Sustainable Remediation and Rehabilitation of Biodiversity and Habitats of Oil Spill Sites In

Sustainable Remediation and Rehabilitation of Biodiversity and Habitats of Oil Spill Sites in

the Niger Delta

AnnexAnnex Ia:Ia: KoloKolo CreekCreek BiophysicalBiophysical ReportReport

A report by the independent IUCN - Niger Delta Panel (IUCN-NDP) to the Shell Petroleum Development Company Ltd of Nigeria (SPDC)

About IUCN

IUCN, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, helps the world find pragmatic solutions to our most pressing environment and development challenges.

IUCN’s work focuses on valuing and conserving nature, ensuring effective and equitable governance of its use, and deploying nature-based solutions to global challenges in climate, food and development. IUCN supports scientific research, manages field projects all over the world, and brings governments, NGOs, the UN and companies together to develop policy, laws and best practice.

IUCN is the world’s oldest and largest global environmental organization, with more than 1,200 government and NGO Members and almost 11,000 volunteer experts in some 160 countries. IUCN’s work is supported by over 1,000 staff in 45 offices and hundreds of partners in public, NGO and private sectors around the world. www.iucn.org

Au sujet de l’UICN

L’UICN, l’Union internationale pour la conservation de la nature, aide à trouver des solutions pratiques aux problèmes de l’environnement et du développement les plus pressants de l’heure.

Valoriser et conserver la nature, assurer une gouvernance efficace et équitable de son utilisation, et développer des solutions basées sur la nature pour relever les défis mondiaux du climat, de l'alimentation et du développement, tels sont les domaines dans lesquels s'exercent les activités de l'UICN. L’Union soutient la recherche scientifique, gère des projets dans le monde entier et réunit les gouvernements, les ONG, l’ONU et les entreprises en vue de générer des politiques, des lois et de bonnes pratiques.

L’UICN est la plus ancienne et la plus grande organisation mondiale de l’environnement. Elle compte plus de 1 200 Membres, gouvernements et ONG, et près de 11 000 experts bénévoles dans quelque 160 pays. Pour mener à bien ses activités, l’UICN dispose d’un personnel composé de plus de 1 000 employés répartis dans 45 bureaux et bénéficie du soutien de centaines de partenaires dans les secteurs public, privé et ONG, dans le monde entier. www.uicn.org

Acerca de la UICN

La UICN, la Unión Internacional para la Conservación de la Naturaleza, contribuye a encontrar soluciones pragmáticas para los principales desafíos ambientales y de desarrollo que enfrenta el planeta.

El trabajo de la Unión se centra en valorar y conservar la naturaleza, en asegurar la gobernanza efectiva y equitativa en su utilización, y en la aplicación de soluciones basadas en la naturaleza a los desafíos globales en el clima, la alimentación y el desarrollo. La UICN apoya la investigación científica, gestiona proyectos de campo en todo el mundo, y reúne a los gobiernos, las ONG, las Naciones Unidas y las empresas con miras a desarrollar políticas, legislación y prácticas óptimas.

La UICN es la organización medioambiental más antigua y más grande del mundo, con más de 1200 Miembros, gubernamentales y no gubernamentales, además de unos 11.000 expertos voluntarios en cerca de 160 países. Para su labor, la UICN cuenta con el apoyo de un personal compuesto por más de 1000 empleados, repartidos en 45 oficinas, y cientos de asociados de los sectores público, no gubernamental y privado de todo el mundo. www.uicn.org

The designation of geographical entities in this book, and the presentation of the material, do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IUCN concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of IUCN.

Published by: IUCN, Gland, Switzerland

Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorized without prior written permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged.

Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission of the copyright holder.

Citation: IUCN Niger – Delta Panel, 2013. Sustainable Remediation and Rehabilitation of Biodiversity and Habitats of Oil Spill Sites in the Niger Delta. Main Report including recommendations for the future. A report by the independent IUCN - Niger Delta Panel (IUCN-NDP) to the Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria (SPDC). January 2013. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.

ISBN: 978-2-8317-1617-6

Cover photos: Image of the Niger Delta from space (courtesy of NASA), with community (first line (all by Alex Chindah) and main habitats overlain (second line from top left to right: lowland forest (Alex Chindah); freshwater (Alex Chindah); barrier islands (Friday Idogiye Amain); and mangroves (nigerdeltarising.org).

Layout by: Nigerian Environmental Study/Action Team

Produced by: IUCN–Niger Delta Panel

Printed by: IUCN

Available from: IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) Business and Biodiversity Programme (BBP) Rue Mauverney 28 1196 Gland Switzerland Tel +41 22 999 0000 Fax +41 22 999 0002 [email of appropriate programme/person] www.iucn.org/publications

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables ...... 7 List of Figures ...... 8 List of Plates ...... 8 List of abbreviations and acronyms ...... 9

Preface………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 12

Executive Summary ...... 13

1. Introduction ...... 17 1.1 Background information ...... 17 1.2 Post impact assessment ...... 19 1.3 Study objectives and work scope ...... 19 1.4 Choice of Kolo Creek for impact assessment study ...... 20 1.5 Legal and administrative framework ...... 21 1.5.1 National environmental policy ...... 22 1.5.2 Pollution abatement regulation…...... 22 1.5.3 Management of hazardous and solid waste regulation...... 22 1.5.4 Land Use Act ...... 22 1.5.5 Forestry Act ...... 22 1.5.6 Criminal Code ...... 22 1.5.7 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria ...... 22 1.5.8 Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection Act ...... 23 1.5.9 International conventions and guidelines ...... 23 1.5.10 National regulatory bodies ...... 24

2. Spill records around Kolo ...... 26

3. Methodology ...... 27 3.1 Sampling strategy …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 27 3.1.1 Sampling design……………….…………………………………………………………………………………. 29 3.1.2 Positioning………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 29 3.2 Water quality ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 29 3.2.1 Field methodology………………..……………………………………………………………………………. 29 3.2.2 Quality Assurance/Quality Control …………………………………………………………………………………. 31 3.2.3 Laboratory analysis………….…………………………………………………………………………………. 32 3.2.4 Quality Assurance/Quality Control …………………………………………………………………………………. 34 3.3 Soil quality …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 34 3.3.1 Field methodology…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 34 3.3.2 Quality Assurance/Quality Control …………………………………………………………………………………. 35 3.3.3 Laboratory analysis ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 35 3.4 Hydrobiological …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 36 3.4.1 Zooplankton/phytoplankton studies ………………………………………………………………………………. 36 3.4.2 Field methodology ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 36 3.5 Wildlife ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 39

4. Results and Discussions ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 41 4.1 Surface and ground water quality ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 41 4.1.1 PH …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 41 4.1.2 Temperature …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 42 4.1.3 Electrical Conductivity (EC) ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 42

4.1.4 Dissolved Oxygen (DO) ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 42 4.1.5 Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 42 4.1.6 Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) ……………………………………………………………………………….. 43 4.1.7 Nutrients……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 43 4.1.8 Chloride/oil/grease ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 43 4.1.9 Heavy metals ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 43 4.2 Sediment quality ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 44 4.2.1 PH, conductivity and THC………………………………………………………………………………………………… 44 4.2.2 Exchangeable ion (potassium ions)………………………………………………………………………………….. 44 4.2.3 Nutrients…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 44 4.2.4 Organic matter content and carbon/nitrogen ratio…………………………………………………………. 44 4.3 Soil quality ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 45 4.3.1 Soil colour/texture…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 45 4.3.2 Soil classification……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 45 4.3.3 Chemical characteristics………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 46 4.4 Hydrobiological status ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 47 4.4.1 Phytoplankton community ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 47 4.4.2 Periphyton ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 49 4.4.3 Aquatic macrophytes ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 51 4.4.4 Zooplankton ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 52 4.4.5 Macrobenthos ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 54 4.5 Wildlife …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 55 4.5.1 Mammals ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 55 4.5.2 Avifauna …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 58 4.5.3 Reptiles …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 60 4.5.4 Amphibians …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 62 4.5.5 Conservation issues in ecological zones of the Niger Delta …………………………………………….. 62 4.6 Fish and fisheries …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 63 4.6.1 Fish species composition ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 64 4.6.2 Fishing gear types ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 64 4.6.3 Role of various people in the fisheries ……………………………………………………………………………. 65 4.6.4 Shrimp fisheries ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 65

5. Conclusions…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 66

References ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 67

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

3.1 Coordinates of water sampling stations and in situ measurements 30 3.2 Location and coordinates of soil sampling stations 34 3.3 Summary of measurement methods for soil physicochemical 34 parameters

4.1 Results for physicochemical parameters of water samples from 40 Kolo Creek Field, October 2012 4.2 Petroleum and heavy metal levels in water samples from Kolo 42 Creek Field 4.3 Results for physicochemical parameters of sediment samples 44 from Kolo Creek, October 2012 4.4 Results for physicochemical parameters of soil samples from Kolo 46 Creek Field, October 2012 4.5 Plankton density and distribution for Kolo Creek, October 2012 48 4.6 Periphyton density and distribution for Kolo Creek, October 2012 49 4.7 Macrophytes recorded in the sampled area in Kolo Creek Field, 50 October 2012 4.8 Zooplankton density and distribution for Kolo Creek, October 52 2012 4.9 Composition, distribution and abundance of macrofauna in the 54 sampled stations 4.10 Mammalian wildlife occurring in Kolo Creek area 55 4.11 Avian wildlife species occurring in Kolo Creek area 57 4.12 Common reptiles of the Kolo Creek area 61 4.13 Common fish species in Kolo Creek Area 62

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE PAGE

1.1 The Niger Delta Region showing Bayelsa and key towns/LGAs 17

3.1 Map of Kolo Creek Area showing sampling stations 30

4.1 Relative abundance of phytoplankton taxa from Kolo Creek area, 48 October 2012 4.2 Relative abundance of Periphyton taxa from Kolo Creek area, 51 October 2012 4.3 Relative abundance of zooplankton taxa from Kolo Creek area, 54 October 2012 4.4 The relative proportion of benthic fauna in the study area 55

LIST OF PLATES

PLATE PAGE

3.1 Briefing the Biophysical Team on sampling strategy at Yenagoa 29 3.2 Sampling for phytoplankton at one of the stations in Kolo Creek 29 field 3.3 Typical rain forest vegetation in Imiringi 38

4.1 Macrophytes at one of the Kolo Creek Field stations 52 4.2 Some of the wildlife species sold in bush market in Kolo Creek 57 area

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

AAS Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer AG Associated Gas ALARP As Low as Reasonably Practicable APHA American Public Health Association B Barium

BaCl2 Barium Chloride

BaSO4 Barium Sulphate BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand BSMEnv Bayelsa State Ministry of Environment

CaCO3 Calcium Carbonate Cd Cadmium CDC Community Development Committees CO Carbon monoxide

CO2 Carbon dioxide COD Chemical Oxygen Demand Cr Chromium Cu Copper DPR Department of Petroleum Resources DS Direct Sighting DO Dissolved Oxygen EA Environmental Audit EC Electrical Conductivity EGASPIN Environmental Guidelines, standards for Petroleum Industries in Nigeria EIA Environmental Impact Assessment FAO Food and Agricultural Organisation Fe Iron FEPA Federal Environmental Protection Agency FMENV Federal Ministry of Environment GPS Global Positioning System

HCl Hydrogen Chloride

HNO3 Hydrogen Nitrate

H2S Hydrogen Sulphide

H2SO4 Hydrogen Sulphate HSE Health, Safety & Environment

IITA International Institute for Tropical Agriculture IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature K Potassium KWW Kentucky Water Watch LGAs Local Government Areas MG/L Milligram per Litre ML Millilitre MM Millimetre N Nitrogen NA Not Applicable NDP Niger Delta Panel NDDC Niger Delta Development Commission

NH3 Ammonia Ni Nickel NIWA National Inland Waters Authority NLNG Nigeria Liquefied Natural Gas Plant NNPC Nigerian National Petroleum Company

NO2 Nitrogen dioxide

NO3 Nitrates NM Nanometre NTU Nerphelometric Turbidity Unit NW Northwest 0C Degree Celsius OML Oil Mining Lease PAH Polyaromatic Hydrocarbon pH Hydrogen Ion Concentration PIA Post Impact Assessment

PPE Personal Protective Equipment QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control QHSE Quality Health Safety and Environment RPI Research Planning Institute ROW Right–of–way SPDC The Shell Petroleum Development Company S-R Sedgewick Rafter SS Sample Station T Temperature TDS Total Dissolved Solids THC Total Hydrocarbon Content TN Total Nitrogen TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon TOR Terms of Reference TSS Total Suspended Solids UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNESCO United Nations Education Scientific and Cultural Organisation USDA United States Department of Agriculture UV Ultra Violet WHO World Health Organization

PREFACE

This document is one of several annexes produced as a result of the work of the IUCN- Niger Delta Panel (IUCN-NDP). This Panel was established in January 2012, at the request of the Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Limited (SPDC), as an initiative to help improve the company’s environmental management. IUCN created the Panel with the involvement of IUCN Members in Nigeria, as well as IUCN Commissions and the IUCN Secretariat. The Panel arose out of a concern among key stakeholders to improve upon remediation activities and to find a sustainable and peaceful approach towards rehabilitation of biodiversity in habitats affected by oil spills. The main report containing the formal recommendations from the Panel is listed below and can be downloaded here.

This and the other annexes present more detailed information and findings, which the Panel used to develop the recommendations that are set out in the main report, and which the Panel continues to draw from in its ongoing work. In making these supporting annexes available it should be noted that where any perception of difference occurs between what is in the annex and the main report, it is the main report and the recommendations therein that should be taken as the formal view of the Panel. It is also possible that information or situations may have changed since individual annexes were compiled. The annexes were accurate to the best of the knowledge of the Panel at the time they were produced. Some also contain records of perceptions from various stakeholders. These perceptions are very valuable to inform the work of the Panel and are recorded for information purposes, but they should not be taken as representing the views of the Panel. Finally, the information and data in the annexes should be considered “works in progress” as in many cases they are the first attempts at data gathering in a complex and challenging natural and social environment.

Uzoamaka Egbuche

Chair, IUCN-NDP

Reference:

IUCN Niger–Delta Panel (2013). Sustainable remediation and rehabilitation of biodiversity and habitats of oil spill sites in the Niger Delta: Main report including recommendations for the future. A report by the independent IUCN–Niger Delta Panel (IUCN–NDP) to the Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria (SPDC). July 2013. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. 73 pp.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background information

The present investigation was carried out by the IUCN-Niger Delta Panel in order to establish the effectiveness of remedial actions carried out in oil contaminated areas in the Niger River Delta. The results of the study will enable the Shell Petroleum Development Company (SPDC) to establish the extent of damage to the environment and effectiveness of the remediation activities following oil spills in the sensitive mangrove environment. The results will also enable the company to develop an effective environmental management and remediation plan for other impacted areas, in compliance with regulatory requirements. The major activity of economic value in the area of Imiringi is oil industry activity operated by SPDC. Kolo Creek is the major oil and gas industry facility in the Bayelsa State, which uses about 30% of its associated gas to generate power in the state. The Kolo Creek Field hosts a number of oil industry facilities including 46 oil wells, one flow station (Kolo Creek), one manifold and one SPDC camp site.

Imiringi is the host community of Kolo Creek and is surrounded by a number of water bodies: natural and artificial lakes, ponds, burrow pits and small tributaries that drain into the lake. Imiringi is a semi-urban community located in Ogbia Local Government Area (LGA) of Bayelsa State in the Niger Delta Region of southern Nigeria.

Choice of Kolo Creek Field for the study

Kolo Creek Oil Field was chosen by the IUCN-NDP for the field study mainly because of its location in the Freshwater Swamp Forest Zone, which is considered as one of the four ecological zones of the Niger Delta. Other reasons included its easy accessibility by road from Yenagoa, the Bayelsa state capital, a favourable security report and a proven history of oil spillage within the field.

Legal and administrative framework The Environmental Audit (EA) was carried out within the framework of both national and state-level environmental guidelines and regulations. These include legislation and guidelines from the Federal Ministry of Environment (FMEnv) and Bayelsa State Ministry of Environment.

Oil spill records around Kolo Creek Area

Oil spills in Nigeria occur due to a number of causes, including: corrosion of pipelines and tankers (accounting for 50% of all spills), sabotage (28%), and oil production operations (21%), with 1% of the spills being accounted for by inadequate or non- functional production equipment. (SPDC Geomatics 2012)

Spill records from 1991 to 2009 sourced from SPDC oil spill records indicate that apart from the 1997 spill which recorded up to 200 barrels (bbl), most of the other recorded spills were minor in magnitude.

Field methodology

Information on the impacts of oil spills was gathered through extensive multi- disciplinary studies that comprised surface and ground water quality assessment, soil quality, vegetation and biodiversity and socio-economic/community health investigation in the field. Baseline data acquisition involved a multi-disciplinary approach and was executed within the framework of a QHSE management system approach. This approach assured that the required data and samples were collected in accordance with agreed requirements (scientific and regulatory) using the best available equipment, materials and personnel.

To complement information obtained from a review of existing data on the project area and close out identified information gaps, the first season field sampling and measurement exercise was conducted between 16th and 18th October 2012.

To ensure effective quality assurance and control on the laboratory analysis, two separate laboratories were used and data obtained identified.

Results and Discussions

Surface water physicochemistry Results indicate a DO range of 1.61-2.66mg/l; pH (6.73-8.29); EC (15.9-43.5 µS/cm); TDS (7.50-32.6); BOD (0.9 – 1.6mg/l), nitrate level (0.31 to 0.61mg/l); phosphate levels (<0.05mg/l) and sulphate levels (<1.0 – 1.8mg/l). These levels were all within the regulatory limit, whilst the oil and grease concentrations of 0.32 – 0.85mg/l recorded at remediated and non-remediated sites were higher than those of the groundwater and fishpond samples (0.01 – 0.03mg/l) and these levels are comparable to those recorded in contaminated sites.

