Proposed Kuruman Wind Energy Facility (Phase 1 and 2) Including Grid Connection Infrastructure, Kuruman, Northern Cape

HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT

In terms of Section 38(8) of the NHRA for the

Proposed Kuruman Wind Energy Facility (Phase 1 and 2) including grid connection infrastructure, Kuruman, Northern Cape

Prepared by

Jenna Lavin and Nic Wiltshire With Jonathan Kaplan (ACRM) and Dr John Almond (Natura Viva cc)

In Association with the CSIR

July 2018

THE INDEPENDENT PERSON WHO COMPILED A SPECIALIST REPORT OR UNDERTOOK A SPECIALIST PROCESS

I Jenna Lavin, as the appointed independent specialist hereby declare that I: • act/ed as the independent specialist in this application; • regard the information contained in this report as it relates to my specialist input/study to be true and correct, and • do not have and will not have any financial interest in the undertaking of the activity, other than remuneration for work performed in terms of the NEMA, the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2010 and any specific environmental management Act; • have and will not have no vested interest in the proposed activity proceeding; • have disclosed, to the applicant, EAP and competent authority, any material information that have or may have the potential to influence the decision of the competent authority or the objectivity of any report, plan or document required in terms of the NEMA, the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2010 and any specific environmental management Act; • am fully aware of and meet the responsibilities in terms of NEMA, the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2010 (specifically in terms of regulation 17 of GN No. R. 543) and any specific environmental management Act, and that failure to comply with these requirements may constitute and result in disqualification; • have ensured that information containing all relevant facts in respect of the specialist input/study was distributed or made available to interested and affected parties and the public and that participation by interested and affected parties was facilitated in such a manner that all interested and affected parties were provided with a reasonable opportunity to participate and to provide comments on the specialist input/study; • have ensured that the comments of all interested and affected parties on the specialist input/study were considered, recorded and submitted to the competent authority in respect of the application; • have ensured that the names of all interested and affected parties that participated in terms of the specialist input/study were recorded in the register of interested and affected parties who participated in the public participation process; • have provided the competent authority with access to all information at my disposal regarding the application, whether such information is favourable to the applicant or not; and • am aware that a false declaration is an offence in terms of regulation 71 of GN No. R. 543.

Signature of the specialist

CTS Heritage Name of company

20 July 2018 Date

1 CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (087) 073 5739 Email: [email protected] W eb: www.ctsheritage.com

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Mulilo Renewable Project Developments (Pty) Ltd (hereafter, “Mulilo”) appointed the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (hereafter, “CSIR”). Mulilo has proposed to build the Kuruman Wind Energy Facility (WEF) in two phases (1&2).

This assessment is for Phases 1 and 2 of this project, as well as the proposed 132kV powerline. The number of turbines to be completed in Phase 1 is 47 and Phase 2 is 52. Each turbine has a maximum output of 4.5MW, blade height of 140m and blade length of 80m. Foundations will be excavated to a depth of 3m. Additional infrastructure assessed for the EIA will include 5m wide connecting roads and widening of existing roads to 8m. New roads constructed will connect all turbines.

The WEF will also be connected to the grid via two 132kV overhead powerlines to Kuruman (Segame Substation, 10km in length) and Kathu (Ferrum Substation, 50km in length).

Proposed WEF The study site for the proposed Phase 1 and 2 Kuruman WEF (i.e. turbine location sites, access roads, substations, laydown areas) is not a sensitive archaeological landscape. A limited number of stone implements (isolated and dispersed scatters of Later Stone Age tools including retouched and utilized flakes, chunks, and a few cores in locally available banded ironstone), occur on some of the high hill top sites and access roads. Archaeological artefacts are located among extensive scatters of ironstone gravels which are ubiquitous in the surrounding area. No settlement sites, quarry sites, or evidence of human occupation were identified. Banded ironstone is a ready source of raw material across the entire study area. The hilltop sites are not conducive to pre-colonial settlement due to their high elevation, lack of caves as well as their isolated, exposed, cold and windy nature.

The proposed WEF substations and laydown areas do not constitute a sensitive archaeological landscape. All comprise level sites covered in knee high dry grass on red sands.

Given the low overall low palaeosensitivity of the proposed footprint, it is concluded that in terms of palaeontological heritage resources the impact significance of the Kuruman WEF Phase 1 an 2 is l ow (n egative) , both before and after mitigation. This assessment applies to the construction phase and to all relevant components of the WEF infrastructure (e .g. wind turbines, internal and external access roads, underground cabling, on-site substation and construction yards). Significant impacts during the operational and de-commissioning phases are not anticipated. None of the fossil sites identified fall inside the WEF development footprint and no specialist palaeontological mitigation is therefore proposed here. Small stromatolite-rich outcrop areas of Campbell Rand carbonates to the east of the WEF footprint (areas outlined in red in Figures 8a, b and c) should be designated as No-Go Areas and protected from any disturbance or development.

Proposed Powerline Route The proposed powerline route is not a sensitive archaeological landscape, despite it crossing several eco-zones. Long stretches of the route, for example, from Bothaskop till the district gravel road, cross mostly flat lands covered in knee high dry grasses and dense Acacia thicket vegetation on a substrate of loose, red sands. Extensive scatters and patches of ironstone gravels occur in places, where only a few isolated tools were noted, but no settlement or occupation sites were located. Indications are that these tools represent mostly discarded flakes and/or flake debris.

The route, from the district gravel road, over the hilltops to Bramcote Farm is also not a sensitive archaeological landscape. Most of the route passes through Woodstock Farm towards the Eskom substation at Kuruman. It crosses flat lands covered in tall dry grasses, with small pockets of dense thicket (Acacia) vegetation (closer to Kuruman), on a substrate of red sands with virtually no surface stone occurring. However, patches and scatters of banded ironstone do occur in places, where a few isolated tools in banded iron stone were identified, however these are mostly discarded flakes and flake debris. Some of these occurrences are located outside of the study area, and were not given GPS locations.

2 CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (087) 073 5739 Email: [email protected] W eb: www.ctsheritage.com

It is interesting to note that fine grained CCS / translucent chert flakes were also noted in the powerline route between Hartlands Farm and the Kuruman Eskom substation, and on Bothaskop (located outside of the study area).

