The Proposed Reclamation of the Marievale Tailings Storage Facilities in Ekurhuleni, Gauteng Province

THE PROPOSED RECLAMATION OF THE MARIEVALE TAILINGS STORAGE FACILITIES IN EKURHULENI, GAUTENG PROVINCE

Heritage Impact Assessment Report

Issue Date: 06 March 2020 Revision No.: 0.2 Project No.: 413HIA

+ 27 (0) 12 332 5305 +27 (0) 86 675 8077 [email protected] PO Box 32542, Totiusdal, 0134

Offices in South Africa, Kingdom of Lesotho and Mozambique Head Office: 906 Bergarend Streets Waverley, Pretoria, South Africa Directors: HS Steyn, PD Birkholtz, W Fourie Declaration of Independence I, Jennifer Kitto, declare that – General declaration: ▪ I act as the independent heritage practitioner in this application ▪ I will perform the work relating to the application in an objective manner, even if this results in views and findings that are not favourable to the applicant ▪ I declare that there are no circumstances that may compromise my objectivity in performing such work; ▪ I have expertise in conducting heritage impact assessments, including knowledge of the Act, Regulations and any guidelines that have relevance to the proposed activity; ▪ I will comply with the Act, Regulations and all other applicable legislation; ▪ I will take into account, to the extent possible, the matters listed in section 38 of the NHRA when preparing the application and any report relating to the application; ▪ I have no, and will not engage in, conflicting interests in the undertaking of the activity; ▪ I undertake to disclose to the applicant and the competent authority all material information in my possession that reasonably has or may have the potential of influencing - any decision to be taken with respect to the application by the competent authority; and - the objectivity of any report, plan or document to be prepared by myself for submission to the competent authority; ▪ I will ensure that information containing all relevant facts in respect of the application is distributed or made available to interested and affected parties and the public and that participation by interested and affected parties is facilitated in such a manner that all interested and affected parties will be provided with a reasonable opportunity to participate and to provide comments on documents that are produced to support the application; ▪ I will provide the competent authority with access to all information at my disposal regarding the application, whether such information is favourable to the applicant or not ▪ All the particulars furnished by me in this form are true and correct; ▪ I will perform all other obligations as expected from a heritage practitioner in terms of the Act and the constitutions of my affiliated professional bodies; and ▪ I realise that a false declaration is an offence in terms of regulation 71 of the Regulations and is punishable in terms of section 24F of the NEMA.

Disclosure of Vested Interest ▪ I do not have and will not have any vested interest (either business, financial, personal or other) in the proposed activity proceeding other than remuneration for work performed in terms of the Regulations;

HERITAGE CONSULTANT: PGS Heritage (Pty) Ltd CONTACT PERSON: Jennifer Kitto – Heritage specialist Tel: +27 (0) 12 332 5305 Email:[email protected]

SIGNATURE: ______

Marievale Reclamation HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT

Report Title THE PROPOSED RECLAMATION OF THE MARIEVALE TAILINGS STORAGE FACILITIES IN EKURHULENI, GAUTENG PROVINCE Control Name Signature Designation Author Jennifer Kitto Heritage Specialist/ PGS Heritage Reviewed Wouter Fourie Principal Heritage Specialist Reviewed Ashleigh Blackwell Kongiwe Envronmental

CLIENT: Kongiwe Environmental

CONTACT PERSON: Ashleigh Blackwell Tel: +27 (10) 140 6508 E-mail: [email protected]

SIGNATURE: ______

Marievale Reclamation HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page iii The heritage impact assessment report has been compiled considering the NEMA Appendix 6 requirements for specialist reports as indicated in the table below. Requirements of Appendix 6 – GN R326 EIA Regulations of 7 April 2017 Relevant section in report Page 2 of Report – Contact 1.(1) (a) (i) Details of the specialist who prepared the report details and company (ii) The expertise of that person to compile a specialist report Section 1.2 – refer to including a curriculum vita Appendix D (b) A declaration that the person is independent in a form as may be specified by the competent authority Page ii of the report (c) An indication of the scope of, and the purpose for which, the report was prepared Section 1.1 (cA) An indication of the quality and age of base data used for the specialist report Section 1.1 (cB) a description of existing impacts on the site, cumulative impacts of the proposed development and levels of acceptable change; Section 3, Section 6 (d) The duration, date and season of the site investigation and the relevance of the season to the outcome of the assessment Section 5 (e) a description of the methodology adopted in preparing the report or carrying out the specialised process inclusive of equipment and modelling used Section 6 and Appendix B (f) details of an assessment of the specific identified sensitivity of the site related to the proposed activity or activities and its associated structures and infrastructure, inclusive of a site plan identifying site alternatives; Section 5. (g) An identification of any areas to be avoided, including buffers Section 5 (h) A map superimposing the activity including the associated structures and infrastructure on the environmental sensitivities of the site including areas to be avoided, including buffers; Section 5.1 (i) A description of any assumptions made and any uncertainties or gaps in knowledge; Section 1.3 (j) A description of the findings and potential implications of such findings on the impact of the proposed activity, including identified alternatives, on the environment Section 3 and Section 5 (k) Any mitigation measures for inclusion in the EMPr Section 6.8

Marievale Reclamation HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page iv (l) Any conditions for inclusion in the environmental authorisation

(m) Any monitoring requirements for inclusion in the EMPr or environmental authorisation Section 6.8 (n)(i) A reasoned opinion as to whether the proposed activity, activities or portions thereof should be authorised and Section 7 (n)(iA) A reasoned opinion regarding the acceptability of the proposed activity or activities; and (n)(ii) If the opinion is that the proposed activity, activities or portions thereof should be authorised, any avoidance, management and mitigation measures that should be included in the EMPr, and where applicable, the closure plan Section 6.8 (o) A description of any consultation process that was undertaken during the course of carrying out the study N/A. (p) A summary and copies if any comments that were received during any consultation process In EIA Report (q) Any other information requested by the competent authority. Not applicable. (2) Where a government notice by the Minister provides for any protocol or minimum information requirement to be applied to a specialist report, the requirements as indicated in such notice will apply. Section 38(3) of the NHRA

Marievale Reclamation HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PGS Heritage (Pty) Ltd (PGS) was appointed by Kongiwe Environmental (Pty) Ltd (Kongiwe) to undertake a scoping and heritage impact assessment (HIA) which will serve to inform the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Environmental Management Programme (EMPr) for the proposed Reclamation of Marievale Tailings Storage Facilities, Ekurhuleni, Gauteng Province.

The desktop study (archival research and the evaluation of satellite imagery and topographical maps) of the study area indicated that the proposed project is likely to impact on several types of heritage resources present in the study area. This has been confirmed through the subsequent fieldwork.

The heritage sensitivity analysis does not indicate “no-go” areas in the maps, but rather the possibility of encountering heritage sites that will require further mitigation before construction activities commence.

The following heritage resources were identified from the combined desktop study and fieldwork:

Heritage Sites The fieldwork identified 38 heritage features in total, four of which were burial grounds (three informal and one municipal), with the remainder of sites (33) being historical structures or remains associated with the historic mines or residential areas. The four burial ground sites are considered to have very high significance and would require mitigation measures. Of the historical structures, nine residential or non-mining structures had a medium heritage significance (grading of IIIB) which would require mitigation measures. Only three historical mining structures sites had a medium heritage significance (grading of IIIB) which would require mitigation measures. The remaining historical structure sites are considered to be of low to no heritage significance.

Most of the sites identified are located in the vicinity of the two pipeline alternatives, while a few are located in the region of the three slimes dams or the three processing plants.

Historical structures: Residential or non-mining Of the 13 single or groups of historical residential or other non-mining related structures, nine of these sites had a medium heritage significance with a heritage grading of IIIB (MV001, MV006, MV018, MV021, MV023, MV028, MV031, MV032, MV036). The impact significance before mitigation on these nine historical residential structures will be Medium negative before mitigation. Implementation of the recommended mitigation measures will modify this impact rating to an acceptable LOW negative.

Marievale Reclamation HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page vi

The remaining sites had a low or negligible heritage significance will not require any mitigation measures. However, a destruction permit may be required if the structure remains are likely to be 60 years or older.

Historical structures: Mining A total of 14 single or groups of mining-related structures were identified. However, only three of these sites had a medium heritage significance with a heritage grading of IIIB (MV003, MV011 and MV036).

The impact significance before mitigation on these three historical mining structures will be Medium negative before mitigation. Implementation of the recommended mitigation measures will modify this impact rating to an acceptable LOW negative.

Burial Grounds and graves The three informal burial grounds and the municipal cemetery all have a high heritage rating and a heritage grading of IIIA (MV005, MV009, MV025, MV033). However, the Municipal cemetery is anticipated not to be impacted by the project.

The impact significance before mitigation on the three burial ground and graves sites will be High negative before mitigation. Implementation of the recommended mitigation measures will modify this impact rating to an acceptable Medium to Low negative.

The three historic slimes dams Although several of the slimes dams/ sand dumps are older than 60 years and could technically be described as “man-made structures”, it is the considered opinion of this author that there is no heritage significance attached to the actual slimes dams/sand dumps. However, legally, the historic dumps 7L7, 7L5 and 7L6 may require a permit for their reclamation as they could be 60 years or older. It should also be noted that there is some probability of the presence of historic graves under or adjacent to the historic dumps.

Palaeontology The desktop PIA found that the proposed Marievale Tailings Storage facilities and two pipeline alternatives are underlain by the Malmani Subgroup, (Chuniespoort Group, Transvaal Supergroup), Dwyka Group, Vryheid Formation (Ecca Group) and Karoo Dolerite Suite. The Palaeontological Sensitivity of the Malmani Subgroup is High, the Dwyka Group has a Moderate Palaeontological Sensitivity, the Vryheid Formation has a Very High Palaeontological

Marievale Reclamation HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page vii Sensitivity and Karoo Dolerite Suite has a Zero Palaeontological Sensitivity. Impacts on palaeontological heritage during the construction phase could potentially occur are regarded as having a high possibility. This would usually require a field-based assessment to be undertaken on the specific impacts expected.

However, since the proposed pipelines will be constructed overland or within existing servitudes and road reserves, it is anticipated that there should be no excavation into the underlying geology. In addition, the area around the three slimes dams has been disturbed extensively by previous mining-related activities. Therefore, the impacts on palaeontological heritage are anticipated to be minimal and it is recommended that an application for exemption from the standard requirement for a Palaeontological Impact Assessment be made to SAHRA

General It is the author’s considered opinion that overall impact on heritage resources is Medium to Low. Provided that the recommended mitigation measures are implemented, the impact would be acceptably low or could be totally mitigated to the degree that the project could be approved from a heritage perspective. The management and mitigation measures as described in Section 6 of this report have been developed to minimise the project impact on heritage resources.

Marievale Reclamation HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page viii TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION 19 1.1 Scope of the Study 19 1.2 Specialist Qualifications 19 1.3 Assumptions and Limitations 20 1.4 Legislative Context 20 2 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 21 2.1 Description and Location of the Property 21 2.2 Technical Project Description 23 2.2.1 Description of the Properties affected by the Project 23 2.2.2 Description of the Current Land Uses Applicable 23 2.2.3 Description of the Activities to be Undertaken and the Infrastructure Plan 24 3 STATUS QUO OF THE STUDY AREA 28 3.1 Site Description 28 3.2 Historical Overview of Study Area and Surrounding Landscape 31 3.3 Previous Archaeological and Heritage Studies in and around the Study Area 36 3.4 Archival and Historic Maps of the Study Area and Surrounding Landscape 37 3.4.1 Archival Maps 37 3.4.2 Brief History of the main farms affected: Draaikraal (Marievale), Vlakfontein and Vogelstruisbult 37 3.5 Early Mining Companies 41 3.5.1 Historical topographical maps 43 3.6 Desktop Findings 50 4 PALAEONTOLOGY 50 5 FIELDWORK FINDINGS 53 5.1 Heritage Sensitivity 103 6 IMPACT ASSESSMENT 105 6.1 Methodology for Assessing Heritage Site significance 105 6.3 Heritage Impacts 108 6.3.1 Historical structures – Residential/ non-mining 109 6.3.2 Historical structures – Mining 109 6.3.3 Burial Grounds and graves 110 6.3.4 Recent/modern structures 110 6.4 Palaeontological Impacts 110 6.5 Impact Assessment Tables 112 6.5.1 Direct and Indirect Impacts 112 6.5.2 Cumulative Impacts 118 6.6 Management recommendations and guidelines 119 6.6.1 Construction phase 119 6.6.2 Chance find procedure 120 6.6.3 Possible finds during construction and operation (reclamation activities) 120 6.7 Timeframes 121

Marievale Reclamation HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page ix 6.8 Heritage Management Plan for EMPr implementation 122 7 CONCLUSIONS 124 7.1 Heritage Sites 124 7.1.1 Historical structures: Residential or non-mining 124 7.1.2 Historical structures: Mining 124 7.1.3 Burial Grounds and graves 125 7.1.4 The historic slimes dams and sand dumps 125 7.2 Palaeontology 125 7.3 General 126 8 REFERENCES 126

Marievale Reclamation HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page x List of Figures

Figure 1 – Human and Cultural Timeline in Africa (Morris, 2008) ...... xviii Figure 2 - The proposed development area within its local context (provided by Kongiwe) ... 22 Figure 3 – Marievale TSF Proposed Pipeline alternatives ...... 27 Figure 4: Stone quarry, Marievale area ...... 28 Figure 5: Excavation and dumping disturbance, Marievale ...... 28 Figure 6: Disturbed area around Dump 7L7 ...... 29 Figure 7: Disturbed and vlei area north of dumps 7L5/7L6 ...... 29 Figure 8: Existing mining disturbance, Daggafontein plant ...... 29 Figure 9: Maize field, area of northern section TCTA pipeline ...... 29 Figure 10: Dumping in area of central TCTA pipeline ...... 29 Figure 11: View of the railway line adjacent to the Daggafontein to Ergo pipeline ...... 29 Figure 12: View looking west along the southern pipeline alternative ...... 30 Figure 13: View of RDP houses, Kwa-Thema, along existing pipeline to Ergo ...... 30 Figure 14: View of disturbance and dumping, along existing pipeline to Ergo ...... 30 Figure 15: View of Ergo plant ...... 30 Figure 16: View to Ergo plant, looking north-east ...... 30 Figure 17: View of area west of Ergo plant, showing remains of structures ...... 30 Figure 18 – Troye’s Map of the Witwatersrand Goldfields 1887, depicting the farms Marievale, Vlakfontein, Grootfontein, Daggafontein and the piece of Government Ground ...... 38 Figure 19 – Troye’s Map of the Witwatersrand Goldfields, 1890; depicting the farms Draaikraal, Vlakfontein, Grootfontein, Daggafontein and the piece of Government Ground (as well as the farms De Rietfontein and Witpoort) ...... 39 Figure 20 – Jeppe’s Map of the Southern Goldfields of the Transvaal, 1896; depicts the farms Marievale or Draaikraal, Vlakfontein No 21, Vogelstruisbult No Grootfontein No 152 and Daggafontein No 94. The pale yellow shading indicates proclaimed farms and the dark yellow indicates mynpachts...... 39 Figure 21 – Enlarged section of Springs District sheet of the “South Africa “Atlas Rand map, 1903; depicting the farms Vlakfontein, Vogelstruisbult, Daggafontein and Grootfontein, and associated gold mining companies...... 40 Figure 22 – Nigel District sheet of the “South Africa “Atlas Rand map, 1903; depicting the farms Marievale, Vlakfontein No 21, Grootfontein No 152, and associated gold mining companies 40 Figure 23 - Enlarged section of 1st Edition 1944 Topographic Map (2628AD), showing the northern section of the study area with heritage sensitive areas indicated by red polygons .. 44 Figure 24 - Enlarged section of 1st Edition 1944 Topographic Map (2628AD), showing the southern section of the study area with heritage sensitive areas indicated by red polygons . 45 Figure 25 - Enlarged section of 1960 2628AD and 1966 2628BC map sheets, showing the northern section of the study area with heritage sensitive areas indicated by blue polygons. 46 Figure 26 - Enlarged section of 3rd Edition 1960 and 1966 2628BC map sheets showing the southern section of the study area with heritage sensitive areas indicated by blue polygons 47

Marievale Reclamation HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page xi Figure 27 - Enlarged section of 1976 2628A and 1984 2628BC map sheets, showing the northern section of the study area with heritage sensitive areas indicated by green polygons ...... 48 Figure 28 - Enlarged section of 1976 2628A and 1984 2628BC map sheets showing the southern section of the study area with heritage sensitive areas indicated by red polygons . 49 Figure 29 - Surface geology of the proposed Marievale TSFs and alternative pipelines, north- east of Nigel and southeast of Springs, in the Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality, Gauteng Province. Map was drawn by QGIS 2.18.28 ...... 51 Figure 30 - Overlay of the Marievale Rehabilitation project area on the palaeosensitivity map from the SAHRIS database. This shows that most of the area is coloured red, which is rated as Very High sensitivity, with some areas of Moderate (green) and Insignificant (grey) sensitivity...... 52 Figure 31 - SAHRIS palaeosensitivity ratings table ...... 52 Figure 32: Tracklogs of the fieldwork undertaken (pale blue lines) ...... 54 Figure 33: Map showing Marievale Reclamation Project area with heritage sites identified during fieldwork...... 55 Figure 34 – Example of the semi-detached houses ...... 57 Figure 35 – Example of a different house style ...... 57 Figure 36 –The two historical structures ...... 58 Figure 37 – View of part of the amphitheatre structure ...... 59 Figure 38 – View of remains of structure adjacent to amphitheatre ...... 59 Figure 39 – View of the 2-storey industrial/mine structure ...... 60 Figure 40 – View of the remains of one of the residential buildings ...... 60 Figure 41 – View of the burial ground, showing vegetation and quarry ...... 62 Figure 42 – View of one of the few inscribed headstones (1933) ...... 62 Figure 43 – View of the brick buildings and the electrical structures ...... 63 Figure 44 – Closer view of the brick buildings ...... 63 Figure 45 – View of one of the two square stone and cement reservoirs ...... 65 Figure 46 – View of the remains of the concrete and stone drain/pipeline support ...... 65 Figure 47 – View of the two brick buildings inside the shooting range...... 66 Figure 48 – View showing the proximity of the shooting range to the 7L4 dump ...... 66 Figure 49 – View of the graves, mostly stone-packed with a few formal dressings ...... 68 Figure 50 – One of the inscribed headstones with a name and date (1953) ...... 68 Figure 51 – View of the section of ditch ...... 69 Figure 52 – View of the corner of the brick building ...... 70 Figure 53 – Close up view of the header-stretcher brick bond ...... 70 Figure 54 – General view of the site ...... 71 Figure 55 – View of the building remains ...... 71 Figure 56 – View of the brick industrial building ...... 72 Figure 57 – View of the concrete silo structures ...... 73 Figure 58 – View of other concrete remains ...... 73

Marievale Reclamation HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page xii Figure 59 –View of one of the brick mine buildings, note dense vegetation ...... 74 Figure 60 – View of another building ...... 74 Figure 61 –General view of structure remains ...... 75 Figure 62 –View of one of the circular features ...... 75 Figure 63 – View of the single extant structure on the site ...... 76 Figure 64 – View of the rubble from demolished buildings ...... 76 Figure 65 – View from the road ...... 77 Figure 66 – Another view showing existing buildings ...... 77 Figure 67 – Historical satellite imagery of the TCTA Plant, c.2004, showing historical buildings ...... 78 Figure 68 – Satellite imagery of the existing TCTA Plant, showing completely new structures ...... 78 Figure 69 – View of structure remains ...... 80 Figure 70 – View of stone amphitheatre ...... 80 Figure 71 – View of one style of house ...... 81 Figure 72 – View of another style of house ...... 81 Figure 73 – View of the farm shed from the road ...... 82 Figure 74 – Example of dilapidated house ...... 83 Figure 75 – View of the historical houses ...... 83 Figure 76 – Remains of brick and concrete foundations ...... 84 Figure 77 – Remains of structure ...... 84 Figure 78 – View of the burial ground, showing some stone-packed graves ...... 86 Figure 79 –Example of formal headstone with name and date (1949) ...... 86 Figure 80 – The remains of one of the larger red-brick structures ...... 88 Figure 81 – Two of the smaller buildings occupied as residences ...... 88 Figure 82 – The oval amphitheatre...... 89 Figure 83 – The foundation remains of some structures ...... 89 Figure 84 – Example of a house with yellow and blue brickwork ...... 90 Figure 85 –Example of house that has been altered ...... 90 Figure 86 – Small yellow-brick structure ...... 91 Figure 87 – Remains of red-brick structure ...... 91 Figure 88 – Concrete silos and foundation remains ...... 92 Figure 89 – Remans of disused railway track ...... 92 Figure 90 – Vlakfontein substation ...... 93 Figure 91 – View of the buildings from the road ...... 94 Figure 92 – Another example of a building ...... 94 Figure 93 – View of the Municipal Cemetery ...... 95 Figure 94 – View of the foundation remains ...... 96 Figure 95 – Concrete foundation ...... 97 Figure 96 – View of one of the compound buildings ...... 98 Figure 97 – View of the building used as a “Training centre” ...... 99

Marievale Reclamation HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page xiii Figure 98 – View of the historical church ...... 99 Figure 99 – View of Ergo plant from the nearest road ...... 100 Figure 100 – View of Ergo plant from the south-west ...... 100 Figure 101 – Satellite image of the area west of the Ergo plant, dated 2002 ...... 102 Figure 102 – View of ruined structures in the area south-west of the Ergo plant ...... 102 Figure 103 - Heritage sensitivity map indicating heritage areas and sites identified during the fieldwork, rated from Low to High...... 104 Figure 104 - Heritage Sites identified in the area around the TCTA Plant and the proposed TCTA pipeline ...... 129 Figure 105 – Heritage sites identified in the area around the proposed Daggafontein Plant and the two associated pipelines ...... 130 Figure 106 - Heritage sites identified in the area around the three Marievale dumps and the two associated pipelines ...... 131 Figure 107 - Heritage sites identified in the area around the Ergo Plant and the existing and proposed Ergo pipeline ...... 132

List of Tables

Table 1 – List of abbreviations used in this report ...... xvii Table 2 - Underlying geology of proposed study area...... 50 Table 3 - Sites identified during heritage survey ...... 56 Table 4 -Tangible heritage site in the study area ...... 103 Table 5 - Impact significance rating system ...... 106 Table 6: Significance rating methodology...... 107 Table 7: Typical table used to identify and classify the significance of identified impacts .... 107 Table 8: Typical table used to identify and classify the significance of identified impacts .... 108 Table 9 - Impact Assessment Table: Historical Structures – Residential and non-mining .... 112 Table 10 - Impact Assessment Table: Historical Structures – Mining ...... 114 Table 11 - Impact Assessment Table: Burial Grounds and Graves ...... 116 Table 12- Lead times for permitting and mobilisation...... 121 Table 13 - Heritage Management Plan for EMPr implementation ...... 122

List of Appendices A Identified Heritage Site Maps B Heritage Assessment Methodology C The Impact Rating Scales for the Proposed Construction Activities on Heritage Resources D Project team CV’s

Marievale Reclamation HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page xiv TERMINOLOGY AND ABBREVIATIONS

Archaeological resources This includes: ▪ material remains resulting from human activity which are in a state of disuse and are in or on land and which are older than 100 years including artefacts, human and hominid remains and artificial features and structures; ▪ rock art, being any form of painting, engraving or other graphic representation on a fixed rock surface or loose rock or stone, which was executed by human agency and which is older than 100 years, including any area within 10m of such representation; ▪ wrecks, being any vessel or aircraft, or any part thereof, which was wrecked in South Africa, whether on land, in the internal waters, the territorial waters or in the maritime culture zone of the republic as defined in the Maritimes Zones Act, and any cargo, debris or artefacts found or associated therewith, which is older than 60 years or which SAHRA considers to be worthy of conservation; and ▪ features, structures and artefacts associated with military history which are older than 75 years and the site on which they are found.

