NATURAL RESOURCES AND€¦ · L4 - moderate potential, arable - 14.1 ha L5 - res tricted potential, non arable - 4.8 ha L7 - low potential, non arable - 3.5 ha L8 - very low potential,

Appendix E6: Natural Resources and Agricultural Land Potential Assessment

NATURAL RESOURCES AND

AGRICULTURAL LAND POTENTIAL

OF REM ERF 3481 DURBAN NORTH

by

22 Armstrong Drive Wembley 3201 Pietermaritzburg Tel: 082 808 1509 Fax: 086 557 4276 Email: [email protected] Web: www.keithsnyman.co.za

April 2014

Version 1a

NATURAL RESOURCES AND AGRICULTURAL LAND POTENTIAL OF REM ERF 3481 – DURBAN NORTH, Version 1a

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------KEITH SNYMAN & ASSOCIATES – PIETERMARITZBURG – APRIL 2014 2

Executive Summary Background Rem Erf 3481 Durban North (59.6 hectares) is currently zoned as “extractive industrial”. Active sugarcane production under rainfed conditions occupies 14.4 hectares, whilst an additional 24.8 hectares has been abandoned from sugarcane production, probably due to marginal soils and steep terrain. The owners would like to develop Erf 3481 into an industrial development node. Concern has been expressed regarding the loss of sugarcane production potential and also the loss of arable land, should the development proceed. This agricultural assessment of the inherent natural resources (soils, climate and terrain) defines the inherent agricultural land potential of Erf 3481. The study also investigates the propensity of Erf 3481 to produce rainfed sugarcane, as this is the historic and current crop produced on site.

Location The study area is surrounded by residential and industrial developments and is located in Durban North. The N2 toll road passes close by. Co-ordinates of the study area are 29º 76’S and 31º 03’E.

Current land use

Current Land Use Extent (hectares) Extent (percentage)

Bush 5.6 9

Sugarcane - in production 14.4 24

Sugarcane – abandoned 24.8 42

Disturbed land 5.4 9

Quarry 4.6 8

Watercourses 4.8 8

Climate The area receives 973 mm mean annual precipitation. Mean annual precipitation is 973 mm. Mean annual temperature is 20.5 ºC. Annual evaporation is 1692 mm. Mean sunshine hours per day is 6.5. No frost occurs. In essence, the climate is considered favourable for agricultural production with good yields expected for a wide range of adapted crops throughout the year. Climate capability rating is “C1” where climatic limitations to production are none to slight. Bio-Resource Group Bio-Resource Group is “Ya14 North Coast (Moist Coastal Forest, Thorn and Palm Veld)”. Vegetation pattern is Bushed Grassland and Bushland Thicket.

Hydrology Surface water, boreholes and windmills are absent. No evidence of current or previous crop irrigation was seen. A perennial stream flows through the property, feeding the nearby Seekoeispruit. Other ephemeral channels occur as well as constructed waterways.

Topography The topography is rolling, segmented by the perennial stream flowing through the centre of the property and by other ephemeral channels occurring on adjacent slopes. The net terrain consists of crests with gently to moderately sloping land having slope gradients of 2 to 8%, and midslopes with strongly sloping to very steep slopes with 8 to 60% gradient. Altitude above mean sea level ranges from 20 m in the west to 95 m at centre of the property. Rocky outcrops were not noted.

Geology Redistributed material of the Berea Formation and shale of the Pietermaritzburg Formation, Ecca Group occur. Alluvium is confined to stream channels.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------


Soils Soils are dominantly shallow lithosols of the Mispah and Glenrosa forms that are derived from shale. Texture is sandy clay loam. Some shale areas also have melanic soils of the Bonheim and Mayo forms. Deep redistributed material with qualifies as Hutton and Oakleaf soil forms occur in the east. Profile textures are sandy loam to sandy clay loam. Inherent fertility of the Oxidic reddish brown soils is low. A soil erosion hazard exists on steeper slopes. Other areas have Anthropic soils that are disturbed via topsoil truncation, building construction or quarry activities. Agricultural Land Potential

Map Unit Agriculture Land Potential Ranking Arability Extent (hectares)

Extent (percentage)

A L2 – high potential Arable 9.4 16

B L2 – high potential Arable 6.9 11

C L3 – good potential Arable 10.8 18

D L4 – moderate potential Arable 14.1 24

E L7 – low potential Non arable 3.5 6

F L8 – very low potential Non arable 4.6 8

G L8 – very low potential Non arable 5.4 9

H L5 – restricted potential Non arable 4.8 8

Overall agricultural land potential is thus: L2 - high potential, arable - 16.3 ha L3 - good potential arable - 10.8 ha L4 - moderate potential, arable - 14.1 ha L5 - restricted potential, non arable - 4.8 ha L7 - low potential, non arable - 3.5 ha L8 - very low potential, non arable - 10.0 ha Sugarcane Yields A modeled sugarcane yield under rainfed conditions at the 14.4 hectares where active cultivation is taking place is 724 tons cane per year. Modeled sugarcane yields, under rainfed conditions, at the 24.8 hectares of land abandoned to cane production is 1041 tons cane per year. Erf 3481 thus has the propensity to produce 1765 tons cane per annum assuming that 39.2 hectares are planted. This tonnage is not economically viable as a stand alone production unit, as is the case at Erf 3481. In addition, if the proposed industrial development takes place, loss of 1765 tons cane to the sugar industry is highly insignificant and will have no impact whatsoever on mill output.

