Johann Lanz

Soil Scientist (Pri.Sci.Nat.) Reg. no. 400268/12

Cell: 082 927 9018 Tel: 021 866 1518

e-mail: johann@johannlanz.co.za

PO Box 6209

Uniedal 7612

Stellenbosch South Africa

SPECIALIST AGRICULTURAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

FOR PENHILL GREENFIELDS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

CAPE TOWN

SCOPING PHASE REPORT

Report by

Johann Lanz

December 2017

Johann Lanz Professional profile

Education

M.Sc. (Environmental Geochemistry) University of Cape Town 1996 - June

1997

B.Sc. Agriculture (Soil Science,

Chemistry)

University of Stellenbosch 1992 - 1995

BA (English, Environmental &

Geographical Science)

University of Cape Town 1989 - 1991

Matric Exemption Wynberg Boy's High

School

1983

Professional work experience

I am registered as a Professional Natural Scientist (Pri.Sci.Nat.) in the field of soil science,

registration number 400268/12, and am a member of the Soil Science Society of South Africa.

Soil Science Consultant Self employed 2002 - present

I run a soil science consulting business, servicing clients in both the environmental and

agricultural industries. Typical consulting projects involve:

Soil specialist study inputs to EIA's, SEA’s and EMPR's. These have focused on impact

assessments and rehabilitation on agricultural land, rehabilitation and re-vegetation of

mining and industrially disturbed and contaminated soils, as well as more general

aspects of soil resource management. Recent clients include: CSIR; SRK Consulting;

Aurecon; Mainstream Renewable Power; SiVEST; Savannah Environmental; Subsolar;

Red Cap Investments; MBB Consulting Engineers; Enviroworks; Sharples Environmental

Services; Haw & Inglis; BioTherm Energy; Tiptrans.

Soil resource evaluations and mapping for agricultural land use planning and

management. Recent clients include: Cederberg Wines; Unit for Technical Assistance -

Western Cape Department of Agriculture; Wedderwill Estate; Goedgedacht Olives;

Zewenwacht Wine Estate, Lourensford Fruit Company; Kaarsten Boerdery; Thelema

Mountain Vineyards; Rudera Wines; Flagstone Wines; Solms Delta Wines; Dornier

Wines.

I have conducted several recent research projects focused on conservation farming, soil

health and carbon sequestration.

I have project managed the development of soil nutrition software for Farmsecure Agri

Science.

Soil Science Consultant Agricultural Consultors

International (Tinie du Preez)

1998 - end

2001

Responsible for providing all aspects of a soil science technical consulting service

directly to clients in the wine, fruit and environmental industries all over South Africa,

and in Chile, South America.

Contracting Soil Scientist De Beers Namaqualand

Mines

July 1997 - Jan

1998

Completed a contract to make recommendations on soil rehabilitation and re-vegetation

of mined areas.

Publications

Lanz, J. 2012. Soil health: sustaining Stellenbosch's roots. In: M Swilling, B Sebitosi & R

Loots (eds). Sustainable Stellenbosch: opening dialogues. Stellenbosch: SunMedia.

Lanz, J. 2010. Soil health indicators: physical and chemical. South African Fruit Journal,

April / May 2010 issue.

Lanz, J. 2009. Soil health constraints. South African Fruit Journal, August / September

2009 issue.

Lanz, J. 2009. Soil carbon research. AgriProbe, Department of Agriculture.

Lanz, J. 2005. Special Report: Soils and wine quality. Wineland Magazine.

I am a reviewing scientist for the South African Journal of Plant and Soil.

Specialist Declaration

I, Johann Lanz, as the appointed independent specialist, in terms of the 2014 EIA Regulations,

hereby declare that I:

I act as the independent specialist in this application;

I perform the work relating to the application in an objective manner, even if this

results in views and findings that are not favourable to the applicant;

regard the information contained in this report as it relates to my specialist input/study

to be true and correct, and do not have and will not have any financial interest in the

undertaking of the activity, other than remuneration for work performed in terms of the

NEMA, the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2014 and any specific

environmental management Act;

I declare that there are no circumstances that may compromise my objectivity in

performing such work;

I have expertise in conducting the specialist report relevant to this application, including

knowledge of the Act, Regulations and any guidelines that have relevance to the

proposed activity;

