Draft EIR Report for the Motherwell NU 31 housing development in Motherwell, Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality

Appendix C

C1 – Vegetation Impact Assessment

C2 – Archaeological Impact Assessment

C3- Palaeontological Impact Assessment

C4 – Social-economic Assessment CEN INTEGRATED ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT UNIT Environmental and Rural Development Specialist

Specialist Vegetation Impact Assessment for

the Motherwell NU 31 Housing Project

April 2010 CEN Integrated Environmental Management Unit

Project Title: Specialist Vegetation Impact Assessment for the Motherwell NU 31 Housing Project

Report Prepared By:

CEN Integrated Environmental Management Unit

36 River Road Walmer, Port Elizabeth. 6070 South Africa Phone (041) 581-2983 • Fax 086 504 2549 E-mail: [email protected]

Specialist Vegetation Impact Assessment for the Motherwell NU 31 Housing Project 2 CEN Integrated Environmental Management Unit

Table of Contents

Table of Contents...... 3 List of Figures...... 4 List of Tables...... 4 Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 5 1.1 Approach to the study ...... 5 1.2 Details and Expertise of Specialists Responsible for Investigation and Report Compilation...... 9 1.3 Declaration of Independence ...... 10 1.4 Limitations of the Study...... 11 Chapter 2: Situational Vegetation Description and Assessment ...... 12 2.1 Vegetation description and sensitivity assessment ...... 12 2.1.1 Sundays Thicket (ST)...... 14 2.1.2 Dumping Area ...... 17 2.1.3 Motherwell Karroid Thicket area (MKT)...... 18 2.1.4 Agricultural area ...... 20 2.1.5 Degraded area ...... 20 2.1.6 Species Lists ...... 22 2.2 Assessment of impacts of the proposed development on vegetation ...... 32 2.2.1 Loss of thicket habitat and consequent reduction in intrinsic biodiversity value ...... 32 2.2.2 Removal of vegetation will result in soil exposure in increased erosion potential...... 32 2.2.3 Loss of habitat for faunal species...... 33 2.2.4 Loss of ecosystem services provided by thicket...... 33 2.2.5 Habitat fragmentation and edge effects...... 34 2.2.6 Reduced potential to meet NMBM conservation target for Motherwell Karroid Thicket...... 35 2.2.7 Change in agricultural land use impacts on ‘way of life’ and subsistence income of local community ...36 Chapter 3: Basic Re-vegetation, Rehabilitation and Landscaping Plan ...... 43 3.1 Planning...... 43 3.1.1 Nursery specifications ...... 44 3.1.2 Removal and Storage of topsoil (extracted from CEN IEM Unit Environmental Management Plan for rehabilitation of thicket areas) ...... 44 3.2 Site Preparation for Re-planting (extracted from CEN IEM Unit Environmental Management Plan for rehabilitation of thicket areas)...... 45 3.3 Planting (Source: City of Cape Town Environmental Management Programme, Specification: Environmental Management Standard Re-vegetation Specification (2007)) ...... 46 Chapter 4: References...... 48 Appendix 1: GPS co-ordinates of selected species of special concern...... 49

Specialist Vegetation Impact Assessment for the Motherwell NU 31 Housing Project 3 CEN Integrated Environmental Management Unit

List of Figures

 Figure 1: A Google Earth Image of the study area (outlined in yellow) included in the Vegetation Impact Assessment...... 8  Figure 2: Map depicting the underlying geology and zones of vegetation change. Note a change in vegetation from Sundays Thicket to Motherwell Karroid Thicket as the geology changes from T-Qb to Ks (T-Qb: Limestone, sandstone, conglomerate, Ta: Calcareous sandstone, shelly limestone, conglomerate, Ks: Greenish-grey mudstone, sandstone)...... 14  Figure 3: A photo depicting typical vegetation in the areas zoned as ‘Sundays Thicket’...... 16  Figure 4: Another photo of vegetation in the area zoned as ‘Sundays Thicket’...... 17  Figure 5: A view of the area zoned as ‘dumping area’...... 18  Figure 6: A view of the area zoned as ‘Motherwell Karroid Thicket’. Note the large open spaces vegetated with low shrubland amongst thicket clumps...... 19  Figure 7: A photo of the area used by the local community for agricultural activities...... 20  Figure 8: Map indicating vegetation sensitivity and descriptions in 5 broad zones...... 21  Figure 9: A spatial indication of selected protected species observed during this field survey. Species protected in terms of the Nature and Environmental Conservation Ordinance No 19 of 1974 are scattered throughout the site...... 31  Figure 10: Extract from the NMBM MOSS Plan (2009) indicating the location of the site (outlined in red) in relation to critical biodiversity areas (CBA)...... 35

List of Tables

 Table 1: List of floral species on site, with an indication of their protection and/or threatened status, a list of declared invader and weed species, medicinal plants, useful plants, and those that will transplant easily.....24  Table 2: List of predicted impacts on vegetation as a result of the proposed Motherwell NU 31 housing project ...... 37

Specialist Vegetation Impact Assessment for the Motherwell NU 31 Housing Project 4 CEN Integrated Environmental Management Unit

Chapter

Chapter 1: Introduction

CEN Integrated Environmental Management Unit was appointed by Arcus GIBB (Port Elizabeth) to do a specialist Vegetation Impact Assessment as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment Process for the proposed Motherwell NU 31 Housing Project. The study area is outlined in Figure 1. The site is situated within the boundaries of Portion 2 of Farm 316 (25.55690°E, 33.77898°S), Uitenhage (SG no: C07600000000031600002), in Motherwell. It located approximately 4.5 km north of the lower Swartkops Estuary and is approximately 147.67 ha in extent. It is bordered in the north by the MR460 road connecting Uitenhage and Addo. The new developments of NU29 and NU 30 are situated along the eastern border of NU 31. The NU 31 development is located directly adjacent to the Cerebos salt works in Motherwell (Arcus GIBB, 2009).

1.1 Approach to the study

The approach to the study was formulated based on the specific terms of reference outlined by Arcus GIBB (Port Elizabeth). The study site was visited on three occasions in March 2010 by members of CEN IEM Unit. The site was surveyed on foot where the vegetation was described and assessed using the following methods/tools:

Specialist Vegetation Impact Assessment for the Motherwell NU 31 Housing Project 5 CEN Integrated Environmental Management Unit

 A hand-held GPS was used to demarcate zones of relative disturbance and/or intact areas of the various vegetation types, as well as the location of species of special concern and invader species

 A list of plant species was compiled using available reference books in the field, and samples were collected for further identification at the laboratory. Dominant species and relative species diversity was noted across the site

 The general sensitivity of the site was observed and described, and observations were made on current land use activities in the area that may impact on or benefit from the remaining portions of Motherwell Karroid Thicket on site

The terms of reference are included below:

 Review existing and applicable literature

 Assess the overall sensitivity of vegetation on site, with notes on the ecological status and conservation importance of vegetation communities

 Review the potential ecosystem and/or ecological function of the remaining Motherwell Karroid Thicket, with notes on potential ecosystem goods and services that may derived from it

 Give spatial representation of vegetation on site and indicate the location of species of special concern and/or threatened species (in terms of the South African Red Data List (2009) and the published list of threatened or protected species in the National Biodiversity Act (No 10 of 2004), as well as declared Alien Invasive Plant species (according to the Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act 43 of 1983 (CARA) and the Conservation of Agricultural Resources Regulations)

 Assess the impacts of the proposed Motherwell NU31 development on vegetation on site and on the fringe of the site, and suggest mitigation measures

Specialist Vegetation Impact Assessment for the Motherwell NU 31 Housing Project 6 CEN Integrated Environmental Management Unit

 Develop a basic re-vegetation, rehabilitation and landscaping plan with comment on the most suitable species and approach to landscape open spaces in the development

Specialist Vegetation Impact Assessment for the Motherwell NU 31 Housing Project 7 CEN Integrated Environmental Management Unit

 Figure 1: A Google Earth Image of the study area (outlined in yellow) included in the Vegetation Impact Assessment.

Specialist Vegetation Impact Assessment for the Motherwell NU 31 Housing Project 8 CEN Integrated Environmental Management Unit

1.2 Details and Expertise of Specialists Responsible for Investigation and Report Compilation

The Natural Scientific Professions Act of 2003 aims to ‘provide for the establishment of the South African Council of Natural Scientific Professions (SACNASP) and for the registration of professional, candidate and certified natural scientists; and to provide for matters connected therewith’. ‘Only a registered person may practice in a consulting capacity’ (Section 20(1) on Pg 14 of the Natural Scientific Professions Act of 2003).

 Investigator: Dr Mike Cohen

o Qualification: D Sc (Wildlife Management,U Pretoria)

o Affiliation: South African Council for Natural Scientific Professions

o Registration number::401917/83

o Fields of Expertise: Integrated Environmental Management, Environmental Impact Assessment

 Investigator: Wendy Todkill

o Qualification: M Sc (Thicket Rehabilitation and Ecology, UPE)

o Fields of Expertise: Vegetation Mapping, Thicket Vegetation Assessments and Rehabilitation Methods)

 Investigator: Dr Belinda Clark

o Qualification: Ph D (Marine Botany, NMMU)

o Fields of Expertise: Thicket Vegetation Assessments

Specialist Vegetation Impact Assessment for the Motherwell NU 31 Housing Project 9 CEN Integrated Environmental Management Unit

1.3 Declaration of Independence

All specialist investigators, project investigators and members of companies employed for conducting this particular investigation declare that:

 We act as independent specialists for this project.

 We consider ourselves bound to the rules and ethics of the South African Council for Natural Scientific Professions.

 At the time of completing this report, we did not have any interest, hidden or otherwise, in the proposed development as outlined in this document, except for financial compensation for work done in a professional capacity, in terms of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2006.

 We will not be affected in any manner by the outcome of the environmental process of which this report forms part of, other than being part of the public.

 We do not have any influence over decisions made by the governing authorities.

 We do not necessarily object to or endorse the proposed development, but aim to present facts and recommendations based on scientific data and relevant professional experience.

 We undertake to disclose to the Department of Economic Development and Environmental Affairs any material information that has or may have the potential to influence its decision or the objectivity of any report, plan or document required in terms of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2006;

 We will provide the Department of Economic Development and Environmental Affairs with access to all information at our disposal regarding the application, whether such information is favourable to the applicant or not.

Specialist Vegetation Impact Assessment for the Motherwell NU 31 Housing Project 10 CEN Integrated Environmental Management Unit

1.4 Limitations of the Study

A significant limitation of this study was that the area was surveyed over three days within a two week period, therefore seasonal changes in the vegetation type were not observed. In addition to this, the Port Elizabeth region has been in a drought for the past year. These limitations may result in an under-representation of certain components of the vegetation type, especially those that were not flowering at the time of year when the survey was undertaken, for example bulbous plants and grasses.

Specialist Vegetation Impact Assessment for the Motherwell NU 31 Housing Project 11 CEN Integrated Environmental Management Unit

Chapter

Chapter 2: Situational Vegetation Description and Assessment

2.1 Vegetation description and sensitivity assessment

The vegetation type on site is classified as Motherwell Karroid Thicket in the Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality’s Metropolitan Open Space System (NMBM MOSS). Motherwell Karroid Thicket is described as “thicket clumps containing species typical of Sundays Valley Thicket and they occur in a matrix of succulent karoo, dominated by asbossie (Pteronia incana). Rooigras (Themeda triandra) is dominant soon after fire. Characteristic species include local endemic succulents such as Euphorbia meloformis. Present on the Alexandria formation (calcareous limestone)”. Only 39.6% of the original habitat remains within the metro, hence it is endangered (Stewart, 2009).

Mucina and Rutherford (2006) classify vegetation on site as Sundays Thicket. The degraded state resembles a secondary thornveld or grassland, dominated by invasive weedy species. In this state, most of the original thicket species are lost. “Sundays Thicket occurs on undulating plains and low mountains and foothills and is covered with

Specialist Vegetation Impact Assessment for the Motherwell NU 31 Housing Project 12 CEN Integrated Environmental Management Unit tall, dense thicket, where trees, shrubs and succulents are common, with many spinescent species. The transition between lower and upper canopies is obscured by the presence of a wide variety of lianas. The local dominance of Portulacaria afra increases and the relative abundance of woody species present decreases with increasing aridity. There is considerable heterogeneity within this vegetation unit” (Mucina and Rutherford, 2006).

It is our interpretation that vegetation on site falls within the broad category of Sundays Thicket as described by Mucina and Rutherford, with local changes in a south-westerly direction to vegetation that is more typical of Motherwell Karroid Thicket. Local changes can be ascribed to a change in the underlying geology and related soil chemistry, and an increase in the occurrence of calcrete on the surface with change in topography (refer to Figure 2 which shows a change in geology in a westerly direction). Generally, vegetation changes from a dense spinescent thicket in the north and north-eastern portions of the site to vegetation consisting of clumps of thicket and wide open areas of low growing shrubs dominated by Pteronia incana. Fine-scale changes within Sundays Thicket occur as well owing to the level of degradation (specifically browsing and dumping of waste).

Based on on-site observations of vegetation type, level of degradation, land-use impacts; and consideration of species dominance and diversity, the site can be divided into five broad areas (Figure 8).

Specialist Vegetation Impact Assessment for the Motherwell NU 31 Housing Project 13 CEN Integrated Environmental Management Unit

 Figure 2: Map depicting the underlying geology and zones of vegetation change. Note a change in vegetation from Sundays Thicket to Motherwell Karroid Thicket as the geology changes from T-Qb to Ks (T-Qb: Limestone, sandstone, conglomerate, Ta: Calcareous sandstone, shelly limestone, conglomerate, Ks: Greenish-grey mudstone, sandstone).

2.1.1 Sundays Thicket (ST)

Vegetation in this area is relatively intact and can be described as tall, dense, spinescent thicket with an understorey layer comprised of a diversity of succulent species and lianas. The area has however been subject to invasion by Opuntia ficus- indica and wherever informal tracks and roads occur, dumping of waste is found. Browsing of the vegetation has also occurred to a certain extent, as noted by cleared paths in the thicket. Dominant species include Azima tetracantha, Euphorbia ledienii, Rhus longispina, Sideroxylon inerme, Schotia afra, Portulacaria afra, Aloe africana, Euclea undulata, Rhoicissus digitata, Crassula ovata, Cotyledon velutina, Plectranthus

Specialist Vegetation Impact Assessment for the Motherwell NU 31 Housing Project 14 CEN Integrated Environmental Management Unit madagascariensis, Bulbine frutescens, Senecio radicans, Viscum rotundifolia, Euphorbia mauritanica and various mesems. Although thicket in this area has an important intrinsic biodiversity value and provides local ecological benefits and ecosystem goods and services (carbon sequestration, soil nutrient cycling and stability, soil stability and erosion control), it’s conservation significance on a broader scale is limited by the fact that it is fragmented from viable thicket corridors by the road to the north, housing developments to the east, the saltpans and cleared lands to the west, and the reservoir to the south.

There is large number of species that will transplant successfully that should be relocated prior to site clearance. These will be indicated in the rehabilitation and landscaping plan.

Specialist Vegetation Impact Assessment for the Motherwell NU 31 Housing Project 15 CEN Integrated Environmental Management Unit

 Figure 3: A photo depicting typical vegetation in the areas zoned as ‘Sundays Thicket’.

Specialist Vegetation Impact Assessment for the Motherwell NU 31 Housing Project 16 CEN Integrated Environmental Management Unit

 Figure 4: Another photo of vegetation in the area zoned as ‘Sundays Thicket’.

2.1.2 Dumping Area

This area has been subjected to intense dumping of building rubble and general waste, and vegetation has consequently been transformed from probably the original Sundays Thicket to weed species, ruderals, and some isolated remnants of Sundays Thicket. This area has little conservation value and because of the high level of degradation provides no significant ecological function to the area.

Specialist Vegetation Impact Assessment for the Motherwell NU 31 Housing Project 17 CEN Integrated Environmental Management Unit

 Figure 5: A view of the area zoned as ‘dumping area’.

2.1.3 Motherwell Karroid Thicket area (MKT)

Vegetation in this area is species rich and is dominated by clumps of thicket with species similar to Sundays Thicket, interspersed with large sections of low shrubland (mostly Pteronia incana and Aloe sp.). There is a high incidence of succulents in this area, and the number of site-specific rare species increases (specifically Duvalia spp., Euphorbia globosa, E. stellata and Pachypodium spp). A large number of Sideroxylon inerme individuals occur in thicket clumps.

Since Motherwell Karroid Thicket is classified as an endangered vegetation type in the metro and the area is relatively intact with a high number of protected and other locally

Specialist Vegetation Impact Assessment for the Motherwell NU 31 Housing Project 18 CEN Integrated Environmental Management Unit threatened species, this area has an important biodiversity conservation value on a metropolitan scale. The area has potential to provide an important long-term ecological function because it is bordered on the south and south-west by a critical biodiversity area (an area identified in the NMBM MOSS Plan as important for ensuring biodiversity persistence and continuance of ecological functionality in the metro) and is therefore connected to a viable conservation corridor. Vegetation in this area also provides important local ecosystem services, particularly in terms of stormwater management, soil stability, and erosion control.

There is a large number of species that will transplant successfully that should be relocated prior to site clearance. These will be indicated in the rehabilitation and landscaping plan.

 Figure 6: A view of the area zoned as ‘Motherwell Karroid Thicket’. Note the large open spaces vegetated with low shrubland amongst thicket clumps.

Specialist Vegetation Impact Assessment for the Motherwell NU 31 Housing Project 19 CEN Integrated Environmental Management Unit

2.1.4 Agricultural area

This area is intensively used for agriculture, with large areas cleared of vegetation to accommodate stock pens and by browsing and grazing animals. The area has very little conservation value, but does have some locally threatened and protected species, as well as species that will transplant successfully that should be relocated prior to site clearance. These will be indicated in the rehabilitation and landscaping plan.

 Figure 7: A photo of the area used by the local community for agricultural activities.

2.1.5 Degraded area

It is likely that vegetation in this area has been cleared in the past for agricultural activities and by browsing and grazing animals. The vegetation is dominated by Agave

Specialist Vegetation Impact Assessment for the Motherwell NU 31 Housing Project 20 CEN Integrated Environmental Management Unit spp., Cynodon dactylon, Aizoon spp., Atriplex semibaccata, Opuntia ficus-indica, Aloe africana, A. ferox as well as many ruderal species. Isolated clumps of remnant thicket clumps occur. The area has very little conservation value, but does have some threatened and protected species, as well as species that will transplant successfully that should be relocated prior to site clearance. These will be indicated in the rehabilitation and landscaping plan.

 Figure 8: Map indicating vegetation sensitivity and descriptions in 5 broad zones.

Specialist Vegetation Impact Assessment for the Motherwell NU 31 Housing Project 21 CEN Integrated Environmental Management Unit

2.1.6 Species Lists

A list of floral species identified on site is given in Table 1. The list was checked against various published lists:

 Lists indicating protected species that need permits prior to removal:

o List of threatened and/or protected species published in terms of the National Biodiversity Act 10 of 2004 (indicated by “NEMBA P” inTable 1)

o List of protected species published in terms of the National Forest Act 84 of 1998 as amended (indicated by “NFA P” in Table 1)

o List of protected and endangered plants published in terms of the Nature and Environmental Conservation Ordinance No 19 of 1974 (indicated by “NECO P” or “NCEO E” in Table 1)

 Lists of threatened species and/or species that should be protected but do not need permit applications

o National Red Data List (2009): the conservation status is graded as per the following:

. LC: least concern, NT: near threatened, VU: vulnerable, EN: endangered, CR: critically endangered, DDT: data deficient (taxonomically problematic)

o List of plants published in terms of the Eastern Cape Environmental Conservation Bill (2003) (indicated by “ECECB P” in Table 1)

 A list of declared weeds and invader plants in terms of the Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act 43 of 1983 (indicated by CARA 1, 2 or 3 in Table 1, depending on the category of invader).

 Various publications of plants with medicinal value (indicated by “M” in Table 1)

 Various publication of plants with useful values (e.g. edible and traditional uses) (indicated by “U” in Table 1)

Specialist Vegetation Impact Assessment for the Motherwell NU 31 Housing Project 22 CEN Integrated Environmental Management Unit

 Plants that will transplant easily and can be used in rehabilitation are indicated by a “T” in Table 1 .

Figure 9 is a spatial indication of the occurrence of selected protected species observed in this field survey. Please note that this will not be the only occurrences of these species. Species protected in terms of Nature and Environmental Conservation Ordinance No 19 of 1974 are not reflected in this map since they are scattered throughout the site. A list of GPS co-ordinates of selected species is given in Appendix 1.

