An Environmental Impact Assessment Report on Mammals and Avifauna at the Makari Gbanti chiefdom, Bombali district.Prepared for the Addax Bioenergy project in Sierra Leone West Africa By , ABDULAI CONTEH Email:
[email protected] Mobile: 232 33 40 71 64 Mammals and Avifauna Environmental Impact Assessment Report on the 400 hectares pilot site of the Addax Bio-energy company, in the Makari Gbanti chiefdom, Bombali district. SUMMARY An environmental impact assessment of mammals and avifauna on the alternative sites for the pilot phase of the Addax bio-energy company in the makari Gbanti chiefdom, in the Northern Province of Sierra Leone was undertaken by two environmental consultants. The assessment shows the area to be already degraded and somewhat low in mammalian diversity, and some species occurring in these areas are not common and sparsely distributed in the south eastern parts of the Makari Gbanti chiefdom. It is likely that, the proposed project would have a significant impact on both mammalian and bird diversity. Potential impact could arise from the noise produced by the machines used to plow these areas. This may force the mammals and birds to regional extinction, it will also lead to habitat fragmentation and hence push the bigger mammals to extinction, how ever, these are rectifiable problems. While (Bilafu and Mampar communities) are the most preferred sites for possible conservation in so far as endangered mammals and avifauna are concerned. DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA 1.0 In an attempt to identify the various environmental impact that are likely to occur in the pilot sites of this project, two levels of analysis were made, namely; Biological importance and, conservation threats and opportunity. All of the analysis were based on biological and ecologically distinct unit i.e. Ecosystem to determine threats, data on key landscape features were collected. The result of the biological value and conservation status, though not yet integrated, show that two ecosystems in closed secondary forest and forest regrowth are rated as having high biological value. On the regional basis, forest regrowth is outstanding. Savanna woodlands have a high to low biological value with high size area factor. Results of the conservation status indicates that the degree of degradation is high for six ecosystems ranging from closed secondary forest to mixed tree savanna. Generally there is a low degree of protection in these areas. The status on the threatened animal species indicates that there are 761 species of mammals and birds. Of the bird species, two are threatened. There are fifteen primates regionally, of which four (4) are endangered and eleven (11) vulnerable. Other mammals like the African forest elephant and the common hippo have been drastically reduced. THE PESPECTIVE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1.1 Terms of Reference The present environmental impact assessment follows an appointment as a Mammalogy and Ornithology Consultant (through Mr. Daniel Dauda Siaffa, the executive director of the Conservation Society of Sierra Leone) acting on behalf of Coastal Environmental Service in South Africa to undertake an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) on both mammals and birds for the proposed bioenergy company in Makeni, in the northern Province of Sierra Leone. These sites are hereinafter referred to as Site 1 to denote the pilot phase of this project and Site 2 for the alternative, newly identified site. This EIA is a follow-up of an earlier environmental scoping study that was undertaken by the ( Coastal Environmental Services ). Consequently, as per the stipulated terms of reference, the deliverables of this EIA were undertaken in two phases that included the earlier one that was published by CES: Issues-based Environmental Scoping Study; and Environmental Impact Assessment. A report on the first deliverable on issues-based environmental scoping study was submitted earlier by coastal Environmental Services whiles this present report forms part of the second deliverable on environmental impact assessment. 