I will comply with the Act, Regulations and all other applicable legislation;

I have no, and will not engage in, conflicting interests in the undertaking of the activity;

I have no vested interest in the proposed activity proceeding;

I undertake to disclose to the applicant and the competent authority all material

information in my possession that reasonably has or may have the potential of

influencing - any decision to be taken with respect to the application by the competent

authority; and - the objectivity of any report, plan or document to be prepared by

myself for submission to the competent authority;

I have ensured that information containing all relevant facts in respect of the specialist

input/study was distributed or made available to interested and affected parties and the

public and that participation by interested and affected parties was facilitated in such a

manner that all interested and affected parties were provided with a reasonable

opportunity to participate and to provide comments on the specialist input/study;

I have ensured that the comments of all interested and affected parties on the specialist

input/study were considered, recorded and submitted to the competent authority in

respect of the application;

all the particulars furnished by me in this specialist input/study are true and correct;

and

I realise that a false declaration is an offence in terms of regulation 48 and is

punishable in terms of section 24F of the Act.

Signature of the specialist:

Name of company: Johann Lanz – Soil Scientist

Professional Registration (including number): SACNASP Reg. no. 400268/12

Date: 29 May 2017

Table of Contents

Executive Summary .............................................................................................. 1

1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 2

2 Terms of reference ........................................................................................ 2

3 Methodology of study .................................................................................... 4

3.1 Methodology for assessing soils and agricultural potential ....................... 4

3.2 Methodology for assessing impacts and determining impact significance .. 5

4 Assumptions, Constraints and limitations of study ............................................. 8

5 Applicable legislation and Permit requirements.................................................. 8

6 Baseline assessment of the soils and agricultural capability of the affected environment

8

6.1 Description of soil conditions ............................................................... 8

6.2 Assessment of soil suitability for crop production .................................. 13

6.3 Land use and agricultural development on and surrounding the site ....... 13

7 Identification and assessment of impacts on agriculture .................................... 13

7.1 Comparative assessment of alternatives .............................................. 14

7.2 Other issues related to the proposed agricultural zone of the development16

8 Conclusion and recommendations .................................................................. 16

9 References .................................................................................................. 17

Appendix 1: Structure of soil code and explanation of symbols .................................. 18

Appendix 2: Table of soil profile data ...................................................................... 20

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Penhill Greenfields Development Project is planned on multiple portions of Farm 468 and

410, Eerste River (Penhill Farms) as a flagship project demonstrating sustainable human

settlement.

The objective of this study is to identify potential impacts of the proposed development on

agricultural resources, including soils, and agricultural production potential.

The key findings of this study are:

Soils on the site are predominantly deep, light coloured, sandy soils classified as

Fernwood and Lamotte soil forms.

Soil limitations include very low clay content and the leached nature of the upper soil

horizons. This severely limits water and nutrient holding capacity. They are further

limited by poor drainage, which limits rainy season rooting depth. In one area the soils

are additionally limited by shallow rooting depth due to a dense clay horizon in the

subsoil.

All the investigated soils of the proposed development site are rated as low agricultural

potential due to their limitations, and they are not recommended for general cultivation.

No agriculturally sensitive areas occur within the proposed site and no part of it is

therefore required to be set aside from the development.

The permanent loss of 152 hectares of agriculturally zoned land is the only identified

agricultural impact of the development. Due to the land's low agricultural potential, its

loss as agricultural land is not of high significance.

The impact is a definite, permanent, non-reversible impact that affects only the

development footprint. No mitigation is possible. The resource irreplaceability is low

because the land is an agricultural resource of low potential. The significance of the

impact is assessed as low.

The development layout of Alternative A is the preferred alternative from an agricultural

impact point of view because it allows more practical use of the agricultural area within

the development. However the significance of the agricultural impact of the

development (permanent loss of agricultural land) is assessed as identical for both

alternatives.

Because of the low agricultural potential, and the resultant low agricultural impact,

there are no restrictions relating to agriculture which should preclude authorisation of

the proposed development.

This agricultural investigation has been comprehensively completed. No further

investigation or field work is required. All that remains in the Environmental Impact

Assessment (EIA) phase is to assess the chosen alternative in more detail using the

Aurecon assessment methodology.