As a professional agriculturalist it is concluded that Erf 3481 is marginally suited to agricultural production, mainly due to its restricted hectare extent with limitations of steep slopes and marginal soils in places. In addition, Rem Erf 3481 is located in Durban North – a zoned residential and industrial area. I thus have no hesitation whatsoever to recommend that the proposed industrial development proceed and that the current sugarcane production activity be abandoned in its entirety.

Keith Snyman Professional Soil Scientist (Reg No 400082/88) MScAgric DipBuMan


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------


TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................... 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................... 4

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ 5

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. 5

LIST OF MAPS ............................................................................................................... 5

1. DECLARATION ........................................................................................................... 6

2. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 8

3. LOCATION AND ACCESS.............................................................................................. 8

4. CURRENT LAND USE ................................................................................................. 10

4. 1 Rem Erf 3481 ....................................................................................................... 10

4.2 Surrounding Land ................................................................................................. 11

5. BIO-RESOURCE GROUP ............................................................................................ 11

6. HYDROLOGY ........................................................................................................... 12

7. TOPOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................... 12

8. GEOLOGY ................................................................................................................ 12

9. CLIMATE ................................................................................................................. 12

10. SOILS .................................................................................................................... 13

10.1. Oxidic Soils ........................................................................................................ 13

10.2. Melanic Soils ..................................................................................................... 14

10.3. Lithic Soils .......................................................................................................... 15

10.4. Anthropic Soils .................................................................................................. 16

10.5. Gleyic/Cumulic Soils .......................................................................................... 16

11. AGRICULTURAL LAND POTENTIAL ........................................................................... 19

12. SUGARCANE PRODUCTION POTENTIAL .................................................................... 20

13. RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................. 20

APPENDIX 1 : SOIL SURVEY DATA ................................................................................. 22

APPENDIX 2 : CODES TO SOIL SURVEY DATA DEPICTED IN APPENDIX 1 ............................ 24

APPENDIX 3 : KEY TO AGRICULTURAL LAND POTENTIAL CLASSES .................................... 25

APPENDIX 4 : EXTENT OF INDIVIDUAL SITES .................................................................. 29


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------


LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Location ......................................................................................................... 9

Figure 2. Property extent. .............................................................................................. 9

Figure 3. Sugarcane in production (foreground), riparian habitat (centre) and abandoned

sugarcane fields (background). ..................................................................................... 10

Figure 4. Quarry. ........................................................................................................ 10

Figure 5. Industrial and residential developments surround the study area. ....................... 11

Figure 6. Current land use. ........................................................................................... 11

Figure 7. Hutton soil form (topsoil left and subsoil right). ................................................. 14

Figure 8.Mayo soil form. .............................................................................................. 15

Figure 9.Mispah soil form. ........................................................................................... 15

LIST OF TABLES

Figure 1. Location ......................................................................................................... 9

Figure 2. Property extent. .............................................................................................. 9

Figure 3. Sugarcane in production (foreground), riparian habitat (centre) and abandoned

sugarcane fields (background). ..................................................................................... 10

Figure 4. Quarry. ........................................................................................................ 10

Figure 5. Industrial and residential developments surround the study area. ....................... 11

Figure 6. Current land use. ........................................................................................... 11

Figure 7. Hutton soil form (topsoil left and subsoil right). ................................................. 14

Figure 8.Mayo soil form. .............................................................................................. 15

Figure 9.Mispah soil form. ........................................................................................... 15

LIST OF MAPS Map 1. Location of Soil Observations ............................................................................ 30

Map 2. Sites ............................................................................................................... 31

Map 3. Agricultural Land Potential ............................................................................... 32


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------


1. Declaration

DETAILS OF SPECIALIST AND DECLARATION OF INTEREST

(For official use only)

File Reference Number: DM/0061/2012

NEAS Reference Number:

Date Received:

Application for an environmental authorization in terms of section 24(2) of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998) or for a waste management license in terms of section 20(b) of the National Environmental Management: Waste Act, 2008 (Act No. 59 of 2008).

