using the harbour facility a
100 m provision is made for idle berthing. The summary of the wharf length is given in Table
6.2
Table 6.2. Summary of wharf length
SI. MFVs-100 Nos FRPs-1000 Nos.
Type of wharf
No. Wharf landing Beach Landing
1 Fish landing wharf (m) 40
2 Outfitting wharf (m) 40
3 Repair wharf (m) 20 450
4 Idle-berthing wharf (m) 100
5 Sloping yard 50
TOTAL 250 450
Note:
 All the wharfs are aligned in a straight line which provides the flexibility to
accommodate the required number of vessels at any point of time depending on the
actual site conditions at the time of berthing.
 The marginal wharf has been designed for accommodating 100 vessels whereas the
present fleet strength is reported to be about 25-50. The design is made on a
conservative side to meet marginal expansion in future in terms of additional number
of vessels.

 The entire design concept of the wharf is based on docking and undocking time, time
required for unloading of fish, idle time, fishing days, etc. which by themselves would
have some cushion built in the system that may become handy to meet additional
length of wharf during peak hour landing.
In view of the flexibility available on the lines discussed above it is felt that the wharf
length requirement for various uses need to be considered in totality and the built-in
cushion available in the system would meet the additional requirement if any for individual
services.
6.4. Basin/Channel Design/ Maintenance
Dredging within the Basin
The maximum size of vessel is 18 m long which will have a draft of 2 to 2.5 m (maximum
side) and with an under clearance of say 0.5 m and making provision for siltation if any, it is
proposed to dredge the basin to (-) 3.0 m CD. Approximate quantity of dredging estimated
at this stage is 3,30,000 cu.m. This quantity is not substantial and can be primarily used for
reclamation to create additional backup land area and if something is still left, this can be
used as sand bank on the north of north breakwater where some erosion is likely to occur
due to natural processes. The question of dumping it offshore at the designated location
based on modelling study may not arise. However, this will be again reviewed at the DPR
stage on the basis of in-depth study of soil characteristics of dredged material.
Channel development
The entrance width will be 100 m wide to allow simultaneous entry of a number of vessels at
any time. The channel will be aligned in 3.0 m depth contour available at entrance from
littoral drift considerations and dredging is proposed upto (-) 3.0 m CD in the entire berthing
basin leaving the FRP vessels’ area hence the question of dredging the approach channel
and the maintenance of the channel may not arise.

Furthermore, the ship maneuverability studies mentioned in the ToR are generally
recommended for major cargo vessels and may not be required for small craft harbours in
view of the sizes of crafts, where the maneuvering/ operational methods are quite different
and in case of adverse weather conditions, the vessel movements are mostly controlled by
IMD and the communication tower located at the vantage point at the fishing harbour site as
also the established traditions and practices of the fisher folk of the region.
6.5. Breakwaters
The south and north breakwaters will be of rubble mound type with armour protection on
the seaside - the type of armour layer adopting heavy size stones or artificial concrete blocks
will be decided during next stage of preparation of DPR, depending on the conditions
obtaining at the site such as i) the cost implications, ii) duration for construction and
iii) environmental constraints.
The south breakwater of 1400 m long will be 700 m away from the north breakwater of 1100
m long leaving 100 m wide gap for entry and exit of fishing vessels to harbour basin. The
watershed area encompassed thus by these two breakwaters will be about 51.45 Ha. The vast
space available in the basin will serve as boat anchoring areas in case of extreme weather
conditions arising out of cyclones, even for disaster like tsunami to some extent.
The stability of the breakwater section will be tested through wave flume studies after
finalization of the design parameters for offshore structures. The facilities included in the
proposed fishing harbour are
South breakwater : 1400 m
North breakwater : 1100 m
Inside width between Breakwaters : 700 m
Entrance width : 100 m
Sloping yard : 50 m x 20 m
Landing wharf : 40 m
Outfitting wharf : 40 m
Repair wharf : 20 m
Idle berthing wharf : 100 m (exclusive)
Beach landing-FRPs : 450 m

6.6. Layout-Ground Realities
A technically acceptable coastline of 700 m with a trapezoidal back up area measuring 85 m

on the north and on the southern side from the coastline has been identified as the potential
area for development. The entire exercise is centered on how best the available area could
be optimally used for development satisfying the requirements of the 1000 FRPs and 100
MFVs. The above computation has revealed that the proposed marine facilities will be able to
meet the requirements in full and in fact a little more to an extent of some additional
capacity of 15% from the planned capacity of 8000 TPA.
The backup area will be adequate to develop the matching onshore facilities so as to ensure
that the whole system functions well without any bottleneck-logistics in particular.
6.7. Development of onshore facilities - Area Requirements
This will among others include the following items:
 Auction hall
 Net mending shed
 Fish drying yard
 Fishermen gear, cloak room
 Truck loading platform
 Administrative building
 Generator shed yard
 Transformer yard
 Security room
 Fishermen rest shed
 Public Toilets
 Sewage treatment plant
 Solid, liquid waste disposal
 Overhead tank
 Seawater and fresh water sump
 Restaurants
 Vehicle parking area
 Internal roads including drains

 Boat repair yard

 Fuel station for bunkering activities
 Ice supply point
 Radio Communication center
 Health center, ATM etc.
 Harbour compound wall
 Greeneries and landscaping
6.8. Summary of facilities provided in the layout
Marine components
 South breakwater 1400 m

 North breakwater 1100 m
 Inside width
between BWs at shore 700 m
 BW crest elevation (+) 5.0 m CD

 BW crest Width 5.0 m
 BW slope - seaside 1:2
 BW slope - harbour side 1:1.5
 Dredge depth (-) 3.0 m CD
 Dredging quantity 330000 cum
 Landing wharf 40 m
 Idle berthing wharf 100 m (exclusive)
 Outfitting wharf 40 m
 Other shore front facilities 70 m
 Beach landing - FRPs 450 m
 Mean sea level 0.34 m
 Wharf level (+) 2.5 m CD
 Entrance width 100 m

Onshore facilities
 Auction hall 40.3 m x 18 m - 2 Nos.

 Net mending yards 25.3 m x 10.23 m - 2 Nos.
 Gear cloak room 43.9 m x 7 m - 2 Nos.
 Administrative building, Health centre 18.23 m x 9.5 m
 Generator 7.59 m x 4.96 m
 Electric substation 7.59 m x 4.96 m
 Security kiosk 5.5 m x 5.5 m
 Public toilets 10.0 m x 5.9 m
 Waste disposal unit 9.73 m x 9.32 m
 OHT 6 m dia.
 Restaurant, Shops & ATM 21.23 m x 6.91 m
 Fishermen Rest shed 21.62 m x 8 m
 Fresh water sump 6mx5m
 Two wheeler parking area 1443.7 sq. m - 2 Nos.
 Four wheeler parking area 1441.28 sq. m - 2 Nos.
 Boat repair yard 11.38 x 8.09 m
 Fuel station 6mx5m
 Ice supply point 6mx5m
 Communication tower 18.23 m x 9.5 m
 Internal roads
 Drainage and sewerage
 Power and lighting
 Compound wall
Vessel related
FRPs less than 10 m (1000 Nos.) 1 - day trip 200 trips 30 kg/trip
15 m trawlers (50 Nos. - 4 days trip) 50 trips 340 kg/trip
17 m trawlers (50 Nos. - 5 days trip) 50 trips 450 kg/trip
Fishing days/year 200
Catch-3 options Basic: 7150 T, Option 2: 7760 T, Option 3: 6410 T
The layout of the fishing harbor is shown in Fig. 6.1.

7. STAKE HOLDERS MEETING (SHM)
Proceedings of the meeting in brief: Besides the officials of the Fisheries Department,
more than 200 people from 7 fishing villages within the jurisdiction of Vedaranyam Taluk
participated in the meeting. Executive Engineer, Fisheries Department conducted the
proceedings. He explained the purpose of the meeting, which was to seek the suggestions of
the stakeholders so that the project, on completion, would serve the intended purpose.
He introduced the team of experts from Indomer led by Dr.P.Chandramohan, Managing

Director.
Before taking up the agenda items for deliberations, he requested MD, Indomer to highlight
the salient features of the proposed project so as to make the general public and the
stakeholders in particular become familiar with the project details and offer suggestions for
the betterment of project.
Indomer exhibited the model layout describing the various facilities both offshore and
onshore. The conceptual layout proposed at the stage of Stakeholders meeting is shown
below.
Managing Director, Indomer made a power point presentation of various facilities through a
typical model layout (exclusively devised for the occasion) and the timeline for the
implementation of the project. He explained that the layout has been evolved keeping in
view the current practice of utilizing the river for fishing boats and the potential of enlarging
the facilities by the construction of breakwater on either side of river. He made it clear that
the layout presented was only a concept and other options/alternatives would be studied in
details so as to evolve the most suitable one meeting the requirements of the fishermen on a
long term basis.
Interactive session with stakeholders: The fishermen community welcomed the proposed
development and showed active participation. The interactive session was very useful and

they raised very valid suggestions based on their experience and difficulties being faced by
them during bad weather conditions coupled with shallow depth and poor soil conditions.
The main points which were relevant to the proposed development that emerged during the
interactive session are summarized in the Table below.
Stake holders’ demand Vs acceptance status
Sl. Demand / Raised by Acceptance

No. Suggestions Name Village Status
1 Provision of Anjappan Vellapallam Accepted (Action
Lighthouse, Boat by respective
repairing yard & department)
bypass road for
transportation.
2 Provision for Muthumanickkam Vellapallam Accepted for
health centre, and consideration.
to increase the
frequency of buses
and autos for
transportation.
3 Provision for 200 P. Sundaram Vizhunthamavadi Accepted.
MFC, 800 FRP and
also future
development.
4 Provision for local Chinnathai Vellapallam Accepted for
Fish markets in consideration.
Vellapallam village.
5 Employment Muthulakshmi Vellapallam Accepted to
opportunities and provide common
erosion protection facilities for all.
measures and
allocation of
facilities on village
basis.
6 Provision of Tahsildar of Vedaranyam To be considered
Bypass road upto Vedaranyam by concerned
the proposed department
fishing harbour
7 Employment President Vanavanmahadevi Accepted as
opportunities at inbuilt
the proposed component of
fishing harbour the facility.
8 Provision of Diesel P.Kalayanasundaram Vellapallam Provision of

bunk and road Diesel bunk

connectivity. included and
road connectivity
to be taken up by
concerned
authority
9 Provision of Panchayat Leader Pushpavanam Included in the
Seamless facility
communication
tower
10 Provision of Arumugam Vellapallam Included in the
Slipway workshop, development.
Heavy duty
transformer, Coal
Storage facilities,
etc…
Summing up the presentation, Dr. P. Chandramohan informed that the above suggestions
will be incorporated in the layout and the proposed development will reflect the aspiration
of the fishing community. The more important points noted are:
i) The deposition of clay during SW monsoon

ii) Alternative approach road avoiding the village
Executive Engineer thanked and welcomed the suggestions given by the stake holders and
said that the points suggested by them will be taken into consideration in the planning
process of the scheme by Indomer.

STAKE HOLDERS MEETING – GALLERY

MINUTES OF STAKEHOLDERS MEETING HELD ON 17.06.15


With a view to getting the opinion and suggestions of user community of the fishing harbour
and thereby evolving a layout consistent with their requirements, a meeting was arranged by
the fisheries department with the main stakeholders on 08.08.2014.

Proceedings of the meeting in brief
Besides the officials of the fisheries department, more than 250 people from 16 fishing
villages within the jurisdiction of Tharangambadi Taluk participated in the meeting. The Joint
Director, Fisheries Department conducted the proceedings. He explained the purpose of the
meeting, which was to seek the suggestions of the stakeholders so that the project, on
completion, would serve the intended purpose.
Interactive session with stakeholders
The interactive session with the stakeholders was very useful and they raised very valid
suggestions based on their experience and the Tsunami effect.
interactive session are summarized in the Table 7.1 below.

Table 7.1. Stake holders demand Vs Acceptance status
Sl. Raised by
Demand / Suggestions Acceptance Status
No. Name Village
1 Provision of groynes / RMS Shri. Chandhirapadi
Accepted (Action by
in Chandhirapadi to arrest Pandurangan respective
erosion. department)
2 Provision for erosion Shri. Thangaraj Kuttiyandiyur Accepted for
protection by breakwater consideration
and separate provision for
FRP boats
3 Provision for 200 MFC and Shri. Rajendran Vellakovil Accepted.
800 FRP
4 Provision for Fish drying area Shri. Rajasekaran PerumalPettai Accepted.
5 Provision of Groins / RMS to Shri. Sudhakar Thalampettai Accepted.
prevent erosion
6 Provision of Groins / RMS to Shri. Narayanan Chinnangudi Accepted for
prevent erosion consideration.
7 Employment opportunities Shri. Nagaraj Chinnamedu Accepted to provide
and erosion protection common facilities for
measures and allocation of all.
facilities on village basis.
8 Provision of Bypass road Muslim Samadh Tharangambadi To be considered by
upto the proposed fishing Trade Union concerned
harbor department
9 Employment opportunities Shri.KajaMydhin Hassan Street Accepted as inbuilt
at the proposed fishing component of the
harbor facility.
10 Provision of Children’s park Women Self Tharangambadi Does not fall within
and swimming pool Help Group the purview of
proposed
development
11 Provision of Diesel bunk, NethajiMandram Tharangambadi Provision of Diesel
swimming pool, rail bunk included and
connectivity. swimming pool, rail
connectivity to be
taken up by
concerned authority
12 Provision of Bypass road and Shri. Murugan Tharangambadi Does not fall within
football ground purview of the
proposed facility.
13 Provision of Seamless Shri. Tharangambadi Included in the facility
communication tower Boominathan
14 Provision of Slipway Joint Director Nagapattinam Included in the
workshop, Heavy duty (Fisheries development.
transformer, Coal Storage Department)
facilities, etc.…

STAKEHOLDERS MEETING

8. TENTATIVE COST ESTIMATION
8.1. Background
The unit rates for working out the cost estimates are based on rates pertaining to similar
works carried out within the region and in-house data available with Indomer. However, the
rates need to be treated with caution and the percentage of variation may be ± 10% to 15%
which is acceptable at feasibility report stage.
The main share goes for the construction of marine works such as breakwater, dredging and
the berthing structure-the marginal wharf required for landing, outfitting, idle berthing
purposes etc.
The cost does not include land acquisition and CSR activities which are normally insisted for
private sector development.
The suggestions made by the Expert Committee to adopt tetrapod armour layer and unit
rates for various items based on recent constructions have been incorporated now.
8.2. Summary of cost estimates
The cost estimates have been worked out and shown in the Table 8.1.

Table 8.1. The revised block cost estimates
DEVELOPMENT OF FISHING HARBOUR AT VELLAPALLAM IN

NAGAPATTINAM DISTRICT
REVISED COST ESTIMATES
MONTH: Feb-2018
ABSTRACT (As per INDOMER design adopted in Breakwater)
Sl Qty Amount (in
Description
No (Nos) Lakhs)
Shore Facilities
1 1 Auction Hall - A 189.50
2 1 Auction Hall - B 132.50
3 1 Net Mending Shed 74.00
4 1 Administration Building & Health Centre 38.50
5 1 Communication Tower 48.00
6 1 Security Kiosk 16.00
7 1 Public Toilet (2) 50.00
8 1 OHT 14.50
9 1 Fishermen Rest shed 35.00
10 1 Boat Repair workshop 30.00
11 1 Road 387.00
12 1 Compound wall & Arch 83.00
13 1 External Electrification 53.25
14 1 Generator Room 13.00
15 1 Fresh Water Sump 7.00
16 1 Transformer Yard 25.00
17 1 Waste disposal unit & Decompose yard 25.00
18 1 Vehicle Parking 25.00
1246.25
Marine facilities
1 1 Break water
i) South Breakwater (1400m) 3032.00
ii) North Breakwater (1100m) 2295.00
2 1 Diaphragm wall 635.00
3 1 Sloping Yard 180.00
4 1 Dredging, reclamation and Levelling 728.00
6870.00

Total 8116.25
1 Shore Protection measure 50.00

2 Greeneries Development 5.00
3 Documentation charges 10.00
4 Advertisement charges 10.00
5 Rain water harvesting 5.00
6 Environmental study, Geotechnical and EMP 25.00
7 Basic firefighting facilities 10.00
8 Provision for unexpected subsoil variation 40.25
9 GST (12%) 973.95
10 Labour Welfare fund (1%) 81.16
11 Ps Charges and Contingencies 202.91
Break water Sinkage and Settlement etc.,
12 370.00
due to poor soil
Link road b/w Manikapangu village to FH
13 100.00
(LS)
Total 1883.27
Grand Total 9999.52
Say 10000.00
Total cost = Rs. 100.00 Crores

DEVELOPMENT OF FISHING HARBOUR AT
VELLAPALLAM, NAGAPATTINAM DISTRICT,
TAMIL NADU
FEASIBILITY REPORT
PROJECT CODE: 528051516
For
DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES
TAMIL NADU
OCTOBER 2015

(ISO 9001 : 2008 CERTIFIED AND NABET-QCI ACCREDITATED)
63, GANDHI ROAD, ALWAR THIRUNAGAR, CHENNAI 600 087.
Tel: + 91 44 2486 2482 to 84 Fax: + 91 44 2486 2484
Web site:www.indomer.com, E-mail:[email protected]
(ISO 9001 : 2008 CERTIFIED AND NABET-QCI ACCREDITATED)
63, Gandhi Road, AlwarThirunagar, Chennai 600 087.
Tel: + 91 44 2486 2482 to 84 Fax: + 91 44 2486 2484
Web site: www.indomer.com, E-mail: [email protected]
Client : Department of Fisheries, Tamil Nadu
Development of Fishing Harbour at Vellapallam, Nagapattinam district, Tamil Nadu –
Project Title :
Feasibility report
Project Code : 528051516
Abstract : Indomer was awarded the consultancy contract for the preparation of Techno Economic
Feasibility Report (TEFR) for the development of Fishing Harbour at Vellapallam. The main
scope of services include consultancy services right from investigation stage through planning,
design of the facility and provide construction supervision services during the project
implementation stage.
In accordance with the TOR, the Inception Report (IR) was submitted in July 2015 and was
approved by Department of Fisheries (DOF) in July 2015.
This Feasibility Report (FR) forms the second task module, which specifies the sequence of
sub-tasks for a cogent presentation leading to finalization of layout, design of various
components of the Fishing Harbour, capital cost of the development and the financial aspects
of the proposed investment.
Foreword : The materials presented in the report carry the copyright of Department of fisheries, Tamil
Nadu and Indomer Coastal Hydraulics (P) Ltd. and should not be altered or distorted or copied
or presented in different manner by other organizations without the written consent from
Department of fisheries, Tamil Nadu and Indomer Coastal Hydraulics (P) Ltd.
Document : Controlled
References : Lr.No.DB/D2/F.712/2014-15 dt. 15.05.15
Date Report Type Originator Checked by Approved by Approver’s Sign
Mr. K. Dharmalingam Dr. P. Chandramohan :
06.10.15 Final √ A.P. Anu
Mr. L. Ramasamy
Project Code 528051516 Text pages 128
File Location : F:/2015 Projects/Oct 15/528. F.Harbour Tables : 40
Figures : 23
TEAM
Name Qualification Task
Ph.D. (Ocean Engineering)

Dr. P. Chandramohan EIA Coordinator
(Former scientist, CSIR-NIO, Goa)
B.E. (Civil),
Mr. K. Dharmalingam Port planning
DIIT (Dock and Harbour Engineering)
Dr. Terry Machado Ph.D. (Marine Geology) Seabed surveys
Ph.D. (Ocean Engineering)

Dr. R. Mahadevan Mathematical modelling
(Former Professor, IIT, Chennai)
Ph.D. (Marine Biology)
Dr. Alfred R Selvakumar (Former Asst. Director General, Ecology & Bio diversity
Marine Fisheries ICAR, New Delhi)
M.Sc. (Integrated Ocean Science
G. Yogaraj Currents and Tides
& Technology)
V. Vaigaiarasi M.E. (Hydrology) MIKE 21model
A. P. Anu M. Tech. (Ocean Tech. & Management) Harbour planning
A. Baskaran D.C.E. (Civil) Bathymetry Survey
Measurement and
M. Prabhakaran Diploma (E.C.E.)
Instrumentation control
S. Karthikeyan D.C.E. (Civil) Topographic Survey
N. Karthikeyan D.C.E. (Civil) Topographic Survey
R. Ranjitha D.C.E. (Civil) Data analysis
B.E. (Civil Engineering)

L. Ramasamy (Former S.E., Fishing harbour Circle, Harbour planning
Dept. of Fisheries, Tamil Nadu)
Feasibility Report October 2015

CONTENTS
Page
Contents i
List of Tables v
List of Figures vii
List of Annexes viii
Executive Summary ix
1 INTRODUCTION 1.1
2 FISHERIES AT NATIONAL LEVEL 2.1
3 FISHERIES IN TAMIL NADU 3.1
3.1 Marine fisheries 3.1
3.2 Species wise fish production 3.3
4 DEVELOPMENT OF FISHING HARBOUR AT VELLAPALLAM 4.1
5 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL 5.1
5.1 Feasibility task modules 5.1
5.1.1 Project information 5.1
5.1.2 Surveys and investigations 5.2
5.1.3 Project activities and infrastructure development 5.2
5.1.4 Conceptual engineering and design 5.2
6 LOCATION OF PROJECT SITE 6.1
7 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL SCREENING 7.1
7.1 Environmental Screening 7.1
7.1.1 Natural calamities 7.1
7.1.2 Coastal waters 7.7
7.1.3 Clay deposition 7.7
7.1.4 Tsunami impact 7.10
7.1.5 Littoral drift 7.10
7.2 Socio economic screening 7.10
7.2.1 Vellapallam village 7.10
7.2.2 Facilities 7.14
8 OCEANOGRAHIC MEASUREMENTS AND SEABED INVESTIGATIONS 8.1
8.1 Physical parameters 8.1
8.1.1 Wind 8.1
8.1.2 Waves 8.2
Feasibility Report October 2015 Page i