2

1 INTRODUCTION

As part of the Southern Corridor Integrated Human Settlement Programme, the Penhill

Greenfields Development Project is planned on multiple portions of Farm 468 and 410, Eerste

River (Penhill Farms) as a flagship project demonstrating sustainable human settlement. The

development will accommodate both low and middle income housing integrated with places of

employment, accessible to public transport and connected to municipal services. Proposed land

uses will include residential, social, agriculture, commercial and light industrial, but will be

focused on providing opportunities for residents from the existing housing demand register

held by the City of Cape Town, including from various informal settlements and backyard

dwellers. Other community facilities such as day care centres, schools, health centres,

municipal facilities and community halls may also be included. The site is currently used in part

for agriculture, largely in the form of small-holder livestock grazing while the remainder is

vacant, with some areas of natural vegetation. Some dwellings are also present on the site.

The objective of this study is to identify potential impacts of the proposed development on

agricultural resources, including soils, and agricultural production potential, and to provide

recommended mitigation measures, monitoring requirements, and rehabilitation guidelines for

all identified impacts. Because the primary agricultural impact is a loss of agricultural land, the

focus of this study is to characterise the different soil types and consequent agricultural

potential across the farm in order to provide the required information to assess the impact of a

loss of land for agricultural production. An objective of the scoping phase is to comparatively

assess project alternatives to input into the ranking and determination of preferred alternatives

that will be assessed in detail in the impact assessment phase. Johann Lanz was appointed by

Aurecon as an independent specialist to conduct this Soils and Agricultural Impact Assessment.

2 TERMS OF REFERENCE

The terms of reference for the study are:

Produce a soil map of the project area showing spatial distribution of different soils

and including ratings of soil potential.

Include in the report a description of soil physical characteristics, limitations, and

suitability for crop production.

Determine the agricultural potential across the site.

Identify all potential impacts (direct, indirect and cumulative) of the proposed

development on soils and agricultural potential, to be assessed in the impact

assessment phase.

Determine the agricultural sensitivity to development across the site.

Provide recommended mitigation measures, monitoring requirements, and

rehabilitation guidelines for all identified impacts.

Comparatively assess project alternatives to rank and determine preferred

alternatives.

The report also fulfils the requirements of Appendix 6 of the 2014 Environmental Impact

Assessment (EIA) Regulations (See Table 1).

3

Figure 1. Location map of the proposed site

Table 1. Compliance with Appendix 6 of the 2014 EIA Regulations

Requirements of Appendix 6 – GN R982 Addressed in the

Specialist Report

A specialist report prepared in terms of these Regulations must

contain

◦ details of-

▪ the specialist who prepared the report; and

▪ the expertise of that specialist to compile a specialist report

including a curriculum vitae;

Title page

CV within report

◦ a declaration that the specialist is independent in a form as

may be specified by the competent authority;

At beginning of

report

◦ an indication of the scope of, and the purpose for which, the

report was prepared;

Section 1 and 2

◦ the date and season of the site investigation and the relevance

of the season to the outcome of the assessment;

Section 3.1

◦ a description of the methodology adopted in preparing the

report or carrying out the specialised process;

Section 3

◦ the specific identified sensitivity of the site related to the Sections 6, 7 & 8

4

Requirements of Appendix 6 – GN R982 Addressed in the

Specialist Report

activity and its associated structures and infrastructure;

◦ an identification of any areas to be avoided, including buffers; Section 8

◦ a map superimposing the activity including the associated

structures and infrastructure on the environmental sensitivities of

the site including areas to be avoided, including buffers;

Figure 2

◦ a description of any assumptions made and any uncertainties

or gaps in knowledge;

Section 4

◦ a description of the findings and potential implications of such

findings on the impact of the proposed activity, including identified

alternatives on the environment;

Section 7 & 8

◦ any mitigation measures for inclusion in the EMPr; Section 7

◦ any conditions for inclusion in the environmental authorisation; Section 8

◦ any monitoring requirements for inclusion in the EMPr or

environmental authorisation;

Not in scoping phase

report

◦ a reasoned opinion-

▪ as to whether the proposed activity or portions thereof

should be authorised; and

▪ if the opinion is that the proposed activity or portions

thereof should be authorised, any avoidance, management and

mitigation measures that should be included in the EMPr, and

where applicable, the closure plan;