1.2 Scope of the Environmental Impact Assessment The scope of the Environmental Impact Assessment included a site survey understaken in order to: Define the mammalian and avian biodiversity on the alternative sites of the proposed project and adjacent areas; and Evaluate the potential environmental impacts on both the mammalian and avian diversity that are associated with the proposed project. This EIA report therefore, included: Both direct and indirect evidence of the occurrence of mammals and birds on the alternative sites of the prposed project. Apart from compiling a mammalian and bird species checklist, an emphasis was placed on rare and vulnerable mammals and birds as defined by the IUCN Red List Categories (IUCN 2009). The evaluation of potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed project on the rare, endangered and vulnerable mammals and birds occurring on the proposed site of the project is based on the compiled checklists; 2 Rating of issues identified in the EIA for each site in an attempt to “objectively” rather than “subjectively” select a suitable site for the development of the proposed bioenergy company. Environmental impact assessment recommendations with reference to the rare, endangered and vulnerable mammals and birds occurring on the alternative sites of the proposed projects. Nomination of a preferred site for conservation and ecotourism development, such as a specific secondary forest in Mampar and secondary riparian forest in Bilafu. This environmental impact assessment included: The proposed 400 hectares of the pilot phase of this project; The areas in the vicinity of the associated 400 hectares2. METHODOLOGY Methodology of the environmental impact assessment included: Indirect evidence from spoor/tracks, dropping/pellets/dongs, Oracles, runways, freshly extruded soil mounds, sub-surface soil ridges, characteristic odours from urine, mammalian and bird feeding activities, and visual observations. This also included indirect but tangible evidence of the occurrence of mammals and birds particularly of the small less well-known and secretive small mammals and birds on the proposed site of the project; Direct evidence from site survey An assessment of mammal and bird taxonomic groups by ecological i.e., surface, arboreal, subterranean, aquatic, and diumal/nocturnal) and size (small-, medium, and large-sized mammals and birds) group(s) of mammals and birds occurring on the proposed site of the project. These data were compared to previously published IUCN Red list (2009)of mammals and birds data, and then compared it to the previously published book on mammals and birds that have historically been recorded from the general area of the proposed sites of this project including the pilot area. An assessment of the threat status of the mammals occurring in the area of the proposed project particularly the rare, endangered and vulnerable species as defined by the IUCN Red List Catgories (IUCN 2009). This included an assessment of the potential of the rare, endangered and vulnerable species to occur or sustain their occurrence on 3 the sites given the present state of the habitat; The potential environmental impact on mammals and birds occurring on the proposed sites of the project including the potential noise to be generated by these machines and heavy duty trucks will scare mammals and birds to extinctions. From all the above environmental impact assessment procedures, the overall assessment criteria for each identified potential impact as far as mammals and birds are concerned included an assessment with reference to the following six identified characteristics: Nature: A description of causes of effect, what will be affected, and how; Extent: Whether impact is local or regional; Duration: Lifespan of impact scored as: a) Short-term (= 0-5 years), b) medium-term (= 5-15 years), c) Long-term (= > 15 years), or d) Permanent, Probability: The likelihood of the occurrence of an impact scored as: a) Improbable (= Low likelihood), b) Probable ( = Distinct possibility), c) Highly probable (= Most likely), or d) Definite (= Occurrence of an impact regardless of any preventive measures). Significance: A synthesis of the above four characteristics with reference to mammals and birds scored as: a) Low, b) Medium, c) High, and Status: A synthesis of the above characteristics with references to mammals and birds scored as: a) Positive, b) Negative, and c) Neutral. From the above, a list of all issues identified for each study site was compiled, and based on the environmental impact assessment procedures used above with reference to the six identified characteristics (i.e., nature, extent, duration, probability, significance, and status), each identified issue within a site was allocated a rating and scored numerically as follows: Not suitable: significance), Not preferred: significance), Acceptable: significance, Negative Impact (= Impact of very high Negative impact (= (= impact of of high Negative impact Impact moderate Preferred: Negative impact (= Impact of low or negligible significance), and Ideal site for development: positive impact (= No impact). 