8.1.3 Storm 8.14

8.1.4 Tides 8.15
8.1.5 Currents 8.16
8.1.6 Turbidity, Salinity and Temperature 8.17
8.2 Topographic surveys 8.18
8.3 Bathymetry surveys 8.23
8.4 Geotechnical Investigations 8.24
9 PLANNING OF LAYOUT AND FACILITIES 9.1
9.1 Vellapallam fishing village 9.1
9.2 Stake holders meeting 9.1
9.3 Basic requirements of layout 9.1
9.5 Design of marine facilities 9.4
9.5.1 Design data 9.5
9.5.2 Fish landing wharf 9.5
9.5.3 Outfitting wharf 9.6
9.5.4 Repair wharf 9.7
9.5.5 Idle berthing wharf 9.7
9.5.6 Wharf design parameters 9.9
9.6 Basin/channel design/ maintenance 9.9
9.7 Breakwaters 9.10
9.8 Layout – Ground realities 9.11
9.9 Development of onshore facilities - Area requirements 9.12
9.10 Summary of facilities provided in the layout 9.20
9.10.1 Marine components 9.20
9.10.2 Vessel related 9.20
9.10.3 Onshore facilities 9.20
9.10.4 Backup area 9.21
10 MODELLING STUDIES 10.1
10.1 Wave tranquility 10.1
10.2 Littoral drift 10.7
10.3 Shoreline evolution 10.9
11 COST ESTIMATION 11.1
11.1 Background 11.1
Feasibility Report October 2015 Page ii

11.2 Summary of cost estimates 11.1

12 TECHNO COMMERCIAL VIABILITY 12.1
12.1 General 12.1
12.2 Government’s action programme 12.1
12.3 Commercial / financial evaluation 12.2
12.3.1 Objectives 12.2
12.3.2 CICEF guidelines 12.3
12.4 IRR based financial viability - basic philosophy 12.3
12.5 Commercial Viability - Investment on trawlers by Fishermen 12.5
12.5.1 Important parameters 12.5
12.5.2 Options considered 12.7
12.5.3 Sensitivity analyses 12.8
13 MAINTENANCE OF OFFSHORE AND ONSHORE INSTALLATIONS 13.1
13.1 Routine maintenance 13.1
13.2 Maintenance dredging 13.1
13.3 Maintenance staff 13.2
13.4 Maintenance process 13.2
13.5 Meeting with harbour users 13.3
14 EIA STUDY IN PROGRESS 14.1
14.1 Introduction 14.1
14.2 Baseline data 14.1
14.3 Preliminary findings 14.2
15 FURTHER STUDIES 15.1
Feasibility Report October 2015 Page iii

LIST OF TABLES
Table
2.1 Details of vessels in India
2.2 Marine Fish production

2.3 Export of Fishery Products
3.1 Marine Fisheries Statistics (2012 - 13)
3.2 Estimation of species wise fish production along Tamil Nadu coast (Demersal)
3.3 Estimation of species wise fish production along Tamil Nadu coast (Pelagic)
7.1 Past history of natural calamities
Details of cyclones that crossed Tamil Nadu coast during the period 1950 -
7.2
2000
7.3 Cyclonic storm that crossed the coast between Chennai and Nagapattinam
(1946 - 2011)
Details of Cyclonic Storms / Depressions affected Coromandel Coast of Tamil
7.4
Nadu
7.5 Year wise average rain fall received in Nagapattinam District
7.6 Sediment size distribution
7.7 Housing facilities - residential status
7.8 Details of fishing crafts
7.9 Fishing gears
7.10 Fishing days in a month
7.11 Basic Amenities of the Marine Fishing Villages
7.12 Fishermen population
7.13 Details of Marine Fisherfolk by Age Group
7.14 Literacy status of fisher folk
7.15 Employment status of fisher folk
7.16 Income status of fisher folk families
8.1 Joint distribution of significant wave height and zero crossing wave period
8.2 Joint distribution of significant wave height and wave direction
8.3 Comparison of measured and Hindcast wave data
8.4 Operational window
Feasibility Report October 2015 Page iv

8.5 Statistical distribution of wave heights at Nagapattinam (measured data)

8.6 Design waves
8.7 Number of cyclones crossed the coast within 150 km (1877 and 2011)
8.8 Water quality parameters
8.9 Water depth with distance
9.1 Fleet details/ fishing cycle
9.2 Summary of wharf length
9.3 Quantity of fish/day
10.1 Incoming wave parameters
11.1 Summary of cost estimates
11.2 Break up details of cost estimates
12.1 Parameters to compute commercial viability
12.2 Options considered for evaluation
12.3 Net results on return on investments
Feasibility Report October 2015 Page v

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
6.1 Location map
6.2 Satellite imagery of the project region
7.1 India Climatic disasters risk map
7.2 India - Seismic zone map
7.3 Seabed sediment sampling locations
7.4 Thickness of deposition of silty clay
8.1 Measurement locations
8.2 Wind Rose diagram
8.3 Wave rose diagram
8.4 Design waves
8.5 Variation of measured tides
8.6 Variation of measured current speed and direction
8.7 Variation of measured turbidity, salinity and temperature
8.8 Planned line for topographic survey
8.9 Topographic map – 1:2500 scale (In pouch)
8.10 Planned line for bathymetry survey
8.11 Bathymetry map – 1:5000 scale (In pouch)
9.1 Harbour layout - Recommended
9.2 Harbour layout - Alternate
10.1 Wave tranquillity inside harbour basin - Incoming wave direction - N 70° E
10.4 Satellite model domain for coastal orientation
Feasibility Report October 2015 Page vi

LIST OF ANNEXURES
Annexure
9.1 Stake holders’ demand Vs acceptance status
12.1 Financial viability calculation option I
12.2 Financial viability calculation option II
12.3 Financial viability calculation option III
12.4 IRR - Option I
12.5 IRR - Option II
12.6 IRR - Option III
12.7 IRR - Option IV
Feasibility Report October 2015 Page vii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
E.1 BACKGROUND
The development of an all weather fishing harbour at Vellapallam is aimed at fulfilling the
long term aspirations of the people of Vellapallam and its neighbouring five coastal villages.
Indomer was awarded the consultancy contract for the preparation of Techno Economic
Feasibility Report (TEFR) for the proposed development. The main scope of services include
consultancy services right from investigation stage through planning, design of the facility
and tendering services and provide construction supervision services during the project
implementation stage.
In accordance with the TOR, the Inception Report was submitted in July 2015 and was
approved by Department of Fisheries (DOF) in July 2015. The Feasibility Report (FR) forms
the second task module comprising finalization of layout, design of various components of
the fishing harbour, capital cost of the project, and the financial viability aspects of the
proposed investment.
E.2 CHAPTERISATION
The Feasibility Report comprises fifteen chapters covering all the requirements spelt out in
TOR.
Chapter 1 - Introduction
This is the “Introduction” chapter giving details about the proposed development of fishing
harbour.
Chapter 2 - Fisheries at National level and State level
This chapter deals with fishery statistics at National and State level in terms of marine and
inland production, coastal villages, fishing trawlers and export.
Feasibility Report October 2015 Page ii

Chapter 3 - Development of fishing harbour at Vellapallam
This chapter describes the existing facilities at Vellapallam, proposed development of fishing
harbour and the task modules associated with the preparation of Feasibility Report.
Chapter 4 - Location of project site
This gives brief information concerning the project site and its landward and seaward
boundary confined between the backup land and the protected basin by breakwater
system.
Chapter 5 - Environmental and social screening
Environmental screening refers to physical marine environment including season wise

climatic conditions, wave action during different seasons, quality of coastal waters,
biological parameters, littoral drift process, CRZ related issues etc.
Socio economic screening exercise is collection of data pertaining to fishermen community

in respect of population, education, living conditions, education, employment status etc.
Besides, the welfare measures provided by the State Government to fishing community with
a view of enhancing their economic status are briefly brought out.
Chapter 6 - Seabed investigations
This is the most important chapter where the details and findings of the recent field
investigations such as the bathymetry survey, topographic survey, tide recordings, etc. are
provided. This provides the main design input for the finalization of the layout keeping in
view the operation, construction and navigational requirements. In addition, a brief
discussion is included on the oceanographic parameters such as Wind, Waves, Storms,
Currents etc.
Feasibility Report October 2015 Page iii

Chapter 7 - Planning of layout and facilities
There are six coastal villages engaged in fishing activities in Vellapallam taluk in
Nagapattinam district with a fleet strength of 786 FRP vessels and 50 MFVs as mentioned in
the statement of DOF. With a view to accommodating some marginal increase in the
number of fishing crafts, the proposed fishing harbour at Vellapallam is planned for handling
1000 FRPs and 100 MFVs of sizes 17 m and 18 m long.
This chapter forms the central theme of the whole exercise on the preparation of this
report, and the evolution of appropriate layout. The sizes of the offshore facilities
(breakwaters, dredging, wharf wall) and onshore facilities (auction hall, net mending shed,
administrative buildings, roads, utilities and services, repair facilities and other associated
facilities) are discussed in detail. These data provide the input for the other components like
modelling study, costing and financial viability.
A brief analysis has also been made on different options of layout-marginal wharf system vis
a vis hybrid system ending up finally in the present layout adopting marginal wharf concept.
Chapter 8 - Modelling studies
For the layout finalized in Chapter 7, modelling studies have been carried out to ascertain
the wave tranquility and Littoral drift. The shoreline change study will be done after
finalizing the layout.
The modelling study has revealed that the modified layout fulfills the requirements of wave
tranquillity and the littoral drift parameters.
Feasibility Report October 2015 Page iv

Chapter 9 - Cost estimation
The cost estimates for various components have been grouped under i) marine facilities,
ii) onshore facilities, iii) utilities and services, iv) associated facilities, v) environmental
requirements and vi) contingencies.
The estimated cost of the proposed facilities is Rs. 104 crores. The major cost center is
creation of marine facilities to an extent of Rs. 79 crores which constitutes 76% of overall
estimate. The breakwater cost alone works out to Rs. 66 crores. The remaining amount
accounts for the development of facilities under items ii to vi listed above.
Chapter 10 - Commercial viability
The creation of protected basin - a Fishing Harbour is a service entity and does not fall
within the ambit of a fully commercial enterprise normally associated with major port
development involving evaluation of commercial profitability on the basis of payback
period, Economic Internal Rate of Return (EIRR), Financial Internal Rate of Return (FIRR), Net
Present Value (NPV) etc.
However, in line with the requirement of TOR, the same is attempted to compute the FIRR
for different options adopting an integrated approach combining the value of fish catch vis a
vis the investment made by the government for the creation of the asset i.e. the fishing
harbour as briefly detailed below:
Cash outflow: Investments made i) by the government for the development of the fishing
harbour, ii) by the fishermen on purchase of trawlers through bank loan and consequently
repayment on installment basis with interest, iii) operating cost of the trawlers and
insurance thereon, iv) maintenance of developed facilities and harbour management cost
etc.
Feasibility Report October 2015 Page v

Cash in-flow: The revenue to the harbour comprises i) value of fish catch in monetary terms,
ii) nominal harbour charges per craft on yearly basis, iii) commission to an extent of 3% of
the value of catch.
The IRR is computed for a period of twenty years commencing from the date of completion
of the facilities. Sensitivity analysis have been made for three options relating to variation in
the quantity of catch, and the fourth option representing increase in construction cost to an
extent of 20% for the basic Option with 7150 TPA of fish catch.
In all the cases, the evaluation has given encouraging results for IRR varying between 7%
and 23% for the different options. The project is financially viable.
Chapter 11 - Maintenance of offshore and onshore installations
Maintenance of offshore facilities will include breakwaters, wharf and siltation inside the
basin. For the first few years, this will not be quite significant.
For onshore installations which include roads, buildings, utilities etc. regular maintenance
services will be necessary even from the commencement of operations.
The various elements associated with maintenance are briefly discussed in this chapter.
Overall, this exercise has revealed that the project is
 Technically feasible.
 Operationally acceptable.
 Financially viable for both the Fishermen and the Government alike.
 Environmentally friendly - as per the preliminary study made thus far.
However, there are some technical issues in terms of clay deposits along the coast during the
months of June to September, which extends to an alarming level impacting adversely the
fishing activities. This needs to be studied in depth.
Feasibility Report October 2015 Page vi

1. INTRODUCTION
Tamil Nadu has a long coastline of 1076 km and it has more than 608 traditional coastal
fishing villages right from the historical period. The fisheries statistics for the year 2011-12
shows large fish landing exceeding 0.42 million tons. Based on the report prepared by Tamil
Nadu Marine Fisheries Census for the Year 2010, Department of Fisheries, Government of
Tamil Nadu, about thirty seven thousand fishing vessels, boats and small crafts are engaged
in fishing along the Tamil Nadu coast between Neerodai at south and Pulicat Lake at north.
Nagapattinam district alone contributes around 16.57% of the total production of the state
occupying the second place among the thirteen coastal districts of Tamil Nadu.
Tamil Nadu government is keen to expand the fishing harbours and fish landing centres to
give a new dimension to the livelihood of the fishing community. The new fishing harbours
are mooted with ancillary facilities like fish processing unit, auction hall, net mending
centres, cold storage etc. Following this plan, Government of Tamil Nadu has already
completed construction of few fishing harbours and fish landing centres. As the
continuation of development, the Department of Fisheries, Government of Tamil Nadu has
awarded the consultancy contract for the preparation of Techno Economic Feasibility Report
(TEFR) for the development of Fishing Harbour at Vellapallam to Indomer Coastal Hydraulics
(P) Ltd., Chennai.
The main scope of study includes consultancy services right from investigation stage
through planning, design of the facility and provide construction supervision services during
the project implementation stage. The scope of services includes the following six task
modules.
i) Inception Report - Submitted on 06.07.15 and approved on 21.07.15

ii) Feasibility Report - Present report
iii) Draft Final Report
iv) Draft EIA Report along with CRZ application
v) Final DPR and submission of Final Rapid EIA & CRZ proposal
vi) Tender and contract documents
Feasibility Report October 2015 Page 1.1

The present report represents the second task module covering the Feasibility Report.
The studies carried out by Indomer Coastal Hydraulics (P) Ltd., Chennai is submitted in three
parts as listed below.
Part 1 – Feasibility report for Development of fishing harbour at Vellapallam,

Nagapattinam district, Tamil Nadu
Part 2 – Oceanographic measurements, Topographic and Bathymetry surveys for the
development of fishing harbour at Vellapallam, Nagapattinam, Tamil Nadu.
Part 3 – Mathematical model study for development of Fishing Harbour at Vellapallam,
Nagapattinam, Tamil Nadu.
All calendar dates are referred in Indian style as dd.mm.yy. (eg. 30.10.15 for
30th October 2015) and the time is referred to Indian Standard Time in 24 hour clock,
eg. 6 P.M. is written as 1800 hrs. The WGS 84 spheroid in Zone 44 is followed for
surveys and for the presentation in this report. SI units are followed for fundamental
and derived units. The depths are referred with respect to Chart Datum.

2. FISHERIES AT NATIONAL LEVEL
India has a coastline of about 8300 km including the coastlines of Andaman and Nicobar
Islands in the Bay of Bengal and Lakshadweep Islands in the Arabian Sea. The length of the
coastline of Indian mainland is 6100 km. Such long coastal stretch possesses immense
potential for the development and production of variety of sea foods. There are 3937
coastal fishing villages and 1896 fishery centers along the coastline of this country. As per
the census report published by Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute (CMFRI) in 2010,
the total Fisher folk population is 4 million. The fishermen who are engaged in active fishing
are only around 1,520,000. As a result, the earnings of workers in fisheries sector as a whole
are very low when compared to other sectors. Some useful data is available in the Hand
Book on Fisheries Statistics- 2010, published by Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India
and some of them are given in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1. Details of vessels in India
Type of vessels Nos.
Total Fishing fleet operating in the country 243939

Mechanized fishing vessels (mainly trawlers and purse-seiners) 59743
Small scale beach landing crafts with outboard engines 76748
Traditional non-motorized crafts 107448

Deep sea fishing vessels 180
A major constraint hampering development of fishery sector is non-availability of matching

infrastructure in terms of fishery harbours and fish landing centres with modern amenities
more particularly with the International standards in terms of quality and hygiene for the
fishery products not being met. However, in the World scenario, India has the distinction of
being the 3rd largest producer of sea fish.

The marine fisheries play an important role in boosting the Indian economy by export
besides being a source for the generation of employment opportunities. For this purpose
much emphasis is laid on deep sea fishing as against coastal fishing which has become over
exploited over a period of time.
The fish production (both marine and inland) in the country was 7.52 lakh tonnes during
1950-51, which increased to 83.00 lakh tonnes during 2010-11 registering an annual average
growth rate of 16.72% both put together over a period of 60 years. The Inland sector’s
contribution was 51 lakh tonnes (61%) and that of marine sector was 32 lakh tonnes (39%)
during 2010-11. The fisheries sector has registered an annual growth rate of over 4% during
the last five years till 2011 level. The fish production in India is shown in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2. Marine Fish production
Fish production
Year
(lakh tonnes)
1995-96 27.07
2000-01 28.11
2005-06 28.16
2010-11 32.50
The Economic Survey 2011-12 has revealed that the fisheries sector contributed 0.7% of
total Gross Domestic Product (GDP) at factor cost and 5% of GDP at factor cost from
agriculture, forestry, and fishing in the year 2011.
The export of fishery products in India was 171,820 tonnes during 1991-92 and touched a
level of 813,091 tonnes during 2010-11 valued at Rs. 1375 Crore and Rs. 12901 Crore
respectively. Frozen shrimp continued to dominate the export trade. The growth rate at 5
year incremental period is summarized in Table 2.3.

Table 2.3. Export of Fishery Products
Export
Year Quantity Value
(tonnes) (Rs. in Crores)
1991-92 1,71,820 1376
1995-96 2,96,277 3501
2000-01 4,40,473 6444
2005-06 5,51,282 7019

2010-11 8,13,091 12901

3. FISHERIES IN TAMILNADU
Tamil Nadu covers a land area of about 130,058 sq.km and it occupies the 11th largest state
in India and 7th largest in population. The State has around 190,000 sq.km area of Exclusive
Economic Zone (EEZ) and 41,412 sq.km area of continental shelf.
Fisheries have emerged as an important food production sector of the State contributing to
the livelihood as well as to the food security of a large section of the people. Tamil Nadu is
one of the foremost states in India showing steady increase in fish production and optimum
utilization of resources and is pioneering many innovative developmental and welfare
schemes.
The Government is committed to protect the traditional fishing rights of Tamil Nadu
fishermen, which among others include facilitating deep sea fishing, providing infrastructure
facilities such as construction of fishing harbours and fish landing centres, implementing
innovative schemes such as conversion/purchase of new mechanized fishing vessels for
Tuna fishing, establishing Fish Processing Parks in the coastal districts etc.
The vast fishery resources in marine sector offer tremendous scope for fisheries
development in the State.
3.1. MARINE FISHERIES
The details of the Marine Fisheries sector are given in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1. Marine Fisheries Statistics (2012-13)
Coastal length 1076 km
Number of Coastal districts 13
Number of Fishing Villages 608
Marine Fisherfolk Population 8.11 lakh *
Fishing Crafts Registered (online)
1. Mechanized Fishing boats 5600
2. Traditional Crafts (motorized

27426
andnon motorized)
Infrastructure Facilities
Major Fishing Harbours 3 (Chennai, Thoothukudi and Chinnamuttom)
Major Fishing Harbours under 6 (Thengapattinam, Colachel, Muttom,

construction Nagapattinam, Pazhayar and Poompuhar)
Medium Fishing Harbours 5
Jetties 8
Beach landing centres 363
Marine fishing production (2012-13) 4.28 lakh ton
Export (2012-13) 77,791 MT ** (Value Rs. 2995 crore)

*Source: Tamil Nadu Marine Fisher folk Census 2010,
** MPEDA (Tentative figure)

3.2. SPECIES WISE FISH PRODUCTION
Table 3.2.Estimation of species wise fish production along Tamil Nadu coast- Demersal
Sl. Years
Name of the Fish
No. 2001-2002 2006-2007 2011-2012
1 Sharks 3604 6780.91 9089.46
2 Skates & Rays 17640 15109.35 8920.06
3 Eels 531 5895.6 24.93
4 Cat fishes 2551 8462.62 4438.05
5 Saurida&Saurus 1079 393.57 1194.86
6 Perches 19062 19428.14 27655.8
7 Red Mullets 9135 10229.74 15172.11
8 Polynemids 2162 1048.12 2005.66
9 Sciaenids 10207 10331.44 13570.19
10 Leiognathus-Silverbellies 37512 25712.04 34053.49
11 Gazza 0 0 341.39
12 Lactarius 901 580.24 200.9
13 Pomfrets 2026 2397.94 2219.02
14 Bregmaceros 38 1592.11 2219.02
15 Soles 2209 217.65 7638.6
16 Penaeid Shrimps 21079 44454.28 32090.51
17 Non-Penaeid Shrimps 4671 1341.36 8577.38
18 Lobsters 1524 256.05 682.78
19 Crabs 15101 26164.37 28889.99
20 Turtle 0 0 0
21 Cephalopods 9169 10844.66 6571.73
22 Miscellaneous 91631 47878.77 27724.06
Total 251832 239119 233279

Table 3.3. Estimation of species wise fish production along Tamil Nadu coast - Pelagic
Sl. Years
Name of the Fish
No. 2001-2002 2006-2007 2011-2012
1 Chirocentrus 6955 18212.16 16241.91
2 Oil sardines 0 1539.62 34138.84
3 Lesser sardines 44788 43294.69 15677.9
4 Hilsailisha 1560 63.37 12.47
5 other Hilsa 0 120.7 0
6 Anchoviella 3147 10590.05 17513.89
7 Thrissocles 2312 8119.88 4864.78
8 Other Clupeids 3575 7961.58 19928.55
9 Harpodonnehereus 36 0 0
10 Hemirhamphus & Belone 4212 1630.39 2603.9
11 Flying fish 1858 1566.27 4182.01
12 Ribbon fish 974 343.22 3607.59
13 Caranx 0 0 14555.02
14 Chorinemus 1452 1071.52 1877.64
15 Trachynotus 0 182.49 1024.17
16 Other carangids 2943 108.63 0
17 Elacate 2720 118.23 1559.25
18 Mackeral 14799 20674.3 12418
19 Seer 8749 7631.26 11610.55
20 Tunnies 4599 2437.63 7215.17
21 Sphyraena 2562 4034.9 3394.21
22 Mugil-mullets 878 0 2731.11
23 Lethrinus 0 6619.61 6955.79
24 Sillago 0 845.72 4992.8
25 Balistis 0 5745.23 5590.23
26 Ora 0 189.52 256.04
27 Spotted Ray 0 0 0
28 Drepane 0 0 804.49
29 Ceryphaena 0 0 0
Total 108119 143100 193756

4. DEVELOPMENT OF FISHING HARBOUR AT VELLAPALLAM
The proposed fishing harbour at Vellapallam with a protected basin and other associated
facilities is mainly intended to the serve the fishing community of Vellapallam village and
the other nearby villages which include, Vilunthamavadi, Vanavanmadevi, Kameswaram,
Pushavanam and Naluvethapathi.
Vellapallam and the surrounding villages have at least 2000 active fishermen, and 500
women fish vendors and utilize about thirty mechanized trawlers anchored off the coast,
600 motorized boats and a hundred Catamarans. The daily value of fish traded in the village
varies between three to four lakhs and five to seven lakhs with the peak season falling
between June and July (PRAXIS, 2005). About 50 percent of the fish catch is sold to private
companies who process and sell the fishes to outside traders while the remaining 50% is
controlled by the women fish vendors of the village who sell locally or in regionally
important markets such as Thiruthuraipoondi, Thalainayar, Thirupoondi and Vadamazhi.
damages to property including the fishing gears, boats etc. and the coastal fishing villages in
the entire Nagapattinam district had to bear the brunt of the Tsunami attack. Vellapallam is
one among the fishing villages that was worst affected.
The proposed project, initiated by the Government of Tamil Nadu is intended to provide
safe haven for the fishing vessels to carry on the activities in a protected basin and thus
fulfilling the long term aspirations of the people of Vellapallam and its neighbouring five
coastal villages.

5. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
Government of Tamil Nadu is keen to expand/develop/modernize fishing harbours and fish

landing centers along its coast to give a new dimension to the livelihood of the fishing
community and in the process facilitating development of ancillary industries associated
with fish processing, cold storage etc. and even considers export of fish to boost the
economic growth of the state. The development project initiated by the Government of
Tamil Nadu is aimed at fulfilling the longterm aspirations of the people of Vellapallam and
its neighbouring coastal villages. Indomer Coastal Hydraulics (P) Ltd., Chennai, an ISO
9001:2008 and NABET (QCI) accredited organization was awarded the consultancy contract
for the Preparation of Techno Economic Feasibility Report (TEFR) for the development of
Vellapallam Fishing Harbour in July 2014 and the main scope of services include consultancy
services right from investigation stage through planning, design of the facility and provide
construction supervision services during the project implementation stage. Accordingly the
surveys on oceanographic and topographic investigations were carried out in July and
August 2015 and this report presents the results of the surveys.
To start with, an Inception Report was prepared primarily to highlight the various aspects of
facility development and the methodology proposed to be adopted to achieve the intended
purpose i.e. realization of the fishing harbour in accordance with the Terms of Reference
included in the tender document. The Inception Report was approved on 21.07.15.
Subsequently this Feasibility Report has been prepared in accordance with the ToR.
5.1. Feasibility Task Modules
5.1.1. Project information
i) Existing infrastructure at site

ii) Environmental and social screening of project area as per norms of MoEFCC

5.1.2. Surveys and investigations
i) Topographic survey
ii) Bathymetry survey
iii) Meteorological data
iv) Tides
v) Currents
vi) Wind
vii) Waves
viii) Sedimentation & clay deposition
ix) Geotechnical survey - 4 in land and 4 in sea
x) Modelling - numerical and wave flume, wave tranquility, Littoral drift, Shoreline
changes, Dredge disposal studies, maintenance dredging studies.
5.1.3. Project activities and infrastructure development
i) Channel development and its maintenance

ii) Breakwaters, Wharves etc.
iii) Administrative Buildings
iv) Other infrastructure facilities (onshore facilities)
5.1.4. Conceptual engineering and design
i) Various installations and maintenance thereof the proposed activities and

infrastructure
ii) Techno commercial viability of the project
Accordingly, the feasibility report has been prepared and presented.

6. LOCATION OF PROJECT SITE
Vellapallam is a small fishing village located approximately 27 km south of Nagapattinam

town located between the Pilgrimage centre Velankanni and the east coast tip Vedaranyam.
The location map is shown in Fig. 6.1. The satellite imagery of the project region is shown in
Fig. 6.2.
Transportation: Vellapallam can be directly reached by ECR road, by rail to the nearby town
Vedaranyam and by air to nearest cities Madurai and Trichy.
 Vellapallam is located at 25 km east of Thiruthuraipoondi and local buses are

available from Thiruthuraipoondi. There are buses to Thiruthuraipoondi from the
important towns and cities of Tamil Nadu such as Chennai, Trichy, Coimbatore,
Madurai etc.
 The railway station located near Vellapallam is the Vedaranyam railway station
(17 km) and Thiruthuraipoondi Railway Station (25 km).
 The airports located near Vellapallam are Trichy Airport (130 km), Chennai Airport
(300 km) and Madurai Airport (200 km).
Vellapallam village was one of the coastal villages, which suffered extensive damages when
Tsunami waves hit the coast of Tamil Nadu during December 2004. The main objective of
the development of a fishing harbour at Vellapallam is to develop a protected fishing
harbour basin in order to facilitate fishing operation at all stages of weather conditions
including cyclonic weather and Tsunami. After detailed evaluation of various terrestrial and
marine environmental parameters, availability of backup land, road connectivity etc., the
present site has been selected. The suitability of the site was finalized after discussion with
the Stake holders from the neighbouring villages at a meeting held on 17.06.15.
Morphology: The coast is oriented in N 5°W direction. This coastal region is generally
composed of alluvial sediments brought by the storm drain. This region depicts a distinct
depositional form of the coast, located near the southern most end of the east coast, where

the influence of Bay of Bengal ends. The tip of the southern end called Point
Calimere/Vedaranyam/KodiMunai lies 15 km south of the proposed location of fishing
harbour. A large wet land and brackish water lagoon is present at Point Calimere. The
offshore of the Vellapallam region remains shallow and there is a formation of a shallow spit
between Point Calimere (India) and Point Pedaro (Srilanka) called Palk strait. The available
literature shows that this offshore region functions as a littoral sink for the littoral drift
moving along the east coast of India during Southwest monsoon and the littoral drift moving
around the Srilankan Island towards the Indian Coast.
During the southwest monsoon the coast is considerably protected from waves by the
Jaffna peninsula of the Srilanka Island. The wind effect is more on the coast because of the
funneling effect caused by the two land masses viz. India and Srilanka. Such strong winds
often generate local waves and hence the sea remains at times choppy during southwest
monsoon with short crested waves. However, this region receives unobstructed high waves
during the northeast monsoon. The wave climate is relatively calm compared to the
northern part of the east coast. The waves approach nearly parallel to the coast and hence
the net volume of littoral drift is very low along this stretch leading to classification of this
coast as a nodal drift region with negligible annual net drift.
Oceanography: The oceanography of this region is influenced by 3 climatic conditions, viz.,

southwest monsoon from June to September, northeast monsoon from mid October to
February and fair weather period from March to May. However this segment of the coast is
more influenced by northeast monsoon.
Prominent features within 10 km radius: Some of the prominent features both on the
coast and land within 10 km radius of the proposed site of development are given below.
 Nallar river (the mouth remains closed most of the time-open during NE monsoon
period)
 Thalainayar reservoir
 Thalainayar reserved forest
 Kodiyakarai sanctuary

The planning process will take into account the proximity of these locations to ensure that
the proposed development is in accordance with the stipulations and guidelines available
for such development projects.

GALLERY
SOUTH VIEW OF THE PROJECT REGION NORTH VIEW OF THE PROJECT
NALLAR RIVER MOUTH NALLAR RIVER - INSIDE
DISCUSSION WITH VILLAGE PEOPLE ENTRANCE TO SEASHORE

7. ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL SCREENING
7.1. ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING
7.1.1. Natural calamities
The past history shows that Nagapattinam district is exposed to natural calamities
particularly due to storms, cyclones, storm surge and tsunami. The damage is caused mainly
due to cyclones than any other natural calamities. The past history of the natural calamities
over the last sixty years is shown in Tables 7.1 to 7.4. The general climatic disasters risk map
is shown in Fig. 7.1 and the seismic zone map of India is shown in Fig. 7.2.
Table 7.1. Past history of natural calamities
Sl. Date of
Calamity Damages caused
No. occurrence
Storm wage in land upto Damages caused to country crafts, FRP Vessels and
1 30.11.1952
5 miles shore side structures.
2 08.12.1967 Cyclone 7 lives and 15000 rendered homeless.
560 lives and 196 missing and damages to Port,
3 12.11.1977 Cyclone Irrigation systems, Road, Power supply and
communication including large No. of houses.
Floods due to heavy Crops damaged in large scale and affected normal life
4 01.12.1984
rain. due to heavy floods.
5 15.11.1991 Heavy rainfall Crops damaged.
Cyclone speed
6 04.12.1993 1100 people lost their live hood Heavy damage to crop.
188 kmph
6065 life loss. 12821 cattle loss. 791 missing, 1922
7 26.12.2004 Tsunami waves injured. Houses loss and damages to shops and building,
business people.
Nisha Cyclone speed 20 Life Loss, 1174 cattle, 3 injured and 4,58,949 houses
8 27.11.2008
80 kmph were damaged.
10 Life loss, 1492 Cattle loss, 56025 Huts, Pucca and
11/2010
Katcha houses were damaged. Paddy 76419 Hects, 461
9 and Heavy rain fall
Hects Horticulture and 28 Hects Ground nut crops were
12/2010
also damaged.
Hut damages partly 1468, Fully 24. Cattle loss 49. Crop
10 31.12.2011 Thane Cyclone loss 50,931.58 Hectares in all of Paddy, Sugar cane,
Banana and Ground nut.

Table 7.2. Details of cyclones that crossed Tamil Nadu coast during the period 1950 - 2000
District Intensity Jan Mar Apr May Oct Nov Dec Total
Kancheepuram Cyclone 1 0 0 0 3 6 1 11
Thiruvallur Severe
(Chengalpat) 0 1 0 1 1 4 0 7
Cyclone
Cuddalore Cyclone 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 4
Villupuram Severe
(South Arcot) 0 0 0 1 1 2 3 7
Cyclone
Cyclone 0 0 0 1 1 3 0 5
Nagapattinam
Tiruvarur Severe
1 0 0 0 0 4 5 10
Cyclone
Cyclone 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2
Ramanathapuram Severe
0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2
Cyclone
Cyclone 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tuticorin
Tirunelveli Severe
0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3
Cyclone
Cyclone 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Kanyakumari Severe
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Cyclone
Cyclone 2 0 1 2 4 11 1 21
Total (Break Up) Severe
1 1 0 2 2 14 10 30
Cyclone
Table 7.3. Cyclonic storm that crossed the coast between Chennai and Nagapattinam (1946-2011)
Max estimated
Sl. Max
Year Month Period wind speed - ECP Hpa
No. intensity
kmph
1 1946 Nov 14-21 CS 83 -
2 1952 Nov 26-30 SCS 200 -
3 1958 Nov 18-28 CS 91 996.0
4 1960 Nov 18-20 CS 109 995.7
5 1962 May 15-22 CS 83 994.0
6 1963 Oct 19-24 SCS 139 984.2
7 1964 Nov 03-08 SCS 116 995.8
8 1966 Apr / May 28-04 SCS 116 996.7
9 1966 Nov 01-11 SCS 189 961.0

Max estimated
Sl. Max
Year Month Period wind speed - ECP Hpa
No. intensity
kmph
10 1966 Nov 25-30 SCS 114 991.5
11 1967 Dec 04-08 SCS 131 988.0
12 1969 Oct 21-23 CS 105 995.0
13 1972 Dec 01-08 SCS 131 984
14 1977 Nov 08-23 SCS 185 984.7
15 1984 Nov/Dec 27-02 SCS 78 990.3
16 1991 Nov 11-15 CS 100 990.0
17 1993 Dec 01-04 SCS 198 974.0
18 1994 Oct 29-31 SCS 65-85 (G-132) 990.0
19 1996 Nov/Dec 28-06 SCS 120 -
20 2000 Nov 26-30 SCS 189 -
21 2008 Nov 26-27 SCS 63 -
22 2011 Dec 30-31 SCS 140 -
SCS -Severe Cyclonic Storm
CS -Cyclonic Storm
Table 7.4. Details of Cyclonic Storms / Depressions affected Coromandel Coast of Tamil Nadu
Sl. Date of
System Place of Crossing Details of Damages
No Crossing
Caused torrential rain in Tamil Nadu during the period
3-6th Cuddalore recorded 38 cm rainfall on 4th and
Ootacamund recorded 33 cm on 5th. Floods and
1 DD 4th Nov Cuddalore landslides due to heavy to very heavy rain took a toll of
120 lives in Tamil Nadu of which 90 were in Nilgiris
District. Considerable damage to houses and crops
were reported in Tamil Nadu.
Heavy to very heavy rainfall occurred in many places in

Chingleput District in Tamil Nadu. Chennai City
Crossed Andhra recorded 25 cm rainfall on 13th SHAR experienced
Coast close to winds of hurricane strength for more than 24 hours on
SHAR. System 13th / 14th with peak wind speed in gusts reaching 174
14th Nov.
2 SCS moved parallel kmph. Two rain bridges between Sulurpet and Tada
1984
and close to were washed away disrupting the rain traffic between
Tamil Nadu Chennai and Nellore. System claimed 54 lives in Tamil
coast. Nadu of which 17 were in Chennai city. Damage to
property and crops in Madras District were put around
crores.

Sl. Date of
System Place of Crossing Details of Damages
No Crossing
Widespread rain occurred over Tamil Nadu with
scattered heavy to very heavy falls. About 15,000
persons in Thanjavur District and 20,000 persons in
North Tamil
1st Dec. South Arcot District were affected by the cyclone.
3 SCS Nadu Coast
1984 Standing crops in about 50,000 acres in Mayiladuthurai
North of Karaikal.
and Nagapattinam taluks of Thanjavur District were
submerged due to heavy rains. Two villages were
reported have been marooned.
Gale force winds of 80-90 kmph were confined to a
strip of about 70 kms along the Coast and 15.20 kms
Between
inland. Several stations in Tamil Nadu reported rainfall
15th Nov. Nagapattinam
4 CS exceeding 20 cm on 15th. Seven coastal Districts
1991 and Cuddalore
reported widespread damages to standing crops and
near Karaikal
properties due to inundation by flood waters. About
300 people lost their lives.
Karaikal and neighbouring areas reported gale force
winds of 198 kmph in gusts. On account of torrential
rains in coastal Tamil Nadu. Extensive damage to
property and standing crops has been reported. About
4th Dec. 100 people lost their lives. Total loss of property and
5 VSCS Karaikal
1993 damage to standing crops has been estimated to be
about Rs. 700 crores. The system affected a population
of 4.5 lakhs. Storm surge of 3-4 m occurred along the
coastal stretch of 50-60 kms with sea water inundation
inland upto about 22 kms.
Chennai City recorded winds of 80 kmph gusting to
132 kmph at the time of landfall. Cyclone caused heavy
31st Oct. to very heavy rainfall in North Tamil Nadu. Due to gale
6 SCS Chennai
1994 force winds and heavy rains 69 persons lost their lives.
Damage to crops. Structures and roads were estimated
around Rs. 60 crores.
Impact of the cyclone was felt in the coastal belt of
6th Dec. North Tamil Nadu in the form of gale force winds
7 SCS Mahabalipuram
1996 exceeding 100 kmph over Chennai city and suburbs.
No loss of life has been reported.
Gales of the order of 100-110 kmph experienced in
Cuddalore / Pondicherry. Part of Nagapattinam and
Villupuram Districts. 10 persons lost their lives in Tamil
8 VSCS 29th Nov. Cuddalore
Nadu and 2 in Pondicherry. Loss to crop and partial
damage of Kutcha houses - No floods. Rain Thozhdur
45 cms. Kilacheruvai 45 cms.
No serious damage reported in Tamil Nadu and
9 CS 26th Nov. Karaikal Karaikal but damages reported on 26th caused
widespread wind and heavy rainfall.

Temperature: The average maximum temperature is about 32.46° C and the average
minimum temperature is 24.75° C.
Rainfall: The northeast monsoon from October to December, contributes about 60% of the
total annual rainfall while the rest is met by southwest monsoon from June to September
and from March to May. The annual rainfall is 1250 mm and the monthly average rainfall in
the district is 108.87 mm. The yearwise average rainfall from 1991 to 2006 received in
Nagapattinam District is given in Table 7.5.

Table 7.5.Yearwise average rain fall received in Nagapattinam District
Month Normal 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Jan 62.40 30.79 2.58 0.00 12.00 46.86 7.18 52.30 14.22 15.60 223.73 5.30 54.50 5.86 13.64 1.93 36.26
Feb 17.60 2.79 0.00 0.23 97.70 3.03 0.00 0.00 11.41 76.50 150.30 0.70 287.82 0.00 1.58 0.27 0
08
Mar 19.80 0.00 0.00 8.56 0.50 14.98 0.00 0.04 0.00 1.20 0.70 0.00 0.00 12.27 11.76 2.66 33.4
April 38.00 8.21 18.03 3.82 5.90 6.30 48.59 17.00 0.00 57.30 13.30 38.70 6.60 13.66 0.00 197.22 37.50
May 51.10 0.00 35.30 15.25 17.40 110.70 13.50 10.60 110.60 42.37 16.50 85.80 38.20 34.50 291.02 41.97 42.24
June 32.30 26.06 26.30 30.14 0.48 30.90 105.20 30.60 6.40 4.98 18.60 43.80 29.50 42.55 9.48 2.68 12.32
July 4.70 3.54 33.64 27.48 22.78 49.70 11.18 66.00 19.30 22.40 9.78 7.280 64.20 88.81 26.66 28.21 4.30
Aug 98.50 20.65 45.04 50.61 17.30 26.19 137.67 59.90 115.80 36.20 33.12 55.60 15.90 114.38 90.22 53.25 57.5
Sep 97.30 14.15 78.84 52.51 18.05 75.40 143.30 81.20 80.00 18.30 123.30 69.10 48.70 52.20 237.27 133.64 103.20
Oct 212.30 173.80 126.70 266.20 121.28 206.73 141.07 224.15 120.80 282.38 196.80 236.77 314.60 185.00 693.20 183.25 491.2
Nov 337.60 371.65 364.60 605.15 457.79 284.88 434.22 842.60 397.90 515.80 398.60 287.66 300.80 463.05 442.54 891.70 412.2
Dec 201.20 64.50 178.45 483.83 106.89 40.35 652.65 479.20 538.47 144.11 213.70 328.00 116.30 57.70 69.32 125.27 98.40
Total 1172.80 716 909 1543 878 896 1694 1863 1414 1217 1398 1251 1277 1069 1886 1662 1334

7.1.2. Coastal waters
The water quality of this region shows that the nearshore water is well mixed without any
stratification and they do not differ substantially both in vertical and spatial directions. The
water in Vellapallam is turbid, nutrient rich and biologically productive at primary and
secondary levels.
7.1.3. Clay deposition
In general, the nature of the seabed at nearshore in Vellapallam is composed of sand and
silt. It is noticed that during southwest monsoon season, i.e. in June, July, August and
September, there is a large deposition of mud composed of silt and clay at nearshore. The
accumulation of mud is more severe at intertidal zone and upto 500 m offshore. This
formation of clay deposit vanishes with the onset of northeast monsoon i.e. in mid October.
This seasonal deposition of clay causes problem to fishermen as they find it difficult to push
and beach their crafts on the shore. The crafts also get damaged during the beaching
process. The formation of such clay deposits are noticed only along the coastal stretch
between Vedaranyam and Velankanni. The extent of deposition into the sea is more on the
south side near Vedaranyam and reduces towards north near Velankanni. In other places at
further north like Nagapattinam, Tharangambadi, Poompuhar etc. such monsoon clay
depositional phenomenon does not appear. The clay depositional problem appears to be a
localized one and requires further in depth study on the basis of site specific investigations.
Efforts will be made to address the issues in the next task module.
Such pattern and extent of clay deposition have to be studied in detail during the design of
the fishing harbour layout which otherwise may cause excess deposition inside the harbour
basin leading to frequent maintenance dredging. In order to understand the nature of clay
deposition the seabed sediments were collected in August 2015 (southwest monsoon
period) at 36 locations between Vedaranyam and Velankanni as shown in Fig. 7.3. The size
distribution of the seabed sediments are shown in Table 7.6.

