Scoping Heritage Impact Assessment for the Proposed Hotazel Solar Farm, Kuruman Magisterial District, Northern Cape

SCOPING HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED HOTAZEL SOLAR FARM, KURUMAN MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, NORTHERN CAPE

Report for:

AURECON SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD P.O. Box 509, George, 6530 Tel: 044 805 5432 Email: [email protected]

On behalf of:

JUWI RENEWABLE ENERGIES (PTY) LTD

Dr Jayson Orton ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd 6A Scarborough Road, Muizenberg, 7945 Tel: (021) 788 8425 | 083 272 3225 Email: [email protected]

1st draft: 4 October 2016 Final report: 19 October 2016 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd was appointed by Aurecon South Africa (Pty) Ltd to conduct a scoping assessment of the potential impacts to heritage resources that might occur through the proposed development of the Hotazel Solar Farm on the farm Annex Langdon 278 near Hotazel in Northern Cape. Four technology / layout alternatives and two access road alternatives have been assessed, on a preliminary basis, in this scoping report to input into the determination of the preferred alternative to be carried forward into the impact assessment phase. It should be noted that a mineral lease is presently registered over the north-western part of the site. The PV facility would thus occupy all the remaining land on the property.

A field survey and desktop research were conducted in order to inform the scoping assessment. This work showed that heritage resources are scarce in the broader landscape and, when present, tend to be isolated and of very low heritage significance. A set of three graves was located on the farm, but these are situated within the proposed expansion footprint of the neighbouring mine and will not be impacted by the project. An abandoned farm complex dating to between 1965 and 1972 is situated in the northern portion of the site but is too recent to constitute a heritage resource and is thus not protected. The landscape is also a heritage resource but is deemed to be of low significance because the dominant cultural contribution is from the mining industry and associated activities which dates to the mid-twentieth century.

Due to the low occurrence of heritage and the homogeneity of the site and surrounds, the comparative assessment of project alternatives has shown that there is little to no difference between the four alternatives for the solar array footprint area from a heritage perspective. The access road options have varying advantages and disadvantages but these do not reveal any strongly preferred alternative.

There do not appear to be any significant heritage issues within the study area and it is concluded that any of the four solar array alternatives and either of the two access roads are feasible. It is recommended that the project proceed to the impact assessment phase with whichever alternative is preferred by the client. Heritage issues offer no meaningful contribution to the selection of a final or preferred alternative for the project to consider during the impact assessment phase of the project.

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 ii Glossary

Background scatter: Artefacts whose spatial position is conditioned more by natural forces than by human agency

Early Stone Age: Period of the Stone Age extending approximately between 2 million and 200 000 years ago.

Holocene: The geological period spanning the last approximately 10-12 000 years.

Hominid: a group consisting of all modern and extinct great apes (i.e. gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans and humans) and their ancestors.

Later Stone Age: Period of the Stone Age extending over the last approximately 20 000 years.

Middle Stone Age: Period of the Stone Age extending approximately between 200 000 and 20 000 years ago.

Pleistocene: The geological period beginning approximately 2.5 million years ago and preceding the Holocene.

Abbreviations

APHP: Association of Professional Heritage Practitioners

ASAPA: Association of Southern African Professional Archaeologists

CRM: Cultural Resources Management

DEA: Department of Environmental Affairs

ECO: Environmental Control Officer

EIA: Environmental Impact Assessment

ESA: Early Stone Age

GPS: global positioning system

HIA: Heritage Impact Assessment

LMS: London Missionary Society

LSA: Later Stone Age

MSA: Middle Stone Age

NEMA: National Environmental Management Act (No. 107 of 1998)

NHRA: National Heritage Resources Act (No. 25) of 1999

SAHRA: South African Heritage Resources Agency

SAHRIS: South African Heritage Resources Information System

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 iii Contents

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1. Project description ...... 1 1.1.1. Aspects of the project relevant to the heritage study ...... 3 1.2. Terms of reference ...... 3 1.3. Scope and purpose of the report ...... 3 1.4. The author ...... 4 1.5. Declaration of independence ...... 4 2. HERITAGE LEGISLATION ...... 4 3. METHODS ...... 5 3.1. Literature survey and information sources ...... 5 3.2. Field survey ...... 5 3.3. Specialist studies ...... 5 3.4. Impact assessment ...... 5 3.5. Grading ...... 5 3.6. Assumptions and limitations ...... 6 4. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT ...... 6 4.1. Site context ...... 6 4.2. Site description ...... 6 5. HERITAGE CONTEXT ...... 7 5.1. Archaeological aspects ...... 7 5.2. Palaeontological aspects ...... 7 5.3. Historical aspects ...... 8 6. FINDINGS OF THE HERITAGE STUDY ...... 8 6.1. Archaeology ...... 9 6.2. Palaeontology ...... 9 6.3. Graves ...... 10 6.4. The cultural landscape ...... 13 6.5. Statement of significance ...... 14 6.6. Summary of heritage indicators and provisional grading ...... 15 7. ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS ...... 15 8. CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION ...... 16 9. REFERENCES ...... 17 APPENDIX 1 – Curriculum Vitae ...... 18 APPENDIX 2 – Palaeontological desktop study ...... 20

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 iv 1. INTRODUCTION

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd was appointed by Aurecon South Africa (Pty) Ltd to conduct a scoping assessment of the potential impacts to heritage resources that might occur through the proposed development of the Hotazel Solar Park on the farm Annex Langdon 278 near Hotazel in Northern Cape (Figure 1). The site is located at S23° 13’ 45” E23° 00’ 30”. There is an existing mining lease area registered over the north-western part of the farm and may expand towards the east and south (shown in yellow in Figure 1). The solar park project would be constructed on the remaining parts of Annex Langdon further east and south of the mine area.

0 1 2 3 km N 2722BB & 2723AA (Mapping information supplied by Chief Directorate: National Geo-Spatial Information. Website: wwwi.ngi.gov.za) HOTAZEL

Figure 1: Map showing the location of the site. The shaded green polygon is Annex Langdon 278, the shaded orange polygon is a current mining lease area and the curved orange line is the edge of a proposed mine expansion. The solar park is proposed on the remaining part of the farm to the east and south.

1.1. Project description

A solar energy facility comprising of solar panels, access roads and related infrastructure is planned on the approximately 280 ha site. Table 1 presents the project description and all alternatives under consideration, while Figure 2 maps the primary project components. Note that grid connection will be assessed separately and do not form part of this project.

Table 1: Hotazel Solar Park 1 project description and alternatives summary. Solar energy facility alternatives Alternative A1: Fixed axis PV without battery storage: A 200MWac solar facility with ~250ha of PV panels on steel mountings with fixed mountings (max 5m height) and concrete footings, below ground electrical cables connecting the PV systems to the onsite collector substation and inverters. (Energy production ~100% with no controlled energy release)