4 1) Read all the subsequent EIA reports and then integrate part of the findings of all separate specialists studies undertaken on the proposed project sites; and 2) Generate a matrix for a mathematical model that would subsequently facilitate the “objective” rather than “subjective” selection of a preferred site. Using the same numerical procedure outlined above (i.e, Note suitable (1), Not preferred (2), Acceptable (3), Preferred (4), and Ideal site (5), ratings of all parameters assessed per site were collated. These were in turn used to “objectively” rather than “subjectively” select and make recommendations on a suitable site based on the environmental assessment with reference to rare and vulnerable mammals and birds that are occurring on the alternative sites of the proposed bioenergy project. 3. FINDINGS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 3.1 Mammals historically recorded to occur at the proposed sites The mammals that have historically been recorded to occur in the area in the broader area compiled the literature and museum records and their Red Data status were presented in the environmental scoping study and are also presented herein in Table 1 for ease of reference. These include 66 species in 18 families and range from terrestrial, arboreal, (subterranean and aquatic species, and from small, medium to large-sized mammals (Table 1). 3.1 Mammals recorded to occur that are currently extremely rare to find. Table 1. Species Loxodonta Africana cyclotis Panthera pardus Phacochoerus africanus Manis gigantea Common Name African Forest Elephant Leopard African Wart Hogs Giant Ground Pangolin Red List Status Endangered Endangered Endangered Although a large number of species have historically been recorded to occur in the general area of the Makari Gbanti chiefdom, the disturbance by wild bush fires to the general area over the years have resulted in, very few mammals and bird species remaining in the area. Direct evidence from surveys and indirect evidence from tracks, droppings, extruded soil mounds, and sub- surface soil ridges, indicates very few mammals currently occur on either of the project sites. A checklist of these mammals and birds is provided in this report, and includes the endangered Chimpanzee - Pan troglodytes. Although there was evidence of the occurrence of forest Buffalo in the boli lands , such as foot prints in the nearby villages along Bilafu village, this species is migratory. It rather sometimes uses man-made structures particularly the farm huts to rest, when in search of food in the wetlands areas which are not present in the vicinity of the area of the proposed project. Consequently, any development in the proposed area will not detrimentally affect their presence in the area. 5 While not observed directly, the general area seems suitable for other small secretive mammals such as terrestrial rodents and antelopes like the yellow-backed duiker – Cephalus silvicultor , and the water chevrotain – Hyemoschus aquaticus. Since these mammals are sensitive to environmental damage such as pollution, their absence in the immediate surrounding area when the proposed facility becomes operational could be indicative of potential damage to the environment. There was some evidence of medium size carnivores (e.g. civet cat), rodents (e.g. grass cutters, antelopes (e.g. Maxwell’s duiker) This clearly reflects the already disturbed habitat that also includes an adjacent residential areas that would render the survival of such animals highly unlikely. It is highly likely that these animals were previously plentiful but have over the years been extripated through hunting or driven out of the area through the unavailability of a suitable habitat for their survival. 3.2 Potential environmental impact on mammals and birds on the proposed site The EIA strongly suggests the presence of small rather than large mammals none of which are endangered in any way. Most of these species do rely on the habitat, which in any case is already degraded. The only potential environmental impact is likely to be is the destruction of burrows, tunnel systems, and nesting sites for subterranean mammals particular during tilling of the pivots. However, some of these species, like the bush buck – Tragelaphus scriptus, are common in the area and throughout the subregion and the area of the proposed project is considered to be negligible as these species are likely to occur in the nearby community forest