SOIL, LAND USE, LAND CAPABILITY AND ......The EIA assessment must include a detailed field investigation and soil analysis of the site. Only through completing a comprehensive field

Prepared for:

H2 Clean Energy (Pty) Ltd

Unit 5

70 Prestwich Street

Green Point

Cape Town

8005

Prepared by:

First Floor, Block 2

5 Woodlands Drive Office Park

Cnr of Woodlands Drive &

Western Service Road

Woodmead

PO Box 148, Sunninghill, 2157

Tel: +27 (0)11 6563237

Fax: +27 (0)86 684 0547

E-mail: [email protected]

www.savannahsa.com

Reviewed by:

PROFESSOR CORNIE VAN HUYSSTEEN (Pr. Sci. Nat.)

ASSOCIATE PROFESSIOR UNIVERSITY OF THE FREE STATE - SOIL,

CROP AND CLIMATE SCIENCES

SOIL, LAND USE, LAND CAPABILITY AND

AGRICULTURAL POTENTIAL SCOPING REPORT:

PROPOSED H2 ENERGY POWER STATION, NEAR

KWAMHLANGA, MPUMALANGA PROVINCE

SCOPING REPORT

NOVEMBER 2016

SOIL & AGRICULTURAL SCOPING REPORT: H2 ENERGY COAL-FIRED POWER STATION, MPUMALANGA NOVEMBER 2016

i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Savannah Environmental (Pty) Ltd has been appointed by H2 Clean Energy (Pty) Ltd to

undertake the required environmental studies for the establishment of the proposed H2

Energy Power Station and associated infrastructure, situated in the Thembisile Hani Local

Municipality (Nkangala District) in Mpumalanga Province. The proposed project is situated

approximately 9 km south of KwaMhlanga, and approximately 1 km north of the Palesa

Coal Mine. The coal resource for the proposed project is to be sourced from the Palesa

Coal Mine.

This report discusses the approach, findings and conclusion of a desktop study carried out

for the proposed project area. The main objective of this scoping investigation was to

assess the likelihood of soil and agricultural sensitivities occurring in the study area in an

effort to identify any issues regarding land use, land capability and erosion potential that

may arise from the proposed development and should receive further attention during the

EIA assessment phase.

Based on the desktop study, about half of the site has soils with a High to Moderate

agricultural potential, while the other half has a moderate to low agricultural

potential.

The following recommendations are made going forward in the EIA phase:

The EIA assessment must include a detailed field investigation and soil analysis of the

site. Only through completing a comprehensive field investigation would it be possible

to obtain exact information.

The information obtained in this report should be used to guide field investigations,

and thus should be ground-truthed in the field

The above should include a detailed specialist Soil and Agricultural Potential study.

Landowner and stakeholder engagements should simultaneously be done to determine

the importance and the potential of the site.


1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... i

1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 2

1.1 SPECIALIST DETAILS ............................................................................................ 3

1.2 DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE ................................................................ 3

2. LEGISLATION ............................................................................................................. 3

3. METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................... 4

4. ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS ................................................................. 4

5. DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA .............................................................................. 5

5.1 VEGETATION TYPES ............................................................................................... 7

5.2 CLIMATE ....................................................................................................................... 9

4.3. GEOLOGY .................................................................................................................... 9

5.4 LAND TYPES ............................................................................................................. 10

5.5 TERRAIN .................................................................................................................... 13

5.6 SOIL FORMS ............................................................................................................. 13

5.7 AGRICULTURAL POTENTIAL ............................................................................ 17

5.8 SOIL LIMITATION FACTORS ............................................................................ 18

6. POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS .......................................................... 20

7. RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................................................. 26

8. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 26

9. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 27

APPENDIX A: LAND TYPE DATA ................................................................................. 29

APPENDIX B: DATA SHEETS......................................................................................... 32


2

SOIL, LAND USE, LAND CAPABILITY AND AGRICULTURAL POTENTIAL SCOPING

REPORT:

PROPOSED H2 ENERGY POWER STATION AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE

NEAR KWAMHLANGA, MPUMALANGA PROVINCE

1. INTRODUCTION

H2 Clean Energy (Pty) Ltd are proposing the development of a 600 Megawatt (MW)

coal-fired power station on a site approximately 9 km south of KwaMhlanga, and 1 km

north of the Palesa Coal Mine in the Thembisile Hani Local Municipality of the Mpumalanga

Province. The power generation units will utilise Supercritical (SC) or Ultra-Supercritical

(USC) Pulverised Coal (PC) or Circulating Fluidised Bed (CFB) boiler technology. The power

station will comprise power generation units and up to 2 emission stacks, each 80 m in

height. In addition, the project will utilise both dry cooling and dry ashing methods. Coal

required for the project will be sourced from the existing Palesa Coal Mine, located

approximately 1 km south of the project site.

Electricity generated by the project will feed into and supplement the national electricity

grid. Power line route alternatives will be determined based on the final project layout

and grid connection point. These will be assessed through a separate application for

Authorisation.

The coal-fired power station will have the following infrastructure:

» An overland coal conveyor.

» Raw materials loading and offloading, storage areas, and handling facilities.

» A coal crusher (and screening plant in the case of PC technology).

» Power generation units.

» Ash dumps.

» Water infrastructure including a raw water storage dam, Wastewater Treatment

Plant (WWTP) and collection reservoirs.

» A substation/switching yard.

» Office and maintenance area/s and buildings.

» Access roads.

The scoping level assessment includes the following:

» Legislative information.

» Collection of all available soil and land use data from existing sources such as AGIS

» Land type and topographical interpretation of the site and surrounding area.

» Identify and evaluate all potential direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the

proposed development on soils and agricultural potential.

» Describe the erosion and degradation status of the land.


3

» Determine the agricultural potential across the site.

» Detailed scoping level assessment results.

» Make recommendations for further study.

1.1 SPECIALIST DETAILS

The scoping report was prepared by Ashleigh Blackwell of Savannah Environmental, an

Ecologist who majored in Ecology and Soil Science, with an Honours degree in Ecology and

a BSc. in Conservation Ecology and Entomology from the University of Stellenbosch. This

report was peer reviewed by Professor Cornie van Huyssteen.

1.2 DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

Signed declarations of independence for Ashleigh Blackwell of Savannah Environmental

and Prof (CW) Cornie Van Huyssteen of the University of the Free State are attached as in

Appendices in the Draft Scoping Report.

2. LEGISLATION

A review of the policy environment provides valuable insight into the government’s

priorities and plans. The review of the relevant planning and policy documents was

undertaken as a part of the process.

The key documents reviewed included:

Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (No. 108 of 1996)

The residents of the immediate and surrounding area have the basic constitutional

right to a protected environment that is not unnecessarily and/or irreparably

damaged by any industrial or related development.