Specialist Vegetation Impact Assessment for the Motherwell NU 31 Housing Project 23 CEN Integrated Environmental Management Unit

 Table 1: List of floral species on site, with an indication of their protection and/or threatened status, a list of declared invader and weed species, medicinal plants, useful plants, and those that will transplant easily

National Red Data NEMBA NFA NECO List ECECB CARA M U T Acanthaceae Barleria irritans LC Blepharis capensis LC YES Chaetacanthus setiger LC Agavaceae Agave americana var americana * YES Aizoaceae Aizoon glinoides LC T Aizoon rigidum LC T Galenia sp YES Amaryllidaceae Haemanthus coccineus LC YES T Anacardiaceae Rhus incisa var effusa YES Rhus longispina YES Rhus lucida YES Apocynaceae Carissa haematocarpa P YES Ceropegia zeyheri P LC Duvalia modesta P LC T Duvalia sp. P T Asclepiadaceae Fockea edulis P LC YES Pachypodium succulentum P P LC P T Sarcostemma viminale P YES T Araliaceae Cussonia thyrsifolia LC YES T

Specialist Vegetation Impact Assessment for the Motherwell NU 31 Housing Project 24 CEN Integrated Environmental Management Unit

Asparagaceae Asparagus africanus LC YES Asparagus asparagoides LC Asparagus crassicladus LC Asparagus striatus LC Asparagus suaveolens LC YES Asparagus virgatus LC Asphodelaceae Aloe africana P LC P T Aloe arborescens P LC YES T Aloe ciliaris P LC P T Aloe ferox LC YES T Aloe pluridens P LC P T Bulbine abyssinica LC YES T Bulbine frutescens LC YES T Bulbine latifolia LC P YES T Gasteria bicolor LC P YES T Trachyandra sp. YES T Asteraceae Berkheya heterophylla LC Brachylaena ilicifolia LC YES Chrysocoma ciliata LC Disparago ericoides LC Felicia filifolia LC Felicia muricata LC Helichrysum teretifolium LC Platycarpha glomerata LC Pteronia incana LC YES Pteronia paniculata LC Senecio ilicifolius LC Senecio inaequidens LC Senecio junceus LC T

Specialist Vegetation Impact Assessment for the Motherwell NU 31 Housing Project 25 CEN Integrated Environmental Management Unit

Senecio linifolius LC Senecio pyramidatus LC T Senecio radicans LC T Senecio scaposus LC T Boraginaceae Ehretia rigida LC Cactaceae Opuntia aurantiaca * Weed 1 Opuntia ficus-indica * Weed 1 YES Capparaceae Boscia oleoides LC Cadaba aphylla LC YES Capparis sepiaria LC Celastraceae Cassine tetragona Gymnosporia buxifolia LC Mystroxylon aethiopicum LC Putterlickia pyracantha LC Chenopodiaceae Atriplex semibaccata * Salsola sp. YES Commelinaceae Commelina africana LC YES Commelina benghalensis YES Cyanotis speciosa LC YES Convolvulaceae Ipomea cairica Crassulaceae Cotyledon velutina LC Crassula capitella var capitella LC T Crassula cotyledonis LC T Crassula expansa LC T

Specialist Vegetation Impact Assessment for the Motherwell NU 31 Housing Project 26 CEN Integrated Environmental Management Unit

Crassula sp. cf mesembryanthemoides T Crassula muscosa var muscosa LC T Crassula muscosa var polypodacea LC T Crassula orbicularis LC T Crassula ovata LC T Crassula perfoliata var perfoliata P LC P T Crassula perforata LC T Crassula spathulata LC T Crassula subaphylla LC T Crassula tetragona LC T Kalanchoe rotundifolia LC T Cucurbitaceae Kedrostis capensis LC Dracaenaceae Sansevieria hyacinthoides LC YES YES T Ebenaceae Euclea crispa LC YES Euclea undulata LC Eriospermaceae Eriospermum brevipes LC Euphorbiaceae Clutia pulchella LC Euphorbia fimbriata LC T Euphorbia globosa P EN P T Euphorbia ledienii LC T Euphorbia mauritanica LC T Euphorbia pubiglans LC T Euphorbia stellata P LC P T Fabaceae Invader Acacia cyclops * 2 YES Acacia karroo LC YES YES

Specialist Vegetation Impact Assessment for the Motherwell NU 31 Housing Project 27 CEN Integrated Environmental Management Unit

Aspalathus lactea LC Aspalathus spinosa LC Dolichos hastaeformis LC Indigofera denudata LC Indigofera sp. (prostrate with purple flower) Schotia afra LC YES T Flacourtiaceae Dovyalis rotundifolia LC Geraniaceae Pelargonium peltatum LC T Pelargonium reniforme LC P T Hyacinthaceae Albuca tortuosa LC Drimia sp Ledebouria floribunda LC Ledebouria revoluta LC YES Hypoxidaceae Hypoxis stellipilis LC Spiloxene trifurcillata LC Lamiaceae Leucas capensis LC YES Plectranthus madagascariensis LC T Mesembryanthemaceae Bergeranthus multiceps P DDT T Delosperma echinatum P LC T Drosanthemum sp. P T Drosanthemum parvifolium P LC T Faucaria felina P LC T Glottiphyllum longum P LC T Lampranthus sp. (white) P T Lampranthus sp. (red) P T

Specialist Vegetation Impact Assessment for the Motherwell NU 31 Housing Project 28 CEN Integrated Environmental Management Unit

Mestoklema sp. P T Ruschia rigens P LC T Ruschia cymbifolia P LC T Trichodiadema bulbosum P T Myrtaceae Eugenia capensis P LC P Orchidaceae Satyrium sp. P T Oxalidaceae Oxalis stellata LC Perioplocaceae Raphionacme zeyheri LC Plantaginaceae Plumbaginaceae Plumbago auriculata LC YES T Poaceae Cynodon dactylon LC T Eragrostis capensis LC Eragrostis curvula LC YES Panicum deustum LC Pennisetum clandestinum * Polygalaceae Polygala asbestina LC Portulacaceae Portulacaria afra LC YES T Rhamnaceae Scutia myrtina LC Rubiaceae Coddia sp Salvadoraceae Azima tetracantha LC Santalaceae

Specialist Vegetation Impact Assessment for the Motherwell NU 31 Housing Project 29 CEN Integrated Environmental Management Unit

Rhoiacarpos capensis LC Sapotaceae Sideroxylon inerme P LC P YES T Scrophulariaceae Jamesbrittenia microphylla LC Selaginaceae Selago cinerea LC Walafrida sp Solanaceae Lycium cinereum LC YES Lycium ferocissimum LC Solanum tomentosum LC Sterculiaceae Hermannia althaeifolia LC Tiliaceae Grewia robusta LC Viscaceae Viscum rotundifolium LC Vitaceae Rhoicissus digitata LC P YES Rhoicissus tridentata LC P YES YES Rhoicissus revoilii LC Zygophyllaceae Zygophyllum flexuosum LC Zygophyllum fulvum LC TOTAL = 157 species * denotes alien taxa to the area

Specialist Vegetation Impact Assessment for the Motherwell NU 31 Housing Project 30 CEN Integrated Environmental Management Unit

 Figure 9: A spatial indication of selected protected species observed during this field survey. Species protected in terms of the Nature and Environmental Conservation Ordinance No 19 of 1974 are scattered throughout the site.

Specialist Vegetation Impact Assessment for the Motherwell NU 31 Housing Project 31 CEN Integrated Environmental Management Unit

2.2 Assessment of impacts of the proposed development on vegetation

The following impacts on vegetation are predicted as a result of the proposed Motherwell NU 31 housing project (Refer to Table 2):

2.2.1 Loss of thicket habitat and consequent reduction in intrinsic biodiversity value

The development will lead to the removal of a large amount of relatively intact Sundays Thicket and Motherwell Karroid Thicket. Motherwell Karroid Thicket in particular has high species richness, and there are a large number of protected and locally threatened species across the site. Removal of vegetation in areas marked as “Sundays Thicket” and “Motherwell Karroid Thicket” in Figure 8 will result in a significant loss of habitat with intrinsic biodiversity value. Since Motherwell Karroid Thicket is an endangered vegetation type in the Metro and 100% site sterilization is assumed, this is an impact of high significance.

2.2.2 Removal of vegetation will result in soil exposure in increased erosion potential

Site preparation for installing services and establishing various sites will involve the clearing of vegetation, thus exposing the soil and increasing the potential for wind and water erosion. Areas of the site where vegetation has been cleared for agricultural activities show signs of erosion, with large erosion gullies in areas in preferential surface water flow paths. Good site management during construction phase and implementation of mitigation measures will result in an impact of short-term low significance.

Specialist Vegetation Impact Assessment for the Motherwell NU 31 Housing Project 32 CEN Integrated Environmental Management Unit

2.2.3 Loss of habitat for faunal species

Removal of vegetation during construction phase will mean a loss of habitat for fauna that use thicket vegetation for forage and as shelter possibly duiker, Sylviacapra grimii, grysbok Raphicerus melanotis and bushbuck Tragelaphus scriptus. It is likely that fauna will respond to the disturbance and relocate to natural areas surrounding the site. It is not the brief of this report to include a detailed assessment of faunal impacts; however some recommendations will be included as mitigation measures in Table 2.

2.2.4 Loss of ecosystem services provided by thicket

Intact thicket provides a host of ecosystem services on a local and regional scale, including carbon sequestration, soil stabilisation and erosion prevention, species that are harvested for medicinal purposes, subsistence browsing, and fire protection. Thicket vegetation is effective in storing carbon, especially where Portulacaria afra is abundant. Removal of thicket in construction phase (assume ~ 140 ha) will therefore mean a reduced capacity to store carbon in the area, an impact which will extend into operational phase. As discussed in Item 2.2.3 above, intact vegetation assists in soil stability and prevents erosion, especially during high rainfall times. During construction phase, removal of vegetation will cause soil to be exposed for a length of time before surfaces are cemented and/or until rehabilitation is successful. In this time, erosion is a risk. Thicket provides an important role in fire protection to surrounding communities by minimizing the intensity of fires. There are a number of species on site that have medicinal value and some are harvested by surrounding communities. Thicket is also extensively browsed by domestic animals owned by subsistence agriculturalists in the area. Although the previous two activities have a negative impact on thicket biodiversity and ecology, they do provide ecosystem goods and services that are of vital importance to the surrounding community which will be lost when thicket is cleared during construction phase.

Specialist Vegetation Impact Assessment for the Motherwell NU 31 Housing Project 33 CEN Integrated Environmental Management Unit

Apart from erosion prevention, these impacts cannot be mitigated, since the services are lost once the vegetation is removed. However, since intact thicket on site is relatively isolated from large natural areas and the site is mostly surrounded by developed and disturbed lands, the ecosystem services that on-site thicket provides in terms of fire protection, soil stability and erosion control, and carbon sequestration are localized making the loss thereof of low significance on a regional scale. The loss of browsing land needs to be addressed by the municipality in conjunction with Agri-forum personnel to ensure that there is sufficient agricultural land for subsistence farmers with the ever-extending urban edge.

2.2.5 Habitat fragmentation and edge effects

It is important to ensure connectivity of natural areas, since isolated pockets of protected areas are often too small to persist and too far apart for faunal populations to migrate and plants to disperse between them. This ultimately leads to the destruction of the ecosystem that is meant to be protected and a loss of the service it is meant to provide. Ecological corridors designated in biodiversity planning documents (e.g. the NMBM MOSS and STEP) have been selected to ensure connectivity of natural environments on a large scale. There are no designated corridors in the development site, therefore the development will not cause habitat fragmentation on a metro scale. It is important that threatened vegetation types and other important natural areas are also considered for protection even if they are not part of these corridors if they have potential to fulfill an ecological function on a local scale (e.g. to allow plants and animals to move between areas of prime habitat). The area marked as “Sundays Thicket” in Figure 8 is an example of relatively intact thicket that could be conserved for its biodiversity value, however since it is isolated even on a local scale and surrounded by degraded lands, the ecological functionality thereof is limited. Impacts on habitat fragmentation are therefore of low significance. The probability of the development causing edge effects on surrounding natural areas is also low since the site is surrounded by degraded lands, structures and infrastructure apart from the southern

Specialist Vegetation Impact Assessment for the Motherwell NU 31 Housing Project 34 CEN Integrated Environmental Management Unit section which is bordered by a critical biodiversity area as designated in the NMBM MOSS Plan (refer to Figure 10). It is advisable that a buffer be instated on the southern boundary of the development where it borders on critical biodiversity areas (CBA) to prevent impacts of the development from extending into the CBA.

 Figure 10: Extract from the NMBM MOSS Plan (2009) indicating the location of the site (outlined in red) in relation to critical biodiversity areas (CBA).

2.2.6 Reduced potential to meet NMBM conservation target for Motherwell Karroid Thicket

Motherwell Karroid Thicket is classified as endangered in the NMBM’s conservation plan with only 39.6 % (4840.4 ha) of the original vegetation type remaining. To ensure long-term persistence of Motherwell Karroid Thicket in the Metro, a conservation target of 3057.9 ha has been set. Losses of relatively intact portions of this vegetation type

Specialist Vegetation Impact Assessment for the Motherwell NU 31 Housing Project 35 CEN Integrated Environmental Management Unit throughout the Metro to accommodate housing developments are cumulatively reducing the potential of meeting the conservation target.

2.2.7 Change in agricultural land use impacts on ‘way of life’ and subsistence income of local community

With the expansion of urban areas in the metro and the ever-growing need for housing, areas used by subsistence farmers are being lost to development and provision of basic services. Although houses and services are sorely needed, the loss of agricultural land is impacting on the ‘way of life’ and subsistence income of a relatively large sector of the community. It is important that the responsible officials address this issue and that adequate provision is made for commonage lands in municipal planning documents.

Specialist Vegetation Impact Assessment for the Motherwell NU 31 Housing Project 36 CEN Integrated Environmental Management Unit

 Table 2: List of predicted impacts on vegetation as a result of the proposed Motherwell NU 31 housing project

Construction Phase Direct Impacts

e e

Impact and Mitigation e c c

y c t n n n n g i l n a a n y i o n o

i i t i e t c c i o t t b t i i i u s d f f s t a a a m i n i i f o u n a g g b u t e n n i i r n h t e t t s o t a g g t i i u i o x r i i t s n E D I P S w m S a m S C Impact: Loss of Motherwell Karroid Thicket and Sundays Thicket, and the consequent reduction in intrinsic biodiversity value t

Impact rating: n e n c e i t - a f i i n

c m i h h h h f r e e g g g g t i e i i i i e p S s P H D H H H

Mitigation:  A search and rescue operation must be done for vegetation on site and species that are known to have good survival rates when transplanted should be stored in a nursery for post-construction rehabilitation. This must not be limited to protected species only, rather as many species as practically possible should be rescued and transplanted  Permits must be obtained from the relevant authorities for the collection and storage of all threatened and protected species  Only indigenous vegetation that occurs naturally on site is to be planted in site rehabilitation and in landscaping activities within the development

Specialist Vegetation Impact Assessment for the Motherwell NU 31 Housing Project 37 CEN Integrated Environmental Management Unit

 A suitably qualified specialist must be hired to undertake the search and rescue operation, and to manage the nursery and re-planting activities  Should there be insufficient space on the site for re-planting of rescued species, these should be stored in a municipal nursery and used for planting in urban parks etc  Provide an information programme for contractors and site staff about the need to conserve flora of the area Construction Phase Indirect Impacts Impact: removal of vegetation will result in soil exposure and increase erosion potential

c i Impact rating: y f y r i r e c a e v l r e

- m b o p o u a t s p i

b h d e m w w o g t e w i i r e o o o S T L P M L l H Mitigation:  The site must be cleared in phases to reduce the amount of exposed surfaces at one time  The size of required work areas must be restricted to the minimum required for efficient and effective work  Temporary stabilization measures must be used to prevent erosion of recently cleared areas until rehabilitation is successful and/or the site has been surfaced. These can include the use of gravel bags, straw and other matting materials, hay bales, siltation fences, sedimentation basins, grassy swales, hydro-seeding, and straw mulching.  Construction must be halted in excessive weather conditions (e.g. high rainfall and wind events) that will exacerbate erosion  All disturbed sites should be re-vegetated and rehabilitated immediately after construction so as to limit the exposure of the disturbed areas to wind and water erosion Impact: loss of habitat for faunal species (forage and shelter)

Specialist Vegetation Impact Assessment for the Motherwell NU 31 Housing Project 38 CEN Integrated Environmental Management Unit

Impact rating: t n w e o o l t n

c e m

i - t h y a f i u w i r g i n i

c o m i e d f r e w e L v H t e e i e o p S s P L D M

Mitigation:  Relocate herpetofauna found on construction sites to other localities with a suitable habitat close to the construction site. It is probable that small mammals and reptiles resident at the site will move away from the area as soon as construction begins  Provide an information programme for contractors and site staff about the need to conserve fauna of the area  Institute strict speed control limits for construction vehicles Operational Phase Direct Impacts Impact: Loss of ecosystem services provided by thicket t

Impact rating: n e

n w c e m m i t

a o o - f i u u l i t i i

n

c m i h d d y f r e d w e r g t e e e i i e n o p e S s a P M D M L v H

Mitigation:  Soil erosion:  The site must be cleared in phases to reduce the amount of exposed surfaces at one time  The size of required work areas must be restricted to the minimum required for efficient and effective work  Temporary stabilization measures must be used to prevent erosion of recently cleared areas until rehabilitation is successful and/or the site has been surfaced. These can include the use of gravel bags, straw and other matting materials, hay bales, siltation fences, sedimentation basins, grassy swales, hydro-seeding, and straw

Specialist Vegetation Impact Assessment for the Motherwell NU 31 Housing Project 39 CEN Integrated Environmental Management Unit

mulching.  Construction must be halted in excessive weather conditions (e.g. high rainfall and wind events) that will exacerbate erosion  All disturbed sites should be re-vegetated and rehabilitated immediately after construction so as to limit the exposure of the disturbed areas to wind and water erosion  Medicinal plants can be stored at a nursery for use by traditional healers.  A stormwater management plan must be developed for the site to control surface water flow  Provision must be made in municipal planning documents for commonage land for subsistence agricultural farmers. The Agri-forum and member of the community that use the site for farming must be consulted and provision made for them on alternative land Impact: Habitat fragmentation and edge effect

Impact rating: h d t n u w a o o l

s

c

i t y e f e r l i

n - e h e b c t e t i v

a e n s m o b p

a o t u t

s o e i

r m h A h d r e t p w w g t e B i i e f o o m S C o P L I M L H

Mitigation:  It is advisable that a buffer be instated on the southern boundary of the development where it borders on critical biodiversity areas (CBA) to prevent impacts of the development from extending into the CBA Cumulative Impacts Impact: Reduced potential to meet NMBM conservation target for Motherwell Karroid Thicket

Specialist Vegetation Impact Assessment for the Motherwell NU 31 Housing Project 40 CEN Integrated Environmental Management Unit

Impact rating: t n

l e e l a n ) m b

n - a o u a o r i i t m b h h h d g r e o g g g e e i i i e r M R ( P M P H H H

Mitigation:  No mitigation measures suggested Impact: Change in agricultural land use impacts on ‘way of life’ and subsistence income of local community

t y r

Impact Rating: n

l e e e v l a n ) m m b n - a o o u u a t o r i i i t m b h d d g r e w o g e e w e i e r o M o R ( P M P M L l H Mitigation:  Provision must be made in municipal planning documents for commonage land for subsistence agricultural farmers. The Agri-forum and member of the community that use the site for farming must be consulted and provision made for them on alternative land

Specialist Vegetation Impact Assessment for the Motherwell NU 31 Housing Project 41 CEN Integrated Environmental Management Unit

Intentionally left blank

Specialist Vegetation Impact Assessment for the Motherwell NU 31 Housing Project 42 CEN Integrated Environmental Management Unit

Chapter

Chapter 3: Basic Re-vegetation, Rehabilitation and Landscaping Plan

3.1 Planning

Prior to site clearing, a suitably qualified specialist should develop a detailed plan for vegetation rescue and landscaping. A list of species found on site in this vegetation assessment is presented in Table 1, and an indication is given of species that should transplant with relative ease. However, an attempt should be made to rescue as many species as possible rather than limiting it to protected species only. Table 1 also lists which species are protected in terms of various legislation and permits must be obtained from the relevant authorities prior to removing these. The presence of protected species is indicated spatially in Figure 9, but this is by no means an exhaustive representation of all occurrences, but merely an indication of where these were encountered in the survey done for this specialist study.

The specialist’s landscaping plan should indicate spatially where vegetation will be replanted, what species will be used, and how many individuals will be planted in each area.