Reserve. While clearing of the land on the project sites, may have an impact on terrestrial mammals, the likely mammals to be affected are common. Consequently, the assessment criteria of the potential impact these mammals and bird score as indicated in table below: Table 2. Assesment of the impact on mammals and birds occurring at the alternative sites of the proposed project. Identified Characteristics Nature Extent Duration Probability Significance Status Assessment Habitat loss; small and big mammals, types of birds and food source. Local Short-term (species will survive in the immediate vicinity) Improbable Low and small species common and widely distributed) Neutrals 6 Given that, the likely species to be affected are very common in the area, there is a need for biological corridors to the adjacent project areas along the Makari Gbanti chiefdom. It is also possible that there will be no influence on the proposed electricity supply to free town by the functional power lines as an extensive literature search yielded no published data on the potential general influence of functional power lines in the near future on mammals and birds species in the vicinity of this project. An additional likely impact may emanate from potential soil pollution from insecticides, rodenticides and chemical/fuel spills. While these would directly affect mammalian and avifauna species, particularly environmentally-sensitive subterranean mammals, the likely area to be affected is relatively large. More importantly, however, steps could be taken to minimize such pollution. Consequently, the assessment criteria of the potential is indicated in the Table below: Table 3. Assessment of impact of bushfire/ spills on mammals and birds occurring at the alternative sites of the proposed pilot phase of this project. Identified Characteristics Nature Assessment Pollution, small and big mammals, resident and migratory birds, chemical/fuel spills from heavy duty machines and trucks etc Local long-term (species will not survive in the long run within this vicinity of this project. How ever, remedial steps can be undertaken) to mitigate some of the miss haps that s likely to occur within the project sites. Improbable Low (species widely distributed, spills such as bush fires can be prevented) Under serious threats from bush fires. Extent Duration Probability Significance Status From the identified characteristics above, the issues identified in the EIA include habitat loss, food source, and pollution (i.e., bush fires) with reference to small mammal diversity. These identified issues are collated and a rating for each identified issue per site are provided in the table below. 7 Table 4. Rating of each identified issues (habitat loss, food source, pollution (bush fires), birds and small mammal diversity) for each of the alternative sites of the proposed pilot phase. Identified Issue Habitat loss Site Rating for Mammals Preferred, (3) of the sites visited is already degraded (Habitat already degraded) due to bush fire Preferred (3) (Food source already affected due to habitat loss) Acceptable (3) (closer to settlement areas and boli lands. Preferred (4) Site Rating for Birds Preferred (3) (Habitat already degraded) Preferred (3) (Food source already affected due to habitat loss) Preferred (3) (Slightly further from settlement areas and boli lands or Riparian forest. Preferred (4) Food source Pollution (bush fires) mammal diversity CHECKLIST OF MAMMALS THAT HAS BEEN REPORTED TO OCCUR IN THE ADDAX PROJECT AREA Species Order Primates Family Galagidae Galago senegalensis Family Cercopithecidae Papio cynocephalus Cercocebus atys Cercopethicus pygerythrus Cercopithecus mona Cercopithecus petaurista Colobus polykomos Procolobus badius temminckii Procolobus verus Common Name Senegal Galago (Bushbaby) Savanna ( Common ) Baboon Sooty Mangabey Vervet ( Green )Monkey Mona Monkey (Lesser) Spot-Nosed Guenon Western Black and White Colobus Western Red Colobus Olive Colobus Red List Status Vulnerable Endangered Pan troglodytes Order Suiformes Family Suidae Phacochoerus africanus Potamochoerus porcus Hylochoerus meinertzhageni Order Ruminantia Family Bovidae Subfamily Bovinae: Tribe Bovini Syncerus cafer nanus Family Tragulidae Hyemoschus aquaticus Subfamily Tragelaphinae: Tribe Tragelaphini Tragelaphus scriptus Subfamily Reduncinae: Tribe Reduncini Kobus ellipsiprymnus Tribe Neotragini Cephalus silvicultor Cephalus niger Cephalus maxwellii Cephalophus rufilatus Family Mustelidae Aonyx capensis Lutra Maculicollis Mellivora capensis Family Viverridae Civettictis civetta