Sediment and soil hydrocarbon concentration The total hydrocarbon content ranged from 58.9 to 62.3 mg/kg. The levels of THC were slightly above the DPR target level of 50mg/kg (DPR, 2002).

The total hydrocarbon content (THC) in the soils of Kolo Creek field ranged from 33.55 mg/kg to 748.82mg/kg; which exceeded the biogenic threshold and DPR target limit of 50 mg/kg. The results show that the oil exploitation activities in the area have probably introduced hydrocarbon into the environment.

Hydrobiological status

Phytoplankton A total of 15 species from four families, with an overall density of 448 cells/ml, were found at the study sites. Chlorophyceae (green microalgae) had the highest abundance and distribution (50.6%), followed by Euglenophyceae (25.7%), Cyanophyceae (15.85%) and Xanthophyceae (7.81%).

Periphyton

A total of 15 species from three families: namely Chlorophyceae, Euglenophyceae and Cyanophyceae with an overall density of 284 cells/ml within the sampled stations at Kolo Creek.

Macrophytes A total of eight aquatic macrophytes were recorded within the study sites. Nymphaea lotus (water lily, a rooted aquatic macrophyte with floating leaves) was observed growing luxuriantly within the sampled area. The other aquatic macrophytes encountered were the free floating Salvinia nymphellula and the bank types such as Cytosperma senegalense, Crinum natzrns, Crytospermum senegalense, Salvinia nymphellula, Ladwigia stolonifera and the duck weed Lemna sp.

Zooplankton The zooplankton species discovered in the study sites were: Copepoda (47.62%), Protozoa (24.26%), Rotifera (20.41%), Cladocera (7.26%) and Insecta (0.45%). The percentage composition of each of these major zooplankton groups in the study area showed the Calanoid copepods are the most dominant zooplankton followed by the Protozoan species, the Rotiferan species and the Cladocera taxa.

Benthic Macrofauna Only three macrofaunal organisms were harvested from the study area. The result recorded only two taxa of macrofauna from two classes from the samples. The amphibian class was represented by one species (Rana sp.), which accounted for 66.7% of all the species encountered, while fish was represented by a single species.

Wildlife The study area showed a fairly high taxonomic diversity of wildlife species which have been described under the indicated major groups.

Mammals The study reveals the presence of thirty five (35) species of mammals, three were sighted in the field and call of Mona monkey was heard in the area. The sighted species are Sclater’s guenon (Cercopithecus sclateri) which is endemic to Nigeria and listed as endangered in Act 11 of (1985) also in IUCN red list as vulnerable, giant forest squirrel (Protexerus stinger), and fire footed tree squirrel (Funisciurus pyrrhopus). Vocalization of Mona monkey (Cercopithecus mona) was frequent in the study area in the late evenings. The red-capped mangabey (Cercocebus torguatus) is becoming extinct in the area due to human activities.

Avifauna Fifty three (53) avifauna species were sighted and recorded in the field. The crowned hawk-eagle (Stephanoaetus coronatus) is said to feed on monkeys and other animals in the forest. The African grey parrot (Psittacus erithacus) that breeds and is resident in the study area is listed in the IUCN Red list as vulnerable, and also listed as endangered in Nigerian endangered species Act promulgated in Act No. 11 of 1985.

Reptiles Fourteen (14) reptilian species were recorded in the study area. Three (3) lizard species were sighted in the field: Nile monitor lizard (Various niloticus), grey skink (Mabuya blanding) and Agama lizard (Agama agama). Some of the other reptiles listed were dwarf crocodile, rock python, Gabon viper, green mamba and black forest turtle.

Fish and Fisheries The fish species commonly found in the study area include: sardines, mullets, tilapia, catfish, moonfish, gobies, mudskippers and prawns. The seasonality of exploitation of the different fish species in the area is described. The peak period for clupeids including sardines, shad and bonga is between October and about February/March, corresponding to the dry season period. During this time, considerable catches of the clupeids contribute significantly to the income of fisher folk. Freshwater prawns, Macrobrachium, comprise the predominant harvest during the rainy season, between June and November. Palaemon, Penaeus and Atya spp are also exploited during this period. From December to May is the peak period of estuarine white shrimp Nematopalaemon sp.

Conclusions The total hydrocarbon content recorded in surface water samples for the remediated site and the control were similar: 0.32mg/l for the subsurface samples and 0.68 – 0.85mg/l for the bottom samples, indicating signs of previous contamination compared to 0.01 – 0.03 mg/l recorded for the groundwater/borehole samples.

The total hydrocarbon levels in the sediments (58.9 – 62.3mg/kg) and soils (61.61 - 748.62mg/kg) were above the DPR target level limit of 50mg/kg. Therefore it is indicative of the site having not fully recovered, although oil sheens were not seen at any of the sampled stations.

Abundance of the recorded phytoplankton was 448 cells/ml; with species richness of 15 and only four taxonomic groups; periphyton: three major taxa, 9 species and overall abundance of 284; zooplankton: five major taxa, 19 species, and absence of fish and molluscan larvae (mainly due to the impact of oil spillage). These observations showed low faunal abundance and diversity and indicated that the ecosystem has not fully recovered.

These overall findings indicate that the remediated environment and ecosystem has not fully recovered and may take some time to fully recover.

1. Introduction

1.1 Background information

Kolo Creek oil and gas field is located within Imiringi town area, and is named after Kolo Creek in Ogbia Local Government Area (LGA) of Bayelsa State in the Niger Delta Region of southern Nigeria (Figure 1.1). The field is situated about 10km NW of Yenagoa, the capital city of Bayelsa State and characterized by tropical rain forest and freshwater swamps that are usually flooded in the rainy season. The major river around the flow station is Kolo Creek, a non-tidal freshwater river that empties into River Nun.

The major economic activity in the area is related to the oil industry activity which is operated by SPDC. Kolo Creek flow station is the major oil and gas facility in Bayelsa State, which uses about 30% of its associated gas to generate electricity in the state. The Kolo Creek Field hosts a number of oil facilities including 46 oil wells, one flow station (Kolo Creek), one manifold and one SPDC camp site.

Imiringi, the host community, is a semi-urban community and is surrounded by a number of water bodies: natural and artificial lakes, ponds, burrow pits and small tributaries that drain into the lake. The freshwater swamp zone is characterized by seasonal flooding. It is during the rainy season that its swampy characteristics are vividly obvious. It is most diverse in terms of biology and supports a similar ecology to the one in the coastal barrier islands. The zone's three subdivisions are the flood forest zone or 'upper delta', the marsh forest zone and the eastern flank. The flood forest subdivision has large sand river channels, permanent creeks and seasonal flood creeks, and is inundated annually by the Niger River flood. Flood-free levees are common, while back swamps and cane forests help give the zone a highly diverse habitat. The marsh forest subdivision is also referred to as the transition zone. It is permanently swampy and under flooding from freshwater. Muddy swamp channels and raffia swamps can be found in the zone, and its species of wildlife are usually different from those of the flood forest zone. The eastern flank is thought to have been a flood forest when the Orashi River was a major tributary of the Niger Delta (Powell 1995).

Oil exploration in Kolo Creek started in 1959, by the SPDC, after the discovery of oil in commercial quantity in 1956 at Oloibiri in Ogbia Local Government Area. Oil was then struck in 1976 after several trials.

Figure 1.1: The Niger Delta Region showing Bayelsa and key towns/LGAs

With the expansion of oil exploration and production, the incidence of oil spills has increased considerably within the region. Over the past decades and particularly in recent years a number of major causes have been attributed to the oil spills in the Niger delta. Review of literature and media reports on spills consistently identify three main sources - equipment failures, crude oil theft and illegal refining. It is not the purpose of IUCN-NDP to attribute cause or apportion blame, but rather under the specific TOR for The Panel to focus on independent advice on improvements in remediation and rehabilitation when spills have occurred, working with all parties

Available records show that a total of 6,817 oil spills occurred between 1976 and 2001, with a loss of approximately three million barrels of oil (UNDP-HDR, 2006). Approximately six per cent spilled on land, 25 per cent in swamps and 69 per cent in offshore environments. In recent times, oil spills appear to be caused more by sabotage and wilful damage to facilities than by accidents.

The environmental effects of oil pollution are well known. They include the degradation of forests, depletion of aquatic fauna and loss of biodiversity. Long-term impacts are also frequently observed, as in cases where mangrove swamps and groundwater resources are impacted.

The field study and assessments carried out are in compliance with relevant regulatory environmental requirements (DPR, 2002 and FMEnv., 1992), as well as SPDC’s HSE Policy. It is hoped that the results of this study will enable the company to establish the extent of damage to the environment and the effectiveness of its remediation activities following oil spillage and pollution, and hence take adequate steps where necessary to ensure the rehabilitation and recovery of the affected ecosystems. The study results can also enable the company to develop an effective environmental management and remediation plan for the impacted area, their other activities within the area and in compliance with regulatory requirements.

1.2 Post impact assessment Post Impact Assessment (PIA) study is one of the environmental management and control tools employed in assessing the impacts of an existing facility or a project or an operation on the environment. It reviews the impacts of the facility or operation and highlights changes in environmental conditions over a period of time. The PIA study also enables the industry or operator and government to understand the state of the polluted or impacted areas and develop strategies for protection and restoration of the affected areas. The assessment was carried out to determine the impacts of the spills and the success of the remediation efforts. The report proposes measures for the rehabilitation and restoration of the impacted environment.

1.3 Study objectives and scope of work As earlier indicated, the general objectives for carrying out this assessment study were to:

 determine the existing ecological and socio-economic conditions of the project area;  determine the effect of oil spills on sensitive areas;  determine the effect of oil spills on important species;  assess the effects of remediation activities on soil quality;  assess the effects of remediation activities on water quality;  establish the sensitivity of various environmental components of the area;  identify and evaluate the impact of the oil spillage and remediation activities on the socio-ecological environment; and  develop control and rehabilitation strategies with a view to mitigating and ameliorating significant adverse impacts, which the spillage and its remediation activities had on the biophysical and socio-environmental characteristics.

To achieve these objectives, detailed fieldwork was carried out between 12th and 16th October 2012, during which time water, sediment and soil samples were collected. In addition, vegetation, wildlife/biodiversity and socioeconomic/health studies were carried out. The results of these studies provided basic data to enable an assessment of the ecological and socioeconomic/health impacts.

1.4 Choice of Kolo Creek Field for impact assessment study Kolo Creek Oil Field is a semi-urban community located in Ogbia local government area of Bayelsa State. It was chosen by the IUCN-NDP for the field study mainly because of its location in the freshwater swamp forest zone, which is considered as one of the four most important ecological zones of the Niger Delta, slated for the study. It was chosen primarily because it is a good representation of freshwater swamp forest zone.

Another reason for considering this site was accessibility. Logistical problems are often encountered in carrying out studies in such inaccessible environments. However, the chosen site is easily accessible by road from Yenagoa, the Bayelsa State capital, which is located only about 10 km away.

In addition security is a key issue in Niger Delta and the Imiringi community is having favourable security with peace and stability. This site therefore offered an opportunity for meaningful social, health and biophysical investigations.

There has been a history of oil spills in the Kolo Creek oil and gas field. The location is within a relatively old oil spill zone (over ten years) based on the records of frequency of oil spill in the Kolo Creek area, and the efforts at remediation of the impacted sites. The site therefore provides NDP with a suitable study site for the investigation of the effectiveness of remediation efforts on impacted sites and the challenges of ecosystem recovery.

1.5 Legal and administrative framework for EA in Nigeria The PIAS study was carried out within the framework of both national and state environmental guidelines and regulations. These include legislation and guidelines from the Federal Ministry of Environment (FMEnv) and Bayelsa State Ministry of Environment.

Reviews of Nigerian legislation, guidelines and international conventions that are relevant to the project have been provided below. These legislations and guidelines are derived from Nigerian government laws and regulations, and international conventions/agreements/requirements. The requirements for compliance with Environmental Audit in all parts of Nigeria derive from the following general laws and enactments that stipulate and mandate project proponents to abide by the standard requirements for sustainable development.  National Environmental (Sanitation and Wastes Control) Regulations, S.I. No.28 of 2009  National Environmental (Noise Standards and Control) Regulations, S.I. No.35 of 2009  National Environmental (Permitting and Licensing System) Regulations, S.I. No.29 of 2009  National Policy on Environment (1989)  Environmental Audit (EA) Act No.86 ,1992  The defunct FEPA (now Federal Ministry of Environment) Act No. 58 of1988  The Oil in Water Act,1986  Pollution Abatement for Industries and Facilities Generating Wastes Regulations) FMENV, 1991  The Harmful Wastes ( Criminal Provisions) Act No.42,1988  National Guidelines and Standard for Environmental Pollution Control in Nigeria 1991 (The Green Book)  National Environmental Protection (Pollution Abatement in industries and facilities generating wastes) Regulation S.I. 9 of 1991  Pollution Abatement in Industries and Facilities Generating Wastes, Regulation, S.1.9 of 1991  National Environmental Protection (Management of Solid and Hazardous wastes) Regulation S.I.15 of 1991  Waste Management Regulations S.1.15 of 1991  Act No 101 of 23 August 1993: Water Resources Act  Environmental Guidelines and Standards for the Petroleum Industry 2002  NOSDRA Act of 2006  SPDC’s Policy on Safety Health and Environment

1.5.1 National environmental policy The National Policy on Environment, 1991, defines guidelines and strategies for achieving the policy goal of sustainable development by:

 securing for all Nigerians a quality of environment adequate for their health and well-being;  conserving and using the natural resources for the benefit of present and future generations;  restoring, maintaining and enhancing the ecosystem and ecological processes essential for the preservation of biological diversity; and  raising public awareness and promoting understanding of the essential linkages between the environment, resources and development.

1.5.2 Pollution abatement regulation The Pollution Abatement Regulation, S.1.9 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 plans by industries; protection of workers and safety requirements; environmental audit (or environmental impact assessment for new industries) and penalty for contravention.

1.5.3 Management of hazardous and solid wastes regulation The Management of Hazardous and Solid Waste Regulation, S.1.15 of 1991 (No.102, Vol. 78, August, 1991) defines the requirements for groundwater protection, surface impoundment, land treatment, waste piles, landfills, incinerators etc. It states the required procedure for inspection, enforcement and penalty.

1.5.4 Land use Act The Land use Act of 1978 protects the rights of all Nigerians to use and enjoy land in Nigeria which must be protected and preserved. Land acquisition must follow all the due process of law.

1.5.5 Forestry Act This Act of 1958 provides for the preservation of forests and the setting up of forest reserves. It is an offence, punishable with up to 6 months imprisonment, to cut down trees over 2ft in height or to set fire to the forest except under special circumstances.

1.5.6 Criminal Code The Nigerian Criminal Code makes it an offence punishable with up to 6 months imprisonment for any person who “violates the atmosphere in any place so as to make it noxious to the health of persons in general dwelling or carrying on business in the neighbourhood, or passing along a public way”.

1.5.7 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria expressly provides for a number of rights, which are recognized as inalienable to every citizen of the country.

Deriving from this, the Consumer Affairs Bureau of the Nigerian Communication Commission (NCC) has listed some rights (Consumer Bill of Rights) which every consumer is entitled to. One of such is: The Right to be heard: This provides ample opportunities and channels of expressing grievances, opinions, lodging of complain, suggesting ways and means of improving services delivery to customers.

1.5.8 Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection Act The Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection Act No. 19 of 1995 established the Nigerian Nuclear Regulatory Authority which is charged with the following responsibilities, among others:  Regulate the possession and application of radioactive substances and devices emitting ionizing radiation;  Ensure protection of life, health, property and the environment from the harmful effects of ionizing radiation while allowing beneficial practices involving exposure to ionizing radiation;  Regulate the introduction of radioactive sources, equipment or practices and of existing sources, equipment and practices involving exposure of workers and the general public to ionizing radiation.

1.5.9 International conventions and guidelines United Nations Guiding Principles on the Human Environment in 1972, and the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development 1992. Nigeria is signatory to these guiding principles and declarations.

United Nations Convention on Climate Change The convention on climate change was signed in 1992 during the Rio Earth Summit but put into force in 1994 to limit Green House Gas (GHG) emissions which cause global warming.

Convention on Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals This convention also known as the Bonn Convention of 1979 stipulates actions for the conservation and management of migratory species including habitat conservation.

Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer The convention was instituted in 1985 and places general obligations on countries to take appropriate measures to protect human health and the environment against adverse effects resulting from human activities which tend to modify the ozone layer.

Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer The protocol was adopted in 1987 as an international treaty to eliminate the production and consumption of ozone depleting chemicals.

1.5.10 National regulatory bodies

Federal Ministry of Environment The Federal Environmental Protection Agency (FEPA), which is now under the Federal Ministry of Environment (FMEnv) with the enactment of democratic rule in May 1999, was set up by Act 58 of 1988. The FMEnv is responsible for environmental protection and conservation in Nigeria.

The FMEnv is the major authority that has statutory responsibility for ensuring environmental compliance of development projects in Nigeria. The FMEnv has put 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:

 S.1.9 - National Environmental Protection (Pollution Abatement in Industries and Facilities Generating Wastes);  S.1.15 - National Environmental Protection Management of Solid and Hazardous Wastes Regulations of 1991;  The Harmful Wastes (Criminal Provisions) Act 42 of 1988;  The 1989 National Policy on the Environment; and  The 1992 National Guidelines and Standards for Waste Management in the Oil and Gas Industry.

These statutory documents spell out clearly the restrictions imposed on the release of toxic substances into the environment and the responsibilities of all industries whose operations are likely to pollute the environment. Such responsibilities include provision of anti-pollution equipment, etc. (S.I.9). For example, paragraph 15(2) of S.I.9 states that “no oil in any form shall be discharged into public drain, rivers, lakes, seas, atmosphere or underground injection without permit being issued by FMEnv or any organisation designated by the Ministry.” Also paragraph 17 states that an industry or a facility which is likely to release gaseous, particulate, liquid or solid untreated discharges shall install into its system, appropriate abatement equipment in such a manner as may be determined by the Ministry.

