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: abconteh_c@yahoo.com

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.

SUMMARYAn 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 AREA1.0 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 ReferenceThe 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 hectares-

2. METHODOLOGYMethodology 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: Negative Impact (= Impact of very high significance),

Not preferred: Negative impact (= impact of high significance),

Acceptable: Negative impact (= Impact of moderate significance,

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 Common Name Red List StatusLoxodonta Africana cyclotis

African Forest Elephant Endangered

Panthera pardus Leopard EndangeredPhacochoerus africanus African Wart HogsManis gigantea Giant Ground Pangolin 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.

5While 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 AssessmentNature Habitat loss; small and big mammals,

types of birds and food source.Extent LocalDuration Short-term (species will survive in the

immediate vicinity)Probability ImprobableSignificance Low and small species common and

widely distributed)Status 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 AssessmentNature Pollution, small and big mammals,

resident and migratory birds, chemical/fuel spills from heavy duty machines and trucks etc

Extent LocalDuration 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.

Probability ImprobableSignificance Low (species widely distributed, spills

such as bush fires can be prevented)Status Under serious threats from bush fires.

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.

7Table 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 Site Rating for Mammals Site Rating for BirdsHabitat loss Preferred, (3) of the sites

visited is already degraded (Habitat already degraded) due to bush fire

Preferred (3) (Habitat already degraded)

Food source Preferred (3) (Food source already affected due to habitat loss)

Preferred (3) (Food source already affected due to habitat loss)

Pollution (bush fires) Acceptable (3) (closer to settlement areas and boli lands.

Preferred (3) (Slightly further from settlement areas and boli lands or Riparian forest.

mammal diversity Preferred (4) Preferred (4)

CHECKLIST OF MAMMALS THAT HAS BEEN REPORTED TO OCCUR IN THE ADDAX PROJECT AREA

Species Common Name Red List StatusOrder PrimatesFamily GalagidaeGalago senegalensis Senegal Galago (Bushbaby)

Family CercopithecidaePapio cynocephalus Savanna ( Common ) BaboonCercocebus atys Sooty MangabeyCercopethicus pygerythrus Vervet ( Green )MonkeyCercopithecus mona Mona MonkeyCercopithecus petaurista (Lesser) Spot-Nosed GuenonColobus polykomos Western Black and White

ColobusProcolobus badius temminckii Western Red Colobus VulnerableProcolobus verus Olive Colobus EndangeredPan troglodytes Chimpanzee Endangered

Order SuiformesFamily SuidaePhacochoerus africanus Common WarthogPotamochoerus porcus Red River HogHylochoerus meinertzhageni Giant Forest Hog Endangered

Order RuminantiaFamily Bovidae

Subfamily Bovinae: Tribe BoviniSyncerus cafer nanus Forest Buffalo

Family TragulidaeHyemoschus aquaticus Water Chevrotain

Subfamily Tragelaphinae: Tribe TragelaphiniTragelaphus scriptus Bushbuck

Subfamily Reduncinae: Tribe RedunciniKobus ellipsiprymnus Waterbuck

Tribe NeotraginiCephalus silvicultor Yellow-Backed DuikerCephalus niger Black DuikerCephalus maxwellii Maxwell’s DuikerCephalophus rufilatus Red-Flanked Duiker

Family MustelidaeAonyx capensis Cape Clawless OtterLutra Maculicollis Spotted-Necked OtterMellivora capensis Honey Badger (Ratel)

Family ViverridaeCivettictis civetta African Civet

FamilyNandiniidaeNandinia binotata African Palm CivetGenetta masculata Rusty-Spotted GenetGalerella sanguinea Slender MongooseHerpestes ichneumon Large Grey MongooseAtilax paludinosus Water (Marsh) MongooseCrossarchus obscurus Cusimanse

Family FelidaeLeptailurus serval ServalProfelis aurata Golden Cat

Order HyracoideaDendrohyrax validus Tree Hyrax

Order TubulidentataFamily OrycteropodidaeOrycteropus afer Aardvark

Order PholidotaFamily ManidaeManis gigantea Giant Ground Pangolin

Order RodentiaFamily SciuridaeXerus erythropus Western Ground Squirrel

Family HystricidaeHystrix cristata African Brush-Tailed Porcupine Atherurus africanus Brush-tailed Porcupine