PROJECT TITLE

Proposed Rohill Business Estate on Rem. of Erf 3481 Durban North, KwaZulu-Natal

Specialist: Keith Snyman & Associates

Contact person: K. Snyman

Postal address: 22 Armstrong Drive, Wembley, Pietermaritzburg

Postal code: 3201 Cell: 082 808 1509

Telephone: Fax: 086 557 4276

E-mail: [email protected]

Professional affiliation(s) (if any)

PrSciNat Regd.Prof. Soil Scientist - Reg No 400082/88 Member Soil Science Soc of SA Member Soil Surveyor Organisation of SA Member SA Institute Foresters

Project Consultant: GCS Water and Environment (Pty) Ltd

Contact person: Ryan Edwards

Postal address: PO Box 819, Gillitts

Postal code: 3603 Cell:

Telephone: 031 764 7130 Fax: 031 764 7140

E-mail: [email protected]


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------


4.2 The specialist appointed in terms of the Regulations_

I, , declare that -- General declaration:

I act as the independent specialist in this application;

do not have and will not have any vested interest (either business, financial, personal or other) in the undertaking of the proposed activity, other than remuneration for work performed in terms of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2010;

I will 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;

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 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;

all the particulars furnished by me in this form are true and correct; and

I realise that a false declaration is an offence in terms of Regulation 71 and is punishable in terms of section 24F of the Act.

Signature of the specialist:

Keith Snyman & Associates

Name of company (if applicable):

Date: 24 April 2014 _______________________________

K. Snyman


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------


2. Introduction

Rem ERF 3481 Durban North, being 59.6 hectares in extent, is a consolidated tract of land that is currently zoned as “extractive industrial”. Some of this land is currently cultivated to sugarcane and other land has been abandoned from sugarcane cultivation. An industrial development, to be known as Rohill Business Estate, is planned on the site. Loss of arable agricultural land and sacrifice of sugarcane production at Rem Erf 3481 is thus imminent. The National Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries as well as the Provincial Department of Agriculture and Environmental Affairs Municipal Authorities and other interested and affected parties require information regarding the inherent agricultural land potential and the extent and yield of current agricultural practices on the property in order to consider the loss of agricultural production. Inherent agricultural land potential, under rainfed conditions, is determined by assessing natural resources (soils, climate and terrain) and is the essence of this report. The objective of this investigation is thus to investigate and report on the natural resources of the Rem of Erf 3481 Durban North, with particular reference to:

Climate Topography Soils

Interpretation of these natural resources allows:

Determination of the spatial extent of relatively homogeneous sites for agriculture and attributes thereof.

Deduction of agricultural land potential of these defined sites. Modelling of sugarcane yields is also conducted via interpretation of natural resources and management effort on defined sites.

K. Snyman (PrSciNat, MScAgric Soil Science) of Keith Snyman & Associates conducted the investigation and compiled the maps and report. This study is conducted at a semi detailed level of investigation. The accuracy of the soils map and deduced agricultural land potential should thus be considered in context.

3. Location and Access

Rem Erf 3481 (Figure 1; Figure 2) is that indicated to me by GCS Water and Environmental Services. The site is a contiguous tract of land and is 59.6 hectares in extent. The residential suburb of Glen Anil is located immediately east of the site. Co-ordinates of the study area are 29º 76’S and 31º 03’E. The N2 Toll Road is located a little way from the western periphery. Access into the study area is directly from Glen Hills via the eastern (Cranberry Grove), northern (Bauhinia Drive) or western (North Coast Drive) property boundaries. Access within the site is possible with a high clearance vehicle in that numerous farm tracks occur. Some off these tracks are however overgrown with weeds.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------


Figure 1. Location

Figure 2. Property extent.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------


4. Current Land Use

4. 1 Rem Erf 3481

The current land use is shown in Table 1 and in Figure 6. Table 1. Current land use.

Current Land Use Extent (hectares) Extent (percentage)

Bush 5.6 9

Sugarcane - in production 14.4 24

Sugarcane – abandoned 24.8 42

Disturbed land 5.4 9

Quarry 4.6 8

Wetland 4.8 8

Bush – coastal bush in good to very disturbed condition. Sugarcane in production – estimated average yield is about 50 tc/ha/year (Figure 3). Sugarcane abandoned – mostly on steep slopes and shallow soils, encroached by weeds (Figure 3). Disturbed land – MTN Tower, abandoned farm house (ruin) and topsoil displacement zones. Quarry – borrow pits for clay brick construction (Figure 4). Watercourses – perennial stream and riparian extent, ephemeral channels and waterways (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Sugarcane in production (foreground), riparian habitat (centre) and abandoned sugarcane fields (background).

Figure 4. Quarry.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------


4.2 Surrounding Land

Most of the land surrounding Rem Erf 3481 is industrial and residential (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Industrial and residential developments surround the study area.

Figure 6. Current land use.

5. Bio-Resource Group

Bio-Resource Group1 - Ya14 North Coast (Moist Coastal Forest, Thorn and palm Veld).

Vegetation pattern – Bushed Grassland and Bushland Thicket. Climate capability rating - “C1” where climatic limitations to production are none to slight. The local climate is favourable for good yields for a wide range of adapted crops throughout the year.

1 Bioresource Inventory, 2006. Dept. Agric. Cedara.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------


6. Hydrology

A perennial stream flows through the central section of the property in an east/west direction, dissipating into the nearby Seekoeispruit. Ephemeral channels feed the perennial channel. Grassed waterways occupy steep valley bottom terrain units and form part of the surface water management plan. No surface water storage facilities, dams, boreholes or windmills were noted. No evidence of current or historic irrigation occurs.