In terms of palaeontological heritage resources, the impact significance of the Kuruman WEF 132 kV grid connection is low (negative), both before and after mitigation. This assessment applies to both 132 kV grid connection options under consideration and is based on (1) the low overall low palaeosensitivity of the 132 kV grid connection study region (including both corridor alternatives) as well as (2) the small footprint of the individual electrical pylon footings and associated service roads (i.e. small volume of bedrock excavations or surface clearance entailed). There is no preference on palaeontological heritage grounds for either one of the grid connection route options. Significant impacts during the operational and de-commissioning phases of the 132 kV grid connection are not anticipated. Confidence levels for this assessment are medium, given the low levels of bedrock exposure. In the context of other alternative energy and associated powerline developments in the broader Kathu – Kuruman region, cumulative impacts posed by the Kuruman WEF 132 kV grid connection project are of low significance.

Recommendations No mitigation is required prior to construction activities occurring. However, it is recommended that a Heritage Conservation Management Plan be developed for the WEF to ensure that heritage resources are continuously managed throughout the operational phase of the development. This CMP must be required as a condition of Environmental Authorisation.

Rock Art - All rock art sites (Sites KUR28, KUR36, KUR37, KUR44, KUR45, KUR46 and TK1, TK3, TK4 and TK5), must be avoided and should not be visited. Location of rock art sites should not be made public. - A no-go buffer zone of 20m must be kept around each rock art site

Burial Grounds and Graves - These sites must not be impacted by the proposed development (TK2A, TK7, TK8 and BR2 and BR6) - a 50m buffer area also be kept around these sites, and that access to these sites be permitted to relatives and friends of the deceased wishing to pay their respects. - Should any unmarked human burials/remains or ostrich eggshell water flask caches be uncovered, or exposed during preparation of the lands for cultivation, these must immediately be reported to the South African Heritage Resources Agency (Ms Natasha Higgit 021 462 4502), or the McGregor Museum (Att Dr David Morris 053 8392707 / 082 2224777). Burials, etc. must not be removed or disturbed until inspected by the archaeologist

Palaeontology All of the palaeontologically significant fossil sites identified (See Appendix 2 for gps data and short descriptions) are associated with small outcrop areas of Campbell Rand Subgroup carbonate bedrocks that lie o utside and east of the WEF development footprint. These areas should be designated as No-Go areas and protected from any disturbance or development during the construction phase.

Should substantial fossil remains be encountered at surface or exposed during construction, the ECO should safeguard these, preferably in situ. They should then alert the South African Heritage Resources Agency as soon as possible (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). This is to ensure that appropriate action (i.e. r ecording, sampling or collection of fossils, recording of relevant geological data) can be taken by a professional palaeontologist at the proponent’s expense. A procedure for Chance Fossil Finds is tabulated in Appendix 2. These recommendations must be incorporated in the Environmental Management Programme for the WEF project.

The above recommendations must be incorporated into the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) for the proposed development.

3 CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (087) 073 5739 Email: [email protected] W eb: www.ctsheritage.com

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 5 1.1 Background Information on Project 5

2. METHODOLOGY 7 2.1 Purpose of HIA 7 2.2 Summary of steps followed 7

3. HISTORY AND EVOLUTION OF THE SITE AND CONTEXT 7 3.1 Definition of the property 7 3.2 Geology, geomorphology, climate and vegetation 8 3.3 Historical Background of the Area 8

4. IDENTIFICATION OF HERITAGE RESOURCES 12 4.1 Summary of specialist findings 12 4.2 Heritage Resources identified 18 4.3 Field Assessment 21 4.4 Selected photographic record 26

5. ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPACT OF THE DEVELOPMENT 33 5.1 Assessment of impact to Heritage Resources 33 5.2 Cumulative Impacts 34

6. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 40

7. REFERENCES 41

APPENDICES 43 1. Complete table of Archaeological observations 2. Specialist Palaeontological Report 3. Heritage Screening Assessment 4. HWC Fossil Finds Procedure as an example for the EMPr 5. CVs of specialists

4 CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (087) 073 5739 Email: [email protected] W eb: www.ctsheritage.com

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background Information on Project Mulilo Renewable Project Developments (Pty) Ltd (hereafter, “Mulilo”) appointed the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (hereafter, “CSIR”). Mulilo has proposed to build the Kuruman Wind Energy Facility (WEF) in two phases (1&2).

The WEF will also be connected to the grid via two 132kV overhead powerlines to Kuruman (Segame Substation, 10km in length) and Kathu (Ferrum Substation, 50km in length). In addition, 33kV underground lines will run along jeep tracks as service roads below the overhead lines. A collector substation (Eskom Metering Station) reaching a height of 15m over a 2ha footprint will be constructed in the Phase 1 inclusion zone. A new switching station will have to be constructed next to the existing Eskom substation, for the project to connect into it.

Three construction yards will be established. It is anticipated that each construction yard will consist of the following: -Welfare facilities including a Canteen, Toilets, Changing rooms, Offices, Meeting rooms and Parking. - Storage including Bunded fuel areas and Oil storage areas - General stores (containers) - Skips

Figure 1: Close up satellite image indicating proposed location of development

5 CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (087) 073 5739 Email: [email protected] W eb: www.ctsheritage.com

Figure 2: Close up satellite image indicating the proposed location of Phase 1

Figure 3: Close up satellite image indicating the proposed location of Phase 2

6 CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (087) 073 5739 Email: [email protected] W eb: www.ctsheritage.com

2. METHODOLOGY

2.1 Purpose of HIA The purpose of this HIA is to satisfy the requirements of section 38(8), and therefore section 38(3) of the National Heritage Resources Act (Act 25 of 1999).

2.2 Summary of steps followed ● A desktop assessment was conducted of available literature and it was noted that a comprehensive archaeological survey has already been conducted for the Phase 2 area by the ACO (Halkett, 2009). ● An archaeologist conducted a survey of the site and its environs in June 2018 to determine what heritage resources are likely to be impacted by the proposed development (Appendix 1), and a Palaeontological Field Assessment was completed in February 2018 to assess likely impacts to palaeontology (Appendix 2). ● The identified resources were assessed to evaluate their heritage significance in terms of the grading system outlined in section 3 of the NHRA (Act 25 of 1999). ● Alternatives and mitigation options were discussed with the Environmental Assessment Practitioner.