Table. 7.6. Sediment size distribution
UTM Coordinates
Distance
WGS 84 Water
shore, % % %
Easting Northing m
km
(m) (m)
B1 (Vellapallam Beach) 375450 1163136 - - 99.4 0.6 -
B2 (Vellapallam – 0.5 km – North) 375425 1163631 - - 94.4 5.6 -
B3 (Vellapallam – 2 km – North) 375295 1165619 - - 98.3 1.7 -
B9 (Vanavanmahadevi South) 375397 1164234 - - 99.0 1.0 -
B10 (Vanavanmahadevi – 1 km – North) 375335 1164912 - - 97.9 2.1 -
B11 (Vedaranyam Beach) 376382 1147677 - - 99.1 0.9 -
B12 (Velankanni Beach) 374624 1181352 - - 99.9 0.1 -
B13 (Vettaikaraniruppu – 3 km North) 375136 1168602 - - 99.0 1.0 -
B14 (Nalluvethapathi – River mouth) 375476 1160020 - - 98.8 1.2 -
VV – S1 378248 1147130 1.5 4.5 - 60.6 39.4
VV – S2 378113 1148124 1.5 4.0 - 67.2 32.8
VV – S3 377989 1149118 1.5 4.0 - 67.2 32.8
VV – S4 377878 1150079 1.5 3.5 - 68.3 31.4
VV – S5 377768 1151107 1.5 3.5 - 62.5 37.5
VV – S6 377670 1152103 1.5 3.4 - 52.4 47.6
VV – S7 377579 1153099 1.5 3.4 - 57.1 42.9
VV – S8 377496 1154096 1.5 3.0 - 60.4 39.6
VV – S9 377422 1155093 1.5 3.0 - 63.4 36.6
VV – S10 377356 1156091 1.5 3.0 - 61.1 38.9
VV – S11 377298 1157089 1.5 3.0 - 64.5 35.5
VV – S12 377246 1158088 1.5 3.0 - 54.6 45.4
VV – S13 377198 1159087 1.5 3.7 - 64.7 35.3
VV – S14 377154 1160086 1.5 3.7 - 58.1 41.9
VV – S15 377111 1161086 1.5 3.7 - 60.5 39.5
VV – S16 377067 1162085 1.5 4.0 - 56.5 43.5
VV – S17 377022 1163084 1.5 4.0 - 59.7 40.3
VV – S18 376975 1164083 1.5 4.0 - 57.5 42.5
VV – S19 376928 1165082 1.5 4.0 - 56.0 44.0
VV – S20 376881 1166082 1.5 4.0 - 46.8 53.2
VV – S21 376833 1167081 1.5 4.3 - 52.4 47.6
VV – S22 376787 1168080 1.5 4.3 - 54.0 46.0
VV – S23 376752 1169080 1.5 4.5 - 48.6 51.4
VV – S24 376695 1170078 1.5 4.5 - 52.4 47.6
VV – S25 376651 1171078 1.5 4.6 - 54.0 46.0

UTM Coordinates
Distance
WGS 84 Water
shore, % % %
Easting Northing m
km
(m) (m)
VV – S26 376608 1172077 1.5 4.0 - 55.1 44.9
VV – S27 376566 1173096 1.5 4.0 - 50.4 49.6
VV – S28 376526 1174096 1.5 4.2 - 58.8 41.2
VV – S29 376488 1175096 1.5 4.2 - 54.0 46.0
VV – S30 376454 1176096 1.5 5.0 - 55.6 45.4
VV – S31 376423 1177096 1.5 5.0 - 56.4 43.6
VV – S32 376394 1178096 1.5 5.0 - 43.2 56.8
VV – S33 376369 1179097 1.5 5.0 - 45.1 54.9
VV – S34 376346 1180098 1.5 4.5 - 54.3 45.7
VV – S35 376326 1181098 1.5 4.5 - 52.4 47.6
VV – S36 376306 1182099 1.5 5.0 - 54.6 45.4
VV – S37 (Vellapallam) 376585 1163572 1.0 4.0 - 57.0 43.0
VV – S38 (Vellapallam) 378418 1163394 3.0 4.0 - 61.2 38.8
VV – S39 (Vellapallam) 380441 1163382 5.0 4.0 - 60.5 39.5
VV – S40 (Vellapallam) 376691 1154326 1.0 3.5 - 60.4 39.6
VV – S41 (Vellapallam) 376336 1154349 0.5 3.5 - 60.4 39.6
VV – S42 (Velankanni) 375167 1181996 0.5 5.0 - 58.1 41.9
*VV-Vedaranyam - Velankanni
The thickness of deposition of silty clay at nearshore based on the difference in depth
arrived from low frequency and high frequency depths obtained from the dual frequency
echo sounder is shown in Fig. 7.4. The silty clay materials are found upto 1500 m offshore
and the process is seen that the spread of clay deposit extents from Vedaranyam to
Velankanni.
The characteristics of bed sediment, their movement, source and sink aspects, wave
climate, current pattern etc. will be taken into consideration while designing the
breakwater.

7.1.4. Tsunami impact
damages to property including the fishing gears, boats etc. in Vellapallam, Nagapattinam
district was the most affected part in Tamil Nadu, accounting for 6,064 out of the total
casualties of 8009 in the state. A large number of the casualties were from the fishing
community, who were living close to the seashore. The property losses impacted the fishing
industry, as most of the boats were damaged by the inundation besides heavy loss of cattle,
houses and property. The fisheries sector suffered very severe damages in this region. All
boats beached on the shore were washed into the sea.
7.1.5. Littoral drift
This particular coast is exposed with relatively low littoral drift and it almost remains a nodal
littoral drift. However, there will be marginal erosion expected on the north side of the
northern breakwater and deposition on the south side of the southern breakwater. Beach
stabilization aspect that may be required on the northern side will be studied and
appropriate remedial measures will be suggested. More details on the littoral drift are
presented in Chapter 10.
7.2. SOCIO ECONOMIC SCREENING
7.2.1. Vellapallam village
Social Status: There are six coastal Taluks in Nagapattinam District and they are Kilvelur,
Nagapattinam, Tharangambadi, Vedaranyam, Sirghazhi and Poompuhar. The fishing harbour
proposed to be constructed at Vellapallam will serve six fishing villages viz. Kameswaram,
Vilunthamavadi, Vanavanmahadevi, Vellapallam, Naluvedhapathi and Pushpavanam.

The socio economic status of Vellapallam village and its neighbouring coastal villages such as
employment status, fishing crafts, Housing facilities, education, literacy, income details etc.
are furnished in Tables 7.7- 7.16.
Table 7.7. Housing facilities
Residential Status
SI. Name of the
Own Rented Total Free House Type of House
No Village
House House House Govt Tsunami Thatched Literoofed Tiled Concrete others Total
1 Kameswaram 220 22 242 1 176 57 0 2 182 1 242
2 Vilunthamavadi 147 1 148 2 109 28 1 1 118 0 148

4 Vellapallam 359 3 362 2 345 13 1 1 347 0 362
5 Naluvedhapathi 471 2 473 32 17 353 1 45 73 1 473
6 Pushpavanam 191 134 325 14 164 127 13 10 173 2 325

Table 7.8. Fishing crafts
SI. Wooden FRP

Village MFB
No Cattamaran Vallam
1 Kameswaram 0 28 70
2 Vilunthamavadi 0 27 67
3 Vanavanmahadevi 7 0 73
4 Vellapallam 2 12 160
5 Naluvedhapathi 0 16 36
6 Pushpavanam 0 3 82
Table 7.9. Fishing gears
No.of Type of Gears

SI. Name of the
Masula Gill Shore Trawl Cast
No Village Longliners Trap Others Total
Boats Net seine net net
1 Kameswaram 0 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 70
2 Vilunthamavadi 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 29
3 Vanavanmahadevi 0 79 1 1 1 0 1 0 83
4 Vellapallam 0 241 0 0 0 0 0 0 241
5 Naluvedhapathi 0 331 30 1 1 2 15 2 383
6 Pushpavanam 0 102 44 0 0 0 0 0 146

Table 7.10. Fishing Days & Mode of Fish Marketing
Fishing Days in a month Mode of Fish Marketing

SI. Name of the
Single 2-5 6-8 Above Middle Retail Whole Street
No Village Society Auction
Days Days Days 8 Days Man sale sale Vendor
1 Kameswaram 166 86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70
2 Vilunthamavadi 158 19 0 0 6 0 23 0 0 0
3 Vanavanmahadevi 173 92 0 0 66 2 15 0 0 0
4 Vellapallam 245 82 1 0 218 13 8 0 1 0
5 Naluvedhapathi 168 1 0 0 0 380 0 2 0 1
6 Pushpavanam 244 3 0 0 32 111 1 6 0 3
Table 7.11. Basic Amenities of the Marine Fishing Villages
Houses Sanitary Facility Drinking Water Facility

SI. Name of the
with Open Common
No Village Individual Common Govt. Bore Others
Electricity Well well/Tank
1 Kameswaram 221 189 18 4 228 1 0 0
2 Vilunthamavadi 130 120 28 26 121 1 0 0
4 Vellapallam 357 346 15 7 340 0 5 10
5 Naluvedhapathi 465 40 348 239 28 23 4 177
6 Pushpavanam 311 157 165 107 10 0 15 190
Source: Tamil Nadu Marine Fisher folk Census 20
Table 7.12. Details of Fisher folk Population
Children Adults Family

Sl. Name of the Total Population Total
(0-17 years) (18years & above) size/persons
No. Village Families
Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total per house
1 Kameswaram 210 193 403 283 293 576 493 486 979 249 3
2 Vilunthamavadi 136 131 267 185 189 374 321 320 641 156 4
4 Vellapallam 371 358 729 398 444 842 769 802 1571 368 4
5 Naluvedhapathi 205 166 371 741 562 1303 946 728 1674 465 3
6 Pushpavanam 201 172 373 437 412 849 638 584 1222 327 3

Table 7.13. Details of Marine Fisherfolk by Age Group
0-5 6-10 11-17 18-40 41-65 Above 65 Total

Sl. Name of the
No. Village
Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female
1 Kameswaram 64 48 57 55 89 90 210 213 69 75 4 5 493 486
2 Vilunthamavadi 43 36 26 33 67 62 132 134 50 47 3 8 321 320
3 Vanavanmahadevi 83 78 53 64 79 100 226 238 71 83 7 7 519 570
4 Vellapallam 112 116 123 102 136 140 300 342 92 97 6 5 769 802
5 Naluvedhapathi 26 21 62 60 117 85 404 312 285 235 52 15 946 728
6 Pushpavanam 46 40 71 49 84 83 276 283 145 117 16 12 638 584

Table 7.14. Educational Status
Higher
Sl. Primary Middle High Total
Name of the Village Sec. Degree Others Illiterate
No. School School School Literate
School
1 Kameswaram 489 162 83 26 4 2 766 101
2 Vilunthamavadi 0 153 229 45 18 0 445 117
4 Vellapallam 298 202 414 61 21 4 1000 343
5 Naluvedhapathi 660 330 300 173 92 58 1613 14
6 Pushpavanam
Table 7.15. Employment Status of Fisherfolk
Fresh Dried Employed in

Sl. Name of the Net Allied Self Un
Fishing Fish Fish Processed Others
No. Village Making Activities Employed Employed
Trade Trade Govt Private
1 Kameswaram 252 86 44 0 10 0 7 4 4 3 14
2 Vilunthamavadi 178 27 0 0 0 0 1 5 0 13 0
4 Vellapallam 340 71 8 0 0 0 2 1 2 13 0
5 Naluvedhapathi 526 32 399 1 0 0 0 5 1 11 0
6 Pushpavanam 321 7 168 0 1 7 0 5 0 0 20


Table 7.16. Income Status of Fisherfolk Families
Rs.24,000 Rs.35,000 Rs.50,000

Sl. Upto Above
Name of the Village to to to Total
No. Rs.24,000 Rs.1,00,000
Rs. 35,000 Rs. 50,000 Rs. 1,00,000
1 Kameswaram 408 0 0 2 0 410
2 Vilunthamavadi 223 0 1 0 0 224
3 Vanavanmahadevi 344 0 0 0 0 344
4 Vellapallam 436 1 0 0 0 437
5 Naluvedhapathi 975 0 0 0 0 975
6 Pushpavanam 573 1 1 0 0 575
7.2.2. Facilities
The public facilities available near Vellapallam are Banks, Post Office, Schools, SIFFS
Fishermen Cooperative society and Hospitals.

8. OCEANOGRAPHIC MEASUREMENTS AND SEABED INVESTIGATIONS
More details on the methodology of the oceanographic measurements and seabed

investigations are presented in the report “Oceanographic measurements, Topographic and
Bathymetry survey for the development of fishing harbour at Vellapallam.”
8.1. PHYSICAL PARAMETERS
8.1.1. Wind
Continuous measurement on wind for a period of one year starting from 17.07.15 is being
done at community hall, Vellapallam using Dynalab Weather station. The location map is
shown in Fig. 8.1. The data on instant wind speed, average wind speed, wind direction,
maximum wind speed and minimum wind speed are recorded on hourly basis.
Geographical Coordinates UTM Coordinates

Stn.V1 (WGS 84) (Zone 44)
Latitude, N Longitude, E X (m) Y (m)
Community hall,
10°31’11.47” 79°51’24.78” 0374916 1163118
Vellapallam
Meanwhile, in order to get the wind climate for the project region, the wind data were
extracted from the National center for Environmental Prediction (NCEP). The NCEP dataset
contains the easterly and northerly components of wind over a spatial grid of 0.5° x 0.5° at 6
hourly intervals. The wind data were compiled for one year over one grid viz., Latitude:
11.0°N to 11.5°N and Longitude: 80.0˚E to 80.5˚E. The monthly wind roses are shown in
Fig. 8.2. Once the wind measurement is complete, the measured data will replace NCEP
data.

8.1.2. Waves
At the interest of Indomer, wave measurements are being carried using Datawell Directional
Wave Rider Buoy. The Directional Wave rider buoy of 90 cm dia. has been deployed off
Vellapallam at 3000 m offshore in 6 m water depth. The measurement has commenced from
01.08.15. The measurement location is shown in Fig. 8.1. The data on Significant wave
height (Hs), Maximum wave height (Hmax), Zero crossing wave period (Tz), Wave direction
corresponding to peak energy (θp), Directional spread (deg), Wave period corresponding to
peak energy (TP), average wave period (Tavg), Period of highest wave (THmax), Peakedness
parameters (Qp), Wave steepness (Ss) and Spectral bandwidth parameters (ε) are recorded
at 3 hourly interval. The wave data for 20 min duration has been sampled for each
recording. The details of measurement location and depth are:
Geographical Coordinates UTM Coordinates Water depth

Stn. (WGS 84) (Zone 44) w.r.t CD
Latitude, N Longitude, E X (m) Y (m) (m)
W1 10° 31’ 51” 79° 53’ 14” 378252 1164328 6.0
Wave rider buoy mooring preparation Wave rider bouy deployment
Meanwhile the past wave characteristics measured at 15 m water depth off Nagapattinam is
presented as monthly wave roses in Fig. 8.3. The joint distribution of significant wave height
and zero crossing wave periods is given in Table 8.1 and the joint distribution of significant
wave height and wave direction is given in Table 8.2. At 15 m water depth, the significant
wave heights is around 0.5 m from March to May, 0.75 m from June to October, 0.75 m and

1.25 to 1.5 m from November to January. The predominant zero crossing wave periods
remain around 5 s over the whole year. The predominant wave direction prevails around
90° during March to May, 100° to 105° in June to October, and 65° to 85° in November to
February. The frequent occurrence of storms and depressions during northeast monsoon
temporarily increases the wave activity in this region.

Table 8.1. Joint distribution of significant wave height and zero crossing wave period (15 m depth)
January
Hs (m)/
<3 3<Tz<4 4<Tz<5 5<Tz<6 6<Tz<7 7<Tz<8 8<Tz<9 9<Tz<10 10<Tz<11 ≥11 SUM Hs
Tz (s)
<0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.5<Hs<1 0 89 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 116
1<Hs<1.5 0 23 102 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 125
1.5<Hs<2 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
2<Hs<2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
≥ 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SUM Tz 0 112 132 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 244
(s)
February
Hs (m)/
Tz (s)
<0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.5<Hs<1 0 82 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 115
1<Hs<1.5 0 15 85 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100
1.5<Hs<2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
2<Hs<2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
≥ 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SUM Tz 0 97 119 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 216
(s)
March
Hs (m)/
Tz (s)
<0.5 0 56 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59
0.5<Hs<1 0 84 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 85
1<Hs<1.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.5<Hs<2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2<Hs<2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
≥ 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SUM Tz 0 140 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 144
(s)
Table 8.1. Contd...

April
Hs (m)/
Tz (s)
<0.5 0 90 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 106
0.5<Hs<1 0 107 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 118
1<Hs<1.5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
1.5<Hs<2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2<Hs<2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
≥ 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SUM Tz 0 198 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 225
(s)
May
Hs (m)/
Tz (s)
<0.5 0 55 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 71
0.5<Hs<1 0 156 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 168
1<Hs<1.5 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
1.5<Hs<2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
2<Hs<2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
≥ 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SUM Tz 0 213 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 243
(s)
June
Hs (m)/
Tz (s)
<0.5 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
0.5<Hs<1 0 136 71 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 210
1<Hs<1.5 0 17 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21
1.5<Hs<2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2<Hs<2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
≥ 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SUM Tz 0 163 75 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 241
(s)
Table 8.1. Contd...

July
Hs (m)/
Tz (s)
<0.5 0 30 30 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 65
0.5<Hs<1 0 112 48 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 162
1<Hs<1.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1.5<Hs<2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2<Hs<2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
≥ 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SUM Tz 0 142 78 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 227
(s)
August
Hs (m)/
Tz (s)
<0.5 0 8 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26
0.5<Hs<1 0 144 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 194
1<Hs<1.5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
1.5<Hs<2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2<Hs<2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
≥ 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SUM Tz 0 157 68 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 225
(s)
September
Hs (m)/
Tz (s)
<0.5 0 3 11 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 16
0.5<Hs<1 0 102 71 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 175
1<Hs<1.5 0 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
1.5<Hs<2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2<Hs<2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
≥ 2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SUM Tz 0 114 83 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 201
(s)
Table 8.1. Contd...

October
Hs (m)/
Tz (s)
<0.5 0 12 18 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 34
0.5<Hs<1 0 75 93 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 179
1<Hs<1.5 0 9 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12
1.5<Hs<2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2<Hs<2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2.5<Hs<3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SUM Tz 0 96 114 14 1 0 0 0 0 0 225
(s)
November
Hs (m)/
Tz (s)
<0.5 0 3 29 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 45
0.5<Hs<1 0 61 36 20 2 0 0 0 0 0 119
1<Hs<1.5 0 17 26 7 5 0 0 0 0 0 55
1.5<Hs<2 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
2<Hs<2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2.5<Hs<3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SUM Tz 0 81 94 43 8 0 0 0 0 0 226
(s)
December
Hs (m)/
Tz (s)
<0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.5<Hs<1 0 25 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44
1<Hs<1.5 0 48 137 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 185
1.5<Hs<2 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11
2<Hs<2.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2.5<Hs<3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SUM Tz 0 73 167 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 240
(s)
*Hs = Significant wave height Tz = Zero crossing wave period

Table 8.2. Joint distribution of wave direction and wave height - (15 m depth)
January February
Wave Wave Height (m) Wave Wave Height (m)

direction Sum direction Sum
<0.5 0.5-1 1 – 1.5 1 .5-2 2-2.5 ≥ 2.5 <0.5 0.5-1 1 – 1.5 1 .5-2 2-2.5 ≥ 2.5
(deg. N) (θ) (deg. N) (θ)
<15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <15 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
15-25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15-25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
25-35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25-35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
35-45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35-45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
45-55 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 45-55 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
55-65 0 4 9 0 0 0 13 55-65 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
65-75 0 8 20 0 0 0 28 65-75 0 6 16 5 0 0 27
75-85 0 22 34 0 0 0 56 75-85 0 17 20 2 0 0 39
85-95 0 27 37 4 0 0 68 85-95 0 24 41 0 0 0 65
95-105 0 25 18 0 0 0 43 95-105 0 40 18 0 0 0 58
105-115 0 23 7 0 0 0 30 105-115 0 21 0 0 0 0 21
115-125 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 115-125 0 3 0 0 0 0 3
125-135 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 125-135 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
135-145 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 135-145 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
145-155 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 145-155 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
155-165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 155-165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
165-175 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 165-175 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
175-185 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 175-185 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
>=185 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 >=185 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sum Hs 0 114 126 4 0 0 244 Sum Hs 0 112 97 7 0 0 216
March April

<0.5 0.5-1 1 – 1.5 1 .5-2 2-2.5 ≥ 2.5 <0.5 0.5-1 1 – 1.5 1 .5-2 2-2.5 ≥ 2.5
<15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
15-25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15-25 20 10 0 0 0 0 30
25-35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25-35 11 5 0 0 0 0 16
35-45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35-45 6 0 0 0 0 0 6
45-55 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 45-55 5 0 0 0 0 0 5
55-65 2 10 0 0 0 0 12 55-65 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
65-75 2 12 0 0 0 0 14 65-75 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
75-85 10 18 0 0 0 0 28 75-85 0 3 0 0 0 0 3
85-95 10 12 0 0 0 0 22 85-95 10 17 0 0 0 0 27
95-105 6 7 0 0 0 0 13 95-105 18 22 0 0 0 0 40
105-115 16 7 0 0 0 0 23 105-115 8 15 0 0 0 0 23
115-125 8 8 0 0 0 0 16 115-125 7 3 0 0 0 0 10
125-135 4 4 0 0 0 0 8 125-135 9 14 1 0 0 0 24
135-145 1 4 0 0 0 0 5 135-145 6 11 0 0 0 0 17
145-155 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 145-155 4 9 0 0 0 0 13
155-165 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 155-165 2 6 0 0 0 0 8
165-175 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 165-175 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
175-185 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 175-185 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
>=185 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 >=185 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sum Hs 59 85 0 0 0 0 144 Sum Hs 106 119 1 0 0 0 225
Table 8.2. Contd...