Family Thryonomyidae Thryonomys swinderianus Marsh Cane-Rat

Family DendromurinaeDendromus sp Climbing Mice

Family CricetomyinaeCricetomys gambianus Giant Pouched Rat

Family MuridaeRhabdomys pumilio Four-Striped Grass Mouse

10

CHECKLIST OF BIRDS THAT HAS BEEN REPORTED TO OCCUR IN THE ADDAX PROJECT AREA

SPECIES Common Name Red List StatusCiconia episcopus Wooly-Necked StorkPlatalea alba African SpoonbillBostrychia hagedash Hadada IbisDendrocygna viduata White-Faced Whistling DuckNettapus auritus African Pygmy GoosePlectropterus gambensis Spur-Winged Goose Gypohierax angolensis Palm-Nut Vulture Polyboroides typus African Harrier HawkNecrosyrtes monachus Hooded VultureMilvus migrans Black KiteAccipiter badius ShikraKaupifalco monogrammicus Lizard BuzzardLophaetus occipitalis Long-Crested EagleNumida meleagris Helmeted Guinea fowlFrancolinus bicalcaratus Double-Spurred FrancolinSarothrura pulchra White-Spotted FlufftailAmaurornis flavirostra Black CrakeCrex egregia African CrakeActophilornis africana Africana JacanaPodica senegalensis African FinfootGallinula chloropus Common MoorhenBurhinus senegalensis Senegal Thick-KneeHimantopus himantopus Black-Winged StiltGlareola muchalis Rock PratincoleGlareola pratincola Collared PratincoleGallinago gallinago Common SnipeVanellus spinosus Spur-Winged LapwingVanellus albiceps White-Headed LapwingCharadrius forbesi Forbes’s PloverTringa glareola Wood SandpiperTreron calvus African Green PigeonTurtur afer Blue-Spotted Wood DoveStreptopelia semitorquata Red-Eyed DoveStreptopelia senegalensis Laughing DoveAgapornis pullarius Red-Headed LovebirdsCrinifer piscator Western Grey Plantain-EaterTauraco persa Green TuracoCorythaeola cristata Great Blue TuracoChrysococyx caprius Didric CuckooChrysococcyx klaas Klaas CuckooChrysococcyx cupreus African Emerald CuckooOxylophus levaillantii Levillant’s Cuckoo

Cuculus solitarius Red-Chested CuckooCeuthmochares aereus YellowbillCentropus senegalensis Senegal CoucalTyto alba Barn OwlStrix woodfordii African Wood OwlOtus Senegalensis African Scops OwlMacrodiperyx longipennis Standard-Winged NightjarCaprimulgus tristigma Plain NightjarApus apus Common SwiftApus affinis Little SwiftCypsiurus parvus African Palm SwiftCeyx rudis African Pygmy KingfisherAlcedo cristata Malachite KingfisherAlcedo quadribrachys Shining-Blue KingfisherMerops pusillus Little Bee-EaterMerops albicollis White-Throated Bee-EaterEurystomus glaucurus Broad-Billed RollerCoracias cyanogaster Blue-Bellied RollerCoracias abyssinicus Abyssinian RollerTockus fasciatus African Pied HornbillTockus nasutus African Grey HornbillPogoniulus bilineatus Yellow-Rumped TinkerbirdPogoniulus subsulphureus Yellow-Throated Tinkerbird Buccanodon duchaillui Yellow-Spotted BarbetPogoniulus atroflavus Red-Rumped TinkerbirdGymnobucco calvus Naked-Faced BarbetCampethera maculosa Little Green WoodpeckerDendropicus fuscescens Cardinal Woodpecker Dendropicos goertae Grey WoodpeckerRiparia riparia Common Sand MartinHirundo Nigrita White-Throated Blue SwallowPseudhirundo griseopyga Grey-Rumped SwallowHirundo abyssinica Lesser Striped SwallowHirundo lucida Red-Chested SwallowPsalidoprocne nitens Square-Tailed Saw-Wing Psalidoprocne obscura Fanti Saw-WingAnthus similis Plain-Backed PipitMotacilla flava Yellow WagtailPycnonotus barbatus Common BulbulChlorocichla simplex Simple LeafloveThescelocichla leucopleura Swamp Palm BulbulPyrrhurus scandens LeafloveAndropadus gracilirostris Slender-Billed GreenbulAndropadus virens Little GreenbulBaeopogon indicator Honeyguide GreenbulBleda canicapillus Grey-Headed BristlebillNicator chloris Western Nicator