National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998) (NEMA)

Any mining-related or other industrial development has the potential to impact on

the receiving physical (including soils), biophysical and social environments. As

such potential impacts need to be thoroughly and competently assessed prior to

execution of the proposed Project.

Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act (No 43 of 1983) (CARA)

CARA aims to protect the prevailing natural agricultural resources of South Africa

from change of land use away from agriculture. This is especially important where

high potential soils are present. It is an unfortunate fact that the majority of the

coal resources of South Africa, and the related infrastructure necessary to develop

that coal into energy, occur beneath moderate to high potential arable soils, and

every time some of these soils are removed from agricultural production, the local,

and by implication, regional and national food security situation is affected.

Sub-division of Agricultural Land Act (No 70 of 1970) (SALA)

If agricultural land, that is productive in terms of food and/or fibre production,

becomes subdivided in some way as to make the reduced land parcel(s)


4

uneconomic or unsustainable, then agricultural production is diminished. Such

actions should be resisted wherever possible, especially where the prevailing

agricultural potential is high.

DAFF is the custodian of all agricultural land and a commenting authority in terms of the

planning regulation and EIA process. A separate CARA permit application is not required

for this specific development proposal as no wetlands or vleis will be dewatered, but the

project must be assessed for agricultural impacts during the EIA process.

3. METHODOLOGY

This scoping report was conducted as a desktop study without any field investigation. The

findings and statements are therefore exclusively based on information from the online

Agricultural Geo-Referenced Information System (AGIS) website (AGIS, 2007) and the

land type data (Land Type Survey Staff, 1972-2006) along with its memoirs, produced by

the Institute of Soil, Climate and Water (ARC-ISCW) which is part of the Agricultural

Research Council (http://www.agis.agric.za/) and other internet sources. Climate data

was also obtained from the ISCW. This data was compiled at a scale of 1:250 000 and

therefore only gives a broad overview of the soil pattern distribution of a region. As such

it cannot give detailed information at farm scale, but is invaluable in preliminary studies.

The soils are classified according to the Binomial Soil Classification System of South Africa

(MacVicar et al., 1997), used by the ISCW for land type data. All other maps included

were attained from Google maps. Google Earth was used to acquire the most recent aerial

photographs of the area.

4. ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS

A study of this nature will inherently contain various assumptions and limitations. Although

the ideal situation would have been to consult local farmers and agricultural institutions,

this was not a feasible option. In terms of a regional assessment, this was undertaken as

a desktop study. Investigations and research done substantiated the many adjustments

that were made to infer climatic conditions, land uses, land type and terrain. Through the

extrapolating of available land use data, GIS information and satellite imagery conclusions

were formalised.

It is unknown whether or not there has been any change in land use since the AGIS survey

was done and it is not known whether or not a significant volume of groundwater is present

in the area, and the availability thereof can impact the potential for agricultural activities,

thus detailed field investigation is required to clarify and determine areas of acceptable

and defendable loss as the desktop study revealed.

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


5

It is important to note that the site was not visited during the course of this

study, and so the detailed composition of the specific land types has not been

ground-truthed. Differences may therefore occur within the site boundaries with regards

to topography, soil depth and erodibility. These uncertainties will be cleared up during the

EIA phase field investigation.

5. DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA

The site is located approximately 9 km south of KwaMhlanga, and approximately 1 km

north of the Palesa Coal Mine in the Thembisile Hani Local Municipality of the Nkangala

District in Mpumalanga Province (refer to Figure 1). The project site comprises the

following properties:

The three parameters that are constantly used to determine the impact of a development

on the soil, land and agricultural potential are: the agricultural capacity, erodibility of the

soil and the climate. Scotney et. al. (1987) described a list of criteria (factors) that can

be used as general guidelines to place soil and land into suitability classes, these classes

are thus used to determine the soil and agricultural potential of land. Factors that Scotney

et al. (1987) take into consideration are: Terrain Factors, Soil Factors and Climatic Factors.

These factors will be addressed in detail below.

Description: SG 21 Code Parcel

Portion 21 of the Farm Hartebeestspruit No. 434 T0JR00000000043400021 21/434




6

Figure 1. Location map of the proposed H2 Energy Power Station in Mpumalanga


7

5.1 VEGETATION TYPES

Vegetation types were mapped by Mucina and Rutherford (2006) on ArcGIS according to

conservation status and land type characteristics. Two vegetation types were mapped fir

the project site: Loskop Mountain Bushveld occurring on the ridge and upper slopes at the

site, and Central Sandy Bushveld on the lower lying, more gradual landscape.

Central Sandy Bushveld (SVcb 12):

This vegetation occurs at altitudes of 850m – 1450m above sea level (Botha, 2010). As

the name implies, the soils associated with this vegetation unit are sandy soils of low-lying

plains. They typically occur on slightly undulating terrain underlain by granite and

granophyre of the Bushveld Complex. Typically occurring vegetation species are known

to be tall, deciduous woodlands. On the more mountainous sites, shallow rock and gravelly

soils dominate with various species of low woodland. Synonymous with sandy valley plains

are the common Acacia, Euclea and Ziziphus vegetation species. According to Mucina and

Rutherford, (2006) this vegetation type is vulnerable and poorly protected in South Africa.

75.9% of this vegetation type remains intact and only 2.4% is protected in provincial

nature reserves and private conservation areas. Approximately 24% of Central Sandy

Bushveld has been transformed.

Loskop Mountain Bushveld (SVbc 13):

This vegetation occurs at altitudes of 1050m – 1500m above sea level. It occurs on low

mountains and ridges with open tree savanna on lower-lying areas and a denser broad-

leaved tree savanna on lower slopes and midslopes. Grasses dominate the herbaceous

layer (Botha, 2010) of this vegetation unit. Cultivation, urbanisation and built-up areas

have transformed a small percentage of this vegetation across the Mpumalanga Province.

Mucina and Rutherford (2006) describe this vegetation type as least threatened but

moderately protected since 15% is protected in provincial nature reserves. 97.6% of

Loskop Mountain Bushveld remains intact with less than 3% of the vegetation type being

transformed by cultivation and urbanisation. Erosion is mostly very low to low.


8

Figure 3: Vegetation units occurring at the project site (Adapted from Mucina &

Rutherford, 2006)


9

5.2 CLIMATE

The information below was extrapolated from information obtained at http://en.climate-

data.org/location/57512/ and http://www.southerncircle.com/before-you-travel/40-an-

overview-of-south-african-weather.html for KwaMhlanga

The study area is located in the semi-arid region of South Africa. According to the Köppen

Climate Classification System, the site is located within the CWa (warm temperate, winter

dry, hot summer) and CWb (warm temperate, winter dry, warm summer) climate

boundary (Conradie, 2012). Here you can expect hot and sunny summers with the

occasional afternoon thunder showers. Winters are mild, sunny dry days with crisp to cold

nights with occasional frost occurring in winter. Winds are typically fluctuating in a north-

east direction and can reach maximum speeds of >28km/h at certain times of the year

(August to December). The region experiences an average summer rainfall of 114mm per

month. Average annual temperature for the region is 17.3oC. Frost is frequent to very

frequent in the winter season, and can occur up to 13 days per year.