3. HISTORY AND EVOLUTION OF THE SITE AND CONTEXT

3.1 Definition of the property The proposed Kuruman Phase 1 and 2 WEF and its associated grid connection infrastructure is proposed to be located approximately 5km from Kuruman and 40km from Kathu. This area is currently used as a hunting and game farm. The below farms will be impacted by the project:

No. Farm Name SG21 Code Portion Nr/Farm

1 Woodstock C04100000000044100000 RE/441

2 Bramcote C04100000000044600001 1/446

3 Strelley C04100000000044800000 RE/448

4 Strelley C04100000000044800001 1/448

5 Thoresby C04100000000045000002 2/450

6 Thoresby C04100000000045000000 RE/450

Thoresby C04100000000045000001 1/450

7 Clumber C04100000000045300000 RE/453

8 Clumber C04100000000045300003 3/453

9 Clumber C04100000000045300004 4/453

10 Clumber C04100000000045300006 6/453

11 Welbeck C04100000000045400000 RE/454

12 Welbeck C04100000000045400002 2/454

13 Hartland C04100000000038100002 2/381

14 Hartland C04100000000038100001 1/381

15 Rossdale C04100000000038200000 RE/382

16 Legoko C04100000000046000000 RE/460

17 Legoko C04100000000046000001 1/460

18 Sekgame C04100000000046100000 RE/461

19 Kuruman ERF 1

20 Bestwood C04100000000045900001 1/459

7 CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (087) 073 5739 Email: [email protected] W eb: www.ctsheritage.com

3.2 Geology, geomorphology, climate and vegetation The inclusion zone is situated within the Savanna Biome. The Savanna Biome comprises 46 percent of southern Africa’s land mass and is therefore the largest Biome in southern Africa. This Biome is characterized by C4-type grasses in plains areas, which is indicative of a summer rainfall zone. In addition, distinct upper layers of woodland and bushveld are observable on mountainous and intermediate areas respectively. The Kruger and Kalahari Gemsbok National Parks contain this vegetation type; therefore, Savanna Biome vegetation is effectively conserved. However, only 5 percent of the total vegetation Biome is formally conserved.

Approximately 35km to the southwest of the inclusion zone is Kathu, where a large Camel Thorn Tree (Vachellia erioloba) forest is conserved. Known as the Kathu Forest, it is approximately 4000ha in size and has been declared a National Heritage Site. Camel Thorns provide ecological support for the Sociable Weaver and their large nests and are depended upon by several other bird and animal species, many of which are listed endemic and protected species. As the inclusion zone is proximal to the Kathu forest, it likely also hosts areas of vegetation that are ecologically sensitive.

The project area for the Kuruman WEF is situated in the Kurumanberge Range which lies on the western edge of the Ghaap Plateau and forms part of the semi-arid Southern Kalahari Physiographic Region of the Northern Cape (Partridge e t al. 2010). The Kurumanberge comprise a NNW-SSE trending series of low, flat-crested hills which range in elevation from c. 1600-1770 m amsl. These are erosional relicts of an elongate, low, dome-shaped upland area that has become highly dissected by numerous small water courses draining towards the Ghaap Plateau and Kuruman River in the northeast and to the west into the Lohatla Plains of the southern Kalahari.

The geology of the Kuruman region is shown on the 1: 250 000 sheet map 2722 Kuruman (Figure 5) (Council for Geoscience, Pretoria), for which a full explanation has yet to be published; this map is now outdated in several respects. Excellent simplified geological maps and sections of the region are provided in the Kalahari Manganese Field volume by Cairncross & Beukes (2013). The silicicastic and carbonate bedrocks here are assigned to the Precambrian (Late Archaean to Proterozoic) Transvaal Supergroup (Griqualand West Basin) on the western margins of the ancient Kaapvaal Craton (McCarthy & Rubidge 2005, Eriksson et al. 2006). They lie within the Ghaap Plateau Subbasin of the Transvaal succession, situated to the NE of the Griquatown Fault Zone. The Transvaal Supergroup bedrocks here have been folded into a major NNW-SSE trending mega-syncline, known as the Dimoten Syncline, and are cut by several broadly N-S trending faults.

Within the broader Kuruman WEF project area the bedrocks of the Ghaap Group – comprising shallow water carbonates of the Campbell Rand Subgroup overlain by deeper water banded iron formation (BIF) of the Asbestos Hills Subgroup - lie on the eastern flank of the syncline, dipping gently and younging towards the west. The youngest bedrocks in the Dimoten Syncline, assigned to the Proterozoic Postmasberg Group, are glacial sediments of the Makganyene Formation and the overlying Ongeluk Formation lavas. These younger rocks, unconformably overlying the Ghaap Group, crop out in the core of the Dimoten Syncline to the west of the Kurumanberge Range and are not mapped within the WEF project area (although they may in fact occur here as well due to faulting). Throughout the study area a large portion of the Precambrian outcrop area is mantled by various, mostly unconsolidated superficial deposits of Late Caenozoic age, notably by BIF colluvial gravels on hillslopes and hillcrests as well as alluvial sediments along stream and river valley floors.

3.3 Historical Background of the Area The Kuruman Hills have historically been used for small scale pastoralist farming activities with goats and sheep, a practice which extends back possibly as much as 2000 years ago when Khoekhoe herders first entered the area. Three sites with possible herder art (TK1, TK3 & TK5) were found in association with Later Stone Age artefact assemblages on the Tierkop farm. These sites were recorded during a survey by Dave Halkett and Jayson Orton (Halkett 2009) for the potential impacts of iron and manganese ore mining on Bramcote farm (No 446).

Phases 1 and 2 of the WEF are located on a number of farms in the vicinity of Kuruman in the Northern Cape (see Table below). This area had not been surveyed previously and we expected similar findings would be made such as ruined farm

8 CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (087) 073 5739 Email: [email protected] W eb: www.ctsheritage.com

infrastructure, possible old mines, ESA, MSA and LSA open site scatters of artefacts, possibly more rock art sites in overhangs and a number of visual impacts which would have to be assessed in terms of the cultural landscape encompassed by the inner valley and boundary hills containing the proposed WEF. Wonderwerk Cave, a National Heritage Site containing archaeological traces stretching back over 2 million years, is located ~25km to the southeast of the WEF.

Figure 3: Spatialisation of known heritage resources within the development area

9 CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (087) 073 5739 Email: [email protected] W eb: www.ctsheritage.com

Figure 4. Palaeosensitivity Map. Indicating high fossil sensitivity underlying the study area.