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 1 Alternative A2: Single axis PV without battery storage: A 200MWac solar facility with ~250ha of PV panels on steel mountings with single axis tracking mechanisms (max 5m height) and concrete footings, below ground electrical cables connecting the PV systems to the onsite collector substation and inverters. (Energy production ~120% with no controlled energy release) Alternative A3: Fixed axis PV with battery storage: A 200MWac solar facility with ~250ha of PV panels on steel mountings with fixed mountings (max 5m height) and concrete footings and below ground electrical cables connecting the PV systems to the onsite collector substation and inverters connected to a battery storage facility. (Energy production ~100% with up to 25% controlled energy release). A 100MWh battery storage facility to allow controlled power release. Battery storage facility: a ≤100MWh battery storage facility for grid storage located next to inverters, or in collector substation, or in central substation covering ≤1ha and up to at 8m building height (stacked containers or multi-storey building). Alternative A4: Single axis PV with battery storage: A 200MWac solar facility with ~250ha of PV panels on steel mountings with single axis tracking mechanisms (max 5m height) and concrete footings, below ground electrical cables connecting the PV systems to the onsite collector substation and inverters connected to a battery storage facility. (Energy production ~120% with up to 25% controlled energy release). A 100MWh battery storage facility to allow controlled power release. Battery storage facility: a ≤100MWh battery storage facility for grid storage located next to inverters, or in collector substation, or in central substation covering ≤1ha at 3m building height or ≤0.5ha at 8m building height (stacked containers or multi-storey building). Access road and laydown area alternatives Alternative B1: Northern Access and Laydown Area: Alternative B2: Eastern Access and Laydown Area: A ≤3.2km long, ≥8m wide gravel access road running south A ≤1.9km long, ≥8m wide gravel access road running from from the R31 as a buffer between the mining area and solar the R31, west along the southern boundary of Annex park. A 4 ha to 5 ha construction yard and laydown area Langdon Farm. A 4 ha to 5 ha construction yard and laydown located adjacent to the access road and the R31. This area will area located adjacent to the access road and the R31. This used for the construction period and rehabilitated afterwards area will used for the construction period and rehabilitated afterwards Other aspects of the development Service roads: ≤17km of ≤4m wide gravel service roads linking the access road and various project components and servicing the solar panel fields. Roads fitted with traffic control systems and stormwater controls as required. Collector substation: ≤1ha collector substation to receive, convert and step up electricity from the PV facility to a grid connection suitable power supply. The facility will house control rooms and grid control yards for both Eskom and the Independent Power Producer. Operations and maintenance area (near / adjacent to substation): o ≤1ha hectare laydown area; o Parking, reception area, offices and ablutions facilities for operational staff, security and visitors; o Workshops, storage areas for materials and spare parts; and o Central Waste collection and storage area. Other infrastructure: o Perimeter fencing and internal security fencing and gates as required; o Access control gate and guard house on access road; o Water storage tanks or lined ponds; o ≤3.5km small diameter water supply pipeline connecting existing boreholes to storage; and o Septic tanks and sewer lines to service ablution facilities.

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 2

Figure 2: Aerial view of the study area showing the proposed site layout. The blue shaded area indicates the area proposed for PV panels, while the substation, battery and office would be clustered in the south. The two access and laydown alternatives are labelled. Created in Google Earth using the Bing overlay available from http://ge-map- overlays.appspot.com/bing-maps/aerial).

1.1.1. Aspects of the project relevant to the heritage study

All aspects of the proposed development are relevant since excavations for foundations and/or services may impact on archaeological and/or palaeontological remains, while all above-ground aspects create potential visual (contextual) impacts to the cultural landscape and any significant heritage sites that might be visually sensitive.

1.2. Terms of reference

ASHA Consulting was asked to provide a Scoping Heritage Impact Assessment for the proposed project. The assessment was to follow a comparative impact assessment methodology provided to all specialists.

Following S.38(3) of the National Heritage Resources Act (No. 25 of 1999), all heritage resources should be identified and assessed.

1.3. Scope and purpose of the report

The Scoping report aims to provide a general background to the project, describe the baseline from a heritage point of view and set out the methodologies and potential impacts that are to be assessed in the impact assessment phase that follows. The scoping report also provides a preliminary comparative impact assessment ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 3 that serves to examine the various project alternatives and identify and rank those that are more or less preferred so that, once all specialists have assessed the site, a preferred alternative can be identified

1.4. The author

Dr Jayson Orton has an MA (UCT, 2004) and a D.Phil (Oxford, UK, 2013), both in archaeology, and has been conducting Heritage Impact Assessments and archaeological specialist studies in the Western Cape and Northern Cape provinces of South Africa since 2004 (Please see curriculum vitae included as Appendix 1). He has also conducted research on aspects of the Later Stone Age in these provinces and published widely on the topic. He is an accredited heritage practitioner with the Association of Professional Heritage Practitioners (APHP) and also holds archaeological accreditation with the Association of Southern African Professional Archaeologists (ASAPA) CRM section (Member #233) as follows:

Principal Investigator: Stone Age, Shell Middens & Grave Relocation; and

Field Director: Colonial Period & Rock Art.

1.5. Declaration of independence

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd and its consultants have no financial or other interest in the proposed development and will derive no benefits other than fair remuneration for consulting services provided. A declaration has been signed and will be submitted with the Scoping Report. 2. HERITAGE LEGISLATION

The National Heritage Resources Act (NHRA) No. 25 of 1999 protects a variety of heritage resources as follows:

 Section 34: structures older than 60 years;

 Section 35: palaeontological, prehistoric and historical material (including ruins) more than 100 years old;

 Section 36: graves and human remains older than 60 years and located outside of a formal cemetery administered by a local authority; and

 Section 37: public monuments and memorials.

Following Section 2, the definitions applicable to the above protections are as follows:

Structures: “any building, works, device or other facility made by people and which is fixed to land, and includes any fixtures, fittings and equipment associated therewith”;

Palaeontological material: “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”;

Archaeological material: a) “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”; b) “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”; c) “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 respectively in sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Maritime Zones Act, 1994 (Act No. 15 of 1994), 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 d) “features, structures and artefacts associated with military history which are older than 75 years and the sites on which they are found”;

Grave: “means a place of interment and includes the contents, headstone or other marker of such a place and any other structure on or associated with such place”; and

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 4 Public monuments and memorials: “all monuments and memorials a) “erected on land belonging to any branch of central, provincial or local government, or on land belonging to any organisation funded by or established in terms of the legislation of such a branch of government”; or b) “which were paid for by public subscription, government funds, or a public-spirited or military organisation, and are on land belonging to any private individual.”

While landscapes with cultural significance do not have a dedicated Section in the NHRA, they are protected under the definition of the National Estate (Section 3). Section 3(2)(c) and (d) list “historical settlements and townscapes” and “landscapes and natural features of cultural significance” as part of the National Estate. Furthermore, Section 3(3) describes the reasons a place or object may have cultural heritage value; some of these speak directly to cultural landscapes.

Section 38 (2a) states that if there is reason to believe that heritage resources will be affected then an impact assessment report must be submitted. This report fulfils that requirement.

Under the National Environmental Management Act (No. 107 of 1998; NEMA), as amended, the project is subject to an EIA. Ngwao-Boswa Ya Kapa Bokoni (Heritage Northern Cape; for built environment and cultural landscapes) and the South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA for archaeology and palaeontology) are required to provide comment on the proposed project in order to facilitate final decision making by the National Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA). 3. METHODS

3.1. Literature survey and information sources

A survey of available literature was carried out to assess the general heritage context into which the development would be set. This literature included published material, unpublished commercial reports and online material, including reports sourced from the South African Heritage Resources Information System (SAHRIS). The 1:50 000 map and historical aerial images were sourced from the Chief Directorate: National Geo-Spatial Information.

3.2. Field survey

The proposed PV site and its power line corridors were subjected to a foot survey over three days from 29th June to 1st July 2016. This was in mid-winter, but in such dry areas the season has little influence on the amount of plant cover and hence on visibility of the surface. During the survey the positions of finds were recorded on a hand-held GPS receiver set to the WGS84 datum. Photographs were taken at times in order to capture representative samples of both the affected heritage and the landscape setting of the proposed development.

3.3. Specialist studies

A separate specialist assessment of palaeontological heritage has been carried out and is referenced within the present HIA. The palaeontological report can be found in Appendix 2.

3.4. Impact assessment

For consistency, the scoping impact assessment was conducted through application of a comparative impact assessment methodology provided by Aurecon.

3.5. Grading

S.7(1) of the NHRA provides for the grading of heritage resources into those of National (Grade I), Provincial (Grade II) and Local (Grade III) significance. Grading is intended to allow for the identification of the appropriate level of management for any given heritage resource. Grade I and II resources are intended to be managed by the national and provincial heritage resources authorities respectively, while Grade III resources would be managed by the relevant local planning authority. These bodies are responsible for grading, but anyone may make recommendations for grading.

It is intended under S.7(2) that the various provincial authorities formulate a system for the further detailed grading of heritage resources of local significance but this is generally yet to happen. SAHRA (2007) has formulated ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 5 its own system for use in provinces where it has commenting authority. In this system sites of high local significance are given Grade IIIA (with the implication that site should be preserved in its entirety) and Grade IIIB (with the implication that part of the site could be mitigated and part preserved as appropriate) while sites of lesser significance are referred to as having ‘General Protection’ and rated with an A (high/medium significance, requires mitigation), B (medium significance, requires recording) or C (low significance, requires no further action).

