EIA Report - MakarioWorks

Transcription

Environmental Impact
Assessment
Of the
On Lagos Lagoon Lekki, Lagos State
Final Report
Submitted to:
FEDERAL MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT
Federal Capital Territory
Abuja
Nigeria
Submitted by:
FW DREDGING LIMITED
14 ELELENWO STREET,
GRA PHASE 1
PORT HARCOURT
RIVERS STATE
NOVEMBER 2014
Environmental Impact
Assessment
Of the
Proposed Orange Island Reclamation of 150 Ha
On Lagos Lagoon, Lekki Lagos State
Final Report
Submitted to:
Federal Ministry of Environment
Nigeria
By:
FW Dredging Limited
14 elelenwo street,
GRA Phase 1
Port Harcourt
Rivers State
Nigeria
E-mail: [email protected], [email protected]
Tel: 234-1-4543779, 08074400330, Fax: 08423299
NOVEMBER 2014
Environmental Impact Assessment of the Proposed Orange Island Reclamation
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................................... i
LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................................................ viii
LIST OF MAPS
.................................................................................................................................................. xii
LIST OF PLATES ................................................................................................................................................. xiii
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................................. xvi
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND FORMULAE ............................................................................................................. xxi
LIST OF EIA PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS ........................................................................................... xxv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................................... xxvi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... xxvii
Introduction and Background .............................................................................................. xxvii
Project Justification and Options ........................................................................................ xxviii
Project Process Description ................................................................................................ xxviii
Description of Project Environment ...................................................................................... xxix
Climate characteristics ................................................................................................................................................ xxx
Geology
............................................................................................................................................................... xxx
Regional Hydrogeology ............................................................................................................................................... xxx
Hydrology
............................................................................................................................................................... xxx
Air Quality and Noise ...................................................................................................................................................xxxi
Soil Characteristics ......................................................................................................................................................xxxi
Groundwater Characteristics .......................................................................................................................................xxxi
Surface water Characteristics .................................................................................................................................... xxxii
Hydrobiology and Fisheries ........................................................................................................................................ xxxii
Sediment Characteristics .......................................................................................................................................... xxxiii
Bathymetry ............................................................................................................................................................. xxxiii
Sand Search and Geotechnics .................................................................................................................................. xxxiv
Vegetation
............................................................................................................................................................. xxxiv
Wildlife
............................................................................................................................................................. xxxiv
Stakeholders Consultation ................................................................................................. xxxiv
Socio-economics ................................................................................................................ xxxiv
Host Community Origin and Background .................................................................................................................. xxxiv
Orange Island Development Company Limited
Table of Contents
P a g e |i
Community Structure and Demography .....................................................................................................................xxxv
Socio-demography .............................................................................................................. xxxv
Public Health Assessment................................................................................................... xxxvi
Potential and Associated impacts ...................................................................................... xxxvii
Impact Mitigation Measures and Alternatives.................................................................... xxxvii
Environmental Management plan (EMP) ........................................................................... xxxvii
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... xxxviii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ................................................................................. 1
1.1
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1
1.2
THE PROPOSED PROJECT .............................................................................................. 1
1.2.1
Features of the Orange Island City ............................................................................................................ 1
1.3
THE PROPOSED PROJECT SITE ....................................................................................... 4
1.4
THE EIA OBJECTIVES ..................................................................................................... 9
1.5
SCOPE OF THE EIA ACTIVITIES ....................................................................................... 9
1.6
LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK ............................................................... 12
1.6.1
Nigeria Legislations and Administrative Framework ................................................................................ 12
1.6.2
Lagos State Legislations and Administrative Framework......................................................................... 17
1.6.3
International Regulations.......................................................................................................................... 19
1.7
Structure of Report .................................................................................................... 20
CHAPTER 2
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION AND ALTERNATIVES ................................................................ 21
2.1
Introduction .............................................................................................................. 21
2.2
Need for the proposed Project ................................................................................... 21
2.2.1
Housing Need and Quality of Life............................................................................................................. 21
2.2.2
Nigeria’s Population and Housing Need................................................................................................... 21
2.2.3
Nigeria’s GDP and Real Estate and Services Sector ............................................................................... 22
2.2.4
Lagos and Housing Demand .................................................................................................................... 23
2.3
Value of the proposed Project .................................................................................... 25
2.3.1
Benefits of the Project .............................................................................................................................. 25
2.3.2
Sustainability of the Project ...................................................................................................................... 26
2.4
Project Options .......................................................................................................... 27
Table of Contents
P a g e | ii
2.4.1
No Project................................................................................................................................................. 28
2.4.2
Delayed Implementation........................................................................................................................... 28
2.4.3
Alternative Location .................................................................................................................................. 28
2.4.4
Different Technology ................................................................................................................................ 28
CHAPTER 3
PROJECT PROCESS DESCRIPTION ................................................................................. 33
3.1
Introduction .............................................................................................................. 33
3.2
Proposed Project Location.......................................................................................... 33
3.3
Proposed Project Activities......................................................................................... 35
3.3.1
Pre-reclamation Phase ............................................................................................................................. 35
3.3.2
Reclamation Phase .................................................................................................................................. 36
3.3.3
Post-Reclamation Phase .......................................................................................................................... 42
3.4
Proposed Activities Schedule...................................................................................... 44
CHAPTER 4
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT ENVIRONMENT .................................................................... 45
4.1
Introduction .............................................................................................................. 45
4.2
Scope of Study ........................................................................................................... 45
4.3
Data Sources and Collection Approach ....................................................................... 45
4.4
Spatial Boundary and Field Study Design .................................................................... 46
4.5
Study Team................................................................................................................ 48
4.6
Laboratory Analyses of Samples ................................................................................. 48
4.7
Biophysical Samples Collection and analyses methods ................................................ 48
4.7.1
Air Quality and Noise Field Study............................................................................................................. 48
4.7.2
Soil Field Study and laboratory analyses method .................................................................................... 51
4.7.3
Surface and Ground Water Field Study and laboratory analyses method ............................................... 54
4.7.4
Sediment Sampling and laboratory analyses method .............................................................................. 58
4.7.5
Hydrobiology: Plankton and Macrobenthos Sampling and laboratory analyses method ......................... 61
4.7.6
Vegetation Field Studies .......................................................................................................................... 65
4.7.7
Wildlife Studies ......................................................................................................................................... 68
4.7.8
Bathymetric Survey .................................................................................................................................. 68
4.7.9
Geotechnical Survey ................................................................................................................................ 71
4.8
Quality Assurance Methodology................................................................................. 72
4.8.1
Sample Collection/Handling ..................................................................................................................... 72
4.8.2
Laboratory Analyses................................................................................................................................. 72
4.8.3
Data Management .................................................................................................................................... 73
Table of Contents
P a g e | iii
4.9
Baseline Characteristics of the Proposed Project Environment .................................... 73
4.9.1
Climate Characteristics ............................................................................................................................ 73
4.9.2
GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................ 76
4.9.3
Air Quality and Noise Characteristics ....................................................................................................... 80
4.9.4
Soil Characteristics................................................................................................................................... 86
4.9.5
Groundwater Characteristics of the Project Environment ...................................................................... 111
4.9.6
Surface Water Characteristics of the Proposed Project Environment .................................................... 120
4.9.7
Hydrobiology .......................................................................................................................................... 142
4.9.8
Fish and Fisheris in Lagos Lagoon ........................................................................................................ 166
4.9.9
Characteristics of Lagoon Sediment ...................................................................................................... 177
4.9.10
Bathymetry of the Proposed Project Area .............................................................................................. 197
4.9.11
Geotechnical Characteristics.................................................................................................................. 199
4.9.12
Vegetation .............................................................................................................................................. 201
4.9.13
Wildlife and Endangered Species .......................................................................................................... 204
4.9.14
Socio-economics and Social Impact Assessment (SIA) ......................................................................... 220
4.9.15
Public Health Assessment..................................................................................................................... 245
CHAPTER FIVE ASSOCIATED AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS ......................................................................... 261
5.1
Introduction ............................................................................................................ 261
5.2
Impact Assessment Methodology Characteristics...................................................... 261
5.3
Impact Assessment Methodology ............................................................................. 262
5.3.1
Description of the proposed project’s actions/activities and their interactions with the environment; .... 263
5.3.2
Components of environment that could be affected by the proposed project ........................................ 264
5.3.3
Superimposition of project’s activities on environmental components. ................................................. 265
5.3.4
Detailed Assessment of all identified impacts ........................................................................................ 268
5.3.5
Description of identified Impacts ........................................................................................................... 280
5.4
Positive Impacts....................................................................................................... 280
5.4.1
Positive Impacts during Pre-reclamation Phase..................................................................................... 280
5.4.2
Positive Impacts during the Reclamation Phase .................................................................................... 281
5.4.3
Positive Impacts during Post-reclamation Phase ................................................................................... 281
5.5
Negative Impacts ..................................................................................................... 281
5.5.1
Negative Impacts during Pre-Reclamation ............................................................................................. 282
5.5.2
Negative Impacts during Reclamation.................................................................................................... 285
5.5.3
Negative Impacts during Post-Reclamation ........................................................................................... 301
5.5.4
Impact on Health and Safety .................................................................................................................. 304
5.5.5
Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................................................................ 304
CHAPTER SIX
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES AND ALTERNATIVES.................................................. 305
Table of Contents
P a g e | iv
6.1
Introduction ............................................................................................................ 305
6.2
Objectives of Impacts Mitigation .............................................................................. 305
6.3
Impact Mitigation Hierarchy ..................................................................................... 305
6.4
Identified Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................................. 306
6.5
Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 323
CHAPTER SEVEN
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN .............................................................. 324
7.1
Introduction ............................................................................................................ 324
7.2
Objectives................................................................................................................ 324
7.3
Responsibilities ........................................................................................................ 324
7.3.1
Project Proponent................................................................................................................................... 324
7.3.2
Dredging Contractor ............................................................................................................................... 324
7.4
Health Safety and Environment Management Plans .................................................. 326
7.4.1
Training, Competence and Awareness .................................................................................................. 326
7.4.2
Emergency Preparedness ...................................................................................................................... 328
7.4.3
Health, Safety and Environmental Monitoring ........................................................................................ 330
7.4.4
Controlling significant site risks – Health and Safety .............................................................................. 333
7.4.5
Controlling significant site risks – Environmental ................................................................................... 337
7.4.6
Oil Spill Contingency Plan ...................................................................................................................... 338
7.4.7
Waste management ............................................................................................................................... 339
7.4.8
Health risks............................................................................................................................................. 340
7.4.9
Marine activities...................................................................................................................................... 342
7.5
Impact Mitigation Monitoring (IMM) Plan ................................................................ 343
7.5.1
Flood Prevention Monitoring Plan .......................................................................................................... 343
7.5.2
Surface Water Quality Monitoring Plan .................................................................................................. 343
7.5.3
Air Quality and Noise Monitoring Plan.................................................................................................... 344
7.5.4
Hydrobiology and Fisheries Monitoring Plan .......................................................................................... 345
7.5.5
Waste Management Monitoring Plan ..................................................................................................... 345
7.5.6
Community Relations/Grievance Redress Mechanism .......................................................................... 346
7.6
Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 347
CHAPTER EIGHT
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................... 348
8.1
Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 348
8.2
Recommendations ................................................................................................... 348
Table of Contents
P a g e |v
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................................................... 349
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1:
............................................................................................................................................... 356
EIA NOTIFICATION LETTER TO FEDERAL MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND
RELATED CORRESPONDENCE ................................................................................................ 356
APPENDIX 2:
EIA NOTIFICATION LETTER TO LAGOS STATE MINISTRY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT
.................................................................................................................... 358
APPENDIX 3:
FEDERAL MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT APPROVAL FOR EIA
IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................................... 361
APPENDIX 4:
VAN Oords NIGERIA LIMITED QUALITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
SYSTEMS CERTIFICATES ........................................................................................................ 363
APPENDIX 5:
SOCIOECONOMICS AND HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE .
.................................................................................................................... 365
APPENDIX 6:
CONSULTATION ATTENDANCE LISTS ............................................................. 372
Federal Ministry of Environment Site Verification Visit Attendance List ...................................................................... 372
Lagos State Ministry for the Environment Site Verification Visit Attendance List ........................................................ 373
Consultation with Lagos State Ministry of Water front Infrastructure Development Attendance List .......................... 374
Consultation with Eti-Osa Local Government; Attendance List (1st and 2nd Visits) ................. 375
First Visit
............................................................................................................................................................... 375
Second Visit ............................................................................................................................................................... 375
Consultation with Ikate Community – Attendance List ................................................................................................ 376
Initial Consultation with Elders (Men) .......................................................................................................................... 376
With Ebute Ikate Women ............................................................................................................................................. 377
With Ebute-Ikate Men .................................................................................................................................................. 379
With Ebute-Ikate Youth ............................................................................................................................................... 381
Consultation with Itedo Community – Attendance List ................................................................................................ 383
With Harrison Family ................................................................................................................................................... 384
With Ogunyemi Family (Men) ...................................................................................................................................... 385
With Ogunyemi Family (Women) ................................................................................................................................ 386
Consultation with Nigeria Conservation Foundation Lekki – Attendance List ............................................................. 387
Attendance at Draft EIA Public Review ....................................................................................................................... 388
APPENDIX 7:
GEOTECHNICAL BOREHOLE LOGS.................................................................. 389
APPENDIX 8:
LABORATORY PROCEDURES ......................................................................... 390
APPENDIX 9:
MoU BETWEEN LASG AND FWDL .................................................................. 391
Table of Contents
P a g e | vi
APPENDIX 10:
AGREEMENT BETWEEN LASG AND FWDL .................................................. 392
APPENDIX 11:
QUARRY LEASE FROM MINISTRY OF MINES AND STEEL DEVELOPMENT ..... 393
Table of Contents
P a g e | vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: Comparative Trend of GDP growth and Real Estate Contribution to Nigeria Economy ...................... 22
Figure 3.1: A Cross-section of Cutter Suction dredger.......................................................................................... 37
Figure 3.2: Borrow area (red) and Reclamation area (blue).................................................................................. 39
Figure 3.3: Tidal Fluctuation of Lagos Lagoon ...................................................................................................... 41
Figure 3.4: Proposed Activities Schedule for Orange Island Reclamation Activities ............................................. 44
Figure 4.1: DGPS Survey Principle ....................................................................................................................... 70
Figure 4.2: Eco Sounder Bathymetric Survey Principle ........................................................................................ 70
Figure 4.3: Precipitation Pattern of the Study Area ............................................................................................... 74
Figure 4.4: Comparison of monthly Rainfall in Ikeja (Lagos): 2010 with 1971-2000 ............................................. 74
Figure 4.5: Average Monthly Temperature of the Study Area ............................................................................... 75
Figure 4.6: Average Monthly Relative Humidity in the study area......................................................................... 75
Figure 4.7: The geology of Southern Nigeria (Wright et al. 1985) ......................................................................... 77
Figure 4.8: Seasonal Variation of Conductivity (uS/cm) in topsoil of Study Area .................................................. 89
Figure 4.9: Seasonal Variation of Conductivity in Subsoil of Study Area .............................................................. 90
Figure 4.10: Seasonal Variation of TOC (%) in Topsoil of Study locations ........................................................... 92
Figure 4.11: Seasonal Variation of TOC (%) in Subsoil of Study locations ........................................................... 92
Figure 4.12: USDA Soil Textural Triangle. ............................................................................................................ 93
Figure 4.13: Seasonal Variation of Surface water pH ......................................................................................... 122
Figure 4.14: Seasonal Variation in Surfacewater Conductivity ........................................................................... 123
Figure 4.15: Seasonal Variation of DO in Surface Water .................................................................................... 125
Figure 4.16: Seasonal Variation of Surface water BOD5 ..................................................................................... 127
Figure 4.17: Seasonal Variation in Nitrate Concentration in Surface water ........................................................ 128
Figure 4.18: Seasonal Variation of Sulphate Concentration in Surface water..................................................... 129
Figure 4.19: Seasonal Variation of Chloride in Surface Water ............................................................................ 130
Figure 4.20: Seasonal Variation of Sodium in Surface Water ............................................................................. 132
List of Figures
P a g e | viii
Figure 4.21: Seasonal Variation of Potassium in Surface Water ........................................................................ 132
Figure 4.22: Seasonal Variation of Magnesium in Surface Water ....................................................................... 133
Figure 4.23: Seasonal Variation of Calcium in Surface Water ............................................................................ 134
Figure 4.24: Seasonal Variation of Total Hydrocarbon in Surface Water ............................................................ 137
Figure 4.25: Temporal Variation of Microbial Isolates in Surface Water in Dry Season ...................................... 141
Figure 4.26: Temporal Variation of Microbial Isolates in Surface Water in Wet Season ..................................... 141
Figure 4.27: Percentage occurrence of major phytoplankton groups (Dry Season)............................................ 142
Figure 4.28: Phytoplankton Total number of species (S) and abundance (N) (Dry Season) ............................. 145
Figure 4.29: Phytoplankton ecological indices (Dry Season) .............................................................................. 145
Figure 4.30: Percentage occurrence of zooplankton phylum and juvenile stages (Dry season). ........................ 146
Figure 4.31: Zooplankton Total number of species (S) and abundance (N) (Dry Season) ................................. 149
Figure 4.32: Zooplankton ecological indices (Dry season).................................................................................. 149
Figure 4.33: Percentage occurrence of major phytoplankton groups (wet season) ............................................ 150
Figure 4.34: Phytoplankton Total number of species (S) and abundance (N) (Wet Season)............................. 154
Figure 4.35: Phytoplankton ecological indices (Wet season) .............................................................................. 154
Figure 4.36: Percentage occurrence of zooplankton phylum and juvenile stages. ............................................. 155
Figure 4.37: Zooplankton Total number of species (S) and abundance (N) (Wet Season)................................. 158
Figure 4.38: Zooplankton ecological indices (Wet Season) ................................................................................ 158
Figure 4.39: Percentage Distribution of major Macrobenthos Groups at the study locationsin Dry Season ....... 160
Figure 4.40: Percentage Distribution of major Macrobenthos Groups at the study locationsin Wet Season ...... 161
Figure 4.41: Seasonal Variation of Sediment pH ................................................................................................ 178
Figure 4.42: Seasonal Variation of Sediment Conductivity ................................................................................. 179
Figure 4.43: Seasonal Variation of TOC in Sediment ......................................................................................... 180
Figure 4.44: Particle Size Distribution of Sediment at the Study locations in Dry Season .................................. 182
Figure 4.45: Particle Size Distribution of Sediment at the Study locations in Wet Season ................................. 182
Figure 4.46: Seasonal Variation of Sodium Concentration in Sediment.............................................................. 184
Figure 4.47: Seasonal Variation of Potassium Concentration in Sediment ......................................................... 184
Figure 4.48: Seasonal Variation of Magnesium in Sediment .............................................................................. 185
List of Figures
P a g e | ix
Figure 4.49: Seasonal Variation of Calcium oncentration in Sediment ............................................................... 186
Figure 4.50: Seasonal Variation of Nitrate in Sediment ...................................................................................... 187
Figure 4.51: Seasonal Variation of Sulphate in Sediment ................................................................................... 188
Figure 4.52: Seasonal Variation of Phosphate in Sediment ................................................................................ 188
Figure 4.53: Seasonal Variation of Chloride in Sediment.................................................................................... 189
Figure 4.54: Seasonal Variation of Fe in Sediment ............................................................................................. 190
Figure 4.55: Seasonal Variation of Zinc in Sediment .......................................................................................... 190
Figure 4.56: Seasonal Variation of Cu in Sediment ............................................................................................ 191
Figure 4.57: Seasonal Variation of Chromium in Sediment ................................................................................ 193
Figure 4.58: Seasonal Variation of Total Hydrocarbon Content in Sediment ...................................................... 194
Figure 4.59: Bathymetry of Lagos lagoon around the proposed reclamation site and borrow areas ................. 198
Figure 4.60: Satellite Imagery showing Boreholes locations ............................................................................... 200
Figure 4.61: Distribution of Language of Interview .............................................................................................. 225
Figure 4.62: Age Distribution of the Household Members................................................................................... 226
Figure 4.63: Gender Distribution of Respondents ............................................................................................... 226
Figure 4.64: Marital Status of Respondents ........................................................................................................ 227
Figure 4.65: Religion of Respondents ................................................................................................................. 228
Figure 4.66: House Ownership by Respondents................................................................................................. 230
Figure 4.67: Distribution of No.of Rooms per House in the Community .............................................................. 231
Figure 4.68: Household size distribution of Respondents ................................................................................... 232
Figure 4.69: Distribution of Respondents Duration in Residence........................................................................ 232
Figure 4.70: Distribution of Employed Individuals in Respondents Household ................................................... 233
Figure 4.71: Occupational Background of Respondents ..................................................................................... 234
Figure 4.72: Duration of Respondents in Business Operation ............................................................................ 236
Figure 4.73: Approximate Distances to Workplace of Resondents ..................................................................... 236
Figure 4.74: Distribution of Monthly Income of Respondents.............................................................................. 237
Figure 4.75: Distribution of Estimated Monthly Expenditure of Respondents HH ............................................... 238
Figure 4.76: Distribution of Appliances Ownership by Respondents Household ................................................ 239
List of Figures
P a g e |x
Figure 4.77: Pathway diagram showing links between land reclamation project and health............................... 248
Figure 4.78: Respondents Perception of their general Health ............................................................................ 253
Figure 5.1: Impact Significance prediction Process ............................................................................................ 276
Figure 5.2: Distribution of Negative Impacts’ significance ................................................................................... 282
Figure 5.3: Baseline Noise level around the project area in dry season ............................................................. 287
Figure 5.4 Noise level around the project area in wet season ............................................................................ 288
Figure 5.5: Noise level around the project area during operation of the CSD only – LOW NOISE IMPACT
SCENARIO
............................................................................................................................................... 289
Figure 5.6: Noise level around the project area during operation of the CSD and another heavy machinery –
HIGH NOISE IMPACT SCENARIO ..................................................................................................................... 290
Figure 5.7: Comparative Assessment of baseline and predicted noise levels at Specific Receptor areas with
regulatory permissible levels ............................................................................................................................... 291
Figure 5.8: Typical Sound Levels from various sources...................................................................................... 292
Figure 5.9: Major Macrobenthos groups vulnerable to impacts from dredging/filling activities in dry season ..... 296
Figure 5.2: Major Macrobenthos groups vulnerable to impacts from dredging/filling activities in wet season..... 297
Figure 5.3: Major phytoplankton groups vulnerable to dredging/filling impacts in dry season ............................ 298
Figure 5.4: Major phytoplankton groups vulnerable to dredging/filling impacts in wet season ............................ 299
Figure 5.13: Major zooplankton groups vulnerable to dredging/filling impacts in dry season ............................. 299
Figure 5.14: Major zooplankton groups vulnerable to dredging/filling impacts in wet season ............................. 300
Figure 6.1: Impacts Mitigation Principle .............................................................................................................. 305
Figure 7.1: VONL’s HSE Unit Organogram ......................................................................................................... 325
List of Figures
P a g e | xi
LIST OF MAPS
Map 1.1: Lagos State Administrative showing Project Area.................................................................................... 6
Map 1.2: Land Use around the project Area ........................................................................................................... 7
Map 3.1: The Proposed Project Area .................................................................................................................... 34
Map 4.1: Biophysical Attributes Study Locations .................................................................................................. 47
Map 4.2: Air Quality Study locations ..................................................................................................................... 50
Map 4.3: Soil Study locations ................................................................................................................................ 53
Map 4.4: Surface Water Sampling Stations .......................................................................................................... 55
Map 4.5: Groundwater sampling stations.............................................................................................................. 56
Map 4.6: Sediment sampling locations ................................................................................................................. 60
Map 4.7: Hydrobiology sampling locations ............................................................................................................ 63
Map 4.8: Vegetation Study locations..................................................................................................................... 66
List of Maps
P a g e | xii
LIST OF PLATES
Plate 1.1: Shoreline into the project area. (Note: Manual-mined sand and Ebute-Ikate Community Stilted
structures)
................................................................................................................................................... 5
Plate 1.2: A section of Lekki-Epe Expressway. Leading to the site......................................................................... 8
Plate 1.3: 3rd Round About, the point to via off Lekki-Epe Expressway into the project site along.......................... 8
Plate 1.4: Officials of the Lagos State Ministry for the Environment (Drainage Services Unit) during site
verification
................................................................................................................................................. 11
Plate 1.5: Officials of the FMEnv during Site Verification exercise........................................................................ 11
Plate 3.1: Cutter Suction Dredger at Work ............................................................................................................ 38
Plate 3.2: CSD Cutter Head .................................................................................................................................. 38
Plate 3.3: Floating Pipeline ................................................................................................................................... 40
Plate 3.4: Reclamation landline............................................................................................................................. 41
Plate 4.1: Air Quality Measurement ...................................................................................................................... 49
Plate 4.2: Soil Sampling ........................................................................................................................................ 52
Plate 4.3: Surface and Ground water sampling and In-situ measurements .......................................................... 58
Plate 4.4: Sediment Sampling ............................................................................................................................... 61
Plate 4.5: Plankton Sampling: Vertical and Horizontal Tow .................................................................................. 64
Plate 4.6: Macrobenthos Sampling ....................................................................................................................... 65
Plate 4.7: Survey Launch used for Bathymetric studies ........................................................................................ 68
Plate 4.8: The Drill Pontoon “HAM 912” used for the survey ................................................................................ 71
Plate 4.9: Basket Trap Stakes (left) and Basket Trap with bait (right) sited near the proposed Reclamation Area...
............................................................................................................................................... 167
Plate 4.10: Group castnetting in Lagos lagoon ................................................................................................... 167
Plate 4.11: Fishermen operating castnet along the beach of the project area .................................................... 168
Plate 4.12: A fish aggregating device (Acadja) setup around the project site. .................................................... 168
Plate 4.13: Fisherman preparing his longline for fishing operation ..................................................................... 169
Plate 4.14: Ethmalosa fimbriata .......................................................................................................................... 170
List of Tables
P a g e | xiii
Plate 4.15: Tilapia guineensis ............................................................................................................................. 170
Plate 4.16: Hemichromis fasciatus ...................................................................................................................... 170
Plate 4.17: Sarotherodon melanotheron ............................................................................................................. 171
Plate 4.18: Eleotris vittata ................................................................................................................................... 171
Plate 4.19: Caranx hippos ................................................................................................................................... 171
Plate 4.20: Callinectes amnicola caught around the project area ....................................................................... 172
Plate 4.21: Some Chrysichthys nigrodigitatus caught from fishing activities in the project area ......................... 172
Plate 4.22: Some fish species caught by the castnet fishermen around the project area ................................... 175
Plate 4.23: Some dressed Sarotherodon melanotheron, Pomadasys jubelini, Lutjanus sp and Liza falcipinnis . 176
Plate 4.24: Smoked fish on 44 gallon drum before sale ...................................................................................... 176
Plate 4.25: Paspalum spp. Close to the proposed reclamation area .................................................................. 202
Plate 4.26: Terminalia catapa and Mangifera indica around homesteads .......................................................... 202
Plate 4.27: Ornamentals and coconuts along roadsides within the area ............................................................ 203
Plate 4.28: A plover and a great white egret foraging around project area ......................................................... 205
Plate 4.29: A Gaggle of white geese in the study area ....................................................................................... 205
Plate 4.30: Domestic pigs in the study are .......................................................................................................... 206
Plate 4.31: Interaction with FMEnv Officials during Site Verification exercise..................................................... 215
Plate 4.32: Interactions with LAGMOE Officials during Site Verification exercise ............................................... 215
Plate 4.33: Consultation with Lagos State Ministry of Waterfronts and Infrastructure Development................... 216
Plate 4.34: Group Photograph with the Chairman And Officials of Eti-Osa LGA during consultation ................. 216
Plate 4.35: Interaction with Officials of Eti-Osa LGA during Site Verification ...................................................... 217
Plate 4.36: Group Photograph during Consultation with HRM, Oba Alayeluwa Saheed Ademola Elegushi,
Kusenla (lll), the Elegushi of Ikateland ................................................................................................................ 217
Plate 4.37: Consultation with the Elders of Ebute-Ikate Community ................................................................... 218
Plate 4.38: Consultation with Harrision Family Elders of Itedo community ......................................................... 218
Plate 4.39: Consultation with Elders of Ogunyemi Family of Itedo Community................................................... 219
Plate 4.40: Consultation with Nigeria Consultation Foundation .......................................................................... 219
Plate 4.41: Focus Group Interaction with Youth .................................................................................................. 221
List of Tables
P a g e | xiv
Plate 4.42: Focus Group Interaction with Women ............................................................................................... 221
Plate 4.43: Consultation with Community Elders ................................................................................................ 222
Plate 4.44: Questionnaire Administration ............................................................................................................ 222
Plate 4.45: Pa Ogunyemi’s House located at the first Upland inhabitation of the Ogunyemis ............................ 224
Plate 4.46: Shrine of Zangbeto in Ebute-Ikate .................................................................................................... 229
Plate 4.47: Mouthpiece of Zangbeto .................................................................................................................. 229
Plate 4.48: Shrine for Water Spirit....................................................................................................................... 230
Plate 4.49: House on Stilts in the community ...................................................................................................... 231
Plate 4.50: Fishing Boats at Ebute-Ikate ............................................................................................................. 233
Plate 4.51: A Woman processing fish for smoking .............................................................................................. 235
Plate 4.52: Fish Smoking facilities ...................................................................................................................... 235
Plate 4.53: Water Storage facilities at Itedo community ...................................................................................... 240
Plate 4.54: Children Fetching Water from Dug-well at Ebute-IIkate .................................................................... 240
Plate 4.55: Makeshift Structure for Bathing in lagoon ......................................................................................... 241
Plate 5.56: Makeshift Structure for bathing on land ............................................................................................ 241
Plate 4.57: Stored Firewood for cooking in the community ................................................................................. 242
Plate 4.58: Cooking place in the community ....................................................................................................... 242
Plate 4.59: Indiscriminate solid waste disposal in the community ....................................................................... 243
Plate 4.60: Makeshift structure for human waste disposal into the lagoon ......................................................... 243
Plate 4.61: A typical House in Ebute-Ikate .......................................................................................................... 250
Plate 4.62: A child fetching water from dug well.................................................................................................. 251
Plate 5.1: Photomontage of planktonic organisms .............................................................................................. 297
List of Tables
P a g e | xv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: Relative contribution of Real Estate and Business Services to Nigeria GDP ....................................... 22
Table 2.2: Lagos State Population 2006-2015 ...................................................................................................... 24
Table 2.3: Statistics of Houses built in Lagos State between 2001 and 2010 ....................................................... 25
Table 2.4: Different Dredging Technologies considered for the proposed Orange Island Reclamation ................ 29
Table 3.1: List of Equipment, Machinery and Materials to be mobilised to site ..................................................... 36
Table 3.2: Personnel to be mobilised to site ......................................................................................................... 36
Table 3.3: Coordinates of the pegged points of the reclamation and Borrow Ares ............................................... 40
Table 3.4: Waste Generation and Management ................................................................................................... 43
Table 4.1: Inventory of Biophysical samples collected. ......................................................................................... 46
Table 4.2: List of Air Quality Equipment Used In the Study .................................................................................. 51
Table 4.3: Air Quality sampling locations .............................................................................................................. 51
Table 4.4: Soil sampling locations......................................................................................................................... 54
Table 4.5: Surface Water and Groundwater sampling locations ........................................................................... 57
Table 4.6: Laboratory Analyses Method for Water Samples ................................................................................. 58
Table 4.7: Sediment Sampling Points ................................................................................................................... 59
Table 4.8: Methods used for Sediment Analyses .................................................................................................. 61
Table 4.9: Hydrobiology Sampling Points ............................................................................................................. 62
Table 4.10: Vegetation Study locations................................................................................................................. 65
Table 4.11: Summary of Climate Characteristics of the Study Area ..................................................................... 73
Table 4.12: Stratigraphic Succession in the Basin Area ....................................................................................... 77
Table 4.13: Summary of Hydro-Geological Units in the Project Area.................................................................... 78
Table 4.14: Carboxyhaemoglobin Levels and Related Health Effects .................................................................. 80
Table 4.15: Air Quality Characteristics of the study area in dry and wet season .................................................. 83
Table 4.16: Air Quality Classification Based on TSP Concentration ..................................................................... 84
Table 4.17: Noise levels at the Study locations..................................................................................................... 86
List of Tables
P a g e | xvi
Table 4.18: Noise Exposure Limits for Nigeria ...................................................................................................... 86
Table 4.19: pH of Soil in Study Area ..................................................................................................................... 87
Table 4.20: Soil pH Classifications........................................................................................................................ 88
Table 4.21: Conductivity of Soil in Study Area ...................................................................................................... 89
Table 4.22: Total Organic Carbon in Soil of Study Area ....................................................................................... 91
Table 4.23: Soil Total Organic Carbon Classification ............................................................................................ 91
Table 4.24: Different Soil Separates as defined by USDA .................................................................................... 93
Table 4.25: Particle Size Distribution of Soil in Study Areas ................................................................................. 94
Table 4.26: Anions Concentration in the Soil of Study Area ................................................................................. 96
Table 4.27: Cations Concentration in Soil of the Study Areas .............................................................................. 99
Table 4.28: Heavy Metals Concentration in Soil of the Study Areas in Dry Season ........................................... 101
Table 4.29: Heavy Metals Concentration in Soil of the Study Areas in Wet Season........................................... 102
Table 4.30: Total Hydrocarbon Content in Soil of the Study Areas ..................................................................... 105
Table 4.31: Microbial Isolates in Soil of the Study Areas in Dry Season ............................................................. 107
Table 4.32: Microbial Isolates in Soil of the Study Areas in Wet Season ........................................................... 108
Table 4.33: Predominant Microbial Species Isolated in Soil of the study Areas.................................................. 110
Table 4.34: Physico-chemical Characterisicts of Groundwater in the Study Locations....................................... 111
Table 4.35: Anions and Cations Contents in Groundwater of the Study Locations ............................................. 112
Table 4.36: Heavy Metal Concentration in Groundwater of the Study Area ........................................................ 117
Table 4.37: Total Hydrocarbon Concentration in Groundwater of the Study Area .............................................. 118
Table 4.38: Microbial Isolates in Groundwater of the Study Area ....................................................................... 119
Table 4.39: Predominant Microbial Species Isolated in Groundwater of the study Area..................................... 119
Table 4.40: Temperature, pH, Conductivity and Salinity of Surface Water in the Study Area............................. 121
Table 4.41: DO, TDS, TSS and Turbidity of Surface water ................................................................................. 124
Table 4.42: BOD and COD of Surface Water...................................................................................................... 126
Table 4.43: Anions Concentration in Surface Water ........................................................................................... 128
Table 4.44: Exchangeable Cations Concentration in Surface Water .................................................................. 131
Table 4.45: Heavy Metal Concentrattions in Surface Water ............................................................................... 135
List of Tables
P a g e | xvii
Table 4.46: Total Hydrocarbon Content in Surface Water .................................................................................. 137
Table 4.47: Microbial Isolates in Surface Water .................................................................................................. 139
Table 4.48: Predominant Microbial Species Isolated in Surface Water............................................................... 140
Table 4.49: Composition and abundance distribution of phytoplankton per ml (Dry Season). ............................ 143
Table 4.50: Phytoplankton community composition parameters (Dry Season). .................................................. 144
Table 4.51: Composition and abundance distribution of zooplankton per ml (Dry Season). ............................... 147
Table 4.52: Zooplankton community composition parameters (Dry season). ..................................................... 148
Table 4.53: Composition and abundance distribution of phytoplankton per ml (Wet Season). ........................... 151
Table 4.54: Phytoplankton community composition parameters (Wet Season). ................................................. 153
Table 4.55: Composition and abundance distribution of zooplankton per ml (Wet season)................................ 156
Table 4.56: Zooplankton community composition parameter (Wet Season). ...................................................... 157
Table 4.57: Checklist, Abundance and Distribution of Macrobenthic Invertebrate Species in the study sites in Dry
Season.
............................................................................................................................................... 162
Table 4.58: Checklist, Abundance and Distribution of Macrobenthic Invertebrate Species in the study sites in Wet
Season.
............................................................................................................................................... 164
Table 4.59: Families and species of fishes caught from the study area (Dry season) ........................................ 173
Table 4.60: Fish species composition of the fishermen catches in the project area (Wet season) ..................... 174
Table 4.61: pH of Lagoon Sediment ................................................................................................................... 177
Table 4.62: Sediment Conductivity ..................................................................................................................... 178
Table 4.63: Total Organic Carbon (%) in Sediment ............................................................................................ 179
Table 4.65: Exchangeable Cations Concentrations in Sediment ........................................................................ 183
Table 4.66: Anions Concentration in Sediment ................................................................................................... 186
Table 4.67: Heavy Metal Concentration in Sediment .......................................................................................... 192
Table 4.68: Total Hydrocarbon Content in Sediment .......................................................................................... 194
Table 4.69: Microbial Isolates Counts in Sediment ............................................................................................. 196
Table 4.70: Predominant Species of Microbial Isolates in Sediment .................................................................. 197
Table 4.71: List of Birds Observed in the Study Area ......................................................................................... 204
Table 4.72: List of Mammals in the Study Area................................................................................................... 207
List of Tables
P a g e | xviii
Table 4.73: List of Reptiles in the study area ...................................................................................................... 207
Table 4.74: Consulted Stakeholders ................................................................................................................... 209
Table 4.75: Highlights of Stakeholders Consultation........................................................................................... 210
Table 4.76: Location of Health Facilities and Distances from communities ........................................................ 249
Table 4.77: HIA Analyses Criteria ....................................................................................................................... 255
Table 4.78: HIA Impact Analyses Summary of Findings ..................................................................................... 256
Table 5.1: Components of Natural Environment that could be impacted by proposed project. ........................... 265
Table 5.2: Components of Human and Socio-economic Environment that could be impacted by proposed project.
............................................................................................................................................... 265
Table 5.3: Project Activities and Mode of Impacts on Environmental Components ............................................ 266
Table 5.4: Characteristics of Impacts from the proposed project at pre-reclamation phase ............................... 270
Table 5.5: Characteristics of Impacts from the proposed project at reclamation phase ...................................... 271
Table 5.6: Characteristics of Impacts from the proposed project at post-reclamation phase .............................. 272
Table 5.7: Impact Severity Ratings ..................................................................................................................... 275
Table 5.8: Rankings of the Impact Severity Criteria ............................................................................................ 276
Table 5.9: Associated and Potential Impacts Matrix of the Proposed Orange Island Project ............................. 277
Table 5.10: Impact Significance Matrix for the proposed Orange Island Reclamation Project ............................ 278
Table 5.11: Air Quality Standards Used in the Assessment................................................................................ 283
Table 5.12: Baseline and Predicted Noise Levels at different Receptor environments around the project area . 291
Table 5.13: CO2 Emissions from various work Machinery .................................................................................. 293
Table 5.14: Overall average % particle size distribution of sediment in project area .......................................... 294
Table 5.15: Average Heavy metal contents in sediment and water of the project area ...................................... 295
Table 5. 16: Average pH and Sulphate ions in water and sediment os project area ........................................... 295
Table 6.1: Mitigation Measures for Impacts during Pre-Reclamation Activities................................................... 307
Table 6.2: Mitigation Measures for Impacts during Reclamation Activities ......................................................... 312
Table 6.3: Mitigation Measures for Impacts during Post-Reclamation Activities ................................................. 319
Table 7.1: Surface Water Quality Monitoring Schedule ...................................................................................... 344
Table 7.2: Air Quality and Noise Monitoring Schedule ........................................................................................ 344
List of Tables
P a g e | xix
Table 7.3: Hydrobiology and Fisheries Monitoring Schedule .............................................................................. 345
Table 7.4: Waste Management Monitoring Schedule ......................................................................................... 346
List of Tables
P a g e | xx
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND FORMULAE
%
Percentage
µg/g
Micrograms per gram
µS/cm
Micrograms per centimetre
0C
Degrees Celsius
0F
Degrees Fahrenheit
AQ
Air Quality
BOD
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
BOOT
Build Own-Operate and Transfer
Ca
Calcium
Cd
Cadmium
CD
Chart Datum
CIA
Central Intelligence Agency
Cl-
Chloride
cm
Centimetre
CO
Carbon monoxide
CO2
Carbon dioxide
COD
Chemical Oxygen Demand
COPD
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Cr
Chromium
CSD
Cutter Suction Dredger
Cu
Copper
dB
Decibel
DGPS
Differential Global Positioning System
DO
Dissolved Oxygen
DPR
Department of Petroleum Resources
EIA
Environmental impact assessment
EIS
Environmental Impact Statement
EMP
Environmental Management Plan
ERL
Ecopro Resources Limited
ESAs
Environmentally Sensitive Areas
FAS
Ferrous Ammonium Sulphate
Fe
Iron
FGD
Focus Group Discussion
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
P a g e | xxi
FMEnv
FWDL
F W Dredging Limited
g
Grams
GC
Gas Chromatograph
GDP
Gross Domestic Product
GIS
Geographic Information Systems
GPS
Global Positioning System
H2
Hydrogen
H2O
Water
H2S
Hydrogen Sulphide
HDI
Human Development Index
HPLC
High Performance Liquid Chromatograph
HSE
Health Safety and Environmental
IFC
International Finance Corporation
K+
Potassium
Kg
Kilogramme
KHz
Kilo Hertz
Km
Kilometre
LAGMOE
Lagos Ministry of Environment
LAT
Lowest Astronomical Tide
LAWMA
Lagos State Waste Management Authority
LLWS
Low Low Water Spring
m
Meters
MLS
Mean Sea Level
m/s
Metres Per Second
mµ
Millimicron
Max
Maximum
MCB
Miniature Circuit Breaker
mg/1
Milligrams Per Litre
mg/100g
Milligrams Per Hundred Grams
mg/m3
Milligrams Per Cubic Metre
Mg2+
Magnesium
min
Minimum
mm
Millimetre
Mn
Manganese
MoU
Memorandum of Understanding
P a g e | xxii
N2
Nitrogen
NA
Not Available
ND
Not Detected
NH3
Ammonia
Ni
Nickel
NIMET
Nigeria Meteorological Agency
NO
Nitric Oxide
No.
Number
NO2
Nitrogen Dioxides
NOx
Oxides of Nitrogen
O2
Oxygen
OIDC
Orange Island Development Company
PAH
poly-cyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
Pb
Lead
PC
Personal Computer
PFD
Personal Floatation Device
pH
Potential of Hydrogen
PM
Particulate Matter
PM
Project Manager
PPE
Personal Protecting Equipment
ppm
Parts Per Million
PPP
Public Private Partnership
QA/QC
Quality Assurance / Quality Control
QHSE
Quality, Health, Safety and Environment
QL
Quarry Lease
RCD
Residual Current Device
RH
Relative humidity
S/N
Serial Number
SO2
Sulphur Dioxides
SOPEP
Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plan
SOx
Oxide of Sulphur
SPV
Special Purpose Vehicle
SS
Suspended solids
TBT
Tributyltin
TDS
Total Dissolved Solids
Temp
Temperature
P a g e | xxiii
THB
Total Heterotrophic Bacteria
THC
Total Hydrocarbons Content
THF
Total Heterotrophic Fungi
THUB
Total Hydrocarbon Utilizing Bacteria
THUF
Total Hydrocarbon Utilizing Fungi
TOC
Total Organic Carbon
TOR
Terms of Reference
TS
Total Solid
TSP
Total Suspended Particulates
TSS
Total Suspended Solids
UNDP
United Nations Development Programme
USDA
United States Development Agency
VONL
Van Oord Nigeria Limited
WHO
World Health Organisation
WM
Work Manager
Zn
Zinc
P a g e | xxiv
LIST OF EIA PREPARERS AND
CONTRIBUTORS
NAME
AREA OF SPECIALISATION
Ademola Olarinde (M.Sc. Chemistry)
Analytical Chemistry (Water)
Adeolu Ojo (B.Sc. Agriculture, M.Sc. Zoology )
Vegetation and Wildlife
August Runge (M.Sc.)
Dredging Technology
Augustine Agugua (M.Sc. Sociology)
Socioeconomics
Bartholomew Ndulue (M.Sc. Marine Science)
Project Manager, EIA
Charles Chima (MBBS, M.Sc. Public Health)
Health Impact Assessment
Charles Onyema (PhD, Marine Science)
Planktology
Efe Uwadiae (PhD, Marine Science)
Benthic Ecology
Emmanual Eniola (Ph.D, Fisheries Biology)
Fish and Fisheries
Francois Rautenbach (B.Sc. Q. Surv., MBA, Real Estate)
Project Management
Laz Ude Eze (MBBS, MPH)
Community Health Assessment
Nnabuchi Akpeh (MBBS, MPH)
Health Impact Data Analyses
Obehi Eguakhide (MGIS)
Geographic Information System
Oladapo, Olapade (M.Sc. Civil Engr. (Structures)
Civil Engineering
Omololu Soyombo (PhD, Sociology)
Team Lead; Socioeconomics
Oyediran Olowosoke (B.Sc. Geography and Urban Planning)
Socioeconomics
Raiif Antoun Sarkis (MS. Civil Engineering)
Geotechnical
Samuel Onyema (M.Sc. Marine Science)
Sediment Studies
List of EIA Preparers
P a g e | xxv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
FWDredging Limited (FWDL) sincerely acknowledges and appreciates the immense contributions of every
person and organization that make input towards the successful implementation of this Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA). The company especially acknowledges the oversight and regulatory functions, and
contributions of the Federal Ministry of Environment, as well as Lagos State Ministry for the Environment. It also
recognizes in a special way, the contributions of Lagos State Ministry of Waterfront Infrastructure Development.
The contributions of Four Aces Consulting Services Limited in providing expertise for Health Impact Assessment
are acknowledged. Finally, the company appreciates the commitment shown by management and staff of Ecopro
Resources Limited in preparing this EIA.
Acknowledgemnts
P a g e | xxvi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction and Background
FW Dredging Limited (FWDL) proposes to reclaim 150 hectares of land, about 300 metres off the bank of Lagos
lagoon on Lekki Phase 1 axis. The reclaimed land will be used for real estate development. FWDL is a wholly
indigenous company that provides world class services in areas of land reclamation, shore protection, sand
winning, stockpiling, sand filling, channel dredging, river and lake dredging, harbour and marina dredging, etc.
The company has been involved in a number of large and complex dredging projects in Nigeria. It was the major
contractor that handled the dredging/land reclamation works for the ‘man-made’ lake in Summerville Golf Estate
and Adiva Estate at Lakowe Lekki, among others. FWDL incorporated a subsidiary – Orange Island
Development Company (OIDC) as a place Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) for actualising the proposed project.
The proposed project involves dredging of sand from selected borrow area and, filling of the proposed island
using Cutter Suction Dredging (CSD) technology. The project site is on the Lekki axis of Lagos Lagoon, in EtiOsa Local Government Area of Lagos State, Nigeria. It is located approximately within latitude 60 27’ 37.136 and
60 28’ 29.954 North of the equator and longitude 30 29’ 29.235 and 30 30’ 30.42 East of Greenwich Meridian.
Land uses around the proposed site include; natural water bodies, minor and major urban areas, and fishing
community. The site can be accessed through Lekki-Epe Expressway, or waterways; from Lagos Harbour and
inland water jetties.
In line with regulatory requirements stipulated in the EIA Act 86 of 1992, after the initial environmental screening
of the proposed reclamation project, FWDL made a formal application to the Federal Ministry of Environment in a
letter dated January 22, 2013 requesting the Ministry’s approval for the implementation of EIA for the proposed
project with Terms of Reference (ToR) proposal. Formal notification (with the ToR attached) was equally
submitted to the Lagos State Ministry of the Environment. The State and Federal Ministry of Environment
conducted site verification visits to the proposed site. In a letter dated March 22, 2013, the FMEnv formally
granted the EIA application and placed the proposed project in Category one (1) requiring mandatory EIA studies
and a panel review. Two-season field study was conducted in line with FMEnv guidelines to prepare the EIA.
The Draft EIA Report was submiited to FMEnv in January 2014, and subjected to public review after statutory
display requirements in June 2014.
The applicable regulations considered in this EIA include: Nigeria national laws, Lagos State laws and
international conventions to which Nigeria is signatory. Notable among these regulations are Environmental
Impact Assessment Act No. 86 of 1992, The National Guidelines and Standards for Environmental Pollution
Control in Nigeria (1991), The National Effluent Limitation Regulation (1991), The Pollution Abatement
Regulation (1991), The Management of Hazardous and Solid Wastes Regulation (1991), National Environmental
Executive Summary
P a g e | xxvii
Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency (NESREA) Act 27 of 2007, National Inland Waterways Agency
(NIWA) established by the National Inland Waterways Act No. 31 of 1997, Inland Fisheries Act CAP I10, LFN
2004, The Endangered Species Act, Cap E9, LFN 2004, Nigeria Minerals and Mining Act 2007, Labour Act CAP
L1 L.F.N
of 2004, Lagos State Waterfront Infrastructure Development Law 2009, and Lagos State
Environmental Protection Agency (LASEPA Edict of 1996. Others include, Convention on Biological Diversity
(1992), International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution From Ships, 1973 as modified by the Protocol of
1978 (MARPOL 73/78), Convention on Wetland of International Importance, Especially as Water Flow Habitat,
Ramsar, Iran 1971, African Convention on Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (1968).
Project Justification and Options
Feasibility studies show that the proposed reclamation can be achieved in an environmental and economical
sustainable manner, and that there is available technology to achieve it with minimal impact on the environment.
The benefits of the proposed reclamation include; land provision, revenue Generation, forestall of lagoon bank
erosion, Jobs and employment provision, etc.
Evaluation of options to the project such as; No implementation, Delayed implementation, Alternative Location
and Technology, favoured the implementation of the project in the proposed location; since it is within the area
mapped out by the Lagos Government for sand filling and real estate development. A number of dredging
alternative dredging technology including; Pontoon-mounted grabbing, Dragline, Pontoon-mounted pumping,
Trailing Suction, Blasting, Bucket Dredging and Cutter Suction Dredging were appraised. Cutter Suction dredging
was found to be the most suitable in view of the nature of proposed reclamation and the least negative
environmental. No implementation and Delayed implementation options were ruled out, as they lack substantial
reasons to be considered.
Project Process Description
Activities of the proposed reclamation have been grouped into three sequential phases namely: Pre-reclamation,
Reclamation and Post-reclamation.
Pre-reclamation activities include; Project Concept development and signing of PPP Agreement with the Lagos
State Government, Feasibility Studies such as; Environmental Impact Assessment, Geotechnical Studies,
Bathymetric Survey, Stakeholders’ Consultations, etc, as well as mobilisation of equipment and personnel to site.
Reclamation activities will involve dredging of sand from the selected borrow area and filling of the proposed
Island using CSD technology. Sand search geotechnical studies estimated availability of 7, 585,200m3 of
suitable sand in borrow area. About 4,500,000m3 of sand will be required to fill the proposed Orange Island.
CSD is a stationary dredger. It consists of a pontoon, which is positioned with a spud-pole at the back and two
anchors at the front. The soil is loosened by rotating a cutting head, while powerful in-board centrifugal pumps
hydraulically transport the loosened soil. The cutter head, which is hydraulically driven, encloses the intake of a
Executive Summary
P a g e | xxviii
centrifugal dredge pump. The cutter head is mounted at the end of a fabricated steel structure, named the
‘ladder’, which is attached to the main hull by heavy hinges that permit rotation in the vertical plane. The ladder
assembly is lowered and raised by means of a hoisting controlled from the bridge. After loosening and suction,
soil is pumped into a delivery pipeline (floating or landline) and discharged at desired location.
Post-Reclamation activities involve leveling of the filled area to desired topography and height, and
demobilization of equipment and personnel from site.
The entire reclamation exercise; from mobilisation to demobilisation from site is expected to last about 14
months.
The rrate of settlement was approximately 251mm.The average of coefficient of consolidation over the range of
pressures involved equaled to 2.31m /yr. T50 (50% of final foundation settlement) and T90 (90% of final foundation
settlement) were estimated at 4.885 years and 21.135 respectively.
In order to ensure good shore protection, perimeter wall of 1.5m above high water level will be constructed round
the island with the sand fill sloping down at 1:4 into the water. Shoreline exposed to wave action of the lagoon
during stormy weather will be lined with one layer of 200mm nominal size crushed stone hand-placed on the
sandy surface. The final completed surface of the Island will have slopes varying between 1:100 and 1:200.
Different kinds of wastes (general and toxic) ranging from dredged sediment (~6,000.000m3), kitchen wastes,
packages of consumables, used lube oil, hydraulic oil, disused PPEs, disused vehicle parts, etc. are anticipated
to be generated during the entire work phases. Best practices including, appropriate collection and evacuation of
wastes by licensed vendor, immediate clean-up of spills, proper storage in containments, prohibition of
indiscriminate discard or wastes, etc., shall be put in place to ensure sound waste management.
Description of Project Environment
Two seasons (dry and wet) field studies were carried out in March (11- 17th) and July (8-14th) 2013 in accordance
with the FMEnv approved ToR, provided the primary data used in characterising the project environment. Other
sources include; existing literature, stakeholders’ consultations, questionnaire administration, and various
feasibility studies’ reports. Spatial boundary of 5km radius from the proposed project was adopted for the field
studies. The table below outlined the environmental attributes studied in addition so Socioeconomic and Public
Health studies. Studies were undertaken by qualified experts in line with FMEnv and international applicable
guidelines and standards. Samples analyses were based on the American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) and American Public Health Association (APHA) standard procedures.
Executive Summary
P a g e | xxix
Climate characteristics
The climate of the project area and its immediate environment is influenced by the tropical and continental air
masses, which are associated, respectively with the northeast and moisture-laden monsoon south-west winds.
The movement of these air masses results in the two weather seasons: wet season; from April to November, and
dry season; from December to March.
Precipitation occurs virtually all year round with annual average of 186mm. Rainfall pattern shows double
maxima, with a relatively dry period in August. Temperature has annual range of 28 to 320C and 23 to 260C for
maximum and minimum records respectively. Mean monthly minimum and maximum temperatures were 24 and
300C respectively. Relative humidity (RH) has annual averages of 85 and 74% in the morning and afternoon
periods respectively. Wind speed range between 2 and 8 m/s. The wind speed is lower than 2.7m/s in about 60%
of the time, and seldom (<2% of the time) exceeds 3 m/s. The prevailing wind direction (about 55% of the time) is
South West (2100 - 2400). Sunlight is most intense between November and February. Lowest insolation is
recorded between June and October. The monthly average sunlight hours ranged between 3 and 7 hours with an
annual average of 5 hours.
Geology
The project area falls within the Dahomey sedimentary basin, a basin known to have resulted from the events
associated with the break-up of Gondwana and subsequent opening of the southern Atlantic. Deposition was in a
fault-controlled depression, bounded by faults and other tectonic structures of the Romanche Fault Zone on the
west, and by the Benin Hinge line, also a major fault structure, on the east. Sediment thickness in the basin,
which extends from Accra/Ghana to the Okitipupa Ridge, where it is separated from the Niger Delta, increases
from north to south and from east to west within Nigeria.
Regional Hydrogeology
Coastal Nigeria is made up of two sedimentary basins: The Benin basin and the Niger Delta basin separated by
the Okitipupa ridge. The rocks of the Benin basin are mainly sands and shale’s with some limestone which
thicken towards the west and the coast as well as down dips to the coast. Recent sediments are underlain by the
Coastal Plains Sands which is then underlain by a thick clay layer - the Ilaro Formation and other older
Formations. The Recent Sediments and Coastal Plains Sands consist of alternation of sands and clays.
Hydrology
Lagos lagoon is the largest of the four lagoon systems of the Gulf of Guinea. It is the major inland water body in
southwestern Nigeria. The lagoon, which is located in Lagos state, is brackish water fed majorly in the north by
Ogun Yewa, Ona and Oshun rivers. It drains more than 103,626km of the country and discharges into the
Atlantic Ocean via Lagos Harbour. The surface area of the lagoon was estimated to be 150.56km2.
Executive Summary
P a g e | xxx
Air Quality and Noise
The total suspended particulate (TSP) level in the area recorded an average of 132.5 µg/m3. Relatively higher
values were recorded in the dry season. SO2 and H2S gases were not detected in all the study locations. In
effect, the concentration of SO2 is below the FMEnv limit of 0.01ppm hourly daily average. CO concentrations in
ambient air of the study areas recorded an overall average of 1.62ppm in dry and wet seasons. This value is
below the FMEnv permissible limit of 20ppm for eight-hour average. CO2 recorded an overall average
concentration of 376.8ppm in the study areas in dry and wet seasons. NO was not detected in dry season. In wet
season, the values ranged from 0.0 to 11.0ppm with the average of 5.5ppm. NO2 and NH3 were not detected in
the air of the study area. .
Noise levels in dry and wet seasons recorded an average of 60.5 dB(A). Dry and wet season averages were 59.3
dB(A) and 62.7 dB(A) respectively. Noise levels measured within and around the study area were below the
FMEnv permissible limit of >85 dB(A) exposure for 8 hours.
Soil Characteristics
The predominant particle type in the soil of the study area was sand. The average particles distributions in both
seasons were 96.0%, 2.4% and 1.5% for sand, silt and clay respectively. The pH of soil in the studied areas
ranged between acidic and extremely alkaline. In dry season, average pH of top and subsoil were 7.5 and 7.9
respectively, while they recorded 8.0 and 8.7 respectively in wet season. Electrical Conductivity recorded
averages of 69.3µS/cm and 158.2 µS/cm respectively in dry and wet season. Total organic carbon content
recorded average values less than 0.3% in both seasons. Anions average concentrations in soil in both seasons
were as follows: nitrates, 28.36mg/kg; sulphates, 12.11mg/kg; phosphates, 1.68mg/kg and chloride 55.38mg/kg.
Cations recorded the following average values: sodium, 93.61mg/kg; potassium, 4.1mg/kg; magnesium
4.1mg/kg, and calcium 1.40mg/kg. Fe was the predominant metal in the soil of the study area. It recorded overall
average of 132.92mg/kg. Zn recorded 2.61mg/kg, Cr, 17.91mg/kg, Cu, 6.4mg/kg, while Ni recorded 0.33mg/kg.
Cd, Pb and Mn were not detected in the soil. Total hydrocarbon content in soil recorded an average
concentration of 0.13mg/kg. Total heterotrophic bacteria in soil recorded combined (top and subsoil) average
count of 1.61x108 cfu/g in the two season studies. Total Heterotrophic Fungi recorded 4.88x104 cfu/g, Total
Hydrocarbon Utilizing Bacteria recorded 1.75x104 cfu/g, Total Hydrocarbon Utilizing Fungi recorded 2,4x103
cfu/g, while coliforms were not detected.
Groundwater Characteristics
Groundwater pH had average of 7.78, conductivity, 3.1mS/cm, while salinity recorded average of 1.8‰. DO had
average of 9.6mg/l, BOD, 1.6mg/l, and COD, 45.3mg/l. TDS recorded average of 0.4mg/l, while TSS ranged
between 1.5mg/l and 6.4mg/l. Nitrate had average concentration of 17.7mg/l , Sulphate recorded 15.9mg/l;
Chloride 520.8mg/l; while Phosphate recorded an average of 0.4mg/l. Sodium had average concentration of
136.5mg/l; potassium had 6.9mg/l, magnesium 7.3mg/l, and calcium, 2.4mg/l. Zn, Cu, Pb, Mn, Cr and Ni were all
not detected in groundwater samples. Fe was detected in 2 out of the 5 groundwater stations studied in dry
season, where it ranged between <0.001 and 0.004mg/l, while Cd was detected in only 1 of the 5 groundwater
Executive Summary
P a g e | xxxi
stations in dry season, with a concentration of 0.004mg/l. Total Hydrocarbon concentration had an average of
0.766mg/l. An overall average count of 1.2x107cfu/ml was recorded in both season’s study for Total
Heterotrophic Bacteria. Total Heterotrophic Fungi recorded 2.72x103cfu/ml, Total Hydrocarbon Utilizing Bacteria
recorded 1.66x101cfu/ml, while Total Hydrocarbon Utilizing Fungi recorded 1.2x101 cfu/ml. Coliforms were not
identified in the groundwater samples in both seasons’ study.
Surface water Characteristics
Surface water temperature recorded an average of 28.680C in the 2-season study, while pH averaged 7.55. The
range of temperature and pH recorded were below FMEnv permissible limit for fisheries. Electrical conductivity
had an average value of 24.59mS/cm in dry season and 0.97mS/cm in wet season. Dissolved Oxygen (DO) had
an average of 9.67mg/l in both season study, BOD5, recorded 1.1mg/l, while COD was 78mg/l. TSS and TDS
recorded averages of 6.52mg/l and 695.82mg/l respectively in the 2 seasons’ study. Turbidity was below 0.1NTU
in dry season, but recorded average of 24.29NTU in wet season. Nitrate ions in the lagoon water had an average
of 15.9mg/l over the two hydrological seasons’ study, Sulphate ions had 21.3mg/l, Chlorides, 6,320.2mg/l, while
Phosphate ion recorded 0.1mg/l. Sodium concentration in the lagoon water recorded an average of 567.9mg/l in
both seasons’ study, Potassium, 8.9mg/l,
magnesium, 13.3mg/l, while calcium recorded an average of
1.745mg/l. Fe content was not detected in 13 out of the 15 stations studied dry season. In wet season, the
concentration recorded an average of 1.433mg/l. Zn recorded an average of 0.017mg/l and 0.009mg/l in wet and
dry season respectively. Cu, Pb, Cd, Ni and Mn were barely detected in the lagoon water. Total hydrocarbon
content in the lagoon water recorded an average of 0.9mg/l in the two seasons’ study. Total Heterotrophic
Bacteria and Total Heterotrophic Fungi recorded average counts of
1.57x107cfu/ml and 6.63x103cfu/ml
respectively in the 2 seasons’ study. Total Hydrocarbon Utilizing Bacteria and Total Hydrocarbon Utilizing Fungi
recorded 6.83x103cfu/ml and 3.93x102 cfu/ml respectively. Total Coliforms recorded an average of
3.77x102cfu/ml but were recorded in 4 out of the 15 study locations. The predominant Isolate was E. coli.
Hydrobiology and Fisheries
Plankton
Phytoplankton distribution in the lagoon showed preponderance of Diatoms, Dinoflagellates, Blue-green algae
and Chlorophytes. Zooplankton was represented by Holoplankton and Meroplankton forms including; Crustacea,
Chaetognatha, Chordata, and Juvenile stages. The dominant group of zooplankton was Crustacea. The species
of phytoplankton and zooplankton recorded are known tropical and indigenous forms.
Macrobenthos
Macrobenthic community was dominated by Molluscs, Athropods and Annelids Major contributors to the
molluscan population were; Tympanotonus fuscatus var radula, Pachymelania fusca quadriseriata, and Physa
sp. Arthropods included; Penaeus notalisz, Cyathura sp. and Chironomous sp. while annelids were represented
by Nereis lamellose, Lumbriculus variegates and Nais elinguis.
Executive Summary
P a g e | xxxii
Fish and Fisheries
Fisheries in the study area employ gears such as Basket traps, hook and lines, pole and lines, cast nets, gillnets
and fish shelters (Acadja– a fish aggregating device) and longlines. Men, women and children are involved in
fishing. An average of two persons per boat was observed fishing around the area. From the assessment of the
fishermen’s catch, Ethmalosa fimbriata, was the most abundant species followed by Sarotherodon melanotheron.
Other abundant species include; Tilapia guineensis, Callinectes amnicola and Sphyraena barracuda, while
species like Mugil cephalus, Liza falcipinnis, Sarotherodon galilea, Hemichromis fasciatus and Elops lacerta
were common. Fishermen catch ranged between 5 -7 kg/day/person. Catch varies in seasons. In terms of the
health status of the catch, i.e. condition factor, which is the index of the fatness or wellbeing of a species; ranged
between 1.00 and 2.00. Most of the catches were sold at Obalende and Makoko (Betterlife) fish markets, where
the fishermen reported that they make better sales.
Sediment Characteristics
The pH of the lagoon sediment ranged between 6.6 and 9.6 in both seasons. Electrical conductivity ranged
between 77 and 5,420 µScm-1, while Total organic carbon ranged between 0.01 to 0.35%. Sand was the most
predominant particle in the sediment of the study locations. The overall average distribution of sand, silt and clay
particles in the sediments were 80.73%, 13.73% and 5.54% respectively. Exchangeable cations recorded the
following average values; Na, 93.7mg/kg; K, 3.4mg/kg; Mg, 5.5mg/kg, while Ca recorded 9.2mg/kg in the both
seasons study, except for calcium, cations recorded higher values in wet season. Anions content in the
sediment in the 2 seasons’ study recorded averages of 20.3mg/kg for nitrates, 26.7mg/kg for sulphates, 0.9mg/k
for phosphates and 1103mg/kg for chlorides. Fe, Zn, Cr and Cu recorded average values of 374mg/kg,
13.3mg/kg, 15.3mg/kg and 9.0mg/kg respectively. Cd, Pd, Mn and Ni were either not detected or occurred in
very trace amounts. Total Hydrocarbon Carbon (THC) content recorded an average of 0.527mg/kg. Sediment
samples collected close to high vehicle traffic zones and human settlements had relatively higher THC,
suggesting hydrocarbon contribution from traffic and waste discharges. Total heterotrophic bacteria in the
sediment recorded an average count of 1.72x108cfu/g in the two season studies. Total Heterotrophic Fungi
recorded 6.17x104cfu/g, Total Hydrocarbon Utilizing Bacteria recorded 1.38x104cfu/g, while Total Hydrocarbon
Utilizing Fungi recorded 1.54x103 cfu/g. Total coliforms were recorded in 8 out of the 15 study locations in dry
season, and in 12 locations in wet season, with slightly high counts. An overall average of 6.76x103cfu/g was
recorded for coliforms in both seasons study.
Bathymetry
The bathymetric survey of the lagoon section around the proposed project area showed that the surface level
was 1mCD. Water surface level ranged between 0.2mCD and 11.9mCD. Depth range of between 5.0mCD and
11.9mCD were recorded in the southern portion of the surveyed area which was observed being manually
dredged by local sand miners.
Executive Summary
P a g e | xxxiii
Sand Search and Geotechnics
Geotechnical sand search showed that suitable materials are available within the proposed borrow area for the
reclamation.
Vegetation
Floral species close to the proposed project site were mainly Paspalum scrobiculatum, Paspalum vaginatum and
some other annual herbs and shrubs. Observed prevalent economic crops include Talinum triangulare
(waterleaf), Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane), Carica papaya (paw paw), Telferia occidentaes (Fluted
pumpkin), Citrus spp. Magnifera indica (mango), Musa paradisiaca (plantain), M. sepientum (banana), and
Cocos nucifera (coconut palm).
Wildlife
Based on field observations, only birds and some reptiles were observed in the study area.
Birds of the
waterside, such as kingfishers, egrets and plovers were identified. Particular species including; white egrets
(Egretta spp.), Cattle egrets (Ardeola ibis) and some herons (Ardea cinerea) were observed. Spur-winged
plovers were equally observed. In the waterside community, domesticated goose (Anser anser.) was observed.
Further, away from the waterside, garden species, mostly doves, robins and weaverbirds were sighted. In
addition, various kites and other birds were observed in flight during the course of fieldwork. Some other wildlife
including reptiles and mammals were reported to exist or used to exist around the project area.
Stakeholders Consultation
Three groups of stakeholders, namely:
Governments and their Agencies; Host Communities, and Non
Governmental organisation, were consulted. Generally, all stakeholders consulted welcomed the project and
expressed their willingness to provided necessary support for the project. However, they advised that the
proponent should implement the project in a sustainable manner. The Eti-Osa LGA Chairman advised that the
project promoters and contractors should think of social responsibility developments they can bring into the
locality of their operation. Oba Elegushi pledged his unalloyed support for the project, emphasizing that as the
traditional leader of the host community, every project that will bring about further development would gain his
royal support. The table below show the various stakeholders consulted.
Socio-economics
Host Community Origin and Background
The main indigenous community proximal to the proposed project site is Ikateland. The community is under the
Eti-Osa Local Government Area of Lagos State, Nigeria. The name “Eti Osa” in Yoruba language means “lagoon
side”, indicating that the area is located along the lagoon. The traditional ruler (King) of Ikateland is HRM Oba
Alayeluwa Saheed Ademola Elegushi, Kusenla lll, the Elegushi of Ikateland. Ikateland, which is on the western
approach to Eti-Osa on the Lekki – Epe Expressway is situated about 4 km from Mobil headquarters and
Executive Summary
P a g e | xxxiv
presently covers an area of about 10 square kilometres. Historical records indicate that the people of Ikate are of
Awori origin. The Ikate kingdom is reported to have been founded over 300 years ago by Kusenla, one of the
descendants of Olofin of Iddo.
The community sections most proximal to the proposed project site are Ebute-Ikate and Itedo. While the EbuteIkate are Egun people, the Itedos are Ilaje migrants from Ondo State of Nigeria. The Ebute-Ikate people live
along the water banks, in wooden houses raised on stakes to keep them above high water levels. The Itedo
people, on the other hand, live upland.
Community Structure and Demography
Origin and Structure of Ebute-Ikate Migrant Community
Consultation with the elders and leaders of Ebute Ikate revealed that the people migrated to their present
location about 20 years ago. They are migrants from Badagry and Benin Republic who came to Lagos, first at
Mekwe (Bonny Camp), then to Maroko, and Thornbil Ikoyi, and later to Banana Island. They eventually obtained
permission from the HRH Oba Elegushi of Ikateland to inhabit the waterside on a temporary basis since as
fishermen they inhabit riparian areas. In terms of leadership structure, the Ebute-Ikate community does not have
a traditional leadership institution recognised by the Elegushi, since they are migrants. They, however, have
elders and appointees who represent them before Kabiyesi (the King).
Origin and Structure of Itedo Migrant Community
Consultation with the Itedo Community showed that there are two factions of the dwellers, with different family
lineages, namely: the Ogunyemi Family and the Harrison Family. The Ogunyemi family is reported to have
migrated to the lagoon area of Ikateland from Ilaje (Ondo state, Nigeria) in the 1960s. The population of this
family is estimated at 1,100. The Itedo people are tenants to Elegushi, therefore do not have traditional
leadership. However, the family is represented by the elders. The eldest man is referred to as Olori ebi, followed
by Adiile, and others.
Socio-demography
People between ages 12 and 45 years occupied majority of the household members in both communities.
Gender distribution was 53% male to 47% female. Majority (92%) of the respondents were married, while 2%
reported being widowed. Polygyny (marriage of one man to more than one woman at the same time) was very
prevalent among the people, with some men having as many as five wives. Most of the respondents had primary
education or higher. Generally, younger respondents had higher levels of education, just as men had higher
education than the women. The community members are mostly Christians (87%). 11% are traditional
worshippers and 2% Muslims. There is no shrine for traditional worship in Itedo, thus, traditional worship is
conducted at the Ikate shrine. On the other hand, churches abound in the community. There is a shrine for
traditional worship in Ebute Ikate.
Executive Summary
P a g e | xxxv
Most (92%) of the respondents owned the houses that they live in, while only 8% rented their abodes. In terms of
types and quality of houses, field observation showed that most of the houses are built on stilts, with wooden
materials. A few members of the Harrison family have permanent structures. The number of rooms in the houses
ranged between 1 and 4, with 2 rooms being most prevalent (74%). Most (68%) of the residents had spent over
ten years in their residence. Despite the relatively long tenure of residence, many of the respondents still lived
with the fear of dislocation/eviction.
82% of the households had two or more persons in employment, while 18% had only one person in employment.
Members of the Ebute-Ikate community are mostly engaged in the informal sector of the economy, with the
largest proportion (42%) being involved in fishing, followed by 33% who are engaged in trading and 23%
artisans, 1% employed in the civil service, while another 1% was into sand mining. However, the Itedo people
have abandoned fishing as main occupation. Quite a number of them own small businesses, while a few others
work as civil servants and professionals. 63% of the respondents had been in business for over 10 years; 49%
10 – 20 years; 11% 20 – 30 years, and 3% over 30 years. More than 70% lived around or within one kilometre of
their workplaces.
The modal monthly income group among the respondents was N10,000 or less (47%), followed by >N10,000 –
N20,000 (35%), >N20,000 – N30,000 (6%), >N30,000 – N40,000 (5%), while 4% apiece earned >N40,000 –
N50,000 and >N50,000 – N100,000. Monthly household expenditure ranged from under N5,000 to about
N100,000, although 17% of the respondents could not estimate their monthly household expenditures. The
modal monthly household expenditure is >N10,000 – N20,000 (57%). Some (12%) of the respondents reported
monthly household expenditures of less than N5,000. Some community members belong to thrift societies
Members of the community buy potable water from outside the community. Water from dug wells are used for
washing, bathing and some cooking, while water from lagoon is used mainly for cleaning and human waste
disposal. Some households reported relying on what is locally known as “pure water” (water in polyethylene
sachets) as their primary source of drinking water, spending as much as N800 in purchasing 11 bags and an
average of N2,000 per week for purchasing drinking water for a household.
There is general lack of basic sanitation facilities in the community. Most of the houses lacked standard toilet and
bathing facilities. Only a few households had pit latrines and make-shift bathing facilities. A good number of
people defecate directly into the lagoon. Although the respondents reported that they participated regularly in the
(Lagos State compulsory) Thursday environmental sanitation exercise, there were obvious evidence of
indiscriminate dumping of wastes in the communities and their environs. The communities are fairly organised as
they hold periodic meetings to address matters of interest.
Public Health Assessment
Public health in the community is considered poor. 23% of the respondents reported that they could not pay for
health care in the last 12 months. Only 1% had health insurance. Access to healthcare is further impeded by the
lack of public health care facilities within the community. Majority (53%) of the people do not make use of the
Executive Summary
P a g e | xxxvi
formal health care system. They reported patronizing herbalists, chemists, faith healers, and so on. The table
below show relative distances of health centres patronised by some of the community members.
The people are generally poor, stand the risk of malnourishment and engage is some behaviours that pose
health risks. Poor housing, overcrowding, smoking (2% of the respondents were smokers), excessive alcohol
consumption, scarcity of fruits and vegetable (or inability of most members to afford them), poor waste disposal,
scarcity of potable water, etc, constitute health risk factors identified in the communities. Defeacation in the
lagoon in which members equally swim poses great risk of faeco-oral transmission of diseases.
This study showed that more than half of the womenfolk had suboptimal weights; 20% of them were overweight,
28.6% were obese, while 5.7% of them were underweight. In contrast, only 5.7% of the men were overweight,
and none of them was either obese or underweight. 3% have been told by a health professional that they have
diabetes. Similarly, the figures for other illnesses were as follows: hypertension – 1%, asthma – 1%, and hearing
impairment – 4%.
Potential and Associated impacts
Assessment of impacts of the proposed Orange Island reclamation project shows that quite a number of positive
impacts will result from its implementation. Some potential negative impacts have also been identified; forty-eight
(48) of them with varying degrees of significance. Most of the impacts (50%; 24 impacts) are predicted to be of
low significance; 42 % (20 impacts) are anticipated to be of moderate or medium significance, while negligible
and high significance impacts accounted for the remaining 4% (2 impacts). Detailed assessment shows that
impacts of moderate to high severity would occur in aquatic ecology; sediment structure, benthic biota, surface
water quality, as well as hydrobiology and fisheries.
Most significant impacts are actually expected to occur
during dredging and filling.
Impact Mitigation Measures and Alternatives
Mitigation measures aimed at avoiding, minimising or compensating for negative impacts are recommended for
all identified negative impacts. Generally, the measures are either preventive or curative. Measures are
generally in form of policies of DOs and DON’Ts which ensure that negative effects do not occur. They also
include proper planning, supervision and monitoring to ensure that the right things are done. There are also
some structural measures put in place to ensure that unavoidable impacts are minimised, a typical example is
the plan of using of silt curtains to contain dispersion of suspended sediment materials beyond certain areas
during dredging and filling. Mitigation measures are prescribed for all activities from pre-reclamation to postreclamation phase of the project. They are intended to reduce high significant impacts to low, and low impacts to
negligible significance status.
Environmental Management plan (EMP)
EMP provides the framework for implementing of mitigation commitments provided in the EIA. Key issues
covered in the EMP for the proposed Orange Island Reclamation Project include:
Executive Summary
P a g e | xxxvii
•
Role and responsibilities of all parties involved in the project;
•
Health safety and Environment management policy;
•
Accidents and contingency plan, and;
•
Impact mitigation monitoring plans.
It is anticipated the thorough implementation of the EMP will enhance the overall sustainability of the project.
Conclusion
Assessment of environmental impacts from all activities of the proposed Orange Island reclamation shows that
moderate to high significant impacts will occur in the benthic ecology of the lagoon and by extension water
quality and hydrobiology. However, proper implementation of the mitigation measures will reduce these impacts
to low significance. More so, impacts mitigation monitoring are expected to provide early signals of impending
environmental degradation, and inform decision making to further strengthen controls measures.
Executive Summary
P a g e | xxxviii
CHAPTER 1
1.1
INTRODUCTION AND
BACKGROUND
INTRODUCTION
This document presents the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of the proposed Orange Island reclamation
of 150 Ha on Lagos Lagoon Lekki, Lagos State, Nigeria.
FW Dredging Limited (FWDL) proposes to reclaim 150 hectares of land, about 300 metres off the bank of Lagos
lagoon on Lekki Phase 1 axis. The land is intended for development of a model real estate - ORANGE ISLAND
CITY. FWDL is a wholly indigenous company that provides world class services in land reclamation, shore
protection, sand winning, stockpiling, sand filling, channel dredging, river and lake dredging, harbour and marina
dredging, etc. The company has been involved in a number of dredging projects in Nigeria including;
dredging/land reclamation for the ‘man-made’ lake in Summerville Golf Estate and Adiva Estate at Lakowe Lekki.
FWDL in line with appropriate laws in Nigeria, incorporated a subsidiary – Orange Island Development Company
(OIDC) as a place Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) for actualising the proposed reclamation project.
1.2
THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed project involves reclamation of approximately 150 Ha of land by dredging sand from selected
borrow area within the lagoon, and using the material to fill the proposed area by use of Cutter Suction Dredging
technology.
1.2.1
Features of the Orange Island City
Although this EIA is specifically for the land reclamation, figure 1.1 shows the main features of the intended
estate development. The component parts include the following:
a. Residential Area – This will occupy about 50.8% of the total land area, estimated at about 76.17Ha.
The area will comprise a mix of low and high-rise developments. The layout and sizes of plots in the
residential area will be mapped out in the environmental friendly manner.
b. Commercial Area – This will take about 11.98% (~ 17.98Ha) of the reclaimed land area, and will be
allocated for commercial structures development. The plots will be available for commercial
developments and to investors such as: retail shopping, banks and hotels, etc.
c. Green Area – 5.33% (~ 7.99Ha) of the reclaimed land will be designated for greening. This land size
allocation will be distributed at various sections of the island. Artificial wetland is part of the proposals to
be used for this allocation. The project promoter’s intention with this allocation is to create habitats for
Chapter One: Introduction and Background
P a g e |1
flora and fauna and tap into benefits of such environments like; flood control, air purification, carbon
sink, noise attenuation, etc.
d. School Area – 4.69% (~7.04Ha) of the proposed Island will be used for educational needs of the
estate.
e. Road Network - 17.7% (~26.97Ha) of the reclaimed land area will be used for road network in and
out, and within the Island estate.
f.
Utility Area - 2.39% (~3.58Ha) of the reclaimed land area will be dedicated for utility services such as
electricity infrastructure, water supply facilities, sewage and waste management facilities, etc.
g. Community Centre - 2.75% (~4.14Ha) of the land area will be used for community centre. The centre
is to provide recreational and sports facilities such as golf course, football field, swimming pools,
gymnasia, etc.
h. Marina – At specific interface between the reclaimed land and water, marina areas will be created. In
addition to serving ecological needs of ensuring free flow of water, these areas could be put into
suitable uses like jetties, boat clubs, etc. 4.09% (~6.15Ha) of the island area will serve for marina.
P a g e |2
Figure 1.1: Zonal Drawing of the proposed Orange Island City
P a g e |3
The proposed Orange Island City will be delivered under a Build-Own-Operate and Transfer (BOOT), a publicprivate-partnership (PPP) arrangement with Lagos State Government (LASG). FWDL has signed an agreement
with the State Government in this regard (Appendix 1). The PPP will ensure effective and sustainable
development of the proposed project. In line with the agreement, FWDL through OIDC will be responsible for; (1)
technical feasibility and viability analysis, (2) land reclamation, (3) fund raising for the project, (4) development of
necessary infrastructure, (5) sale of plots, and (6) management of the estate for a specified period before
transferring ownership to Lagos State Government. Lagos State Government will (among others); (1) support
and ensure that all relevant government agencies collaborate with the FWDL, (2) issue relevant permits, (3)
issue certificate of occupancy and other necessary titles before project commencement.
In line with OIDC’s policy on sustainable planning and development as well as existing regulations on
environmental protection, the company appointed Ecopro Resources Limited (ERL) a Federal Ministry of
Environment and Lagos State Environmental Protection Agency (LASEPA) accredited consultant to conduct
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the proposed land reclamation.
1.3
THE PROPOSED PROJECT SITE
The proposed reclamation site is on Lekki axis of Lagos Lagoon, in Eti-Osa Local Government Area of Lagos
State (plate 1.1). The site which measures 150Ha is located approximately within latitude 60 27’ 37.136 and 60
28’ 29.954 North of the equator and longitude 30 29’ 29.235 and 30 30’ 30.42 East of Greenwich Meridian. Map 11 and 1-2 show the Administration and Land Use of Lagos State in relation to the proposed site. The proposed
project area is approximately 22.5km and 12.1km from the Murtala Mohammed International Airport and Lagos
Seaport respectively. Land uses around the proposed site include; natural water bodies, minor and major urban
areas, and fishing community. The site is accessible through Lekki-Epe Expressway, or via waterways from
Lagos Harbour and inland water jetties. Going by road, the site is connected through Itedo road – off Lekki-Epe
Expressway, by 3rd Round About (Plates 1.2 and 1.3).
P a g e |4
Plate 1.1: Shoreline into the project area. (Note: Manual-mined sand and Ebute-Ikate Community Stilted structures)
P a g e |5
Map 1.1: Lagos State Administrative showing Project Area
P a g e |6
Map 1.2: Land Use around the project Area
P a g e |7
Plate 1.2: A section of Lekki-Epe Expressway. Leading to the site
Plate 1.3: 3rd Round About, the point to via off Lekki-Epe Expressway into the project site along
P a g e |8
1.4
THE EIA OBJECTIVES
EIA is an internationally accepted tool employed to assess potential and associated environmental (and social)
impacts of proposed developmental activity, and to develop management strategies that ensure minimal impact
on the environment. As a management tool, EIA provides project proponents with fore knowledge of the likely
impacts of their planned development on natural and human environment with a view to mitigating the negative
effects, and enhancing benefits. Specifically, the objectives of this EIA include the following:

To obtain baseline information on the biophysical and socio-economic characteristics of the proposed
project area;

To evaluate all associated and potential impacts of the proposed land reclamation on the biophysical
and socio-economic components of the environment;

To recommend appropriate mitigation measures that will enable avoidance, reduction or compensation
for all identified negative impacts, as well as measures to enhance positive impacts;

To develop environmental management and monitoring plans for ensuring that the reclamation activities
are implemented within environmentally acceptable performance standards;

To provide a database for performance evaluation, and future references;

To consult with relevant stakeholders to obtaing their views in other to consider their interests and
possible engagement for the overall success of the proposed project;

To ensure that the proposed reclamation activites comply with environmental regulations of the Federal
Ministry of Environment (FMEnv), Lagos State Ministry of the Environment (LagMoE) and applicable
international standards;

1.5
To ensure that OIDCs Corporate Policy on Health Safety and Environment is upheld.
SCOPE OF THE EIA ACTIVITIES
In line with the ToR submitted to the FMEnv, the scope of the EIA study is summarised as follows:

Reconnaissance to the project area to obtain firsthand knowledge of the project environment in order to
adequately scope the EIA studies;

Review of relevant existing literature; including related studies, the initial feasibility report of the
proposed project, dredging and sand filling protocols, bathymetry and and geotechnical reports, etc, in
order to generate relevant information and data required for the EIA. Literature review was expected to
provide information on pertinent knowledge gaps that would require detailed survey during field studies;

Data gathering on the social and biophysical environmental characteristics of the proposed project area.
Data and information that to be collected include, but not limited to the following;
P a g e |9
o
Elements of the physical environment, including: climate and meteorology, geology and
hydrogeology, ambient air quality, surface water quality sediment quality, soil quality,
hydrobiology and fisheries, geology, bathymetry, and biodiversity.
o
Human environment attributes including socioeconomics, demography, public health, cultural
values, land use, concerns and interests of stakeholders and persons/communities vulnerable
to project impacts.

