Enayam Port

Tamil Research Institute
RAPID TECHNO-ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR
DEVELOPMENT OF COLACHEL PORT AT TAMILNADU
FINAL REPORT
5.3.4. Conclusions on environmental impact
The best rated alternative for location, with the lowest environmental and social impact, is Enayam, while the
worst rated one, with the highest impact, is Colachel. Kanyakumari and Manavalakurichi obtained similar
intermediate ratings. The Enayam location has lower environmental impacts than the others with respect to
dredging, cultural sites and its low impact on property due to its low population. Port expansion will not need a
wide extra inland area since the land reclamation area will provide room for port facilities and industries.
The Manavalakurichi location has lower environmental impacts than Kanyakumari with respect to, tourism and
cultural sites. Manavalakurichi has lower environmental impacts than Enayam with respect to coastline and
fishing. This is due to its special configuration whereby the port is not attached to the coastline and connects
inland via a bridge that allows the transport of sediments and therefore has a lower effect on coastal processes.
Its inland population density which could be affected by the expansion of the port is lower than in Colachel and
Kanyakumari.
The Kanyakumari location was better rated in regards to its proximity to the transport network and because the
coastline is more poorly preserved. In any case, a more in-depth weighting of the touristic and cultural factor
would rule out this option.
The Colachel location is the worst rated due to its possible impact on the surrounding beaches, which are in a
suitable state of preservation and where there is fishing. The beach located to the east of the port location would
become a pocket beach, retaining its sand and quality, but would be disconnected from the natural coastal
dynamics. In addition, the port is located right next to the heritage town of Colachel, with a dense population
and therefore with the potential to impact on underground water resources.
5.4. SELECTION CRITERIA AND SELECTED OPTION
Even though the alternatives have been designed to provide a similar operational capacity, their location and
environmental conditions lead to differences between them. These differences will be assessed based on the
following criteria:
To compare and select the best of the four proposed options, a series of criteria have been defined to assess
them realistically.
These criteria could be classified into the following categories:
• Functionality criteria
• Construction and expansion criteria
• Connectivity criteria
• Environmental criteria, which includes:
i. Environmental impact
ii.
Social Impact
Other criteria like construction costs and maintenance costs have been evaluated.
The table below is the result of applying these criteria to each option:
58
www.tamilri.com