Section 8

Section 7

◦ a description of any consultation process that was undertaken

during the course of preparing the specialist report;

Not applicable

◦ a summary and copies of any comments received during any

consultation process and where applicable all responses thereto;

and

Not applicable

◦ any other information requested by the competent authority. Not applicable

3 METHODOLOGY OF STUDY

3.1 Methodology for assessing soils and agricultural potential

The assessment was based predominantly on a soil survey of excavated test pits across the

site. Background information was obtained from existing soil and agricultural potential data for

the site. The source of this data was the online Cape Farm Mapper, produced by the Western

Cape Provincial Department of Agriculture (WCDA) and the online Agricultural Geo-Referenced

Information System (AGIS), produced by the Institute of Soil, Climate and Water (Agricultural

Research Council). Satellite imagery of the study area was also used.

Soil investigations can be done at a range of different levels of detail. The level of detail

translates directly to the number of soil investigation points per area. The more detailed, the

more accurate is the delineation of soil spatial variation, but also the more time consuming and

costly is the investigation. Given the relative uniformity of the soil conditions over the site and

the fact that the whole site is within a single land type, an appropriate level of detail for

5

achieving the investigation's aims is considered to be 6.25 sample points per 100 hectares

(that is a grid of 400 x 400 metres), which is still within the category of a detailed soil survey

(van der Watt & van Rooyen, 1990).

A total of 12 test pits were investigated across the study area in March 2017 by Johann Lanz.

During the investigation, soils were classified according to the South African soil classification

system (Soil Classification Working Group, 1991) and the soil description code was recorded

for each investigated profile. A brief explanation of the description code is given in Appendix 1

and all the soil codes of investigated test pits are listed in Appendix 2.

Soil potential or suitability under the applicable conditions is a function of four factors: root

development potential (rooting depth and friability1); water holding capacity and supply;

drainage; and organic matter content. Soils are rated for potential by making an overall

assessment of each soil, taking all of these four factors into account. A value between 0 and 10

is assigned. This suitability rating is used by soil scientists in the Western Cape, and details of

it are provided in Table 2.

Table 2. Interpretation of soil suitability ratings used by Western Cape soil scientists

Rating General agricultural suitability and recommendations for

cultivated crop production

≤2 Very low Not recommended

>2 - ≤4 Low Not recommended

>4 - ≤5 Medium Conditionally recommended

>5 - ≤6 Medium-high Recommended

>6 - ≤8 High Highly recommended

>8 Very high Highly recommended

An assessment of soils (soil mapping) and long-term agricultural potential is in no way affected

by the season in which the assessment is made, and therefore the fact that the assessment

was done in summer has no bearing on its results.

3.2 Methodology for assessing impacts and determining impact significance

All potential impacts are assessed in detail in the EIA phase in terms of the criteria and

numerical ratings given below. During the scoping phase, alternatives are comparatively

1

Friability of a soil is an aspect of the micro-structure and consistency of a soil. It is the ease

with which a soil crumbles, and it strongly influences the extent to which roots can develop

within a soil.

6

assessed on the same criteria, but on a less detailed numerical scale comprising mostly only

low, medium and high.