Specialist Vegetation Impact Assessment for the Motherwell NU 31 Housing Project 43 CEN Integrated Environmental Management Unit

An area must be set aside for storage of plants - a nursery can be established on site for plants that will be used in site rehabilitation, and a municipal nursery must be identified for storage of plants that are not replanted on site.

3.1.1 Nursery specifications

The on-site nursery must be set up in an area that is relatively flat and where disturbance from construction activities will be minimal. It must be close to a service connection point so that watering is not problematic. Ease of vehicular access must also be considered for transporting of plants around and off site. The nursery must be adequately protected with the use of shade cloth of a correct density. A responsible person must be appointed to run the nursery and ensure optimal conditions for survival of species until they are re-planted.

3.1.2 Removal and Storage of topsoil (extracted from CEN IEM Unit Environmental Management Plan for rehabilitation of thicket areas)

 Vegetation being cleared may contain small amounts of seed, or provide useful fauna habitat. Logs, limbs and stumps should be cleared and stockpiled separately to the topsoil stripping operation. Smaller sized vegetative material may provide useful mulch for later use in erosion control works, or else it should be combined with the topsoil. Topsoil is a very important requirement for low cost re-vegetation of disturbed sites.

 Topsoil from all working areas and access tracks should be stripped carefully and stockpiled for later use, or used immediately to rehabilitate already disturbed areas.

 Wherever possible, stripped topsoil should be placed directly onto an area being rehabilitated. This avoids stockpiling and double handling of the soil. Topsoil placed directly onto rehabilitation areas contains viable seed, nutrients and

Specialist Vegetation Impact Assessment for the Motherwell NU 31 Housing Project 44 CEN Integrated Environmental Management Unit

microbes that allow it to re-vegetate more rapidly than topsoil that has been in stockpile for long periods.

 Do not strip topsoil when saturated, as this will exacerbate the damage to the soil structure.

 If topsoil must be stockpiled, remember that it deteriorates in quality while stockpiled.

 If topsoil is to be stockpiled, it should be stored in an area outside of the immediate work area, but inside the demarcated work area. Stockpiled soils shall be neat, and the dumped soil shall be flattened immediately after placement to ensure minimum exposure to wind and water.

 Cynodon dactylon (kweek) (or an alternative such as Stenotaphrum secundatum or other suitable species recommended by a restoration ecologist) should be used to revegetate the topsoil stockpiles if they are to be left for longer than 90 days. A typical seeding rate would be 6 kg seed per hectare. (Applicable only where stockpiled soil will be retained for longer than 3 months). For shorter periods a mulch of natural vegetation cut on site during the clearing operation (grass and shrubs) can be placed over the stockpiled soil.

3.2 Site Preparation for Re-planting (extracted from CEN IEM Unit Environmental Management Plan for rehabilitation of thicket areas)

 All construction infrastructure, equipment, materials and wastes must be removed from the site upon completion of construction (or earlier, in a phased manner, if possible).

 All compacted and previously used construction areas shall be scarified to a depth of 150mm prior to topsoil being replaced. All compacted areas should be ripped along the contour. This may be carried out before or after spreading topsoil. Ripping will promote water infiltration and root penetration. Ripping should

Specialist Vegetation Impact Assessment for the Motherwell NU 31 Housing Project 45 CEN Integrated Environmental Management Unit

be carried out when the soil is relatively dry to increase soil break-up. Ripping after soil spreading will also help to 'key' in the soil to the underlying material, and it provides a rough surface for seed application.

 Stored topsoil must be replaced on disturbed areas to a depth of at least 150mm.

 Any excess topsoil (not used in landscaping) must be disposed of in an environmentally acceptable manner.

 Topsoil should be re-spread uniformly over the area at a suitable depth to support re-vegetation. Remember that a thin layer of topsoil is far better than none at all. Re-spread soil should be left with a rough surface with many suitable locations for lodgement and germination of seeds. Smooth surfaces should be ripped, or manually cultivated to improve the 'roughness' of the seedbed and provide suitable sites for lodgement and germination of seeds. Avoid spreading soil when saturated or sticky, as compaction and other damage to the soil structure will occur.

 Where topsoil is not available on site, alternatives must be sought - these may include subsoil or imported topsoils. Extreme care should be taken when importing topsoils because they often contain seeds of vigorous weeds

3.3 Planting (Source: City of Cape Town Environmental Management Programme, Specification: Environmental Management Standard Re-vegetation Specification (2007))

Before the planting commences, the equipment necessary for the proper handling and placing of all required materials must be available onsite, in good condition and to a standard approved by the Resident Engineer or Environmental Control Officer (ECO).

If topsoil from site is used in rehabilitation, it is unlikely that fertilizers will be necessary. However, should it be deemed necessary to use fertilizers, the following will apply:

Specialist Vegetation Impact Assessment for the Motherwell NU 31 Housing Project 46 CEN Integrated Environmental Management Unit

 The rate of application shall be as directed by the /ECO after he/ she has had the opportunity of testing the requirements of the soil material in which the vegetation is to be planted.

 Roughly one-third of the fertiliser must be incorporated uniformly into the subsoil or topsoil to a depth of at least 100 mm. The remaining two thirds of the fertiliser shall be applied at the specified rate in conjunction with the seeding or planting operations, either as part of the hydro-seeded mix or by hand.

Planting should only commence in a specific area when all construction activities in that area are complete. If seeds are to be sowed as part of the rehabilitation plan, this must be done in the correct season to ensure successful germination.

Once vegetation has been planted establishment and maintenance is vital to ensure successful rehabilitation. This includes the following:

 Erosion control

 Watering – depending on the season of planting, plants must be watered from the time of planting for a period of up to approximately 2 months (or until they have established).

 Weeding

 Fertilizing

 Disease and insect pest control

 Pruning

 Any other procedure consistent with good horticultural practice necessary to ensure normal, vigorous and healthy growth of vegetation

Establishment shall commence immediately after planting and shall continue until a satisfactory cover has been achieved

Specialist Vegetation Impact Assessment for the Motherwell NU 31 Housing Project 47 CEN Integrated Environmental Management Unit

Chapter

Chapter 4: References

Arcus GIBB (August 2009). Environmental Impact Assessment for the proposed Motherwell NU 31 housing development (Final Scoping Report).

City of Cape Town Environmental Management Programme. Specification: Environmental Management. Standard Revegetation Specification (Revision 2007).

Mucina, L. & Rutherford, M. (eds) (2006). The Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Strelitzia 19.

Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Open Space System (2009).

Pierce, S.M. and Mader, A.D. (2006). The STEP Handbook (2nd edition).

Stewart, W.I. 2009. Final Conservation Assessment and Plan for the Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality. SRK Consulting, Report Number 367380/5.

Specialist Vegetation Impact Assessment for the Motherwell NU 31 Housing Project 48 CEN Integrated Environmental Management Unit

Appendix 1: GPS co-ordinates of selected species of special concern

South East Degrees Minutes Degrees Minutes Bergeranthus multiceps 33 46.959 25 33.197 33 46.935 25 33.185 33 46.902 25 33.179

Bulbine latifolia 33 46.925 25 33.176

Cussonia thyrsifolia 33 46.444 25 33.366

Delosperma echinata 33 46.642 25 33.274

Duvalia modesta 33 47.11 25 33.572

Duvalia sp 33 46.902 25 33.179 33 46.619 25 33.679 33 46.738 25 33.334 33 46.668 25 33.251 33 46.509 25 33.29 33 47.158 25 33.496 33 47.144 25 33.48 33 46.993 25 33.276 33 46.833 25 33.03

Euphorbia clava 33 46.649 25 33.274 33 46.642 25 33.274 33 46.612 25 33.242 33 46.947 25 33.197 33 46.947 25 33.198 33 46.942 25 33.192 33 46.913 25 33.167 33 46.886 25 33.168 33 46.878 25 33.159 33 46.874 25 33.159

Specialist Vegetation Impact Assessment for the Motherwell NU 31 Housing Project 49 CEN Integrated Environmental Management Unit

Euphorbia globosum 33 46.747 25 32.927

Euphorbia muscosa 33 46.616 25 33.679

Euphorbia stellatum 33 46.747 25 32.927 33 46.719 25 32.895

Faucaria felina 33 46.649 25 33.274 33 46.642 25 33.274 33 46.632 25 33.274 33 46.617 25 33.263 33 46.619 25 33.25 33 46.771 25 32.938

Gasteria bicolor 33 46.606 25 33.727

Glottiphyllum longum 33 46.841 25 33.05

Ledebouria concolor 33 46.988 25 33.282

Ledebouria floribunda 33 46.743 25 33.77 33 46.749 25 33.475 33 46.745 25 33.48

Pachypodium succulentum 33 46.724 25 33.445 33 46.745 25 33.48 33 46.738 25 33.326 33 46.736 25 33.326 33 46.736 25 33.326 33 46.739 25 33.318 33 46.735 25 33.295 33 46.649 25 33.274 33 46.642 25 33.274 33 46.488 25 33.504 33 47.111 25 33.568 33 46.997 25 33.312 33 46.967 25 33.196 33 46.902 25 33.179

Specialist Vegetation Impact Assessment for the Motherwell NU 31 Housing Project 50 CEN Integrated Environmental Management Unit

33 46.89 25 33.172

Satyrium sp. 33 46.597 25 33.705

Senecio scaposus 33 46.99 25 33.282 33 46.993 25 33.276

Sideroxylon inerme 33 46.612 25 33.687 33 46.624 25 33.67 33 46.72 25 33.635 33 46.768 25 33.476 33 46.753 25 33.473 33 46.725 25 33.289 33 46.611 25 33.266 33 47.142 25 33.587 33 47.158 25 33.58 33 47.156 25 33.592 33 47.094 25 33.364 33 47.005 25 33.314 33 46.991 25 33.272 33 46.981 25 33.258 33 46.981 25 33.22 33 46.98 25 33.217

Trichiodema bulbosum 33 46.732 25 33.29 33 46.727 25 33.292

Specialist Vegetation Impact Assessment for the Motherwell NU 31 Housing Project 51 A PHASE 1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (AIA) FOR THE PROPOSED MOTHERWELL NU 31 HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, PORTION 2 OF 316, UITENHAGE, NELSON MANDELA METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY, PORT ELIZABETH, EASTERN CAPE PROVINCE

Prepared for: Arcus GIBB PO BOX 63703 Port Elizabeth 6057 Tel: 041 392 7510 Fax: 086 545 8835 Contact person: Mr. Mathys Vosloo Email: [email protected]

Compiled by: Dr. Johan Binneman and Ms. Celeste Booth Department of Archaeology Albany Museum Somerset Street Grahamstown 6139 Tel: (046) 622 2312 Fax: (046) 622 2398 Contact person: Ms. Celeste Booth [email protected] [email protected]

March 2010

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION 3.

BRIEF ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND 5.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY 7.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION 7.

RECOMMENDATIONS 11.

GENERAL REMARKS AND CONDITIONS 12.

APPENDIX 1 13.

MAPS

2

A PHASE 1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (AIA) FOR THE PROPOSED MOTHERWELL NU 31 HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, PORTION 2 OF FARM 316, UITENHAGE, NELSON MANDELA METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY, PORT ELIZABETH, EASTERN CAPE PROVINCE

Note: This report follows the minimum standard guidelines required by the South African Heritage Resources Agency for compiling Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment (AIA).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the study was to conduct a phase 1 archaeological impact assessment (AIA) of the proposed Motherwell NU 31 housing development situated within the boundaries of portion 2 of farm 316, Uitenhage, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan Municipality, Port Elizabeth, Eastern Cape Province. The survey was conducted to establish the range and importance of the exposed and in situ archaeological heritage materials and features, the potential impact of the development and, to make recommendations to minimize possible damage to these sites.

Brief Summary of Findings

The proposed area for development is situated about 20 km north of the Port Elizabeth city centre between the Swartkops and Coega River valleys, and lies approximately 4.5 km north of the lower Swartkops estuary and 9 km from the coastline. The proposed area is bordered by the MR460/R334 Uitenhage-Addo road in the north, and the new NU29 and NU30 residential developments in the east, and is situated directly adjacent to the Motherwell Cerebos salt works. The area has in the past been highly disturbed by the construction of the Motherwell reservoir which is situated within the boundaries of the proposed area for the development. Informal housing/shacks have also been constructed around the reservoir. Service gravel roads, informal footpaths, power lines and underground pipelines have also caused disturbances in the past. The proposed area is currently being used as an informal dumping site by members of the local community.

Occasional surface scatters of predominantly Middle Stone Age (MSA) stone tools were documented over the entire area proposed for development. It is highly unlikely that the stone tool scatters are in situ and are, therefore, considered to be in a secondary context. Few Early Stone Age (ESA) stone tools were also documented, but not as much as those of the MSA. No sites containing any depth of deposit or other archaeological material associated with the stone tool artefacts were observed within the area. The proposed area for development is considered as having a low cultural significance, although the following recommendations must be taken into consideration prior to the construction activities.

3

Recommendations

The area is of a low cultural sensitivity and development may proceed as planned, although the following recommendations must be considered:

1. The area has been highly disturbed in past and currently, therefore, it is unlikely that any in situ archaeological sites/remains, and human remains would be uncovered during construction. However, if concentrations of archaeological heritage material and human remains are uncovered during construction, all work must cease immediately and be reported to the Albany Museum (046 622 2312) and/or the South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA) (021 642 4502) so that systematic and professional investigation/ excavation can be undertaken.

2. Construction managers/foremen should be informed before construction starts on the possible types of heritage sites and cultural material they may encounter and the procedures to follow when they find sites.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The phase 1 archaeological impact (AIA) assessment report is part of a heritage impact assessment (HIA) required for the environmental impact assessment (EIA).

The proposed Motherwell NU 31 mixed-use housing development is 147.67 ha in extent with a total of 5187 erven expected to be subdivided and rezoned to accommodate mainly residential living units. Some residential erven have been consolidated to create a large site for a multi-purpose centre next to the Motherwell reservoir, which it is envisaged would include a resource-community hall, sports fields, a clinic, administration offices, a library and other institutional facilities.

Developer:

Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality (NMBM) (project proponent) GOBA Consulting Engineers and Project Managers (GOBA (Pty) Ltd) (Port Elizabeth Branch) PO Box 27320 Greenacres 6057 Tel: 041 373 6552 Fax: 041 014 3601 Email: [email protected]

Consultant:

Arcus GIBB PO BOX 63703 Port Elizabeth, 6057 Contact person: Mathys Vosloo Tel: 041 392 7510 Fax: 086 545 8835 Email: [email protected] 4

Terms of Reference

To conduct a survey of possible archaeological heritage sites within the area of the proposed Motherwell NU 31 housing development, Erf 2 of Farm 216, Uitenhage, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan Municipality, Port Elizabeth, Eastern Cape Province. The survey was conducted to establish the range and importance of the exposed and in situ archaeological heritage materials and features, the potential impact of the development and, to make recommendations to minimize possible damage to these sites.

Legislative requirements

Parts of sections 35(4) and 38(1) (8) of the National Heritage Resources Act 25 of 1999 apply:

35 (4) No person may, without a permit issued by the responsible heritage resources authority—

(a) destroy, damage, excavate, alter, deface or otherwise disturb any archaeological or palaeontological site or any meteorite; (b) destroy, damage, excavate, remove from its original position, collect or own any archaeological or palaeontological material or object or any meteorite; (d) bring onto or use at an archaeological or palaeontological site any excavation equipment or any equipment which assist in the detection or recovery of metals or archaeological and palaeontological material or objects, or use such equipment for the recovery of meteorites.

38. (1) Subject to the provisions of subsections (7), (8) and (9), any person who intends to undertake a development categorized as –

(a) the construction of a road, wall, powerline, pipeline, canal or other similar form of linear development or barrier exceeding 300m in length; (b) the construction of a bridge or similar structure exceeding 50m in length; (c) any development or other activity which will change the character of the site – (i) exceeding 5000m2 in extent, or (ii) involving three or more erven or subdivisions thereof; or (iii) involving three or more erven or divisions thereof which have been consolidated within the past five years; or (iv) the costs of which will exceed a sum set in terms of regulations by SAHRA, or a provincial resources authority; (d) the re-zoning of a site exceeding 10 000m2 in extent; or (e) any other category of development provided for in regulations by SAHRA or a provincial heritage resources authority, must as the very earliest stages of initiating such a development, notify the responsible heritage resources authority and furnish it with details regarding the location, nature and extent of the proposed development. (8) The provisions of this section do not apply to a development as described in subsection (1) if an evaluation of the impact of such development on heritage resources is required in terms of the Environment Conservation Act, 1989 (Ant No. 73 of 1989), or the integrated environmental management guidelines issued by the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, or the Minerals Act, 5

1991 (Act No. 50 of 1991), or any other legislation: Provided that the consenting authority must ensure that the evaluation fulfils the requirements of the relevant heritage resources authority in terms of subsection (3), and any comments and recommendations of the relevant heritage resources authority with regard to such development have been taken into account prior to the granting of the consent.

BRIEF ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND

Literature review

Little is known about the archaeology of the immediate area, mainly because no systematic research has been conducted there. The gravels of old river terraces which line most of the Coega River and estuary contain archaeological remains in the form of stone tools. Early Stone Age (ESA) (approximately 1.4 million – 250 000 years old) stone tools are found throughout the area. Large handaxes were reported from Coega Kop and were also collected from the banks and gravels of the Coega River as well as between the N2 national road and the salt works (Albany Museum collections). One of South Africa’s most important Earlier Stone Age sites, Amanzi Springs, was excavated by H.J. Deacon during the 1970’s (Deacon 1970) is situated a few kilometres north-west of the surveyed area. In a series of spring deposits a large number of stone tools were found in situ to a depth of 3-4 metres. Wood and seed material preserved remarkably very well within the spring deposits, and possibly date to between 800 000 to 250 000 years old. Middle Stone Age (MSA) (250 000 - 30 000 years ago) and Later Stone Age (LSA) (30 000 years ago to historical times) stone tool artefacts are also found in the gravels and along the banks of the Coega River. These stone artefacts, like the Earlier Stone Age handaxes are in secondary context with no other associated archaeological material. Occurrences of fossil bone remains and Middle Stone Age stone tools were also reported south of Coega Kop (Gess 1969). The remains were found in the surface limestone during excavations, but the bulk of the bone remains were found some 1- 1.5 metres below the surface. The excavations exposed a large number and variety of bones, teeth and horn corns strongly suggesting that they were deposited there by early humans. The bone remains included warthog, leopard, hyena, rhinoceros and ten different antelope species. A radiocarbon date of greater than 37 000 years was obtained for the site. The proposed area for development is situated approximately 9 km from the coast and falls outside of the 5 km maximum distance shell middens are expected to be found from the beach. A large number of shell middens were also situated east of Coega River Mouth. Several of the middens were sampled and excavated just before the harbour was constructed. Many middens, ceramic pot sherds (from Later Stone Age Khoekhoen pastoralist origin - last 2 000 years) and other archaeological material, are situated between the Coega and Sunday’s River Mouths. These remains date mainly from Holocene Later Stone Age (last 10 000 years). Human remains have also been found in the dunes along the coast. The majority of archaeological sites found in the area date from the past 10 000 years (called the Later Stone Age) and are associated with the campsites of San hunter-gatherers and Khoi pastoralists. These sites are difficult to find because they are in the open veld and often covered by vegetation and sand. Sometimes these sites are only represented by a few stone tools and fragments of bone. The preservation of 6

these sites is poor and it is not always possible to date them Africa (Deacon & Deacon 1999). There are many San hunter-gatherers sites in the nearby Elandsberg and Groot Winterhoekberg Mountains. Here caves and rock shelters were occupied by the San during the Later Stone Age and contain paintings along the walls. The last San/KhoiSan group was killed by Commandos in the Groendal area in the 1880s. The most common archaeological sites along the nearby coast are shell middens (relatively large piles of marine shell) found usually concentrated opposite rocky coasts, but also along sandy beaches (people refer to these as ‘Strandloper middens’) (Rudner 1968).These were campsites of San hunter-gatherers, Khoi herders and KhoiSan peoples who lived along the immediate coast (up to 5 km) and collected marine foods. Mixed with the shell are other food remains, cultural material and often human remains are found in the middens. In general, middens date from the past 6 000 years. Also associated with middens are large stone floors which were probably used as cooking platforms (Binneman 2001, 2005).