May June

<0.5 0.5-1 1 – 1.5 1 .5-2 2-2.5 ≥ 2.5 <0.5 0.5-1 1 – 1.5 1 .5-2 2-2.5 ≥ 2.5
<15 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 <15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
15-25 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 15-25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
25-35 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 25-35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
35-45 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 35-45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
45-55 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 45-55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
55-65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55-65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
65-75 2 2 0 0 0 0 4 65-75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
75-85 6 6 0 0 0 0 12 75-85 1 3 0 0 0 0 4
85-95 11 13 0 0 0 0 24 85-95 0 8 0 0 0 0 8
95-105 25 29 0 0 0 0 54 95-105 1 67 7 0 0 0 75
105-115 12 29 0 0 0 0 41 105-115 1 47 6 0 0 0 54
115-125 1 4 0 0 0 0 5 115-125 0 2 0 0 0 0 2
125-135 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 125-135 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
135-145 2 3 0 0 0 0 5 135-145 0 18 2 0 0 0 20
145-155 6 32 0 0 0 0 38 145-155 4 22 3 0 0 0 29
155-165 1 38 0 0 0 0 39 155-165 3 33 3 0 0 0 39
165-175 0 6 0 0 0 0 6 165-175 0 6 0 0 0 0 6
175-185 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 175-185 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
>=185 2 6 0 0 0 0 8 >=185 0 4 0 0 0 0 4
Sum Hs 69 170 3 1 0 0 243 Sum Hs 10 210 21 0 0 0 241
July August

<0.5 0.5-1 1 – 1.5 1 .5-2 2-2.5 ≥ 2.5 <0.5 0.5-1 1 – 1.5 1 .5-2 2-2.5 ≥ 2.5
<15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
15-25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15-25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
25-35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25-35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
35-45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35-45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
45-55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45-55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
55-65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55-65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
65-75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65-75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
75-85 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75-85 1 3 0 0 0 0 4
85-95 11 20 0 0 0 0 31 85-95 8 16 0 0 0 0 24
95-105 24 82 0 0 0 0 106 95-105 12 109 0 0 0 0 121
105-115 24 38 0 0 0 0 62 105-115 3 20 0 0 0 0 23
115-125 2 1 0 0 0 0 3 115-125 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
125-135 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 125-135 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
135-145 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 135-145 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
145-155 0 6 0 0 0 0 6 145-155 1 12 0 0 0 0 13
155-165 1 11 0 0 0 0 12 155-165 0 30 4 0 0 0 34
165-175 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 165-175 0 3 0 0 0 0 3
175-185 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 175-185 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
>=185 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 >=185 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sum Hs 62 165 0 0 0 0 227 Sum Hs 25 196 5 0 0 0 225
Table 8.2. Contd...

September October

<0.5 0.5-1 1 – 1.5 1 .5-2 2-2.5 ≥ 2.5 <0.5 0.5-1 1 – 1.5 1 .5-2 2-2.5 ≥ 2.5
<15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
15-25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15-25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
25-35 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 25-35 0 3 0 0 0 0 3
35-45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35-45 0 3 0 0 0 0 3
45-55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45-55 0 9 2 0 0 0 11
55-65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55-65 0 22 5 0 0 0 27
65-75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65-75 0 6 0 0 0 0 6
75-85 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 75-85 0 3 0 0 0 0 3
85-95 1 5 0 0 0 0 6 85-95 2 6 0 0 0 0 8
95-105 15 83 0 0 0 0 98 95-105 16 61 0 0 0 0 77
105-115 1 58 0 0 0 0 59 105-115 10 52 3 0 0 0 65
115-125 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 115-125 0 10 0 0 0 0 10
125-135 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 125-135 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
135-145 0 2 3 0 0 0 5 135-145 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
145-155 0 18 3 0 0 0 21 145-155 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
155-165 0 13 5 0 0 0 18 155-165 0 9 2 0 0 0 11
165-175 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 165-175 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
175-185 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 175-185 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
>=185 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 >=185 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sum Hs 16 175 10 0 0 0 201 Sum Hs 28 185 12 0 0 0 225
November December

<0.5 0.5-1 1 – 1.5 1 .5-2 2-2.5 ≥ 2.5 <0.5 0.5-1 1 – 1.5 1 .5-2 2-2.5 ≥ 2.5
<15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
15-25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15-25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
25-35 0 8 3 0 0 0 11 25-35 0 0 5 0 0 0 5
35-45 0 11 8 1 0 0 20 35-45 0 0 7 0 0 0 7
45-55 0 11 12 0 0 0 23 45-55 0 4 11 2 0 0 17
55-65 4 29 17 5 0 0 55 55-65 0 2 31 3 0 0 36
65-75 5 18 15 3 0 0 41 65-75 0 6 64 6 0 0 76
75-85 0 2 0 0 2 0 4 75-85 0 9 45 4 0 0 58
85-95 2 2 1 2 1 0 8 85-95 0 7 10 1 0 0 18
95-105 10 11 0 0 0 0 21 95-105 0 12 6 0 0 0 18
105-115 3 19 2 0 0 0 24 105-115 0 2 1 0 0 0 3
115-125 17 2 0 0 0 0 19 115-125 0 0 2 0 0 0 2
125-135 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 125-135 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
135-145 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 135-145 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
145-155 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 145-155 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
155-165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 155-165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
165-175 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 165-175 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
175-185 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 175-185 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
>=185 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 >=185 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sum Hs 41 113 58 11 3 0 226 Sum Hs 0 42 182 16 0 0 240

Wave data validation: The measured wave data Nagapattinam are compared with the
hindcast data of NIOT Wave Atlas. The Comparison is given in Table 8.3.
Table 8.3. Comparison of Measured and Hindcast wave data
Significant wave height (m) Mean wave direction (deg. N)

Month
Measured NIOT Atlas Measured NIOT Atlas
January 1.0 - 1.5 0.5 -1.0 85 - 95 60 - 75
February 0.5 - 1.0 0.5 -1.0 85 - 95 60 - 90
March 0.5 - 1.0 0.5 -1.0 75 - 85 60--120
90 90
April 0.5 -1.0 0.5 -1.0 95 - 105 105 - 135
May 0.5 -1.0 0.5 -1.0 95 - 105 150 - 180
June 0.5 -1.0 0.0-0.5 95 - 105 150 - 180
July 0.5 -1.0 0.0-0.5 95 - 105 150 -165
August 0.5 -1.0 0.0-0.5 95 - 105 135 -165
September 0.5 -1.0 0.0-0.5 95 - 105 135 -165
October 0.5 -1.0 0.0-0.5 95 - 105 120 - 135
November 0.5 -1.0 0.5 -1.5 55 - 65 45 - 75
December 1.0 - 1.5 0.5-1.5 65 - 75 45 - 75
The comparison has revealed that the measured NIO wave height is comparable to that of
one in NIOT Wave Atlas. NIOT data gives slightly lower values particularly during June to
September. Similarly, the wave direction is biased towards south in May to September
possibly due to the values reported in NIOT Wave Atlas pertaining to the location at 14 km
offshore at 38 m water depth, whereas the measured data is based on wave rider buoy
observations at 15 m depth, which is relatively close to the project site. Similarly, during
September to June such variations are noticed and in this case, the possible reason is that
the wind direction is the determining factor. The hindcast data is generally preferred in
situations where measured data is not available.
In the present case, the measured wave data are available close to the fishing harbour
location and accordingly the measured data has been used for the computation of wave
parameters. The measured wave data have been compared with the NIOT Wave Atlas and it
agrees to a reliable extent. The measured wave data will be used for further purpose.

Operational window
The operational window for different wave heights based on measured data is shown in
Table 8.4. It shows that the wave heights are less than 2.0 m throughout the year except in
cyclonic days.
Table 8.4. Operational Window
Number of days more than the

Month specified wave height
>0.5 >1.0 >1.5
January 31 17 1
February 29 14 1
March 18 - -
April 16 1 -
May 22 1 1
June 29 3 -
July 22 - -
August 27 1 -
September 28 2 -
October 26 2 -
November 24 8 1
December 31 25 2
Sum 303 74 6
Percentage 82 20 2
Design waves
The 3 hourly measured wave data obtained from NIO for one year were subjected to
longterm wave statistics and for the estimation of design waves for different design period.
The design waves were estimated using the model CEDAS developed by the CERC, US Army
Corps of Engineers. The analysis in the model is incorporated with Weibull statistical
distribution, (Ochi, M. K., 1982).

  H  H 
F(H)  1  exp   s o   (5)
 H H 
  c o 
The design waves for different return period are estimated using the equation,
 (6)
Rp 
1  F(Hs )

Where,
 = slope parameter
F(H) = Weibull probability
Hc, Ho, Hs = height parameters
Rp = return period
 = measurement interval
The statistical of measured wave heights are shown in Table 8.5.
Table 8.5. Statistical distribution of wave heights at Nagapattinam (measured data)

Period: one Year - 1996
Percentage of
Wave height (m) No. of waves
occurrences
0 - 0.25 9 0.33
0.26 - 0.50 456 17.16
0.51 - 0.75 1078 40.57
0.76 - 1.00 585 22.01
1.01 - 1.25 325 12.23
1.26 - 1.50 181 6.81
1.51 - 1.75 18 0.67
1.76 - 2.00 5 0.18
Sum 2657 100.00
Another important factor is that the project region is commonly exposed to the occurrence
of Low pressure, Depression, Storm and Cyclone particularly during NE monsoon period i.e.
during the months of October and November. During the days of Cyclone the wave heights
will normally exceed the estimated wave height which was arrived based on the normal
wave climate. The extreme wave of upto 6 m can break on the Breakwater located at 5 m.
Based on the Weibull distribution, the design wave height for the return periods of 2, 5, 10,
25 and 50 year are estimated as 2.5 m, 2.9 m, 3.1 m, 3.5 m and 3.7 m respectively. The
details of the design waves are shown in Table 8.6 and Fig. 8.4.

Table 8.6. Design waves
Return period Design wave height

(years) (m)
2 2.5
5 2.9
10 3.1
25 3.5
50 3.7
8.1.3. Storm
The number of cyclones occurred within the vicinity of 150 km to the project location
between the years 1877 and 2011 are shown in Table 8.7. Totally 99 cyclones had occurred
in 135 years, out of which 46 storms had occurred in November followed by 20 storms in
October.
Table 8.7. Number of cyclones crossed the coast within 150 km (1877 and 2011)
Month Occurred in the vicinity

January 3
February 1
March 1
April 3
May 7
June -
July -
August -
September -
October 20
November 46
December 18
Total 99

8.1.4. Tides
Tide measurement was carried out at one location (T1) using Aanderaa Seaguard Water
Level recorder for the period of 36 days from 20.07.15 to 26.08.15. The tide data were
recorded at 10 min interval at 2.3 km offshore off Vellapallam. The measured water levels
were reduced to chart datum. The location map is shown in Fig. 8.1. The details of
measurement locations are:
Geographical UTM (Zone – 44) Duration

Location
Latitude, N Longitude, E X (m) Y (m) From To
T1
10°31’44.29” 79°52’58.18” 0377759 1164116 20.07.15 26.08.15
(2.3 km offshore)
The variation of tide measured for a period of 36 days from 20.07.15 to 26.08.15 at stn. T1 is
shown in Fig. 8.5. The measurement shows that the tides are semidiurnal. The spring tidal
range existed around 0.99 m and the neap tidal range existed around 0.43 m.
The tide levels reported for Nagapattinam with reference to CD are given below.
Nagapattinam
Tide
(Predicted tide table, SOI, 2014)
Mean High water Spring 0.65 m
Mean High Water Neap 0.47 m
Mean Sea Level 0.34 m
Mean Low Water Neap 0.20 m
Mean Low Water Spring 0.03 m

Installation of Tide gauge Tide gauge deployment
8.1.5. Currents
Variations of surface current speed and direction were measured using Aanderaa RCM 9
current meter for the period of 32 days from 25.07.15 to 26.08.15 at one location (stn. C1).
The surface currents were measured at 2300 m offshore at 4.7 m water depth. The
measurements were made 2 m below the sea surface at 10 min interval. The current
measurement location is shown in Fig. 8.1 and the details of are given below:
Geographical Coordinates UTM Coordinates Water

Distance
(WGS 84) (Zone – 44) depth
Location offshore
w.r.t CD
Latitude N Longitude E X (m) Y (m) (m)
(m)
C1 10°31’44.29” 79°52’58.18” 0377759 1164116 2300 4.7
The variation of surface current speed and direction, and the corresponding polar plot
showing the distribution of current speed with directions are shown in Fig. 8.6. During the
measurement period the maximum current speed reached upto 0.46m/s and the mean
current speed was 0.18 m/s. The current was uni-directional towards north during the
measured period. However the current speed was found to change uniformly with tidal
phases, i.e. the current speed was found to be increasing during flood tide and decreasing
during ebb tide.

Installation Of Current Meter Current Meter Deployement
8.1.6. Turbidity, Salinity and Temperature
The parameters such as turbidity, salinity and temperature were measured using YSI
Multiparameter Water Quality meter at one location for a period of 32 days (from 25.07.15
to 26.08.15) at 2.3 km offshore. The location map is shown in Fig. 8.1. Also water samples
were collected at surface in open sea at one location and presented in Table 8.8. The details
of YSI Probe deployment locations are given below.
Geographical Coordinates UTM Coordinates Water

Distance
(WGS 84) (Zone – 44) depth
Location offshore
w.r.t CD
Latitude N Longitude E X (m) Y (m) (m)
(m)
TST 1 10°31’44.29” 79°52’58.18” 0377759 1164116 2300 4.7
During the measurement period the turbidity varied from 12.2 to 270.3 NTU, variation of
turbidity appears to change with the tidal phases. High turbidity is observed during ebb
phase and low turbidity is observed during flood phase. The temperature varied from
28.11 °C to 30.68 °C and Salinity varied from 25.13 ppt to 39.06 ppt during the
measurement period. During the period 17.08.15 to 26.08.15, there is a fresh water flow
due to heavy rain and hence the salinity was found to be very less (Fig. 8.7).

Table 8.8. Water quality Parameters
Time TSS Salinity

(Hrs) (mg/l) (ppt)
8:00 84 37
8:30 60 37
9:00 72 37
9:30 64 37
10:00 92 37
10:30 76 37
11:00 76 37
11:30 64 37
12:00 60 37
12:30 80 37
13:00 64 37
13:30 60 37
14:00 40 37
14:30 80 37
15:00 64 37
15:30 52 37
16:00 52 37
16:30 64 37
17:00 56 37
17:30 56 37
18:00 112 37
8.2. TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
Topographic survey was carried out 2300 m along the coast and 750 m inland. The planned
lines for topographic survey is shown in Fig. 8.8.
Bench Marks
PBM - 1: The Permanent GTS Bench Mark (PBM) is established inside the campus of
Session’s Court, opposite to central bus stand at Nagapattinam. It is made of cut stone,
square in shape 60 cm x 60 cm sizes, having a height of about 45 cm above ground level. It
has a truncated top of 7.5 cm x 7.5 cm and located at the corner of Vinayakar temple. The
reference level of PBM is 5.279 m w.r.t. MSL. Thus the reference level is equivalent to
5.619 m w.r.t CD.

Geographical Coordinates UTM Coordinates

Reference Level *Reduced Level
Descriptio (WGS 84) (Zone 44)
w.r.t. MSL w.r.t. CD
n
Latitude, N Longitude, E X (m) Y (m) (m) (m)
PBM-1 10˚46’23.90” 79˚50’26.30” 0373252 1191157 (+) 5.279 (+) 5.619

*MSL = (+) 0.34 m w.r.t. CD as per the records of Indian Tide Table.
Temporary Bench Marks
PBM -1 (Nagapattinam Session’s court)
Transfer of Levels: The reference level of PBM was carried over and transferred to fourteen
Temporary Bench mark locations (TBM 1 – TBM 14). The descriptions of TBMs established
are given below.
Geographical Coordinates UTM Coordinates *RL

Description (WGS 84) (Zone 44) w.r.t.
Latitude, N Longitude, E X (m) Y (m) MSL (m)
Nagapattinam Fishing Harbour jetty wharf 0.5 m above pillar top level
TBM -1 (Near light house)
10˚45’53.99” 79˚51’4.9” 374412.059 1190230.482 (+) 2.597
Amman temple steps - right side corner (Near Velankanni beach)
TBM -2
10˚40’11.99” 79˚51’11.99” 374593.805 1190230.482 (+) 2.252
HTL stone top level (Near Vettaikaranirupu village beach)
TBM -3
10˚37’27.16” 79˚51’14.02” 374631.498 1174660.106 (+) 1.780
HTL stone top level (Near Vilunthamavadi village beach)
TBM -4
10˚35’29.25” 79˚51’22.95” 374889.468 1171036.980 (+) 1.338

HTL stone top level (Near Kovilpathu village beach)

TBM -5
10˚32’3.29” 79˚51’35.94” 375261.150 1164708.846 (+) 1.338
SIFFS office building left side of the cement platform in Vellapallam bridge
TBM -6
10˚31’12.13” 79˚51’39.13” 375352.531 1163136.942 (+) 1.332
Right corner First step of MariammanTemple (Near Vanavanmahadevi village)
TBM -7
10˚31’45.21” 79˚51’26.30” 374966.095 1164154.367 (+) 1.814
Bottom of the platform in Vanavanmahadevi fishing platform
TBM – 8
10° 31’ 48.92” 79° 51’ 37.40” 375303.953 1164267.119 (+) 0.732
Left side of the culvert in Vellapallam
TBM – 9
10° 31’ 18.60” 79° 51’ 36.01” 375258.386 1163335.788 (+) 1.280
Top of the community hall in Vellapallam village
TBM - 10
10° 31’ 11.47” 79° 51’ 24.79” 374916.315 1163118.136 (+) 7.165
Left side of the temple corner in Vellapallam village
TBM - 11
10° 31’ 7.67” 79° 51’ 29.65” 375063.539 1163000.869 (+) 2.277
Bottom of the bridge in Vellapallam
TBM - 12
10° 31’ 45.74” 79° 50’ 56.66 ” 374061.935 1163313.590 (+) 3.838
Top of the pedestal of the flag mast
TBM - 13
10° 31’ 11.15” 79° 50’ 56.69” 374848.123 1163111.214 (+) 2.984
Bottom of the minor bridge slab (Near the route Nagapattinam to Vedharanyam)
TBM - 14
10° 31’ 7.02” 79° 49’ 52.97” 372124.446 1162997.221 (+) 2.060
*To get the elevation with respect to CD, the level with respect to MSL should be added with 0.34 m
Verification of vertical level using Auto Level
The SOKKIA Auto Level C320 was used to cross check the established TBMs at Vellapallam.
Tide recorder was deployed at 2.3 km offshore from Vellapallam for a period of 36 days. The
tide levels were separately measured with reference to TBM 6 for every 15 minute interval
from 0600 hours to 1800 hours on 02.08.15.The recorded tide levels using tide recorder
were reduced to CD and super imposed over the tides reduced by levelling from TBM 6. It
was found that the recorded tide levels agree with the tides measured from TBM 6. Thus
the Reference Level is verified and validated to be true.

Temporay Bench Marks (TBMs)
TBM - 1 TBM - 2
TBM - 3 TBM - 4
TBM - 5 TBM - 6

TBM - 7 TBM - 8
TBM - 9 TBM - 10
TBM - 11 TBM - 12
TBM - 13 TBM - 14
The topographical survey charts are prepared covering an area of 2300 m along the coast
and 750 m inland in WGS 84 spheroid with UTM coordinates supplemented by Geographical
coordinates indicating the latitude and longitude. The ground elevations are represented
above Chart Datum (CD). The topographical map for the entire survey area prepared in
1:2500 scale in 12.5 m x 12.5 m grid is presented in Fig. 8.9.

Topographic survey results show that the major part of the inland upto 750 inside is a low
plain with elevation rising only upto (+) 1.5 m to (+) 2.0 m CD. There is a small patch of land
on the northern side rising upto (+) 4.0 m CD. The Nallar River is almost dry. The course of
the river has a bed level of 0 to (+) 0.7 m CD.
8.3. BATHYMETRY SURVEY
Area of survey: Bathymetry survey was carried out covering an area of 3000 m distance
along the coast and 5000 m distance into the sea at 50 m line spacing. The transect lines
were planned perpendicular to the coast. In addition, 10 tie up lines were carried out in
shore parallel direction at 500 m spacing approximately. The survey area and the planned
survey lines are shown in Fig. 8.10.
The bathymetry map is prepared in WGS 84 spheroid with UTM coordinates supplemented
by geographical coordinates indicating the latitude and longitude. The bathymetry map
prepared in 1:5000 scale in 25 m x 25 m grid is shown in Fig. 8.11. The water depths are
presented w.r.t. Chart datum in 12.5 spacing. The variation of water depth with distance is
shown in Table 8.9.
The variation of depth is even with contours running parallel to the coastline. The seabed
falls down with uniform slope with contours running parallel to each other. The depth
contours of 2 m, 3 m, 4 m, 5 m, 6 m and 7 m occurs at a distance of 420 m, 1020 m, 1870 m,
2725 m, 3825 m and 4800 m from the shoreline respectively. The nearshore of the project
location is very shallow upto 1.5 km offshore.
Table 8.9.Water depth with distance
Depth w.r.t. CD Distance from

(m) shoreline (m)
2 420
3 1020
4 1870
5 2725
6 3825
7 4800

Installation of Echo sounder On Board Bathymetry Survey
8.4. Geotechnical investigations
The geotechnical investigations will be taken up after the finalization of the layout. All the
bores and field tests will be undertaken in accordance with IS1896 and IS2131. The soil
samples will be taken at various depths and standard laboratory tests will be conducted as
per IS 2720.
The main features of the Geotechnical investigations will be:
 Making 4 No.s of Land Boreholes and 4 No.s of Marine Boreholes

 Collecting soil samples at regular depth intervals
 Conducting SPTs at every 1.0 m/1.50 m depth intervals
 Conducting laboratory tests on samples collected
 Submitting report with laboratory test results and recommendation for foundations.