7. Topography

The topography is rolling, segmented by the perennial stream flowing through the centre of the property and by other ephemeral channels occurring on adjacent slopes, resulting in a terrain pattern of:

Crests with gently to moderately sloping land having slope gradients of 2 to 8% slope.

Midslopes with moderately steep to very steep land having slope gradients of 20 to 60%.

Slope aspect is mainly north/south. Altitude range above mean sea level is 20 m in the west to 95 m at the center of the property. Rocky outcrops were not noted.

8. Geology

The eastern section of the property is underlain by red redistributed material of the Berea Formation giving rise to soils of red hue with sandy topsoils on clay loam subsoils. The remainder of Erf 3481 is underlain by dark grey shale of the Pietermaritzburg Formation, Ecca Group that has weathered to form either shallow grey soils on fractured shale or deeper dark blocky clayey soils.

9. Climate

A meteorological station does not occur on the property. Consequently, quoted weather statistics (Table 2) are modelled (Bioresource Inventory Program, 2006; Shulze, 1997)¹,

2 using altitude and

distance from the sea and measured data from nearby meteorological stations as control. The modelled statistics appear realistic and are considered representative of the prevailing climate. The study area receives 973 mm mean annual precipitation. Mean monthly rainfall peaks at 127 mm in February and dips to 26 mm in July. The mean annual rainfall together with its monthly distribution is well suited to rainfed cropping. Mean annual temperature is 20.5 ºC. Mean maximum monthly temperature peaks at 28.3 ºC in February and dips to 10.3 ºC in July. The high evapotranspiration rates associated with high temperatures in summer, together with the high rainfall over this period will ensure favourable crop growth. Mean annual evapotranspiration is high (A-pan 1692 mm). Mean annual sunshine hours per day is 6.5 which is favourable. No frost occurs. In essence, the climate is considered favourable for agricultural production with good yields for a wide range of adapted crops throughout the year.

2 Schulze, R.E., 1997. South African Atlas of Agrohydrology and Climatology. Water Research Commission Report TT82/96,

ACRU Report 46/1997.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------


A variety of crops can be grown under these climatic conditions e.g. sugarcane, cabbage, macadamia, banana, chilli, peppers, papaya, mango, litchi, eucalypts etc. provided soil conditions are suitable.

Table 2. Climatic conditions.

Jan

Feb

March

April

May

June

July

Aug

Sept

Oct

Nov

Dec

Mean precipitation mm

126

127

114

70

55

33

26

42

68

91

111

110

Mean annual precipitation

973 mm

A-pan evapotranspiration

mm

179

161

158

126

108

92

100

117

134

163

166

188

Mean annual A Pan evaporation

1692 mm

Maximum temperatures °C

28.2

28.3

27.7

26.1

24.7

22.9

22.7

23.4

24.1

24.7

25.7

27.6

Mean annual max temperature

25.5 °C

Minimum temperatures °C

19.6

19.7

18.8

16.3

13.3

10.5

10.3

11.7

14.1

15.6

17.1

18.7

Mean annual min temperature

15.5 °C

Mean temperature °C

23.8

24.0

23.2

21.2

19.0

16.7

16.5

17.5

19.1

20.1

21.4

23.1

Mean annual temperature

20.5 °C

10. Soils

Aerial imagery (year 2012) and contours were obtained from the eThekwini Municipality. Using GIS software, a georeferenced orthophoto map at 1: 5000 scale was generated and used as base during the soil survey. This base map also forms the backdrop to the maps contained in this report. Soils were assessed at a semi-detailed scale of mapping. Soil observations were cited in the landscape based on pedological considerations and terrain unit to determine soil patterns. Observations were not on a rigid grid. Soils were identified by auguring to 150 cm diagnostic depth, or to hard rock. Pedological and site data for each of the 18 observations is presented in Appendix 1, with their locations shown in Map 1. The codes used in Appendix 1 are described in Appendix 2. Soil properties at each observation were recorded according to standard soil survey procedure, with the following recorded per observation and per soil horizon: horizon lower depth, horizon clay content, horizon sand grade, horizon colour, horizon structure, horizon wetness hazard and horizon cultivation factors. Effective root depth, depth limiting material, ground roughness, topsoil organic carbon, available moisture capacity and lithology were also determined at each observation. Soils were classified according to "Soil Classification - A Taxonomic System for S.A., 1991". Based on the objective of this study and the inherent soil properties, it was not deemed necessary to sample soils for laboratory analytical investigation.

Soil classification, soil properties, ground roughness, climate and slope were interpreted and 8 sites or map units defined. Each respective site has relatively homogeneous natural resources (soils, climate and terrain) and will thus provide a relatively similar growth climate for agriculture. Consult Map 2 and Table 3 in consultation with Section 10.

