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.
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;

 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. 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: 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 Status
Loxodonta Africana African Forest Elephant Endangered
cyclotis
Panthera pardus Leopard Endangered
Phacochoerus africanus African Wart Hogs
Manis 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.
 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 Assessment

Nature Habitat loss; small and big mammals,
types of birds and food source.
Extent Local
Duration Short-term (species will survive in the
immediate vicinity)
Probability Improbable
Significance 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 Assessment

Nature Pollution, small and big mammals,
resident and migratory birds,
chemical/fuel spills from heavy duty
machines and trucks etc
Extent Local
Duration 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 Improbable
Significance 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.

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 Site Rating for Mammals Site Rating for Birds
Habitat loss Preferred, (3) of the sites Preferred (3) (Habitat
visited is already already degraded)
degraded (Habitat already
degraded) due to bush fire
Food source Preferred (3) (Food source Preferred (3) (Food source
already affected due to already affected due to
habitat loss) habitat loss)
Pollution (bush fires) Acceptable (3) (closer to Preferred (3) (Slightly
settlement areas and boli further from settlement
lands. 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 Status

Order Primates
Family Galagidae
Galago senegalensis Senegal Galago
(Bushbaby)

Family Cercopithecidae
Papio cynocephalus Savanna ( Common )
Baboon
Cercocebus atys Sooty Mangabey
Cercopethicus Vervet ( Green )Monkey
pygerythrus
Cercopithecus mona Mona Monkey
Cercopithecus petaurista (Lesser) Spot-Nosed
Guenon
Colobus polykomos Western Black and White
Colobus
Procolobus badius Western Red Colobus Vulnerable
temminckii
Procolobus verus Olive Colobus Endangered
Pan troglodytes Chimpanzee Endangered

Order Suiformes
Family Suidae
Phacochoerus africanus Common Warthog
Potamochoerus porcus Red River Hog
Hylochoerus Giant Forest Hog Endangered
meinertzhageni

Order Ruminantia
Family Bovidae
Subfamily Bovinae: Tribe
Bovini
Syncerus cafer nanus Forest Buffalo

Family Tragulidae
Hyemoschus aquaticus Water Chevrotain

Subfamily Tragelaphinae:
Tribe Tragelaphini
Tragelaphus scriptus Bushbuck

Subfamily Reduncinae:
Tribe Reduncini
Kobus ellipsiprymnus Waterbuck

Tribe Neotragini
Cephalus silvicultor Yellow-Backed Duiker
Cephalus niger Black Duiker
Cephalus maxwellii Maxwell’s Duiker
Cephalophus rufilatus Red-Flanked Duiker

Family Mustelidae
Aonyx capensis Cape Clawless Otter
Lutra Maculicollis Spotted-Necked Otter
Mellivora capensis Honey Badger (Ratel)

Family Viverridae
Civettictis civetta African Civet

FamilyNandiniidae
Nandinia binotata African Palm Civet
Genetta masculata Rusty-Spotted Genet
Galerella sanguinea Slender Mongoose
Herpestes ichneumon Large Grey Mongoose
Atilax paludinosus Water (Marsh) Mongoose
Crossarchus obscurus Cusimanse
Family Felidae
Leptailurus serval Serval
Profelis aurata Golden Cat

Order Hyracoidea
Dendrohyrax validus Tree Hyrax

Order Tubulidentata
Family Orycteropodidae
Orycteropus afer Aardvark

Order Pholidota
Family Manidae
Manis gigantea Giant Ground Pangolin

Order Rodentia
Family Sciuridae
Xerus erythropus Western Ground Squirrel

Family Hystricidae
Hystrix cristata African Brush-Tailed
Porcupine
Atherurus africanus Brush-tailed Porcupine

Family Thryonomyidae
Thryonomys swinderianus Marsh Cane-Rat

Family Dendromurinae
Dendromus sp Climbing Mice

Family Cricetomyinae
Cricetomys gambianus Giant Pouched Rat

Family Muridae
Rhabdomys 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 Status