Turdus pelios African ThrushCossypha niveicapilla Snowy-Crowned Robin ChatCossypha albicapilla White-Crowned Robin ChatSaxicola ruberta WinchatMelocichla mentalis African Moustached WarblerSylvia borin Garden WarblerSylvia atricapilla Black CapHylia prasina Green HyliaHypergerus atriceps Oriole WarblerSylvietta virens Green Crom becCamaroptera brachyura Grey-Backed CamaropteraPrinia subflava Tawny-Flanked PriniaCisticola brachypterus Short-Winged CisticolaCisticola lateralis Whistling CisticolaCisticola erythrops Red-Faced CisticolaCisticola natalensis Croaking CisticolaMuscicapa striata Spotted FlycatcherMelaenornis edolioides Northern Black FlycatcherMelaenornis pallidus Pale Fly CatcherMuscicapa cassini Cassin’s FlycatcherFraseria cinerascens White-Browed Forest Flycatcher Terpsiphone viridis African Paradise FlycatcherTerpsiphone rufiventer Red-Bellied Paradise FlycatcherElminia albiventris African Blue FlycatcherBias musicus Black-and-White FlycatcherBatis senegalensis Senegal BatisPlatysteira cyanea Common Wattle-EyePhyllanthus atripennis Capuchin BabblerTurdoides plebejus Brown BabblerTurdoides reinwardtii Blackcap BabblerPicathartes gymnocephalus White-necked picathartes VulnerableParus (leucomelas) guineensis White-Shouldered Black TitSalpornis Spilonotus Spotted CreeperZosterops senegalensis Yellow White-EyeAnthreptes longuemarei Western Violet-Backed SunbirdCyanomitra olivaceus Olive SunbirdHedydipna collaris Collared SunbirdCinnyris venustus Variable SunbirdCinnris chloropygius Olive-Bellied SunbirdCinnyris coccinigastrus Splendid SunbirdCinnyris cupreus Copper SunbirdLanius collaris Common Fiscal ShrikePrionops plumatus White Helmet-ShrikeMalaconotus sulfureopectus Sulphur-Breasted Bush-ShrikeMalaconotus blanchoti Grey-Headed Bush-ShrikeDryoscopus gambensis Northern PuffbackLaniarius turatii Turati’s Boubou Near threatened

Antichromus minutus Marsh TchagraTchagra senegalus Black-Crowned TchagraTchagra australis Brown-Crowned TchagraOriolus auratus African Golden OrioleDicrurus adsimilis Fork-Tailed DrongoDicrurus ludwigii Square-Tailed DrongoCorvus albus Pied CrowOnychognathus fulgidus Forest Chestnut-Winged StarlingCinnyricinclus leucogaster Violet-Backed StarlingPasser griseus Northern Grey-Headed SparrowPetronia dentata Bush PetroniaPachyphantes superciliosus Compact WeaverPloceus cucullatus Village WeaverPloceus nigricollis Black-Necked WeaverPloceus nigerrimus Vieillot’s Black WeaverEuplectes ardens Red-Collared WidowbirdEuplectes hordeaceus Black-Winged (Red) BishopEuplectes macroura Yellow-Mantled WidowbirdEuschistospiza dybowskii Dybowski’s TwinspotNigrita canicapillus Grey-Headed Negrofinch Nigrita bicolor Chestnut-Breasted NegrofinchSpermophaga haematina Western BluebillPyrenestes sanguineus Crimson SeedcrackerEstrilda melpoda Orange-Cheeked WaxbillEstrilda astrild Common WaxbillSporaeginthus subflavus Zebra WaxbillLagonosticta senegala Red-Billed FirefinchSpermestes cucullata Bronze MannikinSpermestes bicolor Black-And-White Mannikin Vidua orientalis Pin-Tailed WhydahSerinus mozambicus Yellow-Fronted CanaryEmberiza cabanisi Cabanis’s Bunting

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

Recommendations1) 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 Site 1 Site 2Not suitable (1) x x Not preffered (2) x xAcceptable (3) x xPreferred (4) x xIdeal (5) x x

16

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