FamilyNandiniidae Nandinia binotata Genetta masculata Galerella sanguinea Herpestes ichneumon Atilax paludinosus Crossarchus obscurus Chimpanzee Endangered Common Warthog Red River Hog Giant Forest Hog Endangered Forest Buffalo Water Chevrotain Bushbuck Waterbuck Yellow-Backed Duiker Black Duiker Maxwell’s Duiker Red-Flanked Duiker Cape Clawless Otter Spotted-Necked Otter Honey Badger (Ratel) African Civet African Palm Civet Rusty-Spotted Genet Slender Mongoose Large Grey Mongoose Water (Marsh) Mongoose Cusimanse Family Felidae Leptailurus serval Profelis aurata Order Hyracoidea Dendrohyrax validus Order Tubulidentata Family Orycteropodidae Orycteropus afer Order Pholidota Family Manidae Manis gigantea Order Rodentia Family Sciuridae Xerus erythropus Family Hystricidae Hystrix cristata Atherurus africanus Family Thryonomyidae Thryonomys swinderianus Family Dendromurinae Dendromus sp Family Cricetomyinae Cricetomys gambianus Family Muridae Rhabdomys pumilio Serval Golden Cat Tree Hyrax Aardvark Giant Ground Pangolin Western Ground Squirrel African Brush-Tailed Porcupine Brush-tailed Porcupine Marsh Cane-Rat Climbing Mice Giant Pouched Rat Four-Striped Grass Mouse 10 CHECKLIST OF BIRDS THAT HAS BEEN REPORTED TO OCCUR IN THE ADDAX PROJECT AREA SPECIES Ciconia episcopus Platalea alba Bostrychia hagedash Dendrocygna viduata Nettapus auritus Plectropterus gambensis Gypohierax angolensis Polyboroides typus Necrosyrtes monachus Milvus migrans Accipiter badius Kaupifalco Lophaetus occipitalis monogrammicus Numida meleagris Francolinus bicalcaratus Sarothrura pulchra Amaurornis flavirostra Crex egregia Actophilornis africana Podica senegalensis Gallinula chloropus Burhinus senegalensis Himantopus himantopus Glareola muchalis Glareola pratincola Gallinago gallinago Vanellus spinosus Vanellus albiceps Charadrius forbesi Tringa glareola Treron calvus Common Name Wooly-Necked Stork African Spoonbill Hadada Ibis White-Faced Whistling African Duck Pygmy Goose Spur-Winged Goose Palm-Nut Vulture African Harrier Hawk Hooded Vulture Black Kite Shikra Lizard Buzzard Long-Crested Eagle Helmeted Guinea fowl Double-Spurred Francolin White-Spotted Flufftail Black Crake African Crake Africana Jacana African Finfoot Common Moorhen Senegal Thick-Knee Black-Winged Stilt Rock Pratincole Collared Pratincole Common Snipe Spur-Winged Lapwing White-Headed Lapwing Forbes’s Plover Wood Sandpiper African Green Pigeon Red List Status Turtur afer Streptopelia semitorquata Streptopelia senegalensis Agapornis pullarius Crinifer piscator Tauraco persa Corythaeola cristata Chrysococyx caprius Chrysococcyx klaas Chrysococcyx cupreus Oxylophus levaillantii Cuculus solitarius Ceuthmochares aereus Centropus senegalensis Tyto alba Strix woodfordii Otus Senegalensis Macrodiperyx longipennis Caprimulgus tristigma Apus apus Apus affinis Cypsiurus parvus Ceyx rudis Alcedo cristata Alcedo quadribrachys Merops pusillus Merops albicollis Eurystomus glaucurus Coracias cyanogaster Coracias abyssinicus Tockus fasciatus Tockus nasutus Pogoniulus bilineatus Pogoniulus subsulphureus Buccanodon duchaillui Pogoniulus atroflavus Gymnobucco calvus Campethera maculosa Dendropicus fuscescens Dendropicos goertae Riparia riparia Hirundo Nigrita Pseudhirundo griseopyga Hirundo abyssinica Hirundo lucida Psalidoprocne nitens Psalidoprocne obscura Blue-Spotted Wood Dove Red-Eyed Dove Laughing Dove Red-Headed Lovebirds Western Grey PlantainGreen Turaco Eater Great Blue Turaco Didric Cuckoo Klaas Cuckoo African Emerald Cuckoo Levillant’s Cuckoo Red-Chested Cuckoo Yellowbill Senegal Coucal Barn Owl African Wood Owl African Scops Owl Standard-Winged Nightjar Plain Nightjar Common Swift Little Swift African Palm Swift African Pygmy Kingfisher Malachite Kingfisher Shining-Blue Kingfisher Little Bee-Eater White-Throated Bee-Eater Broad-Billed Roller Blue-Bellied Roller Abyssinian Roller African Pied Hornbill African Grey Hornbill Yellow-Rumped Tinkerbird Yellow-Throated Tinkerbird Yellow-Spotted Barbet Red-Rumped Tinkerbird Naked-Faced Barbet Little Green Woodpecker Cardinal Woodpecker Grey Woodpecker Common Sand Martin White-Throated Blue Grey-Rumped Swallow Swallow Lesser Striped Swallow Red-Chested Swallow Square-Tailed Saw-Wing Fanti Saw-Wing Anthus similis Motacilla flava Pycnonotus barbatus Chlorocichla simplex Thescelocichla Pyrrhurus scandens leucopleura Andropadus gracilirostris Andropadus virens Baeopogon indicator Bleda canicapillus Nicator chloris Turdus pelios Cossypha niveicapilla Cossypha albicapilla Saxicola ruberta Melocichla mentalis Sylvia borin Sylvia atricapilla Hylia prasina