References

Binneman, J.N.F. 2001. An introduction to a Later Stone Age coastal research project along the south-eastern Cape coast. Southern African Field Archaeology 10:75-87. Binneman, J.N.F. 2005. Archaeological research along the south-eastern Cape coast part1: open-air shell middens Southern African Field Archaeology 13 & 14:49- 77. 2004/2005. Deacon , H.J. 1970. The Acheulian occupation at Amanzi Springs, Uitenhage District, Cape Province. Annals of the Cape Provincial Museums. 8:89-189. Deacon, H.J. & Deacon, J. Human beginnings in South Africa. Cape Town: David Phillips Publishers. Gess, W.H.R. 1969. Excavations of a Pleistocene bone deposit at Aloes near Port Elizabeth. South African Archaeological Bulletin 24:31-32. Rudner, J. 1968. Strandloper pottery from South and South West Africa. Annals of the South African Museum 49:441-663.

Relevant archaeological impact assessments:

A few relevant archaeological impact assessments have been conducted within the Coega and the Coega Industrial Development Zone areas. These archaeological impact assessments are currently stored at the Department of Archaeology, Albany Museum, Grahamstown, Eastern Cape Province.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY

Area surveyed

Location data

The proposed area for development is situated in an already developed and developing area about 20 km north of the Port Elizabeth city centre between the Swartkops and Coega River valleys. The area lies approximately 4.5 km north of the lower Swartkops estuary and about 9 km from the coast. The proposed area is bordered by the MR460/R334 Uitenhage-Addo road in the north and the new NU29 and NU30 residential developments in the east, and is situated directly adjacent to 7

the Motherwell Cerebos salt works. The area has in the past been highly disturbed by the construction of the Motherwell reservoir which is situated within the boundaries of the area proposed for the development. Informal housing/shacks have also been constructed around the reservoir area. Service gravel roads, informal footpaths, power lines and underground pipelines have also created disturbances in the past. The proposed area is currently being used as an informal dumping site by members of the local community.

Map

1:50 000 3325CD & DD & 3425BA Port Elizabeth (Map 1)

ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION

Methodology

The survey was conducted by two people on foot following the already existing service gravel roads and informal footpaths within the area. GPS readings were taken using a Garmin Plus II. The GPS readings have been plotted on Map 3. Most of the area is covered by dense bush and tree vegetation making especially the northern-most reaches of the proposed area impenetrable, although some informal footpaths do occur within the dense bush areas, these were followed during the survey. The southern extent of the proposed area is relatively open with a slightly sloping down gradient. This area consists of a more open veld landscape making archaeological visibility good (Figs 1-4). There are several service gravel roads that extend from the R334 as well as Sowangube Street and the adjacent township into the proposed area, these were followed during the survey.

Figs 1-2. Dense bush vegetation towards the northern-most extent of the proposed area.

Figs 3-4. Open veld landscape in the southern extent of the proposed area. Power lines are visible in the background stretching across the area (right). 8

The Motherwell reservoir is situated almost in the centre of the proposed area. A few informal dwellings, water tanks and buildings occur to the west and north-west of the reservoir. Power lines have also been implemented around the reservoir and stretch across the proposed area to the adjacent NU 29 and NU 30 townships in the east. Underground pipelines are situated within the proposed area and are most probably associated with the reservoir activities and indicated by inspection holes above the ground. Other disturbances associated with the reservoir activities include the construction of overflow channels that surround the reservoir. The proposed area has in the past and is currently being as an informal dumping site with dumping areas scattered across the whole area. Bulldozed areas occur immediately adjacent to the R344 and may previously have been dams when the proposed area was still a working farm (Figs 5-8)

Figs 5-6. Disturbed areas within proposed area. Informal dwellings and building to the east of the reservoir (left). A bulldozed area which may previously have been a dam.

Figs 7-8. Informal dumping areas occurring over the whole of the proposed area.

Middle Stone Age (MSA) stone tool artefacts which include flakes and blades identified by the characteristic facetted platform prepared core technique, and cores, occur sporadically over most of the proposed area. However, it is highly unlikely that much of the stone tool occurrences would be in situ owing to the disturbances of the area in the past and presently. MSA stone tools occur around the reservoir area marked GPS1 (33°46’52.2”S; 25°33’36.18”E), GPS2 (33°46’46.50”S; 25°33’40.02”E) and GPS3 (33°46’42.96”S; 25°33’34.02”E). The stone tool artefacts occurred within and next to the service road in secondary context owing to the disturbances caused by the construction of the reservoir and the making of the service roads. The stone tools consisted mainly of flakes, flakes with cortex and cores (e.g. radial cores) made from medium-grained quartzite raw material (Figs 9- 10). 9

Figs 9-10. Examples of MSA stone tools around the reservoir area

O ccasional MSA stone tools are a common occurrence in and parallel to the service road between the areas marked, GPS3, GPS4 (33°46’38.34”S; 25°.33’30.24”E),GPS5 (33°46’31.86”S; 25°33’30.06”E), GPS6 (33°46’30.90”S; 25°33’21.84E) and GPS7 (33°46’20.34”S; 25°33’27.72”E), extending east into the more dense vegetation in the northern-most area of the proposed area. The stone tool scatters consist mainly of those previously mentioned, flakes, blades (with the characteristic facetted platform prepared core technique) and cores made on the medium-grain quartzite raw material. These scatters are also in secondary context owing to disturbances caused by the bulldozing activities for the construction of the service road and the area still being used as a dumping area. Gravels have also been added to the making of the service road which may sometimes be mistakenly identified at stone tools (Figs 11-12).

Figs 11-12. Examples of MSA stone tools occurring between the areas marked GPS3 and GPS7.

Surface scatters of MSA stone tools also occur in the areas marked GPS8 (33°46’26.64”S; 25°33’21.84”E), GPS9 (33°46’24.54”S; 25°33’20.46E), GPS10 (33°46’27.54”S; 25°33’19.86”E), GPS11 (33°46’30.78”S; 23°33’8.40”E) and GPS13 (33°46’38.44”S; 25°33’12.30”E). The stone tool scatters have mainly been exposed within the service although stone tools also occur in the veld on either side of the road. The surface scatters consist mainly of flakes and blades with facetted platforms and cores made with a medium-grained quartzite raw material (Figs 13- 14). Occasional MSA stone artefacts were also documented around the areas marked GPS14 (33°46’47.00”S; 25°33’15.92”E), GPS15 (33°46’51.04”S; 25°33’15.92”E) and GPS16 (33°46’53.47S; 25°.33’12.32”E).

10

Figs 13-14. Extent of exposed MSA stone tool scatter exposed in service road (left). Examples of MSA stone tools exposed in service road (right).

The open veld, southern extent of the proposed area also contains occasional surface occurrences of MSA stone tools, similarly, comprised mainly of flakes and blades with the characteristic faceted platform prepared core technique made with medium-grained quartzite raw material. The stone tools occur mainly around the upper slope areas marked GPS19 (33°47’01.13”S; 25°33’53.08”E), GPS20 (33°46’58.14”S; 25°33’45.30”E) and GPS21 (33°46’55.38”S; 25°33’53.22”E) and are probably in secondary context having been washed down the slope in the past (Figs 15-16). Further down the slope around the areas marked GPS17 (33°46’58.14”S; 25°33’45.30”E) and GPS18 (33°46’36.06”S; 25°33’46.38”E) the stone tool surface scatters tend to filter out. No stone tools were documented within the areas marked GPS17 and GPS18.

Figs 15-16. Examples of MSA stone tools occurring within the open veld southerly extent of the proposed area.

The area surrounding GPS22 (33°46’36.06”S; 25°33’46.38”E) consists of dense bush, a newly bulldozed gravel road was followed to a dead end, no stone tools or other archaeological materials were observed in this area. Similarly the area between GPS22 and GPS23 (33°46’21.80”S; 25°33’47.59”E) is comprised mainly of dense bush making the area completely impenetrable.

The proposed area for the development of the Motherwell NU 31 housing development has in the past been heavily disturbed by the construction of the reservoir and the informal dwellings and buildings surrounding the reservoir, the building of the service roads, the making of informal footpaths, as well as the continuous use of the area as an informal dumping area and previous use of the area as a working farm by the construction of a possible dam. Occasional stone tool artefacts, mainly from the Middle Stone Age period (250 000-30 000 years ago), occur over most of the proposed area; however, it is highly unlikely that they are in 11

primary context owing to the disturbances mentioned above. Therefore, despite the occurrence of stone tool artefacts over the proposed area, they have mainly been found in a secondary context e.g. in service roads and around the reservoir, and no other archaeological materials have been observed in association with the stone tool artefact occurrences, nor has any depth of possible archaeological deposit.

Survey/Description of sites

Predominantly Middle Stone Age (MSA) stone tools were documented within the proposed area for development, however, it is unlikely that the artefacts are in situ and occur in secondary context owing to the previous and present disturbances occurring with the area. In addition, no other archaeological materials were observed to be in association with stone tool surface scatters and no depth of archaeological deposit recorded.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The area is of a low cultural sensitivity and development may proceed as planned, although the following recommendations must be considered:

1. The area has been highly disturbed in past and currently, therefore, it is unlikely that any in situ archaeological sites/remains, and human remains would be uncovered during construction. However, if concentrations of archaeological heritage material and human remains are uncovered during construction, all work must cease immediately and be reported to the Albany Museum (046 622 2312) and/or the South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA) (021 642 4502) so that systematic and professional investigation/ excavation can be undertaken.

2. Construction managers/foremen should be informed before construction starts on the possible types of heritage sites and cultural material they may encounter and the procedures to follow when they find sites.

12

GENERAL REMARKS AND CONDITIONS

Note: This report is a phase 1 archaeological heritage impact assessment/ investigation only and does not include or exempt other required heritage impact assessments (see below).

The National Heritage Resources Act (Act No. 25 of 1999, section 35) requires a full Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) in order that all heritage resources, that is, all places or objects of aesthetics, architectural, historic, scientific, social, spiritual linguistic or technological value or significance are protected. Thus any assessment should make provision for the protection of all these heritage components, including archaeology, shipwrecks, battlefields, graves, and structures older than 60 years, living heritage, historical settlements, landscapes, geological sites, palaeontological sites and objects.

It must be emphasized that the conclusions and recommendations expressed in this archaeological heritage sensitivity investigation are based on the visibility of archaeological sites/features and may not therefore, reflect the true state of affairs. Many sites/features may be covered by soil and vegetation and will only be located once this has been removed. In the event of such finds being uncovered, (such as during any phase of construction work), archaeologists must be informed immediately so that they can investigate the importance of the sites and excavate or collect material before it is destroyed. The onus is on the developer to ensure that this agreement is honoured in accordance with the National Heritage Act No. 25 of 1999.

It must also be clear that Archaeological Specialist Reports (AIAs) will be assessed by the relevant heritage resources authority. The final decision rests with the heritage resources authority, which may grant a permit or a formal letter of permission for the destruction of any cultural sites.

13

APPENDIX A: IDENTIFICATION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL FEATURES AND MATERIAL FROM INLAND AREAS: guidelines and procedures for developers

1. Human Skeletal material

Human remains, whether the complete remains of an individual buried during the past, or scattered human remains resulting from disturbance of the grave, should be reported. In general the remains are buried in a flexed position on their sides, but are also found buried in a sitting position with a flat stone capping and developers are requested to be on the alert for this.

2. Freshwater mussel middens

Freshwater mussels are found in the muddy banks of rivers and streams and were collected by people in the past as a food resource. Freshwater mussel shell middens are accumulations of mussel shell and are usually found close to rivers and streams. These shell middens frequently contain stone tools, pottery, bone, and occasionally human remains. Shell middens may be of various sizes and depths, but an accumulation which exceeds 1 m2 in extent, should be reported to an archaeologist.

3. Stone artefacts

These are difficult for the layman to identify. However, large accumulations of flaked stones which do not appear to have been distributed naturally should be reported. If the stone tools are associated with bone remains, development should be halted immediately and archaeologists notified

4. Fossil bone

Fossil bones may be found embedded in geological deposits. Any concentrations of bones, whether fossilized or not, should be reported.

5. Large stone features

They come in different forms and sizes, but are easy to identify. The most common are roughly circular stone walls (mostly collapsed) and may represent stock enclosures, remains of wind breaks or cooking shelters. Others consist of large piles of stones of different sizes and heights and are known as isisivane. They are usually near river and mountain crossings. Their purpose and meaning is not fully understood, however, some are thought to represent burial cairns while others may have symbolic value.

6. Historical artefacts or features

These are easy to identified and include foundations of buildings or other construction features and items from domestic and military activities.

14

Proposed area for housing development

Map 1. 1:50 000 map indicating proposed are for the Motherwell NU31 housing development. (Insert map courtesy of Arcus GIBB)

Proposed area for housing development

Map 2. Aerial views of the proposed area for the Motherwell NU 31 housing development 1

Map. 3. Close-up aerial view of the proposed area for housing development with plotted GPS co-ordinates. Table 1: List of predicted impacts on the archaeological heritage as a result of the proposed Motherwell NU 31 housing project

Construction Phase Direct Impacts

Impact and Mitigation Extent Duration Intensity Probability Significance without mitigation Significance assuming mitigation Status Confidence

Impact: Loss of Middle Stone Age (MSA) stone artefact surface scatters

Impact rating Site specific Permanent Medium High Low Very Low - High

Mitigation:

• No phase 2 archaeological mitigation is required for the proposed development to proceed. • If concentrations of archaeological heritage material and human remains are uncovered during construction, all work must cease immediately and be reported to the Albany Museum (046 622 2312) and/or the South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA) (021 642 4502) so that systematic and professional investigation/excavation can be undertaken. • Construction managers/foremen should be informed before construction starts on the possible types of heritage sites and cultural material they may encounter and the procedures to follow when they find sites.

PALAEONTOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT: DESKTOP STUDY

Motherwell NU 31 housing development, Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality, Eastern Cape

John E. Almond PhD (Cantab.) Natura Viva cc, PO Box 12410 Mill Street, Cape Town 8010, RSA; [email protected]

May 2010

1. SUMMARY

The proposed Motherwell NU 31 housing development is situated on Portion 2 of Farm 316, Uitenhage, Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality. The western part of the development area is underlain by marine sandstones and clays of the Sundays River Formation (Uitenhage Group ). This formation contains a rich biota of estuarine to shallow marine fossils from the Early Cretaceous Period. These fossils mainly consist of concentrations of thick-shelled bivalve mollusks together with rarer gastropods, ammonites and minor invertebrate groups ( e.g. corals) as well as locally abundant trace fossil assemblages. The majority of the shelly fossils occur within dense shell beds ( coquinas ) at the base of calcareous, storm-generated sandstones. Very rare vertebrate remains from the Sundays River Formation in the area include bones and teeth of plesiosaurs (an extinct group of large marine reptiles), lizards and dinosaurs. The central and eastern part of the development area is underlain by coastal limestones of the Neogene Alexandria Formation (Algoa Group ) that is locally richly fossiliferous, with over two hundred recorded fossil taxa – mainly molluscs and other marine invertebrates as well as sharks’ teeth. However, field evidence suggests that much of this lime-rich succession has been considerably altered by post-depositional leaching and calcretization so that most new excavations expose few or no fossils of value. A superficial mantle of pebbly residual deposits in this area (previously mapped as the Blue Water Bay Formation ) is formed by weathering of the Alexandria Formation is of low palaeontological sensitivity.

Excavations made during construction of the proposed Motherwell NU 31 housing development will expose potentially fossiliferous sediments that are currently buried beneath the land surface or mantled by dense vegetation. Study and sampling of these sediments and their enclosed fossils while they are still exposed is necessary, before they are permanently sealed in by further development. If appropriate mitigation is carried out this will usefully contribute to our understanding of the rich palaeontological heritage of the Algoa Basin. Given the considerable potential for important new fossil finds in the study area it is recommended that: (a) the ECO for the housing development is alerted ( e.g. through this report and the references therein) to the types of fossils that may occur here, their vulnerability to damage and the necessity of sampling and conserving as much fossil material as possible for scientific research; (b) where feasible, fossils exposed by development be set aside for examination by a professional palaeontologist; (c) the ECO contact a professional palaeontologist immediately should any obviously important fossil finds be made ( e.g. vertebrate remains, dense concentrations of fossil shells), and (d) before development starts, monthly site visits by a professional palaeontologist be commissioned so that new rock exposures may be sampled, accumulated fossils examined, and the ECO advised on any further mitigation necessary. John E. Almond (2010) 1 Natura Viva cc 2. INTRODUCTION & BRIEF

Arcus GIBB (Pty) Ltd. has been appointed to undertake an application for environmental authorisation through an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the proposed housing development known as Motherwell NU 31. The proposed development is situated between the Swartkops and Coega River valleys some 20 km to the north of the city centre of Port Elizabeth (Fig. 1). The project involves the development of land, services and top structures to accommodate people in need of housing. The project proponent is the Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality (NMBM), who has appointed GOBA Consulting Engineers & Project Managers (GOBA (Pty) Ltd) to act as project managers to help alleviate the housing backlog in the municipality. After completion of all the specialist studies, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be produced by Arcus GIBB and will be submitted to DEDEA for their approval.

The following site and activity description for the project has been provided by Mnr Mathys Vosloo of Arcus Gibb Engineering and Science, Port Elizabeth:

The Motherwell NU31 housing development is situated entirely within the boundaries of portion 2 of farm 316 (25.55690°E, 33.77898°S), Uitenhage, in Motherwell. It is located approximately 4.5 km north of the lower Swartkops Estuary and is approximately 147.67 ha in extent. It is bordered in the north by the MR460 road connecting Uitenhage and Addo. The new developments of NU29 and NU 30 are situated along the eastern border of NU 31. The NU 31 development is located directly adjacent to the Cerebos salt works in Motherwell. The study area is flat to gently undulating with a series of natural hollows.The proposed Motherwell NU31 development is situated entirely in ward 54 in the NMBM. A police station, magistrates court complex and clinic is located along Tyinira Street, east of the proposed development boundary. Zoning is controlled in terms of the Motherwell Town Planning Scheme and the remainder of farm 316, Uitenhage is currently zoned as Undetermined . A rezoning and subdivision application must therefore be lodged with the NMBM. This may only continue after a positive Record of Decision has been issued by the Department of Economic Development and Environmental Affairs (DEDEA). The proponent has proposed to rezone the remainder of Farm 316 into a sub divisional area to enable the development of a mixed and integrated residential area.

A total of 5187 erven is expected to be subdivided and rezoned during the implementation of the proposed development. The greatest majority of these rezoned and subdivided erven will accommodate residential living units. In addition, several large and smaller community sites are provided throughout the proposed development area. Some residential erven have been consolidated to create a large site for the multi-purpose centre next to the Motherwell reservoir, which it is envisaged would include a resource centre/community hall, sports fields, clinic, administrative offices, library and other institutional facilities.

The proposed layout for NU31 has been designed in line with the concept of sustainable human settlements. The proposed development will thus include areas zoned for mixed use with the aim to establish development corridors. Based on this a number of larger and smaller business sites are provided throughout the neighbourhood unit. These areas will be located along the main roads, prominent junctions, closer to the centre of neighbourhoods and within the main business node. These mixed use developments shall typically comprise residential units behind

John E. Almond (2010) 2 Natura Viva cc and/or above business premises depending on the scale and building costs associated with a multi-storey development. The mixed use development can occur on a single property or in a single building and may include three storey blocks dependant on whether parking will be located in the basement or next to the building. The affordability profile of the target population would exclude the construction of basement parking. Erven along the MR460 has been identified as the main development corridor for mixed use. The MR460 shall remain a high speed and high capacity road. Road junctions will be spaced sufficiently to ensure traffic safety and free traffic movement. It is also proposed that access to properties adjacent to the MR460 be limited to major signalised intersections at appropriate distances (±250 metres). Pedestrian bridges over the MR460 shall be provided where appropriate subject to the availability of funds. Minimum road widths for public roads in NU 31 have a design width of 8 m, while a large number of the neighbourhood blocks in NU 31 will terminate in cul-de-sacs to minimize through traffic in these residential enclaves. These measures have been included in the development layout to improve pedestrian safety and provide more evenly distributed public spaces and squares.

Since the proposed mining activities will affect potentially fossil-rich sediments of the Sundays River and Alexandria Formations, a desktop palaeontological impact assessment for the project has been commissioned by Mnr Mathys Vosloo of Arcus Gibb Engineering and Science, Port Elizabeth in accordance with the requirements of the National Heritage Resources Act (Act. 25, 1999).

The present desktop study concerning fossil heritage resources in the Motherwell study area is based on:

• a review of relevant palaeontological and geological literature, including geological maps and previous heritage impact reports (notably the recent Coega IDZ study by Almond, 2010) • location and examination of fossil collections from study area ( e.g. museums) • data on the proposed development provided by the developer

The author declares that he is writing this report in an independent capacity. A brief outline of his qualifications and experience is provided at the end of the report.