Intensity: the degree of alteration of the affected environmental receptor

1 Negligible Natural and/ or social functions and/ or processes are negligibly altered

2 Very low Natural and/ or social functions and/ or processes are slightly altered

3 Low Natural and/ or social functions and/ or processes are somewhat altered

4 Moderate Natural and/ or social functions and/ or processes are moderately altered

5 High Natural and/ or social functions and/ or processes are notably altered

6 Very high Natural and/ or social functions and/ or processes are majorly altered

7 Extremely high Natural and/ or social functions and/ or processes are severely altered

Duration: the length of permanence of the impact on the environmental receptor

1 Immediate Impact will self-remedy immediately

2 Brief Impact will not last longer than 1 year

3 Short term Impact will last between 1 and 5 years

4 Medium term Impact will last between 5 and 10 years

5 Long term Impact will last between 10 and 15 years

6 On-going Impact will last between 15 and 20 years

7 Permanent Impact may be permanent, or in excess of 20 years

Extent: the geographical scale of impact on the environmental receptor

1 Very limited Limited to specific isolated parts of the site

2 Limited Limited to the site and its immediate surroundings

3 Local Extending across the site and to nearby settlements

4 Municipal area Impacts felt at a municipal level

5 Regional Impacts felt at a regional / provincial level

6 National Impacts felt at a national level

7 International Impacts felt at an international level

Probability

1 Highly unlikely

/ None

Expected never to happen

2 Rare /

improbable

Conceivable, but only in extreme circumstances, and/or might occur for

this project although this has rarely been known to result elsewhere

3 Unlikely Has not happened yet but could happen once in the lifetime of the

project, therefore there is a possibility that the impact will occur

7

4 Probable Has occurred here or elsewhere and could therefore occur

5 Likely The impact may occur

6 Almost certain

/ Highly

probable

It is most likely that the impact will occur

7 Certain /

Definite

There are sound scientific reasons to expect that the impact will definitely

occur

Type of impact is either positive or negative

The numerical ratings are used in an equation whereby the consequence of the impact can be

calculated. Consequence is calculated as follows:

Consequence = type x (intensity + duration + extent).

To calculate the significance of an impact, the probability (or likelihood) of that impact

occurring is applied to the consequence.

Significance = consequence x probability

The numerical significance is categorised as follows:

Range Significance rating

-147 -109 Major (-)

-108 -73 Moderate (-)

-72 -36 Minor (-)

-35 -1 Negligible (-)

0 0 Neutral

1 35 Negligible (+)

36 72 Minor (+)

73 108 Moderate (+)

109 147 Major (+)

The following broader considerations are also assessed:

Level of confidence in the assessment rating

Low Judgement is based on intuition

8

Medium Determination is based on common sense and general knowledge

High Substantive supportive data exists to verify the assessment

Reversibility of the impact

Low The affected environment will not be able to recover from the impact -

permanently modified

Medium The affected environment will only recover from the impact with significant

intervention

High The affected environmental will be able to recover from the impact

Irreplaceability of the resource

Low The resource is not damaged irreparably or is not scarce

Medium The resource is damaged irreparably but is represented elsewhere

High The resource is irreparably damaged and is not represented elsewhere

4 ASSUMPTIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND LIMITATIONS OF STUDY

The intensity of the field investigation for this assessment is considered adequate for the

purposes of this study and is therefore not seen as a limitation. A more detailed soil

investigation is not considered likely to add anything significant to the assessment.

The assessment rating of impacts is not an absolute measure. It is based on the subjective

considerations and experience of the specialist, but is done with due regard and as accurately

as possible within these constraints.

There are no other specific constraints, uncertainties and gaps in knowledge for this study.

5 APPLICABLE LEGISLATION AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS

A change of land use (re-zoning) for the development on agricultural land would normally

require approval in terms of the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act (Act 70 of 1970) (SALA).

However in the case of a statutory body, such as Department of Human Settlements, being the

landowner and developer, there is exclusion from such approval. There is no formal application

requirement for such exclusion. It will need to be done by way of a letter from DHS to DAFF,

motivating for the exclusion, and providing this agricultural report as the background

information on agricultural impact that DAFF will require.

6 BASELINE ASSESSMENT OF THE SOILS AND AGRICULTURAL CAPABILITY OF THE

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

6.1 Description of soil conditions

The site is located on the lower foot slopes of the hills surrounding Stellenbosch, at the

9

transition of where the hills meet the coastal plains of the Cape Flats. It is gently sloping

(between 2 and 4%) with a south-westerly aspect. The geology is Quaternary quartz sand of

the Springfontein Formation overlying rocks of the Malmesbury Group.

The entire site falls within one land type, namely Ga16. Soils of this land type (for the

appropriate terrain unit) are deep sands of the Fernwood, Lamotte, Kroonstad and Longlands

soil forms. The field soil investigation identified predominantly deep, light coloured, sandy

Fernwood and Lamotte soil forms across the site. Clay content is very low (approximately 2%)

and sand grade is medium. Soils have limited internal drainage in that saturation occurs within

the soil profile for extended periods during the wet season. This is predominantly as a result of

the landscape position which results in lateral drainage of water down-slope within the soil

profile from the slopes above.