Specifically, S.I.15 provides a comprehensive list of wastes that are classified as being dangerous to the environment. It also details the contingency planning and emergency procedures to be followed in case of sudden release of any of these hazardous wastes into the environment.

National Inland Waterways Authority The National Inland Waterways Agency (NIWA) was established by the National Inland Waterways Act No. 31 of 1997 with the statutory mandate to oversee the improvement and development of the inland waterways for navigation. The agency is also responsible for the provision of alternative mode of transportation for the evacuation of economic goods and persons as well as to execute the objectives of the

24 national transport policy as they concern inland waterways. The specific functions of NIWA relevant to this study are to:

 provide regulations for inland navigation;  ensure the development of infrastructural facilities for a national inland waterways network connecting creeks and rivers with the economic centres using the river-ports as nodal points for intermodal exchange;  ensure the development of indigenous technical and managerial skills to meet the challenges of modern inland waterways transportation;  undertake capital and maintenance dredging;  undertake hydrological and hydrographic surveys;  design ferry routes;  survey, remove, and receive derelicts, wrecks and other obstructions from inland waterways;  operate ferry services within the inland waterways system;  undertake installation and maintenance of lights, buoys and all navigational aids along water channels and banks;  issue and control licences for inland navigation, piers, jellies, dockyards; grant permit and licences for sand dredging, pipeline construction, dredging of slots; and crossing of waterways by utility lines, water intake, rock blasting and removal;  approve and control all jetties, dockyards, piers within the inland waterways;  reclaim land within the right-of-way;  provide hydraulic structures for river and dams, bed and bank stabilisation, barrages, groynes;  subject to the provisions of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act, carry out environmental impact assessment of navigation and other dredging activities within the inland water and its right-of-ways;  undertake erection and maintenance of gauges, kilometre boards, horizontal and vertical control marks;  advise government on all border mailers that relate to the inland waters;  undertake acquisition, leasing and hiring of properties; and  clear water hyacinth and other aquatic weeds.

2. Spill records around Kolo Field

With the expansion of oil production, the incidence of oil spills has increased considerably in the Niger Delta region. Over the past decades and particularly in recent years a number of major causes have been attributed to the oil spills in the Niger delta. Review of literature and media reports on spills consistently identify three main sources - equipment failures, crude oil theft and illegal refining. It is not the purpose of IUCN-NDP to attribute cause or apportion blame, but rather under the specific TOR for The Panel to focus on independent advice on improvements in remediation and rehabilitation when spills have occurred, working with all parties

Available records show that a total of 6,817 oil spills occurred between 1976 and 2001, with a loss of approximately three million barrels of oil. More than 70% was not recovered. Approximately 6% spilled on land, 25% in swamps and 69% in offshore environments (UNDP-HDR, 2006).

Spill records obtained from SPDC oil spill records of 1991 – 2009 indicate a number of oil spills that occurred within Kolo Creek area (Table 2.1). With the exception of the 1997 spill which recorded up to 200 barrels (bbl), most of the other recorded spills as shown were minor in magnitude.

Table 2.1: Spill records from Kolo Creek Field (1991 - 2009). S/N SPILL AMOUNT/ S/N SPILL AMOUNT/ YEAR CODE QUANTITY (bbl) YEAR CODE QUANTITY (bbl) 1 1991 00158 Not available 13 1994 00087 25 2 1991 00121 Not available 14 1995 00158 3 3 1991 00173 Not available 15 1997 00189 200 4 1993 00198 Not available 16 1998 00122 14 5 1993 00239 Not available 17 2000 00294 5 6 1993 00258 Not available 18 2003 00211 2.7 7 1993 00261 Not available 19 2005 00027 Not available 8 1993 00277 Not available 20 2005 00116 Not available 9 1993 00279 Not available 21 2006 00194 Not available 10 1993 00280 Not available 22 2007 00220 Not available 11 1993 00281 Not available 23 2009 0414 Not available 12 1993 00282 Not available Source: Adapted from the map of SPDC oil spill records, 2010.

3. Methodology

Qualitative and quantitative information was gathered on the impacts of oil spills within the study area through an extensive multi-disciplinary study that comprised surface and ground water quality assessment, soil quality, vegetation and biodiversity and socio-economic and community health investigations in the field.

Baseline data collection involved a multi-disciplinary approach, executed within the framework of a QHSE management system approach. This approach assured that the required data and samples were collected in accordance with agreed requirements (scientific and regulatory) using the best available equipment, materials and personnel.

Elements of this approach included:  review of existing reports on the environment of the project area;  design and development of field sampling strategy to meet work scope and regulatory requirements;  review/confirmation of the work scope and sampling design and locations by IUCN-NDP (Plates 3.1 & 3.2);  pre-mobilization activities (assembling of field team, sampling equipment/materials, calibrations/checks, review of work plan and schedule with team, and job hazard analysis);  mobilization to field; fieldwork implementation: sample collection (including positioning and field observations), handling, documentation and storage protocols and procedures; and  demobilization from field; transfer of sample custody to the laboratory for analysis.

3.1 Sampling strategy The study covered the following main sampling measurements:  Physicochemicals – soil, water and sediment analysis which will help to analyse the standards/levels of contamination after remediation;  Public/ecosystem health issues – sampling of groundwater, surface water and aquatic resources (particularly totemic species) to ascertain levels of contamination and possible transfer through food chain; and  Biodiversity – sampling of flora and fauna to establish impact and possible recolonization/regeneration following remediation. Data on density and relative abundance will help to establish species richness and hence biodiversity in each ecosystem.

In order to complement information obtained from the review of existing data on the project area and close out identified information gaps, the first season field sampling and measurement exercise was conducted between 12th and 16th October 2012.

Plate 3.1: IUCN-NDP Chair addresses the Task force Team

Plate 3.2: Briefing the Biophysical Team on sampling strategy at Yenagoa

The specific objectives of the field sampling were to complement information on the:  ambient air quality and noise levels in the study area;

 physicochemical and microbiological characteristics of the surface and subsurface soil within the study area;  contemporary wildlife abundance and diversity in the study area and environs;  contemporary vegetation characteristics of the area; and  socio-economic and health status of the stakeholder communities.

3.1.1 Sampling design Sampling stations, aside from those designated as controls, were randomly distributed to specifically cover areas around the proposed project area.

The volume of samples/measurements was as follows:  Soil was sampled at three levels at two stations (surface and subsurface) (IMGSS01 & IMGSS2);  Vegetation/wildlife surveys were carried out at transects within the pilot areas;  Water and sediment samples were taken at two stations (IMSW.01, IMSW.02);  Groundwater samples were taken at two stations (IMSW.03, IMSW.04);  Water sample was taken from a fish pond at one station (IMSW.04)  Hydrobiological samples including phytoplankton, zooplankton and periphyton and macrophytes were collected.

3.1.2 Positioning During fieldwork activities, positioning at each sampling station was carried out with the aid of a handheld Global Positioning System (GPS). At each station, coordinates at which sampling actually took place was marked with the GPS and subsequently transferred into a field notebook as shown in Figure 3.1.

3.2 Water quality

3.2.1 Field methodology The aquatic studies were undertaken to determine the extent of environmental contamination and the effect of the remediation activities on water quality. To be able to predict the efficiency of the remediation activities on the environmental quality, sampling stations were established in such a manner as to adequately represent the area of operations. Sampling stations were chosen, marked and geolocated using a Geographical Positioning System (Germin-12GPS).

Sampling techniques Water samples were collected on the 16th of October 2012. Samples for physicochemical analyses were placed in a 2-litre plastic container which was previously rinsed three times with the water sample to be analysed and sealed appropriately. Samples for total hydrocarbon (THC) measurements were placed in 1

29 litre glass containers, concentrated hydrochloric acid (HCl) added and sealed with aluminium foil. Samples for the heavy metal analyses were placed in 150ml plastic container and concentrated nitric acid (HNO3) added to adjust the pH to 2. Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) samples were collected in 250ml brown reagent bottles, sealed to exclude air bubbles while the dissolved oxygen (DO) samples were fixed immediately with Winkler’s I and II reagents. All samples were preserved in a cool box and transported to the laboratory for analyses.

Fig. 3.1: Map of Kolo Creek Area showing the sampling stations

Table 3.1: Coordinates of water sampling stations and in situ measurements

o S/ Sample Location Co-ordinates Depth pH C µS/cm mg/l Remarks N Code N E Temp EC TDS DO 0 0 1 IMG.SW.01 Okpolokpo 04 52’09.1” 006 23’11.9” Top 8.29 26.0 43.5 30.1 1.61 Seasonal rivulet, Remediated regeneration site occurring 20 years after oil 2 Bottom 7.53 26.4 53.1 32.6 1.74 spill. Oil well head with small canal in the area 0 0 3 IMG.SW.02 Non- 04 52’24.3” 006 23’45.2” Top 7.17 26.3 15.9 10.7 2.66 Freshwater polluted site swamp forest. 4 Bottom 6.73 25.8 16.7 7.5 1.70 About 1km from remediated site but not flooded at the time of sampling 0 0 IMG.GW.03 Chief Palace 04 51’01.1” 006 22’13.7” 30m 7.46 27.3 233 158.0 5.25 Borehole, from (treated the tap water) 0 0 IMG.SW.04 Fish pond 04 50’59.1” 006 22’12.6” 8.20 29.0 61.2 40.5 6.50 Fish pond located within the Chief’s Palace 0 0 IMG.GW.05 Borehole 04 50’59.9” 006 22’12.4” 30ft 7.45 27.3 245 170.0 3.95 Untreated (Raw Water groundwater FMEnv 6-9 <40 N/A 2000 N/ Limits A DPR Limits 6.5- <40 N/A 2000 N/ 9.5 A WHO 6.5- N/A N/A 1000 5.0 Limits 8.5

Source: IUCN Taskforce Fieldwork, 2012

3.2.2 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Standard field methods were used in the sample collection at the site as recommended by DPR (EGASPIN, 2002). To ensure the integrity of some unstable physicochemical parameters, in-situ measurements of temperature, pH, electrical conductivity (EC), dissolved oxygen (DO), turbidity, salinity and total dissolved solids (TDS) were carried out in the field using water quality checker Horiba U-10.

Sample preservation and storage The water samples collected were stored in ice-packed coolers and preserved in accordance with Part VII Section D of EGASPIN (2002). All water samples for heavy metals were preserved by the addition of concentrated HN03, while concentrated HCl was added to the samples for total hydrocarbon measurements.

3.2.3 Laboratory analysis Laboratory analyses of the physicochemical parameters were carried out in keeping with standard practice specified in DPR Environmental Guidelines and Standards (EGASPIN, 2002). Except where otherwise stated, the laboratory methodologies for wastewater are from Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater 19th Edition, 1998. Investigation involving heavy metal concentrations were carried out using atomic spectrophotometer (AAS Unicam 969). Exchangeable cations and anions measured using flame photometer and UV/Visible spectrometer (Unicam Helios Gamma, UVG 073201; Spectronic 21D). Briefly, the methods employed are as follows:

pH, Electrical conductivity, Turbidity, Dissolved solids, Temperature and Salinity Measured using Horiba Water Checker (Model U-10) after calibrating the instrument with the standard Horiba solution. The units of measurement are µS/cm, NTU, mg/l, 0C and ‰; respectively for conductivity, turbidity, temperature and salinity.

Dissolved Oxygen (APHA-4500 C) The dissolved oxygen (DO) was determined by the Modified Azide or Winkler’s method (APHA 1998). To a 70ml BOD bottle filled with sample, 0.5ml manganous sulphate (Winkler I) solution and 0.5ml alkali-iodide-azide reagent (Winkler II) were added, and the bottle then stoppered (to exclude air bubbles) and mixed by several inversions. After about 10 minutes, 0.5ml conc. H2SO4 was added, the bottle re- stoppered and mixed for complete dissolution of precipitate. The fixed sample was taken to the laboratory for further analysis.

Bio-chemical Oxygen Demand (APHA-5210-B) Known portion of the water sample was collected in dark BOD bottles and preserved in ice chest coolers and taken to the laboratory where it was incubated at 20oC for five days. At the end of the incubation period the samples were treated in the same manner as for the DO samples stated above. Detection limits 2.0mg/l.

Total Alkalinity (API-RP 45)

Bicarbonate determination is by titration with 0.02N H2SO4 using methyl orange indicator. The detection limit is 1.0mg/l as CaCO3 (APHA, 1985).

Chloride (APHA 4500 – Cl- B) Chloride is titrimetrically determined by the Argentometric method in the presence of potassium chromate as indicator. Limit of detection is 1.0mg/l.

Sulphate (APHA 4500-SO42- E/AST MID 516) Sulphate determination is by the turbidimetric method (APHA 1998). To a 50ml sample or portion diluted to 50-ml contained in a conical flask, 2.5-ml of

33 conditioning reagent (i.e. a mixture of 50ml glycerol with a solution of 30ml concentrated hydrochloric acid, 300ml distilled water, 100ml 95% ethanol and 75g sodium chloride) and a quarter spatula full barium chloride (BaCl2) were added. The mixture was swirled for a minute and the barium sulphate (BaSO4) turbidity read at fifth minute on Spectronic 21D at 420nm against water. Sulphate level was read from a calibration curve prepared for known sulphate standards treated the same way as the samples. The detection limit is 1.0mg/l.

Phosphate (APHA 4500-P E/ASTM D 515) Phosphate is determined using the stannous chloride method (APHA, 1998). To a 50ml sample, the following were added with mixing: 2.0ml ammonium molybdate reagent and 0.2ml stannous chloride reagent. After 10 minutes but before 12 minutes from addition of stannous chloride, the absorption of the treated sample was read on Spectronic 21D at 690nm. Phosphate level was obtained by reading off absorption level from standards curve of known standards treated as the samples. The detection limit is 0.05mg/l.

Nitrate Nitrate measurement is by Ultraviolet Spectrophotometric screening method. To 50ml clear sample, 1ml HCl solution was added and mixed thoroughly. Absorbance measurements made at the wavelength of 220nm and the nitrate concentration obtained from the standard curve. Limit of detection is 0.05mg/l.

Total Hydrocarbon Content (THC) Total Hydrocarbon Content was measured using extraction/spectrophotometry as described in ASTM D3921. A known volume of the sample was well agitated and poured into a separatory funnel. A known quantity of sodium chloride was added to prevent emulsification.

Fifty millilitres (50ml) of xylene was added to the sample container and then shaken properly to rinse the container before transferring into the separatory funnel. The funnel was corked and shaken vigorously for about 1 minute. The mixture was allowed to stand for separation. The sample portion was run off by opening the tap and then the extract transferred into a 100ml centrifuge tube by passing it through a filter paper containing 1g of sodium sulphate. The extraction process was repeated with another 50ml of xylene. The xylene layer was then collected into same centrifuge tube containing the first extract.

The separatory funnel was rinsed with 10ml xylene before transferring into the centrifuge tube. The extract was centrifuge for 15mins at 1500 rpm and placed in a standard cuvette with a light path of 10mm. The spectrophotometer was standardized and sample readings taken. THC concentration was calculated with reference to the standard curve and multiplication by the appropriate dilution factor. Detection limit is 0.01mg/l.

Heavy metals (Cr, Cu, Pb, Fe, Cd) Heavy metals were determined using an Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer (AAS) as described in APHA 3111B and ASTM D3651. This involved direct aspiration of the sample into an air/acetylene or nitrous oxide/acetylene flame generated by a hollow cathode lamp at a specific wavelength peculiar only to the metal programmed for analysis. For every metal investigated, standards and blanks were prepared and used for calibration before samples were aspirated. Concentrations at specific absorbance displayed on the data system monitor for printing. Limit of detection is <0.001mg/l.

3.2.4 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Quality measures adopted for the laboratory analyses were in accordance with the recommendation of DPR Guidelines and Standards for Petroleum Industry in Nigeria (EGASPIN, 2002). To maintain analytical accuracy, duplicate and blank samples were included in the analyses. Distilled water used for analysis conforms to ASTM D 1193 Type 1. Only qualified and trained personnel were employed in the laboratory work.

Also, analysis for hydrocarbons and heavy metals were carried out in two laboratories to ensure that dependable results were obtained.

3.3 Soil quality

3.3.1 Field methodology The field sampling plan adopted was based on the observed existing land-use patterns in the immediate environment of the proposed project site. Consideration was also given to the need for adequate coverage of representative and/or probable soil morphological types within the study area.

A total of three soil sample stations (SS) were established. A systematic sampling pattern (Tel and Hagarty, 1984) was adopted to distribute and locate the sample stations along chosen transects. At each of the sample stations, at least three random spots were augered at two depth-levels (Top Sample (T), 0 – 15cm; Bottom Sample (B), 15- 30 cm), with the aid of 9cm diameter Dutch auger at about the centre of the sample station (Smith and Atkinson, 1975, Anon, 1986).

Also, at each of the sample stations and soil depth levels (T or B), the soil samples were bulked together to give a composite sample. The soil samples from different sample stations and soil depth levels were, on each occasion, collected in polythene bags and labelled accordingly. For example, soil sample from first sample station (i.e. SS1) and first depth level (0-15cm) (i.e.; T) was coded as SS1T. Each of the sample stations was geo-referenced with the aid of a hand-held Global Positioning System (GPS) Receiver.

Table 3.2: Location and coordinates of soil sampling stations

S/N Sample Location Co –ordinates Remarks Code Northings Eastings o o 1. IMG 01 Okpolokpo 04 52’08.9” 006 23’10.8” Freshwater swamp forest. Experienced oil spill about 20years ago. o o 2. IMG 02 Okpolokpo 04 52’23.8” 006 23’45.2” Control, unpolluted area. Galloping swamp.

Source: IUCN Taskforce Fieldwork, 2012

3.3.2 Quality Assurance/Quality Control

In our sampling, we have used a 9-inch hand held Dutch soil auger capable of obtaining uniform cores of equal volume to the desired depth. The quantity of composite sample collected was processed for analyses in the laboratory without sub sampling in the field. This allowed for more accurate subsamples that better represented the area sampled and removes errors due to sample splitting and sub sampling in the field.