John E. Almond (2010) 3 Natura Viva cc Swartkops Salt Pan Motherwell

Fig. 1. Satellite image showing location of proposed Motherwell NU 31 housing development west of Motherwell on the NE side of the Swartkops River (Image provided by Arcus Gibb Engineering & Science).

John E. Almond (2010) 4 Natura Viva cc 3. GEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND

The geology of the study area is indicated in outline on the 1: 250 000 geological map 3324 Port Elizabeth (Council for Geoscience, Pretoria; Toerien & Hill 1989). This has been improved and updated on the more recent 1: 50 000 sheet 3325DC & DD, 3425BA Port Elizabeth (Le Roux 2000) (Fig. 2). The study area is situated on the edge of a low coastal plateau incised by the Swartkops River to the southwest. The plateau is largely built of fine-grained estuarine and marine shelf sediments of the Early Cretaceous Sundays River Formation ( Uitenhage Group , Ks ). These sediments are being exploited for brick clay in several local mining operations and crop out at surface in the western part of the study area. The Mesozoic marine beds are capped in the central and eastern part of the study area by a thin (10m or less), limestone-dominated, shallow marine to coastal succession, the Alexandria Formation ( Algoa Group , Ta ) of Neogene (= Late Tertiary) age. The Alexandria Formation here is extensively blanketed in pebbly, reddish-brown residual soils. These were previously (1: 250 000 map) assigned to a separate Blue Water Bay Formation ( T-Qb ) but are now incorporated into the Alexandria Formation (pale yellow areas with round dots on the 1: 50 000 geology map). Excavations for the proposed housing development will intersect all three geological units listed. The geology of these units is briefly described here and their palaeontological heritage is discussed in the following section.

Fig. 2. Extract from 1: 50 000 geology sheet 3325DC & DD, 3425BA Port Elizabeth (Council for Geoscience, Pretoria) showing approximate location of study area within the black rectangle. Geological units shown within this area include the Sundays River Formation (Ks, red), the Alexandria Formation (Ta, pink) and the Bluewater Bay gravelly residual soils (yellow with small circles).

John E. Almond (2010) 5 Natura Viva cc 3.1. Sundays River Formation (Ks)

The Sundays River Formation is of Early Cretaceous (Valanginian-Hauterivian) age, i.e .around 136 Ma (million years old). It comprises a thick (up to 2km) succession of thin- bedded grey sandstones, siltstones and finer-grained mudrocks that are often highly fossiliferous (Shone 2006). Depositional settings range from estuarine through littoral (shoreline) to marine outer shelf (McMillan 2003). These beds are differentiated from the older Kirkwood Formation of the Uitenhage group by (a) the absence of reddish-hued mudrocks, (b) the presence of prominent-weathering calcareous sandstones, and (c) the frequent occurrence of fossil marine shells. These last are commonly, but not invariably, associated with the thin, calcareous sandstone beds, many of which are tempestites. Key geological accounts of the Sundays River Formation include those by Du Toit (1954), Rigassi & Dixon (1972), Winter (1973), McLachlan & McMillan (1976), Tankard et al. (1982), Dingle et al., (1983), McMillan (2003) and Shone (1976, 2006). For the study area the geological sheet explanations by Haughton (1928), Engelbrecht et al. (1962), Toerien and Hill (1989) and Le Roux (2000) are most relevant.

3.2. Alexandria Formation (Ta)

This estuarine to coastal marine formation consists of a basal conglomerate rich in oyster shells overlain by calcareous sandstones, shelly coquinas and thin conglomerates. It represents a composite product of several marine transgression (invasion) / regression (retreat) cycles across the Algoa coastal plain in Late Miocene-Pliocene times, ie roughly around 7-5 Ma ago (Maud & Botha 2000, Roberts et al. 2006). The Alexandria Formation overlies a series of marine terraces incised into older (mainly Cretaceous) rocks in the hinterland of the Algoa Basin - the lower seawards Coega Plateau and the higher, landwards Grassridge Plateau (Ruddock 1968, Goedhart and Hattingh (1997). The Alexandria Bay Formation ranges from three to 13m in thickness, with an average of 9 to 10m (Le Roux 1987b, Goedhart and Hattingh, 1997). It reaches its greatest thickness between the Swartkops and Sundays Rivers. Maud & Botha (2000) record a maximum thickness of 18m.

3.3. The “Blue Water Bay” Formation (T-Qb)

Geologically recent karstic ( ie solution) weathering of the lime-rich Alexandria Formation has led to the development of pebbly, reddish-brown residual soils over much of the inland outcrop area of the Alexandria Formation (Maud & Botha 2000). This was formerly identified as a separate, bipartite fluvial unit of Plio-Pleistocene age with calcrete horizons that was named the Bluewater Bay Formation (Le Roux 1987c, 1989). This unit is mapped as such (T-Qb) on the 1: 250 000 Port Elizabeth geology sheet but not on the later 1:50 000 scale geological maps where it is indicated as pedogenic gravels overlying the Alexandria Formation (circular symbols). Incised “channels” cutting into the Alexandria Formation and infilled with cross-bedded coarse “Bluewater Bay” gravels are illustrated by Le Roux (1989). Maud and Botha (2000) suggest that these surface deposits comprise a composite of in situ karstic weathering products (including coarse solution-hollow infills) as well as fluvial sediments of late Neogene age. Goedhart and Hattingh (1997) have developed an explanatory scheme showing how residual pebbly and sandy weathering products of the Alexandria Formation infill solution cavities within the calcretised limestones following periods of humid climate leaching. The superficial “Bluewater Bay” deposits average 1.2m in thickness, but this varies greatly due to the presence of numerous incised channel-fill and solution pipe structures up to 7m deep (Le Roux 1987c, 1989, 2000).

John E. Almond (2010) 6 Natura Viva cc

The most prominent and widely occurring solution structures in the Alexandria Formation outcrop area are dolines . They stand out clearly on aerial and satellite images as rounded or oval grassy patches within darker zones of thicket. These shallow but large depressions are caused by karstic solution of the underlying limestone and may reach diameters of 100m or more. Centripetal drainage causes the build-up of fine-grained sediment and pebbles within the doline. The surface depression often develops into a pan where rainwater may accumulate unless the doline is drained by a subsurface outlet ( ie swallow hole). The distribution of dolines in the Coega area has been mapped in detail by Goedhart and Hattingh (1997) who note that they generally occur in well-defined NE-SW zones that correspond to furrows between fossil beach ridges developed in the underlying shallow marine Alexandria Formation.

4. PALAEONTOLOGICAL HERITAGE

4.1. Palaeontological record of the Sundays River Formation

In palaeontological terms the Sundays River Formation contains one of the most prolific and scientifically important marine biotas of Mesozoic age in southern Africa. Fossils have been recorded from the Sundays River beds in the Algoa Basin since the early nineteenth century (1837). Cooper (1981) provides a good review of the earlier literature. Important collections were made, for example, by the famous Eastern Cape geologists W.G. Atherstone and A.G. Bain (see Sharpe 1856; Fig. 14) and there has been a long history of palaeontological publications dealing with the Sundays River fauna since then. Among the key papers are those by Sharpe (1856), Kitchin (1908), Spath (1930), Du Toit (1954), Engelbrecht et al . (1962), Haughton (1969), McLachlan & McMillan (1976, 1979), Klinger & Kennedy (1979), Cooper (1981, 1991), Dingle et al . (1983), McMillan (2003) and Shone (1986, 2006). An accessible, well-illustrated account of Sundays River fossils has recently been given by MacRae (1999). The ammonites and microfossils are of particular biostratigraphic (rock dating) importance, while the foraminiferans (a group of protozoans) are useful for palaeoenvironmental analysis (See extensive discussion in McMillan 2003).

Fig. 3. Early illustrations of Sundays River fossils – the oyster Aetostreon (left) and the ammonite Olcostephanus (right) from an early publication by Sharpe (1856).

John E. Almond (2010) 7 Natura Viva cc The main invertebrate macrofossils recorded from the Sundays River Formation are a rich variety of mollusks. These include several cephalopod subgroups - mainly ammonites, plus much rarer nautiloids and belemnites. The cephalopod fauna has been revised recently by Cooper (1981, 1983) and is dominated by a series (14 spp.) of strongly ribbed, coiled ammonites of the Genus Olcostephanus (Figs. 3, 4), also well known from Early Cretaceous marine faunas elsewhere in the world. Interestingly, clear examples of well- developed sexual dimorphism (male and female shells of different size and form) as shown in this genus. Much rarer partially coiled ammonites ( Distoloceras ) and straight- shelled, obliquely ribbed forms ( Bochianites ) also occur.

Fig. 4. Well-preserved specimen of the ammonite Olcostephanus from the Sundays River Formation (Albany Museum, Grahamstown). This is a macroconch (female) and c. 25cm across.

The Sundays River mollusks include a number of mainly small-bodied gastropods ( c. 6 genera, including limpets), and over forty genera of bivalves (mussels, clams etc ). In terms of abundance as well as biodiversity the bivalve mollusks are also the dominant group. The commonest form is the thick-shelled “Devil’s toenail” oyster Aetostreon (previously known as Exogyra or Gryphaea ) which is often preserved in dense coquinas (shell beds) at the base of storm sandstones (Figs. 3, 5, 8). Some of the other bivalves, such as the strongly–ribbed or knobbed trigoniids (eleven species in seven genera, recently revised by Cooper, 1979, 1991 Figs. 5, 7) and the elongate-shelled Gervillella (Figs. 5, 6) – all shallow infaunal forms - are also quite substantial (20-30cm long or more) with robust shells. Encrusting oysters cemented onto shells, rocks or hardgrounds are common (Figs. 5, 9). Dense storm-transported accumulations of scaphopod mollusks (tusk shells) have been discovered recently in the Sundays River Formation. Most of these South African fossils are badly in need of taxonomic and palaeobiological revision along the lines of recent work on similar-aged South America mollusks by Lazo (2007 and earlier papers; Fig. 5).

John E. Almond (2010) 8 Natura Viva cc

Fig. 5. Reconstructed life orientations of common Early Cretaceous bivalves from the southern hemisphere (from Lazo 2007). They include: A - cemented oysters (Amphidonte ) B – epibyssate clams ( Mimachlamys ) C – free-lying oysters (Aetostreon ) D, E – partially buried Gervillella and Pinna respectively F, G – shallow burrowing trigoniids ( Steinmanella ) and astartids ( Eriphyla ) H, I – deep burrowing Pholadomya and Sphaera . Most of these genera are represented in the Sundays River biota.

Fig. 6. The large, thick-shelled, semi-infaunal bakevelliid bivalve Gervillella from the Sundays River Formation (Iziko Museums, Cape Town).

John E. Almond (2010) 9 Natura Viva cc

Fig. 7. The knobbly, thick-shelled burrowing trigoniid bivalve Steinmanella from the Sundays River Formation in the main Coega brick pit (shell length 10cm).

Fig. 8. Well-preserved specimen (“Devil’s toenail”) of the common free-living oyster Aetostreon from the Sundays River Formation, main brick pit at Coega.

John E. Almond (2010) 10 Natura Viva cc

Fig. 9. Block of calcareous sandstone (14 cm across) encrusted with cemented oysters (possibly Amphidonte ), Sundays River Formation, main brick pit, Coega.

More minor invertebrates – including stenohaline (strictly marine) as well as euryhaline (salt-tolerant) taxa - from the Sundays River Formation are solitary and branching colonial corals, tube-dwelling serpulid polychaetes, bryozoans, echinoderms (usually fragmentary crinoids or sea lilies, ophiuroids or brittle stars, sea cucumbers, regular echinoids) and shrimp-like crustaceans. However, more intensive collecting from these beds is likely to reveal further invertebrate taxa. This is suggested by the recent discovery of two new crustaceans (including several specimens of strongly tuberculate crabs) within Sundays River concretions (Dr Billy de Klerk, pers. comm., 2010), the scaphopods or tusk shells mentioned earlier, and recent new records of beetle remains south of Addo (Mostovski & Muller 2010). Sundays River trace fossils are poorly studied, but are locally abundant. They range from dense banks of cylindrical intrasediment burrows to a range of borings into wood, shells and hardgrounds ( ie cemented substrata on the sea floor including, for example, exhumed early diagenetic concretions). A spectrum of microfossils from this stratigraphic unit include foraminiferans, ostracods, dinoflagellates and land-derived pollens and spores (Dingle et al ., 1983, McMillan 2003). Among the rarer microfossil groups recorded are radiolarians, shrimps, and fragments of echinoderms (ossicles of crinoids, ophiuroids, holothurians and echinoids).

The Sundays River beds contain sparse, often unidentifiable plant fossils such as fragments of driftwood (sometimes insect- or perhaps mollusk-bored), leaf and twig debris, amber (fossil resin), lignite, charcoal and the reproductive structures of charophyte algae (stoneworts). Fossil vertebrates from the Sundays River Formation are very rare indeed. The best-known example is the partial skeleton of a 3m-long plesiosaur (an extinct group of large marine reptiles), Leptocleidus capensis (Figs. 10, 11). This comes from the famous, but poorly-localized, site of Picnic Bush on the Swartkops River near Port Elizabeth (Andrews 1910; see MacRae 1999 for good illustrations). Isolated dinosaur bones and teeth have also been mentioned, though several earlier records probably stem from the older Kirkwood Formation.

John E. Almond (2010) 11 Natura Viva cc

Fig. 10. Skull and flipper of Leptocleidus capensis , a 3m-long plesiosaur (marine reptile) from the Sundays River Formation at Picnic Bush on the Swartkops River near Port Elizabeth (From MacRae 1999).

Fig. 11. Artist’s reconstruction of a Cretaceous plesiosaur hunting ammonites.

John E. Almond (2010) 12 Natura Viva cc Despite the long history of palaeontological work on Sundays River fossils, there has been little systematic collection of fossils – especially macrofossils - from these beds in recent decades and most taxa remain poorly studied ( e.g. most invertebrate groups, apart from the ammonites, trigoniid bivalves and foraminiferans). The Swartkops River / Amsterdamhoek area to the south of the proposed housing development has been sampled extensively by palaeontological groups over the years for micro- and macrofossil remains. Invertebrate fossil groups recorded in the study area by McLachlan and McMillan (1976; Fig. 12 herein) and Cooper (1981, his fig. 1, loc.8) include ammonites, bivalves, gastropods, serpulids and corals. The much rarer vertebrate remains comprise rare lacertilian (lizard) bones, a dinosaur tooth and, most notably, the plesiosaur Leptocleidus from the nearby Picnic Bush site on the Swartkops River (Fig. 10) (Tate 1867, Andrews 1910, Engelbrecht et al ., 1962, McLachlan & McMillan 1976). Much further research remains to be done here, however, and a lot of palaeontologically valuable material is undoubtedly being destroyed in the currently active brick pits in the region.

Fig. 12. Extract from McLachlan & McMillan (1976, their Fig. 6) showing early fossil finds from the Sundays River Formation on the coastal plateau north of the Swartkops River (red circle).

John E. Almond (2010) 13 Natura Viva cc 4.2. Palaeontological record of the Alexandria Formation

The Alexandria Formation limestones as a whole are highly fossiliferous. However, good exposures in the interior are usually limited by cover of younger sediments of the Algoa Group ( eg Nanaga Formation aeolianites), weathered surface material of the “Bluewater Bay” facies, extensive development of surface calcretes and thicket vegetation. A wide range of shelly marine fossils are recorded from the Alexandria Formation (Newton 1913, Du Toit 1954, Barnard 1962, Engelbrecht et al . 1962, King 1973, Dingle et al ., 1983, Le Roux 1987a, 1987b, 1990b, 1993, McMillan 1990). These are mainly molluscs (bivalves, gastropods, scaphopods), but also include serpulid worm tubes, sea urchins (the “sea pansy” Echinodiscus ), solitary and colonial corals, bryozoans, brachiopods, barnacles and crab claws and benthic foraminifera ( e.g. Fig. 13). Sharks’ teeth and rare fish vertebrae are also known. Robert Gess (undated heritage report for Coega development) mentions mammal bones found in this unit but this may be a reference to the later, Pleistocene fauna briefly described by W. H. Gess (1951/1952) from Aloes. Diverse trace fossil assemblages ( eg pellet-walled burrows of Ophiomorpha , bivalve borings Gastrochaeonolites , and a wide range of shell borings) occur in the Alexandria sediments but have not yet been described in detail in the palaeontological literature.

4.3. Palaeontological record of the “Blue Water Bay Formation”

The “Bluewater Bay” residual soils are largely unfossiliferous, although they may be expected to contain occasional robust marine shells weathered-out from the underlying Alexandria Formation bedrock with an admixture of terrestrial snail shells. Le Roux (1989) records sparse freshwater mussels as well as land snails from these sediments. Doline infill sediments might likewise contain the bones and teeth of mammals and other animals attracted to intermittently wet, grassy microhabitats, but this has not been observed.

John E. Almond (2010) 14 Natura Viva cc Fig. 13 (following page). Selected fossils from the Miocene / Pliocene Alexandria Formation (Collections of the Albany Museum, Grahamstown). A – an irregular echinoid Echinodiscus , the “sea pansy” (7cm wide) B - Pirenella , a gastropod (5.5cm tall) C – Cymatium , a gastropod (10cm tall) D – Glycimeris , a bivalve (10cm wide) E – Balanophyllia , solitary corals (2.5cm tall) F – fish vertebra (2.25cm across). NB These images are not at the same magnification. A

A B

C D

F

E

John E. Almond (2010) 15 Natura Viva cc 5. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

A brief summary of the palaeontological heritage and sensitivity of the three geological units represented in the Motherwell study area is presented below in Table 1 (based largely on Almond et al ., 2008, Almond 2010).

The palaeontological sensitivity of the clays and thin sandstones of the Sundays River formation in the western part of the development area is ranked as high to very high. There is a rich record of invertebrate as well as rare vertebrate ( e.g. plesiosaur) fossil finds from this unit in the study region. Undoubtedly a considerable amount of fossil material is being destroyed by mining and other development activities while little formal scientific work is being conducted here by professional palaeontologists. Apparently amateur fossil collectors in the Port Elizabeth area have been illegally acquiring fossils such as ammonites from local brick pits (Dr W.J. de Klerk, Albany Museum, Grahamstown).

TABLE 1: SENSITIVITY OF FOSSIL HERITAGE OF SEDIMENTARY FORMATIONS OCCURRING WITHIN THE MOTHERWELL STUDY AREA (For use with 1: 50 000 scale geological maps) FORMATION & FOSSIL PALAEONTOLOGICA RECOMMENDED AGE HERITAGE L SENSITIVITY MITIGATION FOR NEW DEVELOPMENTS “BLUEWATER rare fossil shells LOW mitigation not BAY weathered out required - FORMATION” from underlying unless rich fossil post-Pliocene limestones plus accumulations weathering land snails, exposed during product of freshwater excavation Alexandria Fm mussels ALEXANDRIA very rich shelly LOW TO HIGH mitigation FORMATION invertebrate recommended (Ta) faunas, rich shelly faunas only if rich fossil Miocene – especially found at some localities accumulations are Pliocene molluscs but fossil shells often exposed during shallow marine also several destroyed by deep excavation to estuarine other groups, weathering & calcrete sediments sharks teeth, formation, especially in possible rare near-surface sections vertebrate bones SUNDAYS RIVER rich variety of MODERATE TO HIGH substantial (high FORMATION marine molluscs volume) excavations (Ks) (bivalves, most shelly fossils are to be examined and Early Cretaceous ammonites etc ) associated with thin sampled by marine to and other sandstones rather than the professional estuarine / invertebrates mudrocks palaeontologist intertidal v. rare marine while fresh bedrock mudrocks and reptiles is still exposed sandstones (plesiosaurs)

John E. Almond (2010) 16 Natura Viva cc The Alexandria Formation is also known to be richly fossiliferous, and a substantial number of the key fossil localities within this unit are situated in the Algoa Bay region. However, field evidence suggests that much of this lime-rich succession here has been diagenetically altered ( e.g . by post-depositional leaching and calcretization) so that most new excavations expose few or no fossils of value. The palaeontological sensitivity of the “Blue Water Bay Formation” residual deposits is generally very low.

Excavations made during the course of building the proposed Motherwell NU 31 housing development will expose potentially fossiliferous sediments that are currently buried beneath the land surface or mantled by dense vegetation. Study and sampling of these sediments and their enclosed fossils by a qualified palaeontologist while they are still exposed is necessary, before they are permanently sealed in by further development and thereby lost to science. If appropriate mitigation is carried out, as outlined below, this will usefully contribute to our understanding of the rich palaeontological heritage of the Algoa Basin.