Figure 5: Extract from 1: 250 000 geology sheet 2722 Kuruman (Council for Geoscience, Pretoria) showing in purple the provisional footprint of both phases of the proposed Kuruman Wind Energy Facility as well as alternative route options for the proposed 132 kV overhead powerline connection to the Eskom grid.

10 CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (087) 073 5739 Email: [email protected] W eb: www.ctsheritage.com

Table 1: Known heritage resources within the development footprint (see Heritage Screener for full information)

Site No. Site Name Description Grading

BR1 Bramcote 1 Archaeological Grade IIIC

BR2 Bramcote 2 Burial Grounds & Graves Grade IIIA

BR3 Bramcote 3 Artefacts Grade IIIC

BR4 Bramcote 4 Artefacts Grade IIIC

BR5 Bramcote 5 Artefacts Grade IIIC

BR6 Bramcote 6 Burial Grounds & Graves Grade IIIA

BR7 Bramcote 7 Archaeological Grade IIIB

BR9 Bramcote 9 Artefacts Grade IIIc

TK3 - NC Tierkop 3 Rock Art, Artefacts Grade IIIA

TK2A Tierkop 2A Burial Grounds & Graves Grade IIIA

TK4 Tierkop 4 Artefacts Grade IIIB

TK7 Tierkop 7 Burial Grounds & Graves Grade IIIA

TK8 Tierkop 8 Burial Grounds & Graves Grade IIIA

TK10 Tierkop 10 Artefacts Grade IIIC

TK9 Tierkop 9 Artefacts Grade IIIC TK5 - NC Tierkop 5 Rock Art, Artefacts Grade IIIA

TK1 - NC Tierkop 1 Rock Art, Artefacts Grade IIIA

11 CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (087) 073 5739 Email: [email protected] W eb: www.ctsheritage.com

4. IDENTIFICATION OF HERITAGE RESOURCES

4.1 Summary of specialist findings

Figure 6: Track paths of foot survey

Proposed WEF Archaeology The study site for the proposed Phase 1 and 2 Kuruman WEF (i.e. turbine location sites, access roads, substations, laydown areas) is not a sensitive archaeological landscape. A limited number of stone implements (isolated and dispersed scatters of Later Stone Age tools including retouched and utilized flakes, chunks, and a few cores in locally available banded ironstone), occur on some of the high hill top sites and access roads. Archaeological artefacts are located among extensive scatters of ironstone gravels which are ubiquitous in the surrounding area. No settlement sites, quarry sites, or evidence of human occupation were identified. Banded ironstone is a ready source of raw material across the entire study area. The hilltop sites are not conducive to pre-colonial settlement due to their high elevation, lack of caves as well as their isolated, exposed, cold and windy nature.

The proposed WEF substations and laydown areas do not constitute a sensitive archaeological landscape. All comprise level sites covered in knee high dry grass on red sands.

12 CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (087) 073 5739 Email: [email protected] W eb: www.ctsheritage.com

Palaeontology The project area for the Kuruman Wind Energy Facility Phase 1 and 2, situated in the hilly Kurumanberge region of the Northern Cape, is largely underlain by sedimentary bedrocks of Precambrian (Late Archaean – Early Proterozoic) age assigned to the Ghaap Group (Transvaal Supergroup). These sediments were laid down in shallow inshore to deep offshore marine settings on the margins of the ancient Kaapvaal Craton some 2.5 to 2.4 Ga (= billion years ago). Carbonate sediments (limestones, dolomites) of the Campbell Rand Subgroup crop out at several points along the eastern edge of the Kurumanberge but outside of the WEF Project area. Good exposures here are very limited due to scree cover. The outcropped sediments are of high palaeobiological significance because they show several unusual and interesting geological and palaeontological features of early Precambrian platform carbonates, including a range of stromatolites (fossil microbial mounds). These fossiliferous carbonates will not be directly impacted by the proposed WEF development. These include a range of stromatolite (microbial mound) forms (e .g. giant elongate stromatolites > 10 m wide), evidence for modified evaporite deposits (e .g. gypsum), fossil microbial assemblages and datable tuffs (volcanic ashes). These carbonate rock exposures are of high conservation significance (high geo- and palaeosensitivity) but lie entirely outside the WEF footprint.

The great majority of the WEF footprint overlies Proterozoic banded iron formation (BIF) of the Asbestos Hills Subgroup (Kuruman and Daniëlskuil Formations). These interlaminated basinal cherts and iron ores may contain microfossils, but no evidence of body fossils, trace fossils or bio-sedimentary structures such as stromatolites has ever been recorded within these units, so their palaeosensitivity is rated as low. The largely unconsolidated superficial sediments that mantle the Precambrian bedrocks in the WEF project area include widespread cherty surface gravels and scree, gravelly to sandy alluvium and soils (e.g. on the floor of the central valley within the Kurumanberge as well as lining drainage courses) and ferricrete. In addition, carbonate-cemented breccias, calcrete and calc-tufa or flowstone overlie the Campbell Rand outcrop outside the project footprint. These Late Caenozoic sediments are generally of low palaeontological sensitivity and no fossils were recorded within them during the present field study. Pockets of high palaeosensitivity – for example assemblages of micromammal and other vertebrate remains embedded within karstic fissure-infill and tufa deposits – m ight occur here, by analogy with Precambrian carbonate outcrops elsewhere in southern Africa (e .g. Namibia), but are impossible to predict.

Given the low overall low palaeosensitivity of the proposed footprint, it is concluded that in terms of palaeontological heritage resources the impact significance of the Kuruman WEF Phase 1 is l ow (n egative), both before and after mitigation. This assessment applies to the construction phase and to all relevant components of the WEF infrastructure (e .g. wind turbines, internal and external access roads, underground cabling, on-site substation and construction yards). Significant impacts during the operational and de-commissioning phases are not anticipated. None of the fossil sites identified fall inside the WEF development footprint and no specialist palaeontological mitigation is therefore proposed here. Small stromatolite-rich outcrop areas of Campbell Rand carbonates to the east of the WEF footprint (areas outlined in red in Figures 8a, b and c) should be designated as No-Go Areas and protected from any disturbance or development.