3.3.3 Laboratory analysis Standard measurement methods for soil physicochemical parameters were adopted (IITA, 1979) for the laboratory analyses as summarized in Table 3.3.

Particle-size analysis was done using the hydrometer method (Juo, 1979). Soil pH was determined by the electrometric method in a soil/water ratio of 1:2.5 using pH meter Model EL 720. The parameters used as indices of the soil characteristics include organic matter (carbon), total nitrogen, available phosphorus, exchangeable cations and carbon-nitrogen ratio. The tests were carried out on the soil samples in accordance with Federal Ministry of Environment Standards (2002) as outlined by Odu et al (1985).

Table 3.3: Summary of measurement methods for soil physicochemical parameters S/N Parameter Method 1. Particle Size Distribution (Sand, Silt Bouyoucos Hydrometer Method and Clay) 2. Textural Classification Textural Triangle Method 3. pH pH Meter Measurement (on 1:1 soil solution mixture) 4. Electrical Conductivity Conductivity Meter Measurement 5. Total Organic Carbon/Organic Walkley-Black Method Matter Content 6. Total Nitrogen Macro-Kjedahl Method 7. Ammonium Nitrogen Nessler’s Colorimetric method

8. Nitrate Nitrogen Colour development and spectrophotometry 9. Available Phosphorus Bray No. 1 Method 10. Exchangeable Cations (K+, Ca2+, Ammonium Acetate Extraction Method Mg2+, Na+) 11. Exchangeable Acidity (H+Al) KCl Exchange Method plus NaOH titration 12. Total Hydrocarbon Contents Spectrophotometry 13. Heavy Metals/Micronutrients Perchloric acid digestion and Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry 14. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon Gas chromatography USEPA 8015 (TPH)

3.4 Hydrobiological

3.4.1 Zooplankton/ phytoplankton studies The distribution, composition and abundance of the biotic components of any aquatic system are correlated to environmental parameters like temperature, dissolved oxygen, alkalinity and salinity.

The aim of this study was to identify and enumerate the plankton communities within the study area, with a view to ascertaining their taxonomic composition and spatial distribution. It also aimed to monitor any likely changes due to environmental stress.

The plankton of mangrove creeks, freshwater creeks and swamps includes permanent forms and several temporary components including newly-hatched shellfish larvae leaving the creeks and returning post larvae juveniles, and strived- up benthic forms. The composition and abundance varies considerably according to diurnal, tidal and semi-lunar cycle.

3.4.2 Field methodology

Phytoplankton Samples were collected in sub-surface (20cm) water. Twenty litres of surface water sample were collected and filtered through a Plankton net of 30–50 µm mesh size. The filtered plankton sample was collected and preserved in 30ml of 4% formalin and stored in the cooler. In the laboratory samples were concentrated to about 50m1 by sedimentation over a period of 48 hours. Further concentration was done using a centrifuge at a speed of 100 rev/mm. From the concentration, 1ml of the sample was taken and transferred to a Sedgwick rafter cell and a preliminary scan was made under a microscope. In all samples 1ml of the concentrate was diluted because of the large number of cells in the concentration 1ml of the concentrate was diluted with 9m1 of the diluted water. The sample was thoroughly mixed and five subsamples of 1ml each were placed Sedgwick rafter cell and viewed under a binocular microscope (x200), cells viewed under the microscope were identified with the aid of keys to plankton identification, cells were enumerated and the total number of the cells per litre of samples was estimated from the relationship:

N/L =C (1000mm3) ------(1) LDWS

Where; C= mean number of organisms or cell in the sample viewed L= Length of Sedgwick rafter cell D= Depth of Sedgwick rafter cell W = Width of strip viewed S = Number of trips

Zooplankton Plankton net of mesh size of 30–50 µm was towed for a minimum of 3 minutes at a maximum speed of 5km/h. The zooplankton on the sides of the net was washed down into the collection bottle (Plate 3.3). Samples were then put in a 250 ml labelled container and preserved with 5% ethanol and kept in the dark. In the laboratory the samples

Plate 3.3: Sampling for phytoplankton at one of the stations in Kolo Creek field

were concentrated immediately and preserved with 70% ethanol (5% glycerin was also added) and the volume made up to 100ml. The size of the subsample was 1/100.

In the laboratory analysis, the plankton population was enumerated using a counting chamber {Sedgwick – Rafter (S-R) counting cell} which limits the volume and area for the ready calculation of population densities. The tally system was also adopted in this method, after counting; the number of cells per mL was then multiplied by a correction factor so as to adjust for dilution of the sample. The organisms were identified using standard bench references (Pourriot, 1980) and reported as number of individuals per ml. The individual organisms were identified with the aid of a Zeiss binocular microscope at x40/100x, standard bench references and a CD–ROM from the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO.

Pelagic microalgae A plankton net (mesh aperture = 30 – 70 µm) was used for the quantitative (10l) tow- sampling of the microalgae. The microalgae on the sides of the net were washed down into the collection bottle with the water from the outside. Samples were put in a 250 ml labelled container and preserved with 5% neutral formalin and kept in the dark. On getting to the laboratory, the samples were filtered through a 0.45μm membrane filter paper (with a vacuum of less than 0.5 atm.) and preserved with 70% ethanol. Volume was made up to 100 ml. The size of the subsample was 1/100.

The microalgae population was enumerated using a counting chamber {Sedgwick – Rafter (S-R) counting cell}. The tally system was adopted in this method, after counting; the number of cells per ml was then multiplied by a correction factor so as to adjust for dilution of the sample. The individual organisms were identified with the aid of a Zeiss binocular microscope at x40/x100, standard bench references (see reference section) and a CD–ROM from UNESCO, while an Olympus CX3, Hypercrystal LCD binocular microscope was deployed for the photo-microscopy of the samples from this study.

For the aquatic macrophytic studies, the vegetation samples were as much as possible identified in the field to the species level with the aid of Akobundu and Agbakwa (1998), “A handbook of West African weeds and the life form spectrum”, the floristic structure and composition of the various plant community samples were worked out using the Raunkaerium (1934) life form classification scheme.

Benthic macrofauna Ecologically, the study area is part of the lowland rainforest ecozone of the Niger Delta inland water ways, within the swamp forest of the Kolo Creek flood plain. The forest is complex and complicated with variable vegetative structures and compositions that existed due to zoogenic and anthropogenic activities as well as the nature of physiogeographic features in the entire area. The lowland of this area is extensive and occupies the northern part of the mangrove area of Bayelsa State from Emelego-Okoroba-Idema-Oluasiri-Ewoi-Agbura-Azikoro axis.

The water bodies are similar to that of freshwater, seasonally flooded and often prone to one directional flow. It is the source of drinking, cooking, bathing, washing, farming, transportation, fishing and varied agricultural uses/practices. The water bodies in the area are mostly streams, with lakes and ponds.

The area had been degraded considerably due to infrastructural (industrial and municipal) development, cultivation and extraction of timber. The biodiversity group visited the area from 12th October, 2012 for field sampling. The sampling period coincided with the highest peak of the flood season which made the sampling almost impossible due to very high flood and swift movement of water current. The area is within producing oil well-head of the Kolo Creek Field. Several oil spill incidents had occurred in this area, and the last spill incident was said to have occurred about 20 years ago, which had been cleaned up and remediated. At the period of sampling, oil sheen was not visible on water surface and the area was under-going natural recovery, both vegetative and otherwise.

Sampling was conducted by taking a 1m2 quadrat and studying all the observable macrofauna within it and recording their distribution and density. Unfortunately due to the difficulty of the terrain occasioned by the heavy flooding of the area, only two sampling stations were established for trial sampling. The area sampled was called Okpolokpo swamp forest, a seasonal swamp channel of fresh water origin with undulating marshy characteristics.

3.5 Wildlife Wildlife occurring around Imiringi and its environs was investigated between 7am and 6pm local time. This involved various conventional techniques, both direct and indirect methods (Moshby 1974; Dasmann 1964; Sutherland 2000; Davies 2002, Akani et al 1999, 2008), as the main objectives were to produce a comprehensive checklist of the fauna, determine their distribution and conservation status. Several wildlife ecologists of the Niger Delta region have successfully adopted these methods (Anadu and Oates 1982; Happold, 1987; Anadu and Green 1990; AA.VV 1997, 1998; Powell 1998; Angelici 1998; Angelici et al 1999, Akani 1999, 2008). Considering the wildlife dependence on vegetation for shelter, foods, nesting site, etc., the sampling stations were the same as the vegetation transects.

Within each transect and nearby footpaths, farmlands and streams, wildlife physical presence and evidence of occupation (footprints, trails, burrows, fecal droppings, sloughed skin, carcass, food remains, playground, etc.) were searched for, while walking at a rate of 1km/hr. Stopovers were made at intervals to listen to animal vocalizations or calls, and high power binoculars (Fujiyama Model) were used to view screen trees for arboreal forms such as squirrels, snakes, birds, etc. Critical habitats and microhabitats such as logs, litter, forest undergrowth, crevices and burrows were ransacked with the aid of 1m long stick to dislodge any hiding herpetofauna and mammals. All dislodged and sighted animals were identified to possible taxonomic levels, using the field guides and keys of Happold (1987),

Kingdom (1997), and Powell (1995) for mammals; Peterson (1980) and Borrow and Demey (2001) for birds; Branch (1995) for reptiles; Schiotz (1963, 1969) and Rodel (2000) for amphibians.

Further information concerning the wildlife of the area was collected from literature data from tertiary institutions and interviews with a group of hunters at Imiringi who assisted the Task Force team as field guides. Only the information for which there was more than 50% consensus of opinion was taken as correct (Akani, 2008). Interviewing of locals as adopted in this study has been acknowledged by several ecologists as a reliable source of information for the habitat history and land-use of any place (Gadgil 1992, Akani, et al., 1999; Akani, 2008).

4. Results and discussion

4.1 Surface and ground water quality The results of the physicochemical parameters of the water samples from the Kolo Creek area are shown in Table 4.1. They indicate a BOD range of 0.8 – 1.6mg/l, which is very much within the regulatory limit and indicative of low biological activity. The nitrate levels (in the range of 0.31 to 0.61mg/l), phosphate levels (<0.05mg/l) and sulphate levels (<1.0 – 1.8mg/l) were all within the regulatory limit, whilst the oil and grease concentrations of 0.32 – 0.85mg/l recorded at remediated and non-remediated sites were higher than those of the groundwater and fishpond samples (0.01 – 0.03mg/l respectively) and these levels are comparable to those recorded in contaminated sites.

Table 4.1: Results for physicochemical parameters of water samples from Kolo Creek Field, October 2012. S/N Sample Location Depth mg/l code BOD - 3- 2- - THC NO3 PO4 SO4 Cl 1. IMG.SW.01 Okpolokpo Top 0.8 0.37 <0.05 <1.0 1.0 0.32 Remediated site IMG.SW.01 Bottom - 0.49 <0.05 1.8 2.0 0.85 3. IMG.SW.02 Non- Top 0.8 0.61 <0.05 <1.0 2.0 0.32 polluted site IMG.SW.02 Bottom - 0.54 <0.05 <1.0 1.0 0.68 5. IMG.GW.03 Chief Palace from tap 0.8 0.31 <0.05 <0.1 24.7 0.01 (treated water water) 6. IMG.SW.04 Fish pond 1.6 0.31 <0.05 1.6 3.0 0.03 7. IMG.GW.05 Borehole 30ft 0.8 0.41 <0.05 <0.1 24.7 0.03 (raw water) FMEnv Limits 30 20 N/A 500 600 DPR Limits N/A N/A N/A N/A 600 WHO Limits N/A 10 N/A 400 N/A

Source: IUCN Taskforce Fieldwork, 2012

4.1.1 pH The pH of a solution measures the hydrogen ion concentration in that solution. A small change in pH represents a large change in hydrogen ion concentration. KWW (2001) observed pH between the range of 6.0 to 9.0 as favourable for freshwater fishes and bottom dwelling invertebrates. This study recorded pH values for Kolo Creek between the range of 6.73 and 8.29 which indicate slight acidic and alkaline water bodies. This is capable of protecting fishes and bottom dwelling invertebrates in the area. The values are within the DPR regulatory limits of 6-9/6.5-9.5 respectively.

4.1.2 Temperature According to Bradford (1993) temperature influences the distribution of many aquatic organisms. Surface water temperature in the study area ranged from 25.8OC to 26.4 OC. This signifies the most favourable condition for the survival of aquatic life (RPI, 1985; Osibanjo and Ajayi, 1981).

4.1.3 Electrical Conductivity (EC) Electrical Conductivity (EC) is related to the concentration of ionized substances in water or the measure of ionic richness in a river course. In the study area EC varied from 15.9 S/cm to 53.1S/cm. The recorded values compared well with EC level recorded earlier within the Niger Delta Region (RPI, 1985).

4.1.4 Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Dissolved oxygen (DO) is the measure of the amount of gaseous oxygen dissolved in an aqueous solution. It is one of the most important parameters in aquatic life as it is an absolute requirement for the metabolism of aerobic organisms and also influences inorganic chemical reactions.

The concentration of DO varies daily and seasonally and depends on the species of phytoplankton present, light penetration, nutrient availability, temperature, salinity, water movement, partial pressure of atmospheric oxygen in contact with the water, thickness of the surface film and the bio-depletion rates (Emerson and Abell, 2001).

The DO levels of the surface waters in the area ranged from 1.61 mg/l to 2.66mg/l which is below WHO regulatory limits of 5 mg/l. Odiete (1999) confirms levels above those recorded to be favourable for the survival of aquatic organisms within the Niger Delta. The dissolved oxygen concentrations, consumption and demand vary between aquatic organisms especially fish species. Ophiocephalus obscura, the snakehead, Clarias gariepinus and other catfish species among others can survive with DO ranged from 0.5 to 4mg/l while significantly higher concentrations (7 to 11mg/l) are required to keep species such as Palaemonetes africana, Paeneus kerathurus (shrimps) alive and healthy.

4.1.5 Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) Excess TDS discharge in water bodies is of concern due to its potential for causing unfavourable physiological reactions in aquatic organisms (EBM, 1994). However, in the study area the total dissolved solids varied from 75.00 mg/l to 326.00mg/l. These values are lower than the DPR limit of 2000mg/l for surface water and 1000 mg/l WHO limit for drinking water. Any noticeable increase in this value may be associated with increasing runoff (caused by rainfall) and/or anthropogenic activities such as dredging, movement of boats, etc., or fishing activities.

4.1.6 Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) is an indirect measure for the amount of biologically degradable organic materials in water, and is an indicator of the amount of dissolved oxygen that will be depleted from water during natural biological assimilation of organic pollutants. Excess BOD in water therefore could adversely affect the survival of aquatic organisms within that ecosystem. The BOD recorded in this study ranged from 0.8 – 1.6 mg/l, all below the FMEnv limit of 30mg/1.

4.1.7 Nutrients While nitrogen and phosphorus occur in nature and are critical to plant life in the aquatic environment, too much of the nutrients cause an excessive growth of phytoplankton and other organisms, which deprive aquatic life including fish and plants of oxygen (Enger and Smith, 2004).

The concentration of nitrates (NO3-) ranged from 0.31 mg/l to 0.61mg/l as against the FMENV limits of 20mg/l while sulphates (SO42-) recorded values were between <1.0mg/l and 1.8mg/l – very much lower and highly insignificant compared to the FMEnv regulatory limits of 500mg/l. Phosphate values were lower than 0.05mg/l. These values were consistent with Niger Delta swamp water environment (RPI, 1985).

4.1.8 Chloride/ oil/grease The chloride levels of the water bodies in the study area were between 1.0 mg/l and 24.7.00mg/l. The higher values were recorded within the ground water samples. The values were lower than the FMEnv/DPR regulatory limits of 600mg/l. Oil and grease varied from 0.1 mg/l to 0.85mg/l indicating a negligible amount of hydrocarbon contamination.

4.1.9 Heavy metals Results of some of the heavy metals investigated in Kolo Creek surface water are summarized in Table 4.2. A comparison between the values obtained and DPR limits for some heavy metal concentrations shows that some of these heavy metals, namely chromium (Cr), nickel (Ni) and iron (Fe) had values above the DPR regulatory limits. These metals have been associated with crude oil and therefore their presence may be related to the presence of hydrocarbons in surface water.

Table 4.2: Petroleum and heavy metal levels in water samples from Kolo Creek Field

S/N PARAMETERS SAMPLING STATIONS DPR LIMITS IMGI 1 IMG 2 IMG 4 TARGET INTERV. POND WATER Petroleum Hydrocarbons 1 TPH <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

2 PAH <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 3 THC <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Heavy metals 4 Chromium (Cr) 0.310 0.256 0.251 0.001 0.03 5 Cadmium (Cd) <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.0004 0.006 6 Nickel (Ni) 1.011 0.891 1.100 0.015 0.075 7 Lead (Pb) <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.015 0.075 8 Vanadium (V) <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 NA NA 9 Zinc (Zn) 0.041 0.044 0.051 0.065 0.80 10 Copper (Cu) <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.015 0.075 11 Manganese (Mn) 0.056 0.062 0.112 NA NA 12 Iron (Fe) 2.620 2.571 0.020 0.020 0.100

Source: IUCN Taskforce Fieldwork, 2012

4.2 Sediment quality The sediment characteristics of Kolo Creek in Imiringi area are described below.

4.2.1 pH, conductivity and THC Sediment samples are moderately acidic with a pH range of 5.21 to 5.31; the sediment conductivity ranged from 55 to 61µS/cm; whilst the total hydrocarbon content ranged from 58.9 to 62.3 mg/kg. The levels of THC were slightly above the DPR target level of 50mg/kg (EGASPIN, 2002).