Figure 4. The distribution of the five aridity classes across the nine provinces of South

Africa. The aridity classes are defined in the UNCOD (United Nations Conference On

Desertification), and reflect the ratio of mean annual precipitation to potential

evapotranspiration (Hoffman & Todd, 1999).

4.3. GEOLOGY

The occurrence of minerals in Thembisile Hani Municipality is fairly high in comparison to

the other local municipalities within the Nkangala District. The region boasts various

fractions of Gold, Tin, Copper, Lead, Manganese, Uranium, Nickel, Cobalt and Silver, and

is considered a ‘mining-hub’ in terms of the large amounts of coal deposits (Thembisile

Hani IDP, 2015-2016).

H2 Energy Power Station

http://www.southerncircle.com/before-you-travel/40-an-overview-of-south-african-weather.html

http://www.southerncircle.com/before-you-travel/40-an-overview-of-south-african-weather.html


10

Although the site is not located within the Main Karoo Basin, it is underlain by the same

formations of the Transvaal and Karoo Supergroups. The lithology of the site consists of

some of the oldest rocks, namely the Precambrian Ecca Group (Karoo Supergroup) and

the Vallian Rooiberg Group and the Loskop Formations of the Transvaal Supergroup. The

geology of the broader region consists of layers from the Bushveld Igneous Complex,

Waterberg Group Coalfield and the Pretoria Group.

Ecca Group:

Sedimentary parent material of the Ecca Group comprises rock consisting of either shales

rich in carbon, imbedded sandstone, siltstone or coal. The major coal bearing horizons of

the Ecca Group are the Volksrust Formation and the Vryheid Formation (Winter et.al.,

1987). Both the Volksrust and Vryheid have intercalated carbonaceous shales and coal, of

both the yield low grade thermal coal for power station consumption (Bergh, 2013). The

soils derived from the Karoo Sediments vary in colour, texture, clay content, and nutrients

depending on whether it originated from shales or sandstone.

Rooiberg Group

The Rooiberg Group forms the roof of the Transvaal Supergroup and represents the first

volcanic/igneous activity associated with the feature. This group is one of the largest

accumulations of rhyolitic (silicic) rocks in the world (Lenhardt & Eriksson, 2012). As is the

case in most areas, the soils that develop depend primarily on the geological formation

rainfall and slope. The Rooiberg Group has been subdivided into four main Formations,

these are the Schrikkloof Formation, Kwaggasnek Formation, Damwal Formation and the

Dullstroom Formation (Kinnaird, 2005). The Rhyolitic and andesitic soils of the Rooiberg

Group are darker in colour, containing more clay. The sand fraction is medium to fine.

Granite soils are less dominant and are yellow/brown in colour, contains less clay and the

sand fraction is medium to coarse.

Loskop Formation:

Soils of the Loskop Formation are derived from the parent material of tholitic lavas and

other igneous or altered sedimentary rocks. The Loskop Formation and Rooiberg Group

formed simultaneously, with the Loskop Formation displaying evidence of major regional

unconformity. This Formation consists of a thick succession of finely layered siltstone,

mudstone, feldspathic sandstone and shale (Kinnaird, 2005).

5.4 LAND TYPES

The land type classification is a nation-wide survey that groups areas of similar soil, climate

and terrain conditions into different land types. Land type data for the site indicated that

the site is dominated by Ib and Bb, with a very small portion of Ba land types (refer to

Figure 5).


11

Figure 5: Land types of the proposed area (adapted from AGIS, 2007)


12

Land type Bb11 (Covering 51.5% on the eastern part of the site): Soils of this land

type originate from sedimentary parent material of Sandstone, grit and shale of the Ecca

Group. Soil patterns identified for this land type are associated with landscapes in which

a plinthic catena forms part of the landscape. Plinthic soils manifest as a Soft Plinthic B

horizon, or as a Hard Plinthic B horizon. Plinthic subsoils can be summarised as (Fey,

2010):

1. Soils commonly associated with periodic water saturation within 1.5 m of the soil

surface

2. A subsurface horizon that consists of 25% or more of an iron rich, humus-poor

mixture of kaolinitic clay with quartz, as well as other substituents.

3. Soils in a horizon with which “mottling” occurs as a result of accumulation in iron

and manganese oxides associated with the fluctuating water table.

4. Soils in the horizon that are capable of changing irreversibly to a hardpan or to

irregular aggregates on exposure to repeated wetting and drying with free access

to oxygen

The distinction between soft plinthic and hard plinthic B horizons indicates a difference in

the degree of pedeogenic expression, and will often infer different practical considerations

for land use. The soils associated with this particular land type (discussed below) have the

ability to support a High Potential Agriculturally Land.

Land type Ib12 (Covering 43% on the western portion of the site): This land type

is found on pedologically young landscapes. The most dominant soil-forming processes

have been rock weathering, the formation of orthic A topsoil horizons and typically clay

illuviation, giving rise to lithocutanic B horizons. The soils of land type Ib12 are considered

to be Lithosols (Fey, 2010), having a clear affinity to the underlying parent rock and

typically occurring over hard and/or weathered rock such as those of the Rooiberg Group.

The soils associated with this particular land type (discussed below) have the ability to

produce a Moderate to Low Potential Agriculturally Land.

Land type Ba13 (covering 5.5% in the south-western corner of the site) these

soils also consist of plinthic catena, and are characterised by dystrophic and/or

mesotrophic, red and/or yellow soils. The presence of duplex and margalithic soils is rare.

These soils are well drained with deep apedal clays, rich in iron oxides and organic matter

to provide structural stability. The soils associated with this particular land type are

expected to have a Moderate Potential Agriculturally Land. Since this land type represents

only a small fraction of the site <10%, it is not considered to be of significance and soils

found in this land type will not be assessed further


13

5.5 TERRAIN

The project site is divided into:

1. A gentle east-facing slope of terrain type A3 where more than 80% of the area has

slopes less than 8% and a local relief is estimated at 90m to 150m. This terrain is

typically gently undulating, dominated by a midslope topography (Figure 2a)

2. A steeper west facing slope of terrain type B4. Here the slope is on average less

than 8% for 50% - 80% of the slope area (Figure 2b). The terrain rises steeply

over a short distance and the crest and midslope are incised by various drainage

lines (Google Earth).