Cultural significance This means aesthetic, architectural, historical, scientific, social, spiritual, linguistic or technological value or significance

Development This means any physical intervention, excavation, or action, other than those caused by natural forces, which may in the opinion of the heritage authority in any way result in a change to the nature, appearance or physical nature of a place or influence its stability and future well-being, including: ▪ construction, alteration, demolition, removal or change in use of a place or a structure at a place; ▪ carrying out any works on or over or under a place; ▪ subdivision or consolidation of land comprising a place, including the structures or airspace of a place; ▪ constructing or putting up for display signs or boards; ▪ any change to the natural or existing condition or topography of land; and ▪ any removal or destruction of trees, or removal of vegetation or topsoil

Early Stone Age The archaeology of the Stone Age between 700 000 and 3 300 000 years ago.

Marievale Reclamation HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page xv Fossil Mineralised bones of animals, shellfish, plants and marine animals. A trace fossil is the track or footprint of a fossil animal that is preserved in stone or consolidated sediment.

Heritage That which is inherited and forms part of the National Estate (historical places, objects, fossils as defined by the National Heritage Resources Act 25 of 1999).

Heritage resources This means any place or object of cultural significance and can include (but not limited to) as stated under Section 3 of the NHRA, ▪ places, buildings, structures and equipment of cultural significance; ▪ places to which oral traditions are attached or which are associated with living heritage; ▪ historical settlements and townscapes; ▪ landscapes and natural features of cultural significance; ▪ geological sites of scientific or cultural importance; ▪ archaeological and palaeontological sites; ▪ graves and burial grounds, and ▪ sites of significance relating to the history of slavery in South Africa;

Holocene The most recent geological time period which commenced 10 000 years ago.

Late Stone Age The archaeology of the last 30 000 years associated with fully modern people.

Late Iron Age (Early Farming Communities) The archaeology of the last 1000 years up to the 1800’s, associated with iron-working and farming activities such as herding and agriculture.

Middle Stone Age The archaeology of the Stone Age between 30 000-300 000 years ago, associated with early modern humans.

Palaeontology Any fossilised remains or fossil trace of animals or plants which lived in the geological past, other than fossil fuels or fossiliferous rock intended for industrial use, and any site which contains such fossilised remains or trace.

Marievale Reclamation HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page xvi

Table 1 – List of abbreviations used in this report Abbreviations Description

ASAPA Association of South African Professional Archaeologists CRM Cultural Resource Management DEFF Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries DHSWS Department of Department of Human Settlements, Water and Sanitation ECO Environmental Control Officer EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EIA practitioner Environmental Impact Assessment Practitioner ESA Earlier Stone Age GPS Global Positioning System HIA Heritage Impact Assessment I&AP Interested & Affected Party LCTs Large Cutting Tools LIA Late Iron Age LSA Late Stone Age MIA Middle Iron Age MSA Middle Stone Age MPRDA Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, 2002 (Act No 28 of 2002) NEMA National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No 107 of 1998) NHRA National Heritage Resources Act, 1999 (Act No 25 of 1999) PHRA Provincial Heritage Resources Authority PSSA Palaeontological Society of South Africa SADC Southern African Development Community SAHRA South African Heritage Resources Agency

Marievale Reclamation HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page xvii

Figure 1 – Human and Cultural Timeline in Africa (Morris, 2008)

Marievale Reclamation HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page xviii 1 INTRODUCTION

PGS Heritage (Pty) Ltd (PGS) was appointed by Kongiwe Environmental (Pty) Ltd (Kongiwe) to undertake a scoping level and heritage impact assessment (HIA) which will serve to inform the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Environmental Management Programme (EMPr) for the proposed reclamation of Marievale tailings storage facilities, Ekurhuleni, Gauteng Province.

1.1 Scope of the Study

The aim of the study is to identify possible heritage sites and finds that may occur in the proposed development area. The HIA report aims to inform the EIA in the development of a comprehensive EMPr to assist the project applicant in managing the identified heritage resources in a responsible manner in order to protect, preserve, and develop them within the framework provided by the National Heritage Resources Act (Act 25 of 1999) (NHRA).

1.2 Specialist Qualifications

This Heritage Impact Assessment was compiled by PGS Heritage (PGS).

The staff at PGS have a combined experience of nearly 40 years in the heritage consulting industry. PGS and its staff have extensive experience in managing HIA processes. PGS will only undertake heritage assessment work where they have the relevant expertise and experience to undertake that work competently.

Jennifer Kitto, author of this report and Heritage Specialist, has 18 years’ experience in the heritage sector, a large part of which involved working for a government department responsible for administering the National Heritage Resources Act, No 25 of 1999. She is therefore well-versed in the legislative requirements of heritage management. She holds a BA in Archaeology and Social Anthropology and a BA (Hons) in Social Anthropology.

Cherene de Bruyn, archaeologist, is registered with the Association of Southern African Professional Archaeologists (ASAPA) as a Professional Archaeologist and is accredited as a Principal Investigator and Field Director, she is further also a member of the International Association for Impact Assessment South Africa (IAIASA). She holds a MA in Archaeology, BSc (Hons) in Physical Anthropology and a BA (Hons) in Archaeology.

Wouter Fourie, the Project Coordinator, is registered with the Association of Southern African Professional Archaeologists (ASAPA) as a Professional Archaeologist and is accredited as a Principal Investigator; he is further an Accredited Professional Heritage Practitioner with the Association of Professional Heritage Practitioners (APHP).

Marievale Reclamation HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 19 1.3 Assumptions and Limitations

Not detracting in any way from the comprehensiveness of the research undertaken, it is necessary to realise that the heritage resources located during the impact assessment study do not necessarily represent all the possible heritage resources present within the area.

This is especially true as the fieldwork confirmed that the study area contains the remains of many historical mining and residential structures, as well as marked and unmarked graves and burial grounds. It should be noted that certain areas were not accessible as they were located on private property (existing TCTA and Ergo plants, two SANDF military bases and an existing quarry) or contained informal settlements or the presence of illegal miners. Certain areas were also covered in dense vegetation, and others contained vlei areas/wet ground and mine discard dumps or illegal dumping.

Any additional observed or located heritage features and/or objects may not be disturbed or removed in any way until such time that the heritage specialist has been able to make an assessment as to the significance of the site (or material) in question. This applies to graves and burial grounds as well.

1.4 Legislative Context

The identification, evaluation and assessment of any cultural heritage site, artefact or find in the South African context is required and governed by the following legislation:

▪ National Environmental Management Act (NEMA), Act 107 of 1998 ▪ National Heritage Resources Act (NHRA), Act 25 of 1999 ▪ Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA), Act 28 of 2002

The following sections in each Act refer directly to the identification, evaluation and assessment of cultural heritage resources.

▪ National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) Act 107 of 1998 – Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations GN R982 of 8 December 2014, as amended o Basic Environmental Assessment (BEA) – Appendix 1 s (2)(d) o Environmental Scoping Report (ESR) – Appendix 1 s (3)(h)(iv) and Appendix 2 s(2)(g)(iv) o Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) – Appendix 3 s (3)(h)(iv)/ ▪ National Heritage Resources Act (NHRA) Act 25 of 1999 o Protection of Heritage Resources – Sections 34 to 36; and

Marievale Reclamation HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 20 o Heritage Resources Management – Section 38 ▪ Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) Act 28 of 2002

The NHRA is utilized as the basis for the identification, evaluation and management of heritage resources and in the case of CRM those resources specifically impacted on by development as stipulated in Section 38 of NHRA. This study falls under s38(8) and requires comment from the relevant heritage resources authorities (SAHRA and the Gauteng PHRA).

2 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

2.1 Description and Location of the Property

In terms of regional locality, the tailings dumps are situated approximately 6 km north-east of Nigel and about 10 km south-east of Springs, in the Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality (EMM). See Figure 2 below. The three dumps are positioned as follows: • Site 1: This site consists of dumps 7L5 and 7L6 The dumps fall within Ward 88, covering just over 80 Ha. • Site 2: Dump 7L7 is located approximately 1 km south of Site 1. The site is also in Ward 88 and covers roughly 60 Ha.

The area is predominantly surrounded by other mine dumps, active mining operations, agricultural lands, scattered settlements, bare ground. The Ramsar Blesbokspruit Wetland System and protected Marievale Bird Sanctuary Nature Reserve are situated just east of the dumps.

The following infrastructure is encountered in the area: • National and provincial roads (N17 and R51); • Residential and commercial properties; • The Engineers Golf Club; • The abandoned Grootvlei and Vogelstruisbult Gold Mines; • Vlakfontein Quarry Mine; • Power lines; • Railway lines; • Water reticulation systems; and other • Mine dumps.

Marievale Reclamation HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 21

Figure 2 - The proposed development area within its local context (provided by Kongiwe)

Marievale Reclamation HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 22 2.2 Technical Project Description

The following background information has been provided by Kongiwe:

Ergo Mining (Pty) Limited (hereafter Ergo), a subsidiary of DRDGold, intends to reclaim and reprocess gold residues from the Marievale tailings storage facilities (TSFs) Nos. 7L5, 7L6 and 7L7. These TSFs are historical mineral deposits (slimes dams), situated 6 km north-east of Nigel and about 10 km south-east of Springs, in the Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality (EMM), and were created prior to the promulgation of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, 2002 (Act No 28 of 2002) (MPRDA) and are accordingly not regulated by the MPRDA.

Ergo will reclaim the Marievale TSFs via a method known as hydraulic mining. This process works in such a way that water from hydraulic mining mixes with the unconsolidated material of the TSFs, resulting in a slurry. This slurry will be conveyed to the Ergo Processing Plant (hereafter Ergo Plant) for reprocessing using a newly constructed pipeline. Final deposition of the reprocessed slurry residue will be on the licenced Brakpan/Withok TSF.

2.2.1 Description of the Properties affected by the Project

Dumps 7L5 and 7L6 are both located on Portion 0 (RE) of the farm Vogelstruisbult 127 IR; while dump 7L7 is located on Portion 0 (RE) of Vlakfontein 281 IR farm. Most other properties have been identified as directly affected landowners for the pipeline alternatives of the project. The Marievale project will be confined to farms Vogelstruisbult 127 IR and Vlakfontein 281 IR, as well as all farms to be affected by the final pipeline route (Daggafontein 125 IR, Draaikraal 166 IR, Grootvaly 124 IR, Grootfontein 165 IR, Kwa Thema 210 IR, Rietfontein 128 IR, Vlakfontein 130 IR, Vogelstruisbult 127 IR, Witpoortje 117 IR, Witklip (Vulcania) 279 IR).

This is a “Brownfield Project" as it is the reclamation of historical tailings deposits with partly existing infrastructure. The potential negative and positive impacts of the Proposed Project on the heritage aspects will be objectively considered though studies undertaken during the EIA phase.

2.2.2 Description of the Current Land Uses Applicable

According to the Gauteng Provincial Environmental Management Framework (2018), the Proposed Project area is in a Control Zone (Zone 3) and these are defined as sensitive areas that fall outside of Urban Zones.

The current land uses of the surrounding areas are typified by mining and agricultural activities; dispersed settlements; sensitive areas like the Marievale Nature Reserve Bird Sanctuary and

Marievale Reclamation HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 23 Blesbokspruit Wetland System (which are Conservation and Protected areas respectively); and other mine dumps such as dump 7L4, situated just north of the project site, and the 7L3 zinc dump being reclaimed by Exxaro Base Metals (EBM) 1 km north-west from the project site.

The Proposed Project area is enclosed by several active and historic mining activities. Notable current and prospective mining activities in the area vary in ownership but are primarily quarries (e.g. Vlakfontein Quarry); coal mines such as the proposed Bloemendal Coal Mine (GP30/5/1/2/2/10071MR); the abandoned Grootvlei and Vogelstruisbult Gold Mines, and other proposed/active reclamation projects (e.g. the EBM Projects’ 7L3 zinc reclamation project). In addition, there are two proposed solar development projects within 30 km of the project site: a solar photovoltaic (PV) and concentrated solar power (CSP) development, with approved EA applications, under consideration. .

2.2.3 Description of the Activities to be Undertaken and the Infrastructure Plan

The Proposed Project will investigate various pipeline routes to convey slurry from the TSFs to the Ergo Plant for reprocessing; and return process water to the project site for reclamation:

• Pipeline 1: There will be a small 250 mm pipeline connection from Trans-Caledon Tunnel Authority (TCTA) AMD treatment project to the Daggafontein plant. This pipeline will then continue on Ergo’s approves Surface Right Permit to the Ergo Plant, whereafter brine will be disposed on the Brakpan/Withok TSF. • Pipeline 2 and 3: There will be two 600 mm pipelines that will run from 7L7, 7L6 and 7L5 north to the Daggafontein plant. These pipes will then continue on Ergo’s approved Surface Right Permit to the Ergo Plant, whereafter unused slurry will be disposed on the Brakpan/Withok TSF via existing pipelines. • Pipeline 4: This is a 600mm pipeline running south from 7L5, 7L6 and 7L7 directly to the Ergo Plant. This route is approximately 19 km long. Unused slurry will be disposed on the Brakpan/Withok TSF via existing pipelines. These options are all preferred pipeline options for the transport of slurry and return water.

The proposed reclamation site will be situated in Zone 3 of the Gauteng Provincial Environmental Management Framework (GPEMF) (2018); and even though some parts of the proposed pipelines may be laid in Zones 1 and 5, they may require authorisation in terms of the National Water Act

Marievale Reclamation HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 24 (Act No. 36 of 1998) (NWA) for Section 21 water uses. An Integrated Water Use Licence Application (IWULA) will be prepared and submitted in accordance with the Water Use Licence Application and Appeals Regulations 2017 published in GNR 267 on 24 March 2017 and will be supported by a Technical Report and other necessary supplementary reports.

Major routes around the mine dumps are the N17 which runs parallel to and north of the dumps and the R51 which runs west of and perpendicular to the dumps. The following access position is proposed: • Proposed access to Site 1 (Dumps 7L5 and 7L6) are is proposed by means of an existing small gravel access road from the Zincor Plant Access Road, this road will need to be widened to 10m with a 2% camber. This road will have to be realigned when the construction of the K135 is started, to comply with the minimum access spacing of 600m required by Gautrans for class 2 roads. • Proposed access to Site 2 (Dump 7L7) are is proposed by means of a proposed access road from the Marievale Sanctuary Road, as indicated on Drawing 19059/KP/01. Traffic from the main road and established mining activities will have the right of way and a ‘STOP’ condition will be implemented for the proposed access road. Intersections will be properly designed to provide safe entry and exit in and out of the project area. Approvals from the provincial roads’ authorities will be obtained where necessary.

Power will be supplied by Eskom and potable water will be purchased from Rand Water, with a contingency for portable JoJo tanks or connection to existing water pipeline infrastructure. In terms of water make-up and process water use, Ergo will make use of its Centralised water distribution system to recycle process water in a closed circuit. Where water makeup is required, this would be from TCTA, the Strubenvale Water Treatment Plant (WTP) and from the Daggafontein TSF.

The following infrastructure will be utilised on site: • Overland slurry pipelines of 600 mm in diameter; • Overland return water pipeline of 600 mm in diameter; • Overland Brine pipeline of 250 mm in diameter; • Reclamation pump stations/Collection Sump; • Water infrastructure, stormwater systems and spillage handling systems; • Electricity reticulation; • Temporary Administration buildings, including change houses and ablution facilities; • Existing Emergency Stormwater Dams; • Access roads, routed from existing entry points; and • Construction contractors’ yards (temporary facilities).

Marievale Reclamation HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 25 The life of mine for the Proposed Project is expected to be 20 years. An estimated amount of 500 000 tons/month ramping up to 1.2 million tons/month of slurry is expected to be pumped from the Marievale TSFs to Ergo Plant for beneficiation.

It is anticipated that reclamation will begin at 7L7, starting in the south eastern corner of the TSF and moving in a north westerly direction (i.e. from the lowest point to the highest point, into the prevailing wind direction). It is anticipated that operational reclamation will continue for approximately 2 years. Ergo will then proceed to 7L6 (starting at the lowest point on the dump) and then move to 7L5.

The Proposed Project site covers a combined total area of approximately 140 Ha.

Marievale Reclamation HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 26

Figure 3 – Marievale TSF Infrastructure Map

Marievale Reclamation HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 27 3 STATUS QUO OF THE STUDY AREA

3.1 Site Description

The greater Springs-Nigel region is part of the Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality and has been known historically as the Far East Rand. The region has been associated with historical mining activities since first coal was discovered in 1887 in the area of Nigel, followed shortly after by the discovery of gold and the establishment of the Nigel Gold Mining company.

Existing surrounding land uses associated with the project area include a combination of: • informal settlements, low-cost residential areas; • community and municipal facilities; • industrial areas; • manufacturing and distribution facilities, commercial businesses; • historical mine housing and historical mine infrastructure (slimes dams, shafts, derelict/abandoned buildings and water dams); • illegal informal mining activities, formal mining activities; • open land, and • road infrastructure.

As a result, the vast majority of the Marievale Reclamation Project footprint overlays highly disturbed and developed terrain (including existing mining activities). There is also evidence of illegal mining and dumping activities within the project area. Overall, the accessibility of the project footprint area was variable, with some sections more accessible than others. Some areas were located on private property, including an SANDF Military base. In the accessible areas, the site detection visibility was relatively good, although other areas were obscured by dense vegetation (including areas of vleiland and areas with maize fields) (Figure 4 to Figure 17).