4.2.2 Exchangeable ion (potassium ions) The concentrations of the exchangeable ions measured for potassium in the sediment samples from the study area were 5.8-6.1mg/kg. The values recorded are normal for sediments in fresh water environment of the Niger Delta (RPI, 1985).

4.2.3 Nutrients (total nitrogen and available phosphorous) The nutrients measured as total nitrogen and available phosphorous were observed to have concentrations of 0.21 – 0.31mg/kg and 19.8 – 20.3mg/kg respectively in the area Table 4.3. These nutrient levels are in accordance with baseline study reports on similar fresh water environments in the Niger Delta Environment (RPI, 1985).

4.2.4 Organic matter content and carbon/nitrogen ratio The total nitrogen (TN) levels ranged from 0.24 – 0.31% in the sediment. The TN values range was considered adequate to support aquatic macrophytes and plant growth. The organic carbon value ranged from 2.24% - 2.51%, with a carbon / nitrogen (C:N) ratio of 8-9. The high organic carbon content observed in this area of study may be due to accumulation of vegetative matter, previous records of oil spillage and the slow carbon mineralization of sediment. All the recorded values in

sediment are in line with those reported in baseline studies of the Niger Delta (RPI, 1985).

Table 4.3: Results for physicochemical parameters of sediment samples from Kolo Creek, October 2012

S/ SAMPLE LOCATION pH EC THC OrgC TN C/N Avail K Sand Silt clay Textural N CODE Ratio p class 1. IMG.SED.01 Okpolokpo 5.31 55 58.9 2.51 0.31 8 20.3 5.8 11.2 31.6 57.2 Silty Clay 2. IMG.SED.02 Okpolokpo 5.21 61 62.3 2.24 0.24 9 19.8 6.1 12.7 33.4 53.9 Silty Clay

Source: IUCN Taskforce Fieldwork, 2012

4.3 Soil quality

4.3.1 Soil colour/texture The colour of the soil in the study area is dark brown on top, changing to dark grey in the subsoil. The dark brown colour on the topsoil could be related to the high content of plant debris and roots of various plant materials at different stages of decomposition. The poor ground drainage encourages the accumulation of raw organic matter (litter from the vegetative plants/ trees) on the soil surface. The soils were weakly differentiated into horizons possibly due to regular flooding.

4.3.2 Soil classification The soils are typically of Histosols Order of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Taxonomy Classification. A representative soil profile description for the soil encountered in the area is shown below.

Profile Description Landscape Features Physiography Almost flat with very insignificant micro relief of undulating geomorphology

Drainage Poorly drained. The high fractions of loam on the surface soil may have given rise to the slow rate of inundation and low gradient which allows tidal waters to remain in the swamp for long periods.

Land Quality Prime land that could be used for lumbering, Evaluation constrained to agricultural use due to inundated surface; unstable physical characteristics, threat of erosion

The particle size distribution and textural class of soils of the study area are presented in Table 4.4. Soil texture was mainly silty clay to clay. The preponderant silty clayish nature of the soil may be due to the accumulation of organic materials, debris and siltation of the creek area. This could also have influence on the water holding capacity of the freshwater swamp soils. The high fractions of silt and clay in most stations probably result from the slow rate of inundation and low gradient which allows seasonally flooded waters to remain in the swamp for long periods. The stable nature of drainage pattern and silting process in the swamp resulted in a uniform pattern of textural layers in the stations sampled. The high sand content in the stations could be due to turbulence which permits coarse fraction to settle out of suspension at the channel margins. Effiong et al. (2010) reported similar results in some soils of the Niger Delta.

Particle size distribution showed similarity from those previously reported for soils in the Niger Delta region. In this study, high clay content (58%) occurred in both stations sampled. Clay makes up 58.0 - 58.7 %, the silt constitutes 30.0 - 30.2 % and the sand comprises 11.4 – 12.0%. This trend is maintained in all the soil samples. Particle sorting is affected by soil type, rainfall intensity/frequency, random roughness, slope length/gradient/shape of the topography. Silty clay to clay textured soils have the highest water holding capacity. This implies that in the case of spillages, while the soil prevents easy seepage to the groundwater it retains the spilled oil for longer periods.

The dominant colours in the soil varied from brownish grey to dark grey in all the stations. This observation implies that the soil being regularly flooded was very weakly differentiated into horizons. The colour of these soils is influenced by the extent of oxidation of iron and manganese salts (Gigholi and Thornton, 1965). As a result of permanently waterlogged conditions, soils of the study area showed little variation in colours.

4.3.3 Chemical characteristics The chemical characteristics indicate that the soils in the study area showed a pH range of 5.37 – 5.88 and the colour was generally dark brown (Table 4.4). Soil formation is influenced by seasonal flooding and to some extent tidal action (range between 1 and 3 m) that flows through the forests carrying vegetal debris as well as the inundation from the sea rich in ions. They tend to have an almost neutral pH when wet. However, when the soils dry, the sulphides are oxidized to sulphuric acid, leaving an acidic environment (down to pH 5). There is not much variation between the surface soils (0 – 15 cm) and the subsurface values.

The phosphate concentrations ranged from 20.3 – 22.6mg/kg and were considered moderate. The nitrate values measured as total nitrogen (0.38 – 0.40 mg/kg). Thus the soils are considered poor in fertility due to low nitrogen and phosphate concentrations. The total nitrogen (TN) level recorded in soil samples was considered adequate to support plant growth. The surface soil organic carbon value

ranges from 2.73% to 29.0%. The high organic carbon content observed in this area of study may be due to accumulation of vegetative matter and the slow carbon mineralization of wetland soils.

The electrical conductivity values range from 16.0 S/cm to 41.0 S/cm. The total hydrocarbon content (THC) in the soils of Kolo Creek field was generally high and often exceeded the biogenic threshold and DPR target limit of 50 mg/kg. They ranged from 33.55 mg/kg to 748.82mg/kg. The results show that the oil exploitation activities in the area have probably introduced hydrocarbon into the environment.

Table 4.4: Results of physicochemical parameters of soil samples from Kolo Creek Field, October 2012 S/N Sample Location Depth pH EC THC Org TN C/N Avail K Sand Silt Clay Textural Code (m) Mg/k . C mg/ ratio . P mg/ % % % Class S/cm g % kg mg/k kg g 1 IMG 01 Okpolokpo 0 – 30 5.43 41 42.65 2.90 0.38 8 22.6 6.50 12.0 30.0 58.0 Silty clay

2 IMG 01 30 – 60 5.88 29 61.61 ------

3 IMG 01 60 - 100 5.82 40 85.31 ------

4 IMG Okpolokpo 0 – 30 5.42 29 748.8 2.73 0.40 7 20.3 7.80 11.4 30.2 58.7 Clay 02 2 5 IMG 02 30 – 60 5.37 16 40.28 ------

6 IMG 02 60 - 100 5.38 24 35.55 ------

Source: IUCN Taskforce Fieldwork, 2012

4.4 Hydrobiological status

4.4.1 Phytoplankton community The abundance and distribution of phytoplankton community within the study sites at Kolo Creek identified a checklist of 15 species representing 4 families respectively, with an overall density of 448 cells/ml as shown in Table 4.5.

The results indicate that within the study site the chlorophyceae (green microalgae) have the highest abundance and distribution (50.6%), followed by Euglenophyceae (25.7), then Cyanophyceae (15.85) and Xanthophyceae (7.81%).

Figure 4.1 shows the contribution of each of the major families of phytoplankton in the sampled Kolo Creek environment. Four (4) major families of phytoplankton were recorded, namely Chlorophyceae, Euglenophyceae, Cyanophyceae and Xanthophyceae and this composition is in conformity with observations made by other studies (Pudo 1985; Nwankwo and Saya 1996, Ekeh and Sikoki 2004, Chowdhury 2007).

Chlorophyceae were the dominant family and constituted 50.6% of the total number of phytoplankton in Kolo Creek and its environs. The Chlorophyceae were represented by six species with numerical contribution ranging the most numerous species Chlamydomonas sp. (12.95% of overall), followed by Crucigenia tetrapedia (11.38%) and Coelestrum reticulatum (8.48%).

The second dominant group of phytoplankton was the Euglenohyceae, which contributed 25.7% of the total number of phytoplankton count. They were represented by three species. The dominant Euglenophyceae species were Euglena acus (4.24%) and Euglena caudate (4.24). The third dominant group of phytoplankton was the Cyanophyceae and they contributed 15.85% of the total number of phytoplankton. Members in this family include Spirulina princeps (6.47%) and Merismapedia elagans (4.24%). The other family, which is the least in terms of dominance, is the Xanthophyceae, which contributed just about 7.81% of the total phytoplankton population. Tribonema vulgore (4.24%) is a prominent member of this family.

7.81% 15.8%

25.7%

50.6%

Figure 4.1: Relative abundance of phytoplankton taxa from Kolo Creek area, October 2012

Overall, the dominance pattern of the various families of phytoplankton in the aquatic systems around Kolo Creek was: Chlorophyceae > Euglenophyceae > Cyanophyceae > Xanthophyceae. A total of fifteen (15) species of phytoplankton were recorded in the area during the study. Phytoplankton species composition and diversity changes with environmental conditions such as nutrient levels, temperature, light, predator pressure etc. The relative importance of these factors varies considerably among different taxa and different ecosystems (Akin-Oriola, 2003; Raybaud et. al.; 2008). Under conditions of nutrient enrichment or eutrophication, the baccilariophyceae are known to proliferate (Reynolds 1984). In Kolo Creek, low nutrient enrichment accounted for the low phytoplankton density and diversity.

Table 4.5: Plankton density and distribution for Kolo Creek, October 2012

S/N TAXANOMIC GROUP STATIONS TOTAL RELATIVE CYANOPHYTA 1 2 OCCURRENCE ABUNDANCE PER GROUP PER GROUP 1 Merismapedia elegans 8 11 2 Oscillatoria lacustris 5 6 3 Raphidiopsis curvata 4 8 4 Spirulina princeps 18 11 Total 35 36 71 15.85

CHLOROPHYTA 1 Carteria globasa 14 10 2 Cariteria multifilis 13 18 3 Chlamydomonas sp. 25 33 4 Coelostrum reticulatum 20 18 5 Crucigenia tetrapedia 24 27 6 Spirogyra sp. 11 14 Total 107 120 227 50.67

EUGLENOPHYTA 1 Euglena acus 18 22 2 Euglena caudate 24 16 3 Phacus sp. 14 21 Total 56 59 115 25.67

XANTHOPHYTA 1 Tribonema vulgare 11 8 2 Tribonema viride 5 11 Total 16 19 35 7.81 448 100

Source: IUCN Taskforce Fieldwork, 2012

4.4.2 Periphyton

The abundance and distribution of Periphyton community within the study stations at Kolo Creek identified a total of 15 species representing 3 families, namely Chlorophyceae, Euglenophyceae and Cyanophyceae with an overall density of 284 cells/ml as shown in Table 4.6.

The contribution of each of the major families of periphyton in the sampled Kolo Creek environment is shown in Figure 4.2.

Chlorophyceae were the dominant family and constituted 41.2% of the total number of periphyton in Kolo Creek and its environs. The Chlorophyceae were represented by 4 species with numerical contribution ranging from the most numerous species within the family as Cracigenia tetrapedia (14.08% of overall), followed by Chlorella vulgaris (13.03%) and Spirogyra sp. (9.86%).

The second dominant group of petiphyton was the Euglenohyceae, which contributed 30.28%, of the total number of phytoplankton count. They were represented by two species. The dominant Euglenophyceae species Phacus sp. (16.55%) and Euglena acus (13.73%). These two species were the most abundant periphyton species. The third group of periphyton was the Cyanophyceae and they contributed 15.85% of the total number of phytoplanktonis. The dominant species amongst this family include Oscillatoria lacustris (12.32%) and Spirulina princeps (9.51%)

Table 4.6: Periphyton density and distribution for Kolo Creek, October 2012

S/N TAXANOMIC GROUP STATIONS TOTAL RELATIVE 1 2 OCCURRENCE ABUNDANCE PER GROUP PER GROUP CYANOPHYTA 1 Oscillatoria lacustris 14 21 2 Spirulina princeps 11 16 3 Merismopedia punctata 8 11 Total 33 48 81 28.52

CHLOROPHYTA 1 Spirogyra sp. 16 12 2 Crucigenia tetrapedia 18 22 3 Coelastrum reticulatum 8 4 4 Chlorella vulgaris 16 21 Total 58 59 117 41.20

EUGLENOPHYTA 1 Euglena acus 21 18 2 Phacus sp. 22 25 Total 43 43 86 30.28 284 100

Source: IUCN Taskforce Fieldwork, 2012

30.28% 28.52%

41.20%

Fig. 4.2: Relative abundance of Periphyton taxa from Kolo Creek area, October 2012

4.4.3 Aquatic macrophytes

The study area is within the forest region of coastal mangrove and swamp forest of the Niger Delta, and the forest is composed of lowland galloping swamp forest within the Niger River flood plain zone rich with diverse fauna and flora.

The first sampling station at Okpolokpo constitutes a seasonal swamp water canal covered with trees and shrubs species located about 80 meters from the oil well- head. This is an old spill site. The spill occurred about 20 years ago. A clean-up exercise has been carried out.

There is no oil sheen presence around the site, no algae bloom and colonization by any invasive macrophytes. There is some evidence of natural recovery within the site. The directional flow of the water body was not affected.

The second sampling station taken as the control close to Okpolokpo constitutes a freshwater swamp characterized by raffia palm and woody tall tree species with open areas of water with the presence of some aquatic macrophytes. The forest trees and aquatic macrophytes appeared healthy. There is also no oil sheen nor any algae bloom. The water is stagnant.

Within the brackish water areas of the Niger Delta area, aquatic macrophytes are not common, but, there is usually the presence of aquatic macrophytes in the freshwater zones. These comprise mostly water hyacinth (Eichornia crassipes) and water lettuce (Pistia stratiotes). The species composition of aquatic macrophytes in the study area is given in Table 4.7.

A total of eight aquatic macrophytes were recorded within the area (Table 4.7). Nymphaea lotus (water lily, a rooted aquatic macrophyte with floating leaves) was observed growing luxuriantly within the sampled area (Plate 4.1). These macrophytes are not tolerant of highly saline environments. Their presence in the

52 area is explained by the low salinity conditions of the water for most of the year. The other aquatic macrophytes encountered were the free floating Salvinia nymphellula and the bank types such as Cytosperma senegalense, Crinum natzrns, Cyrtospermum senegalense, Salvinia nymphellula, Ladwigia stolonifera and the duck weed Lemna sp.

Table 4.7: Macrophytes recorded in the sampled area in Kolo Creek Field, October 2012 S/N FAMILY SPECIES COMMON NAME 1 Araceae Pistia stratiotes Water lettuce 2 Azollaceae Azolla African Azola 3 Lemnaceae Lemna sp Duck weed 4 Salvinaceae Salvinia nymphellula Salivinia 5 Araceae Cytospermum senegalense 6 Nyrnphaceae Nymphaea lotus. Water lily 7 Amarvllidaceae Crinum natzrns 8 Onagraceae Ladwigia stolonifera

Source: IUCN Taskforce Fieldwork, 2012

The aquatic macrophytes constitute about 1% (percent) of the vegetation in this study site.

Plate 4.1: Macrophytes at some of the Kolo Creek Field stations

4.4.4 Zooplankton The zooplankton fauna in any aquatic environment is usually categorized into Rotifers, Cladocera, Calanoid, Harpaticoid and Cyclopoid Copepods, Shrimps, Decapod crustaceans, and larval forms of bivalve molluscs and various fishes. The zooplankton species obtained in this study were represented by Copepoda (47.62%), Protozoa (24.26%), Rotifera (20.41%), Cladocera (7.26%) and Insecta (0.45%) (see Table 4.8). The percentage composition of each of these major zooplankton groups in the study area is presented in Fig. 4.3. Calanoid Copepods were the most dominant zooplankton and the dominant species included Macrocyclops distinctus (18.26%), Mesochra sulfunensis (18.26%), Centrapages typicus (14.52%), Macrocyclops albidus (13.28%) and Paracyclops affini (11.20%). Among the dominant Protozoan species

53 were Arecella mitrata (14.94%), Tintinnopsis sp. (12.86%) and Frontonis leucas (9.54%). The dominant Rotiferan species included Corurella ucinata (13.28%), Diurella stylata (9.96%), Tricocerca longisieta (8.30%). The dominant species within the Cladocera taxa included Alona affinis (5.81%) and Monia dubia (4.15%).

Zooplankton communities encountered during this study are similar to those recorded for other waters in southern Nigeria (Ovie, 1993, Ogbeibu et al 1996). The observed percentage zooplankton density with crustaceans accounting for the highest quota agrees with the report of Ockiya and Otobo (1990) who reported that crustaceans contributed 79% of the total zooplankton. Within the crustaceans, copepods ranked highest in taxa.

Table 4.8: Zooplankton density and distribution for Kolo Creek, October 2012 S/N TAXANOMIC GROUP STATIONS TOTAL RELATIVE COPEPODA 1 2 OCCURRENCE ABUNDANCE PER GROUP PER GROUP 1 Macrocyclops distinctus 21 23 2 Macrocyclops albidus 18 14 3 Paracyclops affini 11 16 4 Acanthocyclops viridis 8 4 5 Centropages typicus 16 19 6 Mesochra sulfunensis 20 24 7 Nitocva lacustris 8 8 Total 102 108 210 47.62 CLADOCERA 1 Bosmina longirostris 5 3 2 Monia dubia 6 4 3 Alona affinis 6 8 Total 17 15 32 7.26 ROTIFERA 1 Colurella ucinata 18 14 2 Brachionus angularis 6 8 3 Trichocerca longiseta 11 9 4 Diurella stylata 6 18 Total 41 49 90 20.41 PROTOZOA 1 Arecella mitrata 13 23 2 Frontonia leucas 8 15 3 Holophrya vesiculosa 6 11 4 Tintinnopsis sp. 18 13 Total 45 62 107 24.26 INSECTA 1 Anopheline (larvae) 2 0 Total 2 0 2 0.45 441 100

Source: IUCN Taskforce Fieldwork, 2012

0.45%

24.26%

47.62%

20.41%

7.26%

Fig. 4.3: Relative abundance of zooplankton taxa from Kolo Creek area, October 2012

4.4.5 Macrobenthos

A total of only three macrofaunal organisms were harvested from the study area. The result recorded only two taxa of macrofauna from two classes from the samples. The amphibian class was represented by one specie (Rana sp.), which accounted for 66.7% of all the species encountered (Table 4.9 and Fig. 4.4) while fish also had one specie represented.