Proposed Powerline Route Archaeology The proposed powerline route is not a sensitive archaeological landscape, despite it crossing several eco-zones. Long stretches of the route, for example, from Bothaskop till the district gravel road, cross mostly flat lands covered in knee high dry grasses and dense Acacia thicket vegetation on a substrate of loose, red sands. Extensive scatters and patches of ironstone gravels occur in places, where only a few isolated tools were noted (e.g. Sites 085-255), but no settlement or occupation sites were located. Indications are that these tools represent mostly discarded flakes and/or flake debris.

The route, from the district gravel road, over the hilltops to Bramcote Farm is also not a sensitive archaeological landscape (this area was not searched by foot however part of the route was assessed by vehicle). Most of the route passes through Woodstock Farm towards the Eskom substation at Kuruman. It crosses flat lands covered in tall dry grasses, with small pockets of dense thicket (Acacia) vegetation (closer to Kuruman), on a substrate of red sands with virtually no surface stone occurring. However, patches and scatters of banded ironstone do occur in places, where a

13 CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (087) 073 5739 Email: [email protected] W eb: www.ctsheritage.com

few isolated tools in banded iron stone were identified, however these are mostly discarded flakes and flake debris. Some of these occurrences are located outside of the study area, and were not given GPS locations.

Palaeontology Alternative corridors for the proposed Kuruman WEF overhead 132 kV grid connection – either to Segame Substation near Kuruman or to Ferrum Substation near Kathu - largely overlie Precambrian sedimentary bedrocks of low palaeosensitivity. These include basinal marine banded ironstones (BIF) of the Asbestos Hills Subgroup (Kuruman and Daniëlskuil Formations) and lavas of the Postmasburg Group (Ongeluk Formation) that underlie the Kurumanberge Range and the Lohatlha plains to the west. Direct or indirect impacts on small outcrop areas of fossiliferous Precambrian carbonate bedrocks (Campbell Rand Subgroup) along the eastern margin of the Kurumanberge are not anticipated. Late Caenozoic superficial deposits, such as BIF colluvial gravels, sandy and gravelly alluvium, calcrete and aeolian sands of the Kalahari Group, mantle most of the Precambrian bedrocks within the powerline corridors and are likewise fossil-poor. The only fossil remains recorded during a recent field assessment of the grid connection corridors comprise low exposures of stromatolitic carbonate of the Kogelbeen Formation (Campbell Rand Subgroup) near Segame Substation. The stromatolites see here are probably of widespread occurrence in the Ghaap Plateau region and are not considered especially conservation-worthy (Proposed Field rating IIIC Local Resource). No specialist palaeontological mitigation measures regarding these fossil assemblages are proposed here.

Table 2: Fossil heritage in the Kuruman WEF and grid connection study area

PALAEONTOLOGICAL RECOMMENDED SPECIALIST GEOLOGICAL UNIT ROCK TYPES & AGE FOSSIL HERITAGE SENSITIVITY MITIGATION

Gordonia Formation Mainly aeolian sands calcretised rhizoliths & GENERALLY LOW with None recommended KALAHARI GROUP plus minor fluvial gravels, termitaria, ostrich egg shells, exception of rare pockets freshwater pan deposits, land snail shells, rare of fossiliferous fissure infill, Any substantial fossil finds to Plus calcretes, calc tufa / flow mammalian and reptile (e.g. karst breccia ( HIGH be reported by ECO to SAHRA stone, karstic fissure infill tortoise, micromammal) sensitivity) SURFACE CALCRETE, breccias bones, teeth, plant remains. CALC TUFA PLIO-PLEISTOCENE to freshwater units associated RECENT with diatoms, molluscs, stromatolites etc

Makganyene & Ongeluk Glacial diamictites (tillites), Stromatolites associated GENERALLY LOW Reporting and documentation Fms volcanic lavas, dolomites, with glacial deposits within with exception of of ancient stromatolites in ironstones the Makganyene Formation stromatolitic units surface exposures of POSTMASBURG GROUP (Prieska Sub-basin) Makganyene Fm EARLY PROTEROZOIC (c. 2.2 Ga)

Asbestos Hills BIF (banded iron Important early microfossil LOW None recommended Subgroup (Kuruman & formations) with cherty biotas Daniëlskuil Fms) bands No macrofossils reported to date GHAAP GROUP EARLY PROTEROZOIC (c. 2.5-2.4 Ga)

Campbell Rand Limestones, dolomites, Range of microbialites HIGH Stromatolite-rich exposures to Subgroup (Kogelbeen, subordinate cherts & tuffs including various forms of be protected as No-Go areas. Gamohaan & Tsineng stromatolite, organic-walled Specialist recording and Fms) LATE ARCHAEAN – EARLY microfossils within cherts mitigation of Chance Fossil PROTEROZOIC Finds. GHAAP GROUP (c. 2.6-2.5 Ga)

14 CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (087) 073 5739 Email: [email protected] W eb: www.ctsheritage.com

Figure 6a: Track paths of foot survey through Phase 1

Figure 6b: Track paths of foot survey through Phase 2

15 CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (087) 073 5739 Email: [email protected] W eb: www.ctsheritage.com

Figure 7a: Contextual Image - 10m high wind measuring mast to left of the plate. View facing south / south west

Figure 7b: Contextual Image - Hilltop turbine site. View facing south

Figure 7c: Contextual Image - Hilltop turbine site. View facing west. K2 is located further to the left of the plate.

16 CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (087) 073 5739 Email: [email protected] W eb: www.ctsheritage.com

Figure 7d: Contextual Image - Hilltop turbine site. View facing north north /west. The 10m high wind measuring mast is located in the far distance.

Figure 7e: Contextual Image - Hilltop wind turbine site. View facing north east

Figure 7f: Contextual Image - Hilltop wind turbine site. View facing south

17 CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (087) 073 5739 Email: [email protected] W eb: www.ctsheritage.com

Figure 7f: Contextual Image - Hilltop wind turbine site. View facing north east overlooking Woodstock farm. The powerline runs through the yellow grasslands below.