Figure 4: Stone quarry, Marievale area Figure 5: Excavation and dumping disturbance, Marievale

Marievale Reclamation HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 28

Figure 6: Disturbed area around Dump 7L7 Figure 7: Disturbed and vlei area north of dumps 7L5/7L6

Figure 8: Existing mining disturbance, Figure 9: Maize field, area of northern section Daggafontein plant TCTA pipeline

Figure 10: Dumping in area of central TCTA Figure 11: View of the railway line adjacent to pipeline the Daggafontein to Ergo pipeline

Marievale Reclamation HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 29

Figure 12: View looking west along the Figure 13: View of RDP houses, Kwa-Thema, southern pipeline alternative along existing pipeline to Ergo

Figure 14: View of disturbance and dumping, Figure 15: View of Ergo plant along existing pipeline to Ergo

Figure 16: View to Ergo plant, looking north- Figure 17: View of area west of Ergo plant, east showing remains of structures

Marievale Reclamation HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 30 3.2 Historical Overview of Study Area and Surrounding Landscape

DATE DESCRIPTION

The Early Stone Age is the first and oldest phase identified in South Africa’s archaeological history and comprises two technological phases. The earliest of these is known as Oldowan and is associated with crude flakes and hammer stones. It dates to approximately 2 million years ago. The second technological 2.5 million to 250 000 phase is the Acheulian and comprises more refined and better made stone years ago artefacts such as the cleaver and bifacial hand axe. The Acheulian dates back to approximately 1.5 million years ago. No Early Stone Age sites are known from the vicinity of the study area. However, this is in all likelihood rather due to a lack of research focus on the surroundings of the study area than a lack of sites. The Middle Stone Age (MSA) is the second oldest phase identified in South Africa’s archaeological history. This phase is associated with flakes, points and blades manufactured by means of the so-called ‘prepared core’ technique. 250 000 to 40 000 Two MSA sites have been identified near Brakpan (Gaigher, 2013) (located years ago roughly 17 km north-west of the present study area). No MSA sites are known from the direct vicinity of the study area, however, this is in all likelihood rather due to a lack of research focus on the surroundings of the study area than a lack of sites. The Later Stone Age is the third archaeological phase identified and is associated with an abundance of very small artefacts known as microliths. 40 000 years ago to No Later Stone Age sites are known from the vicinity of the study area. the historic past However, this is in all likelihood rather due to a lack of research focus on the surroundings of the study area than a lack of sites. The Uitkomst facies of the Blackburn Branch of the Urewe Ceramic Tradition represents the third Iron Age period to be identified for the surroundings of the study area. This facies can likely be dated to between AD 1650 and AD 1820. The decoration on the ceramics associated with this facies is characterised by stamped arcades, appliqué of parallel incisions, stamping and cord impressions and is described as a mixture of the characteristics of both Ntsuanatsatsi (Nguni) and Olifantspoort (Sotho) (Huffman, 2007). AD 1450 – AD 1650

The type-site Uitkomst Cave, was excavated by Professor R.J. Mason of the University of the Witwatersrand as part of a project to excavate five cave sites (Glenferness, Hennops River, Pietkloof, Zwartkops and Uitkomst) in the Witwatersrand-Magaliesberg area. Uitkomst was chosen as the type-site for the particular Iron Age material excavated at these sites, as its deposit was found to be well stratified and the site “...illustrates the combination of a certain

Marievale Reclamation HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 31 kind of pottery with evidence for metal and food production and stone wall building found at the open sites...” (Mason, 1962:385).

The Uitkomst pottery is viewed as a combination of Ntsuanatsatsi and Olifantspoort, and with the Makgwareng facies is seen as the successors to the Ntsuanatsatsi facies. The Ntsuanatsatsi facies is closely related to the oral histories of the Early Fokeng people and represents the earliest known movement of Nguni people out of Kwazulu-Natal into the inland areas of South Africa. Regarding this theory, the Bafokeng settled at Ntsuanatsatsi Hill in the present-day Free State Province. Subsequently, the BaKwena lineage had broken away from the Bahurutshe cluster and crossed southward over the Vaal River to come in contact with the Bafokeng. As a result of this contact a Bafokeng-Bakwena cluster was formed, which moved northward and became further ‘Sotho-ised’ by coming into increasing contact with other Sotho-Tswana groups. According to this theory, this eventually resulted in the appearance of Uitkomst facies type pottery which contained elements of both Nguni and Sotho-Tswana speakers (Huffman, 2007). Huffman states that that the Uitkomst facies is directly associated with the Bafokeng (Huffman, 2007). However, it worth noting that not all researchers agree with this proposition of the Bafokeng origins. In their book on the history of the Bafokeng, Bernard Mbenga and Andrew Mason indicate that the research of Prof. R.J. Mason and Dr. J.C.C. Pistorius “...would indicate that the Bafokeng originated from the Bahurutshe-Bakwena-Bakgatla lineage cluster. Tom Huffman holds a different view...” (Mbenga & Mason, 2010). The Buispoort facies of the Moloko branch of the Urewe Ceramic Tradition is the next phase to be identified within the greater Witwatersrand area. It is most likely dated to between AD 1700 and AD 1840. The key features on the decorated ceramics include rim notching, broadly incised chevrons and white AD 1700 – AD 1840 bands, all with red ochre (Huffman, 2007). It is believed that the Madikwe facies developed into the Buispoort facies. The Buispoort facies is associated with sites such as Boschhoek, Buffelshoek, Kaditshwene, Molokwane and Olifantspoort (Huffman, 2007). After leaving present-day KwaZulu-Natal the Khumalo Ndebele (more commonly known as the Matabele) of Mzilikazi migrated through the general vicinity of the study area under discussion before reaching the central reaches of the Vaal River in the vicinity of Heidelberg in 1823 (www.mk.org.za). AD 1821 – AD 1823 Two different settlement types have been associated with the Khumalo Ndebele. The first of these is known as Type B walling and was found at Nqabeni in the Babanango area of KwaZulu-Natal. These walls stood in the open without any military or defensive considerations and comprised an inner

Marievale Reclamation HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 32 circle of linked cattle enclosures (Huffman, 2007). The second settlement type associated with the Khumalo Ndebele is known as Doornspruit and comprises a layout which from the air has the appearance of a ‘beaded necklace’. This layout comprises long scalloped walls (which mark the back of the residential area) which closely surround a complex core which in turn comprises a number of stone circles. The structures from the centre of the settlement can be interpreted as kitchen areas and enclosures for keeping small stock. It is important to note that the Doornspruit settlement type is associated with the later settlements of the Khumalo Ndebele in areas such as the Magaliesberg Mountains and Marico and represent a settlement under the influence of the Sotho with whom the Khumalo Ndebele intermarried. The Type B settlement is associated with the early Khumalo Ndebele settlements and conforms more to the typical Zulu form of settlement. As the Khumalo Ndebele passed through the general vicinity of the study areas shortly after leaving Kwazulu-Natal, one can assume that their settlements here would have conformed more to the Type B than the Doornspruit type of settlement. It must be stressed however that no published information could be found which indicates the presence of Type B sites in the general vicinity of the study area. No sites associated with this period of the archaeological history of the surroundings of the study area are presently known. At the time a Zulu impi of King Dingane moved through the general vicinity of 1832 the study area on their way to attack the Matabele of Mzilikazi who were settled along the Magaliesberg Mountains (Bergh, 1999). 1836 The first Voortrekker parties started crossing over the Vaal River at the time. These years saw the early establishment of farms by the Voortrekkers in the 1841 – 1850 general vicinity of the study area (Bergh, 1999). Both the district and town of Lydenburg was established in this year (Bergh, 1845 1999). The study area fell within the Lydenburg district at the time. 1872 The study area now fell within the district of Middelburg (Bergh, 1999). 1883 - 1887 In 1883, the farm, “The Springs” was surveyed by James Brooks as a triangular portion of left-over land (‘uitvalgrond’) between the farms of Geduld (owned by the then President of the Transvaal Republic, Paul Kruger), De Rietfontein, and Brakpan. The land measured 685 hectares in extent and was designated as Government-owned land (‘Gouwernmentsgrond’), Brooks named the farm ‘The Springs’, after the numerous fountains in the area (Erasmus, 2014; Bruwer and Martinson 2018). Coal was discovered in 1887 and the region soon became the most productive coal mining region in the country. Unfortunately, the low quality and highly inflammable nature of the coal (which was prone to spontaneous ignition)

Marievale Reclamation HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 33 resulted in most of the coal mines closing down after better quality coal was discovered in Witbank (Erasmus, 2014). The town of Springs is located roughly 10km north-west of the present study area. 1886 The town of Brakpan was founded in 1886 and proclaimed a township in 1912 (Raper 2004). 1887 Gold was discovered on the farm Varkensfontein by a group of prospectors on their way to Johannesburg. The owner of the farm, Johannes Petrus Marais, subsequently started the Nigel Gold Mining Company (Davenport 2013; Erasmus 2014) The first railway line in the Transvaal, known as the ‘Rand Tram’, was built to transport coal from the newly discovered coal fields on the East Rand to the 1891 gold mines on the Central Witwatersrand. The construction of this line resulted in the rapid development of the coal mining industry in present-day Springs and surrounding areas (Erasmus, 2014). The South African War took place during this time. No events or activities during the war can be associated with the present study area. However, a number of such events and activities are known from the general vicinity. Two skirmishes or battles from the surrounding landscape include an action between sections of the 2nd Dragoon Guards under the command of Major Cecil Feilden and a section of the Heidelberg Commando under command of 1899 – 1902 General Piet Viljoen in the vicinity of the farms Langzeekoegat and Klippan 324 IQ on 18 February 1902 (approximately 20km south-east of the present study area) as well as the skirmish between a British column advancing on Devon and members of the Heidelberg Commando on the farms Boesmanskop 293IQ and Syferfontein 288IQ on 6 March 1902 (roughly 21km east of the present study area) (Blake, 2012). After gold options had been taken out on the farm Geduld, the town of Springs was established in 1904 and became a municipality in 1912 (Erasmus, 2014). At the time of the 1904 census, the population of Springs was recorded as 1904 1,500 whites and 5,000 ‘coloured persons’ (Praagh, 1906). The establishment of a number of gold mines in the area during the first half of the 20th century led to the rapid development of Springs. Gold mining acitvities in the vicinity of Springs commenced at this time 1908 (Erasmus, 2014). 1906 - 1910 The railway line linking the Apex Junction (located between Boksburg and Brakpan) with Witbank was built during this time (Bergh, 1999). The town of Nigel was established on the farm Varkensfontein in this year. It 1909 was formally proclaimed a township in 1912 (Erasmus 2014)

Marievale Reclamation HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 34 This year saw the District Witwatersrand being sub-divided into four new 1909 districts, namely Johannesburg, Boksburg, Germiston and Krugersdorp. The study area now fell within the Boksburg District (Bergh 1999). 1920 The new District of Springs was created out of the previous Districts of Boksburg and Heidelberg. The study area now fell within the Springs District (Bergh 1999). The Second World War between Allied countries (which included Great Britain, the United States of America and South Africa) and the Axis countries (comprising Nazi Germany, Italy and Japan) was fought mainly in Europe, North Africa and the Pacific during this time. During the war the mine compounds located on the farm Palmietkuilen 241 IQ were converted by the Union Defence Force into the main training facility of the so-called ‘Native Military Corps’. A memorial was erected by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission in proximity to this former training facility (www.cwgc.org). A cemetery containing the graves of members of the ‘Native Military Corps’ is located near the memorial (www.lesedilm.gov.za). 1939 - 1945 This corps consisted of black people who volunteered for military duty during the war years. Due to the racist perceptions of the South African government and military authorities (and in fact the Western World) at the time, there was a reluctance to provide arms and ammuntion to black soldiers. As a result the members of the ‘Native Military Corps’ were rarely utilised in a fighting capacity and were tasked with a “…varitey of non-combatant roles such as motor transport drivers, motor mechanics, carpenters, builders, boot makers, stretcher-bearers and medical aids, clerks, typists, telephone operators etc.” (Mohlamme, 1995). The site of the former training facility is located roughly 23km south-east of the present study area. Kwa-Thema. This area was established as an exclusively African township as a consequence both of extreme ovecrowding in the existing township of Payneville during the 1940s and the formalisation and subsequent amendment of the Group Areas Act, in the 1950s and 1960s (Neftagodien 1996). Housing construction in KwaThema began in 1952. In the first two years 2226 municipal 1952 houses were built and by 1960 there were over 6000 municipal houses and the population of the township increased to about 37 000. The Springs municipality boasted that KwaThema was a model township. It was the first township to be built exclusively by African labour and was one of the best lit in the country. In the first six years of its existence KwaThema rapidly grew into one of the biggest African Townships on the Reef (Neftagodien 1996).

Marievale Reclamation HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 35 3.3 Previous Archaeological and Heritage Studies in and around the Study Area

A search of the South African Heritage Resources Information System database (SAHRIS – (http://www.sahra.org.za/sahris), identified several previous HIA’s undertaken within the wider area. Two heritage studies by Higgett (2015) and one palaeontological study by Fourie were undertaken on the farms Vlakfontein 281 IR, Vogelstruisbult 127 IR, which both identified mining infrastructure on those farms and adjacent properties. A selection of previous studies for the area is listed in descending chronological order below:

• Van der Walt, J. 2008. Archaeological Impact Assessment Daggafontein Extension 6, Portion 107 of the Farm Daggafontein 125 IR, Springs, Gauteng Province. No cultural heritage sites of significance were identified.

• Higgett, N. 2015. Prospecting Right and Environmental Authorisation Application for the 7L4 Slimes Dam on Vogelstruisbult 127 IR and Daggafontein 125 IR. Notification of Intent to Develop. This report identified the 7L4 slimes dam as between 63 and 47 years old. The early slimes dams and other associated mining infrastructure are integral components of the historical mining townscapes and settlements of the East Rand.

• Higgett, N. 2015. Prospecting Right and Environmental Authorisation Application for the 7L5 and 7L6 Slimes Dam on Vlakfontein 281 IR. Notification of Intent to Develop. Heritage study for prospecting right and Environmental authorisation. This report identified the 7L5 and 7L6 slimes dam as are between 63 and 47 years old. The early slimes dams and other associated mining infrastructure are integral components of the historical mining townscapes and settlements of the East Rand.

• Fourie, H. 2017.Proposed Mining of Clay, Sand and Coal. Nigel and Springs District Municipality, Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality, Gauteng Province. Farm: Portion of Portion 85 of Grootfontein 165-IR and a Portion of the Remainder of Vogelstruisbult 127-IR Nigel. Paleontological Impact Assessment (PIA), Phase 1 Field Study for the proposed mining development. The potential impact of the development on fossil heritage is VERY HIGH and therefore a field survey was necessary. The field survey found that the site is directly underlain by shale and sandstone of the Vryheid Formation and that coal is present. Recent structures for mining activities are present on the adjoining property.

• De Bruyn, C. 2018. Basic Assessment Report for the Proposed Kwathema to Grundlingh WWTW Bulk Outfall Sewer: Capital Project Implementation Near Nigel, Gauteng Province. No archaeological or heritage resources were identified.

Marievale Reclamation HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 36 • Mathoho, E. 2018. Heritage Impact Assessment Relating to the Proposed Upgrade of Pam Brink Feeder Pipe Line in Geduld, Springs, Within Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality of The Gauteng Province, South Africa. The existing feeder pipeline route crosses the property of the Geduld Cemetery, which contains historical graves and a historical entrance structure.

• Coetzee, F. 2018. Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment: Phase 1 Investigation for the Proposed Underground Water Treatment Facility and Pipeline near Cowles Dam in Springs, New Kleinfontein Goldmine (Pty) Ltd (Modder East Operations), Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality, Gauteng. The proposed pipeline is approximately 5 km north of Springs. The remains of one historical farmhouse complex were recorded during the survey. No archaeological artefacts, assemblages, features, structures or settlements were recorded during the survey of the project footprint.

3.4 Archival and Historic Maps of the Study Area and Surrounding Landscape

3.4.1 Archival Maps

An examination of several historical maps that depict the farms affected by the proposed reclamation project has shown that several gold mining companies existed on the two/three main farms on which the historic TSFs are located.

Troye’s Map of the Witwatersrand Goldfields, dated 1887, depicts the Marievale and Vlakfontein (Vlakfontein No. 21) farms, but shows that a portion of the present-day Vogelstruisbult farm was at that time government owned land. By the time Jeppe’s Map of the Southern Goldfields of the Transvaal 1896 was produced, the portion previously labelled as “government ground” had become the farm Vogelstruisbult No. 36. This new farm, together with the farm Marievale 295 (also known as Draaikraal) and the southern adjacent farm of Varkensfontein 217 are depicted as proclaimed land, with some areas of Marievale and Varkensfontein having been proclaimed as mynpachts. A number of gold mine companies are depicted on Varkensfontein, with two marked on Marievale (Marievale Gold Mining and Estates and Nigel East).

3.4.2 Brief History of the main farms affected: Draaikraal (Marievale), Vlakfontein and Vogelstruisbult

Draaikraal / Marievale A Survey diagram was retrieved from the Chief Surveyor General’s website which indicated that this farm was surveyed in December 1888 as Draaikraal N0, 14 for the then landowner, Alan Broderick.

Marievale Reclamation HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 37 Vlakfontein A recent survey diagram obtained from the Chief surveyor General’s website gives the date of the original title deed for this farm as 4.3.1867. Unfortunately, the original diagram was not available at the time of writing this report. However, this date would suggest that this farm was one of the original Voortrekker farms.

Vogelstruisbult This farm appears to have been created in 1915 from a piece of Government Ground combined with portions of the farms Daggafontein and Vlakfontein. Troye’s Map of the Pretoria and Heidelberg Goldfields (1887) depicts the piece of Government Ground, while his later Map of the Witwatersrand Goldfields (1890) shows the piece of Government Ground with a slightly different shape. Jeppe’s Map of the Goldfields of the Southern Transvaal (1896) shows the farm Vogelstruisbult No 86. Maps dated after the South African War show the farm Vogelstruisbult in its current shape. The 1903 map of South Africa’s Atlas of the Rand also shows Vogelstruisbult No 86. The only survey diagram that was available on the Chief Surveyor General’s website refers to a survey undertaken in 1915, This seems to have been a resurvey of the farm boundaries, as the diagram notes that “The beacons were pointed out by Surveyor CP Tomkins.”

The other farms that form part of the study area are all depicted on the very earliest maps of the area, including and Daggafontein, Grootfontein, Rietfontein and Witpoort.

Figure 18 – Troye’s Map of the Witwatersrand Goldfields 1887, depicting the farms Marievale, Vlakfontein, Grootfontein, Daggafontein and the piece of Government Ground

Marievale Reclamation HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 38

Figure 19 – Troye’s Map of the Witwatersrand Goldfields, 1890; depicting the farms Draaikraal, Vlakfontein, Grootfontein, Daggafontein and the piece of Government Ground (as well as the farms De Rietfontein and Witpoort)

Figure 20 – Jeppe’s Map of the Southern Goldfields of the Transvaal, 1896; depicts the farms Marievale or Draaikraal, Vlakfontein No 21, Vogelstruisbult No Grootfontein No 152 and Daggafontein No 94. The pale yellow shading indicates proclaimed farms and the dark yellow indicates mynpachts.

Marievale Reclamation HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 39

Figure 21 – Enlarged section of Springs District sheet of the “South Africa “Atlas Rand map, 1903; depicting the farms Vlakfontein, Vogelstruisbult, Daggafontein and Grootfontein, and associated gold mining companies

Figure 22 – Nigel District sheet of the “South Africa “Atlas Rand map, 1903; depicting the farms Marievale, Vlakfontein No 21, Grootfontein No 152, and associated gold mining companies

Marievale Reclamation HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 40 3.5 Early Mining Companies

The information from the early historical maps indicates that several mining companies were associated with the three main affected farms as well as the surrounding farms from at least 1896. These included the Marievale Gold Mine and Estates company and Nigel East Gold Mining Company depicted on Jeppe’s map of 1896. By 1903, the “South Africa” Atlas Map of the Rand depicts a large number of mining companies in the Nigel and Springs areas. The Marievale / Draaikraal farm is depicted with several mining companies and individual claims, including: Marievale Nigel Gold Mine and Estates company, East Nigel and Consolidated Goldfields. No specific companies are depicted for Vogelstruisbult, although the farm is coloured in yellow on Jeppe’s’ map of 1896, which indicates it was proclaimed for mining by that time. The farm Vlakfontein was not indicated as proclaimed in 1896, but by 1903, Lydenburg Gold Farms is associated with this farm. The Daggafontein Gold Mining Company is depicted on the farm Daggafontein in 1903.

Further information on the early historical gold mining companies was obtained from The Mining Manual (Skinner 1911), below.

The Marievale Nigel Gold Mines & Estate, Ltd was registered in the Transvaal on July 18th, 1895, to acquire the freehold of the farm Draaikraal No. 296 (Marievale), in the Heidelberg district, south- east of Johannesburg, Transvaal. The property is stated as being situated on the eastern extension of the Nigel Reef, and immediately adjoining the farm Varkensfontein (on which farm the Nigel, Nigel Deep, and Central Nigel Mines were already established). The property included three mynpachts (equal to 685 claims) and 241 claims. The consideration was £200,000, in fully paid shares. The company also acquired the freehold of a portion of the adjoining farm Holgatfontein No. 127. By 1911 the company had suspended mining operations, but derived a revenue from claim licences (Skinner 1911).

Two gold mining companies are associated with the Vogelstruisbult farm. The company, Vogelstruisbult Proprietary Limited was registered October 11 1909, to adopt an agreement with S.H. van Diggelen to acquire 600 mining claims on the farm Vogelstruisbult No. 86, Heidelberg district, Transvaal. No further information was available. A second company, Vogelstruisbult Gold Mining Areas Limited, was established in February 1933 as a joint venture between Gold Fields South Africa and Rand Mines (Rodd (1995). This company was formed by consolidating 1631 claims belonging to Consolidated Goldfields and 948 claims belonging to Rand Mines on the Vogelstruisbult farm. In addition, 1834 adjoining claims immediately to the south of Daggafontein and north-east of Sub-Nigel were also acquired. The reduction plant at Vogelstruisbult was constructed in 1936 and the mill-house was believed to be the first all-concrete mill building on a Reef mine. Rudd notes that Vogelstruisbult closed down its gold operations in 1968 and in August 1969, the headgear at No. 3 shaft was taken down. In 1967, the old uranium plant situated at No.