3. North-south facing ridge separates both the east and west facing slopes and is at

an altitude of 1500m.

Figure 2a: Sketch of a typical A3 terrain type

Figure 2b: Sketch of a typical B4 terrain type

5.6 SOIL FORMS

A description of the most important soil characteristics of each land type, such as the

dominant soil form, soil depth, topsoil texture and underlying material, is given in the soil

legend shown in Table 1. Table 1 also indicates which soils occur within which land types

discussed in the section above. The general properties of the soils occurring on the site

are discussed below. Most of the information below has been extracted from the book

Soils of South Africa, Martin Fey (2010).


14

Plinthic Soils: Avalon (Av) , Glencoe (Gc)

The Avalon soil form consists of an orthic A horizon on a yellow-brown apedal B horizon

overlying a mottled, soft plinthic B horizon at a depth of about 1 metre. The yellow-brown

apedal B horizon has structure that is weaker than moderate blocky or prismatic in the

moist state. Avalon soil has usually a loamy texture with moderate organic matter status

and is moderate drained. Typically, these soils are acidic and low in basic cations and

phosphorous. The soil is highly suited to dryland crop production, subject to appropriate

chemical amelioration (Fey, 2016).

Glencoe soil form consists of an orthic A horizon overlying a yellow-brown apedal B horizon

that is underlain by a hard plinthic B horizon. This hard plinthic horizon is a, massive

sesquioxide cementation which breaks only with a sharp blow of a hammer. The orthic A

and yellow-brown apedal B horizons forms a thick layer (typically 600mm) on top of the

hard plinthic B horizon. This soil form typically has a moderately high degree of

weathering, a depletion of bases, a non-significant acidity, a sandy loam texture and a

morphology that indicates a fluctuating water table (Lake, 2014). The soil can be used for

dryland crop production or for livestock grazing.

Lithic Soils: Mispha (Ms), Glenrosa (Gs) and Catref (Cf)

Glenrosa soils have an orthic A overlying a lithocutanic B horizon while Mispah soils have

an orthic A overlying hard rock. Cartref soils have an orthic A overlying an E horizon on a

lithocutanic B horizon. These soils are generally shallow, have variable fertility and water

holding capacity depending on the depth of the topsoil and rock type from which they are

derived. Glenrosa, Mispah and Cartref soils are typically low in agricultural potential due

to their shallow and/or rocky nature, limiting plant root penetration.

In terms of behaviour, Glenrosa and Cartref soils are moderately sensitive to erosion. The

subsoil is more sensitive to erosion and should preferably not be exposed. The main

limitation of this type of soil is soil effective depth, soil texture and plant water availability.

Glenrosa and Cartref soils can however accommodate short shrubs and grasses suitable

for grazing. The shallow depth and rocky subsoil make these soils unsuitable for irrigation.

Overall, the agricultural potential of these soils is typically low and restricted to grazing

use. The livestock production potential of the natural veld on these soils is moderate.

Mispha soils are known to be slightly sensitive to erosion. As with Glenrosa soils, Mispah

soils are limited by soil depth, soil texture and plant water availability. These soils can,

however, support various shrubs and grasses for grazing. Mispah soils are considered to

be too shallow to support dryland cropping or irrigation of cash crop production. The

agricultural potential of the soils is low (restricted to grazing) and the sustainability of

cattle/sheep production on natural veld on these soils is moderate.

The soils of the Cartref, Glenrosa and Mispah soil forms dominate the crests and midslopes

of the landscape where convex topography has changed to concave conditions. Except for

having shallow effective rooting depths (<40 cm), most (specifically the Cartref and

Glenrosa forms) also show temporary wetness in the subsoil during and after the summer


15

rainfall wet season. This is due to the fact that they have mainly developed in parent

materials derived from shale and therefore have loam to silty clay textures.

Oxidic Soils: Hutton (Hu) and Clovelly (Cv)

Both Clovelly and Hutton soils are considered to have very high agricultural potential and

are the main arable agricultural soils of South Africa. This is due to the deep, well-drained

nature of these soils. These soils are the backbone of the productive maize belt of South

Africa, and areas where these occur in the northern Highveld of Mpumalanga are renowned

for producing consecutively high yields of maize each year. These soils are typically found

on the valley slopes and are considered to have an arable land capability class.

Hutton soils consist of an orthic A horizon on a red apedal B horizon overlying unspecified

material. These soils are typically deep (500mm – 1200mm+) and well drained. The soils

are often structureless or have very weakly developed structure and no restrictions

shallower than 500mm. The B horizon of the soil develops in well-drained, oxidizing

environments that produce coatings of iron oxides (hematite) on the soil particles, causing

the red colours of the horizon. In some instances, the soils develop on Fe-rich parent

material, which has a moderate clay-forming potential. The clay minerals may consist of

non-swelling 1:1, and swelling 2:1 types. This high-quality soil is suitable for annual crop

production as it is a good rooting medium. “Topsoil”, having favourable structure and

consistence (slightly firm to friable) makes this soil form ideal for crop production purposes

of grains, fruits and vegetables.

Clovelly soils have an orthic A and yellow-brown apedal B-horizons which are suitable for

annual cropping due to the good rooting medium. As with Hutton soils the “topsoil”, has

both a favourable structure and consistence (slightly firm to friable) making it ideal for

crop production purposes of grains, fruits and vegetables. The B horizon has more or less

uniform "yellow-brown" soil colour in both the moist and dry state, and has weakly

developed blocky structure or is structureless in the moist state. This horizon develops in

a well-drained oxidizing environment, but with different mineral coatings (goethite) on soil

particles than those of the Hutton soil form.


16

Table 1: Estimated soil parameters for the various soil groups to determine soil agricultural potential. Basic characteristics of the soils

indicate both the irrigated and rain fed potential of the site (adapted from data given in Appendix A)

Lan

d

Typ

e

Soil

Group

% of

the

land

type

Effectiv

e Depth

(mm)

Clay %

of the

A

horizo

n

Clay %

of the

B

horizon

Natural

Fertilit

y

Erodibilit

y

Dryland

crop

productio

n

potential

Irrigatio

n

Potential

Potential crop

type

Agricultural

Potential

Bb11

Avalon 16

Avalon 26,

Glencoe 16,

Clovelly 16

Clovelly 26

43.5% 450 -900 10 -20 15 - 25 Medium

N Low

Medium -

High

Medium -

High Maize

Medium -

High

Clovelly 14

Glencoe 14

Avalon 14

31.5% 500 -

>1200

8 -15 8 -15

MediumN

Low Medium Medium

Maize, more

suitable for

grazing

Medium -

High Hutton 16

Hutton 26 15 -25 15 -30

Ib12

Rock 54.7 NONE Low

Mispah 10

Mispah 11

Glenrosa 15

Hutton 26

Cartref 31

31.7 100 -

400 10 - 20 N/A

Medium

- High Medium Low Low

None. Suitable for

Grazing, ripped

soils could be

suitable

for vines

Low

* Please note that soil complexes have been donated in bold; soils contributing <10% in the soil horizon were not considered. N = Requires Lime and/or

Fertilizer for economically viable dryland cropping.