10.1. Oxidic Soils

Oxidic soils occupy Map unit A. They are typically well drained, well aerated and of red and brown hue, indicating a high concentration of iron and aluminium oxides. Dominant soil forms are Hutton 1200 and Oakleaf 1120. Effective root depth is more than 150 cm. Depth limiting material to rooting seldom occurs. Topsoil texture is sandy loam becoming sandy clay loam in the subsoil. Water storage and water holding capacities are thus favourable with calculated total available moisture content of 121 mm. Rainfed sugarcane will do well on these soils. Topsoil texture is apedal becoming weak blocky in the subsoil providing a favourable rooting environment. Profiles are well drained and there is no wetness hazard. Inherent soil fertility is however somewhat poor due to leaching of nutrients in the high rainfall environment, evidenced by the dystrophic subsoil base status. Fertilizer requirements will


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------


be demanding for all crops, especially sugarcane. Macro nutrients, micro nutrients, phosphorus and nitrogen are all of low concentration. The increase in texture from the top- to the subsoil renders the profile “luvic” and subjects these sites to an erosion hazard. This is exacerbated on slopes stepper than 8% gradient. These soils are derived from redistributed material of the Berea Formation. Soil morphology of a Hutton soil form seen on site is shown in Figure 7. Limitations to cropping are soil nutrition, increased slope gradients at some locations and an erosion hazard.

Figure 7. Hutton soil form (topsoil left and subsoil right).

10.2. Melanic Soils These soils occupy map unit B (Table 3; Map 2). Derived from shale, the melanic soils are typically dark in hue with a blocky structure and have a high base status. Dominant soils are Bonheim 1110 and Mayo 1100. Topsoil and subsoil textures are clayey. Effective root depth is 40 cm but can be improved via deep ripping on shallow slopes. Limiting material to root development is saprolite or pedocutanic subsoils, the latter having moderate to strong blocky structure. Infiltration is moderate. Water holding capacity is high but water storage capacity is restricted due to the somewhat shallow root depth. Calculated total available moisture is 52 mm. Topsoil organic carbon is moderate high indicating favourable nitrogen and sulphur mineralisation potential. Base status of the top- and subsoil is somewhat high, thus providing a favourable inherent supply of macro- and micro nutrients to the plant. Fertilisation requirements will be moderate. The soils are inherently stable and erosion hazard is reduced. Limitations to agricultural cropping are structured subsoils and slope gradient in places.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------


Figure 8.Mayo soil form.

10.3. Lithic Soils Derived from shale, the lithosols are typically associated with weathered or hard rock at shallow depth in the soil profile. They occupy map units C, D and E – the distinguishing features being mainly slope gradient and soil depth. Mispah 1100 (Figure 9) and Glenrosa 1111/1211 sandy clay loam soils are dominant. The shallow soils seldom exceed 30 cm in depth with hard rock and saprolite restricting root development. Calculated total available moisture is about 30 mm. Crops grown on these sites will thus constantly be under stress due to soil moisture content commonly reaching wilting point. In addition, they commonly occur on slopes with steep gradients which further reduce agricultural potential. Extended drought periods will result in crop failure. Limitations to cropping are soil depth and steep slopes in places.

Figure 9.Mispah soil form.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------


10.4. Anthropic Soils Anthropic soils are a consequence of man’s activities. They occupy map units F and G (Table 3 and Map 2). They are disturbed soils or are associated with complete soil removal. The anthropic soils occur at the quarry areas and building locations at Erf 3481. They obviously have zero agricultural potential.

10.5. Gleyic/Cumulic Soils The soils are associated with riparian habitats, wetlands and waterways on the property. The Gleyic soils are confined to the main perennial channel traversing the properly and have Westleigh 1000 clay, Katspruit 1000 clay and Oakleaf 1110 sandy clay loam soil forms. Grassed waterways and other ephemeral channels have Cumulic soils and show evidence of soil movement due to water scouring where Oakleaf 1210 soil form dominates. Gleyic and Cumulic soils are not arable and should service conservation corridors on the property.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------


Table 3. Soil map legend.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------


11. Agricultural Land Potential Agricultural land potential was determined using the methodology of the National Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries

3 and correlated with a similar methodology developed by Smith

4 for

KwaZulu-Natal. Classification has been conducted for each site, the results of which are presented below and in Table 3 and Map 3. Ranking of agricultural land potential is comprehensively explained in Appendix 3 and is classified as follows:

Class L1 – very high agricultural land potential

Class L2 – high agricultural land potential

Class L3 – good agricultural land potential arable

Class L4 – moderate agricultural land potential

Class L5 – restricted agricultural land potential

Class L6 – very restricted agricultural land potential

Class L7 – low agricultural land potential non-arable

Class L8 – very low agricultural land potential Criteria used to determine agricultural land potential are: slope class, topsoil texture, effective root depth, soil permeability, wetness hazard, rockiness, soil crusting, bio-resource group, rainfall, evaporation, temperature, wind and hail. Deduced agricultural land potential at Rem Erf 3481 is spatially presented in Map 3 and defined in Table 4. Table 4. Agriculture land potential.