Ciconia episcopus Wooly-Necked Stork
Platalea alba African Spoonbill
Bostrychia hagedash Hadada Ibis
Dendrocygna viduata White-Faced Whistling
Nettapus auritus African
Duck Pygmy Goose
Plectropterus gambensis Spur-Winged Goose
Gypohierax angolensis Palm-Nut Vulture
Polyboroides typus African Harrier Hawk
Necrosyrtes monachus Hooded Vulture
Milvus migrans Black Kite
Accipiter badius Shikra
Kaupifalco Lizard Buzzard
Lophaetus occipitalis
monogrammicus Long-Crested Eagle
Numida meleagris Helmeted Guinea fowl
Francolinus bicalcaratus Double-Spurred Francolin
Sarothrura pulchra White-Spotted Flufftail
Amaurornis flavirostra Black Crake
Crex egregia African Crake
Actophilornis africana Africana Jacana
Podica senegalensis African Finfoot
Gallinula chloropus Common Moorhen
Burhinus senegalensis Senegal Thick-Knee
Himantopus himantopus Black-Winged Stilt
Glareola muchalis Rock Pratincole
Glareola pratincola Collared Pratincole
Gallinago gallinago Common Snipe
Vanellus spinosus Spur-Winged Lapwing
Vanellus albiceps White-Headed Lapwing
Charadrius forbesi Forbes’s Plover
Tringa glareola Wood Sandpiper
Treron calvus African Green Pigeon
Turtur afer Blue-Spotted Wood Dove
Streptopelia semitorquata Red-Eyed Dove
Streptopelia senegalensis Laughing Dove
Agapornis pullarius Red-Headed Lovebirds
Crinifer piscator Western Grey Plantain-
Tauraco persa Green
Eater Turaco
Corythaeola cristata Great Blue Turaco
Chrysococyx caprius Didric Cuckoo
Chrysococcyx klaas Klaas Cuckoo
Chrysococcyx cupreus African Emerald Cuckoo
Oxylophus levaillantii Levillant’s Cuckoo
Cuculus solitarius Red-Chested Cuckoo
Ceuthmochares aereus Yellowbill
Centropus senegalensis Senegal Coucal
Tyto alba Barn Owl
Strix woodfordii African Wood Owl
Otus Senegalensis African Scops Owl
Macrodiperyx longipennis Standard-Winged Nightjar
Caprimulgus tristigma Plain Nightjar
Apus apus Common Swift
Apus affinis Little Swift
Cypsiurus parvus African Palm Swift
Ceyx rudis African Pygmy Kingfisher
Alcedo cristata Malachite Kingfisher
Alcedo quadribrachys Shining-Blue Kingfisher
Merops pusillus Little Bee-Eater
Merops albicollis White-Throated Bee-Eater
Eurystomus glaucurus Broad-Billed Roller
Coracias cyanogaster Blue-Bellied Roller
Coracias abyssinicus Abyssinian Roller
Tockus fasciatus African Pied Hornbill
Tockus nasutus African Grey Hornbill
Pogoniulus bilineatus Yellow-Rumped Tinkerbird
Pogoniulus subsulphureus Yellow-Throated Tinkerbird
Buccanodon duchaillui Yellow-Spotted Barbet
Pogoniulus atroflavus Red-Rumped Tinkerbird
Gymnobucco calvus Naked-Faced Barbet
Campethera maculosa Little Green Woodpecker
Dendropicus fuscescens Cardinal Woodpecker
Dendropicos goertae Grey Woodpecker
Riparia riparia Common Sand Martin
Hirundo Nigrita White-Throated Blue
Pseudhirundo griseopyga Grey-Rumped
Swallow Swallow
Hirundo abyssinica Lesser Striped Swallow
Hirundo lucida Red-Chested Swallow
Psalidoprocne nitens Square-Tailed Saw-Wing
Psalidoprocne obscura Fanti Saw-Wing
Anthus similis Plain-Backed Pipit
Motacilla flava Yellow Wagtail
Pycnonotus barbatus Common Bulbul
Chlorocichla simplex Simple Leaflove
Thescelocichla Swamp Palm Bulbul
Pyrrhurus
leucopleurascandens Leaflove
Andropadus gracilirostris Slender-Billed Greenbul
Andropadus virens Little Greenbul
Baeopogon indicator Honeyguide Greenbul
Bleda canicapillus Grey-Headed Bristlebill
Nicator chloris Western Nicator
Turdus pelios African Thrush