3.6. Assumptions and limitations

The field study was carried out at the surface only and hence any completely buried archaeological and/or palaeontological sites would not be readily located. Similarly, it is not always possible to determine the depth of archaeological material visible at the surface. 4. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT

4.1. Site context

The site lies 5.5 km to the southeast of the town of Hotazel. It is bordered to its east and north by the R31 road that leads from Kuruman, through Hotalel, past Van Zylsrus and on to southern Namibia. Immediately to the west of the site, and party on the same farm, is a manganese mine, while elsewhere in the broader area are several other similar mines. The mines are serviced by roads and a railway line. Two substations occur to the north and northwest and a number of power lines traverse the area.

4.2. Site description

The site is relatively flat and covered in yellowish-red Kalahari sand (Figures 3 & 4), although there was one point at which calcrete was seen exposed at the surface. The vegetation cover is variable with the majority being relatively sparse (Figures 3-5). The vegetation is largely thorn trees, but smaller, thorny bushes form very dense (impenetrable) clusters in low-lying parts of the site (Figures 6 & 7).

Figure 3: The sand-covered surface of the site. Figure 4: A patch of lighter sand with an animal burrow.

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 6

Figure 5: View across the northern part of the study area showing very sparse vegetation cover.

Figure 6: Dense thorn bushes in a low point on Figure 7: Dense thorn bushes in a low point on the site. the site.

5. HERITAGE CONTEXT

This section of the report contains the desktop study and establishes what is already known about heritage resources in the vicinity of the study area. What was found during the field survey may then be compared with what is already known in order to gain an improved understanding of the significance of the newly reported resources.

5.1. Archaeological aspects

Although a large number of applications have been lodged on SAHRIS for areas surrounding the present study area, very few heritage reports have been compiled. Van Schalkwyk (2010, 2016) examined sites just south of the present study area and just west of Hotazel town and found no cultural resources to be present in either location. Other studies further afield (e.g. Fourie 2013) have found a similar paucity of archaeological material in open, sandy areas. However, along the margins of the Kuruman River stone artefacts have been reported (Hutten & Hutten 2013). These artefacts are low density and appear to be largely from the Middle Stone Age (MSA), although some may be Later Stone Age (LSA). They are likely attributable to background scatter. Early Stone Age (ESA) material seems to be largely absent, despite how common it is at Kathu, 50 km to the south, where extensive research has been carried out (e.g. Chazan et al. 2012; Porat et al. 2010).

De Jongh (2010) reports that Iron Age occupation did not extend into this area. It is thus of no further concern.

5.2. Palaeontological aspects

Almond (2016) notes that the site is underlain by sediments of the Kalahari Group. These include the Pleistocene- aged red sands of the Gordonia Formation as well as the underlying calcretes of the Mokolanen Formation. Fossils ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 7 occur in both but are expected to be sporadic and widespread. Although mammalian bones, teeth and horn cores may occur in these sediments, their distribution is likely to be very sparse.

5.3. Historical aspects

De Jongh (2010) notes that Western Sotho communities who originated from Late Iron Age communities to the east occupied the broader area around Kathu when white farmers (trekboers) and missionaries arrived in the early 19th century. Here, as was the case over much of the country, this meeting of people and interests resulted in conflict over land. Lovett (1899) describes the beginnings of Kuruman, started by the London Missionary Society (LMS). In 1815 four missionaries were sent from London to work at a place known as Lattakoo. Although only two arrived there on 11th January 1816, one departed fairly soon. The remaining missionary, Robert Hamilton, was soon joined by James Read on 28th December 1816. Read obtained approval from the local chief, Mothibi of the Batlaping, to start a settlement. In June 1817 Mothibi moved his tribe to a better location along the Kuruman River which was initially known as New Lattakoo but then soon became Kuruman. Robert Moffat, a well-known LMS missionary, reached Lattakoo on 17th May 1821. The mission station was moved from Lattakoo to Kuruman in 1824.

The area was very sparsely populated until the 20th century when the farms of the area were surveyed. The Surveyor General diagrams show that Devon 277 was surveyed in 1914 with Annex Langdon having been a deduction from Devon in 1928. A mineral lease area was then registered over a 100 morgen (85.67ha) portion in the northwestern corner of Annex Langdon in 1957 (Figure 8).

When managanese was discovered in the area during the mid-20th century by Van Rensburg, who was seeking water on the farm Hotazel, the farm was bought by SA Manganese. After testing the ore they set up a mining operation and small town (initially 30 houses and some offices and stores. An official opening was held in November 1959 (Hocking 1983).

Figure 8: Extract from SG Diagram FB74/1928 showing the boundaries of the farm Annex Langdon and the mineral lease area in the northwest. A ‘dry well’ is also marked.

More recently, during the apartheid years in South Africa, the Bophutatswana Territorial Authority was set up in 1961. It became a self-governing state in 1971 and was given independence from South Africa in 1977. In 1994, however, it was reincorporated into South Africa (SAHO 2015). 6. FINDINGS OF THE HERITAGE STUDY

This section describes the heritage resources recorded in the study area during the course of the project. Figure 9 shows the walk-paths recorded during the survey and the position of the findings discussed in this section.

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 8

Figure 9: Aerial view of the study area showing the walk-paths recorded during the survey (white lines) and the positions of finds (numbered symbols). The farm portion is indicated in green, while the red shaded area is excluded from the study. Created in Google Earth using the Bing overlay available from http://ge-map- overlays.appspot.com/bing-maps/aerial).

6.1. Archaeology

No archaeological material of any sort was seen during the survey of the PV site.

6.2. Palaeontology

The SAHRIS Palaeosensitivity map indicates that the site is of moderate sensitivity from the point of view of fossil heritage and that at least a desktop study should be conducted (Figure 10). The study produced by Dr John Almond (2016) indicated that the Kalahari Sands and underlying calcretes are not sensitive from a palaeontological point of view because the types of fossils expected to be found are common and widespread within the region. These include invertebrate burrows and root and reed castes. These sorts of fossils are the only ones recorded by Almond in other nearby areas (see references in Almond 2016).

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 9

Figure 10: Extract from the SAHRIS Palaeosensitivity map showing the site (green polygon) to be of moderate sensitivity (green shading). Source: http://www.sahra.org.za/sahris/map/palaeo.

6.3. Graves

A set of three (or possibly four) graves was seen just to the west of the study area, within the zone proposed for the mine expansion (Figures 11 & 12). The graves are aligned east-west and are covered in manganese ore suggesting a relationship to the mine. To the south of the three clear graves was a light scattering of rocks that may have represented a fourth grave (visible in the foreground of Figure 12), but this seems unlikely. These graves are probably fairly recent since the mine was only established in the 1950s. The graves would have to pre-date 1956 in order to be classed as heritage resources. Figure 13 shows an aerial view of the area in 1957 with the location of the graves being some 800 m away from the edge of the mine (the graves are not actually visible). By 1965 the mine had expanded with the nearest activities being some 120 m to the north of the graves in an area that now has a mine compound. The 1972 aerial photography shows the mine pit encroaching and, importantly, the fence line that crosses the graves is now faintly visible (Figure 15). This suggests that the graves pre-date 1972. Today the mine works have expanded to within 100 m of the graves and further planned expansions into this area by the mine have precluded it use for the solar farm. As such, these graves will not be affected by the proposed PV development and are of no further concern.

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 10

Figure 11: View of the graves (arrowed) facing east. Figure 12: View of the graves (arrowed) facing north.

Figure 13: Aerial view of the area around the graves (waypoint 174) from 1957. The blue shaded area is the study area. Created in Google Earth using an aerial photography overlay from the Surveyor General (Job 391, strip 1, photograph 1734).

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 11

Figure 14: Aerial view of the area around the graves (waypoint 174) from 1965. The blue shaded area is the study area. Created in Google Earth using an aerial photography overlay from the Surveyor General (Job 537, strip 3, photograph 122).