Map Unit Agriculture Land Potential Ranking Arability Extent (hectares)

Extent (percentage)

A L2 – high potential Arable 9.4 16

B L2 – high potential Arable 6.9 11

C L3 – good potential Arable 10.8 18

D L4 – moderate potential Arable 14.1 24

E L7 – low potential Non arable 3.5 6

F L8 – very low potential Non arable 4.6 8

G L8 – very low potential Non arable 5.4 9

H L5 – restricted potential Non arable 4.8 8

Overall agricultural land potential at Rem Erf 3481 is thus: L2 - high potential, arable - 16.3 ha L3 - good potential arable - 10.8 ha L4 - moderate potential, arable - 14.1 ha L5 - restricted potential, non arable - 4.8 ha L7 - low potential, non arable - 3.5 ha L8 - very low potential, non arable - 10.0 ha

3 ARC., 2002. A System for Soil and Land Capability Classification in South Africa. Dept. Agric and Env Affrs.

4 Smith, B. 2006. The Farming Handbook. Univ. KwaZulu-Natal Press.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------


12. Sugarcane Production Potential

Modelled rainfed sugarcane yields were determined via an improved version of Smith (2006

4). These

are presented for Sites A, B, C and D where sugarcane is currently cultivated (Table 5) and at abandoned cane fields (Table 6). The yields were determined via considering inputs of crop water use, soil, climate and terrain conditions, per site. A management input factor of “very good” was used. Table 5. Modeled sugarcane yield - currently planted areas.

Site Modelled Rainfed Cane yield

(tc/ha/year

Hectares Currently

Planted to Cane

Total Tons Cane/Year

A 60 5.6 342

B 55 3.2 175

C 37 4.7 174

D 37 0.9 33

Total 724

Table 6. Modeled sugarcane yields - abandoned areas.

Site Modelled Rainfed Cane yield

(tc/ha/year

Hectares Abandoned from Cane Production

Total Tons/Year

A 60 3.2 192

B 55 3.0 165

C 37 5.2 192

D 37 13.4 492

Total 1041

The currently planted fields (14.4 hectares) of sugarcane have the potential to yield 724 tons cane per year, assuming good management input (Table 5). The abandoned fields (24.8 hectares) have the potential to yields 1041 tons cane per year assuming good management (Table 6). It is concluded that Rem Erf 3481 Durban North has the potential to produce 1766 tons cane per annum assuming that 39.2 hectares (the land extent that is currently planted plus the land extent previously cultivated) are planted. It is estimated that sucrose content will be about 12%. This yield is not economically viable as a stand alone production unit, as is the case at Erf 3481. In addition, if the proposed industrial development takes place, loss of 1766 tons potential cane to the sugar industry is highly insignificant and will have no impact whatsoever on sugar mill production.

13. Recommendations It is my professional finding that the inherent agricultural land potential at Rem Erf 3481 Durban North, being 59.6 hectares in extent, consists of 41.2 hectares of arable land of varying potentials and 18.3 hectares of non-arable land. Limitations to agricultural production are steep terrain and shallow soils in many places. Land currently planted to sugarcane and land abandoned to sugarcane production totals 39.2 hectares with the potential to produce 1766 tons cane per annum. If the proposed industrial development


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------


takes place, loss of 1766 tons potential cane to the sugar industry is highly insignificant and will have no impact whatsoever on sugar mill production. As a professional agriculturalist it is concluded that Erf 3481 is marginally suited to agricultural production, mainly due to its restricted hectare extent with limitations of steep slopes and marginal soils in places. In addition, Rem Erf 3481 is located in Durban North – a zoned residential and industrial area. I thus have no hesitation whatsoever to recommend that the proposed industrial development proceed and that the current sugarcane production activity be abandoned in its entirety.

Keith Snyman Professional Soil Scientist (Reg No 400082/88) MScAgric DipBuMan


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------


APPENDIX 1 : SOIL SURVEY DATA

OB

S

SOIL

HO

R-

LOW

ER

CLA

Y %

SAN

D

CO

LOU

R

STRU

C-

WETN

ESS

GR

AV

EL

ERD

(CM

)

DEP

TH LIM

.