9. PLANNING OF LAYOUT AND FACILITIES
9.1. VELLAPALLAM-FISHING VILLAGE
This project is basically aimed at developing a sheltered basin for the fishing vessels by
means of a breakwater system plus matching beach landing facilities for FRPs and
appropriate fish landing wharfs, idle berthing wharfs, outfitting and repair wharfs etc. for
MFVs so as to enable the fishermen do fishing activities in a safe marine environment.
There are some 6 coastal villages engaged in fishing activities in and around Vellapallam.
Vellapallam and its surrounding villages are principally dependent on FRP for fish catch and
subsequent landing on beaches. The number of FRPs and MFVs which will be using the
proposed facilities is estimated at around 800 to 1000 and 100 respectively whereas the
number of MFVs which are currently operating is less than 50 as ascertained form the local
fishing community. These MFVs operate from nearby fishing harbours at Nagapattinam in
the absence of fish landing facilities at Vellapallam.
9.2. STAKE HOLDERS MEETING
To assess the requirements of fishing community a Stake Holders meeting was held on
17.06.15 when a typical layout broadly indicating the proposed facilities was presented and
the feedback of fishermen were obtained.
The layout presented at this meeting, the feedback of the fishermen and photo gallery are
shown in Annexure 9.1.
9.3. BASIC REQUIREMENTS OF LAYOUT
i) Adequate length of coastline to provide all marine facilities such as beach landing
facilities for FRPs and full-fledged landing wharf, outfitting wharfs, berthing wharfs,
repair wharfs etc. for the MFVs matching the fishing operational needs

ii) Two breakwaters- one on the south and the other on the north side with appropriate
opening to facilitate movement of crafts to provided a sheltered basin
iii) Adequate depth
iv) Adequate backup area to provide the onshore facilities such as auction hall, net
mending shed, truck parking areas, roads, pavements, workshops etc.
v) A layout which can minimize the deposition of clay
vi) Approach road avoiding water spillage in the village
The layout has been evolved to meet the above requirements and those of the stake
holders and this is discussed in the paragraphs to follow:
LAYOUT OPTIONS-CRITICAL STUDY
Option 1 - Facilities on either side of the river mouth
A conceptual layout of the proposed facilities was exhibited and explained to the
stakeholders during the Stakeholders’ meeting was held on 17.06.15. The layout was agreed
in principle and the only change the fishing community suggested was to realign the
entrance on the seaward side to facilitate easy navigation at all weather conditions.
The fishermen appeared more in favour of deepening the existing Nallar river so that the
fishing crafts could be berthed alongside on both sides of the river banks and there would
be utmost tranquility from high waves since all the facilities would be well inside the river.
These suggestions are a departure from the concept proposed by Indomer. The central
theme of the proposal was not to disturb the natural regime of the channel but to develop
the facilities for FRPs on northern side and or MFVs on the southern side leaving the river
untouched except probably serving as a sheltered basin for small crafts during adverse
weather conditions over and above the tranquility provided by means of the breakwater
system.

Option 2- All Facilities on the southern side of the river
Subsequent to the stakeholders meeting, Indomer received a copy of the petition addressed
to Fisheries Department by the local people expressing their grievances and the likely
problems that they would face in the event of deepening the river. The main concern
expressed by them was that the ingress of sea water during high tide would be felt to a
long distance upstream of the river with the result that the groundwater would become
salty thereby creating a lot of problem for all their activities such as agriculture, drinking
water supply etc. They appeared unyielding to the proposal of deepening the river as
discussed in Option 1.
Even in Option 1, Indomer’s proposal was not for deepening the river but to develop all the
facilities without affecting the river in anyway and ensure that the mouth does not get
closed. In view of the apprehensions expressed by the local people as an alternative, Option
2 has been evolved, which in a nutshell means shifting the whole system to the south of
river by about 500 m. This is shown in Fig. 9.1. An alternative layout with a slightly modified
alignment of breakwater is shown in Fig. 9.2.
Versatility of marginal wharf layout
The marginal wharf is more user-friendly especially for fishing crafts from operational
considerations. On the other hand a jetty protruding into the basin may not only encroach
into the water shed area to some extent but also reduce the flexibility of movements of
fishing vessels notwithstanding the fact that this is also an accepted method in many
harbours of the world.
The marginal wharf layout will be amenable to accommodate berthing jetty should such
necessity arise in future warranting additional capacity.

Additionally, idle berthing facility can also be developed on the lee side of the south
breakwater and ample water space of some 51.45 ha is still available within the protected
basin.
Taking into account the flexibility which is in-built in the marginal wharf layout now
suggested, the hybrid system can be considered later when the dire necessity arises in
future after exhausting all the options.
9.5. DESIGN OF MARINE FACILITIES
The parameters that will govern the assessment of coastline requirement for the
development of water front facilities are:
 Beach landing space for FRPs.

 Landing wharf for unloading catch for MFVs
 Idle berthing wharf for berthing after unloading
 Outfitting wharf with installations to supply fuel, ice etc
 Repair wharf for carrying out minor adjustments/repair before sailing
 Boat repair facility yard
These are assessed based on the number of crafts and fishing cycle as shown in Table 9.1.
Table 9.1. Fleet details/ fishing cycle
Length Landing per boat

Boats Fishing trip (days)
(m) (kg)
17 50 4 340
18 50 5 450
FRPs less than
1000 1 (daily basis) 30
10 m long
Source: Department of Fisheries

9.5.1. Design data
 20% of the FRP vessels may not go to fishing and 10% for trawlers because of
maintenance, minor repairs etc.
 The MFV - 17 m and MFV - 17 m will go on 4 and5 days trip respectively and FRPs on
daily basis
 During peak season 40% trawlers will arrive in a day with 20% increase in catch
 Turnaround time for MFVs (docking, undocking, loading etc) is assumed to be 9 to 10

minutes depending on the type of vessels
 The average landing wharf length for a boat consists of average length of the boat +
10% spacing between the boats to facilitate safe maneuvering
 Unloading rate for FRPs varies
 Unloading rate for trawlers 4500 kg/hour
9.5.2. Wharf/Beach landing
Below 10 m size FRP - 1000 numbers - Beach landing
Generally, for traditional boats (smaller FRP vessels) whose fishing cycle is 1 day, full-
fledged landing facilities are not provided and they are beached perpendicular to the coast
unlike in the case of big trawlers which get berthed alongside the marginal wharf (wharf).
During various interactions and at the stake holders meeting held in July 2015, the local
fishermen expressed their intention to have adequate beach landing area. Accordingly, a
coastline of 450m has been provided, a little more than optimum to meet future
requirements. Being basically a facility for FRPs, catamarans and other such vessels the
provision of 450m coastline as beach landing facility is more than justified. Furthermore,
very small crafts are likely to continue using the Nallar River for fishing operations.

MFVs-Landing wharf
17 m long trawlers
 No. of boats operating per day = 0.9*50/4 (4 days trip)

= 11.25
 No. of arrivals in peak hour = 0.4*11.25 = 5 numbers
Additional 20% catch = 340 *1.2 = 408 kg
 Total turnaround time for a vessel = 9 mins
(Based on ground conditions)
 No of berths to handle = 5*9/60 = 1 approx
Length of the landing wharf = 1 (17 + 1.7)
= 18.7 m say 20 m
18 m long trawlers
 No. of boats operating per day = 0.9*50/5

(5 days trip) = 9
 No. of arrivals in peak hour = 0.4*9 = 3.6
= 4 numbers
Additional 20% catch = 450 *1.2=540 kg
 Total turnaround time for a vessel = 9 mins (based on ground
conditions)
 No of berths to handle = 4*9/60= 1 approx
 Length of the landing wharf = 1 (18 + 1.8) = 20 m
Total length of Landing wharf = 40 m
9.5.3. Outfitting wharf
17 m long

 No of berth required for outfitting in 8 hrs = 5*15/(8*60) = 1

18 m long

 No of berth required for outfitting in 8 hrs = 5*15/(8*60)=1
Total length of outfitting wharf = 40 m
9.5.4. Repair wharf
 Provision is made for one 18 m vessel

 20 m = 1 (18 + 2) = 20 m
 Total repair wharf required = 20 m
9.5.5. Idle berthing wharf length
For designing purposes, it is generally assumed that only 50 percent of the total vessels will
need to be considered. On this basis, the requirements are evaluated.
17 m long
Assuming the boats berth 5 abreast

Idle berthing length required = 0.9* (17+1.7)*(50/2)*(1/5)
= 84.15 m say 85 m
18 m long
Idle berthing length required = 0.9* (18+1.8)*(50/2) *(1/5)

= 89.1 m say 90 m
Total idle berthing wharf = 85 m + 90 m = 175 m

The landing wharf – 40 m, outfitting wharf – 40 m, and repair wharf – 20 m in all 100 m will
be available to function as idle berthing wharf and hence a provision of 100 m is made for
exclusive idle berthing within the available coast length of 700 m. The summary of the wharf
length is given in Table 9.2
Table 9.2. Summary of wharf length
SI. Coastline/wharf
Type of wharf 17 m 18 m FRPs
No. length (m)
1 Fish landing wharf (m) 20 20 450 m 490
Exclusive
provision within 40
2 Outfitting wharf (m) 20 20
200 m beach (rounded off)
front
No separate
3 Repair wharf (m) - 20 20
wharf required
4 Idle-berthing wharf (m) 50 50 On beach 100
5 Sloping yard 50 50
TOTAL 700
Note:
 All the wharfs are aligned in a straight line which provides the flexibility to
accommodate the required number of vessels at any point of time depending on the
actual site conditions at the time of berthing.
 The marginal wharf has been designed for accommodating 100 vessels whereas the
present fleet strength is reported to be about 25-50. The design is made on a
conservative side to meet marginal expansion in future in terms of additional number
of vessels.
 The entire design concept of the wharf is based on docking and undocking time, time
required for unloading of fish, idle time, fishing days, etc. which by themselves would
have some cushion built in the system that may become handy to meet additional
length of wharf during peak hour landing.

In view of the flexibility available on the lines discussed above it is felt that the wharf length
requirement for various uses need to be considered in totality and the built-in cushion
available in the system would meet the additional requirement if any for individual services.
9.5.6. Wharf design parameters
The design parameters normally adopted for similar structures in the fishing harbour in the
region are as follows:
Vertical load : 10 KN/sq.m

Bollard pull : 10 T
Wave force : Need not be considered
Earth pressure : Usual active/passive resistance of the soil
Design wave : 3.7 m, period: 8-10 s
Vehicular loads : As appropriate depending on the extent they are allowed to ply on
the wharf apron; normally vehicles not permitted.
Breakwater : Non-overtopping conditions
The type of structure whether piled type, gravity wall with precast blocks, diaphragm wall
with anchored to dead man behind the wall, relieving platform etc. will be decided based
on geotechnical investigations and analysis of sub soil parameters later.
9.6. BASIN/CHANNEL DESIGN/ MAINTENANCE
Dredging within the Basin
The maximum size of vessel is 18 m long which will have a draft of 2 to 2.5 m (maximum
side) and with an under clearance of say 0.5 m and making provision for siltation if any, it is
proposed to dredge the basin to (-) 3.0 m CD. Approximate quantity of dredging estimated
at this stage is 180000 cu.m. This quantity is not substantial and can be primarily used for

reclamation to create additional backup land area and if something is still left, this can be
used as sand bank on the north of north breakwater where some erosion is likely to occur
due to natural processes. The question of dumping it offshore at the designated location
based on modelling study may not arise. However, this will be again reviewed at the DPR
stage on the basis of in-depth study of soil characteristics of dredged material.
Channel development
The entrance width will be 100 m wide to allow simultaneous entry of a number of vessels
at any time. The channel will be aligned in 3.0 m depth contour available at entrance from
littoral drift considerations and dredging is proposed upto (-) 3.0 m CD in the entire berthing
basin leaving the FRP vessels’ area hence the question of dredging the approach channel
and the maintenance of the channel may not arise.
Furthermore, the ship maneuverability studies mentioned in the ToR are generally
recommended for major cargo vessels and may not be required for small craft harbours in
view of the sizes of crafts, where the maneuvering/ operational methods are quite different
and in case of adverse weather conditions, the vessel movements are mostly controlled by
IMD and the communication tower located at the vantage point at the fishing harbour site
as also the established traditions and practices of the fisher folk of the region.
9.7. BREAKWATERS
The south and north breakwaters will be of rubble mound type with armour protection on
the seaside - the type of armour layer adopting heavy size stones or artificial concrete blocks
will be decided during next stage of preparation of DPR, depending on the conditions
obtaining at the site such as i) the cost implications, ii) duration for construction and
iii) environmental constraints.

The south breakwater of 1200 m long will be 700 m away from the north breakwater of
1000 m long leaving 100 m wide gap for entry and exit of fishing vessels to harbour basin.
The watershed area encompassed thus by these two breakwaters will be about 51.45 Ha.
The vast space available in the basin will serve as boat anchoring areas in case of extreme
weather conditions arising out of cyclones, even for disaster like tsunami to some extent.
The stability of the breakwater section will be tested through wave flume studies after
finalization of the design parameters for offshore structures. The facilities included in the
proposed fishing harbour are
South breakwater : 1200 m

North breakwater : 1000 m
Inside width between Breakwaters : 700 m
Entrance width : 100 m
Sloping yard : 50 m x 20 m
Landing wharf : 40 m
Outfitting wharf : 40 m
Repair wharf : 20 m
Idle berthing wharf : 100 m (exclusive)
Beach landing-FRPs : 450 m
9.8. LAYOUT-GROUND REALITIES
A technically acceptable coastline of 700 m with a trapezoidal back up area measuring 85 m

on the north and on the southern side from the coastline has been identified as the
potential area for development. The entire exercise is centered on how best the available
area could be optimally used for development satisfying the requirements of the 1000 FRPs
and 100 MFVs. The above computation has revealed that the proposed marine facilities will
be able to meet the requirements in full and in fact a little more to an extent of some
additional capacity of 15% from the planned capacity of 7150 TPA as discussed in Chapter 12
- Commercial Viability.

The backup area will be adequate to develop the matching onshore facilities so as to ensure
that the whole system functions well without any bottleneck-logistics in particular.
9.9. DEVELOPMENT OF ONSHORE FACILITIES - AREA REQUIREMENTS
This will among others include the following items:
 Auction hall
 Net mending shed
 Fish drying yard
 Fishermen gear, cloak room
 Truck loading platform
 Administrative building
 Generator shed yard
 Transformer yard
 Security room
 Fishermen rest shed
 Public Toilets
 Sewage treatment plant
 Solid, liquid waste disposal
 Overhead tank
 Seawater and fresh water sump
 Restaurants
 Vehicle parking area
 Internal roads including drains
 Boat repair yard
 Fuel station for bunkering activities
 Ice supply point
 Radio Communication center
 Health center, ATM etc.

 Harbour compound wall

Fish Auction cum packing hall
This is a vital facility where the fresh fish landed from the trawlers are cleaned, sorted by
species, size-wise, weighed, auctioned, iced, packed and distributed to the markets. The
auction halls are preferably located close to the landing wharf to avoid long haulage of fish
and the fish getting exposed to hot sun in the process. The sequences of activities that will
take place at the auction will generally conform to the established procedures.
Table 9.3. Quantity of fish/day
17 m-50 Nos/4 days 18 m-50 Nos/5 days

Calculation FRP-1 day trip
per trip, per trip,
parameters 1000 Nos
50 trips 40 trips
Boats
operating/day/ 80% x 1000=800 90% x 50=45 90% x 50=45
4-5 days
Arrivals in peak
40% x 800=320 40% x 45=18 40% x 45=18
hour
Average
30 kg 340 kg 450 kg
landing/boat
Peak landing 1.2 x 340=408 kg 1.2 x 450=540 kg
1.2 x 30=36 kg
per boat or 408/4=102 kg/day 540/5=108 kg/day
Total landing
36x 320=11520 kg 135 x 18=2430 kg 144 x 18=2592 kg
from boats
Grand total 11.5 T 2.4 T 2.5 T
Final total/day 16.4 T say 17 T
Source: CICEF, BLR
Assuming 75% of fresh fish goes to auction/packing hall and the balance 25% as trash fish
going for drying, fish meal etc. In fact, FRPs catch will be mostly handled at the beach and
may not pass through auction hall. However, for planning purposes, it has been also taken
into account.
On this basis, fresh fish handled in the auction hall per day is 17 x 0.75 = 12.75 T.

Assuming fish auctioning process for each batch takes 1.5 to 2 hrs; fish catch landed in 2 hrs
will be 5.5 T, which is considered for area requirement.
Each display area 4.6 m x 2.6 m holding capacity 2.2 T of fish if arranged when in 11 rows
and 4 columns of fish boxes with a net weight of each box taken as 50 kg. The size of each is
0.5 m x 0.4 m x 0.3 m. Considering 3 sets of such box one above the other which can hold
6.24 T of fish,
No. of display required 12.75/6.24 =2.04 say 3 to be on the conservative side.
A fish handling auction area of 35 m x 18 m is provided as a minimum requirement to start

with and one more will be provided for FRPs.
Fish loading area
This is an integral part of the fish auction hall provided on the back/rear side with a lean to
roof model to facilitate vehicle including refrigeration units access from behind for receiving
auctioned and packed fish for transportation to the designated places for eventual
distribution. The vehicle parking area will be of concrete surface with required slope. This
will cover the entire fish auction hall and will therefore be of size 30 m x 7 m.
Harbour Administrative Building
This facility is provided to manage and maintain the harbour facilities plus operation of all
the fish handling activities. Preservation of environment as per guidelines of the statutory
authorities is also vested with the harbour administration. Besides, safety and security
concern of the fishing harbour falls within its ambit. For this purpose, 100 sq.m provisions
are made to accommodate various departments of harbour administration. Architectural
design will be made during DPR stage.

Vehicle parking area
During peak hour, the harbour will be flooded with 4-wheelers and 2-wheelers in
connection with transportation of fish to the market and other designated places. For this
purpose, an area of about 600 sq.m is provided in the initial stage and will be suitably
enhanced depending on the intensity of traffic.
Net mending yard
A net mending yard compatible with the requirements of fishing vessels, FRPs in particular is
necessary. A provision of 2-net mending sheds each measuring 25 m x 10 m is made in the
present proposal-which will cater to the FRPs also.
Fishermen rest shed
This is an important requirement to be provided to fishermen who venture into sea at early
hours and return home at late hours. This will have all the basic facilities inside. The number
of crews using the facilities will be as follows:
FRPs 600 Nos. x 3 crew 1800

MFVs 100 Nos x 7 crew 700
Total crews 2500
Normally, about 12 % of the estimated crew will be operating from the harbour.
Furthermore, the trawlers have fishing cycle of 4-5 days. Considering all these factors,
initially 25 m x 10 m size rest shed is proposed and can be enhanced later if necessary.

Fishermen gear shed
Fishing gear storage bins with locking arrangements are required to be provided in a Fishing
Harbour to ensure safe custody of the fishing gears in these sheds rather than keeping them
in the trawlers. For this purpose, 2 units of 24 m x 7 m gear-shed are envisaged in this
proposal. It is preferable to provide these facilities behind the idle berthing wharfs to avoid
the trouble of boat operators carrying the heavy gears to a long distance if the sheds are
located elsewhere.
Sloping yard
A conventional sloping yard consists of two parallel rail tracks usually laid on concrete ramp
sloping from shore to water which varies between 1 in 10 and 1 in 12 depending on the size
of vessels. Every time the vessel is to be moved from water to shore or vice versa it is
hoisted on to a cradle on the rail track and then the cradle is pulled by a winch operated on
electrical or diesel motors. Sloping yard can easily handle vessels upto 25 T which means
bigger size trawlers.
The RC sloping hard comprising 50 m wide with an area of some 1000 sq.m having a slope
1V:10H is generally the most preferred option from cost considerations matching with the
sizes of vessels operating at Vellapallam and accordingly provided in the layout. Suitable
area shall be earmarked separately for FRPs and trawlers in the land area. For attending to
repairs and maintenance of fishing vessels, a workshop will also be provided as part of this
facility.
Restaurant/Canteen
A restaurant of size 15 m x 8 m is provided for use by fishermen, visitors and those in the
port office.

Seawater pump and freshwater pump
Seawater is required for washing fishes, cleaning auction hall, washing fish box etc. For this
purpose, a separate pumping station with seawater distribution system is provided.
Similarly, the fresh water supply will be provided to meet the requirements of fishing
vessels, manufacture of ice, other uses in restaurant, rest shed, administration Building etc.
A pumping station with sump/OHT system will be provided. An area of 6 m x 6 m each is
provided for these facilities.
Generator and transformer yard
A provision of 10 m x 8 m each is made for these essential services.
Public toilet blocks
For the floating population who visit the harbour for business purposes, minimum toilet
facilities need to be provided. An area of 7 m x 6 m - 2 Nos. is provided in the layout.
Fuel supply and storage
The project contemplates provision of 60 m long outfitting wharfs where all the installations
like fuel supply, ice supply point etc. will be provided. An area of 6 m x 5 m for fuel supply
and equal area of 6 m x 5 m for the ice supply will be provided in the outfitting wharf
complex.
Radio communication tower
This is yet another important facility to be provided to ensure uninterrupted ship-to-shore

communication link between fishing vessels and the shore and to watch and regulate vessel
movements and to provide information concerning fishing grounds, movement of fishes,

navigation aids etc. and other marine safety aspects following MARPOL conventions and
other safety regulations as applicable for small craft harbours. An area of 10 m x 10 m is
provided. The possibility of locating this on the terrace of administrative building will also be
explored during the detailed planning stage.
Internal roads including drain
A well-laid out net work of roads is provided and most of them will be asphalted surface on
a suitable sub-base to the adequate thickness designed on the basis of BIS standards.
In addition, fish loading area and parking areas will concrete surfaced.
Drainage and sewerage
Adequate storm water drains will be provided to collect storm and rain water for eventual
disposal into sea.
Navigational aids
Wherever absolutely necessary, appropriate navigational aids will be provided to facilitate safe
navigation.
Sewage Treatment Plant
Effluent treatment plant of capacity 25 KLD is also proposed to treat the sewage and the
effluent will be discharged into sea after treatment.