17

5.7 AGRICULTURAL POTENTIAL

The main limiting factor to agricultural potential at the site is the soil depth, the soil texture

and the amount of rainfall versus evaporation. Based on this, as well as using the

information provided in Table 1 above, the site can be considered to have a Medium to

High agricultural potential. Three different land use options were identified for the

proposed site:

Irrigated Crop Potential

In terms of irrigated crop potential, 50% of the site is suitable for irrigation. Given the

prevailing climate and location of the site relative to possible water resources, crop yields

are expected to be high to medium under these conditions. However, the availability of

water to provide sufficient irrigation to the site would need to be confirmed with a site

specific visit. Irrigation would need to be planned sequentially with the dry season,

especially on well drained soils such as Hutton and Clovelly where soil water availability

may be limited at plant rooting depth. The remainder of the soils on the site are generally

lack drainage, require complex irrigation scheduling, drainage control and lower yields

make them unfeasible for irrigation purposes.

Dryland Crop Potential

Overall, the rain fed crop potential for 50% (the same 50% suitable for irrigation) of the

site is medium to high under normal conditions and given the deep, well drained soils.

However, due to the relatively low nutrient status of the soils in their natural state,

fertilizers would be required to increase the productivity of the majority of these soils for

economically viable dryland cropping to be viable.

Land

Capability

Class

Increased intensity of Use Land

Capability

Groups

I W F LG MG IG LC MC IC VIC Arable Land

II W F LG MG IG LC MC IC

III W F LG MG IG LC MC

IV W F LG MG IG LC

V W F LG MG IG LC Grazing

Land

VI W LG MG

VII W F LG

VIII W Wildlife

W – Wildlife MG – Moderate Grazing MC – Moderate Cultivation

F – Forestry IG – Intense Grazing IC – Intense Cultivation

LG – Light Grazing LC – Light Cultivation VIC – Very Intense Cultivation


18

The regional land capability is mostly class II soils with few limitations. This is evident in

the large number of cultivated lands (croplands, vinelands) found in the region.

Approximately 50% of the land within the project boundary has been classed as II based

on the assumption that the majority of the site can support Intense Cultivation of crops

such as Maize, Soybean, Sunflowers (seeds) and vineyards. Where soils are typically

rocky and shallow (the remaining 50%) livestock can graze, and the land capability is

considered to be of class VI or V with slight limitations such as Rock complexes, flood

hazard, stoniness, and a shallow rooting zone.

5.8 SOIL LIMITATION FACTORS

The major limiting soil factors have been identified for the major soil forms occurring at

the site. Limiting factors are typically those which inhibit plant growth and high yield

potentials.

Plinthic Soils

Soil Form Avalon Glencoe

Terrain Unit* 1,3,4 1,3,4,

Soil depth (mm) 450 - 900

Topsoil clay (%) 10 - 20

Agricultural Potential High Moderate to High

Land Capability

Class

II as the site has the potential to support Intensive Cultivation where

these soils occur

Physical Limitation Impeded drainage caused by the hard plinthic layer causing

saturation,

Compaction in the wet state,

Water erosion,

Reduced natural fertility with phosphate fixation.

Conclusions Possible improvements to the soil would be

Drain the soil (cut-off drainage)

Crop production practices can be adapted to a wet soil water regime

through plant date selection (plant early in a dry profile)

Crops should be shallow rooted and/or non-sensitive to saturated

conditions.

Oxidic Soils

Soil Form Hutton Clovelly

Terrain Unit 3 1,3

Soil depth (mm) 500 – >1200

Topsoil clay (%) 15 - 25 8 - 15


19

Agricultural

Potential

High High

Land Capability

Class

II as the site has the potential to support Intensive Cultivation where

these soils occur.

Physical Limitation Susceptible to overgrazing and

erosion if basal cover is lost.

Freely drained soils have low

moisture holding capacity.

Where clay content in the A

horizon is high, soils can

become compacted.

Susceptible to overgrazing

and erosion if basal cover is

lost.

Freely drained soils have

low moisture holding

capacity.

Where clay content in the A

horizon is high, soils can

become compacted.

Can sometimes overlie

hardrock or saprolite which

may impede effective

rooting depth.

Conclusions These soils are highly suitable for dryland and irrigated crop

production. To combat any potential compaction, deep soil tillage is

recommended. The high iron content and effective absorption levels

of the soil make them a good medium for the disposal of polluted

water.

These soils have a strong microstructure but are sensitive to

chemical degradation due to their low buffer capacity. These soils are

highly suitable for dryland and irrigated crop production.

Lithic Soils

Soil Form Mispha Glenrosa Cartref

Terrain Unit 1 and 3

Soil depth (mm) 100 - 400

Topsoil clay (%) 10 -20

Agricultural Potential Low

Low – Moderate if soil is mechanically ripped

and anthropogenically modified by soil churning

and reducing underlying rock/saprolite or

hardpan size

Land Capability

Class VI

V

Physical Limitation Shallow and/or

rocky soils

underlain by hard

rock at shallow

depth.

Topsoil may be

truncated due to

Low nutrient and water holding capacity.

Shallow and/or rocky soils underlain by a

saprolite or hardpan.

Impeded plant roots penetration.

Prone to intermittent wetness or artificial

drainage.

Moderate erosion hazard.


20

anthropogenic

disturbances.

Impeded plant

roots

penetration.

Moderate erosion

hazard.

Conclusions These soils are at best suitable for grazing and wildlife and typically

provide a unique rocky outcrop habitat to certain faunal and floral

species for ecology conservation purposes, under natural

circumstances. These soils are ideally suited for recreational land use

purposes and/or natural grassland ecosystems, where livestock

grazing may be permitted at low stocking rates. Minimal mitigation will

be required for these soils as they are presumably resistant to

compaction due to shallow underlying hard rock. Soils can be

mechanically deep ripped and churned for specific vine cultivation,

however careful irrigation scheduling would be required due to the high

permeability of the soils

* Terrain units: 1=Crest. 2=Scarp. 3=Midslope 4=Footslope. 5=Valley Bottom

6. POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

According to the NEMA Regulations, a significant impact means an impact that by its

magnitude, duration, intensity or probability of occurrence will have a notable effect on

one or more aspects on the environment.