SUR

FAC

E

LITH-

TOP

SOIL

TERR

AIN

/

NO

CLA

SSIFICA

TION

IZON

DEP

TH C

M

GR

AD

E

TUR

E

HA

ZAR

D

/AER

D

MA

TERIA

L

FEATU

RES

OLO

GY

CA

RB

ON

Slop

e %

1 Hu1200 A 40 15 M 5YR42 A

151

R2 m 1

B 151 30 M 5YR44 A

2

2 BO1110 A 40 50 F 10YR21 SB

40/100 VP

S1 M 3

B 100 60 F 10YR33 MB

4

C 151

M

3 BO1110 A 40 50 F 10YR21 SB

40/100 SO

S1 M 3

B 100 60 F 10YR33 MB

4

C 151

M

4 OA1120 A 30 20 M 10YR43 M

151

R2 M 3

B 151 40 M 10YR46 WB

6

5 OA1120 A 30 25 M 10YR43 A

151

R2 M 3

B 151 45 M 10YR46 WB

10

6 SW1111 A 30 25 M 10YR42 A

30/100 VP

R2 M 3

B 100 50 F 10YR46 MB

S1

10

C 121

7 MS1100 A 15 35 F 10YR32 WB

15 R

S1 M 1

R 16

4

8 GS1211 A 15 30 F 10YR32 WB

G3 15 SO

S1 M 1

C 31

4

9 WB1000 C

0

10 GS1211 A 30 35 F 10YR32 WB

G3 30 SO

S1 M 1

C 31

12

11 OA1120 A 20 20 M 10YR43 A

50 R

S1 M 3

B 50 35 M 10YR44 M

R2

10

C 51

12 HU1200 A 20 15 M 5YR42 A

151

R2 M 3

B 151 40 M 5YR44 WB

10

13 GS1211 A 30 25 F 10YR53 M

R4 30 SO

S1 LM 3

C 61

8

14 SW1111 A 30 35 M 10YR32 WB

30/70 VP

S1 M 3

B 70 50 F 10YR46 MB

20

C 121

15 MY1100 A 25 40 F 10YR21 MB

25 SO

S1 M 3

C 61

R4

8

16 BO1110 A 25 40 F 10YR21 MB

25/60 VP

S1 M 3

B 60 50 F 10YR32 MB

20


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------


C 121

M

G6

17 MY1100 A 25 40 F 10YR21 MB

25 SO

S1 M 3

C 61

R4

8

18 WB1000 C

0 SO

19 GS1211 A 30 35 F 10YR32 WB

G3 30 SO

S1 M 1

C 31

12


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------


APPENDIX 2 : CODES TO SOIL SURVEY DATA DEPICTED IN APPENDIX 1


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------


APPENDIX 3 : KEY TO AGRICULTURAL LAND POTENTIAL CLASSES4

1. LAND SUITED TO CULTIVATION

1.1 Class L1

● Arable. ● Very high potential. ● No limitations. ● Appropriate contour protection must be implemented and inspected. ● Not too few limitations that restrict its use. ● It may be used safely and profitably for cultivated crops. ● The site is nearly level. ● Soils are generally deep. ● Soils hold water well and are generally well drained. ● They are easily worked, and are either fairly well supplied with plant nutrients or are highly

responsive to inputs of fertilizer. Strongly acid soils in need of liming are excluded from Class L1.

● When used for crops, the soils need ordinary management practices to maintain productivity. ● The climate is favourable for growing many of the common field crops. ● Low erosion hazard.

1.2 Class L2 ● Arable. ● High potential. ● Very infrequent and/or minor limitations due to slope, soils, temperatures or rainfall. ● Appropriate contour protection must be implemented and inspected. ● Low erosion hazard. ● Have some limitations that reduce the choice of the plants or require moderate conservation

practices. ● It may be used for cultivated crops, but with less latitude in the choice of crops or

management practices than Class L1. ● The limitations are few and the practices are easy to apply. ● Limitations may include singly or in combination the effects of:

– Gentle slopes. – Moderate susceptibility to wind and water erosion. – Less than ideal soil depth. – Somewhat unfavourable soil structure and workability. – Slight to moderate salinity or sodicity easily corrected but likely to recur. – Occasional damaging flooding. – Wetness correctable by drainage but existing permanently as a moderate limitation. – Slight climatic limitations on soil use and management.

● Limitations may cause special soil-conserving cropping systems, soil conservation practices, water-control devices or tillage methods to be required when used for cultivated crops.

1.3 Class L3

● Arable ● Good potential. ● Infrequent and/or moderate limitations due to soil, slope, temperatures or rainfall. ● Appropriate contour protection must be implemented and inspected. ● Some erosion hazard. ● Some climate restraints eg. wind or hail. ● Reduced choice of plants or require special conservation practices, or both.

4 Smith, B. 2006. The Farming Handbook. Univ. KwaZulu Natal Press.

ARC, 2002. A System for Soil and Land Capability Classification for Agriculture in South Africa. Dept. Agric. And Env. Affrs.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------


● It may be used for cultivated crops, but has more restrictions than Class L2. When used for cultivated crops, the conservation practices are usually more difficult to apply and to maintain.

● The number of practical alternatives for average farmers is less than that for soils in Class L2. ● Limitations restrict, singly or in combination, the amount of clean cultivation, time of planting,

tillage, harvesting, and choice of crops. ● Limitations may result from the effects of one or more of the following:

– Moderately steep slopes. – High susceptibility to water or wind erosion or severe adverse effects of past erosion. – Flooding accompanied by some crop damage. – Very slow permeability of the subsoil. – Wetness or some continuing water logging after drainage. – Shallow soil depth to bedrock, hardpan, fragipan, or clay pan that limit the rooting zone

and the water storage. – Low water-holding capacity. – Low fertility not easily corrected. – Moderate salinity or sodicity. – Moderate climatic limitations.

Note: “Severe limitations” and “low fertility not easily corrected” are taken to imply that land dominated by soils with severe subsoil acidity belongs in Class L3.