Power and lighting
Approaches to the marine structures, walkways, street lights, buildings etc. need to be
provided lighting for safety and security. To tide over emergency situations arising due to
electric power shut downs, breakdowns, important buildings like fish auction hall,
administration office, water supply systems etc. standby generator sets will be provided.
Security system
To control entry and exit of vehicles and visitors security system manned by qualified personnel
supported by electronic devices need to be provided. For this purpose, at the entrance,
security kiosk is provided in an area of 5 m x 3 m.
Compound wall
The entire land area of harbour boundary will be provided with a tall compound wall so as to
ensure safety and security at all times and the proposed security system will form part of the
overall arrangements.
Green and landscaping
Green and clean port concept is catching up the port sector more so in the context of Clean
India concept promoted by the government of India. This is all the more necessary to
control pollution levels in terms of air, water soil well within the permissible norms of the
authorities. Furthermore, this adds to the aesthetics of the surroundings.

9.10. SUMMARY OF FACILITIES PROVIDED IN THE LAYOUT
9.10.1. Marine components
 South breakwater : 1200 m

 North breakwater : 1000 m
 Inside width between BWs : 700 m
 Dredge depth : (-) 3.0 m CD
 Dredging quantity : 180000 cu.m
 Basin area : 51.45 Ha
 Sloping yard : 50 m x 20 m
 Landing wharf : 40 m
 Outfitting wharf : 40 m
 Repair wharf : 20 m
 Idle berthing wharf : 100 m (exclusive)
 Beach landing-FRPs : 450 m
 Mean sea level : 0.34 m
 Wharf level : (+) 2.0 m CD
 Entrance width : 100 m
9.10.2. Vessel related
 FRPs less than 10 m (1000Nos.) : 1 day trip - 200 trips 30 kg/trip

 17 m trawlers (50 Nos.) : 4 days trip -50 trips 340 kg/trip
 18 m trawlers (50Nos.) : 5 days trip - 40 trips 450 kg/trip
 Fishing days/year : 200
Catch-3 options : Basic: Option 1: 7150 T, Option 2: 7760 T,
Option 3: 6410 T
9.10.3. Onshore facilities
 Auction hall : 35 m x 18 m - 2 Nos.

 Net mending yards : 25 m x 10 m - 2 Nos.
 Gear cloak room : 24 m x 7 m - 2 Nos.
 Administration building : 10 m x 10 m
 Generator shed : 10 m x 4 m
 Transformer yard : 10 m x 8 m

 Security kiosk : 6mx5m

 Public toilets : 7mx6m
 Sewage treatment plant : 10 m x 8 m
 Over Head Tank : 6mx6m
 Restaurants : 15 m x 8 m
 Fishermen Rest shed : 25 m x 10 m
 Sea water sump : 6mx5m
 Fresh water sump : 6m x 5m
 Vehicle parking area : 85 m x 22 m (2 Nos.)
 Boat repair yard : 70 m x 75 m
 Sloping yard : 50 m x 20 m
 Fuel station : 6mx5m
 Ice supply point : 6mx5m
 Communication tower : 10 m x 10 m
 Health center : 5mx5m
 ATM : 2mx2m
 Internal roads
 Drainage and sewerage
 Power and lighting
 Compound wall
9.10.4. Backup area
Along the coast : 700 m

South of NBW : 85 m
South of SBW : 85 m
Available land area : 6.78 Ha
Once the layout is approved then the wave flume study will be done.

ANNEXURE 9.1
Proceedings of the meeting in brief: Besides the officials of the Fisheries Department, more
than 200 people from 7 fishing villages within the jurisdiction of Vedaranyam Taluk
participated in the meeting. Executive Engineer, Fisheries Department conducted the
proceedings. He explained the purpose of the meeting, which was to seek the suggestions of
the stakeholders so that the project, on completion, would serve the intended purpose.
He introduced the team of experts from Indomer led by Dr.P.Chandramohan, Managing

Director.
Before taking up the agenda items for deliberations, he requested MD, Indomer to highlight
the salient features of the proposed project so as to make the general public and the
stakeholders in particular become familiar with the project details and offer suggestions for
the betterment of project.
Indomer exhibited the model layout describing the various facilities both offshore and
onshore. The conceptual layout proposed at the stage of Stakeholders meeting is shown
below.
Managing Director, Indomer made a power point presentation of various facilities through a
typical model layout (exclusively devised for the occasion) and the timeline for the
implementation of the project. He explained that the layout has been evolved keeping in
view the current practice of utilizing the river for fishing boats and the potential of enlarging
the facilities by the construction of breakwater on either side of river. He made it clear that
the layout presented was only a concept and other options/alternatives would be studied in
details so as to evolve the most suitable one meeting the requirements of the fishermen on
a long term basis.

Interactive session with stakeholders: The fishermen community welcomed the proposed
development and showed active participation. The interactive session was very useful and
they raised very valid suggestions based on their experience and difficulties being faced by
them during bad weather conditions coupled with shallow depth and poor soil conditions.
interactive session are summarized in the Table below.
Stake holders’ demand Vs acceptance status
Sl. Raised by
Demand / Suggestions Acceptance Status
No. Name Village
1 Provision of Lighthouse, Anjappan Vellapallam Accepted (Action by
Boat repairing yard & respective department)
bypass road for
transportation.
2 Provision for health Muthumanickkam Vellapallam Accepted for
centre, and to increase the consideration.
frequency of buses and
autos for transportation.
3 Provision for 200 MFC, 800 P. Sundaram Vizhunthamavadi Accepted.
FRP and also future
development.
4 Provision for local Fish Chinnathai Vellapallam Accepted for
markets in Vellapallam consideration.
village.
5 Employment opportunities Muthulakshmi Vellapallam Accepted to provide
and erosion protection common facilities for all.
measures and allocation of
facilities on village basis.
6 Provision of Bypass road Tahsildar of Vedaranyam To be considered by
upto the proposed fishing Vedaranyam concerned department
harbour
7 Employment opportunities President Vanavanmahadevi Accepted as inbuilt
at the proposed fishing component of the facility.
harbour
8 Provision of Diesel bunk P.Kalayanasundaram Vellapallam Provision of Diesel bunk
and road connectivity. included and road
connectivity to be taken
up by concerned
authority
9 Provision of Seamless Panchayat Leader Pushpavanam Included in the facility
communication tower
10 Provision of Slipway Arumugam Vellapallam Included in the
workshop, Heavy duty development.
transformer, Coal Storage
facilities, etc…

Summing up the presentation, Dr. P. Chandramohan informed that the above suggestions
will be incorporated in the layout and the proposed development will reflect the aspiration
of the fishing community. The more important points noted are:
i) The deposition of clay during SW monsoon

ii) Alternative approach road avoiding the village
Executive Engineer thanked and welcomed the suggestions given by the stake holders and
said that the points suggested by them will be taken into consideration in the planning
process of the scheme by Indomer.

STAKE HOLDERS MEETING – GALLERY

MINUTES OF STAKEHOLDERS MEETING HELD ON 17.06.15



10. MODELLING STUDIES
This section deals with the model studies carried out by Indomer using MIKE 21 software to
study the suitability of the proposed layout in terms of wave tranquillity inside the harbour
basin, shoreline changes and littoral drift movement. Apart from other parameters such as
bathymetry, the main input required for the study is wave climate comprising wave height,
wave period etc. The primary task is to establish these parameters.
10.1. WAVE TRANQUILLITY
The wave tranquillity studies inside the harbour basin were carried out using the MIKE 21
EMS (Elliptic Mild-Slope) Wave Module.
Model description
MIKE 21 EMS is based on the numerical solution of the ‘mild-slope’ wave equation originally
derived by Berkhoff in 1972. This equation governs the motion of time harmonic water
waves (linear waves) on a gently sloping bathymetry with arbitrary water depth. In case of
constant water depth, the basic equation reduces to the classical Helmholtz equation.
The linear model includes shoaling, refraction, diffraction, wave breaking, bed friction and
back-scattering. Partial reflection and transmission through breakwaters is also included.
Sponge layers are applied where full absorption of wave energy is required, e.g. at offshore
boundaries. The model has been used to determine harbour resonance and seiching as well
as wave transformation in coastal areas. The model also includes a general formulation of
radiation stresses, which apply in crossing wave trains and in areas of strong diffraction and
wave breaking.
MIKE 21 EMS is based on a quiet unique solution method. The time harmonic variation is
subtracted and the elliptic equations are reformulated as mass and momentum type

equations, which are discretized using a Finite Difference scheme. The normal ADI
(alternating direction implicit) algorithm is invoked and the equations are solved by means
of double sweep algorithm.
Basic equations
The MIKE 21 EMS module solves the mild-slope wave equation expressed in two horizontal
dimensions as,
c g  2
  (cc g  )  0
c t 2
where c is the phase celerity, c g is the group velocity and  the surface elevation and 
the horizontal gradient operator.
By introducing the pseudo fluxes P* and Q*, this equation can be rewritten as a system of
first order equations, which are similar to the mass and momentum equations governing
nearly horizontal flows in shallow water,
c g  P  Q 
  0
c t x y
P  
 cc g  0
t x
Q  
 cc g  0
t y
The harmonic time variation can be extracted from the above equations by using
  S ( x, y, t )e iwt
P  P(x , y , t )e iwt
Q   Q(x , y , t)eiwt

The time variations in S , P, Q is a slow variation, which is due to the solution procedure i.e.
iteration towards a steady state. This leads to the following set of equations, which have
been generalized to include internal wave generation, absorbing sponge layers, partial
reflection and transmission from breakwaters and other structure, bed friction and wave
breaking.
S P Q
1  2 S    S Generation
t x x
P S
1  3 P  c g 2 0
t x
Q S
1   3Q  c g 2 0
t y
Where,
cg
1 
c
cg
2  i   fs
c
cg
3  ( i  f p )  f s  e f  eb
c
 - Surface elevation above datum (m)
P - Pseudo flux density in the x-direction (m 3 /m/s)
Q - Pseudo flux density in the y-direction (m 3 /m/s)

S,P,Q - complex function of x, y and t
h - Total water depth = d +  (m)
c - Linear phase velocity (m/s)
cg - Linear group velocity (m/s)
d - Still water depth (m)
g - Gravitational acceleration (m/s2)
 - Wave frequency (1/s)
i - Imaginary unit
SGeneration - Source magnitude per unit horizontal area, m 3 /m/s

Model setup
To ensure a good representation of wave transformation inside the harbour, a highly

detailed model was set up with rectangular grid. The simulation area considered is
approximately 2400 m along the coast and 2500m into the sea off the coast of Vellapallam
Village. The grid spacing selected is 5 m in both x and y directions. The grid system
comprised of approximately 1,87,22,640 computational points.
Input
The model requires the following input parameter:
 Bathymetry
 Incoming wave height, period and direction
Simulations
The shoreline orientation near Vellapallam village, where a fishing harbour is proposed to be
developed, is nearly in the N 9° W direction. The proposed Vellapallam harbour opens to the
Bay of Bengal on the northern side of the basin. The wave tranquillity studies were carried
out for four incoming wave directions given in the Table 10.1.
Table 10.1. Incoming Wave parameters
Incoming wave Wave period

Season
direction w.r.t. N (s)
NE monsoon 70° and 90°

SW monsoon 6, 8, and 10
110°
Fair weather period

Results
The wave roses presented in Section 8 indicate that during NE monsoon (October-January)
the waves will predominantly approach from N70°E to 90°E. The wave height will be higher
during NE monsoon period compared to the rest of the year. The fishing boats need
tranquill condition particularly during NE monsoon in Vellapallam region. The high monsoon
waves get aggravated during cyclonic days which are common during northeast monsoon
and such waves are expected to approach from N70°E. These factors are important to be
considered while designing the layout of the fishing harbour. Therefore for representing the
northeast monsoon, the study on wave tranquility has been carried out for the waves
approaching from N70°E to 90°E for the wave periods of 6, 8 and 10 s.
Incoming wave direction - (N70°E): The tranquility conditions inside the harbour basin for
N70°E are shown in Fig. 10.1. The extent of tranquility obtained from model study shows
that the northern part of the harbour basin gets total tranquility while the waves get
attenuated by 50% till 500 m inside on the southern side of the harbour basin. The
diffracted waves with a diffraction coefficient of 0.3 to 0.4 are observed in the harbour basin
along the southern breakwater. On the other hand the region along the proposed berth
inside the breakwaters is fully protected from the NE monsoon waves.
Incoming wave direction - (N90°E): The tranquility conditions inside the harbour basin for
90°E are shown in Fig. 10.2. The extent of tranquility obtained from model study shows that
the entire harbour basin gets total tranquility for such easterly wave approach. The region
along the proposed berth inside the breakwaters is fully protected for the NE monsoon
waves approaching from 90°E.
Incoming wave direction - (N110°E): The wave roses presented in Section 6 indicate that
during SW monsoon and Fair weather period (April – September) the waves will
predominantly approach from N110°E. The wave heights will be very moderate during this
period of the year. Therefore for representing the southwest monsoon and fair weather

periods, the study on wave tranquility has been carried out for the waves approaching from
N110°E for the wave periods of 6, 8 and 10 s.
The respective tranquility conditions inside the harbour basin for N110°E are shown in
Fig. 10.3. The extent of tranquility obtained from model study shows that the entire harbour
basin gets total tranquility for such waves approaching from N110°E.The region along the
proposed berth inside the breakwaters is fully protected for the waves approaching from
N110°E.
Discussion: The wave tranquility studies were carried out for three predominant wave
directions, viz. N70°E, N90°E and N110°E for the wave periods 6, 8 and 10 s. The model
studies indicate that the proposed layout provide adequate shelter for the waves
approaching from any direction over the years giving total tranquility inside the harbour
basin. Hence, from the point of view of tranquility requirements, the proposed layout for
breakwaters is ideal.
10.2. LITTORAL DRIFT
The DHI- LITPACK model suite is a convenient tool for studying the coastal processes related
sediment transport in the wave breaking zone. The different modules in DHI- LITPACK model
suite are LITSTP, LITDRIFT, LITLINE, LITTREN, LITPROF, which are used respectively to
estimate the non cohesive sediment transport, longshore current, littoral drift, shoreline
evolution, sedimentation in trenches and cross-shore profile evolution. In the present
study, the littoral sediment transport along the coast has been evaluated using the LITDRIFT
model.
Model Description
LITDRIFT is a deterministic numerical model which consists of two major parts, viz. i) a
hydrodynamic model and ii) a sediment transport model (STP).

The hydrodynamic model includes propagation, shoaling and breaking of waves, calculation
of the driving forces due to radiation stress gradients, momentum balance for the cross-
shore and longshore direction giving the wave setup and the longshore current velocities.
The model can be applied on complex coastal profiles with longshore bars. In the case of a
longshore bar the broken waves can reform in the trough onshore of the bar.
Having computed the longshore current by the hydrodynamic module, points are selected
across the coast, which are representative for the littoral drift estimation. The sediment
transport calculations carried out by the STP module are made to reflect the local conditions
with respect to the energy dissipation, the percentage of non-breaking waves and the rms
values of wave heights.
The total sediment transport is dominated by transport contributions from areas where
wave breaking occurs. In case of a bar-profile, the sediment calculation points will have to
be located on the bars where waves are breaking. This gives the distribution of sediment
transport across the profile, which is integrated to obtain the total longshore sediment
transport rate. By considering the variation in the hydrodynamic climate (e.g. the yearly
wind, wave, tide, storm surge and profile conditions) it is possible to determine the net
gross littoral climate at a specific location. The flowchart of LITDRIFT module is:
SEDIMENT WAVE, WIND & CROSS SHORE

PARAMETERS CURRENT DATA PROFILE
LONGSHORE CURRENT
LONGSHORE
TRANSPORTESTIMATION
TOTAL DRIFT

The annual drift is evaluated by the contribution of transport from each of the incident
wave occurring over the year. When calculating the annual drift, the wave climate in
LITDRIFT is described at specified intervals in a time series file where each data set describes
the characteristics of incident waves. The duration of the wave incident is given as a fraction
of a year. Then the total annual drift Qannual is calculated as the sum of the contributions
from all incident waves,
NSETS
Q annual   Q (i).Duration
i1
S (i)
Where NSETS is the total number of incident waves. The 3 hourly wave data are used as
input.
Model input
The input data for the LITDRIFT module is described below,
i) Orientation of the coast

ii) Bathymetry of the cross shore profile
iii) Time series of wave climate
iv) Sediment parameters
Results
The orientation of shoreline near the proposed Vellapallam harbour location is shown in
Fig. 10.4. It is oriented nearly in N5°W direction. In the littoral drift estimation all the
existing geomorphologic features has been considered in the LITDRIFT model.
The measured wave data at 15 m water depth have been given as input to LITDRIFT module
and the littoral drift has been estimated.

The littoral drift was towards north from April to September and towards south from
November to February. The total northerly transport was estimated as 2,36,627 m 3/year
and southerly transport was estimated as 1,83,937 m3/year. The total annual gross
transport was found to be 0.42 x 106 m3/year and the annual net transport was estimated to
be 0.05 x 106 m3/year. The littoral drift seems to be higher in the month of June, November
and December and low in the month of October. Compared to rest of east coast, it is
observed that littoral drift in this region appears to be low and tends to be a nodal drift zone
showing the annual drift towards north is almost equal to the drift towards south.
10.3. SHORELINE EVOLUTION
The shoreline evolution of the study region will be carried out after finalizing the layout.

11. COST ESTIMATION
11.1. BACKGROUND
The unit rates for working out the cost estimates are based on rates pertaining to similar
works carried out within the region and in-house data available with Indomer. However, the
rates need to be treated with caution and the percentage of variation may be ± 10% to 15%
which is acceptable at feasibility report stage.
The main share goes for the construction of marine works such as breakwater, dredging and
the berthing structure-the marginal wharf required for landing, outfitting, idle berthing
purposes etc.
The cost does not include land acquisition and CSR activities which are normally insisted for
private sector development.
11.2. SUMMARY OF COST ESTIMATES
The cost estimates have been worked out under five heads and shown in the Table 11.1:

Table 11.1.Summary of cost estimates
Percentage to total
No. Category of facilities Amount in lakhs
(Rs. 104 crores)
A Marine facilities
Breakwaters, wharf walls, dredging etc 7890 75.86%
B Onshore facilities
Auction halls, net mending shed, admin.
552 5.30%
Buildings, gear store, rest shed, canteen,
and all other buildings, loading platforms etc
C Utilities and services
Fresh water and sea water supply sumps,
250 2.40%
OHTs, power, waste disposal, internal roads
and pavements etc
D Other Associated facilities
Radio communication tower, firefighting, 200 1.93%
boundary walls, security etc
E Environmental factors
Pollution control, erosion protection, beach 300 2.89%
nourishment, waste disposals etc
Total 9200
Contingency at 12.5% 1200 11.54%
Grand Total 10400
The major cost center is towards creation of marine facilities to an extent of 76% (78.9
crores). The breakup details are shown in Table 11.2.

Table 11.2. Break up details of cost estimates
Sl.
Description Unit Quantity Unit rate (Rs) Amount (Rs. Lakhs)
No
A Marine components
A.1 South breakwater Rm 1200 3,00,000 3600
A.2 North breakwater Rm 1000 3,00,000 3000
A.3 Landing wharf Rm
A.4 Berthing jetty Rm
200 4,00,000 800
A.5 Outfitting wharf Rm
A.6 Repair wharf Rm
A.7 Slipway LS 50 110
A.8 Dredging cum 1,80,000 200 360
(assuming sand)
A.9 Navigational aids L.S 20
Sub total-A 7890
B Onshore components
B.1 Auction hall 2Nos. sq.m 1260 18,000 226
35 mx18 m each
B.2 Net mending shed 2Nos. sq.m 500 12,000 60
25 mx10 m
B.3 Office building sq.m 150 20000 30
15 x 10 m
B.4 Boat repair yard sq.m 150 13,000 20
B.5 Gear shed 2 nos. sq.m 576 12,000 69
24 mx12 m
B.6 Workshop sq.m 100 15000 15
B.7 Canteen sq.m 140 20,000 28
B.8 Public toilets-2 Nos. sq.m 150 15,000 23
B.9 Fishermen rest shed sq.m 250 12,000 30
B.10 Loading platform sq.m 595 5000 30
85 mx7m
B.11 Vehicle parking areas- LS 21
paved
Sub total-B 552
C Utilities and services
C.1 O.H.Ts
C.2 Fresh water sump
C.3 Saline water sump
LS 250
C.4 STP and ETP/solid and
toxic material disposal
C.5 Internal
roads/pavements
Sub total-C 250

D Other associated
facilities
D.1 Fire fighting
D.2 Radio communication
L.S 200
D.3 Electrification
D.4 Boundary walls
D.5 Security
Sub total- D 200
E Environmental measures
E.1 Pollution control
Shore protection
E.2
(Groins etc.)
E.3 Green belt development
E.4 Beach nourishment L.S 308
E.5 Fire extinguisher
Drainage /sewage
E.6
disposal
E.7 EIA & Model study
Sub total E 308
Total A to E 91.92 say 92 crores

Contingencies @ 12.5% 11.5 say 12 crores
Grand total 104 crores

12. TECHNO COMMERCIAL VIABILITY
12.1. GENERAL
The occurrence of Tsunami on 26.12.04 accelerated the development of fishing harboursin a

large scale to facilitate restoring normal life for the fishing community which suffered losses
in terms of heavy human causalities, and their fishing boats/gears.The rehabilitation and
resettlement activities were taken up by the Tamil Nadu government on a war footing at
huge investment.
12.2. GOVERNMENT’S ACTION PROGRAMME
Following Tsunami, a comprehensive study was made focusing on the needs and
requirements of the fishing community. Some of the welfare measures taken by the state
government are:
 Subsidy for motorization of traditional crafts

 Tax free diesel to mechanized boats and country crafts
 National savings cum relief schemes for fishermen
 Fishing ban period relief for fishermen family
 Bio-metric cards
 Assistance from birth to death of fisher folk through fishermen Welfare Board
 Insuring life of fishermen
 Educational assistance
 Protecting the traditional fishing rights of the fishermen.
Thus, the proposed development of fishing harbour falls in line with the government’s
objective to provide a safe haven for accommodating the fishing vessels and enable
fishermen carry on the business activities. The creation of protected basin - a fishing
harbour is essentially a service entity and does not necessarily fall within the ambit of a
commercial enterprise normally associated with commercial harbour development.