In line with the Regulations, and based on qualitative findings of the activities, each

potentially significant impact will therefore be evaluated with regard to:

The nature of the impact (status which may be positive, negative or neutral);

The extent and the duration of the impact;

The probability of the impact occurring;

The degree to which the impact can be reversed;

The degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable loss of resources;

The degree to which the impact can be mitigated; and

Cumulative and residual impacts.

The potential construction, operation and decommissioning impacts are highlighted below:

1. Soil compaction as a result of various construction activities and the movement

of vehicles and machinery on site

2. Sterilisation and/or reduced fertility of the soil (especially in soils with a sandy

loam topsoil)

3. Loss of topsoil and topsoil basal cover as a result of vegetation clearing

4. Wind and water erosion and sediment release to land and water as a result of

vegetation clearing


21

5. The change of land use and loss of current land capability from natural

vegetation and agriculture (livestock grazing and crop production) to industrial

within the planned development areas of the proposed project

6. Chemical soil pollution due to potential spillage of petroleum hydrocarbons, coal

ash particles, and the leaching of microelements and major salts from waste water

used for dust suppression.

7. Soil sealing due to the construction of a plant.

Impact 1: Soil Compaction

Soil Compaction as a result of deliberate layer works (cementation), unnatural load and

increased traffic at the site

Impact 2: Soil Sterilisation and/or Reduced Fertility

Soil Sterilisation and/or reduced fertility as a result of stripping and stockpiling of topsoil

during construction and operation.

Impact 3: Loss of Topsoil stability

The loss of structural stability (degradation) of the topsoil layer. Poor topsoil

management may lead to the loss of nutrient rich topsoil. The levelling of

slopes/topographical high points, excavations for discharge water and building rubble

storage will be factors contributing to the loss. Soil contamination due to accidental

spills of fuel and hydraulic fluid when drilling into soil etc. may occur during the

construction of the facility. The movement of heavy vehicles, excavation operations, soil

removal and restoration will contribute to the compaction of soils. With the disturbance

of topsoil wind erosion may occur which will lead to structural degradation.

Impact 4: Wind and Water erosion of the soil

Potential wind and water erosion of the lithic soils as a result of the change in the natural

condition of the site. Soil has the ability to represent groundwater flow. Modifications to

the landscape during the project lifecycle has the potential to alter water interflow down

the catena, with the end result being a biological, hydrological, chemical and physical

change in the soil properties as nutrients are leached/carried through the catena.

Impact 5: Change of Land use and loss of land capability

The change of land use and loss of current land capability from natural vegetation and

agriculture (livestock grazing and crop production) to industrial within the planned

development areas of the proposed project site.

Impact 6: Chemical soil pollution

Chemical soil pollution as a result of waste discharge, hydrocarbon leakages from

vehicles and machinery on site

Impact 7: Soil sealing


22

Soil compaction and sealing due to the laying of any impervious (artificial) material on

the land during the construction of a plant.

Issue Nature of Impact Extent

of

Impact

No-Go Areas

1. Soil

Compaction

The reduction in soil volume due to of

deliberate layer works (cementation),

unnatural load and increased traffic at the

site. This reduction lowers soil productivity

and environmental quality. The end result

of soil compaction (if left unmitigated) is

poor internal drainage, increased surface

runoff, inhibited root development and

ultimately decreased yields. Since plinthic

soils are closely related to the underlying

plinthic catena and are characteristic of a

fluctuating water table, they have the

potential to become compacted

Local None identified

at this stage

2. Soil

Sterilisation

and/or

Reduced

Fertility

Alteration to the characteristics of the soil

through the construction and operation

activities. Vegetation type is linked to soil

fertility, thus a reduction of the soils fertility

has a direct impact on the vegetation type

able to grown. By removing fertile top soil

the fertility of the soil is reduced. Moreover,

earthworks have the potential to blend top

and sub soils, thereby changing the

chemistry of the soil.

Local Not Applicable

as this impact is

unavoidable at

all areas where

construction,

operation and

decommissioning

will take place.

3. Loss of

Topsoil

stability

Due the removal of topsoil as well as poor

topsoil management during construction

and operation can enhance erosion of

erosion sensitive soils. The susceptibility of

soil to erosion, or soil erodibility, is linked to

soil aggregate stability, which characterizes

resistance to soil breakdown. Aggregate

breakdown leads to detachment of particles

and small aggregates, which favours

superficial crusting, then runoff and

transport.


at this stage


23

4. Wind and

Water

erosion of

the soil

Removal of topsoil and vegetation removal

will lead to open bare patches which will be

left susceptible to the elements. Erosion is

associated with and is a consequence of all

project stages. It is anticipated that the

project activities will result in the loss and

deterioration of soil resources.


at this stage

5. Change of

Land use and

loss of land

capability

With the proposed mine and ash dump,

there will be a change of land use and loss

of current land capability. The land will no

longer consist of natural vegetation and will

no longer be used as agriculture (livestock

grazing and crop production. With the

proposed development, the site will have an

industrial land use and a transformed land

capability.

Local The project

should avoid

construction on

the arable lands

of Bb11 on the

eastern slope.

Development

should be limited

to land type

Ib12.

6. Chemical

soil pollution

Soil contamination due to accidental spills

of fuel and hydraulic fluid when drilling into

soil etc.


at this stage

7. Soil

Sealing

Soil sealing has a significant impact on the

functioning of soil, and can cause an

irreversible loss of the soil biological

functions. Soil sealing Due to the laydown

of cement and or any other impervious

artificial surface at the project site, the soil

fertility will decrease, surface runoff (with

toxic metals) increases, infiltration,

evapotranspiration and groundwater

recharge are reduced.


at this stage

Description of expected significance of impact

Describe expected significance, consequence, duration and probability of the impacts as

well as degree to which these impacts –

(aa) can be reversed;

(bb) may cause irreplaceable loss of resources; and

(cc) can be avoided, managed or mitigated.


24

Impact 1: Soil Compaction

This impact is expected to probably occur over a long term, with a low in significance

both prior and post mitigation. Unmitigated there will be an irreplaceable loss of

resources, however, with mitigation the impact is reversible. If the correct mitigation and

management recommendations are followed, soil compaction can be mitigated.

Impact 2: Soil Sterilisation and/or Reduced Fertility

The likelihood of mitigating this impact is relatively low, hence the potential impact after

mitigation is still considered medium. This is because most of the organic carbon as well

as the soil microbial life are contained in the topsoil horizon. These components are

crucial for the maintenance of the vegetation layer, and once the surface layer has been

removed the nutrient cycles such as the carbon and nitrogen cycles are disturbed and

the organic matter breaks down very quickly. Although the topsoil may later be replaced

in more or less the original position in the landscape, the soil fertility will have been

compromised. As such, without any mitigation, the impact is expected to be permanent,

irreversible and will result in an irreplaceable loss of resources.