Figure 7g: Contextual Image - Laydown area on Woodstock Farm. Powerline will also run through the grasslands. View facing north

4.2 Heritage Resources identified

Structures and Places No old buildings, ruined structures, typical grave features (i.e. stone mounds) or formal farm cemeteries were noted. A modern residential farm house, outbuildings, worker cottages, hunting lodge, butcher, etc are all located far outside the footprint area of the wind energy farm. The ACO (Halkett, 2009) identified a number of farming-related burial grounds as well as historic farm werfs (TK2, 2A, 7, 8 and 9). In their report, they describe these resources as:

“Older, partly ruined structures represent an earlier farm dwelling (TK2) and a structure related to mining/prospecting (BR8). The building at TK 2 could be the oldest formal structure that we saw and is built with ironstone quarried adjacent to the house. The use of this abundant natural building material is typical for the area and kraals, walls and houses alike are built with it. As is common with farming settlements, a number of graves were identified with the help of the farmers and workers. One grave at BR2 is highly formalised with an engraved headstone, while all others were simple stone covered mounds representing the burial places of the farm workers (6 graves at BR6 and 8 graves at TK7). We believe that another grave is to be found close to the old farmhouse (TK2a), also marked by a stone covered mound, while another is found close to the existing workers cottages on Tierkop.”

18 CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (087) 073 5739 Email: [email protected] W eb: www.ctsheritage.com

Evidence for historical mining does occur (refer to 1:50 000 topographical map 2723CB Strelley), while evidence for more recent mining and / or prospecting is present in the form of pits mostly on hill slopes at lower elevations. These location sites were not visited by us.

Archaeology Overall, the results indicate low density/dispersed scatters, and isolated tools, of low (Not Conservation-Worthy or NCW - see Appendix 1) significance. Stone implements are dominated by locally available banded ironstone; gravels are widespread in the surrounding landscape. Some chert and siliceous stone found on Bothaskop (outside study area), Rock Art site KUR28, and in the powerline route between Hartlands Farm and the Kuruman substation. But overall, the numbers are very low.

The cultural landscape is dominated by stone tools assigned to the Later Stone Age, with a few Middle Stone and Early Stone Age elements occurring.

Rock art sites have been rated as having high local significance. Apart from Site KUR28, all the rock art sites are located in the eastern portion of Woodstock Farm, outside the footprint area of the proposed wind energy farm. The rock art is dominated by late Herder elements (mainly finger paintings, and geometric images, but earlier LSA hunter-gatherer style i. e. indeterminate human figures, `cave scenes’ `formlings’, are evident at some of the sites). LSA tools in banded ironstone/jasperlite, chert, CCS occur in all the rock art sites, but no pottery was found, nor were stone walling/animal enclosures. Paintings are all comparable to Bramcote rock art sites located by the ACO (Halkett, 2009)

Palaeontology ● Fossils within the Campbell Rand Subgroup The shallow shelf and intertidal sediments of the carbonate-dominated lower part of the Ghaap Group (i.e. Schmidtsdrif and Campbell Rand Subgroups) are well known for their rich fossil biota of stromatolites or microbially-generated, finely-laminated sheets, mounds, domes, columns and branching structures. Some stromatolite occurrences on the Ghaap Plateau of the Northern Cape are spectacularly well-preserved (e.g. Boetsap locality northeast of Daniëlskuil figured by McCarthy & Rubidge 2005, Eriksson et al. 2006). Detailed studies of these 2.6-2.5 Ga carbonate sediments and their stromatolitic biotas have been presented by Young (1932 and several subsequent papers), Beukes (1980, 1983), Eriksson & Truswell (1974), Eriksson & Altermann (1998), Eriksson e t al (2006), Altermann and Herbig (1991), Altermann and Wotherspoon (1995), and Sumner (2002). The oldest, Archaean stromatolite occurrences from the Ghaap Group have been reviewed by Schopf (2006, with full references therein). Horizons of microbial mats as well as domal and columnar stromatolites are reported from the Kogelbeen Formation. Some of the oldest known (2.6 Ga) fossil microbial assemblages with filaments and coccoids have been recorded from stromatolitic cherty limestones of the Lime Acres Member (Kogelbeen Formation) at Lime Acres near Kuruman (Altermann & Schopf 1995, Altermann & Wotherspoon 1995). The Gamohaan Formation also features horizons of microbial mats, domal and columnar stromatolites (Eriksson et al. 2006). The Tsineng Formation at the top of the Campbell Rand carbonate succession has yielded stromatolites (previously assigned to the Tsineng Member of the Gamohaan Formation), microbial mats as well as filamentous microfossils named S iphonophycus that are thought to have developed in shallow waters of the photic zone that were no more than a few tens of meters deep (Klein e t al. 1987, Altermann & Schopf 1995, Eriksson e t al. 2006).

Complex fabrics forming tabular to conical structures within carbonates of the Kogelbeen and Gamohaan Formations that are composed of thin, filmy dark laminae draped around calcite-infilled voids (e.g. fenestrate microbialites, plumose structures) have been interpreted as being of microbial origin and generated in deep subtidal settings by some workers (c f Sumner 1997, 2002, Sumner & Grotzinger 2004, Sumner & Beukes 2006, Riding 2008, 2011). Other sedimentologists have plausibly attributed many of these strange structures to diagenetically-replaced “vanished” evaporites (Gandin et al. 2005, Gandin & Wright 2015).

Small, isolated cliff and hillslope exposures of Campbell Rand carbonates exposed along the eastern margins of the Kurumanberge are of palaeontological interest – and conservation value - for the wealth of stromatolites and other microbially-generated biosedimentary structures seen here, comparable to those recorded from the key Kurumankop

19 CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (087) 073 5739 Email: [email protected] W eb: www.ctsheritage.com

locality of Sumner (2002). Here lagoonal, shallow water carbonates of the upper Kogelbeen Formation feature abundant laminated microbialites including “giant” elongate stromatolites containing subdued to well-developed, elongate stromatolitic micro-columns (mini-stromatolites). Large-scale elongate stromatolites (2-10 m wide x 5 m to > 45 m long) are better known at the famous Boetsap locality on the eastern edge of the Ghaap Plateau and interpreted as being shallow subtidal in origin (Sumner 2002). The simple to branched stromatolitic micro-columns (1-5 cm across) probably have a composite precipitated plus trapped-and-bound origin.

Cliff-forming, darker brownish- and grey-weathering, deep-subtidal carbonates of overlying the Gamohaan Formation are characterised by abundant fenestrate microbialites (often interbedded with brownish ferruginous carbonate beds), horizons of plumose structures, herringbone calcite, intact and reworked microbial mat material, as well as medium-scale domal to conical stromatolites and upwardly penetrating, stromatolite-like diapirs. Abundant chemically-precipitated calcite includes occasional horizons featuring spaced domal pseudostromatolites with markedly isopachous internal lamination.