To quote from the manual of UN “Appraisal of Investments on port development-1977”:
“Commercial profits typically measure the amount by which revenues exceed costs, where
revenues and costs are direct monetary values obtained or paid by the enterprises at market
price. Economic cost benefit analysis, however, has to look behind and beyond the meaning
of the market prices of these factors and impute the true costs of these factors to the
economy. A port project falls in the domain of the public sector and as such evaluation purely
on commercial profitability basis is only one aspect of the project decision and, on its own,
insufficient”.
Probably, for this reason an integrated approach is generally recommended for evaluation
of financial viability combining both the activities i.e. creation of fishing harbour and the
fishing operation inside the basin as explained in the sections to follow:
12.3. COMMERCIAL/FINANCIAL EVALUATION
12.3.1. Objectives
For small craft harbours such as fishing harbours, the financial evaluation exercise needs to
be carried out keeping in view the government’s objective to develop such facilities purely
as a service oriented entity to facilitate an honorable living for the fishing community at all
stages of weather conditions including Tsunami like occurrences, at par with their
counterparts in other service/business/agricultural sectors. The capital cost for the
development of the facility such as breakwaters and other associated offshore and onshore
facilities as elaborately discussed in earlier chapters will have to be treated as assets created
and maintained by the government to a great extent and the fishermen will use the facility
for unloading fish, auction, distribution etc. This is the core underlying evaluation criteria in
the current exercise.

If this is understood in the correct perspective as a service to the downtrodden, the present
viability exercise should justifiably be limited to the extent of throwing some light on how
far and how soon the proposed development would help the fishing community to become
financially stable to earn a sustainable livelihood. On this basis, an attempt is made in this
section to evaluate the commercial aspects of the proposed development as an integrated
entity. This is the main philosophy generally followed in the financial evaluation of state
sponsored fishing harbours.
12.3.2. CICEF guidelines
The Central Institute of Coastal Engineering for Fishery (CICEF) based in Bangalore has
carried out extensive studies on the development of fishing harbours along the Indian
Coasts and their reports and manuals serve as the guidance for the planning and design of
fishing harbours. In fact, for the current exercise much has been drawn from one of their
reports pertaining to the “Development of Fishing Harbour at Poombuhar-September 2013”
project. Poombuhar report is more relevant in more ways than one because the fishing
harbour now proposed at Vellapallam is near to it.
With the above in background, an integrated approach has been adopted for the evaluation
of commercial viability.
12.4 IRR BASED FINANCIAL VIABILITY - BASIC PHILOSOPHY
Major ports operate purely as a commercial entity. The revenue is based on i) vessel related
charges such as pilotage charges, and berth hire charges and ii) cargo related charges on
tonnage basis depending notified tariff for each cargo category such as break bulk cargo,
containers, dry bulk cargo, liquid bulk cargo etc. and iii) other services which include cargo
storage, crane hire charges and the like. The port authorities charge for each and every
service rendered.

On the other hand, fishing harbours are quite different. As stated in section 12.3.1, this is
basically a service oriented facility for the welfare and upliftment of the fishing community
to enable them earn a decent living by provision of sheltered harbour to carry on their
fishing activities at all weather conditions. The only “cargo” that is handled is fish-which is
the bread and butter of the fisher folk. The normal financial viability norms may not
therefore be applicable for fishing harbours unlike in the case of major ports.
The parameters which normally go into the computation of Financial Viability in terms of
cost (expenditure) and benefit (revenue) are:
Expenditure side: i) capital cost of construction of the fishing harbour ii) maintenance
cost of the both marine and shore side facilities, iii) management
cost of the harbour-staff salary etc. iv) investment made on
procurement of FRPs, MFVs on loan and repayment with interest
and v) other operating cost of the fishing vessels - fuel, crew salary,
insurance etc. to name a few.
Revenue side: i) sale of fish ii) nominal harbour charges payable by vessel owners
to the harbour - Rs.10000 for FRPs and Rs.30000 to 40000 for MFVs
iii) Commission at the rate of 3% of the sale value of fishes payable
to the harbour. These are the income generated within the harbour
premises.
In addition, additional income will accrue by way of processing, refrigeration of fish,

marketing and distribution to local markets and other socio economic benefits in terms of
development of ancillary fish related facilities and consequential employment generation.
The quantification of the benefits on these counts is subjective and will definitely add to the
overall revenue which in turn may result in higher FIRR. However, to be on more
conservative side, the positive impacts of the financial aspects of these activities are not
considered in the current exercise.

For the computation of the FIRR, the activities inside the harbour which are directly
interconnected and which have a direct bearing as defined under cost and revenue are
alone considered. This integrated approach appears more realistic and meaningful. After
all, the exercise which is attempted in this section is to find out whether the final FIRR would
meet the minimum requirement of cost of capital-which is normally taken as 12% to 13%
over a period of 20 to 30 years. Further detailed evaluation in more precise financial terms
will be attempted in the next Task Module 3-Preparation of Draft Final Report (DFR)
depending on the extent of additional information that would become available during the
intervening period.
This report is not however a detailed study warranting computation of Economic Internal
Rate of Return (EIRR) encompassing the indirect costs and benefits that will accrue as the
bye products of this development.
At this stage, for the preparation of feasibility a broad assessment is made to ascertain the
financial viability and technical feasibility keeping in view the above boundary conditions.
12.5. COMMERCIAL VIABLITY-INVESTMENT ON TRAWLERS BY FISHERMEN
12.5.1. Important parameters
Based on the interaction Indomer had from time to time with the potential users of the
proposed facility and the in-house design data, the parameters required for the
computation of commercial profitability were worked out as shown in Table 12.1.
FRPs 1000 nos. at 90% days x 200 days x 30 kg/day = 5400 T

MFVs 50 nos. x 50 trips x 340 kg/trip(ave) = 850 T
MFVs 50 nos. x 40 trips x 450 kg/trip (ave) = 900 T
Total = 7150 T

Table 12.1. Parameters to compute the commercial profitability
No. Item Details Notable points if any

1 Fishing vessels to be FRP 1000 Nos Includes marginal
catered for MFVs 17 m - 50 Nos increase in numbers
MFVs 18 m - 50 Nos
2 Number of fishing 200 days After allowing for bad
days in year. weather days, fishing ban
etc.
3 Fishing trip pattern FRP Daily basis i.e. 200 trips per Based on information
annum per vessel supplied by local
MFVs 17 m - 4 days per trip - 50 trips fishermen and JD fisheries
per annum per vessel department.
MFVs 18 m - 5 days per trip - 40 trips
per vessel per annum
4 Catch in kg per trip FRP 30 kg These are shown in
MFVs 17 m - 340 kg Options 1, 2 and 3
MFVs 18 m - 450 kg
5 Sensitivity options Option 1 7150 TPA - Basic For options 1, 2 and 3, a
considered Option 2 7760 TPA construction cost of
Option 3 6410 TPA Rs. 104 crores is
Option 4 20% increase in construction cost considered and for Option
4, an increase in cost of
20% i.e. Rs. 125 crores
considered for IRR
calculations
6 Vessel operating cost Fuel, ice supply, food cost, insurance cost, As per standards adopted
depreciation cost, interest on loan with by CICEF
repayment period of 8 years, nominal
harbour tariff, crew charges, maintenance
of vessel and gears/replacement,
commission on landing
7 Fish details Prawn and general fish - 3 grades
8 Cash outflow Investment on fixed assets such as As per standards; but
procurement of vessels, construction of fish processing,
fishing harbour with all associated onshore distribution, marketing
facilities, harbour management and etc not considered at this
maintenance, vessel operating costs (item stage
6) etc.
9 Cash inflow Unit prices as ascertained from similar FRP catch does not
reports considered; include prawn and only
Prawn: Rs. 400/kg Grade 1 to 3, MFVs will
Grade 1 Fish: Rs. 350/kg include all predetermined
Grade 2 Fish: Rs. 165/kg proportions as reflected in
Grade 3 Fish: Rs. 65/kg respective Annexures.

Prawns Grade 1/ Grade 2/ Grade 3/

Vessel type Rate per kg Rate per kg Rate per kg : Rate per kg
Rs.400 Rs.300 Rs.165 Rs.65
MFVs 30-35% 25-30% 20-25% 15-20%
FRPs Nil 35% 45% 20%
Note:
No deductions are made from the revenue streams for the costs such as taxes, duties levies
etc. imposed by the government authorities. The rates given in the table reflect the average
rates of fish as gathered from various reports available.
Furthermore, the fishing harbour would become operational after 3 years (hopefully by
2019) and by that time the price of different grades of fish also would be much more than
what it is today.
12.5.2. Options considered
Five options are considered for evaluation as shown in the Table 12.2.
Table 12.2. Options considered for evaluation
Option Percentage increase/decrease Quantity - TPA
1 Basic 7150
2 +10% 7760
3 -10% 6410
4 Increase in construction cost by 20%
7150
Total (Rs): 104 + 21=125 crores

12.5.3. Sensitivity Analysis
Sensitivity analysis of vessel operation
Annexure 12.1 to 12.3give an elaborate account of the vessel operation under the following 5
headings:
 General information,
 Landing per trip and season,
 Vessel investment,
 Vessel operation cost and
 Financial results
For all the above five options, the sensitivity analysis was made on financial results and
percentage of return on investment for the following conditions:
 Before depreciation
 After depreciation
 After interest payment
 After payment of loan installment
The net results on return on investments are presented in Table12.3.
Table 12.3. Net results on return on investments

Option 1 Basic - 7150T
Return on investments-Status FRP 17 m 18 m IRR (%)
Before depreciation-% 13.03 13.57 16.13

After depreciation-% 9.70 9.28 11.96
16
After interest payment-% -2.30 -2.72 -0.04
After installment payment-% -14.80 -15.22 -12.54

Option 2 10% increase in catch - 7760 T

23
After interest payment-% 12.74 14.25 13.27
After installment payment-% 0.24 1.75 0.77
Option 3 10% decrease in catch - 6410 T
Before depreciation-% -2.30 2.26 8.42
After depreciation-% -5.63 -2.02 4.26

7
Note: This is the most pessimistic option and may not materialize in practice.
Option 4 20% increase in cost of construction - 7150 T (Basic)

14
The above results reveal that if the quantity of catch lies above what is shown in the Basic
Option 1 i.e. above 7150 T, the return on investment will be positive for depreciation
(before and after), and it is negative for interest and loan installment payment after
adjustment against surplus/deficit as the case may be.

At the end of 8th year, the loan repayment would have been fully made leaving the
fishermen as full-fledged owners of the asset-fishing trawlers and to that extent, the liability
towards payment of interest and plus capital would get reduced thereby resulting in a
better financial scenario for fishermen in simple financial terms if time value of money is not
taken into consideration.
Detailed working details are shown in Annexure 12.1 to 12.3.
Internal Rate of Return (IRR) and Net Present Value (NPV)
A separate exercise has also been made keeping in view the following parameters:
 Gross income from sale of fish

 3% commission on sale of fish as income
 Income from harbour tariff
 Operating and maintenance cost of vessels
 Cost of construction of the fishing harbour, its maintenance and management
 The period of evaluation is taken as 20 years for IRR computation in accordance with the
philosophy adopted by CICEF.
The following are other components considered in the IRR exercise:
i) An increase of 10% is considered for every 8 year period in the income from the sale of
fish.
ii) Similarly, in respect of cash outflow-expenditure side similar 10% increase is adopted
for the operating cost of the vessels, and for the harbour related expenditure such as
the maintenance and harbour maintenance.
The working details for IRR are shown in Annexure 12.4 to 12.7.

Harbour maintenance and Management cost
On the expenditure side for maintenance and operation of the facility, the following
assumptions are made as shown in the Table below:
Facilities Lakhs
Marine facilities @ 0.3% of capital cost 24
Onshore facilities @ 2.5% 14
Office Administration (Salaries and wages) 85
Utilities and services 25
Environmental factors 25
Associated facilities 12
Miscellaneous 15
Total 200
Harbour income from nominal tariff
FRP Rs.10000/vessel/pa x 1000 nos. = 100,00,000

17 m Rs. 30000/vessel/pa x 50 nos. = 150,00,000
18 m Rs. 40000/vessel/pa x 50 nos. = 300,00,000
Total 135,00,000
Income due to 3% commission on the value of fish catch is shown in Annexure 12.4 to 12.7
Other basic design inputs are:
Year of commissioning 2021

Period of assessment 20 years
Incremental increase on income and expenditure 10% (every 10 years)

This exercise is purely academic and qualitative and mainly intended to provide some idea
on commercial viability status for different options for the investment made by government
to the tune of Rs.104 crores.
SUMMARY OF FINANCIAL VIABILITY (IRR)
In the case of fishing harbour projects, the investment is made by the Government for the
benefit of Fishermen. Hence it would be appropriate to do the cost/benefit analysis with
reference to the benefits accruing to the fisherman out of the investment made by
Government. The IRR has been more than 15% after 20th year of commercial operations at
7150 TPA and 7760 TPA catches and it was 7% for 6610 TPA catches. Even if there is cost
escalation by 20% the IRR would be 14% at the twentieth year of operation. The IRR has
been arrived at after providing for repayment of loan obtained by fisherman for the
purchase of boats within 8 years and interest on the borrowings.

13. MAINTENANCE OF OFFSHORE AND ONSHORE INSTALLATIONS
Offshore structure such as Breakwaters, Wharf and Jetties may not normally require any
maintenance since damages to these structures are quite unlikely except in extreme
situations like the one (Tsunami) which hit the Nagapattinam coast in December 2004 and
other similar heavy cyclonic weather.
13.1. ROUTINE MAINTENANCE
 Replacement of fenders, bollards etc.

 Wharf repairs, road maintenance etc.
 Maintenance to utilities and services
 Environmental issues such pollution, waste disposal, EMP implementation etc.
 Periodical sampling of water and analysis of biological parameters
 Maintenance of all onshore facilities such as auction hall, all buildings etc.
 Periodical inspection of Navigational aids and replacement where necessary
 General harbour safety and security systems
 General hygiene of the harbour
13.2. MAINTENANCE DREDGING
The Berthing Basin is dredged initially to (-) 3.0 m with respect to CD and is good enough for
accommodating Mechanized Fishing Vessels of 17 m and above. This depth must be
maintained and hence periodical survey needs to be carried out to ascertain this aspect and
initiate steps to go in for maintenance dredging at the appropriate time.

13.3. MAINTENANCE STAFF
 Qualified civil supervisor should be engaged for maintenance of fishing related buildings
such as auction hall, rest shed, public toilets etc. to carryout periodical repair works and
overall to ensure handling of fish catches in a highly hygienic environment.
 Qualified electrician must regularly inspect the electrical system and conduct seasonal
start-up and shut-down proceeding.
 Qualified plumber appointed by management should regularly inspect water lines, and
valves for all malfunctions.
 Controlling Parking area, ensuring trash and used oils are disposed of in an appropriate
container.
13.4. MAINTENANCE PROCESS
Auction hall
The cleaning operation in fish Auction Hall involves the use of large quantities of water. For
a tropical country like India fish Auction Hall and Packing Halls need to be washed frequently
so that cool atmosphere is created to retain freshness and maintain quality of the fish.
It is equally important that the floor surfaces are non-slippery and proper drainage facilities
are to be maintained. The walls and ceiling should also be free from any exposed electrical
installation to carry out the cleaning operation freely, so that dust will not get collected in
those places.
Proper care should be taken that window openings in the Auction Hall are adequately
protected by fly proof mesh to prevent the ingress of insects like flies and mosquitoes and
birds like crows, vultures etc.

After each fish auctioning process, it is essential that Auction Hall area are adequately
cleaned and disinfected with the help of bleaching agents. High pressure cleaning
equipment may be used for cleaning the Auction Hall. Employers in Auction Hall should be
provided with proper cleaning equipments and supplies. As such good personal hygienic and
dress code (like wearing apron, head gear, hand gloves etc.) on the part of workers must be
insisted.
Garbage disposal
No garbage waste or other debris may be discharged or disposed of in the Fishing Harbour
Basin. Garbage containers are to be placed at selected areas that are accessible for users for
dumping the waste.
Ship waste disposal
Boating and fishing activities generate waste oil, flammable liquid and oily bilge water.
Proper care should be taken for ensuring that such wastes are disposed of in an
environmentally appropriate manner.
Daily log
Supervisors engaged for maintenance are to be encouraged to keep a daily log or carry a
note book to record observations including date and time of incident that take place at the
Fishing Harbour site. The log or note books are useful reference for completing reports in
time for future reference.
13.5. Meeting with harbour users
Periodical meeting with harbour users should be held to identify problems/issues there and
here and to put in place appropriate remedial measures on sustainable basis.

14. EIA STUDY IN PROGRESS
14.1. INTRODUCTION
Any coast based developments such as ports and harbour, power plants, desalination plants
etc. need environmental and Coastal Regulation Zone clearance from the government
authorities and other statutory bodies connected with the pollution, environmental
preservation etc. The proposed development of Fishing Harbour at Vellapallam is no
exception to this rule. Advance action has been initiated in parallel with the preparation of
the feasibility report to establish the baseline data in its present from so as to provide
appropriate mechanism to mitigate adverse impacts if any arising out of the proposed
development and operation of the fishing harbour. For this purpose, the required field
investigations have been completed as briefly discussed hereunder.
14.2. BASELINE DATA
The Land and marine environment of the project region covering the open sea and the river
has been studied for the evaluation of baseline information as per the norms stipulated by the
Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate change, Govt. of India. The baseline data were
collected during July and August 2015. The samples for the air quality, noise and water will be
collected from 4 locations. In addition borehole survey will be done in 8 locations (4 in land and
4 in sea). The methods of data collection and type of analysis will be presented in a separate
report under Task Module 4 and the glimpses are outlined here under.
The various physical, chemical and biological parameters to be studied are listed below.
 Ambient air quality  Water quality parameters

 Noises  Sediment quality parameters
 Geotechnical investigations  Biological parameters
 Ground and Surface water quality  Environmental study
 Physical parameters

14.3. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS
The results of the analyses so far made in respect of the above parameters reveal that the
proposed site is conducive for development of Fishing Harbour at Vellapallam and no
adverse impact are noticed.
A detailed report encompassing all the requirements outlined in MoEFCC notifications is

under preparation and will be submitted in due course as per the time schedule.

15. OTHER STUDIES
The studies that are to be conducted after completion of Feasibility report are
i) Environmental Impact Assessment study

ii) HTL, LTL & CRZ demarcation by authorized agency
iii) Boreholes and Geotechnical study
iv) Wave flume study to test Breakwater sections

18 Jul 2018 185757983R8NS762WFeasibilityReport

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

18 Jul 2018 185757983R8NS762WFeasibilityReport

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

18 Jul 2018 185757983R8NS762WFeasibilityReport

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DEVELOPMENT OF FISHING HARBOUR AT

VELLAPALLAM, NAGAPATTINAM DISTRICT,

INDOMER COASTAL HYDRAULICS (P) LTD.

Feasibility Report Page i

Feasibility Report Page ii

Feasibility Report Page iii

As the continuation of development, the Department of Fisheries, Government of

Feasibility Report Page 1

2.1. Marine fisheries

Feasibility Report Page 2

Table 2.1. Marine Fisheries Statistics (2012-13)

Coastal length 1076 km

Number of Coastal districts 13

Number of Fishing Villages 608

Fishing Crafts Registered (online)

1. Mechanized Fishing boats 5600

Beach landing centres 363

Feasibility Report Page 3

2.2. Species wise fish production

Feasibility Report Page 4

Feasibility Report Page 5

3. DEVELOPMENT OF FISHING HARBOUR AT VELLAPALLAM

Feasibility Report Page 6

4. SELECTION OF LOCATION FOR DEVELOPMENT OF FISHING HARBOUR

Vellapallam is a small fishing village located approximately 27 km south of Nagapattinam

 Vellapallam is located at 25 km east of Thiruthuraipoondi and local buses are available

Feasibility Report Page 7

Oceanography: The oceanography of this region is influenced by 3 climatic conditions, viz.,

Feasibility Report Page 8

 Thalainayar reserved forest

Feasibility Report Page 9

South view of the project region North view of the project

Nallar river mouth Nallar river - inside

Discussion with village people Entrance to seashore

Feasibility Report Page 10

5. ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL SCREENING

5.1. Environmental screening

5.1.1. Natural calamities

Table 5.1. Past history of natural calamities

Feasibility Report Page 11

Feasibility Report Page 12

Sl. Syste Date of Place of

Feasibility Report Page 13

Sl. Syste Date of Place of

Feasibility Report Page 14

Sl. Syste Date of Place of

Feasibility Report Page 15

Feasibility Report October 2015 Page.16

5.1.2. Coastal waters

5.1.3. Clay deposition

Feasibility Report Page 17

Table. 5.6. Sediment size distribution

Feasibility Report Page 18

Feasibility Report Page 19

5.1.4. Tsunami impact

5.1.5. Littoral drift

5.2. Socio economic screening

Feasibility Report Page 20

Table 5.7. Housing facilities