Marievale Reclamation HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 41 1 shaft area of Vogelstruisbult was used for the construction of an electrolytic zinc plant as part of the formation of a new company, the Zinc Corporation of SA, by Gold Fields SA, Iscor and Vogelstruisbult.

The Lydenburg Gold Farms Company, Limited was registered in the Transvaal in 1895, to acquire 19 freehold farms in the Transvaal, including two in the Heidelberg district: Vlakfontein (No. 21) and Nooitgedacht (No. 22). This company was associated with the Johannesburg Consolidated Investment Company, Limited. It held 174,630 shares in the Gold Farms Exploration Co., Ltd, and had acquired an option over the two Heidelberg farms which were however, recorded as being abandoned by 1910.

Two companies are initially associated with the farm Daggafontein. The Daggafontein Prospecting Syndicate, Limited was registered June 24 1899, to acquire from Henderson's Transvaal Estates, Ltd., rights relating to the prospecting, proving and sale of the farm Daggafontein, East Rand, Transvaal. By a further agreement the company acquired 100,000 shares in the Daggafontein Gold Mining Co., Ltd., and the estate was transferred to that company to be dealt with. The Daggafontein Gold Mining Company, Limited, was registered on October 1 1902. By 1910 the property had been prospected by boreholes, and the Main Reef struck at 3,125 feet and at 3,575 feet, and the Kimberley Reef at 1,946 feet. By 1910, a seven-compartment shaft was being sunk and it was proposed to work the property on a 200-stamp basis.

The farm Grootvlei is associated with the East Rand Mining Estates, Limited company and Grootvlei Proprietary Mines, Limited. Both of these companies were associated with the well-known partnership of Isaac Lewis and Sammy Marks (Wills and Barrett 1883). East Rand Mining Estates, Limited was registered on March 29 1901, to acquire from Lewis and Marks interests in freehold farms in the Heidelberg and Pretoria districts of the Transvaal, including: Grootvlei No. 176 (adjoining Geduld), in the extension of the East Rand, as well as options over mineral rights on other farms in the Heidelberg district (since abandoned). The company later acquired an interest in the farm Rietfontein in the Heidelberg district. The farm Grootvlei had been proved by the Grootvlei Prospecting Syndicate, Ltd. to be underlain by the main reef. A parent company, called the Grootvlei Proprietary Mines, Ltd., was formed to develop the property, accordingly. By 1910 shaft sinking was in progress. The Grootvlei Proprietary Mines, Limited was registered on April 23, 1904, to acquire from the East Rand Mining Estates, Ltd. (and other companies) the whole of the mining rights (other than coal) of the farm Grootvlei No. 176. Skinner notes that the Grootvlei Prospecting Syndicate, Ltd. had prospected the property by boreholes, striking the Van Ryn reef on the western boundary, and on the eastern boundary. Two shafts, 5,600 feet apart, had been sunk, but owing to inrush of water operations had been temporarily suspended (Skinner 1911).

Marievale Reclamation HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 42 3.5.1 Historical topographical maps

Historical topographic maps dating between 1944 and 1984 were available for utilisation in the background study. The maps were utilised to identify structures or graves that could possibly be older than 60 years and thus protected under Section 34 and 36 of the NHRA. Most of the structures identified are historical mining structures or historical dwelling structures. NB: The largest portion of the study area for the proposed project is covered by the 2628AD map sheets, however, the easternmost section is covered by the 2628BC map sheet. Unfortunately, there is a discrepancy in the time periods covered by the different editions of the map sheets. That is, the First edition of the 2628AD map is dated 1944 while the First Edition of the 2628BC map is dated to 1966. Therefore, the analysis of the maps compared the sheets according to the closest dates.

▪ First Edition of the 2628AD Topographical Sheet, 1944 The map was surveyed in 1942 and drawn by the Trigonometrical Survey Office. It was reprinted in 1944 and the second edition was printed in 1945 by the Government Printing Works.

▪ Third Edition of the 2628AD Topographical Sheet, 1960 The map was based on aerial photography undertaken in 1952 and was surveyed in 1957 and drawn in 1960 by the Trigonometrical Survey Office. It was reprinted and republished in 1968 by the Government Printer.

▪ Fourth Edition of the 2628AD Topographical Sheet, 1976 The map was printed and published in 1976 by the Government Printer.

▪ First Edition of the 2628BC Topographical Sheet, 1966 The map was based on aerial photography undertaken in 1958 and was surveyed in 1966 and drawn in 1967 by the Trigonometrical Survey Office. It was printed and published in 1968 by the Government Printer.

▪ Second Edition of the 2628BC Topographical Sheet, 1984 The map was printed and published in 1984 by the Government Printer.

In total, 33 potential heritage sensitive areas were identified in the location of the study area as depicted on the topographical maps (Figure 23, to Figure 28). Two of these are depicted as grave sites (purple polygons) and the remainder are depicted as groups of residential structures or mining related structures (red polygons). Since the first edition of the topographic map for the study area dates to 1944, many of the structures in the heritage sensitive areas are likely to be 75 years or older.

Marievale Reclamation HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 43

Figure 23 - Enlarged section of 1st Edition 1944 Topographic Map (2628AD), showing the northern section of the study area with heritage sensitive areas indicated by red polygons Marievale Reclamation HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 44

Figure 24 - Enlarged section of 1st Edition 1944 Topographic Map (2628AD), showing the southern section of the study area with heritage sensitive areas indicated by red polygons

Marievale Reclamation HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 45

Figure 25 - Enlarged section of 1960 2628AD and 1966 2628BC map sheets, showing the northern section of the study area with heritage sensitive areas

indicated by blue polygons

Marievale Reclamation HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 46

Figure 26 - Enlarged section of 3rd Edition 1960 and 1966 2628BC map sheets showing the southern section of the study area with heritage sensitive areas indicated by blue polygons

Marievale Reclamation HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 47

Figure 27 - Enlarged section of 1976 2628A and 1984 2628BC map sheets, showing the northern section of the study area with heritage sensitive areas indicated by green polygons

Marievale Reclamation HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 48

Figure 28 - Enlarged section of 1976 2628A and 1984 2628BC map sheets showing the southern section of the study area with heritage sensitive areas indicated by red polygons

Marievale Reclamation HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 49 3.6 Desktop Findings

The archival and historical research has revealed that the entire area of the proposed Marievale Reclamation project, on which the historical slimes dams are located, has been affected on a continual basis by historical mining activities, since c.1886/87 and was associated with several historical gold mine companies. These mining activities have continued to the present day, both formally and informally (illegal). The ground affected by the proposed environmental authorisation application is therefore extremely disturbed. There is also high potential for the existence of heritage sites associated with the historical mining activities (e.g. historical mining structures, historical residential structures, and historical graves and burial grounds).

4 PALAEONTOLOGY

Banzai Environmental was appointed to do a Palaeontological Desktop Assessment and found that:

The proposed development is underlain by the Malmani Subgroup (High Palaeontological Sensitivity), Dwyka Group (Moderate Palaeontological Sensitivity), Vryheid Formation (Very High Palaeontological Sensitivity) and Karoo Dolerite Suite (Zero Palaeontological Sensitivity) (Table 2 and Figure 30). Rock formations of Moderate to Very High Palaeontological Sensitivity are present in the study area and thus a field-based assessment by a palaeontologist would usually be required. Rock formations with a zero palaeontological sensitivity are unfossiliferous (Butler 2019).

Table 2 - Underlying geology of proposed study area Symbol Group/Formation Lithology Approximate Age Palaeontological Sensitivity Jd Jurassic dolerite dykes Dolerite Ca 180 Ma Zero Pv Vryheid Fm, Ecca Sandstone, Upper Very High Group shale, coal Carboniferous, Early Permian 295-290 Ma C-Pd Dwyka Tillite, Upper Moderate sandstone, Carboniferous, mudstone, Early Permian shale 295-290 Ma Vm Malmani subgroup, Dolomite, 2642 – 2500 Ma High Chuniespoort Group chert

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 50

Figure 29 - Surface geology of the proposed Marievale TSFs and alternative pipelines, north-east of Nigel and southeast of Springs, in the Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality, Gauteng Province. Map was drawn by QGIS 2.18.28

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 51 According to the SAHRIS palaeo-sensitivity map (Figure 30) there is a high possibility of finding fossils in the Malmani Subgroup (High Palaeontological Sensitivity), and Vryheid Formation (Very High Palaeontological Sensitivity) while there is a moderate chance of finding fossils in the Dwyka Group and the Karoo Dolerite Suite has a Zero Palaeontological Sensitivity.

Figure 30 - Overlay of the Marievale Rehabilitation project area on the palaeosensitivity map from the SAHRIS database. This shows that most of the area is coloured red, which is rated as Very High sensitivity, with some areas of Moderate (green) and Insignificant (grey) sensitivity.

Figure 31 - SAHRIS palaeosensitivity ratings table

It is thus recommended that an EIA level palaeontology report would be required to assess the value and prominence of fossils in the development area and the effect of the proposed development on the palaeontological heritage. This would entail a Phase 1 field-based assessment in the site-specific study area, as well as a comprehensive assessment of the impacts identified during the scoping phase. However, since the project is not expected to require any excavation into the underlying geology, the impacts on palaeontological heritage are anticipated to be minimal.

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 52 5 FIELDWORK FINDINGS

A controlled surface survey was conducted on foot and by vehicle over a period of two days by a heritage team from PGS, including an archaeologist, heritage specialist and field assistant. The fieldwork was conducted on 8 and 15 January 2020. Due to the fieldwork being undertaken in summer after a period of prolonged rainfall, large parts of the project area were covered with dense vegetation. The track logs (in pale blue) for the survey are indicated in Figure 32.

A total of 38 heritage resources were identified during the fieldwork component of this HIA and are described in Table 3 and their positions shown in Figure 33. Most of the identified sites (33) are historical mining or residential structures or the remains of such structures (MV001-MV004, MV006- MV008, MV010-MV018, MV020-MV024, MV026-MV036, MV038). The other sites identified are three informal burial grounds (MV005, MV009, MV025) and one municipal cemetery (MV033). Note that MV019 and MV037 are the existing TCTA Plant and Ergo Plant, respectively, which previously contained historical structures, however most of these have been replaced by modern structures over time.

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 53

Figure 32: Tracklogs of the fieldwork undertaken (pale blue lines)

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 54

Figure 33: Map showing Marievale Reclamation Project area with heritage sites identified during fieldwork

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 55 Table 3 - Sites identified during heritage survey Heritage Heritage Site1 no Lat Lon Description Significance Rating

The site consists of an extensive historical residential area that is associated with the Marievale Gold Mining company. Some of the houses visible have brick walls, with corrugated iron roofs; a few are semi-detached. A few houses in a different style (red brick with concrete lintels) were also noted. There are also some newer buildings visible. The residential buildings are in different states of preservation. There are also several rectangular barrack/compound buildings which are constructed of modern brick. A GPS point was also taken at the entrance gate structure of the area, this was MV001-1 S 26,36283 E 28,49462 constructed of modern bricks with tall metal openwork gates. Site extent: approx.

151ha (estimated from satellite imagery). Historical maps show structures present in Grade MV001-2 S 26, 35869 E 28,49684 Medium the area by 1944, with a more structured layout by 1960 and more buildings depicted IIIB

by 1976. The structures are associated with the Marievale Consolidated Gold Mines MV001-3 S 26, 35777 E 28, 49661 NB: the entire residential area is now used as an SANDF military base. Access into the area was restricted by armed soldiers. The structures are rated as having a medium heritage significance with a heritage rating of IIIB. The southern pipeline runs across the northern portion of this residential area. If some will would be impacted by the proposed pipeline and possible access road upgrade, further research into the site should be undertaken:

1 Site in this context refers to a place where a heritage resource is located and not a proclaimed heritage site as contemplated under s27 of the NHRA.

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 56 Heritage Heritage Site1 no Lat Lon Description Significance Rating ▪ Archival research on the village and associated Marievale Gold Mine ▪ Recording through photographs and possible drawings of selected structures to be impacted

Figure 34 – Example of the semi-detached houses Figure 35 – Example of a different house style

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 57 Heritage Heritage Site2 No. Lat Lon Description Significance Rating The site consists of two old buildings, one of which could be a historical shop. Now called “Antioch Place of shelter”, occupied. The buildings are situated across the road (on the east of the residential village/military base). Historical map dated 1960 shows three structures in this location. Grade MV002 S 26,36169 E 28,49588 Medium The structures are rated as having a medium heritage significance with a heritage rating IIIB of IIIB. If the structures are affected by upgrading the existing road for access to the 7L7 dump, then the structures may require recording.

Figure 36 –The two historical structures

2 Site in this context refers to a place where a heritage resource is located and not a proclaimed heritage site as contemplated under s27 of the NHRA.

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 58 Heritage Heritage Site3 No. Lat Lon Description Significance Rating The site consists of the remains of various mine worker structures: a large cement amphitheatre and adjacent stone and cement seating or display area, as well as the remains of several smaller structures constructed of brick and cement (+4-5 large structures; +6-10 smaller structure remains). Very overgrown with grass and trees. Site extent: estimated 19.7ha, from satellite imagery. Grade MV003 S -26.356983° E 28.499697° Low Historical maps (dated 1944 -1976), show a mine compound and several other IIIC structures in the area. Associated with the Marievale Gold Mine. The structure remains are rated as having a low heritage significance with a heritage rating of IIIC. If the structures are affected by upgrading the existing road for access to 7L7 dump, then the structures may require recording.

Figure 37 – View of part of the amphitheatre structure Figure 38 – View of remains of structure adjacent to amphitheatre

3 Site in this context refers to a place where a heritage resource is located and not a proclaimed heritage site as contemplated under s27 of the NHRA.

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 59 Site4 Heritage Heritage Lat Lon Description No. Significance Rating The site consists of several dilapidated building remains. One large double-storey brick and concrete industrial building. A short distance away there are several remains of residential buildings. There is also evidence of demolished remains in this area. Site extent: approx. 6.90ha (estimated from satellite imagery). Historical maps (dated 1944 -1976), show various structures in the area, associated Grade MV004 S 26,35616 E 28,49998 Low with the Marievale Gold Mine. IIIC The structure remains are rated as having a low heritage significance with a heritage rating of IIIC. The site should be avoided but if the structures are affected by upgrading the existing road for access to the 7L7 dump then they may require photographic recording.

Figure 39 – View of the 2-storey industrial/mine structure Figure 40 – View of the remains of one of the residential buildings

4 Site in this context refers to a place where a heritage resource is located and not a proclaimed heritage site as contemplated under s27 of the NHRA.

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 60 Heritage Heritage Site5 No. Lat Lon Description Significance Rating The site consists of an informal burial ground, which contains mainly stone-packed graves, a few have formal headstones, some of which are inscribed with dates and African names. The site is unfenced and very overgrown. It is situated very close to the edge of the existing gravel road (less than 10m). Approximately 50 graves could be present. A working quarry is located approx. 50m to the north. The site is located MV005-1 S-26.35703 E28.50209 approx. 715m to 740m south of the proposed pipeline to Daggafontein and the Grade southern pipeline alternative. Site extent: approx. 521 m2. High IIIA MV005-2 S-26,35732 E28,50196 Historical maps show no graves depicted in this location, but one structure is depicted on the 1966 map. The graves are rated as having a high heritage significance with a heritage rating of II!A. It is recommended that the area is avoided and demarcated as a cemetery with at least a 50 metre buffer.

5 Site in this context refers to a place where a heritage resource is located and not a proclaimed heritage site as contemplated under s27 of the NHRA.

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 61

Figure 41 – View of the burial ground, showing vegetation and quarry Figure 42 – View of one of the few inscribed headstones (1933)

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 62 Heritage Heritage Site6 No. Lat Lon Description Significance Rating The site consists of a historical substation comprising 2-3 brick buildings. According to signage on the fence this is/was the Marievale Gold Mine Substation. Historical maps show structures present in this location by1966 and 1980. Grade MV006 S 26,35416 E 28,50182 The structures are rated as having a medium heritage significance with a heritage Medium IIIB rating of IIIB. The structures should be avoided but if they would be affected by upgrading the existing road for access to the 7L7 dump then they may require recording.

Figure 43 – View of the brick buildings and the electrical structures Figure 44 – Closer view of the brick buildings

6 Site in this context refers to a place where a heritage resource is located and not a proclaimed heritage site as contemplated under s27 of the NHRA.

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 63 Heritage Heritage Site7 No. Lat Lon Description Significance Rating The site consists of three shallow square/rectangular reservoir structures constructed of stone and cement or brick and concrete situated at the south-west corner of the slimes dam that is located directly north of the 7L5/7L6 dumps. A narrow deep brick channel and concrete/stone drain/pipeline support are connected to the reservoir structures. The drain/pipeline is connected into the west side of the slimes dam at two MV007-1 S 26,33045 E 28,49605 points. The structures are likely to be associated with early mining activities. The site is Grade situated close (28-52m east) to the southern section of the proposed pipeline to Low IIIC/ NCW MV007-2 S 26,32662 E 28,49569 Daggafontein. The total extent of the site is roughly 35m by 433m, the remaining section of the drain/pipeline is approximately 350m in length. The historical maps don’t depict any features in this location. The three slimes dams (7L5/7L6 and 7L4) are depicted on the 1960/66 and 1976/1980 maps. The structures are rated as having a low heritage significance with a heritage rating of IIIC/NCW

7 Site in this context refers to a place where a heritage resource is located and not a proclaimed heritage site as contemplated under s27 of the NHRA.

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 64

Figure 45 – View of one of the two square stone and cement reservoirs

Figure 46 – View of the remains of the concrete and stone drain/pipeline support

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 65 Heritage Heritage Site8 No. Lat Lon Description Significance Rating The site consists of a fenced off shooting range containing various mostly modern structures. Two small red/orange brick structures were identified. The site is situated immediately adjacent to the 7L4 dump and the proposed Daggafontein pipeline runs along the eastern end of the site. MV008 S 26,32237 E 28,49550 No NCW The historical maps show no structures in this location so the structures are likely to recent/modern. The site is rated as having no heritage significance with a heritage grading of Not Conservation Worthy

Figure 47 – View of the two brick buildings inside the shooting range Figure 48 – View showing the proximity of the shooting range to the 7L4 dump

8 Site in this context refers to a place where a heritage resource is located and not a proclaimed heritage site as contemplated under s27 of the NHRA.

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 66

Site9 Heritage Heritage Lat Lon Description number Significance Rating The site consists of a large burial ground, which contains approx. 300-400 graves. Most of the graves are stone-packed, with only a few having formal inscribed head stones (1953, 1964). The site has been demarcated by several concrete markers. It is situated approx. 635m west of the proposed Daggafontein pipeline and approx. 1.20 km south of the proposed Daggafontein to Ergo pipeline. The site MV009-1 S 26,31166 E 28,48833 extent is 4509m2. Grade High The burial ground is depicted on the historical maps (1944, 1960 and 1976) and is IIIA MV009-2 S 26,31226 E 28, 48829 likely to contain several graves that are 76-60 years old. The graves are rated as having a high heritage significance with a heritage rating of II!A. It is recommended that the site is avoided and retained in situ with a buffer of at least 50m.

9 Site in this context refers to a place where a heritage resource is located and not a proclaimed heritage site as contemplated under s27 of the NHRA.

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 67

Figure 49 – View of the graves, mostly stone-packed with a few formal Figure 50 – One of the inscribed headstones with a name and date (1953) dressings

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 68 Site10 Heritage Heritage Lat Lon Description No. Significance Rating The site consists of a section of a curved ditch with one bank lined with dry packed- stones. It is located approx. 689m north of the 7L6 dump and the section of Daggafontein pipeline running along the northern side of that dump. MV010 S 26,32120 E 28,51074 Negligible NCW The historical maps show no structures present in the area. The feature is rated as having a negligible heritage significance with a heritage rating of Not Conservation Worthy.

Figure 51 – View of the section of ditch

10 Site in this context refers to a place where a heritage resource is located and not a proclaimed heritage site as contemplated under s27 of the NHRA.

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 69

Site11 Heritage Heritage Lat Lon Description No. Significance Rating The site consists of a long rectangular building, constructed of brick, in the style of a mine compound. The brick-work shows header and stretcher bond which indicates that it is likely to be 60 years or older. It is located approx. 1.38km east of the proposed Daggafontein to Ergo pipeline and approx. 1.23km west of the proposed Daggafontein Grade MV011 S 26,3195 E 28,48230 pipeline. Medium IIIB Historical maps (1944, 1960) depict a compound building in this location, associated with the Vogelstruisbult Gold Mine. By 1976, only a portion of the building is depicted. The finds provisionally rated as having a low heritage significance with a heritage rating of IIIB.

Figure 52 – View of the corner of the brick building Figure 53 – Close up view of the header-stretcher brick bond

11 Site in this context refers to a place where a heritage resource is located and not a proclaimed heritage site as contemplated under s27 of the NHRA.