There is a small part of the site in the north-east where weathered Malmesbury Group rocks

(shale) occur much closer to the surface, and instead of deep sandy soils, the soils in this

patch comprise sandy upper horizons overlying a dense clay horizon in the subsoil, which is as

shallow as 30cm below surface in places. These are soils of the Klapmuts and Swartland soil

forms.

A soil map of the site is given in Figure 2, and photographs of representative soil profiles and

of site conditions are given in Figures 3 to 6. A table of soil profile data for all investigated test

pits is given in Appendix 2.

10

Figure 2. Soil map of study site

11

Figure 3. Typical soil profile from the site. This is a Lamotte soil form (test pit 1), with the

podzol B horizon clearly visible as the dark brown staining at 110cm depth. Podzol horizons

seem to occur across most of the site, but some are below 150 cm, in which case the soil is

classified as Fernwood. The absence of a podzol B horizon within the upper 150cm is the only

difference between the Lamotte and Fernwood soils.

Figure 4. Example of a shallow duplex soil from the site, with a dense clay horizon at 30cm

depth, grading below that into partially weathered shale. Test pit number 8, Swartland soil

form.

12

Figure 5. Typical site conditions.

Figure 6. Typical site conditions.

13

6.2 Assessment of soil suitability for crop production

The Fernwood and Lamotte soil forms are limited by their very low clay content and the

leached nature of the upper soil horizons. This severely limits their water and nutrient holding

capacity. They are further limited by their poor drainage, which limits rainy season rooting

depth. The podzol B horizon that occurs in the Lamotte soil form is a dark, chocolate-brown

colour as a result of the precipitation of aluminium-organic complexes. This material can be

beneficial to root development and crop vigour, but in the soils of the study area, it occurs too

deeply below surface to be accessible to crop roots.

The Klapmuts and Swartland soils are limited by the same factors as above, with the additional

factor of limited rooting depth due to the dense clay horizon. All the investigated soils are

rated as low agricultural potential due to their limitations. They are not generally

recommended for cultivation. The Fernwood and Lamotte soils are suitable for intensive

vegetable farming (as in the Philippi agricultural area). However, they require intensive and

well managed irrigation and fertilisation to be viable. There is currently no availability of

irrigation water on the site.

6.3 Land use and agricultural development on and surrounding the site

The site is currently used in part for agriculture, almost entirely in the form of

informal, small-holder livestock grazing while the remainder is vacant, with some areas of

natural vegetation. Some dwellings are also present on the site. There is no formal agricultural

infrastructure on the study site, but there are fences and other informal infrastructure used by

the small-holders.

Agricultural activity adjacent to the site, on the up-slope side, comprises planted pastures, and

higher up the slope, wine grapes. Both of these crop types are on different land types to the

study site, with soils of higher potential.

7 IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS ON AGRICULTURE

Currently the whole study site (192 hectares) is zoned for agriculture. The proposed

development includes a 40 hectare portion that will be used for agriculture. The agricultural

impact of the development will therefore be a permanent loss of agricultural land use on 152

hectares of agriculturally zoned land.

South Africa has very limited arable land, less than is required for national food security.

Furthermore, agricultural land located near urban areas is under increasing pressure from

competing urban land uses, resulting in significant losses of agriculturally valuable land. It is

therefore critical to ensure that development does not lead to an inappropriate loss of land that

may be valuable for cultivation.

The land in the study area is however of low agricultural potential, and so its loss as

14

agricultural land is not of high significance. It is also currently and for the last number of

years, not been utilised at a very productive level, although the small-holder grazing use is

significant for the residents on site. Such use will however continue as part of the

development.

A temporary wastewater treatment package plant is planned to be established on the site to

provide for the disposal of wastewater from the Penhill development before December 2022.

The package plant would have a footprint of approximately 2 hectare and would need to be

located at the lowest part of the site which is in the south western corner. It would therefore

result in the temporary loss of 2 hectares of the 40 hectares of agricultural land, but the

additional impact of this would be of no significance.

The proposed bulk water infrastructure (reservoir and pipeline) will also result in the loss of

agricultural land (approximately 3 hectares) on an adjacent farm portion outside of the project

site. This is land that has recently been used for planted pastures. It is of higher agricultural

potential than the land on site, but it is still only rated as medium potential.

