Palaeontological Impact Assessment: Desktop Study
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
PALAEONTOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT: DESKTOP STUDY Proposed construction of two filling stations adjacent to the N2, Zones 1 and 2 of the Coega IDZ, Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality, Eastern Cape Province John E. Almond PhD (Cantab.) Natura Viva cc, PO Box 12410 Mill Street, Cape Town 8010, RSA [email protected] April 2010 1. SUMMARY The two proposed filling station developments are located either side of the N2 in Zones 1 and 2 of the Coega IDZ, between St George’s Strand and Motherwell, Nelson Bay Municipality. Both development sites are underlain by limestone-rich shallow marine sediments of the Alexandria Formation (Algoa Group), with intermittent cover of pebbly residual weathering products (the so-called Bluewater Bay Formation). The Alexandria Formation has a high palaeontological sensitivity since it hosts a rich fossil marine biota of Miocene to Pliocene age that is dominated by molluscs and various other invertebrates, together with rare fish and (possibly) other vertebrate remains. Although much of the Alexandria Formation within the Coega IDZ has been altered by weathering and calcretization, seriously reducing its fossil content, the two filling station developments are situated close to an established fossil site (an abandoned limestone quarry) within this formation. Palaeontological mitigation is therefore recommended in both cases. Should thin sandstones and mudrocks of the Sundays River Formation beneath the Algoa Group limestone capping be exposed during deep excavations, these potentially fossil-rich sediments will also require palaeontological mitigation. Mitigation by a qualified palaeontologist should entail (a) the field examination of new excavations, (b) the recording of sedimentological and palaeontological data, (c) the judicious sampling of fossil material and (d) recommendations for any further action required to safeguard fossil heritage. 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. Environmental control officers responsible for the filling station developments should (a) be alerted to the palaeontological sensitivity of several geological units in the area, (b) familiarize themselves with the sort of fossils that might be encountered during excavation through museum displays and using the recently completed palaeontological heritage report for the Coega IDZ, and (c) alert SAHRA and a professional palaeontologist should significant fossil remains be exposed during excavations. John E. Almond (2010) 1 Natura Viva cc 2. INTRODUCTION & BRIEF The Coega Development Corporation (Pty) Ltd is planning to construct two new filling stations adjacent to the N2 within the Coega Industrial Development Zone, Nelson Bay Municipality, Eastern Cape Province. The filling stations will be situated north of the R335 between St George’s Strand and Motherwell, c. 5km north of the Swakops River Bridge (Fig. 1). Filling Station 1 in IDZ Zone 1 will lie on degraded, scrubby land immediately east of the N2 on Erf 233 Coega. Filling Station 2 will lie immediately west of the N2 on degraded land adjacent to the current filling station. The construction site overlaps Erf 1 Wells Estate and Erf 229 Coega (See detailed satellite image at end of report). A desktop palaeontological impact assessment for this project has been commissioned by Eastern Cape Heritage Consultants cc, Jeffreys Bay, on behalf of the Coega Development Corporation (Pty) Ltd in accordance with the requirements of the National Heritage Resources Act, 1999. Qy Fig. 1. 2010 Google satellite image of the study area in Coega IDZ Zones 1 and 2 showing location of proposed new filling stations 1 (yellow circle) and 2 (red circle) either side of the N2 and on the north side of the R335. Qy = site of abandoned limestone quarry (Important fossil site of Le Roux 1987). St George’s Strand lies on the coast towards the right of the image. John E. Almond (2010) 2 Natura Viva cc 3. GEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND Fig. 2. Extract from 1: 250 000 scale geological map 3325DC and DD, 3425BA Port Elizabeth (Council for Geoscience, Pretoria) showing approximate position of the proposed new filling stations 1 (yellow spot) and 2 (red spot). Both development sites are underlain by Neogene sediments of the Alexandria Formation (Ta, pink). Pebbly residual soils of the “Bluewater Bay Formation” (yellow with small circles) may also be found in this general area. Note abandoned limestone quarry just north of the yellow spot; this is probably the important Alexandria Formation fossil site of Le Roux (1987). 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; see also Engelbrecht et al. 1962) (Fig. 2). The development area is situated on the edge of a low coastal plateau (the Coega Plateau of Goedhart & Hattingh 1997) that is incised by the Swartkops River to the southwest and the Sundays River to the northeast. The plateau is largely built of fine-grained estuarine and marine shelf sediments of the Early Cretaceous Sundays River Formation (Uitenhage Group, Ks). The proposed developments are unlikely to intersect the Sundays River Formation that underlies the Algoa Group capping south of the Coega Fault (Goedhart & Hattingh 1997, their geological section, fig. 4.3), though this may occur in the case of deep excavations. These Mesozoic sediments are capped by a thin (10m or less), limestone- dominated shallow marine to coastal succession, the Alexandria Formation (Algoa Group, Ta) of Neogene (Late Tertiary, Miocene to Pleiocene) age. Both proposed filing John E. Almond (2010) 3 Natura Viva cc stations overlie this last formation (Fig. 2). In the study region sensu lato the Alexandria Formation 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 (1: 50 000 map). Although they are not mapped in the immediate development footprint, the Bluewater Bay residual soils may be encountered during development and are also considered in this study. 3.1. Alexandria Formation (Ta) This estuarine to coastal marine formation consists of a basal pebbly to cobbly conglomerate rich in oyster shells overlain by calcareous sandstones, shelly coquinas and thin conglomerates (See idealized section provided by Le Roux 1987). 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. Well- developed coast-parallel beach ridges mapped over the Coega Plateau by Goedhart and Hattingh (1997, their fig. 3.3) are not indicated in the study region. 3.2. The “Bluewater 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). The most prominent and widely occurring solution structures in the Alexandria Formation outcrop area are dolines. They stand out clearly on aerial