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 70 Site12 Heritage Heritage Lat Lon Description No. Significance Rating The site contains the demolished ruins of a large building, which was constructed of brick and concrete. The large size, remains of a brick portico and a concrete guardhouse, as well as a large driveway with formal gateposts indicates that. it is likely to have been a municipal building. It is situated on a separate piece of land within the MV012 S 26,31212 E 28,47087 Struisbult residential area and is located approx. 466m east of the proposed Low NCW Daggafontein to Ergo pipeline. The historical map dated 1960 depicts a large structure in this location. The structure is rated as having a low heritage significance with a heritage rating of Not Conservation Worthy.

Figure 54 – General view of the site Figure 55 – View of the building remains

12 Site in this context refers to a place where a heritage resource is located and not a proclaimed heritage site as contemplated under s27 of the NHRA.

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 71 Site13 Heritage Heritage Lat Lon Description No. Significance Rating The site consists of a large rectangular industrial building constructed of orange brick and steel brick with a corrugated iron ventilated roof. It is situated approx. 88m north of the proposed Daggafontein to Ergo pipeline. An informal settlement in this area prevented access to the immediate vicinity of the pipeline alternative. MV013 S 26,29733 E 28,47782 Low- NCW The historical maps show similar structures in this location. The structures depicted are smaller, probably residential or mine related. The structure is rated as having a Low heritage significance with a heritage rating of Not Conservation worthy.

Figure 56 – View of the brick industrial building

13 Site in this context refers to a place where a heritage resource is located and not a proclaimed heritage site as contemplated under s27 of the NHRA.

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 72 Site14 Heritage Heritage Lat Lon Description No. Significance Rating The site consists of the remains of several concrete structures, including two silos, which are likely to be mining related. The structures are located in the northern section of the Daggafontein plant area. Several waste rock dumps cover a large part of this area. Grade MV014 S26.295324° E28.495209° Low Historical maps (1944, 1960, 1976) depict various mining works structures in this IIIC location, associated with the (East) Daggafontein Mine. The structures are rated as having a low heritage significance with a heritage grading of IIIC.

Figure 57 – View of the concrete silo structures Figure 58 – View of other concrete remains

14 Site in this context refers to a place where a heritage resource is located and not a proclaimed heritage site as contemplated under s27 of the NHRA.

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 73 Site15 Heritage Heritage Lat Lon Description No. Significance Rating The site consists of 2-3 dilapidated double-storey industrial brick buildings constructed of mixed yellow/orange and blue bricks. The structures are very overgrown. They are located within the northern section of the Daggafontein plant area. Grade MV015 S26.295572° E28.495352° Low Historical maps (1944, 1960, 1976) depict various mining structures in this location, IIIC associated with the (East) Daggafontein Mine. The structures are rated as having a low heritage significance with a heritage rating of IIIC.

Figure 59 –View of one of the brick mine buildings, note dense vegetation Figure 60 – View of another building

15 Site in this context refers to a place where a heritage resource is located and not a proclaimed heritage site as contemplated under s27 of the NHRA.

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 74 Site16 No. Heritage Heritage Lat Lon Description Significance Rating The site comprises a large area containing the remains of structures constructed of brick and concrete. Several areas contain large circular sloping features, with some surfaces showing corroded metal material; these are likely to have been ornamental MV016-1 S 26,29668 E 28,49645 features. Located within the northern section of the Daggafontein plant area. Grade Low Historical maps (1944, 1960, 1976) depict various mining structures in this location, IIIC MV016-2 S 26,29713 E 28,49610 associated with the (East) Daggafontein Mine. The structures are rated as having a low heritage significance with a heritage rating of IIIC.

Figure 61 –General view of structure remains Figure 62 –View of one of the circular features

16 Site in this context refers to a place where a heritage resource is located and not a proclaimed heritage site as contemplated under s27 of the NHRA.

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 75 Site17 Heritage Heritage Lat Lon Description No. Significance Rating The site comprises an area containing the demolished remains of several structures. One small yellow-brick structure was still intact. This building is oval-shaped and constructed on a low platform. The interior is divided in two sections, with a deep reservoir in the one section. This area is located very close to an existing rock discard Grade MV017 S 26,29607 E 28,49910 dump in the northern section of the Daggafontein plant area. Low IIIC The historical maps (1944 and 1960) depict a few structures in the wider area but not in this immediate location. The structure and remains are rated as having a low heritage significance with a heritage rating of IIIC.

Figure 63 – View of the single extant structure on the site Figure 64 – View of the rubble from demolished buildings

17 Site in this context refers to a place where a heritage resource is located and not a proclaimed heritage site as contemplated under s27 of the NHRA.

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 76

Site18 Heritage Heritage Lat Lon Description No. Significance Rating The site contains several buildings constructed of yellow brick that could be 60 years or older. Other more modern buildings are also present. However, the site is surrounded by a concrete palisade fence and is occupied by an organisation, “Vita Nova Centre”. It is located right on the TCTA pipeline route just outside the Daggafontein plant footprint Grade MV018 S 26,29510 E28,49292 (122m west). Medium IIIB Historical maps (1944 and 1960) depict a few structures in this location. The older structures are rated as having a medium heritage significance with a heritage rating of IIIB. The site should be avoided if possible.

Figure 65 – View from the road Figure 66 – Another view showing existing buildings

18 Site in this context refers to a place where a heritage resource is located and not a proclaimed heritage site as contemplated under s27 of the NHRA.

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 77

Site19 Heritage Heritage Lat Lon Description No. Significance Rating The site contains the TCTA Eastern Basin Acid Mine Treatment Plant which opened in 2017. Any historical buildings or resources that existed previous to the construction of the new plant have been completely replaced by the new plant structures. Satellite MV019 imagery shows +10 buildings in 2004 which no longer exist. Access was not possible. (from S26.250368° E28.486261° Negligible NCW The historical maps dating show 1944, 1960 and 1976 depict several structures in road) that location. However, since none of the historical structures remain, the site is rated as having a negligible heritage significance with a grading of Not Conservation Worthy.

Figure 67 – Historical satellite imagery of the TCTA Plant, c.2004, showing Figure 68 – Satellite imagery of the existing TCTA Plant, showing historical buildings completely new structures

19 Site in this context refers to a place where a heritage resource is located and not a proclaimed heritage site as contemplated under s27 of the NHRA.

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 78

Site20 Heritage Heritage Lat Lon Description No. Significance Rating The site consists of the ruined and demolished remains of a hexagonal mine compound, with associated demolished structures (approx. 10) and a square amphitheatre. The remains are all overgrown with grassy vegetation. It is located approx. 55m west of the TCTA plant and 425m north-west of the associated TCTA pipeline. Historical maps () depict mining compound structures in this location. Grade MV020 S26.249506° E28.486209° Low The structure remains are rated as having a low heritage significance with a heritage IIIC rating of IIIC. The site should be avoided by the proposed activities. If it will be impacted mitigation measures may require: • Possible documentation by photographic recording • An application for destruction must be lodged under s34 of the NHRA.

20 Site in this context refers to a place where a heritage resource is located and not a proclaimed heritage site as contemplated under s27 of the NHRA.

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 79

Figure 69 – View of structure remains Figure 70 – View of stone amphitheatre

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 80 Site21 Heritage Heritage Lat Lon Description No. Significance Rating The general area is a residential area containing several scattered houses. Some of them are historical in construction style and material: square, brick with hipped corrugated iron roofs. Mostly occupied. The houses on Nettleton Avenue are situated 138m west of the proposed TCTA pipeline (yellow). Historical maps (from 1944, 1960 and 1976) depict scattered structures present in the area. Grade MV021 S26.258454° E28.488012° Medium The structures are rated as having a medium heritage significance with a heritage IIIB grading of IIIB. If the site cannot be avoided by the proposed activities, mitigation measures may require: ▪ Archival research on the structures and photographic recording ▪ An application for destruction must be lodged under s34 of the NHRA.

Figure 71 – View of one style of house Figure 72 – View of another style of house

21 Site in this context refers to a place where a heritage resource is located and not a proclaimed heritage site as contemplated under s27 of the NHRA.

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 81

Site22 Heritage Heritage numbe Lat Lon Description Significance Rating r The site consists of an old farm shed. However, the coordinates were taken from the road due to lack of access. Historical maps depict no structures present in this location, except for the houses in MV022 S26.256031° E28.492117° Negligible NCW the residential area. The structure is rated as having a negligible heritage significance with a heritage rating of Not Conservation Worthy.

Figure 73 – View of the farm shed from the road

22 Site in this context refers to a place where a heritage resource is located and not a proclaimed heritage site as contemplated under s27 of the NHRA.

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 82 Site23 Heritage Heritage Lat Lon Description No. Significance Rating Several scattered historical houses, similar to MV021, are located along Hugo Street. Square, brick with hipped corrugated iron roofs. Some are occupied and some are in a dilapidated state. The structures are located between 60-100m away (West) from the proposed pipeline to TCTA alternative. The structures are rated as having a low-medium heritage significance with a Low - Grade MV023 S-26.256726° E 28.491355° heritage rating of IIIC/IIIB (depending on the preservation) Medium IIIC/IIB If the site cannot be avoided by the pipeline: • The buildings should be recorded photographically at least. With possible archival research undertaken on the area. • If it is found that after mitigation the site is not conservation worthy an application for destruction is required under s36 of the NHRA.

Figure 74 – Example of dilapidated house Figure 75 – View of the historical houses

23 Site in this context refers to a place where a heritage resource is located and not a proclaimed heritage site as contemplated under s27 of the NHRA.

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 83 Site24 Heritage Heritage Lat Lon Description No. Significance Rating The site consists of the concrete foundations and remains of at least two structures. A large amount of illegal dumping and other disturbance was noted in the general area. The site is located approx. 176m south-west from the TCTA pipeline. The historical map (dated 1944) depicts 1- 2 structures in this location. Other structures MV024 S-26.2820° E 28.48748 Low NCW depicted in the general area on the historical maps from 1944, 1960 and 1976 are no longer visible. The remains are rated as having a low heritage significance with a heritage rating of Not Conservation Worthy.

Figure 76 – Remains of brick and concrete foundations Figure 77 – Remains of structure

24 Site in this context refers to a place where a heritage resource is located and not a proclaimed heritage site as contemplated under s27 of the NHRA.

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 84 Site25 Heritage Heritage Lat Lon Description No. Significance Rating The site consists of a large informal community cemetery containing +400-500 graves. Most of the graves are dressed with packed stones, with some formal brick, concrete or granite dressings. A few (7) had headstones with legible inscriptions (African names and dates of 1949, 1951 and 1964). The site is situated approx. 740-7909m west of the proposed TCTA pipeline (yellow). MV025-1 S-26.289832° E28.484277° The historical map dated 1960 depicts a “Kerkhof” in this location, and the 1976 Grade High map depicts a church and other structures. The 1944 map doesn’t depict graves IIIA MV025-2 S-26.288126° E28.484368° but does depict a few structures to the south. It is likely that several graves are 60 years or older. The site is rated as having a high heritage significance with a heritage grading of IIIA. The area should be avoided and demarcated with at least a 50 m buffer

25 Site in this context refers to a place where a heritage resource is located and not a proclaimed heritage site as contemplated under s27 of the NHRA.

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 85

Figure 78 – View of the burial ground, showing some stone-packed graves

Figure 79 –Example of formal headstone with name and date (1949)

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 86 Site26 Heritage Heritage Lat Lon Description No. Significance Rating The site consists of 4-5 red brick structures. Some are smaller and occupied as residences and others are the remains of larger buildings. Satellite imagery shows the buildings were in a state of dilapidation by 2002 and have become more dilapidated over time. The site is surrounded by an informal settlement. It is located approx. 460m West of the TCTA pipeline. Historical maps (from 1944 and 1960) depict some structures present in the area, which are labelled “mine buildings” (1944) and “Hospital” (1960). A single large building is Grade MV026 S26.292989° E28.488813° Low depicted in this location on the 1976 map. IIIC The structures and remains are rated as having a low heritage significance with a heritage grading of IIIC. If the site cannot be avoided by the pipeline: ▪ The buildings should be recorded photographically at least, with possible archival research undertaken. ▪ An application for destruction is required under s34 of the NHRA.

26 Site in this context refers to a place where a heritage resource is located and not a proclaimed heritage site as contemplated under s27 of the NHRA.

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 87

Figure 80 – The remains of one of the larger red-brick structures Figure 81 – Two of the smaller buildings occupied as residences

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 88 Site27 Heritage Heritage Lat Lon Description No. Significance Rating The site consists of the demolished remains of several brick mine compound structures (approx. 10) and a stone and cement oval amphitheatre. The remains are all overgrown with grassy vegetation. The site is located approx. 734m west of the proposed TCTA pipeline. Site extent: approx. 11.85ha Historical maps (from 1944-1960) depict the structures of a mine compound in this Grade MV027 S26.294088° E28.486057° Low location. The 1976 map depicts no structures except a hospital. IIIC The remains are rated as having a low heritage significance with a heritage rating of IIIC. If the site cannot be avoided by the pipeline: ▪ An application for destruction is required under s34 of the NHRA.

Figure 82 – The oval amphitheatre Figure 83 – The foundation remains of some structures

27 Site in this context refers to a place where a heritage resource is located and not a proclaimed heritage site as contemplated under s27 of the NHRA.

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 89

Site28 Heritage Heritage Lat Lon Description No. Significance Rating The site consists of a residential area containing historical houses, especially along Tarentaal Street (which is located between 35-60m East of the proposed Daggafontein to Ergo pipeline – purple). Historical maps (from 1944-1960) depict structures in a residential area. No structures seem to be depicted close to the railway line. Grade MV028 S26.306898° E28.470073° Medium The structures are rated as having a medium heritage significance with a heritage IIIB rating of IIIB. If the site cannot be avoided by the proposed activities, mitigation may include: ▪ Archival research on the area and possible photographic documentation ▪ An application for destruction must be lodged under s34 of the NHRA.

Figure 84 – Example of a house with yellow and blue brickwork Figure 85 –Example of house that has been altered

28 Site in this context refers to a place where a heritage resource is located and not a proclaimed heritage site as contemplated under s27 of the NHRA.

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 90

Site29 Heritage Heritage numbe Lat Lon Description Significance Rating r The site consists of the remains of two small brick structures, situated next to the railway line. One remains only as part of a wall. The site is located approx. 26m west MV029 of the Daggafontein to Ergo pipeline. (from S26.308652° E28.468152° Historical maps don’t depict any structures present in the immediate location of the Negligible NCW road) railway line. The structures are rated as having a negligible heritage significance with a heritage rating of Not Conservation Worthy.

Figure 86 – Small yellow-brick structure Figure 87 – Remains of red-brick structure

29 Site in this context refers to a place where a heritage resource is located and not a proclaimed heritage site as contemplated under s27 of the NHRA.

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 91

Site30 Heritage Heritage Lat Lon Description No. Significance Rating The site consists of two disused concrete silos with associated concrete foundations and the remains of a disused railway line. The new railway line runs to the west of the site. The site is located approx. 45m East of the proposed Daggafontein-Ergo MV030 S26.314816° E 28.462202° pipeline. Low NCW Historical maps do not any depict structures in this location (post 1976). The structures are rated as having a negligible heritage significance with a heritage rating of Not conservation worthy.

Figure 88 – Concrete silos and foundation remains Figure 89 – Remans of disused railway track

30 Site in this context refers to a place where a heritage resource is located and not a proclaimed heritage site as contemplated under s27 of the NHRA.

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 92 Site31 Heritage Heritage Lat Lon Description No. Significance Rating The site consists of two red-brick historical sub-station buildings, with a sign reading “Eskom Vlakfontein Subststion”. There is also a name on the building which says “Springs Reduction”. The property is fenced. The substation is situated approx. 154m MV031 south-west of the existing Ergo pipeline. (GPS Grade S26.312896° E28.433102° Historical maps (from 1944, 1960 and 1976) depict a corresponding structure in this Medium from IIIB location. road) The structure is rated as having a medium heritage significance with a heritage grading of IIIB. The site should be avoided by the proposed activities:

Figure 90 – Vlakfontein substation

31 Site in this context refers to a place where a heritage resource is located and not a proclaimed heritage site as contemplated under s27 of the NHRA.

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 93 Site32 Heritage Heritage Lat Lon Description No. Significance Rating The site consists of the several historical house structures, within the same property as the substation at MV031. The house structures are located approx. 133m south- west of the existing Ergo pipeline (blue). Grade MV032 S26.313533° E 28.433905° Historical maps (from 19 44, 1960 and 1976) depict structures present in this location. Medium IIIB The structures are rated as having a medium heritage significance with a heritage rating of IIIB. The site should be avoided by the proposed pipeline.

Figure 91 – View of the buildings from the road Figure 92 – Another example of a building

32 Site in this context refers to a place where a heritage resource is located and not a proclaimed heritage site as contemplated under s27 of the NHRA.

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 94 Site33 Heritage Heritage Lat Lon Description No. Significance Rating The site comprises a large municipal cemetery. It is surrounded by a concrete palisade fence. Approx. 328m west of the existing pipeline to Ergo route (blue). The historical map from 1944 does depict a grave in this approximate location, however, the maps dated 1960 and 1976 do not depict any graves or structures in this Grade MV033 S26.307200° E28.413067° High location. [check later maps) IIIA The cemetery is rated as having a high heritage significance with a heritage rating of IIIA. It is recommended that the area is avoided with at least a 50m buffer.

Figure 93 – View of the Municipal Cemetery

33 Site in this context refers to a place where a heritage resource is located and not a proclaimed heritage site as contemplated under s27 of the NHRA.

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 95 Site34 Heritage Heritage Lat Lon Description No. Significance Rating The site consists of the mostly demolished (foundation) remains of several structures (5-6). The site is approx. 15-32m west of the existing Ergo pipeline? Historical maps (from 1944-1960) depict a varying number of structures present in this MV034 S26.284483° S28.403783° Low NCW location. The 1976 map depicts no structures in this location. The remains are rated as having a negligible heritage significance with a heritage rating of Not Conservation Worthy

Figure 94 – View of the foundation remains

34 Site in this context refers to a place where a heritage resource is located and not a proclaimed heritage site as contemplated under s27 of the NHRA.

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 96 Site35 Heritage Heritage Lat Lon Description No. Significance Rating The site is an old concrete foundation. It is located approx. 35m south-west of the existing Ergo pipeline. Historical maps do not depict any structures present in this location, nor does the MV035 S26.283109° E 28.403317° satellite imagery (2002-2019). The foundation is likely the remains of a modern No NCW structure. The foundation is rated as having no heritage significance with a heritage rating of Not Conservation Worthy.

Figure 95 – Concrete foundation

35 Site in this context refers to a place where a heritage resource is located and not a proclaimed heritage site as contemplated under s27 of the NHRA.

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 97 Site36 Heritage Heritage Lat Lon Description No. Significance Rating The site comprises the remaining sections of a mining compound. The structures are rectangular brick buildings with corrugated iron roofs. Solar geysers have been added to some of the roofs. The site extent is approx. 7.65ha (from satellite imagery). It is MV036 located approx. 140m south-west of the existing Ergo pipeline. Grade (from S26.283109° E28.403317° Historical map (1976) depicts a large number of compound structures in this location. Medium IIIB road) There are no structures depicted on the 1960 map. However, the structures could be between 44-59 years old. The structures are rated as having medium heritage significance with a heritage rating of IIIB.

Figure 96 – View of one of the compound buildings

36 Site in this context refers to a place where a heritage resource is located and not a proclaimed heritage site as contemplated under s27 of the NHRA.

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 98 Site37 Heritage Heritage Lat Lon Description No. Significance Rating The site contains two structures: an old building currently used as a training centre and an old church. The site is situated approx. 120m east of the existing Ergo pipeline (blue). MV037 The historical map dated 1960 depicts two structures in this location, marked K for Grade (from S26.287525° E28.387384° “kerk” and the 1976 map depicts the area as built-up with one structure marked as Medium IIIB road) Winkel (but not clear). The structures are rated as having a medium heritage significance with a heritage rating of IIIB. The site should be avoided by the proposed pipeline

Figure 97 – View of the building used as a “Training centre” Figure 98 – View of the historical church

37 Site in this context refers to a place where a heritage resource is located and not a proclaimed heritage site as contemplated under s27 of the NHRA.

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 99

Site38 Heritage Heritage Lat Lon Description No. Significance Rating The site consists of the existing Ergo tailings treatment plant. Any historical buildings or resources that existed previous to the construction of the plant would have been completely replaced by the new structures. Access was not possible. MV037 S26.283181° E28.377440° The historical maps dated to 1944, 1960 do not depict any structures in the plant Low NCW location until 1976 (a few structures). However, it is likely that none of those structures remain, and the site is rated as having a negligible heritage significance with a grading of Not Conservation Worthy.

Figure 99 – View of Ergo plant from the nearest road Figure 100 – View of Ergo plant from the south-west

38 Site in this context refers to a place where a heritage resource is located and not a proclaimed heritage site as contemplated under s27 of the NHRA.

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 100 Site39 Heritage Heritage Lat Lon Description No. Significance Rating The site consists of the area immediately west of the existing Ergo plant. Satellite imagery (2004) shows + 5 sites containing the remains of several structures. However, it was not possible to access this area to confirm the existence of the remains, although a few ruined structures were visible in the area south-west of the plant, from the road MV038 (the photo and coordinates relate to these structures). The total site extent is difficult (from S26° 17.496' E28° 21.999' Low NCW to estimate, could be approx. 107ha (satellite imagery) road) The historical maps (1944, 1960 and 1976) depict several structures in this location, associated with the SA Land Exploration and Gold Company. Since the structures seem to be in a ruined state the site is rated as having a low heritage significance with a grading of Not Conservation Worthy.