Evaluation of the preferred dredging and sand filling technology in other to identify their interactions and
impacts on the environment;

Appraisal of alternatives to the project proposal; in terms of location, dredging technology, and sand
source;

Assessment of all potential and associated (positive and negative) impacts from the dredging and sand
filling activities; employing multi-criteria approach to evaluate their significance, duration, extent and
possible interaction with other impacts.

Development of appropriate practicable mitigation measures for all identified negative impacts. The
measures will be designed to either prevent or ameliorate negative impacts to barest minimum, and
within regulatory acceptable levels;

Preparation of appropriate and cost-effective environmental management plan for short and long-term
implementation. This will cover monitoring plans that will ensure compliance to prescribed mitigation
measures and identification of residual impacts and improved methods of mitigation.
As part the regulatory process, the State and Federal Ministry of Environment conducted site verification visits to
the proposed site (Plate 1.4 and 1.5).
P a g e | 10
Plate 1.4: Officials of the Lagos State Ministry for the Environment (Drainage Services Unit) during site verification
Plate 1.5: Officials of the FMEnv during Site Verification exercise
P a g e | 11
1.6
LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK
This EIA was prepared to meet Nigeria and international regulatory standards for environmental safeguards. The
applicable regulations, laws, international treaties and conventions that were considered in implementing this EIA
are presented in following subsections.
1.6.1
Nigeria Legislations and Administrative Framework
1.6.1.1
Federal Ministry of Environment (FMEnv)
The FMEnv is the apex institution responsible for the protection and safeguard of Nigeria’s environment. The
ministry took over the responsibility of the former Federal Environmental Protection Agency (FEPA), established
by the FEPA Decree of 1998. The primary objective of FMEnv is to achieve the objective of Chapter II section 20
of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria which mandates the protection and improvement of
water, air, land, and wildlife of Nigeria. FMEnv has in place statutory documents to aid the control and abatement
of industrial wastes and indiscriminate pollution of the environment. Statutory documents prepared towards this
end include:

Federal Environmental Protection Agency Act (1988);

Environmental Impact Assessment Act No 86 (1992);

Harmful Wastes (Special Criminal Provisions etc) Act No 42 (1988);

National Environmental Protection (Management of Solid and Hazardous Wastes Regulations) (1991);

National Environmental Protection (Effluent Limitation) Regulations (1991);

National Policy on the Environment (1989, revised 1999);

National Guidelines and Standards for Environmental Pollution Control in Nigeria (1991).

National Guidelines for Environmental Auditing In Nigeria (1999);

Water Resources Act of 1993.
1.6.1.2
Environmental Impact Assessment Act No. 86 of 1992
The EIA Act No 86 (1992) is the primary Act governing EIAs in Nigeria. The Act was promulgated in order to
enable the prior consideration of an EIA on specified public or private projects. The Act sets out the procedure to
be followed and methods to be used in undertaking an EIA. Section 2 (2) of the Act requires that where the
extent, nature or location of the proposed project or activity is such that it is likely to significantly affect the
environment, an EIA must be undertaken in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Act requires that
project proponents apply in writing to FMEnv prior to embarking on the proposed project, to ensure that an EIA is
undertaken in the planning stages of the Project. Section 4 (a) – (g) sets out the following minimum requirements
for an EIA:

Description of the proposed activities;
P a g e | 12

Description of the potentially affected environment of the proposed project including specific information
necessary to identify and assess the environmental effects of the proposed activities;

Description of practical activities, as appropriate;

Assessment of the likely potential environmental impacts of the proposed activities and the alternatives,
including direct or indirect, cumulative, short and long term effects;

Identification and description of measures available to mitigate adverse environmental impacts of the
proposed activities and an assessment of these measures;

Indication of gaps in knowledge and uncertainty;

Indication of whether the environment of any other state or Local Government Area(s) (LGA) or areas
outside Nigeria are likely to be affected by the proposed activity or its alternatives; and

Brief and non-technical summary of the information provided under the above provisions.
Section 7 of the Act requires that FMEnv must provide government agencies, members of the public, experts in
any relevant discipline and interested groups an opportunity to comment on EIAs prior to making a decision.
Section 9 (1) requires that FMEnv provides its decision in writing, and includes reasons for the decision and
required provisions, if any, to prevent, reduce or mitigate any negative impacts on the environment.
Paragraph 4(a) of the schedule listed Coastal reclamation involving an area of 50 hectares or more amongst
projects requiring EIA.
Environmental Impact Assessment Procedure
In response to the promulgation of the EIA act discussed above, the Federal Ministry of Environment (FMEnv)
developed a National EIA Procedure in 1995. The procedure provides steps to be followed from project
conception to commissioning in order to ensure that the project is implemented with maximum consideration for
the environment.
The procedure for EIA involves the project proposal stage where the project proponent notifies the FMEnv of the
proposed project in writing. The project proposal is expected to contain all relevant information on the project
including a land-use map. This stage is followed by the screening phase, when the Ministry will carry out an Initial
Environmental Examination (IEE) and assign the project into categories based on the following criteria: magnitude,
extent or scope, duration and frequency, risks, significance, mitigation measures available for associated and
potential environmental impacts. The location of the project in Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) is also an
important criterion in the project categorisation. The areas categorised as Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs)
include coral reefs, mangrove swamps, small islands, tropical rain forests, areas with erosion-prone soils, natural
conservation areas; etc.
Another stage of FMEnv EIA procedure is the scoping stage, the main feature of which involves, the proponent
submitting to FMEnv; a Terms of Reference (ToR) for the proposed EIA study. In some cases, the Ministry may
P a g e | 13
require a Preliminary Assessment Report, and any additional information from the proponent to assist in vetting
the scope and the ToR of the proposed EIA study. This stage is followed by the implementation of the EIA study;
preparation of Draft Final Reports, and Final EIA Reports, review process and approval/certification. The
categories of projects under the national EIA procedure are as follows:
Category I:
this category of projects is subjected to full-scale EIA. The proposed Orange Island
Reclamation has been placed under this category by FMEnv. Paragraph 4(a) of the Mandatory study schedule
listed Coastal reclamation involving an area of 50 hectares or more as one of the projects requiring mandatory
EIA study.
Category II: this category of projects may not require a full-scale EIA except when the project is located in an
Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA), in which case the project will be assigned to Category I. The requirement
for a Category II projects is partial EIA. Also, mitigation measures or changes in project design (depending on
the nature and magnitude of the environmental impacts) as well as further actions may be required from the
proponent. Category II projects include reforestation/afforestation projects, land and soil management, smallscale irrigation and drainage, mini hydro-power development, small-scale development of petroleum or related
activities, etc.
Category III:
this category includes projects expected to essentially have beneficial impacts on the
environment. For projects in this category, the Ministry will issue an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
Projects in this category are such as; family planning programmes, institutional development, environmental
awareness projects, etc.
Apart from the general EIA Guidelines, the Ministry has also prepared sectoral guidelines for EIA in different
industrial sectors, including the petroleum and petro-chemicals sector and infrastructure.
1.6.1.3
National Environmental Guidelines and Standards
The National Guidelines and Standards for Environmental Pollution Control in Nigeria (NGSEPCN) were defined
in March 1991 to serve as a basic instrument for monitoring and controlling industrial and urban pollution. The main
considerations of the guidelines and standards include:
•
effluent limitations;
•
pollution abatement in industries and facilities generating wastes; and
•
management of solid and hazardous wastes.
Some of these guidelines and standards later evolved into national regulations in August 1991. Key regulations
are summarised below.
P a g e | 14
National Effluent Limitation Regulation
The National Effluent Limitation Regulation, S1.8 of 1991 (No 42, Vol. 78, August, 1991) makes it mandatory for
industries such as waste generating facilities to install anti-pollution and pollution abatement equipment on site.
The Regulation is specific for each category of waste generating facility with respect to limitations of solid and
liquid discharges or gaseous emissions into the environment. Appropriate penalties for contravention are also
prescribed.
Pollution Abatement in Industries Generating Wastes Regulations
The Pollution Abatement Regulation, S1.9 of 1991 (No 42, Vol 78, August, 1991) imposes restrictions on the
release of toxic substances and stipulates requirements for pollution monitoring units, machinery for combating
pollution and contingency planning by industries, submission of lists and details of chemicals used by industries
to FMEnv, permits for the storage and transportation of harmful or toxic waste and the waste generator’s liability.
The Act also provides regulations on strategies for waste reduction, permissible limits of discharge into public
drains, protection of workers and safety requirements, environmental audit (or environmental impact assessment
for new industries) requirements and penalties for contravention.
Management of Hazardous and Solid Wastes Regulations
The Management of Hazardous and Solid Wastes Regulation, S.1.15 of 1991 (No 102, Vol. 78, August, 1991)
defines the requirements for groundwater protection, surface water impoundment, land treatment, waste piles,
landfills, and incinerators. It also describes the hazardous substances tracking programme with a comprehensive
list of acutely hazardous chemical products and dangerous waste constituents. In addition, the Act also contains
the requirements and procedures for inspection, enforcement and penalties.
1.6.1.4
National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency
(NESREA)
NESREA Act 27 of 2007 established the National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement
Agency (NESREA). The Agency, which works under the Federal Ministry of Environment. NESREA is saddled
with the responsibility for the protection and development of the environment, biodiversity conservation and
sustainable development of Nigeria’s natural resources in general and environmental technology, including
coordination and liaison with relevant stakeholders within and outside Nigeria on matters of enforcement of
environmental standards, regulations, rules, laws, policies and guidelines.
1.6.1.5
National Inland Waterways Authority (NIWA).
The National Inland Waterways Agency (NIWA) established by the National Inland Waterways Act No. 31 of
1997 have the statutory mandate for the improvement and development of the inland waterways for navigation;
provide an alternative mode of transportation for the evacuation of economic goods and persons and execute the
objectives of the national transport policy as they concern inland water ways.
P a g e | 15
1.6.1.6
Inland Fisheries Act CAP I10, LFN 2004
Focused on the protection of the water habitat and its species, the relevant sections of this act include:
•
Section 1 - prohibits unlicensed operations of motor fishing boats within the inland waters of Nigeria.
•
Section 6 - prohibits the taking or destruction of fish by harmful means.
1.6.1.7
The Endangered Species Act, Cap E9, LFN 2004.
This Act focuses on the protection and management of Nigeria’s wildlife and some of their species in danger of
extinction as a result of overexploitation. These sections are noteworthy:
Section 1 - prohibits, except under a valid license, the hunting, capture or trade in animal species, either
presently or likely to be in danger of extinction.
Section 5 - defines the liability of any offender under this Act.
Section 7 - provides for regulations to be made necessary for environmental prevention and control as regards
the purposes of this Act.
1.6.1.8
The Nigerian Urban and Regional Planning Act Cap N138, LFN 2004
This Act was enacted to oversee realistic and purposeful planning of the country to avoid overcrowding and poor
environmental conditions. The relevant sections of the Act include:
Section 30 (3) - requires a building plan to be drawn by a registered architect or town planner.
Section 39 (7) - establishes that an application for land development would be rejected if such development
would harm the environment or constitute a nuisance to the community.
Section 59 - makes it an offence to disobey a stop-work order.
Section 72 - provides for the preservation and planting of trees for environmental conservation.
1.6.1.9
Nigeria Minerals and Mining Act 2007
This Nigeria Minerals and Mining Act was enacted in March 2007 and repealed the Minerals and Mining Act, No.
34 of 1999. This law is purposed for the regulation of all aspects of exploration and exploitation of solid minerals
in Nigeria; and for related purposes. Part 1(1) of the act states: “the entire property in and control of all mineral
resources in, under or upon any land in Nigeria, its contiguous continental shelf and all rivers, streams and
watercourses throughout Nigeria, any area covered by its territorial waters or constituency and the
Exclusive Economic Zone is and shall be vested in the Government of the Federation for and on behalf of the
people of Nigeria”. The Act prohibits unauthorised exploration and exploitation of minerals. Section 1(3) of the
act states that the property in mineral resources shall pass from the Government to the person by whom the
mineral resources are lawfully won, upon their recovery in accordance with this Act.
The Mnistry of Mines and Steel Development enforces the stipulations of this act. Accordingly, FWDL has
been issued QUARRY LEASE (QL) for the proposed dredging. The QL is valid for five years and will last
between November 5, 2013 and November 4, 2018.
P a g e | 16
1.6.1.10
Land Uses Act No. 6 of 1978
The Land Use Act of 1978 vests the right of ownership of all lands situated in the territory of each state (except
land vested in the Federal Government or its representatives), solely in the Governor of the State, who would
hold such land in trust for the people. The Governor shall be responsible for the allocation of land in all urban
areas to individuals resident in the state and to organisations for residential, agriculture, commercial and other
purposes. Similar powers are conferred to local government authority in terms of non-urban areas.
1.6.1.11
Labour Act CAP L1 L.F.N of 2004
The Labour Act provides specific laws regulating labour employment and conditions of contracts. Part I of the Act
specifies the general provisions as to protection of wages, contracts of employment and terms and conditions of
employment. While Part II provides procedure for recruiters and recruiting.
1.6.2
1.6.2.1
Lagos State Legislations and Administrative Framework
Lagos State Ministry of Waterfront Infrastructure Development
A bill was passed in 2008 by the Lagos State House of Assembly for a law to provide for the regulation of
waterfront infrastructure development, sand dealing and dredging operations in the state. The law, “Lagos State
Waterfront Infrastructure Development Law 2009” (LAWID) empowered the Ministry of Water front and
Infrastructure Development (MWID) to regulate sand dredging. MWID is empowered by the law to grant
permission for sand dredging or dealing within, around and on waterfronts and embankments in accordance to
sections 3(e), 4 and 1(2) of the LAWID Law. Section 23 of the LAWID Law provides the following definitions:

Waterfront is land at the edge of a stream, creek, lagoon, coastal area, shoreline, harbour, wharf, dock,
bar beach and other beaches within Lagos State.

Embankment simply means bank of wall of waterways.

Sand dealing operations means engagement of anybody in the business of dealing or transportation of
granite, laterite, stone, gravel, clay, etc. around or on waterfronts in Lagos State.
Lagos State Ministry of Waterfront Infrastructure Development was created from the defunct Lagos State
Waterfront and Tourism Corporation in June 2007. Two separate ministries which include the Ministry of
Waterfront and Infrastructure Development and the Ministry of Tourism Intergovernmental Relations were carved
out of the defunct corporation. The Creation of the ministry was necessitated by the need to ensure that the
development of shore-lines and Waterfront schemes are not limited only to Lagos Island as the case was when
activities along the waterfronts were managed by the corporation.
The ministry was created with the mission to create wealth through the provision of world class waterfront
infrastructural facilities and services for all. The ministry grant permit for land reclamation in the state.
P a g e | 17
1.6.2.2
Lagos State Waterways Authority Law (LASWA) 2008
LASWA enacted by the Lagos State House of Assembly came into force in July 21, 2008. Notwithstanding the
provision of any other law to the contrary. Relevant sections of this law are as follows:
Under section 4:
•
Establish, maintain and regulate the operation of any type of vessels and like carriers, pilot boats,
ferries, lines and regular ferry services within the waterways of Lagos state;
•
Regulate the use of internal waterways by all users including private and common carriers;
•
Institute and collect water transportation tolls, rates and charges clear and maintain Lagos state Inland
waterways free from all obstructions, derelicts, wrecks and abandoned properties and install route
buoys gauges, distance boards and markings along the inland waterways of Lagos State.
In addition, section 5 of this law specifies the authority’s power to;
•
Install route buoys, gauges, distance boards and marking along the waterways;
•
Grant permits and licenses for dredging, pipeline construction, dredging of slots along the waterways
and crossing of waterways by utility lines, water intake, rock blasting and removal;
•
1.6.2.3
Clear water hyacinth and other aquatic weeds.
Lagos State Environmental Protection Agency (LASEPA)
LASEPA Edict of 1996 established the Lagos State Environmental Protection Agency (LASEPA). The agency
amongst others is saddled with the responsibility of:
•
Monitoring and controlling of disposal of wastes generated within the state;
•
Monitoring and controlling of all forms of environmental degradation from agricultural, industrial and
governmental operations;
•
Monitoring of surface, underground and potable water, air, land and soils within the state to determine
the pollution level as well as collect baseline data;
•
Cooperating with Federal, State and Local Governments, statutory bodies and research agencies on
matter and facilities relating to environmental protection( Section &b, g and i)
The Edict empowers the agency to make regulations on:

Acceptable standards or criteria to control the pollution level of water, air, noise and land in line with the
policy and guidelines of the Federal Government;

Standard for effluent discharge;

Waste management strategy and alternatives, etc. (Section 9; a, c and e).
The Edict also makes it mandatory for all persons generating any waste listed in Section 2.2 to ensure adequate
treatment according to the Agency Standard before discharge to the environment. Also all emission from
vehicles, plants and equipment within the State shall be within the limit set down by the Agency.
P a g e | 18
1.6.2.4
Lagos State Physical Planning Permit Authority (LASPPPA)
Lagos State Physical Planning Permit Authority (LASPPPA) otherwise known as Planning Permit Authority
started from Development Control Department (DCD) under the Ministry of Physical Planning. This department
performs the main functions of Lagos State Urban and Regional Planning Board, which was established on
28th April, 1998 by virtue of Lagos State Edict No. 2 of 1998 in line with the Nigerian Urban and Regional
Planning Law (Decree) No. 88 of 1992.
To reflect its new role of policy implementation and plans implementation, the board was re – christened in the
draft law as Lagos State Physical Planning and Development Authority (LASPPDA). LASPPDA was reformed to
LASPPPA in July 2010.
The functions of LASPPPA include (but not limited) the following:

Processing and issuance of all planning permits in the State.

Monitoring and ensuring compliance with the provisions of the approved and Operative Development
Plans, Approval Orders and Regulations.

Referring any plan prepared by it to the Ministry for the purpose of obtaining the approval of the
Commissioner;

Evaluation of Physical Planning Technical Report in consultation with the Ministry;

Cooperating with the Building Control Agency to achieve zero tolerance of illegal developments;
1.6.3
International Regulations
Nigeria is a signatory to a number of international conventions and agreements relating to development and
environmental management. Some of these conventions whose tenets apply in some way(s) to the proposed
reclamation project are presented below.
1.6.3.1
Convention on Biological Diversity (1992)
This convention came into force in Nigeria on 27th November 1994. The objectives are to conserve biological
diversity, promote the sustainable use of its components and encourage equitable sharing of the benefit arising
out of the utilization of genetic resources. Such equitable sharing includes appropriate access to genetic
resources as well as appropriate transfer of technology, taking into account existing rights over such resources.
1.6.3.2
Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (Bonn
Convention) (1979)
The Bonn Convention concerns the promotion of measures for the conservation (including habitat conservation
especially for endangered species listed in Bonn) and management of migratory species.
1.6.3.3
African Convention on Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (1968)
This convention came into force in Nigeria 7th May 1974. The objectives of the convention is to encourage
individual and joint action for the conservation, utilization and development of soil, water flora and fauna for the
P a g e | 19
present and future welfare of mankind, from an economic, nutritional, scientific, educational, cultural and
aesthetic point of view.
1.6.3.4
Convention on Wetland of International Importance, Especially as Water
Flow Habitat, Ramsar, Iran 1971
This provision came into force in Nigeria on 2nd February 2001 with the objective to stem the progressive
encroachment on and loss of wetlands now and in the future, recognizing the fundamental ecological functions of
wetlands and their economic, cultural, scientific, and recreational value.
1.6.3.5
Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, Montreal,
1987 (As Amended)
This came into force in Nigeria on 7th January 1993 with the objective to protect the ozone layer by taking
precautionary measure to control global emissions of substances that deplete it.
1.6.3.6
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution From Ships, 1973 as
modified by the Protocol of 1978 (MARPOL 73/78).
The convention provides regulations intended to minimize pollution of the seas, including dumping, oil and
exhaust pollution. Its stated object is to preserve the marine environment through the complete elimination of
pollution by oil and other harmful substances and the minimization of accidental discharge of such substances.
The original MARPOL was signed on 17 February 1973, but did not come into force due to lack of ratifications.
The current convention is a combination of 1973 Convention and the 1978 Protocol. It entered into force on 2
October 1983. All ships flagged under countries that are signatories to MARPOL are subject to its requirements,
regardless of where they sail and member nations are responsible for vessels registered under their respective
nationalities.
1.7
Structure of Report
This EIA report is organised as follows
Chapter 1:
Introduction and Background
Chapter 2:
Project Justification and Alternatives Analyses
Chapter 3:
Description of Project Process
Chapter 4:
Description of the Environment
Chapter 5:
Associated and Potential Environmental Impacts of Project
Chapter 6:
Impacts Mitigation Measures
Chapter 7:
Environmental Management Plan
Chapter 8:
Conclusion and Recommendations
Bibliography
Appendices
P a g e | 20
CHAPTER 2
2.1
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION AND
ALTERNATIVES
Introduction
The justifications for the proposed Orange Island reclamation and evaluation of options are presented in this
section.
Justification was made from the point of view of need, value, benefits and sustainability. No
implementation, delayed implementation, use of different site and dredging technology were considered as
options to the proposal.
2.2
Need for the proposed Project
The proposed project will provide useable land for housing development, improved quality of life and
environmental-friendly design concept to waterfront development in Lagos.
2.2.1
Housing Need and Quality of Life
Adequate housing is essential for quality life and living. Housing conditions affect people’s health (WHO, 2007).
Article 25(1) on the Universal Declaration of Human Right identifies housing as a fundamental human right. In
2011, life expectancy for average Nigerian male was 52 years, a year younger than his female counterpart
(WHO, 2011). The Human Development Index (HDI) for Nigeria is 0.471, below those of Libya, Ghana and
Congo with records of 0.769, 0.558 and 0.534 respectively (UNDP, 2013). Life expectancy is one of the factors
that determine HDI. Good and adequate housing is essential for longer life expectancy and higher HDI. The
proposed reclaimed land will be used for developing a model estate with standard designs for residential and
other uses. Naturalness shall be key to every development on the estate. Sizeable land area will be allotted for
greenery (vegetaion) and man-made wetlands. These mimic of nature will provide the estate with qyality
environment and serenity. Vegetation have the capacity to clean ambient air quality by sinking carbon, and
attenuating noise.
2.2.2
Nigeria’s Population and Housing Need
The primary demand factor on housing is human population. The Human population in Nigeria is huge and on
the rise. The country is the most populous in Africa, with a population of over 140 million 1 people. United Nations
estimated the population to be over 158 million people in 2010, while the CIA Factbook estimated Nigeria’s
population at above 174 million by July 2013. By the National Census figure, Nigeria’s population rose by about
36.4% between 1999 and 2006. Housing deficit in Nigeria had been estimated at 16 million housing units and
1
2006 Population Census. OFFICIAL GAZATTE(FGP 71/52007/2,500(OL24):
Chapter Two: Project Justification and Alternatives Analyses
P a g e | 21
require between 46 trillion and 52 trillion Naira 2. It is indisputable therefore that Nigeria and Nigerians have
daunting need for adequate housing.
2.2.3
Nigeria’s GDP and Real Estate and Services Sector
Going by its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Nigeria economy shows staggered growth in the last eight years.
Positive correlation appear to exist between the GDP growth and input from Real Estate and Services Sector to
the country’s economy. Notwithstanding the growth in real estate, it is still a far cry from the population demands.
Table 2.1 shows the relative contribution of Real Estate and Services Sector to Nigeria GDP while figure 2.1
shows a comparison in the trend of GDP growth and and Real Estate and Services contribution to the nation’s
wealth as a percentage of the total GDP. Growth in this sector will contribute to higher GDP for the country. The
proposed Orange Island will make some positive impact in this regard.
Table 2.1: Relative contribution of Real Estate and Business Services to Nigeria GDP
Year
Total GDP (N' Million)
Real Estate (N' Million)
Real Estate and business services
Contribution to GDP (%)
GDP annual Increase (%)
2005
561,931.39
7,865.61
1.52
6.51
2006
595,821.61
8,783.96
1.59
6.03
2007
634,251.14
9,813.72
1.67
6.45
2008
672,202.55
10,970.75
1.75
5.98
2009
718,977.33
12,171.02
1.81
6.96
2010
776,332.21
13,479.26
1.85
7.98
2011
834,000.83
14,901.71
1.90
7.43
2012
888,893.00
16,452.34
1.96
6.58
Source: CBN 2012 Statistical Bulletin
Figure 2.1: Comparative Trend of GDP growth and Real Estate Contribution to Nigeria Economy
2
Punch Newspaper. June 10, 2013.
P a g e | 22
2.2.4
Lagos and Housing Demand
Lagos unarguably engenders the highest pull effect of rural-urban migration in Nigeria. Average human
population per square kilometre in Lagos in 2006 was 4,907. According to Lagos State Bureau of Statistics,
human population would exceed 21 million by the end of 2012 (LASG, 2011). This estimate was projected using
3.2% growth rate over the 2006 census figure of 17.5 million. In view of the huge deficit in housing needs of
Nigeria and Lagos in particular, massive investment in housing infrastructure is an obvious necessity. The
challenge of meeting the housing needs of Nigeria and Lagos cannot be met by the government alone; hence the
importance for private sector participation. Lagos State government has been responding to this demand of
fundamental human need. Table 2.3 shows the statistics of houses built in Lagos State between 2001 and 2010.
This statistics shows that 93.2% of the houses built in Lagos during this period were by the State Government.
The less than 7% contribution from the private sector shows the need for increased participation of private sector
in the business of housing in the state. The proposed reclamation which will be used for real estate development
will stand out as a model of private sector collaborating with Lagos State Government to bring about respite to
need of housing infrastructure development. The project is estimated to provide more than 1,300 residential
plots, which will give home to about 12,000 people. In addition to residential plots, the project will also provide
space for commercial, recreational and sports infrastructure.
P a g e | 23
Table 2.2: Lagos State Population 2006-2015
Source: Lagos Bureau of Statistics, 2011.
P a g e | 24
Table 2.3: Statistics of Houses built in Lagos State between 2001 and 2010
2.3
Value of the proposed Project
The proposed reclamation will make land available for mixed real estate development. The various land uses are
expected to add immense value to the environment and socio-eeconomic life of Lagos state in particular and
Nigeria in general. In terms of benefits and sustainability, the value of the proposed project are presented in the
following subsections.
2.3.1 Benefits of the Project
The major beneficiaries from the proposed project include, the proponent, Lagos State Government, potential
investors, Ikateland, Eti-Osa Local Government and local economy. Specifically, the following benefits are
anticipated from the proposed project:
P a g e | 25
2.3.1.1
Land provision
The proposed reclamation will make available about 150 Ha of useable land for built environment. The land mass
that erstwhile was a shallow water body with very little economic importance will be transformed into a source of
socio-economic development without significantly compromising the ecological role of the sorrounding water
body.
2.3.1.2
Revenue Generation
The reclaimed land will become a potential source of revenue for Lagos state government via payment of various
statutory fees like; land use charges, land title fees, etc.
2.3.1.3
Forestall of Bank Erosion
Due to the shallow nature of Lagos lagoon near the proposed reclamation project, uncontrolled manual sand
mining goes on. This uncontrolled dredging in long term has the potential to drive reclining sediment transport
and cause bank erosion. Creation of the proposedisland will ward off this activity and forstall bank erosion.
2.3.1.4
Provision of Jobs and employment
The proposed reclamation will create employment for different professional, contractors and local labour.In view
of the fact that every employed person is very likely to have dependents, job provision to personnel will privide
improved livelihood for more people.
2.3.2
Sustainability of the Project
Sustainable project is a development that meets present needs without compromising the future’s right to meet
its need. The sustainability of the proposed reclamation is evaluated from environmental, socio-economic and
technical points of view.
2.3.2.1
Environmental Sustainability
Initial environmental evaluation of the proposed reclamation shows that moderate to high significant negative
impacts could be experienced on sediment and benthic ecology. These impacts are unlikely to have significant
long-term effects for the following reason:

The overall area to be affected is relatively small compared to the size of the lagoon. The proposed area
to be reclaimed is less than 0.024% of the lagoon surface area.

The dredged material will be used for the proposed reclamation thereby eliminating the challenge of
disposal of dredged materials. Bathymetry and geotechnical studies confirmed the availability of the
required volume and quality of sand from the borrow area.

Difference in the sand/sediment quality between the borrow area and the dumping area, which is also a
potential source of negative impacts is greatly eliminated, considering that the quality of material from
the sand source and dumping area are almost similar.
P a g e | 26

Chances of bank erosion are unlikely considering that the proposed site would be an island off the bank
of the lagoon. Bathymetry studies show that water depth at the borrow and reclamation areas are
generally less than 1.5 meters. The proposed dredging will at most get to a depth of 12 meters, and
therefore will not create sharp slopes in the ‘after-dredging’ bathymetry of the lagoon such that it would
trigger sediment transport strong enough to cause bank erosion. The main permanent access to the
Island will be via the proposed Northern Regional Road which traverses the southern end of the island
(this is part of Lekki Master Plan). A temporary access road to island will be a short link of the island
with the southern water bank. The road will be constructed with culverts to allow free flow of water.

This EIA provides adequate information on the aquatic ecology and proffer appropriate mitigation and
management plan to reduce unavoidable negative impacts of the reclamation activities.

Implementation of the approved Environmental Managmet Plan (EMP) at all phases of the proposed
project will ensure its environmental sustainability.

The dredging contractor, Van Oord Nigeria Limited places high premium on sustainability in operation.
The company has in place HSE Policy in place to ensure that all dredging activities are performed to the
best international standard. The company has valid ISO 9001:2004 (Quality Management System) and
ISO 14001:2004 (Environmental Management System) Certifications, and other relevant certifications to
ensure safety and environmental quality management.
2.3.2.2
Socio-economic sustainability.
It is projected that the project will generate approximately 93 billion Naira by the 5th post-reclamation year; when
the plots of land would have been sold. The estimated capital expenditure for the project is 16.7 billion Naira.
Being a long term investment, the eventual owners of the land will reap further profits on their investment.
Presently, there is high demand for property on the Lekki-Ajah axis of Lagos, with premium value. The
accessibility of the proposed site and state-of-the-art facilities to be put in place will make the island a top choice
for investors.
2.3.2.3
Technical sustainability.
The dredging technology proposed for the reclamation is Cutter Suction Dredging. This technology can be
applied to all kinds of sediment with minimal impacts. Its operation creates even bottom-water terrain making
erosion due to sharp sediment transport very unlikely.
2.4
Project Options
This is an appraisal of all possible options to the project to show that the most sustainable option is adopted. The
option considered include No Project, Delayed implementation, alternative location, and different technology
options.
P a g e | 27
2.4.1
No Project
This implies that the proposed Orange Island reclamation will not take place. Adopting this option, no potential
benefits associated with proposed reclamation will be achieved. This will defeat the stakeholders’ benefits and
render the resources expended in the project feasibility wasteful. Although this option will completely avoid the
short-term negative impacts associated with the proposed reclamation, especially those on sediment and benthic
ecology, the many positive impacts of the project and the fact that all negative impacts can be reasonably
mitigated override its importance. This option was therefore considered not suitable.
2.4.2
Delayed Implementation
This option implies postponing the implementation period of the proposed project. This would be necessary
under certain circumstances such as; civil unrest, antagonistic public opinion, government policy, prevailing
economic conditions, or other opposing force majeure. While evaluating this option, no circumstances of these
kinds that would warrant delay of the proposed project existed. Preliminary planning activities for the proposed
project including consultations with stakeholders show that the project was highly desirable. The host
communities, local and state governments support the project implementation as proposed by the proponent.
Also due to likelihood inflation and other associated costs that are time dependent, delaying the project will add
to its overall implementation cost. More so, it will delay the benefits (direct and indirect) associated with the
project. Since there is no antagonistic circumstance to the proposed project, there will be no need to consider
delaying it.
2.4.3
Alternative Location
This option means that a different location would be selected for the proposed land reclamation. It was
eliminated considering that no other location have the characteristics of the proposed site, which includes:
closeness to land, far away enough to forestall bank erosion, allowance for free flow of water, minimal and short
term environmental impacts, easy access, and fit into Lekki development master plan. Relocating the proposed
site for the reclamation means loss of these desirable qualities, reduced benefits and sustainability. This option
was hence not considered.
2.4.4
Different Technology
This option considers the use of different dredging and reclamation technology. A number of dredging technology
options was considered. The options considered are presented in table 2.4. Upon critical evaluation of the
dredging technologies, the Cutter Suction Dredger was selected as the most suitable in terms of; efficiency,
adaptability to the physical nature of the lagoon, and with least impacts on the project environment.
P a g e | 28
Table 2.4: Different Dredging Technologies considered for the proposed Orange Island Reclamation
Dredging
technology
Pontoon
Mounted
Grabbing
Illustration
Dragline
Description
Advantages
Disadvantages
A pontoon mounted dredger,
consists of a barge-mounted crane,
propelled by a tug and assisted by
two hopper barges. In operation, the
grab dredger is lowered to water
bed where it bites into the sediment
due to its weight, and closes through
a lock mechanism. The materials
dredged are either dumped into the
on-board hopper
Alternatively, into adjacent hopper
barges, for transport to the
authorized dump site.
This method consists in dragging an
open steel bucket along the sea bed
until it fills up. When full, the bucket
is lifted and its load dumped on the
shore or into a barge.
Flexibility of use in
maintenance
dredging.
Variety of grabs are
available;
Causes obstruction of traffic when
stationed in navigation channel
Leaves irregular bottom topography.
Efficient to depths of 35
meters, beyond which the
free-fall effect of the grab
limits efficiency; and
Suitable for working along
quays and in the corners
of harbour basins.
Makes uniform scrape on
waterbed
It tends to spill much of the dredged
sediment during operation and gives
rise to considerable turbidity.
P a g e | 29
Dredging
technology
Pontoon
Mounted
Pumping
Illustration
Trailing
Suction
Description
Advantages
Disadvantages
This consists of a large submersible
pump suspended from a pontoon
and dunked into the water. Sucked
in sediment is pumped away via
floating pipes.
Capable of a larger output
than any other dredger of
comparable size. Some
pumps are also equipped
with cutter blades to
handle sea grass and
weeds.
Rough seas, especially swell, hamper
this kind of dredging due to the fact
that the pump does not always
contact the sea bed;
Suitable for dredging in
areas known to contain
archaeological remains.
Leaves irregular bottom topography
Poses
minimum
interference to waterways
traffic;
Final dredged depth is less precise,
and could cause over-dredging in
some instances
Versatile in handling both
and
cohesion-less
cohesive sediments;
Mobilization
costs
considerable high.
This is a hopper vessel with a
trailing arm suspended over the side
and dragged over the sea bed. The
vessel usually steams forward at
high
speed
(~
6
knots)
compensating for swell and tidal
variations while maintaining the drag
head in contact with the sea.
The water/sand mixture is drawn on
board by powerful pumps, passed
through a series of decanters and
the solids deposited inside the
internal hoppers. The relatively
clear, decanted seawater is dumped
overboard. These dredgers are fully
automated and dredging generally
takes place over a 24-hour period,
non-stop. The dredged sand in the
hoppers is either dumped offshore if
clean or pumped onshore for
reclamation via pipes laid out
Range of sediments that can be
dredged efficiently is very limited;
obstructs waterways traffic when
stationed on navigable route
can
be
Dredged load can be
pumped
ashore
as
reclamation;
Comes in various sizes to
suit most project sizes.
P a g e | 30
Dredging
technology
Illustration
Blasting
Bucket
Dredging
Cutter
Suction
Description
ashore.
This method involves drilling of a
series of closely spaced holes into
the water bed by used explosives.
The holes in the sea bed may be
drilled either from above water level,
or directly from the sea bed,
The hydraulic power to operate the
driller is supplied from a shorebased power pack.
This is also known as the ladder
dredger. It consists of an endless
bucket chain scraping the sea bed
while the dredger is moved across
the area to be dredged by a series
of anchor ropes.
Advantages
Disadvantages
Suitable quick method for
for dealing with small
amounts of very hard rock
formations like outcrops.
Needs to be accompanied with
grabbing for the removal of the spoil;
Drilling and grabbing cause an
obstruction to waterways traffic unless
carried out from the sea bed;
Indiscriminate loss of aquatic biota
during blasting;
Mobilization
costs
can
be
considerably high
Capability of dredging a
level bottom topography;
Ability to work in narrow or
restricted areas;
In recent times most bucket
dredgers have been replaced with
cutter-suction dredgers.
Versatility in handling a
wide range of sediments
Side loaded barges are
generally filled with a high
solids-to-water ratio.
This is among the most popular type
of dredger.
Suitable for dredging a
wide range of sediments
Causes an obstruction to sea traffic
when stationary in a navigation
channel;
bucket dredging
They are noisy and may be prohibited
from working at night in urban areas.
In the presence of coralline limestone,
the cutter head invariably generates
considerable fines in the 10 micron
P a g e | 31
Dredging
technology
Illustration
Description
It is available in a wide range of
sizes ranging from the small
portable units that fit on a large road
trailer to ocean-going vessels over
100 meters long.
Typically, the sand/water mixture is
pumped a distance away and longer
than-normal distances are achieved
by the installation of booster pumps
along the discharge line.
Advantages
Disadvantages
range that are difficult to settle;
Water-to-sand ratio of the dredged
material is so high that it must be
pumped directly to the disposal site;
the smaller dredgers
Causes an obstruction to waterways
traffic when stationary in a navigation
channel.
P a g e | 32
CHAPTER 3
3.1
PROJECT PROCESS
DESCRIPTION
Introduction
This chapter presents a description of the proposed Orange Island Reclamation Project. It covers all activities
that will be performed during pre-reclamation, reclamation (dredging and filling) and post-reclamation phases of
the project. Although the reclaimed land will be used for mixed real estate development, this EIA is concerned
only with the reclamation of the Island. Separate EIAs will be conducted in due time for other developments on
the Island.
3.2
Proposed Project Location
The proposed Orange Island is to be reclaimed on the southern portion (lekki Phase 1 axis) of Lagos Lagoon in
Eti-Osa Local Government Area (LGA) of Lagos State (plate 3.1). The site is located within latitude 60 27’
37.136” and 60 28’ 29.954” North of the equator and longitude 30 29’ 29.235” and 30 30’ 30.42” East of Greenwich
Meridian and covers an approximate area of 150 Ha. The site is bounded on the north by Lagos lagoon and on
the south by Lekki Phase 1 and Ikate areas of Eti-Osa LGA. Map 1-1 shows the Administrative map of Lagos
State, showing the project area. The site is approximately 22.5km from Lagos International Airport and 12.1km
from Lagos Seaport. The most proximal indigenous community to the site is Ikateland. The site is accessible
through Leki-Epe Express Road, turning in (northwards) at the 3rd Round About, also called Ikate Round About.
The site can also be accessed via several jetties on the bank of the lagoon, and from Lagos harbour. Map 3.1
shows the proposed site with specific landmarks.
Chapter Three: Project Description
P a g e | 33
Map 3.1: The Proposed Project Area
P a g e | 34
3.3
Proposed Project Activities
Activities of the proposed Orange Island reclamation are grouped into three sequential phases namely: prereclamation, reclamation, and post-reclamation. The activities to be implemented at these phases are described
below.
3.3.1
Pre-reclamation Phase
This phase covers activities that will be performed prior reclamation. These include the following:
3.3.1.1
Project Concept development
In 2010, FW Dredging Limited (FWDL) came up with concept of Orange Island Estate development. It
subsequently prepared a project Concept Document (CD) that provided as it were the proposed real estate,
investment considerations, financial analyses and implementation plan. The project Concept Document equally
proposed partnership with the Lagos State Government as means to better and faster achieve the project. FWDL
eventually signed an agreement with the State Government. The state Government through the Ministry of
Waterfront Infrastructure granted approval for the company to conduct feasibility studies for the suitability and
sustainability of the proposed area for the intended project. Final permit for the reclamation was to be granted
upon fulfilling all relevant statutory requirements. These requirements included; hydrographic and seismic survey
of the proposed sand search area, geotechnical studies, Lagos State Ministry of Physical Planning and Urban
Development Permit, Environmental Impact Assessment, among others.
3.3.1.2
Feasibility Studies
In line with relevant statutory requirements, the proponent commissioned the implementation of a number of
studies to obtain relevant data and information for the outstanding permits and the proposed project
development. The studies commissioned include; Environmental Impact Assessment, Geotechnical Sand Search
Study, Bathymetric study, etc.
3.3.1.4
Mobilisation to Site
Following completion of all necessary feasibility studies and acquisition of all required government permits,
including provisional EIA approval, the dredging contractor will mobilise machinery and personnel to site to
commence reclamation works. The primary equipment for the reclamation is Cutter Suction Dredger and Spread.
Key equipment, machinery and materials that will be mobilised to site are presented in table 3.1. Notable
personnel that will be mobilised to site for the reclamation are shown in table 3.2.
P a g e | 35
Table 3.1: List of Equipment, Machinery and Materials to be mobilised to site
S/No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Item
Cutter Suction Dredger (CSD)
Tugboat
Multicat
Workboat
Ramp Barge
Fuel barge
Spray Pontoon
Survey Launch
Local Speed Boat
Bulldozer CAT D6R
Excavator CAT 325
Wheel loader CAT 966
Pipes, Waterboxes, Lightsets, etc
Site Office
AGO
Fresh Water
Store needs
From/To
Port Harcourt to Lagos
Local Hire
Shore to Site
Shore to Site
Shore Site
Shore to Site
Vessel to Vessel
Shore to Vessel
Mode of Transportation
Waterway – towed by tugboat
Waterway –Self propelled
Waterway –Self propelled
Waterway – Self propelled
Waterway –towed by tugboat and Multicat
Road
Waterway – Self propelled
Via Barge
Via Barge
Via Barge
Via Barge
Via Barge
Waterway
Road and Barge
Table 3.2: Personnel to be mobilised to site
Job Personnel
Cutter Suction Dredger
Tugboat
Multicat
Reclamation Operators
Survey Staff
Operational Staff
Office Staff
Drivers
Total
3.3.2
Skilled
3
2
2
2
3
4
2
Unskilled
5
2
3
5
1
2
6
Total
8
4
5
7
4
4
4
6
42
Reclamation Phase
This phase covers the actual reclamation activities. It essentially involves dredging of sand from the marked out
borrow area and filling of the proposed site.
3.3.2.1
Dredging
Cutter Suction Dredger (CSD) named “Calabar River” will be deployed for the proposed reclamation.
Cutter Suction Dredger Operation
CSD is a stationary dredger. It consists of a pontoon, which is positioned with a spud-pole at the back and two
anchors at the front. The soil is loosened by rotating a cutting head: ‘the cutter’, while powerful in-board
centrifugal pump(s) hydraulically transport the loosened soil. The cutterhead, which is hydraulically driven,
encloses the suction intake of a centrifugal dredge pump. The cutterhead is mounted at the extremity of a
fabricated steel structure, named the ‘ladder’, which is attached to the main hull by heavy hinges that permit
P a g e | 36
rotation in the vertical plane. The ladder assembly is lowered and raised by means of a hoisting controlled from
the bridge.
By means of winches, the cutter (and therefore the whole pontoon), is pulled in turns to the portside and
starboard-side anchor whilst turning on the fixed spud-pole. In this way (part of) a circular movement is made
whilst a so-called spud-pole carrier enables a forward movement of the dredger. The vertical position of the
cutting head and the ladder can be measured by the any of the following ways:
•
The length of a thin wire connected from the ladder to the pontoon, through heaves etc.
•
The angle between the ladder and the pontoon in combination with draught and trim of the pontoon.
•
The depth of the cutting head can be determined by using pressure readings from specially installed
sensors.
The above-mentioned measures make the CSD able to determine how deep and in what angle the cutting head
is used for dredging. After loosening and suction, the soil is pumped into a floating pipeline and a land pipeline.
The overall production of a CSD depends on many factors, among which: soil characteristics such as situ
density, particle distribution and SPT and/or CPT values, dredging depth, weather conditions, marine traffic,
tides, currents, etc. The CSD operations continue 24 hours a day and 7 days a week. In addition to the CSD,
other machinery and equipment that will be deployed during dredging include tugboat, multicat, workboat, ramp
barge, fuel barge, spray pontoon, survey launch and local speedboat.
Figure 3.1: A Cross-section of Cutter Suction dredger
P a g e | 37
Plate 3.1: Cutter Suction Dredger at Work
Plate 3.2: CSD Cutter Head
P a g e | 38
3.3.2.2
Sand Borrow and Reclamation Area
The geotechnical investigations involved: (1) hydrographic survey to determine the dredgeable area, ground
bottom profile of the intended borrow pit with transect sections, (2) drilling of geotechnical boreholes to a
maximum depth of 15m to determine minable sand deposit within the lagoon. The studies confirmed that the
quality and volume of sand required for the reclamation can be obtained from the area. The studies estimated
availability of 7, 585,200 m3 of sand in borrow area. Soil type was loose to medium dense whitish sand. Water
depth within the reclamation area recorded an average depth of 1.2m. About 4,500,000m3 of sand will be
required to fill the proposed Orange Island. The study recommended the Slots-system of hydraulic mining and
cutter suction dredger with a ladder length of 14 -16m, while dredging should not be conducted at shoreline to
minimize erosion and flooding. Table 3.3 shows the geographical coordinates of the borrow and reclamation
areas, while figure 3.2 shows the plots of the reclamation and borrow areas.
Figure 3.2: Borrow area (red) and Reclamation area (blue)
P a g e | 39
Table 3.3: Coordinates of the pegged points of the reclamation and Borrow Ares
INNER CIRCLE
A
B
C
D
OUTER CIRCLE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
3.3.2.3
Easting (M)
554691.049
555710.754
554826.002
553806.336
Northing (m)
716582.884
715698.126
714678.466
715563.224
555337.491
556435.400
556534.749
555582.104
554179.609
553608.000
553958.000
553437.000
553067.000
552982.337
553934.997
717406.880
716454.226
715051.738
713953.823
713854.466
714356.000
714884.000
715460.000
714997.000
716209.618
717307.534
Filling
Filling of the proposed reclamation area carried out by sand pumping using floating pipeline from the CSD. Sand
will be extracted from the lagoon bed and pumped as ‘sand-water’ mixture through the pipeline (Plate 3.3 and
3.4) to the reclamation area. The sand will be pumped to rise above water level to create the intended island.
Plate 3.3: Floating Pipeline
P a g e | 40
Plate 3.4: Reclamation landline
3.3.2.4
Tidal Data of the Lagoon
Lagos Lagoon is under the influence of tides but the effect varies at different sections of the Lagoon, and
different from the tide in the open ocean. Figure 3.3 shows a sketch of the tidal fluctuation base on a seven-day
tidal observations at Banana Island Jetty near the Proposed Orange Island.
Figure 3.3: Tidal Fluctuation of Lagos Lagoon
The depths on the chart were reduced to the local Chart datum in order to give a more realistic depiction of
water in the survey area. The volume computations were made using a project datum (Upper Level) of 1.751m
P a g e | 41
above Local Chart datum. This level is exactly one (1) metre above the highest observed local tide, and is about
the level of Banana Island itself. Standard datum for elevation in Nigeria is mean sea-level (MSL), Lagos, lying
2.46m below the top of federal surveys benchmark No.1 situated under east mole signal station, east mole
Lagos. In Lagos, chart datum is about 0.3metres above LL.WS and L.AT so that tide height occasionally fall
below datum; in such a case it may be considered as a poorly selected chart datum. Presently, Lagos CD = BM1
– 2.918m and M.S.L. = Chart datum + 0.454m
3.3.3
Post-Reclamation Phase
This phase involves leveling of the filled area to desired topography, and demobilization of equipment and
personnel from site. After pumping of sand into the reclamation area, dry plant equipment will be deployed to
further direct the sand-water mixture to obtain the required levels and shape. To calculate volumes and check
levels, topographic and bathymetric survey will be done on regular bases. The main dry plant equipment that will
be deployed at this phase includes; bulldozers, excavators and wheel loaders.
Demobilisation of equipment and personnel from site will employ similar transport mode used during mobilisation.
3.3.3.1
Soil Settlement
The likely settlement that may arise as a result of loading was estimated using Terzaghi’s (1943). Using the
parameters obtained from oedometer test in conjunction with the soil properties, the amount of settlement
obtained was approximately 251mm. The period required for either 50% (T50) or 90%(T90) of the final
foundation settlements was computed using the Taylor and Merchant’s method. Average of coefficient of
consolidation over the range of pressures involved equaled to 2.31m /yr. T50 and T90 were estimated at 4.885
years, i.e. 4 years 323 days and 21.135 years, i.e. 21 years 49.2 days respectively.
3.3.3.2
Shoreline Protection and Erosion Control
The Island reclamation shall be done to ensure good shore protection. Perimeter wall of 1.5m above
high water level will be constructed round the island with the sand fill sloping down at 1:4 into the
water. Shoreline exposed to wave action of the lagoon during stormy weather will be lined with one
layer of 200mm nominal size crushed stone hand-placed on the sandy surface. The final completed
surface of the Island will have slopes varying between 1:100 and 1:200. The maximum surface slope
of 1:100 is still relatively flat especially for a sandy surface.
3.3.3.3
Wastes Generation and Management
The proposed reclamation activities are anticipated to generate different kinds of wastes ranging from dredged
sediment, kitchen wastes, packages of consumables, used lube oil, disused PPEs, disused vehicle parts, etc.
Table 3.4 presents the various kinds of wastes anticipated from the reclamation activities and their modes of
disposal.
P a g e | 42
Table 3.4: Waste Generation and Management
Waste Type
Dredged Sediment
Source
Dredged sediment to be transported
from designated borrow areas to
reclamation site using floating pipes.
Management
Approximately six 6,000,000m3 of bottom water sediment
dredged from the borrow areas will be used to fill the
proposed island; therefore there will be no challenge of
selecting dump site.
“Pause” periods of four (4) hours shall be observed daily
during dredging and pumping of sediments to reduce
resuspension of sediments and trapped toxic materials in
lagoon surface water.
When monitoring results indicate that suspended
materials are above FMEnv permissible levels the dredger
shall be relocated to allow material settlement.
Dredging Shall be limited to the marked out areas.
Dredging equipment shall be maintained in proper and
efficient condition. Well maintained (floating) pipeline shall
be used to eliminate or minimize leakage of turbid water.
Monitoring shall be conducted as recommended in the
EMP.
General Solid Waste
(Putrescibles)
Non-putrescebles
Toxic
This category of waster includes
putrescible organics. They include
materials such as kitchen wastes,
fruit peels, etc. This category of
wastes would be generated from
kitchen of vessels.
This category covers general solid
wastes. It include materials like glass,
cardboard paper, rubber, plastic,
wood,
concrete
materials,
polyvinylchloride (PVC) materials,
etc. components of this waste
category are anticipated mainly from
packages of materials, disused PPEs,
damaged pipes, etc.
Putresceble and non- putresceble organic wastes shall be
collected in appropriate containers and evacuated by
licensed contractor. Waste generated on board of vessels
shall be shipped onshore. Wastes generated on the deck
shall be immediately cleaned up. In the event that waste is
lost overboard, reasonable and practicable measures
shall be undertaken to retrieve/clean-up the waste as
soon as possible. Per Capita generation of putresceble
and non-putresceble waste is estimated at about 1.5kg
per day.
This includes toxic chemicals,
especially oxidizing agents and
corrosives. Toxic wastes that could
be generated from the reclamation
activities include used lubricating oil,
accidental spills of liquid fuels such
as petrol and diesel, hydraulic oil,
paints,
absorbents,
clean-up
materials, etc
Storage of dangerous goods shall be done in
Manners that minimize risk of environmental
contamination. Stored toxic liquids shall be placed in leakproof secondary containment (drip trays), while such
secondary containment capacity must be 110% of the
largest container. Quantity of dangerous goods stored on
vessels shall be limited to fit-for-purpose. Storage will be
done according to the Material Safety Data Sheet
(MSDS). Hazardous materials are stored in a confined
space which must be properly ventilated. A register of all
toxoc substances on site and onboard vessels shall be
kept at easy reach.
Handling shall be as per the MARPOL 73/78 Annex V
requirements
P a g e | 43
3.4
Proposed Activities Schedule
The entire reclamation exercise; from mobilisation to demobilisation from site is expected to last 14 months. Figure 3.4 provides the proposed schedule for the proposed
project.
Figure 3.4: Proposed Activities Schedule for Orange Island Reclamation Activities
P a g e | 44
CHAPTER 4
4.1
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
ENVIRONMENT
Introduction
Documentation of existing environmental conditions within the area of influence of a proposed project prior its
commencement is critical for a sound EIA. The objectives of proper documentation of pre-project (baseline)
characteristics of the environment include the following:
(1) To provide baseline information for impacts quantifications and prediction;
(2) To assess the conformance of the baseline with FMEnv permissible limits for specific parameters;
(3) To provide benchmark for future assessment and audits;
(4) To inform preparation of appropriate impact mitigation measures and environmental management plan.
This chapter presents the field methodologies, observations, laboratory analyses methods and characteristics of
the biophysical and social environment.
4.2
Scope of Study
Field studies and data collection for characterisation of the pre-project (baseline) conditions of the proposed
project environment covered:
4.3
•
Climate and Meteorology
•
Air Quality and Noise Levels
•
Geology/Hydrogeology
•
Surface and Ground Water
•
Soil and Sediment
•
Bathymetric Survey
•
Geotechnical survey
•
Wildlife and Vegetation
•
Hydrobiology and Fisheries
•
Land use
•
Socio-economic, demography and community characteristics
•
Public Health
•
Data Sources and Collection Approach
The primary source of data for this EIA was a two-season (dry and wet) field studies conducted in March (1117th) and July (8-14th) 2013 in accordance with the FMEnv approved ToR. Other sources include existing
Chapter Four: Description of Project Environment
P a g e | 45
literature (published and unpublished), stakeholders’ consultations, questionnaire administration, and various
feasibility studies’ reports. Sources of secondary information are appropriately referenced.
4.4
Spatial Boundary and Field Study Design
Data collection covered a 5km spatial boundary, including control points. The coverage of various environmental
attributes considered probable recipients and sensitivity of impacted areas. Community studies for instance
focused in greater detail on Ikateland which is the most proximal indigenous community to the project area.
Design of the field activities was made prior mobilization. This was aided by information obtained during
reconnaissance survey of the project area. Sampling locations were decided as waypoints in Geographic
Position System (GPS) and later plotted in a sampling map used during the field studies. Locations for
biophysical sampling considered (1) the ecological types around the study area; (2) vulnerable environmental
attributes with regards to the potential and associated impacts of the environment and (3) control or buffer zones.
Socioeconomics studies considered human habitations close to the proposed project area, and within the area of
influence. Table 4.1 presents an inventory of the biophysical samples collected during field studies, while Map
4.1 shows spatial locations of sampled points.
Table 4.1: Inventory of Biophysical samples collected.
S/No
Environmental Attribute
Parameter Details
1
Surface Water
2
Ground water
3
Soil
4
5
6
7
Ambient Air Quality
Noise
Ecology
Hydrobiology
Physico-chemical
Microbial
Physico-chemical
Microbial
Physico-chemical
Microbial
Noise level
Vegetation
Macrobenthos
Plankton
&
FMEnv
Recommended
No. of Samples
10 Nos + Control
Actual No. of
Samples Collected
14 + 1 Control
&
2 Nos + Control
4 + 1 Control
&
10 Nos + control
12 + 1 Control
10 Nos
8
8
11 + 1 Control
14 + 1 Control
10
14 + 1 Control
14 + 1 Control
P a g e | 46
Map 4.1: Biophysical Attributes Study Locations
P a g e | 47
4.5
Study Team
Field studies, analyses and report writing were undertaken by a multidisciplinary team from Ecopro Resources
Limited. The key experts involved in this study include Marine ecologists, Engineers, sociologist, Toxicologists,
wildlife and vegetation experts, Fisheries and Hydrobiology, Benthic Ecologist, Planktologist, air quality
Specialist, Geography Information Systems experts, Public Health Experts, and Analytical Chemists. Relevant
technical contributions were made my Town planning experts, dredging engineers, hydrogeologists and
architects.
4.6
Laboratory Analyses of Samples
Samples were analysed in Anila Resources (Nigeria) Limited laboratory located at No. 5 Afisman Drive,
Anifowoshe, Ikeja – Lagos State, in line with FMEnv and international applicable standards. The Laboratory is
certified by the Federal Ministry of Environment and Department of Petroleum Resources (DPR). Analytical
methodologies used for samples analyses were based on the American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) and American Public Health Association (APHA).
4.7
Biophysical Samples Collection and analyses methods
4.7.1
Air Quality and Noise Field Study
Ambient air quality measurements were carried out on site using in-situ digital meters (Table 4.2) at 12 locations,
with 1 as control (plate 4.1). Measurements were conducted between 08:00 and 19:00 hrs Nigeria time.
Locations for air quality and noise measurements were randomly selected with consideration on sensitive
receptors. The sampled locations for air quality and Noise levels are presented in Table 4.3 and Map 4.2.
P a g e | 48
Plate 4.1: Air Quality Measurement
P a g e | 49
Map 4.2: Air Quality Study locations
P a g e | 50
Table 4.2: List of Air Quality Equipment Used In the Study
Parameter
Equipment
Detection Limit
Total Suspended Particulate
(TSP)
Hydrogen Sulphide (H2S)
Casella Cel Microdust Pro 880nm
0.001 - 2500mg/m3
Gas Alert Extreme (BW
GAXT-H-DL
GAXT-M-DL
GAXT-S-DL
GAXT-A-DL
Toxi RAE II PGM-1140
Technologies) Model
0 – 100ppm
Technologies) Model
0 – 1000ppm
Technologies) Model
0 – 100ppm
Technologies) Model
0 – 100ppm
Carbon monoxide (CO)
Sulphur Oxides (SO2)
Ammonia (NH3)
Nitric Oxide (NO)
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2)
0 – 250ppm
0 – 250ppm
Carbon Monoxide (CO2)
Gas Alert Extreme (BW Technologies) Model
GAXT-N-DL
Alnor CF910
Noise level
Pulsar Sound Meter Model 14
35dB(A) - 130dB(A)
0 – 5000ppm
Table 4.3: Air Quality sampling locations
S/N
Sample ID
Longitude
Latitude
Easting
Northing
1
AQ1
3032' 35.54" E
6028' 12.07" N
560063.55
715193.93
2
AQ2
30 31' 41.39" E
60 29' 43.92" N
558397.31
718012.91
3
AQ3
30 29' 56.69" E
60 26' 9.27" N
555188.12
711418.24
4
AQ4
30 27' 30.09" E
60 28' 29.57" N
550681.18
715722.33
5
AQ5
30 27' 26.22" E
60 26' 14.73" N
550776.61
712781.84
6
AQ6
30 28' 54.84" E
60 27' 13.79" N
553286.39
713397.64
7
AQ7
30 30' 2.33" E
60 27' 54.67" N
555358.26
714654.90
8
AQ8
30 32' 14.89" E
60 26' 38.62" N
559432.38
712323.77
9
AQ9
30 31' 10.05" E
60 25' 40.79" N
557442.35
710545.80
10
AQ10
30 30' 32.01" E
60 27' 16.83" N
556271.08
713493.94
11 (control)
AQ11
30 28' 15.37" E
60 30' 29.03" N
552482.68
718937.26
12
AQ12
30 29' 22.30" E
60 29' 18.45" N
554126.12
717226.48
4.7.2
Soil Field Study and laboratory analyses method
Soil samples were collected from 13 locations (including 1 control point) using a hand-screw bucket auger. Top
and subsoil samples were collected at depths of 0 to 15cm and 15 to 30cm respectively (plate 4.2). Table 4.4
P a g e | 51
shows the geographical coordinates of of soil sampling locations. Samples were collected at three points around
each location, thoroughly mixed and sub sampled into various categories of analyses to be conducted. Samples
for physico-chemical analyses were collected in polythene bags; those for total hydrocarbon were collected in
aluminium foil bags, while samples for microbiological analyses were collected in sterilized sample containers. All
samples were properly labelled and transported to the laboratory for analyses. The samples were subjected to
detailed physico-chemical and microbial analyses. The laboratory procedures for various parameters are
provided in the appendix.
Plate 4.2: Soil Sampling
P a g e | 52
Map 4.3: Soil Study locations
P a g e | 53
Table 4.4: Soil sampling locations
S/N
4.7.3
Sample ID
Longitude
Latitude
Easting
Northing
1
S1
30 28' 25.74" E
60 26' 6.84" N
552390.79
711346.02
2
S2
30 31' 23.29" E
6027' 32.14" N
557853.18
713968.03
3
S3
3029' 52.69" E
60 25' 29.03" N
555052.55
710183.99
4
S4
30 28' 28.80" E
60 27' 30.40" N
552503.46
713905.28
5
S5(Control)
30 32' 13.07" E
60 27' 53.50" N
559405.67
714616.63
6
S6
30 30' 11.53" E
60 27' 1.09" N
555653.79
713031.29
7
S7
30 27' 37.28" E
606' 42.26" N
550908.49
712437.34
8
S8
30 31' 56.55" E
60 26' 21.46" N
558890.89
711798.12
9
S9
3029' 8.11" E
6026' 31.60" N
553713.19
712109.26
10
S10
30 29' 39.70" E
60 27' 13.50" N
554675.51
713389.76
11
S11
30 27' 4.34" E
60 25' 27.78" N
553441.61
710340.60
12
S12
30 33' 1.49" E
60 26' 17.42" N
557207.55
712472.13
13
S13
30 29' 50.66" E
60 26' 1.94" N
554994.04
711190.35
Surface and Ground Water Field Study and laboratory analyses method
Surface water samples were collected from 15 different locations (including 1 control point) from Lagos Lagoon.
Ground water samples were collected from existing boreholes around the study area. Five ground water samples
including 1 control were collected. Maps 4.4.and 4.5 show the sampling locations while table 4.5 presents the
surface and ground water sampling points. All water samples were collected in clean PVC sample containers and
sub sampled into appropriate sample containers for the various parameters analyses. Samples for physicochemical and heavy metals analyses were collected in 250 ml plastic containers while those for hydrocarbons
and were collected in 250ml glass bottles. Samples for microbiological analyses were collected in 15ml
McCartney sample containers. Collected samples were properly labelled and stored in a thermos cooler and
transported to the laboratory for analyses. As a precautionary measure, sample containers were rinsed with
water from the sampling locations prior to sample collection. Water samples for heavy metals analyses were
acidified with nitric acid (pH 2) while those for hydrocarbons were acidified with sulphuric acid. In-situ
measurements of sensitive water parameters were taken using Horiba U-50 water checker. The parameters
measured in-situ includes pH, conductivity, turbidity, salinity, total dissolved solid, dissolved oxygen, specific
gravity and temperature. The results of the in-situ parameters were crosschecked and the results compared with
those from laboratory analyses. This is a quality control protocol for ensuring that reliable and accurate data were
recorded. In summary, the laboratory methods used for the various water quality analyses are presented in table
4.6, while detailed procedure are presented in Appendix.
P a g e | 54
Map 4.4: Surface Water Sampling Stations
P a g e | 55
Map 4.5: Groundwater sampling stations
P a g e | 56
Table 4.5: Surface Water and Groundwater sampling locations
S/N
Sample ID
Longitude
Latitude
Easting
Northing
Surface Water
1
SW1
30 27' 52.68" E
60 29' 13.25" N
551373.70
717064.30
2
SW2
30 27' 47.57" E
60 27' 8.20" N
551220.40
713223.93
3
SW3
30 30' 58.36" E
60 30' 14.14" N
557075.00
718939.61
4
SW4
3031' 14.55" E
60 28' 59.41" N
557574.38
716645.33
5
SW5
30 29' 40.95" E
60 29' 49.92" N
554697.96
718193.43
6
SW6
30 27' 22.22" E
60 28' 17.22" N
550439.72
715342.76
7
SW7
30 32' 11.24" E
60 27' 14.46" N
559319.26
713424.28
8
SW8
30 31' 13.21" E
60 28' 0.26" N
557535.11
714828.84
9
SW9
30 30' 16.42" E
60 28' 9.23" N
555790.59
715102.37
10
SW10
30 29' 41.08" E
6027' 58.29" N
554705.41
714765.46
11
SW11
30 32' 20.69" E
6028' 47.67" N
559606.41
716286.93
12
SW12
30 29' 1.84" E
60 28' 49.98" N
553498.79
716351.62
13
SW13
30 29' 27.68" E
60 27' 26.47" N
554294.87
713787.98
14
SW14 (Control)
30 29' 24.89" E
60 30' 29.78" N
554203.72
719416.95
15
SW15
30 31' 42.42" E
60 29' 36.93" N
558429.19
717798.20
Ground water
1
GW1
30 29' 19.04" E
60 26' 24.89" N
554031.17
711896.74
2
GW_CTRL
30 27' 44.77" E
60 26' 39.59" N
551135.08
712345.50
3
GW2
30 28' 34.97" E
60 27' 8.66" N
552676.23
713239.39
4
GW3
30 28' 49.49" E
6027' 20.12" N
553121.94
713591.78
5
GW4
30 29' 30.95" E
60 26' 56.50" N
554396.09
712867.81
P a g e | 57
Table 4.6: Laboratory Analyses Method for Water Samples
Water Parameter
Organics:
Total Hydrocarbons (THC)
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
Metals:
Alkali Metals (Ca, Mg, Na and K)
Other Metals: (Cr, Cu, Fe, Ni, V, Pb, Zn, Cd, Hg, and Mn)
Physico-chemistry:
TDS/TSS
BOD5
TOC
Anions (SO42-, NO3-, PO43-, Cl- )
Alkalinity
Microbiology:
Heterotrophic Bacteria
Culturable Fungi
Coliform Bacteria
Analytical Method
N-Hexane Extract using GC
Dichromate Wet Oxidation (Walkley and Black, 1934)
Flame Photometry (Jone, 1988)
Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry (AAS)
TDS/TSS meter (APHA 209C)
Titrimetric (Winklers APHA 422)
Titrimetric, wet digestion (APHA 422)
Colorimetric, autoanalyzer (ASTM 3867, APHA 427C)
Titrimetric (APHA 427C)
Plate count
Plate count
Plate count, MPN (Crickshank, 1975)
Plate 4.3: Surface and Ground water sampling and In-situ measurements
4.7.4
Sediment Sampling and laboratory analyses method
Sediment sampling was carried at the same 15 locations where water samples were collected (Map 4.6).Table
4.7 shows the coordinates of the sampling locations. Samples were collected using a modified Van-Veen grab
sampler. Two grab hauls were taken at each location and the top 1-2 cm of the sediment grabbed collected using
a plastic scoop. The samples to be analyzed for physico-chemical parameters and heavy metals were collected
P a g e | 58
and stored in clean polythene bags while those for total hydrocarbon analyses were stored in parcels made from
aluminium foils. Samples for microbiology were collected in sterile 10ml Steriline tubes. The samples were
properly stored in coolers and transported to the laboratory for analyses. Specific analyses methods used for
sediments samples are in table 4.8.
Table 4.7: Sediment Sampling Points
S/N
Sample ID
Longitude
Latitude
Easting
Northing
1
SED1
30 27' 52.68" E
60 29' 13.25" N
551373.7
717064.3
2
SED2
30 27' 47.57" E
60 27' 8.20" N
551220.4
713223.93
3
SED3
30 30' 58.36" E
60 30' 14.14" N
557075
718939.61
4
SED4
3031' 14.55" E
60 28' 59.41" N
557574.4
716645.33
5
SED5
30 29' 40.95" E
60 29' 49.92" N
554698
718193.43
6
SED6
30 27' 22.22" E
60 28' 17.22" N
550439.7
715342.76
7
SED7
30 32' 11.24" E
60 27' 14.46" N
559319.3
713424.28
8
SED8
30 31' 13.21" E
60 28' 0.26" N
557535.1
714828.84
9
SED9
30 30' 16.42" E
60 28' 9.23" N
555790.6
715102.37
10
SED10
30 29' 41.08" E
6027' 58.29" N
554705.4
714765.46
11
SED11
30 32' 20.69" E
6028' 47.67" N
559606.4
716286.93
12
SED12
30 29' 1.84" E
60 28' 49.98" N
553498.8
716351.62
13
SED13
30 29' 27.68" E
60 27' 26.47" N
554294.9
713787.98
14
SED14
30 29' 24.89" E
60 30' 29.78" N
554203.7
719416.95
15
SED15
30 31' 42.42" E
60 29' 36.93" N
558429.2
717798.2
P a g e | 59
Map 4.6: Sediment sampling locations
P a g e | 60
Plate 4.4: Sediment Sampling
Table 4.8: Methods used for Sediment Analyses
Sediment Parameter
Organics:
Total Hydrocarbons (THC)
Metals:
Alkali Metals (Ca, Mg, Na and K)
Other Metals: (Cr, Cu, Fe, Ni, V, Pb, Zn, Cd, Hg, and
Mn)
Physico-chemistry:
Particle size distribution
Anions (SO42-, NO3-, PO43-, Cl- )
Alkalinity
Microbiology:
Heterotrophic Bacteria
Culturable Fungi
Coliform Bacteria
4.7.5
Analytical Method
N-Hexane Extract using GC
APHA 18th edition 3111B and ASTM D3561. Atomic Absorption
Spectrophotometer (Perkin Elmer ZEEMAN 3030 HGA 600
ASTM D5198/D3974. Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer (Perkin-Elmer
Model Zeeman 3030 HGA 600
BS1377 (Part 2; 1990), ASTM D422, Dutch RAW.
argentometric method (APHA 4500
Titrimetric (APHA 427C)
Plate count
Plate count
Plate count, MPN (Crickshank, 1975)
Hydrobiology: Plankton and Macrobenthos Sampling and laboratory analyses
method
Hydrobiology Samples were collected from the same locations as water samples. Map 4.7 and table 4.9 show
the study locations.
4.7.5.1
Plankton Studies
Plankton samples were collected using 55 microns standard plankton net. Sampling was by both vertical and
horizontal towing. Towing was conducted for eight minutes at each sampling point. Samples were collected in
P a g e | 61
sample containers and fixed with 10% formaldehyde solution. All samples were properly stored in a cooler and
conveyed to the Laboratory for identification and analyses.
Table 4.9: Hydrobiology Sampling Points
S/N
Sample ID
Longitude
Latitude
Easting
Northing
1
HYD1
30 27' 52.68" E
60 29' 13.25" N
551373.7
717064.3
2
HYD2
30 27' 47.57" E
60 27' 8.20" N
551220.4
713223.93
3
HYD3
30 30' 58.36" E
60 30' 14.14" N
557075
718939.61
4
HYD4
3031' 14.55" E
60 28' 59.41" N
557574.4
716645.33
5
HYD5
30 29' 40.95" E
60 29' 49.92" N
554698
718193.43
6
HYD6
30 27' 22.22" E
60 28' 17.22" N
550439.7
715342.76
7
HYD7
30 32' 11.24" E
60 27' 14.46" N
559319.3
713424.28
8
HYD8
30 31' 13.21" E
60 28' 0.26" N
557535.1
714828.84
9
HYD9
30 30' 16.42" E
60 28' 9.23" N
555790.6
715102.37
10
HYD10
30 29' 41.08" E
6027' 58.29" N
554705.4
714765.46
11
HYD11
30 32' 20.69" E
6028' 47.67" N
559606.4
716286.93
12
HYD12
30 29' 1.84" E
60 28' 49.98" N
553498.8
716351.62
13
HYD13
30 29' 27.68" E
60 27' 26.47" N
554294.9
713787.98
14
HYD14
30 29' 24.89" E
60 30' 29.78" N
554203.7
719416.95
15
HYD15
30 31' 42.42" E
60 29' 36.93" N
558429.2
717798.2
P a g e | 62
Map 4.7: Hydrobiology sampling locations
P a g e | 63
Plate 4.5: Plankton Sampling: Vertical and Horizontal Tow
In the laboratory, five drops of the concentrated (centrifuged) sample (10ml) were investigated at different
magnifications (50x, 100 x and 400) using a Wild II binocular microscope with calibrated eye piece and the
average recorded. The microtansect drop count method described by Lackey (1938) was employed. Final data
were presented as number of organisms (cells, filaments or colonies). Appropriate texts were used to aid
identification, these include: Phytoplankton-Hendey 1958, 1964; Wimpenny, 1966; Patrick and Reimer, 1966,
1975; Whitford and Schmacher, 1973; Vanlandingham, 1982; Nwankwo, 1990, 1995, 2004; Zooplankton- Newell
and Newell, 1966; 2.821966; Olaniyan, 1975, Barnes et al., 1993 and Waife and Frid, 2001.
The following diversity indices were used for biological data analysis.
•
Margalef’s Richness Index (d)
•
Menhinick’s Index (D) (.
•
Shannon and Weiner diversity index (Hs)
•
Species Equitability (j).
•
Simpson’s Dominance Index (C)
4.7.5.2
Macrobenthos
A van-veen grab was used to collect sediment samples from the water bed. Two hauls of grab samples were
randomly taken at each point. The collected samples were sieved using sieve of 100-micron mesh size in order
to collect the sieved off macrobenthos in sample containers. Rosebengal in formaldehide was used to preserve
the collected samples and transported to the laboratory for identification.
In the laboratory, sorting and counting of benthos was done by using microscope (Holme and McIntyre 1971).
Identification was done after (Gosner 1971), (Fauchald 1977), (Lincoln 1979), (Bernhard G 1974) and (Kobina
and Mike 2001). The sorted animals were classified into taxonomic groups (Phyla, class, families, and species).
The number of species and individuals for each station were counted and recorded. Ecological indices were used
in statistical analysis of observed data.
P a g e | 64
Plate 4.6: Macrobenthos Sampling
4.7.6
Vegetation Field Studies
Vegetation studies were conducted primarily by observation at vegetated locations within the designated area of
influence. Observations were made at 10 different locations. Table 4.10 and Map 4.8 show the study locations.
Table 4.10: Vegetation Study locations
S/N
Sample ID
Longitude
Latitude
Easting
Northing
1
VG1
30 32' 50.53" E
60 26' 30.95" N
559546.79
712588.13
2
VG2
30 30' 48.04" E
60 27' 57.98" N
556740.21
714745.38
3
VG3
30 29' 53.24" E
60 27' 5.77" N
555063.75
713181.06
4
VG4
30 29' 26.81" E
60 25' 32.29" N
554262.00
710284.78
5
VG5
30 28' 55.87" E
60 27' 59.92" N
553280.74
714822.43
6
VG6
30 29' 13.27" E
60 27' 15.44" N
553833.72
713444.14
7
VG7
30 29' 15.85" E
60 26' 35.47" N
553915.33
712226.27
8
VG8
30 32' 10.56" E
60 27' 56.05" N
559268.72
714702.03
9
VG9
30 31' 17.05" E
60 26' 45.14" N
557627.45
712517.19
10
VG10
30 31' 7.38" E
60 25' 43.25" N
557342.04
710621.03
P a g e | 65
Map 4.8: Vegetation Study locations
P a g e | 66
Plant Characterization / Identification
Characterization / identification of vegetation types to species level, followed by a visual estimate of their relative
abundance was carried out using standard keys (Akobundu and Agyakwa (1987), Hutchinson and Dalziel, (1968)
and Keay, et. al., 1964). Where on-the-spot assessment was not possible, plant specimens were collected and
brought back to the laboratory for further keying and identification.
Plant Pathological Assessment
A survey of the state of health of the vegetation within each sampling location was carried out by visual
inspection. The number of diseased plants in each direction was recorded and disease incidence for each
location was worked out. The colour and shape of each leaf spot was observed and recorded. The number of
spots per leaf was counted for 5 leaves per plant species and the average calculated. Infected leaf samples of
major vegetation species were clipped and used for pathogen isolation in a potato dextrose agar (PDA), while
identification was carried out using appropriate standard keys by Barron, 1969; Bomsh, et al 1980 and Barnett
and Hunter, 1972
Plant Physiognomy
An assessment of the vegetal composition within each sampling location was made by carefully observing the
composition of plant species found in a sample location. This was followed by a comparison of the luxuriant
nature of these plant species.
Plant Frequency
Plant frequency was determined as the percentage number of times species was found in the total number of
sampling locations studied. This frequency helped in determining which plant species was most adapted to the
prevailing edaphic conditions within the study area.
Biomass Estimation
A 1m x 1m quadrant was used for the biomass estimation, where all herbaceous species were uprooted and
brought back to the laboratory. Fresh weight of these clipped samples was immediately taken with the aid of a
weighing machine (Ohaus Model: LS2000), then dried and re-weighed for estimation of the biomass productivity.
Biomass productivity (g/m2) was estimated using the formula:
Biomass Productivity
=
Where,
A
=
Total weight (field) in an area of 1m2
B
=
Fresh weight of subsample (g)
C
=
Dry weight of subsample after oven drying at 800C (g)
P a g e | 67
Inventory of Economic Crops
Dominant and economic plant types at each sampling location were identified and recorded.
4.7.7
Wildlife Studies
The following methods were employed for wildlife studies:
•
Visual observation and documentation on the field;
•
Oral discussions with natives of the study area;
•
Literature survey and review.
Field activities included observation of wildlife species, their droppings, paw marks, feathers, shells etc.
Observations were recorded in field notebooks. The information on wildlife and animal resources recorded in this
report is field observations verified with credible available literatures. Specific attention was paid to the
occurrence of economic and endangered species.
4.7.8
Bathymetric Survey
An approximate area of 900Ha around the proposed reclamation and sand borrow area was surveyed using
specialised fast-survey boat equipped with DGPS positioning system, automatic tide recording system and
NaviSound 210 Single beam echo sounder. All positioning and setting out related to Clarke 1880 projection,
defined by the following geodetic parameters:
Plate 4.7: Survey Launch used for Bathymetric studies
P a g e | 68
Projection name: Nig Belt (LAGOS).
Latitude of Origin: 0.00º N
Longitude of Origin: 3º E
False Easting: 500000
False Northing: 0
Scale Factor: 0.99960000
Spheroid name: WGS’84
Semi-major axis: 6378247.145
Inverse Flattening: 293.465.
All measuring and test equipment had a unique identification number permanently affixed to each item of
measuring and test equipment. Each item was calibrated or verified at intervals recommended by the
manufacturer and calibration certificates were administered duly. Within the equipment database each item is
entered with its own unique identification number and date when the next calibration is due.
To achieve the required accuracies, Differential GPS technology was applied for this survey. DGPS operates
using a system of ground-based reference stations to broadcast the difference between a receiver station and
the known fixed position. Figure 4.1 shows the DGPS survey principle.
The Global Positioning System (GPS) is a worldwide radio-navigation system formed from a constellation of 24
satellites. For horizontal control, the survey-vessel was equipped with GPS receivers locking in on the Base
Station, thereby obtaining DGPS accuracy position fix. The Base station systems provided WGS’84 coordinates
which were transferred to the Clarke 1880 Nig Mid Belt projection by the data-acquisition software packages.
Vertical control was achieved by the z-component of the DGPS system. The received DGPS height was used to
on-line reduce the bathymetric data to the CD level while operating in the working area. When properly defined in
local coordinates, in due consideration of GPS L1L2 antenna height, the DGPS receiver provided a CD related
height component, which was utilised as a reference level/height for further data-reduction purposes to CD. In
the absence of DGPS, vertical control in those circumstances was achieved, using tidal information.
Depths measurements took place with Navisound 210 echo sounder using single beam normal transducer. The
frequency of the echo sounder was 200 kHz. The principle of echo sounder is shown in figure 4.2. An automatic
transmitting and recording tide gauge was established at a location close to the work site.
P a g e | 69
Figure 4.1: DGPS Survey Principle
Figure 4.2: Eco Sounder Bathymetric Survey Principle
The reference level for the tide gauge was related to the established Benchmarks in the vicinity of the intended
location and the tide gauge transmitted and recorded in CD. The tide gauge readings were recorded and
P a g e | 70
transmitted to the survey vessel. When applicable, the transmitted and/or recorded tide was utilised to reduce
data to the correct CD. This can be done either on-line or off-line.
The whole process of data-preparation, -acquisition, -processing, -presentation, -handling and managing was
internally structured and optimised to fit the requirements and to achieve repeatability by standardising activities.
During the period of vessel mobilization all significant vessel sensor offsets were measured and entered into the
software to compensate for these measured offsets.
All sensors utilized in data acquisition were interfaced to the PC installed on board the survey boat. Subsequently
the software will calculate Easting, Northing and depth values. The software stores these while carrying out
single beam survey.
Bathymetric reduced raw data results was send to the office and checked for quality through match-checks on
previous information.
4.7.9
Geotechnical Survey
Thirteen (13) marine boreholes were drilled to 15m below water level or to a refusal depth whichever comes first,
in order to obtain subsoil information and verify availability of sufficient quantities of sand within the vicinity of the
proposed reclamation area.
Pulsing method was adopted for the drilling using specialized pontoon. The drilling pontoon consists of two
separate pontoons attached to each other by a demountable frame. The Work Container and Generator (which
Plate 4.8: The Drill Pontoon “HAM 912” used for the survey
powers the compressor) were placed on top pf the pontoon, while a tripod with sheave is located at the front side
P a g e | 71
of the potoon. Borehole positions were determined using handheld GPS with an accuracy of +/- 5m. The drilling
pontoon was placed in position by two spud pillars, operated by a pneumatic winch. A bailor of 1 meter was
repeatedly moved up (by pneumatic winch) and down (by gravity) to capture mixture of soil/water from the
borehole. The bailer is equipped with a flap at the bottom, which ensures that captured material remains inside
dueing hoisting, while a steel casting guided the bailer and kept the borehole from collapsing. After drilling,
samples were appropriately bagged, labeled, and transported to laboratory for analyses.
Coordinates of the Borehole locations
4.8
Quality Assurance Methodology
In order to assure and guarantee quality in this study, a number of strategic best practice plans were put in place
and adhered to strictly. Quality assurance plans covered sample collection and handling, laboratory analyses
and data management. Some quality assurance plans carried out include:
4.8.1
Sample Collection/Handling
Prior to mobilization to field, all sample containers were washed/ sterilized using a standard methodology and
neatly packed. Applicable field sampling and collection instruments wer cleaned and re-calibrated after each
use.
Sample chain-of-custody forms were properly filled to indicate the sample names and locations,
preservatives used, analysis required and date of sampling. This was used in the tracking of samples from the
point of collection in the field to the laboratory where analyses were carried out, as well as for cross references.
Samples were transferred in coolers and crates under standard conditions as applicable to various analyses, to
the laboratory after each field exercise.
4.8.2
Laboratory Analyses
Quality assurance (QA) and quality check (QC) measures adopted for laboratory analyses were in accordance
with DPR and FMEnv standards and recommendations. Other QA measures adopted in this study include:


