SOIL, LAND USE AND LAND CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT AS PART OF THE SECTION 24G RECTIFICATION PROCESS

(1)

SOIL, LAND USE AND LAND CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT

AS PART OF THE SECTION 24G RECTIFICATION

PROCESS FOR THE UNAUTHORISED ACTIVITIES AT THE

MAMATWAN MINE, NEAR HOTAZEL, NORTHERN CAPE

PROVINCE

Prepared for

SLR Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd

October 2019

Prepared by: Scientific Aquatic Services Report author : N. Sithole

Report reviewers: B. Mzila

S. van Staden (Pr.Sci.Nat) Report Reference: SAS 219162

Date: October 2019

Scientific Aquatic Services CC CC Reg No 2003/078943/23 Vat Reg. No. 4020235273 PO Box 751779 Gardenview 2047 Tel: 011 616 7893 Fax: 086 724 3132 E-mail: [email protected]

(2)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Scientific Aquatic Services (SAS) was appointed to conduct a soil, land use and land capability assessment as part of the Section 24G rectification process in terms of the National Environmental Management Act No. 107 of 1998 (NEMA), for the unauthorised activities that took place at the Mamatwan Mine, near Hotazel, Northern Cape Province. The unauthorised activities include the

n

orth easterntopsoil stockpile and disposal of general waste and storageof Sinter de-dust into the existing Adams Pit. The north eastern topsoil stockpile area and Adams Pit will henceforth collectively be referred to as the “focus areas”. A 150m zone of influence, in line with the Chamber of Mines (2007), was applied around the focus areas which accounts for edge effects.

A soil, land use and land capability survey was conducted on the 9th_{and 10}th_{of July 2019 to assess the} focus areas as well as adjacent areas to understand the pre-disturbance soil characteristics, land use and land capability of the area where unauthorized activities have occurred. The assessment entailed evaluating physical soil properties and current limitations to various land use purposes, particularly cultivated agriculture in line with the Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act No. 43 of 1983. Subsurface soil observations were made using a manual hand auger to assess individual soil profiles. Based on the observations made during the site assessment, the dominant land use within the north eastern Topsoil stockpile focus area is topsoil stockpile whilst the Adams Pit focus area is dominated by mining land use.

The climatic conditions associated with the focus areas and surroundings are characterised by severe to very severe climatic limitations with Mean Annual Precipitation ranging between 201-400mm per annum, thus making the focus areas unsuitable for cultivation under dryland conditions.

The focus areas resemble an Oxidic and Anthropic catena. Oxidic soils are characterized by the strong pigmenting effects of iron (Fe) in the form of hematite. These soils are generally considered freely drained and well aerated. These attributes make these soils ideal for tillage. Oxidic soils constitute approximately 24.42% of the total focus areas and were classified as the Ermelo soil form. The Ermelo soil form was found occurring within the relatively flat terrain on the area adjacent to the north eastern topsoil stockpile within the 150m Zone of Influence.

Anthropic soils include all soils which have been subjected to alteration from their natural state by human-related interventions. These soils have been extensively disturbed such that no recognizable diagnostic soil morphological characteristics could be identified. Significant disturbances have occurred on both topsoil and subsoil. These soils correspond to Anthrosols in the international soil classification terminology. The soil forms associated with this class are Cullinan and Witbank soil forms. The Cullinan (formal definition for the soil characteristics of an open pit) soil form constitutes approximately 19.49% whilst Witbank (soils affected by general mining) soil form constitutes approximately 56.09% of the total surveyed area. The soil disturbances that have occurred (Witbank and Cullinan soil forms) can be attributed to historic and current mining, thus making the majority of the soils within the focus areas not suitable for cultivation. The table below presents the dominant soils, with relative description of soil horizons as well as associated land capability and land potential classes respectively.

Table A: Dominant soil forms and their respective land capability and agricultural land potential

.

Soil Forms Code Diagnostic Horizon _Sequence Land Capability _PotentialLand _{Extent (ha)}Areal Percentage _(%) Ermelo Er Orthic/Yellow-Brown _{Apedal (thick)} Arable (Class III) Moderate _potential 54.15 55.80 Cullinan Cu _{Excavation Technosols}Anthropogenic Open Wilderness (Class _VIII) Very low _potential 18.91 19.52 Witbank Wb Unspecified (Transported _Technosols) Wilderness (Class _VIII) Very low _potential 23.945 24.68

The agriculturalland potentialof the identified soil forms ranged between moderate and very low due to land use limitations related to anthropogenic activities and low soil workability potential for Witbank and Cullinan soil forms. The limitations also include prevailing climatic conditions which severely restrict

(3)

choice of crops to be cultivated due to heat, cold and/ or moisture stress. These soils are therefore considered to have limited contribution to the local, regional and national agricultural production. Prior to the unauthorised activities taking place, livestock commercial farming would have been possible within the north eastern Topsoil stockpile focus area whilst the Adams Pit focus area was not suitable for either grazing or wildlife/wilderness prior to the waste disposal into the pit taking place. The waste disposal associated with the Adams pit is not anticipated to have caused a significant loss of land capability since the soils (Witbank and Cullinan) occurring within the Adams Pit focus area have previously been disturbed by mining activities prior to waste disposal.

The overall impacts have resulted in the loss of the land capability, land potential and land use have been considered moderate for the unauthorised stockpiling and negligible for the waste disposal in the Adams Pit.

During mining, various impacts have occurred and are anticipated to persist for the life of mine if not properly mitigated. These impacts include soil erosion, soil compaction and soil contamination as well as loss of land capability. Soil erosion is expected to be moderate without mitigation measures in place due to sandy texture of the dominant soils within the north easternTopsoil stockpile focus area. All soil forms occurring within the focus areas have an equal chance of being accidentally contaminated by various toxicants used during mining associated operation. It should be noted that even though the Adams Pit has minimal soil present, if mitigation measures are not implemented, soil contamination and pollution migration is foreseen. These impacts mentioned above are expected to be moderate without mitigation and low with mitigation.

The cumulative impact on land use will be the conversion of grazing within the north eastern Topsoil stockpile area into mining and related infrastructure areas resulting in the potential permanent loss of potential grazing land during the life of the mining operation. The degraded areas within the footprint, with specific mention to the existingAdams Pit, can be rehabilitated in an integrated manner as part of the closure of the project. Thus, if integrated rehabilitation is undertaken, this project will lead to a betterment of the environment post closure, thus allowing pre mining activities such as grazing and wilderness to commence. If mitigation measures are implemented as part of an integrated mine closure and rehabilitation program, the overall impact footprint of the mining and associated infrastructure will be reduced to acceptable levels.