Given the considerable potential for important new fossil finds within the study area, from the Sundays River Formation in particular, it is recommended that:

• the ECO for the housing development is alerted ( e.g. through this report and the references therein) to the types of fossils that may occur here, their vulnerability to damage and the necessity of sampling and conserving as much fossil material as possible for scientific research • where feasible, fossils exposed by development ( e.g. excavations) be set aside for examination by a professional palaeontologist • the ECO contact a professional palaeontologist immediately should any obviously important fossil finds be made ( e.g. vertebrate remains, concentrations of fossil shells) • a monthly site visit by a professional palaeontologist be commissioned so that new rock exposures may be sampled, accumulated fossils examined, and the ECO advised on any further mitigation necessary

It is important that the opportunity to mitigate is given while the bedrock excavations are fresh and before they are infilled, covered over or degraded by weathering and plant growth. Before development starts a realistic programme of mitigation should therefore be negotiated between the developer and the palaeontologist contracted for the project to maximize the scientific and conservation benefits of the work while minimizing disruption of the construction programme. Mitigation by a qualified palaeontologist should entail:

• the field examination of new bedrock excavations, • the recording of sedimentological and palaeontological data, • the judicious sampling of fossil material • recommendations for any further action required to safeguard fossil heritage.

The palaeontologist involved will need to obtain a fossil collection permit from SAHRA and make arrangements with an approved repository ( e.g. museum, university) to store and curate any fossil material collected.

John E. Almond (2010) 17 Natura Viva cc 6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Mnr Mathys Vosloo of Arcus Gibb Engineering and Science, Port Elizabeth is thanked for commissioning this study and for kindly providing the necessary background information.

7. REFERENCES

ALMOND, J.E. 2010. Palaeontological heritage assessment of the Coega IDZ, Eastern Cape Province, 112 pp. plus appendix. Natura Viva cc, Cape Town.

ALMOND, J.E., DE KLERK, W.J. & GESS, R. 2008. Palaeontological heritage of the Eastern Cape. Interim technical report for SAHRA, 25 pp.

ANDERSON, J.M. & ANDERSON, H.M. 1985. Palaeoflora of southern Africa. Prodromus of South African megafloras, Devonian to Lower Cretaceous, 423 pp, 226 pls. Botanical Research Institute, Pretoria & Balkema, Rotterdam.

ANDREWS, C.W. 1910. Description of a new plesiosaur ( Plesiosaurus capensis sp. nov.) from the Uitenhage beds of Cape Colony. Annals of the South African Museum 7, 309- 323, pl. 18, 4 textfigs.

ATHERSTONE, W.G. 1857. Geology of Uitenhage. The Eastern Province Monthly Magazine 1, 518-532 and 580 -595.

BAMFORD, M.K. 1986. Aspects of the palaeoflora of the Kirkwood and Sundays River Formations, Algoa Basin, South Africa. Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis, Univ. Witwatersrand, 160pp.

BARNARD, K.H. 1962. Revised list of South African Late Tertiary and Pleistocene marine molluscs. Transactions of the Royal Society of South Africa 36, 179-196.

BROOM, R. 1904. On the occurrence of an opisthocoelian dinosaur ( Algoasaurus bauri ) in the Cretaceous beds of South Africa. Geological Magazine 5:445-447.

BROWN, J.T. 1977a. The morphology and taxonomy of Cycadolepis jenkinsiana and Zamites recta from the Lower Cretaceous of South Africa. Palaeontologia africana 20, 43- 46.

BROWN, J.T. 1977b. On Araucarites rogersii Seward from the Lower Cretaceous Kirkwood Formation of the Algoa Basin, Cape Province, South Africa. Palaeontologia africana 20, 47-51.

COOPER, M.R. 1979. A new species of Myophorella (Bivalvia, Trigoniidae) from the Sunday’s River Formation, South Africa. Annals of the South African Museum 78 (3), 21- 27.

COOPER, M.R. 1981. Revision of the Late Valanginian Cephalopoda from the Sundays River Formation of South Africa, with special reference to the Genus Olcostephanus . Annals of the South African Museum 83: 147-366, 206 figs.

John E. Almond (2010) 18 Natura Viva cc COOPER, M.R. 1983. The ammonite genus Umgazaniceras in the Sundays River Formation. Transactions of the Geological Society of South Africa 86(1):63-64.

COOPER, M.R. 1991. Lower Cretaceous Trigonioida (Mollusca, Bivalvia) from the Algoa Basin, with a revised classification of the order. Annals of the South African Museum 100:1-52.

DINGLE, R.V., SIESSER, W.G. & NEWTON, A.R. 1983. Mesozoic and Tertiary geology of southern Africa. viii + 375 pp. Balkema, Rotterdam.

DU TOIT, A.L. 1954. The geology of South Africa (3 rd edition). 611 pp, 41 pls, geological map insert.

ENGELBRECHT, L.N.J., COERTZE, F.J. & SNYMAN, A.A. 1962. Die geologie van die gebied tussen Port Elizabeth en Alexandria, Kaapprovinsie. Explanation to geology sheet 3325 D Port Elizabeth, 3326 C Alexandria and 3425 B, 54pp., 8 pls. Geological Survey of South Africa / Council for Geosciences, Pretoria.

GESS, R. W. (undated). Palaeontological heritage report for proposed Chlor-Alkali and Salt Plant at Coega, 4 pp.

GESS, W.H.R. 1951/1952. Excavation of a Pleistocene bone deposit at Aloes near Port Elizabeth. South African Archaeological Bulletin 24, 31-32.

GOEDHART, M.L. & HATTINGH, J. 1997. The geology of the Coega river mouth and proposed adjacent industrial development zone, Eastern Cape. Report No. 1997-0008, 1- 6 pp including appendices, maps. Council for Geoscience, Pretoria.

HATTINGH, J. & GOEDHART, M.L. 1997. Neotectonic control on drainage evolution in the Algoa Basin, Eastern Cape. South African Journal of Geology 100, 43-52.

HAUGHTON, S.H. 1928. The geology of the country between Grahamstown and Port Elizabeth. An explanation of Cape Sheet No. 9 (Port Elizabeth), 45 pp. Geological Survey / Council for Geoscience, Pretoria.

HAUGHTON, S.H. 1935. The geology of portion of the country east of Steytlerville, Cape Province. An explanation of Sheet No. 150 (Sundays River), 35 pp. Geological Survey / Council for Geoscience, Pretoria.

HAUGHTON, S.H. 1969. Geological history of southern Africa, 535 pp. Geological Society of South Africa, Johannesburg.

KING, L.C. 1973. Pliocene marine fossils from the Alexandria Formation in the Paterson District, Eastern Cape Province, and their geomorphic significance. Transactions of the Geological Society of South Africa 75: 159-160.

KITCHIN, F.L. 1908. The invertebrate fauna and palaeontological relationships of the Uitenhage Series. Annals of the South African Museum 7(2):21-250, pls. 2-11.

KLINGER, H.C. & KENNEDY, W.J. 1979. Cretaceous faunas from southern Africa: Lower Cretaceous ammonites, including a new bochianitid genus from Umgazana, Transkei. Annals of the South African Museum 78: 11-19.

John E. Almond (2010) 19 Natura Viva cc

LAZO, D.G. 2007. Early Cretaceous bivalves of the Neuquén Basin, west-central Argentinia: notes on taxonomy, palaeobiogeography and palaeoecology. Geological Journal 42, 127-142.

LE ROUX, F.G. 1987a. Tertiary macrofossils of the Alexandria Formation - a supplementary list. Annals of the Geological Survey of South Africa 21: 65-74.

LE ROUX, F.G. 1987b. Lithostratigraphy of the Alexandria Formation. Lithostratigraphic Series, South African Committee for Stratigraphy, 1, 18 pp. Council for Geoscience, Pretoria.

LE ROUX, F.G. 1987c. Note on fluvial deposits overlying the Tertiary Alexandria Formation in the Algoa Basin. Annals of the Geological Survey of South Africa 21, 77-81.

LE ROUX, F.G. 1989a. Lithostratigraphy of the Bluewater Bay Formation. Lithostratigraphic Series, South African Committee for Stratigraphy, 10, 9 pp. Council for Geoscience, Pretoria.

LE ROUX, F.G. 1990a. Algoa Group. In: Johnson, M.R. (Ed.) Catalogue of South African Lithostratigraphic Units, 2, 1-2. South African Committee for Stratigraphy. Council for Geoscience, Pretoria.

LE ROUX, F.G. 1990b. Palaeontological correlation of Cenozoic marine deposits of the southeastern, southern and western coasts, Cape Province. South African Journal of Geology 93: 514-518.

LE ROUX, F.G. 1993. Updated macrofossil checklists for Cenozoic marine deposits along the south-eastern and southern Cape coasts, South Africa. South African Journal of Science 89: 375 – 386.

LE ROUX, F.G. 2000. The geology of the Port Elizabeth – Uitenhage area. Explanation of 1: 50 000 geology Sheets 3325 DC and DD, 3425 BA Port Elizabeth, 3325 CD and 3425 AB Uitenhage, 3325 CB Uitenhage Noord and 3325 DA Addo, 55pp. Council for Geoscience, Pretoria.

MACRAE, C. 1999. Life etched in stone. Fossils of South Africa. 305pp. The Geological Society of South Africa, Johannesburg.

MAUD, R.R. & BOTHA, G.A. 2000. Deposits of the South Eastern and Southern Coasts. Pp. 19-32 in Partridge, T.C. & Maud, R.R. (Eds.) The Cenozoic of Southern Africa. Oxford Monographs on Geology and Geophysics No 40. Oxford University Press. Oxford, New York.

McLACHLAN, I.R. & McMILLAN, I.K. 1976. Review and stratigraphic significance of southern Cape Mesozoic palaeontology. Transactions of the Geological Society of South Africa. 79: 197-212.

McLACHLAN, I.R. & McMILLAN, I.K. 1979. Microfaunal biostratigraphy, chronostratigraphy and history of Mesozoic and Cenozoic deposits on the coastal margin of South Africa. In: Anderson, A.M. & Van Biljon, W.J. (Eds.) Some sedimentary basins

John E. Almond (2010) 20 Natura Viva cc and associated ore deposits of South Africa. Special Publication of the Geological Society of South Africa 6, 161-181.

McMILLAN, I.K. 1990. A foraminiferal biostratigraphy and chronostratigraphy for the Pliocene to Pleistocene upper Algoa Group, Eastern Cape, South Africa. South African Journal of Geology 93: 622-644.

McMILLAN, I. K., 2003. The Foraminifera of the Late Valanginian to Hauterivian (Early Cretaceous) Sundays River Formation of the Algoa Basin, Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. Annals of the South Africa Museum 106:1-274, 84 figs, 4 tables.

MOSTOVSKI, M. & MULLER, B. 2010. [Untitled article on fossil insects from the Sundays River and Kirkwood Formations]. PalNews 17 (3), 9-10.

NEWTON, R.B. 1913. On some Cainozoic shells from South Africa. Records of the Albany Museum 2: 315-352.

RAATH, M., HILLER, N. & BAMFORD, M. 1998. Palaeontology, pp. 27-40 in Lubke, R. & De Moor, I. Field guide to the eastern and southern Cape coast. University of Cape Town Press, Cape Town, xxx + 561 pp, 49 pls.

RIGASSI, D.A. & DIXON, G.E. 1972. Cretaceous of the Cape Province, Republic of South Africa. Proceedings, Conference on African geology, Ibadan Dec. 1970, pp. 513- 527.

ROBERTS, D.L., BOTHA, G.A., MAUD, R.R. & PETHER, J. 2006. Coastal Cenozoic deposits. Pp. 605 – 628 in Johnson, M.R., Anhaeusser, C.R. & Thomas, R.J. (Eds.) The geology of South Africa. Geological Society of South Africa, Johannesburg & Council for Geoscience, Pretoria.

RUDDOCK, A. 1968. Cainozoic sea-levels and diastrophism in a region bordering Algoa Bay. Transactions of the Geological Society of South Africa 71, 209-233.

SEWARD, A.C. 1903. Fossil floras of Cape Colony. Annals of the South African Museum 4, 1-122. CHECK PLS

SHARPE, D. 1856. Description of fossils from the secondary rocks of Sundays River and Zwartkops River, South Africa, collected by Dr. Atherstone and A. G. Bain, Esq. Transactions of the Geological Society, London (2nd Series) 7(4):193-203.

SHONE, R.W. 1976. The sedimentology of the Mesozoic Algoa Basin. Unpublished MSc thesis, University of Port Elizabeth, 48 pp.

SHONE, R.W. 1986. A new ophiuroid from the Sundays River Formation (Lower Cretaceous), South Africa. Journal of Paleontology 60, 904-910.

SHONE, R.W. 2006. Onshore post-Karoo Mesozoic deposits. In: Johnson, M.R., Anhaeusser, C.R. & Thomas, R.J. (Eds.) The geology of South Africa, pp. 541-552. Geological Society of South Africa, Marshalltown.

SPATH, L. F. 1930. On the Cephalopoda of the Uitenhage beds. Annals of the South African Museum 28(2):131-157, pls. 13-15, 1 text fig.

John E. Almond (2010) 21 Natura Viva cc

TANKARD, A.J., JACKSON, M.P.A., ERIKSSON, K.A., HOBDAY, D.K., HUNTER, D.R. & MINTER, W.E.L. 1982. Crustal evolution of southern Africa – 3.8 billion years of Earth history, xv + 523 pp., pls. Springer Verlag, New York.

TATE, R. 1867. On some secondary fossils from South Africa. Proceedings of the Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London 23, 139-175. TOERIEN, D.K. & HILL, R.S. 1989. The geology of the Port Elizabeth area. Explanation to 1: 250 000 geology Sheet 3324 Port Elizabeth, 35 pp. Council for Geoscience. Pretoria.

WINTER, H. DE LA R. 1973. Geology of the Algoa Basin, South Africa. In: Blant, G. (Ed.) Sedimentary basins of the African coast. Part, 2 South and East Coast, pp. 17-48. Association of African Geological Surveys, Paris.

QUALIFICATIONS & EXPERIENCE OF THE AUTHOR

Dr John Almond has an Honours Degree in Natural Sciences (Zoology) as well as a PhD in Palaeontology from the University of Cambridge, UK. He has been awarded post- doctoral research fellowships at Cambridge University and in Germany, and has carried out palaeontological research in Europe, North America, the Middle East as well as North and South Africa. For eight years he was a scientific officer (palaeontologist) for the Geological Survey / Council for Geoscience in the RSA. His current palaeontological research focuses on fossil record of the Precambrian - Cambrian boundary and the Cape Supergroup of South Africa. He has recently written palaeontological reviews for several 1: 250 000 geological maps published by the Council for Geoscience and has contributed educational material on fossils and evolution for new school textbooks in the RSA.

Since 2002 Dr Almond has also carried out independent palaeontological impact assessments for developments and conservation areas in the Western, Eastern and Northern Cape under the aegis of his Cape Town-based company Natura Viva cc. He is a long-standing member of the Archaeology, Palaeontology and Meteorites Committee for Heritage Western Cape (HWC) and an advisor on palaeontological conservation and management issues for the Palaeontological Society of South Africa (PSSA), HWC and SAHRA. He is currently compiling technical reports on the provincial palaeontological heritage of Western, Northern and Eastern Cape for SAHRA and HWC. Dr Almond is an accredited member of PSSA and APHAP (Association of Professional Heritage Assessment Practitioners – Western Cape).

John E. Almond (2010) 22 Natura Viva cc

Proposed Mixed-Use Housing Development in Motherwell NU31 - Socio-Economic Assessment of the Position of Live Stock Keepers Currently Using the Site

June 2011

1

Proposed Mixed-Use Housing Development in Motherwell NU31 (Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality, Eastern Cape Province) Socio-Economic Assessment of The Position Of Live Stock Keepers Currently Using The Site

Prepared by Dr Deon Pretorius Development Partners

June 2011

2

Declaration of Independence

I, Deon Pretorius, declare that:

1. I act as independent Environmental Impact Assessment Practitioner for this project. 2. I do not have any personal or financial interest in the project except for financial compensation for work completed in a professional capacity as specified by the Environmental Impact Assess- ment Regulations, 2010. 3. I will not be affected by the outcome of the environmental process, of which this report forms part of. 4. I do not have any influence over the decisions made by the governing authorities. 5. I do not object to or endorse the proposed development, but aim to present facts and my best scientific and professional opinion with regard to the impacts of the development. 6. I undertake to disclose to the relevant authorities any information that has or may have the po- tential to influence its decision or the objectivity of any report, plan, or document required in terms of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2010. 7. Should I consider myself to be in conflict with any of the above declarations, I shall formally sub- mit a Notice of Withdrawal to all relevant parties and formally register as an Interested and Af- fected Party.

Signed at Port Elizabeth, on the day of June 2011.

______Signature

______Print name

3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality (NMBM) has appointed GOBA Consulting Engineers & Project Managers (GOBA (Pty) Ltd) to act as project managers for a housing development in Neighbourhood Unit 31 (NU31) of Motherwell.

In accordance with the National Environmental Management Act of 1998 and the stipulations of the new EIA regulations of 2006, the Motherwell NU 31 housing development requires an Environmental Impact Assessment. Arcus Gibb was appointed to conduct the EIA.

The relevant decision-making authority may also request a Social Impact Assessment (SIA) to be conducted as part of the EIA. Since the site inspection and Public Participation Process highlighted the existence of a group of urban stock farmers occupying the land it was deemed appropriate to conduct a Socio-Economic Study.

Development Partners (Pty) Ltd has been approached by Arcus GIBB (Pty) Ltd. to conduct a Socio-Economic Study with the specific focus and aim to find an approach to accommodate a group of “subsistence farmers” currently using the land earmarked for the Motherwell NU31 housing development.

Social and Socio-Economic Impact of the Motherwell NU 31 Mixed Use Housing Development

1. The general impact of the development

1.1. Alleviating housing shortage: The proposed development will make a positive contribution to alleviate the subsidized housing shortage in the NMBM in general and in Motherwell in particular.

1.2. Improved quality of life: Beneficiaries will most likely for the first time be housed in appropriate and decent dwellings and will have access to the infrastructure and social amenities that are associated with the proposed development.

1.3. Employment: Considering the size of the proposed development, a considerable number of employment opportunities will be created during the construction phase.

1.4. Skills Development and Skills Transfer: The planned development will result in skills development and skills transfer in the construction phase for particularly people residing in the Motherwell.

1.5. The No-Go option would mean that the development will not contribute to alleviating the subsidised housing shortage in the NMBM and will not have positive impacts on the quality of life of potential beneficiaries and those who benefit from the employment, skills development and skills transfer of the construction phase of the development.

1.6. Competition for employment: The planned development is almost certain to attract unemployed employment seekers, not only from Motherwell, but also from elsewhere in the NMBM and possibly beyond. It has the potential of creating insider / outsider dynamics - If unemployed individuals with equally high expectations from elsewhere are introduced to the situation, there is the potential for tension and conflict between such so-called ‘outsiders’ and the local unemployed or ‘insiders’ due to competition for scarce employment opportunities.

Recommended Mitigation and Management:

o Recruit local: Negative impacts can be mitigated and managed by recruiting labour as far as possible from people residing in the Motherwell area.

4 o Communication: The key to the mitigation of potential conflict in this case is communication.

o Potentially unrealistic community expectations should be managed by a community liaison office close to the site of the proposed development, through which the extent and nature of the required labour force is communicated to employment seekers.

o Formalized recruitment: Local recruitment should take place through the community liaison office and ad hoc recruitment, for instance, at the gates of the site of the proposed development is not desirable.

1.7. Amenities for a Sustainable Community: The proposed development is informed by the NMB Munici- pality’s Sustainable Community Planning principles and guidelines, which defines the need for particular social amenities and its placement (NMB Municipality, 2007). If the above-stated features materialize there is at least a good theoretical possibility that the new residents will benefit from the particularly lay- out of the development in terms of their quality of life.

1.8. Proximity to places of employment While Motherwell NU 31 is located at the edge of the Metro in relation to the Urban Center it is well-located in relation to major nodes of industrial and economic activity: the Coega IDZ and the Uitenhage / Despatch area which are both key places of potential employment (largely in the manufacturing sector) as far as the residents of Motherwell NU 31 are concerned. Alternative major places of potential employment occur further afield, within and including industrial areas such as Korsten, Struandale, Markman Township and Perseverance (Port Elizabeth).

2. The specific impact of the development on the ‘subsistence farmers’

2.1. The proposed development and the current urban agricultural activity are incompatible

 The construction of the proposed development will inevitably have a limiting impact on urban live stock keeping and urban agricultural activities currently practiced on the site for the planned de- velopment, and force the affected parties to source land elsewhere.