The amphibia showed class dominance with regards to abundance as it had two individuals compared to fish that had only one individual. Species distribution and abundance were generally very poor.

Fish 33.3%

Amphibia 66.7% Amphibia Fish

Fig. 4.4: The relative proportion of benthic fauna in the study area

Table 4.9: Composition, distribution and abundance of macrofauna in the sampled stations

S/ Taxonomic Group Stations Total Total N occurrence abundance Group per group IMB IMF IMB IMF Amphibia Pipidae / Xenopodinae 1 Xenopus tropicalis - - - 2 2 66.7%

Fish Cyprinodontidae 2 Epiplates biafranus - - - 1 1 33.3%

Total no. of individual - - - 3 3 100% Total no of species - - - 2

Source: IUCN Taskforce Fieldwork, 2012

Amphibians (although only two individuals of one species were observed during the survey) predominated over the single fish observed within the benthic macrofaunal survey as a result of the presence of marginal and floating aquatic macrophytes in the station which provided conducive shelter for breeding for this western clawed frog, and thus encouraged their growth in the area. Other reports had indicated the presence of four amphibian species within the Niger Delta area, namely Bufo maculatus, Ptychadena mascariensis, Dicroglossus occipitalis and Silurana (= Xenopus) tropicalis and also noted that tree frogs (Rhacophorids), according to hunters, are

56 occasionally encountered on the littoral vegetation of the swamp in wet season usually in the midst of foamy nest (Akani, pers. comm.). The occurrence of the floods, water turbulence and instability of substrate reduced the chances of the survival of macrofauna during the study period. It had been observed that during the rains, sedimentary particles became unstable causing dislodgment of benthic animals (Umeozor, 1996, Zabbey, 2002; Sikoki & Zabbey, 2006).

4.5 Wildlife The wildlife of the Kolo Creek area is typical of the bio-geographical realm of the lowland and freshwater swamps east of the River Niger. The study area shows a fairly high taxonomic diversity of wildlife species which are discussed below.

4.5.1 Mammals The study reveals the presence of thirty five (35) species of mammals, three were sighted in the field and the call of the Mona monkey was heard. The sighted species are: (1) Sclater’s guenon (Cercopithecus sclateri) which is endemic to Nigeria and listed as endangered in Act 11 of (1985) and as vulnerable in IUCN red list; (2) the giant forest squirrel (Protexerus stinger); and (3) the fire-footed tree squired (Funisciurus pyrrhopus). Vocalization of Mona monkey (Cercopithecus mona) was frequent in the study area in the late evenings. The Red Capped Mangabey (Cercocebus torguatus) is becoming extinct in the area due to human activities. They can no longer live in the study area but only come to some parts of the area for food and then leave.

Extinct species Three species are said to be extinct in the study area for the past three decades because of human activities. The species are:  Chimpanzee (Pan troglodyles);  Yellow-backed duiker (Cephalophus silvicultor); and  African Buffalo (Syncerus caffer).

The Chimpanzee is listed as endangered in IUCN Red list and also endangered in Nigerian Endangered species Act promulgated in Degree No. 11 of (1985). The Yellow-backed duiker and the African Buffalo are also listed in IUCN Red list as vulnerable species.

Some of the mammals recorded are Putty nose monkey, Calabar angwantibo, Sitatunga, Ogilbys duiker, Waxwells duiker, African civet, to mention but a few.

The information gathered from different sources was used as a checklist. Wildlife species found in the study area and their status are given in Tables 4.10 for mammals, 4.11 for birds and 4.12 for reptiles whilst some of the wildlife sold in a bush market are shown in Plate 4.2.

Plate 4.2: Some of the wildlife species sold in bush market in Kolo Creek area

Table 4.10: Mammalian wildlife occurring in Kolo Creek area

COMMON NAMES SCIENTIFIC NAMES IUCN Act 11 1985 ORDER PRIMATES Family Loridae  Potto Perodicticus potto NT -  Calabar Angwantibo Arctocebus calabarensis NT E Family Galagonidae  Dwarf Galago Galagoides demidoff NT -  Allen’s Galago Galago alleni - - Family Cercopithecidea  Mona Monkey Cercopithecus mona NT -  Sclater’s Guenon Cercopithecus sclateri VU E  Putty-nosed Monkey Cercopithecus nictitans NT -

ORDER HOLIDOTA Family Manidae  Tree pangolin Phalaginus tricuspis - E  Long-tailed pangolin Uromanis tetradactyla - -

ORDER CARNIVORE Family canidae  African clawless otter Anoyx capensis - E  Spot necked otter Lutra maculicollis - E Family Herpestidae  Marsh mongoose Atilax paludinosus - -  Egyptian mongoose Herpestes ichneumon - -  Cusimanse mongoose Crossarchus obscurus - - Family Viverridae  African civet Civettictis civetta - -  Two-spot palm civet Nandinia binotata - -

 Large-spotted Genet Genetta tigrina - -

ORDER RODENTIA Family Sciuridae  Red legged sun – squirrel Heliosciurus rufobrachium - -  Giant forest squirrel Protexerus strangeri - -  Fire-footed rope squirrel Funisciurus pyrrhopus - - Family Thryonomidae  Cane rat Thryonomys swinderianus - - Family Hystricidae  Brush-tailed porcupine Atherurus africanus - E Family Muridae  Black House rat Ratus ratus - - Family Cricetidae  Emin’s Giant rat Cricetomys emini - -

ORDER SIRENIA Family Procaviidae  Tree hyrax Dendrohyrax dorsalis - Family Anomaluridae  Beecroft’s Anomalure Anomalurus beecrofti - -  Derby’s Anomalure Anomalurus derbianus - - Family Tragulidae  Water Chevrotain Hyemoschus aquaticus - -

ORDER ARTIONDACTYLA Family Bovidae  Bush buck Tragelaphus scriptus - -  Ogilby’s duiker Cephalophus ogilbyi VU -  Maxwell’s duiker Cephalophus maxwelli  Sitatunga Tragelaphus spekei - -  African Buffalo Syncerus caffer - E Family Suidae  Red River hog Potamochoerus porcus - - Family Trichechidae

 African Manatee Trichechus senegalensis VU E

KEY

IUCN 2010 Red List

 E N = Endangered  V U = Vulnerable  NT = Near Threatened Nigeria 1985 Decree II

 E = Endangered

Source: IUCN Taskforce Fieldwork, 2012

4.5.2 Avifauna Fifty three (53) avifauna species were sighted and recorded in the field (Table 4.11). The Crowned Hawk-eagle (Stephanoaetus coronatus) is said to feed on monkeys and other animals in the forest. The Grey Parrot (Psittacus erithacus) that breeds and is resident in the study area is listed in IUCN Red list as vulnerable, and also listed as endangered in Nigerian endangered species Act promulgated in Act No. 11 of (1985).

The Yellow-Casqued Hornbill (Ceratogyymna elata) was sighted in the study area; this is the biggest hornbill in the Niger Delta area. This bird and the Crown Hawk Eagle are indicator species for the existence of unexploited forest around the study area. These birds are known to leave any forests that are over exploited. Other birds sighted included the Grey Parrot, the Palm Nut Vulture, the Great Turaco, and four Hornbill species, White Face Tree Duck and others.

Table 4.11: Avian wildlife species occurring in Kolo Creek area

COMMON NAMES SCIENTIFIC NAMES IUCN Act 11 1985 Family Cuculidae  Senegal Coucal Centropus senegalensis -  Black Cuckoo Cuculus clamosus - -  Didric Cuckoo Chrysococcyx caprius - - Family Pycnonotidae  Common Garden Bulbul Pycnonotus barbatus - -  Little Green bulbul Andropadus virens - -  Leaf love Pyrrhuru scandens - - Family Psittacidae  Grey parrot Psittacus erithacus NT EN Family Columbidae  Red-eyed Dove Streptopelia semitorquata - -  Laughing Dove Streptoplia senegalansis - -  Blue-spotted wood dove Turtur afer - -  Tambourine dove Turtur tympanistria - -  Green fruit pigeon Treron calva - - Family Buceratidae  Piping Hornbill Bycanistes fistulator - -  Pied Hornbill Tockus fasciatus - -  White-crested hornbill Tropicranus albocristatus - -  Yellow casqued hornbill Ceratogymna elata NT E Family Accipitridae  African Goshawk Accipiter tachiro - E  Lizard Buzzard Kaupifalco monogrammicus - -  Palm Nut-vulture Gypohierax angolensis - E  Hooded vulture Necrosyrtes monachus - E  Long-tailed Hawk Urotriorchis macrourus - -  Growned Hawk Eagle Stephanoaetus coronatus NT - Family Charadriidae

 Common sandpiper Actitis hypoleucos - - Family Capitonidae  Yellow-rumped Tinkerbird Pogoniulus bilineatus - - Family Hirundinidae  Lesser striped swallow Hirundo abyssinica - -  House martin Delichon urbica - - Family Ardeidae  Little egret Egretta garzetta - -  Great White Egret Egretta alba - -  Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis - -  Squacco heron Ardeola ralloides - -  Grey heron Ardea cinerea - - Family Estrildidae  Orange-checked waxbill Estrilda melpoda - -  Bronze mannikin Lonchura cucullata - -  Black and White mannikin Lonchura bicolor - -  Grey-crowed Negro-finch Nigrita canicapilla - - Family Ploceidae  Village weaver Ploceus cucullatus - -  Vieillot’s Back weaver Ploceus nigerrimus - -  Black-Headed weaver Ploceus melanocephalus - -  Grey-Headed sparrow Passer grisenus - - Family Viduidae

 Pin-tailed whydah Vidua macroura - - Family Nectariniidae

 Carmelite sunbird Chalcomitra fuliginosa - -  Superb Sunbird Cinnyris superbus - -  Copper Sunbird Cinnyris cupreus - -  Yellow bellied sunbird Nectarinia venusta - - Family Alcedinidae

 Blue-breasted King fisher Halcyon malimbica - -  Malachite Kingfisher Alcedo cristata - -  African pygmy King fisher Ceyx pictus - -  Senegal King fisher Halcyon senegalensis - - Family Jacanidae

 African Jacana Actophilornis africana - - Family Phasianidae

 Scaly Francolin Franicolinus squamatus - - Family Numididae

 Crested Guineafowl Guttera pucherani - - Family Picidae

 Grey wood pecker Dendropicos goertae - -  Buff-spotted woodpecker Campethera nircosa - -[

KEY

IUCN 2010 Red List

 E N = Endangered  V U = Vulnerable  NT = Near Threatened Nigeria Act II 1985

 E = Endangered

Source: IUCN Taskforce Fieldwork, 2012

4.5.3 Reptiles Fourteen (14) species of reptiles were recorded in the study area (Table 4.12). Three were sighted in the field, namely Nile Monitor lizard (Varanus ornatus), Grey skink (Mabuya blanding) and Agama lizard (Agama agama). Data obtained from interviewing hunters indicate that there are many species of snakes in the area, including dangerous and venomous forms like the Python (Python sebae), Cobras, (Naja melanoleuca), Mambas (Dendroaspis jamesonii), Vipers (Bitis gabonica and Causus maculatus). The harmless water snakes such as Grayia smithyii, and the Emerald Green snake, Gastropyxis smaragdina are restricted to the seasonal freshwater swamp. The vipers are found on the forest floors in the midst of dry leaves, while the bulk of the other snakes take refuge in the bush-fallows, forest edges and farmland, where they hunt rats, mice, lizards and skinks.

Table 4.12: Common reptiles of the Kolo Creek area

COMMON NAMES SCIENTIFIC NAMES IUCN D 11 1985 Family Python Biodae  Rock Python Python sebae - -  Calabar Ground Python Calabaria reinhardtii - -  Royal Python Python regius - E

Family Colubridae  Emerald snake Gastropyxis smaragdina - -

Family Elapidae  Green mambas Dendroaspis jamesoni - -  Black cobra Naja melanoleuca - -

Family Viperidae  Gaboon Viper Bitis gabonica - -  Viper snake Causus maculatus - -

Family Crocodylidae  Dwarf crocodile Osteolaemus tetraspis - E

Family Varanidae  Nile monitor lizard Varanus ornatus - E

Family Scincidae  Grey skink Mabuya blandingi - -

Family Agamidae  Agama lizard Agama agama - -

Family Pelomedusidae  West African Black Forest Turtle Pelusios niger - E

Family Testudinidae  Serrated Hinge Back Tortoise Kinixys erosa - -

KEY

IUCN 2010 Red List

 E N = Endangered  V U = Vulnerable  NT = Near Threatened Nigeria Act II 1985

 E = Endangered

Source: IUCN Taskforce Fieldwork, 2012

4.5.4 Amphibians Kolo Creek is located in the seasonally flooded zone and thus provides lots of breeding grounds for amphibians. They breed among the flooded grass and in ditches, swamp forest, ponds, gutters, burrow pits, culverts, etc. Apart from the Xenopus tropicalis recorded under benthic fauna above, other common amphibian species recorded in earlier works in the Niger Delta (Romer, 1953, Schiotz 1963, 1999; Akani and Luiselli, 2002 and Akani et al, 2004) are shown in Table 4.13. This table shows the species usually recorded in Kolo Creek and other Niger Delta environs.

Table 4.13: Diversity of Amphibian known in Kolo Creek and environs

Family Species Abundance index Bufonidae Amietophrynus maculates +++ A. regularis ++ Nectophryne sp. + Dicroglossidae Holobatrachus occipitalis ++ Ptychadenidae Ptychadena mascariensis +++ P. aequiplicata ++ P. oxyrhychus ++ P. pumilio + Phrynobatrachidae Phrynobatrachus sp + Pipidae Silurana (Xenopus) tropicalis +++ Hyperolidae Hyperolius concolor + H. guttalutus + H. fusciventris +

Afrixalus dorsalis ++ Arthroleptidae Leptopelis viridis ++ Arthroleptis sp + Key: +++ = Abundant; ++ = Few, + = Very few

It is possible that amphibian populations in the area are declining as the habitat is progressively being degraded by various anthropogenic activities – infrastructural development, reclamation and sand filling project, shore protection project, oil spillage, motor bike and car- washing in freshwater bodies (Akani and Luiselli, 2002 and Akani et al., 2004). Thus, amphibians in Kolo Creek can serve as a good bioindicator of polluted freshwaters (Akani et al., 2004), given the fact that their skin is permeable and very sensitive to chemical changes in water and air.

4.5.5 Factors impacting conservation in the Niger Delta

Keystone species A keystone species is a species that plays a critical role in maintaining the structure of an ecological community and whose impact on the community is greater than would be expected based on its relative abundance or total biomass. A keystone species is a plant or animal that plays a unique and crucial role in the way an ecosystem functions. Without keystone species, the ecosystem would be dramatically different or cease to exist altogether. In an ecosystem, the keystone species may be a reptile such as pythons or crocodiles which are predators of antelopes and rodents. Other keystone species include butterflies, birds and bees that pollinate flowers. The Red River Hog, Potamochoerus porcus, which has a destructive habit of scooping the mud and roots, is also a keystone species. Tall growing emergent trees that coppice well such as Ceiba petandra, Pterocarpus sp, Irvingia gabonensis which squirrels, epiphytes, lichens and birds inhabit are equally keystone species of a forest. A keystone species could be a carnivore whose absence could cause the prey population to explode and cause a general decline of other species.

Indicator species An indicator species is a species whose presence, absence, or relative well-being in a given environment is a sign of the overall health of its ecosystem (AHSD, 2002). By monitoring the condition and behaviour of an indicator species, scientists can determine how changes in the environment are likely to affect other species that are more difficult to study. Organisms that serve as a measure of environmental condition include lichen on trees which are signs of air pollution. Mosses are indicators of acid soil, while Tubifex worms are indicators of poor oxygen and low quality stagnant water unfit for human consumption. In freshwater zones like the Kolo Creek and environs, amphibians are good indicator species. The same is true for macrophytes.

Flagship species A flagship species is a species which is the reason for the conservation of an ecosystem. Such a species is ‘charismatic’ and is chosen because of its vulnerability, niqueness or attractiveness in order to gather more support and acknowledgement from the public for its conservation. The flagship species concept holds that by giving publicity to a few key species, the support given to those species will successfully leverage conservation of the entire ecosystem and all species contained therein.

4.6 Fish and fisheries

Fishing is the one of the major occupations of the inhabitants of the study area and is carried out at both commercial and subsistence levels.

4.6.1 Fish species composition The composition of fish species from the general study area is listed in Table 4.14 which indicates their common and local names, preferred fishing location and peak periods of exploitation in the area. The fishery is generally a multi-species stock largely exploited by artisanal fishers operating dug-out wooden canoes of various sizes.