The impact on soils of the focus areas must be rehabilitated, however since the topsoil in the north easternTopsoil stockpile focus area will be used as a source of topsoil for the integrated closure of the mine, the rehabilitation of this area must be undertaken as part of the integrated rehabilitation plan of the mine which is beyond the scope of this assessment. Similarly, the closures of the Adams Pit and the final management of the waste material disposed of in the pit must be dealt with as part of the integrated closure planning of the mine unless any of the other investigations indicate risk to the receiving environment in which case the recommendations from those studies should be followed. This will ensure the availability of sufficient volumes of soil for rehabilitation. The cumulative impact on land use will be the conversion of grazing within the north eastern topsoil stockpile area into mining and related infrastructure areas resulting in the potential permanent loss of potential grazing land during the life of the mining operation. The degraded areas within the footprint, with specific mention of the Adams Pit, can be rehabilitated in an integrated manner as part of the closure of the project. Thus, if integrated rehabilitation is undertaken, this project will lead to a significant reduction in the residual impact on land use in the area, thus allowing pre mining activities such as grazing and wilderness to commence. If mitigation measures are implemented as part of an integrated mine closure and rehabilitation program, the overall impact footprint of the unauthorised activities will be reduced to acceptable levels.

An agricultural sensitivity analysis was undertaken as part of this assessment using the Department of Environmental Affairs Screening Tool to comply with the DEA protocols as required by the 2014 EIA regulations. Based on the outcomes of the screening process, the activities within the Adam’s Pit as well as the north east stockpile areas are classified as being of low sensitivity from a soil, land use and agricultural point of view. Thus, the proposed activities are deemed acceptable.

Based on the outcomes of this Agricultural potential study, it is the opinion of the specialist therefore that this study provides the relevant information required to inform the Environmental Impact Assessment (section 24G rectification process) to ensure the unauthorised activities within the focus

(4)

areas are rectified in an integrated and responsible manner during mine closure and rehabilitation intervention.

(5)

DOCUMENT GUIDE

No. Requirement Section in report

a) Details of -

(i) The specialist who prepared the report Appendix B (ii) The expertise of that specialist to compile a specialist report including a

curriculum vitae Appendix B

b) A declaration that the specialist is independent Appendix B c) An indication of the scope of, and the purpose for which, the report was

prepared Section 1.1

cA) An indication of the quality and age of base data used for the specialist

report Section 3

cB) A description of existing impacts on the site, cumulative impacts of the

proposed development and levels of acceptable change Section 4.2.1 and 5 d) The date of the site investigation Section 2.3 e) A description of the methodology adopted in preparing the report or

carrying out the specialised process inclusive of equipment and modelling used

Section 2 f) Details of an assessment of the specific identified sensitivity of the site

related to the proposed activity or activities and its associated structures and infrastructure, inclusive of a site plan identifying site alternatives

Section 4 h) Map of the pre-determined soil and land capability data Section 3

Figure 3 - 6 i) A description of any assumption made and any uncertainties Section 1.1 j) A description of the findings and potential implication\s of such findings on

the impact of the proposed activity, including identified alternatives on the environment or activities

Section 4 and 5 k) Any mitigation measures for inclusion in the EMPr Section 5.2 l) Any conditions for inclusion in the environmental authorisation None m) Any monitoring requirements for inclusion in the EMPr or environmental

authorisation None

n) A reasoned opinion -

(i) As to whether the proposed activity, activities or portions thereof should be

authorised Section 5 and 6

(iA) Regarding the acceptability of the proposed activity or activities Section 6 (ii) If the opinion is that the proposed activity, activities or portions thereof

should be authorised, any avoidance, management and mitigation measures that should be included in the EMPr, and where applicable, the closure plan

Section 4 and 5

o) A description of any consultation process that was undertaken during the

course of preparing the specialist report None p) A summary and copies of any comments received during any consultation

process and where applicable all responses thereto; and None q) Any other information requested by the competent authority None

(6)

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1:

Land Capability Classification (Smith,2006) ... 7

Table 2:

Climate Capability Classification (Scotney et al., 1987) ... 7

Table 3:

Table of Land Potential Classes (Guy and Smith, 1998) ... 8

Table 4:

The Land Capability Classes Description (Guy and Smith, 1998) ... 8

Table 5:

Dominant soil forms occurring within the focus areas. ... 12

Table 6:

Summary discussion of the Arable (Class I) land capability and land potential

class ... 17

Table 7:

Summary discussion of the Wildlife/Wilderness (Class VIII) land capability and

land potential class ... 18

Table 8:

Summary of the Activities ... 19

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1:

Digital satellite imagery depicting the locality of the focus areas in relation to

the surrounding areas. ... 4

Figure 2:

Location of the focus areas depicted on a 1:50 000 topographical map in

relation to surrounding area. ... 5

Figure 3:

Photographic presentation of the dominant land uses within the focus areas ... 10

Figure 4:

Map depicting land use within the focus areas ... 11

Figure 5:

Soil map depicting identified soil forms within the focus areas. ... 13

Figure 6:

Map depicting land capability classes of soils occurring within the focus areas.

... 15

Figure 7:

Map depicting land potential classes of soils occurring within the focus areas.

... 16

(8)

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Albic Grey colours, apedal to weak structure, few mottles (<10 %)

Alluvial soil: A deposit of sand, mud, etc. formed by flowing water, or the sedimentary matter deposited thus within recent times, especially in the valleys of large rivers. Catena A sequence of soils of similar age, derived from similar parent material, and

occurring under similar macroclimatic condition, but having different characteristics due to variation in relief and drainage.

Chromic: Having within ≤150 cm of the soil surface, a subsurface layer ≥30 cm thick, that has a Munsell colour hue redder than 7.5YR, moist.

Ferralic: Having a ferralic horizon starting ≤150 cm of the soil surface.

Ferralic horizon: A subsurface horizon resulting from long and intense weathering, with a clay fraction that is dominated by low-activity clays and contains various amounts of resistant minerals such as Fe, Al, and/or Mn hydroxides.

Gleying: A soil process resulting from prolonged soil saturation which is manifested by the presence of neutral grey, bluish or greenish colours in the soil matrix.