1.4 Class L4

● Arable ● Moderate potential. ● Moderately regular and/or severe to moderate limitations due to soil, slope, temperatures or

rainfall. ● Appropriate permission is required before ploughing virgin land. ● Severe limitations. ● High erosion hazard possible. ● Crops require very careful management, or both. ● It may be used for cultivated crops, but more management is required than for Class L3 and

conservation practices are more difficult to apply and maintain. ● Restrictions to land use are greater than those for Class L3 and the choice of plants is more

limited. ● It may be well suited to only two or three of the common crops or the harvest produced may

be low in relation to inputs over long period of time. ● In sub-humid and semiarid areas, land in Class L4 may produce good yields of adapted

cultivated crops during years of above average rainfall and failures during years of below average rainfall.

● Use for cultivated crops is limited as a result of the effects of one or more permanent features such as: – Steep slopes. – Severe susceptibility to water or wind erosion or severe effects of past erosion. – Shallow soils. – Low water-holding capability. – Frequent flooding accompanied by severe crop damage. – Excessive wetness with continuing hazard of water logging after drainage. – Severe salinity or sodicity. – Moderately adverse climate.

2. LAND NOT SUITED TO CULTIVATION

2.1 Class L5 ● Non-Arable ● Restricted land capability. ● Regular and/or moderate to severe limitations due to soil, slope, temperatures or rainfall. ● Land with wetness limitations.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------


● Frequent flooding. ● Examples of Class L5 are:

– Bottomlands subject to frequent flooding that prevent the normal production of cultivated crops.

– Ponded areas where drainage for cultivated crops is not feasible but which are suitable for grasses or trees.

– Water courses, perennial streams, rivers as well as wetlands. 2.2 Class L6

● Non-arable. ● Very restricted potential. ● Regular and/or severe limitations due to soil, slope, temperatures or rainfall. ● Severe limitations that make it generally unsuited to cultivation and limit its use largely to

pasture and range, woodland or wildlife food and cover or perennial vegetation. ● Has continuing limitations that cannot be corrected, such as:

– Steep slope. – Severe erosion hazard. – Effects of past erosion. – Stoniness. – Shallow rooting zone. – Excessive wetness or flooding. – Low water-holding capacity. – Salinity or sodicity. – Severe climate.

● Physical conditions are such that it is practical to apply range or pasture improvements, if needed, such as seeding, liming and fertilizing.

● Some occurrences can be safely used for the common crops, provided unusually intensive management is used. Some occurrences are adapted to special crops. Depending on soil features and climate, land in Class 6 may be well to poorly suited to woodlands.

2.3 Class L7

● Non-arable. ● Low potential. ● Severe limitations due to slope, soil, temperatures or rainfall. ● Suitable only for natural vegetation. ● Unsuited to cultivation and that restrict its use largely to grazing, woodland or wildlife. ● Restrictions are more severe than those for Class L6 because of one or more continuing

limitations that cannot be corrected, such as: – Very steep slopes. – Erosion. – Shallow soil. – Stones. – Wet soil. – Salts or sodicity. – Unfavourable climate.

● Physical conditions are such that it is impractical to apply such pasture or range improvements as seeding, liming and fertilizing.

● Depending on soil characteristics and climate, land in Class L7 may be well or poorly suited to woodland.

● In unusual instances some occurrences may be used for special crops under unusual management practices.

2.4 Class L8

● Non-arable. ● Very low potential. ● Very severe limitations due to soil slope, temperatures or rainfall.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------


● Not suitable for grazing or afforestation. ● Land use restricted to wildlife, water supply, aesthetic purposes ● Land use restricted to buildings, settlements etc where soil disturbance is significant. ● Limitations that cannot be corrected may result from the effects of one or more of:

– Erosion or erosions hazard. – Severe climate. – Wet soil. – Stones. – Low water-holding capacity. – Salinity or sodicity. – Disturbance

● Land in Class L8 cannot be expected to return significant on-site benefits from management for crops, grasses or trees, although benefits from wildlife use, watershed protection or recreation may be possible.

● Includes badlands, rock outcrop, sandy beaches, river wash, mine tailings, other nearly barren land, and man-made soil deposits (disturbed soil).


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------


APPENDIX 4 : EXTENT OF INDIVIDUAL SITES

Site Extent (ha)

A1 3.3

A2 6.1

B1 4.2

B2 2.7

C1 10.7

C2 0.1

D1 0.2

D2 0.7

D3 4.3

D4 5.2

D5 2.8

D6 0.9

E1 2.2

E2 1.3

F1 2.5

F2 0.3

F3 1.8

G1 0.2

G2 2.2

G3 0.1

G4 3.0

H1 0.1

H2 0.1

H3 3.8

H4 0.2

H5 0.7


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------


Map 1. Location of Soil Observations


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------


Map 2. Sites


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------


Map 3. Agricultural Land Potential

Documents

NATURAL RESOURCES AND€¦ · L4 - moderate potential, arable - 14.1 ha L5 - res tricted potential, non arable - 4.8 ha L7 - low potential, non arable - 3.5 ha L8 - very low potential,