 The current use of the site for the purpose of informal livestock (subsistence) farming and the na- ture of the development proposed for this site are clearly incompatible.

 Remaining on the site is not an option.

 If an alternative arrangement is not found the new development will impact on the farmers’ oppor- tunity to make a living or to add to their income.

 If alternative land for their activities cannot be found there is the potential for tension between this group and the NMB Municipality. The risk however is estimated to be low since the affected parties are aware that the land in question belongs to the NMB Municipality and the Municipality is aware that a solution must be found. However, there is a perceived history of inadequate communication between the farmers and the Municipality that could contribute to tension. The farmers explained that they needed more support from the Municipality.

Recommended Mitigation and Management:

o In the long-term the Metro will require an Urban Agriculture Policy with specific reference to Urban Live Stock Keeping to determine the future of urban live stock keeping in the Metro.

o In the absence of a long-term solution a short-term form of mitigation should be the identifica- tion of alternative land. Identifying substantial pieces of Municipality land on the urban peri- phery where controlled live stock keeping can occur would be preferable. 5

o The farmers have identified a piece of land further along the Uitenhage Road (MR460 road connecting Uitenhage and Addo) which meets their requirements in terms of proximity and as- sumed availability of water.

o The land was visited and it was subsequently confirmed that the land is privately owned. This means that the land could be bought or hired. The possibility that the Municipality can buy the land is remote in view of current financial pressure on the NMBM.

o The alternative is to approach the Department of Agriculture (for assistance in the area of agri- cultural development support) or the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform (for assistance as in the area of land restitution / acquisition for emergent farmers).

o The other option is that the land be hired.

o Effective communication between the Farmers and the NMB Municipality is a vital form of mi- tigation.

2.2. The impacts of relocating  The farmers are in favour of the proposed development however they will have to be relocated to an alternative site where there will be enough space for them to keep at least 400 livestock and if the problems currently encountered with fencing, water and electricity can be solved in the process.  They indicated that they have identified a piece of land that is approximately 3 km away form the current site.  One would assume that the distance from the community will complicate transport to and from the alternative site and result in more being spent on transport by the farmers.  An alternative site could perpetuate a negative / problematic situation if it is lacking in terms of the necessary enabling conditions to make farming possible. This would refer to fencing, water, electricity and technical urban agricultural support. Recommended Mitigation and Management:

o A specific site has been identified and it is up to the Municipality to determine if this land is available and appropriate.

o Indications are that with the appropriate policy, planning and strategic mechanisms in place and with the appropriate support and enabling conditions it is possible to optimize this relocation scenario and similar urban agriculture situations in the long term future. And with the supportive action form significant other agencies (like Departments of Agriculture and Land and Rural Development) it may even be possible to enhance agricultural activity to a level of productive economic activity that could contribute to the positive economic development of the Metro.

3. Strategic Issues Arising from the Study

This study and project have raised a number of issues: 3.1. Livestock keeping is motivated by a number of factors, including socio-cultural traditions which should be taken into consideration for planning and policy purposes

6 3.2. Urban agriculture and urban livestock keeping should be considered as one of the solutions to poverty alleviation and if scaled up appropriately could be a viable sector for economic development. 3.3. Livestock keeping requires specific attention because there are specific negatives and positives associated with it. Most of the negatives seem to be manageable. Appropriate policies, strategies and municipal capacity and resource allocation are, however, required to make it work. 3.4. The challenge is for future neighbourhood design to make more provision for urban agriculture. Current approaches to neighbourhood design do not necessarily translate into sustainable human settlements. We have to ask critical questions about the relationship between housing, neighbourhood design, local community economy development and specifically how meeting unmet basic and social needs can be used as a basis for local community economic development.

7

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 LIST OF FIGURES / TABLES 8 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 9 1. INTRODUCTION – BACKGROUND, SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF THE STUDY 10 2. DESCRIPTION OF AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 11 3. DESCRIPTION OF THE PLANNED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT 12 4. METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH ADOPTED 12 5. ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS AND ISSUES 15 5.1. GENERAL SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 16 5.1.1. Empowerment impacts for the beneficiaries of housing 16 5.1.2. Social impacts of the No-Go option 16 5.1.3. Socio-economic impact due to employment creation during the construction 17 phase of the proposed development 5.1.4. Impacts due to competition for employment 17 5.1.5. Social amenity implications 18 5.1.6. Proximity to places of employment 19 5.2. THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT ON THE ACTIVITIES OF 19 ‘SUBSISTENCE FARMERS’ 5.2.1. Background 19 5.2.2 Impact assessment of the proposed development on current urban agricultural 21 activity 5.2.3. Impact assessment of potential confrontation between informal grazers and the 22 NMB Municipality 5.2.4. Socio-economic impacts of relocating 23 5.3. GENERAL / STRATEGIC ISSUES 24 5.3.1. Cultural significance of live-stock keeping 24 5.3.2. Urban agriculture and live-stock keeping as means to alleviate poverty and 24 promote economic development 5.3.3 Rethinking urban live-stock keeping 25 5.3.4. Problems and perceived problems with live-stock keeping 25 5.3.5. New housing developments, urban agriculture and the idea of sustainable 25 human settlements REFERENCES

LIST OF TABLES / FIGURES Table 1 Impact of the empowerment of beneficiaries of subsidised housing and gap 16 housing Table 2 Impact of the No-Go option 16

8 Table 3 Impact of the creation of employment opportunities during the construction 17 phase Table 4 Impact of expectations of employment created by the proposed development 18 Table 5 Impact of the limitation of informal urban agriculture 22 Table 6 Impact of incompatible land-use: the proposed development and informal 22 urban agriculture - relations with NMBM Table 7 Impact of incompatible land-use: the proposed development and informal 24 urban agriculture - lack of enabling condition

ABBREVIATIONS NMBM Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality EIA Environmental Impact Assessment SIA Social Impact Assessment MURP Motherwell Urban Renewal Programme EDTA Directorate: Economic Development Tourism & Agriculture of the Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality IDP Integrated Development Plan RDP Reconstruction Development Plan

9 PROPOSED MIXED-USE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IN MOTHERWELL NU31 (NELSON MANDELA BAY METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY, EASTERN CAPE PROVINCE) WITH EMPHASIS ON THE SOCIO- ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT OF THE POSITION OF LIVE STOCK KEEPERS CURRENTLY USING THE SITE

1. INTRODUCTION – BACKGROUND, SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

 The Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality (NMBM) has appointed GOBA Consulting Engineers & Project Managers (GOBA (Pty) Ltd) to act as project managers for a mixed-use housing development in Neighbourhood Unit 31 (NU31) of Motherwell.

 In accordance with the National Environmental Management Act of 1998 and the stipulations of the new EIA regulations of 2006, the Motherwell NU 31 housing development requires an Environmental Impact Assessment. Arcus Gibb was appointed to conduct the EIA

 The relevant decision-making authority may also request a Social Impact Assessment (SIA) to be conducted as part of the EIA if they deem it necessary. In this instance, it was decided that a Socio- Economic Assessment was required.

 The site inspection and Public Participation Process highlighted the existence of a group of urban stock farmers occupying the land immediately south of the Motherwell reservoir.

 Information gathered during Scoping Study found that the presence of the farmers on site is in- compatible with the proposed Motherwell NU 31 housing development.

 At the same time, the land used by them sustains or compliments their livelihoods – and their own sense of self and worth. In a sea of poverty, they stand out as people wanting to help themselves.

 The farmers have indicated that they are prepared to relocate, but that they are not willing to give up their farming practices. In discussions with the farmers they indicated that they have identified suitable alternative land.

 To inform the EIA, and the choices that have to be made and the actions that will have to be taken, a report from an independent social and housing specialist was required.

 Development Partners (Pty) Ltd has been approached by Arcus GIBB (Pty) Ltd. to conduct a Socio- Economic Impact Assessment as a part of a an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for a pro- posed housing development known as Motherwell NU 31.

 The specific focus and aim of the Socio-Economic Assessment is to find an approach to accommodate a group of “subsistence farmers” currently using the land earmarked for the Motherwell NU31 housing development.

 Following discussions with Schalk Potgieter of the NMBM, Mathys Vosloo of Arcus Gibb (Pty) Ltd and Geoff Mendelowitz of GOBA (Pty) Ltd. it was agreed that the approach would be to distinguish between the specifics of this particular situation, and the more wide-ranging issues around urban development that have been raised by the presence of the farmers.

 This report, therefore, will contain

o A general overview of the impact of the development.

o A more in-depth assessment of the specifics of the particular - history, proposed develop- ment, current actors, expectations and perspectives – in order to arrive at recommenda-

10 tions that would enable the Municipality and developers to make good and informed deci- sions regarding how to resolve the evident incompatibility between the development and livestock keeping / agricultural activity on the site.

o Brief reflection on a number of strategic issues that arise out of this study.

2. DESCRIPTION OF AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

 The planned Motherwell NU31 housing development is situated entirely within the boundaries of portion 2 of farm 316, Uitenhage (SG no: C07600000000031600002), in Motherwell.

Location of site in Greater Nelson Mandela Bay Metro

 It is located approximately 4.5 km north of the lower Swartkops Estuary.

 It is bordered in the north by the MR460 road connecting Uitenhage and Addo.

 The new developments of NU29 and NU 30 are situated along the eastern border of NU 31.

 The developable area available for the NU 31 development equates to approximately 148 ha and represents approximately 33% of the total area within portion 2 of farm 316.

11 3. DESCRIPTION OF THE PLANNED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT

 A total of 5 200 erven is expected to be subdivided and rezoned during the implementation of the proposed development. The great majority of these rezoned and subdivided erven will accommodate residential living units.

 Several large and smaller community sites are provided throughout the proposed development area.

 Some residential erven have been consolidated to create a large site for the multi-purpose centre next to the Motherwell reservoir, which it is envisaged would include a resource centre/community hall, sports fields, clinic, administrative offices, library and other institutional facilities.

 It is stated that the proposed layout for NU31 has been designed in line with the concept of sustainable human settlements. The proposed development will thus include areas zoned for mixed use with the aim to establish development corridors.

 Based on this a number of larger and smaller business sites are provided throughout the neighbourhood unit. It is envisaged that the development corridors will accommodate the following:

o Convenience retail for groceries and other day to day services o Specialist shops, business, take away outlets, etc. o Public transport facilities o Industrial type services for local repair o Parking o High density residential (maximum 50 units/ ha)

 These areas will be located along the main roads, prominent junctions, close to the centre of neighbourhoods, and within the main business node. These mixed use developments shall typically comprise residential units behind and/or above business premises depending on the scale and building costs associated with a multi-storey development. The mixed use development can occur on a single property or in a single building and may include three storey blocks dependant on whether parking will be located in the basement or next to the building.

4. METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH ADOPTED

 The Inter-organizational Committee on Principles and Guidelines for Social Impact Assessment defines Social Impact Assessment in terms of “efforts to assess, appraise or estimate, in advance, the social consequences that are likely to follow from proposed actions”.

 Social Impact Assessment (SIA) has developed as a specialised branch of environmental impact assessment. Philosophically, SIA considers the development impacts, goals of development and processes of development.

 It plays an important role in creating social awareness and bringing home the fact that the environment does not only comprise of natural phenomena, but also incorporates human nature.

 Social Impact Assessment includes the processes of analysing, monitoring and managing the intended and unintended social consequences, both positive and negative, of planned interventions (policies, programs, plans, projects) and any social change processes invoked by these interventions. Its primary purpose is to bring about a more sustainable and equitable biophysical and human environment.

12  In this instance, it was decided that an assessment of the specific situation of a “group of subsistence farmers” using the site for the grazing of their animals was required. Thus, the specific aim of the Socio-Economic Assessment is to find an approach to accommodate a group of “subsistence farmers” currently using the land earmarked for the Motherwell NU31 housing development.

 As a backdrop to the above-stated specific assessment there the study will also provide a general but selected socio-economic assessment of the impact of planned development.

 Thus, the primary goal is not a typical Social Impact Assessment. If it was then the outcome of the Assessment would have informed the design of the planned development. The fact is that the development design is complete, and any social assessment is now too late to have the optimal impact. Aucamp (2005) states that “…social considerations are usually only considered relatively late in the process of developing low cost housing or other housing estates. By the time a social impact assessment is requested by the relevant authority, if it is requested, it is almost a given that the development will proceed. In general, little consideration is given to how the development will change the sense of place, or what the specific needs that will be created by the development will be. Developers, engineers, town planners and architects seem to take little cognisance of the social impacts that result from their designs or developments”. So, Aucamp's lament is indeed applicable. Nevertheless, interesting and productive questions arise.

 The methodology or process of this study is informed by sound social research practice and was guided by the Terms of Reference of the Socio-Economic Impact Study and was conducted in accordance with the General and Specific Terms of Reference and included the following aspects:

o The Socio-Economic Assessment research process

o Engagement with client to initiate and orientate the study.

o Engagement with Mathys Vosloo of Arcus Gibb, Schalk Potgieter of Human Settlements and Geoff Mendelowitz of Goba Engineering for background to the study

o Site visit with Mathys Vosloo

o Meeting with Johan Kruger and Allister Jordan of the Sub-Directorate Urban Agriculture of the Economic Development Recreation and Agriculture and Schalk Potgieter of the Direc- torate: Sustainable Livelihoods.

o Conduct a rapid desktop review of available information that can support and inform the specialist study;

o Conduct a rapid desktop review of available information to make a general assessment of the development on the area;

o Interaction with Motherwell Urban Renewal Programme (MURP): Sonwabo Marele respon- sible for Economic Development and MURP Community Liaison Officer;

o Meeting with farmers from adjacent area; guided by MURP Community Liaison Officer;

o Attempts were made to meet with Councillor but failed twice;

o A visit to the alternative site and meeting with the leader of the live stock keepers with Johan Kruger of the Sub-Directorate Urban Agriculture of the Economic Development Rec- reation and Agriculture (EDTA);

13 o The social specialist and assistant / translator performed the following actions to ensure ap- propriate engagement with the ‘subsistence farmers’ of NU 31:

. Identify affected parties (the urban farmers) on site and engage with them,

. Meet with the farmers,

. Identifying leader / spokesperson,

. Compile a profile of the farmers from a social and economic perspective to inform the EIA,

o Identify the key social and economic issues in the local community which could be affected by the proposed housing project,

o Propose options (alternatives) for the mitigation of social and economic impacts arising from the development in general

o Propose options (alternatives) for the mitigation of social and economic impacts arising from the presence of farmers on the site;

o Perform a social and economic impact assessment for each of the proposed alternatives, ac- cording to the prescribed methodology;

o Formulate management guidelines and a monitoring framework, incorporating mitigation strategies to reduce the potential negative social impacts of the development and interven- tions to maximize the potential positive impacts.

 Other sources of information:

o Sociological Theory and Practice o Accumulated insight from long-term research in poor communities of the Metro o Literature review of national and international trends with regards to urban agriculture and livestock keeping

 Criteria for Assessment

For the purposes of the impact assessments the following standard criteria used for assessment will be used:

Criteria Description

Spatial extent The extent of impact describes the region in which the impact will be ex- perienced:  Site specific  Local (<2 km from site)  Regional (within 30 km of the site  National Intensity or The intensity describes the magnitude or size of the impact: Magnitude of  High: Natural and/or social functions and/or processes are se- Impact verely altered  Medium: Natural and/or social functions and/or processes are no- tably altered

14  Low: Natural and/or social functions and/or processes are negligi- bly altered Duration The duration is the time frame in which the impact will be experienced:  Temporary (<1 year)  Short term (1 to 6 years)  Medium term (6 to 15 years)  Long term (15 to 30 years)  Permanent Probability The probability of the impact occurring:  Improbable (little or no chance of occurring)  Probable (<50% chance of occurring)  High probable (50% - 90% chance of occurring)  Definite (>90% chance of occurring) Significance  High: impacts of high magnitude locally for longer than 6 years and/or regionally and beyond. The impact results in major altera- tions to the environment even if effective mitigation measures are implemented and will have an influence on decision-making.  Medium: impacts of moderate magnitude locally to regionally in the short term. The impact results in medium alterations to the environment and can be reduced or eliminated by the implementa- tion of effective mitigation measures.  Low to very low: impacts will localized and temporary. Impacts re- sult in minor alterations to the environment and can easily be alle- viated by the implementation of effective mitigation measures.  No impact: a potential concern or impact, which, upon evaluation, is found to have no significant impact at all. Status The status is the overall effect on the environment:  Positive – a `benefit`  Negative – a `cost`  Neutral Confidence The degree of confidence in predictions based on available information and specialist knowledge:  Low  Medium High

5. ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS AND ISSUES The following section contains the assessment of impacts and issues that emerged from a study of the Pro- posed Mixed-Use Housing Development in Motherwell NU31 (Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Munici- pality, Eastern Cape Province. The section is divided into three sections

 Relevant general socio-economic impacts of the proposed development, relevant forms of mitigation and management actions

 Specific socio-economic impacts of the proposed development, relevant forms of mitigation and man- agement actions pertaining to the position of a group of live stock keepers currently using the site

 A brief discussion of the strategic issues that arise from this study.

15

5.1. GENERAL SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT

5.1.1. Empowerment impacts for the beneficiaries of housing

 The proposed development, in terms of empowerment impact, will make a positive contribution to alleviate the subsidized housing shortage in the NMBM in general and in Motherwell in particular.

 The empowerment implication, in this case, is obvious since beneficiaries will most likely for the first time be housed in appropriate and decent dwellings and will have access to the infrastructure and social amenities that are associated with the proposed development.

 In theory, the beneficiaries will progress from a marginalized social position towards becoming part of mainstream of society.

 The empowerment impact is obviously positive but conditional and dependent on the provision of infrastructure, services and amenities required to make the theoretical possibility of a sustainable local community a reality.

Table 1: Impact of the empowerment of beneficiaries of subsidised housing and gap housing Source of impact: Beneficiaries occupy and purchase subsidised housing/units? Nature of impact: Empowerment of beneficiaries that were previously disadvantaged Impact Spatial Intensity Duration Probability Significance Status Confidence mitigation extent with and without) Without Regional High Long-term Definite VERY HIGH + ve High mitigation With ------mitigation

5.1.2. Social impacts of the No-Go option

 The possible No-Go option regarding the proposed development means the positive impact of the proposed development will not happen with the effect of not contributing to alleviating the subsi- dised housing shortage in the NMBM

 This will have particular impacts with reference to the positive implication that this will have for the quality of life of potential beneficiaries

Table 2: Impact of the No-Go option Source of impact: The proposed development is subject to the No-Go option Nature of impact: The NMB Municipality loses the opportunity to decrease the local subsidised housing shortage with a negative implication for the quality of life of beneficiaries Impact Spatial Intensity Duration Probability Significance Status Confidence mitigation extent with and without) Without Regional High Long-term Definite VERY HIGH – ve High mitigation With ------mitigation

16 5.1.3. Socio-economic impact due to employment creation during the construction phase of the pro- posed development

 The planned development will have socio-economic impacts that result from employment creation.

 Considering the size of the proposed development, a considerable number of employment oppor- tunities will be created in the short term. This will have obvious and positive socio-economic impli- cations for the affected individuals and their families.

 The planned development will also have empowerment impacts that result from skills development and skills transfer in the construction phase.

 If, as recommended below, the recruitment of labor by the developer should be limited, as far as possible, to people residing in the Motherwell area the benefits for local residents can be considerable.

 The low educational status of people in Motherwell however points to the need and opportunity for skills development and transfer by the developer in order to benefit from the construction phase.

 Skills development and transfer will become even more needed after the construction phase to provide opportunities for beneficiaries and will depend on the implementation of successful strategies and programmes by the EDRA of the NMBM, and social facilitator, appointed for the greater Motherwell NU 29, 30, 31 and 12 development to ensure successful integration of all beneficiaries. This in itself serves as a potentially effective mitigation measure.

Table 3: Impact of the creation of employment opportunities during the construction phase Source of impact: Employment creation during the construction phase of the proposed development Nature of impact: Individuals and households benefit from the income generated by employed persons and from skills development and transfer Impact Spatial Intensity Duration Probability Significance Status Confidence mitigation extent with and without) Without Regional High Short-term Definite MEDIUM + ve High mitigation With Regional High Long-term Probable VERY HIGH + ve Medium mitigation

5.1.4. Impacts due to competition for employment

 The planned development will have population related impacts as the result of changes in local population attributes, the migration of people, or the inflow of a temporary labour force, etc.

 The proposed development is almost certain to attract unemployed employment seekers, not only from Motherwell, but also from elsewhere in the NMBM and possibly beyond.