Engagement of adequate and competent personnel at all phases of the study;
Strict adherence to standard analytical operating procedures during analyses.
P a g e | 72
4.8.3
Data Management
Field data were digitized soon after fieldwork using appropriate computer software. Quantitative data analyses
and presentation of results were conducted using Microsoft Excel spreadsheets and SPSS 10.0. GIS analyses
where carried out using Arcview 3.2 and ArcGIS 9.2. All data where subjected to quality check before being used
in report preparation.
4.9
Baseline Characteristics of the Proposed Project Environment
This section presents the baseline characteristics of natural environment within and around the proposed
reclamation arae. The characteristics reported here are based on findings of wet and dry seasons studies carried
as part of this EIA, as well as information from secondary sources like; government records and available
literature. Sources of every data are appropriately referenced.
4.9.1
Climate Characteristics
The climate characteristics of the proposed project area are based on records from the Nigeria Meteorological
Agency (NIMET) between 1976 and 2012.
The climate of the project area and its immediate environment is influenced by the tropical and continental air
masses, which are associated, respectively with the northeast and moisture-laden monsoon south-west winds
(Ojo, 1972). The movement of these air masses results in the two weather seasons – the wet season from April
to November, the dry season from December to March typical of the project area. Some Climatological data for
the project area are presented in Table 4.11.
Table 4.11: Summary of Climate Characteristics of the Study Area
Month
Average
(mm)
Rainfall
Temperature
C
Average
Max Min
Recorded
Max Min
Relative
(%)
Humidity
am
pm
Average
(hrs)
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
28
46
102
150
269
460
279
64
450
31
32
32
32
31
29
28
28
28
23
25
26
25
24
23
23
23
23
35
36
37
37
40
34
34
36
34
17
19
16
21
21
21
20
19
20
84
83
82
81
83
87
87
85
86
65
69
72
72
76
80
80
76
77
6
7
6
6
6
4
3
3
3
October
November
December
Min
Max
Average
286
69
25
25
460
186
29
31
31
28
32
30
23
24
24
23
26
24
36
37
37
34
40
36
21
21
19
16
21
20
86
85
86
81
87
85
76
72
68
65
80
74
5
7
7
3
7
5
Sunlight
P a g e | 73
4.9.1.1
Precipitation
Rain falls virtually in all the months of the year with annual average of 186mm. Precipitation pattern shows
double maxima, with a relatively dry period in August. Two seasons are identifiable: the rainy season (April to
November) and the relatively dry season (December to March). Rainfall is heaviest during the months of June
and September. This period accounts for over 50% of the total annual rainfall whilst only about 7.5% of annual
total rainfall occurs between November and February (Figure 4.3). Monthly rainfial pattern around the proposed
project area in recent times, with particular reference to the year 2010 suggests a higher than normal rainfall
from June to September (NIMET, 2010).
Figure 4.3: Precipitation Pattern of the Study Area
Figure 4.4: Comparison of monthly Rainfall in Ikeja (Lagos): 2010 with 1971-2000
Source: NIMET, 2010
P a g e | 74
4.9.1.2
Temperature
Temperature of the study area has annual range of 28 to 320C and 23 to 260C for maximum and minimum
temperature records respectively. Mean monthly minimum and maximum temperatures were 24 and 300C
respectively. Lowest temperatures were recorded between July and September while temperatures were
recorded between October and March (figure 4.5)
Figure 4.5: Average Monthly Temperature of the Study Area
4.9.1.3
Relative Humidity
Monthly average Relative humidity (RH) in the study area ranged between 81 and 87% in the morning periods
and between 65 and 80% at afternoon periods. Annually averages stand at of 85 and 74% in the morning and
afternoon periods respectively. Figure 4.6 shows the average monthly RH(%) in the study area at morning and
daytime.
Figure 4.6: Average Monthly Relative Humidity in the study area
P a g e | 75
4.9.1.4
Wind
The northeast trade wind generally brings a season of clear skies, moderate temperatures, and lower humidity
for most part of Nigeria from September through November. From December through February, however, the
northeast trade winds blow strongly and often bring with them a load of fine dust from the Sahara. These dustladen winds, known locally as the harmattan, often appear as a dense fog, and covers everything with a layer of
fine particles. The harmattan is more common in the north but affects the entire country except for a narrow strip
along the southwest coast. An occasional strong harmattan, however, can sweep as far south as Lagos,
providing relief from high humidity’s in the capital and pushing clouds of dust out to sea.
The project area has a wind speed ranging between 2 and 8 m/s. The wind speed is lower than 2.7m/s in about
60% of the time, and seldom (<2% of the time) exceeds 3 m/s. Wind speeds are generally lower in the night than
during the day with the highest wind speed recorded at the onset of the rainy season. The prevailing wind
direction (about 55% of the time) is South West (2100 - 2400). However, during the dry season, winds are
distributed in all directions, but predominantly south to south-west during the rainy season.
4.9.1.5
Sunlight
Sunlight in the proposed project area is most intense between November and February. Lowest insolation is
recorded between June and October. The monthly average sunlight hours ranged between 3 and 7 hours with an
annual average of 5 hours.
4.9.2
4.9.2.1
GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY
Regional Geology, Stratigraphy and Tectonics
The project area falls within the Dahomey sedimentary basin, a basin known to have resulted from the events
associated with the break-up of Gondwana and subsequent opening of the southern Atlantic. Deposition was in a
fault-controlled depression, bounded by faults and other tectonic structures of the Romanche Fault Zone on the
west, and by the Benin Hinge line, also a major fault structure, on the east. Sediment thickness in the basin,
which extends from Accra/Ghana to the Okitipupa Ridge, where it is separated from the Niger Delta, increases
from north to south and from east to west within Nigeria.
Detailed studies, among others by Adegoke (in Kogbe, 1976) and Whiteman (1982), indicate a stratigraphic
succession (Table 4.12) that began with the mostly marine Cretaceous Abeokuta Formation at its base, lying
unconformably on the Precambrian Basement Complex. The Paleocene Ewekoro Formation is deposited
conformably on the Abeokuta Formation and is succeeded by the Eocene Ilaro Formation, which signifies the
close of Mesozoic sedimentation in the basin area. The mostly continental Oligo-Plieistocene sediments of the
Benin Formation also known as “Coastal Plain Sands” overlie the Ilaro Formation. The formation consists of
loose, poor to moderately sorted sands, clays, pebbles, sandy clays and clayey sands, and rarely, thin lignite
beds. The youngest sedimentation in the area is of Quaternary alluvial deposits of unconsolidated and unsorted
sands, clays and silts.
P a g e | 76
Figure 4.7: The geology of Southern Nigeria (Wright et al. 1985)
Table 4.12: Stratigraphic Succession in the Basin Area
Age
Recent
Oligo-Pleistocene
Eocene
Paleocene-Lower Eocene
Cretaceous
Pre-Cambrian
4.9.2.2
Adegoke (in Kogbe, 1976)
Alluvium
Benin Formation
Ilaro Formation
Oshosun Formation
Akinbo Formation
Araromi Formation
Afowo Formation
Ise Formation
Basement Complex
Regional Hydrogeology
Coastal Nigeria is made up of two sedimentary basins: The Benin basin and the Niger Delta basin separated by
the Okitipupa ridge. The rocks of the Benin basin are mainly sands and shale’s with some limestone which
thicken towards the west and the coast as well as down dips to the coast. Recent sediments are underlain by the
Coastal Plains Sands which is then underlain by a thick clay layer - the Ilaro Formation and other older
Formations (Jones and Hockey, 1964). The Recent Sediments and Coastal Plains Sands consist of alternation of
sands and clays. The Recent Sediments forms a water table aquifer which is exploited by hand-dug wells and
shallow boreholes. The Coastal Plains Sands aquifer is a multi-aquifer system consisting of three aquifer
horizons separated by silty or clayey layers (Longe et al. 1987). It is the main aquifer in Lagos Metropolis that is
P a g e | 77
exploited through boreholes for domestic and industrial water supply. In the coastal belt of the Benin basin, this
aquifer is confined.
A brief review of the regional hydrogeology is essential for the understanding of the probable impacts that the
proposed project may have on groundwater in the area. This is summarized in Table 4.13. From the table, it is
obvious that aquifers exist in virtually every formation represented in the area.
Table 4.13: Summary of Hydro-Geological Units in the Project Area
Age
Formation
Lithology
Recent
Alluvium
Oligo-Pleistocene
Benin
Formation
Ilaro Formation
Sands, clays, mud,
pebbles
Sands, clays, silts, sandy
clays, gravel
Predominantly shale,
clays
Limestone, shale, clay
Eocene
Paleocene
Cretaceous
Ewekoro
Formation
Araromi Fm.
Afowo Fm.
Ise Fm.
Shale, fine/medium sands
Coarse/medium sandstone, shale, silt-stone
Sands, grits, sand-stone
Depositional
Environment
Continental
Hydro geological
Significance
Aquiferous
Continental
Aquiferous
Marine/lacustrine
Non-aquiferous
Marine
Marine/continental
Marine
Aquiferous
(limestone)
Aquiferous
Aquiferous
Continental
Artesian
The Abeokuta Formation
The Abeokuta Formation, comprising of the Araromi, Afowo and Ise Formations, has been exploited for industrial
water supply and rural water supply, where temperatures of 80oC and 43oC have been encountered. Aquifers of
the Abeokuta Formation are essentially confined and artesian conditions have been encountered in boreholes at
Itoikin and Igbonla with a free flow head of about 15m at the Itoikin borehole.
The Ilaro and Ewekoro Formations
Both the Ilaro and Ewekoro formations may be considered an effective regional aquitard/acquiclude unit,
separating the underlying Abeokuta Formation aquifers from the overlaying Benin Formation aquifers. A
borehole screened in a thin band of sandy gravel of the Ilaro Formation at Lakowe yielded a transmissivity of
2.3m2/d and produced brackish water with a conductivity of 6ms/cm. The Ewekoro Formation is known to be
aquiferous only where limestone members are present, and no significant aquiferous zones have been reported
in this formation in Lagos State.
The Coastal Plain Sands (Benin Formation)
Though aquifers are known to exist in the other sedimentary formations present in the area, the Benin Formation
is, without doubt, the most significant aquifer system, being the major source of groundwater for private and
public water supply, including industrial and commercial water usage.
An overwhelming majority of the
boreholes and dug wells in Lagos State are in the Benin Formation aquifers.
P a g e | 78
The focus of this present investigation is the Benin Formation, which constitutes the most significant and
productive regional aquifer system in Southern Nigeria, outcropping over an area close to 25,000km2 and dipping
below the recent swamp deposits of the coastal areas. Its thickness, estimated at between 30m to 60m (Oteze,
1981), has been confirmed in several boreholes at different locations.
In Lagos State, the Benin Formation becomes thicker and increasingly sandy southwards from its outcrop area in
the north and is also characterized by water quality variations. The formation is essentially plastic, being made
up of loose red earth overlying unconsolidated, very poorly sorted clayey sands, gravelly sands and sandy clays,
intercalated with grey clays and peat. The sands are generally friable, but become increasingly compacted with
depth. Kampsax-Kruger (1977), based on evidence from borehole lithology and gamma ray logs identified 3
major aquiferous zones, separated by thick layers of clay aquicludes.
Recent Sediments
Locally significant aquifers may be found in the alluvial deposits along major streams in the state and around the
coast. The unconsolidated deposits may constitute hydrogeologically significant lithologic units, either as
conduits for the passage of contaminants, as filter for removal of harmful chemicals and pathogens or as local
aquifers for rural water supply. Due to their widely varying lithology that ranges from clay through silt, fine-coarse
sand and gravel there is a broad variation in their hydraulic properties too, especially permeability, this is
particularly significant in water supply considerations and pollution control.
In the southwestern part of the country, phosphate resources occur in the Eocene Ilaro Formation and are
presently being mined at Ifo Junction in Ogun State. The resource estimate of this phosphate deposit is 40
million tonnes, but the reserve estimates need updating and confirmation (Ministry of Solid Minerals
Development 2000). Other authors, for instance McClellan and Notholt (1986) estimate the PR reserves at this
location as slightly over 1 million tonnes only. The Eocene sedimentary succession in the coastal zone of Nigeria
is geologically similar to the succession with the economic Togo phosphates. Unfortunately, the phosphatebearing sedimentary layer reaches only a thickness of 1.3 m and the overburden can reach up to 15 m
(McClellan and Notholt 1986).
In southwestern Niger, in the striking continuation of the Sokoto phosphates, the phosphates occur mainly in the
‘Formation de Garadaoua,’ which is stratigraphically equivalent to Paleocene to Eocene sediments of northern
Nigeria (Hanon 1900). The Benin Formation consisting predominantly of massive highly porous sands and
gravels with locally thin shale/clay interbeds forms a multi-aquifer system in the delta. Many boreholes have been
drilled into the aquifers of the Benin Formation yielding good quality water but many have also been abandoned
due to high salinity. Oil and gas are produced from sand reservoirs in the Agbada Formation while the Akata
Formation consists of uniform shale rocks.
P a g e | 79
4.9.3
Air Quality and Noise Characteristics
4.9.3.1
Introduction
The quality of air has obvious implications on public health and environment. Noise and some gases become
detrimental to human health at certain concentrations. International and local specific standards are set for
control of noxious emissions and noise for different receptors. Every project is required to be implemented in a
manner that ensures adequate management of pollutants (gaseous emissions and noise). In order to predict the
extent of impact(s) of any planned project on the environment, it is important to have a good understanding of the
pre-project quality of air within the project’s area of influence. This section of the report presents an overview of
the health implications of key air contaminants and the baseline characteristics of air quality during dry and wet
season around the proposed Orange Island Reclamation vicinity.
4.9.3.2
Effects of Air Pollutants
There are a number of health challenges associated with different air contaminants. These range from relatively
minor impacts such as respiratory irritation, headaches and cough to more serious health impacts, including
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Some of the associated effects of air pollutants are discussed
below.
4.9.3.3
Carbon Monoxide
Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colourless, odourless and poisonous gas produced by the incomplete combustion of
fossil fuels - gas, oil, coal and wood. When it combines with the oxygen-carrying component of the blood
(haemoglobin) to form a carboxyhaemoglobin (COHb), it impairs the oxygen carrying capacity of the blood.
Prolonged (45 minutes to 3 hours) exposure to concentrations of CO between 200 ppm and 800 ppm often
results in severe headache, dizziness, nausea and convulsions. Table 4.14 shows the effects of various levels of
COHb in humans.
Table 4.14: Carboxyhaemoglobin Levels and Related Health Effects
% COHb in blood
80
60
40
30
7-20
5-17
Below 5
2.9-4.5
2.3-4.3
Effects Associated with this COHb Level
Death
Loss of consciousness; death in prolonged exposure
Confusion; collapse on exercise
Headache; fatigue; impaired judgment
Statistically significant decreased maximal oxygen consumption during
strenuous exercise in healthy young men
Statistically significant reduction of visual perception, manual dexterity,
ability to learn, or performance in complex sensor motor tasks (such as
driving)
No statistically significant vigilance reduction after exposure to CO
Statistically significant decreased exercise capacity (i.e., shortened
duration of exercise before onset of pain) in patients with angina pectoris
and increased duration of angina attacks
Statistically significant decreased (about 3-7%) work time to exhaustion
in exercising healthy men
Source: U.S. EPA (1989)
P a g e | 80
4.9.3.4
Sulphur Dioxide and Hydrogen Sulphide
Sulphur dioxide (SO2) is a colourless gas that is produced from biological decay, forest fires, volcanic eruptions
and, oceans. It can also result from fossil fuel combustion, smelting, manufacture of sulphuric acid, and
incineration of refuse and production of elemental sulphur. Health effect associated with the inhalation of high
concentrations of this oxide includes breathing disorder, respiratory illnesses, alterations in pulmonary defence
and aggravation of existing cardiovascular diseases. Hydrogen sulphide (H2S) gas, which is extremely toxic,
odorous and corrosive, may also, be generated from similar processes as SO2. In the atmosphere, SO2 and H2S
react with water vapour to form acid rains (EPA, 1995).
Acid rain has been reported to cause extensive damage to building and structural materials as well as valuable
ancient sculptures. The acidification of soils and aquatic systems have also been reported to alter species
composition among plankton, decline in productivity of fish and amphibians and the mobilization of metals, which
were initially locked unto sediment/soil particles. Acidification of drinking water reservoirs and concurrent
increases in heavy metal concentrations may exceed public health limits and cause injurious effects.
Exposure to SO2 at concentrations above 13mg/m3 could stimulate broncho-constriction (as in asthma) and
mucus secretion as well as irritate the eyes in man and other animals (ACGIH, 1995). Long-term exposure to
lower concentrations may result in death from cardiac and/or respiratory diseases and increased prevalence of
related symptoms. Similarly, exposure to H2S gas above 150µg/m3 could result in death (SIEP,1995).
4.9.3.5
Nitrogen Dioxide
NO2 is a pungent, acidic gas. Corrosive and strongly oxidizing, it is one of several oxides of nitrogen (NOX) that
can be produced as a result of combustion processes. Combustion of fossil fuels converts atmospheric nitrogen
and any nitrogen in the fuel into its oxides, mainly nitric oxide (NO) but with small amounts (5-10%) of NO2. NO
slowly oxidizes to NO2 in the atmosphere. This reaction is catalyzed in the presence of O3. In the presence of
sunlight, NOX, including NO2, react with volatile organic compounds to form photochemical smog.
The main source of NO2 resulting from human activities is the combustion of fossil fuels (coal, gas and oil). In
cities such as Lagos, about 80% of ambient NO2 comes from motor vehicles. Other sources include the refining
of petrol and metals, commercial manufacturing, and food manufacturing. Electricity generation using fossil fuels
can also produce significant amounts.
Exposure to nitrogen dioxide (NO2) has been shown to cause reversible effects on lung function and airway
responsiveness. It may also increase reactivity to natural allergens. Inhalation of NO2 by children increases their
risk of respiratory infection and may lead to poorer lung function in later life. Recent epidemiological studies have
shown an association between ambient NO2 exposure and increases in daily mortality and hospital admissions
for respiratory disease. NO2 has also been shown to potentiate the effects of exposure to other known irritants,
such as ozone and respirable (PM 10) particles. There is some evidence that acute exposure to NO2 may cause
an increase in airway responsiveness in asthmatic individuals. This response has been observed only at
relatively low NO2 concentrations, mostly in the range of 400–600 µg/m3.
P a g e | 81
4.9.3.6
Total Suspended Particulate (TSP)
There are categories of particulate matter that can be suspended in air, they include: total suspended particles;
PM10; PM2.5; fine and ultra-fine particles; diesel exhaust; mineral dust; metal dust and fumes. Particulates in the
atmosphere are known to cause varying deleterious effects in the environment. In this regard, the size and
chemical nature of particulates are more vital than their number. Particulates with diameter of less than 3-micron
can penetrate the respiratory system and cause breathing problems and irritation of the lung capillaries. They
are referred to as respirable particulates. They can also constitute nuisance in the environment, interfere with
sunlight and act as catalytic surfaces for reaction of adsorbed chemicals.
Description of the baseline air quality of the study area is based on the concentration of specific parameters
measured at the various study points. Study methodology and equipment used area presented in section 4.7.1 of
this report. Parameters measured include; Total Suspended particulates (TSP), Sulphur dioxide (SO2), Hydrogen
sulphide (H2S), Carbon monoxide (CO), Nitogen dioxide (NO2), Nitric Oxide (NO), Ammonia (NH3),and carbon
dioxide(CO2). Table 4.15 shows the result of air quality measurements in dry and wet season.
P a g e | 82
Table 4.15: Air Quality Characteristics of the study area in dry and wet season
Study Points
3
4
A1
A2
A3
CO (ppm)
D3 W4
ND ND
ND ND
2
0.8
CO2 (ppm)
D
W
360
389
385
372
340
390
NH3 (ppm)
D
W
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
NO (ppm)
D
W
ND
0
ND
1
ND
2
A4
ND
ND
380
370
ND
ND
ND
3
ND
A5
ND
ND
392
380
ND
ND
ND
4
A6
A7
A8
ND
ND
2.2
ND
ND
1
368
392
390
370
385
378
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
A9
2.5
1.2
348
413
ND
ND
A10
A11 (Control)
A12
Minimum
Maximum
Average
FMEnv Limit
Overall Average
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.5
2.2
10
1.6
ND
ND
ND
0.8
1.2
1.0
356
380
381
340
392
372.7
370
375
379
370
413
380.9
ND
ND
ND
NA
NA
NA
NA
376.8
NO2 (ppm)
D
W
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
H2S (ppm)
D
W
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
SO2 (ppm)
D
W
ND ND
ND ND
ND ND
TSP (ug/m3)
D
W
128
110
135
121
180
169
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
125
115
On Lagos lagoon, off Banana Island
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
148
124
Off Admiralty Way Lekki 1
5
6
7
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
138
108
178
118
98
175
Ikate waterside community
On Lagos lagoon within 100m from proposed reclamation site
By NCF gate along Lekki-Epe Expressway
ND
8
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
145
121
Igbaefon community
ND
ND
ND
NA
NA
NA
ND
ND
ND
NA
NA
NA
9
10
11
0
11
5.5
ND
ND
ND
NA
NA
NA
ND
ND
ND
NA
NA
NA
ND
ND
ND
NA
NA
NA
residential estate, off Chevron Drive Lekki
Lagos Lagoon North of proposed reclamation site
On Lagos Lagoon, ~200m north of proposed reclamation site
NA
NA
NA
150
112
128
108
180
139.6
250
132.5
135
105
115
98
175
125.5
NA
ND
ND
ND
NA
NA
NA
0.01
NA
ND
ND
ND
NA
NA
NA
NA
ND
ND
ND
NA
NA
NA
0.04-0.06
NA
NA
Land Use Features at Study Point
Lagos Lagoon bank. Near Residential Estate (VGC)
On lagoon
Ikate Elegushi Round About by Lekki Epe Expressway
Source: ERL, 2013
Dry Season
Wet Season
P a g e | 83
4.9.3.1
Total Suspended Particles
The total suspended particulate (TSP) level in the study area recorded an average of 132.5 µg/m3. Relatively
higher values were recorded in the dry season than in wet. This is expected as dust particles and other
particulates have more residence time in the dry season as compared to the rainy season. Particulates
suspended in the air are deposited by gravitational pull known as dry deposition. Dry deposition is the most
prominent natural means of removing particulate from the air, during the dry season. In the rainy season, an
additional means called wet deposition is added on. Particulate are “washed out” of the air when rain falls and
when this is combined with dry deposition, it makes the cleansing of air more effective in the rainy season.
TSP ranged between 108µg/m3 and 180µg/m3 with an average value of 139.6µg/m3 in dry season, while it
ranged between 98µg/m3 and 175µg/m3 with an average value of 135.4µg/m3 in wet season. The highest
recording, was obtained along Lekki-Epe Expressway, suggesting vehicle traffic contribution to TSP
concentration. All recorded values are below the FMEnv standard of 250µg/m3 for ambient air quality. TSP is not
likely to increase significantly during reclamation considering that dredged materials will be moisture-laden.
A comparison of the average TSP values obtained in the study area (wet and dry seasons) with the classification
criteria in Table 4.16 shows that ambient air around the study area was of moderate quality in both seasons, with
a marginally better quality in wet rainy season.
Table 4.16: Air Quality Classification Based on TSP Concentration
Range of TSP Values (µg/m3)
0 – 75
76 – 230
231 – 600
4.9.3.2
Class of Air Quality
High Quality
Moderate Quality
Poor Quality
Source: Jain, et al. 1976
Sulphur Dioxide and Hydrogen Sulphide
SO2 and H2S gases were not detected in all the study locations. This means that the concentration of these
gases in the study areas were below the sensitivity of the equipment used, which is 0.01ppm. In effect, the
concentration of SO2 is below the FMEnv limit of 0.01ppm hourly daily average.
4.9.3.3
Carbon Monoxide (CO) and Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
CO concentrations in ambient air of the study areas were observed to be low. It recorded an overall average of
1.62ppm in dry and wet seasons. Higher values were recorded in dry season than in wet season. The maximum
recorded values in dry and wet seasons were 2.5ppm and 1.2ppm respectively (table 4.15). These values are
below the FMEnv permissible limit of 10ppm for hourly average. Sources of CO in the areas they were recorded
could be linked to vehicular emissions and use of household diesel and gasoline generators.
P a g e | 84
Carbon dioxide concentration in ambient air recorded an overall average of 376.8ppm in the study areas in dry
and wet seasons. Higher concentrations were recorded in wet season than in dry, but the dry season
concentrations had wider standard deviation of 17.9ppm. CO2 concentration in ambient air of the study area in
dry season ranged between 340ppm and 392ppm and between 370ppm and 413ppm in wet season (Table
4.15).
4.9.3.4
Nitrogen Oxides and Ammonia
NO was below the detecting limit of the measuring equipment (0.1ppm) at all the study locations in dry season. In
wet season, the values ranged from 0.00 to 11.0ppm with the average of 5.5ppm and standard deviation of
3.6ppm. NO2 and NH3 concentrations in the ambient air of the study areas were below the detection limit
(0.1ppm) of the equipment used for the study.
4.9.3.5
Noise level
Noise is undesired sound. It has both public health and ecological implications. Loud and uncontrolled noise
levels could cause adverse effects to public health and comfort. The most obvious is impaired hearing and
eventual deafness in cases of prolonged exposure. The major source of noise within the study areas is vehicular
traffic.
Noise levels measured at study points in dry and wet seasons recorded an average of 60.5 dB(A). In dry season,
noise levels ranged between 48.3 and 75.5 dB(A) with the average of 59.3 dB(A). In wet season however, the
levels ranged between 51.6 and 72.3 dB(A) with the average of 62.7 dB(A) (Table 4.17). Noise levels measured
in wet season were marginally higher than those of dry season. The higher noise could be attributed to a number
of factors including; water turbulence, vehicular movement on wet roads, etc. Noise levels measured within and
around the study area were below the FMEnv permissible limit of 90 dB(A) exposure for 8 hours (Table 4.18) and
WHOs prescribed 70 dB(A) daytime one hour exposure.
P a g e | 85
Table 4.17: Noise levels at the Study locations
Study Points
A1
A2
A3
A4
Noise (dBA)
Dry Season
51
49.2
60.4
59.2
Wet Season
52
57.6
69.7
62.6
A5
A6
A7
A8
75.5
53
57.8
69.7
69.3
56.5
62.3
72.3
Off Admiralty Way Lekki 1
Ikate waterside community
On Lagos lagoon within 100m from proposed reclamation site
By NCF gate along Lekki-Epe Expressway
A9
A10
64.7
68
66.3
67.2
Igbaefon community
residential estate, off Chevron Drive Lekki
A11 (Control)
48.3
51.6
A12
54.3
52.7
Minimum
48.3
51.6
Maximum
75.5
72.3
Average
59.3
61.7
Standard Deviation
8.7
7.4
Overall Average
60.5
NA
FMEnv
90 (8hrs Exposure)
WHO
70 (1 hr. Daytime exposure
Land Use Features
Lagos Lagoon bank. Near Residential Estate (VGC)
On lagoon
Ikate Elegushi Round About by Lekki Epe Expressway
On Lagos lagoon, off Banana Island
Lagos Lagoon North of proposed reclamation site
On Lagos Lagoon, ~200m north of proposed reclamation site
Source: ERL, 2013
Table 4.18: Noise Exposure Limits for Nigeria
Duration Per Day (Hour) Permissible Exposure Limit (dB (A)
8
90
6
92
4
95
3
97
2
100
1.5
102
1
105
0.5
110
0.25 or less
115
Source: Guidelines and Standards for Environmental Pollution Control in Nigeria (FEPA, 1991)
4.9.4
Soil Characteristics
Soil is a medium for crop production and engineering structures. It plays significant roles in sustainable
development. Apart from its physico-chemical attributes, it harbours living organisms and other organic materials
that interact in a system-sustaining manner to maintain its integrity. These properties and activities in soil give it
the ability to carry out its dependent functions, such as plant life sustenance, holding of structures, etc. However,
human activities have become sources of undesired impacts to the soil, and the footprint will be worse without
proper planning. In order to minimize the impacts of developmental activities on the soil, it is imperative to
understand soil properties before working on it. Understanding of soil properties will aid assessment and proper
management of activities that could affect it negatively.
P a g e | 86
4.9.4.1
pH
pH refers to the negative logarithm (in base 10) of the hydrogen ion concentration, It tells the degree of acidic or
alkaline condition of a medium. A pH of 7 represents neutral conditions, while pH values greater than 7 indicate
basic (alkaline) conditions, and pH values less than 7 indicate acidic conditions. It is a major factor in all chemical
reactions associated with the formation, alteration, and dissolution of minerals.
Table 4.19 presented the pH of soil at the various study locations.
Table 4.19: pH of Soil in Study Area
Sample ID
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5 (Ctrl)
S6
S7
Dry Season
Topsoil pH
Subsoil pH
7.9
8.3
6.5
7.2
7.0
7.3
8.2
7.9
7.2
7.4
6.8
7.3
8.1
8.7
Wet Season
Topsoil pH
Subsoil pH
8.3
9.2
6.8
8.2
7.2
8.0
8.6
9.4
7.6
7.9
6.9
7.5
7.9
9.1
S8
S9
9.0
6.6
9.2
6.9
10.6
7.1
10.3
8.4
S10
8.3
9.1
8.5
9.4
S11
6.8
7.4
7.4
8.0
S12
8.1
7.8
8.5
8.7
S13
7.7
8.1
8.2
8.6
Min
6.5
6.9
6.8
7.5
Max
9.0
9.2
10.6
10.3
Average
7.5
7.9
8.0
8.7
Combined Average
7.7
8.3
Source: ERL, 2013.
pH became more alkaline in the subsoil and, from dry to wet season. It ranged between 6.5 and 9.0, and 6.8 and
10.6 in the topsoil in dry season in wet seasons respectively. The subsoil pH in dry and wet seasons ranged
between 6.9 and 9.2, and 7.5 and 10.3 respectively. The average pH of top and subsoil in dry seasons were 7.5
and 7.9 respectively. In wet season, the pH in the top and subsoil had averages of 8.0 and 8.7 respectively. The
combined average pH of top and subsoil were 7.7 in dry, and 8.3 in wet season. The pH of soil in the studied
areas ranged between acidic and extremely alkaline (Udo, 1986)
P a g e | 87
Table 4.20: Soil pH Classifications
pH Range
Class
4.5 – 5.5
5.5 – 6.0
6.0 – 7.0
7.0
7.0 – 7.5
7.5 – 8.0
8.0 – 8.5
8.5 – 9.0
Very Acidic
Distinctly Acidic
Acidic
Neutral
Faintly Alkaline
Alkaline
Strongly Alkaline
Extremely Alkaline
Source: Udo, 1986
4.9.4.2
Conductivity
Conductivity is a measure of the ability of soil to transmit electric current. It is also called electrical conductivity. It
is dependent on the availability of ions that enables electron transmission and hence electric current.
The conductivity of soils at the studied location are presented in table 4.21.
Electrical conductivity of the soil samples ranged between 62.0 µS/cm and 330.0 µS/cm with the average of
143.6 µS/cm in the topsoil in dry season. In the subsoil in dry season, it ranged from 79.2 µS/cm to 324.2 µS/cm
with the average of 172.7 µS/cm. The combined average conductivity (top and sub soil) in dry season was 158.2
µS/cm
In wet season, the conductivity in the topsoil ranged between 23.7µS/cm and 150.1 µS/cm with the average of
58.7 µS/cm. In the subsoil in wet season, the conductivity ranged between 37.7 µS/cm and 123.7 µS/cm with
the average of 79.9 µS/cm. The combined average conductivity (top and sub soil) in dry season was 69.3µS/cm.
Seasonal variation analyses showed that conductivity of soil in the study area had higher values in dry than wet
season. There was an apparent regular trend in the spatial values of conductivity in both seasons’ study (Figures
4.8 and 4.9).
P a g e | 88
Table 4.21: Conductivity of Soil in Study Area
Sample ID
Dry Season Conductivity(µScm-1)
Topsoil
Subsoil
Wet Season Conductivity(µScm-1)
Topsoil
Subsoil
S1
124.5
176.3
58.7
99.4
S2
134.5
234.3
47.2
68.9
S3
98.4
143.9
43.7
101.8
S4
124.7
212.8
65.2
123.7
S5 (Ctrl)
245
198
33.5
37.7
S6
78.9
99.4
23.7
53.4
S7
103.5
142.7
78.3
84.8
S8
330.6
248.2
150.1
109.6
S9
98.2
95.7
33.4
63.1
S10
89.7
112.4
35.3
43.7
S11
62
79.2
44.8
67.1
S12
231.5
324.2
101.1
123.4
S13
145.3
178.6
48.6
61.7
Min
62.0
79.2
23.7
37.7
Max
330.6
324.2
150.1
123.7
Average
143.6
172.7
58.7
79.9
Combined Average
158.2
69.3
Source: ERL, 2013.
Figure 4.8: Seasonal Variation of Conductivity (uS/cm) in topsoil of Study Area
P a g e | 89
Figure 4.9: Seasonal Variation of Conductivity in Subsoil of Study Area
4.9.4.3
Apart from mineral components in soil, the remaining solid matter components are organic matter. Organic
matter plays a significant role in the dynamics of soil as it provides living environment for organisms, promotes
structural stability, supplies and stores nutrients (particularly nitrogen, phosphorus, and sulphur), which are
slowly released in usable form as decompositions occur. Considering that the main component of organic matter
is carbon, the calculation of the Total Organic Carbon is used to quantify the percentage composition of organic
matter in soil sample. The TOC in soil of the study locations in dry and wet season are presented in table 4.22.
P a g e | 90
Table 4.22: Total Organic Carbon in Soil of Study Area
Sample ID
Dry Season TOC (%)
Wet Season TOC (%)
Topsoil
Subsoil
Topsoil
Subsoil
S1
0.09
0.05
0.15
0.09
S2
0.05
0.02
0.04
0.03
S3
0.23
0.19
0.19
0.14
S4
0.18
0.15
0.05
0.02
S5 (Ctrl)
0.38
0.33
0.23
0.19
S6
0.37
0.28
0.26
0.19
S7
0.09
0.07
0.04
0.02
S8
0.23
0.2
0.08
0.06
S9
0.32
0.25
0.12
0.09
S10
0.27
0.23
0.11
0.07
S11
0.19
0.11
0.05
0.03
S12
0.25
0.17
0.06
0.03
S13
0.23
0.19
0.12
0.08
Min
0.05
0.02
0.04
0.02
Max
0.38
0.33
0.26
0.19
Average
0.22
0.17
0.12
0.08
Combined Average
0.20
0.10
Source: ERL, 2013.
Total organic carbon content in soil of the studied locations in dry season ranged between 0.05 and 0.38% in the
topsoil, and between 0.02 and 0.33% in the subsoil. The average TOC in top and subsoil in dry season were
0.22% and 0.17% respectively, while the combined average (top and subsoil) TOC in dry season was 0.20%
In wet season, the average TOC recorded in top and subsoil was 0.12% and 0.08% respectively. Soil TOC in wet
season ranged between 0.04 and 0.26% in the topsoil and 0.02 and 0.19% in subsoil. The combined average
TOC (top and subsoil) in wet season was 0.08%. Accordint to Udo, 1986, the TOC of soil in the study areas fall
within low to high range (Table 4.23).
Table 4.23: Soil Total Organic Carbon Classification
TOC (%)
Class
<1.50
Low
1.50 – 2.50
Medium
>2.50
High
Source - Udo, 1986
Higher TOC were recorded in both top and subsoil matrices in dry than wet season. The spatial and temporal
trend of TOC in the top and subsoil samples in dry and wet seasons are presented in figure 4.10 and 4.11.
P a g e | 91
Figure 4.10: Seasonal Variation of TOC (%) in Topsoil of Study locations
Figure 4.11: Seasonal Variation of TOC (%) in Subsoil of Study locations
4.9.4.4
Soil Texture
Soil texture is the proportionate distribution of the different sizes of mineral particles in a soil. It does not include
organic matter. These mineral particles vary in size from those easily seen with an unaided eye to those below
the range of a high-powered microscope. According to their size, these mineral particles are grouped into
"separates." A soil separate is a group of mineral particles that fit within definite size limits expressed as
diameter, in millimeters. Sizes of the separates used in the USDA system of nomenclature for soil texture are
shown in Table 4.24. Since various sizes of particle have quite different physical characteristics, the nature of
mineral soils is determined to a remarkable degree by the particular separate that is present in larger amounts.
Thus, a soil possessing a large amount of clay has quite different physical properties from one made up mostly of
P a g e | 92
sand and/or silt. According to USDA, there are twelve major textural classes. Their compositions are defined by
the USDA textural triangle (Figure 4.12).
Table 4.24: Different Soil Separates as defined by USDA
Name of soil separate
Very coarse sand*
Coarse sand
Medium sand
Fine sand
Very fine sand
Silt
Clay
Diameter limits (mm)
2.00 - 1.00
1.00 - 0.50
0.50 - 0.25
0.25 - 0.10
0.10 - 0.05
0.05 - 0.002
less than 0.002
* Note that the sand separate is split into five sizes (very coarse sand coarse sand etc.). The size range for sands considered broadly comprises the entire
range from very coarse sand to very fine sand i.e. 2.00-0.05 mm.
Figure 4.12: USDA Soil Textural Triangle.
The particle size distribution and textural soil types in the study areas in dry and wet seasons are presented in
Table 4.25.The predominant particle type in the soil of the study area was sand. In dry season the combined (top
and subsoil) average particles distribution was 95.4%, 3.1% and 1.6% for sand, silt and clay respectively.
Whereas the average distribution in the top soil was 96.4%, 2.3% and 1.3% for sand, silt and clay respectively,
the distribution in the subsoil was 94.4%, 3,8% and 1.8% in similar order. In wet season, the combined (top and
subsoil) average particles distribution was 96.0%, 2.4% and 1.5% for sand, silt and clay respectively. The
average distribution for sand, silt and clay particles in the topsoil was 96.3%, 2.2% and 1.5% respectively, while
the subsoil recorded the average of 95.7%, 2.7% and 1.6% in similar order.
P a g e | 93
Table 4.25: Particle Size Distribution of Soil in Study Areas
Sample ID
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5 (Ctrl)
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
S11
S12
S13
%Sand
97.8
97.4
96.5
98.9
94.5
96.5
97.2
97.3
93.4
96.7
98.2
95.6
92.7
Min
Max
Average
Combined Average
92.7
98.9
96.4
95.4
Topsoil
%Silt %Clay
1.6
0.6
1.5
1.1
2.9
0.6
0.9
0.2
3.9
1.6
2.3
1.2
1.9
0.9
1.4
1.3
4.3
2.3
2.1
1.2
1.1
0.7
2.7
1.7
3.9
3.4
0.9
4.3
2.3
3.1
0.2
3.4
1.3
1.6
Dry Season
Texture
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
%Sand
86.7
95.6
97.5
97.2
92.7
95.2
95.9
95.8
92.1
95.2
97.4
94.2
91.8
86.7
97.5
94.4
Subsoil
%Silt %Clay
11.2
2.1
2.7
1.7
2.3
0.2
1.8
1
4.9
2.4
3.3
1.5
2.8
1.3
2.5
1.7
4.9
3
2.9
1.9
1.5
1.1
3.7
2.1
4.4
3.8
1.5
11.2
3.8
0.2
3.8
1.8
Texture
Loamy Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
%Sand
97
97.6
97.2
97.9
95
97
96.4
95.6
94
97.1
98
97
92.6
92.6
98.0
96.3
96.0
Topsoil
%Silt %Clay
1.8
1.2
1.7
0.7
1.8
1
1.1
1
3.8
1.2
1.9
1.1
2.1
1.5
1.7
2.7
3.9
2.1
1.9
1
0.9
1.1
1.8
1.2
3.7
3.7
0.9
3.9
2.2
2.4
0.7
3.7
1.5
1.5
Wet Season
Texture
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
%Sand
95.2
96.9
97
98.1
93
97.2
96.3
96.2
94
96.4
95
96
93.1
93.0
98.1
95.7
Subsoil
%Silt %Clay
2.6
2.2
1.9
1.2
1.9
1.1
1.6
0.3
4.3
2.7
2.3
0.5
2.6
1.1
2.7
1.1
3.8
2.2
2.3
1.3
2.3
2.7
2.8
1.2
3.8
3.1
1.6
4.3
2.7
Texture
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
0.3
3.1
1.6
Source: ERL, 2013.
P a g e | 94
The proportion of sand particle in the topsoil increased marginally from dry to wet season, while the silt and clay
particles reduced slightly. This slight seasonal distribution of the particles in soil could be attributed to wash-down
effect of smaller particles down the profile by rainwater.
4.9.4.5
Soil Anions (NO3- , SO42-, PO43-, Cl-)
Anions are very crucial for soil agricultural productivity. Nitrates, phosphates, Sulphates and Chlorides are key
nutrient sources for plants growth, body maintenance and general sustenance. Table 4.26 presents anionic
characteristics of soil in study area.
Nitrate (NO3-)
In dry season, nitrate ions ranged between 19.5mg/kg and 59.3mg/kg with the average of 33.1mg/kg in the
topsoil samples. It recorded an average of 37.7mg/kg in the subsoil, ranging from 23.3mg/kg to 65.3mg/kg. The
combined (top and subsoil) average content of nitrate in the soil samples in dry season was 35.4mg/kg (table
4.26).
In wet season, a combined (top and subsoil) average concentration of 21.0mg/kg nitrates was recorded. The
concentration ranged from 12.8mg/kg to 35.3mg/kg, and 13.3mg/kg to 29.3mg/kg in top and subsoil respectively.
The average concentration of nitrates in the top and subsoil in wet season were 21.2mg/kg and 20.8mg/kg
(Table 4.26)
The overall average concentration of nitrates in the soil (top and sub) in the 2-season study was 28.36mg/kg
Nitrate ions were higher in the soil samples in dry season than in wet. However, dry season contents varied more
with standard deviations of 11.7 and 12.7 in the top and subsoil, while the deviations were 6.7 and 5.6 in the top
and subsoil in wet season.
P a g e | 95
Table 4.26: Anions Concentration in the Soil of Study Area
Sample ID
S1
S2
S3
Nitrate
Top
Sub
36
44
44.66
65.33
59.33
28
Soil Anions (mg/kg) Dry Season
Sulphate
Phosphate
Top
Sub
Top
Sub
12.439
14.087
3.9
6.4
24.975
22.48
<0.001
<0.001
10.306
9.98
1.1
1.5
Chloride
Top
Sub
140
30
220
460
40
50
Nitrate
Top
Sub
27.84
28.49
16.63
19.52
35.33
13.27
S4
22.45
24.52
11.98
13.44
6
0.9
120
160
15.89
13.27
7.58
6.95
0.3
0.1
30
20
S5 (Ctrl)
24.66
23.33
14.442
9.446
9.8
1
40
30
23.02
22.93
6.45
6.45
0.9
0.5
10
10
S6
38.78
46.2
14.37
12.48
3.4
3.7
60
50
25.8
29.3
8.31
9.04
0.4
0.5
10
20
S7
23.33
45.33
11.559
12.504
0.7
1
30
30
15..47
22.32
13.45
11.95
0.1
0.3
20
10
S8
25.33
38.66
12.471
10.888
2.1
0.8
160
200
22.41
21.63
55.05
34.55
0.1
0.12
70
50
S9
46.89
52.4
9.48
8.73
4.8
3.4
40
30
24.78
27.62
7.15
6.92
0.09
0.1
30
20
S10
28.9
33.2
22.89
20.75
7.6
6.4
80
60
21.23
23.48
14.59
11.82
1.1
0.7
40
30
S11
33.67
37.12
8.74
9.12
4.4
4.9
30
40
15.89
19.43
5.89
5.55
0.2
0.4
50
30
S12
19.47
23.37
9.12
10.73
1.2
1.6
40
50
12.83
14.33
6.74
6.55
0.09
0.11
10
10
S13
27.21
28.47
8.54
9.98
0.7
1.1
50
30
13.17
15.32
6.31
6.49
0.2
0.3
20
10
Min
19.5
23.3
8.5
8.7
<0.001
<0.001
30.0
30.0
12.8
13.3
5.7
5.3
0.1
0.1
10.0
10.0
Max
59.3
65.3
25.0
22.5
9.8
6.4
220.0
460.0
35.3
29.3
55.1
34.6
1.1
0.7
70.0
50.0
Average
33.1
37.7
13.2
12.7
3.5
2.5
80.8
93.8
21.2
20.8
12.3
10.3
0.3
0.3
26.9
20.0
Std.Dev
Combined Average
11.7
35.4
12.7
5.2
12.9
4.3
3.0
3.0
2.2
60.5
87.3
122.4
6.7
21.0
5.6
13.3
11.3
7.9
0.3
0.3
0.2
18.0
23.5
12.2
2-Season Average
28.36
12.11
1.68
55.38
Soil Anions (mg/kg) Wet Season
Sulphate
Phosphate
Top
Sub
Top
Sub
5.67
5.34
0.5
0.6
15.77
15.62
0.15 0.21
6.89
6.47
0.4
0.4
Chloride
Top
Sub
30
10
20
30
10
10
Source: ERL, 2013.
P a g e | 96
Sulphates (SO42-)
In dry season, sulphate ions ranged between 8.5mg/kg and 25.0mg/kg with the average of 13.2mg/kg in the
topsoil samples. It recorded an average of 12.7mg/kg in the subsoil, ranging from 8.7mg/kg to 22.5mg/kg. The
combined (top and subsoil) average content of sulphate in the soil samples in dry season was 12.9mg/kg (table
4.26).
In wet season, a combined (top and subsoil) average concentration of 11.3mg/kg sulphates was recorded. The
concentration ranged from 5.7mg/kg to 55.1mg/kg, and 5.3mg/kg to 34.6mg/kg in top and subsoil respectively.
The average concentration of sulphates in the top and subsoil in wet season were 12.3mg/kg and 10.3mg/kg
(Table 4.26)
The overall average concentration of sulphates in the soil (top and sub) in the 2-season study was 12.11mg/kg
Sulphate ions were higher in the soil samples in dry season than wet. Wider variations were observed in the
sulphate contents in the soil samples in wet season than dry.
Phosphates (PO43-)
Phosphates ions in the soil of the study areas ranged between less that 0.001mg/kg and 9.8mg/kg.
In dry season, phosphate ions content in the soil ranged between <0.001 and 9.8mg/kg with the average of
3.5mg/kg in topsoil and, from <0.001 to 6.4mg/kg with the average of 2.2mg/kg in subsoil. The combined (top
and subsoil) average soil phosphate content in the study area in dry season was 3.0mg/kg.
In wet season, phosphates concentration in the soil sampled had a combined (top and sub) average value of
0.3mg/kg. The concentration ranged between 0.1 and 1.1 with the average of 0.3mg/kg in topsoil. In subsoil, the
concentration of phosphates in the wet season ranged from 0.1mg/kg to 0.7mg/kg, with the average of 0.2mg/kg.
The overall average concentration of phosphates in the soil (top and sub) in the 2-season study was 1.68mg/kg
Higher concentrations of phosphate ions were recorded in soil in dry season.
Chloride (Cl-)
In dry season, chloride ions ranged between 30.0mg/kg and 220.0mg/kg with the average of 80.8mg/kg in the
topsoil samples. It recorded an average of 93.8mg/kg in the subsoil, with values ranging from 30.0mg/kg to
460.0mg/kg. The combined (top and subsoil) average content of chloride in soil samples in dry season was
87.3mg/kg (table 4.26). In wet season, a combined (top and subsoil) average concentration of 23.5mg/kg
chlorides was recorded. The concentration ranged from 10.0mg/kg to 70.0mg/kg, and 10.0mg/kg to 50.0mg/kg in
top and subsoil respectively. The average concentration of chlorides in the top and subsoil in wet season were
18.0mg/kg and 12.2mg/kg (Table 4.26)
The overall average concentration of chloride in soil (top and sub) in the 2-season study was 55.38mg/kg
Chloride ions were higher in the soil samples in dry season than wet. Wider variations were observed in dry
season than wet.
P a g e | 97
4.9.4.6
Soil Exchangeable Cations (Ca2+, Mg2+, Na+, K+)
Cations contents in soil of the study area are presented in table 4.27.
Sodium (Na+)
Sodium was the predominant cation in the soil of the study area.
Sodium content in soil samples in dry season had a combined (top and subsoil) average concentration of
50.69mg/kg. In the topsoil, sodium concentration ranged between 22.74mg/kg and 98.49mg/kg with the average
of 47.69mg/kg. Sodium content in dry season increased slightly in the subsoil; ranging between 25.38mg/kg and
101.24mg/kg with the average of 53.69mg/kg. In wet season, sodium concentration in topsoil ranged between
76.78mg/kg and 271.4mg/kg with the average of 142.33mg/kg. In subsoil, the concentration increased
marginally; ranging from 82.46mg/kg to 232.60mg/kg, having the average of 130.75mg/kg. The combined (top
and subsoil) average concentration in soil of the study area in wet season was 136.54mg/kg.
In the 2-season study, the overall combined average concentration of sodium in soil of the study area was
93.61mg/kg. Higher sodium content was recorded in wet season. Deviation from the mean concentration was
equally higher in wet season.
Potassium (K+)
Potassium ions content in soil samples in dry season had a combined (top and subsoil) average concentration of
5.09mg/kg. In the topsoil, potassium concentration ranged between 2.28mg/kg and 8.34mg/kg with the average
of 4.9mg/kg. Potassium content in dry season decreased slightly in the subsoil; ranging between 2.74mg/kg and
9.5mg/kg with the average of 5.28mg/kg. In wet season, potassium concentration in topsoil ranged between
0.52mg/kg and 20.94mg/kg with the average of 4.18mg/kg. In subsoil, the concentration decreased marginally,
ranging from 0.41mg/kg to 5.64mg/kg and having an average of 2.06mg/kg. The combined (top and subsoil)
average concentration of potassium in soil of the study area in wet season was 3.12mg/kg.
In the 2-season study, the overall combined average concentration of potassium in soil of the study area was
4.1mg/kg. Potassium content in soil o was higher in dry season. Deviation from the mean concentration was
wider in wet season results, particularly in the topsoil.
P a g e | 98
Table 4.27: Cations Concentration in Soil of the Study Areas
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5 (Ctrl)
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
S11
S12
S13
Soil Cations (mg/kg) Dry Season
Sodium
Potassium
Top
Sub
Top
Sub
40.66
100.83
4.01
6.91
26.56
72.61
2.83
2.74
39.83
44.81
3.81
5.09
72.12
58.34
6.58
7.24
56.43
68.47
3.91
4.63
35.72
39.48
5.34
5.78
53.11
31.12
7.57
9.50
78.01
41.49
7.84
3.10
25.28
29.74
3.48
3.69
98.49
101.24
8.34
9.02
25.72
27.46
2.98
3.02
22.74
25.38
4.76
4.98
45.28
56.94
2.28
2.89
Magnesium
Top
Sub
5.81
4.42
4.88
4.58
5.16
4.79
4.78
4.53
6.81
2.50
5.12
4.86
6.84
9.67
9.27
4.55
1.88
1.42
4.78
4.96
2.22
2.48
2.78
2.55
2.21
1.97
Calcium
Top
Sub
0.34
0.28
2.24
0.96
0.09
<0.001
4.48
3.74
1.22
0.78
0.98
0.67
6.78
4.89
0.49
0.27
1.11
0.64
5.58
5.22
2.08
1.46
0.07
0.03
0.54
0.38
Soil Cations (mg/kg) Wet Season
Sodium
Potassium
Top
Sub
Top
Sub
271.40
232.60
0.98
1.12
239.41
151.45
20.94
1.75
122.78
101.20
0.52
0.98
129.40
98.56
10.25
5.24
150.20
117.01
5.65
0.41
111.20
108.24
2.14
1.08
124.64
114.40
4.98
5.64
139.00
166.00
1.48
1.64
144.60
124.80
1.42
1.68
106.40
134.20
3.24
4.08
98.02
102.40
1.26
1.78
76.78
82.46
0.78
0.94
136.40
166.42
0.64
0.48
Magnesium
Top
Sub
0.78
0.34
44.13
<0.001
1.02
0.94
0.48
0.32
0.65
<0.001
0.62
0.58
3.20
2.78
0.52
9.51
<0.001
<0.001
1.74
0.89
<0.001
0.09
0.07
0.06
<0.001
<0.001
Calcium
Top
0.02
<0.001
<0.001
0.52
<0.001
0.16
0.70
<0.001
0.02
2.20
<0.001
1.21
0.02
Sub
0.01
<0.001
<0.001
0.27
<0.001
0.34
0.52
4.61
0.01
1.84
<0.001
0.84
0.02
Min
Max
Average
22.74
98.49
47.69
25.38
101.24
53.69
2.28
8.34
4.90
2.74
9.50
5.28
1.88
9.27
4.81
1.42
9.67
4.10
0.07
6.78
2.00
<0.001
5.22
1.61
76.78
271.40
142.33
82.46
232.60
130.75
0.52
20.94
4.18
0.41
5.64
2.06
<0.001
44.13
5.32
<0.001
9.51
1.72
<0.001
2.20
0.61
<0.001
4.61
0.94
Std.Dev
Combined Average
2-Season Average
23.30
50.69
93.61
25.97
2.05
5.09
4.10
2.30
2.15
4.45
4.10
2.10
2.21
1.81
1.40
1.88
54.45
136.54
40.18
5.75
3.12
1.76
13.66
3.62
3.03
0.77
0.78
1.49
Sample ID
Source: ERL, 2013.
P a g e | 99
Magnesium (Mg2+)
In dry season magnesium ion concentration in soil of the study area ranged between 1.88mg/kg and 9.27mg/kg
with the average of 4.81mg/kg in the topsoil. It ranged from 1.42mg/kg to 9.67mg/kg with the average of
4.10mg/kg in subsoil. A combined average of 4.10mg/kg of magnesium was recorded in soil of the study area in
dry season. In wet season, average concentrations of 5.23mg/kg and 1.72mg/kg of magnesium was recorded in
top and subsoil respectively. The magnesium concentration in topsoil in wet season ranged between
<0.001mg/kg and 9.51mg/kg, while in subsoil, it ranged between <0.001 and 9.51mg/kg. A combined average of
3.62mg/kg of magnesium was recorded in top and subsoil of in wet season
In the 2-season study, the overall combined average concentration of magnesium in soil of the study area was
4.1mg/kg. Magnesium content in soil was higher in dry season.
Calcium (Ca2+)
In dry season calcium ion concentration in soil of the study area ranged between 0.07mg/kg and 6.78mg/kg with
the average of 2.0mg/kg in the topsoil. It ranged from <0.001mg/kg to 5.22mg/kg with the average of 1.61mg/kg
in subsoil. A combined average of 1.81mg/kg of calcium was recorded in soil of the study area in dry season. In
wet season, average concentrations of 0.61mg/kg and 0.94mg/kg of calcium was recorded in top and subsoil
respectively. Calcium concentration in topsoil in wet season ranged between <0.001mg/kg and 2.20mg/kg, while
in subsoil, it ranged between <0.001 and 4.61mg/kg. A combined average of 0.78mg/kg of calcium was recorded
in top and subsoil of in wet season. In the 2-sseason study, the overall combined average concentration of
calcium in the soil of the study area was 1.40mg/kg.
Calcium content in soil of the study area was higher in dry season. However, the values recorded in dry season
had wider deviation from the mean concentration especially in topsoil.
4.9.4.7
Soil Heavy Metals
Heavy metals contents in soil of the studied areas in dry and wet seasons are presented in Tables 4.28 and 4.29.
P a g e | 100
Table 4.28: Heavy Metals Concentration in Soil of the Study Areas in Dry Season
S1
S2
S3
S4
Soil Heavy Metal (mg/kg) - Dry Season
Iron (Fe)
Cadmium (Cd)
Top
Sub
Top
Sub
352.245
462.1
<0.001
<0.001
262.875
325.795
<0.001
<0.001
104.625
72.66
<0.001
<0.001
47.78
78.42
<0.001
<0.001
Lead (Pb)
Top
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
Sub
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
S5 (Ctrl)
44.86
294.99
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
S6
38.98
49.24
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
S7
364.45
351.955
<0.001
<0.001
S8
232.36
168.42
<0.001
S9
68.72
78.24
S10
45.78
S11
Sample ID
Zinc (Zn)
Top
Sub
8.6
12.21
0.325
1.755
4.235
0.115
0.211
0.314
Manganese (Mn)
Top
Sub
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
Chromium (Cr)
Top
Sub
10.69
15.44
14.25
17.22
6.53
11.875
13.78
15.94
Copper (Cu)
Top
Sub
7.28
7.98
9.17
7.43
5.53
6.08
4.47
6.03
Nickel (Ni)
Top
Sub
0.09
0.04
0.17
0.05
0.11
<0.001
0.78
0.49
2.145
<0.001
<0.001
4.75
14.25
11.04
12.12
0.141
0.08
<0.001
11.09
5
0.242
0.56
<0.001
<0.001
9.84
11.26
17.14
15.69
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
2.845
5.34
<0.001
<0.001
15.44
26.13
21.05
18.48
1.06
1.11
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
3.73
2.455
<0.001
<0.001
6.53
15.44
17.44
8.34
0.04
0.02
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
4.24
4.78
<0.001
<0.001
4.48
5.26
3.47
2.22
0.01
0.01
54.23
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
1.29
1.11
<0.001
<0.001
14.89
15.37
5.31
3.03
0.07
0.09
128.75
156.94
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.34
0.46
<0.001
<0.001
3.84
4.64
2.19
2.35
<0.001
<0.001
S12
234.74
333.33
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.186
0.164
<0.001
<0.001
5.21
4.74
7.74
9.08
<0.001
<0.001
S13
178.43
121.34
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.143
0.201
<0.001
<0.001
2.89
1.04
11.79
9.43
0.01
0.02
Min
38.98
49.24
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.14
0.12
NA
NA
2.89
1.04
2.19
2.22
<0.001
<0.001
Max
364.45
462.10
NA
NA
NA
NA
11.10
12.21
NA
NA
15.44
26.13
21.05
18.48
1.06
1.11
Average
161.89
195.97
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.88
2.43
NA
NA
8.70
12.20
9.51
8.33
0.25
0.21
Std.Dev
117.75
139.36
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.52
3.41
NA
NA
4.64
6.80
5.91
4.88
0.36
0.37
Combined
Average
178.93
NA
NA
2.66
NA
10.45
8.92
0.23
Source: ERL, 2013.
P a g e | 101
Table 4.29: Heavy Metals Concentration in Soil of the Study Areas in Wet Season
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5 (Ctrl)
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
S11
S12
S13
Soil Heavy Metal (mg/kg) - Wet Season
Iron (Fe)
Cadmium (Cd)
Top
Sub
Top
Sub
232.43
248.22
<0.001
<0.001
254.7
196.32
<0.001
<0.001
56.73
49.95
<0.001
<0.001
24.67
43.83
<0.001
<0.001
95.47
31.24
<0.001
<0.001
23.62
24.87
<0.001
<0.001
101.12
143.76
<0.001
<0.001
65.83
21.94
<0.001
<0.001
56.29
64.72
<0.001
<0.001
28.45
31.02
<0.001
<0.001
78.94
94.56
<0.001
<0.001
98.37
87.34
<0.001
<0.001
48.98
56.37
<0.001
<0.001
Lead (Pb)
Top
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
Min
Max
Average
Std.Dev
Combined Average
23.62
254.70
89.66
73.44
86.91
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Sample ID
21.94
248.22
84.16
70.78
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Sub
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
NA
NA
NA
NA
Zinc (Zn)
Top
4.12
4.52
1.83
0.09
1.04
<0.001
0.09
17.56
2.1
0.34
0.06
0.04
<0.001
<0.001
17.56
2.89
5.13
2.55
Sub
5.64
1.75
0.04
0.04
2.62
<0.001
0.11
10.99
2.4
0.57
0.08
0.02
<0.001
<0.001
10.99
2.21
3.39
Manganese (Mn)
Top
Sub
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
Chromium (Cr)
Top
Sub
23.34
33.29
46.91
52.85
19.74
24.79
27.37
29.12
24.34
29.09
23.14
26.23
38.38
36.28
30.88
47.5
19.72
21.45
35.78
43.27
0.78
0.14
3.24
1.98
11.09
9.13
Copper (Cu)
Top
Sub
2.89
1.95
3.61
4.39
1.49
1.08
2.45
1.07
3.32
1.95
6.38
8.15
11.74
7.38
10.77
5.81
1.06
0.95
3.41
2.82
1.95
1.21
3.33
2.17
5.89
3.47
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.78
46.91
23.44
13.23
25.38
1.06
11.74
4.48
3.37
3.87
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.14
52.85
27.32
16.30
Nickel (Ni)
Top
Sub
<0.001
0.01
0.22
1.02
<0.001
<0.001
0.21
0.08
4.29
0.29
<0.001
<0.001
0.04
0.03
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.02
0.05
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.009
0.01
0.95
8.15
3.26
2.46
<0.001
<0.001
4.29
1.02
0.80
0.21
1.71
0.37
0.48
Source: ERL, 2013.
P a g e | 102
Iron (Fe)
Iron was the predominant metal in soil of the study area. It recorded overall average of 132.92mg/kg over the 2
seasons’ study. In dry season, the concentration of iron in topsoil ranged between 38.98mg/kg and 364.45mg/kg
with the average of 161.89mg/kg. In subsoil, iron content ranged between 49.24mg/kg and 462.10mg/kg with the
average of 195.97mg/kg. A combined (top and subsoil) average content of 178.93mg/kg of iron was recorded in
soil of the study area in dry season. In wet season, iron content in topsoil ranged between 23.62mg/kg and
254.70mg/kg with the average of 89.66mg/kg.
Iron content in subsoil in wet
season ranged between
21.94mg/kg and 248.22mg/kg with the average of 84.16mg/kg. A combined (top and subsoil) average iron
content of 86.91mg/kg was recorded in soil of the study area in wet season.
Higher contents of Fe were detected in soil samples in wet season that in dry. The reduced concentration in wet
season could be accounted for by dissolution and run offs.
Cadmium (Cd), Lead (Pb) and Manganese (Mn)
Cd, Pb and Mn were not detected in the soil of the study area. Their concentrations were below the sensitivity
(0.001) of the analytical equipment used.
Zinc (Zn)
Zn content in soil of the studied area had an overall average of 2.61mg/kg in the 2-season study.
In dry season, Zn content in topsoil ranged between 0.14mg/kg and 11.10mg/kg with the average of 2.88mg/kg.
In subsoil, Zn content in dry season ranged between 0.12mg/kg and 12.21mg/kg with the average of 2.43mg/kg.
A combined (top and subsoil) average content of 2.66mg/kg of Zn was recorded in soil in dry season.
In wet season, Zn content in top and subsoil recorded average concentration of 2.89mg/kg and 2.21mg/kg. The
content in top and subsoil ranged between <0.001 and 17.56mg/kg, and <0.001 and 10.99mg/kg respectively.
The combined (top and subsoil) average concentration of Zn in the soils studied was 2.55mg/kg in wet season.
Zn content in soil of the study area were higher in dry season than in wet.
Chromium (Cr)
Cr recorded an overall average of 17.91mg/kg over the 2 season study.
In dry season, the concentration of chromium in topsoil ranged between 2.89mg/kg and 15.44mg/kg with the
average of 8.7mg/kg. In subsoil, the chromium content ranged between 1.04mg/kg and 26.13mg/kg with the
average of 12.20mg/kg. A combined (top and subsoil) average content of 10.45mg/kg of chromium was
recorded in the soil of the study area in dry season.
In wet season, chromium content in the topsoil ranged between 0.78mg/kg and 46.91mg/kg with the average of
23.44mg/kg. Chromiun content in subsoil in wet season ranged between 0.14mg/kg and 52.85mg/kg with the
average of 27.32mg/kg. A combined (top and subsoil) average Cr content of 25.38mg/kg was recorded in soil of
the study area in wet season.
P a g e | 103
Higher contents of Cr were detected in soil samples in dry season that in wet.
Copper (Cu)
Cu content in soil of the studied area had an overall average of 6.4mg/kg in the 2 season study.
In dry season, Cu content in the topsoil ranged between 2.19mg/kg and 21.05mg/kg with the average of
9.51mg/kg. In subsoil, Cu content in dry season ranged between 2.22mg/kg and 18.48mg/kg with the average of
8.33mg/kg. A combined (top and subsoil) average content of 8.92mg/kg of Cu was recorded in the soils studied
in dry season.
In wet season, Cu content in top and subsoil recorded average concentration of 4.48mg/kg and 3.26mg/kg. The
content in top and subsoil ranged between 1.06mg/kg and 11.74mg/kg, and 0.95mg/kg and 8.15mg/kg
respectively. The combined (top and subsoil) average concentration of Cu in the soils studied was 3.87mg/kg in
wet season.
Cu content in soil of the study area was higher in dry season than in wet.
Nickel (Ni)
Nickel was the least detected heavy metal in soil of the study area. It recorded overall average of 0.33mg/kg over
the 2 season study.
In dry season, the concentration of Ni topsoil ranged between <0.001mg/kg and 1.06mg/kg with the average of
0.25mg/kg. In subsoil, Ni content ranged between<0.001mg/kg and 1.11mg/kg with the average of 0.21mg/kg.
A combined (top and subsoil) average content of 0.23mg/kg of nickel was recorded in soil of the study area in dry
season.
In wet season, nickel content in the topsoil ranged between <0.001mg/kg and 4.29mg/kg with the average of
0.80mg/kg. Nickel content in subsoil in wet season ranged between <0.001mg/kg and 1.02mg/kg with the
average of 0.21mg/kg. A combined (top and subsoil) average nickel content of 0.48mg/kg was recorded in soil of
the study area in wet season.
Higher contents of Ni were detected in soil samples in wet season that in dry.
4.9.4.8
Soil Total Hydrocarbon Content (THC)
In the 2 seasons’ study, total hydrocarbon content in soil of the study area recorded an average concentration of
0.13mg/kg (Table 4.30).
P a g e | 104
Table 4.30: Total Hydrocarbon Content in Soil of the Study Areas
Sample ID
THC (mg/kg) Dry Season
THC (mg/kg) Wet Season
Topsoil
Subsoil
Topsoil
Subsoil
S1
0.28
0.12
0.14
0.079
S2
0.09
0.07
0.12
0.075
S3
0.14
0.25
0.097
0.083
S4
0.15
0.09
0.069
0.058
S5 (Ctrl)
0.08
0.03
0.032
0.012
S6
0.13
0.07
0.064
0.051
S7
0.22
0.09
0.11
0.08
S8
0.21
0.13
0.084
0.085
S9
0.09
0.07
0.7
0.064
S10
0.11
0.084
0.089
0.079
S11
0.23
0.15
0.11
0.08
S12
0.04
0.02
0.048
0.035
S13
0.18
0.12
0.098
0.79
Min
0.04
0.02
0.03
0.01
Max
0.28
0.25
0.70
0.79
Average
0.15
0.10
0.14
0.12
Std.Dev
0.07
0.06
0.17
0.20
Combined Average
0.12
2-Season Average
0.13
0.13
Source: ERL, 2013.
In dry season, THC in topsoil ranged between 0.04mg/kg and 0.28mg/kg with the average of 0.15mg/kg. In
subsoil, in dry season, THC concentration ranged from 0.02mg/kg to 0.25mg/kg with the average of 0.10mg/kg.
A combined (top and subsoil) average of 0.12mg/kg THC was recorded in dry season (Table 4.30).
In wet season, THC in soil recorded concentrations ranging from 0.03mg/kg to 0.70mg/kg with the average of
0.14mg/kg. In subsoil, THC ranged between 0.01mg/kg and 0.79mg/kg with the average of 0.12mg/kg. A
combined (top and subsoil) average THC concentration of 0.13mg/kg was recorded in wet season.
THC concentration in soil of the study area was slightly higher in wet season than in dry.
4.9.4.9
Soil Microbiology
Microbial isolates recorded in soil of the study area in dry and wet season are presented in tables 4.31 and 4.32.
The predominant species isolated in the soils of the study locations are presented in Table 4.33.
Total Heterotrophic Bacteria (THB)
In the two season studies, a combined (top and subsoil) average THB counts in the soil of the study area was
1.61x108 cfu/g.
P a g e | 105
In dry season, THB counts in topsoil ranged between 1.35x108 and 2.14x108cfu/g with the average of 1.73x108
cfu/g. The THB counts decreased marginally in subsoil, recording an average value of 1.49x108 cfu/g, and
ranged between 1.27x108cfu/g and 1.74x108cfu/g. A combined (top and subsoil) average THC count of
1.61x108cfu/g was recorded in dry season’s study (Table 4.31).
In wet season, THB counts in topsoil ranged between 1.62x108 and 2.24x108cfu/g with the average of 1.61x108
cfu/g. The THB counts decreased slightly in subsoil, recording an average value of 1.62x108 cfu/g, and ranged
between 1.22x108cfu/g and 1.92x108cfu/g. A combined (top and subsoil) average THC count of 1.61x108cfu/g
was recorded in wet season’s study (Table 4.32).
P a g e | 106
Table 4.31: Microbial Isolates in Soil of the Study Areas in Dry Season
Sample ID
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5 (control)
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
S11
S12
S13
Min
Max
Average
Std. Dev.
Combined Average
Microbial Isolates (cfu/g) in Dry Season
THB 5 (cfu/g)
THF 6 (cfu/g)
Topsoil
Subsoil
Topsoil
1.79E+08
1.64E+08
5.00E+04
2.13E+08
1.69E+08
7.00E+04
1.54E+08
1.39E+08
6.00E+04
1.65E+08
1.48E+08
4.00E+04
1.83E+08
1.41E+08
6.00E+04
2.10E+08
1.74E+08
6.00E+04
2.14E+08
1.61E+08
3.00E+04
1.56E+08
1.33E+08
5.00E+04
1.49E+08
1.38E+08
4.00E+04
1.35E+08
1.27E+08
7.00E+04
1.59E+08
1.50E+08
4.00E+04
1.43E+08
1.34E+08
5.00E+04
1.89E+08
1.55E+08
4.00E+04
1.35E+08
1.27E+08
3.00E+04
2.14E+08
1.74E+08
7.00E+04
1.73E+08
1.49E+08
5.08E+04
2.72E+07
1.49E+07
1.26E+04
1.61E+08
4.43E+04
Subsoil
3.00E+04
4.00E+04
5.00E+04
3.00E+04
4.00E+04
4.00E+04
8.00E+04
4.00E+04
3.00E+04
5.00E+04
3.00E+03
3.00E+04
3.00E+04
3.00E+03
8.00E+04
3.79E+04
1.74E+04
TC 7 (cfu/g)
Topsoil
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Subsoil
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
NA
NA
NA
THUB 8 (cfu/g)
Topsoil
2.00E+04
2.40E+04
1.60E+04
1.60E+04
1.90E+04
1.60E+04
2.20E+04
1.60E+04
1.60E+04
2.20E+04
1.70E+04
1.60E+04
2.70E+04
1.60E+04
2.70E+04
1.90E+04
3.72E+03
1.72E+04
Subsoil
1.70E+04
1.80E+04
1.40E+04
1.40E+04
1.30E+04
1.60E+04
1.70E+04
1.20E+04
1.40E+04
1.80E+04
1.50E+04
1.40E+04
1.80E+04
1.20E+04
1.80E+04
1.54E+04
2.06E+03
THUF 9 (cfu/g)
Topsoil
3.00E+03
4.00E+03
3.00E+03
2.00E+03
4.00E+03
3.00E+03
1.00E+03
1.00E+03
2.00E+03
1.00E+03
4.00E+03
3.00E+03
5.00E+03
1.00E+03
5.00E+03
2.77E+03
1.30E+03
2.19E+03
Subsoil
2.00E+03
2.00E+03
2.00E+03
1.00E+03
1.00E+03
1.00E+03
2.00E+03
2.00E+03
1.00E+03
1.00E+03
2.00E+03
1.00E+03
3.00E+03
1.00E+03
3.00E+03
1.62E+03
6.50E+02
Source: ERL, 2013.
7 Total Coliforms
8 Total Hydrocarbon utilizing Bacteria
9 Total Hydrocarbon Utilizing Fungi
5
6
P a g e | 107
Table 4.32: Microbial Isolates in Soil of the Study Areas in Wet Season
Sample ID
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5 (control)
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
S11
S12
S13
Min
Max
Average
Std. Dev.
Combined Average
Microbial Isolates (cfu/g) in Wet Season
THB 10 (cfu/g)
THF 11 (cfu/g)
Topsoil
Subsoil
Topsoil
1.92E+08
1.74E+08
7.00E+04
1.24E+08
1.76E+08
9.00E+04
1.62E+06
1.43E+08
7.00E+04
1.80E+08
1.52E+08
3.00E+04
1.98E+08
1.56E+08
5.00E+04
2.24E+08
1.92E+08
4.00E+04
2.00E+08
1.76E+08
5.00E+04
1.83E+08
1.54E+08
7.00E+04
1.56E+08
1.42E+08
5.00E+04
1.42E+08
1.22E+08
1.00E+05
1.28E+08
1.90E+08
6.00E+04
1.54E+08
1.48E+08
5.00E+04
2.12E+08
1.76E+08
6.00E+04
1.62E+06
1.22E+08
3.00E+04
2.24E+08
1.92E+08
1.00E+05
1.61E+08
1.62E+08
6.08E+04
5.74E+07
2.08E+07
1.93E+04
1.61E+08
5.32E+04
Subsoil
4.00E+04
6.00E+04
6.00E+04
4.00E+04
4.00E+04
3.00E+04
6.00E+04
5.00E+04
3.00E+03
7.00E+04
4.00E+04
6.00E+04
4.00E+04
3.00E+03
7.00E+04
4.56E+04
1.75E+04
TC 12 (cfu/g)
Topsoil
Subsoil
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
THUB 13 (cfu/g)
Topsoil
1.80E+04
2.80E+04
1.40E+04
1.70E+04
2.00E+04
1.70E+04
1.80E+04
1.70E+04
1.80E+04
2.40E+04
1.80E+04
1.40E+04
3.00E+04
1.40E+04
3.00E+04
1.95E+04
4.93E+03
1.79E+04
Subsoil
1.60E+04
2.20E+04
1.02E+04
1.60E+04
1.50E+04
1.30E+04
1.90E+04
1.40E+04
1.50E+04
2.00E+04
1.60E+04
1.20E+04
2.40E+04
1.02E+04
2.40E+04
1.63E+04
3.96E+03
THUF 14 (cfu/g)
Topsoil
1.80E+03
3.80E+03
2.40E+03
3.00E+03
3.40E+03
4.00E+03
2.00E+03
3.00E+03
1.00E+03
2.00E+03
5.00E+03
4.00E+03
6.00E+03
1.00E+03
6.00E+03
3.18E+03
1.39E+03
2.61E+03
Subsoil
1.40E+03
2.20E+03
1.60E+03
2.00E+03
1.20E+03
2.00E+03
3.00E+03
2.00E+03
1.00E+03
1.00E+03
3.00E+03
2.00E+03
4.00E+03
1.00E+03
4.00E+03
2.03E+03
8.75E+02
Source: ERL, 2013.
12 Total Coliforms
10
11
P a g e | 108
Total Heterotrophic Fungi (THF)
In the two season studies, a combined (top and subsoil) average THF counts in the soil of the study area was
4.88x104 cfu/g,
In dry season, THF counts in topsoil ranged between 3.0x104 and 7.0x104cfu/g with the average of 5.08x104
cfu/g. In the subsoil THF counts recorded an average value of 3.79x104 cfu/g, and ranged between 3.0x103cfu/g
and 8.0x104cfu/g. A combined (top and subsoil) average THC count of 4.43x104cfu/g was recorded in dry
season’s study (Table 4.31).
In wet season, THF counts in topsoil ranged between 3.0x104 and 1.0x105cfu/g with the average of 6.08x104
cfu/g. The THF counts decreased slightly in subsoil, recording an average value of 4.65x104 cfu/g, and ranged
between 3.0x103cfu/g and 7.0x104cfu/g. A combined (top and subsoil) average THF count of 5.32x104cfu/g was
recorded in wet season’s study (Table 4.32).
Total Coliforms
Coliforms were not identified in the soil of the study in dry and wet seasons.
Total Hydrocarbon Utilizing Bacteria (THUB)
In the two season studies, a combined (top and subsoil) average THUB counts in soil of the study area was
1.75x104 cfu/g,
In dry season, THUB counts in topsoil ranged between 1.600x104 and 2.7x104cfu/g with the average of 1.9x104
cfu/g. In the subsoil THUB counts recorded an average value of 1.54x104 cfu/g, and ranged between
1.2x104cfu/g and 1.80x104cfu/g. A combined (top and subsoil) average THUB count of 1.72x104cfu/g was
recorded in dry season’s study (Table 4.31).
In wet season, THUB counts in topsoil ranged between 1.40x104 and 3.0x104cfu/g with the average of 1.95x104
cfu/g. The THUB counts decreased slightly in subsoil, recording an average value of 1.63x104 cfu/g, and ranged
between 1.02x104cfu/g and 2.40x104cfu/g. A combined (top and subsoil) average THUB count of 1,79x104cfu/g
was recorded in wet season’s study (Table 4.32).
P a g e | 109
Table 4.33: Predominant Microbial Species Isolated in Soil of the study Areas
Sample ID
Predominant Species Of Microorganisms Isolated
S1 T
Bacillus spp., Nocardia spp., Aspergillus niger, Fusarium spp.
S1 B
Bacillus spp., Corynebacterium spp., Rhizopus stolonifer, Aspergillus wentii.
S2 T
Bacillus spp., Micrococcus spp., Trichoderma spp., Aspergillus niger.
S2 B
Bacillus spp., Clostridium spp., Aspergillus fumigatus, Trichoderma spp.
S3 T
Bacillus spp., Micrococcus spp., Aspergillus flavus, Rhizopus stolonifer.
S3 B
S4 T
Bacillus spp., Micrococcus spp., Trichoderma spp., Aspergillus niger.
S4 B
Bacillus spp., Nocardia spp., Trichoderma spp., Aspergillus wentii.
S5 T (Control)
Bacillus spp., Pseudomonas aeruginosa Aspergillus niger, Fusarium spp.
S5 B (Control)
Bacillus spp., Corynebacterium spp., Fusarium spp., Geotrichum spp.
S6 T
Bacillus spp., Pseudomonas aeruginosa Fusarium spp., Penicillium spp.
S6 B
S7 T
Bacillus spp., Flavobacterium spp., Rhizopus stolonifer, Trichoderma spp.
S7 B
Bacillus spp., Clostridium spp., Aspergillus fumigatus, Fusarium spp.
S8 T
Bacillus spp., Pseudomonas aeruginosa Fusarium spp., Penicillium spp.
S8 B
Bacillus spp., Nocardia spp., Trichoderma spp., Aspergillus wentii.
S9 T
S9B
Bacillus spp., Micrococcus spp., Aspergillus flavus, Rhizopus stolonifer.
S10 T
S10 B
Bacillus spp., Micrococcus spp., Trichoderma spp., Aspergillus niger..
S11 T
S11 B
Bacillus spp., Clostridium spp., Aspergillus fumigatus, Trichoderma spp.
S12 T
S12 B
Bacillus spp., Pseudomonas aeruginosa Aspergillus niger, Fusarium spp.
S13 T
Bacillus spp.,Aspergillus fumigatus., Aspergillus niger, Fusarium spp..
S13 B
Bacillus spp., Rhizopus stolonifer, Bacillus spp., Nocardia spp., Trichoderma spp., Aspergillus wentii.
Source: ERL, 2013.
Total Hydrocarbon Utilizing Fungi (THUF)
In the two season studies, a combined (top and subsoil) average THUB counts in the soil of the study area was
2.4x103 cfu/g.
In dry season, THUF counts in topsoil ranged between 1.00x103 and 5.0x103cfu/g with the average of 2.77x103
cfu/g. In the subsoil THUF counts recorded an average value of 1.62x103 cfu/g, and ranged between
1.0x103cfu/g and 3.0x103cfu/g. A combined (top and subsoil) average THUF count of 2.19x103cfu/g was
recorded in dry season’s study (Table 4.31).
In wet season, THUF counts in topsoil ranged between 1.0x103 and 6.0x103cfu/g with the average of 3.18x103
cfu/g. The THUF counts decreased slightly in subsoil, recording an average value of 2.03x103 cfu/g, and ranged
P a g e | 110
between 1.0x103cfu/g and 4.0x103cfu/g. A combined (top and subsoil) average THUF count of 2.61x103cfu/g was
recorded in wet season’s study (Table 4.32).
4.9.5
Groundwater Characteristics of the Project Environment
Groundwater study was carried out in line with the methodology presented in section 4.7.3 of this report. The
physico-chemical characteristics of ground water in the study areas are presented in tables 4.34 and 4.35.
Table 4.34: Physico-chemical Characterisicts of Groundwater in the Study Locations
Parameter/Unit
pH
Conductivity mS/cm
Salinity (‰)
DO (mg/l)
TDS (mg/l)
TSS (mg/l)
Turbidity (NTU)
BOD5 (mg/l)
COD (mg/l)
Season
Dry
Wet
Dry
Wet
Dry
Wet
Dry
Wet
Dry
Wet
Dry
Wet
Dry
Wet
Dry
Wet
Dry
Wet
Sample ID
GW1 GW1
7.6
8.0
7.7
8.3
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.1
9.4
8.6
12.9 10.2
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.3
4.1
2.2
6.4
3.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.56 1.13
2.43 1.58
78
67
8.32 8.1
GW3
8.0
7.7
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.2
6.5
7.8
0.6
0.3
3.9
6.1
0.0
0.0
1.33
2.21
92
8.5
GW4
7.7
7.6
25.5
0.5
15.5
0.2
9.8
11.1
0.4
0.3
1.9
3.2
0.0
0.0
1.91
1.3
86
7.5
GW_CTRL
7.4
7.8
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
8.9
10.5
0.1
0.1
1.5
2.7
0.0
0.0
0.94
1.64
89
8.3
Min
7.4
7.6
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
6.5
7.8
0.1
0.1
1.5
2.7
0.0
0.0
0.9
1.3
67.0
7.5
Max
8.0
8.3
25.5
0.6
15.5
0.3
9.8
12.9
0.6
0.4
4.1
6.4
0.0
0.0
1.9
2.4
92.0
8.5
Average Overall Average
7.7
7.8
7.8
5.7
3.1
0.4
3.4
1.8
0.2
8.6
9.6
10.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
2.7
3.6
4.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.4
1.6
1.8
82.4
45.3
8.1
Source: ERL, 2013.
P a g e | 111
Table 4.35: Anions and Cations Contents in Groundwater of the Study Locations
Parameter/Unit
NO32- (mg/l)
SO42- (mg/l)
Cl- (mg/l)
PO43- (mg/l)
Na+(mg/l)
K+(mg/l)
Mg2+(mg/l)
Ca2+ (mg/l)
4.9.5.1
Season
Dry
Wet
Dry
Wet
Dry
Wet
Dry
Wet
Dry
Wet
Dry
Wet
Dry
Wet
Dry
Wet
Sample ID
GW1
GW1
17.5
24.1
13.0
18.5
18.9
24.3
15.8
14.3
1001.0 370.0
870.0
220.0
2.1
0.0
4.0
0.1
556.3
33.2
359.0
44.2
5.8
2.3
2.0
8.0
11.2
21.1
5.0
4.5
0.8
0.5
5.5
3.3
GW3
19.8
14.8
19.6
15.6
890.0
330.0
0.1
0.2
56.0
49.8
15.8
13.0
9.9
4.8
0.8
5.6
GW4q
21.3
17.5
15.5
14.0
989.0
340.0
0.0
0.6
120.6
110.7
12.7
7.4
4.9
5.1
0.5
4.3
GW_CTRL
18.2
12.0
11.6
9.0
120.0
78.0
0.0
0.1
19.0
15.7
0.7
1.7
3.2
2.9
0.2
3.0
Min
17.5
12.0
11.6
9.0
120.0
78.0
0.0
0.1
19.0
15.7
0.7
1.7
3.2
2.9
0.2
3.0
Max
24.1
18.5
24.3
15.8
1001.0
870.0
2.1
4.0
556.3
359.0
15.8
13.0
21.1
5.1
0.8
5.6
Average Overall Average
20.2
17.7
15.2
18.0
15.9
13.7
674.0
520.8
367.6
0.4
0.7
1.0
157.0
136.5
115.9
7.5
6.9
6.4
10.1
7.3
4.5
0.5
2.4
4.3
Source: ERL, 2013.
pH
The pH of most natural waters is between 6.0 and 8.5, although higher values can be recorded in groundwater
brines and salt lakes. The pH of groundwater in the study area ranged between 7.4 and 8.3 with the average of
7.8 in the 2 seasons’ study (Table 4.34). In dry season groundwater pH ranged between 7.4 and 8.0 with the
average of 7.7. In wet season, the pH ranged between 7.6 and 8.3 with the average of 7.8. Groundwater pH was
more alkaline in wet season than in dry season.
4.9.5.2
Electrical Conductivity
Electrical Conductivity, or specific conductance, is a measure of the ability of water to conduct electric current. It
is sensitive to variations in dissolved solids, mostly mineral salts. The degrees to which these dissociate into
ions, the amount of electrical charge on each ion, ion mobility and the temperature of the solution, all influence
conductivity. Conductivity of a given water body, is related to the concentrations of total dissolved solids and
major ions. Groundwater conductivity in the study area ranged between 0.1 and 25.5mS/cm with the average of
3.1mS/cm in the 2 seasons’ study (Table 4.34). In dry season, groundwater conductivity ranged between
0.2mS/cm and 25.5 mS/cm with the average of 5.7mS/cm. In wet season, conductivity of groundwater ranged
from 0.1mS/cm to 0.6mS/cm with the average of 0.4mS/cm. Conductivity expectedly, was lower in wet season
most likely due to the dilution effect of rainwater.
P a g e | 112
4.9.5.3
Salinity
The salinity of groundwater in the studied areas ranged between 0.1 and 15.5‰ with the average of 1.8‰ in the
2 seasons’ study. In dry season, salinity of groundwater ranged between 0.1‰ and 15.5‰ with the average of
3.4‰. In wet season, the salinity values ranged between 0.1 and 0.3‰ with the average of 0.2‰ (table 4.34.
Whereas higher salinity values were recorded in dry season, locations closer to Lagos lagoon had increaed
salinity.
4.9.5.4
Dissolved Oxygen, Total Dissolved Solids, Total Suspended Solids and
Dissolved oxygen in the groundwater of the study area ranged between 6.5mg/l and 10.5mg/l with the average of
9.6mg/l in the 2 season studies. In dry season, groundwater DO ranged between 6.5mg/l and 9.8mg/l with the
average of 8.6mg/l. The DO became more alkaline in wet season; ranging between 7.8mg/l and 12.9mg/l with
the average of 10.5mg/l (Table 4.34).
Total dissolved solids (TDS) in the groundwater of the study area ranged between 0.1 and 0.6mg/l with the
average of 0.4mg/l. In dry season, TDS ranged between 0.1mg/l and 0.6mg/l with the average of 0.4mg/l. In wet
season, TDS of the groundwater studied ranged between 0.1mg/l and 0.4mg/l with the average of 0.3mg/l (Table
4.34).
TSS in the groundwater studied ranged between 1.5mg/l and 6.4mg/l with the average of 3.6mg/l in the 2 season
studies. In dry season, TSS ranged from 1.5mg/l to 4.1mg/l with the average of 2.7mg/l, while it ranged between
2.7mg/l and 6.4mg/l with the average 4.4mg/l in wet season (Table 4.34). The turbidity of groundwater in the
study area recorded 0.0NTU throughout the study period.
4.9.5.5
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (BOD) AND CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
BOD5 of groundwater in the study area ranged between 0.9mg/l and 2.4mg/l with the average of 1.6mg/l.
In dry season, groundwater BOD5 ranged between 0.9mg/l and 1.9mg/l with the average of 1.4mg/l. In wet
season, it ranged between 1.3mg/l and 2.4mg/l with the average of 1.8mg/l (Table 4.34).
COD of groundwater in the study area ranged between 7.5mg/l and 92.0mg/l with the average of 45.3mg/l. In dry
season, groundwater COD in the study locations ranged between 67.0mg/l and 92.0mg/l with the average of
82.4mg/l. In wet season, COD in the groundwater studied ranged from 7.5mg/l to 8.5mg/l with the average of
8.1mg/l(Table 4.34).
P a g e | 113
4.9.5.6
Anions
The anionic contents of groundwater of the study locations in dry and wet seasons are presented in table 4.35.
Nitrate (NO3-)
Nitrate ion (NO3-) is the common form of combined nitrogen found in natural waters. It may be biochemically
reduced to nitrite by denitrification processes, usually under anaerobic conditions. Nitrite ion is rapidly oxidised to
nitrate. Natural sources of nitrate to surface waters include igneous rocks, land drainage, plant, and animal
debris. Nitrate is an essential nutrient for aquatic plants and seasonal fluctuations can be caused by plant growth
and decay. Natural concentrations, which seldom exceed 0.1 mg/l NO3-N, may be enhanced by municipal and
industrial wastewaters, including leachates from waste disposal sites and sanitary landfills. In rural and suburban
areas, the use of inorganic nitrate fertilisers can be a significant source. The World Health Organization (WHO)
recommended maximum limit for nitrates in drinking water is 50 mg/l (or 11.3 mg/l as NO3-N). Waters with higher
concentrations can represent a significant health risk.
Nitrate ion contents in groundwater studied ranged between 12.0mg/l and 24.1mg/l with the average of 17.7mg/l.
In dry season, the concentration of nitrates in groundwater ranged from 17.5mg/l to 24.1mg/l with the average of
20.2mg/l. In wet season, the concentration ranged between 12.0mg/l and 18.5mg/l with the average of 15.2mg/l.
Higher nitrates were recorded in groundwater in dry season.
Sulphate (SO42-)