39 Site in this context refers to a place where a heritage resource is located and not a proclaimed heritage site as contemplated under s27 of the NHRA.

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 101

Figure 101 – Satellite image of the area west of the Ergo plant, dated 2002 Figure 102 – View of ruined structures in the area south-west of the Ergo plant

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 102 5.1 Heritage Sensitivity

Based on the results of the fieldwork, a sensitivity map was produced which enabled the identification of heritage sensitive areas that included the following located sites: • Graves and burial grounds; • Clusters of dwellings (homesteads and farmsteads); and • Historical Mine Structures/Buildings.

By superimposition and analysis, it was possible to rate these structures/areas according to age and thus their level of protection under the NHRA. Note that these structures refer to identified tangible heritage sites as listed in Table 4.

Table 4 -Tangible heritage site in the study area Name Description Legislative protection Graves and Burial Grounds Older than 60 years NHRA Sect 36 Clusters of dwellings Older than 60 years NHRA Sect 34 (homesteads and farmsteads); Architectural Structures (mining Older than 60 years NHRA Sect 34 and residential)

Based on the analysis and possible extent of the mitigation that could be required to enable development in the areas of heritage sensitivity, a sensitivity rating was given to each area (Figure 103). This rating scale is based on the Impact Assessment Ratings tables in Section 6.

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 103

Figure 103 - Heritage sensitivity map indicating heritage areas and sites identified during the fieldwork, rated from Low to High.

Marievale Reclamation Project – Scoping Report 19 March 2020 Page 104 6 IMPACT ASSESSMENT

The section below outlines the assessment methodologies utilised in the study.

6.1 Methodology for Assessing Heritage Site significance

This HIA report was compiled by PGS for the proposed Marievale Reclamation project application. The applicable maps, tables and figures, are included as stipulated in the NHRA (no 25 of 1999), and the NEMA (no 107 of 1998). The Heritage Impact assessment process consisted of three steps:

Step I – Literature Review: The background information to the field survey relied greatly on the Heritage Background Research from the Scoping Report.

Step II – Physical Survey: A physical survey was conducted by vehicle and on foot through the proposed project area over two days by a qualified archaeologist and heritage specialist which was aimed at locating and documenting sites falling within and adjacent to the proposed development footprint. Any heritage sites identified were documented by GPS coordinates and photographed.

Step III – The final step involved the recording and documentation of the identified heritage resources, the assessment of resources in terms of the HIA criteria and report writing, as well as mapping and constructive recommendations.

6.2 Methodology for determining the Significance of Environmental Impacts

This part of the document focuses on the identification of the major potential impacts the activities, processes and actions may have on the surrounding environment.

The impact significance rating process serves two purposes: firstly, it helps to highlight the critical impacts requiring consideration in the management and approval process; secondly, it shows the primary impact characteristics, as defined above, used to evaluate impact significance.

The impact assessment rating methodology is guided by the requirements of the NEMA EIA Regulations (2010). The methodology used was provided by Kongiwe.

The impact significance rating system is presented in Table 5 and involves three parts:

• Part A: Define impact consequence using the three primary impact characteristics of magnitude, spatial scale/ population and duration;

Marievale Reclamation HIA Report 19 March 2020 ` Page 105 • Part B: Use the matrix to determine a rating for impact consequence based on the definitions identified in Part A; and • Part C: Use the matrix to determine the impact significance rating, which is a function of the impact consequence rating (from Part B) and the probability of occurrence.

Table 5 - Impact significance rating system PART A: DEFINING CONSEQUENCE IN TERMS OF MAGNITUDE, DURATION AND SPATIAL SCALE Use these definitions to define the consequence in Part B Impact Definition Criteria characteristics Substantial deterioration or harm to receptors; receiving environment has an inherent value to Major - stakeholders; receptors of impact are of conservation importance; or identified threshold often exceeded Moderate/measurable deterioration or harm to receptors; receiving environment moderately Moderate - sensitive; or identified threshold occasionally exceeded Minor deterioration (nuisance or minor deterioration) MAGNITUDE or harm to receptors; change to receiving Minor - environment not measurable; or identified threshold never exceeded Minor improvement; change not measurable; or Minor + threshold never exceeded Moderate improvement; within or better than the Moderate + threshold; or no observed reaction Substantial improvement; within or better than the Major + threshold; or favourable publicity Site or local Site specific or confined to the immediate project area SPATIAL SCALE May be defined in various ways, e.g. cadastral, Regional OR catchment, topographic POPULATION National/ Nationally or beyond International Short term Up to 18 months. DURATION Medium term 18 months to 5 years Long term Longer than 5 years PART B: DETERMINING CONSEQUENCE RATING Rate consequence based on definition of magnitude, spatial extent and duration SPATIAL SCALE/ POPULATION Site or National/ Regional Local international

Marievale Reclamation HIA Report 19 March 2020 ` Page 106 MAGNITUDE Long term Medium Medium High Minor DURATION Medium term Low Low Medium Short term Low Low Medium Long term Medium High High Moderate DURATION Medium term Medium Medium High Short term Low Medium Medium Long term High High High Major DURATION Medium term Medium Medium High Short term Medium Medium High PART C: DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE RATING Rate significance based on consequence and probability CONSEQUENCE

Low Medium High Definite Medium Medium High PROBABILITY (of Possible Low Medium High exposure to impacts) Unlikely Low Low Medium

Impact assessment is rated by significance based on consequence and probability.

Table 6: Significance rating methodology. Probability (of Consequence Negative Consequence Positive exposure to Low Medium High Low Medium High impacts) Definite Medium Medium High Medium Medium High Possible Low Medium High Low Medium High Unlikely Low Low Medium Low Low Medium

Table 7: Typical table used to identify and classify the significance of identified impactsis used to report on the direct, indirect, residual impacts and Table 8 is used to report on the cumulative impacts.

Table 7: Typical table used to identify and classify the significance of identified impacts NATURE OF IMPACT 1: Impact Rating without Impact Rating with Mitigation Mitigation Impact Status: (positive or negative) Negative Negative

Extent (Local, Regional, International) Local Local Duration (Short term, Medium term, Long term) Long term Long term

Magnitude (Major, Moderate, Minor)

Marievale Reclamation HIA Report 19 March 2020 ` Page 107 Probability (Definite, Possible, Unlikely) Calculated Significance Rating (Low, Medium, High) Reversibility: (Reversible or Irreversible) No Irreplaceable loss of resources: (Yes or No) Yes

Can impacts be enhanced: (Yes or No) Residual impacts • Mitigation measures •

Table 8: Typical table used to identify and classify the significance of identified impacts NATURE OF THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT: OVERALL IMPACT OF THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT OF PROJECT CONSIDERED IN THE PROJECT AND OTHER ISOLATION PROJECTS IN THE AREA Impact Status: (positive or negative) Extent (Local, Regional, International)

Duration (Short term, Medium term, Long term) Magnitude (Major, Moderate, Minor)

Probability (Definite, Possible, Unlikely)

Calculated Significance Rating (Low, Medium, High)

Reversibility: (Reversible or Irreversible) Irreplaceable loss of resources: (Yes or No) Can impacts be enhanced: (Yes or No) Mitigation measures •

The following section provides the impact of the proposed development on heritage resources identified at the HIA level.

6.3 Heritage Impacts

Marievale Reclamation HIA Report 19 March 2020 ` Page 108 burial ground sites (MV005, MV009, MV025 and MV033) are considered to have very high significance and would require mitigation measures. Of the historical structures, 12 sites are considered to have medium heritage significance and would require mitigation measures. The remaining historical structure sites are considered to be of low to no heritage significance and would require no mitigation, unless those likely to be 60 years or older (require a permit for destruction).

Most of the sites identified are located in the vicinity of the two pipeline alternatives, while a few are located in the region of the three slimes dams or the three processing plants.

6.3.1 Historical structures – Residential/ non-mining

Of the 33 historical structures identified, 12 were single or groups of residential buildings or other non-mining related structures (e.g. electrical sub-stations). Nine of these sites were in a good state of preservation and had a medium heritage significance with a heritage grading of IIIB (MV001, MV006, MV018, MV021, MV023, MV028, MV031, MV032, MV036). The impact significance before mitigation on these nine historical residential structures will be Medium negative before mitigation. Implementation of the recommended mitigation measures will modify this impact rating to an acceptable LOW negative.

The remaining sites consisted of dilapidated or demolished remains and had a low or negligible heritage significance and were rated as Not Conservation Worthy. Most of these will not require any mitigation measures. However, a destruction permit may be required if the structure remains are likely to be 60 years or older.

6.3.2 Historical structures – Mining

Of the 33 historical structures identified, 14 were single or groups of mining-related buildings. However, only three of these sites were in a good state of preservation and had a medium heritage significance with a heritage grading of IIIB (MV003, MV011 and MV036).

Most of the remaining sites consisted of the demolished or ruined remains of mining structures, which had a low or negligible heritage significance and were rated as IIIC or Not Conservation Worthy. Most of these will not require any mitigation measures. However, a destruction permit may be required if the structure remains are likely to be 60 years or older.

Marievale Reclamation HIA Report 19 March 2020 ` Page 109 6.3.3 Burial Grounds and graves

The three informal burial grounds and the municipal cemetery all have a high heritage rating and a heritage grading of IIIA.

The impact significance before mitigation on the cemetery and graves sites will be High negative before mitigation. Implementation of the recommended mitigation measures will modify this impact rating to an acceptable Medium to Low negative.

NB: It should be noted that, in addition to the three informal burial grounds identified during the fieldwork for this project, there is some potential for historical graves of mineworkers to exist under the three slimes dams that are proposed for reclamation. An example of a mineworker burial ground exposed after reclamation of a slimes dam is known from the Crown Mines/ Langlaagte area in Johannesburg. According to the archival research by the archaeologist involved in the rescue excavations of some of these graves, this was apparently a common practice (Anton Pelser 2012 and pers.comm.; Esterhuysen et al 2018).

6.3.4 Recent/modern structures

Eight of the identified sites are recent/modern structures or remains (MV008, MV013, MV019, MV022, MV030, MV035, MV037, MV038). They all have a negligible heritage rating and a grading of Not Conservation Worthy.

The impact significance before mitigation on these sites will be Low negative and no mitigation measures are required from a heritage perspective.

6.4 Palaeontological Impacts

According to the desktop PIA compiled by Butler (2019), the proposed Marievale Tailings Storage facilities and two pipeline alternatives in the Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality, Gauteng Province are underlain by the Malmani Subgroup, (Chuniespoort Group, Transvaal Supergroup), Dwyka Group, Vryheid Formation (Ecca Group) and Karoo Dolerite Suite. According to the PalaeoMap of South African Heritage Resources Information System the Palaeontological Sensitivity of the Malmani Subgroup is High, the Dwyka Group has a Moderate Palaeontological Sensitivity, the Vryheid Formation has a Very High Palaeontological Sensitivity and Karoo Dolerite Suite has a Zero Palaeontological Sensitivity. The expected duration of the impact is long term. In the absence of mitigation procedures (should fossil material be present within the affected area) the damage or destruction of any palaeontological materials will be permanent as fossils are irreplaceable. Impacts on palaeontological heritage during the construction phase could potentially occur are regarded as having a high possibility. This would usually require a field-based assessment to be undertaken on the specific impacts expected.

Marievale Reclamation HIA Report 19 March 2020 ` Page 110

However, since the proposed pipelines will be constructed overland or within existing servitudes and road reserves, it is anticipated that there should be no excavation into the underlying geology. In addition, the area around the three slimes dams has been disturbed extensively by previous mining-related activities. Therefore, the impacts on palaeontological heritage are anticipated to be minimal and it is recommended that an application for exemption from the standard requirement for a field-based Palaeontological Impact Assessment be made to SAHRA.

Marievale Reclamation HIA Report 19 March 2020 ` Page 111

6.5 Impact Assessment Tables

6.5.1 Direct and Indirect Impacts

Table 9 - Impact Assessment Table: Historical Structures – Residential and non-mining Mitigation Affected Impact BEFORE MITIGATION Cumul AFTER MITIGATION No measures / Environ Activity Descrip ative . Magnitu Dura- Spatial Conse Proba SIGNIFI Recommenda Magni Spatial Conse Proba SIGNIFI ment tion Impact Duration de tion Scale quence bility CANCE tions tude Scale quence bility CANCE Construction Demarcation and Damage or Medium Proposed avoidance; MV001 - destruction Long Term > pipeline Site or documentatio Site or 1 historical of historical Moderate - Term > 5 Medium Definite Medium Yes Minor - 18 Low Possible Low (Southern Local n, permit Local village residential years months < alternative) required if structures 5 years alteration/de struction Demarcation and Damage or Medium MV002 - avoidance; destruction Long Term > Two Site or documentatio Site or 2 Access road of historical Minor - Term > 5 Medium Possible Medium Yes Minor - 18 Low Possible Low historical Local n, permit Local residential years months < buildings required if structures 5 years alteration/de struction Demarcation Medium Damage or MV006 - Long and Term > destruction Site or Site or 3 Marievale Access road Moderate - Term > 5 Medium Definite Medium Yes avoidance; Minor - 18 Low Possible Low of historical Local Local Substation years documentarti months < structures on 5 years MV012 - Medium Pipeline Short Municipal Destruction Term > (Proposed Site or No mitigation Term < Site or 4 building of historical Minor - 18 Low Unlikely Low Yes Minor - Low Unlikely Low Daggafonte Local required 18 Local (demolishe structure months < in to Ergo) months d remains) remains 5 years Demarcation and Damage or Medium avoidance; MV018 - destruction Long Term > Daggafonte Site or documentatio Site or 5 Historical of historical Moderate - Term > 5 Medium Possible Medium Yes Minor - 18 Low Possible Low in plant Local n, permit Local houses residential years months < required if structures 5 years alteration/de struction

Marievale Reclamation HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 112

Damage or MV021 - Short destruction Long Demarcation Historical Pipeline Site or Term < Site or 6 of historical Moderate - Term > 5 Medium Unlikely Low Yes and Minor - Low Unlikely Low houses (TCTA) Local 18 Local residential years avoidance (scattered) months structures Damage or MV023 - Short destruction Long Demarcation Historical Pipeline Site or Term < Site or 7 of historical Moderate - Term > 5 Medium Unlikely Low Yes and Minor - Low Unlikely Low houses (TCTA) Local 18 Local residential years avoidance (scattered) months structures Demarcation and MV028 - Damage or Medium avoidance; Historical Pipeline destruction Long Term > Site or documentatio Site or 8 houses (proposed of historical Moderate - Term > 5 Medium Definite Medium Yes Minor - 18 Low Possible Low Local n, permit Local (residential Ergo) residential years months < required if area) structures 5 years alteration/de struction Medium MV029 - Pipeline Destruction Short Term > Remains of (proposed of historical Site or No mitigation Term < Site or 9 Minor - 18 Low Possible Low Yes Minor - Low Possible Low 2 railway Daggafonte structure Local required 18 Local months < structures in to Ergo) remains months 5 years Damage or Short MV031 - Pipeline Long Demarcation destruction Site or Term < Site or 10 Vlakfontein (existing Moderate - Term > 5 Medium Unlikely Low Yes and Minor - Low Unlikely Low of historical Local 18 Local substation Ergo) years avoidance structures months Damage or Short MV032 - Pipeline destruction Long Demarcation Moderat Site or Term < Site or 11 Historical (existing of historical Term > 5 Medium Unlikely Low Yes and Minor - Low Unlikely Low e - Local 18 Local houses Ergo) residential years avoidance months structures MV036 - Damage or Short Historical Pipeline Long Demarcation destruction Moderat Site or Term < Site or 12 church and (existing Term > 5 Medium Unlikely Low Yes and Minor - Low Unlikely Low of historical e - Local 18 Local training Ergo) years avoidance structures months centre

Marievale Reclamation HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 113

Table 10 - Impact Assessment Table: Historical Structures – Mining

BEFORE MITIGATION AFTER MITIGATION Mitigation Affected Impact Cumul measures / SIGNI No. Environ Activity Descrip ative Magni Dura Spatial Conse Proba SIGNIFI Recommenda Magni Spatial Conse Proba FI ment tion Impact Duration tude tion Scale quence bility CANCE tions tude Scale quence bility CANC E Constructio

n Demarcation Destructi and MV003 - Medium Construct on of avoidance; Historical Long Term > ion of historical Site or documentatio Site or 1 Mine Moderate - Term > Medium Possible Medium Yes Minor - 18 Low Possible Low access mining Local n, permit Local compound 5 years months < road structure required if (remains) 5 years remains alteration/de struction Mediu Demarcation MV004 - Destructi m and Medium Construct Mine on of Term > avoidance; Term > ion of Site or Site or 2 structures historical Minor - 18 Low Possible Low Yes permit Minor - 18 Low Possible Low access Local Local and houses mining months required if months < road (remains) structure < 5 alteration/de 5 years remains years struction

MV007 - Demarcation Medium Pipeline Destructi Mine Long and Term > (Daggafo on of Site or Site or 3 structure Minor - Term > Medium Definite Medium Yes avoidance; Minor - 18 Low Possible Low ntein historical Local Local remains 5 years documentatio months < pipeline) structure (drainage) n 5 years remains Mediu MV010 - m Pipeline Destructi Short Mining Term > (Daggafo on of Site or No mitigation Term < Site or 4 feature Minor - 18 Low Possible Low Yes Minor - Low Possible Low ntein historical Local required 18 Local (ditch months pipeline) feature months section) < 5 years Demarcation Damage and MV011 - Pipeline or avoidance; Short Historical (Daggafo destructi Long Site or documentatio Term < Site or 5 Mine ntein to on of Moderate - Term > Medium Unlikely Low Yes Minor - Low Unlikely Low Local n, permit 18 Local compound Ergo historical 5 years required if months (section) pipeline) mining alteration/de structure struction MV014 - Destructi Mediu Documentati Medium Daggafon Site or Site or 6 Historical on of Minor - m Low Definite Medium Yes on, permit Minor - Term > Low Possible Low tein plant Local Local Mine historical Term > required for 18

Marievale Reclamation HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 114

structures mining 18 alteration/ months < (remains) structure months destruction 5 years remains < 5 years Mediu Destructi MV015- m Documentati Medium Construct on of Historical Term > on, permit Term > ion of historical Site or Site or 7 Mine Minor - 18 Low Definite Medium Yes required for Minor - 18 Low Possible Low Daggafon mining Local Local structures months alteration/ months < tein plant structure (remains) < 5 destruction 5 years remains years Mediu Destructi MV016 - m Documentati Medium Construct on of Historical Term > on, permit Term > ion of historical Site or Site or 8 Mine Minor - 18 Low Definite Medium Yes required for Minor - 18 Low Possible Low Daggafon mining Local Local structures months alteration/ months < tein plant structure (remains) < 5 destruction 5 years remains years Mediu MV017 - Destructi m Documentati Medium Historical on of Term > on, permit Term > Mine Daggafon historical Site or Site or 9 Minor - 18 Low Definite Medium Yes required for Minor - 18 Low Possible Low structures tein plant mining Local Local months alteration/ months < (demolishe structure < 5 destruction 5 years d) remains years MV020 - Demarcation Mediu Historical Destructi and m Medium Mine on of avoidance; Pipeline Term > Term > compound historical Site or documentatio Site or 10 (propose Minor - 18 Low Possible Low Yes Minor - 18 Low Possible Low and mining Local n, permit Local d TCTA) months months < amphitheat structure required for < 5 5 years re remains alteration/ years (remains) destruction Mediu Destructi m MV024 - Short Pipeline on of Term > Historical Site or No mitigation Term < Site or 11 (propose historical Minor - 18 Low Unlikely Low Yes Minor - Low Unlikely Low structure Local required 18 Local d TCTA) structure months remains months remains < 5 years Mediu Mv026 - Destructi m Short Historical Pipeline on of Term > Demarcation Site or Term < Site or 12 Mine (propose historical Minor - 18 Low Unlikely Low Yes and Minor - Low Unlikely Low Local 18 Local structure d TCTA) structure months avoidance months remains remains < 5 years

Marievale Reclamation HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 115

MV027 - Mediu Historical Destructi m Mine on of Short Pipeline Term > Demarcation compound historical Site or Term < Site or 13 (propose Minor - 18 Low Unlikely Low Yes and Minor - Low Unlikely Low remains mining Local 18 Local d TCTA) months avoidance and structure months < 5 amphitheat remains years re Mediu Destructi m No mitigation Medium MV034 - Pipeline on of Term > required; Term > Historical (existing historical Site or Site or 14 Minor - 18 Low Possible Low Yes except for Minor - 18 Low Possible Low foundation Ergo mining Local Local months compound months < s (remains) pipeline) structure < 5 building 5 years remains years Demarcation Damage and MV036 - or Medium Pipeline avoidance; Mine destructi Long Term > (existing Site or documentatio Site or 15 compound on of Moderate - Term > Medium Possible- Medium- Yes Minor-- 18 Low- Possible- Low- Ergo Local n, permit Local - (remaining historical 5 years months < pipeline) required if sections) mining 5 years - alteration/de structure struction