 If unemployed individuals with equally high expectations from elsewhere are introduced to the situation, there is the potential for tension and conflict between such so-called ‘outsiders’ and the local unemployed or ‘insiders’ due to competition for scarce employment opportunities.

17 Recommended mitigation and management:

 The recruitment of labour by the developer should be limited, as far as possible, to people residing in the Motherwell area.

 The key to the mitigation of potential conflict in this case is communication.

 Before commencement of labour recruitment and the subsequent construction process, informa- tion sharing meetings should take place with interested & affected parties, including relevant Ward Councilors and community representatives of Motherwell as well as the South African Police Ser- vice. Particulars of the developer, the nature and extent of the proposed development and its con- struction schedule, as well as the anticipated size and nature of the labour force should be commu- nicated.

 Potentially unrealistic community expectations should be managed by a community liaison office close to the site of the proposed development, through which the extent and nature of the re- quired labour force is communicated to employment seekers.

 Local recruitment should take place through the community liaison office and ad hoc recruitment, for instance, at the gates of the site of the proposed development is not desirable.

Table 4 : Impact of expectations of employment created by the proposed development Source of impact: Expectations of employment created by the proposed development Nature of impact: Conflict between unemployed members of the local community and employment seekers from elsewhere Impact Spatial Intensity Duration Probability Significance Status Confidence mitigation extent with and without) Without Local High Short-term Probable LOW – ve Medium mitigation With Local Medium Short-term Probable VERY LOW – ve Medium mitigation

5.1.5. Social amenity implications

 The proposed development is informed by the NMB Municipality’s Sustainable Community Plan- ning principles and guidelines, which defines the need for particular social amenities and its place- ment (NMB Municipality, 2007).

 The influence of the above-mentioned is evident in the layout of the development. Some residen- tial erven have been consolidated to create a large site for the multi-purpose centre next to the Motherwell reservoir, which it is envisaged would include a resource centre/community hall, sports fields, clinic, administrative offices, library and other institutional facilities.

 Some areas are zoned for mixed use with the aim to establish development corridors. Based on this a number of larger and smaller business sites are provided throughout the neighbourhood unit. It is envisaged that the development corridors will accommodate the following:

o Convenience retail for groceries and other day to day services o Specialist shops, business, take away outlets, etc. o Public transport facilities o Industrial type services for local repair

18 o Parking o High density residential (maximum 50 units/ ha)

 It is indicated that these areas will be located along the main roads, prominent junctions, close to the centre of neighbourhoods, and within the main business node. These mixed use developments shall comprise residential units behind and/or above business premises depending on the scale and building costs associated with a multi-storey development. The mixed use development can occur on a single property or in a single building and may include three storey blocks dependant on whether parking will be located in the basement or next to the building.

 The nature of the development provides reasonable opportunities for improved and good quality of life for the new residents. If the above-stated features materialize there is at least a theoretical possibility that the new residents will benefit from the particular lay-out of the development in terms of their quality of life.

5.1.6. Proximity to places of employment

 While Motherwell NU 31 is located at the edge of the Urban Center it is well-located in relation to major nodes of industrial and economic activity: the Coega IDZ and the Uitenhage / Despatch area which are both key places of potential employment (largely in the manufacturing sector) as far as the residents of Motherwell NU 31 are concerned.

 Alternative major places of potential employment occur further afield, within a including industrial areas such as Korsten, Struandale, Markman Township and Perseverance (Port Elizabeth).

 Low levels of education and employable skills limit the chances of residents of communities like Motherwell to find employment in the economic mainstream. Even with the relatively good proximity of the area in relation to places of employment and the adherence to the NMB Municipality’s Sustainable Community Planning principles and guidelines there are only limited formal employment opportunities for future residents of Motherwell NU 31. This is a challenge facing many poor communities across the Metro and brings into perspective the significance of urban agricultural activities like those practiced by the ‘subsistence farmers’.

5.2. THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT ON THE ACTIVITIES OF ‘SUBSISTENCE FARMERS’ 5.2.1. Background  The ‘subsistence farmers’ are a group of approximately 40 to 50 people who keep livestock or are involved in urban agricultural activity on the NU31 site. Thus, there are live stock keepers and urban vegetable gardeners among them.  Engagement with the farmers: A meeting was arranged on the site and 20 arrived to meet with the specialist and assistant / translator. Excellent comfortable exchange.  Communication and profiling: Formal profiling is not easy because many people are illiterate and could only speak isiXhosa. Some preferred to let the leader speak on their behalf because of limited communication. However, enough information gathered to answer the important questions.  Residential status: None of the people who own livestock actually live on the land except for a handful of herders who tend the livestock at night. They explained that they live in different areas of Motherwell (from NU3 to NU29).  Occupational status: Most are unemployed. Some of them are pensioners.  Agricultural activity: They indicated that they have approximately 400 animals (cattle, goats, pigs and chickens). Closer to NU 29 is an area of fertile soil where they produce a range of vegetables,

19 mainly spinach. They slaughter and sell to local communities, provide for traditional ceremony activities, funerals etc.  Reasons for farming activity: All indicated that they farm in the area so that they can provide for their families, buy food, and clothes for children, supplement their pension and have money for their children’s education  Their history: Most of them used the current area of Ikamvelihle up to 1999 for grazing their animals. When new housing development came to the area the Municipality office issued a letter that stated that no livestock was allowed in the residential area. In 2000, the Municipality indicated to them that had to relocate their cattle to the area where they are today.  Legal Status: It was confirmed that the farmers were relocated to the current site as an interim arrangement as a solution to the incompatibility between the presence of their cattle on the site of a planned housing development in the now Ikamvelihle. The current situation is a repetition of the 1999/2000 situation.

 Urban agriculture as a response to socio-economic challenges: The ‘subsistence farmers’ are ordinary people using their initiative to meet the socio-economic challenges faced by many people in the Metro’s poor communities.  They are typical Motherwell residents which mean that they are poor (average household income of less than R1000 p/m), mostly unemployed (at least 50%), relatively low education (only 20% completed high school), have limited vocational skills and many are dependent on government grants (as high as 60%). (Statistics from Development Partners’ Demographic Update 2006 and War on Hunger 2010).  It is notable that they are mostly middle aged and older people. This is consistent with findings in other areas where young people associate agricultural activities with the “older generation” and urban agriculture with older women (“mamas”). Thus, there may be a degree of antipathy towards agriculture among the urban township youth. This is something that must be verified and considered when and where relevant. Nevertheless, it was evident from the discussion that there are many young people who are dependent on these entrepreneurs.  Their solution and way of solving the typical socio-economic problems facing the people of a community is very rational. They have a degree of success to generate income through agricultural activity but their current situation is not optimal and it would appear that improvement is possible with more support and more enabling conditions.  Problems currently experienced: They indicated that their main problems were that livestock get stolen, the area in which they keep their cattle is unfenced, animals cause accidents and conflicts due to theft and residents get upset when animals stray into yards and dwellings, and they don’t have sufficient water. They want to cultivate vegetable gardens but are limited due to water shortages. The water tanks provided to them by the Municipality are empty. They want to do more poultry farming but are limited by a lack of electricity. In fact, the farmers were unequivocal in their view that keeping livestock in residential areas is not desirable. .  Urban live stock keeping is evidently a matter that is loaded with complications and uncontrolled live stock keeping is plainly not acceptable in an urban residential area. Besides the problems pointed out by the farmers the presence of animals in the immediate vicinity of residential dwell- ings could lead to health problems. The slaughtering of live stock in residential area is prohibited in most urban centres of the world.

20 5.2.2. Impact assessment of the proposed development on current urban agricultural activity

 The construction of the proposed development will inevitably limit the above-mentioned activity and force the affected parties to source land elsewhere.

 Remaining on the site with the view of some form of integration or accommodation arrangement into the planned housing development is evidently not an option. The planned development does not make provision for the keeping of livestock.

 Informal accommodation of livestock in the planned residential area is not viable. If an alternative arrangement is not found the new development will impact on the farmers’ opportunity to make a living or to add to their income - for employed people the agricultural activity means an addition to their income, for the pensioners it is an addition to state pensions and for some it is their only in- come.

Recommended mitigation and management

 In the long-term the Metro will require an Urban Agriculture Policy with specific reference to Urban Live Stock Keeping to determine the future of urban live stock keeping in the Metro.

 In the absence of a long-term solution a short-term form of mitigation should be the identification of alternative land.

 Identifying substantial pieces of Municipal land on the urban periphery where controlled live stock keeping can occur would be preferable. However, this is unlikely to solve the current problem due to the distant proximity of municipal land that can be used for agricultural and or informal grazing purposes.

 In the absence of a dedicated site for urban livestock keeping on the urban edge of the Metro to where the livestock can be relocated they will either have to abandon their activities altogether or alternative land options must be considered.  The farmers have identified a piece of land further along the Uitenhage Road (MR460 road connecting Uitenhage and Addo) which meets their requirements. The land was visited with Johan Kruger of EDRS and it was subsequently confirmed that the land is privately owned. This means that the land could be bought or hired. The possibility that the Municipality can buy the land is remote in view of current financial pressure on the NMBM.  The alternative is to approach the Department of Agriculture (for assistance in the area of agricultural development support) or the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform (for assistance as in the area of land restitution / acquisition for emergent farmers).  The other option is that the land be hired.  All the options stated above are complicated by the absence of a policy to inform decision-making about the appropriate location and conditions for acceptable urban livestock keeping. A long-term form of mitigation is the adoption of the specific proposal in the NMB Municipality’s IDP relating to ‘economic growth and development’, namely ‘(b) Peripheral uses’ (p.37) – and the subsequent formulation of an urban agriculture policy that, amongst others, deals with the man- agement of informal grazing.

21 Table 5 : Impact of the limitation of informal urban agriculture Source of impact: Proposed development is constructed on the relevant site Nature of impact: Livelihood activity of affected parties are limited by the proposed development Impact Spatial Intensity Duration Probability Significance Status Confidence mitigation extent with and without) Without Local Medium Long-term Definite MEDIUM – ve High mitigation With Local Low Long-term Probable LOW – ve High mitigation

5.2.3. Impact assessment of potential confrontation between informal grazers and the NMB Municipality

 The current use of Motherwell NU 31 for the purpose of informal livestock (subsistence) farming and the nature of the development proposed for this site are clearly incompatible.

 Since the informal grazers will ultimately have to vacate this land there will be socio-economic im- pact on their livelihood activity and if alternative land for their activities cannot be found there is the potential for tension between this group and the NMB Municipality.

 The risk however estimated to be low since the affected parties are aware that the land in question belongs to the NMB Municipality and the Municipality is aware that a solution must be found.

 However, there is reportedly a history of inadequate communication between the farmers and the Municipality that could contribute to tension. The farmers feel that they have been let down by the Municipality and some Councillors. Communication broke down and they feel that they were not informed of any developments.  The farmers explained that they struggle to succeed in their agricultural activities and they indicated that they needed more support from the Municipality. The Department of Agriculture (the Regional Office) visited them only once. There is need for better communication with authorities. They need seedlings, advice, support and skills.  While residents of many of the Metro’s communities have similar complaints it may be that the specific concerns of the farmers in this regard are indications of limited thinking and awareness in the Metro with regards to the reality, possibilities and challenges of urban agriculture and urban livestock keeping. Recommended mitigation and management

 All measures stated in 5.2.2. for recommendations for mitigation and management apply here  Effective communication between the Farmers and the NMB Municipality is a vital form of mitiga- tion.

Table 6 : Impact of incompatible land-use: the proposed development and informal urban agriculture – relations with NMBM Source of impact: The proposed development is constructed on Motherwell NU 31 and informal grazers must vacate the site Nature of impact: Tension between live stock keepers and the NMB Municipality Impact Spatial Intensity Duration Probability Significance Status Confidence mitigation extent with and without) Without Local Medium Short-term Possible INSIGNIFICANT – ve Medium mitigation With None Low None Possible INSIGNIFICANT + ve Medium mitigation

22 5.2.4. Socio-economic impacts of relocating  The farmers made it clear that they were in favour of the proposed development, particularly because it addresses the housing needs of people. However, they were also very clear in stating that if Municipality wants them to vacate the current site that they need assistance to find an alternative.  They indicated that they would be willing to relocate their livestock to another site where there will be enough space for them to keep at least 400 livestock and if the problems currently encountered with fencing, water and electricity can be solved in the process.  They indicated that they have identified a piece of land that is not far from the current site (they pointed it out as being located within sight from the current site on the left hand side of the Uitenhage Road).  It does not fall in the scope of a Social Assessment to make a technical assessment of the alternative site but it can be assessed from a location perspective.  From a social point of view relocation could have the following impacts:

o One would assume that transport to and from the alternative site may cause a problem. The herders will relocate with the animals to the alternative site and will also have commute to the site on a regular basis and the farmers will also spend additional money on transport to attend to they interests at the alternative site. The increase in distance relative to the current site does mean that the farmers will have to spend more disposable income on transport. This implication of greater distance was not mentioned by the farmers. Instead, the emphasized the fact that the alternative site will still be within close proximity of Motherwell where they reside and the site is on a major road and is easily reachable. On the other hand the site is a few kilometres from the current residential area and provides the opportunity to keep livestock at a ‘safe distance’ from the residents of Motherwell. It also provides the opportunity to formalize their status and provide the necessary services and securities (like fencing) that are currently lacking.

o The second potential negative impact of an alternative site could be that it is lacking in terms of the necessary enabling conditions to make farming possible. This would refer to fencing, water, electricity and technical urban agricultural support.

Recommended mitigation and management

 A specific site has been identified and it is up to the Municipality to determine if this land is available and appropriate.  The social specialist avoided focussing on the particular site in order to avoid creating expectations.  It is essential that the Municipality follow through with an assessment of the alternative land that is earmarked by the farmers and take all action to assist them to relocate and proceed with their activities under conditions that are appropriately demarcated and regulated.  Thus, these farmers are ready to be relocated to an area where their current activities could be pursued without some of the problems and challenges currently encountered.  The municipality must attend to understanding and implementing an appropriate enabling function. Indications are that with the appropriate policy, planning and strategic mechanisms in place and with the appropriate support and enabling conditions it is possible to optimize this relocation scenario and similar urban agriculture situations in the long term future. With the appropriate planning and supportive action form significant other agencies it may even be possible to enhance agricultural activity to a level productive economic activity in alignment with a bigger Metro vision.

23

Table 7: Impact of incompatible land-use: the proposed development and informal urban agriculture – lack of enabling condition Source of impact: The proposed development is constructed on Motherwell NU 31 and informal grazers must vacate the site Nature of impact: The activities of the live stock keepers are negatively affected because the inadequacy of an al- ternative site due to the distance and lack of enabling conditions Impact miti- Spatial Intensity Duration Probability Significance Status Confidence gation extent with and without) Without Local Medium Long-term Probable MEDIUM – ve High mitigation With Local Low Long-term Probable LOW – ve High mitigation

5.3. GENERAL / STRATEGIC ISSUES

This study confirmed the thinking regarding general issues arising from the specific issue and focus of the study. These issues are of a strategic nature in the sense that they need to be considered for the purposes of planning for the future and ensuring that the specific issues being addressed in this study is pre-empted and managed according to appropriate policies, procedures and strategies.

5.3.1. Cultural significance of live-stock keeping

Livestock keeping takes on many and varied manifestations across the world. Cultural and religious beliefs make for differences in preference for animal species: pigs are popular in China, goats are often kept in Moslem countries, and Hindu societies have a preference for cows. The Motherwell farmers keep cattle, goats, pigs and chickens. Cattle are of particular significance from a cultural and status point of view and cattle and goat features prominently when it comes to providing meat for traditional events and celebrations. However, the farmers placed more emphasis on keeping livestock as a means of making a living by providing for community demand in its different forms. It is important to understand the socio- cultural factors related to owning cattle and to find ways of accommodating these in an urban context through appropriate policies and practices.

5.3.2. Urban agriculture and livestock-keeping as means to alleviate poverty and promote economic development

While the Motherwell NU 31 subsistence farmers provide for their own families, the emphasis is on providing for the local community. They have found a way of alleviating poverty and confirm the need to investigate the possibilities of urban agriculture as a solution to poverty. Urban agriculture is a practical solution to advance food security by providing food for households on a regular basis and provides opportunities for income generation from the selling of fresh produce or meat from slaughtered animals. If scaled up correctly urban agriculture has the potential to be a productive sector of the local economy. While it would be unrealistic to think that it is a sufficient solution but if it is part of an integrated urban poverty eradication strategy, the question is how to support it and optimize it.

This is a significant ‘strategic issue ‘and requires an understanding of urban agriculture - and urban livestock keeping as part of it – against a socio-economic background in the context of a range of strategic developmental issues in the Metro.

24

5.3.3. Rethinking urban live-stock keeping

When one thinks of urban agriculture it is typical that vegetable gardens and fresh produce comes to mind but urban livestock keeping should also be considered for its potential. Careful attention must be given to the positives / advantages and negatives / risks. The Motherwell farmers are not the only livestock keepers inside the Metro urban complex and it seems relevant to acknowledge and deal with this reality. Before any attempt is made to shift production it is important to first establish the basis for the original location decisions in order to understand the impact of altering locations. Knowledge and understanding of these factors are essential before decisions about the future of urban agriculture.

5.3.4. Problems and perceived problems with live-stock keeping

The Motherwell farmers do not deny the fact that urban livestock keeping is potentially problematic but they were also asking us to consider what they regard as obvious solutions to these problems.

Potential hazards for public health range from poor hygiene, caused by the presence of dung, flies and parasites, to the difficulty of controlling product quality when food from animal origin is used directly by consumers. Poverty, ignorance and a lack of veterinary services favour the spread of human and animal diseases.

Pollution from animal production is caused by a range of issues. Potential problems with dung and urine disposal are obvious; flies breeding on animal and vegetable waste may transmit food-borne diseases, such as diarrhoea. Problems arising from wastewater and rejected meat from abattoirs (slaughterhouses) are less obvious to most of the general public. These problems can be managed with appropriate policies and regulations.

Urban livestock systems are often perceived to be old-fashioned, unproductive and inefficient. Ineffi- ciency is often a matter of perception rather than objective fact. Remarkable changes of attitude regarding urban livestock have been achieved by special teaching programmes, for example in Mexico, resulting in urban youth and veterinary graduates understanding the value of livestock keeping in and around cities.

Only a small proportion of urban food requirements come from urban livestock. A major concern regard- ing urban livestock systems is that the (growing) demand for food, particularly for wealthier consumers, from animal origin in urban areas is outpacing the production potential of urban systems. Urban livestock may never be capable of producing enough food for the entire city (even when food production is the only function of livestock), but the urban livestock system's share of food production can be substantial for some sectors.

If it is allowed at all, there is a need to make planned provision for urban agriculture and livestock keep- ing on the urban periphery.

5.3.5. New housing developments, urban agriculture and the idea of sustainable human settlements The Motherwell farmers make us aware of the efforts by ordinary local community people to improve the quality of their lives. Their actions raise questions about the appropriateness of local government planning and urban neighbourhood design to support such actions.

Not surprisingly, the design of the Motherwell NU 31 housing development does not make provision for accommodating urban livestock keeping. The question is if it should not make provision for some form of urban agriculture in view of the potential relevance of urban agriculture in poverty alleviation and local community economic development. Admittedly, it is unfair to question the extent to which the current urban neighbourhood design make specific provision for urban agriculture because urban agriculture does not

25 appear to be high on the economic development agenda in the Metro and it could not be expected that developers and planners to include it in designs if there is not more support by prevailing policy.

Thus, the question could perhaps be a broader one: Does the planning and design of the planned Motherwell NU 31 housing development truly enable and facilitate sustainable settlements. In theory it should be possible to assess the design against the concept and its criteria and it is noted that a range of features of the design relate specifically to the notion of a sustainable human settlement and it would then be possible to assume that the planners designed the development according to the prevailing orthodoxy of what constitutes a sustainable human settlement.

However, the scope of the current social assessment does not extend to more that raising of awareness and raising of questions for the purposes of opening up space for reflection on the role of urban agriculture in pursuit of sustainable urban settlements. Thus, as stated above the aim here is not to scrutinize the current development as a sustainable human settlement but to raise questions about sufficiency: Is it sufficient to provide housing according to the current definitions of sustainable human settlements?

26 REFERENCES

Aucamp, I. 2005, Social Impact Assessment and Housing Developments. World Congress on Housing Transforming Housing Environments through Design: Pretoria

Development Partners, 2006: Demographic Update: Nelson Mandela Bay Metro. Development Partners: Port Elizabeth

NMB Municipality, 2007: Sustainable Community Planning Guide. NMB Municipality: Port Elizabeth

27