Hard Plinthic Accumulative of vesicular Fe/Mn mottles, cemented Hydrophytes: Plants that are adaptable to waterlogged soils

Lithic Dominantly weathering rock material, some soil will be present.

Mottles: Soils with variegated colour patterns are described as being mottled, with the “background colour” referred to as the matrix and the spots or blotches of colour referred to as mottles.

Plinthic Catena South African plinthic catena is characterised by a grading of soils from red through yellow to grey (bleached) soils down a slope. The colour sequence is ascribed to different Fe-minerals stable at increasing degrees of wetness Red Apedal Uniform red colouring, apedal to weak structure, no calcareous

Runoff Surface runoff is defined as the water that finds its way into a surface stream channel without infiltration into the soil and may include overland flow, interflow and base flow.

Orthic Maybe dark, chromic or bleached

Salinity: High Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR) above 15% are indicative of saline soils. The dominance of Sodium (Na) cations in relation to other cations tends to cause soil dispersion (deflocculation), which increases susceptibility to erosion under intense rainfall events.

Sodicity: High exchangeable sodium Percentage (ESP) values above 15% are indicative of sodic soils. Similarly, the soil dispersion.

Soil Map Unit A description that defines the soil composition of a land, identified by a symbol and a boundary on a map

Soft Plinthic Accumulation of vesicular Fe/Mn mottles (>10%), grey colours in or below horizon, apedal to weak structure

Witbank Man-made soil deposit with no recognisable diagnostic soil horizons, including soil materials which have not undergone paedogenesis (soil formation) to an extent that would qualify them for inclusion in another diagnostic horizon

(9)

ACRONYMS

AGIS Agricultural Geo-Referenced Information Systems

°C Degrees Celsius.

EAP Environmental Assessment Practitioner EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

ET Evapotranspiration

IUSS International Union of Soil Sciences FAO Food and Agriculture Organization GIS Geographic Information System GPS Global Positioning System

m Meter

MAP Mean Annual Precipitation

NWA National Water Act

PSD Particle Size Distribution

SACNASP South African Council for Natural Scientific Professions SAS Scientific Aquatic Services

(10)

1. INTRODUCTION

Scientific Aquatic Services (SAS) was appointed to conduct a soil, land use and land capability

assessment as part of the Section 24G rectification process in terms of the National

Environmental Management Act No. 107 of 1998 (NEMA), for the unauthorised activities that

took place at the Mamatwan Mine, near Hotazel, Northern Cape Province.

The Mamatwan Mine (MMT) is located within the John Taolo Gaetsewe District Municipality

and the Joe Morolong Local Municipality. The MMT is situated approximately 17km south of

the town of Hotazel, 33km north of the town of Kathu and 43km west of the town of Kuruman.

The R380 runs directly adjacent to the MMT in a north-south direction from Hotazal to Kathu,

the M31 roadway is located approximately 14km east of MMT and the N14 highway is located

approximately 24km southeast of the MMT. The location and extent are indicated in Figures

1 & 2.

The following unauthorised activities took place at the MMT:

➢ The establishment of the north eastern topsoil stockpile that commenced in May 2015

and required the clearing of indigenous vegetation; and

➢ The use of the existing Adams Pit for the disposal of general waste and storage of

Sinter de-dust which is estimated to have commenced in 2010. The commencement

of general waste disposal is however unclear.

The north eastern topsoil stockpile and Adams Pit will henceforth collectively be referred to as

the “focus areas”.

High agricultural potential land is a scarce non-renewable resource, which necessitates an

Agricultural Potential assessment prior to land development, particularly for purposes other

than agricultural land use, as per Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act (CARA), 1983

(Act No. 43 of 1983). High potential agricultural land is defined as having “the soil and terrain

quality, growing season and adequate available moisture supply to sustain crop production

when treated and managed according to best possible farming practices

” (Land Capability

report, ARC, 2006). Agricultural potential is directly correlated to Land Capability Class (LCC),

measured on a scale of I to VIII, with classes I to III considered as prime agricultural soils, and

classes V to VIII not suitable for cultivation.

A soil, land use and land capability survey was conducted on the 9

th

_{and 10}

th

_{of July 2019 to}

(11)

the pre disturbance soils, land use and land capability of the areas where unauthorized

activities have occurred. These results were used to extrapolate the soil forms, land use and

land capability of the area associated with the unauthorized activities. The assessment

entailed evaluating physical soil properties and current limitations to various land use

purposes, occurring within the 150m zone of influence. Subsurface soil observations were

made using a manual hand auger to assess individual soil profiles.

Terms of Reference and Scope of Work

The soil land use and land capability assessment entailed the following aspects:

➢ A desktop review of existing land type maps, to establish broad baseline conditions

and areas of environmental sensitivity and sensitive agricultural areas;

➢ Assess spatial distribution of various soil types within the focus areas that would have

occurred prior to disturbance;

➢ Identify restrictive soil properties on land capability under prevailing conditions;

➢ Compile various maps depicting the on-site conditions, soil types and land capability

based on desktop review of existing data;

➢ Subsurface soil observations and sampling undertaken by means of a manual bucket

hand auger;

➢ Classify the dominant soil types according to the South African Soil Classification

System (Soil Classification Working Group, 2018);

➢ Compile a report presenting the results of the desktop study and a description of the

findings during the field assessment; and

➢ Provide recommended mitigation measures and management practices to implement

to comply with applicable articles of legislation.

Assumptions and Limitations

For the purpose of this assessment, the following assumptions and limitations are applicable:

➢ The north eastern topsoil stockpile project area pre-disturbance soil, land use and land

capability was extrapolated from the surrounding undisturbed areas where soils are

largely unimpacted and habitat is still intact. Historical digital satellite imagery was also

considered to assist with understanding the pre-land use conditions prior to the

establishment of the north eastern topsoil stockpile. Some inaccuracies may thus occur

based on the inferences made; however all effort has been made to ensure that the

assessment of the pre-impact conditions is as accurate as possible;

(12)

➢ The data presented in this report is based on a site visit undertaken in July 2019, where

other activities associated with the MMT were assessed, and was in close proximity to

the unauthorized activities thus these results were extrapolated for the purpose of this

assessment;

➢ Sampling by definition means that not all areas are assessed, and therefore some

aspects of soil and land capability may have been overlooked in this assessment.

However, it is the opinion of the professional specialist that this assessment was

carried out with sufficient sampling and in sufficient detail to enable the regulating

authorities to make an informed decision;

➢ Soil fertility status was not considered a limitation, seeing as inherent nutrient

deficiencies and/or toxicities would be rectified by appropriate liming and/or fertilization

prior as part of rehabilitation.