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 12

Figure 15: Aerial view of the area around the graves (waypoint 174) from 1972. The blue shaded area is the study area. Key here is the presence of the fence (arrowed in the inset) which runs over the graves (circled in the inset). Created in Google Earth using an aerial photography overlay from the Surveyor General (Job 700, strip 4, photograph 9454).

6.4. The cultural landscape

The landscape has two primary components. The first and older one is the rural cultural landscape. The cultural aspects of this landscape are not strongly developed, largely because of the very low carrying capacity of the area. The only aspects making a contribution are fences and occasional farm track leading to houses. The study area is circumscribed by a fence, while a derelict farm complex (Figure 16), broken wind pump and small cement dam (Figure 17) occur in the north. The farm complex is absent from the 1959 (Job 429, strip 7, photograph 3429) and 1965 (Job 537, strip 3, photograph 122) aerial photography but present in 1972 (Job 700, strip 4, photograph 9454). It is thus less than 60 years of age which means that none of the structures are considered important from a heritage perspective or are protected by the NHRA.

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 13

Figure 16: Derelict modern farm complex in the northern part of the site, just off the R31.

Figure 17: Broken wind pump and small cement reservoir in the north-eastern corner of the site.

Figure 18: Aerial photographs from 1965 (left; Job 537, strip 3, photograph 122) and 1972 (right; Job 700, strip 4, photograph 9454) showing the new R31 road, the farm complex and the wind pump and reservoir.

6.5. Statement of significance

Section 38(3)(b) of the NHRA requires an assessment of the significance of all heritage resources. In terms of Section 2(vi), ‘‘cultural significance’’ means aesthetic, architectural, historical, scientific, social, spiritual, linguistic or technological value or significance. ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 14 Although no archaeology or palaeontology was seen, if such resources were to occur they would likely be very isolated and of low cultural significance for their scientific value.

Graves are deemed to have high cultural significance for their social value. Although it seems likely that the graves discovered on the property are less than 60 years old and thus would not be heritage resources, the precautionary principle is applied and the graves are assumed to be heritage. They are, however, outside of the project footprint.

The cultural landscape has low significance for its aesthetic, historical and social value.

6.6. Summary of heritage indicators and provisional grading

There are no archaeological or palaeontological resources worthy of grading and the landscape does not warrant grading1. The graves can be considered a Grade IIIA resource. 7. ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS

The field study and desktop research have shown that there are very few heritage resources present in the study area and its surrounds and that, when present, they tend to be isolated and unimportant. The landscape is a resource but its cultural aspects are almost exclusively recent and related mostly to the mining industry. The preliminary comparative impact assessment has shown that there is little to no difference between the four alternatives for the solar array footprint area (Table 2). The access road options have some differentiating advantages and disadvantages but these do not reveal a strong alternative preference (Table 3).

There are few mitigation measures that may be suggested for this project. Although the chances of finding buried fossil resources are very low, should any substantial fossils be found they should be reported to the project environmental control officer (ECO) who should then report to a palaeontologist for assessment and advice on how to proceed. The only other measure that could be considered is the retention of some of the naturally occurring trees along the eastern and northern edges of the site in order to offer partial screening from the road. However, the road is not deemed an important heritage resource and is not defined as a scenic route from a tourism perspective.

Table 2: Comparative assessment of the four alternatives for the solar array footprint area. Alternative A1 Alternative A2 Alternative A3 Alternative A4 Short description 250ha Fixed axis PV 250ha single axis PV 250ha Fixed axis PV 250ha single axis PV with with no battery storage with no battery storage with 100MWh battery 100MWh battery storage (Production 100% with (Production ~120%) storage (Production (Production ~125% with no controlled energy 100% with up to 25% up to 25% controlled release) controlled energy energy release) release) Description of None. None. None. None. alternative specific attributes

List of negative Possible disturbance of isolated stone artefacts. impacts Possible disturbance of isolated fossils. Addition of industrial-type structures to the rural and mining landscape. List of positive None. impacts List of potential Retention of trees along the margins of the site where present to offer partial screening from the mitigations neighbouring tar road. Any significant fossil finds to be reported by the ECO. Assessment Nature Positive Negative Positive Negative Positive Negative Positive Negative Duration Long term Long term Long term Long term

1 Note that the SAHRA grading system has, in any case, only been proposed for use for archaeological resources. ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 15 Alternative A1 Alternative A2 Alternative A3 Alternative A4 Extent Small Small Small Small Magnitude Low Low Low Low Probability High High High High Confidence High High High High Reversibility Reversible Reversible Reversible Reversible Resource Medium Medium Medium Medium irreplaceability Mitigatability Low Low Low Low Significance Low Low Low Low Conclusion Ranked preference 1 1 1 1 (from 1-4) Motivation for No significant impacts are expected from any of the four alternatives and thus there is no preference preferred from a heritage point of view. The chances of disturbing archaeological or palaeontological heritage alternative would naturally be marginally within the module footprint

Table 3: Comparative assessment of the two alternatives for the access road. Alternative B1 Alternative B2 Short description 3.2km Northern access road and northern 1.9km Eastern access road and eastern construction laydown area construction laydown area Description of alternative Longer access road means greater surface Shorter access road means less surface specific attributes disturbance. disturbance. List of negative impacts Possible disturbance of isolated stone artefacts. Possible disturbance of isolated fossils. Removal of vegetation changes the character of the natural landscape. List of positive impacts None List of potential mitigations Any significant fossil finds to be reported by the ECO. Assessment Nature Positive Negative Positive Negative Duration Long term Long term Extent Small Small Magnitude Low Low Probability High High Confidence High High Reversibility Reversible Reversible Resource irreplaceability High High Mitigatability Low Low Significance Low Low Conclusion Ranked preference (from 1 1 1-4) Motivation for preferred Access Alternative B2 is shorter and will result in less disturbance to the landscape, a marginally alternative smaller chance of impacting archaeological or palaeontological resources and would be easier to rehabilitate on decommissioning. However, Alternative B1 would run along the edge of the mine whose area would in the future be heavily disturbed. There is thus no strong preference from a heritage point of view.

8. CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION

There do not appear to be any significant heritage issues within the study area and it is concluded that any of the four solar array alternatives and either of the two access roads are feasible. It is recommended that the project proceed to the impact assessment phase with whichever alternative emerges as the preferred alternative though inputs from the other specialists and applicant. Heritage issues should not be heavily weighted as they offer no meaningful contribution to the selection of a preferred alternative for the project.

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 16 9. REFERENCES

Almond, J. 2016. Recommended exemption from further palaeontological studies: proposed Hotazel Solar Park on the farm Hotazel Annex Langdon (F278/0), Joe Morolong Local Municipality, Northern Cape. Unpublished report prepared for Aurecon South Africa (Pty) Ltd. Cape Town: Natura Viva.

Chazan, M., Wilkins, J., Morris, D. & Berna, F. 2012. Bestwood 1: a newly discovered Earlier Stone Age living surface near Kathu, Northern Cape Province, South Africa. Antiquity 86: 331.

Fourie, W. 2013. Proposed Lehating Mining (Pty) Ltd underground manganese mine on Portions 1 of the Farm Lehating 714 and Portion 2 of the farm Wessels 227, approximately 20km northwest of Hotazel, Northern Cape Province. Unpublished report prepared for SLR Consulting (Africa) (Pty) Ltd. PGS Heritage.

Hocking, A. 1983. Kaias & Cocopans: the story of mining in South Africa’s Northern Cape. Johannesburg: Hollards.

Hutten, L. & Hutten, W. 2013. Heritage Impact Assessment report for the farms Wessels 227 Portion 2 and Boerdraai 228. Unpublished report prepared for Blue Limit Trading 21 (Pty) Ltd. Cape Town: Heritage Social & Public Participation Specialists.

Lovett, R. 1899. The history of the London Missionary Society 1795-1895. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Porat, N., Chazan, M., Grün, R., Aubert, M., Eisenmann, V., Horwitz, L.K. 2010. New radiometric ages for the Fauresmith industry from Kathu Pan, southern Africa: implications for the Earlier to Middle Stone Age transition. Journal of Archaeological Science 37: 269–283.