The proposed access road, bulk sewerage infrastructure, and re-alignment of power lines have

no agricultural impact.

Because the 152 hectares of land are permanently lost to agriculture, there can be no other

agricultural impacts associated with these 152 hectares. No agricultural impacts as a result of

the development are anticipated on the 40 hectares that will be retained for agricultural use.

The permanent loss of agricultural land is therefore the only identified agricultural impact. It is

a definite, permanent, non-reversible impact that affects only the development footprint. No

mitigation is possible. The resource irreplaceability is low because the land is an agricultural

resource of low potential. The significance of the impact is assessed as low.

The establishment of a relatively high density, low-cost housing development is likely to pose a

security threat to surrounding agricultural activities in the form of increased risk of theft or

damage to agricultural products and infrastructure. This is largely a social issue that falls

outside of the scope of this impact assessment on soil and agricultural land.

There is also potential for surrounding agricultural activities to impact on residents within the

development. The spraying of agro-chemicals can directly impact the health of people living in

close proximity to it. The 40 hectares of agricultural land do form a buffer between surrounding

agriculture and residents. In addition the land immediately surrounding the development is not

used for vines and is likely to have a low intensity of spraying.

7.1 Comparative assessment of alternatives

The agricultural potential and soil suitability across the site is largely uniform, especially for

any viable agricultural activities on the site, which would include small-holder grazing and

possibly vegetable cultivation, if irrigation water is available.

15

The two project alternatives are two different layouts which utilise different areas for the 40

hectares of agricultural land (see Figure 2). Because of the soil potential uniformity, there is no

difference between these alternatives in terms of land lost to agriculture and retained for

agriculture. The only difference between the two alternatives is that alternative A offers a more

practical layout for agricultural activity in that it has a longer interface between housing and

the agricultural land. This is likely to be significant for residents because it provides an

opportunity for a greater number of residents to live in close proximity to their farming

activities. This is likely to be important for ease of management and for security of their

agricultural produce and infrastructure.

Alternative A is therefore the preferred alternative from an agricultural impact point of view.

However, the significance of the agricultural impact of the development (permanent loss of

agricultural land) is assessed as identical for both alternatives.

There are no other recommended layouts resulting from this agricultural assessment.

Tables, in the required format, summarising all impacts are included below.

16

BULK WATER SUPPLYShort description

Description of alternative

specific attributes

(environmental / social)

List of negative impacts

List of positive impacts

List of potential mitigations

AssessmentNature Positive Negative

Duration Long term

Extent Low

Magnitude Low

Probability High

Confidence High

Reversibility Low

Resource irreplaceability Low

Mitigatability Very low

Significance Low

Ranked preference

Motivation for preferred

None

No mitigation is possible

Conclusionn/a

n/a

Only alternativeReservoir upslope of the site including ±1km

bulk pipeline and associated access road, with

a 10m servitude.

Permanent loss of agricultural land use on 3

hectares of agriculturally zoned land

7.2 Other issues related to the proposed agricultural zone of the development

It should be noted that any increase in agricultural production, from the very low current base,

through cultivation and / or an increase in livestock, will be highly dependent on the availability

of irrigation water.

8 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

All the investigated soils of the proposed development site are rated as low agricultural

potential due to their limitations. The limitations include very low clay content and the leached

nature of the upper soil horizons. This severely limits water and nutrient holding capacity. They

are further limited by poor drainage, which limits rainy season rooting depth. In one area the

soils are additionally limited by shallow rooting depth due to a dense clay horizon in the

subsoil.

The permanent loss of 152 hectares of agriculturally zoned land is the only identified

agricultural impact of the development. The land in the study area is however of low

agricultural potential, and so its loss as agricultural land is not of high significance. The impact

is a definite, permanent, non-reversible impact that affects only the development footprint. No

mitigation is possible. The resource irreplaceability is low because the land is an agricultural

resource of low potential. The significance of the impact is assessed as low.

17

Alternative A is the preferred alternative from an agricultural impact point of view because it

allows more practical use of the agricultural area within the development. However the

significance of the agricultural impact of the development (permanent loss of agricultural land)

is assessed as identical for both alternatives.

No agriculturally sensitive areas occur within the proposed site and no part of it is therefore

required to be set aside from the development.