Table 11 - Impact Assessment Table: Burial Grounds and Graves Mitigation Affected Impact BEFORE MITIGATION Cumula AFTER MITIGATION measures / No. Environ Activity Descripti tive Magni Durati Spatial Conse Proba SIGNIFIC Recommenda Magni Dura Spatial Conse Probab SIGNIFI ment on Impact tude on Scale quence bility ANCE tions tude tion Scale quence ility CANCE Construction Damage Demarcation MV005 - Construc or Medium Long and Small tion of destructi Site or Moderat Term > 18 Site or 1 Major - Term > High Definite High Yes avoidance; Medium Possible Medium Informal access on of Local e - months < 5 Local 5 years social burial ground road historical years consultation graves Damage Demarcation MV009 - or Medium Constructi Long and Medium destructi Site or Moderat Term > 18 Site or 2 on of Major - Term > High Possible High Yes avoidance; Medium Possible Medium Informal on of Local e - months < 5 Local pipeline 5 years social Burial ground historical years consultation graves Damage/ Long Demarcation MV025 - Site or Moderat Medium Site or 3 pipeline destructi Major - Term > High Possible High Yes and Medium Possible Medium Large Local e - Term > 18 Local on of 5 years avoidance; Marievale Reclamation HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 116

Community historical social months < 5 Burial ground graves consultation years

Damage/ Medium MV033 - destructi Long Demarcation Site or Moderat Term > 18 Site or 4 Municipal pipeline on of Major - Term > High Unlikely Medium Yes and Medium Possible Medium Local e - months < 5 Local cemetery historical 5 years avoidance years graves

Marievale Reclamation HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 117

6.5.2 Cumulative Impacts

NATURE OF THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT: HISTORICAL STRUCTURES – NON-MINING OVERALL IMPACT OF THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT OF PROJECT CONSIDERED IN THE PROJECT AND OTHER ISOLATION PROJECTS IN THE AREA Impact Status: (positive or negative) Negative Negative Extent (Local, Regional, International) Local Local

Duration (Short term, Medium term, Long Long-term Long-term term) Magnitude (Major, Moderate, Minor) Moderate Moderate

Probability (Definite, Possible, Unlikely) Possible Possible

Calculated Significance Rating (Low, Medium Medium Medium, High)

NATURE OF THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT: HISTORICAL STRUCTURES – MINING OVERALL IMPACT OF THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT PROJECT CONSIDERED OF THE PROJECT AND IN ISOLATION OTHER PROJECTS IN THE AREA Impact Status: (positive or negative) Negative Negative Extent (Local, Regional, International) Local Local

Duration (Short term, Medium term, Long-term Long-term Long term) Magnitude (Major, Moderate, Minor) Minor Moderate

Probability (Definite, Possible, Definite Possible Unlikely) Calculated Significance Rating (Low, Low to Medium Medium Medium, High) Reversibility: (Reversible or irreversible Irreversible Irreversible)

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 118

Irreplaceable loss of resources: (Yes Yes Yes or No) Can impacts be enhanced: (Yes or N/A N/A No) Mitigation measures • Demarcation and avoidance; documentation, permit required if alteration/destruction

NATURE OF THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT: BURIAL GROUNDS AND GRAVES OVERALL IMPACT OF THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT OF PROJECT CONSIDERED IN THE PROJECT AND OTHER ISOLATION PROJECTS IN THE AREA Impact Status: (positive or negative) Negative Negative Extent (Local, Regional, International) Local Local

Duration (Short term, Medium term, Long Long-term Long-term term) Magnitude (Major, Moderate, Minor) Major Major

Probability (Definite, Possible, Unlikely) Possible Possible

Calculated Significance Rating (Low, High High Medium, High)

Reversibility: (Reversible or Irreversible) irreversible Irreversible Irreplaceable loss of resources: (Yes or Yes Yes No) Can impacts be enhanced: (Yes or No) N/A N/A Mitigation measures • All burial grounds and graves to be avoided and demarcated, with at least a 50m buffer • If there will be a direct, unavoidable impact, then social consultation will be required regarding the possibility of relocation; this is very time-consuming

6.6 Management recommendations and guidelines

6.6.1 Construction phase

The project will encompass a range of activities during the construction phase, including ground clearance, establishment of construction camp areas and small-scale infrastructure development associated with the project.

It is possible that cultural material will be exposed during construction and may be recoverable, keeping in mind delays can be costly during construction and as such must be minimised.

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 119

Development surrounding infrastructure and construction of facilities results in significant disturbance, however foundation holes do offer a window into the past and it thus may be possible to rescue some of the data and materials. It is also possible that substantial alterations will be implemented during this phase of the project and these must be catered for. Temporary infrastructure developments, such as construction camps and laydown areas, are often changed or added to the project as required. In general, these are low impact developments as they are superficial, resulting in little alteration of the land surface, but still need to be catered for.

During the construction phase, it is important to recognize any significant material being unearthed, making the correct judgment on which actions should be taken. It is recommended that the following chance find procedure should be implemented.

6.6.2 Chance find procedure

• A heritage practitioner / archaeologist should be appointed to develop a heritage induction program and conduct training for the ECO as well as team leaders in the identification of heritage resources and artefacts. • An appropriately qualified heritage practitioner / archaeologist must be identified to be called upon in the event that any possible heritage resources or artefacts are identified. • Should an archaeological site or cultural material be discovered during construction (or operation), the area should be demarcated and construction activities halted. • The qualified heritage practitioner / archaeologist will then need to come out to the site and evaluate the extent and importance of the heritage resources and make the necessary recommendations for mitigating the find and the impact on the heritage resource. • The contractor therefore should have some sort of contingency plan so that operations could move elsewhere temporarily while the materials and data are recovered. • Construction can commence as soon as the site has been cleared and signed off by the heritage practitioner / archaeologist.

6.6.3 Possible finds during construction and operation (reclamation activities)

The study area occurs within a greater historical and archaeological site as identified during the desktop and fieldwork phase. Soil clearance for infrastructure as well as the proposed reclamation activities, could uncover the following: ▪ stone foundations; ▪ ash middens associated with the historical structures that can contain bone, glass and clay ceramics, ash, metal objects such as spoons, forks, and knives. ▪ unmarked graves

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 120

6.7 Timeframes

It must be kept in mind that mitigation and monitoring of heritage resources discovered during construction activity will require permitting for collection or excavation of heritage resources and lead times must be worked into the construction time frames. Table 12 gives guidelines for lead times on permitting.

Table 12- Lead times for permitting and mobilisation Action Responsibility Timeframe Preparation for field monitoring and The contractor and service provider +1 month finalisation of contracts Application for permits to do necessary Service provider – Archaeologist +2 months mitigation work and SAHRA Documentation, excavation and Service provider – Archaeologist +3 months archaeological report on the relevant site Handling of chance finds – Graves/Human Service provider – Archaeologist +2 weeks Remains and SAHRA Relocation of burial grounds or graves in Service provider – Archaeologist, +6 months the way of construction SAHRA, local government and provincial government

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 121

6.8 Heritage Management Plan for EMPr implementation

Table 13 - Heritage Management Plan for EMPr implementation Area and Mitigation measures Phase Timeframe Responsible party Monitoring Target Performance site no. for implementation indicators Party (monitoring (frequency) tool) General Implement chance find procedures in Construction During Applicant ECO (monthly / Ensure compliance ECO Monthly Marievale cases where possible heritage finds are and construction ECO as or when with relevant legislation Checklist/Report project uncovered operation and operation Heritage Specialist required) and recommendations area from SAHRA under Section 36 and 38 of NHRA Three Demarcate sites with a 50 meter buffer Construction Prior to and Applicant Applicant Ensure compliance ECO Monthly informal and avoid. through to during ECO ECO with relevant legislation Checklist/Report burial Implement stakeholder engagement as Operational construction Heritage specialist and recommendations grounds required by the NHRA in developing from SAHRA under practical management measures to Section 36 and 38 of avoid further damage to the burial NHRA grounds and allow community access Historical Avoid where feasible and apply a buffer Construction Prior to and Applicant Applicant Ensure compliance ECO Monthly mine zone of least 30 m. through to during ECO ECO with relevant legislation Checklist/Report compound operation construction and recommendations remains If this is not possible, a detailed from SAHRA under mitigation process must be implemented Section 36 and 38 of as required under the NHRA. This NHRA includes documenting the site and obtaining a destruction permit from the provincial heritage resource authority (Gauteng). This could include the possibility of compulsory destruction monitoring. Basic archival research may be required before destruction

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 122

Historical Depending on the state and age of Constructio Prior to and Applicant Applicant Ensure compliance ECO Monthly Mine the structure remains, a destruction n during ECO ECO with relevant Checklist/Rep structure permit may be required construction Heritage specialist legislation and ort remains recommendations from SAHRA under Section 34 and 38 of NHRA Historical Avoid these sites where feasible and Constructio Prior to and Applicant Applicant Ensure compliance ECO Monthly houses or apply a buffer zone of least 30 m. n through to during ECO ECO with relevant Checklist/Rep structures Operational construction Heritage specialist legislation and ort and If this is not possible, a detailed recommendations Residenti mitigation process must be from SAHRA under al areas implemented as required under the Section 34 and 38 of NHRA. This includes documenting NHRA the sites and obtaining a destruction permit from the provincial heritage resource authority (Gauteng). This could include the possibility of compulsory destruction monitoring. Basic archival research may be required before destruction

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 123

7 CONCLUSIONS

The HIA has shown that the study area and surrounding area has some heritage resources situated within and around the proposed development boundaries. Through data analysis and a site investigation the following issues were identified from a heritage perspective.

7.1 Heritage Sites

The fieldwork identified 38 heritage features in total, four of which were burial grounds (three informal and one municipal), with the remainder of sites (33) being historical structures or remains associated with the historic mines or residential areas. Note that two sites are the existing TCTA Plant and Ergo Plant, (MV019 and MV037 respectively), which previously contained historical structures, however most of these have been replaced by modern structures over time. The four burial ground sites are considered to have very high significance and would require mitigation measures. Of the historical structures, nine residential or non-mining structures had a medium heritage significance (grading of IIIB) which would require mitigation measures. Only three historical mining structures sites had a medium heritage significance (grading of IIIB) which would require mitigation measures. The remaining historical structure sites are considered to be of low to no heritage significance.

Most of the sites identified are located in the vicinity of the two pipeline alternatives, while a few are located in the region of the three slimes dams or the three processing plants.

7.1.1 Historical structures: Residential or non-mining

Of the 12 single or groups of historical residential or other non-mining related structures, nine of these sites had a medium heritage significance with a heritage grading of IIIB (MV001, MV006, MV018, MV021, MV023, MV028, MV031, MV032, MV036). The impact significance before mitigation on these nine historical residential structures will be Medium negative before mitigation. Implementation of the recommended mitigation measures will modify this impact rating to an acceptable LOW negative.

7.1.2 Historical structures: Mining

A total of 14 single or groups of mining-related structures were identified. However, only three of these sites had a medium heritage significance with a heritage grading of IIIB (MV003, MV011 and MV036).

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 124

7.1.3 Burial Grounds and graves

The three informal burial grounds and the municipal cemetery all have a high heritage rating and a heritage grading of IIIA (MV005, MV009, MV025, MV033). However, the Municipal cemetery is anticipated not to be impacted by the project.

7.1.4 The historic slimes dams and sand dumps

Although the three slimes dams/dumps are older than 60 years and could technically be described as “man-made structures”, it is the considered opinion of this author that there is no heritage significance attached to the actual slimes dams/sand dumps. However, legally, the historic dumps 7L7, 7L5 and 7L6 may require a permit for their reclamation as they could be 60 years or older. It should also be noted that there is some probability of the presence of historic graves under or adjacent to the historic dumps.

7.2 Palaeontology

The desktop PIA found that the proposed Marievale Tailings Storage facilities and two pipeline alternatives are underlain by the Malmani Subgroup, (Chuniespoort Group, Transvaal Supergroup), Dwyka Group, Vryheid Formation (Ecca Group) and Karoo Dolerite Suite. The Palaeontological Sensitivity of the Malmani Subgroup is High, the Dwyka Group has a Moderate Palaeontological Sensitivity, the Vryheid Formation has a Very High Palaeontological Sensitivity and Karoo Dolerite Suite has a Zero Palaeontological Sensitivity. Impacts on palaeontological heritage during the construction phase could potentially occur are regarded as having a high possibility. This would usually require a field-based assessment to be undertaken on the specific impacts expected.

However, since the proposed pipelines will be constructed overland or within existing servitudes and road reserves, it is anticipated that there should be no excavation into the underlying geology.

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 125

In addition, the area around the three slimes dams has been disturbed extensively by previous mining-related activities. Therefore, the impacts on palaeontological heritage are anticipated to be minimal and it is recommended that an application for exemption from the standard requirement for a field-based Palaeontological Impact Assessment be made to SAHRA

7.3 General

It is the author’s considered opinion that overall impact on heritage resources is Medium to Low. Provided that the recommended mitigation measures are implemented, the impact would be acceptably low or could be totally mitigated to the degree that the project could be approved from a heritage perspective. The management and mitigation measures as described in Section 6 of this report have been developed to minimise the project impact on heritage resources.

8 REFERENCES

BERGH, J.S. (ed.). 1999. Geskiedenis Atlas van Suid-Afrika: Die Vier Noordelike Provinsies. J.L. van Schaik. Pretoria. BLAKE, A. 2012. Boerekryger: ‘n Seun se Hoogste Offer. Tafelberg: Cape Town BRUWER, J AND MARTINSON, W. 2018. Heritage Impact Assessment of the Proposed Upgrade of the Swimming Pool Precinct Olympia Park Sports Grounds (Stand 1226 Geduld Extension 4) Springs. BUTLER, E. 2019. Palaeontological Desktop Assessment For The Proposed Environmental Authorisation And An Integrated Water Use Licence Application For The Reclamation Of The Marievale Tailings Storage Facilities, Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality - Gauteng Province COETZEE, F. 2018. Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment: Phase 1 Investigation for the Proposed Underground Water Treatment Facility and Pipeline near Cowles Dam in Springs, New Kleinfontein Goldmine (Pty) Ltd (Modder East Operations), Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality, Gauteng. DAVENPORT, J. 2013. Digging Deep. DE BRUYN, C. 2018. Basic Assessment Report for the Proposed Kwathema to Grundlingh WWTW Bulk Outfall Sewer: Capital Project Implementation Near Nigel, Gauteng Province. ERASMUS, B.P.J. 2014. On Route in South Africa. Third edition. Jonathan Ball Publishers: Johannesburg ESTERHUYSEN, A, KNIGHT, J AND KEARTLAND, T. 2018. Mine waste: The unseen dead in a mining landscape. In Progress in Physical Geography 42(5):650-666 GAIGHER, S. 2013. Heritage Impact Assessment for the Proposed Holgatfontein Residential Development, Nigel, Ekurhuleni. For Metroprojects Gauteng. FOURIE, H. 2017. Proposed Mining of Clay, Sand and Coal. Nigel and Springs District Municipality, Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality, Gauteng Province. Farm: Portion of Portion 85 of

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 126

Grootfontein 165-IR and a Portion of the Remainder of Vogelstruisbult 127-IR Nigel. Paleontological Impact Assessment (PIA), Phase 1 Field Study for the proposed mining development. HIGGETT, N. 2015. Prospecting Right and Environmental Authorisation Application for the 7L4 Slimes Dam on Vogelstruisbult 127 IR and Daggafontein 125 IR. Notification of Intent to Develop. HIGGETT, N. 2015. Prospecting Right and Environmental Authorisation Application for the 7L5 and 7L6 Slimes Dam on Vlakfontein 281 IR. Notification of Intent to Develop. HUFFMAN, T.N. 2007. Handbook to the Iron Age: The archaeology of Pre-Colonial Farming MASON, RJ. 1962. Prehistory of the Transvaal: A Record of Human Activity. Witwatersrand University Press MASON, R.J. 1973. Iron Age Research in the Western Transvaal, South Africa. Current Anthropology, Vol. 14, No. 4 (Oct. 1973), pp. 485-487. MATHOHO, E. 2018. Heritage Impact Assessment Relating To The Proposed Upgrade Of Pam Brink Feeder Pipe Line In Geduld, Springs, Within Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality Of The Gauteng Province, South Africa MBENGA, B. & A. MASON. 2010. People of the Dew: A History of the Bafokeng of Rustenburg District, South Africa from Early Times to 2000. Jacana Media (Pty) Ltd, Johannesburg. MOHLAMME, J.S. 1995. Soldiers without Reward: Africans in South Africa’s Wars in Military History Journal, vol. 10, no. 1. MORRIS, D. 2008. Archaeological and Heritage Impact Assessment on Remainder of Carter Block 458, near Lime Acres, Northern Cape. McGregor Museum. NIEFTAGODIEN, N. 1996. The Making of Apartheid in Springs During the Sixties: Group areas, urban restructuring and resistance. Seminar Paper No. 396. University of the Witwatersrand Institute for Advanced Social Research. PELSER, AJ. 2012. A Report on the First Phase of the Historical, Archaeological and Forensic Investigation of Previously Unknown Burials Dating to the Late 19th/Early 20th Century on the Farm Langlaagte 224 IQ, Crown Mines, Crownwood Road, Johannesburg, Gauteng. For South African Heritage Resources Agency. Archaetnos Culture & Cultural Resource Consultants PRAAGH, L.V (ed). 1906. The Transvaal and its Mines (The Encyclopedic History of the Transvaal). Praagh & Loyd: London & Johannesburg. RAPER, PE. 2004. Dictionary of Southern African Place Names. Jonathan Ball Publishers. RODD, D.H. 1995. Survey of the Extant Properties on the Witwatersrand Goldfields. An unpublished report by the National Monuments Council. SKINNER, WR. 1911. The Mining Manual. Published by The Capitalist. London VAN DER WALT, J. 2008. Archaeological Impact Assessment Daggafontein Extension 6, Portion 107 of the Farm Daggafontein 125 IR, Springs, Gauteng Province. WILLS, WH AND BARRETT, RJ. 1883. The Anglo-African Who's Who and Biographical Sketch- book. George Routledge & Sons, Limited

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 127

Internet www.cwgc.orgmohlamme www.lesedilm.gov.za http://www.mk.org.za/mkhist1.htm

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 128

APPENDIX A: Identified Heritage Site Maps

Figure 104 - Heritage Sites identified in the area around the TCTA Plant and the proposed TCTA pipeline

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 129

Figure 105 – Heritage sites identified in the area around the proposed Daggafontein Plant and the two associated pipelines

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 130

Figure 106 - Heritage sites identified in the area around the three Marievale dumps and the two associated pipelines

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 131

Figure 107 - Heritage sites identified in the area around the Ergo Plant and the existing and proposed Ergo pipeline

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 132

Appendix B Heritage Assessment Methodology

The section below outlines the assessment methodologies utilised in the Heritage Impact Assessment study.

The Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) report compiled by PGS Heritage (PGS) for the proposed Marievale TSF Reclamation Project aimed to assess the heritage resources found on site. This report contains the applicable maps, tables and figures as stipulated in the NHRA (no 25 of 1999), the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) (no 107 of 1998) and the Minerals and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) (28 of 2002). The HIA process consisted of three steps:

• Step I - Literature Review and cartographic analysis: a high-level desktop study was undertaken to identify potential heritage resources and areas of potential heritage sensitivity (desktop level Heritage Scoping report)

• Step II – Physical Survey: A physical survey was conducted through the proposed project area by qualified and experienced heritage specialists, aimed at locating and documenting heritage resources falling within and adjacent to the proposed development footprint.

• Step III – The final step involved the recording and documentation of relevant heritage resources, as well as the assessment of resources in terms of the heritage impact assessment criteria and report writing, as well as mapping and constructive recommendations

The significance of identified heritage sites is based on four main criteria - • Site integrity (i.e. primary vs. secondary context), • Amount of deposit, range of features (e.g., stonewalling, stone tools and enclosures), • Density of scatter (dispersed scatter) o Low - <10/50m2 o Medium/High - 10-50/50m2 o High - >50/50m2 • Uniqueness; and • Potential to answer present research questions.

Management actions and recommended mitigation, which will result in a reduction in the impact on the sites, will be expressed as follows -

A - No further action necessary; B - Mapping of the site and controlled sampling required; C - No-go or relocate development activity position;

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 133

D - Preserve site, or extensive data collection and mapping of the site; and E - Preserve site.

Impacts on these sites by the development will be evaluated as follows –

Site Significance Site significance classification standards used are based on the heritage classification of s3 in the NHRA and developed for implementation keeping in mind the grading system approved by SAHRA for archaeological impact assessments. The update classification and rating system as developed by Heritage Western Cape (2016) will be implemented in the HIA report.

Site significance classification standards prescribed by the Heritage Western Cape Guideline (2016), were used for the purpose of this report (Table A and Table B).