Hypergerus atriceps Sylvietta virens Camaroptera brachyura Prinia subflava Cisticola brachypterus Cisticola lateralis Cisticola erythrops Cisticola natalensis Muscicapa striata Melaenornis edolioides Melaenornis pallidus Muscicapa cassini Fraseria cinerascens Terpsiphone viridis Terpsiphone rufiventer Elminia albiventris Bias musicus Batis senegalensis Platysteira cyanea Phyllanthus atripennis Turdoides plebejus Turdoides reinwardtii Picathartes Parus (leucomelas) gymnocephalus Salpornis Spilonotus guineensis Zosterops senegalensis Anthreptes longuemarei Cyanomitra olivaceus Plain-Backed Pipit Yellow Wagtail Common Bulbul Simple Leaflove Swamp Palm Bulbul Leaflove Slender-Billed Greenbul Little Greenbul Honeyguide Greenbul Grey-Headed Bristlebill Western Nicator African Thrush Snowy-Crowned Robin White-Crowned Robin Chat Chat Winchat African Moustached Garden Warbler Warbler Black Cap Green Hylia Oriole Warbler Green Crom bec Grey-Backed Camaroptera Tawny-Flanked Prinia Short-Winged Cisticola Whistling Cisticola Red-Faced Cisticola Croaking Cisticola Spotted Flycatcher Northern Black Flycatcher Pale Fly Catcher Cassin’s Flycatcher White-Browed Forest African Paradise Flycatcher Red-Bellied Flycatcher Paradise African Blue Flycatcher Flycatcher Black-and-White Senegal Batis Flycatcher Common Wattle-Eye Capuchin Babbler Brown Babbler Blackcap Babbler White-necked picathartes Vulnerable White-Shouldered Black Spotted Creeper Tit Yellow White-Eye Western Violet-Backed Olive Sunbird Sunbird Hedydipna collaris Cinnyris venustus Cinnris chloropygius Cinnyris coccinigastrus Cinnyris cupreus Lanius collaris Prionops plumatus Malaconotus Malaconotus blanchoti sulfureopectus Dryoscopus gambensis Laniarius turatii Antichromus minutus Tchagra senegalus Tchagra australis Oriolus auratus Dicrurus adsimilis Dicrurus ludwigii Corvus albus Onychognathus fulgidus Cinnyricinclus leucogaster Passer griseus Petronia dentata Pachyphantes Ploceus cucullatus superciliosus Ploceus nigricollis Ploceus nigerrimus Euplectes ardens Euplectes hordeaceus Euplectes macroura Euschistospiza dybowskii Nigrita canicapillus Nigrita bicolor Spermophaga haematina Pyrenestes sanguineus Estrilda melpoda Estrilda astrild Sporaeginthus subflavus Lagonosticta senegala Spermestes cucullata Spermestes bicolor Vidua orientalis Serinus mozambicus Emberiza cabanisi Collared Sunbird Variable Sunbird Olive-Bellied Sunbird Splendid Sunbird Copper Sunbird Common Fiscal Shrike White Helmet-Shrike Sulphur-Breasted BushGrey-Headed Bush-Shrike Shrike Northern Puffback Turati’s Boubou Marsh Tchagra Black-Crowned Tchagra Brown-Crowned Tchagra African Golden Oriole Fork-Tailed Drongo Square-Tailed Drongo Pied Crow Forest Chestnut-Winged Violet-Backed Starling Starling Northern Grey-Headed Bush Petronia Sparrow Compact Weaver Village Weaver Black-Necked Weaver Vieillot’s Black Weaver Red-Collared Widowbird Black-Winged (Red) Yellow-Mantled Widowbird Bishop Dybowski’s Twinspot Grey-Headed Negrofinch Chestnut-Breasted Western Bluebill Negrofinch Crimson Seedcracker Orange-Cheeked Waxbill Common Waxbill Zebra Waxbill Red-Billed Firefinch Bronze Mannikin Black-And-White Mannikin Pin-Tailed Whydah Yellow-Fronted Canary Cabanis’s Bunting Near threatened 14 Conclusion of the EIA on mammals and avifauna. From the findings of the EIA on mammals and birds, and with reference to an earlier Environmental Scoping Study by Coastal Environmental Services (CES), the following conclusions were reached: 1) The overall geographic distributions of both mammals and bird species occurring in the proposed project areas will not be affected detrimentally as the area under consideration is negligible and the mammalian and birds species occurring in the area are common except for the near threatened endemic Turati’s Boubou; 2) The study yielded very few mammalian species than have historically been recorded from the area. 3) The presence of very few raptors, grass cutters, and small carnivores suggests very low small mammal population densities and diversity. 4) Very few bats occur in the area and are unlikely to use the proposed area of the project as roosting sites as there was no evidence of caves, crevices, tree hollows, and logs, except the house bats that live in roof of houses. The associated presence of droppings, dungs and characteristic bat odours from their urine was actually found in the proposed sites and residential areas. 5) Freshly extruded soil mounds indicated the presence of ground squirrels, but these include the common species found in the area under consideration. 