Table 4.14: Common fish species in Kolo Creek Area

S/N Common Local Name Scientific Status Fishing Fishing Fishing gear Name Name areas period 1 Sardines Afaru Pellonula sp Common River & February Cast and Inland to July seine net creeks. 2 Shad Isongu Ilisha sp Common Brass August to Cast net River & March Creeklets 3 Mullet Edegge Mugil spp Common Rivers November Cast net and to July Creeks 4 Tilapia Atabala Tilapia Common Inshore May to Cast net guinensis, November Sarotherodon sp 5 Flat fish Kogala Echippidae Common Inshore - Cast net 6 Cat Fish Singi Chrysichthys Common Inshore November Gill net & nigrodigitatus to July hook 7 Juvenile Cat Otio Chrysichthys Common Inshore May to Small hook fish nigrodigitatus November 8 Moon Fish Ofo - Less Inshore May to Hand hook common November & Otta 9 Hepsetus Isagbo Hepsetus adoe Less Inshore November Hook common to July 10 Mudskipper Etela - Common Inshore All year Hook/Titi 11 Gobis Endomalangulo Gobies Common Inshore All year Hook/ Titi 12 Porogobius - - Common Inshore All year Net(Imbigbo)

13 Prawns Otoku Nematopalaemon Common Inshore November Imbigbo net sp to May (drag net) 14 Prawns Opulo Macrobrachium Common Inland June to Imbigbo net macrobrachium Fresh November (drag net) water 15 Cat fish Nengwu Ariidae Common October to Hook May

Source: IUCN Taskforce Fieldwork, 2012

4.6.2 Fishing gear types Artisanal fishing is based on traditional methods of fishing that employ mainly canoe and different fishing nets which depend on the season and target fish species. Canoes can be motorized or hand-paddled. Common fishing gear types include shrimp traps, drift gill nets, set gill nets, cast nets, seine nets, hook and lines. Lift nets may be used by womenfolk who target small shrimp species in the creeks and creeklets. Other fishing methods include hand-picking for different types of molluscs by the womenfolk and children such as periwinkles, oysters and other shellfish.

Prominent among the fishing devices are the edek, a type of fish fence used in the creeks; alot, a large trap used on sand and mud-banks in inland waters. Teams using these devices either operate from their home villages, where they exploit the nearby waters, or stage long distance fishing expeditions, during which they live in camps or house-boats often far beyond the bounds of their homeland.

Fishing gears are largely made of long setlines, circling nets and seine nets of different mesh sizes varying between ½”, 1”, 1½”, 2”, 2½ and 3” (1.0mm to 5.0mm). Gears measure 6 - 12m in length and 2 - 4 meters in width. Nets are manually operated. They are set and allowed to stay for up to one hour before they are removed with the catch.

4.6.3 Role of various people in the fisheries Motorized fishing around the larger water bodies and near shore areas is the domain of male fishers. Oyster harvesting is mostly carried out by women and children and men who lack the boat infrastructure to engage in other demanding types of artisanal fishing.

Fish processing based mainly on smoke-drying is predominantly a female occupation. For this purpose practically every family in each community has a fish smoking altar within or outside the living premises.

4.6.4 Shrimp fishery Shrimp is one of the leading highly priced sea foods that is harvested by fishers in Kolo creek and associated creeks and creeklets and it is largely harvested by small- scale fishers. This involves numerous people operating motorized or non-motorized

66 boats to catch shrimp. Most of the shrimps caught in the small-scale sector are consumed internally. Gears for shrimping include stake or grass woven traps of different dimensions and scoop nets. Drag nets are also in use. Fishing with these gears takes place in non-motorized wooden boats, and involves manual rowing with paddles. One fisher may conveniently employ traps and baskets usually engaged in macrobranchuim fishery. Traps with single and multiple compartments are also used in the sector. Dragnet or hand seine requires two operators, each holding the wooden pole (handle) as the net is dragged along in the river channel.

5. Conclusions

The results of the observations on water quality based on the in situ analysis indicate that the pH and temperature values were within the permissible limits for freshwater, while the dissolved oxygen (DO) were quite low for the control and remediated stations with a range of 1.61 - 2.66 mg/l, with slightly higher values recorded at the control (1.71 -2.66mg/l) compared to the remediated station. The DO values recorded for the groundwater were, however, higher (3.95 -5.25mg/l) and within the acceptable WHO guideline for drinking water.

The total hydrocarbon concentration (THC) recorded for the remediated site and the control were similar; 0.32mg/l for the subsurface samples and 0.68 – 0.85mg/l for the bottom samples indicating signs of previous contamination compared to 0.01 – 0.03 mg/l recorded for the groundwater/borehole samples. This is also indicative of gradual ecosystem recovery and relatively less impact on the public health of the community.

The total hydrocarbon levels in the sediments (58.9 – 62.3mg/kg) and soils (36 - 749mg/kg) were above the DPR target level limit of 50mg/kg. The presence of such high concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons indicates remaining levels of pollution. It should be pointed out that oil sheens were not seen at any of the sampled stations.

The recorded phytoplankton total abundance were 448 cells/ml, species richness of 15 and only 4 taxonomic group; Periphyton – only 3 major taxa, 9 species and overall abundance of 284 and Zooplankton – only 5 major taxa, 19 species and absence of fish and molluscan larvae (probably due to the impact of oil spillage).

These findings indicate that the ecosystem is exposed to stress, and that this stress is likely to be caused by the oil spills that have been recorded in the area. They may also be seen as an indication that the environment and ecosystem has not fully recovered and may still take some time to fully recover.

REFERENCES

AA.VV. (1997). Study of the fauna (Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds and Mammals) of the Niger Delta Area and Assessment of the Environmental Impact of the LNG Bonny Project, Port Harcourt, Rivers State, Nigeria). Politano, E. (ed). TSKJ and Aquater-ENI Press S. Lorenzo in Campo and Port Harcourt.

AA.VV. (1998). Environmental Impact Assessment of LNG Transport System on the fauna of the Niger Delta (Nigeria). Amphibian, Reptiles, Birds, Mammals. Politano, E.(ed) TSKJ and Aquater-ENI Press, S.Lorenzo and Port Harcourt.

AHSD (2002). American Heritage Science Dictionary

Akani, G.C. (2008). Impact of Petroleum industry activities on wildlife and biodiversity conservation in some states of the Niger Delta, Nigeria. Ph.D. Thesis. Department of Applied & Environmental Biology, Rivers State University of Science & Technology, Port Harcourt. 385 pp.

Akani, G.C and Luiselli, L. (2002). Amphibian fauna diversity and conservation status in the Niger Delta Basin (Southern Nigeria). An update. Declining Amphibian Task Force (DAPTF), Froglog, 51 :2.

Akani, G.C., Luiselli, L., and Politano, E. (1999). Ecological and Conservation Considerations on the reptile fauna of the Eastern Niger Delta (Nigeria). Herpetozoa 11: 141 – 153.

Akani, G.C., Politano, E., Luiselli, L. (2004). Amphibians recorded in forest swamp areas of the River Niger Delta (southeastern Nigeria), and the effects of habitat alteration from oil industry development on species richness and diversity. Applied Herpetology, 2:1-21.

Akin-Oriola G. A. (2003): On the phytoplankton of Awba reservoir, Ibadan, Nigeria. Rev. Biol. Trop. 51(1): 99-106.

Akpan-Idiok, A. U. and I. E. Esu (2001). Morphological Characteristics and Classification of Mangrove Swamp Soils in Cross River Estuary, Southeast Nigeria. Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of Soil Science Society of Nigeria, Pp. 60-68.

American Public Health Association (1995). Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, APHA, AWWA and WPCE, 19th Edition, EPS Group Inc., Hanover, Maryland, U.S.A.

American Public Health Association (APHA, 1998). Standard Methods for the Examination of water and wastewater, 19th Edition. American Public Health Association. Byrd Progress, Springfield, New York.

Anadu, P.A. and Oates, J.F (1982). The status of wildlife in Bendel State, Nigeria, with Recommendations for its Conservation. A report prepared for submission to the Bendel State Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources, the Nigerian Federal Ministry of Agriculture, the Nigerian Conservation Foundation, the New York zoological society and the World Wildlife Fund (US). (WWF/IUCN Project 1613). December 1982. 41 pp.

Anadu, P. A. and Green, A. A. (1990). Nigeria. In:East et al, Antelopes.Global Survey and Regional Action Plans. Part 3: Central and West Africa. Compiled by R. East and the IUCN/SSC Antelope Specialist Group. 171 pp. IUCN, Gland Switzerland.

Angelici, F.M. (1998). Mammals: In: A study of the fauna of the Niger Delta area in Southern Nigeria. Politano, E. (ed). ENI Press, Milan. 54 – 98.

Angelici, F.M., Grimod, I., Politano, E. (1999). Mammals of the Eastern Niger Delta (Rivers and Bayelsa, Nigeria): An environment affected by gas-pipeline. Folia Zoologica. 48(4): 329 – 364.

Anon (1986). Laboratory Manual for Agronomic Studies in Soil, Plant and Microbiology. Contributors: C. T. I. Odu (Soil Microbiology), O. Babalola (Soil Physics), E. J. Udo (Soil Chemistry), A. O. Ogunkunle (Soil Morphology & Description), T. A. Bakare (Plant Analysis), G. O. Adeoye (Coordinator). Department of Agronomy, University of Ibadan, Nigeria. 83pp.

Bohn, H.L., B. L. McNeal and G.A O`Connor (1979). Soil Chemistry, A Wiley-Inter science Publication. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

Borrow, N and Demey, R. (eds.), (2001). Helm Identification Guides; Birds of Western Africa. Christopher Helm, London. 822pp.

Bradford, S.A. (1993). Corrosion control, New York: van Nostrand.

Branch, B. (ed.), (1988). Field Guide to the Snakes and other reptiles of South Africa. New Holland (Publ.).Ltd., London. 327 pp.

Cansdale, G.S. (1991). West African Snakes. Longman, London – UK.

Chowdhury, M.M.R.; Mondol M.R.K. and Sarker, C. (2007): Seasonal variation of plankton population of Borobila beel in Rangpur district Univ. j. zool. Rajshahi Univ. Vol. 26, pp. 49-54.

Collins, C.H. and Lyne, P.M. (1980): Microbiological Methods. Butterworth and Co. Limited, London. pp. 125 – 300.

Coultas, C. L. and F. G. Calhoun (1976). Properties of some tidal marsh Soil of Florida. Soil Map of Africa. 5th Revision, Leopoldville.

Dasmann, R.F. (ed.), (1964). Wildlife Biology. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 231pp

Davies, G. (ed.), (2002). African Forest Biodiversity – A Field Survey Manual for Vertebrates. Earthscan Institute (Europe). 161 pp.

Davies O.A., Abowei, J.F.N and Tawari, C.C. (2009): Phytoplankton Community of Elechi Creek, Niger Delta, Nigeria-A Nutrient-Polluted Tropical Creek. American Journal of Applied Sciences 6 (6): 1143-1152.

Department of Petroleum Resources (DPR) (2002) Environmental Guidelines and Standards for the Petroleum Industry in Nigeria (EGASPIN), pp 59 – 66.

Department of Petroleum Resources (DPR) (1991). Environmental Guidelines and Standard for the Petroleum Industries in Nigeria.

EBM, (1994) Environmentally Benign Manufacturing: Publications

Ekeh, J. B. and F. D. Sikoko (2004) Diversity and spatial distributor of phytoplankton in New Calabar River, Nigeria Liv. System sus. Dev. 1(3) 25-31.

Effiong, G. S. and G. A. Ayolagha (2010). Characteristics, Constraints and Management of Mangrove Soils for Sustainable Crop Production. EJEAFChe, 9(6), 2010, (977- 996).

Emerson, S. and Abell, J. (2001). The Biological Pump in the Subtropical North Pacific Ocean. Chicago: USA: Pretence Inc.

Enger and Smith (2004) Environmental Science; A study of Interrelationships. ; McGraw Hill

Evans, L.G., B.D. Kay and R.L. Thomas (1982). Soil Science. A Study Guide and Laboratory Exercise Manual. Dept of Guelph, Ontario, Canada 365pp.

FMENV (1991) . Federal Ministry of Environment Interim Guidelines and Standards for Industrial Effluents, Gaseous Emmissions and Hazardous Waste Manaagement In Nigeria .

Federal Ministry of Environmental Sectoral Guidelines for Oil and Gas Industry Project (1995)

Gadgil, M. (1992). Conserving Biodiversity as if people matter: A Case Study of India. AMBIO, Vol. 21, No.3, pp. 266 -270.

Hamadina, MK, Otobotekere, D. and Anyanwu DI (2007). Impact Assessment and Biodiversity Considerations in Nigeria. A Case Study of Niger Delta University Campus Project on Wildlife in Nun River Forest Reserve. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal 18(2): 179- 197

Happold, D.C.D. (1987). The Mammals of Nigeria. Oxford University Press, New York USA.

Hodgson, J.M, (1983). Soil Sampling and Soil Descriptions. Monograph on soil Survey. Clarendon Press, 120-130pp

Institute of Pollution Studies, IPS, (1988). Rivers State University of Science and Technology, Port Harcourt, Nigeria.

International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) (1992) Coastal and marine biodiversity report for UNEP: Identification, establishment, and management of specially protected areas in the WACAF region. Gland, Switzerland.

Juo, A.S.R (1979). Selected Methods for soil and plant analysis. IITA Manual Series I

Kentucky Water Watch (KWW) (2001): Dissolved Oxygen and Water Quality: http://.fluid. Stateky. Us/www/ramp/rms2.htm.

Kiel, G. (1997). Environmental Engineering McGraw-Hill International, U.K.

Kingdon, J. (ed.), (1997). The Kingdon Field Guide to African Mammals. Academic Press, 32 Jamestown Rd., London NW1 7BY. 476 pp.

Moshby, H. S. (ed.), (1963). Wildlife Investigational Techniques. The Wildlife Society, Blacksburg, Virginia. 419 pp.

Narayanan, P. (2007). Environmental Pollution. Principles, analysis and control. CBS Publishers and Distributors, India.

Niger Delta Environmental Survey (NDES) (1997) :Final Report of Phase 1. Volume 1.

Oates, J. F., Bergl, R.A. and Linder, J.M. (2004) Africa’s Gulf of Guinea Forests: Biodiversity patterns and Conservation priorities. Advances in Applied Biodiversity Science No. 6, Center for Applied Biodiversity, Washington, 90pp.

Oates, J. F,. (2011). Primates of West Africa Pocket Identification Guide. Arlington

VA 222022 USA.

Obire, O. and Wemedo, S.A. (1996): The effect of oilfield wastewater on the microbial populations of a soil in Nigeria. Niger Delta Biologia. 1:77-85.

Odiete W. O. (1999). Environmental Physiology of animals and pollution of Africa. 5th Revision, Leopoldville. Official Gazette No. 75, Vol. 79, A1269 Lagos 1992

Odu, C.T.I., O.F Esuruso, L.C Nwoboshi and J.A Ogunwale (1985). Environmental Study of the Nigerian Agip Oil Company Operational Area. Soil and Freshwater Vegetation. Milan. Italy.

Olomukoro, J. O. and Ezemonye, L. I. N. (2007): Assessment of the macro- invertebrate fauna of rivers in southern Nigeria. African Zoology 42(1):1-11.

Osibanjo, O. and Ajayi, S.O. (1981). Pollution studies on Nigeria Rivers II, Water Quality of some Nigeria Rivers, Environmental Research Series 2B: 87-95

Peterson, R.T. (ed.), (1980). A Field Guide to the Birds. Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston 384 pp.

Pourriot, R. (1980): Rotifers. In Durrand, J-R and Leveque, C. (eds) (1990): Flore et faune aquatiques de l’ Afrique Sahelo-Soudanienne. Editions de ORSTOM documentations Technique no. 44 Paris. 219-2328pp.

Powell, C.B (1993). Sites and species of conservation interest in the central axis of the Niger Delta (Yenagoa, Sagbama,Ekeremor, and Southern Ijaw Local Government Areas). A report of recommendations to the Natural Resources Conservation Council (NARESCON).105Pp.

Powell, C.B. (1995). Wildlife Study I: Report to the Environmental Afairs Department, Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria, Port Harcourt, Nigeria.

Powell, C.B. (1997). Discoveries and priorities for mammals in the freshwater forests of the Niger Delta. Oryx 31: 83 - 85

Raybaud,V., Tunin-Ley, A., Ritchie, M. E., and Dolan, J. R. (2008): Similar patterns of community organization characterize distinct groups of different trophic levels in the plankton of the NW Mediterranean Sea. Biogeosciences Discuss., 5, 4897–4917.

Research Planning Institute (RPI) (1985) Environmental Baseline Studies for the Establishment of Control Criteria and Standards against Petroleum Related Pollution in Nigeria, RPI, North Carolina, USA / NNPC, Lagos.

Reynolds, C.S. (1984): Phytoplankton periodicity: The interaction of form, function and environmental variability. Freshwater Biology, 14: 111–142.

Rodel, M-O. (2000). Herpetofauna of West Africa. Lagos West African Press. 248 Pp.

Romer, J. D. (1953): Reptiles and Amphibians collected in Port Harcourt area of Nigeria – Copeia, 1953: 121 – 123.

Schiotz, A. (1963). The Amphibia of Nigeria. Vidensk medd. Fra dans naturh foen, 125: 1 – 92. Schiotz, A. (1999). Tree frogs of Africa – Frank-Furt/M. (Edition Chimaira), 350 pp

Schiotz, A., (1969). The tree frogs (Rhacophoridae) of West Africa. Spolia Zoologica Musei Hammiensis. 25:1 - 346

Sikoki, F.D. and Zabbey, N. 2006. Environmental gradients and benthic community of the middle reaches of Imo river, South-Eastern Nigeria

Smith, R.T. and K. Atkinson (1975). Techniques in Pedelogy. A handbook for Environmental and Resource Studies, Elek Science. London. Pp 24 – 31.

SPDC Geomatics (2012) Spill incidents in the Niger Delta, Map No. EP201207208314003.MXD Geomatics, Port Harcourt. Tile C7

Sutherland, W.J. (ed.), (2000) . The Conservation Handbook: Research, Management and Policy. Blackwell Science Ltd. 278 pp.

Tel, D.A and Hagarty, M. (1984). Soil and Plant Analysis: study guide for Agricultural laboratory,Directors and Technologist working in tropical regions. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture and University of Guelph, Canada. 277pp.

Umeozor, O.C. 1996. Benthic fauna of new Calabar river, Nigeria. Trop. fresh water Biol. 4: 41 – 51.

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (2006). Niger Delta Human Development Report. 2006 UNDP, Nigeria, Abuja.