Sulphate ions detected in groundwater ranged between 9.0mg/l and 24.3mg/l with the average of 15.9mg/l.
In dry season, the concentration of nitrates in groundwater studied ranged from 11.6mg/l to 24.3mg/l with the
average of 18.6mg/l. In wet season, however, the concentration ranged between 9.0mg/l and 15.8mg/l with the
average of 13.7mg/l. Dry season groundwater samples recorded higher concentration of sulphates than wet
season samples.
Chloride (Cl-)
Chloride ions in the groundwater studied recorded an average of 520.8mg/l; ranging between 78.0mg/l and
1,001.mg/l in the 2 season study. In dry season, concentration of chloride ions in groundwater ranged between
120.0mg/l and 1,001.0mg/l with the average of 674.0mg/l. In wet season however, chloride ions concentration in
groundwater of the studied area ranged between 78.0mg/l and 870mg/l with the average of 367.6mg/l. Higher
chlorine concentrations were recorded in ground water samples in dry season.
Phosphates (PO43-)
Phosphate ions in groundwater studied recorded an average of 0.7mg/l; ranging between 0.0mg/l and 4.0mg/l in
the 2 season study. In dry season, concentration of phosphate ions in the studied groundwater ranged between
0.0mg/l and 2.1mg/l with the average of 0.4mg/l. In wet season however, phosphate ions concentration in
P a g e | 114
groundwater of the studied area ranged between 0.1mg/l and 4.0mg/l with the average of 1.0mg/l. Higher
phosphate concentrations were recorded in ground water samples in wet season.
4.9.5.7
Groundwater Exchangeable Cations (Na+, K+, Mg2+, Ca2+)
Sodium (Na+)
All natural waters contain some sodium since sodium salts are highly water soluble and is one of the most
abundant elements on earth. It is found in the ionic form (Na+), and in plant and animal matter. Concentrations of
sodium in natural surface waters vary considerably depending on local geological conditions, wastewater
discharges and seasonal use of road salt. Values can range from 1 mg/l or less to 105 mg/l or more in natural
brines. The WHO guideline limit for sodium in drinking water is 200 mg/l. Many surface waters, including those
receiving wastewaters, have concentrations well below 50 mg/l. However, ground-water concentrations
frequently exceed 50 mg l-1. Sodium is commonly measured where the water is to be used for drinking or
agricultural purposes, particularly irrigation. Elevated sodium in certain soil types can degrade soil structure
thereby restricting water movement and affecting plant growth.
The concentration of sodium in groundwater of the study area ranged between 15.7mg/l and 556.3mg/l with the
average of 136.5mg/l in the study period. In dry season, concentration of sodium in groundwater ranged between
19.0mg/l and 556.3mg/l with the average of 157.0mg/l. In wet season, sodium content in groundwater studied
ranged from 15.7mg/l to 359.0mg/l with the average of 115.9mg/l. Concentrations of sodium in groundwater were
higher in dry season than wet season.
Potassium (K+)
The concentration of potassium in groundwater of the study area ranged between 0.7mg/l and 15.8mg/l with the
average of 6.9mg/l in the study period. In dry season concentration of potassium in groundwater ranged between
0.7mg/l and 15.8mg/l with the average of 7.5mg/l. In wet season, potassium content in groundwater studied
ranged from 1.7mg/l to 13.0mg/l with the average of 6.4mg/l. Concentrations of potassium in groundwater of the
study locations were higher in dry season than in wet season.
Magnesium (Mg2+)
Concentration of magnesium in groundwater of the study area ranged between 2.9mg/l and 21.1mg/l with the
average of 7.3mg/l in the study period. In dry season, concentration of magnesium in groundwater ranged
between 3.2mg/l and 21.1mg/l with the average of 10.1mg/l. In wet season, magnesium content in groundwater
ranged from 2.9mg/l to 5.1mg/l with the average of 4.5mg/l. Concentrations of magnesium in groundwater of the
study area were higher in dry season than in wet season.
P a g e | 115
Calcium (Ca2+)
The concentration of calcium in groundwater of the study area ranged between 0.2mg/l and 5.6mg/l with the
average of 2.4mg/l in the study period. In dry season, concentration of calcium in groundwater ranged between
0.2mg/l and 0.8mg/l with the average of 0.5mg/l. In wet season, calcium content in groundwater studied ranged
from 3.0mg/l to 5.6mg/l with the average of 4.3mg/l. Concentrations of calcium in the groundwater studied were
higher in wet season.
4.9.5.8
Heavy metals (Fe, Zn, Cu, Pb, Cd, Mn, Cr and Ni) in Groundwater
The concentrations of iron, zinc, copper, lead, cadmium, manganese, chromium and nickel in ground water of the
study locations are presented in table 4.36.
Zinc, Copper. Lead, Manganese, Chromium and Nickel
Zn, Cu, Pb, Mn, Cr and Ni were all not detected in groundwater samples. They were below the detection limit
(0.001mg/l) of the analytical equipment.
Iron
Fe was detected in 2 out of the 5 groundwater stations studied in dry season, where it ranged between <0.001
and 0.004mg/l. In wet season, Fe was detected in 3 of the 5 groundwater stations with values that ranged
between <0.001 and 0.22mg/l.
Cadmium
Cd was detected in only 1 of the 5 groundwater stations in dry season, with a concentration of 0.004mg/l.
P a g e | 116
Table 4.36: Heavy Metal Concentration in Groundwater of the Study Area
Sample ID
Fe
Zn
Cu
Pb
Cd
Mn
Cr
Ni
Mg/l
Dry
Wet
Dry
Wet
Dry
Wet
Dry
Wet
Dry
Wet
Dry
Wet
Dry
Wet
Dry
Wet
GW1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
GW2
0.002
0.09
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.004
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
GW3
0.004
0.22
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
GW4
ND
0.09
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
GW_CTRL
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.031
ND
Min
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Max
0.004
0.220
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.004
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.031
ND
Average
0.003
0.133
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Overall Average
0.081
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
ND
NA
Source: ERL, 2013.
P a g e | 117
4.9.5.9
Total Hydrocarbon Content (THC) in Groundwater
The total hydrocarbon content in ground water of the study locations ranged between 0.874mg/l and 1.115mg/l
with the average of 1.017mg/l in dry season. The concentration ranged between 0.12mg/l and 0.791mg/l with the
average of 0.515mg/l in wet season. An overall average concentration of 0.766mg/l was recorded over the two
seasons’ study (Table 4.37). THC content in groundwater of the study area recorded higher concentration in dry
season
Table 4.37: Total Hydrocarbon Concentration in Groundwater of the Study Area
Sample ID
THC (mg/l)
Dry Season
Wet Season
GW1
0.874
0.453
GW2
1.115
0.535
GW3
1.035
0.674
GW4
1.041
0.791
GW_CTRL
1.02
0.12
Min
0.874
0.120
Max
1.115
0.791
Average
1.017
0.515
Overall Average
0.766
Source: ERL, 2013.
4.9.5.10
Groundwater Microbiology
The microbial counts in groundwater of the study area in dry and wet seasons are presented in table 4.38. Table
4.39 presents the predominant microbial species isolated in the groundwater samples.
P a g e | 118
Table 4.38: Microbial Isolates in Groundwater of the Study Area
Sample ID
THB
THF
TC
GW1
GW2
GW3
GW4
GW_CTRL
Dry Season
1.07E+07
1.00E+07
1.51E+07
1.94E+07
1.80E+06
Wet Season
1.00E+07
1.20E+07
1.81E+07
2.02E+07
2.20E+06
Dry Season
1.00E+02
3.00E+02
3.00E+02
4.00E+02
1.00E+02
Wet Season
1.20E+02
2.00E+02
4.00E+02
6.00E+02
2.00E+02
Dry Season
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
Min
Max
Average
Std. Dev.
1.80E+06
1.94E+07
1.14E+07
6.56E+06
2.20E+06
2.02E+07
1.25E+07
7.13E+06
1.00E+02
4.00E+02
2.40E+02
1.34E+02
1.20E+02
6.00E+02
3.04E+02
1.95E+02
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
Overall Average
1.20E+07
2.72E+02
cfu/ml
Wet Season
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
THUB (cfu
THUF
Dry Season
1.30E+01
1.20E+01
1.60E+01
2.00E+01
1.00E+01
Wet Season
1.50E+01
1.00E+01
2.00E+01
3.00E+01
2.00E+01
Dry Season
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
1.00E+01
2.00E+01
0.00E+00
Wet Season
0.00E+00
1.00E+01
3.00E+01
5.00E+01
0.00E+00
1.00E+01
2.00E+01
1.42E+01
3.90E+00
1.00E+01
3.00E+01
1.90E+01
7.42E+00
0.00E+00
2.00E+01
6.00E+00
8.94E+00
0.00E+00
5.00E+01
1.80E+01
2.17E+01
1.66E+01
1.20E+01
Source: ERL, 2013.
Table 4.39: Predominant Microbial Species Isolated in Groundwater of the study Area
Sample ID
PREDOMINANT SPECIES OF MICROORGANISMS ISOLATED
GW1
Bacillus spp.; Staphylococcus aureus, Mucor spp.
GW2
Bacillus spp., Rhizopus stolonifer, Fusarium spp.
GW3
GW4
Bacillus spp., Staphylococcus aureus, Aspergilus wentii.
GW_CTRL
Source: ERL, 2013.
P a g e | 119
THB counts in groundwater in dry season ranged between 1.80x106 and 1.94x107cfu/ml with the average of
1.14x107cfu/ml. The THB counts in wet season, recorded an average value of 1.25x107cfu/ml, and ranged
between 2.20x106cfu/ml and 2.02x107cfu/ml. An overall average count of 1.2x107cfu/ml was recorded in both
season’s study (Table 4.38).
THF counts in groundwater of the study area ranged between 1.0x102cfu/ml and 4.0x102cfu/ml with the average
of 2.40x102cfu/ml in dry season. In wet season, THF counts ranged between 1.20x102cfu/ml and 6.0x102cfu/ml,
and having an average count of 3.04x102cfu/ml. Over the two seasons studied an overall average count of
2.72x103cfu/ml was recorded for THF (Table 4.38).
Total Coliforms (TC)
Coliforms were not identified in the groundwater samples in dry and wet seasons.
Hydrocarbon utilizing Bacteria counts in groundwater recorded an overall average count of 1.66x101cfu/ml over
the two seasons’ study. In dry season, the THUB count ranged between 1.0x101cfu/ml and 2.0x101cfu/ml, with
the average of 1.42x103cfu/ml. The hydrocarbon utilizing bacteria count in wet season had an average of
1.9x101cfu/ml, with values ranging between 1.0x101cfu/ml and 3.0x101cfu/ml in groundwater (Table 4.38).
Hydrocarbon utilizing Fungi counts in groundwater studied recorded an overall average count of 1.2x101 cfu/ml
over the two seasons’ study. In dry season, the THUF count ranged between 0.00cfu/ml and 2.0 x101 cfu/ml, with
the average of 6.0 cfu/ml. The THUF count in wet season had an average of 1.80x101 cfu/ml, with values ranging
between 0.0 cfu/ml and 5.0 x101 cfu/ml in groundwater (Table 4.38).
4.9.6
4.9.6.1
Surface Water Characteristics of the Proposed Project Environment
Hydrology of Lagos Lagoon
Lagos lagoon is the largest of the four lagoon systems of the Gulf of Guinea (Webb. 1958). It is the major inland
water body in southwestern Nigeria. The lagoon, which is located in Lagos state, is brackish water fed majorly in
the north by Ogun Yewa, Ona and Oshun rivers (Ajao, 1996). It drains more than 103,626km of the country and
discharges into the Atlantic Ocean via Lagos Harbour. The surface area of the lagoon was estimated to be
150.56km2 (Ajao, 1996).
Based on the field studies and analyses following the methods described in section 4.7.3 of this report, the
hydrological characteristics of Lagos Lagoon within the study locations are presented below.
P a g e | 120
4.9.6.2
Temperature, pH, Conductivity and Salinity
Table 4.40 presents the values of temperature, pH, electrical conductivity and salinity of the Lagoon surface
within a 5km spatial boundary of the proposed reclamation area.
Table 4.40: Temperature, pH, Conductivity and Salinity of Surface Water in the Study Area
Sample ID
Temp ( ̊C)
pH
Conductivity (mS/cm)
Salinity (‰)
Dry Season
Wet Season
Dry Season
Wet Season
Dry Season
Wet Season
Dry Season
Wet Season
SW1
30.65
25.70
7.40
7.10
29.02
2.14
17.50
0.90
SW2
31.10
26.20
7.20
7.30
34.99
4.05
21.10
1.70
SW3
30.67
25.91
7.91
7.52
23.90
0.29
14.50
0.10
SW4
30.66
25.89
7.93
7.49
24.40
0.50
14.80
0.10
SW5
30.37
27.30
7.80
7.50
25.70
0.71
15.50
0.30
SW6
31.20
26.90
7.70
7.40
28.69
2.14
17.30
0.90
SW7
31.18
25,5
7.44
7.10
22.40
0.24
13.50
0.10
SW8
31.34
27.40
7.73
7.58
22.70
0.58
13.60
0.30
SW9
30.68
26.15
7.92
7.50
21.90
0.47
13.10
0.20
SW10
30.49
26.30
7.90
7.50
22.06
0.48
13.30
0.20
SW11
30.98
27.10
7.86
7.50
22.30
0.24
13.40
0.10
SW12
30.50
25.50
7.70
7.50
22.39
0.48
13.50
0.20
SW13
30.77
26.34
7.71
7.49
25.50
1.46
15.50
0.70
SW14 (Ctrl)
30.57
25.79
7.90
7.08
21.23
0.35
12.80
0.20
SW15
31.10
26.90
7.90
6.90
21.72
0.48
13.10
0.20
Min
30.37
25.50
7.20
6.90
21.23
0.24
12.80
0.10
Max
31.34
27.40
7.93
7.58
34.99
4.05
21.10
1.70
Average
30.82
26.38
7.73
7.36
24.59
0.97
14.83
0.41
Std. Dev.
0.30
0.63
0.22
0.21
3.77
1.06
2.28
0.45
Overall Average
28.68
FMEnv Standard
<40
7.55
12.78
7.62
6.5 – 8.5
Source: ERL, 2013
Temperature
Water bodies undergo temperature variations along with normal climatic fluctuations. These variations occur
seasonally and, in some water bodies, over periods of 24 hours. The temperature of surface waters is influenced
by latitude, altitude, season, time of day, air circulation, cloud cover and the flow and depth of the water body.
Temperature affects physical, chemical and biological processes in water bodies and, therefore, the
concentration of many variables. As water temperature increases, the rate of chemical reactions generally
increases together with the evaporation and volatilisation of substances from the water. Increased temperature
also decreases the solubility of gases in water, such as O2, CO2, N2, CH4 and others. The metabolic rate of
aquatic organisms is also related to temperature, and in warm waters, respiration rates increase leading to
increased oxygen consumption and increased decomposition of organic matter. Growth rates also increase (this
P a g e | 121
is most noticeable for bacteria and phytoplankton which double their populations in very short time) leading to
increased water turbidity, macrophyte growth and algal blooms, when nutrient conditions are suitable.
Surface water temperature recorded an average of 30.820C with values ranging between 30.370C and 31.340C in
dry season. In wet season, water temperature recorded lower values; ranging from 25.500C to 27.400C with an
average of 26.380C. The overall average temperature of surface water was 28.680C. Surface ater temperature
range recorded is within the FMEnv standard of less than 40.00C for fisheries.
pH
The pH is an important variable in water quality assessment as it influences many biological and chemical
processes within a water body. At a given temperature, pH (or the hydrogen ion activity) indicates the intensity of
the acidic or basic character of a solution and controlled by the dissolved chemical compounds and biochemical
processes in the solution. In unpolluted waters, pH is principally controlled by the balance between the carbon
dioxide, carbonate and bicarbonate ions as well as other natural compounds such as humic and fulvic acids. The
natural acid-base balance of a water body can be affected by industrial effluents and atmospheric deposition of
acid-forming substances. Changes in pH can indicate the presence of certain effluents, particularly when
continuously measured and recorded, together with the conductivity of a water body. Diel variations in pH can be
caused by the photosynthesis and respiration cycles of algae in eutrophic waters. The pH of most natural waters
is between 6.0 and 8.5, although lower values can occur in dilute waters high in organic content.
The pH of the lagoon water ranged between 7.2 and 7.93 with an average of 7.73 in dry season. In wet season, it
ranged between 6.9 and 7.58 and average of 7.36 (figure 4.13). The overall average pH for the 2 season study
was 7.55. The range of pH recorded is within FMEnv range of 6.5 – 8.5 for fisheries.
Figure 4.13: Seasonal Variation of Surface water pH
P a g e | 122
The electrical conductivity of the lagoon water ranged between 21.23 and 34.99mS/cm with an average value of
24.59mS/cm in dry season. The values dropped to between 0.24 and 4.05 mS/cm with an average of 0.97mS/cm
in wet season. Figure 4.14 shows seasonal variation in surfacewater conductivity.
Figure 4.14: Seasonal Variation in Surfacewater Conductivity
Salinity
The salinity of Lagos lagoon surface water at the study areas ranged between 12.8 and 21.1‰ with an average
of 14.83‰ in dry season. Salinity values at the study locations in wet season ranged between 0.1 and 1.7‰ with
an average of 0.41‰. The lagoon areas proximal to the sea expectedly, had higher salinity.
4.9.6.3
Dissolved Oxygen, Dissolved Solids, Suspended Solids and Turbidity
The dissolved oxygen (DO), total dissolved solids (TDS), total suspended solids (TSS) and Turbidity of lagoon
surface at the study locations are presented in table 4.41.
P a g e | 123
Table 4.41: DO, TDS, TSS and Turbidity of Surface water
Sample ID
DO (mg/l)
Dry
Wet
Season
Season
TDS (mg/l)
Dry
Wet
Season
Season
TSS (mg/l)
Dry
Wet
Season
Season
Turb (NTU)
Dry
Wet
Season
Season
SW1
8.90
10.22
1290.00
21.00
5.80
8.40
0
17
SW2
7.52
9.24
1340.00
42.00
6.50
7.50
0
23
SW3
8.99
12.64
1480.00
18.80
7.20
9.85
0
21.9
SW4
8.95
14.28
1510.00
32.20
5.60
8.72
0
31.1
SW5
8.78
9.16
1430.00
18.00
4.30
8.34
0
17
SW6
7.98
8.78
1280.00
41.00
7.90
9.54
0
12
SW7
7.43
11.40
1390.00
89.00
7.80
9.21
0
39
SW8
8.79
12.48
1410.00
36.90
4.80
6.52
0
40.6
SW9
8.17
14.87
1310.00
30.70
9.40
8.10
0
42.8
SW10
8.21
10.67
1480.00
78.00
6.90
5.73
0
34
SW11
8.46
8.78
1380.00
52.00
5.60
7.58
0
28
SW12
8.50
9.88
1060.00
38.00
3.54
5.63
0
16
SW13
9.76
11.46
1500.00
93.40
3.14
3.81
0
12.2
SW14 (Ctrl)
8.65
8.98
1150.00
22.70
2.70
4.35
0
18.8
SW15
8.90
9.24
1220.00
31.00
4.30
6.90
0
11
Min
7.43
8.78
1060.00
18.00
2.70
3.81
0.00
11.00
Max
9.76
14.87
1510.00
93.40
9.40
9.85
0.00
42.80
Average
8.53
10.81
1348.67
42.98
5.70
7.35
0.00
24.29
Std. Dev.
0.60
2.00
132.44
24.71
1.93
1.83
0.00
10.91
Overall
Average
9.67
695.82
6.52
Source: ERL, 2013.
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
Dissolve Oxygen is essential to all forms of aquatic life, including those organisms responsible for the selfpurification processes in natural waters. The oxygen content of natural waters varies with temperature, salinity,
turbulence, the photosynthetic activity of algae and plants, and atmospheric pressure. The solubility of oxygen
decreases as temperature and salinity increase. Concentrations in unpolluted waters are usually close to, but
less than, 10 mg/l. Variations in DO can occur seasonally, or even over 24 hour periods, in relation to
temperature and biological activities (i.e. photosynthesis and respiration). Biological respiration, including that
related to decomposition processes, reduces DO concentrations. In still waters, pockets of high and low
concentrations of dissolved oxygen can occur depending on the rates of biological processes. In severe cases of
reduced oxygen concentrations (whether natural or man-made), anaerobic conditions can occur (i.e. 0 mg/l of
oxygen), particularly close to the sediment-water interface as a result of decaying, sedimenting material.
Determination of DO concentrations is a fundamental part of a water quality assessment since oxygen is involved
in, or influences, nearly all chemical and biological processes within water bodies. Concentrations below 5 mg/l
P a g e | 124
may adversely affect the functioning and survival of biological communities and below 2 mg/l may lead to the
death of most fish. DO can be used to indicate the degree of pollution by organic matter, the destruction of
organic substances and the level of self-purification of the water.
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) in the lagoon surface water at the studied locations had and average of 9.67mg/l in both
dry and wet seasons. Higher DO values were recorded in wet season than in dry (Figure 4.15). The higher
values recorded in wet season can be attributed to increased water turbulence, which enhances miscibility,
reduced temperature and salinity, among others. It ranged between 7.45 and 9.76mg/l with an average of
8.53mg/l in dry season, and between 8.78 and 14.87mg/l with average of 10.81 in wet season.
Figure 4.15: Seasonal Variation of DO in Surface Water
Total Dissolved Solids (TSS), Total Suspended Solids and Turbidity
TDS of the lagoon water at the study locations ranged between 1,060mg/l and 1,510mg/l with an average of
1,348.67mg/l in dry season. The TDS was lower in wet season ranging between 18mg/l and 93.4mg/l with an
average of 42.98mg.l. An overall average of 695.82mg/l was recorded over the 2 seasons’ studies.
TSS ranged between 2.7 and 9.4mg/l with an average of 5.7mg/l in dry season. In wet season, TSS ranged
between 3.81 to 9.85mg/l with an average of 7.35mg/l. Over the two seasons’ study, TSS in lagoon surface water
recorded an average of 6.52mg/l.
Turbidity values of water samples obtained from the Lagos lagoon in dry season were below the sensitivity limit
of the equipment used (0.1NTU). In wet season however, the water turbidity ranged between 11 and 42.8NTU
P a g e | 125
with an average of 24.29NTU. Increased turbidity in the study locations in wet season is attributable to the influx
of land-based substances.
4.9.6.4
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5) and Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
The BOD5 and COD values of lagoon water recorded at the study points are presented in table 4.42.
Table 4.42: BOD and COD of Surface Water
Sample ID
BOD5
COD
Dry Season
Mg/l
Wet Season
Dry Season
Wet Season
SW1
0.66
0.80
178.00
13.30
SW2
0.82
0.89
148.00
12.70
SW3
0.97
0.99
169.00
13.48
SW4
0.83
0.89
121.00
10.23
SW5
0.92
1.18
123.00
12.25
SW6
0.76
1.11
211.00
13.80
SW7
1.45
1.51
187.00
12.09
SW8
1.67
2.01
221.00
14.76
SW9
0.94
0.95
189.00
9.70
SW10
1.34
1.03
167.00
11.50
SW11
1.11
1.67
175.00
12.10
SW12
0.94
1.26
99.00
10.50
SW13
1.76
2.05
224.00
15.20
SW14 (Ctrl)
0.67
0.84
125.00
15.21
SW15
0.65
0.78
85.00
9.80
Min
0.7
0.8
85.0
9.7
Max
1.8
2.1
224.0
15.2
Average
1.0
1.2
161.5
12.4
Std. Dev.
0.4
0.4
43.3
1.9
Overall Average
1.1
87.0
Source: ERL, 2013
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5)
The biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) is an approximate measure of the amount of biochemically degradable
organic matter present in a water sample. It is defined by the amount of oxygen required for the aerobic microorganisms present in the sample to oxidise the organic matter to a stable inorganic form. Standardised laboratory
procedures are used to determine BOD by measuring the amount of oxygen consumed after incubating the
sample in the dark at a specified temperature, which is usually 20°C, for a specific duration, usually five days.
P a g e | 126
This gives rise to the commonly used term “BOD5”. The oxygen consumption is determined from the difference
between the dissolved oxygen concentrations in the sample before and after the incubation period. Unpolluted
waters typically have BOD values of 2 mg/l or less, whereas those receiving wastewaters may have values up to
10 mg/l or more, particularly near to the point of wastewater discharge.
BOD5 of Lagos lagoon in the sampled locations recorded an overall average of 1.1mg/l over the two hydrological
studies. In dry season, BOD ranged between 0.7 and 1.8mg/l with an average of 1.0mg/l, and between 0.8 and
2.1mg/l in wet season. The BOD recorded in the study areas falls within the range of unpolluted water. Figure
4.16 shows the seasonal variation in the surface water BOD.
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
Figure 4.16: Seasonal Variation of Surface water BOD5
COD is the amount of oxygen required to chemically oxidize organic water contaminants to inorganic end
products. Measurement of COD is necessary based on the fact that strong oxidizing agent under acidic
condition can fully oxidize all organic compounds to carbon dioxide. Unlike BOD, toxic compounds such as heavy
metals in water samples do not have any effect on the oxidants used in the COD test. Although COD measures
more than organic constituents, the organic fraction usually predominates and is the constituent of
interest. Chemical oxygen demand was developed as an alternative to the more lengthy BOD analysis.
The Lagos lagoon surface water COD at the studied locations ranged between 85 and 224mg/l with an average
of 161.5mg/l. In wet season, the COD ranged from 9.7 to 15.2mg/l with an average of 12.4mg/l. over the two
seasons’ study, COD had an average value of 78mg/l.
4.9.6.5
Surface Water Anions
The anionic contents of the lagoon surface water at the studied points are presented in table 4.43.
P a g e | 127
Table 4.43: Anions Concentration in Surface Water
Sample ID
NO3
SW1
SW2
SW3
SW4
SW5
SW6
SW7
SW8
SW9
SW10
SW11
SW12
SW13
SW14 (Ctrl)
SW15
Dry
Season
10.9
11.4
15.7
17.8
14.6
12.1
23.2
26.3
10.6
14.4
41
13.7
27.5
10.07
13.9
Wet
Season
9.05
8.79
14.09
20.12
13.2
11
17.3
13.92
16.37
10.5
23.7
9.73
21.33
14.61
11.23
Dry
Season
36.52
53.8
37.432
34.222
28.42
49.33
45.629
21.827
26.864
25.93
25.432
33.47
25.53
19.75
22.49
Min
Max
10.1
41.0
8.8
23.7
19.8
53.8
Average
Std. Dev.
Overall Average
17.5
8.6
15.9
14.3
4.6
32.4
10.4
21.3
SO4
Mg/l
Wet
Season
12.75
18.33
6.67
8.67
9.84
15.53
11.31
9.24
9.52
7.84
6.82
7.12
11.32
8.1
9.37
Cl-
PO4
Dry
Season
14,870
17,800
13,500
11,850
12,530
16,360
11,850
13,900
14,200
9,230
9,650
10003.1
9,870
10,120
10,350
Wet
Season
250
650
130
220
130
490
182
220.01
260
110
155
210
190
160
165.6
Dry
Season
0.97
1.25
0.1
1.1
0.89
1.01
0.54
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.01
ND
ND
Wet
Season
0.07
0.12
0.13
0.11
0.14
0.09
0.11
0.15
0.17
0.17
0.12
0.22
0.28
0.05
0.14
6.7
18.3
9,230.0
17,800.0
110.0
650.0
ND
1.3
0.1
0.3
10.2
3.3
12,405.5
2,637.9
6,320.2
234.8
146.0
0.7
0.5
0.3
0.1
0.1
Source: ERL, 2013
Nitrates
Nitrate ions concentration in the lagoon surface water from studied locations had an average of 15.9mg/l over the
two hydrological seasons’ studies. In dry season, the concentration ranged between 10.1 and 41.0mg/l with an
average of 17.5mg/l. In wet season, the concentration ranged between 8.8 and 23.7mg/l with an average of
14.3mg/l (table 4.43). The seasonal variations in nitrates concentration in the surface water is shown in figure
4.17.
Figure 4.17: Seasonal Variation in Nitrate Concentration in Surface water
P a g e | 128
Sulphates
Sulphate is naturally present in surface waters as SO42-. It arises from the atmospheric deposition of oceanic
aerosols and the leaching of sulphur compounds, either sulphate minerals such as gypsum or sulphide minerals
such as pyrite, from sedimentary rocks. It is the stable, oxidised form of sulphur and is readily soluble in water
(with the exception of lead, barium and strontium sulphates, which precipitate). Industrial discharges and
atmospheric precipitation can also add significant amounts of sulphate to surface waters. Sulphate can be used
as an oxygen source by bacteria that convert it to hydrogen sulphide (H2S, HS-) under anaerobic conditions.
Sulphate concentrations in natural waters are usually between 2 and 80 mg/l, although they may exceed 1,000
mg/l near industrial discharges or in arid regions where sulphate minerals, such as gypsum, are present.
Sulphate concentration in the studied areas of Lagos lagoon ranged between 19.8 and 53.8mg/l with an average
of 32.4mg/l in dry season. In wet season, the concentration ranged between 6.7 and 18.3mg/l with an average of
10.2mg/l. Over the two hydrological seasons’ studies, the ion’s concentrations had an average of 21.3mg/l (Table
4.43). Seasonal variations of sulphates at the study locations are shown in figure 4.18.
Figure 4.18: Seasonal Variation of Sulphate Concentration in Surface water
Chloride
Chloride ions in the lagoon surface water at the study locations had an average of 6,320.2mg/l over the two
hydrological seasons’ studies. Higher values were recorded in dry season when the concentration ranged
between 9,230mg/l and 17,800.0mg/l with an average of 14,405.5mg/l. In wet season, chloride ions
concentration ranged between 110.0mg/l and 650mg/l with an average of 234.8mg/l (Table 4.43). Figure 4.19
shows spatial and temporal variation of chloride ions concentration during the study.
P a g e | 129
Figure 4.19: Seasonal Variation of Chloride in Surface Water
Phosphate
Phosphorus is an essential nutrient for living organisms and exists in water bodies as both dissolved and
particulate species. It is generally the limiting nutrient for algal growth and, therefore, controls the primary
productivity of a water body. Artificial increases in concentrations due to human activities are the principal cause
of eutrophication. In natural waters and in wastewaters, phosphorus occurs mostly as dissolved orthophosphates
and polyphosphates, and organically bound phosphates. Changes between these forms occur continuously due
to decomposition and synthesis of organically bound forms and oxidised inorganic forms. Natural sources of
phosphorus are mainly the weathering of phosphorus-bearing rocks and the decomposition of organic matter.
Domestic wastewaters (particularly those containing detergents), industrial effluents and fertilizer run-off
contribute to elevated levels in surface waters. Phosphorus associated with organic and mineral constituents of
sediments in water bodies can also be mobilised by bacteria and released to the water column. Phosphorus is
rarely found in high concentrations in freshwaters as plants actively take it up.
The concentration of phosphates in Lagos lagoon surface ranged between 0.1mg/l and 0.3mg/l in wet seaon,
with an average of 0.1mg/l. In dry season, the ion was not detected in 8 out of 15 locations studied. However, at
the points detected, the ion recorded the average of 0.7mg/l and a maximum concentration of 1.3mg/l.
4.9.6.6
Surface Water Exchangeable Cations
The exchangeable cations concentrations recorded in Lagos lagoon surface water of at the study locations are
presented in table 4.44.
P a g e | 130
Table 4.44: Exchangeable Cations Concentration in Surface Water
Sample ID
Na+
K+
SW1
Dry
Season
1,023.9
Wet
Season
170.5
Dry
Season
15.6
Wet
Season
7.0
Dry
Season
55.9
Wet
Season
6.1
Dry
Season
+
Wet
Season
0.584
SW2
1,246.5
476.9
21.8
10.0
59.4
5.1
4.847
1.021
SW3
1,047.2
57.5
11.6
4.4
4.8
4.4
3.880
<0.001
SW4
947.3
105.8
8.6
4.9
4.5
4.8
1.612
<0.001
SW5
1,033.6
98.8
11.8
5.8
5.8
4.4
1.385
<0.001
SW6
1,020.4
110.2
18.5
8.6
23.6
6.7
3.582
0.378
SW7
997.9
110.3
7.2
4.1
4.3
4.0
3.564
0.103
SW8
1,007.1
99.2
9.5
4.9
3.6
4.7
3.325
<0.001
SW9
927.2
119.7
10.8
5.2
44.5
5.0
4.314
<0.001
SW10
879.9
89.9
9.0
3.5
45.3
4.2
3.752
0.648
SW11
924.9
99.7
9.9
5.2
5.0
5.0
2.984
<0.001
SW12
1,002.2
101.2
9.8
4.7
39.7
4.2
3.785
<0.001
SW13
999.3
320.3
16.9
10.2
13.8
5.0
4.218
0.925
SW14 (Ctrl)
875.4
95.6
10.1
4.8
11.4
5.1
1.231
<0.001
SW15
948.5
100.4
9.0
4.8
3.4
1.8
1.672
<0.001
Min
875.4
57.5
7.2
3.5
3.4
1.8
1.231
<0.001
Max
1,246.5
476.9
21.8
10.2
59.4
6.7
4.847
1.021
Average
992.1
143.7
12.0
5.9
21.7
4.7
3.246
0.244
Std. Dev.
88.9
110.0
4.2
2.1
21.1
1.1
1.203
0.370
Overall
Average
567.9
8.9
Mg2+
13.2
Ca2+
1.745
Source: ERL, 2013
Sodium
All natural waters contain some sodium since sodium salts are highly water soluble and is one of the most
abundant elements on earth. It is found in the ionic form (Na+), and in plant and animal matter. Concentrations of
sodium in natural surface waters vary considerably depending on local geological conditions, wastewater
discharges and seasonal use of road salt. Values can range from 1 mg/l or less to 105 mg/l or more in natural
brines. The WHO guideline limit for sodium in drinking water is 200 mg/l. Many surface waters, including those
receiving wastewaters, have concentrations well below 50 mg/l. However, ground-water concentrations
frequently exceed 50 mg l-1. Sodium is commonly measured where the water is to be used for drinking or
agricultural purposes, particularly irrigation.
The concentration of sodium in Lagos lagoon surface water ranged between 875.4mg/l and 1,246.5mg/l with an
average of 992.1mg/l in dry season. The high sodium concentration recorded in dry season is attributable to
seawater influence. In wet season, most likely due to fresh water influx, sodium ion concentration ranged
P a g e | 131
between 57.5mg/l and 476.9mg/l with an average of 143.7mg/l. Figure 4.20 shows seasonal variation in sodium
ion concentration the lagoon surface water.
Figure 4.20: Seasonal Variation of Sodium in Surface Water
Potassium
Potassium (K+) is found in low concentrations in natural waters since rocks that contain potassium are relatively
resistant to weathering. However, potassium salts are widely used in industry and in fertilisers for agriculture and
enter surface waters with industrial discharges and run-off from agricultural land. Potassium is usually found in
the ionic form and the salts are highly soluble. It is readily incorporated into mineral structures and accumulated
by aquatic biota, as it is an essential nutritional element.
Potassium ions concentration in the lagoon surface water ranged between 7.2 and 21.8mg/l with an average of
12mg/l in dry season. The concentration reduced in wet season; ranging from 3.5 to 10.2mg/l with an average of
5.9mg/l. Over the two seasons studied, potassium ions in the lagoon surface water had an average concentration
of 8.9mg/l (Table 4.44). The seasonal variation trend along the studied points is shown in figure 4.21.
Figure 4.21: Seasonal Variation of Potassium in Surface Water
P a g e | 132
Figure 4.22: Seasonal Variation of Magnesium in Surface Water
Magnesium
Magnesium is common in natural waters as Mg2+. Along with calcium, it is a main contributor to water hardness.
Magnesium arises principally from the weathering of rocks containing ferromagnesium minerals and from some
carbonate rocks. Magnesium occurs in many organometallic compounds and in organic matter, since it is an
essential element for living organisms.
The magnesium content in the surface water of Lagos lagoon had an average of 13.3mg/l. In dry season, the ion
ranged between 3.4 and 59.4mg/l with an average of 21.7mg/l. Whereas in wet season, it had an average of
4.7mg/l; ranging from 1.8 to 6.7mg/l (Table 4.44). Seasonal variation of magnesium content in the surface water
is shown in figure 4.22.
Calcium
Calcium is present in all waters as Ca2+ and is readily dissolved from rocks rich in calcium minerals, particularly
as carbonates and sulphates, especially limestone and gypsum. It is abundant in surface and groundwater. The
salts of calcium, together with those of magnesium, are responsible for the hardness of water. Industrial, as well
as water and wastewater treatment processes contribute calcium to surface waters. Calcium compounds are
stable in water when carbondioxide is present, but calcium concentrations can fall when calcium carbonate
precipitates due to increased water temperature, photosynthetic activity or loss of carbondioxide due to increases
in pressure. Calcium concentrations in natural waters are typically < 15 mg/l. However, in waters associated with
carbonate-rich rocks, concentrations may reach 30-100 mg/l. Salt waters may have concentrations of several
hundred milligrams per litre or more.
The concentration of calcium in Lagos lagoon surface water in dry season ranged between 1.231 and 4.847mg/l
with an average of 3.246mg/l. The concentration was below the detection limit (0.001) of the equipment used at 9
out of the 15 locations studied in wet season. At the locations where it was recorded, a maximum and average
concentrations of 1.021 and 0.244mg/l respectively were reccorded. An overall average of 1.745mg/l of calcium
P a g e | 133
ion was recorded over the two season’s study (Table 4.44). Figure 4.23 shows seasonal trend of calcium ions
concentration inhe study locations.
Figure 4.23: Seasonal Variation of Calcium in Surface Water
4.9.6.7
Heavy Metals in Surface Water
The concentrations of iron, zinc, copper, lead, cadmium, manganese, chromium and nickel in the lagoon surface
water at the various study locations are presented in table 4.45.
Iron
Iron content in surface water was below the detection limit (0.001mg/l) of the equipment used in 13 out of the 15
stations studied in dry season. In the locations where iron was detected, it recorded a concentration of 0.001mg/l.
In wet season, the concentration of iron in the surface water ranged between 0.001mg/l and 2.6mg/l with an
average of 1.433mg/l (Table 4.45).
Zinc
Zinc content in surface water ranged between 0.0mg/l and 0.44mg/l with an average of 0.017mg/l in wet season.
In dry season however, zinc was only detected in 5 out of the 15 study stations with values ranging from 0.001 to
0.020mg/l and an average of 0.009mg/l (Table 4.45).
P a g e | 134
Table 4.45: Heavy Metal Concentrattions in Surface Water
Sample ID
Fe
Zn
Cu
SW1
SW2
SW3
SW4
SW5
SW6
SW7
SW8
SW9
SW10
SW11
SW12
SW13
SW14 (Ctrl)
SW15
Dry
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.001
<0.001
<0.001
Wet
0.01
0.001
1.83
2.42
1.01
1.37
1.74
2.08
2.6
1.16
1.72
0.974
1.5
1.58
1.65
Dry
<0.001
0.001
0.019
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.002
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.02
0.01
0.002
<0.001
0.011
Wet
0.009
0.019
0.003
0.044
0.017
0.004
0.039
0.006
0.033
<0.001
0.002
0.006
0.031
0.027
0.003
Dry
0.002
0.002
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
Wet
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
Min
Max
Average
Std. Dev.
Overall Average
0.001
0.001
0.001
NA
1.273
0.001
2.600
1.443
0.742
0.001
0.020
0.009
0.008
0.015
0.002
0.044
0.017
0.015
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
NA
NA
NA
NA
Pb
Mg/l
Dry
0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
NA
0.001
Cd
Mn
Cr
Ni
Wet
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
Dry
0.012
0.001
0.004
0.024
<0.001
0.021
0.02
0.013
0.009
<0.001
0.002
0.013
<0.001
0.001
0.002
Wet
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
Dry
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
Wet
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
Dry
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
Wet
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
Dry
0.012
0.003
0.055
0.022
<0.001
0.023
0.006
0.01
0.066
<0.001
0.051
0.001
0.005
0.018
0.027
Wet
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.001
0.024
0.010
0.008
0.010
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.001
0.066
0.023
0.021
0.023
NA
NA
NA
NA
Source: ERL, 2013
P a g e | 135
Copper
Copper content in the lagoon surface water at all the study locations was below the detection limit (0.001mg/l) of
the equipment used in wet season. In dry season, it was detected only in 2 locations with concentration of
0.002mg/l.
Lead
Lead had a concentration of 0.001mg/l in only one study location in dry season, but was not detected in others in
trace amounts. In wet season, lead was not detected in samples for all the locations studied,
Cadmium
Cadmium was not detected in the lagoon surface water in all the locations studied in wet season. Cd ranged
between 0.001mg/l and 0.024mg/l with average of 0.010 in dry season.
Manganese and Chromium
These metsal were not detected in the studied locations in both seasons
Nickel
Nickel was not detected in the water in wet season but detected at 2 locations in dry season with values of
0.001mg/l and 0.066mg/l and an average of 0.023mg/l.
4.9.6.8
Total Hydrocarbon Content (THC)
The total hydrocarbon content in the lagoon surface water ranged between 0.5 and 5.8mg/l with an average of
1.1mg/l in dry season. The concentration ranged between 0.2 and 3.8mg/l with an average of 0.7mg/l in wet
season. An overall average of 0.9mg/l was recorded over the two seasons’ study (Table 4.46). The seasonal
variation of THC concentration in the surface water of Lagos lagoon at the studied locations area is shown in
figure 4.24.
P a g e | 136
Table 4.46: Total Hydrocarbon Content in Surface Water
Sample ID
SW1
SW2
SW3
SW4
SW5
SW6
SW7
SW8
SW9
SW10
SW11
SW12
SW13
SW14 (Ctrl)
SW15
THC
Dry Season
0.631
2.173
0.757
0.538
0.563
0.964
5.832
0.797
0.845
0.869
0.927
0.558
0.518
0.486
0.532
Min
Max
Average
Std. Dev.
Overall Average
0.5
5.8
1.1
1.4
0.9
Wet Season
0.392
0.974
0.452
0.385
0.209
0.693
3.837
0.523
0.547
0.684
0.672
0.431
0.498
0.275
0.387
0.2
3.8
0.7
0.9
Source: ERL, 2013
Figure 4.24: Seasonal Variation of Total Hydrocarbon in Surface Water
4.9.6.9
Surface Water Microbiology
The microbial counts in the surface water of the lagoon in dry and wet seasons are presented in table 4.47
THB counts ranged between 1.02x107 and 2.20x107cfu/ml with an average of 1.54x107cfu/ml in dry season. The
THB counts increased marginally in wet season, recording an average value of 1.59x107cfu/ml, while it ranged
between 1.10x107cfu/ml and 2.14x107cfu/ml. An overall average count of 1.57x107cfu/ml was recorded in both
P a g e | 137
season’s study (Table 4.47). The predominant islotates are presented in table 4.48. Spatial variations in wet and
dry seasons are presented in figures 4.24 and 4.25.
THF counts in the surface water ranged between 3.0x103cfu/ml and 3.0x104cfu/ml with an average of
7.33x103cfu/ml in dry season. In wet season, THF recorded lower counts; ranging between 3.0x103cfu/ml and
9.0x103cfu/ml, and having an average count of 5.93x103cfu/ml. Over the two seasons, an average count of
6.63x103cfu/ml was recorded for THF (Table 4.47). The predominant THF isolates are presented in Table 4.48.
Spatial variations in wet and dry seasons are presented in figures 4.24 and 4.25.
P a g e | 138
Table 4.47: Microbial Isolates in Surface Water
Sample ID
SW1
SW2
SW3
SW4
SW5
SW6
SW7
SW8
SW9
SW10
SW11
SW12
SW13
SW14 (Ctrl)
SW15
THB 15 (cfu/ml)
Dry Season
1.87E+07
1.24E+07
1.92E+07
2.03E+07
1.74E+07
1.32E+07
1.43E+07
1.95E+07
1.28E+07
1.20E+07
1.46E+07
1.34E+07
2.20E+07
1.02E+07
1.10E+07
Min
Max
Average
Std. Dev.
Overall Average
1.02E+07
2.20E+07
1.54E+07
3.76E+06
1.57E+07
Wet Season
1.92E+07
1.43E+07
2.02E+07
2.14E+07
1.94E+07
1.48E+07
1.65E+07
1.87E+07
1.34E+07
1.32E+07
1.62E+07
1.48E+07
1.40E+07
1.10E+07
1.20E+07
1.10E+07
2.14E+07
1.59E+07
3.18E+06
THF 16 (cfu/ml)
Dry Season
8.00E+03
4.00E+03
6.00E+03
7.00E+03
5.00E+03
8.00E+03
3.00E+03
4.00E+03
5.00E+03
7.00E+03
5.00E+03
5.00E+03
9.00E+03
3.00E+04
4.00E+03
3.00E+03
3.00E+04
7.33E+03
6.51E+03
6.63E+03
Wet Season
6.00E+03
5.00E+03
7.00E+03
5.00E+03
7.00E+03
9.00E+03
5.00E+03
3.00E+03
7.00E+03
8.00E+03
4.00E+03
6.00E+03
8.00E+03
4.00E+03
5.00E+03
3.00E+03
9.00E+03
5.93E+03
1.71E+03
TC 17 (cfu/ml)
Dry Season
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
1.10E+03
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
1.20E+03
0.00E+00
1.00E+03
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
1.80E+03
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
1.80E+03
3.40E+02
6.07E+02
3.77E+02
Wet Season
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
1.00E+03
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
2.00E+03
0.00E+00
1.20E+03
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
2.00E+03
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
2.00E+03
4.13E+02
7.50E+02
THUB 18 (cfu/ml)
Dry Season
Wet Season
1.90E+03
2.00E+03
2.00E+04
2.40E+04
2.00E+02
3.00E+02
2.40E+04
2.20E+04
3.80E+03
4.20E+03
1.80E+04
2.10E+04
1.50E+04
1.70E+04
2.10E+03
2.40E+03
1.30E+03
1.60E+03
2.00E+03
2.30E+03
1.20E+03
1.60E+03
2.20E+03
1.80E+03
3.10E+03
3.40E+03
1.20E+03
1.80E+03
1.50E+03
2.00E+03
THUF 19 (cfu/ml)
Dry Season
Wet Season
4.00E+02
5.00E+02
3.00E+02
6.00E+02
2.00E+02
3.00E+02
4.00E+02
3.00E+02
4.00E+02
5.00E+02
6.00E+02
4.00E+02
3.00E+02
4.00E+02
2.00E+02
3.00E+02
4.00E+02
6.00E+02
2.00E+02
3.00E+02
2.00E+02
2.00E+02
4.00E+02
6.00E+02
6.00E+02
8.00E+02
2.00E+02
3.00E+02
4.00E+02
5.00E+02
2.00E+02
2.40E+04
6.50E+03
8.19E+03
6.83E+03
2.00E+02
6.00E+02
3.47E+02
1.36E+02
3.93E+02
3.00E+02
2.40E+04
7.16E+03
8.79E+03
2.00E+02
8.00E+02
4.40E+02
1.64E+02
Source: ERL, 2013
17 Total Coliforms
15
16
P a g e | 139
Table 4.48: Predominant Microbial Species Isolated in Surface Water
Sample ID
PREDOMINANT ISOLATES
SW1
Bacillus spp., Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Nocardia spp., Staphylococcus stolonifer, Fusarium spp.;
SW2
Bacillus spp., Clostridium spp.; Aspergiillus Flavus, Trichoderma spp
SW3
Bacillus spp. Clostridium spp., Escherichia coli, Aspergillus wentii, Penicillium spp.
SW4
Bacillus spp., Flavobacterium spp., Rhizopus stolonifer, Penicillium spp..
SW5
Bacillus spp., Staphylococcus aureus, Aspergillus wentii.
SW6
SW7
SW8
Bacillus spp., Escherichia coli, Micrococcus spp.; Rhizopus stolonifer, Trichoderma spp.
SW9
Bacillus spp., Staphylococcus aureus, Aspergillus wentii.
SW10
Bacillus spp. Clostridium spp., Escherichia coli, Aspergillus wentii, Penicillium spp.
SW11
Bacillus spp., Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Nocardia spp., Staphylococcus stolonifer, Fusarium spp.;
SW12
SW13
Bacillus spp., Escherichia coli, Micrococcus spp.; Rhizopus stolonifer, Trichoderma spp.
SW14 (Ctrl)
SW15
Source: ERL, 2013
Total coliforms were recorded in the 4 out of the 15 study locations, with higher counts in wet season. Coliforms
were recorded at locations proximal to local community habitations (Figure 4.24 and 4.25). TC counts ranged
from 0.0 to 1.8x103cfu/ml, with an average count of 3.4x102cfu/ml in dry season. In wet season, the counts
ranged between 0.0 to 2.0x103cfu/ml, with an average of 4.13x102cfu/ml. An overall average count of
3.77x102cfu/ml was recorded in both season’s study (Table 4.47). The predominant Isolate was E. coli. (Table
4.48)
Hydrocarbon utilizing Bacteria counts recorded an overall average of 6.83x103cfu/ml over the two seasons’
study. In dry season, the THUB count ranged between 2.0x102cfu/ml and 2.4x104cfu/ml, with an average of
6.5x103cfu/ml. THUB count in wet season had an average of 7.16x103cfu/ml, with values ranging between
3.0x102cfu/ml and 2.4x104cfu/ml (Table 4.47). Figure 4.24 and 4.25 shows the spatial trend of the bacteria count
in dry and wet seasons.
P a g e | 140
Hydrocarbon utilizing Fungi counts recorded an overall average count of 3.93x102 cfu/ml over the two seasons’
study. In dry season, the THUF count ranged between 2.0x102cfu/ml and 6.0 x102 cfu/ml, with an average of 3.47
x102 cfu/ml. The hydrocarbon utilizing fungi count in wet season had an average of 4.40 x102 cfu/ml, with values
ranging between 2.0x102 cfu/ml and 8.0 x102 cfu/ml (Table 4.47). Figure 4.25 and 4.26 shows the spatial trend of
the bacteria count in dry and wet seasons.
Figure 4.25: Temporal Variation of Microbial Isolates in Surface Water in Dry Season
Figure 4.26: Temporal Variation of Microbial Isolates in Surface Water in Wet Season
P a g e | 141
4.9.7
4.9.7.1
Hydrobiology
Plankton
Dry Season Phytoplankton Spectrum.
The phytoplankton recorded 4 (four) group of species namely; Diatoms (Division – Bacillariophyta),
Dinoflagellates (Division – Dinophyta), Blue-green algae (Division – Cyanophyta) and the Chlorophytes (Division
Chlorophyta). The dominant group of phytoplankton was the Diatoms, followed by the Dinoflagellates Blue-green
algae and then the Chlorophytes. Whereas the Diatoms, recorded 80% (Centrales – 63.3% - 19 species,
Pennales – 16.7% - 5 species), Dinoflagellates (10%, 3 species) Blue-green algae reported 6.7%, 2 species and
the Chlorophytes, (3.3%, 1 species) (figure 4.27).
The diversity and distribution of phytoplankton per ml per station is shown in Table 4.49 whereas Table 4.50
presents the phytoplankton community’s eco-mathematical indices. Thirty (30) species were recorded at the 15
stations studied. Total number of species recorded per station ranged between 25 and 27. Figure 4.28 shows a
graphical relationship between Total Number of Species (S) and Total Abundance of the species (N) among
others. Graphical representations of the ecological indices are show in Figure 4.29. The key species occurring
for the study were Chaetoceros affinis Lauder, Coscinodiscus centralis Ehrenberg, Hemidiscus cuneiformis
Wallich and Trichodesmium thiebautii Gomont in terms of occurrence and abundance.
Figure 4.27: Percentage occurrence of major phytoplankton groups (Dry Season)
P a g e | 142
DIVISION – BACILLARIOPHYTA
CLASS - BACILLARIOPHYCEAE
ORDER I – CENTRALES
Bacillaria paxillifer (O.F. Muller) Hendey
Chaetoceros convolutus Castracane
Chaetoceros decipens Cleve
Coscinodiscus centralis Ehrenberg
Coscinodiscus eccentrius Ehrenberg
Coscinodiscus radiatus Ehrenberg
Ditylum brightwelli (T. West) Grunow
Hemidiscus cuneiformis Wallich
Hemidiscus sp.
Odontella regia (Schultze) Ostenfeld
Odontella regia (Schultze) Ostenfeld
Pseudonitzschia sp.
Rhizosolenia alata Brightwell
Rhizosolenia styliformis Brightwell
10
15
5
25
15
25
5
20
10
10
25
-
15
5
10
30
5
30
10
10
5
5
15
30
-
10
5
5
25
5
25
5
10
5
5
10
25
10
15
20
50
50
15
5
15
15
50
-
15
5
15
10
15
15
35
15
15
-
25
10
5
15
5
15
10
5
15
20
25
25
15
30
5
15
5
5
25
15
20
10
5
20
10
5
15
5
15
5
15
5
Order II – PENNALES
Bacillaria paxillifer (O. F. Muller) Hendey
Fragillaria oceanica Cleve
Thalasiothrix fraunfeldii Cleve & Grunow
Pleurosigma angulatum (Quekett) Wm Smith
Synedra crystallina (Ag.) Kutzing
5
15
5
15
15
10
10
45
20
5
5
5
25
15
35
-
15
30
25
45
5
10
25
10
10
DIVISION – CYANOPHYTA
CLASS – CYANOPHYCEAE
Order – HORMOGONALES
Trichodesmium thiebautii Gomont
35
5
-
15
15
5
20
15
15
20
-
5
10
5
20
10
5
10
10
10
15
-
15
5
5
20
10
5
-
10
5
15
15
20
25
15
20
-
-
HYD 15
HYD 14
HYD 13
HYD 12
HYD 11
HYD 10
HYD 9
HYD 8
HYD 7
HYD 6
HYD 5
HYD 4
HYD 3
HYD 1
Taxa
HYD 2
Table 4.49: Composition and abundance distribution of phytoplankton per ml (Dry Season).
20
15
15
-
20
10
10
25
20
5
30
10
5
5
10
10
25
15
30
25
5
20
5
15
5
5
20
15
10
5
5
20
5
10
5
10
10
5
10
5
30
10
5
5
15
20
5
5
15
5
15
5
25
5
5
10
25
5
15
10
10
5
-
15
10
20
15
15
15
5
5
20
10
10
25
15
10
5
5
5
5
5
20
10
5
30
25
5
5
10
-
30
15
10
10
5
-
5
DIVISION – DINOPHYTA
P a g e | 143
HYD 15
HYD 14
HYD 13
HYD 12
HYD 11
HYD 10
HYD 9
HYD 8
HYD 7
HYD 6
HYD 5
HYD 4
HYD 3
HYD 1
Taxa
HYD 2
CLASS – DINOPHYCEAE
ORDER – PERIDINALES
Ceratium extensum (Gourret) Scho.
Ceratium tripos (O.F.M.) Nitzsch
5
10
10
15
5
10
15
15
15
15
25
5
15
5
15
10
15
15
10
5
10
5
-
5
-
10
5
Total species diversity (S)
Total abundance (N)
19
270
19
285
18
175
15
355
17
305
20
305
15
170
18
250
18
230
15
180
18
245
19
245
16
120
19
235
16
155
Source: ERL, 2013
HYD 15
HYD 14
HYD 13
HYD 12
HYD 11
HYD 10
HYD 9
HYD 8
HYD 7
HYD 6
HYD 5
HYD 4
HYD 3
HYD 2
Bio-indices
HYD 1
Table 4.50: Phytoplankton community composition parameters (Dry Season).
19
19
18
15
17
20
15
18
18
15
18
19
16
19
16
Total abundance (N)
270
285
175
355
305
305
170
250
230
180
245
245
120
235
155
Log of Species diversity (Log S)
1.28
1.28
1.26
1.18
1.23
1.30
1.18
1.26
1.26
1.18
1.26
1.28
1.20
1.28
1.20
Log of abundance (Log N)
2.43
2.45
2.24
2.55
2.48
2.48
2.23
2.40
2.36
2.26
2.39
2.39
2.08
2.37
2.19
Shannon-Wiener Index (Hs)
1.21
1.18
1.16
1.10
1.17
1.24
1.11
1.21
1.21
1.13
1.19
1.20
1.15
1.18
1.12
Menhinick Index (D)
1.16
1.13
1.36
0.80
0.97
1.15
1.15
1.14
1.19
1.12
1.15
1.21
1.46
1.24
1.29
Margalef Index (d)
3.22
3.18
3.29
2.38
2.80
3.32
2.73
3.08
3.13
2.70
3.09
3.27
3.13
3.30
2.97
Equitability Index (j)
0.94
0.92
0.92
0.94
0.95
0.95
0.94
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.95
0.94
0.96
0.92
0.93
Simpson's Dominance Index (C)
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.09
0.08
0.06
0.09
0.07
0.07
0.08
0.07
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.09
Source: ERL, 2013
P a g e | 144
Figure 4.28: Phytoplankton Total number of species (S) and abundance (N) (Dry Season)
Figure 4.29: Phytoplankton ecological indices (Dry Season)
P a g e | 145
Zooplankton Spectrum (dry Season).
The zooplankton recorded 4 (four) groups of species of (Holoplankton and Meroplankton forms. They include;
Phylum – Crustacea, Phylum – Chaetognatha, Phylum - Chordata, and Juvenile stages. The dominant group of
zooplankton was the Phylum – Crustacea, followed by the Juvenile stages. Whereas the Crustaceans recorded
60% (Calanoid Copepods, 6 species – 30%, Cyclopoids, 4 species – 20%, Branchiopods, 1 species – 5% and
Decapods, 1 species 5%), Juvenile stages reported 30%, Chordates, 5% (1 species) and Chaetognathas
reported 5% (1 species) (figure 4.30). The juvenile stages were represented by seven forms namely: Megalop
larva, Nauplii larva of Barnacle, Nauplii larva of Copepods, Jellyfish larva, Gastropod larva and Fish eggs.
The diversity and distribution of zooplankton per ml per station is shown in table 4.51 whereas Table 4.52
presents the zooplankton community’s eco-mathematical indices (biological indices). In all, a total of 20 species /
forms were recorded at the 4 stations. Total number of species recorded per station ranged between 15 and 19.
Figure 4.31 shows a graphical relationship between Total Number of Species (S) and Total Abundance of the
species (N) among others. Graphical representations of the ecological indices are show in figure 4.32.
Oithona plumifera Baird, Penilia avirostris Dana, and Sagitta enflata Vogf were the key species occurring in
terms of occurrence and abundance. Copepod eggs, Nauplii larva of Copepods and Fish eggs represented the
juvenile forms in this regard.
Figure 4.30: Percentage occurrence of zooplankton phylum and juvenile stages (Dry season).
P a g e | 146
PHYLUM – CRUSTACEA
CLASS I: COPEPODA
ORDER I: CALANOIDA
Acartia clausii Giesbrecht
Acartia discaudata Giesbrecht
Centropages hamastus (Lingberg)
Paracalanus parvus Claus
Paracalanus sp.
Pseudocalanus elongatus (Boeck)
10
15
55
10
25
35
10
5
15
45
10
30
10
-
35
30
20
20
15
15
10
15
35
10
10
15
25
10
10
5
5
10
ORDER II: CYCLOPOIDA
Corycaeus obtusus Dana
Cyclopina longicornis Boeck
Oithona plumifera Baird
Oncaea venusta Phillipi
5
10
15
15
10
25
25
10
5
35
10
5
20
10
5
10
15
PHYLUM – CHAETOGNATHA
ORDER – APHARAGMORPHA
Sagitta enflata Vogf
5
5
-
15
PHYLUM : CNIDARIA
CLASS: SCYPHOZOA
Unidentified jellyfish I
Unidentified jellyfish II
5
15
10
20
10
35
JUVENILE STAGES
Fish larva
Gastropod larva
Megalop larva
5
10
5
5
5
25
15
10
15
25
10
35
20
10
20
15
10
5
30
15
20
10
10
25
10
35
-
25
-
5
20
15
10
5
20
10
5
10
15
5
20
15
10
5
5
10
5
30
10
15
20
5
15
20
5
15
10
25
15
5
15
10
25
15
5
15
10
10
-
25
20
5
35
15
10
10
-
25
20
5
35
15
HYD 15
HYD 14
HYD 13
HYD 12
HYD 11
HYD 10
HYD 9
HYD 8
HYD 7
HYD 6
HYD 5
HYD 4
HYD 2
HYD 1
ZOOPLANKTON TAXA
HYD 3
Table 4.51: Composition and abundance distribution of zooplankton per ml (Dry Season).
35
30
15
20
25
15
10
15
5
30
5
10
10
15
10
5
5
10
10
5
30
15
10
5
20
10
5
10
5
20
20
5
20
10
5
10
25
15
5
15
25
15
10
10
-
25
20
10
5
5
10
10
-
5
20
5
5
15
P a g e | 147
Nauplii larva of Barnacle
Nauplii larva of Copepods
Jellyfish larva
Zoea larva
5
5
10
15
-
5
10
15
10
-
10
-
14
17
13
Total abundance (N)
170
245
245
5
10
15
-
15
5
5
5
5
5
10
-
5
-
17
13
16
17
14
265
200
200
190
205
5
5
10
-
5
-
15
25
5
14
15
13
185
205
230
HYD 15
HYD 14
HYD 13
HYD 12
HYD 11
HYD 10
HYD 9
HYD 8
HYD 7
HYD 6
HYD 5
HYD 4
HYD 2
HYD 1
ZOOPLANKTON TAXA
HYD 3
-
15
25
5
-
16
15
15
12
185
255
185
110
Source: ERL, 2013
HYD 15
HYD 14
HYD 13
HYD 12
HYD 11
HYD 10
HYD 9
HYD 8
HYD 7
HYD 6
HYD 5
HYD 4
HYD 3
HYD 2
Bio-indices
HYD 1
Table 4.52: Zooplankton community composition parameters (Dry season).
14
17
13
17
13
16
17
14
14
15
13
16
15
15
12
Total abundance (N)
170
245
245
265
200
200
190
205
185
205
230
185
255
185
110
1.15
1.23
1.11
1.23
1.11
1.20
1.23
1.15
1.15
1.18
1.11
1.20
1.18
1.18
1.08
2.23
2.39
2.39
2.42
2.30
2.30
2.28
2.31
2.27
2.31
2.36
2.27
2.41
2.27
2.04
1.00
1.16
1.02
1.17
1.06
1.12
1.18
1.10
1.06
1.11
1.06
1.10
1.12
1.10
1.02
Menhinick Index (D)
1.07
1.09
0.83
1.04
0.92
1.13
1.23
0.98
1.03
1.05
0.86
1.18
0.94
1.10
1.14
Margalef Index (d)
2.53
2.91
2.18
2.87
2.26
2.83
3.05
2.44
2.49
2.63
2.21
2.87
2.53
2.68
2.34
0.87
0.94
0.91
0.95
0.95
0.93
0.96
0.96
0.93
0.94
0.95
0.91
0.95
0.94
0.95
0.15
0.08
0.11
0.08
0.10
0.09
0.07
0.09
0.10
0.09
0.10
0.10
0.08
0.09
0.11
Source: ERL, 2013
P a g e | 148
Figure 4.31: Zooplankton Total number of species (S) and abundance (N) (Dry Season)
Figure 4.32: Zooplankton ecological indices (Dry season)
P a g e | 149
Phytoplankton Spectrum (Wet Season).
In wet season, the phytoplankton recorded three group of species. They were the Diatoms (Division –
Bacillariophyta), Blue-green algae (Division – Cyanophyta) and the Chlorophytes. The dominant group was the
Diatoms while the Blue-green algae and the Chlorophytes had the same percentage representation. Whereas
the Diatoms, recorded 63% (Centrales – 33.3% - 9 species, Pennales – 29.6% - 8 species), while the Blue-green
algae reported 18.5%, 5 species, the Chlorophytes also reported 18.5%, 5 species (figure 4.33).
The diversity and distribution of phytoplankton per ml per station is shown in Table 4.53, whereas Table 4.54
presents the phytoplankton community’s eco-mathematical indices. Twenty-seven (27) species were recorded at
the 15 stations studied. Total number of species recorded per station ranged between 8 and 15. Figure 4.34
shows a graphical relationship between Total Number of Species (S) and Total Abundance of the species (N)
among others. Graphical representations of the ecological indices are show in Figure 4.35.
The key species occurring for the study were Aulacoseira granulata Ehrenberg (Ralfs), Aulacoseira granulata
var. angstissima Muller, Bacillaria paxillifer (O.F. Muller) Hendey and Synedra crystalline (Ag.) Kutzing.
Figure 4.33: Percentage occurrence of major phytoplankton groups (wet season)
P a g e | 150
Table 4.53: Composition and abundance distribution of phytoplankton per ml (Wet Season).
HYD 2
HYD 3
HYD 4
HYD 5
HYD 6
HYD 7
HYD 8
HYD 9
HYD 10
HYD 11
HYD 12
HYD 13
HYD 14
HYD 15
3
Aulacoseira granulata Ehrenberg (Ralfs)
85
20
15
25
5
-
5
20
5
25
5
-
20
15
10
Aulacoseira granulata var. angstissima Muller
155
5
5
20
-
25
30
5
-
20
15
25
5
5
5
Aulacoseira varians Agardh
-
-
-
5
-
-
10
-
-
5
5
-
-
-
5
Odontella biddulphiana Bayer
-
5
-
-
10
25
5
5
-
5
15
25
5
-
-
Odontella laevis Ehrenberg
10
15
10
30
5
15
Coscinodiscus centralis Ehrenberg
-
10
10
15
-
-
10
5
Coscinodiscus eccentrius Ehrenberg
-
5
5
-
-
5
10
Coscinodiscus radiatus Ehrenberg
-
-
-
-
5
-
10
Terpsinoe musica (Ehr.) Hustedt
5
-
-
-
-
-
-
5
5
10
15
25
5
5
10
HYD 1
Taxa
DIVISION – BACILLARIOPHYTA
CLASS-BACILLARIOPHYCEAE
ORDER I – CENTRALES
-
10
10
5
-
-
5
15
-
-
-
-
-
-
5
-
-
-
-
-
5
5
5
10
15
25
35
10
10
10
ORDER II – PENNALES
Bacillaria paxillifer (O.F. Muller) Hendey
35
Gyrosigma balticum (Ehr.) Rabenhorst
10
15
-
-
-
10
15
-
-
-
10
15
-
Navicula cryptocephala (Kutz.) Hustedt
15
-
-
-
-
20
5
5
-
-
-
5
-
-
-
Pleurosigma angulatum (Quekett) Wm. Smith
60
15
-
-
20
10
-
10
-
-
-
-
5
-
-
Surirella ovata Kutzing
-
-
15
15
10
-
-
-
15
15
-
30
15
15
Surirella splendida Wm. Smith
-
5
-
-
-
-
-
5
-
-
25
-
10
-
-
Synedra ulna var. biceps Ehrenberg
-
-
-
-
10
-
-
-
-
-
15
-
-
-
-
Synedra crystallina (Ag.) Kutzing
5
15
20
10
-
15
5
15
20
10
-
15
-
20
10
DIVISION – CYANOPHYTA
CLASS – CYANOPHYCEAE
ORDER I – CHROOCOCCALES
P a g e | 151
HYD 2
HYD 3
HYD 4
HYD 5
HYD 6
HYD 7
HYD 8
HYD 9
HYD 10
HYD 11
HYD 12
HYD 13
HYD 14
HYD 15
65
55
20
-
25
-
5
55
20
-
25
-
5
20
-
Oscillatoria chalybea Gomont
50
-
20
10
-
-
65
-
5
20
-
-
-
20
10
Oscillatoria curviceps C.A. Agardh
25
5
15
5
-
5
15
5
30
-
-
5
5
5
5
Oscillatoria formosa Bory
-
-
-
5
-
-
5
-
10
15
-
-
-
-
5
Oscillatoria limnosa Agardh
850
-
20
10
-
5
15
-
5
20
-
5
-
10
10
5
55
-
10
-
85
5
55
-
10
-
5
55
-
10
Gonatozygon monotaenium De Bary
255
-
20
20
-
-
5
-
20
20
-
-
-
20
20
Gonatozygon sp.
25
-
-
-
-
-
30
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Scenedesmus obliquus (Turp.) Kutzing
-
15
5
5
-
-
-
15
5
20
-
-
10
5
5
Scenedesmus quadriquada (Turp.) de Brebisson
-
10
10
25
-
-
-
10
30
10
-
-
-
30
25
15
14
15
16
8
11
17
15
15
17
10
10
13
15
17
Total abundance (N)
1645
230
200
200
100
235
255
230
200
250
140
130
175
200
170
HYD 1
Taxa
Microcystis aureginosa Kutzing
ORDER II – HORMOGONALES
DIVISION – CHLOROPHYTA
CLASS – CHLOROPHYCEAE
ORDER I – ULOTHRICALES
Spirogyra africana Fritsch Cruda
ORDER II – ZYGNEMATALES
ORDER III – CHLOROCOCCALES
Source: ERL, 2013
P a g e | 152
Total abundance (N)
Menhinick Index (D)
Margalef Index (d)
HYD 15
HYD 14
HYD 13
HYD 12
HYD 11
HYD 10
HYD 9
HYD 8
HYD 7
HYD 6
HYD 5
HYD 4
HYD 3
HYD 2
Bio-indices
HYD 1
Table 4.54: Phytoplankton community composition parameters (Wet Season).
15
14
15
16
8
11
17
15
15
17
10
10
13
15
17
1645
230
200
200
100
235
255
230
200
250
140
130
175
200
170
1.18
1.2
1.2
1.2
0.9
1
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1
1
1.1
1.2
1.2
3.22
2.4
2.3
2.3
2
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.3
2.4
2.2
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.2
0.74
1
1.1
1.2
0.8
0.9
1
1
1.1
1.2
0.9
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
0.37
0.9
1.1
1.1
0.8
0.7
1.1
1
1.1
1.1
0.9
0.9
1
1.1
1.3
1.89
2.4
2.6
2.8
1.5
1.8
2.9
2.6
2.6
2.9
1.8
1.9
2.3
2.6
3.1
0.63
0.9
1
1
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
1
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
1
0.31
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
Source: ERL, 2013
P a g e | 153
Figure 4.34: Phytoplankton Total number of species (S) and abundance (N) (Wet Season)
Figure 4.35: Phytoplankton ecological indices (Wet season)
Zooplankton Spectrum (Wet Season).
In wet season zooplankton recorded three groups of species of holoplankton and meroplankton forms. They
were Phylum – Crustacea, Rotofera and the Juvenile stages. Whereas the Crustaceans recorded 38.5%
(Rotifers, 4 species – 30.7%) of the total zooplankton, the Juvenile stages also reported 30.7, (Figure 4.36). Four
P a g e | 154
forms represented the juvenile stages namely: Copepod egg, Copepod nauplii larva, Rotiferan egg and Zoea
larva.
The diversity and distribution of zooplankton per ml per station is shown in Table 4.55 whereas Table 4.56
presents the zooplankton community’s eco-mathematical indices. In all a total of 13 species / forms were
recorded at the 15 stations studied. Total number of species recorded per station ranged between 2 and 6.
Figure 4.37 shows a graphical relationship between Total Number of Species (S) and Total Abundance of the
species (N), while figure 4.38 presents the community indices at the sampled locations.
Paracalanus parvus (Claus), Lecane bulla Gosse and Rotiferan egg were the key species occurring in terms of
occurrence and abundance. Copepod nauplius and Zoea larva represented the juvenile forms in this regard.
Figure 4.36: Percentage occurrence of zooplankton phylum and juvenile stages.
P a g e | 155
HYD 15
HYD 14
HYD 13
HYD 12
HYD 11
HYD 10
HYD 9
HYD 8
HYD 7
HYD 6
HYD 5
HYD 4
HYD 3
ZOOPLANKTON TAXA
PHYLUM: CRUSTACEA
HYD 2
HYD 1
Table 4.55: Composition and abundance distribution of zooplankton per ml (Wet season)
CLASS: COPEPODA
ORDER I: CALANOIDA
Acartia clausii Giesbrecht
-
10
5
-
-
-
-
5
-
5
-
-
5
-
-
Paracalanus parvus (Claus)
5
5
10
5
-
-
5
10
5
10
5
-
10
5
-
Cyclops strenus Fisher
-
15
-
-
5
-
-
-
10
-
5
5
-
-
5
Cyclops sp.
10
5
-
-
10
-
10
-
5
-
-
-
-
-
-
Mesocyclops sp.
-
-
5
-
10
-
-
5
-
5
-
-
5
-
10
Lecane bulla Gosse
-
-
10
5
5
5
-
10
5
5
5
5
10
5
5
Lecane sp.
-
-
5
-
5
15
-
5
-
-
10
10
5
-
15
Monostyla sp.
-
-
-
10
10
-
-
10
-
5
-
10
10
Brachionus plicatilis Muller
-
-
-
5
10
5
-
-
5
-
5
5
-
5
5
Copepod egg
-
-
5
10
-
5
-
5
10
5
10
10
5
10
5
Copepod nauplii larva
-
-
10
-
5
10
-
10
-
-
-
-
10
-
10
Rotiferan egg
-
15
-
5
-
15
-
5
5
-
-
5
10
5
-
Zoea larva
5
-
-
-
5
-
5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ORDER II: CYCLOPOIDA
PHYLUM: ROTIFERS
CLASS: MONOGONOTA
ORDER: PLOIMA
JUVENILE STAGES
P a g e | 156
HYD 15
HYD 14
HYD 13
HYD 12
HYD 11
HYD 10
HYD 9
HYD 8
HYD 7
HYD 6
HYD 5
HYD 4
HYD 3
ZOOPLANKTON TAXA
HYD 2
HYD 1
3
5
7
6
8
7
3
8
8
5
6
7
8
6
8
Total abundance (N)
20
50
50
40
55
65
20
55
55
30
40
45
60
40
65
HYD 15
HYD 13
HYD 12
HYD 11
HYD 10
HYD 9
HYD 8
HYD 7
HYD 6
HYD 5
HYD 4
HYD 3
HYD 2
HYD 1
Bio-indices
HYD 14
Source: ERL, 2013
Table 4.56: Zooplankton community composition parameter (Wet Season).
3
5
7
6
8
7
3
8
8
5
6
7
8
6
8
Total abundance (N)
20
50
50
40
55
65
20
55
55
30
40
45
60
40
65
0.48
0.7
0.85
0.78
0.9
0.85
0.48
0.9
0.9
0.7
0.78
0.85
0.9
0.78
0.9
1.3
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.74
1.81
1.3
1.74
1.74
1.48
1.6
1.65
1.78
1.6
1.81
0.45
0.65
0.82
0.75
0.88
0.8
0.45
0.88
0.88
0.68
0.75
0.82
0.88
0.75
0.86
Menhinick Index (D)
0.67
0.71
0.99
0.95
1.08
0.87
0.67
1.08
1.08
0.91
0.95
1.04
1.03
0.95
0.99
Margalef Index (d)
0.67
1.02
1.53
1.36
1.75
1.44
0.67
1.75
1.75
1.18
1.36
1.58
1.71
1.36
1.68
0.95
0.93
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.95
0.95
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.96
0.38
0.24
0.16
0.17
0.11
0.17
0.38
0.14
0.13
0.22
0.17
0.15
0.14
0.17
0.14
Source: ERL, 2013
P a g e | 157
Figure 4.37: Zooplankton Total number of species (S) and abundance (N) (Wet Season)
Figure 4.38: Zooplankton ecological indices (Wet Season)
The plankton spectrum for this study contains both holoplanktonic and meroplanktonic forms. The dominant
group of phytoplankton was the Diatoms, followed by the Blue-green algae. Key species occurring for the study
were Coscinodiscus eccentrius Ehrenberg, Synedra crystallina (Ag.) Kutzing, Oscillatoria limnosa Agardh and
Oscillatoria tenius. These species generally indicate brackish / marine physico-chemical conditions. For the
P a g e | 158
zooplankton, the copepod crusteceans were the more important group, before the juvenile statges. Acartia clausii
Giesbrecht, and Acartia discaudata were the notable holoplankton forms while Copepod nauplus and Zoea larva
represented the meroplankton (juvenile) forms. These juveniles reflect breeding and nursery ground especially
for crabs. This is represented by the abundance of the Zoea larva. Megalop larva and Fish egg were also
recorded. The Copepod nauplius also shows a favourable breeding ground for copepods. These species indicate
brackish water environmental conditions.
The changes or variation in species of phytoplankton and zooplankton from station to station recorded for this
study were likely reflections of the variety of species available in the region and the natural variation of species
from point to point. The phytoplankton composition and distribution per station is also in consonance with
previously recorded levels of nutrients in our coastal waters. There were no threatened species recorded for this
study. The species of phytoplankton and zooplankton recorded for this study are known tropical and indigenous
forms previously recorded in (Olaniyan, 1975) Nigerian part of the Atlantic Ocean. Results from the biological
indices for the phytoplankton and zooplankton communities (Shannon-Wiener Index (Hs), Menhinick Index (D),
Margalef Index (d), Equitability Index (j) and Simpson's Dominance Index (C) followed a similar regime with the
phytoplankton and zooplankton species composition and distributive pattern and were reflections of the species
diversity (S) and species abundance (N) at the different stations. Hence, the bio-indices values were a good
likeness of the species diversity and abundance. It is worthy of note that the inferences aforementioned are
based on the bio-diagonistic characteristics of the plankton composition, abundance and distribution as recorded
in this investigation.
4.9.7.2
Macrobenthos
Benthic macrofauna, are animals that are larger than 0.5 millimeter and live on rocks, logs, sediment, debris and
aquatic plants during some period in their life cycle. They include vast array of aquatic animals and are
widespread in their distribution and can live on all bottom types, even on man-made objects (artificial substrates).
Benthic organisms constitute an important part of the aquatic food chain, especially as they are important food
source for fish, and because of their abundance and position as “middlemen” in the aquatic food chain.
Macrobenthos play a critical role in the natural flow of energy and nutrients in aquatic ecosystems.
Most benthos exhibit limited mobility and so they are less able to escape the effects of pollutants. Therefore, they
can provide reliable information on water quality. Their long life cycles allow studies conducted by aquatic
ecologists to determine any decline in environmental quality.The large numbers of species possess a wide range
of responses to stressors originating from agricultural, domestic and industrial sources. Many benthic
macroinvertebrates are long-lived, allowing detection of past pollution events such as oil spills and dumping of
wastes (Garrity and Levings, 1993).
P a g e | 159
In dry season, the macrobenthic community of the study area was dominated by molluscs (79%), followed by
Athropods (11%) and Annelids (10%). The checklist and abundance of identified species in dry season are
presented in table 4.66. Figure 4.39 shows the percentage distribution of the major macrobenthic groups at the
locations studied in dry season. 115 individuals from 17 different species and 14 families were recorded in the
study. Organisms from phylum Mollusca were most predominant with 92 individuals (79%). Arthropods
accounted for 11% of the entire community, while Annelids occupied the rest 10%. Major contributors to the
mollusca population were; Tympanotonus fuscatus var radula (38), Pachymelania fusca quadriseriata (17), and
Physa sp (10). Recorded arthropods included; Penaeus notaliz, Cyathura sp. and Chironomous sp. while
annelids recorded were: Nereis lamellose, Lumbriculus variegates and Nais elinguis.
Figure 4.39: Percentage Distribution of major Macrobenthos Groups at the study locationsin Dry Season
Species Richness and Diversity in Dry Season
The species richness and diversity of benthic macrofauna in this study as represented by the number of taxa
observed at study sites were generally low (Table 4.57). The highest number (11) of species was recorded in
HYD2. HYD1 and HYD9 recorded 10 and 6 taxa respectively. .The low benthic macroinvertebrate population
and species richness observed in this study depict an impoverished community. The result recorded is typical of
a degraded ecosystem.
In wet season, the community of macrobenthic organisms recorded at the study locations, showed
preponderance of molluscs, especially gastropods. 110 individuals from 15 families and 18 species will
recoreded. 79% (87 individuals) of the organisms identified were molluscs, 12% (13 individuals) were annelids,
while the remaining 9% (10 individuals) were arthropods. Molluscs were represented mainly by: Pachymelania
fusca quadriseriata (16), Pachymelania aurita (43), Macomo Cumana (6) and Turritella ungulina (6). Annelids
recorded include Nereis lamellose (5), N. granulata (3) and Glycera spp. (5), while the predominant arthropod
P a g e | 160
species were Cyathura spp. (3), Penaeus notalis (3), and Balanus pallidus (3). Figure 4.40 shows the percentage
distribution of the major macrobenthic groups at the locations studied in dry season.
Figure 4.40: Percentage Distribution of major Macrobenthos Groups at the study locationsin Wet Season
Species Richness and Diversity in Wet Season
The species richness and diversity of benthic macrofauna in this study as represented by the number of taxa
observed at study sites were generally low (Table 4.58). The highest number (11) of species was recorded in
HYD2. HYD11 and HYD9 recorded 9 and 8 taxa respectively. The low benthic macroinvertebrate population and
species richness observed in this study depict an impoverished community. The result recorded is typical of a
degraded ecosystem.
P a g e | 161
Table 4.57: Checklist, Abundance and Distribution of Macrobenthic Invertebrate Species in the study sites in Dry Season.
Taxa
PHYLUM :MOLLUSCA
CLASS: Gastropoda
Family:Thiaridae
Pachymelania fusca quadriseriata
Pachymelania aurita
Family: Potamididae
Tympanotonus fuscatus var
radula
Family: Naticidae
Natica fulminea
Family: Turritellidae
Turritella ungulina
Family: Neritidae
Neritina glabrata
CLASS: Bivalva
Family: Tellinidae
Macoma Cumana
Tellina nymphalis
Family: Ostreidae
Crassostrea gasar
Family: Physidae
Physa spp.
Family: Mytilidae
Mytilus sp
Subtotal
PHYLUM :ARTHROPODA
CLASS: Insecta
Subclass:Diptera
Family: Chironomidae
Chironomous sp
Sub Phylum: Crustacea
Class: Malacostraca
Sample location ID
HYD1 HYD2 HYD3
HYD4
HYD5
HYD6
HYD7
HYD8
HYD9
HYD10
HYD11
HYD12
HYD13
HYD14
HYD15
Total
0
0
2
0
1
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
8
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
17
5
1
1
0
2
0
0
3
1
8
4
3
5
9
0
1
38
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
4
1
3
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
3
8
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
4
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
10
1
11
0
7
0
1
0
4
0
5
0
0
0
6
1
4
0
21
0
4
0
4
0
7
0
10
0
4
1
4
3
92
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
5
P a g e | 162
Taxa
Family: Anthuridae
Cyathura sp
Family: Penaeidae
Penaeus notalis
Subtotal
PHYLUM :ANNELIDA
Class: Polychaeta
Subclass: Errantia
Family: Neredidae
Nereis lamellose
Class: Clitellata
Family: Lumbriculidae
Lumbriculus variegatus
Nais elinguis
Subtotal
Total Species Diversity (S)
Total Abundance (N)
No of Families
Sample location ID
HYD1 HYD2 HYD3
HYD4
HYD5
HYD6
HYD7
HYD8
HYD9
HYD10
HYD11
HYD12
HYD13
HYD14
HYD15
Total
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
4
0
2
2
5
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
5
14
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
2
0
3
1
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
2
9
10
16
9
11
15
10
2
2
2
3
4
3
3
5
3
2
2
2
4
6
3
5
7
5
6
23
5
1
4
1
3
5
3
3
7
3
3
11
3
3
4
3
4
4
3
63
115
58
Source: ERL, 2013
P a g e | 163
Table 4.58: Checklist, Abundance and Distribution of Macrobenthic Invertebrate Species in the study sites in Wet Season.
Taxa
PHYLUM :MOLLUSCA
CLASS: Gastropoda
Family:Thiaridae
Pachymelania fusca quadriseriata
Pachymelania aurita
Family: Potamididae
Tympanotonus fuscatus var radula
Family: Naticidae
Natica fulminea
Family: Turritellidae
Turritella ungulina
Family: Neritidae
Neritina glabrata
CLASS: Bivalva
Family: Tellinidae
Macoma cumana
Tellina nymphalis
Family: Ostreidae
Crassostrea gasar
Family: Physidae
Physa spp.
Family: Mytilidae
Mytilus sp
Subtotal
PHYLUM :ARTHROPODA
Class: Malacostraca
Family: Anthuridae
Cyathura sp
Family: Penaeidae
Penaeus notalis
Family: Diogenidae
Clibanarus africana
Sample location ID
HYD1 HYD2 HYD3
HYD4
HYD5
HYD6
HYD7
HYD8
HYD9
HYD10
HYD11
HYD12
HYD13
HYD14
HYD15
Total
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
2
1
2
3
0
2
0
1
2
11
1
7
1
3
2
4
4
9
0
0
0
0
16
43
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
2
0
6
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
2
0
5
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
6
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
2
1
6
0
2
1
3
0
5
1
6
0
3
0
1
0
16
0
8
0
9
0
7
0
14
0
5
0
0
3
87
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
P a g e | 164
Taxa
Class: Maxillopoda
Family: Balanidae
Balanus pallidus
Subtotal
PHYLUM :ANNELIDA
Class: Polychaeta
Subclass: Errantia
Family: Neredidae
Nereis lamellosa
N. granulata
Family: Glyceridae
Glycera sp
Subtotal
Total Species Diversity (S)
Total Abundance
No of Families
Sample location ID
HYD1 HYD2 HYD3
HYD4
HYD5
HYD6
HYD7
HYD8
HYD9
HYD10
HYD11
HYD12
HYD13
HYD14
HYD15
Total
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
3
0
1
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
10
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
5
3
0
1
1
3
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
2
1
2
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
5
13
3
3
3
11
11
10
2
2
2
4
4
3
5
6
4
3
6
2
4
6
4
6
6
6
8
19
6
2
8
1
9
11
8
3
7
2
5
16
3
3
5
3
0
0
0
68
110
57
Source: ERL, 2013
P a g e | 165
4.9.8
4.9.8.1
Fish and Fisheris in Lagos Lagoon
Introduction
In Nigeria, the growing demand for fish has increased domestic fishing efforts and has resulted in rising fish
imports and prices (Delgado et al., 2003). Species distribution is an indication of where fish species occur or are
located in the aquatic environment. Artisanal or small-scale fisheries using planked canoes with or without
motorized engines are the predominant fisheries of inland waters around the proposed reaclamation arae. The
lagoon is important in conservation terms because of the great diversity of endemic species (Emmanuel, 2009;
2010). Fish and fishing related activities are among the man occupation of some people in the nearby
settlements to the proposed reclamation project, although community studies revealed that Itedo people have
almost all left fishing as a profession.
Lagos Lagoon experiences both freshwater and brackish water characteristics and is a large stretch of
continuous train of lagoons and creeks along the coast of Nigeria; from republic of Benin boarder to Niger Delta
(Emmanuel et al., 2008b). The lagoon has a salinity range of 0 – 28.9‰ between the peak of rainy season to the
peak of the dry season (Emmanuel and Onyema, 2007). Land use and other human activities influence species
diversity and abundance (Victor and Dickson, 1985; Victor and Ogbeibu, 1985, 1986). Nwadukwe (1995)
observed 23 species from 17 families in 2 habitats in the Lagos Lagoon in which 6 species appeared regularly.
4.9.8.2
Materials and Methods
Fish and Fisheries studies were carried out in March (dry season) and July (wet season) 2013. The types of
fishing gears used in the area were examined, the fishermen operating in the area were interviewed and their
catches, observed. The fish species were classified to family level using some available identification texts like
Schneider (1990), Olaosebikan and Raji (1998) and Emmanuel (2009). Some fishing operation pictures were
taken to complement the information acquired. The abundance of each species was estimated according to the
following criteria as described by Benech et al. (1983):
≥ 10%
=
Dominant
1 to 9%
=
Common
< 1% (but caught more than once)
=
Occasional
< 1% (and caught only once)
=
Rare.
4.9.8.3
Gears and Crafts
The fishing gears used by fisherfolks in this area are: Basket traps (Plate 4.9), hook and lines, pole and lines,
cast nets (Plate 4.10 and 4.11), gillnets and fish shelters (Acadja – this is fish aggregating device used majorly by
fishermen to aid their fisheries) (Plate 4.12) and longline (Plate 4.13). In the study area, men, women and
children are involved in fishing. An average of 2 persons per boat engage in fishing oprtation.
P a g e | 166
Plate 4.9: Basket Trap Stakes (left) and Basket Trap with bait (right) sited near the proposed Reclamation Area
Plate 4.10: Group castnetting in Lagos lagoon
P a g e | 167
Plate 4.11: Fishermen operating castnet along the beach of the project area
Plate 4.12: A fish aggregating device (Acadja) setup around the project site.
P a g e | 168
Plate 4.13: Fisherman preparing his longline for fishing operation
4.9.8.4
Fish Species Composition in Dry and Wet Season
Tables 4.59 and 4.60 present the fish species compositions of the study area in dry and wet season. The low
species diversity noted in the lagoon may be a reflection of fishing gear type used for the period. This agreed
with Lagler (1974) and Emmanuel and Kusemiju (2005) that different fishes were known to react differently to
different types of fishing gears. Most fish specimens caught in this study from the lagoon were juveniles, which
probably indicated that the lagoon served as nursery ground for these species. The occurrence of Hemichromis.
fasciatus, Bathygobius soporator, Eleotris vittata and Callinectes amnicola in the lagoon indicated that these
species can tolerate a wide range of salinity, and that stressful situations have demonstrated that their capacity
to adapt is very high. Albaret and Lac (2003) and Emmanuel (2008) have reported similar findings for the Ebrie
lagoon (West Africa) and Abule Agege creek (Lagos) respectively. Plates 4.14 to 4.21 show some of the fish
species
P a g e | 169
Plate 4.14: Ethmalosa fimbriata
Plate 4.15: Tilapia guineensis
Plate 4.16: Hemichromis fasciatus
P a g e | 170
Plate 4.17: Sarotherodon melanotheron
Plate 4.18: Eleotris vittata
Plate 4.19: Caranx hippos
P a g e | 171
Plate 4.20: Callinectes amnicola caught around the project area
Plate 4.21: Some Chrysichthys nigrodigitatus caught from fishing activities in the project area
P a g e | 172
Table 4.59: Families and species of fishes caught from the study area (Dry season)
Family/species
Gobiidae
Bathygobius soporator
Eleotridae
Eleotris vittata
Cichlidae
Hemichromis fasciatus
Sarotherodon melanotheron
Tilapia guineensis
Bagridae
Chrysichthys nigrodigitatus (Plate 6)
Clupeidae
Ethmalosa fimbriata
Carangidae
Trachinotus teraia
Caranx hippos
Haemulidae
Pomadasys jubelini
Lutjanidae
Lutjanus agennes
Monodactylidae
Psettias sebae
Mugilidae
Liza falcipinnis
Liza dumeril
Sphyraenidae
Sphyraena barracuda
Portunidae
Callinectes amnicola
* Carapace width
Local Name (Yoruba)
Size range (Cm)
Weight range (g)
Abundance Score
Orombo
6.0 – 11.0
20.0 – 35.0
Common
Ikunun
6.0 – 10.0
19.0 – 33.0
Common
Akokoro
Epiya
Epiya
8.0 – 13.0
9.0 – 15.0
10.0 – 18.0
30.0 – 45.0
41.0 – 100.0
60.0 – 120.0
Common
Abundant
Abundant
Obokun
17.0 – 45.50
120.0 – 700.0
Abundant
Agbodo/ Efolo
10.0 – 16.50
35.0 – 70.0
Abundant
Owere
Agaza
18.0 – 45.00
12.0 – 16.00
100.0 – 712.0
70.0 – 200.0
Rare
Dominant
Ikekere
10.0 – 15.00
60.0 – 200.0
Rare
Obira
11.5 – 15.00
70.0 – 120.0
Rare
Akaraba
10.5 – 11.50
35.0 – 40.0
Rare
Atoko
Atoko
18.5 – 20.00
16.5 – 17.5
100.0 – 200.0
87.0 – 90.0
Common
Rare
Kuta
30.5 – 45.50
300.0 - 1000
Common
Akan
6.0 – 13.00*
15.0 – 30.0
Abundant
Page | 173
Table 4.60: Fish species composition of the fishermen catches in the project area (Wet season)
Family/Species
Carangidae
Trachinotus teraia
Clupeidae
Ethmalosa fimbriata