Table A: Rating system for archaeological resources Grading Description of Resource Examples of Possible Heritage Management Strategies Significance I Heritage resources with qualities May be declared as a National Highest so exceptional that they are of Heritage Site managed by SAHRA. Significance special national significance. Specific mitigation and scientific Current examples: Langebaanweg investigation can be permitted in (West Coast Fossil Park), Cradle of certain circumstances with sufficient Humankind motivation. II Heritage resources with special May be declared as a Provincial Exceptionally qualities which make them Heritage Site managed by HWC. High significant, but do not fulfil the Specific mitigation and scientific Significance criteria for Grade I status. investigation can be permitted in Current examples: Blombos, certain circumstances with sufficient Paternoster Midden. motivation. III Heritage resources that contribute to the environmental quality or cultural significance of a larger area and fulfils one of the criteria set out in section 3(3) of the Act but that does not fulfil the criteria for Grade II status. Grade III sites may be formally protected by placement on the Heritage Register. IIIA Such a resource must be an Resource must be retained. Specific High excellent example of its kind or mitigation and scientific investigation Significance must be sufficiently rare. can be permitted in certain Current examples: Varschedrift; circumstances with sufficient Peers Cave; Brobartia Road motivation. Midden at Bettys Bay IIIB Such a resource might have similar Resource must be retained where Medium significances to those of a Grade III possible where not possible it must Significance A resource, but to a lesser degree. be fully investigated and/or mitigated. IIIC Such a resource is of contributing Resource must be satisfactorily Low significance. studied before impact. If the Significance recording already done (such as in an HIA or permit application) is not sufficient, further recording or even mitigation may be required. NCW A resource that, after appropriate No further actions under the NHRA No research investigation, has been determined are required. This must be motivated potential or to not have enough heritage by the applicant or the consultant other cultural significance to be retained as part and approved by the authority. significance of the National Estate.

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 134

Table B: Rating system for built environment resources Grading Description of Examples of Possible Heritage Significance Resource Management Strategies I Heritage resources with May be declared as a Highest Significance qualities so exceptional National Heritage Site that they are of special managed by SAHRA. national significance. Current examples: Robben Island II Heritage resources with May be declared as a Exceptionally High special qualities which Provincial Heritage Site Significance make them significant in managed by HWC. the context of a province or region, but do not fulfil the criteria for Grade I status. Current examples: St George’s Cathedral, Community House III Such a resource contributes to the environmental quality or cultural significance of a larger area and fulfils one of the criteria set out in section 3(3) of the Act but that does not fulfill the criteria for Grade II status. Grade III sites may be formally protected by placement on the Heritage Register. IIIA Such a resource must be This grading is applied to High Significance an excellent example of buildings and sites that its kind or must be have sufficient intrinsic sufficiently rare. significance to be These are heritage regarded as local resources which are heritage resources; and significant in the context are significant enough to of an area. warrant that any alteration, both internal and external, is regulated. Such buildings and sites may be representative, being excellent examples of their kind, or may be rare. In either case, they should receive maximum protection at local level. IIIB Such a resource might Like Grade IIIA buildings Medium Significance have similar and sites, such buildings significances to those of and sites may be a Grade III A resource, representative, being but to a lesser degree. excellent examples of These are heritage their kind, or may be resources which are rare, but less so than significant in the context Grade IIIA examples. of a townscape, They would receive less neighbourhood, stringent protection than settlement or Grade IIIA buildings and community. sites at local level. IIIC Such a resource is of This grading is applied to Low Significance contributing significance buildings and/or sites to the environs whose significance is These are heritage contextual, i.e. in large resources which are part due to its significant in the context contribution to the of a streetscape or direct character or significance neighborhood. of the environs. These buildings and sites should, as a consequence, only be regulated if the significance of the

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 135

Grading Description of Examples of Possible Heritage Significance Resource Management Strategies environs is sufficient to warrant protective measures, regardless of whether the site falls within a Conservation or Heritage Area. Internal alterations should not necessarily be regulated. NCW A resource that, after No further actions under No research potential or appropriate the NHRA are required. other cultural investigation, has been This must be motivated significance determined to not have by the applicant and enough heritage approved by the significance to be authority. Section 34 can retained as part of the even be lifted by HWC National Estate. for structures in this category if they are older than 60 years.

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 136

Appendix C The Impact Assessment Rating Scales for the Proposed Project Activities on Heritage Resources

The impacts will be ranked according to the methodology described below. Where possible, mitigation measures will be provided to manage impacts. In order to ensure uniformity, a standard impact assessment methodology will be utilised so that a wide range of impacts can be compared with each other. The impact assessment methodology makes provision for the assessment of impacts against the following criteria:

Significance; Spatial scale; Temporal scale; Probability; and Degree of certainty.

A combined quantitative and qualitative methodology was used to describe impacts for each of the aforementioned assessment criteria. A summary of each of the qualitative descriptors along with the equivalent quantitative rating scale for each of the aforementioned criteria is given in (Table)

Part A: Define impact consequence using the three primary impact characteristics of magnitude, spatial scale/ population and duration; Part B: Use the matrix to determine a rating for impact consequence based on the definitions identified in Part A; and Part C: Use the matrix to determine the impact significance rating, which is a function of the impact consequence rating (from Part B) and the probability of occurrence.

Table - Significance Rating Methodology

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 137

PART A: DEFINING CONSEQUENCE IN TERMS OF MAGNITUDE, DURATION AND SPATIAL SCALE Use these definitions to define the consequence in Part B Impact Definition Criteria characteristics Substantial deterioration or harm to receptors; receiving environment has an inherent value to stakeholders; Major - receptors of impact are of conservation importance; or identified threshold often exceeded Moderate/measurable deterioration or harm to receptors; Moderate - receiving environment moderately sensitive; or identified threshold occasionally exceeded Minor deterioration (nuisance or minor deterioration) or MAGNITUDE Minor - harm to receptors; change to receiving environment not measurable; or identified threshold never exceeded Minor improvement; change not measurable; or threshold Minor + never exceeded Moderate improvement; within or better than the Moderate + threshold; or no observed reaction Substantial improvement; within or better than the Major + threshold; or favourable publicity Site or local Site specific or confined to the immediate project area May be defined in various ways, e.g. cadastral, SPATIAL SCALE Regional catchment, topographic OR POPULATION National/ Nationally or beyond International Short term Up to 18 months. DURATION Medium term 18 months to 5 years Long term Longer than 5 years PART B: DETERMINING CONSEQUENCE RATING Rate consequence based on definition of magnitude, spatial extent and duration SPATIAL SCALE/ POPULATION National/ Site or Regional internationa Local l MAGNITUDE Long term Medium Medium High Minor DURATION Medium term Low Low Medium Short term Low Low Medium Long term Medium High High Moderate DURATION Medium term Medium Medium High Short term Low Medium Medium Long term High High High Major DURATION Medium term Medium Medium High Short term Medium Medium High PART C: DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE RATING Rate significance based on consequence and probability CONSEQUENCE

Low Medium High Definite Medium Medium High PROBABILITY (of exposure to Possible Low Medium High impacts) Unlikely Low Low Medium

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 138

Appendix D: Project team CV’s

PROFESSIONAL CURRICULUM: JENNIFER KITTO Professional Heritage Specialist

EDUCATION: Name of University or Institution: Dorset Institute for Higher Education (now Bournemouth University), Poole, United Kingdom Degree obtained: Higher National Diploma: Practical Archaeology Year: 1989

Name of University or Institution: University of the Witwatersrand Degree obtained: BA Major subjects: Archaeology and Social Anthropology Year: 1993

Name of University or Institution : University of the Witwatersrand Degree obtained: BA [Hons] Major subjects : Social Anthropology Year: 1994

Professional Qualifications: Member - Association of Southern African Professional Archaeologists – Technical Member No. 444

Languages: English First Language Afrikaans - Speaking (Fair) Reading (Fair), Writing (Fair)

KEY QUALIFICATIONS Cultural Resource Management and Heritage Impact Assessment Management, Historical and Archival Research, Archaeology, Anthropology, Applicable survey methods, Fieldwork and Project Management.

SUMMARY OF EXPERIENCE Specialised expertise in Cultural Resource Management and Heritage Impact Assessment Management, Archaeology, Anthropology, Applicable survey methods, Fieldwork and project management, including inter alia -

Involvement with various Heritage Impact Assessments, within South Africa, including - • Archaeological Walkdowns for various projects

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 139

• Phase 2 Heritage Impact Assessments and EMPs for various projects • Heritage Impact Assessments for various projects • Heritage Audits and subsequent Compilation of Heritage Management Policy for various projects

HERITAGE ASSESSMENT PROJECTS Below a selected list of Heritage Impact Assessments (HIA) and Heritage Audit and Management Projects completed: • Heritage Screening Reports for Various Road Routes: Bronkhorstspruit, Carletonville and Randfontein and Eikenhof-Vaal Dam regions, Gauteng Department of Roads and Transport, Gauteng Province • Heritage Audit and Management Policy, Sibanye Gold, Beatrix Mining area, Lejweleputswa District Municipality, Free State Province • Heritage Audit and Management Policy, Sibanye Gold, Kloof and Driefontein Mining areas, West Rand District Municipality, Gauteng Province • HIA Report, Dolos-Giraffe Substation, Hopefield-Bultfontein, Free State Province • HIA Report and Phase 2 Mitigation Report, AEL Mining Services, Decontamination of AEL Detonator Campus, Modderfontein Factory, Modderfontein, City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality, Gauteng • HIA Report, Old Rand Leases Hostel redevelopment, Fleurhof Ext 10, Roodepoort, City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality, Gauteng • HIA Report, Watershed Substation, North-West Province • HIA Report, Solid Waste Landfill Facility, Rhodes Village, Eastern Cape • HIA Report, Solid Waste Landfill Facility, Rossouw, Eastern Cape • Phase 2 Mitigation Report, Cass Farmstead, Optimum Colliery, Mpumalanga • HIA Report, Kusile Ash Disposal Facility, Witbank, Mpumalanga • Report on Rand Steam Laundries Background History, City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality, Gauteng • New Cemetery, Barkly East, Senqu Municipality, Eastern Cape (desktop/archival research for HIA report) • Lady Slipper Country Estates, Nelson Mandela Metro Municipality, Eastern Cape (desktop/archival research for HIA report) • Exxaro Resources Paardeplaats Project, Belfast, Mpumalanga (field survey and archival research for HIA report) • Copperleaf Mixed Use Development, Farm Knoppieslaagte 385/Knopjeslaagte 140, Centurion, Gauteng (field survey and archival research for HIA report) • Isundu-Mbewu Transmission Line Project, Pietermaritzburg, Kwazulu Natal (Initial Heritage Scan (survey) for Corridor 3 Alternative 1)

GRAVE RELOCATION PROJECTS Below, a selection of grave relocation projects involvement:

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 140

• Mitigation Report on previous Grave Relocation and Permit applications for Test Excavation of two possible graves, Nkomati Mine, Mpumalanga • Relocation of two graves Olievenhoutbosch, Tshwane, Gauteng (applications to SAHRA, Gauteng Dept. of Health and Local Authorities for relevant permits) • Relocation of graves HL Hall Family, Nelspruit, Mpumalanga (applications to SAHRA, Mpumalanga Department of Health and Local Authorities for relevant permits) • Relocation of two possible graves Noordwyk Ext 63, Midrand, Johannesburg, Gauteng (applications to SAHRA, Gauteng Dept. of Health and Local Authorities for relevant permits) • Relocation of informal cemetery (50+) and additional unknown graves (50+) at Fleurhof Extension 5, Roodepoort, Gauteng (desktop research and applications to SAHRA, Gauteng Health Department and Local Government for relevant permits in terms of the applicable legislation) • Relocation of informal graves (9) at Tselentis Colliery, Breyten, Mpumalanga (applications to SAHRA, Mpumalanga Department of Health and Local Authorities for relevant permits) • Relocation of various informal cemeteries at New Largo Mine, Balmoral, Mpumalanga (as above) • Relocation of graves at Mookodi Power Station, Vryburg, North-West Province (initial social consultation) • Relocation of graves at Hendrina Power Station, Hendrina, Mpumalanga (social consultation, permit applications, etc)

EMPLOYMENT SUMMARY: Positions Held • 2011 – to date: Heritage Specialist - PGS Heritage (Pty) Ltd • 2008 – 2011: Cultural Heritage Officer (National), Burial Grounds and Graves Unit: South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA) • 1998 – 2008: Cultural Heritage Officer (Provincial), Provincial Office – Gauteng: SAHRA

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 141

PROFESSIONAL CURRICULUM FOR CHERENE DE BRUYN Professional Heritage Specialist and Professional Archaeologist

EDUCATION: Name of University or Institution : University of Pretoria Degree obtained: : BA Major subjects : Archaeology and Anthropology Year : 2010-2012

Name of University or Institution : University of Pretoria Degree obtained : BA (Hons) Major subjects : Archaeology Year : 2013

Name of University or Institution : University of Pretoria Degree obtained : BSc (Hons) Major subjects : Physical Anthropology Year : 2015

Name of University or Institution : University College London Degree obtained : MA Major subjects : Archaeology Year : 2016/2017

Professional Qualifications: Association of Southern African Professional Archaeologists - Professional Member (#432) International Association for Impact Assessment South Africa - Member (#6082) Association of Southern African Professional Archaeologists - CRM Accreditation • Principle Investigator: Grave relocation • Field Director: Colonial period archaeology, Iron Age archaeology • Field Supervisor: Rock art, Stone Age archaeology • Laboratory Specialist: Human Skeletal Remains

Languages: Afrikaans and English

KEY QUALIFICATIONS Heritage Impact Assessment Management, Historical and Archival Research, Archaeology, Physical Anthropology, Grave Relocations, Fieldwork and Project Management including inter alia

Summary of Experience Involvement in various grave relocation projects and grave “rescue” excavations in the various provinces of South Africa Involvement with various Heritage Impact Assessments, within South Africa • Heritage Impact Assessments for various projects

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 142

HERITAGE ASSESSMENT PROJECTS Below a selected list of Heritage Impact Assessments (HIA) Projects involvement: • Heritage Impact Assessment for the proposed Prospecting Right Application on the Farm Reserve No 4 15823 And 7638/1, near St Lucia, within the jurisdiction of the Mfolozi Local Municipality in the King Cetshwayo District Municipality, KwaZulu-Natal Province. • Letter of Recommendation for Exemption from conducting a full Heritage Impact Assessment Study for the proposed demolition of Stand 9/26 Riviera (25 North Avenue, Riviera) within the City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality, Gauteng Province • Heritage Public Participation report for the refurbishments of Lyttleton Primary School, Lyttleton Manor, Centurion, Gauteng Province. • Heritage Public Participation report for the proposed alterations Of Erf 1/966 Rosettenville or 94 Main Street Rosettenville within the City Of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality, Gauteng Province. • Heritage Impact Assessment for the proposed mining rights on the Farm Waterkloof 95 located between Griekwastad and Groblershoop in the Pixley Ka Seme District Municipality within the Northern Cape Province. • Heritage Impact Assessment for the proposed East Coast Gas 400 Kv Power Lines, located in Richards Bay, within the Umhlathuze Local Municipality in the King Cetshwayo District Municipality in the Kwazulu-Natal Province. • Letter of Recommendation for Exemption from conducting a heritage impact assessment for the proposed alterations of Erf 1/966 Rosettenville located at 94 Main Street Rosettenville within the City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality, Gauteng Province. • Heritage Impact Assessment for the mining right application for the Farm Woodlands 407, situated in the Free State Province. • Heritage Impact Assessment for the refurbishments of Lyttelton Primary School, Lyttelton Manor, Centurion, Gauteng Province. • Heritage Impact Assessment for the refurbishments of the Caledonian Stadium in Pretoria, Gauteng Province. • Heritage Impact Assessment for the amendment of an existing prospecting right and environmental authorization for Bothaville NE Ext A, situated in the Free State Province. • Heritage Impact Assessment Study for the Proposed New Lambano Sub Acute Facility on Stand 5454, 5455, 5456,5457 and New Training Facility on Stands 5458 and 5460 in Kensington, Johannesburg. • Heritage Impact Assessment for the Prospecting Right and Environmental Authorization Application for Ventersburg B situated in the Free State Province. • Heritage Impact Assessment for the proposed prospecting rights application and environmental authorisation for the farm Three Sisters in Barberton, within the city of Mbombela Local District, Mpumalanga. • Heritage Impact Assessment and Integrated Cultural Resources Management Study for The Proposed Mfolozi-Mbewu 765kv Transmission Line, Zululand And King Cetshwayo District Municipality, KwaZulu-Natal. • Heritage Impact Assessment for the proposed for the Construction of the Bulk Water Supply Pipeline and Feeder Pipes in Dunnottar, Gauteng Province. • Heritage Impact Assessment for the Proposed KwaThema to Grundlingh WWTW Bulk Outfall Sewer: Capital Project Implementation near Nigel, Gauteng Province.

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 143

• Letter of Recommendation for Exemption from Conducting a full Heritage Impact Assessment Study for the Matlala Park, Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality, Gauteng Province. • Heritage Impact Assessment the prospecting right and environmental authorisation application for Kroonstad South situated in the Free State Province. • Heritage Impact Assessment the prospecting right and environmental authorisation application for Vredefort West situated in the Free State Province. • Archaeological impact assessment for a mining permit application for portion 19 of the farm Syferfontein 303 IP within the city of Matlosana Local Municipality in the North West Province.

GRAVE RELOCATION PROJECTS Below, a selection of grave relocation projects involvement: • Grave exhumation and relocation off 19 graves on erf 3 of Holding 87 North Riding Agricultural Holdings, City Of Johannesburg, Gauteng Province. • Report on the exhumation and reburial report of 16 graves from Doornkop, to Voortrekker Cemetery in Middelburg, Mpumalanga Province • Exhumation and reburial report of 4 graves located at Tombo, Eastern Cape Province. • Report on rescue excavations and skeletal analyses of two archaeological graves inadvertently uncovered in Boitekong, North-West Province. • Rescue excavation of an unmarked graveyard at Diamond Park, Greenpoint, Kimberley, Northern Cape Province. • Report on Follow-up site visit excavation and physical anthropological analyses of archaeological human remains transferred from SAPA Victim Identification Centre to Department of Anatomy. Mamelodi East Phase 2 House 566. • Excavation of human remains from Marulaneng village, Bakenberg Limpopo Province. • Follow up site visit on human remains found at Bothlokwa (Ramatjowe & Mphakahne), Limpopo Province. • Follow up site visit on human remains found in Waterpoort, Soutpansberg, Limpopo Province.

EMPLOYMENT SUMMARY: Positions Held • 2020 – to date: Archaeologist - PGS Heritage (Pty) Ltd • 2019: Manager of the NGT ESHS Heritage Department – NGT Holdings (Pty) Ltd • 2018 – 2019: Archaeologist and Heritage Consultant – NGT Holdings (Pty) Ltd • 2018: Lascaux Exhibition Tour Guide - Sci-bono Discovery centre • 2015-2016: Archaeological Contractor - BA3G, University of Pretoria • 2014 – 2015: DST-NRF Archaeological Intern, Forensic Anthropological Research Centre • 2014: Archaeological Assistant - Archaetnos (Pty) Ltd

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 144

WOUTER FOURIE Professional Heritage Specialist and Professional Archaeologist and Director PGS Heritage

Summary of Experience Specialised expertise in Archaeological Mitigation and excavations, Cultural Resource Management and Heritage Impact Assessment Management, Archaeology, Anthropology, Applicable survey methods, Fieldwork and project management, Geographic Information Systems, including inter alia -

Involvement in various grave relocation projects (some of which relocated up to 1000 graves) and grave “rescue” excavations in the various provinces of South Africa Involvement with various Heritage Impact Assessments, within South Africa, including - • Archaeological Walkdowns for various projects • Phase 2 Heritage Impact Assessments and EMPs for various projects • Heritage Impact Assessments for various projects • Iron Age Mitigation Work for various projects, including archaeological excavations and monitoring • Involvement with various Heritage Impact Assessments, outside South Africa, including - • Archaeological Studies in Democratic Republic of Congo • Heritage Impact Assessments in Mozambique, Botswana and DRC • Grave Relocation project in DRC

Key Qualifications BA [Hons] (Cum laude) - Archaeology and Geography - 1997 BA - Archaeology, Geography and Anthropology - 1996 Professional Archaeologist - Association of Southern African Professional Archaeologists (ASAPA) - Professional Member Accredited Professional Heritage Specialist – Association of Professional Heritage Practitioners (APHP) CRM Accreditation (ASAPA) - • Principal Investigator - Grave Relocations • Field Director – Iron Age • Field Supervisor – Colonial Period and Stone Age • Accredited with Amafa KZN

Key Work Experience 2003- current - Director – Professional Grave Solutions (Pty) Ltd 2007 – 2008 - Project Manager – Matakoma-ARM, Heritage Contracts Unit, University of the Witwatersrand 2005-2007 - Director – Matakoma Heritage Consultants (Pty) Ltd

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 145

2000-2004 - CEO– Matakoma Consultants 1998-2000 - Environmental Coordinator – Randfontein Estates Limited. Randfontein, Gauteng 1997-1998 - Environmental Officer – Department of Minerals and Energy. Johannesburg, Gauteng

Worked on various heritage projects in the SADC region including, Botswana, Mozambique, Malawi, Mauritius and the Democratic Republic of the Congo

Marievale Reclamation Project – HIA Report 19 March 2020 Page 146