Victor, R. and Ogbeibu, A. E. (1985): Macrobenthic invertebrates of a stream flowing through farmland in southern Nigeria. Environmental Pollution, Series A 39: 333- 347.

World Health Organizations (1996): Guidelines for drinking water quality. Vol. 3. Geneva.

Zabbey, N. 2002. An ecological survey of benthic macroinvetebrates of Woji creek off the Bonny River system, Rivers State. M.Sc. Thesis, Univ. Port Harcourt, Nigeria.

Annex 1.

STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE FOR ANALYSIS IN ROFNEL LABORATORY

1. DETERMINATION OF HYDROCARBON IN SOIL AND EFFLUENT WATER.OIL AND GREASE and TOTAL PETROLIUM HYDROCARBON. ASTM D3921-09

SCOPE OF THE TEST Hydrocarbon in the context of this test is all substance extractible by TETRE CHLORO ETHYLENE in water sample of interest as an estimate of combined OIL and GREASE and the PETROLIUM HYDROCARBON

INTERFERENCES Organic solvents and certain other organic compounds not considered as oil and grease on the basis of chemical structure may be extracted and measured as oil and grease. Using a pure and appropriate solvent will minimize additional hydrocarbon. Also zeroing the solvent in the instrument before reading samples will eliminate additional hydrocarbon.

APPARATUS REQUIRED - -Infrared Spectrophotometer. HC 404 - -Weighing Balance, - -100ml Volumetric Flask, - -1ml Pipette, - -Cells made of quartz, 10mm path length. At least 2 required. - -Filter Paper, IPS (Interphase Separator) - -Glass bottle, - -Measuring Cylinder, 1 litre - -Separating Funnel - Glass Funnel.

REAGENTS - -Dehydrated crude oil, or Calibration Standard . - -Tetrachloroethylen. Solvent. - Silica gel. - Hydrochloric acid, Mixed 1:1 with distilled water - -Sodium Sulphate anhydrous and granular.

PROCEDURE Before Measurement - -Ensure that all that materials required in terms of reagents and apparatus are available - -Put on the infrared spectrophotometer, HC 404 and allow to warm up for 30 minutes. The extraction process - Weigh 10g of soil - Add 200ml of distilled water and shake properly - Decant into a 500ml bottle - -Put 20ml of solvent into the 500ml bottle (glass sampling bottle) - -Add a few quantity of HCl to adjust the PH to 2. - -Close the sampling bottle and shake vigorously for 2minutes - -Allow the bottle to stand until the contents settle and the bubble disappear. - -Open it with care to release any pressure build-up. - -Transfer the content of the bottle to a clean separatory funnel, using a glass funnel and recap the empty bottle - -Wash down the transfer funnel with clean solvent - -Allow the contents of the separatory funnel to settle. - -Transfer the bottom layer into a clean 50ml volumetric flask, through an IPS filter paper containing 1g of sodium sulphate. - -Add another 25ml of solvent to the original empty sample bottle, recap and shake the container to obtain good contact between the liquid and all inner surfaces. - -Transfer this new wash into the seperatory funnel, replace the stopper and shake the mixture vigorously for 2minutes - -Allow the content to settle, remove the stopper to release any pressure - -Transfer the bottom layer through the same IPS / sodium sulphate filter into the same 50ml volumetric flask. - -Wash down the filter assembly with fresh solvent and bring the liquid level to the mark in the flask. - (This is the volume of extraction solvent V1)

Taking the water volume Drain the remaining contents of the seperatory funnel into a 1000ml graduated cylinder and record the volume. For water calculation (This is the volume used, V2)

Measurement of Oil and Grease Take some of the extract in V1 above and measure the absorbance in the infrared spectrophotometer. (This is A1) If the gross absorbance exceeds 0.6, dilute one part of the extract to ten parts total volume with solvent and take the absorbance reading. Remember to multiply with this dilution factor later in the calculation (X.10)

Measurement of petroleum hydrocarbon Take about 25ml (V3) of the extract Put about 5 grams of FLORISIL in the glass column of florisil by passing pure solvent through it. Pass the 25ml extract through the FLORISIL column, into a 50ml volumetric flask Pass fresh solvent through the FLORISIL column (to wash down) until the solvent gets to the 50ml mark on the flask. (This is V4) Take a portion of the 50ml obtained above and measure the absorbance (This I A2)

CALIBRATION PROCEDURE Weigh 0.1g of Calibration standard in a 100ml volumetric flask make up to mark with tetrachloroethylene.

STANDARDS - -Take 10ml, 8ml, 5ml, 4ml, & 2ml from the stock into another 5 of 100ml volumetric flask and make up to mark with the solvent. - -Introduce each of these standards into the cuvette and measure the respective absorption values. - -Plot a calibration graph of concentration versus absorbance, to get an R2 value as close as possible to 1. (0.999xx) and note the equation of the line.

NOTE: The coefficient of X in the line equation will be used in the calculation as ‘B’

CALCULATION Oil and Grease mg/l = A1 x V1 x B V2 Petroleum Hydrocarbon = A2 x V1 x V4 x B V2 x V3 Where A1 = Absorbance value of oil and grease Extract A2 = Absorbance value petroleum Hydrocarbon B = Coefficient of X in the line equation relating absorbance to concentration V1 = Volume of solvent sample used for extraction 50ml V2 = Volume of water sample used for extraction as measured in the cylinder for chromatography, 25ml V4 = Final diluted volume of petroleum hydrocarbon, 50ml

QA/QC - Analyze at least four working standards containing concentration of hydrocarbon in solvent within the expected sample concentration prior to the analysis of the sample to calibrate the equipment. - Verify instrument calibration after standardization by analyzing the standard at the concentration of one the calibration standards.

- If the calibration cannot be verified, recalibrate the instrument. - A laboratory control sample should be analyzes with each batch of sample at a minimum frequency of 10%. - Wear correct PPE - Shake vigorously for clear separation - Adhere to equipment instrument instruction manual before & during use - Turn on the instrument and allow to stabilize.

2. DETERMINATION OF TPH AND PAH IN SOIL BY GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY (FID) TEST METHOD USEPA 8015

SCOPE OF THE TEST This method describes the procedure for analysis of extractable total petroleum hydrocarbon (ETPH) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) in sediment and soil samples. The purpose of this document is to ensure that determination of TPH in soil/sediment/sludge using Agilent 6890N is carried out in a manner that will not alter the validity of results obtained.

INTERFERENCES Contamination by carryover can occur whenever high and low concentrations are analysed in sequence, to reduce the potential for carry over the sample syringe must be rinsed out between samples with an appropriate solvent. During analysis major contaminant sources are volatile materials in the laboratory or impurities in the inert purging gas in the sorbent trap. Avoid the use of plastic tubing or thread sealants order than PTFE. Whenever an unusually concentrated sample is encountered, it should be followed by injection of a solvent blank to check for cross contamination.

TEST METHOD Gas Chromatography - USEPA 8015

Compilation of EPA’s Sampling and Analysis Methods, Edited by Lawrence H. Keith, 2nd edition, 1996

EQUIPMENT / APPARATUS

. Agilent 6890N Gas Chromatographs/ Flame Ionization Detector . Capillary column (DB – 5 or HP – 5) . Shaking Water bath . 100ml extraction bottles . Measuring cylinder

. Glass funnel . Glass wool . Microsyringes . Soxhlet Extraction Unit . Rotary Evaporator

Note: Clean all glass wares by detergent washing in hot water, and rinse with tap water, distilled water and the acetone. Then oven dry glassware at 150oC to 200oC for a minimum of 30min.

REAGENTS / MATERIALS

. #2 Diesel Fuel (AccuStandard), 20mg/ml in Dichloromethane, storage: ambient, refrigerate after opening) . Methylene chloride . Sodium sulphate . Silica gel (100-200 mesh) . Surrogate Standard (AccuStandard): 1-Chlorooctadecane 1000µg/ml in hexane, storage: 0-5oC at all times or o-Terphenyl 2mg/ml in Acetone, storage: Ambient

SOLVENT QA/QC Test every batch with GC-FID to make sure that there are no contaminants like an extra peak that can contribute to the measurement.

PROCEDURE

Sample Preservation a] Store samples below 0oC in ice if to be analysed within 7 days otherwise store at -18 oC until analysed. b] Soil/Sediment/Sludge samples should be extracted within 7 days after sampling and extracts analysed within 40 days of extraction.

Sample Preparation a] Decant and discard any water layer on sample surface b] Mix sample thoroughly c] Discard foreign objects such as, leaves, sticks, and rocks

Soxhlet Extraction Method a] Blend 10.0 ± 0.1g of sample with 5 - 10g of anhydrous sodium sulphate. b] Add 1ml of 100µg/ml 1 – Chlorooctadecane or 1ml of 50µg/ml o-Terphenyl surrogate standard.

c] Place in an extraction thimble made of filter papers. The extraction thimble must drain freely for the duration of the extraction period. d] Place 100 - 200ml methylene chloride/Acetone 1:1 mixture (extraction solvent) into a 250ml round bottom flask containing one or two boiling chips. Attach the flask to the extractor and extract sample for 5 hours e] Allow the extract to cool after the extraction is complete.

Sonication Water Bath Method a] Weigh 10.0 ± 0.1g of sample into a clean extraction bottle. b] Dry with anhydrous sodium sulphate until it is free flowing. c] Add 1ml of 100µg/ml 1-Chlorooctadecane or 1ml of 50µg/ml o-Terphenyl surrogate standard d] Add 20 - 40ml of methylene chloride into the bottle. e] Shake in shaking water bath for 1 hour. f] Allow extract to settle at least 20mins. g] Carefully filter sample through glass funnel fitted with glass wool and sodium sulphate into a clean beaker or amber coloured extraction bottles washed with methylene chloride. h] Wash residue with 20ml of extracting solvent and filter through the funnel. i] Carry along a procedural blank (solvent alone) through the entire process.

Sample Clean-Up and Sample Concentration a) Pre-activate silica gel, by heating overnight at 130oC, after washing with methylene chloride. b) If sample extract is relatively dark dilute 5ml to 10ml with methylene chloride. If thickly concentrated, dilute 2ml sample extract to 10ml with methylene chloride. If sample extract is clear, proceed to (c) below c) Add about 2g of preactivated silica gel to the filtered sample extract and let stand for about 10minutes d) Decant the supernatant into a clean beaker e) Concentrate sample extract by evaporating to 1ml at room temperature in a fume cupboard otherwise concentrate using a rotary evaporator. f) Transfer concentrated extract to GC vial ready for analysis Note: Do not evaporate to dryness

Preparation of #2 Diesel fuel Standard  Add 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50L of 20mg/ml #2 Diesel fuel standard into separate 1ml vials.  Add 20, 40, 60, 80 and 100L of 1000g/ml 1 – Chlorooctadecane or 10, 20, 300, 40 and 50L of 2mg/ml o-Terphenyl into each vial and make up the final volume to 1ml with dichloromethane.

Note: The concentrations of the #2 Diesel fuel standard is 200, 400, 600, 800 and 1000mg/L respectively and the concentrations of the surrogate standards is 20, 40, 60, 80, and 100mg/L each.

Surrogate Standards Preparation Prepare the 1-Chlorooctadecane standard from a stock of 1000g/ml by measuring 100L of the stock and make up to 1ml in a sample vial or prepare the o-Terphenyl from a stock of 2mg/ml by measuring 50L of it and make up to 1ml in a sample vial. This will give a concentration of 100mg/L.

The expected absolute recovery of the surrogate using 10.0 ± 0.1g of sample will be 10mg/kg.

Preparation of QC. Sample Prepare a QC standard (1 – Chlorooctadecane) from a stock solution of 1000g/ml by measuring 60L of the stock and make up to 1ml in a sample vial or o-Terphenyl from a stock solution of 2mg/ml by measuring 30L of the stock and make up to 1ml in a sample vial. This will give a concentration of 60mg/l.

AGILENT 6890N GC Conditions Assess and define the GC controls by clicking on METHOD, Entire method. Check that the following conditions are in order, if not adjust.

Injector (Auto Sampler): Use Front Injector and both for dual channel GC Injection volume 3L Washes Pre injection Post injection Sample 2 0 Solvent A 3 3 Solvent B 0 0 Pumps 2 0 Inlet: Mode: Split Heater 275 oC Pressure Kpa 30.3 Total flow ml/min 11.8 Split ratio 10:1 Split flow 8.0ml/min

Column: Column 1 and both for dual channel GC Mode Ramp flow

Inlet Front for front channel and Back for back channel Detector Front for front channel and Back for back channel

He Flow: Pressure 11.8 Flow 0.8 Average velocity 37 Initial flow 0.8ml/min hold for 11min 0.8ml/min to 0.7ml/min @ 0.1min/min2 Oven: Oven ON Set point 50oC Initial Temperature 50oC hold for 2mins 50oC to 310oC @ 24oC/min hold for 15mins.

FID Detector: Heater ON 340oC H2 Flow, ml/min 45 Air flow, ml/min 450 Make-up flow 35 Flame On Electrometer On

Signal 1: Data Rate 20Hz Minimum peak width 0.01min

Integration Access and input the integration events by clicking on Integration menu. Check that the following conditions are the same, if not adjust

Slope sensitivity 3.7936 Peak width 0.4248 Area reject 3.1407 Height reject 0.4037 Shoulders Off

CALIBRATION OF THE SYSTEM

Agilent 6890N GC . Prior to calibration, select sequence table from sequence menu. . Create a sequence table by filling the sample name, sample type etc. For sample type click calibration click sample when running sample.

. Click External Standard Mode for Calibration mode in sequence parameters through Edit/sequence parameters. . Acquire the sample by injecting 3L of the #2 Diesel fuel standards of 200, 400, 600, 800 and 1000mg/L in CH2Cl2 for a five level calibration. . Manually integrate the chromatograms of each standard and call it TPH, then manually integrate (remove) the surrogate standard from the chromatogram and call it 1-chlorooctadecane or o-Terphenyl as the case may be. . Subsequently add the other levels of the calibration through the calibration/add level menu. . Insert the concentration of each calibration level in the calibration table or through the “add level” dialog box. . Check the correlation factor of the calibration. The minimum acceptable correlation factor is 0.99 . Finally save this calibration as a method through the path File/Save/Method

Table 1.0: List of Standard Components TPH Surrogate: 1-Chlorooctadecane or o-Terphenyl

ANALYSES OF SAMPLE EXTRACTS ON THE AGILENT 6890N a] Inject 3l of methylene chloride as a blank sample b] Inject 3l of extract after concentration into the injection port c] If peaks generated are above scale, dilute extract with methylene chloride and re-analyse.

Quality Control a) Prior to sample analysis each day run a solvent blank of methylene chloride. b) Carry a procedural blank through the entire process as the sample and subtract its value from sample if any. c) Run the surrogate QC standard after every 20 samples or a batch whichever is less. Recovery should be 80–120%, if not, check the system. d) After every 20 samples or a batch whichever is less, run one sample in duplicate Determine the Relative Percent Difference (RPD %). %RPD = [2(D1 – D2)/ (D1+D2)] x 100

Where D1 = Concentration of the analyte in the first duplicate sample. D2 = Concentration of the analyte in second duplicate sample.

If recovery is not within 70 - 130%, check to be sure that there are no errors in calculation. Otherwise re-analyse. Enter the result of first duplicate analysis into the Q.C. notebook. e) Prepare and run a midpoint calibration standard after every 20 samples or a batch whichever is less. If recovery is not within 80 - 120%, check to be sure that there are no errors in calculation. Otherwise re-analyse. f) For each sample analysed, calculate the percentage recovery of the surrogate. If recovery is not within 40-120%, check to be sure that there are no errors in

calculation and preparation of the surrogate solutions. Otherwise re-extract and re-analyse the sample. f. Enter the surrogate QC standard result into the Q.C. notebook and use this value to plot the control chart. g. If one measurement of QC solution exceeds the control limit in quality chart repeat the analysis immediately. If the repeat is within the control limit continue analysis. If it exceeds the control limit discontinue analysis and correct the problem. h. If two out of three successive points exceed the warning limit, analyse the fourth time, if the next point exceeds warning limit, discontinue analysis and correct the problem, if not continue analysis. i. If six successive point of the control chart either above or below the central line, then seventh point should not be on the same side. If the seventh point is on the same side, the analyst should discontinue analysis and rectify the problem. j. If four out of five successive points exceed the standard deviation or are in decreasing or increasing order, analyse another sample. If the next point is less than the standard deviation or changes the order, continue analysis, otherwise discontinue analysis and correct the problem. k. Pre-treat glass wool by washing with methylene chloride before use.

DATA PROCESSING NOTE: Integration is done manually to achieve the integration of both resolved and unresolved hydrocarbon peaks. Below are the steps to follow: . Integrate the gas chromatogram between C8 and C40. Start the integration just after the C8 peak at the signal level in front of the solvent peak. . End the integration just before the beginning of the C40 peak on the same signal level. . Draw a straight line from C8 to C40. . Mark the beginning and end of the integration on the chromatogram. . Check all chromatograms visually to ensure correct integration.

. Calculate the concentration of the analyte from the data generated by the Agilent GC equipment as follows

Concentration in mg/Kg = A x B / C

Where: A = Data generated by equipment in mg/L B = volume of concentrated extract in ml. C = Weight of sample extracted in g

Note: The equipment will turn out the concentration of the analyte if the reciprocal of the weight of sample is entered as the multiplier in the sequence table.

Use this formula to determine the % recovery for the QC or Surrogate standard: % Recovery (R) = 100 x (Absolute) / (Theoretical)

Where: Absolute = measured concentration Theoretical = Concentration of standard added to sample matrix.

Reporting Results are reported in mg/kg To two significant figures if result is less than 100mg/kg To three significant figures if result is less than 10mg/kg.

INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE

WORLD HEADQUARTERS Rue Mauverney 28 1196 Gland, Switzerland Tel +41 22 999 0000 Fax +41 22 999 0002 www.iucn.org