The Tsineng Formation at the top of the Campbell Rand carbonate succession is generally more recessive-weathering than underlying cliff-forming Gamohaan Formation. It is thin- to medium-bedded, pale grey to slightly lilac-hued or greenish-khaki, with several thin to 20 cm-thick horizons of black, finely-laminated chert. Abundant concentrically-laminated soft sediment deformation features (and / or Liesegang rings) give the superficial appearance of stromatolites while true domical stromatolites may occur occasionally (but were not seen in this study). The well-developed cherts probably contain organic-walled microfossils (see refs. above).

● Fossils within the Asbestos Hills Subgroup The deep water BIF facies of the Asbestos Hills Subgroup (Kuruman and Daniëlskuil Formations) have not yielded stromatolites which are normally restricted to the shallow water photic zone (< 200 m) since they are constructed primarily by photosynthetic microbes. No convincing trace fossils, attributable to sizeable metazoans (multi-cellular animals), have been reported from BIF facies. However, there are several reports of microfossils from cherty sediments within the Kuruman Formation according to MacRae (1999) and Tankard et al. (1982 – see refs. therein by Fockema 1967, Cloud & Licari 1968, La Berge 1973). (N .B. the stratigraphic position of these older records may require confirmation). The supposed fossil medusoid or jellyfish G akarusia reported from the Asbestos Hills Subgroup by Haughton (1963) (“Griquatown Beds” at Gakarusa, between Daniels Kuil and Kuruman) is almost certainly a pseudofossil (cf H aughton 1969, Haentzschel 1975).

● Fossils within Late Caenozoic superficial sediments Most of the Late Caenozoic superficial sediments within the Kuruman WEF project area are of low palaeontological sensitivity, preserving few, if any, scientifically-valuable fossil remains. Calcretes associated with the Campbell Rand carbonates on the Ghaap Plateau to the east of the Kurumanberge might 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) may be expected occasionally expected within Kalahari Group sediments and calcretes, notably those associated with ancient alluvial sands and gravels. Unconsolidated surface gravels and colluvium are for the most entirely unfossiliferous. However, occasional reworked cherty carbonate blocks within ferruginous colluvial gravels do contain small silicified stromatolitic domes; stromatolitic horizons may have been preferentially silicified during diagenesis, and are therefore preferentially represented within surface gravels that concentrate resistant-weathering rock rubble. Occurrences of calc-tufa, flowstone and fissure-infill breccias in the karstified Campbell Rand outcrop area – as recorded, for example, along the eastern edge of the Kurumanberge – might possibly be associated with micromammal remains as well as the bones and teeth of larger mammals (including hominins), reptiles and birds, plant fossils e tc, as well-seen, for example, in karstified Precambrian carbonate successions in Namibia. No bones, teeth or other fossil remains were seen in this context during the present field study, while occasional embedded cherty stone artefacts – including probable MSA – imply a Pleistocene or younger age.

20 CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (087) 073 5739 Email: [email protected] W eb: www.ctsheritage.com

4.3 Field Assessment

Archaeology and the Built Environment A number of heritage resources were identified during the field assessment. Please see the table and maps below.

Table 2: Archaeological observations of heritage significance (see Appendix 1 for full list) Lat/Long Description Grading Mitigation Site Name Site No. S27° 42.832' Dispersed scatter of LSA tools (mostly CCS & chert, Grade IIIC None Kuruman WEF 2 KUR 2 E23° 17.326' but some banded ironstone) on top of Bothaskop required (excellent views all round)

S27° 35.775' Banded ironstone rock overhang / shelter on steep Grade IIIA None Kuruman WEF 28 KUR 28 E23° 22.631' north facing grass covered slope. Very faded rock art required, will (finger stripes) in red ochre. Small collection of LSA not be stone tools including denticulate flake, retouched impacted by flakes, chunks, convex scraper, core in chert , banded proposed ironstone, indurated shale and chert. No pottery or construction OES activities. S27° 31.652' Rock art site – banded ironstone overhang at base of Grade IIIA None Kuruman WEF 36 KUR 36 E23° 24.557' cliff. Shallow, trampled, disturbed bedrock required, will archaeological deposit. Relatively large number of LSA not be tools inside shelter and rocky boulder covered slopes. impacted by Mostly in banded iron stone, CCS & chert. No pottery construction or OES. Extensive, enigmatic rock art, geometric finger activities painted images, finger stripes, finger dots, All rock art superimposing, `formlings’, indeterminate faded sites to be human figures, possible bags; ?cave scene avoided (aggregation site). All monochrome red ochre, but some orange. Large site runs alongside the base of the cliff for about 75/80m; extensive concentrated rock art on wall and ledges. Possibly earlier LSA and later ?Herder style

S27° 33.700' Rock art site, shallow trampled bedrock Grade IIIA None Kuruman WEF 37 KUR 37 E23° 24.900' archaeological deposit. Small number of LSA tools in required, will shelter, and on steep rocky and grass covered slope. not be Enigmatic and faded monochrome art (painted impacted by geometric finger strips) in red ochre. No pottery. One construction fragment of weathered OES. activities

S27° 33.692' Shallow banded ironstone shelter / overhang at base Grade IIIA None Kuruman WEF 44 KUR 44 E23° 24.897' of cliff; very faded, indeterminate monochrome art required, will (red ochre), faded geometric painted images / stripes; not be trampled bedrock archaeological deposit, a few LSA impacted by stone flakes inside overhang and on steep rocky construction slopes activities

21 CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (087) 073 5739 Email: [email protected] W eb: www.ctsheritage.com

S27° 34.090' Large, painted, tiered rock shelter ± 60-70m long, Grade IIIA None Kuruman WEF 45 KUR 45 E23° 25.010' above steep rocky and grass covered slope. Relatively required, will well preserved paintings (but also faded art), including not be inverted crescents, serpent like shapes, geometric impacted by finger paintings/stripes. `formlings’, superimposition construction and indeterminate art. Possible human figures; activities bags/?tassels; cave scene. Extensive panel of rock art. Red, yellow and orange ochre. Possible Karros clad (hook headed) figures. Shallow trampled bedrock archaeological deposit, with stone artefacts, inc. CCS, ?lydianite, and some banded ironstone. No pottery or OES. Art possibly earlier LSA and later ?Herder style. Maybe another aggregation site