(13)

(14)

(15)

2. METHOD OF ASSESSMENT

2.1 Literature and Database Review

Prior to commencement of the field assessment, a background study, including a literature

review, was conducted to collect the pre-determined soil and land capability data in the vicinity

of the investigated focus areas. Soil patterns as well as land capability data within the focus

areas was reviewed on the Agricultural Geo-referenced Information System (AGIS) and/or

Agricultural Research Council Institute for Soil Climate and Water (ARC-ISCW) databases.

2.2 Soil Classification and Sampling

A soil survey was conducted on the 9

th

_{and 10}

th

_{of July 2019 by a qualified soil specialist, at}

which time the identified soils within the focus areas and zone of influence were classified into

soil forms according to the Soil Classification Working Group, 2018:

➢ Subsurface soil observations and sampling were made by means of a bucket hand

auger;

➢ Dominant soil types were classified according to the South African Soil Classification

System (Soil Classification Working Group, 2018);

➢ Assessed survey and sampling points were recorded on a Global Positioning System

(GPS);

➢ Physical soil properties were described including the following parameters:

• Terrain morphological unit (landscape position) description;

• Diagnostic soil horizons and their respective sequence;

• Depth of identified soil horizons;

• Soil form classification name(s);

• Observed land capability limitations of the identified soil forms; and

• Depth to refusal (hard rock), if encountered.

➢ Uniform soil patterns were grouped into map units, according to observed limitations;

and

➢ Soil data was analysed to assess the contamination risk / impacts under current

conditions.

It was also the objective of the assessment to provide recommended mitigation measures and

management practices to implement to comply with applicable articles of legislation.

(16)

2.3 Land Capability and Land Potential Classification

Agricultural potential is directly related to Land Capability, as measured on a scale of I to VIII,

as presented in Table 1 below; with Classes I to III classified as prime agricultural land that is

well suitable for annual cultivated crops, whereas, Class IV soils may be cultivated under

certain circumstances and management practices, and Land Classes V to VIII are not suitable

to cultivation. Furthermore, the climate capability is also measured on a scale of C1 to C8, as

illustrated in Table 2 below. The land capability rating is therefore adjusted accordingly,

depending on the prevailing climatic conditions as indicated by the respective climate

capability rating. The anticipated impacts of the proposed land use on soil and land capability

were assessed to inform the necessary mitigation measures

.

Table 1: Land Capability Classification (Smith,2006) 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 IC IV W F LG MG IG LC V W LG MG Grazing land VI W F LG MG VII W F LG VIII W Wildlife

W- Wildlife MG- Moderate grazing MC- Moderate cultivation

F- Forestry IG- Intensive grazing IC- Intensive cultivation LG- Light grazing LC- Light cultivation VIC- Very intensive cultivation

Table 2: Climate Capability Classification (Scotney et al., 1987) Climate Capability

Class

Limitation

Rating Description

C1 None to slight Local climate is favourable for good yield for a wide range of adapted crops _{throughout the year.} C2 Slight Local climate is favourable for good yield for a wide range of adapted crops and a year round growing season. Moisture stress and lower temperatures

increase risk and decrease yields relative to C1.

C3 _moderateSlight to Slightly restricted growing season due to the occurrence of low temperatures and frost. Good yield potential for a moderate range of adapted crops.

C4 Moderate Moderately restricted growing season due to low temperatures and severe frost. Good yield potential for a moderate range of adapted crops but planting date options more limited than C3.

C5 Moderate to _severe Moderately restricted growing season due to low temperatures, frost and/or _{moisture stress. Suitable crops may be grown at risk of some yield loss.} C6 Severe Moderately restricted growing season due to low temperatures, frost and/or moisture stress. Limited suitable crops for which frequently experience yield

loss.

C7 Severe to very _severe Severely restricted choice of crops due to heat, cold and/or moisture stress. C8 Very severe Very severely restricted choice of crops due to heat and moisture stress. _{Suitable crops at high risk of yield loss.}

(17)

The land potential assessment entails the combination of climatic, slope and soil condition

characteristics to determine the agricultural land potential of the investigated area. The

classification of land potential and knowledge of the geographical distribution of agricultural

viable land within an area of interest. This is of importance for making an informed decision

about land use. Table 3 below presents the land potential classes, whilst Table 4 presents a

description thereof, according to Guy and Smith (1998).

Table 3: Table of Land Potential Classes (Guy and Smith, 1998) Land

Capability Class

Climate Capability Class

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8

I L1 L1 L2 L2 L3 L3 L4 L4

II L1 L2 L2 L3 L3 L4 L4 L5

III L2 L2 L3 L3 L4 L4 L5 L6

IV L2 L3 L3 L4 L4 L5 L5 L6

V Vlei Vlei Vlei Vlei Vlei Vlei Vlei Vlei

VI L4 L4 L5 L5 L5 L6 L6 L7

VII L5 L5 L6 L6 L7 L7 L7 L8

VIII L6 L6 L7 L7 L8 L8 L8 L8

Table 4: The Land Capability Classes Description (Guy and Smith, 1998)

Land Potential Description of Land Potential Class

L1 Very high potential: No limitations. Appropriate contour protection must be implemented and inspected.

L2 High potential: Very infrequent and/or minor limitations due to soil, slope, temperatures or rainfall. Appropriate contour protection must be implemented and inspected.

L3 Good potential: Infrequent and/or moderate limitations due to soil, slope, temperatures or rainfall. Appropriate contour protection must be implemented and inspected.

L4 Moderate potential: Moderately regular and/or severe to moderate limitations due to soil, slope, temperature or rainfall. Appropriate permission is required before ploughing virgin land.

L5 Restricted potential: Regular and/or moderate to severe limitations due to soil, slope, temperature or rainfall.

L6 Very restricted potential: Regular and/or severe limitations due to soil, slope, temperature or rainfall. Non-arable.

L7 Low potential: Severe limitations due to soil, slope, temperature or rainfall. Non-arable.

L8 Very low potential: Very severe limitations due to soil, slope, temperature or rainfall. Non-arable.

3. DESKTOP ASSESSMENT RESULTS

The following data is applicable to the study area, according to various data sources including

but not limited to the Agricultural Geo-referenced Information System (AGIS):

➢ The Mean Annual Precipitation (MAP) is estimated to range between 201 and 400mm

per annum;

➢ According to the Geology 2001 and the 1:250 000 geological map of South Africa, the

majority of the focus areas is underlain by clastic sedimentary rock formations (i.e.