There are no conditions resulting from this assessment that need to be included in the

environmental authorisation.

Because of the low agricultural potential, and the resultant low agricultural impact, there are

no restrictions relating to agriculture which should preclude authorisation of the proposed

development.

This agricultural investigation has been comprehensively completed. No further investigation or

field work is required. All that remains in the EIA phase is to assess the preferred alternatives

in more detail using the Aurecon assessment methodology.

9 REFERENCES

Agricultural Research Council. AGIS Agricultural Geo-Referenced Information System available

at http://www.agis.agric.za/.

Cape Farm Mapper, version 2.0.5.5. Available at https://gis.elsenburg.com/apps/cfm/

Soil Classification Working Group. 1991. Soil classification: a taxonomic system for South

Africa. Soil and Irrigation Research Institute, Department of Agricultural Development,

Pretoria.

van der Watt, H.v.H. & T.H. van Rooyen. 1990. A glossary of soil science. The Soil Science

Society of South Africa, Pretoria.

18

APPENDIX 1: STRUCTURE OF SOIL CODE AND EXPLANATION OF SYMBOLS

The code used indicates the soil classification as well as other characteristics of the soil. Soil

forms are the first level of division in the South African soil classification system. Soil forms are

further divided into different families. All soil forms are given a South African place name.

Families are given a four digit number. Soils are divided into forms based on the sequence of

diagnostic soil horizons in the soil profile.

This is not a comprehensive explanation of the code but explains the most important points:

Column 2 indicates the depth to a root limiting horizon

Column 3 Numbers indicate the depth of the transition between horizons in order of

increasing depth and according to the categories given below. Following all the horizons, the

depth of a stone content is given if applicable.

Number in code Depth below surface

(cm)

1 0 - 15

2 15 - 25

3 25 - 35

4 35 - 45

5 45 - 55

6 55 - 75

7 75 - 95

8 95 - 115

9 115 - 135

0 135 - 155

Column 4 Two letter abbreviation of soil form name followed by four digit indication of soil

family.

Column 5 Where a profile is a transition between 2 different soil forms - two letter

abbreviation of the transition soil form name.

Columns 6 - 8 Lower case letters indicating the occurrence of additional horizons underlying

the diagnostic horizons, if applicable.

Column 9 - 10 Combined letter and number code indicating course fraction content and stone

size of subsoil horizons, if applicable. f = fine gravel, g = course gravel, k = stones, r = rocks.

The number for each class is the volume fraction out of 10. The sum of the numbers gives the

total course fraction content.

19

Column 11 Course fraction content of topsoil horizon indicated in the same way as above.

Column 12 Sand grade f = fine and me = medium and co = course and clay content of topsoil

horizons according to the following categories:

number Clay

percentage

1 0 - 5

2 5 - 10

3 10 - 15

4 15 - 20

5 20 - 35

Column 13 A number between 1 and 9 indicating wetness class based on the depth at which

saturation occurs in the profile and the length of time for which the soil remains saturated. All

wetness classes of 6 and higher may require drainage. A 0 indicates that no wetness is present

in the profile.

Column 14 The rating out of 10 of the vineyard vigour potential, using the rating system

that is used by Western Cape soil scientists.

Column 15 The soil map unit into which the soil profile has been categorised.

20

APPENDIX 2: TABLE OF SOIL PROFILE DATA

Test Soil Soil description code Suitability Map

pit depth Depth Family Tran- Subsoil properties Topsoil Drain rating unit

no. (cm) codes sition properties

form CF CF CF texture

1 >120 48 Lt1100 me1 6 4.0 1

2 >120 48 Lt1100 me1 6 4.0 1

3 >120 3 Fw1110 me1 6 4.0 1

4 >120 3 Fw1110 me1 6 4.0 1

5 >120 3 Fw1110 Lt me1 6 4.0 1

6 >120 39 Km1110 me/fi1 6 4.0 2

7 90 37 Km1110 me/fi1 6 3.8 2

8 30 36 Sw2111 lw me/fi1 6 2.8 2

9 >120 30 Lt1100 me/fi1 6 4.0 1

10 >120 3 Fw1110 Lt me1 6 4.0 1

11 >120 3 Fw1110 Lt me1 6 4.0 1

12 >120 39 Lt1100 me1 6 4.0 1