SAHO. 2015. South African History Online. Bophutatswana. Consultied online on 26th September 2016 at: http://www.sahistory.org.za/places/bophuthatswana.

Van Schalkwyk, J. 2010. Archaeological Impact Survey Report for the proposed township development in Hotazel, Northern Cape Province. Unpublished report prepared for Cultmatrix cc. Monument Park: J. van Schalkwyk.

Van Schalkwyk, J. 2016. Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment for the development of the proposed Kagiso Solar Power Plant on the remaining extent of the farm Kameelaar No 315 Registration Division Kuruman, Northern Cape Province. Unpublished report prepared for Protea Solar Power Plant (RF) (Pty) Ltd. Monument Park: J. van Schalkwyk.

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 17 APPENDIX 1 – Curriculum Vitae

Curriculum Vitae

Jayson David John Orton

ARCHAEOLOGIST AND HERITAGE CONSULTANT

Contact Details and personal information:

Address: 6A Scarborough Road, Muizenberg, 7945 Telephone: (021) 788 8425 Cell Phone: 083 272 3225 Email: [email protected]

Birth date and place: 22 June 1976, Cape Town, South Africa Citizenship: South African ID no: 760622 522 4085 Driver’s License: Code 08 Marital Status: Married to Carol Orton Languages spoken: English and Afrikaans

Education:

SA College High School Matric 1994 University of Cape Town B.A. (Archaeology, Environmental & Geographical Science) 1997 University of Cape Town B.A. (Honours) (Archaeology)* 1998 University of Cape Town M.A. (Archaeology) 2004 University of Oxford D.Phil. (Archaeology) 2013

*Frank Schweitzer memorial book prize for an outstanding student and the degree in the First Class.

Employment History:

Spatial Archaeology Research Unit, UCT Research assistant Jan 1996 – Dec 1998 Department of Archaeology, UCT Field archaeologist Jan 1998 – Dec 1998 UCT Archaeology Contracts Office Field archaeologist Jan 1999 – May 2004 UCT Archaeology Contracts Office Heritage & archaeological consultant Jun 2004 – May 2012 School of Archaeology, University of Oxford Undergraduate Tutor Oct 2008 – Dec 2008 Associate, Heritage & archaeological ACO Associates cc Jan 2011 – Dec 2013 consultant Director, Heritage & archaeological ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd Jan 2014 – consultant

Memberships and affiliations:

South African Archaeological Society Council member 2004 – Assoc. Southern African Professional Archaeologists (ASAPA) member 2006 – ASAPA Cultural Resources Management Section member 2007 – UCT Department of Archaeology Research Associate 2013 – Heritage Western Cape APM Committee member 2013 – UNISA Department of Archaeology and Anthropology Research Fellow 2014 – Fish Hoek Valley Historical Association 2014 – Professional Accreditation:

Association of Southern African Professional Archaeologists (ASAPA) membership number: 233 CRM Section member with the following accreditation:  Principal Investigator: Coastal shell middens (awarded 2007) Stone Age archaeology (awarded 2007)

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 18 Grave relocation (awarded 2014)  Field Director: Rock art (awarded 2007) Colonial period archaeology (awarded 2007)

Association of Professional Heritage Practitioners (APHP)  Accredited Professional Heritage Practitioner

Fieldwork and project experience:

Extensive fieldwork as both Field Director and Principle Investigator throughout the Western and Northern Cape, and also in the western parts of the Free State and Eastern Cape as follows:

Phase 1 surveys and impact assessments:  Project types o Notification of Intent to Develop applications (for Heritage Western Cape) o Heritage Impact Assessments (largely in the Environmental Impact Assessment or Basic Assessment context under NEMA and Section 38(8) of the NHRA, but also self-standing assessments under Section 38(1) of the NHRA) o Archaeological specialist studies o Phase 1 test excavations in historical and prehistoric sites o Archaeological research projects  Development types o Mining and borrow pits o Roads (new and upgrades) o Residential, commercial and industrial development o Dams and pipe lines o Power lines and substations o Renewable energy facilities (wind energy, solar energy and hydro-electric facilities)

Phase 2 mitigation and research excavations:  ESA open sites o Duinefontein, Gouda  MSA rock shelters o Fish Hoek, Yzerfontein, Cederberg, Namaqualand  MSA open sites o Swartland, Bushmanland, Namaqualand  LSA rock shelters o Cederberg, Namaqualand, Bushmanland  LSA open sites (inland) o Swartland, Franschhoek, Namaqualand, Bushmanland  LSA coastal shell middens o Melkbosstrand, Yzerfontein, Saldanha Bay, Paternoster, Dwarskersbos, Infanta, Knysna, Namaqualand  LSA burials o Melkbosstrand, Saldanha Bay, Namaqualand, Knysna  Historical sites o Franschhoek (farmstead and well), Waterfront (fort, dump and well), Noordhoek (cottage), variety of small excavations in central Cape Town and surrounding suburbs  Historic burial grounds  Green Point (Prestwich Street), V&A Waterfront (Marina Residential), Paarl

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 19 APPENDIX 2 – Palaeontological desktop study

ASHA Consulting (Pty) Ltd | Reg. no.: 2013/220482/07 20 RECOMMENDED EXEMPTION FROM FURTHER PALAEONTOLOGICAL STUDIES:

PROPOSED HOTAZEL SOLAR PARK ON THE FARM HOTAZEL ANNEX LANGDON (F278/0), JOE MOROLONG LOCAL MUNICIPALITY, NORTHERN CAPE

John E. Almond PhD (Cantab.) Natura Viva cc, PO Box 12410 Mill Street, Cape Town 8010, RSA [email protected] October 2016

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY juwi Renewable Energies (Pty) Ltd is proposing to construct a ≤ 200MW solar PV park on the Farm Hotazel Annex Langdon (F278/0), together with transmission lines and associated infrastructure. The project area is situated close to the small town of Hotazel, Joe Morolong Local Municipality, Northern Cape. It is largely underlain by Quaternary to Recent aeolian (wind-blown) sands of the Gordonia Formation (Kalahari Group). Deep borrow pits and mining excavations in the region show that the surface sands are underlain by a series of thick calcrete hardpans (Mokolanen Formation) as well as locally by consolidated sandy and gravelly deposits of the Kalahari Group. The calcretes crop out at surface along the Ga-Mogara River to the west of Hotazel. The Gordonia sands are themselves only very sparsely fossiliferous, while the only fossil remains recorded from the calcretes beneath them in the Hotazel region are locally abundant, low-diversity invertebrate burrows as well as casts of plant rootlets and of reedy vegetation preserved in subsurface calcrete hardpans. Such trace fossils are of widespread occurrence within the Kalahari region. Impacts on them are likely to be of low significance and special mitigation measures to protect them are not considered warranted.

The overall palaeontological sensitivity of the entire Hotazel Solar Park project area, including the alternative transmission line corridors to Umtu and Hotazel Substations, has been assessed and concluded to be LOW. Small local pockets of HIGH sensitivity might occur around pans as well as along drainage lines - notably the Ga-Mogara River valley that is crossed by the transmission line corridor to Umtu Substation. Plio-Pleistocene calcretised gravels and finer-grained alluvium in these pan and river settings may contain mammalian remains such as bones, teeth and horn cores in addition to abundant, low-diversity trace fossil assemblages.

It is concluded that the overall impact significance of the proposed Hotazel Solar Park development is VERY LOW (-). This assessment applies equally to the PV solar park itself as well as the proposed transmission lines to the national grid and other infrastructure (access roads, on-site substation, operations and maintenance building, laydown area etc.). There is no clear preference on palaeontological heritage grounds for any particular technology alternative (e.g. fixed axis versus single axis PV) or access and service road alignment. The transmission line route option to Umtu Substation would cross the potentially sensitive Ga-Mogara River but impacts on palaeontological heritage here are likely to be small. There is therefore no marked preference for any particular transmission line route option on palaeontological grounds.

Given the very large outcrop area of the sparsely fossiliferous Kalahari Group sediments that are impacted by the numerous mining, railway and alternative energy projects in the vicinity of Hotazel, the cumulative impact of these developments – including that of the Hotazel Solar Park - is assessed as low.