(18)

Tillite) while the remaining portions are underlain by Eolean rock formations, of the

Kalahari geological groups;

➢ The desktop assessment indicates that the focus areas have a very low land capability.

The entire focus area is considered suitable for livestock grazing (Class VII);

➢ According to the AGIS database, the livestock grazing capacity potential is estimated

to be approximately 11 hectares per large animal unit (Morgenthal et al., 2005), which

means that the focus areas are not viable for livestock farming;

➢ The natural soil pH is estimated to range between 6.5 and 7.4, indicating soils are

anticipated to be slightly acidic to neutral, as interpolated from topsoil pH values

obtained from the National Soil Profile Database (AGIS database);

➢ Soils 2001: According to the Soils 2001 Layer the focus areas are situated within an

area where the soils are classified as red-yellow apedal freely drained soils with a high

base status and < 15% clay; and

➢ The soils within the focus areas have a low to moderate water or wind erosion hazard

due to sandy soil texture, and the area is generally level to gently sloping land;

(19)

4. FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS

4.1 Current Land Use

Based on the observation during the site assessment and local knowledge, the dominant

pre-disturbance land use within the north eastern Topsoil stockpile focus area is wildlife/wilderness

whilst the Adams Pit focus area is dominated by mining land use, as depicted in Figure 3

below. No cultivated commercial agriculture activities were observed within a 3km radius of

the focus areas. Current land uses are presented in Figure 4 below.

(20)

(21)

4.2 Dominant Soil Types

The focus areas resemble Oxidic and Anthropic catena topo sequence. Oxidic soils are

characterised by a strong pigmenting effects of iron (Fe) in the form of hematite. These soils

are generally freely drained and well aerated. These attributes (i.e. good drainage and well

aeration) make these soils ideal for tillage. Oxidic soils constitute approximately 55.80% of the

total focus areas and these soils include Ermelo soil form.

The Adams Pit focus area is dominated by Technosols which includes Witbank and Cullinan

soil forms. Refer to table 5 for a description of these classified soil forms. Technosols includes

all soils which have been subjected to the alteration from their natural state by human-related

interventions.

T

hese soils have been extensively disturbed such that no recognizable

diagnostic soil morphological characteristics could be identified. Significant disturbances have

occurred on both topsoil and subsoil. These soils correspond to anthrosols in the international

soil classification terminology. The Cullinan soil form constitutes approximately 19.52% and

Witbank soil form constitutes approximately 24.68% of the total surveyed area. The spatial

distribution of all identified soil forms within the focus areas is presented in the soil map in

Figure 5 below. Table 5 below presents the dominant soil forms and their respective diagnostic

horizon sequence.

Table 5: Dominant soil forms occurring within the focus areas.

Soil Forms Code Diagnostic Horizons

Ermelo Er Orthic A/ Yellow-Brown Apedal (thick)

Witbank Wb Transported Technosols

Cullinan Cu Anthropogenic Open Excavation Technosols

*

Cullinan soil form refers to large open excavation pit mines on the ground often with little or no soil material present, which was named after the big Cullinan diamond mine.

(22)

(23)

4.3 Land Capability and Land Potential Classification

Agricultural land potential in South Africa is generally restricted by climatic conditions, with

specific mention to water availability (Rainfall). Even within similar climatic zones, different soil

types typically have different land use capabilities attributed to their inherent characteristics.

High potential agricultural land is defined as having the soil and terrain quality, growing season

and adequate available moisture supply needed to produce sustained economically high crops

yields when treated and managed according to best possible farming practices (Scotney et

al., 1987). The assessment of the land capability and land potential considered the limitations

within the focus areas and surrounding area, as observed during the site visit. These

limitations include physical soil properties, slope, and prevailing climatic conditions.

Extrapolation techniques were used to determine the pre-disturbance soil characteristics

within areas where unauthorized activities have occurred (i.e. Adams Pit and north eastern

Topsoil stockpile). Climate Capability (measured on a scale of 1 to 8) was therefore considered

in the agricultural potential classification. The focus areas fall into Climate Capability Class 6

with moderately restricted growing season due to low temperatures, frost and/or moisture

stress. Limited suitable crops that frequently experience yield loss.

The identified soils were classified into land capability and land potential classes using the

Camp et. al, and Guy and Smith Classification system (Camp et al., 1987; Guy and

Smith,1998), as presented from Figure 6 and 7 below. The identified land capability limitations

for the identified soils are discussed in comprehensive “dashboard style” summary tables

presented from Tables 6 to 7 below. The dashboard reports aim to present all the pertinent

information in a concise and visually appealing fashion.

(24)

(25)

(26)

Land Capability and land potential: Arable (Class I) and moderate land potential

Terrain Morphological Unit (TMU)

Relatively flat landscape positions < 0.5 %

slope gradient. Photograph notes View of the identified Ermelo soil form

Soil Form(s) Ermelo Area Extent 54.15 ha; which constitutes 55.80% of the total investigated area

Physical Limitations

These soils have sufficient depth for most cultivated crops and rapid drainage characteristics. However, the excessively drained nature of these soils may be problematic for cultivated crops.

Land Capability and Land Potential

Ermelo soil form is considered high potential agricultural soils with high land capability (Class I) and moderate land potential, suitable for arable agricultural land use with minimal management interventions. Therefore, these soils are considered to contribute significantly to the local, provincial and/or national agricultural production grid if used for crop cultivation, and are also well -suited for other less intensive land uses such as grazing, forestry, etc. However, emphasis is directed to their agricultural crop productivity due to the scarcity of such soil resources on national scale and food security concerns.

Overall impact significance without mitigation

M

The unauthorized activities (i.e. waste disposal and topsoil stockpiling) have impacted on these soils and the impact significance without mitigation was classified as moderate to low using the pre-described impact assessment method although if climatic constraints are considered the impact is limited. These impacts are expected to drop to low as the topsoil will be used during the rehabilitation phase, provided conservation mitigation measures must be in place until closure to reduce the significance of impacts to low

Business case, Conclusion and Mitigation Requirements:

Waste disposal and topsoil stockpiling have occurred on areas which are deemed to have had Ermelo soil forms prior to the above-mentioned anthropogenic activities. The Ermelo soils are considered as prime agricultural soils. Although high potential soils occur within the focus areas, climatic constraints would largely impact on agricultural productivity as rainfall and irrigation options are limited and therefore the significance of the loss of these soils in the area is limited from an agricultural potential and land use point of view. Rehabilitation intervention will however be required for all disturbed areas. These areas can be rehabilitated holistically at closure of the mine to reduce the residual impact on land capability.