Cossypha niveicapilla Snowy-Crowned Robin
Cossypha albicapilla White-Crowned
Chat Robin Chat
Saxicola ruberta Winchat
Melocichla mentalis African Moustached
Sylvia borin Garden
Warbler Warbler
Sylvia atricapilla Black Cap
Hylia prasina Green Hylia
Hypergerus atriceps Oriole Warbler
Sylvietta virens Green Crom bec
Camaroptera brachyura Grey-Backed Camaroptera
Prinia subflava Tawny-Flanked Prinia
Cisticola brachypterus Short-Winged Cisticola
Cisticola lateralis Whistling Cisticola
Cisticola erythrops Red-Faced Cisticola
Cisticola natalensis Croaking Cisticola
Muscicapa striata Spotted Flycatcher
Melaenornis edolioides Northern Black Flycatcher
Melaenornis pallidus Pale Fly Catcher
Muscicapa cassini Cassin’s Flycatcher
Fraseria cinerascens White-Browed Forest
Terpsiphone viridis African Paradise
Flycatcher
Terpsiphone rufiventer Red-Bellied
Flycatcher Paradise
Elminia albiventris African Blue Flycatcher
Flycatcher
Bias musicus Black-and-White
Batis senegalensis Senegal
FlycatcherBatis
Platysteira cyanea Common Wattle-Eye
Phyllanthus atripennis Capuchin Babbler
Turdoides plebejus Brown Babbler
Turdoides reinwardtii Blackcap Babbler
Picathartes White-necked picathartes Vulnerable
Parus (leucomelas)
gymnocephalus White-Shouldered Black
Salpornis
guineensisSpilonotus Spotted
Tit Creeper
Zosterops senegalensis Yellow White-Eye
Anthreptes longuemarei Western Violet-Backed
Cyanomitra olivaceus Olive
SunbirdSunbird
Hedydipna collaris Collared Sunbird
Cinnyris venustus Variable Sunbird
Cinnris chloropygius Olive-Bellied Sunbird
Cinnyris coccinigastrus Splendid Sunbird
Cinnyris cupreus Copper Sunbird
Lanius collaris Common Fiscal Shrike
Prionops plumatus White Helmet-Shrike
Malaconotus Sulphur-Breasted Bush-
Malaconotus
sulfureopectus blanchoti Grey-Headed
Shrike Bush-Shrike
Dryoscopus gambensis Northern Puffback
Laniarius turatii Turati’s Boubou Near threatened
Antichromus minutus Marsh Tchagra
Tchagra senegalus Black-Crowned Tchagra
Tchagra australis Brown-Crowned Tchagra
Oriolus auratus African Golden Oriole
Dicrurus adsimilis Fork-Tailed Drongo
Dicrurus ludwigii Square-Tailed Drongo
Corvus albus Pied Crow
Onychognathus fulgidus Forest Chestnut-Winged
Cinnyricinclus leucogaster Violet-Backed
Starling Starling
Passer griseus Northern Grey-Headed
Petronia dentata Bush
SparrowPetronia
Pachyphantes Compact Weaver
Ploceus cucullatus
superciliosus Village Weaver
Ploceus nigricollis Black-Necked Weaver
Ploceus nigerrimus Vieillot’s Black Weaver
Euplectes ardens Red-Collared Widowbird
Euplectes hordeaceus Black-Winged (Red)
Euplectes macroura Yellow-Mantled
Bishop Widowbird
Euschistospiza dybowskii Dybowski’s Twinspot
Nigrita canicapillus Grey-Headed Negrofinch
Nigrita bicolor Chestnut-Breasted
Spermophaga haematina Western
Negrofinch Bluebill
Pyrenestes sanguineus Crimson Seedcracker
Estrilda melpoda Orange-Cheeked Waxbill
Estrilda astrild Common Waxbill
Sporaeginthus subflavus Zebra Waxbill
Lagonosticta senegala Red-Billed Firefinch
Spermestes cucullata Bronze Mannikin
Spermestes bicolor Black-And-White Mannikin
Vidua orientalis Pin-Tailed Whydah
Serinus mozambicus Yellow-Fronted Canary
Emberiza 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
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 Site 1 Site 2

Not suitable (1) x x
Not preffered (2) x x
Acceptable (3) x x
Preferred (4) x x
Ideal (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