John E. Almond (2016) 1 Natura Viva cc

The following mitigation measures to safeguard fossils exposed on site during the construction phase of the development are proposed:  The EO responsible for the development must remain aware that all sedimentary deposits have the potential to contain fossils and he/she should thus monitor all deeper (> 1 m) excavations into sedimentary bedrock for fossil remains on an on-going basis. If any substantial fossil remains (e.g. vertebrate bones, teeth) are found during construction SAHRA should be notified immediately (Contact details: SAHRA, 111 Harrington Street, Cape Town. PO Box 4637, Cape Town 8000, South Africa. Phone: +27 (0)21 462 4502. Fax: +27 (0)21 462 4509. Web: www.sahra.org.za) so that appropriate mitigation (i.e. recording, sampling or collection) by a palaeontological specialist can be considered and implemented, at the developer’s expense.  A chance-find procedure should be implemented so that, in the event of fossils being uncovered, the EO/Site Engineer will take the appropriate action, which includes:  Stopping work in the immediate vicinity and fencing off the area with tape to prevent further access;  Reporting the discovery to the provincial heritage agency and/or SAHRA;  Appointing a palaeontological specialist to inspect, record and (if warranted) sample or collect the fossil remains;  Implementing further mitigation measures proposed by the palaeontologist; and  Allowing work to resume only once clearance is given in writing by the relevant authorities.  During maintenance and servicing of infrastructure, if excavation is required, it shall be limited to the disturbed footprint as far as practicable. Should bulk works exceed the existing disturbed footprint, SAHRA shall be notified.

If the mitigation measures outlined above are adhered to, the residual impact significance of any construction and operational phase impacts on local palaeontological resources is considered to be low.

The mitigation measures proposed here should be incorporated into the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) for Hotazel Solar Park project.

The palaeontologist concerned with mitigation work will need a valid collection permit from SAHRA. All work would have to conform to international best practice for palaeontological fieldwork and the study (e.g. data recording fossil collection and curation, final report) should adhere to the minimum standards for Phase 2 palaeontological studies recently published by SAHRA (2013).

1 OUTLINE OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT juwi Renewable Energies (Pty) Ltd (juwi) is proposing to construct a ≤ 200MW solar PV park on the Farm Hotazel Annex Langdon (F278/0) together with transmission lines to the national grid and associated infrastructure including a 100MWh battery storage facility. The core study area is situated 5 km southeast of the town Hotazel in the Joe Morolong Local Municipality, Northern Cape Province (Fig. 1). Three transmission line route options to evacuate power from the solar facility to the national grid are under consideration. They involve connecting the Solar Facility to one or other of the existing Eskom substations, namely the Hotazel and Umtu substations (< 12 km and < 17.8 lines respectively), or alternatively a shorter Loop-in Loop-Out (LILO) connection option (< 450 m line).

The Hotazel Solar Park project will be submitted as two applications following a Scoping and Environmental Impact Report (S&EIR) process in accordance with the NEMA EIA regulations, 2014, GN R 982 for the solar facility and ancillaries, and a basic assessment for the power evacuation alternatives.

The present palaeontological desktop study covers the project areas of the Hotazel Solar Park as well as the various transmission line route options, as indicated in Figs. 1 and 2. The report has been commissioned by Environmental Services, Aurecon (Contact details: Patrick Killick, Environmental

John E. Almond (2016) 2 Natura Viva cc

Services, Aurecon. PO Box 509, George, 6530. Tel: +27 44 8055432. Fax: +27 44 8055454. E-mail: [email protected]).

2 GEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND

The Hotazel Solar Park project area is situated in flat-lying, sandy, semi-desert terrain at 1100 mamsl within the southern Kalahari Region lying between the Korannaberg in the west and the Kurumanheuwels in the East (Fig. 1). The terrain here is fairly featureless Kalahari thornveld. This region is drained by the Ga-Mogara River (a southern tributary of the Kuruman River) and its tributaries, and bedrock exposure is extremely limited due to the thick cover by Kalahari Group sediments. An existing manganese mine is located on the western side of the Farm Hotazel Annex Langdon (F278/0).

The geology of the area around and to the south of Hotazel is covered by the 1: 250 000 scale geological map 2722 Kuruman (Fig. 2). A brief sheet explanation is printed on the map. The Hotazel Solar Park project area is underlain by Pleistocene to Recent aeolian sands of the Gordonia Formation (Kalahari Group) (Qs in Fig. 2). The geological map as well as recent field studies in the region (Almond 2013a, 2013b) show that the Kalahari sands here are extensively underlain by hardpan calcretes (Tl in Fig. 2), some of which at least can be assigned to the Mokalanen Formation of the Kalahari Group. Subdued linear sand dunes trending NW-SE as well as pale calcrete exposures along the Ga-Mogara River and an adjacent pan are clearly visible on satellite images (Fig. 1).There is also a pale zone of probable near- surface calcrete running just to the east of Farm Hotazel Annex Langdon.

The following account of the geology of the Hotazel region has largely been abstracted from previous PIA reports by Almond (2103a, 2013b). Ancient bedrocks of the Transvaal Supergroup and other Precambrian sediments in the Hotazel area are mantled by a thick succession of superficial sediments of probable Late Caenozoic (i.e. Late Tertiary or Neogene to Recent) age, most of which are assigned to the Kalahari Group. The geology of the Late Cretaceous to Recent Kalahari Group is reviewed by Thomas (1981), Dingle et al. (1983), Thomas & Shaw 1991, Haddon (2000) and Partridge et al. (2006). Other superficial sediments whose outcrop areas are often not indicated on geological maps include colluvial or slope deposits (scree, hillwash, debris flows etc.), sandy, gravelly and bouldery river alluvium, surface gravels of various origins, as well as spring and pan sediments. The colluvial and alluvial deposits may be extensively calcretised (i.e. cemented with pedogenic limestone), especially in the neighbourhood of dolerite intrusions or overlying Ghaap Group carbonate rocks.

Calcretes or surface limestones (Ql in Fig. 2) in the southern Kalahari Region are pedogenic limestone deposits that reflect seasonally arid climates in the region over the last five or so million years. They are briefly described by Truter et al. (1938) as well as Visser (1958) and Bosch (1993). The surface limestones may reach thicknesses of over 20 m, but are often much thinner, and are locally conglomeratic with clasts of reworked calcrete as well as exotic pebbles. The limestones may be secondarily silicified and incorporate blocks of the underlying Precambrian carbonate rocks. The older, Pliocene - Pleistocene calcretes in the broader Kalahari region, including sandy limestones and calcretised conglomerates, have been assigned to the Mokalanen Formation of the Kalahari Group and are possibly related to a globally arid time period between 2.8 and 2.6 million years ago, i.e. late Pliocene (Partridge et al. 2006).

Large areas of unconsolidated, reddish-brown to grey aeolian (i.e. wind-blown) sands of the Quaternary Gordonia Formation (Kalahari Group; Qs in Fig. 2) are mapped in the southern Kalahari study region. According to Bosch (1993) the Gordonia sands in the Kimberley area reach thicknesses of up to eight meters and consist of up to 85% quartz associated with minor feldspar, mica and a range of heavy minerals. The Gordonia dune sands are considered to range in age from the Late Pliocene / Early Pleistocene to Recent, dated in part from enclosed Middle to Later Stone Age stone tools (Dingle et al., 1983, p. 291). Note that the recent extension of the Pliocene - Pleistocene boundary from 1.8 Ma back to 2.588 Ma would place the Gordonia Formation almost entirely within the Pleistocene Epoch. Reworked

John E. Almond (2016) 3 Natura Viva cc and diagenetically altered sands of probable aeolian origin in the Kimberley area are often referred to as Hutton Sands.

3 PALAEONTOLOGICAL HERITAGE

The palaeontological record of the rock units represented in the Hotazel region has been reviewed by Almond (2013a, 2013b) as well as in the desktop study by Groenewald (2013). Fossil biotas recorded from each of the main rock units mapped here are briefly reviewed in Table 1 (based largely on Almond & Pether (2008) and references therein) where an indication of the palaeontological sensitivity of each rock unit is also given. Pervasive calcretisation and chemical weathering of many near-surface bedrocks in the Northern Cape has further compromised their original fossil heritage in many areas.