(27)

Land Capability and land potential: Wildlife/Wilderness (Class VIII) and very low land potential

Terrain Morphological Unit (TMU) Not applicable; highly disturbed areas Photograph

notes View of the identified Witbank/Cullinan soil forms

Soil Form(s) Witbank/Cullinan (Technosols) Area Extent 42.86ha; which constitutes 44.20% of the total investigated

area

Physical Limitations

Comprises of significantly disturbed areas due from anthropogenic activities to an extent that no recognisable diagnostic soil horizon properties could be identified. These soils included existing gravel/dirt roads and open excavation as observed during the site assessment. These soils are characterised by various limitations, primarily the absence of soil as a growth medium for arable agriculture.

Land Capability and Land Potential

These identified soils (Witbank and Cullinan) have very poor land capability (Class VIII) and very low land potential, attributed to historic and ongoing mining activities. In addition, some of these soils have been subjected to long term compaction, erosion and chemical soil composition alteration. This land capability and land potential class also includes areas where the original soil has been buried and/or extensively modified by anthropogenic activities. These soils are therefore not considered to make a significant contribution to agricultural productivity even on a local scale.

Overall impact significance without mitigation

L

The overall impact of the unauthorized activities on the land capability and land potential of these soils is anticipated to be low due to their very poor land capability and very low land potential attributable to anthropogenic disturbances.

Business case, Conclusion and Mitigation Requirements:

The current state of these soils would have required significant rehabilitation prior to the unauthorized activities occurring. The rehabilitation of this soils must be undertaken as part of the integrated rehabilitation plan of the mine which is beyond the scope of this assessment. Similarly, the closure of the Adams Pit and the final management of the waste material disposed of in the pit must be dealt with as part of the integrated closure planning of the mine unless any of the other investigations indicate risk to the receiving environment in which case the recommendations from those studies should be followed.

(28)

5. IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION MEASURES

5.1 Unauthorized Activities in Terms of S24G of NEMA

The impact triggers from unauthorized activities occurring within the focus areas are presented

in Table 8 below. Impact ratings presented in this report are for the unmitigated scenario.

Table 8: Summary of the Activities

Activities

- Establishment of topsoil stockpile; and - General waste disposal and storage of

Sinter de-dust into the existing Admas Pit.

Although the soils within the Adam’s pit have been classified into soil form according to the

latest Soil Classification System for South Africa (2018), the impact from a soil and land

capability point of view is considered negligible due to the absence of soil resources within the

pit. Thus, the impact rating for the Adam’s pit is insignificant.

5.1.1 Soil Erosion

The parameters determining the extent and severity of soil erosion are highly complex, with

water and wind as the main geomorphic agents. Soil erosion is largely dependent on land use

and soil management and is generally accelerated by human activities. In absence of detailed

South African guidelines on erosion classification, the erosion potential and interpretation are

based on field observations and the observed ‘soil profile characteristics. In general, soils with

a high clay content have a high-water holding capacity and are less prone to erosion in

comparison to sandy textured soils, which are more susceptible to erosion.

The unauthorized activities have occurred in the area characterized by flat to gently sloping

terrain, which limits the erosion hazard. The susceptibility of these soils to erosion has likely

increased due to decrease in vegetation basal cover associated with vegetation clearing and

disturbance as a result of unauthorized activities, and the soils are exposed to wind and

stormwater. Soil erosion impact is considered to be moderate for Ermelo and Witbank, and

low for Cullinan soil form. The significance of soil erosion impact rating is illustrated on the

table below.

Soil erosion Impact significance results for the north easternTopsoil stockpile focus area Probability Intensity Spatial extent Duration Consequence Significance Establishment of north

easterntopsoil stockpile.

(29)

5.1.2 Soil Compaction

Heavy equipment traffic during topsoil stock piling and waste disposal activities have the

potential to cause significant soil compaction both within the footprint of the activities and the

transport routes leading to them. The severity of this impact is rated moderate for soils such

as Ermelo and Witbank soil forms due to loamy sand texture. Whereas compaction on soils

with exposed bedrock and open excavation such as the Cullinan soil form is considered to be

negligible due to the resistance offered by the exposed bedrock. The significance of soil

compaction impact rating is illustrated on the table below.

Soil compaction Impact significance results for the north easternTopsoil stockpile focus area Probability Intensity Spatial extent Duration Consequence Significance Establishment of north

easterntopsoil stockpile.

H M L H Medium Medium

5.1.3 Potential Soil Contamination

All the identified soil forms are considered equally predisposed to potential contamination, as

contamination sources are generally unpredictable and often occur as incidental spills or leak

for mining operations. The significance of soil contamination is considered to be moderate for

all identified soil forms. The severity of the impact is largely dependent on the nature, volume

and/or concentration of the contaminant of concern. Therefore, strict waste management

protocols and activity specific Environmental Management Programme (EMP) guidelines

should be adhered to.

Soil contamination impact significance Adams Pit and north eastern Topsoil stockpile focus areas

Probability Intensity Spatial extent Duration Consequence Significance Establishment ofthe

north eastern topsoil stockpile and waste disposal

5.1.4 Loss of Agricultural Land Capability and Land Potential

The stockpiling of topsoil has resulted in the loss of agricultural land capability soils. These

areas are of moderate land potential attributed to the limiting prevailing climatic conditions.

Thus, the overall loss is limited due to these natural climatic constraints. There is

approximately 55.80% (equivalent to 54.55ha) of arable soils (Ermelo soil form) that have

been lost as a result of unauthorized activities. The waste disposal associated with the Adams

pit is not anticipated to have caused a significant loss of land capability since the soils (Witbank

(30)

and Cullinan) occurring within the Adams Pit focus area have previously been disturbed by

mining activities prior to waste disposal. These disturbed soils are no longer considered viable

of supporting agricultural production. Although this may be the case, rehabilitation at closure

is deemed necessary.

Loss of land capability and land potential impact significance for the north eastern Topsoil stockpile focus area

Probability Intensity Spatial extent Duration Consequence Significance Establishment of the

north eastern topsoil stockpile.