Impact 3: Loss of Topsoil stability

This impact has the probability to occur over a long term, with a low in significance both

prior and post mitigation. Unmitigated, there will be an irreplaceable loss of resources,

however, with mitigation the impact is reversible and there will be no irreplaceable loss

of resources. Moreover, by following appropriate measures, the loss of top soil stability

has the potential to be off-set.

Impact 4: Wind and Water erosion of the soil


prior and mitigation, however it is unlikely that this will occur, given the correct

mitigation measures are followed. There will not be an irreplaceable loss of resources,


of resources and the impact can be mitigated.

Impact 5: Change of Land use and loss of land capability

The probability of this impact occurring is definite. Due to the permanent nature of the

facility, it will not be possible to mitigate the impact on the arable land capability

portions of the site, thus this impact is of a High significance. There will be an

irreplaceable loss of resources, however this can be reversed. In terms of maintaining

the grazing capability in portions of the site not affected by the project infrastructure,

topsoil stockpiles should be maintained as wilderness by establishing natural vegetation

on them to prevent soil erosion and to maintain the soil ecosystem (micro-organisms

and nutrient cycles). Once the decommissioning has started or when areas are no longer

used for power generation purposes, the landscape should be rehabilitated to grazing

lands. Stocking units on these lands should be kept low, approximately 7 – 10 LSU/ha.


25

Viable crop production on the arable portions of the site will no longer be possible

following closure of the facility.

Impact 6: Chemical soil pollution


prior and post mitigation. Unmitigated, there will be an irreplaceable loss of resources,


of resources. Moreover, by following appropriate measures, the loss of top soil stability

has the potential to be off-set.

Impact 7: Soil Sealing

This impact has the probability to occur over a long term, with a medium in significance

both prior and post mitigation. Unmitigated, there will be an irreplaceable loss of

resources and the impact is generally irreversible.

Gaps in knowledge & recommendations for further study

This has been discussed in section 4 of this report, thus is not repeated.


26

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

The following is recommended going forward in the EIA phase:

The plan of study for the EIA phase assessment must include a detailed field

investigation and soil analysis of the site including all different soils classes and land

types. Through completing a comprehensive field investigation it is possible to obtain

more information and ground truth all uncertainties.

A detailed specialist Soil and Agricultural Potential study will be required based on the

findings of this study.

Landowner and stakeholder engagements to determine the importance of the potential

of the site. With assistance from these parties information may be obtained to assist

in issues regarding agricultural importance and use of the site.

It would be more pertinent to site the construction on land type IB12, since these soils

have low agricultural potential.

8. CONCLUSION

The area is currently classified as predominantly arable (approximately 50%), with

portions of grazing land (approximately 50%). The site has the capacity to support both

dryland and irrigated crops, and there is evidence that there is capacity to support

livestock at a stocking rate of 7 – 10 LSU/ha. Grazing is supported on site where soils are

shallow and rocky, thus not naturally suitable for cropping (unless manually manipulated).

In conclusion, the scoping phase desktop study found that the proposed development

could impact on areas of high agricultural potential. From the preliminary layout provided

it appears that the power station infrastructure will be located within areas of lower

agricultural potential whereas the ash dump appears to be located in areas of higher

agricultural potential. The agricultural potential and viability of the soils within the various

areas of the site must be confirmed and infrastructure sited through detailed field

investigations during the EIA Phase of the project.

No preference has been given to an alternative site to be occupied by either the plant or

ash dump at this stage. A detailed EIA phase assessment will enable preferred areas to

be identified.


27

9. REFERENCES

AGIS, 2007. Agricultural Geo-Referenced Information System, accessed from

www.agis.agric.za on 1 to 2 June 2014.

Bergh, J.P., Falcon, R.M.S. and Falcon, L.M., 2013. Techno-economic impact of optimized

low-grade thermal coal export production through beneficiation modelling. Journal

of the Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 113(11), pp.817-824.

Botha, P.J. (2010) The distribution, conservation status and blood biochemistry of Nile

crocodiles in the Olifants river system, Mpumalanga, South Africa. Available at:

http://repository.up.ac.za/dspace/bitstream/handle/2263/25717/Complete.pdf?se

quence=10&isAllowed=y (Accessed: 14 November 2016).

Conradie, D.C., 2012. Thesis Dissertation: South Africa’s climatic zones: today, tomorrow.

University of Pretoria.

Fey, M. (2010). Soils of South Africa. Cambridge University Press, Cape Town

Fey, M. (2016) Soils, sustainability and the market: A Southern African perspective.

Available at: http://www.fertasa.co.za/Congress/2016/Fey_paper.pdf (Accessed:

14 November 2016).

Hoffman, T. and Todd, S., 1999. The South African environment and land use. A national

review of land degradation in South Africa, pp.17-36.

Kinnaird, J.A. (2005) The Bushveld Large Igneous Province. Available at:

http://www.largeigneousprovinces.org/sites/default/files/BushveldLIP.pdf

(Accessed: 14 November 2016).

Land Type Survey Staff (1972-2006). 1:250 000 scale Land Type Survey of South Africa.

ARC-Institute for Soil, Climate and Water, Pretoria.

Lenhardt, N. and Eriksson, P.G., 2012. Volcanism of the Palaeoproterozoic Bushveld Large

Igneous Province: The Rooiberg Group, Kaapvaal Craton, South Africa.

Precambrian Research, 214, pp.82-94.

MacVicar, C.N., De Villiers, J.M., Loxton, R.F., Verster, E., Lambrechts, J.J.N.,

Merryweather, F.R., Le Roux, J., Van Rooyen, T.H. and Harmse, H.J., von, M. 1977.

Soil classification: a binomial system for South Africa.

Muchingami, I., Nel, J., Xu, Y., Steyl, G. and Reynolds, K., 2013. On the use of electrical

resistivity methods in monitoring infiltration of salt fluxes in dry coal ash dumps in

Mpumalanga, South Africa. Water SA, 39(4), pp.00-00.

Mucina L. & Rutherford M.C. (eds) 2006. The Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and

Swaziland. Strelitzia 19. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.

National Energy Act (2008)

National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998 (NEMA)


28

Scotney, D.M., Ellis, F., Nott, R.W., Taylor, K.P., Van Niekerk, B.J. Verster, E. & Wood,

P.C., !987. A system of soil and land capability classification for agriculture in the

SATBVC States. Unpublished report, Dept. Agric. Water Supply, Pretoria.

Schulze, B.R. (1965). Climate of South Africa. Part 8. General Survey S. Afr. Weather

Bureau Publ.: 28.