3.1 Fossils within the Kalahari Group

The fossil record of the Kalahari Group is generally sparse and low in diversity. The Gordonia Formation dune sands were mainly active during cold, drier intervals of the Pleistocene Epoch that were inimical to most forms of life, apart from hardy, desert-adapted species. Porous dune sands are not generally conducive to fossil preservation. However, mummification of soft tissues may play a role here and migrating lime-rich groundwater derived from the underlying bedrocks (including, for example, dolerite) may lead to the rapid calcretisation of organic structures such as burrows and root casts. Occasional terrestrial fossil remains that might be expected within this unit include calcretized rhizoliths (root casts) and termitaria (e.g. Hodotermes, the harvester termite), ostrich egg shells (Struthio) and shells of land snails (e.g. Trigonephrus) (Almond 2008, Almond & Pether 2008). Other fossil groups such as freshwater bivalves and gastropods (e.g. Corbula, Unio) and snails, ostracods (seed shrimps), charophytes (stonewort algae), diatoms (microscopic algae within siliceous shells) and stromatolites (laminated microbial limestones) are associated with local watercourses and pans. Microfossils such as diatoms may be blown by wind into nearby dune sands (Du Toit 1954, Dingle et al., 1983). These Kalahari fossils (or subfossils) can be expected to occur sporadically but widely, and the overall palaeontological sensitivity of the Gordonia Formation is therefore considered to be low. Underlying calcretes of the Mokolanen Formation might also contain trace fossils such as rhizoliths, termite and other insect burrows, or even mammalian trackways. Mammalian bones, teeth and horn cores (also tortoise remains, and fish, amphibian or even crocodiles in wetter depositional settings such as pans) may be expected occasionally expected within Kalahari Group sediments and calcretes, notably those associated with ancient, Plio-Pleistocene alluvial gravels.

John E. Almond (2016) 4 Natura Viva cc

Table 1. Fossil heritage of rock units represented in the Hotazel study region PALAEONT- RECOMMENDED GEOLOGICAL UNIT ROCK TYPES & AGE FOSSIL HERITAGE OLOGICAL MITIGATION SENSITIVITY OTHER LATE Fluvial, pan, lake and Bones and teeth of wide range of LOW Any substantial CAENOZOIC terrestrial sediments, mammals (e.g. mastodont fossil finds to be TERRESTRIAL including diatomite proboscideans, rhinos, bovids, horses, Scattered records, reported by ECO DEPOSITS OF THE (diatom deposits), micromammals), reptiles (crocodiles, many poorly to SAHRA INTERIOR pedocretes, spring tortoises), ostrich egg shells, fish, studied and of tufa / travertine, cave freshwater and terrestrial molluscs uncertain age (Most too small to be deposits, peats, (unionid bivalves, gastropods), crabs, indicated on 1: 250 000 colluvium, soils, trace fossils (e.g. termitaria, horizontal geological maps) surface gravels invertebrate burrows, stone artefacts), including downwasted petrified wood, leaves, rhizoliths, rubble diatom floras, peats and palynomorphs. calcareous tufas at edge of Ghaap MOSTLY Escarpment might be highly QUATERNARY TO fossiliferous (cf Taung in NW Province HOLOCENE – abundant Makapanian Mammal Age (Possible peak vertebrate remains, including formation 2.6-2.5 Ma) australopithecines) Gordonia Formation Mainly aeolian sands Calcretised rhizoliths & termitaria, LOW Any substantial (Qs) plus minor fluvial ostrich egg shells, land snail shells, fossil finds to be KALAHARI GROUP gravels, freshwater rare mammalian and reptile (e.g. reported by ECO plus pan deposits, tortoise) bones, teeth to SAHRA SURFACE CALCRETES calcretes (Tl / Qc) freshwater units associated with PLEISTOCENE to diatoms, molluscs, stromatolites etc RECENT

Palaeontological fieldwork at several sites some 10 to 15 km south of Hotazel (Almond 2013a, 2013b) indicated that the Gordonia sands and underlying calcretes here are very sparsely fossiliferous. The only fossil remains recorded from these sediments in the wider study region are locally abundant, low-diversity invertebrate burrows as well as casts of plant rootlets and of reedy vegetation preserved in subsurface calcrete hardpans. These trace fossils were probably associated with damp vlei settings within largely abandoned river channels. Such trace fossils are of widespread occurrence within the Kalahari region so impacts on fossil heritage here are likely to be of low conservation significance and special mitigation measures to protect them are not considered warranted.

The overall palaeontological sensitivity of the entire Hotazel Solar Park project area is assessed as LOW, although pockets of HIGH sensitivity may occur locally, especially along drainage lines (e.g. Ga-Mogara River) and around any pans. Plio-Pleistocene calcretised gravels and finer-grained alluvium in these last settings may contain mammalian remains such as bones, teeth and horn cores in addition to abundant, low-diversity trace fossil assemblages.

4 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

The overall palaeontological sensitivity of the entire Hotazel Solar Park project area, including the alternative transmission line corridors to Umtu and Hotazel Substations, is assessed as LOW. Small pockets of locally HIGH sensitivity might occur along drainage lines - notably the Ga-Mogara River valley that is crossed by the transmission line corridor to Umtu Substation - and around any pans. Plio- Pleistocene calcretised gravels and finer-grained alluvium in these last settings may contain mammalian remains such as bones, teeth and horn cores in addition to abundant, low-diversity trace fossil assemblages.

It is concluded that the overall impact significance (pre-mitigation) of the proposed Hotazel Solar Park development is VERY LOW (-). This assessment applies equally to the PV solar park itself as well as the proposed transmission lines and other infrastructure (access roads, on-site substation, battery storage facility operations and maintenance building, laydown area etc.). There is no clear preference on a palaeontological heritage grounds for any particular project alternatives (e.g. fixed axis versus single axis

John E. Almond (2016) 5 Natura Viva cc

PV versus with or without battery storage), access and service roads, or transmission line route option. The transmission line to Umtu Substation would cross the potentially sensitive Ga-Mogara River but impacts on palaeontological heritage here are likely to be very low.

As shown on the SAHRIS website, there are numerous ongoing and proposed mining, railway and other developments located in the immediate vicinity of Hotazel and the present solar park project. To the author’s knowledge, the only palaeontological impact assessments submitted for these projects are those by Almond (2013a, 2013b) as well as Groenewald (2013). In all three cases, the impact significance of the proposed developments were assessed as low. Given the very large outcrop area of the sparsely fossiliferous Kalahari Group sediments involved here, the cumulative impact of the proposed developments around Hotazel is assessed as low.

The mitigation measures proposed here should be incorporated into the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) for Hotazel Solar Park project.

The palaeontologist concerned with mitigation work, if needed, will need a valid collection permit from SAHRA. All work would have to conform to international best practice for palaeontological fieldwork and the study (e.g. data recording fossil collection and curation, final report) should adhere to the minimum standards for Phase 2 palaeontological studies recently published by SAHRA (2013).