Mugilidae
Mugil cephalus
Liza falcipinnis
Liza dumerilli
Bagridae
Chrysichthys nigrodigitatus
Cichlidae
Sarotherodon melanotheron
Sarotherodon galilea
Hemichromis fasciatus
Tilapia guineensis
Gerreidae
Gerres nigri
Elopidae
Elops lacerta
Lutjanidae
Lutjanus goorensis
Sphyraenidae
Sphyraena barracuda
Portunidae
Callinectes amnicola
Palaemonidae
Macrobrachium macrobrachion
* Carapace width
** prawn total length
Local names (in Yoruba
Total Length Range (cm)
Weight Range (g)
Abundance Score
Owere
6.00 – 12.0
20.0 – 70.0
Rare
Agbodo/efolo
4.00 – 12.60
14.0 – 54.0
Dominant
Atoko
Atoko
Atoko
12.0 – 30.0
10.0- 15.0
8.0 – 10.0
45.0 – 150.0
20.0 – 50.0
15.0 – 34.0
Common
Common
Rare
Obokun
6.00 – 20.0
25.0 – 164.0
Common
Epiya
Epiya
Akokoro
Epiya
10.0 – 14.0
9.0 – 12.0
5.0 – 10.0
9.0 – 17.0
25.0 – 50.0
16.0 – 40.0
10.0 – 40.0
23.0 – 78.0
Dominant
Common
Common
Common
5.0 – 9.0
13.0 – 25.0
Common
Sugbon
12.00 – 20.0
34.0 – 98.0
Common
Obira
13.0
43.0
Rare
Kuta
15.00 – 45.0
67.0 - 1000
Abundant
Akan
5.0 – 9.0*
20.0 – 45.0
Common
Ede
4.0 – 6.0**
8.0 – 12.0
Common
Page | 174
4.9.8.5
Predominant Species
Assessment of fishermen catch around the proposed reclamation site, Ethmalosa fimbriata, was the most
abundant species followed by Sarotherodon melanotheron. Solarin (1998) and Emmanuel et al. (2008a&b)
observed similar high abundance in the two species in the Lagos lagoon. The poor species diversity (16 species)
according to Allison et al (1997) may be due to anthropogenic activities; such as dredging and water pollution
from petroleum products occasioned by barges, tugs and other lagoon crafts. The fish species identified in wet
season are shown Plate 4.22. The impact of human activities on species richness has also been reported by
Kone et al. (2003) in the Go River (Ivory Coast), Gratwicke et al. (2003) in the Upper Mangame River, Zimbabwe,
Emmanuel (2009) in Lekki Lagoon and Allison and Okadi (2009) in the lower Nun River, Niger Delta, Nigeria.
Plate 4.22: Some fish species caught by the castnet fishermen around the project area
4.9.8.6
Catches
Catch around thestudy area ranged between 5 -7 kg/day/person. This is, between 125 – 175kg/month/person.
Catch varies from season to season. The fishermen also alleged that the low catch is as a result of human
activities like; wastes discharges, sand mining and dredging around the area, which have driven fishes far away
from impacted areas .In terms of the health status of the catch, i.e.condition factor, which is the index of the
fatness or wellbeing of a species. The condition factor of the fishes ranged between 1.00 and 2.00.
Page | 175
4.9.8.7
Market structure
Most of the catches are sent to Obalende and Makoko (Betterlife) fish markets where the fishermen reported that
they make better sales. Catch landings at the market were more than what was observed at the fishing grounds
but some of the fishmongers explained that the bulk of the fish were from acadja fishery (fish aggregating
device).Some of the fishes are processed before sale in the market by dressing and smoking them (Plate 4.23
and 4.24).
Plate 4.23: Some dressed Sarotherodon melanotheron, Pomadasys jubelini, Lutjanus sp and Liza falcipinnis
Plate 4.24: Smoked fish on 44 gallon drum before sale
Page | 176
4.9.9
Characteristics of Lagoon Sediment
The characteristics of the Lagos lagoon sediment around the proposed reclamation area is very important in view
of the fact that the dredging and filling activities would very likely have direct on it, and through the suspension of
of particles, indirectly affect other components of the aquatic environment. Based on field studies and analyses
methodology presented in section 4.7.4 of this report, the properties of lagoon sediment within the study area are
presented below.
4.9.9.1
pH
The pH of of the lagoon sediment ranged between 6.6 and 7.3 in dry season and between 8.0 and 9.6 in wet
season. pH averages in dry and wet seasons were 7.0 and 8.9 respectively. In both seasons’ studies, an overall
average pH of 7.9 was recorded (table 4.61). The range of pH reported in this study is similar to those reported in
previous studies. Studies between April and September of 2010, reported pH range of 7.3 to 7.6 (Balogun et. al.,
2011). The trend of pH in the sediments at the various study locations is presented in figure 4.41.
Table 4.61: pH of Lagoon Sediment
Sample ID
pH
SED1
SED2
SED3
SED4
SED5
SED6
SED7
SED8
SED9
SED10
SED11
SED12
SED13
SED14_Ctrl
SED15
Dry Season
7.1
6.9
7.1
6.7
7.0
6.9
6.6
6.7
7.3
7.3
7.0
7.1
7.2
7.2
7.2
Wet Season
8.8
8.0
8.4
9.6
9.2
8.7
8.9
8.5
8.6
8.8
9.0
9.0
9.2
8.9
9.4
Min
Max
Average
2-Season Average
6.6
7.3
7.0
7.9
8.0
9.6
8.9
Source: ERL, 2013
Page | 177
Figure 4.41: Seasonal Variation of Sediment pH
4.9.9.2
The lagoon sediment conductivity at studied locations ranged between 3,350 and 5,420 µScm-1 with an average
of 4,137 µScm-1 in dry season. In wet season, it ranged between 77 and 434 µScm-1 with an average of 171
µScm-1. During the two seasons study, conductivity had an average of 2,154 µScm-1 (Table 4.62). Spatial and
temporal distribution of sediment electrical conductivity is presented in figure 4.42.
Table 4.62: Sediment Conductivity
Sample ID
Conductivity (µScm-1)
SED1
SED2
SED3
SED4
SED5
SED6
SED7
SED8
SED9
SED10
SED11
SED12
SED13
SED14_Ctrl
SED15
Dry Season
3,900
5,400
4,970
5,420
3,350
4,500
3,850
4,070
3,500
3,400
5,160
3,800
3,750
3,480
3,499
Min
Max
3,350
5,420
77
434
Average
4,137
171
2-Season Average
2,154
Wet Season
101
243
77
297
89
158
92
155
237
198
434
234
78
77
90
Page | 178
Source: ERL, 2013
Figure 4.42: Seasonal Variation of Sediment Conductivity
4.9.9.3
Total organic carbon content in the lagoon sediment at studied locations ranged between 0.01 to 0.35% during
the entire study. In dry season, the TOC ranged between 0.01 and 0.27% with an average of 0.08%. In wet
season, it ranged between 0.01 and 0.35 % with an average of 0.11% (table 4.63) TOC recorded low values at
locations where sand mining and dredging take place. The trend of seasonal variation of TOC at the study
locations is presented in figure 4.43.
Table 4.63: Total Organic Carbon (%) in Sediment
Sample ID
SED1
SED2
SED3
SED4
SED5
SED6
SED7
SED8
SED9
SED10
SED11
SED12
SED13
SED14_Ctrl
SED15
Dry Season
0.04
0.02
0.07
0.05
0.12
0.04
0.08
0.15
0.03
0.02
0.19
0.02
0.05
0.27
0.01
Min
Max
Average
2 Season Average
0.01
0.27
0.08
0.09
Total Organic Carbon (%)
Wet Season
0.06
0.02
0.1
0.08
0.18
0.09
0.12
0.21
0.05
0.01
0.28
0.04
0.02
0.35
0.02
0.01
0.35
0.11
Source: ERL, 2013
Page | 179
Figure 4.43: Seasonal Variation of TOC in Sediment
4.9.9.4
Particle Size Distribution
Particle size distribution and textural types of the lagoon sediment at the study locations are presented in Table
4.64.
Sand particles were most predominant at the study locations. Percentage sand content in the sediment ranged
between 24.9 and 98.1% in dry season, and between 36.5 and 98.2 in wet season. The average sand content in
the sediment in dry and wet seasons were 79.13 and 82.32% respectively. Silt particles ranged between 12 and
49.8% in dry season, and 0.9 and 39.8 in wet season. Clay had least percentage content in the sediment; with
values ranging between 0.3 and 25.3% in dry season, and 0.8 and 23.7 in wet. The overall average distribution
of sand, silt and clay particles in the sediment through the study period were 80.73%, 13.73% and 5.54%
respectively. The proportional distribution of sand, silt and clay particles in the sediments of the lagoon in dry and
wet seasons are presented in figures 4.44 and 4.45.
Page | 180
Table 4.64: Particle Size Distribution of Sediment
Sample ID
Particle Size (Dry Season)
Particle Size(Wet Season)
%Sand
%Silt
%Clay
Texture Type
%Sand
%Silt
%Clay
Texture Type
SED1
95.4
4.1
0.5
Sand
97.2
1.2
1.6
Sand
SED2
94.8
4.9
0.3
Sand
96.2
2.9
0.9
Sand
SED3
89.8
6.5
3.7
Loamy Sand
93.1
4.8
2.1
Sand
SED4
98.1
1.2
0.7
Sand
97.1
1.5
1.4
Sand
SED5
39.8
49.8
10.4
Silt Loam
49
39.8
11.2
Loam
SED6
68
27.8
4.2
Sandy Loam
72.5
18.8
8.7
Sandy Loam
SED7
82.4
14.9
2.7
Loamy Sand
89.4
8.8
1.8
Loamy Sand
SED8
78.6
17.8
3.6
Loamy Sand
69.5
20.2
10.3
Sandy Loam
SED9
98.1
1.2
0.7
Sand
95.4
1.7
2.9
Sand
SED10
97.6
1.6
0.8
Sand
98.2
0.9
0.9
Sand
SED11
56.9
28.9
14.2
Sandy Loam
64.6
20.3
15.1
Sandy Loam
SED12
95.6
3.1
1.3
Sand
94.7
3.9
1.4
Sand
SED13
94.5
2.5
3
Sand
97.4
1.7
0.9
Sand
SED14_Ctrl
24.9
49.8
25.3
Silt Loam
36.5
39.8
23.7
Loam
SED15
72.5
16.3
11.2
Sandy Clay Loam
84
15.2
0.8
Loamy Sand
Min
24.90
1.20
0.30
36.50
0.90
0.80
Max
98.10
49.80
25.30
98.20
39.80
23.70
Average
79.13
15.36
5.51
82.32
12.10
5.58
2-Season Average
80.73
13.73
5.54
Page | 181
Figure 4.44: Particle Size Distribution of Sediment at the Study locations in Dry Season
Source:
ERL, 2013
Figure 4.45: Particle Size Distribution of Sediment at the Study locations in Wet Season
Page | 182
4.9.9.5
Exchangeable Cations (Ca2+, Mg2+, Na+, K+) in Sediment
The distribution of exchangeable cations in the lagoon sediment at the study locations is presented in Table 4.65.
Table 4.65: Exchangeable Cations Concentrations in Sediment
Sample ID
Na+
K+
Mg2+
Ca2+
Mg/kg
SED1
Dry
Season
49.230
Wet
Season
145.800
Dry
Season
1.890
Wet
Season
0.900
Dry
Season
3.200
Wet
Season
0.890
Dry
Season
23.400
Wet
Season
6.900
SED2
27.450
112.400
4.562
11.400
2.700
<0.001
39.400
1.200
SED3
31.718
143.800
3.131
20.940
4.532
44.130
43.215
<0.001
SED4
63.523
151.450
4.354
1.750
2.787
<0.001
43.002
<0.001
SED5
17.800
99.400
3.330
6.740
3.100
<0.001
6.900
0.060
SED6
39.400
174.000
1.980
0.940
2.700
0.540
2.300
0.120
SED7
15.137
150.200
1.610
5.650
2.780
0.650
3.580
<0.001
SED8
58.817
117.010
2.217
0.410
3.707
<0.001
1.420
<0.001
SED9
50.988
139.000
4.873
1.480
6.604
0.520
7.852
<0.001
SED10
43.700
119.000
2.180
3.240
5.200
4.800
2.100
0.080
SED11
34.954
166.390
3.971
1.640
3.734
9.510
5.392
4.610
SED12
27.400
143.200
1.200
1.500
4.700
18.200
1.800
<0.001
SED13
22.440
200.100
3.840
0.560
1.900
<0.001
4.400
0.900
SED14_Ctrl
43.240
224.400
1.890
2.110
3.800
0.700
2.700
<0.001
SED15
56.800
143.200
2.110
0.420
4.600
0.590
1.900
<0.001
Min
15.137
99.400
1.200
0.410
1.900
0.520
1.420
0.060
Max
63.523
224.400
4.873
20.940
6.604
44.130
43.215
6.900
Average
38.840
148.623
2.876
3.979
3.736
8.053
12.624
1.981
2-Season
Average
93.732
3.427
5.463
9.238
Source: ERL, 2013
Sodium
Sodium contents in the sediment ranged between 15.14mg/kg and 63.52mg/kg with an average of 38.84mg/kg in
dry season. The concentration recorded higher values in wet season; ranging between 99.5mg/kg and
224.4mg/kg with an average of 148.623mg/kg (Table 4.65). In the two seasons’ study, an average of 93.73mg/kg
of sodium was detected in the sediment samples analysed. Figure 4.46 shows the trend of sodium content in the
sediment for both seasons study. Higher concentrations of sodium ions were trapped in the sediments in wet
season.
Page | 183
Figure 4.46: Seasonal Variation of Sodium Concentration in Sediment
Potassium ions
Potassium ions content in the sediment samples ranged between 1.2mg/kg and 4.87mg/kg with an average of
2.876mg/kg in dry season. In wet season, it ranged between 0.41mg/kg and 20.94mg/kg with an average
concentration of 3.979mg/kg (Table 4.65). The distribution trend of potassium in the sediment at the locations is
presented in figure 4.47.
Figure 4.47: Seasonal Variation of Potassium Concentration in Sediment
Magnesium
Magnesium content in the sediment of the lagoon ranged between 1.9mg/kg and 6.604mg/kg with an average of
3.736mg/kg in dry season. In wet season, it ranged from 0.52mg/kg to 44.053mg/kg with an average of
Page | 184
8.053mg/kg. An overall average of 5.463mg/kg of magnesium was recorded in the sediment over the 2 seasons’
study (Table 4.65). The distribution trend of Magnesium in the sedimentsat the study locations shows little
seasonal influence except for relatively high concentration at location SED 3 and SED12 in wet season (Figure
4.48).
Figure 4.48: Seasonal Variation of Magnesium in Sediment
Calcium
The concentration of calcium ions in the sediments of the lagoon ranged between 1.42mg/kg and 43.215mg/kg
with an average of 12.624mg/kg in dry season. In wet season, it ranged from 0.06mg/kg to 6.9mg/kg, and
recorded an average of 1.981mg/kg. An overall average of 9.238mg/kg of calcium concentration was recorded in
sediments in the 2-seasons’ study. Seasonal variation in calcium content of the lagoon sediments showed higher
values in dry season. Sediment from location SED1 to SED5 recorded relatively higher calcium contents in dry
season, while sediments from SED1 and SED11 had higher calcium contents in wet season, compared to other
locations (Figure 4.49).
Page | 185
Figure 4.49: Seasonal Variation of Calcium oncentration in Sediment
4.9.9.6
Sediment Anions (NO3- , SO42-, PO43-, Cl-)
Anions concentraion in the lagoon sediment at the studied locations are presented in Table 4.66.
Table 4.66: Anions Concentration in Sediment
Sample ID
NO3-
SO42-
Season
SED1
SED2
SED3
SED4
SED5
SED6
SED7
SED8
SED9
SED10
SED11
SED12
SED13
SED14_Ctrl
SED15
Dry
Season
21.333
26.666
26.555
27.333
20.33
23.435
21.333
22
24
20.12
26
21.033
20.376
20.33
19.666
Wet
Season
17.6
19.5
19.74
16.91
15.6
19.3
16.91
14.17
22.23
18.4
22.95
18.5
16.4
15.5
14.9
Dry
Season
36.534
40.58
38.158
40.969
34.391
37.274
27.572
23.134
37.418
39.39
39.3
36.784
24.89
26.79
19.237
Mg/kg
Wet
Season
24.96
35.78
15.57
17.85
11.9
35.42
15.85
9.25
33.97
17.8
12.98
21.75
27.48
10.43
8.94
Min
Max
19.666
27.333
14.170
22.950
19.237
40.969
Average
22.701
17.907
33.495
2-Season
Average
20.304
26.745
PO43-
Cl-
Dry
Season
1.1
0.8
0.1
0.4
0.9
0.5
0.5
0.8
1.5
0.5
0.6
0.3
1.3
0.6
0.4
Wet
Season
1.3
1.5
0.5
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.9
0.6
1
1.2
1.4
0.6
0.7
0.5
0.8
Dry
Season
2130
2600
2470
2670
1480
2460
1880
1930
1740
1560
2520
1960
1770
1650
1890
Wet
Season
40
60
30
140
90
120
40
70
1180
160
210
70
30
60
80
8.940
35.780
0.100
1.500
0.500
1.500
1480.00
2670.00
30.000
1180.00
19.995
0.687
0.893
2047.33
158.667
0.790
1103.00
Source: ERL, 2013
Page | 186
Nitrate (NO3-)
Nitrate ions content in the lagoon sediment had higher values in dry than wet season. In dry season, the ions
ranged between 19.69mg/kg and 27.33mg/kg with an average value of 22.7mg/kg. In wet season however,
nitrate ion in the sediment ranged from 14.17mg/kg to 22.95mg/kg with an average of 17.907mg/kg (Table 4.66).
There was almost a uniform trend in nitrate concentration in the sediments at the various locations in wet and dry
season (Figure 4.50)
Figure 4.50: Seasonal Variation of Nitrate in Sediment
Sulphate (SO42--)
The sulphate ion content in the sediment of the Lagoon had an overall average of 26.745mg/kg over the 2season study. Sulphates in sediment ranged between 19.237mg/kg and 40.969mg/kg with an average of
33.495mg/kg in dry season. In wet season however, nitrates in sediment ranged from 8.94mg/kg to 35.78mg/kg
with an average content of 19.995mg/kg (Table 4.66). There was an uneven trend in the variation of sulphate
concentration in the lagoon sediment at the studied locations in dry and wet seasons (Figure 4.51).
Page | 187
Figure 4.51: Seasonal Variation of Sulphate in Sediment
Phosphate (PO43-)
Phosphate ions content in the lagoon sediment at the studied locations ranged between 0.1mg/kg and 1.5mg/kg
with the average of 0.687mg/kg in dry season. In wet season, there was a marginal increase in phosphate
content in the sediment samples, it ranged from 0.5mg/kg to 1.5mg/kg and recorded an average of 0.893mg/kg
(Table 4.66). Over the two seasons study, phosphate content in the sediment had an average of 0.79mg/kg.
Figure 4.52 shows the variation trend of phosphates in the sediment of the studied locations in dry and wet
season.
Figure 4.52: Seasonal Variation of Phosphate in Sediment
Page | 188
Chloride (Cl-)
Chloride was the most abundant anion in the sediment of the lagoon at the sampled locations. Chloride ranged
from 1,480mg/kg to 2,670mg/kg with the average of 2,047.33mg/kg in dry season. In wet season, it ranged
between 30mg/kg and 1,180mg/kg with the average of 158.67mg/kg (Table 4.66). The higher level of chloride in
dry season was probably due to seawater influx. The dilution effect from fresh water in wet season was perhaps
a key factor for reduced chloride content in the sediment. An overall average of 1,103mg/kg of chloride
concentration was recorded in the 2-seasons study. Figure 4.53 shows spatial and temporal trend of chloride
content in the lagoon sediment in both seasons.
Figure 4.53: Seasonal Variation of Chloride in Sediment
4.9.9.7
Sediment Heavy Metals (Fe, Cd, Pb, Zn, Ni, Mn, Cr, Cu)
Heavy metals concentration in sediment of Lagos lagoon at the study locations are presented in table 4.67.
Iron (Fe)
Iron concentration in sediment of the studied locations ranged between 74.84mg/kg and 485.205mg/kg with an
average of 210.561mg/kg in dry season. In wet season, it rose to between 60.01mg/kg and 1,729.25mg/kg with
an average of 537.304mg/kg (Table 4.67). Figure 4.54 shows seasonal variation of iron content in sediment of
studied locations. The variation suggests influx of Fe from land based materials - wash off from soil.
Page | 189
Figure 4.54: Seasonal Variation of Fe in Sediment
Cadmium (Cd), Lead (Pb) and Manganese (Mn)
Cadmium, lead and manganese were below the sensitivity limit (0.001mg/kg) of the equipment used for
measurement in both seasons’ sediment studies.
Zinc (Zn)
Zinc content in the lagoon sediment ranged between 0.118mg/kg and 12.821mg/kg with an average of
4.187mg/kg in dry season. In wet season, it ranged from 1.98mg/kg to 73.28mg/kg with an average of
22.468mg/kg. An overall average concentration of 13.327mg was recorded in the 2 season study (Table 4.67).
Figure 4.55 shows seasonal variation of zinc in sediments of the studied locations.
Figure 4.55: Seasonal Variation of Zinc in Sediment
Page | 190
Copper (Cu)
The concentration of copper in the lagoon sediment at the studied locations had an overall average of
8.957mg/kg in the 2-season study. In dry season, the concentration of copper ranged between 0.43mg/kg and
7.347mg/kg with an average of 2.221mg/kg. Wet season recorded higher concentrations; ranging from
2.19mg/kg to 108.0mg/kg with an average of 15.693mg/kg (Table 4.67). The seasonal variation trend of copper
contents in sediment at the studied locations is shown in figure 4.56.
Figure 4.56: Seasonal Variation of Cu in Sediment
Page | 191
Table 4.67: Heavy Metal Concentration in Sediment
Sample ID
Fe
Cd
Pb
Zn
Mn
Cr
Cu
Ni
Mg/kg
Season
Dry
Wet
Dry
Wet
Dry
Wet
Dry
Wet
Dry
Wet
Dry
Wet
Dry
Wet
Dry
Wet
SED1
78.4
231.4
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
2.12
5.89
<0.001
<0.001
7.98
16.78
1.02
13.32
<0.001
<0.001
SED2
190.4
698.4
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
8.942
11.49
<0.001
<0.001
11.476
45.89
2.12
5.55
0.03
1.92
SED3
440.306
1729.25
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
10.75
26.35
<0.001
<0.001
8.338
43.35
1.767
7.22
<0.001
3.85
SED4
485.205
63.06
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
12.821
57.48
<0.001
<0.001
9.727
23.16
4.016
7.01
<0.001
<0.001
SED5
89.7
96.4
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
5.64
36.74
<0.001
<0.001
8.78
22.21
0.43
108
<0.001
<0.001
SED6
143.4
121.8
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
9.462
32.62
<0.001
<0.001
1.4
9.1
1.79
2.19
<0.001
0.11
SED7
396.941
874.94
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.491
7.34
<0.001
<0.001
8.123
29.69
0.889
3.19
<0.001
1.45
SED8
368.148
108.4
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
1.983
11.04
<0.001
<0.001
13.948
12.47
2.466
3.75
<0.001
0.73
SED9
119.273
60.01
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
4.828
36.67
<0.001
<0.001
8.358
24.34
7.347
38.54
<0.001
2.69
SED10
121.4
980.2
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.953
8.94
<0.001
<0.001
8.22
21.24
3.25
11.38
<0.001
1.23
SED11
74.84
686.9
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.118
73.28
<0.001
<0.001
9.263
30.88
2.43
14.59
<0.001
0.14
SED12
101.4
568.4
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.542
4.74
<0.001
<0.001
8.21
14.73
1.54
9.18
<0.001
0.85
SED13
381.2
1011.4
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.245
1.98
<0.001
<0.001
5.43
12.01
0.43
3.27
<0.001
0.09
SED14_Ctrl
78.2
339.6
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
2.78
12.73
<0.001
<0.001
7.435
12.84
1.17
3.26
<0.001
<0.001
SED15
89.6
489.4
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
1.124
9.73
<0.001
<0.001
9.745
13.23
2.65
4.94
0.01
<0.001
Min
74.840
60.010
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.118
1.980
ND
ND
1.400
9.100
0.430
2.190
ND
0.090
Max
485.205
1729.250
ND
ND
ND
ND
12.821
73.280
ND
ND
13.948
45.890
7.347
108.000
0.030
3.850
Average
210.561
537.304
ND
ND
ND
ND
4.187
22.468
ND
ND
8.429
22.128
2.221
15.693
NA
1.306
2-Season Average
373.932
ND
ND
13.327
ND
15.278
8.957
NA
Source: ERL, 2013
P a g e | 192
Chromium (Cr)
The concentration of chromium in the lagoon sediment at the studied locations had an overall average of
15.278mg/kg in the 2-season study. In dry season, Cr concentration in sediment ranged between 1.4mg/kg and
13.948mg/kg with the average of 8.429mg/kg. Cr concentrations in wet season were relatively higher; ranging
from 9.1mg/kg to 45.89mg/kg with the average of 22.128mg/kg (Table 4.66). Figure 4.57 shows the seasonal
variation trend of Cr in the lagoon sediment
Figure 4.57: Seasonal Variation of Chromium in Sediment
Nickel (Ni)
In the dry season, Ni was detected at in 2 out of 15 sediment samples; with concentrations of 0.01mg/kg and
0.03mg/kg. In wet season however, Ni was detected in 10 samples with concentrations ranging between
0.09mg/kg and 3.85mg/kg, and an average of 1.306mg/kg
4.9.9.8
Total Hydrocarbon Content (THC)
The THC of sediment at the studied locations is presented in table 4.68.
P a g e | 193
Table 4.68: Total Hydrocarbon Content in Sediment
Sample ID
SED1
SED2
SED3
SED4
SED5
SED6
SED7
SED8
SED9
SED10
SED11
SED12
SED13
SED14_Ctrl
SED15
THC
(Dry Season)
0.72
1.25
1.154
0.8
0.81
1.11
1.1
0.901
1.012
0.95
1.402
0.69
1.35
0.78
0.84
Min
Max
Average
2-Season Average
0.690
1.402
0.991
0.527
(Wet Season)
0.04
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.02
0.08
0.07
0.05
0.08
0.06
0.12
0.04
0.075
0.077
0.067
0.020
0.120
0.062
Source: ERL, 2013
THC in the lagoon sediment ranged between 0.69mg/kg and 1.402mg/kg with the average of 0.991mg/kg in dry
season. The THC levels in the sediment were lower in wet season; ranging from 0.02mg/kg to 0.12mg/kg with an
average of 0.062mg/kg. The overall average concentration of THC in sediment in the 2-season study was
0.527mg/kg (Table 4.68). Seasonal variation of sediment THC is presented in figure 4.58. Sediment samples
collected close to high vehicle traffic zones and human settlements had high THC, suggesting hydrocarbon
contribution from traffic and waste discharges.
Figure 4.58: Seasonal Variation of Total Hydrocarbon Content in Sediment
P a g e | 194
4.9.9.9
Sediment Microbiology
Microbial counts in the lagoon sediment at the study locations are presented in table 4.69.
THB counts in sediment in dry season ranged between 1.3x108 and 2.0x108cfu/g with the average of 1.65x108
cfu/g. It increased marginally in wet season, recording an average value of 1.78x108 cfu/g, and ranged between
1.48x108cfu/g and 2.20x108cfu/g. An overall average count of 1.72x108cfu/g was recorded in both season’s study
(Table 4.69). The predominant islotates are presented in table 4.70.
THF counts in sediment ranged between 3.0x104cfu/g and 1.0x105cfu/g of 5.8x104cfu/g in dry season. In wet
season, it ranged between 3.0x104cfu/g and 1.5x105cfu/g, with an average count of 6.53x104cfu/g. Over the two
seasons study, an overall average count of 6.17x104cfu/g was recorded (Table 4.69).
Total coliforms were recorded in 8 out of the 15 study locations in dry season, and in 12 locations in wet season
with slightly higher counts. Coliforms were recorded at locations proximal to local community dwellings. TC
counts ranged from 0.0 to 2.0x104cfu/g, with an average count of 5.75x103cfu/g in dry season. In wet season, the
counts ranged between 0.0 to 3.0x104cfu/g, with an average of 7.77x103cfu/g. An overall average count of
6.76x103cfu/g was recorded in both season’s study (Table 4.69). The predominant Isolate was E. coli.
Hydrocarbon utilizing Bacteria counts recorded in the sediments had an overall average count of 1.38x104cfu/g
over the two seasons’ study. In dry season, the THUB count ranged between 1.0x103cfu/g and 2.2x104cfu/g, with
an average of 1.17x104cfu/g. The hydrocarbon utilizing bacteria count in the sediment in wet season had an
average of 1.58x104cfu/g, with values ranging between 1.20x103cfu/g and 2.4x104cfu/g (Table 4.69).
Hydrocarbon utilizing Fungi counts in sediment recorded an overall average count of 1.54x103 cfu/g over the two
seasons’ study. In dry season, sediment THUF counts ranged between 2.0x102cfu/g and 6.0 x103 cfu/g, with the
average of 1.49 x103 cfu/g. The counts in sediment in wet season had an average of 1.59 x103 cfu/g, with values
that ranged between 3.0x102 cfu/g and 1.59x103 cfu/g (Table 4.69).
P a g e | 195
Table 4.69: Microbial Isolates Counts in Sediment
Sample ID
SED1
SED2
SED3
SED4
SED5
SED6
SED7
SED8
SED9
SED10
SED11
SED12
SED13
SED14 (Ctrl)
SED15
THB 20 (cfu/g)
Dry Season
1.72E+08
1.54E+08
1.94E+08
1.53E+08
1.44E+08
1.63E+08
1.75E+08
1.42E+08
1.89E+08
1.92E+08
1.37E+08
1.74E+08
2.00E+08
1.38E+08
1.45E+08
THF 21 (cfu/g)
Wet Season Dry Season
1.84E+08
4.00E+04
1.66E+08
3.00E+04
2.20E+08
8.00E+04
1.68E+08
1.00E+05
1.56E+08
6.00E+04
1.82E+08
5.00E+04
1.94E+08
7.00E+04
1.62E+08
3.00E+04
1.78E+08
4.00E+04
1.89E+08
8.00E+04
1.58E+08
8.00E+04
1.94E+08
6.00E+04
2.20E+08
8.00E+04
1.48E+08
3.00E+04
1.54E+08
4.00E+04
TC 22 (cfu/g)
Wet Season Dry Season
5.00E+04
1.80E+04
4.00E+04
0.00E+00
7.00E+04
1.30E+04
1.50E+05
1.20E+04
7.00E+04
1.00E+03
3.00E+04
1.20E+03
4.00E+04
0.00E+00
5.00E+04
0.00E+00
6.00E+04
0.00E+00
9.00E+04
1.00E+04
9.00E+04
1.10E+04
7.00E+04
0.00E+00
7.00E+04
2.00E+04
4.00E+04
0.00E+00
6.00E+04
0.00E+00
THUB 23 (cfu/g)
Wet Season Dry Season Wet Season
2.20E+04
1.00E+04
2.10E+04
1.00E+03
1.40E+04
1.80E+04
1.50E+04
2.20E+04
2.40E+04
1.60E+04
1.60E+04
2.00E+04
2.00E+03
1.10E+04
1.60E+04
1.80E+03
2.00E+04
2.40E+04
1.00E+03
1.80E+04
2.10E+04
8.00E+02
1.50E+04
1.70E+04
0.00E+00
2.10E+04
2.20E+04
1.20E+04
1.00E+04
1.20E+04
1.40E+04
1.40E+04
1.80E+04
0.00E+00
1.00E+03
1.20E+04
3.00E+04
1.20E+03
1.00E+04
1.00E+03
1.00E+03
1.20E+03
0.00E+00
1.70E+03
1.50E+03
THUF 24 (cfu/g)
Dry Season Wet Season
3.00E+02
5.00E+02
2.00E+02
4.00E+02
6.00E+03
4.00E+03
4.00E+03
2.00E+03
2.00E+02
4.00E+02
2.00E+02
3.00E+02
5.00E+02
4.00E+02
2.00E+02
3.00E+02
3.00E+02
5.00E+02
4.00E+02
3.00E+02
6.00E+02
8.00E+02
4.00E+03
6.00E+03
5.00E+03
7.00E+03
3.00E+02
5.00E+02
2.00E+02
4.00E+02
Min
Max
Average
Std. Dev.
Overall Average
1.37E+08
2.00E+08
1.65E+08
2.20E+07
1.72E+08
1.48E+08
2.20E+08
1.78E+08
2.25E+07
3.00E+04
1.50E+05
6.53E+04
2.95E+04
0.00E+00
3.00E+04
7.77E+03
9.67E+03
2.00E+02
6.00E+03
1.49E+03
2.08E+03
1.54E+03
3.00E+04
1.00E+05
5.80E+04
2.27E+04
6.17E+04
0.00E+00
2.00E+04
5.75E+03
7.39E+03
6.76E+03
1.00E+03
2.20E+04
1.17E+04
7.50E+03
1.38E+04
1.20E+03
2.40E+04
1.58E+04
7.25E+03
3.00E+02
7.00E+03
1.59E+03
2.23E+03
Source: ERL, 2013
22 Total Coliforms
20
21
P a g e | 196
Table 4.70: Predominant Species of Microbial Isolates in Sediment
Sample ID
PREDOMINANT ISOLATES
SED1
Bacillus spp., Clostridium spp., Eschenchia coli, Aspergillus fumigatus, Penicillium spp.
SED2
SED3
Bacillus spp., Clostridium spp., Escherichia coli, Aspergillus fumigatus, Fusarium spp.
SED4
Bacillus spp., Corynebacterium spp., Eschericha coli, Fusarium spp., Saccharomyces spp..
SED5
SED6
SED7
Bacillus spp., Micrococcus spp., Aspergillus flavus, Penicillium spp.
SED8
Bacillus spp., Flavobacterium spp., Fusarium spp., Aspergillus wentii.
SED9
Bacillus spp., Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Rhizopus stolonifer, Trichoderma spp.
SED10
SED11
SED12
SED13
Bacillus spp., Clostridium spp., Escherichia coli, Aspergillus fumigatus, Fusarium spp.
SED14 (Ctrl)
SED15
Source: ERL, 2013
4.9.10 Bathymetry of the Proposed Project Area
The bathymetric survey of Lagos lagoon around the proposed reclamation area showed that the surface level
was 1mCD. Water surface level ranged between 0.2mCD and 11.9mCD. Deep sections with water surface level
ranging between 5.0mCD and 11.9mCD were recorded in the southern portion of the surveyed area. Local sand
mining is most likely responsible for the deep sections. Figure 4.59 shows the lagoon bathymetry around the
proposed reclamation area.
P a g e | 197
Figure 4.59: Bathymetry of Lagos lagoon around the proposed reclamation site and borrow areas
P a g e | 198
4.9.11 Geotechnical Characteristics
The sand search geotechnical studies showed that suitable materials (fine and sitly sand) for filling the proposed
site are available within the selected borrow area. Figure 4.60 shows the imagery of the boreholes locations
identified with yellow and green coloured pegs. The green pegs show locations with best materials (mainly fine
sand), while yellow pegs show locations with fair amount of good materials with some amounts of clay
overburden. Geotechnical logs of the borehole locations are included as appendix. Summary of the sand search
geotechnical studies are as follows:
•
BH01 – BH06 are drilled in the north and middle of the proposed reclamation area. They contain 2.8 –
8.7m CLAY overburden before FINE SAND was encountered.
•
BH01 has a large FINE/SILTY SAND layer covered by 2.8m dark CLAY. From 2.8 to 4.0m FINE SAND
with CLAY particles was found. Below 4.0m the FINE/SILTY SAND layer began.
•
BH02 and BH05 contain only unsuitable CLAY layers. BH06 reveal a 1.9m SILTY SAND layer but
covered with a 5.9m CLAY overburden.
•
BH03 and BH04 contain a 6.9 and 4.8m suitable FINE SAND layer. BH03 has a 3.0m SILTY CLAY
layer on top of the suitable material. The FINE SAND layer of BH04 is covered by 8.7m MEDIUM CLAY.
•
Overall the BH01 – BH06 do not show favourable material for reclaiming an artificial island due to the
large unsuitable overburden and/or small suitable material layers.
•
BH07 – BH12 were drilled on the south side of the Orange Island project area. In this area more
suitable material was found, with exception of BH07.
•
BH07 shows various layers. From 0 to 3.0m SILTY CLAY and from 3.0 to 5.1m FINE SAND and
remains of SOFT CLAY. 1.5m SILTY SAND is found at a depth of 6.6m, enclosed by HARD CLAY
layers.
•
BH08, BH09, BH11 and BH12 have a 7.4 – 14.1m suitable FINE SAND or SILTY SAND layer with no
unsuitable overburden or unsuitable layers. Some of the layers contain shells, deadwood or traces of
clay. BH10 shows the same suitable FINE SAND and SILTY SAND layer, but interrupted by a SILTY
CLAY with lumps of HARD CLAY layer from 3.0m to 8.0m.
•
BH13 was drilled out of the indicated borrow area, west of Orange Island. This borehole has a suitable
layer from 0 to 3.4m, consisting of SILTY SAND. Subsequent to this layer 3.1m of HARD CLAY is
found. From 6.5m down SILTY SAND and FINE SAND with traces/particles of clay and dead wood is
present.
•
BH08, BH09, BH11 and BH12 contain the best material for the
proposed reclamation
P a g e | 199
Figure 4.60: Satellite Imagery showing Boreholes locations
P a g e | 200
4.9.12 Vegetation
4.9.12.1
Introduction
Vegetation pattern provides an integrated reflection of physical and chemical factors that shape the
environment of a given land area (Whittaker 1965). Often vegetation patterns are determinants for overall
biological diversity patterns (Franklin 1993, Levin 1981, Noss 1990) which can be used to delineate habitat
types in conservation evaluations (Specht 1975, Austin 1991). Vegetation as an integral part of the terrestrial
environment performs several functions that are crucial to the sustenance of the environment. Some of these
functions include:
•
Protection of the fragile soils from the erosive impacts of rains and wind;
•
Maintenance of soil fertility through continuous nutrient recycling;
•
Conservation of water resources through shading;
•
Preservation of water sheds;
•
Regulation of air and soil temperatures;
•
Moisture balance;,
•
Provision of habitat for terrestrial flora and fauna;
•
Purification of the ambient air through the removal of carbon dioxide and the release of oxygen during
photosynthesis for human and animal respiration.
Human changes could be more drastic than natural cycles. As such, any study of the environment, for the
purpose of environmental impact identification, must necessarily include vegetation and must focus on the
general status of the vegetation within the project area, those vegetation attributes that are likely to be impacted,
the extent of impact, as well as the mitigation measures to ameliorate these negative impacts.
4.9.12.2
Plant Characterization / Identification
The surroundings of the project area beyond the lagoon water body are built-up and the planned reclamation will
enhance further expansion of built environment. In view of this, vegetation around the project area was sparse.
Some ornamental/orchard plants were observed around the project area.
Vegetation species identified in the sampling locations within the study area were primarily Paspalum
scrobiculatum, Paspalum vaginatum and some other annual herbs and shrubs, including Chromolaena odorata,
Chloris pilosa, Commelina spp, Cyperus spp., Mariscus spp., Setaria barbata, and Kyllinga spp. Along the
roadsides, and in some of the homesteads within the 5km radius designated for vegetation sampling for this
project, regular roadside species such as Ageratum conyzoides, Asystasia gangetica, Synedrella nodiflora,
Tridax procumbens, etc. were observed. Ornamental/orchard species observed include; Terminalia catapa,
Mangifera indica, Cocos nucifera, Citrus spp.
Plates 4.25 – 4.30 show some of the vegetation species observed around the sampling locations.
P a g e | 201
Plate 4.25: Paspalum spp. Close to the proposed reclamation area
Plate 4.26: Terminalia catapa and Mangifera indica around homesteads
P a g e | 202
Plate 4.27: Ornamentals and coconuts along roadsides within the area
4.9.12.3
Health Status and Biomass Productivity
Plants within the spatial boundary were generally observed to be luxuriant and lush, and to be healthy and
thriving well. An assessment of the pathological conditions of the plants indicates that leaf spot is the most
prominent endemic disease condition. The fungal isolates from the major plant species included: Penicillium sp.;
Botryodiplodia sp.; Aspergillus sp.; Alternaria sp.; Rhizoctonia sp.; and Colletotrichum sp.
In terms of biomass productivity of the herbaceous layer, the entire project area had acceptable biomass values,
with a range of 250-845g/m2. Productivity appeared higher in the periodically inundated areas, where there is a
preponderance of Paspalum, than in the roadside areas and around homesteads, where periodical weeding and
clearing takes place. Generally, the biomass values recorded agrees with those reported for similar habitats by
Al Mufti et. al.(1977).
4.9.12.4
Inventory of Economic Crops
Observed prevalent economic crops include Talinum triangulare (waterleaf), Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane),
Carica papaya (paw paw), Telferia occidentaes (Fluted pumpkin), Citrus spp. Magnifera indica (mango), Musa
paradisiaca (plantain), M. sepientum (banana), and Cocos nucifera (coconut palm).
P a g e | 203
4.9.13 Wildlife and Endangered Species
Information on wildlife is presented in two parts: Field observations; and literature/historical data.
4.9.13.1
Field observations
Based on field observations, only birds and some reptiles were observed in the study area.
Birds of the
waterside, such as kingfishers, egrets and plovers were identified. Particular species include, white egrets
(Egretta spp.), Cattle egrets (Ardeola ibis) and some herons (Ardea cinerea) were observed. Spur-winged
plovers were also observed. In the waterside community, domesticated goose (Anser anser.) was observed.
Further, away from the waterside, garden species, mostly doves, robins and weaverbirds were observed. Also,
various kites and other birds were observed in flight in the course of fieldwork for this project. Table 4.71 shows
some of the bird species observed.
Table 4.71: List of Birds Observed in the Study Area
Common Name
Biological Name
Grey Heron
Green-backed Heron
Hammerkop
Crowned Hawk Eagle
Palm-nut Vulture
Black Kite
Kittlitz’s Sand Plover
Common Tern
Common Sandpiper
Red-eyed Dove
Blue-breasted Kingfisher
Pied Kingfisher
Square-tailed Rough-winged Swallow
Plain-backed Pipit
Carmelite Sunbird
Olive-bellied Sunbird
Common Bulbul
Grey-headed Sparrow
Village Weaver
Spur-winged plover
Cattle Egret
Domestic goose
Ardea cinerea
Butorides striatus
Scopus umbretta
Stephanoaet-us coronatus
Gypohierax angolensis
Milvus migrans
Charadrius pecaurius
Sterna hirundo
Actitis hypoleucos
Streptopelia semitorquata
Halcyon malimbicus
Ceryle rudis
Psalidoprocne nitens
Anthus leucophyrs
Nectarinia fuliginosa
Nectarinia chloropygia
Pycnonotus barbaetus
Passer griseus
Ploceus cucculatus
Vanellus spinosus
Ardeola ibis
Anser anser
Reptilian fauna of the project area consisted mostly of lizards (Agama spp.). Domesticated Pig (Sus scrofa) were
observed at the waterside community. No other species of wildlife were observed in the course of field sampling
activities for this project. Plates 4.28 - 4.30 show some of the bird species observed around the project area in
the course of fieldwork.
P a g e | 204
Plate 4.28: A plover and a great white egret foraging around project area
Plate 4.29: A Gaggle of white geese in the study area
P a g e | 205
Plate 4.30: Domestic pigs in the study are
4.9.13.2
Information from Literature and Consultation
Based on literature information, and discussions with residents of the area, the main groups of wildlife that occur
in the area are: Mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians. Discussions with elderly people living in the area, and
consultation of literature works in the general area reveals that the mammals that occur, or used to occur in the
area included: Colobus monkeys, giant rats, bush pigs and duikers. Table 4.72 shows a list of the animal
species reported to occur in the area:
P a g e | 206
Table 4.72: List of Mammals in the Study Area
Common Name
Biological Name
Status
Mona Monkey
White-bellied Pangolin
Black-bellied Pangolin
Red-legged Sun Squirrel
Fire-footed Tree-Squirrel
Blotched Genet (“Bush cat”)
Marsh Mongoose (“Fox”)
Sitatunga (“Antelope”)
Brush-tailed porcupine
Bush pig (warthog)
Grass cutter
African palm squirrel
Fruit bat
Giant Rat
Grimm’s Duiker
Red River Hog
Cecopithecus mona
Manis tricuspis
Manis tetradactyla
Heliosciurus rufobrachium
Funisciurus pyrrhopus
Genetta tigrina
Atilax paludinosus
Tragelaphus spekei
Alterurus africanus
C. sylviculton
Thyronomys swindeianous
Epixerus ebii
Eidolon heluum
Cricetomys gambianus
Sylvicarpa grimmi
Potamocherus porcus
Common
Common
Common
Uncommon
Common
“
Uncommon
Common
Common
Common
Common
Common
Common
Very common
common
uncommon
Birds reported to occur in the area include egrets, the plovers and kingfishers, as well as birds of the garden such
as the red-eyed dove.
The reptilian fauna reported from literature consists of turtles, crocodiles, snakes and lizards. However, most of
these species no longer exist in the area, as they have migrated way to development and urbanization. Only the
ubiquitous rainbow lizard, Agama agama is still very common in the area.
Table 4.73: List of Reptiles in the study area
Biological Name
Common Name
Trionyx triunguis
Kinixys erosa
Testudo paradilis
Osteolemus tetraspis
Varanus niloticus
Python sebae
Dasypeltis fasciata
Naja nigricollis
Chameleo gracilis
Dicroglossus occipitalis
African Soft-shelled Turtle
Serrate Hinge-backed Tortoise
African Forest Tortoise
Dwarf Crocodile (“Alligator”)
Nile Monitor Lizard (“Iguana”)
African Python
Egg-eating Snake
Spitting Cobra
Common Chameleon
Bullfrog (“Jumping Chicken”)
Generally, wildlife species used to be very numerous and widely varied in the area. However, reports indicate
that most of these species are now no longer to be found in the area, mostly because of extensive human
presence and the associated depredation as well as the fact that their habitats have been extensively destroyed
for the purpose of built environment. However, periodic sightings of some of these species are still reported. For
example, the giant rat (Cricetomys gambianus) is still reported to occur regularly around homesteads, while
P a g e | 207
periodic sighting of some snakes, especially the rock python (Python sebae) is reported around the marshes
fringing the lagoon. With regards to the avian fauna, most of the species reported from literature and
consultations are still relatively common around the project site, and this indicates, to some extent, that
development activities have not had too significant an impact on avian species composition in the area, although
population levels may have dropped substantially, to a level that can be supported by the available habitats,
within the general area.
4.9.13.1
Stakeholders’ analysis was conducted at the outset of this EIA. Regulatory requirements, area of influence of the
proposed project, technical requirements of the project, among others were considered during the analysis. The
identified stakeholders were consulted and interacted with, with the following objectives:
i.
Disclosure of the proposed Island reclamation project
ii.
Seeking opinions and concerns on the proposed reclamation
iii. Seek support towards the success of the proposed project
iv. Identify areas of possible conflicts that may affect the project and ways to resolve them.
It is important to note that stakeholders’ consultation is a continuous process which will keep on until the project
is successfully implemented. However, the outcome of the consultation that have been made so far (as part of
the EIA process) are presented below in the following sections.
Three groups of stakeholders were consulted, namely: (1) Governments and their Agencies, (2) Community
Leaders and, (3) Non Governmental Bodies. Table 4.74 presents the stakeholders consulted while table 4.75
presents the highlights of the consultation, event dates and key persons present at the meetings. Attendance
lists of all consultations as well as relevant correspondence are presented in Appendix.
P a g e | 208
Table 4.74: Consulted Stakeholders
No
Category
Stakeholder
1
2
Lagos State Ministry of Environment
Government and their Agencies
3
Lagos State Ministry of Waterfront and Infrastructure Development
4
Eti-Osa Local Government
5
Traditional Ruler of Ikateland
6
Community Leaders
7
8
Leaders of Ebute Ikate community
Leaders of Itedo Community
Non Governmental Agencies
Nigeria Conservation Foundation
P a g e | 209
Table 4.75: Highlights of Stakeholders Consultation
S/No
1
2
3
Stakeholder
Federal Ministry
of Environment
Dates
Notification letter
dated 22/1/13.
Acknowledged;
05/2/13
This was followed
by visit to site on
07/03/13
Lagos State
Ministry of
Environment
(LAGMOE)
(Office of
Drainage
Services)
Notification Letter
dated 04/12/12;
Acknowledged;
05/12/13. Field visit
held on 07/01/13.
The field visit was
scheduled by the
Ministry in a letter
dated 27/12/12
Lagos State
Ministry of
Waterfront
Infrastructure
(MWFID)
Letter requesting
consultation dated,
20/5/13;
acknowledged,
23/5/13.
Consultation held
on 26/7/13 at
MWFID office.
Key Persons Present
FMEnv Officials: Mr. Fred
Odika, Mrs. Adeola
Omotunde and Mr.
Tejuosho O.
Highlights of Discussion
Follow up
Picture Record
OIDC made a presentation on the features of the
proposed project.
Orange Island
Development Company
(OIDC): Ms Erica
Akpeghagha, Mr. Chiedu
Nweke and Mr. Barth
Ndulue (EIA Consultant)
FMEnv advised that detailed data gathering
should be implemented in carrying out the EIA.
The site visit and meeting was
followed by a letter (dated 22/3/13)
from FMEnv notifying the placement
of the proposed reclamation in
category 1 projects, which requires
full EIA and panel review. The letter
specified number of field samples to
be collected.
Plate 4.31
The visit was followed by a letter
from the Ministry dated 07/03/13
advising Orange Island Development
Company to liaise properly with the
FMEnv for the proposed project since
the project falls under mandatory EIA
study category.
Plate 4.32
LAGMOE Officials: Engr.
M.O. Adegbite (Director
IREC) and Mrs. OjoOniyun B. A. (Geologist).
OIDC: Mr. Chiedu
Nweke, Ms Erica
Akpeghagha, Ade Ojo
(Ecologist), Barth Ndulue
(EIA Consultant), Agugua
Augustine (Sociologist)
MWFID: Mrs. Olusegun
T. O.
OIDC: Mr. Barth Ndulue
and Mr. Obehi Eguakhide
OIDC pledged to conduct sound EIA that will meet
FMEnv Standard.
proposed project.
The Ministry officials expressed their satisfaction
with the early notification about the proposed
project. It advised that proper studies should be
conducted to ensure that good measures are put
in place to avert impacts on the environment,
especially on flood and erosion.
OIDC assured the officials that all that needs to be
done will be implemented to ensure that the
proposed reclamation is sustainably carried out.
Mrs. Olusegun noted that the MWFID is already
aware of the proposed reclamation and that OIDC
application is being considered. She however
advised that, from the environmental protection
point of view, OIDC should endeavourer to work
with LAGMOE and FMEnv to ensure that the
project is sustainably implemented.
Plate 4.33
OIDC assured MWIFD that it places high premium
on environmental safeguard as a matter of
corporate policy and that the EIA will be prepared
P a g e | 210
S/No
4
5
Stakeholder
Dates
Eti-Osa Local
Government
Letter requesting
consultation dated;
20/5/13.
Acknowledged;
22/05/13. Reminder
letter dated,
14/6/13.
Consultation held
on 2/7/13 at the
LGA Secretariat
Eti-Osa Local
Government
10/7/13. Follow up
on 2/7/13
consultation.
Key Persons Present
Eto-Osa LGA: Mr.
Ibrahim Ajibola
(Supervisor for
Environment), Mr. Arole
Y. Adeshola.
OIDC: Mr. Oyedrian
Olowosoke, Mr. Barth
Ndulue
Eti-Osa LGA: Hon. Anofiu
Olanrewaju Elegushi (
Chairman, Eti-Osa LGA),
Mr. Ajibola Ibrahim
(Suoervisor for
Environment), Mr. Arole
Y. and Adeshola Lawal
Oluwaseun Ganiyu
OIDC: Mr. Oladrian
Olowosoke, Mr. Barth
Ndulue
6
Traditional
Ruler of
Ikateland
Consultation at
Elegushi Palace
22/4/14
Ikateland: HRM Oba
Alayeluwa Saheed
Ademola Elegushi,
to meet international standards
proposed project.
The LGA Officials apologized for the delayed
consultation and noted the importance of OIDC
carrying the LGA along as it proceeds in the
project. Mr. Ibrahim however requested that the
meeting be rescheduled for Wednesday 10/7/13
when the Hon. Chairman of the LGA will be
available.
Follow up
Picture Record
Meeting was rescheduled to hold on
10/7/13 when the Honorable
Chairman of Eti-Osa LGA will be
available.
It was agreed that site visit will be conducted
same day.
proposed project.
Hon. Anofiu Olarenwaju Elegushi expressed his
gladness on OIDC’s consultation at an early stage
of the project. He noted that the proposed project
is a welcome development in as much as it is
sustainably implemented.
He however advised the proponent to ensure that
in addition to embarking on the project, to equally
initiate programs that can benefit host
communities. He noted that any such action will
be highly supported and appreciated by the LGA.
Plate 4.34 and
4.35
The Chairman pledged his support for the
proposed reclamation project.
After the meeting, the officials of Eti-Osa LGA
made a visit to the proposed project site.
proposed project.
Plate 4.36
P a g e | 211
S/No
Stakeholder
Dates
Key Persons Present
Kusenla (lll), the Elegushi
of Ikateland, Mr.
Bamidele Ijagbemi (PA to
Kabiyesi)
OIDC: DSP (Rtd)
Waheed Olusegun
Kassim, Prof. Omololu
Soyombo, Mr. Chiedu
Nweke, Mrs. Olayinka
Ogunsilire, Mr, Mr.
Theodore Omalu, Mr.
Barth Ndulue,
7
Elders of EbuteIkate
4/3/2013
Ebute-Ikate: Mpe Dasu,
Rasheed Ojoku, Frances
Gondonu
OIDC: Samuel
Oluwaseun Onyema,
Barth Ndulue
The Traditional Ruler, Oba Elegushi expressed
his pleasure for OIDC coming to consult with him.
He lauded the proposed project and noted that the
project area, though on water is most proximal to
Ikateland and such, He is the nearest neighbor to
the project.
Follow up
Picture Record
To make follow visits to the
community for socioeconomics study
after meeting with Oba Elegushi
Plate 4.37
He reiterated his support for the project which he
said will usher in development to his kingdom, and
admonished the proponent to ensure that the
project is delivered sustainably.
OIDC thanked the Kabiyesi for the warm welcome
and assured him that all that needs done will be
done to ensure sustainable project and
relationship with his kingdom.
proposed project.
The elders of Ebute-Ikate expressed their joy for
OIDC deeming it necessary to intimate them on
the proposed project. They pledged their
unalloyed support in as much as Kabiyesi, Oba
Elegushi grants his majesty’s permit for the
proposed project. They noted that they are
tenants to HRM.
They noted that the project will have little or no
effect on them, since they do not fish for
sustenance in the area of the proposed project.
They reported that they fish mainly in the sea.
OIDC thanked the elders and pledged to make a
follow up visit for focus group discussion and
questionnaire administration in the community
after a visit to Oba Elegushi for his majesty’s
permission
P a g e | 212
S/No
8
9
Stakeholder
Itedo
Community –
Harrison Family
Itedo
Community –
Ogunyemi
Family
Dates
16/7/13
30/7/13
The consultation
was scheduled after
initial visit to the
family on 25/7/13
Key Persons Present
Harrison Family: Rt. Rev.
Dr. Zeblon Harrison
Ikogbowo (Family Head),
Mr. Ade Harrison, Mr.
Olorunwa Lebi, Pastor
M. I. Harrison
OIDC: Waheed Olusegun
Kassim, Mr. Chiedu
Nweke, Mr. Theodore
Amalu, Mr. Oladiran
Olowosoke, Mr. Aurelian
Megnieru.
Ogunyemi family: Mr.
John Ogunyemi (Adiele),
Mr. Jerry Ogunyemi
OIDC: Barth Ndulue,
Obehi Eguakhide
proposed project.
The family head on behalf of his people welcome
OIDC and the proposed project. He mentioned
that any project that will bring development
around their community is welcome. He however
advised that consultation should continue so as to
always identify areas of interest between the
people and OIDC.
Follow up
Picture Record
Plate 4.38
OIDC pledged that the proposed project will be
implemented with the welfare of the people in
mind.
proposed project.
Mr. John Ogunyemi, an elder of the family
thanked OIDC for making the consultation. He
provided the history of Itedo community and
confirmed that the family is tenant to Oba
Elegushi who allowed the family to inhabit the
area about 40 years ago.
He noted that, as long as Kabiyesi, Oba Elegushi
grants his majesty’s permission for the project, the
family will provide unalloyed support for its
success.
Plate 4.39
He noted that the project is not likely to impact the
people directly, since they no longer engage in
fishing. He reported that their main occupation
has shifted to trading and civil service.
OIDC thanked the family head and pledged that
the project will be sustainably implemented to
ensure that there will be no significant negative
P a g e | 213
S/No
10
Stakeholder
Nigeria
Conservation
Foundation
(NCF)
Dates
28/513
Key Persons Present
NCF: Mr. Adetayo
Okunlola (Project
Manager), Mr. Bunmi
Jegede (Ecologist),
Adedamola Ogunsesan
OIDC: Ms. Erica
Akpeghagha, Samuel
Oluwaseun Onyema,
Oladiran Olowosoke,
Barth Ndulue
impacts on the people.
proposed project.
Follow up
Picture Record
NCF thanked OIDC for consulting her and noted
that as body interested in biodiversity
conservation, it is important that the project is
implemented sustainably with regards to
biodiversity safeguards.
NCF equally pledged to partner with OIDC in
anyway the company would need its expertise as
it goes on with the proposed project.
Plate 4.40
OIDC thanked NCF and assured her that the
ongoing EIA study is one of the company’s ways
of showing that it places high premium on
safeguarding the natural environment. OIDC
further noted that it will consult with NCF anytime
its partnership is deemed needful.
P a g e | 214
Plate 4.31: Interaction with FMEnv Officials during Site Verification exercise
Plate 4.32: Interactions with LAGMOE Officials during Site Verification exercise
P a g e | 215
Plate 4.33: Consultation with Lagos State Ministry of Waterfronts and Infrastructure Development
Plate 4.34: Group Photograph with the Chairman And Officials of Eti-Osa LGA during consultation
P a g e | 216
Plate 4.35: Interaction with Officials of Eti-Osa LGA during Site Verification
Plate 4.36: Group Photograph during Consultation with HRM, Oba Alayeluwa Saheed Ademola Elegushi, Kusenla
(lll), the Elegushi of Ikateland
P a g e | 217
Plate 4.37: Consultation with the Elders of Ebute-Ikate Community
Plate 4.38: Consultation with Harrision Family Elders of Itedo community
P a g e | 218
Plate 4.39: Consultation with Elders of Ogunyemi Family of Itedo Community
Plate 4.40: Consultation with Nigeria Consultation Foundation
P a g e | 219
4.9.14 Socio-economics and Social Impact Assessment (SIA)
4.9.14.1
Background
The socio-economic study for the proposed Orange Island Reclamation project considers the most proximal human
habitation and community (ies) that could be impacted by the proposed reclamation project. The main indigenous
community proximal to the proposed project site is Ikateland, which is under Eti-Osa Local Government Area of
Lagos State, Nigeria. The name “Eti Osa” in Yoruba language means “lagoon side”, indicating that the area is located
along the lagoon. The traditional ruler (king) of Ikateland is HRM Oba Alayeluwa Saheed Ademola Elegushi, Kusenla
lll, the Elegushi of Ikateland. Ikateland, which is on the western approach to Eti-Osa on the Lekki – Epe Expressway
is situated about 4 km from Mobil headquarters and presently covers an area of about 10 square kilometres. The
area extends from 6.25” to 6.26”N longitude, and 3.28”East to 3.31” east of the equator. Historical records indicate
that the people of Ikate are of Awori origin, whose main occupations were fishing and palm oil manufacturing,
although the people also engaged in small farming, producing cassava, palm oil, palm kernels and gari for sale in
markets in Lagos, in exchange for tobacco, pipe, twine, thread, gin, rum and provisions. The Ikate kingdom was
founded over 300 years ago by Kusenla, one of the descendants of Olofin of Iddo. Until recently, the development of
the area was retarded by locational factors (relatively difficult to access because of physical constraints). However,
with the construction of the Lagos – Epe Expressway, the area has been opened up and there has been rapid
physical, social and economic development in recent times, with land in the area highly valued and properties
attracting prime rents, highly sought by individuals, as well as public and private sector organizations. Ikateland now
hosts several modern houses, estates, office buildings, and industries, and the people are now increasingly engaged
in modern economic activities.
4.9.14.1
Data Collection and Analysis
The work adopted a triangulation method for data generation, combining qualitative and quantitative techniques of
data collection. The community studies were conducted using the following approaches:
i.
Consultation with HRM Oba Alayeluwa Saheed Ademola Elegushi, Kusenla lll, the Elegushi of Ikateland
ii.
Consultation with officials of Eti-Osa LGA
iii.
Consultation with Ebute Ikate and Itedo community leaders and members
iv.
Focus Group Discussions with men, women and youth
v.
Questionnaire administration on individual household respondents
vi.
Direct observation of the community functions.
Community leaders were selected for interview, using the purposive sampling technique, based on their particular
leadership positions in the communities, while individual household members were selected for interview using the
P a g e | 220
convenience sampling technique, with households as sampling units. The direct observation of community by the
researchers also helped to provide meaningful direction for the interview sessions and clarify some points during the
discussions. One hundred and one (101) respondents were interviewed for this study in the two communities.
Plate 4.41: Focus Group Interaction with Youth
Plate 4.42: Focus Group Interaction with Women
P a g e | 221
Plate 4.43: Consultation with Community Elders
Plate 4.44: Questionnaire Administration
4.9.14.3
Study Location/Population
The community sections most proximal to the proposed project site are those closest to the lagoon. Two distinct
migrant groups (Ebute-Ikate and Itedo) who were granted permission to stay on the areas by the Elegushi royal
P a g e | 222
family several years ago occupy these sections of the community. While the Ebute-Ikates are Egun people, the
Itedos are Ilaje migrants from Ondo State of Nigeria. The Ebute-Ikate people live along the water banks, building their
wooden houses on stakes to keep them above water levels. The Itedo people, on the other hand, live upland and do
not engage in fishing as major occupation, in recent times.
4.9.14.4
Origin and Structure of Ebute-Ikate Migrant Community
Consultation with the elders and leaders of Ebute Ikate revealed that the people migrated to their present location
about 20 years ago. They are migrants from Badagry and Benin Republic who came in to Lagos, first at Mekwe
(Bonny Camp), then to Maroko, and Thornbil Ikoyi, and later to Banana Island. They eventually obtained permission
from the HRH Oba Elegushi of Ikateland to inhabit the waterside on a temporary basis since they were fishermen and
needed to stay by water. As residents, they make no financial payment to Elegushi but only pay homage to him as
their landlord. During consultations and interviews, they generally expressed satisfaction with the way HRM has been
treating them. The Population of Ebute-Ikate migrant community is estimated at 4,500.
4.9.14.5
Leadership Structure of Ebute-Ikate
The Ebute-Ikate community does not have a traditional leadership institution recognised by the Elegushi, since they
are migrants. They, however, have elders and appointees who represent them before Kabiyesi (the King). As at the
time of this study, the leader of the Ebute-Ikate people was Chief Edupo. He is not referred to as Baale, since his
office is not traditionally recognised. Chief Edupo and a few appointees, represent the people before Elegushi when
needs arise.
4.9.14.6
Origin and Structure of Itedo Migrant Community
Consultation with the Itedo Community showed that there are two factions of the dwellers, with different family
lineages, namely: the Ogunyemi Family and the Harrison Family. The Ogunyemi family, whose main occupation was
fishing, is reported to have migrated to the lagoon area of Ikateland from Ilaje (Ondo state, Nigeria) in the 1960’s. Led
by Pa. Jonathan Ogunyemi, they sought the permission of the Oba Elegushi to inhabit the nearest upland (the
present day Itedo, formally called Ilete) in September, 1967. The Kabiyesi granted their request. As tenants on
Ikateland, they do not pay tenement to Kabiyesi, rather they pay Him Isakole (homage: royalty) every December 25
as an expression of their appreciation and loyalty. As fishermen, they used to pay the Isakole to the King with fishes.
It was Pa J. Ogunyemi that built the first church at Itedo – the Apostolic Church of Christ. The population of this family
is estimated at 1,100.
P a g e | 223
Plate 4.45: Pa Ogunyemi’s House located at the first Upland inhabitation of the Ogunyemis
4.9.14.7
Leadership
The Itedo people are tenants to Elegushi, therefore do not have traditional head (Baale). However, the family is
represented by the Elders. The eldest man is referred to as Olori ebi, followed by Adiile, and others.
4.9.14.8
Language of Interview
In order to enhance communication with the respondents and to ensure their full understanding of the issues of
discussion, the interviews were conducted in languages that the respondents were most comfortable with. Figure
4.61 shows that most (62%) of the interviews were conducted in the Egun language; 25% in the Yoruba language;
9% in pidgin English; and 4% in proper English. This is in line with the popularity of the languages in the community.
This also gives an idea about the ethnic composition of the community members, most of whom are Egun. In
explaining how Ikate, in the Elegushi area came to be populated by a large Egun contingent, one of the male
discussants in the FGD explained that:
P a g e | 224
“We are a community, from our various villages, from Badagry, settling in this Ikate, Elegushi. We have settled in
some other places i.e. from Melewe (i.e. Borofe at Bonny Camp). We have been shifted, i.e. from [Thornbull], Ikoyi to
Banana Island. After we were driven from Banana, we approached the Elegushi to allow us to settle here. We have
settled since 1995 (i.e. 18 years).”
Figure 4.61: Distribution of Language of Interview
Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Respondents
4.9.14.9
Age Distribution of Hhousehold members
Analysis of the age distribution of the respondents shows that the two communities have a relatively young
population comprising predominantly young people (Figure 4.62).
P a g e | 225
Figure 4.62: Age Distribution of the Household Members
4.9.14.10
Gender Distribution of Respondents
Analysis of the gender distribution of the respondents (figure 4.63) shows that male respondents constituted 53% of
the people interviewed, while the females constituted 47%. Socio-cultural factors may be used to explain the
predominance of males among the respondents, given the patriarchal nature of the society, and the tendency for
females to remain more in the background and to shy away from public visibility. It was also noted that many women
go outside the community for their livelihood, and were thus not available for interview.
Figure 4.63: Gender Distribution of Respondents
P a g e | 226
4.9.14.11
Marital Status of Respondents
The marital status distribution of the respondents shows that an overwhelming majority (92%) are married. 6% are
single, while 2% reported being widowed (figure 4.64). No co-habiting, separated, or divorced person was
encountered in the study. Further, in this regard, it was noted that polygyny (marriage of one man to many women at
the same time) was very prevalent among the people, with some men having as many as five wives.
Figure 4.64: Marital Status of Respondents
4.9.14.12
Education
Most of the respondents had secondary education or higher. Generally, in line with demographic trend, the young
respondents had higher levels of education. The men also had higher levels of education than the women.
4.9.14.13
Religious Background of Respondents
The distribution by religion of the respondents shows that they are mostly Christian (87%), while 11% are traditional
worshippers and 2% Muslim (figure 4.65). A possible reason for this development is found in the information obtained
in the Itedo community to the effect that all members of the Ogunyemi family except one (the Adiile) are Christians.
The only exception is an African Traditional Religion worshipper.
P a g e | 227
Figure 4.65: Religion of Respondents
There is no shrine for traditional worship in Itedo, thus, traditional worship is done at the Ikate shrine. On the other
hand, churches abound in the community. The Adiile reported that there are about 30 different churches in the
community, while there is only one mosque in Ikate.
While the proportion of the respondents that practices traditional religion at Ebute Ikate seems rather small, it is
evident that the religion is still relatively prominent in the community, with shrines and sacred places in the
community. Many of the traditional worshippers offer sacrifices to water spirits to spare them from water mishaps.
According to the Focus Group Discussion with the Ebute-Ikate people, the major shrine houses the Zangbeto deity,
whose masquerade outing normally holds on 20th August annually. Both male and female are free to witness the
festival.
P a g e | 228
Plate 4.46: Shrine of Zangbeto in Ebute-Ikate
Plate 4.47: Mouthpiece of Zangbeto
P a g e | 229
Plate 4.48: Shrine for Water Spirit
4.9.14.14
House Ownership
Most (92%) of the respondents said they owned the houses that they lived in, while only 8% were renting. However,
again, it is significant to note that most of the members of the community noted that they were temporary tenants or
squatters on the land. At Itedo community however, the Harrison family faction are claimimg ownership of the land
they live on presently. The case is still pending in court. The Ogunyemi family, like the inhabitants of Ebute-Ikate, are
loyal to the Elegushi and confirmed that they are tenants to the Royal Family and Ikateland.
In this regard, the type and quality of
houses (Plate 4.49) are notable. Field
observation showed that most of the
houses are built on stilts, with wooden
materials.
These
are
temporary
structures, which is in line with the pattern
of houses that are inhabited by traditional
riverine communities. A few members of
the Harrison family faction have erected
permanent structures.
Figure 4.66: House Ownership by Respondents
P a g e | 230
Plate 4.49: House on Stilts in the community
The number of rooms in the houses ranged from one to four, with a mode of two rooms (74%), followed by one room
(20%), three rooms (4%) and four rooms (2%).
Figure 4.67: Distribution of No.of Rooms per House in the Community
Household size is relatively large in the study communities, with about 40 per cent of the households having 5 – 7
members; another one-third have 8-10 members, followed by about one-quarter with 2 – 4 members.
P a g e | 231
Figure 4.68: Household size distribution of Respondents
4.9.14.15
Tenure of Residence in Community
Most (68%) of the residents had spent over ten years in the study area, while 16% had spent 5 - 10 years, 9% 2 – 5
years, and 7% two or less years in the area (figure 4.69). Despite the relatively long tenure of residence, many of the
respondents still lived with the fear of spatial dislocation/eviction. This fear, they said explains why they build only
temporary structures in the community in order to reduce the cost of eviction. In this regard, the respondents
expressed hopes that the Elegushi would allow them to settle permanently. The Itedo dwellers have been on
Ikateland longer than the Ikate people, having been dwelling in their present location for over 30 years.
Figure 4.69: Distribution of Respondents Duration in Residence
P a g e | 232
4.9.14.16
Employment Status of Household Members
Overall, 82% of the households had two or more persons in employment, while 18% had only one person in
employment. The mode (71%) is two persons in employment in the households (Figure 4.70).
Figure 4.70: Distribution of Employed Individuals in Respondents Household
4.9.14.17
Occupational Background of Respondents
Further analysis shows that the members of the Ebute-Ikate community are mostly engaged in the informal sector of
the economy, with the largest proportion (42%) being involved in fishing, followed by 33% who are engaged in trading
and 23% artisans, 1% employed in the civil service, while another 1% was into sand mining (figure 5.71). However,
the Itedo people have since
stopped fishing, with many of
them presently being owners of
small businesses, and a few
others work as civil servants and
professionals.
The
people
in
the
fishing
profession operate both in the
immediate water and on the high
sea. One of the respondents from
Ebute-Ikate community reported
that:
Plate 4.50: Fishing Boats at Ebute-Ikate
P a g e | 233
“We fish in the water here and the high sea where we catch some sharks and barracuda. We use hook, sect
net, and Akaja method of fishing. We use the canoe, engine boat and the [dug-out] for our operations. The
engine boat uses about 40 hp. We fishermen go very far spending as much as one week before returning
back home. We use ice block to preserve the fishes caught on the high sea. We fish every time of the day,
but fishes are mostly caught at night.
We get fishes in abundance all through the year especially rainy season except in January, February, and
March which are considered dry season. The fishes give birth in abundance during August, September, and
October period.
The kinds of fishes mostly caught are Sawa, Bonga, Millet, Tilapia, Catfish Snapper (red and white), crab,
crayfish, etc. We don’t like fish pond business because it is very tasking though there is one that existed
before our arrival but nobody is interested in taking up the business. Other [sea foods] caught aside fishes
are Turtle (on high sea) and Sunjaie (Ipamaja).”
None of the respondents claimed to be engaged in farming, because as the respondents pointed out, the nature of
the soil does not support farming.
However, the study indicated that the fishing profession is on the decline in the community, as many youths do not
seem to be enthusiastic about taking up the profession. An explanation for this is the increasing trend of
modernization, globalization and education/enlightenment. With education, many people are more interested in
formal, white-collar employment. When probed further, many of the young people said they wanted to live a life away
from water.
Figure 4.71: Occupational Background of Respondents
P a g e | 234
Another possible explanation for the declining interest in fishing is the reported scarcity of fishes on the seas, which
the respondents attributed to the dredging activities in the area. As one of the respondents noted, dredging activity
affects them because “it makes the water colour to change and causes a depth in water which makes the fish
scarce”.
Plate 4.51: A Woman processing fish for smoking
Plate 4.52: Fish Smoking facilities
P a g e | 235
4.9.14.18
Tenure of Business Operation by Respondents
Overall, 63% of the respondents had been in business for over 10 years; 49% 10 – 20 years; 11% 20 – 30 years and
3% over 30 years. On the lower side, 18% of the respondents had been in business for 5 – 10 years, 15% for 2 – 5
years, and 5% for two years or less (figure 4.72). The inference from this is that most of the respondents had been
operating their businesses for a relatively long period.
Figure 4.72: Duration of Respondents in Business Operation
4.9.14.19
Analysis
distances
Distance to Workplaces
of
information
between
on
the
respondents’ houses and their
workplaces indicates that more
than 70% lived around or within
one kilometre of their workplaces.
More specifically, with 53% living
within one kilometre of their
workplaces, and 13% within 1 – 2
kilometres, while 15% worked
more than 2 kilometres from their
homes (figure 4.73).
Figure 4.73: Approximate Distances to Workplace of Resondents
P a g e | 236
4.9.14.20
Income Distribution of Respondents
The modal monthly income group among the respondents is N10,000 or less (47%), followed by >N10,000 –
N20,000 (35%), >N20,000 – N30,000 (6%), >N30,000 – N40,000 (5%), while 4% each earned >N40,000 – N50,000
and >N50,000 – N100,000 respectively (figure 4.74). However, as some of the respondents noted, their monthly
incomes varied in line with the number of fishes they get. In the words of one respondent:
“The amount we make monthly varies depending on how water is good, but on the average we make
sometime fifteen to twenty-four thousand naira only”.
Figure 4.74: Distribution of Monthly Income of Respondents
4.9.14.21
Monthly Household Expenditure
Monthly household expenditure ranged from under N5,000 to about N100,000, although 17% of the respondents
could not estimate their monthly household expenditures. The modal monthly household expenditure is >N10,000 –
N20,000 (57%). Some (12%) of the respondents reported monthly household expenditures of less than N5,000
(figure 4.75). As may be expected of a community of this nature, when juxtaposed with the reported monthly income,
the expenditure levels suggest a relatively high level of poverty in the community.
P a g e | 237
Figure 4.75: Distribution of Estimated Monthly Expenditure of Respondents HH
4.9.14.22
Ownership of Household Appliances
Analysis of the ownership of various household appliances can also be used to indicate the living conditions of the
households. As shown in figure 4.76, about four-fifth of the households owned mobile telephone handsets; about
52% owned radio sets; while about 45% had television sets. Furthermore, about 18% of the households also had
electric fans. All other household items listed were owned by less than 5% of the households. Again, this suggests a
relatively low-income community.
P a g e | 238
Figure 4.76: Distribution of Appliances Ownership by Respondents Household
4.9.14.23
Water and Sanitation
Members of the community buy potable water from outside the community. Water from dug wells are used for
washing, bathing and some cooking, while the water from the lagoon is used mainly for cleaning and human waste
disposal. The Focus Group Discussion participants shed more light on the water situation in the communities. Many
discussants among the Egun remarked that the water from the local wells was not good for drinking. Some of them
said they sometimes went as far as Iwaya (a riverine community on the Lagos Mainland) to buy water. They noted
that the water from the lagoon was used for washing of dirty clothes, utensils and other things, while water from the
local wells was used for bathing and sometimes, for cooking. They reported buying 50 litres of water for N150.
Similarly, discussants from the Ilaje community of Itedo reported that the water from dug wells was not good for
drinking, and thus they usually buy from sellers of acceptable clean water for drinking and cooking. The water,
though from unknown sources, is said to be brought in to the community by water tankers and emptied into storage
tanks from which everyone purchased at the rate of N80 a bucket (about 20 litres). Households were said to
purchase 20 to 40 buckets of water per week, depending on the size of the family.
P a g e | 239
Some households also reported relying on what is locally known as “pure water” (water in sachets) as their primary
source of drinking water, spending as much as N800 in purchasing 11 bags and an average of N2,000 per week for
purchasing drinking water for a household.
The study indicated general lack of basic sanitation facilities in the community. Most of the houses lacked standard
toilet and bathing facilities, with only a few households having pit latrines and makeshift bathing facilities. Thus, a
good number of people in the community defecate directly into the lagoon.
Plate 4.53: Water Storage facilities at Itedo community
Plate 4.54: Children Fetching Water from Dug-well at Ebute-IIkate
P a g e | 240
Plate 4.55: Makeshift Structure for Bathing in lagoon
Plate 5.56: Makeshift Structure for bathing on land
P a g e | 241
4.9.14.24
Energy for Cooking
Kerosene stove and firewood were reported as the main forms of energy for cooking in the community.
Plate 4.57: Stored Firewood for cooking in the community
Plate 4.58: Cooking place in the community
P a g e | 242
4.9.14.25
Waste Disposal
Although the respondents reported that they participated regularly in the compulsory Thursday environmental
sanitation exercise in the community, and collect their solid waste, which the Lagos Waste Management Authority
helps them to dispose, there was still evidence of indiscriminate dumping of refuse and solid waste in the
neighbourhood. Human wastes are discharged directly into the lagoon. The community dwellers did not think there
was anything wrong with defecating in the lagoon. They also believed it is a good source of food for fishes.
Plate 4.59: Indiscriminate solid waste disposal in the community
Plate 4.60: Makeshift structure for human waste disposal into the lagoon
P a g e | 243
4.9.14.26
Sources of Finance for Businesses and Engagements
The respondents reported the existence of various traders’ and artisans’ cooperative and thrift association (such as
Duromanto, Jejelaye Fishermen Cooperative, Kosi Wahala Fishermen), to which many of them belonged. These
were said to be mutual-help associations for the benefit of members. There is also the FADAMA programme in the
community. The Ilaje women who participated in the Focus Group Discussion also said they were members of the
Ifesowapo Ladies Club. The women also reported participating in the popular contributory scheme (Ajo) in which
members make financial contribution periodically to a common purse and members access the money on a turn-byturn basis as may be agreed by all members. The Egun men also reported membership of a similar scheme which
they called “Donwa”, with members contributing about five hundred naira each, which is given to different members
on a week-by-week basis.
In terms of community organization, it was reported that a community meeting holds every two weeks, while the Ilaje
women also reported the attendance of monthly family meetings, which holds in the first week of every month for all
family members.
4.9.14.27
Community Security
The community was reported to be generally safe and secure. The youths were said to play a prominent role in
ensuring the security of the community. However, some women from Itedo reported concerns about recent cases of
burglary and shop breaking, which they said compelled them to employ local guards for the protection of their goods
and properties.
4.9.14.28
Conclusion
A general conclusion that can be reached from this study is that the residents of the study communities are not
strongly tied to land, as most of them live in “temporary” structures, which may not be too expensive to construct.
This is because they recognize that they are “temporary tenants” on the land. Despite this “temporary status”,
dislocation would still be expected to affect the residents in various ways. For instance, many of them are still likely to
experience and suffer from the psychological, social and economic effects of dislocation, if necessary. In the process
of relocation and resettlement, some properties are likely to be lost or damaged, families, friends and kinsmen are
likely to be separated, people who work or operate businesses within the community would experience changes to
incomes, etc.
In terms of religious/cultural effects, the places of worship in the community would also be affected by
dislocation/relocation. However, these can be re-located to new sites. Consultation with the community leaders of
P a g e | 244
Ebute-Ikate and Itedo confirmed that the shrines and graves could be relocated, if need be. However, the proposed
Orange Island Reclamation would not require any of the communities to be relocated or resettled, since the project
site is on water and about 500 metres away from the nearest dwellers.
Recommendations
In order to ameliorate the possible effects of the proposed Orange Island reclamation project on the nearby
communities and possibly enhance the positive impacts, the following recommendations are made:
•
The community members, especially the Ikate fishermen, should be adequately notified prior to the
commencement of dredging, to enable them keep their fishing gears away from the project area.
•
The project promoters should consider providing some basic facilities such as toilets and potable water
in the community in order to enhance their lives and nearest neighbours. This is in line with the
suggestion of the Chairman of the Eti-Osa Local Government Area during consultation meeting on the
proposed project.
•
If there is a need to dislocate or relocate the migrant community in future, a proper resettlement action
plan should be put in place to ensure that project affected persons are appropriately and adequately
restituted, to assuage the psychological and social effects of dislocation. Part of this process should
include identification and preparation of the new locations for the affected persons and provision of
necessary facilities and infrastructure (e.g. schools, hospitals, water supply, etc.) in the new location.
Also the resettlement plan should cover provision of necessary and reasonable assistance for the
relocation of socio-cultural and religious sites such as shrines, churches and mosques.
4.9.15
4.9.15.1
Public Health Assessment
Introduction
This health impact assessment is implemented as part of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the proposed
Orange Island reclamation. The identified stakeholders for this HIA include; Lagos state government, Orange Island
Development company Limited, leaders and people of Ikate Elegushi community, and the EIA/HIA assessment
teams. This HIA which was conducted between March and August 2013, adopted the US Centers for Disease
Control guidelines (CDC, 2012). It is organized in seven parts.
The International Association of Impact Assessment defines Health Impact Assessment (HIA) as “a combination of
procedures, methods and tools that systematically judges the potential, and sometimes unintended, effects of a
policy, plan, program or project on the health of a population and the distribution of those effects within the
population. HIA identifies appropriate actions to manage those effects” (Quigley, 2006). HIA is concerned with