Winter, M.F., Cairncross, B. and Cadle, A.B., 1987. A genetic stratigraphy for the Vryheid

formation in the northern Highveld Coalfield, South Africa. South African journal of

geology, 90(4), pp.333-343.

Websites:

Tembisiele Hani IDP

http://www.thembisilehanilm.gov.za/sites/default/files/FINAL%20IDP%2015_16%20VOL

%201%20MAIN%20DOC.pdf

ARC-ISCW 2002

Agricultural Research Council. Undated. AGIS Agricultural Geo-Referenced Information

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


29

APPENDIX A: LAND TYPE DATA


30


31


32

APPENDIX B: DATA SHEETS

SUSCEPTIBILITY TO WATER EROSION

Soil erodibility index

Erosion susceptibility classes

Class Class description

Slope

gradient

(%)

Water

Erodibility

Index

1

Land with low susceptibility to water erosion. Generally

level to gently sloping. 0-5 8-10

Soils have favourable erodibility index. 0-3 5-10

Land with low to moderate susceptibility to water erosion. 5-8 8-10

2 Generally gently to moderately sloping. Soils have low

to moderate erodibility. 3-5 5-10

Land with moderate susceptibility to water erosion. 8-12 8-10

3 Generally moderately sloping land. Soils have low to

moderate erodibility.

5-8 4-10

Basic

Index Criterion Class limits

Value subtracted from basic index

10

Clay

Content

(%)

0-6 4

7-15 3

16-35 2

36-55 1

>55 0

Leaching status

Dystrophic 0

Mesotrophic 1

Eutrophic and undifferentiated 2

Calcareous 3

Structure

and transition

Orthic A 1

E horizon 1

Neocutanic B 1

Clear transition from A to B 1

Abrupt transition from A to B 2

Depth (m)

Soil depth >0.4 0

Soil depth <0.4 1


33

Land with moderate to high water or wind erosion hazard.

Generally moderately to strongly sloping land. 12-20 8-10

4 Soils have low to moderate erodibility 5-12 3-10

Land with low to moderate water or wind erosion hazard. 0-5 0-10

5 Generally level to gently sloping land; soils may have low to

very high erodibility.

6

Very steep slopes with soils with low water erodibility

Moderately to strongly sloping land with soils of low to high

water erodibility

Moderately sloping land with soils of very high erodibility.

20-40 8-10

12-20 0-10

5-12 0-2

7

Land with very steep slopes, causing severe erosion

hazard or past erosion. Soils may have low to very high

erodibility. 20-40 0-10

8 Land with extremely steep slopes. Soils may have low

to very high erodibility. 40-100 0-10

SUSCEPTIBILITY TO WIND EROSION

Class Class description

Dominant clay % of

qualifying topsoils

Percentage

qualifying soil in

land type

1a Pure sands strongly

dominant 0-5

75-100

1b Pure sands dominant 50-75

1c Pure sands sub-dominant 25-50

1d Pure sands present 10-25

2a Sands strongly dominant

6-10

75-100

2b Sands dominant 50-75

2c Sands sub-dominant 25-50

2d Sands present 10-25

3a Loamy sands strongly

dominant

75-100


34

3b Loamy sands dominant

11-15

50-75

3c Loamy sands sub-dominant 25-50

3d Loamy sands present 10-25

4a Sandy loams strongly

dominant 15-20

75-100

4b Sandy loams dominant 50-75

4c Sandy loams sub-dominant 25-50

4d Sandy loams present 10-25

5 Sandy clay loams to clays >20 <10

MOISTURE AVAILABILITY

Class Limitation

Rating Description

Moisture availability

class

Summer

rainfall

area:

Oct-Mar

TMR10.

0.25

PE10-1

Winter

rainfall

area: Apr-

Sep

TMR10.

0.40 PE10-

1

1 None to

slight

Favourable for growing a wide range of adapted

crops.

>50 >58

2 Slight Less favourable than Class 1 and may limit choice

of crops or yields.

36-50 34-58

3 Moderate Water stress, extremes of temperature and/or

damage from frost, wind or hail restrict choice of

crops and yield potential.

26-36 24-34

4 Moderate

to severe

Less favourable than Class 3. Low and unreliable

rainfall, extremes in temperature and severe

damage from frost or wind restrict regular crop

production. Risks in cropping are high.

18-26 16-24

5 Severe Unfavourable (mainly rainfall) for growing crops. 10-18 10-16

6 Very

severe

Unfavorable for plant production. One or

more of the following extremes occur:

- Severe aridity

- Extremes in temperature

<10 <10


35

GENERALIZED SOIL PATTERNS

Red-yellow well drained soils generally lacking a strong texture contrast

FR Red and yellow soils with a humic horizon

AC Red and yellow, massive or weakly structured soils with low to medium base

status

CM Red, massive or weakly structured soils with high base status

Soils with a plinthic catena

PT1 Red, yellow and greyish soils with low to medium base status

PT2 Red, yellow and greyish soils with high base status

Well-structured soils generally with a high clay content

LV1 Soils with a marked clay accumulation, strongly structured and a reddish colour

LV2

Soils with a marked clay accumulation, strongly structured and a non-

reddish colour. In addition one or more of vertic, melanic and plinthic

soils may be present

Soils with limited pedological development

VR

Dark coloured, strongly structured soils dominated by cracking and

swelling clays (vertic soils). In addition, one or more of melanic and red

structured soils may be present

PH/KS

Soils with dark coloured, well-structured topsoil with high base status

(melanic soils). In addition, one or more of vertic and red structured

soils may be present

NT

Deep, well drained, dark reddish soils having a pronounced shiny, strong

blocky structure (nutty), usually fine (red structured soils). In addition, one

or more of vertic and melanic soils may be present

Sandy soils

LP1

Soils with minimal development, usually shallow on hard or weathering rock,

with or without intermittent diverse soils. Lime rare or absent in the landscape

LP2

Soils with minimal development, usually shallow on hard or weathering rock,

with or without intermittent diverse soils. Lime generally present in part or

most of the landscape

FL Soils with negligible to weak profile development, usually occurring on deep

deposits


36

Sandy soils

AR1 Red, excessively drained sandy soils with high base status - dunes are present

AR2 Red and yellow, sandy well drained soils with high base status

AR3 Greyish, sandy excessively drained soils

Strongly saline soils

SC Strongly saline soils generally occurring in deep deposits on flat lands

Podzolic soils

PZ

Soils with a sandy texture, leached and with sub-surface accumulation of

organic matter and aluminum with or without iron oxides, either deep or on

hard or weathering rock

Rocky areas

R Rock with limited soils

Documents

SOIL, LAND USE, LAND CAPABILITY AND ......The EIA assessment must include a detailed field investigation and soil analysis of the site. Only through completing a comprehensive field