John E. Almond (2016) 6 Natura Viva cc

5 KEY REFERENCES  ALMOND, J.E. 2010. Prospecting application for iron ore and manganese between Sishen and Postmasburg, Northern Cape Province: farms Jenkins 562, Marokwa 672, Thaakwaneng 675, Driehoekspan 435, Doringpan 445 and Macarthy 559: desktop palaeontological assessment, 20 pp. Natura Viva cc, Cape Town.  ALMOND, J.E. 2012a. Proposed westerly extension of Sishen Iron Ore Mine near Kathu, Kalagadi District Municipality, Northern Cape. Palaeontological specialist study” desktop study, 18 pp. Natura Viva cc, Cape Town.  ALMOND, J.E. 2012b. Proposed 16 Mtpa expansion of Transnet’s existing manganese ore export railway line & associated infrastructure between Hotazel and the port of Ngqura, Northern & Eastern Cape. Part 1: Hotazel to Kimberley, Northern Cape. Palaeontological assessment: desktop study, 28 pp.  ALMOND, J.E. 2013a. Proposed 16 Mtpa expansion of Transnet’s existing manganese ore export railway line & associated infrastructure between Hotazel and the Port of Ngqura, Northern & Eastern Cape. Part 1: Hotazel to Kimberley, Northern Cape. Palaeontological specialist assessment: combined desktop and field-based study, 85 pp. Natura Viva cc, Cape Town.  ALMOND, 2013b. Proposed new railway compilation yard at Mamathwane near Hotazel, John Taolo Gaetsewe District Municipality, Northern Cape. Palaeontological specialist assessment: combined desktop and field-based study, 29 pp. Natura Viva cc, Cape Town.  ALMOND, J.E. & PETHER, J. 2008. Palaeontological heritage of the Northern Cape. Interim SAHRA technical report, 124 pp. Natura Viva cc., Cape Town.  BOSCH, P.J.A. 1993. Die geologie van die gebied Kimberley. Explanation to 1: 250 000 geology Sheet 2824 Kimberley, 60 pp. Council for Geoscience, Pretoria.  DINGLE, R.V., SIESSER, W.G. & NEWTON, A.R. 1983. Mesozoic and Tertiary geology of southern Africa. viii + 375 pp. Balkema, Rotterdam.  DU TOIT, A. 1954. The geology of South Africa. xii + 611pp, 41 pls. Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh.  GROENEWALD, G. 2013. Palaeontological desktop assessment of the Farm Gloria 266, near Hotazel town in the John Toalo Gaetsewe District Municipality in the Northern Cape Province, 9 pp. PGS Heritage & Grave Relocation Consultants.  HADDON, I.G. 2000. Kalahari Group sediments. In: Partridge, T.C. & Maud, R.R. (Eds.) The Cenozoic of southern Africa, pp. 173-181. Oxford University Press, Oxford.  HADDON, I.G. 2005. The sub-Kalahari geology and tectonic evolution of the Kalahari Basin, Southern Africa. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Johannesburg, 343 pp.  HENDEY, Q.B. 1984. Southern African late Tertiary vertebrates. In: Klein, R.G. (Ed.) Southern African prehistory and paleoenvironments, pp 81-106. Balkema, Rotterdam.  MACRAE , C. 1999. Life etched in stone. Fossils of South Africa. 305 pp. The Geological Society of South Africa, Johannesburg.  MCCARTHY, T. & RUBIDGE, B. 2005. The story of Earth and life: a southern African perspective on a 4.6-billion-year journey. 334pp. Struik, Cape Town.  NASH, D.J. & SHAW, P.A. 1998. Silica and carbonate relationships in silcrete-calcrete intergrade duricrusts from the Kalahari of Botswana and Namibia. Journal of African Earth Sciences 27, 11-25.  NASH, D.J. & MCLAREN, S.J. 2003. Kalahari valley calcretes: their nature, origins, and environmental significance. Quaternary International III, 3-22.  PARTRIDGE, T.C., BOTHA, G.A. & HADDON, I.G. 2006. Cenozoic deposits of the interior. In: Johnson, M.R., Anhaeusser, C.R. & Thomas, R.J. (Eds.) The geology of South Africa, pp. 585-604. Geological Society of South Africa, Marshalltown.  SAHRA 2013. Minimum standards: palaeontological component of heritage impact assessment reports, 15 pp. South African Heritage Resources Agency, Cape Town.  THOMAS, M.J. 1981. The geology of the Kalahari in the Northern Cape Province (Areas 2620 and 2720). Unpublished MSc thesis, University of the Orange Free State, Bloemfontein, 138 pp.  THOMAS, R.J., THOMAS, M.A. & MALHERBE, S.J. 1988. The geology of the Nossob and Twee Rivieren areas. Explanation for 1: 250 000 geology sheets 2520-2620. 17pp. Council for Geoscience, Pretoria.  THOMAS, D.S.G. & SHAW, P.A. 1991. The Kalahari environment, 284 pp. Cambridge University Press.  TANKARD, A.J., JACKSON, M.P.A., ERIKSSON, K.A., HOBDAY, D.K., HUNTER, D.R. & MINTER, W.E.L. 1982. Crustal evolution of southern Africa – 3.8 billion years of earth history, xv + 523pp. Springer Verlag, New York.  TRUTER, F.C., WASSERSTEIN, B., BOTHA, P.R., VISSER, D.L.J., BOARDMAN, L.G. & PAVER, G.L. 1938. The geology and mineral deposits of the Olifants Hoek area, Cape Province. Explanation of 1: 125 000 geology sheet 173 Olifants Hoek, 144 pp. Council for Geoscience, Pretoria.  VISSER, D.L.J. 1958. The geology and mineral deposits of the Griquatown area, Cape Province. Explanation to 1: 125 000 geology sheet 175 Griquatown, 72 pp. Council for Geoscience, Pretoria.  VISSER, D.J.L. et al. 1989. The geology of the Republics of South Africa, Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei and the Kingdoms of Lesotho and Swaziland. Explanation of the 1: 1 000 000 geological map, fourth edition, 491 pp. Council for Geoscience, Pretoria.

John E. Almond (2016) 7 Natura Viva cc

6 QUALIFICATIONS & EXPERIENCE OF THE AUTHOR Dr John Almond has an Honours Degree in Natural Sciences (Zoology) as well as a PhD in Palaeontology from the University of Cambridge, UK. He has been awarded post-doctoral research fellowships at Cambridge University and in Germany, and has carried out palaeontological research in Europe, North America, the Middle East as well as North and South Africa. For eight years he was a scientific officer (palaeontologist) for the Geological Survey / Council for Geoscience in the RSA. His current palaeontological research focuses on fossil record of the Precambrian - Cambrian boundary and the Cape Supergroup of South Africa. He has recently written palaeontological reviews for several 1: 250 000 geological maps published by the Council for Geoscience and has contributed educational material on fossils and evolution for new school textbooks in the RSA. Since 2002 Dr Almond has also carried out palaeontological impact assessments for developments and conservation areas in the Western, Eastern and Northern Cape, Limpopo, Northwest and the Free State under the aegis of his Cape Town-based company Natura Viva cc. He has served as a long-standing member of the Archaeology, Palaeontology and Meteorites Committee for Heritage Western Cape (HWC) and an advisor on palaeontological conservation and management issues for the Palaeontological Society of South Africa (PSSA), HWC and SAHRA. He is currently compiling technical reports on the provincial palaeontological heritage of Western, Northern and Eastern Cape for SAHRA and HWC. Dr Almond is an accredited member of PSSA and APHP (Association of Professional Heritage Practitioners – Western Cape).

Declaration of Independence I, John E. Almond, declare that I am an independent consultant and have no business, financial, personal or other interest in the proposed development project, application or appeal in respect of which I was appointed other than fair remuneration for work performed in connection with the activity, application or appeal. There are no circumstances that compromise the objectivity of my performing such work.

Dr John E. Almond Palaeontologist Natura Viva cc

John E. Almond (2016) 8 Natura Viva cc

Figure 1: Google earth© satellite image of the Hotazel Solar Park project area, Northern Cape. The yellow polygon indicates Farm Hotazel Annex Langdon (F278/0). Transmission line route options to Umtu and Hotazel Substations are indicated in purple and green respectively. Access road options are shown by the red lines. The small blue rectangle is the proposed location of the onsite substation.

John E. Almond (2016) 9 Natura Viva cc

HOTAZE L

4 km

Figure 2: Extract from 1: 250 000 geology map 2722 Kuruman (Council for Geoscience, Pretoria) showing location of the Farm Hotazel Annex Langdon (F278/0) (pale blue rectangle to the SE of Hotazel, Northern Cape. Transmision line route options to Umtu (purple triangle) and Hotazel (green triangle) Substations are indicated in purple and green respectively. The blue triangle is the proposed location of the onsite substation. The great majority of the project area is underlain by aeolian sands of the Gordonia Formation (Kalahari Group) (Qs, pale yellow areas on the map). These are extensively underlain by thick near-surface calcrete that crops out at surface along the Ga-Mogara River and around pans (Tl, darker yellow).

John E. Almond (2016) 10 Natura Viva cc