P a g e | 245
harmful effects and with the ways public decisions can be shaped to promote and improve a population’s health. It is
also concerned with protecting vulnerable populations, in this case the Ebute-Ikate people living in shanty
settlements along the Lekki lagoon in Lagos.
4.9.15.2
The Case for the HIA (screening)
After careful consideration, it was found necessary and worthwhile to conduct an HIA for the Orange Island
reclamation project. Firstly, dredging and land reclamation activities are known to have many potentially harmful
consequences to ecosystems and health (Mostafa 2012). Secondly, the affected community is a poor settlement of
migrants who do not have the voice to defend themselves from potential harm from construction projects. Thirdly, it
was feasible to conduct a meaningful assessment: there was sufficient time and expertise.
4.9.15.3
HIA Scope and Methodology
The goals for the HIA as follows:
(1) Complete a rapid HIA report. This included: (a) screening, scoping data gathering, stakeholders’ consultation,
report writing, and develop monitoring plan.
(2) Engage potentially impacted residents in the HIA. This included: (a) In-person meeting with a panel of impacted
residents to shape the scope of the rapid HIA, (b) community survey and data gathering.
(3) Influence and inform the proposed development. This included: (a) dissemination of HIA report as well as
summary of findings and recommendations to stakeholders and decision makers and (b) submission of HIA report as
a component of the EIA
The primary beneficiaries of this HIA are the people of Ebute-Ikate and Itedo communities who are most proximal the
proposed reclamation area. The study presented a unique opportunity to interact with members of the community, to
get their perspective about how the proposed project might affect their lives. It covers a baseline of the health profile
of the community, their exposure to health challenges consequent upon the project, likely negative and positive
impacts of the project activities on the community, and possible remedies.
4.9.15.4
Research questions
The research questions were as follows:
i.
What impacts will the proposed Orange Island reclamation project have on the health of the people of Ikate
community;
ii.
What can be done to mitigate or eliminate any identified potentially negative impacts to health.
The health impacts were assessed in two broad categories, namely: health outcomes and health determinants. The
potential health effects of the project include its impact on diseases such as obesity, diabetes, hypertension, asthma,
hearing impairment, malnutrition, water-borne illnesses, malaria, and mortality. There are also health determinants
P a g e | 246
that could be impacted by the project, and these were categorized into resources, behavioural risk factors,
community structure, and environmental quality. These scoping categories were determined based on literature
review and expert opinion. The pathways by which the project could impact these health determinants and outcomes
are illustrated in Figure 4.77.
4.9.15.5
Research Methods
Both qualitative and quantitative research methods were employed in the assessment. Data sources used include
literature review, secondary data (Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey 2008), primary survey data, and focus
groups discussions (FGDs). A detailed questionnaire was used to interview a sample of 101 randomly selected
adults in the community under study. The questionnaire was interviewer administered, in the language of choice of
the respondent, using the help of interpreters where necessary. This survey instrument is attached as appendix
Focus group discussions were held with cross-sections of men, women, and youths of the community.
P a g e | 247
Figure 4.77: Pathway diagram showing links between land reclamation project and health
P a g e | 248
4.9.15.6
Socio-Demographics
The social impact assessment section of this EIA Report (section 4.6.14) provides detail socio-demographic data and
information on the communities studied.
4.9.15.7
Resources
23% of the respondents could not pay for health care in the last 12 months. Only 1% had health insurance. Access to
healthcare is further impeded by the lack of public health care facilities within the community. Table 4.80 shows the
locations of the health facilities employed by the communities and their relative distances from the people. As some
of the women expressed, “We don't have any public hospital but we have what we refer to as a private hospital which
is equally used as maternity centres. We go to Kizito or Ifeoluwa Hospital if cases are serious” (FGD with women,
May 2013). Hence it is not surprising that the majority (53%) of the people do not make use of the formal health care
system when sick; these patronize herbalists, chemists, faith-healers, and so on.
Table 4.76: Location of Health Facilities and Distances from communities
Distance from Community (km)
Coordinates
Ebute Ikate
Itedo
Northings
Eastings
St. Kizito Clinic
2.37
2.818
6.4347
3.5052
Ife-Oluwa Hospital Jakande
2.21
2.616
6.4348
5.5045
Eti-Osa LGA Primary Health Centre Igbo Efon
3.37
4.57
6.4370
3.5228
Chemist shop
2.016
0.152
6.440
3.4820
Health Centre
Generally, the communities comprise of a low-income population, with majority (63%) of the working class earning
15,000 naira or less per month, a figure far less than the national minimum wage of 18,000 naira. “The amount we
make monthly varies depending on how good the water is ….” (Male Focus Group Discussion, May 2013).
92% of households own the house they live in; the remaining 8% rent. Although housing availability will appear not to
be a problem at a first look, the poor quality of these houses raises serious safety concerns. The houses, which are
made of wood, bamboo, and zinc, are so shabbily constructed that they do not offer protection from harsh weather,
rodents, insects, or other disease vectors (plate 4.61). Majority of houses in the community have only one or two
rooms, yet majority (70%) of households have between 5-10 people. These suggest a high prevalence of
overcrowding in the community.
P a g e | 249
Plate 4.61: A typical House in Ebute-Ikate
The people do not farm due to the fact that the soil in the area is of poor agricultural quality. “We don't farm here
because the soil is not good for such. We are mainly fishermen and we buy our foods from the neighboring markets.
Our traditional foods are Eko, Tuwo, Amala, Eba, Fufu, Semovita” (Women Focus Group Discussion of Ebute-Ikate,
May 2013). The major source of protein is fish. They occasionally eat pork.
Domestic water used in the community is obtained from wells (see plate 4.62). As much as 33% of respondents felt
their source of domestic water was unreliable and hence not potable. “Our water is not good for consumption; we
only use it to wash our dirty clothes. We go to Iwaya (a community on the mainland to buy water)” (Male Focus
Group Discussion, May 2013).
P a g e | 250
Plate 4.62: A child fetching water from dug well
4.9.15.8
Behavioral Risk Factors
2% of the respondents are smokers. Although alcohol consumption seemed moderate, some practices such as
encouraging pregnant women to take dry gin could be deleterious to health. As one respondent put it “We love to
take ogogoro (local gin) but we don't refine it here. We only buy from outside the community and we use it for the
purpose of showing hospitality to our guest and to make merry and most importantly it helps erect our manhood. We
have never recorded any fatality in taking alcoholic drink in this community. We measure the quantity we drink by a
small glass cup referred as shots. Pregnant women are encouraged to take a shot of gin per night after four (4)
months of pregnancy” (Male Focus Group Discussion, May 2013). Fresh fruits and vegetable are not readily available
in the community; as noted earlier the people do not farm. Hence, consumption of such healthy foods is low. The
means of sewage disposal is unhygienic. They use make-shift structures for defecating into the open water body.
One informant commented: “We do swim in the water at any time of the day not minding the excreta because we
believe fishes eat our faeces”. Swimming in such filthy waters poses great risk of faeco-oral transmission of diseases.
P a g e | 251
4.9.15.9
Community Structure
Majority of the people (>60%) have lived in the community for 10 years or more. Most of the adults are married, and
there was no single case of divorce among the people surveyed. “In this community there is no restriction in
marriage. You can marry as much as you can cater for. “We also encourage intermarriage because we believe in the
sustenance of lineages” (Male Focus Group Discussion, May 2013). Majority are Christians (87%), though an
appreciable number practice traditional religion, worshipping gods like marine spirits. “The major shrine in Ikate
waterside houses the Zangbeto Masquerade which normally holds August 20 annually” (Male Focus Group
Discussion, May 2013). Ebute-Ikate is apparently a male-dominated society. One of the women focus group
participant noted, “we are never informed nor participate when decisions are taken pertaining community matters”
(Ebute Ikate Female Focus Group Discussion, May 2013). There are several community organizations for men –
such as the Jejelaiye Fishermen Cooperative, and the Kosiwahala Fishermen – while there are neither women
groups nor associations. The women are made to buy the fish harvested by their husbands, which they go on to sell
for their own income. As one man stated “we sell fish to our wives whom now take to sell at Oju Olobun, Jakande
market and other neighbouring communities” (Male Focus Group Discussion, May 2013).
In Itedo community, the Ogynyemi family women reported that they are involved in the family meeting and decision
making with their male counterpart.
The cooperatives serve the role of banks for the people. “We don't normally put our money in banks but we form a
group of ten called Donwa where we contribute about five hundred naira and give to different members every week.”
The young ones also have their own social groups. “We have some associations such as One love, white and white
and Osupa premises” (Youth FGD May 2013).
A sense of strong community cohesion provides an atmosphere in which the people feel really safe and in no need of
security forces. “Ikate is relatively safe. We don't really have a formidable vigilante group but our youths helps us with
insecurity problems if there are any” (Male Focus Group Discussion, May 2013).
In Itedo, where most of the women engage in petty trading, incidences of burglary of their shops have occurred in
recent times.
4.9.15.10
Environmental quality
Waste management practices in the community are poor and harmful. There is indiscriminate waste disposal in the
open. Such indiscriminate dumping of waste constitutes breeding grounds for disease vectors such as housefly and
rodents. It also releases putrid smell into the environment, diminishing the air quality.
P a g e | 252
Electricity supply is poor. “The electricity is not regular though available. This subjects us to cook with firewood and
stove” (Male Focus Group Discussion, May 2013). Along the same lines, the women commented "we cook food with
either stove or firewood. We spend about N2,000 on Kerosene every two weeks and as much as N4,000 on firewood
every 3 weeks” (Female Focus Group Discussion, May 2013) Indoor pollution and inhalation of smoke from cooking
are a known major source of air pollution (Fullerton et al. 2008), with potentially harmful consequences such as
respiratory illnesses including cancers.
4.9.15.11
Health outcomes
The women noted: “We experience fever, blood shortage, worm, and cough amongst our children. We normally go to
Kizito Hospital for antenatal care while we deliver at Ifeoluwa Hospital in Jakande” (Female FGD May 2013).
30% of the respondents considered their health as being at best fair or poor (Figure 4.78). More than half of the
womenfolk had suboptimal weights; 20% of them were overweight, 28.6% were obese, while 5.7% of them were
underweight. In contrast, only 5.7% of the men were overweight, and none of them was either obese or underweight.
3% have been told by a health professional that they have diabetes. Similarly the figures for other illnesses were as
follows: hypertension – 1%, asthma – 1%, and hearing impairment – 4%.
Figure 4.78: Respondents Perception of their general Health
P a g e | 253
4.9.15.11
Impact analysis
Dredging and sand-filling activities negatively impact the livelihoods of people that depend on water resources for
sustenance. In the recent past, the People have expressed strong aversion for dredging activities on Lagos Lagoon,
as evidenced by a prior petition to the Lagos State Government against one of the dredging companies (Somorin
2013).
Despite fishing being the major source of income for the Ebute-Ikate people, they do not fish in commercial quantity
in the area of the lagoon proposed for reclamation. “We do only small small fishing in this area (the proposed
reclamation site) because catch is low (. We go far into the lagoon and sea to fish. Even, the fish we catch here are
very small” (Female FGD May 2013). Also displacement is a serious concern of the people as they repeatedly
expressed worries and begged for them not to be displaced from their land either by Oba Elegushi or by development
projects. These people have spent a good part of their history migrating from one location to another, often
unwittingly; hence, they do not desire any such circumstances as may force them to move once more. Eviction is
known to have significant negative consequences such as leading to overcrowding, diminishing access to basic
services, and generally leaves people worse off than they were (Agbola and Jinadu 1990).
Table 4.77 presents a description of the impact analyses criteria, while Table 4.78 presents a summary of findings
from the health impact analyses. It is important to note that for the purpose of this analysis, only the impact of the
land reclamation project itself is considered; thus any potential benefits or harm that might accrue to the subsequent
usage of the reclaimed land were not considered as the stakeholders agreed that these were outside the scope of
the current analysis.
P a g e | 254
Table 4.77: HIA Analyses Criteria
Direction
Magnitude
Severity
Likelihood
Rank
Description
Rank
Description
Rank
Description
Rank
Description
Positive
Changes that may
improve health
Low
Causes impacts to no or
very few people
Low
Causes impacts that can be quickly and
easily managed or do not require
treatment
Likely
it is likely that impacts will occur
as a result of the proposal
Negative
Changes that may
detract from health
Medium
Causes impacts to wider
number of people
Medium
Causes impacts that necessitate
treatment or medical management and
are reversible
Possible
it is possible that impacts will
occur as a result of the
proposal
Uncertain
Unknown how health
will be impacted
High
High
Causes impacts that are chronic,
irreversible or fatal
Unlikely
t is unlikely that impacts will
occur as a result of the
proposal
Uncertain
it is unclear if impacts will occur
as a result of the proposal
No effect
Causes impacts to many
people
No effect on health
P a g e | 255
Table 4.78: HIA Impact Analyses Summary of Findings
Health Outcome or
Determinant
Direction
Underlying mechanism(s)/remarks
Magnitude
Severity
Likelihood
General Health
Status
Negative
A combination of factors
High
Medium
Likely
Obesity
Negative
Diabetes
Negative
Hypertension
Negative
Asthma
Uncertain
Hearing Impairment
Negative
Decrease intake of protein (fish), higher uptake of carbohydrates, and
increase in sedentary lifestyle from unemployment.
Decrease intake of protein (fish), higher uptake of carbohydrates, and
increase in sedentary lifestyle from unemployment.
Building projects on reclaimed land might improve electricity supply in
neighborhood, decreasing usage of firewood and stove. On the other
hand there could be air pollution from construction equipment.
Noise pollution from construction activities
Mental disorders:
anxiety & depression
Negative
Malnutrition
Water-borne
illnesses
Cancers
Distribution
Health Outcomes
Decrease intake of protein (fish), higher uptake of carbohydrates.
Increase in sedentary lifestyle from unemployment.
Medium
Medium
Likely
Low
High
Possible
Low
High
Possible
Low
Medium
Uncertain
Low
Low
Possible
Unemployment, displacement.
Medium
Medium
Likely
Negative
Decrease intake of protein (fish), higher uptake of carbohydrates.
Medium
Medium
Likely
Negative
Flooding, displacement.
High
High
Possible.
Negative
Toxic chemicals and heavy metals from dredging activities
Low
High
Uncertain
Malaria
Negative
Environmental degradation, flooding.
High
High
Possible
Mortality
Negative
Combination of factors
High
High
Possible
Will impact
women more,
because of
greater baseline
prevalence of
obesity
Women will likely
suffer more
unemployment
Pregnant women
and children will
suffer more
consequences
Health determinants
P a g e | 256
Health Outcome or
Direction
Determinant
Resources: Individual, Household and Community
Health care access:
Decreased income from fishing could mean fewer resources to afford
Negative
affordability
healthcare
Health care access:
Uncertain
Uncertain
availability
Income and
Uncertain
Loss of livelihood, decrease income from fishing.
employment
Housing: supply,
Negative
Flooding, displacement.
cost, accessibility
Housing: safety
Negative
Flooding
Food resources and
Release of toxic chemicals, decline in fishing activities, reduced
Negative
safety
income to purchase other food materials.
Magnitude
Severity
Likelihood
High
Medium
Likely
High
Medium
Uncertain
High
Medium
Likely
High
Medium
Possible
High
Medium
Likely
Water resources and
safety
Negative
Release of toxic chemicals, decline in fishing activities, reduced
income to purchase potable water.
High
Medium
Likely
Recreational
facilities
Uncertain
Environmental degradation, increased flooding
Low
Low
Uncertain
Social networks
Negative
Displacement due to flooding and/or environmental degradation
Medium
Low
Possible
Community
cohesion
Negative
Medium
Low
Possible
Crime and violence
Negative
Medium
Low
Possible
Culture and
spirituality
Negative
Medium
Low
Possible
Distribution
Community
Structure
Behavioral risk
factors
P a g e | 257
Health Outcome or
Determinant
Direction
Magnitude
Severity
Likelihood
Distribution
Tobacco use
Negative
Coping mechanism to unemployment, changes in community
structure
Low
High
Possible
Will more likely
affect males
Alcohol
consumption
Negative
Coping mechanism to unemployment, changes in community
structure
Low
High
Possible
Will more likely
affect males
Consumption of
fresh fruits/vegetable
Uncertain
reduced income to purchase fruits and vegetables
High
Medium
Possible
Hygiene and
Sanitation: sewage
disposal
Uncertain
Poor hygiene practices due to displacement
High
High
Possible
Hygiene and
Sanitation: solid
waste
Uncertain
Poor hygiene practices due to displacement
High
High
Possible
Air quality
Uncertain
Pollution from construction equipment
Low
Medium
Possible
Noise
Negative
Noise pollution from construction activities
Low
Low
Possible
Disease vectors
Negative
Environmental degradation, Increase flooding
High
Medium
Likely
Flood and erosion
Negative
Increase flooding
High
Medium
Possible
Environmental quality
P a g e | 258
4.9.15.12
Recommendations
Among the health determinants and outcomes considered for this analysis, the following which are likely to be
impacted negatively, with medium-to-high magnitude and severity and as well as reasonable plausibility of
impact, are to be given utmost attention:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
General Health Status
Mortality
Obesity
Mental disorders: anxiety & depression
Malnutrition
Water-borne illnesses
Malaria
Health care affordability
Food resources and safety
Water resources and safety
Disease vectors
Flood and erosion
Considering the vulnerability of the People of the waterside communities (especially, Ebute-Ikate) to impacts that
may arise from the land reclamation project, adequate plans need to be put in place to address the challenges
highlighted above. These plans can be in the following forms:
1. Provide alternative means of income: as most of these people rely on fishing for survival, a decline in
fishing activities consequent upon this project will have negative impact on their livelihood. One way of
mitigating this challenge is to establish a skills acquisition center to train some of the people in crafts,
arts, and other technical professions that could provide them with an alternative means of livelihood.
“…our major problem is temporary habitation of the land. Also, lack of education and vocational centers
coupled with unemployment” (Youth FGD, May 2013). They will also need transport infrastructure and
access to viable markets for their goods and services. As some of the women expressed: “we need land
for market because we go as far as Idumota and Ajah to sell our product” (Female FGD, May 2013).
The women should be given special consideration in the empowerment initiatives.
2. Provide the community with potable water: the community currently lacks access to potable water.
“The only benefit that we believe we can derive from this project activity is for us to have regular power
supply and to drill borehole for us because we buy a 50 liters plastic for 150 Naira each” (Female FGD,
May 2013).
3. Provision of toilet facilities and waste disposal system: the sewage and waste disposal system in
the community is highly unsanitary. This places the people at risk of faeco-oral illnesses and a host of
vector borne diseases such as malaria.
P a g e | 259
4. Health clinic: the community lacks a health center of its own, making the people to travel to other
communities in search of health care. The majority is left with no option than to resort to alternative and
questionable means of care such as faith-healers and chemist shops, especially as private health
facilities are less accessible to them considering their income status. Establishing a health post or
mobile health clinic within the community will go a long way in addressing the health needs of the
people, as well as cushioning the health impacts of the project on the community.
5. Flood control: adequate measures should be put in place to manage the dredging and sand-filling
activities in such a manner as to minimize the risk of flooding and environmental degradation.
4.9.15.13
Conclusion
Land reclamation activities alter the ecosystem of the surrounding areas with consequences that can be
deleterious to health. Nonetheless, population growth results in a situation where there is constant need for man
to expand the frontiers of current space for development activities. This exercise has highlighted the cardinal
areas of concern concerning the health of the nearby communities.
If adequately implemented, the
recommendations made in this HIA will go a long way in protecting the health and livelihood of the affected
people
while
permitting
the
Proponent
and
State
to
achiev’e
its
development
objectives.
P a g e | 260
CHAPTER FIVE
5.1
ASSOCIATED AND POTENTIAL
IMPACTS
Introduction
This chapter presents an assessment of the associated and potential impacts of the proposed Orange Island
reclamation on the human and natural environment. Impacts on human environment are concerned about the
effects of the proposed project on socio-economy and public health, while impacts on the natural environment
consider interactions with the biophysical attributes. Assessment of the impacts of the proposed project focused
on the effects of all actions and activities of the project on components sub components of the environment
(human and natural).
5.2
Impact Assessment Methodology Characteristics
A number of impact assessment methods have been developed, while new approaches continue to emerge.
There are some fundamental characteristics for good and acceptable methods of impact assessment (SCOPE,
1979), these include:
• Comprehensiveness
This implies that the method should detect the full range of important elements and a combination of elements,
directing attention to novel or unsuspected effects or impacts, as well as to the expected ones.
• Selectivity
This character relays the ability of the impact assessment method to focus on major factors. It is often desirable
to eliminate as early as possible (i.e., during identification) un-important impacts that would dissipate effort if
included in the final analysis. However, screening at the identification stage requires some pre-determination of
the importance of an impact. Lindblom (1959), Beer (1967), and Holling (1978) provided some guidelines on how
to deal with this issue.
• Exclusivity
This characteristic of an impact assessment methodology enables it to avoid as much as important, double
counting of effects. Although this can be very difficult due to the interwoven interactions in environmental
components, with experience and informed knowledge, it can be fairly well achieved.
• Confidence limits
Subjective approaches to uncertainty are common in many existing methods and can sometimes lead to quite
useful predictions. However, explicit procedures are generally more acceptable, as their internal assumptions are
open to critical examination, analysis, and if desirable, alteration.
• Objectivity
The importance of objectivity in impact assessments has been emphasized by many including the Federal
Ministry of Environment and other Nigerian regulators. Objectivity minimizes the possibility that the predictions
Chapter Five: Associated and Potential Impacts
P a g e | 261
automatically support the preconceived notions of the promoter and/or assessor. These pre-judgments are
usually caused by a lack of knowledge about local conditions or insensitivity to public opinion. A second reason
for objectivity is to ensure comparability of EIA prediction amongst similar types of actions. An ideal impact
prediction method contains no bias.
• Prediction of Interactions
Environmental, sociological and economic processes often contain feedback mechanisms. A change in the
magnitude of an environmental effect or impact indicator may then produce unsuspected amplifications or
dampening in other parts of the system.
5.3
Impact Assessment Methodology
There is no universal methodology that can be applied for all project types (Canter, 1996). Adaptation of useful
tools from existing methodologies to suit particular project is therefore, needful (UNEP, 1996). The use of an
array of methodologies, leveraging on their specific strengths has been recommended (Lohani et al., 1997).
In assessing the impacts of the proposed Orange Island reclamation project, combination of the following
techniques was adopted:
i.
Checklists
ii.
Matrices
iii.
Computer models
iv.
Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
In applying the above techniques, the impact assessment aimed at meeting the dual need of; guiding the project
proponent to apply appropriate environmental management plans, and meeting regulatory requirements. The
following approaches were employed to meet the needs:
i.
Resource/Receptor Based impacts approach – this approach assesses and describes impacts
based on their effects on the environmental receptor(s) of affected resources. For instance, an
assessment of the project impacts on fish and fisheries around the proposed project affected area. This
approach provides information that are of interest to regulators and other stakeholders;
ii.
Activity-Based Assessment of Impacts – this approach looks at proposed project impacts on the
environment on activity-by-activity bases, i.e.; it evaluates the impacts of every project action/activity on
the environment. This approach is of great interest to the project proponent and its contractors, as it
enables development and implementation of a sound environmental management plan.
While using the above-explained techniques and approaches, the entire impact assessment process followed the
steps below:
P a g e | 262
Step 1:
Description of the proposed project’s actions/activities and their interactions with the
environment;
Step 2:
Identification of components and sub components of the environment that could be affected by
the proposed project activities.
Step 3:
Superimposition of the proposed project’s actions/activities on components of the environment
to screen out all possible impacts.
Step 4:
Detailed assessment of all identified impacts under the following criteria: Positive or negative,
direct or indirect, magnitude; frequency, duration, sensitivity, cumulative effects, and
significance.
Step 5:
Description of the identified impacts.
Detailed assessment of identified impacts was aided by the following:
i.
Survey of the baseline characteristics of the natural and human environment;
ii.
Interactions with project proponents and relevant contractors;
iii.
Comparative investigation of baseline environmental conditions with existing applicable regulatory
requirements;
iv.
Consultation with experts and stakeholders;
v.
Knowledge and information from similar projects;
vi.
Reference to relevant literature (Published and unpublished) with guidelines on performing impact
analysis; like those of the Federal Ministry of Environment, Word Bank, IFC performance Standards,
Equator Principles, etc.
5.3.1
Description of the proposed project’s actions/activities and their interactions with
the environment;
Chapter three of this report presents the activities of the proposed Orange Island Reclamation project. However,
as a prelude to the impact assessment process, an overview of the specific activities is presented below.
5.3.1.1
Phase One – Pre-Reclamation
This phase consists of activities that will be implemented prior to reclamation. It involves the following:
•
Project concept development,
•
Relevant Applications and discussions with Government authorities,
•
Project Site Survey,
•
Bathymetric studies,
•
EIA implementation,
P a g e | 263
•
Stakeholders' consultations,
•
Engagement of contractors,
•
Mobilisation to site.
5.3.1.2
Phase Two – Reclamation
This phase involves sand dredging sand filling of the proposed Island. Dredging will be carried out by cutter
suction technology. Cutter Suction Dredger (CSD) is a stationary dredger. It consists of a pontoon, which is
positioned with a spud-pole at the back and two anchors at the front. The soil is loosened by rotating a cutting
head, while powerful in-board centrifugal pumps hydraulically transport the loosened soil. The cutter head, which
is hydraulically driven encloses the intake of a centrifugal dredge pump. The cutter head is mounted at the end of
a fabricated steel structure, named the ‘ladder’, which is attached to the main hull by heavy hinges that permit
rotation in the vertical plane. The ladder assembly is lowered and raised by means of a hoisting controlled from
the bridge. After loosening and suction, soil is pumped into a delivery pipeline (floating or landline) and
discharged at desired location.
5.3.1.3
Phase Three – Post-Reclamation
This phase involves levelling of filled materials to desired landscape consolidation, as well as demobilisation from
the site.
5.3.2
Components of environment that could be affected by the proposed project
Field reconnaissance survey findings and expert assessment guided the screening of environmental components
that could be affected by the proposed Orange Island reclamation. Table 5.1 and 5.2 present the environmental
components that could be affected by the proposed reclamation.
P a g e | 264
Table 5.1: Components of Natural Environment that could be impacted by proposed project.
Natural Environment
Aquatic ecosystem
Components
Surface water quality
Sediment quality
Benthic biota
Plankton
Fish and fisheries
Air Quality/ Noise
Noise Energy level
Ambient air quality
Soil
Erosion/Flooding
Vegetation
Floral types and Important Species
Table 5.2: Components of Human and Socio-economic Environment that could be impacted by proposed project.
Human Environment
Livelihood/sustenance
Components
Fisheries activities
Job/employment
Business and Investment
Demography
Population Distribution
Transportation
Road Transportation
Water Transportation
Culture
Religious practices
Social and Cultural Values
Health
General Health and Comfort
Feeding and Nutrition
Social justice
Stakeholders interests
Land ownership/acquisition
5.3.3
Superimposition of project’s activities on environmental components.
This stage involves evaluation of the proposed project activities' interactions with the environment and
assessment of the natures of effects. The outcome of this exercise is presented in table 5.3.
P a g e | 265
Table 5.3: Project Activities and Mode of Impacts on Environmental Components
Project Phase
Activities
Project concept development,
Environmental Component
Livelihood/sustenance
Social justice
Relevant Applications and discussions with
Government authorities,
Pre-reclamation
Stakeholders' consultations,
Project Site Survey,
Bathymetric studies,
EIA implementation,
Aquatic Ecosystem
Engagement of contractors
Mobilisation to site.
Dredging
Aquatic ecosystem
Transportation of dredged materials via floating pipes
Air quality/Noise
Sand filling of the proposed Island
Livelihood and sustenance
Erosion and flooding
Interaction with government agencies and local communities
will enhance cordial relationships in view of the overall
interest among social groups.
Watercrafts movements could discharge solid and liquid
wastes into the water environment.
Mobilisation to the site could increase noxious emissions
and reduce ambient air quality around the project area
Air quality/Noise
Reclamation
Mode of impact
Hiring of required consultants and personnel for prereclamation activities will provide income and enhanced
livelihoods for the beneficiaries.
Use of survey vessels will increase noise levels and reduce
ambient air quality via emission of noxious gases (NOx and
SOx), etc.
Dredging will displace sediment habitat causing morbidity
and mortality of benthic biota
Suspended materials in water column due to dredging and
sand filling activities will increase turbidity, reduce light
penetration and primary production.
P a g e | 266
Project Phase
Activities
Environmental Component
Mode of impact
Dredging and filling will cause migration of fishes,
destruction of breeding grounds, morbidity and mortality of
some species, especially, juveniles stages.
Continuous dredging operations could increase the noise
level. Increased noise level, especially at night will affect
night fishing activities and may result in reduced catches.
Continuous Illumination, especially at night will affect the
dark reaction phase of photosynthetic cycle and reduce
primary production.
Floating pipes for transporting dredged materials could
obstruct fishing grounds, e.g., nets setting and deployment.
Air Quality and Noise
Earth work, especially in dry season will increase ambient
TSP levels.
Levelling of Filled materials
Water Quality
Post-Reclamation
Operation of machinery for transport and levelling of
dredged materials will increase ambient noise level and
noxious emissions.
Discharge of dredged materials into the water column (from
the edge of filled grounds) will increase suspended materials
and turbidity, thereby affecting primary production.
Demobilisation of machinery and personnel
Wildlife
Bird species could forage on dredged out fauna with bioaccumulated toxins (like heavy metals) which can affect the
health of the birds. Toxic pollutions are linked to a number of
ailments in birds, including thinning of eggs.
P a g e | 267
5.3.4
Detailed Assessment of all identified impacts
Following the project activities and environment interactions presented in section 5.2.3, detailed assessment of
all potential and associated impacts from the proposed Orange Island reclamation project was conducted.
Evaluation and categorization of impacts considered conformance to regulatory standards, expert opinions,
baseline environmental conditions, and sensitivity of impact recipients. Every impact was categorised based on
specific characteristics defined in section 5.2.4.1.
5.3.4.1
Definition of Impact Terms
An impact is a change in an environmental component or quality parameter, which results from a particular
activity. Such change is the difference caused by the influence of project activity on the pre-project condition. An
impact is specified in space and time.
Specific attributes determine the characterisation of an impact. Presented below ate different impacts categories
used the defining the effects of the proposed Orange Island Reclamation:
Positive Impact: this is when project activity introduces effects that are considered improvements to
the baseline environmental conditions, i.e., it produces healthier ecosystem and improved quality of
living for human population.
Negative Impact: this is when an activity introduces changes that are considered adverse to the
baseline environmental conditions; i.e., it produces fewer healthy ecosystem and, quality of living that is
below the pre-project conditions for human population.
Direct Impact: this is a change directly occurring from the proposed activity, and easily traceable to its
cause.
Indirect or Secondary Impact: this change is less obvious, occurring later in time or further away from
the impact source, but whose cause(s) could be linked to the proposed action.
Cumulative Impact: This is an incremental effect resulting from a combination of new project impact
and those of other activities undertaken recently or will be carried out in the near or foreseeable future.
The individual impacts may be low or negligible, but may become significant in combination with others.
Accumulation of the individual impacts could be incremental (additive) or interactive or synergistic
resulting in an overall effect that is more severe than isolated impacts.
Temporary: this defines impacts that are short-lived, reversible, and/or intermittent in nature. The
environment returns to previous state when the impact stops, or after a very short time.
Permanent: this refers to impacts that occur during project development but persist in the affected
environment long after.
Chapter Five: associated and Potential Impacts
P a g e | 268
Short-term: this describes impacts that last for a brief period during project development activity(ies)
but recovers quickly due to natural cycle or applied mitigation measures.
Long-term: this describes impacts that continue through a project's life cycle, and end with it. They may
be intermittent or repeated rather than continuous but occur over the project life cycle.
Tables 5.4 to 5.6 present checklist the characteristics of potential impacts from the proposed Orange Island
Reclamation.
Chapter Five: associated and Potential Impacts
P a g e | 269
Table 5.4: Characteristics of Impacts from the proposed project at pre-reclamation phase
PRE-RECLAMATION PHASE
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPONENTS
X
X
X
X
X
Direct
X
X
X
X
X
Indirect
X
X
X
X
X
Food/Feeding/Nutrition
Health and Comfort
Social and Cultural
Values
Religion
Road Transportation
Demography
Business and investment
Job/employment
Land Acquisition
Negative
Temporary
Vegetation
X
Positive
Wildlife
Fish and fisheries
Plankton
Benthic biota
Sediment
Surface water
Ground water
Human/Socioeconomic Environment
Aesthetics
Erosion/Flooding
Soil structure/Quality
Ambient Air Quality
Noise
Nature of Impact
Natural Environment
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Permanent
Reversible
X
Irreversible
Short-term
Long Term
Intermittent
Continuous
Cumulative
P a g e | 270
Table 5.5: Characteristics of Impacts from the proposed project at reclamation phase
Positive
X
Negative
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Direct
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Indirect
Temporary
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Land Acquisition
Health and Comfort
Social and Cultural
Values
Religion
Road Transportation
Demography
Business and
investment
Job/employment
Vegetation
Wildlife
Fish and fisheries
Plankton
Benthic biota
Sediment
Surface water
Ground water
Aesthetics
Erosion/Flooding
Ambient Air Quality
Noise
Nature of Impact
RECLAMATION PHASE
Natural Environment
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Permanent
X
Reversible
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Irreversible
Short-term
X
X
X
Long Term
Intermittent
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Continuous
Cumulative
P a g e | 271
Table 5.6: Characteristics of Impacts from the proposed project at post-reclamation phase
POST-RECLAMATION PHASE
Negative
X
X
X
X
Direct
X
X
X
X
Land acquisition
Health and Comfort
Social and Cultural
Values
X
Religion
X
Job/employment
X
Road Transportation
Vegetation
X
Demography
Wildlife
Positive
Fish and fisheries
Plankton
Benthic biota
Sediment
Surface water
Ground water
Aesthetics
Erosion/Flooding
Ambient Air Quality
Noise
Nature of Impact
Natural Environment
X
X
Indirect
X
Temporary
X
X
Permanent
X
Reversible
Irreversible
Short-term
X
X
Long Term
X
X
X
X
X
X
Intermittent
Continuous
Cumulative
P a g e | 272
5.3.4.2
Impact Severity Criteria
Severity criteria used in this impacts assessment deal on impacts
expected from project activities and
emergencies on the natural environment, socio-economic and human environment, as well as public health and
safety of workers. Assessment of impacts generally involved evaluation of the potential effects of project actions
on the impact indicators identified in tables 5.1 and 5.2.
The impact severity criteria applied to this assessment include:
i.
Magnitude
ii.
Duration
iii.
Areal extent
iv.
Frequency
v.
Sensitivity
a. Magnitude: this is the quantitative intensity of impact(s). It is measured in terms of the proportion of
resources or a population that can be affected by an impact by project activities. Impact magnitude is
typically expressed in terms of relative severity such as high (or major), medium (or moderate), low or
negligible described as follows:
High - this is when large proportion of resource or population (up to half) is affected, with observable
and measurable effects;
Medium – this is when a moderate amount of resource or less than half of a population is affected, with
generally measurable and observable effect;
Low – this is when a small amount of resources or population is affected. A low magnitude impact may
be within the range of slight variation from background conditions;
Negligible – this is when the amount of the resource or population affected is generally unnoticeable or
immeasurable small.
b. Duration: this is the time estimated for a population or a resource to return to conditions prior to the impact.
It is the period between the commencement of impact and when it ends. Duration of impacts from the
proposed Island reclamation were characterized and described as follows:
High - long-term impact; recovery will not occur within ten years;
Medium - moderate-term impact; recovery will occur between one and ten years;
Low - short-term impact; recovery will occur in less than one year;
Negligible - recovery from impact is short-termed and almost immediate.
Characterization of the duration of impact as low, medium, or high equally considers the degree of
reversibility of impact. Irreversible impacts are classified with high duration.
P a g e | 273
c. Area Extent: this refers to the geographical space within which project activities' effects occur. It can be
described in unit such as km2, hectares, acres, plots, etc. The severity criteria used for area extent are as
follows:
High – impact with national, regional or global environment (e.g., GHG emissions) influence;
Medium – impact in the general vicinity of the project site or study area;
Low - impact limited to the immediate vicinity of the activity of source activities;
Negligible - impact limited to a very small part of the activity area.
d. Frequency – this is the number of times an impact is expected to occur over the life cycle of the project.
Frequencies of impacts due to the proposed project were characterized as follows:
High - continuous impact: impact will occur continuously throughout the life of the project (e.g.,
continuous discharge of process wastewater);
Medium - intermittent impact: impact will occur intermittently over the life of the project;
Low - rarely occurring impact: impact will occur a very limited number of times (e.g., pre=reclamation
impact);
e. Sensitivity of the Receptor: this describes the economic, social, and/or ecological importance of an impact
receptor. Impacts that directly affect people or critical natural resources are deemed more important than
those that indirectly affect people or vital resources. This also covers impacts on environmental sensitive
areas (ESAs) such as wetlands, as well as impacts on endangered species, or introduction of invasive
species. Sensitivity criteria for receptors of impacts from the proposed reclamation were characterized as
follows:
High - refers to a receptor with high economic, social and/or ecological importance and/or has intrinsic
sensitivity (including vulnerability and exposure) to the specific impact (eg. Introduction of High noise
level to human residence);
Medium – refers to a receptor with moderate economic, social and/or ecological importance and is not
particularly vulnerable and/or exposed to the impact;
Low – refers to a receptor with low economic, social and/or ecological importance and is not vulnerable
and/or exposed.
Negligible - receptor is not of economic, social and/or environmental importance and not vulnerable.
Table 5.7 presents a summary description of the severity criteria ratings used for the impacts, while table 5.8
shows the colour codes and ranking for the ratings.
P a g e | 274
Table 5.7: Impact Severity Ratings
Magnitude
High
Medium
Low
Negligible
Areal Extent
Frequency
Continuous impact: impact will
occur continuously throughout
the life of the project (e.g.,
continuous discharge of
process wastewater)
Duration
Large amount of the resources or pollution
is affected; an easily observable and
measurable effect OR greater than
quantitative or semi-quantitative criteria
Impact to the national, regional
or global environment
Moderate amount of the resource or
population is affected; generally
measurable and observable effect OR at
the quantitative or semi-quantitative criteria
Impact to the general vicinity of
the project site or study area
Intermittent impact: impact will
occur intermittently over the
life of the project
Impact limited to the
immediate vicinity of the
activity or occurrence that
results in the impact.
Rarely occurring impact:
impact will occur a very limited
number of times (e.g.,
construction impacts)
Short-term impact;
recovery will occur in
less than one year.
Negligible category is not
applicable to this situation
because impact with no
frequency would not occur.
Recovery from impact
is short-termed and
almost immediate.
Small amount of the resource or population
is affected; a low magnitude impact may be
within the range of normal variation of
background conditions OR less than the
quantitative or semi-quantitative criteria OR
impact not detected or at background
conditions.
The amount of the resource or population
affected is unnoticeable or immeasurable
small OR impact not detected or at
background conditions.
Impact limited to a very small
part of the activity area.
Long-term impact;
recovery will not occur
within ten years.
Moderate-term
impact; recovery will
occur between one
and ten years.
Sensitivity of Receptor
Receptor is of high economic, social
and/or environmental importance
and/or has intrinsic sensitivity
(including vulnerability and exposure)
to the specific impact.
Receptor is of moderate economic,
social and/or environmental
importance and is not particularly
vulnerable and/or exposed to the
impact.
Receptor is of low economic, social
and/or environmental importance and
is not vulnerable and/or exposed.
Receptor is not of economic, social
and/or environmental importance and/
sensitive and/or vulnerable.
P a g e | 275
Table 5.8: Rankings of the Impact Severity Criteria
Rating
High
Moderate or medium
Low
Negligible
Positive Impact
Rank
8 -10
5–7
2–4
0–1
Colour code
Impact Significance:
The significance of each impact was predicted by summation its severity criteria and superimposing on the
likelihood of its occurrence. The overall impact severity was based upon the aggregation of the various severity
criteria discussed in 5.2.4.2 (a – e). The aggregations are as follows (and depicted in figure 5.1):
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
Impact Quantum (IQ)
Temporal Effects (TE)
Overall Impact Severity (IS)
Impact Significance (S)
=
=
=
(Magnitude
(Duration
(IQ
=
(IS
+
+
+
+
Area Extent) ÷ 2
Frequency) ÷ 2
TE)/2
Impact Likelihood (L)) ÷ 2
Figure 5.1: Impact Significance prediction Process
The overview of the impact analyses for the proposed reclamation is presented as a matrix (Leopold et al., 1971)
(Table 5.9) while the outcome of the impact significance prediction is presented in Table 5.11
P a g e | 276
Table 5.9: Associated and Potential Impacts Matrix of the Proposed Orange Island Project
Land Ownership
Food/Feeding /Nutrition
Health and Comfort
Social and Cultural Values
Religion
Road Transportation
Demography
Job/employment
Vegetation
Wildlife
Fish and fisheries
Plankton
Benthic biota
Sediment
Surface water
Ground water
Human/Socio-economic environment
Aesthetics
Erosion/Flooding
Pre-Reclamation
Ambient Air Quality
Activities
Noise
Natural Environment
Project Concept Design
Government Relations
Site acquisition
Feasibility and EIA
Stakeholders consultations
Contract Award
Mobilisation to site
Reclamation
Dredging
Materials Transport
Filling
Post-Reclamation
leveling of Materials
Demobilisation from site
P a g e | 277
Table 5.10: Impact Significance Matrix for the proposed Orange Island Reclamation Project
Areal Extent
Impact Quantum (IQ)
Frequency
Duration
IQ & TE
Sensitivity
Overall Impact Severity
Likelihood
Impact Significance
Phase
Magnitude
Noise
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
4
3
5
4
Ambient Air Quality
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
4
3
3
3
Aesthetics
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
Surface water
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
6
4
3
4
Fish and fisheries
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
6
4
3
3
Road Transportation
3
4
4
1
2
2
3
7
5
6
5
Noise
4
4
4
6
6
6
5
5
5
8
7
Ambient Air Quality
2
3
3
5
6
6
4
5
5
3
4
Aesthetics
1
4
3
1
5
3
3
3
3
3
3
Surface water
7
4
6
5
4
5
5
7
6
8
7
Sediment
5
4
5
6
4
5
5
7
6
10
8
Benthic Biota
5
4
5
6
4
5
5
8
6
10
8
Plankton
4
3
4
3
4
4
4
5
4
8
6
Fish and Fisheries
7
4
6
3
4
4
5
8
6
7
7
1
1
1
2
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
Materials Transport
Fish and Fisheries
1
1
1
1
3
2
2
4
3
1
2
Filling
Erosion/Flooding
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
8
5
1
3
Activity
Pre-Reclamation
Mobilisation to site
Dredging
Reclamation
Impacted Component
P a g e | 278
IQ & TE
Sensitivity
Overall Impact Severity
Likelihood
Impact Significance
Demobilisation
Duration
Leveling
Frequency
Post-Reclamation
Impact Quantum (IQ)
Activity
Areal Extent
Phase
Magnitude
Aesthetics
2
1
2
2
3
3
2
1
2
3
2
Surface Water
7
4
6
5
4
5
5
7
6
8
7
Sediment
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
5
3
9
6
Benthic Biota
5
4
5
5
4
5
5
7
6
9
7
Plankton
3
3
3
3
4
4
3
5
4
7
6
Fish and Fisheries
7
4
6
3
4
4
5
5
5
7
6
Noise
1
2
2
4
3
4
3
6
4
3
4
Air Quality
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
4
3
3
3
Aesthetics
1
2
2
1
3
2
2
4
3
3
3
Surface Water
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
7
4
5
5
Fish and Fisheries
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
7
4
3
4
Road Transportation
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
5
3
1
2
Impacted Component
P a g e | 279
5.3.5
Description of identified Impacts
This section presents a description of potential and associated impacts of the proposed Orange Island
Reclamation project. The positive impacts are discussed first. The discussion of the negative impacts was based
on impacts’ receptors in order of the project phases.
5.4
Positive Impacts
The proposed Orange Island Reclamation Project will result in a number of positive impacts on human/social,
and natural components of the environment. Notable beneficial impacts from the project are presented below.
5.4.1
Positive Impacts during Pre-reclamation Phase
The positive impacts identified during this phase include the following:
5.4.1.1
Job/Employment Creation
The proposed Orange Island reclamation project will provide jobs and employments at the pre-reclamation
phase. Activities at this phase require the services of: Architects, Legal experts, Bathymetric and Seismic
surveyors, Financial experts, Landscape designers, Quantity Surveyors, Land Surveyors, Geotechnical
Engineers, Geophysical surveyors, EIA Consultants, Town Planners, Development Managers, Administrators,
etc. About 25 professionals/experts are already engaged at this stage as consultants. It was estimated that at
least another 75 indirect jobs had to be created via the consultants. The later activities of the pre-reclamation
phase; which covers; award of contract for dredging and filling, and mobilization of equipment and personnel to
the site is anticipated to create additional 10 direct and 40 indirect jobs. Benefactors of these jobs expectedly will
improve the livelihood of their respective families and dependants. Applying a conservative estimate of oneperson– two dependants, the 150 persons employed would have added positive values to another 300 people at
the minimum.
5.4.1.2
Stakeholders’’ Interests
The proposed project will be developed under a Public-Private Partnership (PPP) with the Lagos State
Government. The primary stakeholders, therefore, include; the Project Promoters (Orange Island Development
Company), Lagos State Government, Eti-Osa Local Government and Ikate Elegushi Community. Other
stakeholders include, the Federal Ministry of Environment and Lagos State Ministry of Environment.
The identified positive impacts here include economic benefits accruable to the promoters, ownership of the
project by the Lagos State Government in line with the PPP MoU 25, associated development and improved
livelihood of the nearby local communities. The Government will take over the Island and inherit the long-term
25
Memorandum of Understanding
P a g e | 280
benefits accruable from sales and taxations. In addition, the development will likely increase real estate value in
the neighborhood, which eventually benefits landowners and local communities.
5.4.1.3
Land Ownership
The project will provide about 150 hectares of usable land to the promoters, and eventually for the Lagos State
Government that shall take over the project in line with the PPP MoU. In the event that the State Government
decides to privatise the lands, the buyers will also reap long-term benefit from the project.
5.4.1.4
Improved Quality of life
The proposed island development due to its design and infrastructure will improve the social life and health of the
resident and visiting population. Recreational facilities, green environment and aesthetic landscaping, etc.
altogether will enhance quality of life.
5.4.2
Positive Impacts during the Reclamation Phase
5.4.2.1
Job/Employment Creation
The dredging and filling activity is expected to last six months. Activities at this phase will provide short-term jobs
for the dredging contractor and personnel, and improve the livelihood of their families/dependants. Fueling and
maintenance of the machinery will also promote business for the dealers and maintenance companies.
5.4.2.2
Wildlife
The filled island will provide landing sites for bird species. Birds will equally forage on biota exposed by dredging
activities.
5.4.3
5.4.3.1
Positive Impacts during Post-reclamation Phase
Wildlife (Birds)
Filled and leveled island will provide landing and breeding sites for some bird species and intertidal species like
mollusks and crabs.
5.5
Negative Impacts
Forty-eight (48) negative impacts of varying degrees were identified to be associated with the proposed Orange
Island reclamation (Table 5.11). 50% (24 impacts) are of low significance; 42 % (20 impacts) are categorized of
moderate or medium significance, while negligible and high significance impacts, recorded 4% (2 impacts) each
(figure 5.2). The various impacts are discussed in following sections.
P a g e | 281
Figure 5.2: Distribution of Negative Impacts’ significance
5.5.1
Negative Impacts during Pre-Reclamation
5.5.1.1
Air Quality – Emission from vehicular movements
During mobilization of equipment and personnel to site, vehicular emissions would contribute to ambient air
quality. Typical gaseous emissions from petrol and diesel engines are nitrogen (N2), carbon dioxide (CO2), steam
(H2O) and carbon monoxide (CO). Oxides of nitrogen (NOx), sulphur (SOx) and suspended particulates are
expected in trace amounts. Transportation of the dredger and ancillary equipment will mainly be through
waterways with no close interaction with human communities, except for fishermen and other water users
encountered on transit.
Under baseline conditions in dry and wet seasons, the amount of NO2 CO and Particulate Matters recorded
around the proposed project site were below the FMEnv standards as shown in table 5:11. The closest
community is about half a kilometer from the proposed project site. Transportation of personnel on road will be
minimal. All mobilization activities are expected to last not more than two weeks. In view of the low impact
quantum and negligible temporal effects, this impact is considered of low significance. Box 5.1 presents a
summary of the severity criteria of this impact. Mitigation will be required to reduce the significance to negligible
status.
Box 5.1: Impact on Air quality from Vehicular emissions during mobilisation to the field.
Impact Quantum
Temporal Effects
2 (Low)
1 (Low)
Air Quality Impact during mobilization to site
Likelihood
Significance
Impact Nature
(Pre-mitigation)
3 (Low)
3 (low)
Direct,
short term,
temporary
Mitigation
Required
P a g e | 282
Table 5.11: Air Quality Standards Used in the Assessment
Pollutant
5.5.1.2
CO
CO
CO
NO2
NO2
FMEnv
Average
Criterion
-3
Period
(µgm )
1 hr
11400
1 hr
75-113
-
Particulates
PM10
PM10
24 hr
-
250
-
Applicable Standards
EU
Average
Criterion
-3
Period
(µgm )
8hr
10000
1 hr
200
Annual
40
mean
24hr
50
Annual
40
mean
WHO
Average
Criterion
-3
Period
(µgm )
8hr
40000
1hr
30000
1 hr
200
Annual
40
mean
24hr
50
Annual
20
mean
Noise Impacts
Noise refers to unwanted sound and vibrations. Noise emitted from road vehicular and watercrafts movement
could disturb nearby human settlement and wildlife. During mobilization, probable receptors of noise include;
small business operators along Itedo road, residents of Itedo and Ikate settlements of Ikate Elegushi Community,
as well as fishermen and other travelers by waterways. Noises from the project vehicles are unlikely to exceed
the permissible level by the FMEnv. Noise level at Itedo and Ikate settlements during the field studies in wet and
dry seasons were below 57dB (A) (figures 5.4 and 5.5). This baseline noise level is below the FMEnv permissible
level of 90 dB(A) for eight hours exposure. Noise emission to nearest recipients in the worst case scenario is not
expected to exceed 70dB (A) during this activity. Considering the short-term/temporary nature of this activity, the
significance of noise impact during mobilization to the site is considered low. Box 5.2 presents a summary of the
impacts’ severity criteria.
Box 5.2: Severity criteria for Impact on Noise from Vehicular emissions during mobilisation to field.
Impact Quantum
Temporal Effects
2 (Low)
1 (Negligible)
5.5.1.3
Noise Impact during mobilization to site
Likelihood
Significance
(Pre-mitigation)
5 (Moderate)
4 (low)
Impact Nature
Direct,
short
temporary
Mitigation
term,
Required
Impacts on Aesthetics
Residents and corporate entities in that section of Lekki 1 also use the link road to the proposed reclamation site.
The general visual conditions along the road could affect the aesthetic value along the corridor. The roadsides
P a g e | 283
are used by small business operators whose activities contribute to the untidy conditions within the area via
indiscriminate solid waste disposal. Mobilization for the reclamation activity could further reduce the aesthetic
value along the road, and lagoon front if personnel dispose wastes inappropriately. Since the contractor has strict
Waste Management policy, is unlikely to occur. This impact is considered low in view of its negligible impact
quantum (short-term mobilization period) and low likelihood of occurrence. Box 5.3 presents a summary of the
Box 5.3: Severity criteria for Impact on Aesthetics during mobilisation to field.
Impact Quantum
2 (Low)
5.5.1.4
Impact on Aesthetics during mobilization to site
Temporal Effects
Likelihood
Significance
(Pre-mitigation)
1 (Negligible)
2 (Low)
2 (low)
Impact Nature
Direct, short
temporary
Mitigation
term,
Required
Impact on Surface Water Quality
Barges and small crewing vessels will be used to transport equipment and personnel to the site from Port
Harcourt. Poor Waste Management by vessel operators could cause disposal of liquid and solid wastes into
surface water. This impact is considered to be of low significance in view of the short-term nature and low
likelihood of occurrence due to strict Waste Management policy of the contractor. Box 5.4 presents a summary of
the impacts’ severity criteria.
Box 5.4: Severity criteria for Impact on surface water during mobilisation to field.
Impact Quantum
3 (Low)
5.5.1.5
Impact on surface water during mobilization to site
Temporal Effects
Likelihood
Significance
Impact Nature
(Pre-mitigation)
1 (Negligible)
3 (Low)
4 (Low)
Direct, short term,
temporary
Mitigation
Required
Impact on Fish and Fisheries
Fishing Lagos Lagoon near the project area has reduced drastically in the recent times due to progressive low
catches by fishermen (this was reported during consultations and focus group discussions with host
communities). Fishing still occurs albeit at a subsistence level. Potential impacts on fish and fisheries during
mobilization to the site could be in form of occupation of fishing grounds and accidental destruction of set fishing
gears. This impact is considered moderate in sensitivity in view of its socioeconomic importance. However, there
will be low likelihood of importance due to prior information of the fishermen, and also low impact quantum due to
short period involved. The overall significance is therefore graded low. Box 5.5 presents a summary of the
P a g e | 284
Box 5.5: Severity criteria for Impact on Fish and Fisheries during mobilisation to field.
Impact Quantum
2 (Low)
5.5.1.6
Impact on fish and fisheries during mobilization to site
Temporal Effects
Likelihood
Significance
Impact Nature
(Pre-mitigation)
1 (Negligible)
3 (Low)
3 (Low)
Indirect, short term,
temporary
Mitigation
Required
Impact on Road Traffic
Transportation of personnel occasionally to the reclamation site will be via Lekki-Epe Expressway. Traffic along
this route is usually heavy between the hours of 6:00 and 9:00am 12:30 and 2:00pm and, between 5:00 and
9:00pm. It is estimated that during the pre-reclamation phase of the proposed project, an average of two
passenger-vehicles (SUV and Pick-up trucks) will make return trips to the site daily for about a week. In view of
man-hour loss and other socio-economic effects of slow traffic due to increased number of vehicles on the road,
impact of road transport is considered moderately sensitive and likely to occur. However, the anticipated low
impact quantum in terms of few additional vehicles due to the proposed project, and low temporal effects, this
impact is considered to be of moderate significance. Box 5.6 presents a summary of the impacts’ severity
criteria.
Box 5.6: Severity criteria for Impact on Road Traffic during mobilisation to field.
Impact Quantum
Temporal Effects
4 (Low)
2 (Low)
5.5.2
Impact on Road Traffic During mobilization
Likelihood
Significance
(Pre-mitigation)
6 (Moderate)
5 (Moderate)
Impact Nature
Mitigation
Indirect, short term,
temporary
Required
Negative Impacts during Reclamation
Activities at this phase include; dredging, transport of dredged materials via pipelines, and filling of the proposed
island location. The negative impacts identified to be associated with these activities are discussed in the
following subsections.
5.5.2.1
Noise Impact during Dredging/Filling
Noise impact study is very important considering that the dredging/filling activities will go on almost around the
clock for about six months. While considering sensitive environments within the area of influence of the
reclamation activities, noise models were run to estimate the influence of dredging/filling activities on noise levels
at surrounding environments. The following scenarios were considered for noise impacts on the environment;
1. BASELINE SCENARIO: Noise level distribution within the area of influence of the proposed
reclamation project based on the pre-project measured values.
P a g e | 285
2. LOW NOISE IMPACT SCENARIO: Noise level distribution due to continuous operation of the CSD or a
combination of other machinery with source noise level of 103 dB(A).
3. HIGH NOISE IMPACT SCENARIO: Noise level distribution due to continuous operation of the CSD and
another work vehicle (Tugboat or multicat) – with source noise emission of 103dB(A) and 110dB(A)
respectively.
Noise level distribution contours (and raster) were generated using Inverse Distance Weighted (IDW)
interpolation. IDW is a GIS tool, which uses a method of interpolation that estimates cell values by averaging the
values of sample data points in the neighborhood of each processing cell. The closer a point is to the center of
the cell being estimated, the more influence, or weight; it has in the averaging process. The models were run on
ESRI ArcGIS 10.1 Software.
The noise levels around (Baseline scenario) the proposed project area in dry and wet seasons, based on in-situ
measurements are presented in figures 5.3 and 5.4 respectively.
Figures 5.5 shows the noise level around the project area due to the effect of the continuous dredging/filling –
with only the CSD in operation – LOW NOISE IMPACT SCENARIO, while figure 5.6 shows the HIGH NOISE
IMPACT scenario which results from the operation of the CSD and other high noise emitting vehicle.
P a g e | 286
Figure 5.3: Baseline Noise level around the project area in dry season
Chapter Five: Associted and Potential Impacts
P a g e | 287
Figure 5.4 Noise level around the project area in wet season
P a g e | 288
Figure 5.5: Noise level around the project area during operation of the CSD only – LOW NOISE IMPACT SCENARIO
P a g e | 289
Figure 5.6: Noise level around the project area during operation of the CSD and another heavy machinery – HIGH NOISE IMPACT SCENARIO
P a g e | 290
Table 5.12 presents the range of noise level perception at different receptor locations around the proposed
project area at daytime.
Table 5.12: Baseline and Predicted Noise Levels at different Receptor environments around the project area
Receptor Area
~Distance from
Site (km)
Range of Noise Level (dB(A)
Baseline
Baseline
Low Impact
Dry
Wet
Scenario
Itedo settlement
Ikate settlement
Chevron Head quarters
Lekki Phase 1 Residents
Igba Efon
Jakande
Victoria Garden City
Nigeria Conservation Foundation
St. Kizito Clinic
Ife Oluwa Hospital
Ave Maria Cath. Church
3.7
2.7
5.2
4.5
4.8
4.9
4.9
5.8
4.6
4.5
4.0
58 – 60
54 – 60
67 – 69
60 - 64
65 – 66
63 – 65
52 – 57
67 - 69
60 – 62
60 – 64
58 - 60
59 - 63
57 – 63
68 – 70
59 – 66
67 – 69
66 – 69
54 – 60
64 – 70
68 – 69
68 – 69
59 - 62
62 – 64
58 – 64
66 – 72
62 – 68
68 – 70
68 – 70
58 – 60
66 – 72
66 - 71
66 – 71
59 - 65
High
Impact
Scenario
64 – 68
68 – 70
70 – 74
64 - 70
68 - 72
68 -72
58 - 62
68 – 74
66 – 72
66 – 72
64 - 70
Noise level from the prediction models shows that even under high-impact scenario, the maximum noise levels at
the recipient zones are below the FMEnv permissible limit. Figure 5.7 compares noise level at receptor areas
with the Federal Ministry of Environment and World Bank permissible levels.
Figure 5.7: Comparative Assessment of baseline and predicted noise levels at Specific Receptor areas with
regulatory permissible levels
WB (C&I) – World Bank Permissible Noise Level for Commercial and Industrial Area
WB (R&E) – World Bank Permissible Noise Level for Residential and Educational Area
Chapter Five: Associated andPotential Impacts
P a g e | 291
Considering the continuous nature of noise impact during dredging/filling activities, sensitivity of recipients and
high likelihood of occurrence, noise impact at this stage is considered of moderate significance. Box 5.7
presents a summary of the impacts’ severity criteria while figure 5.8 shows noise levels from different sources.
Box 5.7: Severity criteria for Noise Impact during dredging/filling.
Impact Quantum
Temporal Effects
4 (Low)
6 (Moderate)
Noise impact during dredging
Likelihood
Significance
(Pre-mitigation)
8 (High)
7 (Moderate)
Impact Nature
Mitigation
Direct, continuous,
short
term,
temporary
Required
Figure 5.8: Typical Sound Levels from various sources
Source: Occupational Safety and Health Administration, US Department of Labour
5.5.2.2
Air Quality Impacts from CSD and Ancillary Crafts Noxious Emissions
Emissions from the CSD and other ancillary crafts will potentially increase noxious gas in the surrounding
environment. Typical gaseous emissions from petrol and diesel engines are nitrogen (N2), carbon dioxide (CO2),
steam (H2O) and carbon monoxide (CO). Oxides of nitrogen (NOx), sulphur (SOx) and suspended particulates
P a g e | 292
can also be emitted in trace amounts. Under baseline conditions in dry and wet seasons, the amount of NO2, CO
and Particulate Matters recorded around the proposed project site were below the FMEnv standards. The closest
community to the dredging site is about half kilometer away, making it unlikely for perceptible concentration by
human population to exceed the permissible limits. Estimated CO2 emissions from the various crafts are
presented in Table 5.13.
Table 5.13: CO2 Emissions from various work Machinery
ESTIMATED CO2 EMISSIONS FROM PROJECT MACHINERY.
kgCO2/OH
OH
Equipment
1,632.7
100
Calabar River (CSD
110.7
90
Bulldozer
101.3
90
Excavator
104.4
90
Wheel loader
11.3
35
Car
10
168
Diesel Generator
tonCO2/wk
163.3
10
9.1
9.4
0.4
1.7
Considering the continuous nature, and short-term of the dredging/filling, the temporal effects of noxious
emissions is considered to be of moderate severity. In view of the localized nature of the effects, the impact
quantum is adjudged to be of low severity. The significance of impact of dredging/filling activities on air quality is
therefore considered low. Box 5.8 presents a summary of the impacts’ severity criteria. Mitigation will be required
to reduce the impact severity.
Box 5.8: Severity criteria for Air Quality Impact during dredging/filling.
Impact Quantum
Temporal Effects
3 (Low)
6 (moderate)
5.5.2.3
Air Quality impact during dredging/filling
Likelihood
Significance
Impact Nature
(Pre-mitigation)
3 (low)
4 (Low)
Direct, continuous,
short
term,
temporary
Mitigation
Required
Impact(s) on Aesthetics
Reduction in aesthetics during dredging/filling could arise from improper discharge or disposal of wastes.
Floating wastes (solid/liquid) on water reduce aesthetics and cause nuisance to navigation. Potential sources of
wastes include spillages of liquid fuel and used lubricating oil, disused machine parts, disused PPEs, kitchen
wastes, paper, wood planks, etc. The Quantum, Temporal Effects and likelihood of this impact (occurring) are
considered of low severity. The overall impact significance is also predicted to be low. Box 5.9 presents a
summary of the impacts’ severity criteria. Mitigation will be required to reduce the impact severity.
P a g e | 293
Box 5.9: Severity criteria for Impact on Aesthetics during dredging/filling.
Impact Quantum
3 (Low)
5.5.2.4
Impact on Aesthetics during dredging/filling
Temporal Effects
Likelihood
Significance
Impact Nature
(Pre-mitigation)
3 (Low)
3 (Low)
3 (Low)
Direct, temporary
Mitigation
Required
Impact(s) on Surface Water during Dredging/Filling
CSD operation involves cutting and dislodging of water bottom sediments and hydraulically sucking out the soil
and water mixture through a pipeline to desired location. Dredging/filling would lead to alteration of physicchemical quality of water. Notable effects that arise due to sediment re-suspension include: Increased turbidity,
reduced light penetration, reduced pH, reduced dissolved oxygen, release of toxic components such as heavy
metals, organic contaminants into the water column. Increase in suspended particles is expected to be minor
considering the less than 10% content of silt and clay particles in water sediment of project area (table 5.14).
Heavy metals in sediment around the proposed project site were generally low in concentration. Cadmium, Lead,
Nickel and Manganese were not detected in the sediment. Re-suspension of sediment particles is not likely to
release significant amount of these metals into the water column. (Table 5.15). Impact on water pH is also
expected to be minor considering marginal difference in baseline pH in water and sediment, and also due to
relatively low sulphate ions concentration in the sediment (table 5.16). The impact on surface water due to
dredging/filling activities is predicted to be of moderate significance, considering its moderate quantum and
temporal effect, as well as high sensitivity and likelihood of occurrence. Box 5.10 presents a summary of the
impacts’ severity criteria. Mitigation will be required to reduce the impact severity.
Box 5.10: Severity criteria for Impact on Surface water during dredging/filling.
Impact Quantum
6 (Moderate)
Impact on Surface Water during dredging/filling
Temporal Effects
Likelihood
Significance
Impact Nature
(Pre-mitigation)
5 (Moderate)
8 (High)
7 (Moderate)
Direct, intermittent,
short
term,
temporary
Mitigation
Required
Table 5.14: Overall average % particle size distribution of sediment in project area
Average proportions (%) of Particle Size distribution of sediment samples
Sand
Silt
Clay
80.73
13.73
5.54
P a g e | 294
Table 5.15: Average Heavy metal contents in sediment and water of the project area
Heavy Metal
Sediment (mg/kg)
Water (mg/l)
Fe
374
1.3
Cd
ND
0.01
Pb
ND
0.001
Zn
13.3
0.015
Ni
ND
0.023
Mn
ND
ND
Cr
15.3
ND
Cu
9.0
0.002
Table 5. 16: Average pH and Sulphate ions in water and sediment os project area
pH
7.9
7.55
Sediment
Water
5.5.2.5
SO4226.7mg/kg
21.3mg/l
Impact(s) on Sediment during Dredging/Filling
Dredging cuts into sediment; altering its physical and chemical structure. Changes in sediment structure affect its
ability to support biological habitats. Uneven topography due to dredging may increase sediment transport and
alter the hydrological regime, which could engender flooding. In view of the likelihood of this occurring, its
moderate quantum and temporal effects, it is predicted to be of high significance. Table 5.11 presents a
summary of the impacts’ severity criteria. Mitigation will be required to reduce the impact severity.
Box 5.11: Severity criteria for Impact on Sediment during dredging/filling.
Impact Quantum
Temporal Effects
5 (Moderate)
5 (Moderate)
5.5.2.6
Impact on Sediment during dredging/filling
Likelihood
Significance
Impact Nature
(Pre-mitigation)
10 (High)
8 (High)
Direct,
intermittent,
short term, temporary
Mitigation
Required
Impact(s) on Benthic Biota during Dredging/Filling
The lagoon bottom sediment is home to a number of species at the various phases of their lives' cycle. These
species are referred to as benthic organisms or bottom-dwellers. Most shellfish live in sand. Underwater
vegetation serves as spawning ground for some fishes. Dredging activities will potentially dislodge these
organisms from their natural environment. Study of benthic macro fauna around the proposed project area
showed that molluscs, Annelids and Arthropods are the most predominant group of organisms that will be
affected by dredging/filling activities. Figures 5.9 and 5.10 show the distribution of the major group of organisms
around the proposed project area.
Potential effects of dredging/filling activities on benthic organisms would range from relocation from original
habitat, reduced metabolism due to altered feeding habit and death of some members. Juveniles and other early
life stages with less mobility capability would be most vulnerable. Smothering of some species could occur due to
re-suspension of sediment particles. Impact of dredging/filling activities on benthic organisms is very likely to
P a g e | 295
occur, and anticipated to have moderate quantum and temporal effects. Although some members of the benthic
community will be lost from this activity, the community is expected to recover in a relatively short time of weeks
to a few months. The significance of this impact is considered of high significance. Box 5.12 presents a summary
of the impacts’ severity criteria. Mitigation will be required to reduce the impact severity.
Figure 5.9: Major Macrobenthos groups vulnerable to impacts from dredging/filling activities in dry season
P a g e | 296
Figure 5.2: Major Macrobenthos groups vulnerable to impacts from dredging/filling activities in wet season
Box 5.12: Severity criteria for Impact on Benthic Biota during dredging.
Impact Quantum
Temporal Effects
5
5
5.5.2.7
Impact on Benthic Biota during dredging/filling
Likelihood
Significance
Impact Nature
(Pre-mitigation)
10
8
Direct,
intermittent,
short term, temporary
Mitigation
Required
Impact(s) of Dredging/Filling
Activities on Planktonic Lives
Planktons are microscopic organisms that drift with
water current. Dredging activities will have both direct
and indirect impacts on these life forms. Direct effects
will be in form of displacement and exposure to nonconducive environment, which could lead to inactivity
and sometimes, death; on the other hand, it could be in
form smothering of filter-feeders by fine suspended
particles in water. Indirect impacts could occur due to
Plate 5.1: Photomontage of planktonic organisms
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plankton
P a g e | 297
alteration of the physic-chemical properties of water. Changes in dissolved oxygen, water pH, turbidity, release of
toxic substances from sediment, could affect planktonic lives. Increased turbidity and reduced light penetration
could affect primary production in an aquatic ecosystem; by reducing photosynthetic efficiency of phytoplankton.
Reduced primary production will have an overall effect on energy flow along the food chain. Analyses of
plankton distribution around the project area show that the most susceptible group of phytoplankton include
diatoms, dinoflagellates and bluegreen algae (figure 5.11 and 5.12), while the zooplankton include crustaceans,
cniderians, Chaetognatha and juvenile life forms (figure 5.13 and 5.14).
Figure 5.3: Major phytoplankton groups vulnerable to dredging/filling impacts in dry season
P a g e | 298
Figure 5.4: Major phytoplankton groups vulnerable to dredging/filling impacts in wet season
Figure 5.13: Major zooplankton groups vulnerable to dredging/filling impacts in dry season
P a g e | 299
Figure 5.14: Major zooplankton groups vulnerable to dredging/filling impacts in wet season
Box 5.12: Severity criteria for Impact on Planktonic life forms during dredging/filling.
Impact Quantum
Temporal Effects
4 (Low)
4 (Low)
5.5.2.8
Impact on Plankton during dredging/filling
Likelihood
Significance
Impact Nature
(Pre-mitigation)
8 (High)
6 (Moderate)
Direct,
Indirect,
intermittent, short term,
temporary
Mitigation
Required
Impact(s) of Dredging/Filling Activities on Fish and Fisheries
Artisanal or small-scale fisheries using planked canoes with or without motorized engines are the predominant
fisheries around the proposed reclamation area. Fishes are sight feeders; therefore, increased turbidity due to
dredging and filling activities could reduce feeding capability of fishes, as well as fertilization of eggs. Adult and
more active species will typically migrate away from unclear waters. Reduced abundance of plankton would have
concomitant effect on fish abundance in the affected areas. Dredging/filling activities could destroy fish spawning
grounds. Sediment disturbance and re-suspension could release toxic substances and excess nutrients that can
cause algal bloom and fish kill. The use of floating pipes for transportation of dredged materials could obstruct
fishing grounds and navigable channels. Movement of many watercrafts (barges for movement of equipment and
personnel carriers) may affect fishing activities. Generally, impacts that lead to reduced fish abundance and
catch could influence the livelihood of fishermen operating within the area. Although the temporal coverage of the
P a g e | 300
impact area is minor, its quantum is considered moderate. In view of moderate likelihood of impacts on fish and