6) There was no evidence of the micromammal remains (Hendey 1981; Pocock 1987; Denys 1990) suggesting that the mammalian biodiversity and population densities have generally been low historically. 7) A literature search yielded no information on the potential general influence of functional supply of electricity to free town city on both mammals and birds in the vicinity of project sites. 8) While some of the mammals occurring in the area may be cryptic (i.e., morphologically similar and yet genetically diverse species) (Gordon & Reutenbach 1986; Visser & Robinson 1986; Bronner et al. 2003), these are quite common and widely distributed to be affected by the proposed project. 15 Recommendations 1) Given the relatively large size of the area under consideration, the already disturbed habitant, and largely common and widely distributed species found in the area, it is anticipated that the proposed project would have a high impact on small mammals and birds in this areas. With proper planning, areas inhabited by endangered species of special concern can be set aside for conservation and ecotourism with community participation. 2) Any of the alternative sites are suitable but preference should be give to the alternative Site which is slightly further from the residential areas and would also slightly reduce the overall length of the project areas. 3) While clearing is inevitable for the planting of sugar cane and cassava, there is need to minimize clearing by machines in such a way that, it will not affect ground squirrel population in these areas. Although the advantage of this option is too hard to go by, its acceptance should be weighed against the visual impact of this project. 4) The design of the proposed project should be in such a way that bush fires are minimized, and 5) All the issues of concern raised by stakeholders do not have a direct bearing in so far as mammalian and bird species are concerned. 6) More research needs to be done on alternative source of water, especially during the dry season. (rain water harvesting) dredging of the river bed is another option to be looked into. 7) More awareness raising on the dangers of wild fire on the livelihood sustainability of these communities should be looked into very seriously. Collation of all EIA identified issues considered and their associated ratings in this report, particularly with reference to rare, endangered and vulnerable mammals occurring in the alternative sites of the proposed project and their associated problems suggest that, thorough Hydrological studies needs to be done on these sites of the said proposed project to ascertain in whether this project is feasible in this areas. However, as indicated in the rating of each sites visited in Table below, the Site 2 has a slight advantage over Site 1 as it is slightly further from the residential areas and the Riparian forest. Table 5. Site preference rating with reference to mammals and birds occurring on the alternative sites of the proposed project areas Rating Not suitable (1) Not preffered (2) Acceptable (3) Preferred (4) Ideal (5) Site 1 x x x x x 16 Site 2 x x x x x Given that the alternative sites may not be absolutely devoid of some impact i.e., an ideal site with no impact (see rating criteria under methodology), nevertheless, the alternative sites are the preferred sites for this project. In the event that it is not available, site 2 would also qualify as an environmentally feasibly option in so far as mammal and bird diversity are concerned. 4. REFERENCES Acocks, J.P.H. (1988). Veld Types of South Africa. 3rd Edn. Botanical Research Institute & the Government Printer, Pretoria, South Africa. Bronner, G.N., Hoffman, M., Taylor, P.J., Chimimba, C.T., Best, P.B., Mathee, C.A, & Robinson, T.J. (2004). A revised systematic checklist of the extant mammals of the southern African subregion. Durban Museum Novitates 28:56-106. De Graaff, G. (1981). The Rodents of Southern Africa. Butterworths, Burban and Pretoria. Denys, C. (1990). Deux nouvelles especes d’Aethomys (Rodentia: Muridae) a Langebaanweg. Barrow N. and Demey R. (2004). Field Guide to the Birds of Western Africa. Kingdon J. (1997). The Kingdon Field Guide to African Mammals. Stuart C. and T. (2008). Field Guide to Larger Mammals of Africa. IUCN (2009) 2009 Red list of threatened Animals. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Okoni-Williams, A.D., Thompson, H.S., Koroma, A.P. and Wood, P (2005). Important Bird Areas in Sierra Leone: Priorities for biodiversity conservation. Conservation Society of Sierra Leone and Government Forestry Division. 17