5.1.5 Cumulative impacts

The cumulative impacts are anticipated to be significant on the north eastern Topsoil stockpile

focus area since the north eastern topsoil stockpile is located within high potential agricultural

soils. However, due to limiting climatic conditions, which restrict agricultural potential land, the

arable soils are not likely to significantly contribute to local, regional and national food

production. It is anticipated that the unauthorized activities had a limited impact on the

cumulative loss of arable soils.

The degraded areas within the development footprint, with the specific mention of the Adams

Pit and north eastern Topsoil stockpile (focus areas) onsite, can be rehabilitated, in an

integrated manner, as part of the closure of the mine and thus the residual impact on the mine

can be limited and some levels of land capability can be restored to the post closure

landscape. If the adequate closure and rehabilitation does not occur, the overall impact

associated with the waste disposal and topsoil stockpiling will be at permanent and long term

and detrimental to the end land use of the local environment.

6. SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES

Based on the findings of the soil, land use and land capability and land potential assessment

in the areas affected by the unauthorized activities, mitigation measures have been developed

to minimise the impact on the soil resources

6.1 Soil Erosion and Management

➢ All disturbed areas can be re-vegetated with an indigenous grass mix, if necessary, to

re-establish a protective cover, to minimise soil erosion and dust emission; and

(31)

➢ Temporary erosion control measures may be used to protect topsoil stockpiles and the

disturbed soils until adequate vegetation has established.

6.2 Soil Compaction Management

➢ Avoid vehicular movement on high arable soils as far as practically possible; and

➢ Compacted soils adjacent to disturbed areas should be ripped at 25cm as soon as

possible to alleviate compaction and potential crusting.

6.3 Soil Contamination Management

➢ Contamination prevention measures must be clearly defined in the Environmental

Management Programme (EMPr) for the mining operation, and this should be

implemented and made available and accessible at all times to the personnel

conducting the works on site for reference; and

➢ A spill prevention and emergency spill response plan should be compiled to guide the

activities occurring at proximity of the north eastern Topsoil stockpile focus area.

6.4 Waste Management

➢ Contractors and mining crew conducting the works on site should be informed about

approved waste disposal facilities and available stockpiling areas.

6.5 Soil Loss and Stockpile Management

➢ Stockpiles should be revegetated to establish a vegetation cover as an erosion control

measure. These stockpiles should also be kept alien vegetation free at all times to

prevent loss of soil quality;

➢ Temporary berms can be constructed, around stockpile areas whilst vegetation cover

has not established to avoid soil loss through erosion;

➢ The stockpiled soil should only be used for intended purpose of rehabilitation at closure

of mine operation. Soil stockpiles should be clearly demarcated with warning signposts

to prevent contamination and monitored regularly;

➢ Dumping of waste material next to or on the stockpiles must be prohibited at all times.

Integrated soil stockpile management plan and monitoring programme and an

employee awareness programme

must be put in place to significantly reduce the risk

of soil stockpile shrinkage and/or contamination; and

(32)

➢ The recovered soils should be re-used to rehabilitate the development footprint

following mine closure.

6.6 Loss of Land Capability and Land Potential Management

These mitigation measures will largely be applicable during the closure and rehabilitation

phases. Although majority are not applicable during the construction and operational phases,

they have been included to guide the closure and rehabilitation phases:

➢ During the decommissioning phase the footprint should be thoroughly cleaned, and all

waste material should be removed to a suitable disposal facility;

➢ The footprint should be ripped to alleviate compaction;

➢ The landscape should be backfilled and reprofiled to mimic the natural topography for

potential agricultural activities and grazing opportunities post mining.;

➢ Slopes of the backfilled surface should change gradually since abrupt changes in slope

gradient increase the susceptibility for erosion initiation;

➢ The topsoil should be ameliorated according to soil chemical analysis taken on the

undisturbed areas;

➢ The soil fertility status should be determined by soil chemical analysis after levelling

(before seeding/re-vegetation). Soil amelioration should be done according soil

analyses as recommended by a soil specialist, to correct the pH and nutrition status, if

required, before revegetation; and

➢ The footprint should be re-vegetated with a grass seed mixture as soon as possible,

preferably in spring and early summer to stabilise the soil and prevent soil loss during

the rainy season.

7. CONCLUSION

Scientific Aquatic Services (SAS) was appointed to conduct a soil, land use and land capability

assessment as part of the Section 24G rectification process in terms of the National

Environmental Management Act No. 107 of 1998 (NEMA), for the unauthorised activities that

took place at the Mamatwan Mine, near Hotazel, Northern Cape Province. The unauthorised

activities include the north eastern topsoil stockpile and disposal of general waste and storage

of Sinter de-dust into the existing Adams Pit. The north eastern topsoil stockpile area and

Adams Pit will henceforth collectively be referred to as the

“focus areas”. A 150m zone of

influence, in line with the Chamber of Mines (2007), was applied around the focus areas which

accounts for edge effects.

(33)

A soil, land use and land capability survey was conducted on the 9

th

_{and 10}

th

_{of July 2019 to}

assess the focus areas as well as adjacent areas to understand the pre-disturbance soil

characteristics, land use and land capability of the area where unauthorized activities have

occurred. The assessment entailed evaluating physical soil properties and current limitations

to various land use purposes. Subsurface soil observations were made using a manual hand

auger to assess individual soil profiles.

Based on the observations made during the site assessment, the dominant land use within

the north eastern topsoil stockpile focus area is topsoil stockpile whilst the Adams Pit focus

area is dominated by mining land use.

The climatic conditions associated with the focus areas and surroundings are characterised

by severe to very severe climatic limitation with Mean Annual Precipitation ranging between

201-400mm per annum, thus making the focus areas far from ideal for cultivation under

dryland conditions.

The focus areas resemble Oxidic and Anthropic catena. Oxidic soils are characterized by the

strong pigmenting effects of iron (Fe) in the form of hematite. These soils are generally

considered freely drained and well aerated. These attributes make these soils ideal for tillage.

Oxidic soils constitute approximately 24.42% of the total focus areas and were classified as

the Ermelo soil form. The Ermelo soil form was found occurring within the relatively flat terrain

on the area adjacent to the north eastern topsoil stockpile within the 150m Zone of Influence.