fisheries occurring, the significance of the impact is rated moderate (Box 5.13). Mitigation Measures will be
required to reduce the impact’s significance level.
Box 5.13: Severity criteria for Impact on fish and Fisheries during dredging/filling.
Impact Quantum
6 (Moderate)
5.4.2.9
Impact on Fish and Fisheries during dredging/filling
Temporal Effects
Likelihood
Significance
Impact Nature
(Pre-mitigation)
4 (Low or minor)
7 (Moderate)
7 (Moderate)
Direct,
Indirect,
temporary
Mitigation
Required
Impact(s) of Dredging/Filling Activities on Transportation
During dredging/filling, movement of watercrafts will be greatly concentrated within the reclamation area. More
so, there will be occasional land transportation of some personnel to site to inspect work progress. Movement of
the CSD and other watercrafts could obstruct navigable routes of other water transportation users, while
occasional land transportation will add to the volume of vehicle along road, especially along the busy Lekki-Epe
Express Road. Considering that vehicular movement during dredging and filling will involve mostly the CSD and
ancillary watercrafts, localized within the reclamation area, the quantum on impacts on water transportation will
be negligible. In addition, in view of the fact that traffic of waterways around the project is very scanty, the
likelihood of this impact is rated low, while its overall significance is predicted to be low to negligible (Box 5.14).
Mitigation Measures will be required to reduce the impact’s significance level.
Box 5.14: Severity criteria for Impact on Transportation during dredging/filling.
Impact Quantum
Temporal Effects
1 (Negligible)
3 (Low)
5.5.3
Impact on Transportation during dredging/filling
Likelihood
Significance
Impact Nature
(Pre-mitigation)
2 (Low)
1 (Negligible)
Direct,
Indirect,
temporary
Mitigation
Not required
Negative Impacts during Post-Reclamation
Activities at this phase include; leveling of the filled area to desired topography, and demobilization of equipment
and personnel from the site. The negative impacts identified to be associated with these activities are discussed
in the following subsections.
P a g e | 301
5.5.3.1
Post-Reclamation Noise Impact(s)
Noise impact(s) during leveling filled materials and demobilization from the site will is expected to be much lower
than the situation during dredging/filling. This reduced prediction considers the fact that CSD will no longer be in
operation, while the bulldozer becomes the primary machinery. The Noise emission from the bulldozer is about
86 dB(A). Other noise emanating from demobilisation vehicle will be minimal and transient. In effect noise
perception around the project area is expected to be lower than the LOW IMPACT SCENARIO MODEL
presented in section 5.4.2.1 (Figures 5.6, 6.7, and Table 5.12). Considering the low significant quantum,
temporal effects and likelihood of occurrence, the overall impact significance is predicated to be low (Box 5.15).
Mitigation Measures will be required to reduce the impact’s significance level.
Box 5.15: Severity criteria of Noise Impact during Post-Reclamation Activities.
Impact Quantum
Temporal Effects
2 (Low)
4 (Low)
5.5.3.2
Noise Impact during Post-Reclamation Activities
Likelihood
Significance
Impact Nature
(Pre-mitigation)
3 (Low)
4 (Low)
Direct,
Indirect,
temporary
Mitigation
Required
Post-Reclamation Air Quality Impact(s)
During post-reclamation activities (leveling of filled materials and demobilisation) noxious emissions may result
from vehicles like bulldozer, demobilisation watercrafts, etc. This impact will last for a relatively short period
(about a week), and therefore predicted to be of low significance (Box 5.15). Mitigation Measures will be required
to reduce the impact’s significance level.
Box 5.16: Severity criteria of Air Quality Impact during Post-Reclamation Activities.
Impact Quantum
2 (Low)
5.5.3.3
Air Quality Impact during Post-Reclamation Activities
Temporal Effects
Likelihood
Significance
Impact Nature
(Pre-mitigation)
2 (Low)
3 (Low)
3 (Low)
Direct,
Indirect,
temporary
Mitigation
Required
Post-Reclamation Impact(s) on Aesthetics
Impact on aesthetics during post-reclamation activities could arise from improper discharge or disposal of
wastes. Floating wastes (solid/liquid) on water reduce aesthetics and cause nuisance to navigation. Potential
sources of wastes into surface water include spillages of fuel/lube, kitchen and other domestic wastes. The
Quantum, Temporal Effects and likelihood of this impact (occurring) are considered of low severity. The overall
impact significance is also predicted to be low. Box 5.17 presents a summary of the impacts’ severity criteria.
Mitigation will be required to reduce the impact severity.
P a g e | 302
Box 5.17: Severity criteria for Impact on Aesthetics during Post-reclamation.
Impact Quantum
2 (Low)
5.5.3.4
Impact on Aesthetics during Post-reclamation
Temporal Effects
Likelihood
Significance
Impact Nature
(Pre-mitigation)
2 (Low)
3 (Low)
3 (Low)
Direct, temporary
Mitigation
Required
Post-Reclamation Surface Water Impact(s)
Leveling could alter water quality (e.g. Turbidity) if dredged materials are pushed into the water column from the
boundary of the reclaimed area. Poor waste management by operators and personnel on board watercrafts and
vehicles used during demobilisation could lead to disposal of liquid and solid wastes into surface water. The strict
Waste Management policy of the dredging contractor will make this unlikely; the overall significance of impact on
surface water is predicted to be moderate considering its sensitivity to fish and fisheries. Box 5.18 presents a
summary of the impacts’ severity criteria.
Box 5.18: Severity criteria for Impact on surface water during Post-Reclamation Activities.
Impact Quantum
2 (Low)
5.5.3.5
Impact on surface water during Post-reclamation Activities
Temporal Effects
Likelihood
Significance
Impact Nature
(Pre-mitigation)
1 (Negligible)
5 (Moderate)
5 (Moderate)
Direct, short term,
temporary
Mitigation
Required
Post-Reclamation Impact(s) on Fish and Fisheries
Alteration of water quality during leveling of filled materials will indirectly affect fisheries. Reduced water turbidity
will affect the feeding habit of fishes by obscuring their sight. Turbid water reduces primary production in an
aquatic ecosystem, with an indirect effect on fish abundance. Fine sediment particles can affect gills of fishes,
reduce their respiratory ability, and increase morbidity. More so, settling in of particles down the water column to
the bed could lead to fish migration, and affect spawning grounds. All impacts that reduce fish abundance and
availability will affect the livelihood of fishermen. This impact is predicted to be of low significance. Box 5.19
presents a summary of the impacts’ severity criteria. Mitigation measures will be required to reduce the impact to
negligible significance.
Box 5.19: Severity criteria for Impact Post-Reclamation Activities on Fish and Fisheries.
Impact Quantum
2 (Low)
Impact Post-Reclamation Activities on Fish and Fisheries
Temporal Effects
Likelihood
Significance
Impact Nature
(Pre-mitigation)
2 (Low)
3 (Low)
4 (Low)
Direct,
indirect
short
term,
temporary
Mitigation
Required
P a g e | 303
5.5.3.6 Post-Reclamation Impact(s) on Transportation
Effect on transportation during demobilization would be similar to that during mobilization to site. Transportation
of personnel and equipment from site during demobilization will be mainly by use of watercrafts. However, a few
personnel will be moved by road. Road movement will add to traffic along Lekki-Epe Expressway, with extended
effects on adjoining roads. In view of the transient nature of this impact, the overall significance is considered
low. Box 5.20 presents a summary of the impacts’ severity criteria.
Box 5.20: Severity criteria for Impact on Transportation during Demobilisation.
Impact on Transportation During Post-Reclamation
Temporal Effects
Likelihood
Significance
Impact Nature
(Pre-mitigation)
1 (Negligible)
1 (Negligible)
2 (Low)
Direct,
Indirect,
short
term,
transient
Impact Quantum
2 (Low)
5.5.4
Mitigation
Required
Impact on Health and Safety
The proposed reclamation project poses a number of health and safety impacts, especially on workers. Potential
impacts include;
i.
Man Overboard
ii.
Hearing impact from vessels/water craft engines, and road noise
iii.
Respiratory tract discomfort and infections
iv.
Road accidents
v.
Draught
vi.
fatigue
vii.
Body injury
In terms of significance, impact on health safety could range between moderate and high considering that human
health and life could be involved.
5.5.5
Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impact could result from the activities of other dredging ativities going on in the lagoon, as well as
those from local sand miners. Local sand miners where spotted operating on the bank of the lagoon close to the
proposed reclamation area. Since the local miners operate manually, noise impact contribution from theor
activites would be insignificant. In terms of water quality, re-suspension of sediment particles could occur.
Cumulative impact on water ecology would be relatively insignificant bearing in mind that the manual miners
operate in shallow areas with over 95% sand deposits and lower potential of releasing fine particles and toxic
materials.
P a g e | 304
CHAPTER SIX
6.1
IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES
AND ALTERNATIVES
Introduction
The different anticipated positive and negative impacts of the proposed reclamation are presented in chapter five
of this report. This section essentially presents measures that will be taken to ensure that the proposed project is
sustainable by mitigating negative effects, and enhancing benefits.
6.2
Objectives of Impacts Mitigation
The specific objectives of mitigation include the following:
6.3
•
Identifying better ways of undertaking actions;
•
Avoiding, minimising or remedying adverse effects;
•
Ensuring that residual impacts are within applicable regulatory acceptable level;
•
Enhancing benefits from the project.
Impact Mitigation Hierarchy
The hierarchy of mitigation measures (figure 6.1) adopted for the proposed Orange Island Reclamation project is
as follows:
Avoidance: This is the first consideration for
every negative impact triggering activity. It
entails NOT engaging in a particular activity or
manner of implementation and employing other
method that will not cause the identified impact.
Minimisation: this is the second consideration.
In the event that the result of an action will
produce very desirable benefit but comes with
some negative impacts, and there is no better
way of achieving the same result, every
practicable action possible is put in place to
reduce (to the barest minimum) the negative
Figure 6.1: Impacts Mitigation Principle
effects to acceptable limit.
Compensation: This is the third consideration. It involves providing comfortingalternative to assuage for the
unavoidable negative effects of a proposed action; which can neither be avoided, nor its negative effects reduced
further, but must be carried out for a greater good.
P a g e | 305
Impact mitigation measures to be adopted for the proposed reclamation project are of two distinct natures; (i)
Structural measures; such as project design modification, change of location, engineering revision, etc, and (ii)
Non-structural measures; such as management policies, economic incentives, ecological enhancement,
community services, capacity building, etc.
6.4
Identified Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures for potential negative impacts from the proposed Orange Island Reclamation are presented
in Tables 6.1 – 6.3 for pre-reclamation, reclamation phase, and post-reclamation activities respectively. In order
to ensure comprehension and management application, the mitigation measures are presented alongside
identified impacts for the different phases of the reclamation project.
P a g e | 306
Table 6.1: Mitigation Measures for Impacts during Pre-Reclamation Activities
Impact/Source
Noxious gas emissions
from vehicles and
watercrafts used for
mobilising equipment
and personnel to site.
Specific Effects
Increase in background level
of noxious gaseous like; NOx,
SOx, CO and suspended
particulates.
Significance
Low
Mitigation Measures
All project vehicles and watercrafts shall be properly
serviced and maintained;
Contractors’ vehicles, vessels and machinery shall be
inspected prior mobilisation to site;
Only vehicles, vessels and machinery that meet specified
emission criteria shall be permitted to mobilise to site
All project vehicles and watercrafts shall be properly
Contractors’ vehicles, vessels and machinery shall be
inspected prior mobilisation to site;
Noise from vehicles
and watercrafts used
for mobilising
equipment and
personnel to site.
Increase in background noise
level along the area traversed
by vehicles and watercrafts,
and vessels;
Low
Nuisance to personnel
operating at high noise areas
in marine vessels
Only vehicles, vessels and machinery that meet specified
noise emission criteria shall be permitted to mobilise to
site
Indiscriminate disposal of solid
wastes by road sides or on
water;
Spillage of used oil and other
Low
Waste Management Policy shall be put in place and
adhered to;
Provision shall be made for waste collection, and for
appropriate disposal;
Residual Impact
Contractor
OIDC HSE Manager
Negligible
OIDC HSE Manager
Contractor
OIDC HSE Manager
OIDC HSE Manager
Movement shall be restricted as best as possible to times
of the day when such an impact will have less
significance on residents within around the project site.
Personnel working at high noise areas like vessel engine
area, shall use appropriate PPE (ear muffs and plugs) for
hearing protection
Reduced Aesthetics
due to poor waste
management
Responsibility
negligible
Contractor/Caption of
Vessel
Contractor’s Supervisor
Negligible
Chapter Six: Mitigation Measures and Alternatives
P a g e | 307
Impact/Source
Specific Effects
liquid wastes on land or water.
Significance
Mitigation Measures
Responsibility
Residual Impact
Conspicuous signage prohibiting littering of the
environment shall be provided at strategic places in
vessels and other crafts;
All liquids including used lube oils shall be properly stored
to prevent spillage;
Safety Briefing shall be given to all crew and passenger
before embarking on trips;
Vessel Captain
Vehicle Driver
Drivers shall ensure that passengers do not discard
wastes indiscriminately from their vehicle.
Daily evaluation of personnel waste management
discipline shall be conducted
Contractor’s HSE
Manager
adhered to;
Alteration of Surface
Water Quality due to
inappropriate disposal
of wastes and toxic
materials
Contamination of surface
water by disposal of wastes
and toxic liquids
Low
Materials Safety and Data Sheet of all toxic
liquid/chemicals shall be kept on board;
Contractor’s Supervisor/
Vessel Captain
Negligible
Black and grey waters shall be disposed appropriately in
line with applicable regulations.
P a g e | 308
Impact/Source
Specific Effects
Significance
Mitigation Measures
Responsibility
Residual Impact
adhered to;
Discharge of toxic materials in
water could be detrimental to
fishes and other aquatic lives;
Vessel Captain
Black and grey waters shall be disposed appropriately in
line with applicable regulations.
Impact on Fish and
Fisheries due to
discharger of wastes
and toxic materials
Low
Vessels and watercrafts
movement could run over and
destroy fishing gears like set
nets and traps.
Tributyltin (TBT) shall not be used as antifouling agent on
all vessels and watercrafts
OIDC HSE Manager
Captains of Vessels shall avoid fishing gears on water
during navigation
Vessel Captain
Negligible
Contractor’s HSE
Manager
P a g e | 309
Impact/Source
Specific Effects
Significance
Mitigation Measures
Responsibility
Residual Impact
Manager/Vessel
Captains/Drivers
Low
Transportation of Personnel to site on road shall be done
at off-peak of traffic congestion along the major roads to
the site;
Impact on
Transportation
Vehicles mobilizing personnel
to site could add to traffic
volume along Lekki-Epe
Express and/or Ozumba
Mbadiwe road, and lead to
man-hour loss to road users.
Moderate
Movement from mainland part of Lagos into the Island
shall explore alternate options like using EKO Bridge or
THIRD MAINLAND Bridge, and also, taking ADMIRALTY
TOLL or NEW LEKKI-IKOYI TOLL depending on where
traffic is freer during movement to the site;
Drivers shall be given traffic briefing on preferred route
prior movement to site.
Speed limits and proper driving conduct shall be enforced
by close monitoring of vehicles
All crew and passengers on board vessels shall stay clear
of unsafe areas during navigation;
Man Overboard
OIDC HSE Manager
Vessel Captain/ Drivers
Every crew and passenger shall use appropriate Personal
Floatation Device (PFD) on board;
Health and Safety
Moderate
Good housekeeping shall be observed to avoid causes of
slips, trips and falls;
All necessary rescue device such as buoys, shall always
be on board vessels used to move personnel to the site;
Low
Emergency procedure for man overboard rescue shall be
put in place by all contractors moving equipment and
personnel to site;
P a g e | 310
Impact/Source
Specific Effects
Significance
Mitigation Measures
Responsibility
Captains and Divers shall ensure that all passengers
abide by all safety procedure before and during travels.
Work Permit shall be issued only to vessels and vehicles
that meet safety standards.
Hearing Defects due to
exposure to high noise area
Personnel working at high noise places like the Chief
Engineer, shall use appropriate PPE
Body Injury
All personnel shall use appropriate PPE such as
hardhats, safety boots, hand gloves before embarking on
jobs with risks of injuries;
Road Accidents
Only qualified drivers with relevant licences and trainings
shall convey personnel and equipment to site;
Residual Impact
OIDC HSE Manager
Vessel Captain
Vessel Captain
Traffic rules shall be strictly adhered to;
All passengers shall be given safety briefing before
embarking on journeys;
Safety procedures and rules shall be strictly adhered to;
First aid kits shall be provided in all vessels and vehicles
transporting personnel to site;
Drivers and Crew shall be given basic first aid
administration training.
Contractor
Captains and Drivers shall be provided with emergency
telephone numbers and communications devices to use
in case of emergency.
OIDC HSE
Manager/Contractor
P a g e | 311
Table 6.2: Mitigation Measures for Impacts during Reclamation Activities
RECLAMATION PHASE (DREDGING AND FILLING ACTIVITIES
Impact/Sources
Specific Effects
Significance
Mitigation Measures
The CSD and all ancillary machinery shall be
properly serviced and maintained throughout the
work period following manufactures instructions;
The CSD and all ancillary machinery shall be
inspected prior commencement of dredging and
weekly throughout the reclamation period;
Noise emissions from
CSD and ancillary crafts
Increase in background noise level due to
CSD and ancillary machinery operation;
Nuisance to personnel operating at high
noise areas in marine vessels
Moderate
Only crafts and machinery that meets specified
noise emission criteria shall be issued work
permit. Adherence to specified criteria shall be
checked weekly
Personnel working at high noise areas like CSD
engine area, shall use appropriate PPE (ear muffs
and plugs) for hearing protection;
Noise Level Shall be monitored weekly (at least
twice in each occasion, at 6 hours interval)
throughout the reclamation period
The CSD and ancillary rafts/machinery shall be
properly serviced and maintained;
Noxious gases missions
from CSD and ancillary
crafts
Increased level of noxious gases like NOx,
SOx, CO and suspended particulates in
ambient air
Low
The CSD and other ancillary crafts and machinery
shall be inspected prior commencement of
dredging and weekly throughout the reclamation
period;
Only crafts and machinery, including the CSD that
meet specified emission criteria shall be issued
work permit. Adherence to specified criteria shall
Responsibility
Dredging Contractor
Residual Impact
OIDC HSE Manager
OIDC HSE Manager
Low
Dredging Supervisor/OIDC
HSE Manager
OIDC HSE Manager/IMM
Consultant
Dredging Contractor
OIDC HSE Manager
Negligible
OIDC HSE Manager
P a g e | 312
Impact/Sources
Specific Effects
Significance
Mitigation Measures
be checked weekly
Responsibility
Air quality monitoring shall be conducted weekly
in the first month of the dredging activities and
subsequently, monthly, throughout the
reclamation period
Waste Management Policy shall be put in place
and adhered to;
Provision shall be made for waste collection, and
for appropriate disposal;
Reduced Aesthetics due
to poor waste
management and
abandonment of
malfunctioning crafts and
machinery
Water Quality due to resuspension of sediment
particles and toxic
materials during
dredging and filling
environment shall be provided at strategic places;
Indiscriminate disposal of solid wastes on
water;
Spillage of used oil and other liquid wastes
on water.
Increased turbidity;
Reduced light penetration;
Reduced pH;
Reduced dissolved oxygen;
Release of toxic components such as heavy
metals, organic contaminants into the water
column
Low
Residual Impact
Dredging
Contractor/Supervisor
Dredging
Contractor/Supervisor/LAW
MA
All liquids including used lube oils shall be
properly stored to prevent spillage;
Negligible
Safety Briefing shall be given to all personnel
every day before commencement of work;
Moderate
Malfunctioned machinery shall be removed to
appropriately location immediately;
Dredging Supervisor
Spill containment/contingency plan shall be put in
place and implemented in case of occurrence
Dredging Supervisor
Silt (geo-textile) curtain shall be used to cordon off
dredging and fiiling area from the rest of the
lagoon;
“Pause Period” of four (4) hours shall be observed
daily (between 10am and 2pm) to all for settling of
suspended particles in order to increase light
penetration and reduce effect on primary
Dredging Contractor
Dredging Contractor/OIDC
HSE Manager
HSE Manager
Low
HSE Manager/IMM
P a g e | 313
Impact/Sources
Specific Effects
Significance
Mitigation Measures
production.
Water quality shall be monitored weekly in the first
month of dredging, and once every month
subsequently. Weekly monitoring shall be
conducted (after the first month) if specific water
parameters indicate levels inimical to fisheries as
specified by the Federal Ministry of Environment.
Monthly monitoring can recommence when level
of contamination returns to levels favourable to
fisheries.
Responsibility
Consultant
Residual Impact
Specific water quality parameter to be monitor
shall include:
Physico-chemical parameters: pH, DO, BOD,
Turbidity, Heavy metals, Anioins, Cations,
Hydrocarbons, etc;
Biological Indicators: Plankton and microbes
Fish and Fisheries: assessment of fishermen
catches
Bathymetric survey shall be conducted prior
dredging;
Alteration Sediment
Quality and hydrological
regime
Alteration of physical and chemical structure
of sediment;
Inability to support biological habitats;
Uneven topography may increase sediment
transport, alter the hydrological regime, and
possibly engender erosion and flooding.
High
Dredging shall be carried out only within marked
out areas;
Perimeter wall of 1.5m above high water level
will be constructed round the island with the
sand fill sloping down at 1:4 into the water.
Shoreline exposed to wave action of the
lagoon during stormy weather will be lined with
one layer of 200mm nominal size crushed
stone hand-placed on the sandy surface. The
final completed surface of the Island will have
slopes varying between 1:100 and 1:200.
Bathymetric survey shall be conducted weekly to
ensure that uneven topography is not created.
HSE Manager/IMM
Consultant
Moderate/Low
P a g e | 314
Impact/Sources
Specific Effects
Significance
Alteration of Ecology and
Biota
Relocation of organism away from original
habitat;
Reduced metabolism due to altered feeding
habit and death of some members;
Juveniles and other early life stages with
less mobility capability would be most
vulnerable;
Smothering of some species could occur
due to resettling of suspended sediment
particles.
High
Impact on Planktonic
lives
Displacement and exposure to nonconducive environment;
Inactivity and death of some species;
Smothering of filter-feeders by fine
suspended particles in water;
Indirect impacts could occur due to
alteration of the physic-chemical properties
of water;
Increased turbidity and reduced light
penetration will reduce primary production
by phytoplankton.
Moderate
Impact on Fish and
Fisheries
Fishes are sight feeders; therefore,
increased turbidity could reduce feeding
capability of fishes, as well as fertilization of
eggs;
Adult and more active species will migrate
away from unclear waters further away from
Moderate
Mitigation Measures
Dredging shall be limited to marked out area;
The dredged materials from the lagoon shall be
used to fill the proposed island. No foreign
material shall be used to avoid signiciant
alteration of the ecology or introduction of alien
species
“Pulse Period” of four(4) hours shall be observed
daily to allow some level of recovery for affected
community of biota;
Silt curtain shall be used to contain suspended
particles dispersion within the reclamation area;
Monitoring of macro benthic community shall be
conducted monthly throughout the period of
dredging.
Filling shall be done using dredged material from
similar environment to avoid remarkable change
in ecology or introduction of alien species
“Pulse Period” of four(4) hours shall be observed
daily to allow some level of recovery for affected
community of biota;
Silt curtain shall be used to contain suspended
particles dispersion within the reclamation area;
Monitoring of plankton distribution shall be
conducted weekly in the first month of
dredging/filling and subsequently, monthly for the
rest of the reclamation period;
Other mitigation measures against impacts on
surface water quality shall be applied.
Silt curtains shall be used to cordon off are being
dredged and filled to contain spreading of resuspended sediment particles;
Responsibility
Residual Impact
HSE Manager/IMM
Consultant
Moderate/Low
HSE Manager/IMM
Consultant
Low
HSE Manager
Low
Fishing communities (Ikate and Itedo waterside)
P a g e | 315
Impact/Sources
Specific Effects
peasant fishermen;
Reduced abundance of plankton would have
concomitant effect on fish abundance in the
affected areas;
Dredging/filling activities could destroy
spawning grounds;
Sediment disturbance and re-suspension
could release toxic substances and excess
nutrients that can cause algal bloom and fish
kill;
The use of floating pipes for transportation
of dredged materials could obstruct fishing
grounds;
Movement of many watercrafts (like barges)
may affect fishing activities;
Impacts that lead to reduced fish
abundance and catch could influence the
livelihood of fishermen operating within the
area.
Impact on Transportation
Occasional land transportation of personnel
to site could add to traffic volume along
affected roads, especially, Ozumba
Mbadiwe and Lekki Epe Expressway;
Movement of the CSD and other watercrafts
could obstruct navigable routes of other
water transportation users
Significance
Mitigation Measures
shall be notified of the impending dredging and
filling work, and jointly device alternative routes
and/or traffic plans;
Movement of watercrafts used for dredging and
supplies shall be scheduled so as not to interfere
significantly with artisanal fishing activities. Most
fishing activities occur overnight except for cast
netting that is done majorly during the day;
Captains of watercrafts shall be properly trained
on necessary safety measures to adopt when
approaching artisanal fishing activities;
All measures enunciated for mitigating negative
impacts on surface water shall be applied;
Monthly assessment of fish and fisheries activities
shall be monitored
Responsibility
Residual Impact
HSE Manager
Transportation of Personnel to site on road shall
be done at off-peak of traffic congestion along the
major roads to the site;
Low
Movement from mainland part of Lagos into the
Island shall explore alternate options like using
EKO Bridge or THIRD MAINLAND Bridge, and
also, taking ADMIRALTY TOLL or NEW LEKKIIKOYI TOLL depending on where traffic is freer
during movement to the site;
Drivers shall be given traffic briefing on preferred
route prior movement to site.
Negligible
OIDC HSE Manager
Movement of CSD ancillary crafts shall be
properly scheduled and operated to minimise
P a g e | 316
Impact/Sources
Specific Effects
Significance
Man Overboard
Mitigation Measures
obstructing waterways.
All personnel on board watercrafts shall stay clear
of unsafe areas throughout the work period;
Responsibility
Residual Impact
All Personnel shall use appropriate Personal
Floatation Device (PFD) on board;
Good housekeeping shall be observed to avoid
causes of slips, trips and falls;
All necessary rescue device such as buoys, shall
always be on board watercrafts used during
dredging and filling;
Emergency procedure for man overboard rescue
shall be put in place by the dredging contractor;
Health and Safety
Moderate
Safety Briefing shall be given to all personnel
before work commences everyday;
Captains and Divers shall ensure that all
passengers abide by all safety procedure while on
board and travelling;
Hearing Defects due to exposure to high
noise area
Body Injury
Road Accidents
Work Permit shall be issued only to vehicles that
meet safety standards.
Personnel working at high noise places, shall use
appropriate PPE;
hardhats, safety boots, hand gloves before
embarking on jobs with risks of injuries;
Low/Negligible
HSE Manager
Vessel Captain/Driver
OIDC HSE Manager
HSE Manager
Only qualified drivers with relevant licences and
P a g e | 317
Impact/Sources
Specific Effects
Significance
Mitigation Measures
trainings shall be issued work permit;
Responsibility
Residual Impact
All passengers shall be given safety briefing
before embarking on journeys;
Safety procedures and rules shall be strictly
adhered to;
First aid kits shall be provided in all vessels and
vehicles;
Dredging Supervisor/
OIDC HSE
Manager/Contractor
Captains and Drivers shall be provided with
emergency telephone numbers and
communications devices to use in case of
emergency
Good housekeeping shall be observed at work
areas
Poor Sanitation
All wastes shall be properly handled and
evacuated by licensed vendor
Regular cleaning of all work environment shall be
conducted
Stagnant water shall not be allowed around work
area to prevent breading of mosquitoes.
P a g e | 318
Table 6.3: Mitigation Measures for Impacts during Post-Reclamation Activities
POST-RECLAMATION PHASE (LEVELLING OF FILLED MATERIALS AND DEMOBILISATION)
Impact/Sources
Specific Effects
Significance
Mitigation Measures
All vehicle and watercrafts shall be properly
Noise from bulldozer
and other machinery
during leveling of
reclaimed land, and from
vehicular and watercraft
movement during
demobilisation
Contractors’ vehicles, vessels and machinery
shall be inspected prior demobilisation from site;
Increase in background noise level around
affected areas
Nuisance to personnel operating at high
noise areas in marine vessels
Low
Only vehicles, vessels and machinery that meet
specified noise emission criteria shall be
permitted to convey personnel and equipment
from site
Personnel working at high noise areas like
vessel engine area, shall use appropriate PPE
(ear muffs and plugs) for hearing protection
All vehicle and watercrafts shall be properly
Noxious emissions from
bulldozer, other ancillary
machinery and vehicles
used in demobilisation
Reduced Aesthetics due
to poor waste
management
Increase of background level of noxious
gaseous like; NOx, SOx, CO and suspended
particulates.
Low
Only vehicles, vessels and machinery that meet
specified emission criteria shall be issued permit
to demobilise from site.
and adhered to;
Indiscriminate disposal of solid wastes by
road sides or on water;
Spillage of used oil and other liquid wastes
on land or water.
Contractors’ vehicles, vessels and machinery
shall be inspected prior demobilisation from site;
Low
Responsibility
Residual Impact
Dredging Contractor
OIDC HSE Manager
negligible
OIDC HSE Manager
Contractor/ Vessel Captain
Contractor
Negligible
OIDC HSE Manager
OIDC HSE Manager
Contractor
Negligible
environment shall be provided at strategic places
P a g e | 319
Impact/Sources
Specific Effects
Significance
Mitigation Measures
in vessels and other crafts;
Responsibility
Residual Impact
Vessel Captain
Safety Briefing shall be given to all crew and
passenger before embarking on trips;
Drivers shall ensure that passengers do not
discard wastes indiscriminately from their
vehicle.
and adhered to;
Vehicle Driver
Water Quality due to
inappropriate disposal of
wastes and toxic
materials
Contamination of surface water by disposal
of wastes and toxic liquids
Low
Contractor/Vessel Captain
Negligible
Black and grey waters shall be disposed
appropriately in line with applicable regulations.
Impact on
Transportation
Vehicles mobilizing personnel to site could
add to traffic volume along Lekki-Epe
Express and/or Ozumba Mbadiwe road, and
lead to man-hour loss to road users.
Improperly planned trip on water could
Low
Transportation of Personnel to site on road shall
be done at off-peak of traffic congestion along
the major roads to the site;
Negligible
Movement from mainland part of Lagos into the
Island shall explore alternate options like using
P a g e | 320
Impact/Sources
Specific Effects
Significance
Mitigation Measures
interfere with movement of fishermen
EKO Bridge or THIRD MAINLAND Bridge, and
also, taking ADMIRALTY TOLL or NEW LEKKIIKOYI TOLL depending on where traffic is freer
during movement to the site;
Responsibility
Residual Impact
OIDC HSE Manager/Vessel
Captains/Drivers
Drivers shall be given traffic briefing on preferred
route prior movement to site.
All water movement shall be planned to minimise
impact on other users
All crew and passengers on board vessels shall
stay clear of unsafe areas during navigation;
Man Overboard
Every crew and passenger shall use appropriate
Personal Floatation Device (PFD) on board;
Good housekeeping shall be observed to avoid
causes of slips, trips and falls;
Health and Safety
Moderate
All necessary rescue device such as buoys, shall
always be on board vessels used to move
personnel to the site;
Low
Emergency procedure for man overboard rescue
shall be put in place by all contractors moving
equipment and personnel to site;
Captains and Divers shall ensure that all
passengers abide by all safety procedure before
and during travels.
OIDC HSE Manager
Work Permit shall be issued only to vessels and
Vessel Captain
P a g e | 321
Impact/Sources
Specific Effects
Significance
Mitigation Measures
Hearing Defects due to exposure to high
vehicles that meet safety standards.
noise area
Body Injury
Personnel working at high noise places like the
Chief Engineer, shall use appropriate PPE
Road Accidents
hardhats, safety boots, hand gloves before
embarking on jobs with risks of injuries;
Responsibility
Residual Impact
Vessel Captain
Only qualified drivers with relevant licences and
trainings shall convey personnel and equipment
to site;
All passengers shall be given safety briefing
before embarking on journeys;
Safety procedures and rules shall be strictly
adhered to;
Contractor
First aid kits shall be provided in all vessels and
vehicles transporting personnel to site;
OIDC HSE
Manager/Contractor
Captains and Drivers shall be provided with
emergency telephone numbers and
communications devices to use in case of
emergency
P a g e | 322
6.5
Conclusion
The mitigation measures presented in section 6.4; tables 6.1 to 6.3 have been put in place to ensure that
negative impacts associated with the proposed Orange Island reclamation are completely either avoided or
minimised to acceptable limits. The measures could be enhanced during the course of the project
implementation based on findings of the Impact Mitigation Monitoring in order to ensure that dynamic efforts are
made to promote sustainability of the proposed project.
P a g e | 323
CHAPTER SEVEN
7.1
ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT PLAN
Introduction
Environmental Management Plan (EMP) provides the framework for the implementoin of mitigation commitments
and monitoring proposals for environmental sustainability of a project. This section presents the EMP for the
proposed Orange Island Reclamation project.
7.2
Objectives
This EMP is put in place to ensure that the project proponent complies with all the mitigation measures
recommended in this EIA, as well as commitment to best practice in management, and continuous improvement
of environmental performance of the proposed reclamation project. It is equally intended to provide early signal of
environmental degradation with a view to improve on the management approaches.
7.3
Responsibilities
In order to ensure commitment that requisite actions that guarantee environmental protection are duly taken,
clear-cut assignment of responsibilities is needful. The main participants in the proposed project, as it relates to
environmental management are presented below.
7.3.1
Project Proponent
The onus of ensuring that all activities of the project are environmentally sustainable is on the proponent (OIDC).
It shall appoint a Project Manager who shall be responsible for overseeing the activities of all
Contractors/subcontractors working on all aspects of the project and ensures strict adherence to applicable
standards and regulations. The project Manager shall report to the Managing Director of OIDC.
OIDC shall also appoint a Health, Safety and Environment (HSE) Manager who shall be responsible for ensuring
that all activities of contractors/subcontractors adhere to guidelines and procedures set by the Federal Ministry of
Environment and other regulators. He shall issue work permit to every contractor working on the project. He shall
liaise with HSE managers of contractors, Environmental Management Consultants and the applicable regulatory
agencies to ensure that all aspects of the project meet environment regulatory requirements. The HSE Manager
shall report to the Managing Director of OIDC.
7.3.2
Dredging Contractor
Van Oord Nigeria Limited (VONL) is the appointed dredging Contractor for the proposed project. VONL shall be
responsible for all dredging and reclamation activities; ensuring that they are sustainably implemented. In order
to achieve this VONL has put in place a Health Safety and Environment Management Plan to ensure that its
operations meet local and international regulatory standards. The company has valid ISO 9001:2004 (Quality
Chapter Seven: Environmental Management Plan
P a g e | 324
Management System) and ISO 14001:2004 (Environmental Management System) Certifications that attest to its
high premium on sustainable operations. Specialised personnel shall be engaged to ensure that the tenets of
the HSE policy are appropriately implemented. Figure 7.1 shows the organisation of VONL HSE Unit.
Figure 7.1: VONL’s HSE Unit Organogram
In order to ensure effective HSE Management System, all parties must be involved. HSE issues shall be
discussed during the weekly internal progress meetings with subcontractors and VONL project staff. It shall be
the responsibility of the Project Manager to ensure that HSE issues are addressed during the meetings.
7.3.2.1
Specific Responsibilities
Project Manager (PM)
The Project Manager shall at all times, be responsible and accountable for proper implementation of the VONL
HSE Policy and systems on the project he manages and shall:
•
Set a positive personal example;
•
Identify and organise appropriate training for his staff;
•
Liaise with the QHSE Department on HSE issues;
•
Actively promote a positive safety culture throughout their areas of responsibility;
•
Ensure that QHSE Policy is implemented properly and that any delegated duties are correctly performed;
•
Ensure that all agreed actions are implemented as soon as practicable;
•
Suspend any work or other activity which is considered to constitute an immediate danger to personnel and /
or public. The circumstances should then be fully investigated and no work shall be allowed to continue until
appropriate remedial action has been taken;
•
Ensure that as part of the bi-weekly site inspection, Health, Safety and Environmental inspections are
carried out and that HSE issues are actively managed and controlled;
•
Ensure that any incidents and near misses are fully investigated (where applicable) and actions are being
followed up and where applicable corrective actions are being implemented.
P a g e | 325
All employees
All employees shall be required to:
•
Understand the VONL HSE Policy;
•
Co-operate with VONL in complying with duties and requirements imposed by relevant statutory provisions
and VONL procedures;
•
Co-operate with VONL in complying with Health, Safety and Environment management duties and
requirements imposed by management;
•
Not interfere with, or misuse anything provided in the interests of Health, Safety and Environment;
•
Report all incidents, near misses and dangerous situations to their manager;
•
The Works Manager shall be responsible for ensuring that all personnel is aware of their duties as stated in
the Project Plan and all applicable underlying documents.
Site visitors
The Project Manager will ensure that a visitors’ book is maintained at the site office, recording:
o
Name,
o
VONL details
o
Arrival times and departure times
o
Car Registration number
•
Visitors sign the book on arrival and receive a brief induction but must still be accompanied by a responsible
member of the project team whenever they are out on the site.
•
Personnel who visit the site regularly, e.g. Contracts Manager, QHSE Coordinator etc, will be given a full
induction on their first visit. Provided that site rules are adhered to, regular visitors will then be permitted to
access all areas of the site on this and subsequent visits. However, should any major changes occur on the
project it will be deemed necessary for all regular visitors to be re-inducted.
7.4
Health Safety and Environment Management Plans
The tenets of VONL HSE Policy as it applies to this project shall be abided with strictly. Relevant sections of the
policy are presented below.
7.4.1
7.4.1.1
Training, Competence and Awareness
Training
VONL believes that continuous HSE training is important for all employees and will further equip them with the
necessary knowledge and skill to effectively implement and improve the HSE system at work site.
There are requirements for personnel working on the project to be competent for the tasks they are to perform. A
training matrix shall be prepared in which all training available shall be stated with applicable target groups. The
P a g e | 326
crew on board of the VONL vessels shall be trained on applicable regulations for environmental protection and
safety. The VONL Crewing department shall maintain a training matrix. It shall detail the required certificates and
expiry dates for the crew of each vessel. In addition to standard skill, the following training shall be provided:
•
First – Aid Course;
•
Fire fighting training;
•
Safe working practices (use of PPE, manual handling, working at height, reduction in the discharge of
waste, etc); and,
•
Environmental emergency response procedures (i.e. oil spill)
7.4.1.2
Induction
Every personnel shall undergo HSE induction on arrival to site. The inductions will cover all site-specific HSE
aspects, including site rules, applicable local HSE rules and regulations, emergency procedures, unsafe working
conditions, Client requirements etc. The induction shall ensure that all personnel work in a safe manner, use
correct PPE at all times and understand the proponent, VONL and sub-contractor’s commitment to health, safety
and environmental issues. All persons inducted shall sign the induction form. The record of induction shall be
kept at the site office.
7.4.1.3
Toolbox talks
The Project Manager shall organise Toolbox Meetings for all personnel working on the site/project at least once a
week, or whenever necessary. A toolbox talk form and attendance list shall be prepared for all meetings. The
purpose of this meeting is to further promote HSE awareness among all the personnel and workers and also to
remind them of the basic Safety Rules and Environmental Management Regulations. In addition to the standard
safety issues, method statements, near miss and incidents, etc may be discussed in the toolbox talks. Apart
from the abilities of sub-contractors to satisfy the work requirements, the talks shall ensure that they equally have
the capabilities of meeting the minimum VONL standards Requirements.
7.4.1.4
Competence
The Corporate Personnel and Organisation department (P&O) shall be responsible for producing and
maintaining an up to date training matrix that identifies key personnel and the level of training required to ensure
conformance with VONL Health, Safety and Environmental Policy and with reference to significant risks, impacts
and emergency preparedness.
The Project Manager shall ensure that relevant and applicable training is identified and provided for all project
staff, including sub-contractors, consistent with the requirements of the matrix. Tasks which have the potential to
cause a health and safety hazard or a significant environmental impact shall first be identified by risk
assessment. Following the risk assessment VONL or the subcontractor acting on its behalf shall ensure that
persons undertaking the tasks are competent on the basis of appropriate education, training and experience.
Copies of training certificate shall be made available upon request.
P a g e | 327
Training and awareness shall be created through a variety of routes including site induction, toolbox talks,
briefing, newsletters and formal training courses. People that operate specialised equipment (excavator, cranes,
tele-handlers, etc) must:
•
Be competent to operate the specialised equipment they are to operate;
•
Be in the possession of a valid, applicable to the type of equipment which he / she operates, Certificate of
Competence / driver license. A copy of these documents must be handed over to the QHSE Department
during the induction.
•
The operator record and a copy of the relevant competence certificates shall be maintained on site.
7.4.1.5
HSE posters and sign boards
HSE Posters and signboards shall be strategically displayed throughout the project site to remind all personnel of
risks, danger and precautionary measures to be taken when working on site.
7.4.2
Emergency Preparedness
7.4.2.1 Emergency preparedness and response
An Emergency Response Plan shall be put in place to include the following:
•
Emergency Response Team on site;
•
Emergency telephone list;
•
Route to hospital;
•
VONL’s Emergency procedure;
•
Emergency Assistance
7.4.2.2
Site security
The Project Manager, or his delegate, shall be responsible for instituting and maintaining appropriate measures
for the site security and safeguarding of client’s interests, public and others against any hazards resulting from
the activities of the Project, including contractors on neighbouring sites, fishermen, etc. The site boundary shall
be clearly identified.
7.4.2.3
Incidents, near misses and damage
VONL has established a procedure and sequence of investigation and analysis of all incidents at work site with
the objective of recommending specific actions to prevent recurrence. The following personnel shall be informed
immediately once an incident, damage or near miss has occurred:
•
Project Manager (to inform Client)
•
QHSE Manager
•
Subcontractor and supervisor in-charge of the work / injured person.
P a g e | 328
In case of serious personal injury, the QHSE Manager together with the subcontractor and his representative
shall conduct a preliminary investigation and take immediate necessary actions such as:
•
Cordoning off the scene of the Incident,
•
Attend to the injured person or call for an ambulance
The QHSE Manager shall issue instructions to whoever is responsible for carrying out the appropriate corrective
and preventive actions as soon as possible. The Project Manager shall send preliminary incident report within 24
hours to QHSE-department. In case of damage, the report will be send to the Technical Department. The QHSE
Manager distributes the incident investigation report among other involved parties. The final incident report (if
applicable) must be sent within 3 working days to the QHSE department. Subcontractors shall inform the Project
Manager Work Manager and HSE representative immediately when an incident occurs and must submit a
(preliminary) incident report within 24 hours to VONL. An overview shall be maintained with all outstanding
actions resulting from incidents and near misses. The QHSE representative on site shall maintain this overview.
7.4.2.4
First Aid
A minimum of one qualified First Aider shall be on site during site working hours, if over 50 persons are on site at
any time, two qualified first aiders are to be in attendance. Arrangements will be made to cover leave, sickness,
shift-work, weekend work etc. First aiders shall be nominated for the Project and their names (First Aid poster)
will be posted on the notice board.
7.4.2.5
Damage
If damage(s) occurs on property, vessels or equipment, a damage report including the master’s statement and if
applicable, a sketch of the situation shall be drawn up.
7.4.2.6
Corrective and preventive measures (incidents)
The QHSE Manager shall issue a verbal or written instruction outlining the corrective measures to be put in
place, based on the recommendations for preventive measures set out in the Incident Investigation report. The
QHSE Manager shall inspect and ensure that the appropriate actions are being carried out, as instructed.
7.4.2.7
Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)
All personnel on site shall be provided with standard PPE by their employer. Mandatory PPE are as a minimum:
•
Approved safety footwear;
•
Hard hat / safety helmet;
•
High visibility clothing (jacket or coverall)
Consumable PPE shall always be available on site, such as working gloves and rain suits.
P a g e | 329
Specific work sometimes requires additional PPE, such as during cutting and welding. The type of PPE to be
used will be indicated in the risk assessment which shall be made prior to start of the activity. Additional PPE
could be:
•
Safety glasses;
•
Earplugs / ear protection;
•
Breathing masks/filters;
•
Welding mask.
A supply of PPE shall be held in the offices and made available for visitors as well as an overview of which PPE
has been distributed and to whom (this is included in the site induction form).
7.4.2.8
Communication
Personnel shall be briefed on special HSE issues in toolbox meetings. Subjects might be the review of unsafe
acts, incidents and near misses, lessons learned or HSE subjects arising from the weekly project progress
meeting. Feedback shall also be encouraged from the workforce during the toolbox talk. Ad-hoc meetings will
be conducted whenever critical issues related to HSE require immediate attention. Any senior Manager can call
for a meeting. Critical HSE matters that must be attended to immediately are (but not limited to):
•
Incident or fire on site;
•
Other critical issues which may cause loss of lives or serious damage to works or property
Communication between labour and their supervisor shall be without language restrictions. The same applies for
communication between supervisors and Project Management Team and within the Project Management Team.
7.4.3
7.4.3.1
Health, Safety and Environmental Monitoring
HSE Inspections
The purpose of HSE inspections is to monitor and ensure compliance to the site HSE rules and regulations and
appraise relevant authority and client requirements. Prior to the start of the project, the PM (or nominated staff)
will inspect all hired equipment by means of the inspection checklist mentioned in box 7.1 below. It is a
requirement that all line managers and supervisors monitor QHSE matters continuously as a day-to-day activity.
In addition to this, the Project Manager must undertake a monthly site inspection, which will be documented and
placed on the site files.
P a g e | 330
Box 7.2: HSE Inspection Schedule
7.4.3.2 Management of subcontractors
Prior to appointment of a subcontractor, the bidding subcontractors will receive the “QHSE Requirements for
Subcontractors”. This document sets out a series of rules for managing Quality, Occupational Health and Safety
and Environmental protection at subcontractor’s worksites. The rules form a contractual requirement between
VONL and the subcontractor, in addition to the requirement for legal compliance. Compliance with the “QHSE
Requirements for Subcontractors” shall be verified by means of inspections and (if applicable) pre-award and / or
post-award audits.
Once the appointed subcontractor is on site, the Project Manager shall ensure that sub contractors:
•
Are given a full site induction on arrival at the site offices;
•
Are made aware of PPE, Welfare, First Aid and Emergency arrangements;
•
Provide adequate competent supervision to supplement that provided by VONL;
•
Provide suitable and sufficient risk assessments and method statements for all relevant tasks;
•
Supply certificates of training/competency of their personnel, copies of which must be held in the site files;
•
Supply test certificates and maintenance records for plant and equipment, copies of which must be held in
the site files;
P a g e | 331
•
Provide the Project Manager with the necessary information and/or amendments in order to comply with
contractual and statutory require;
•
Report to the Works Manager prior to starting work to ensure:
o
The works are co-ordinated with regard to other works on site;
o
They will be operating a safe system of work;
o
Valid permits to work have been issued;
o
Their safety method statements have been approved;
o
The induction procedure is carried out on all personnel;
o
Are aware that failure to comply with these conditions will result in the Subcontractor or his
employee(s) being refused entry to or removed from site;
o
Provide weekly and monthly HSE statistics:
o
Inform Van Oord PM, WM and HSE representative when incidents occur.
The Project Manager shall also ensure collaborative attitude on site by making public, available details of other
contractors and their related activities. On a weekly basis a progress meeting will be conducted with the main
subcontractors in which HSE isna part of the agenda.
7.4.3.3
Machinery and Equipment Maintenance
Many incidents occurring onshore and offshore are machinery / equipment related. Regular inspection and
maintenance of machinery / equipment is a necessary precautionary measure that must be carried out to prevent
incidents.
Onshore machinery and equipment maintenance
Categories of essential equipment such as lifting equipment, hoist and power tools shall be inspected on a
regular basis or as per local regulation. All inspections shall be recorded with notes on any deviation that requires
corrections. All deviations are to be rectified before they are used. The Superintendent shall maintain the records
and these records must be available for review by the site safety management / authority as and when required.
Machinery / equipment requiring periodic inspection shall include, but not limited to the following:
•
Cranes (mobile, crawler);
•
Mobile Elevated Working Platforms - Cherry pickers;
•
Loose hoisting gear;
•
Dump trucks, wheel loaders, bulldozers, excavators etc.
Inspection and maintenance of mobile cranes, lifting machines and loose hoisting equipment shall be executed
by a qualified person(s). Inspection shall be conducted annually or as per local regulation. Records of the
P a g e | 332
inspection must be kept on site. The respective operator shall conduct daily visual inspections before operating
and report any fault to the Works Manager for an immediate action. Relevant records of these visual inspections
are kept if applicable.
Offshore machinery and equipment maintenance
Maintenance operations on board
A complete set of documentation consisting of drawings, diagrams, instruction books and parts books shall be
available on board the vessels. Taking the guidelines from this documentation and instructions into
consideration, the checkup/ maintenance operations to be carried out are scheduled on the basis of:
•
Time intervals for certain parts of the ship or for machines and installations and the navigation and safety
devices;
•
The number of operation hours of machine installations;
•
Legal requirements set by the Classification agency and the Transportation and Public Works Inspection
(maritime division);
•
Measuring reports related to wearing of parts in contact with sand;
•
Continuous inspections/maintenance by crew;
•
Damage occurred, defects and failures occurring.
7.4.4
Controlling significant site risks – Health and Safety
All works shall be carried out in a proper and safe manner taking into consideration the safety of all
parties involved as well as the public.
7.4.4.1
Working over or adjacent to water
For tasks and assignments conducted over water, every effort shall be made to eliminate the risk of accidental
entry into water. Where possible, gangways to the required standard shall be provided for entry onto vessels.
Buoyancy aids such as lifejackets shall be issued to personnel as appropriate and it is compulsory that they are
worn when work involves working over or near water. All lifejackets shall receive annual servicing by an
approved company. Life rings and other lifesaving equipment shall be provided at suitable intervals along the
quay wall or on the beach. Training shall be provided as appropriate.
7.4.4.2
Temporary electrical installations
Any temporary electrical installation on site will be in accordance with plans drawn up by a competent person.
Any work or alterations made to the installation will only be undertaken by a competent person. All circuits
serving electrical equipment shall be provided with a Residual Current Device (RCD) and a Miniature Circuit
Breaker (MCB) for personal protection. Where generators / light sets are used on site, attention will be given to
P a g e | 333
the sitting of the equipment in order to minimise pollution caused by noise and fumes and the generators will be
placed on drip trays to prevent any pollution of the sand underneath.
7.4.4.3
Working at Height
The following hierarchy shall be applied for any working at height tasks.
i.
Working at height should be avoided where possible;
ii.
Work equipment (e.g. scaffolding, hand-railing etc) or other measures will be used to prevent falls where
working at height cannot be avoided; and
iii.
Where we cannot eliminate the risk of a fall, use work equipment or other measures (e.g. PPE) to
minimise the distance and consequences of a fall should one occur Prior to any working at height taking
place the following will be taken into account:
a. Work at height is properly planned and organised;
b. Take account of weather conditions that could endanger health and safety;
c. Ensure those involved in work at height are trained and competent;
d. The place where the work at height is done is safe;
e. Equipment for work at height is appropriately inspected;
f.
The risks from fragile surfaces are properly controlled; and
g. The risks from falling objects are properly controlled.
7.4.4.4
Permit to Work system
The purpose of a system of work permits is to control the high risks to personnel, vessel and environment when
carrying out work under hazardous conditions. Due to the sheer nature of VONL’s vessels, repair and
maintenance is a fully integrated part of the working practice on board and on the shore.
7.4.4.5
Hot work activities (welding, burning, cutting, grinding)
Hot work activities on board the vessel / barge / on site are common practice. There are several locations on
board the vessel / barge where hot work activities can be carried out like the workshop engine room, welding
workshop. For above-mentioned locations a work permit is not mandatory. However on locations where risks are
not ruled out (such as welding / burning in engine room, in accommodation, etc), a work permit has to be issued
prior to the activities. The checklist as given in the work permit has to be followed to guarantee a safe working
environment.
P a g e | 334
7.4.4.6
Working on electrical systems
Working on live electrical systems shall be strictly prohibited. It shall require the permission of the Works
Manager (site) or Chief Engineer (marine equipment) and should only be carried out in exceptional
circumstances. Exceptions are as follows:
i.
Carry out of adjustment procedures;
ii.
Making measurements to the installation.
Before working on electrical system can start, an electrical permit must be obtained from the Works
Manager or Chief Engineer and the lock out / tag out instruction as stated in the Safe Working Practice must be
followed.
7.4.4.7
Control of lifting operations
Information on ground conditions, along with other key information regarding the lift area (i.e.
overhead cables etc.) should be forwarded to the crane company prior to arrival on site. A site visit by the crane
company may be necessary before any lifting activities take place. Prior to arrival on site, copies of the lifting
equipment, crane and loose gear certificates, and the applicable papers such as driver license, certificate of
competence of the crane driver, must be obtained from the lifting company to ensure that the applicable
certificates are in place.
The operator of the crane shall be responsible for:
•
Proper placement of the crane in relation to the load to be handled;
•
Proper placement and use of outriggers, where provided;
•
The determination of stable or unstable ground or footing.
All rigging equipment (loose gear) shall be visually inspected prior to each shift. Damaged or defect
slings shall be removed from service. All cranes and lifting equipment must be inspected (cranes –
annual and lifting equipment 6 monthly) by an independent 3rd Party. All lifting operations shall be planned and
supervised by a competent person. The appointed person shall:
•
•
•
•
•
Assess the proposed lift to provide for planning, selection of equipment, instruction and supervision to
enable the work to be carried out safely;
Ensure that all tests, inspections examinations and maintenance of the crane and lifting accessories have
been carried out, and that there is a procedure for reporting defects and taking any necessary corrective
action;
Have the authority to carry out their duties and to stop the operations if they think there is a danger;
A competent and trained banks-man and rigger will also be on site to assist with the lifting operations;
Lifts shall be classified as routine and non-routine lifts, where the latter is divided into simple, complicated,
complex and heavy lifts.
A lifting permit must at least be prepared in the following case:
•
Non-routine lifts as described above and in the definitions;
P a g e | 335
•
Lifting on new reclaimed land.
7.4.4.8
Traffic management
The site shall be organised in such a way that, so far as is reasonably practicable, pedestrians and vehicles are
segregated and can move around safely. Site traffic and pedestrian routes shall be identified within the traffic
management plan, which shall contain a site layout which in turn will be displayed in the main office and on site
notice boards. When producing the traffic management plan consideration will be given to all vehicles on site,
including delivery vehicles. VONL’s projects sites adopt reverse parking policy for the designated parking areas.
All site personnel shall be briefed on the traffic management within the site induction.
7.4.4.9
Transport safety
Every person involved or available on the work place shall understand and adhere to the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
The immediate area shall be clear of all workers except those engaged or assisting in the loading and
unloading of equipment and materials;
Necessary Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) i.e. safety helmets, safety shoes, leather or leather-palm
gloves, hi-visibility jacket shall be used by employees while handling loading and unloading work;
Drivers must obey all traffic signs, and show absolute regard for safety of employees and the Public.
Toolbox Meetings on safety precautions and emergency measures shall be conducted to all personnel
involved in the loading and' off-loading, prior to start work, and shall be repeated on regular basis;
Drivers shall make regular inspection on their vehicle for obvious defect and report (if found) immediately to
their Foreman;
The practice of employees sleeping or resting under equipment during rest periods shall prohibited;
Drivers shall ensure that incidents resulting in damage or injury shall be immediately reported to the VONL’s
HSE Department.
7.4.4.10
Lone working
When it is necessary, the lone worker shall be equipped with appropriate communication equipment and a
system shall be established whereupon he / she is contacted at set intervals throughout the period of working.
7.4.4.11
Tools
Proper handling use of tools shall maintain the following practices:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
All tools provided on site shall be of the best available quality with proper safeguards;
Tools designed with guards, handles and electrical trip switches shall be equipped with such devices at all
times;
All defective tools shall be immediately removed from service for repair;
Tools shall be visually inspected for damage or defects daily and prior to use;
Electrical hand tools shall be of the double insulated type and shall be maintained in good condition;
Any defective tool(s) shall be removed from site;
All work equipment when not in use shall be stored in storage containers in a secure area on site, these
containers will be locked at the end of each shift;
Items of equipment that can only be operated by trained and competent personnel (disc cutters; chainsaws
etc.) will be locked away with only authorised personnel able to access them.
P a g e | 336
7.4.4.12
Welding and cutting equipment
Welding and cutting activities will mainly take place in the workshop and on the marine equipment (open air). On
the reclamation area it might happen that during placement / removal of the land line burning / cutting activities
take place (removal of bolts / nuts). The materials of which the pipelines are made of are steel with no cathode
protection installed on them.
•
•
•
No welding will take place on an external surface of a tank containing a flammable liquid;
Flashback arrestors must be installed on the welding sets;
Personnel engaged in welding, cutting, burning, chipping and grinding activities must wear the appropriate
PPE (face mask / welding mask, gloves, aprons, coverall (fire retardant), etc).
Storage of gas cylinders
The below mentioned points of attention must be followed in relation to the storage of gas and oxygen cylinders:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The gas cylinders should be stack vertically, properly fixed and protected against falling;
The storage location should be equipped with at an appropriate number of fire extinguishers;
A “No Smoking and Naked Flames” should be placed on a clearly visible location;
Storage areas shall be purpose built in the open air, shaded from direct sunlight and fenced of to a height of
2 m;
Oxygen and acetylene cylinders should be kept separated at least 3 metres from each other when stored or
separated by a fire proof screen (steel plate) with a fire delaying effect of 60 minutes;
Storage areas shall be clearly identified, with the names of the gases stored;
Full and empty cylinders shall be kept apart and “full” / “empty” notices will be displayed;
The gas cylinders should be fitted with a protection cap;
All gas cylinders should be colour coded as per regulations.
Cylinders shall only be moved using cradles and trolleys and it is not allowed to roll cylinders;
Cylinders should never be lifted by their valve cap or guard.
7.4.4.13
Housekeeping
VONL and all subcontractors shall keep work area clean, tidy, and free from debris. It has been proven that a
clean site helps to prevent injuries from slips and trips.
•
•
•
•
•
All materials shall be stored, as appropriate, in stockpiles of reasonable size and gradient.
All storage areas will be fenced off and secured to prevent unauthorised access.
All work equipment when not in use shall be stored in a secure area on site.
Items of equipment that can only be operated by trained and competent personnel (disc cutters; chainsaws
etc) should be locked away with only authorised personnel able to access them;
Personnel shall be trained in good housekeeping by means of toolbox talks.
7.4.5
7.4.5.1
Controlling significant site risks – Environmental
Storage and register of dangerous goods
The storage of hazardous materials such as diesel, hydraulic oil, paint and other chemicals that pose potential
environmental hazards shall be in a manner that prevents any potential risk.
P a g e | 337
•
•
•
•
Ground protection must be used (e.g. drip trays). The drip trays must be 110% of the volumes of the liquids
it contains;
Storage will be according the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS);
If hazardous materials are stored in a confined space, the space must be properly ventilated.
A register of all potential hazardous materials will be kept on site (or in storage facility).
7.4.5.2
•
•
•
•
Fuel handling
Oil storage facilities shall not be located within 10m of a watercourse or 50m of a well or borehole.
All oil storage facilities shall have the appropriate safety signage in place such as contents of the tank, no
smoking, etc;
Firefighting equipment shall be available in the close vicinity of the storage tanks / bunded areas.
Only trained personnel shall conduct fuel handling activities.
7.4.5.3
•
•
•
•
•
Oil storage method
Storage tanks and mobile bowsers shall either be constructed with double skins or contained in an
impermeable bund with a liquid holding capacity of 110% of the storage tank;
Similar requirements shall apply to any storage of liquids on site;
All storage areas on site will have a capacity of 110% of the biggest drum / container stored in the area.
The storage tanks shall be held on a secure site;
Filling and fuelling valves / taps shall be kept locked with access only to authorised personnel. The valves /
taps should be clearly showing whether they are in the open or closed position.
7.4.5.4
Refueling plant and equipment
For onsite refuelling, oil spill response and firefighting equipment shall be stationed near to the mobile bowser.
The bowser shall be placed as near as practicable to the plant. A fail safe nozzle shall be used which is stored,
when not in use, inside the bunded bowser.
While moving the nozzle from the mobile bowser to the plant, oil-absorbing material shall be placed between
them (i.e. a drip tray), with the operator checking the area for any leakage afterwards. Only generators and
mobile plant that are too far away to drive up to the fuel storage area shall be refuelled on site. Prior to all
refuelling activities a toolbox talk will be held between the supervisor, the mobile bowser operator and the plant
operator.
7.4.6
7.4.6.1
Oil Spill Contingency Plan
Onshore Oil Spill Contingency Plan
In the event of a small spill (less than 200 litres)
Equipment should be shut down and lines closed immediately if this can be done without risk, and absorbent
material or soil / sand is to be used to surround the spill and prevent it entering drains or controlled waters.
The Project Manager shall be immediately notified, and the spill is to be covered with absorbent material or sand.
Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) is to be worn at all times.
P a g e | 338
All contaminated spoil or clean up materials should be treated as hazardous waste and removed from the site.
In the event of a large spill (over 200 litres)
The Project Manager shall be notified immediately who will then notify the Client representative.
Wearing the appropriate PPE, lines are shall be closed and plant shut down.
The spill should be prevented from entering surface water drains or controlled waters by creating barriers of sand
or similar materials.
The Project Manager will direct the cleanup process and contaminated material shall be disposed of as
hazardous waste.
After the event, all people involved should make a written record of their recollection of events leading up to and
during the course of the incident. These records should be reviewed and actions taken to implement measures to
prevent re-occurrence.
7.4.6.2
Offshore Oil Spill Contingency Plan
On board the marine vessels, in accordance with and approved by the applicable Flag State regulations, a
SOPEP plan (Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plan) shall be available.
The SOPEP contains the following (but not limited to):
•
•
•
•
•
•
The steps to control discharges;
Reporting requirements;
List of Coastal State Contracts;
General Arrangement Plan;
Tank Plan and;
Fuel Oil piping diagram
7.4.7
Waste management
Waste management on site shall be executed as per local regulations (segregation, disposal, etc.).
The production of wastes shall be minimised, and wherever possible shall be re-used on the site where it was
produced. Where waste cannot be re-used on site, every endeavour will be made to use it in an environmentally
beneficial manner, for example by recycling. Only in a last resort will waste be disposed of at a landfill.
All wastes stored on site shall be kept safe and contained, ensuring that they cannot be blown around, or into
water, damaged by the weather or scavenged by vandals, thieves, trespassers or animals.
In the event of a site not being completely secured, all wastes will be stored in locked containers.
Separate skips shall be used for controlled and special waste.
P a g e | 339
All waste on site shall be collected and disposed of by a local firm, who shall transport both controlled and
hazardous waste offsite for the duration of the project. Copies of their Waste Management License and Waste
carriers license shall be held in the site filing system (if applicable).
7.4.8
7.4.8.1
Health risks
Substances hazardous to health
The Control of substances hazardous to health shall be in accordance with the applicable legislation.
• The Superintendents and / or HSE representative shall use the MSDS form as the basis of a toolbox talk to
all personnel likely to use the substance;
• Personnel should be made aware at induction that they are not to use hazardous substances without the
appropriate training in the use and storage of the substance;
• There shall be a fully ventilated store on site for storage of hazardous substances. Storage shall be as per
the local requirements and checks will be made prior to storage to ensure that hazardous substances are
compatible and can be stored together;
• The storage shall be set up to ensure that there can be no risk of an environmental spill (internal drip trays);
• Information regarding the correct PPE to be used shall also be relayed within the toolbox talks;
• The use of hazardous materials shall be reduced to the practical minimum limit;
• Flammable and other hazardous materials shall be stored in designated areas;
• The storage areas shall include, when required, the provision of the required fire extinguishers, ventilation
and clean up facilities;
• Handling and use of hazardous materials shall be done according the applicable MSDS and with the utmost
care and precautions;
7.4.8.2
Noise
As far as reasonable practicable, all machines and equipment used, will not produce excessive noise
(i.e. 90 dBA for 8 hours). The control of noise on site will be achieved by:
•
•
•
•
•
Making an assessment of the personal noise exposure of workers;
Reducing noise at source wherever practicable;
Providing suitable hearing protection;
Informing workers of the noise levels they are exposed to, how their hearing may be at risk and what they
must do to protect it;
Designated hearing protection zones.
7.4.8.3
•
•
•
•
•
Vibration
The maximum daily use as specified in both the regulations and also the manufacturer’s recommendations
must not be exceeded at any time;
Where tasks involve continued use of vibratory equipment a rotational system for the use of the equipment
will be implemented on site;
Where sub-contractors are responsible for the provision of their own hand tools, they shall be responsible for
ensuring that the equipment is safe and fit for purpose, and properly inspected and maintained;
It shall be the responsibility of the Project Manager (or nominated person) to ensure that suitable
arrangements are established for checking and maintaining hand held vibrating equipment on site;
All records shall be kept up to date in the site files.
Symptoms of Hand Arm Vibration
P a g e | 340
•
•
•
•
•
Attack of whitening (Blanching) of one or more fingers when exposed to cold;
Tingling and loss of sensation in the fingers;
Loss of light touch;
Pain and cold sensations between periodic white finger attacks;
Loss of Grip strength
7.4.8.4
Manual handling
Poorly thought out or badly performed manual handling activities are the cause of many injuries to
construction workers. Manual handling tasks include:
•
•
•
•
Lifting
Lowering
Pulling
Pushing
Suitable control measures shall be put in place once the following points have been established:
•
What has to be moved?
•
Does it really have to be moved?
•
What does it weigh?
•
Can it be broken down into smaller loads?
•
Can the process that requires it to be moved be changed?
•
Where is the load’s centre of gravity?
•
Can it be safely handled by one person?
•
Will assistance be required?
•
Can the move be carried out more safely with mechanical assistance?
•
How far does it have to be moved and from where to where?
•
Is the route clear of obstructions?
•
Can it be put down safely?
All workers at risk of injury from manual handling shall be briefed in a toolbox talk by the works manager on the
hazards of manual handling and the precautions to be taken.
7.4.8.5
Exposure to UV Rays / heat stress
Working during sunny periods poses a risk of overexposure to UV Rays.
•
•
•
Sun protection cream shall be provided on site for use by all personnel;
A toolbox talk shall be carried out highlighting the dangers of exposure to UV Rays and Heat stress and the
mitigation measures put in place;
All personnel shall be required to remain adequately dressed throughout periods of hot weather;
P a g e | 341
•
•
All personnel will also be encouraged to:
o Stay in the shade whenever possible, during breaks and especially at lunch time;
o Use a high factor sunscreen on any exposed skin;
o Drink plenty of water to avoid dehydration;
o Check skin regularly for any unusual moles or spots.
A “heat stress” awareness poster is available which will be displayed on site.
7.4.8.6
Smoking
Smoking shall be prohibited in all offices and welfare facilities of VONL and its subcontractors.
Designated smoking areas shall be allocated which will have ashtray and fire extinguishers
7.4.8.7
Pest control
All building structures and associated facilities operated by VONL and subcontractors shall be insect and rodent
proofed, free from vermin and shall be maintained throughout the duration of the project activities. No person
shall place, leave, dump or allow garbage to accumulate in any building or areas of the site, in a manner that will
provide food and harbourage for insects and rodents.
If pest control has to take place, all personnel shall be evacuated from the area to be fumigated and will only be
allowed to return once Pest Control has given permission
7.4.9
Marine activities
Precautions as stipulated in this HSE Plan shall be applicable offshore in addition to the Safety Management
System on board. Exemption will be wearing of life jackets. These will be worn during boat transfer, when
working over or adjacent to water and on board marine equipment if there is no railing available. Some general
directions are as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Personnel (dis)embarking on marine equipment must obey the instructions of the person in charge of the
vessel at all times;
Unexpected movements of the marine equipment, even in good weather, must be anticipated;
Life jackets should be available for all personnel and visitors. Each person shall be trained in the use of a life
jacket;
Tools must not be scattered around the work site;
Grease and oil spills must be cleaned up immediately;
Garbage must be disposed off properly. No garbage must be thrown overboard;
Navigation warnings and signals shall be used.
All operations shall be performed depending on actual weather/operational conditions. To support decision
making daily weather forecasts will be available on site and on all marine equipment. These weather
forecasts will be closely monitored throughout the operation. Limiting weather/operational conditions are a
combination of:




Wind force and direction;
Current speed and direction;
Wave/swell height, period and direction;
Vicinity of other (surface and subsea) structures and marine equipment.
P a g e | 342
To what extent these factors are actually a limitation depends fully on the interaction of these factors with respect
to the marine equipments behaviour. It is the responsibility of the Master of the marine equipment to assess the
weather conditions and ensure the safety of the marine equipment and its crew at all times.
The Master may decide to postpone operations until weather conditions have improved. His decision shall be
binding and irrevocable. In consultation with the Superintendent a shelter location will be appointed.
7.5
Impact Mitigation Monitoring (IMM) Plan
This subsection presents specific plans for ensuring that the mitigation measures outlined in chapter six of this
report are appropriately and adequately implemented. These plans if properly carried out are expected to provide
early warning signs for environmental degradation with a view to take further measures in forestalling them.
7.5.1
Flood Prevention Monitoring Plan
Although the nature of the lagoon presents minor risks to flooding, dredging activities shall be carried out to
ensure that factors that could lead to erosion are forestalled. Ensuring that angle of repose of topography due to
reclamation maintains an average of 1 unit vertical for 2 units horizontal is important to preventing sediment
transport that could lead to erosion. In order to ensure sharp slopes in underwater topography due to dredging,
bathymetry survey shall be conducted every two weeks throughout the reclamation period and after reclamation.
In event that undesired topography is created, corrective dredging shall be implemented.
7.5.2
Surface Water Quality Monitoring Plan
Considering the nature of the proposed project and likely sources of contamination of the surface water,
monitoring shall concentrate on checking deviations in the physic-chemical properties of the water, as well as
presence of toxic substances like heavy metals. Surface water quality monitoring shall be carried out weekly in
the first month of the reclamation activities, and subsequently monthly, until completion of reclamation (to
demobilisation). Post-reclamation monitoring shall be undertaken bi-weekly for two months. Table 7.1 presents
the monitoring schedule.
P a g e | 343
Table 7.1: Surface Water Quality Monitoring Schedule
SURFACE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PLAN
Impact Indicators
Physico-chemical characteristics: pH, DO, BOD, TSS, TDS, Total Organic Carbon Turbidity,
Anoions, Cations, Heavy metals, Conductivity, Hydrocarbons, Depth, etc
Benchmark (s)
FMEnv Permissible limits (water quality for fisheries); Baseline Concentrations in EIA
Sampling location
Within and beyond the reclamation (dredging and filling) site; same areas or very proximal to
locations sampled in the EIA
Sampling Frequency
-
Weekly in the first month of reclamation activities;
Then, monthly throughout the reclamation period (up to demobilisation;
Bi-weekly, two months after demobilisation
Responsible party
OIDC HSE Manager, VONL HSE Manager, FMEnv accredited consultant
Regulator (s)
Federal Ministry of Environment; Lagos State Ministry of Environment
7.5.3
Air Quality and Noise Monitoring Plan
Noise and noxious gases emissions from the proposed reclamation project could increase the background levels.
Although impact predictions show that these increases are unlikely to exceed permissible standards by the
FMEnv, it is important to monitor ambient air quality to ensure that unexpected increases do not occur.
Monitoring for air quality/noise shall be conducted weekly in the first two months of commencement of
reclamation and subsequently monthly for the rest of the reclamation activities until demobilisation. Postreclamation monitoring for air quality/noise shall be carried out weekly, one month after demobilisation. Table
7.2 presents the schedule for air quality and noise monitoring.
Table 7.2: Air Quality and Noise Monitoring Schedule
AIR QUALITY AND NOISE MONITORING PLAN
Impact Indicators
Ambient Noise levels (dB(A)), SOx, NOx, TSP, CO, H2S, Hydrocarbon, etc.
Benchmark (s)
FMEnv Permissible limits; Baseline Concentrations in EIA; predicted noise levels in EIA
Sampling location
At the same areas or very proximal to locations where measurements were taken in the EIA
Responsible party
- Weekly in the first two months of reclamation activities;
- Then, monthly throughout the reclamation period (up to demobilisation);
- Bi-weekly, one months after demobilisation
Regulator (s)
Sampling Frequency
P a g e | 344
7.5.4
Hydrobiology and Fisheries Monitoring Plan
Notable impacts of the proposed reclamation project are those on macrobenthic biota, planktons, as well as fish
and fisheries. Main mitigation measure to forestall these impacts, especially beyond the reclamation zone is the
use of silt curtain. Monitoring of these parameters is important to ensure that the mitigation measures are
sufficient to in reducing the impacts of the dredging and filling activities on these aquatic life forms. More so,
bearing in mind that artisanal fishing on the lagoon is a means of sustenance for some people. Monitoring for
plankton and macrobenthos shall be implemented weekly in the first one month of commencement of dredging
and filling, and then, monthly for the rest of the reclamation period, until demobilisation. Post-demobilisation
monitoring shall be conducted monthly, three months after demobilisation from site. For fish and fisheries,
interview of fishermen and record of catches shall be conducted bi-weekly in the first month of commencement of
dredging and then bi-monthly through the remaining period of dredging, until demobilisation. Post-demobilisation
monitoring shall be conducted bi-monthly, four months after demobilisation. Table 7.3 presents the monitoring
schedule.
Table 7.3: Hydrobiology and Fisheries Monitoring Schedule
HYDROBIOLOGY AND FISHERIES MONITORING PLAN
Impact Indicators
Plankton community indices, Macrobenthos community indices, Fish catches and abundance.
Benchmark (s)
EIA data; Existing literature
Sampling location
At the same areas or very proximal to locations where measurements were taken in the EIA
Sampling Frequency
Plankton and Macrobenthos
- Weekly in the first one month of reclamation activities;
- Then, monthly throughout the reclamation period (up to demobilisation);
- Monthly, three months after demobilisation
Fish and Fisheries
- Bi-weekly in the first one months of reclamation activities;
- Then, bi-monthly throughout the reclamation period (up to demobilisation);
- Bi-monthly, four months after demobilisation
Responsible party
Regulator (s)
7.5.5
Waste Management Monitoring Plan
VONL has in place robust waste management policy, which is expected to be fully implemented by VONL
personnel and subcontractors. It is however important to monitor the effectiveness of the implementation of this
policy and its efficiency in ensuring proper management of wastes throughout the reclamation project. Monitoring
of waste management shall be by visual inspection of the work area and surrounding environment, inspection of
the waste management practices observed by personnel and records of waste handling. Waste management
P a g e | 345
monitoring shall be carried out bi-weekly in the first 2 months of commencement of reclamation and
subsequently, monthly until demobilisation. Post demobilisation monitoring shall be carried out two weeks after.
In the event that some waste issues are still in existence, post-demobilisation monitoring shall be conducted after
two weeks, again. Table 7.4 presents waste management monitoring schedule.
Table 7.4: Waste Management Monitoring Schedule
WASTE MANAGEMENT MONITORING PLAN
Impact Indicators
Visual aesthetics; waste management practices; waste management records
Benchmark (s)
Pre-work conditions (visual observations), VONL Waste Management Policy, FMEnv Standards
Sampling location
Reclamation area and environs, including road to site from Lekk-Epe Expressway.
Sampling Frequency
-
Bi-weekly in the first two months of reclamation activities;
Then, monthly throughout the reclamation period (up to demobilisation);
Two weeks post-demobilisation;
Another two weeks after if some issues still exist at the last monitoring.
Responsible party
Regulator (s)
Federal Ministry of Environment; Lagos State Ministry of Environment, Lagos State Waste
Management Authority (LAWMA)
7.5.6
Community Relations/Grievance Redress Mechanism
Good relationship with host community plays a key role in the success of any project. OIDC shall ensure that it
maintains good relationship with Ikateland, the host community for the proposed project. Such relationship shall
be extended to the most proximal settlement to the site, the Ebute-Ikate. Relationship with the communities shall
adopt the following approach (among others):
•
Continual consultation with the community to address issues of mutual concern;
•
Periodic courtesy visits to the community to relate with their views on the project;
•
Early notification of community leaders of the periods of commencement of reclamation activities and,
mutual discussion on how the project will have minimal impact on the people (especially artisanal fishermen)
Although no grievance is anticipated during the project implementation since the community leaders and all other
stakeholders expressed total support for the proposed project, OIDC shall work closely with the Ministry of
Waterfronts Infrastructure Development, Eti-Osa LGA, Oba Elegushi, and other applicable stakeholders to
quickly address any form of grievances that may arise due to the proposed reclamation project.
P a g e | 346
7.6
Conclusion
In view of the fact that thorough implementation of this EMP is key to environmental sustainability of the
proposed Orange Island reclamation Project, the proponent (OIDC) and the dredging Contractor (VONL) shall
ensure that every aspect of it is carried out as highlighted in the environmental management plan and as
necessary. It is also important to note that in view of unforeseen events/occurrence, this EMP can be modified in
order to enhance its effectiveness, especially when IMM discovers issues that are not addressed herein.
P a g e | 347
CHAPTER EIGHT
8.1
CONCLUSION
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusion
This Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has identified and documented the positive and negative impacts
that can result from the proposed Orange Island Reclamation. Notwithstanding that a few significant negative
impacts, especially those on the lagoon benthic ecology and aquatic biota, could occur, much more positive
impacts will accrue from the proposed reclamation. The anticipated benefits of the project outweigh the potential
negative impacts. More so, all the negative impacts that could result from the proposed project can be
adequately mitigated to conform to applicable regulatory limits. In view of available information, it is convincing,
that the proposed reclamation can be safely implemented
8.2
Recommendations
In order to ensure that the proposed Orange Island Reclamation project is implemented without significant
negative impacts on the natural and human environment, the following are recommended:
i.
All mitigation measures outlined in this EIA should be diligently implemented;
ii.
The recommendations in the EMP should be responsibly adhered to;
iii.
Documentation of all processes and actions as they relate to environmental safeguard should be taken
very seriously and reported appropriately;
iv.
Impact Mitigation monitoring reports should be carefully reviewed with a view to improving on
recommended mitigations measures, if impacts not covered in this EIA manifest.
Chapter Eight: Conclusion and Recommendation
P a g e | 348
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ACGIH (1995). Toxicology: The Basic Science of Poisons (Curtis D. Laassen et al (1996). Fifth Edition.
Adediran, S. A., and Adegoke, O. S. (1989): Evolution of sedimentary basins of the Gulf of Guinea. African Earth
sciences (ed. G. Matheis, and H. Schan delmeir) Botherdam, A. A. Balkema. 1987. 283-286.
Agbola T and Jinadu AM. 1997. Forced eviction and forced relocation in Nigeria: the experience of those evicted
from Maroko in 1990. Environment and Urbanization, 9: 271
Akintola, J. O. (1986): Rainfall distribution in Nigeria, 1892-1983. Published by Impact Publishers (Nig.) Ltd.
Ibadan, 380p. ISBN 978-2386-02-2.
Akobundu, I. O, Agyakwa C. W. (1987). A Handbook of West African Weeds, International Institute of Tropical
Agriculture
Alfred- ockiya, J.F. (1996). Studies on the ichthyofauna of Kolo creek, River State. Niger Delta Biologia 1 (2): 24
– 28
Allen, J. R. and Wells, J. W. (1962): Holocene Coral Banks and Subsidence in the Niger Delta. Jrn. Of Geology
V. 70, 381 – 397
Allen, J. R. C.;(1964): [1965 in chapter 4] The Nigerian Continental Margin: bottom sediments, Submarine
morphology, and geological evolution. Marine Geol. V.I., 289-332.
Allen, J. R. L. (1964) The Nigerian Continental Margin: Bottom Sediments, Sub-Marine Morphology and
Geological Evolution. Marine geol., V.1; 289-332
Allen, J. R. L., (1965) - Late quaternary Niger Delata, and adjacent areas: sedimentary environments and
lithofacies. AAPG. Bull. V.I, p289-332
Allen, J. R. L; and Wells, J. W., (1962): Holocene coral banks and subsidence in The Niger Delta. J. Geol., V. 70,
381-397.
Allison, M.E. Gabriel, U.U., Inko – Tariah, M.B., Davies, O.A. and Udeme – Naa, B. (1997). The fish assemblage
of Elechi creek River State, Nigeria. Niger Delta Biologia 2(1): 90 – 96
Barnes, R. S. K, Calow, P. and Olive, P. J. W. (1988). The invertebrates: A new synthesis. Blackwell Scientific
publications, Oxford,: 582 pp.
Barnes, R.S.K., Calow, P. and Olive, P.J.W. (1993). The invertebrates: a new synthesis. 2nd Edition Blackwell
Scientific Publications. London. 488pp.
Barnett,H.L. and Hunter, B.B. (1972). Illustrated genera of imperfect fungi . 3rd edition, Burgess Publishing Co.,
273 pp.
Beer, J.M. (1994). Minimizing NOx Emissions from Stationary Combustion: Reaction Engineering Methodology.
Chemical Engineering Science, Vol. 49, No. 24A. pp. 4067 – 4083
Bettrons, D.A.S. and Castrejon, E.S. (1999). Structure of benthic diatom assemblages from a mangrove
environment in a Mexican subtropical lagoon. Biotropica. 31(1): 48 – 70.
Bibliography
P a g e | 349
Boyd, C.E. and Lichtkoppler, F. (1979). Water quality management in pond fish cultures. Research and Den.
Ser. No.22 Project. Aubum Univ., Aubum Alabama, 30.
Bread, R.S, Murray, E.G.D and Smith N.R (1962): Bergey’s Manual of Determinative Bacteriology, 7th Edition.
The Williams and Wilkins Co.
Canter, L. W. (1996): Environmental Impact Assessment. Second Edition, New York, USA: McGraw Hill.
Chindah, A.C. and Osuammkpe, A. (1994). The fish assemblage of the lower Bonny River, Niger Delta, Nigeria.
Afr. J. Ecol. 32: 58 – 65
Colins, C.H, Lyne, P.M (1979): Microbiological methods. Butterworth. Chapters 20: 319 - 23, Chapters 21, 23,
25, 26, 28:436 – 442, Chapters 31, 32 and 33.
Cooke, R.U., and Doorkamp, J. C., (1974): Geomorphology in Environmental Management: An Introduction,
Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Dee, N. et al., (1973): Environmental evaluation system for water resources planning. Final report prepared by
Battele – Columbus for Bureau of Reclamation. Vol. 3
Delgado, C.L., Wada, N., Rosegrant, M.W., Meijer, S. and Ahmed, M. (2003). Fish to 2020: Supply and
demand in changing global markets. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington,
D.C. and Wordlfish Centre, Penang, Malaysia.
Department of Petroleum Resources (2002). Environmental Guidelines and Standards for Petroleum Industries
in Nigeria.
DIFCO Laboratories (1979): Manual for Microbiological and Clinical Laboratory Procedures 9th Edition. Publ.
Detroit, Michigan. Pp 160 – 161, 251- 252.
Edmondson, W. T. (1959). Freshwater Biology, 2nd ed. John Wiley and Sons Inc.1248pp
Edwards, A. W. A., (1986): Wetlands in southern Nigeria. In: Proceedings of the workshop on Nigerian wetlands.
Man and the Biosphere/UNESCO, 27-35.
Emmanuel B. E. (2009). The artisanal fishing gears, crafts technology and their efficiency in the Lekki lagoon,
Nigeria. Ph.D Thesis.University of Lagos. p. 256.
Emmanuel, B. E. and Chukwu, L.O. (2010). Spatial distribution of saline water and possible sources of intrusion
into a tropical freshwater lagoon and the transitional effects on the lacustrine ichthyofaunal diversity.
African Journal of Environmental Science and Technology 4(7): 480-491
Emmanuel, B.E. (2010). Assessment of fishing practices in a tropical low brackish lagoon ecosystem in south –
western Nigeria. ActaSatech 3(2) 69 – 80
Emmanuel, B.E. and Kusemiju, K. (2005). Variations in castnet catch in a tropical brackishwater pond. Journal of
Science Technology and Environmental.5 (1&2) 6-14
Emmanuel, B.E., Chukwu, L.O. and Azeez, L.O. (2008a). Cast net design characteristics, catch composition and
selectivity in tropical open lagoon. African Journal of Biotechnology 7(12): 2081 – 2089
Emmanuel, B.E., Chukwu, L.O. and Azeez, L.O. (2008b). Gillnet selectivity and catch rates of pelagic fish in
tropical coastal lagoonal ecosystem. African Journal of Biotechnology 7(21): 3962 – 3971
Emmanuel,B. E. and Onyema, I.C.(2007). The plankton and fishes of a tropical creek insouth –western Nigeria.
Turk. J. fish. Aquat. Sci. 7(2): 105 -113.
Bibliography
P a g e | 350
EPA (1995a), Survey of Control Technologies for Low Concentration Organic Vapour Gas Streams, US
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle
Park, NC. EPA-4546/R-95-003. May 1995.
FAO (1981). Tropical Forest Resources Assessment Project of the Global Environment Monitoring Systems
(GEMS). Forest Resources of Tropical Africa. Part 1 Regional Synthesis. 108p.
Federal Environmental Protection Agency (1992): Guidelines and Standards for Environmental Pollution Control
in Nigeria 238p.
Federal Environmental Protection Agency (1995): Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines: Oil and gas
industry projects.
Federal Environmental Protection Agency, FEPA (1991): Guidelines and Standard
Control in Nigeria.
for Environmental
Federal Office of Statistics (FOS, 2002)
Focus group discussion with adult female members of the Ikate community. May 2013.
Focus group discussion with adult male members of the Ikate community. May 2013.
Focus group discussion with the youth of Ikate community. May 2013.
Fuggle, R.F. & IM.A. Rabie. 1992. Environmental Management in South Africa. p. 823. Juta & Co, Ltd. Cape Town.
Fullerton, D. G., Bruce N., & Gordon, S. B. 2008. Indoor air pollution from biomass fuel smoke is a major source
health concern in the developing world. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and
Hygiene, 102(9), 843-851.
GEMS (1992): Global Environmental Monitoring System. An Operational Guide third Edition. GEMS/W.92.1.
Gratwicke, B., Marshall, B.E. and Nhiwatiwa, T. (2003). The distribution and relative abundance of stream fishes
in the upper management River, Zimbabwe, in relation to land use, pollutionand exotic predators. Afr. J.
Aqua. Sci. 28 (1): 25 -35.
Harris, W.H. 1992. Arboriculture-Integrated Management of Landscape, Trees, Shrubs, and Vines. Prentice-Hall
Inc. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Hrebenyk, B.W. Young, J.W.S., Radonjic, Z.R. (2003) Guidelines for Air Quality Dispersion Models Critical
Review & Recommendations. Prepared for: Water, Air & Climate Change Branch Ministry of Water,
Land & Air Protection 3 – 2975 Jutland Road Victoria, BC V8T 5J9.
Inter-organizational Committee on Guidelines and Principles for Social Impact Assessment, Vol.12, No. 2,
1994, p. 107-152
Jain, R.K. et al. '1993. Environmental Impact Analysis. p.509. McGraw-Hill, Inc. New York.
Jain, R.K., Urban, L.V. and Stacey (1976). Environmental Impact Analyses: A new Dimension Decision Making.
Van Nostrand Reinhold Environmental Engineering Series. 330p. McGraw-Hill, Inc. New York .
John Hutchinson, John McEwen Dalziel (1954). Flora of west tropical Africa: the British west African territories,
Liberia, the French and Portuguese territories south of latitude l8 ̊N. to Lake Chad, and Fernando Po Crown Agents for Oversea Governments and Administrations
Bibliography
P a g e | 351
Jones, H. A. and Hockey, R. D. (1964): The geology of part of Southwestern Nigeria. Geol. Survey Nig. Bulletin
No. 31, p.101.
Kadiri, M.O. (1999). Phytoplankton distribution in some coastal waters of Nigeria. Nigeria Journal of Botany.12
(1): 51 – 62.
Kampsax-Kruger & Sshwed Associates. 1977. Hydrogeology of Lagos Metropolis. Unpublished report submitted
to the Lagos State Ministry of Works and Planning.
Keay, R. W. J. (1959): An Outline of Nigerian Vegetation. 3rd Ed. Lagos Government Printers.
Kogbe C. A. (1976). Introduction to Geological Map Interpretation and Description. Elizabethan Publishing
Company
Kogbe, C. A. (1989): Geology of Nigeria (2nd Revised Edition). Nigeria : Rock View Ltd.
Kone, T. Teugel,G.G., Douba, V., Goorebi, G. and Kouamelan, E. P. (2003). First data on the inventory and the
distribution of the ichthyofauna of a small African Western Coast Basin: River Go Ivory Coast. Cybium.
Intl. Newspaper of Ichthyology. 27 (2)
Lange-Bertalot, H. (2001). Diatoms of Europe. Diatoms of the European Inland Waters and Comparable
Habitats. Vol.2. A.R.G. Gantner Verlag K.G. 520pp.
Leopold, L. B. Clarke, F. E., Henshaw, B. B. and Balsley, J. R. (1971): A procedure
for evaluating
environmental impacts. Geological Survey Circular. 645.
Government Print Office. Washington ,
U.S.A.
Lowe – McConnel, R.H. (1964). Fish communities in tropical freshwaters. Longman Limited, London. 340pp
Macgill (1994).Baseline ecological report for the Environmental Impact Assessment studies of South Forcados
Development project – Flowstations. Submitted to Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria,
Western Division, Warri.
Macgill (1996). Environmental Impact Assessment report of Opukushi/Opukushi North FDP. Submitted to Shell
Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria, Western Division, Warri.
Margalef R. (1968): Perspectives in ecological theory. 111 pp. University of Chicago Press.
McNeely, R.N, V.P. Neimanis and L. Dwyer (1979): Water Quality Sourcebook: A Guide to Water Quality
Parameters. Inland Waters Directorate, Water Quality Branch, Ottawa, Canada.
Michael Q (1977). Invertebrates of streams and Rivers. A key to identification. Edward Arnold Publishers Ltd.,
London. 84pp.
Mostafa YE. 2012. Environmental impacts of dredging and land reclamation at Abu Qir Bay, Egypt. Ain Shams
Engineering Journal 3, 1–15
National Population Commission; Federal Government of Nigeria (2006) Population Census. OFFICIAL
GAZETTE (FGP 71/52007/2,500(OL24):
NIOSH, 1996. National Occupational Research Agenda. National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health,
DHHS (NIOSH) Pub. No. 96-115. Cincinnati, OH Noire Ser. A. 2(2) :237-402.
Nwadukwe, F. O. (1995). Species abundance and seasonal variations in catch from two mangrove habitats in the
Lagos lagoon. Environ. Ecol. 13 (1): 121 – 128
Bibliography
P a g e | 352
Nwankwo, D. I. (1988). A preliminary Check-List of Planktonic Algae of Lagos Lagoon. Nigerian Journal of Basic
and Applied Sciences. 2(1): 73 – 85.
Nwankwo, D. I. (1995). Euglenoids of some Polluted Storm-water Channels in Lagos, Nigeria. Tropical
Freshwater Biology. 4: 29 – 39.
Nwankwo, D. I. and Akinsoji, A. (1988). Periphyton Algae of eutrophic Creek and their possible use as Indicator.
Nigerian Journal of Botany. 1: 96 – 105.
Nwankwo, D.I. (1990). Contribution to the Diatom flora of Nigeria. Diatoms of Lagos lagoon and the adjacent sea.
Nigerian Journal of Botany. 3: 53-70.
Nwankwo, D.I. (1998). The influence of sawmill wood wastes on diatom population at Oko-baba, Lagos, Nigeria.
Nigerian Journal Of Botany. 11: 15 – 24.
Nwankwo, D.I. (2004a). The Microalgae: Our indispensable allies in aquatic monitoring and biodiversity
sustainability. University of Lagos Press. Inaugural lecture seris. 44pp.
Nwankwo, D.I. (2004b). A Practical Guide to the study of algae. JAS Publishers, Lagos. Nigeria. 86pp.
Nigerian Meteorological Agency (2010). Nigeria Climate Review Bulletin 2010. Nigerian Meteorological Agency
Maitama-Abuja. Accessible at
http://www.nimetng.org/uploads/publication/2010%20Climate%20Review.pdf
Obioh, I.B., Oluwole, A.F., Akeredolu, F.A. and Asubiojo, F.I.O. (1994) - National inventory of air pollutants in
Nigeria: Emissions for 1998.
Ogbeibu, A.E. (2005). Biostatistics: A practical approach to research and data handling. Mindex Publishing
Company limited, Benin city, Nigeria.264pp.
Ojo, (1972). The Climates of West Africa, Heinemann Books Limited
Olaniyan C.I.O. (1968). West African Animal Ecology. Heneiman Educational Books Ltd. London 167pp.
Olaniyan, C.I.O. (1975). An introduction to West African Ecology. Heinemann Education Books Ltd., London.
170pp.
Onyema, 1.C., Okpara, C.U., Ogbebor, C.I. Otudeko, O. and Nwankwo, D.I. (2007). Comparative studies of the
water chemistry characteristics and temporal plankton variations at two polluted sites along the Lagos
lagoon, Nigeria. Ecology, Environment and Conservation. 13(1): 1 – 12.
Onyema, I.C. (2007). Mudflat microalgae of a tropical bay in Lagos, Nigeria. Asian Journal of Microbiology,
Biotechnology and Environmental Sciences. 9 (4): 877 – 883.
Onyema, I.C. (2008). A checklist of phytoplankton species of the Iyagbe lagoon, Lagos. Journal of Fisheries and
Aquatic Sciences. 3(3): 167 – 175.
Owan R. (2005). The Nigeria Power Industry – The Next Goldmine. A Lecture delivered at the Nigeria – British
Chamber of Commerce in Lagos, Nigeria, October 13, 2005.
Papadakis, J. (1961): Crop ecology in West Africa. FAO: UN Pub. MR/16439/1, Vol. 1.
Parson T. R., Maita, Y and Lalli, C. M. (1984): A manual of chemical and biological methods for seawater
analysis. Pergmon Press 173 pp.
Bibliography
P a g e | 353
Patrick, R. and Reimer, C.W. (1966). The diatoms of the United States exclusive of Alaska and Hawaii (Vol. 1).
Monogr. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia. 686pp.
Patrick, R. and Reimer, C.W. (1975). The diatoms of the United States exclusive of Alaska and Hawaii (Vol. 2,
part 1). Monogr. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia. 213pp.
Peterson, G.L, Gemmel, R.S and Shofer, J.L , (1974) : Assessment of Environmental Impact , Multiple
Disciplinary Judgement of Large- Scale Project ,Ekistic Raeigh. 324pp.
Quigley R. 2006. Health Impact Assessment International Best Practice Principles. International
Rau, J.G. & D.C. Wooten. 1980. Environmental Impact Analysis Handbook. McGraw-Hill Book Company. New
York.
Rosowski, J.R. (2003). Photosynthetic Euglenoids. In: Freshwater Algae of North America. Ecology and
Classification, Wehr, J.D. and Sheath, R.G. (Eds). Academic Press, New York. pp 383 – 422.
Samet, J.M., Marbury, Marian C., and Spengler, J.D. (1991). "Health Effects and Sources of Indoor Air Pollution,
Part I." American Review of Respiratory Disease 136:1486 -1508.
SCOPE 5 (1979) Environmental Impact Assessment. 2nd Edition. Serle, W., Morel, G. J. & Hartwig, W. (1977). A
Field Guide to the Birds of West Africa. Collins, London.
Scott, J.S. (1966). Report of the fisheries of the Niger Delta special Area. Niger Delta Development Board. 109pp
Sinha, S., and Sridharan, P.V., 1999. Present and future Assessment of Noise Level in the Neyveli Region.
Journal of Environmental Studies and Policy 2(1), 1 – 13
Siver, P.A. (2003). Synurophyte algae. In: Freshwater Algae of North America. Ecology and Classification. Wehr,
J.D. and Sheath, R.G. (Eds). Academic Press, New York. pp523 - 558.
Slotta, L.S. and Williamson, K.J. (1974). Estuarine Impacts related to dredge spoiling. Proceedings of the sixth
dredging seminar. Centre for Dredging Studies Report No. CDS – 176 (Sea Grant Report TAMU – SG –
74 – 104) March 1974.pp 11 - 37
Smoorenburg, G.F., Axelson, A., Babisch, W., Diamond, I.G., Ising, H., Marth, E., Miedeman, H.M.E., Ohistronm,
E., Rice, C.G., Abbing, E.W.R., Van de Wiel, J.A.G., Passchier-Vermeer, W., 1996. Effects of noise on
Health. Noise/News International, 4(4), 137 – 150.
Sobulu, R. A. and Adepetu, J. A. (1987) Soil Testing and Fertilizer Formulation for Crop Production in Nigeria .
Unpublished.
Somorin Z. 28 Oct 2011. Dredging: Lagos Community Seeks Fashola’s Intervention. Available at:
http://www.thisdaylive.com/articles/dredging-lagos-community-seeks-fashola-s-intervention/101498/
Accessed 08 April 2013.
Stracher, P. (1995): Present understanding of the Niger delta hydrocarbon habitat. In: Oti, M.N. and Postma. G.
(eds.) Geology of Deltas. A.A. Balkema Rotterdam, pp: 257-267
Tait, R.V. (1981). Elements of Marine Ecology. Butterworts, London. 314pp.
The Biodiversity of African Plants - edited by L.J.G. van der Maesen, X.M. van der Burgt, J.M. van Medenbach
de Rooy, Keay, et. al., 1964)
Bibliography
P a g e | 354
Udo, E. J (ed.) (1986) Laboratory Manual for Agronomic Studies in Soil, Plant and Microbiology. Department of
Agronomy, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria.
UNDP. (2001): Human Development Report Nigeria. Oxford: Oxford University Press
United States Environmental Protection Agency (1989). Office of Air and Radiation. Report to Congress on
Indoor Air Quality. Volume II: Assessment and Control of Indoor Air
Pollution, pp. 1,4-14. EPA 4001-89-001C
US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2012. Health Impact Assessment. Available at
http://www.cdc.gov/healthyplaces/hia.htm, accessed March 25, 2013.
Vanlandingham S.L. (1982). Guide to the identification and environmental requirements and pollution tolerance
of freshwater blue-green algae (cyanophyta). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA – 60.
Victor, R. and Dickson, D.T. (1985). Macrobenthic invertebrates of a perturbed stream in Southern Nigeria.
Environ. Pollution (Series A): 38: 99 – 107
Victor, R. and Ogbeibu, A.E. (1986). Recolonization in macrobenthic invertebrates in a Nigeria stream after
pesticide treatment and associated disruption. Environ. Pollution. (Series A) 41: 125 – 137
Vijayaraghavan, S. (1971). Seasonal variation in primary production in three tropical ponds. Hydrobiologia, 38:
395-407.
Waife, G. and Frid, CL.J (2001). Marine zooplankton of West Africa. Marine Biodiversity Capacity Building in the
West African Sub-region. Darwin Initiative Reports 5, Ref. 162/7/45/. 120pp
Wathern, P. 19813. Environmental Impact Assessment, Theory and practice. p. 332. Routledge. New York.
White, 1983:
UNESCO/AETFA/UNSO Vegetation map of Africa. Descriptive memoir and map. UNESCO,
Paris. 356 pp and map.
Whiteman A. J. (1982). Nigeria, its petroleum geology, resources, and potential, Volume 1.Graham & Trotman, 394 pages
Whitford, L.A. and Schmacher, G.H. (1973). A manual of freshwater algae. Sparks press Raeigh. 324pp.
WHO (2000) Air Quality Guidelines for Europe World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe,
Copenhagen, WHO Regional Publications, European Series, No. 91.
WHO (2000). World Health Organisation Ambient Air Quality Guidelines.
Witkowski, A., Lange – Bertalot, H. and Metzeltin, D. (2000). Diatom flora of Marine Coasts 1. (219 plates).
A.R.G.Gantner Verlag K.G. 925pp.
World Bank Technical Paper no. 376. Roads and the Environment-A handbook. Edited by Koji Tsunokawa and
Christopher Hoban. The World Bank Washington, D.C.
Bibliography
P a g e | 355
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1:
EIA NOTIFICATION LETTER TO FEDERAL MINISTRY OF
ENVIRONMENT AND RELATED CORRESPONDENCE
Appendices
P a g e | 356
Appendices
P a g e | 357
APPENDIX 2:
EIA NOTIFICATION LETTER TO LAGOS STATE MINISTRY
FOR THE ENVIRONMENT
Appendices
P a g e | 358
Appendices
P a g e | 359
Appendices
P a g e | 360
APPENDIX 3:
FEDERAL MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT APPROVAL FOR
EIA IMPLEMENTATION
Appendices
P a g e | 361
Appendices
P a g e | 362
APPENDIX 4: VAN Oords NIGERIA LIMITED QUALITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS CERTIFICATES
Appendices
P a g e | 363
Appendices
P a g e | 364
APPENDIX 5:
SOCIOECONOMICS AND HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT
STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE
ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL AND HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENTQUESTIONNAIRE
Introduction
•
•
•
•
•
•
INDIVIDUAL/HOUSEHOLD INTERVIEW SCHEDULE
Good day Sir/Madam. I am from Ecopro Resources Limited (working for Orande Island Development Company),
conducting Environmental Impact Assessment for a proposed land reclamation ex ercise in this area.
I would like to know your views about the potential environmental, social and economic impact of the project on
people in this community, and how any undesirable consequences of the land reclamation and mixed estate could
be avoided/mitigated.
We have received permission from appropriate authorities to conduct this study. The interview will only take a few
minutes. You have been randomly selected for this interview. The information you provide will be very useful in
advising appropriate authorities and agencies on modalities for ensuring that the proposed project does not
adversely affect people in this community. It will also aid further consultation and engagement with the community
members in addressing the challenges that the proposed project may pose to them.
Your participation in this study is voluntary. You can skip questions you don’t want to answer, and you can stop
completing the survey at any time.
Your honest and sincere responses will be highly appreciated. You are assured that information given shall be
treated with confidentiality and used for the purpose of this research only.
Thank you.
Your answers will be treated in strict confidence.
CONSENT: Are you willing to be interviewed?
Yes
No
Questionnaire number
Section 1: Survey Identification
S/No
Issues
Responses
1. Local government of interview:
Response
codes
2. Town of interview:
3. Name of Interviewer
4. Language of interview
English .................................................1
Pidgin English ......................................2
Yoruba .................................................3
Other language (specify) .....................4
5. Date of interview (ddmm e.g. 2801)
6. Time interview started (hhmm, e.g. 0820)
7. Time interview ended (hhmm, e.g. 0850)
Appendices
P a g e | 365
Section 2: Socio-Demographic Information of Respondent
8. Sex of respondent (Interviewer indicate as appropriate)
9.
How old are you now? ( Age last birthday in years)
10. Date of birth (DD/MM/YYYY)
11. What is your current marital status?
12. What is your ethnic background?
13. What is your State of origin?
14. What is your religion?
15. What is your highest level of education completed?
16. Which are the major ethnic groups in this community?
17. How long have you been living in this community? (number of
years)
18. What is your current occupational status?
19. What is/are the major occupation(s) of the people in this
community?
20. What is your main source of income?
What is your profession?
21. How long have you been working (number of months/years)
22. Where do you work?
23. How far away from here is your work location?
Male .................................................... 1
Female ................................................ 2
……….. years
……/……/…….
Single (never married) ........................ 1
Cohabiting ........................................... 2
Married ................................................ 3
Separated ........................................... 4
Divorced .............................................. 5
Widowed ............................................. 6
………………………….
………………………….
Christianity .......................................... 1
Islam ................................................... 2
Traditional religion............................... 3
Atheist ................................................. 4
Other (please specify) ......................... 5
No formal education ............................ 1
Quranic education ............................... 2
Primary................................................ 3
Secondary ........................................... 4
Post-Secondary (degree) .................... 5
Post-Sec (non-degree)........................ 6
Others (pls specify) ............................. 7
Yoruba ................................................ 1
Egun.................................................... 2
Awori ................................................... 3
Igbo ..................................................... 4
……………. years
Employed/self-employed..................... 1
Unemployed ........................................ 2
Retired ................................................ 3
Housewife ........................................... 4
Student/Apprentice ............................. 5
Business/Trading ................................ 1
Farming ............................................... 2
Fishing ................................................ 3
Sand mining ........................................ 4
Skilled work (artisanship) .................... 5
Teaching ............................................. 6
Civil service employee ........................ 7
…… years
……….months
Within house ....................................... 1
Within 1 km ......................................... 2
Appendices
P a g e | 366
1 – 2 km .............................................. 3
Outside this community....................... 4
24. On the average, how much do you, as a person, receive as
income from all sources per month?
25. How many members of your household are gainfully employed?
26. What is the estimated total income (from all sources) of your
household?
Section 3a: General Health Information
27. Would you say your health in general is …? (PLEASE SELECT
ONLY ONE)
28. About how much do you weigh without shoes?
29. About how tall are you without shoes?
* measure & weigh respondent if possible
30. Has a doctor, nurse or other health professional ever told you that
you have diabetes or sugar disease?
31. Has a doctor, nurse or other health professional ever told you that
you have hypertension?
* ask if they are taking any drugs for BP
32. Have you been told by a doctor, nurse, or other health
professional that you have asthma?
33. Do you have any difficulty with hearing?
Section 3b: Health coverage and access
34. During the past 12 months, were you unable to pay or did you
have problems paying for medical bills, either for yourself or any
family member in your household?
35. Do you current have any type of health insurance or arrangement
in which your medical bills are paid or subsidized?
Please probe and ask respondent to specify
36. What kind of place do you go to MOST OFTEN when you are sick
or need advice about your health?
* Allow respondent to pick more than one response.
37. Do you now smoke cigarettes every day, some days, or not at all?
38. On the average, how many cigarettes do you now smoke a day?
39. Do you use tobacco in any other form? Specify
40. Are fresh fruits and vegetables easily available in your
neighborhood?
Section 4: Household Situation and Facilities
41. Type of house
N …………..
Males =
Females =
N …………..
Excellent ………………1
Very good……………...2
Good……………………3
Fair……………………..4
Poor…………………….5
Don’t know…………….6
…………………….kilograms
...... meters
…..centimeters
Yes………..1
No…………2
Don’t know ……3
Yes………..1
No…………2
Yes………..1
No…………2
Yes………..1
No…………2
Yes………..1
No…………2
Traditional Healer/Herbalist….1
Chemist/Drug store…………2
Clinic/health center/hospital….3
Church/Prayer House………..4
Others( Please specify)………5
Don’t know ………………….6
Every day............1
Some days...........2
Not at all............3
Don’t know.........4
Yes………..1
No…………2
Bungalow ............................................ 1
2/3 storey building ............................... 2
Appendices
P a g e | 367
Other type (specify)............................. 3
42. Do you own or rent your house?
43. Type of material house’s walls are made of:
(Interviewer observe)
44. How many rooms are used by your household in this building?
(Count living room as one room)
45. Including your own household, how many households live in this
compound?
46. Including you, how many people live in this household?
47. Including you, how many people living in this household are within
these age groups?
48. What is your estimated total monthly expenditure on the following?
49. Do you own the apartment/house in which you currently live or are
you renting?
50. What is the major means of transportation in this community?
51. Do you have electricity in this house?
52. If “Yes”, what is the source of electricity supply to most houses in
the community?
53. Is electricity supply regular in this area?
54. How do you get most of the water you use here daily?
55. Is the source of water reliable?
56. Is the water good for drinking?
Own………………..1
Rent………………..2
Others (specify)……3
Cement ............................................... 1
Wood/planks ....................................... 2
Mud/mud bricks................................... 3
Thatch ................................................. 4
Other (specify) .................................... 5
…….. rooms.
………
1. No. of males ……………..
2. No. of females ……………
3. Total …..……………….…
1. Persons aged 12 yrs or less …
2. Persons 13 – 19 ………
3. Persons 20 – 45 ……..
4. Persons 45 – 60 ……………
5. Persons over 60 yrs. ……….
Food N ................................................ 1
Clothing N ........................................... 2
Housing/Rent N................................... 3
Transportation N ................................ 4
Schooling/education N ....................... 5
Medical care/health N ........................ 6
Other (specify) .................................... 7
Own the house .................................... 1
Fee-paying tenant ............................... 2
Non-fee-paying tenant ........................ 3
Official quarter..................................... 4
Other (pls specify) ............................... 5
Yes ...................................................... 1
No ....................................................... 2
PHCN .................................................. 1
Private electricity provider ................... 2
Generator ............................................ 3
No electricity ....................................... 4
Other sources (specify) ....................... 5
Yes ...................................................... 1
No ....................................................... 2
Yard well/borehole .............................. 1
Community well/borehole.................... 2
Stream/pond/river ............................... 3
Public standpipe.................................. 4
Yard/Shared standpipe ....................... 5
Water seller ......................................... 6
Other (specify) .................................... 7
Reliable ............................................... 1
Not reliable .......................................... 2
Don’t Know.......................................... 3
Yes ...................................................... 1
No ....................................................... 2
Don’t Know.......................................... 3
Appendices
P a g e | 368
57. What type of toilet facility does this household most frequently
use? (Tick only one)
58. What is the most commonly used mode for disposal
of solid waste from this household? Or: How does
your household dispose of most of its solid waste?
(Tick only one)
WC toilet (private) ............................... 1
VIP Latrine (private) ............................ 2
Public toilet.......................................... 3
Other types(Specify) ........................... 4
No toilet facility .................................... 5
Dumping ground in neighbourhood ..... 1
Truck pusher/private refuse collector .. 2
Neighbourhood bin/skip ...................... 3
Bin/drum outside house ...................... 4
Other types(Specify) ........................... 5
59. Which of the following items do you possess/use in your
household and how many?
Television set
Radio
Satellite connection for TV
Computer/laptop
Internet connection
Mobile phone
Fridge/freezer
Gas cooker
Camera
Electric fan
Audio stereo set
Air conditioners
Motor cars/vans/vehicles
Motor bike
Bicycle
Section 5: Community Facilities
60. Do you have any of the following in this community?
a) Post office
b) Recreational center/space
c) Government/public primary school
d) Government/public secondary school
e) Market
f) Fire station
g) Police station
h) Government Hospital
h) Private hospital
61. Are there street lights in this community?
Number of items
Time of usage per
week (h)
Yes
No
Don’t Know
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
Yes ...................................................... 1
No ....................................................... 2
62. If “Yes”, ask: Do the street lights work regularly?
Yes ...................................................... 1
No ....................................................... 2
Section 6: Awareness about Planned Land Reclamation and Mixed Estate Project
63. Are you aware about the planned land reclamation and mixed Yes ...................................................... 1
estate project in this area?
No ....................................................... 2
64. If “Yes”, how did you first know about the planned project?
65. What is your attitude to the planned land
reclamation and mixed estate project in this area?
66. Give reasons for your response to Q49
Favourable to land reclamation ........... 1
Unfavourable to land reclamation ....... 2
Indifferent
............ 3
Section 7: Potential Effects of the Proposed Land Reclamation and Mixed Estate
67. How do you think the land reclamation and mixed estate project in
Appendices
P a g e | 369
this area could affect you as an individual? (Probe for effects on
daily life activities, economic activities, social activities, etc.)
this area could affect your family/household? (Probe for effects on
daily life activities, economic activities, social activities, fishing
access, farm land, water, etc.)
this area could affect your community? (Probe for effects on daily
life activities, economic activities, social activities, fishing access,
farm land, water, etc.)
70. What are the problems that the land reclamation and mixed estate
project is likely to bring to this community? (Probe for impact on
sources of livelihood, accommodation, social facilities and
infrastructure, etc.)
71. What other problems do you think could arise from the land
reclamation land reclamation and mixed estate project in this
area?
72. What solutions can you proffer to solve the above-identified
problems?
73. Do you foresee any possible conflict between the current
residents/indigenes of this community and the project?
Yes ...................................................... 1
No ....................................................... 2
74. What do you think should be done to avoid such conflicts?
75. In what ways do you think the project activities could conflict with
the life of the people?
76. What do you think should be done to avoid such conflicts?
77. What benefits do you think this community can derive from the
land reclamation land reclamation and mixed estate project here?
(Probe for business and employment opportunities, provision of
essential facilities etc.)
78. Are there some socio-cultural artifacts (e.g. shrines or other sacred things) in
this community that may be affected by the land reclamation and mixed
estate project?
79. If “Yes”, please mention the socio-cultural artifacts.
Yes.......................................1
No ........................................2
80. Can
such
socio-cultural
artifacts/sacred
places
be Yes ...................................... 1
transferred/relocated/replicated in a new location?
No........................................ 2
81. Do you think there could be some resistance/ objection by people to land Yes....................................... 1
reclamation and mixed estate?
No ........................................ 2
82. If “Yes”, why do you think people may resist/ object the land
reclamation and mixed estate?
83. What do you think can be done to minimize or overcome such
resistance/objection?
84. Do you have any fears or concerns about the land
reclamation and mixed estate project?
Appendices
P a g e | 370
Section 8: Social/Community Network
85. Are there some influential associations/clubs/social groups in this
area? (Probe for CDAs, business/trade/occupational groups,
social groups/clubs, religious groups, etc)
86. If “Yes”, please mention the associations/ clubs/social groups in
this area.
87. Who are the members
groups/associations?
of
the
executive
of
Yes ...................................................... 1
No ....................................................... 2
these
88. Do you belong to any of these association/ club/social group in
this area?
89. If “Yes”, please mention the associations/ clubs/social groups you
belong to in this area
Yes ...................................................... 1
No ....................................................... 2
90. Are there youth-based groups in this community?
Yes ...................................................... 1
No ....................................................... 2
91. Can you name such groups that you know exist in this
community?
92. Is there any vigilante group in this community?
Yes ...................................................... 1
No ....................................................... 2
93. If yes, who are the people in charge of the activities of the vigilante
group?
94. How are the activities of the vigilante group controlled in this
community?
95. How is the vigilante group funded?
96. How is information such as date of community meetings
communicated to the people in this community?
97. How are important decisions taken in this community?
98. What other comment do you have to add to what we have
discussed so far?
This is the end of the interview. Thank you very much Sir/Ma.
Interviewer record time interview ended.
Appendices
P a g e | 371
APPENDIX 6:
CONSULTATION ATTENDANCE LISTS
Federal Ministry of Environment Site Verification Visit Attendance List
Appendices
P a g e | 372
Lagos State Ministry for the Environment Site Verification Visit Attendance List
Appendices
P a g e | 373
Consultation with Lagos State Ministry of Water front Infrastructure Development
Attendance List
Appendices
P a g e | 374
Consultation with Eti-Osa Local Government; Attendance List (1st and 2nd Visits)
First Visit
Second Visit
Appendices
P a g e | 375
Consultation with Ikate Community – Attendance List
Initial Consultation with Elders (Men)
Appendices
P a g e | 376
With Ebute Ikate Women
Appendices
P a g e | 377
Appendices
P a g e | 378
With Ebute-Ikate Men
Appendices
P a g e | 379
Appendices
P a g e | 380
With Ebute-Ikate Youth
Appendices
P a g e | 381
Appendices
P a g e | 382
Consultation with Itedo Community – Attendance List
With Waterside Dwellers
Appendices
P a g e | 383
With Harrison Family
Appendices
P a g e | 384
With Ogunyemi Family (Men)
Appendices
P a g e | 385
With Ogunyemi Family (Women)
Appendices
P a g e | 386
Consultation with Nigeria Conservation Foundation Lekki – Attendance List
Appendices
P a g e | 387
Attendance at Draft EIA Public Review
Appendices
P a g e | 388
APPENDIX 7:
GEOTECHNICAL BOREHOLE LOGS
Appendices
P a g e | 389
APPENDIX 8:
LABORATORY PROCEDURES
Appendices
P a g e | 390
APPENDIX 9:
MoU BETWEEN LASG AND FWDL
Appendices
P a g e | 391
APPENDIX 10:
AGREEMENT BETWEEN LASG AND FWDL
Appendices
P a g e | 392
APPENDIX 11:
QUARRY LEASE FROM MINISTRY OF MINES AND STEEL
DEVELOPMENT
Appendices
P a g e | 393

EIA Report - MakarioWorks

Transcription

Similar documents

holiday recep - Orange County Business Council

Recipe Glühwein

Chapter XIV. In C,onclusion - Man-O

Hand-woven from 100% cotton dhurrie, the talented Bravo rug is

ing as well as ideal for growing macadamia nuts, coffee, tropical

Islands in the sun by Hans Fabricius SC, Pretoria Bar

Fort George Island…Did You Know? Flyer

fechaduras de madeira do corvo - centro regional de apoio ao

Nosy Iranja - Nosy Be Original

Long Island Aquatic Club