Anthropic soils include all soils which have been subjected to the alteration from their natural

state by human-related interventions. These soils have been extensively disturbed such that

no recognizable diagnostic soil morphological characteristics could be identified. Significant

disturbances have occurred on both topsoil and subsoil. These soils correspond to anthrosols

in the international soil classification terminology. The soil forms associated with this class are

Cullinan (formal definition for the soil characteristics of an open pit) and Witbank (soils affected

by general mining) soil forms. The Cullinan soil form constitutes approximately19.49% whilst

Witbank soil form constitutes approximately 56.09% of the total surveyed area. It should be

noted that soil disturbances have occurred (Witbank and Cullinan soil forms) due to historic

and current mining, making the majority of the soils within the focus areas not suitable for

cultivation. Below is a tabular presentation of the dominant soils, with relative description of

soil horizons as well as associated land capability and land potential classes respectively.

(34)

Table A: Dominant soil forms and their respective land capability and agricultural land

potential

Soil Forms Code _{Horizon Sequence}Diagnostic Land Capability _PotentialLand Areal Extent _(ha) Percentage _(%)

Ermelo Er Orthic/Yellow-Brown Apedal

(thick) Arable (Class III)

Moderate potential 54.15 55.80 Cullinan Cu Anthropogenic Open Excavation Technosols Wilderness (Class VIII) Very low potential 18.91 19.52 Witbank Wb (Transported Unspecified

Technosols)

Wilderness (Class VIII)

Very low

potential 23.95 24.68

The land potential of the identified soil forms ranged between moderate and very low due to

land use limitations related to anthropogenic activities and low soil workability potential for

Witbank and Cullinan soil forms. The limitations also include prevailing climatic conditions

which severely restrict choice of crops to be cultivated due to heat, cold and/ or moisture

stress. These soils are therefore considered to have limited contribution to local, regional and

national agricultural production. Prior to the unauthorised activities taking place, livestock

commercial farming would have been possible within the north eastern Topsoil stockpile focus

area whilst the Adams Pit focus area was not suitable for either grazing or wildlife/wilderness

prior to the in a pit waste dumping taking place.

The overall impacts have resulted in the loss of the land capability, land potential and land use

have been considered moderate for the unauthorised stockpiling and negligible for the waste

disposal in the Adams Pit.

During unauthorised activities, various impacts have occurred and are anticipated to persist

for the life of mine if not properly mitigated. These impacts include soil erosion, soil compaction

and soil contamination as well as loss of land capability. Soil erosion is expected to be

moderate without mitigation measures in place due to sandy texture of the dominant soils

within the north eastern Topsoil stockpile focus area. All soils forms occurring within the focus

areas have an equal chance of being accidentally contaminated by various toxicants used

during unauthorised associated operation. It should be noted that even though the Adams Pit

has minimal soil, if mitigation measures are not implemented, soil contamination and pollution

migration is foreseen. These impacts mentioned above are expected to be moderate without

mitigation and low with mitigation.

The impact on soils of the focus areas must be rehabilitated, however since the topsoil in the

north eastern Topsoil stockpile focus area will be used as a source of topsoil for the integrated

closure of the mine, the rehabilitation of this area must be undertaken as part of the integrated

rehabilitation plan of the mine which is beyond the scope of this assessment. Similarly, the

(35)

closures of the Adams Pit and the final management of the waste material disposed of in the

pit must be dealt with as part of the integrated closure planning of the mine unless any of the

other investigations indicate risk to the receiving environment in which case the

recommendations from those studies should be followed.

This will ensure the availability of sufficient volumes of soil for rehabilitation. The cumulative

impact on land use will be the conversion of grazing within the north eastern topsoil stockpile

area into mining and related infrastructure areas resulting in the potential permanent loss of

potential grazing land during the life of the mining operation. The degraded areas within the

footprint, with specific mention of the Adams Pit, can be rehabilitated in an integrated manner

as part of the closure of the project. Thus, if integrated rehabilitation is undertaken, this project

will lead to a significant reduction in the residual impact on land use in the area, thus allowing

pre disturbance activities such as grazing and wilderness to commence. If mitigation measures

are implemented as part of an integrated mine closure and rehabilitation program, the overall

impact footprint of the unauthorised activities will be reduced to acceptable levels.

An agricultural sensitivity analysis was undertaken as part of this assessment using the

Department of Environmental Affairs Screening Tool to comply with the DEA protocols as

required by the 2014 EIA regulations. Based on the outcomes of the screening process, the

activities within the Adam’s Pit as well as the north east stockpile areas are classified as being

of low sensitivity from a soil, land use and agricultural point of view. Thus, the proposed

activities are deemed acceptable.

Based on the outcomes of this Agricultural potential study, it is the opinion of the specialist

therefore that this study provides the relevant information required to inform the Environmental

Impact Assessment (section 24G rectification process) to ensure the unauthorised activities

within the focus areas are rectified in an integrated and responsible manner during mine

closure and rehabilitation intervention.

(36)

8. REFERENCES

Agricultural Geo-referenced Information System (AGIS) database. www.agis.agric.za

Aken M,Beukes J,Botha B, Cogho V, Coombes P, Halbich T and Swart P.2007.Chamber of Mines of South Africa/Coaltech Research Association

Barry Smith,2006. The farming handbook. University of KwaZulu Natal press. Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act (CARA), 1983 (Act No. 43 of 1983).

Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. Agricultural Geo-referenced Information system (AGIS). Grazing Capacity Maps (1993).

Fey, M. 2010. Soils of South Africa. Cambrige University Press. The Water Club, South Africa

Morgenthal, T.L., Newby, T., Smith, H.J.C., and Pretorius, D.J. (2004). Developing and refinement of a grazing capacity map for South Africa using NOAA (AVHRR) satellite derived data. Report GW/A/2004/66. ARC Institute for Soil, Climate and Water, Pretoria.

National Department of Agriculture, 2002. Development and Application of a Land Capability Classification System for South Africa

SANBI. 2017. Technical Guidelines for CBA Maps: Guidelines for developing a map of Critical Biodiversity Areas & Ecological Support Areas using systematic biodiversity planning. First Edition (Beta Version), June 2017. Compiled by Driver, A, Holness, S & Daniels, F. South African National Biodiversity Institute., Pretoria

Soil Classification Working Group, 20181991. Soil classification. A taxonomic system for South Africa. Mem. agric. nat. Resour. S. Afr. No. 15. Dept. Agric. Dev., Pretoria.

Suresh, S,2005 Characteristics of soils prone to iron toxicity and management. Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Agricultural college and research institute, India, 50-58

SOIL, LAND USE AND LAND CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT AS PART OF THE SECTION 24G RECTIFICATION PROCESS