S27° 34.708' Small, painted rock shelter / overhang with shallow Grade IIIA None Kuruman WEF 46 KUR 46 E23° 25.364' bedrock deposit and stone implements in CCS and required, will banded ironstone. No pottery. Enigmatic art, not be geometric finger paintings, faded and indeterminate impacted by ?human figures in red, orange and white ochre construction activities

S27° 28.654' Several banded ironstone flakes and chunks among Grade IIIC None Kuruman WEF 53 KUR 53 E23° 25.004' surface outcropping of banded ironstone on slight required elevation in powerline servitude. Large Acacia marks the site S27° 42.832' Scatter on Bothaskop – CCS/chert LSA blades chunks, Grade IIIC None Kuruman WEF 59 KUR 59 E23° 17.327' flakes required

S27° 35.576' Rock overhang on boundary of Woodstock Farm, Grade IIIA None Kuruman WEF 66 KUR 66 E23° 22.420' some extremely faded art required

Palaeontology Carbonate sediments (limestones, dolomites) of the Campbell Rand Subgroup crop out at several points along the eastern edge of the Kurumanberge but outside of the WEF Project area. Good exposures here are very limited due to scree cover. The outcropped sediments are of high palaeobiological significance because they show several unusual and interesting geological and palaeontological features of early Precambrian platform carbonates, including a range of stromatolites (fossil microbial mounds). These fossiliferous carbonates will not be directly impacted by the proposed WEF development. These include a range of stromatolite (microbial mound) forms (e .g. giant elongate stromatolites > 10 m wide), evidence for modified evaporite deposits (e .g. gypsum), fossil microbial assemblages and datable tuffs (volcanic ashes). These carbonate rock exposures are of high conservation significance (high geo- and palaeosensitivity) but lie entirely outside the WEF footprint.

The great majority of the WEF and powerline footprint overlies Proterozoic banded iron formation (BIF) of the Asbestos Hills Subgroup (Kuruman and Daniëlskuil Formations). These interlaminated basinal cherts and iron ores may contain microfossils, but no evidence of body fossils, trace fossils or bio-sedimentary structures such as stromatolites has ever been recorded within these units, so their palaeosensitivity is rated as low. The largely unconsolidated superficial sediments that mantle the Precambrian bedrocks in the WEF project area include widespread cherty surface gravels and scree, gravelly to sandy alluvium and soils (e .g. on the floor of the central valley within the Kurumanberge as well as lining drainage courses) and ferricrete. In addition, carbonate-cemented breccias, calcrete and calc-tufa or flowstone overlie the Campbell Rand outcrop outside the project footprint. These Late Caenozoic sediments are generally of low palaeontological sensitivity and no fossils were recorded within them during the present field study. Pockets of high palaeosensitivity – for example assemblages micromammal and other vertebrate remains embedded within karstic fissure-infill and tufa deposits – might occur here, by analogy with Precambrian carbonate outcrops elsewhere in southern Africa (e.g. Namibia), but are impossible to predict.

22 CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (087) 073 5739 Email: [email protected] W eb: www.ctsheritage.com

No macrofossils, including trace fossils, were observed in well-exposed sections through the Kuruman and Daniëlskuil Formations within the broader Kuruman WEF project area. Dendrites – fossil moss- or fern-like pseudofossils composed of the manganense ore pyrolusite -are locally developed on BIF bedding planes. In addition, no palaeontologically-sensitive rock units are traversed by the alternative 132 kV grid connection corridor to Ferrum Substation near Kathu. No fossil remains were recorded during the field-based assessment of the corridor.

Figure 8a: Map of all archaeological observations (listed in Appendix 1) in relation to the proposed development

23 CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (087) 073 5739 Email: [email protected] W eb: www.ctsheritage.com

Figure 8b: Map of all known significant heritage resources in relation to the proposed Phase 1 development

Figure 8c: Map of all known significant heritage resources in relation to the proposed Phase 2 development

24 CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (087) 073 5739 Email: [email protected] W eb: www.ctsheritage.com

Figure 8d: Map of all known significant heritage resources in relation to the proposed Phase 2 development

Figure 8e: Map of all known significant heritage resources in relation to the proposed Phase 2 development

25 CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (087) 073 5739 Email: [email protected] W eb: www.ctsheritage.com

4.4 Selected photographic record

Figures 9.1 and 9.2: Site KUR2 (Bothaskop) and sample of artefacts

Figures 9.3 and 9.4: Site KUR28

Figures 9.5 and 9.6: Site KUR28 rock art and sample of artefacts

26 CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (087) 073 5739 Email: [email protected] W eb: www.ctsheritage.com

Figures 9.7 and 9.8: Site KUR36

Figures 9.9, 9.10 and 9.11: Selection of artefacts from Site KUR36

Figures 9.12: Rock art from Site KUR36 (D-Stretched)

27 CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (087) 073 5739 Email: [email protected] W eb: www.ctsheritage.com

Figures 9.13: Rock art from Site KUR36 (D-Stretched)

Figures 9.14: Rock art from Site KUR36 (D-Stretched)

Figures 9.15 and 9.16: Site KUR37

28 CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (087) 073 5739 Email: [email protected] W eb: www.ctsheritage.com

Figures 9.17: Rock art from Site KUR37 (D-Stretched)

Figures 9.18 and 9.19: Site KUR44

Figures 9.20 and 9.21: Site KUR45

29 CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (087) 073 5739 Email: [email protected] W eb: www.ctsheritage.com

Figures 9.22: Rock art from Site KUR45 (D-Stretched)

Figures 9.23: Rock art from Site KUR45 (D-Stretched)

Figures 9.24 and 9.25: Site KUR46

30 CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (087) 073 5739 Email: [email protected] W eb: www.ctsheritage.com

Figures 9.26: Rock art from Site KUR46 (D-Stretched)

Figures 9.27: Rock art from Site KUR46 (D-Stretched)

Figure 9.28: Selection of tools from sites K UR48, KUR50, KUR51, KUR52, KUR54, KUR55, KUR56 & KUR57

31 CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (087) 073 5739 Email: [email protected] W eb: www.ctsheritage.com

Figure 9.29 and 9.30: Close-up of the thinly interbedded, laterally-persistent pale cherty and dark ferruginous facies typical of the Kuruman Formation BIF (Scale c. 15 cm long) and Flat bedding planes of alternating cherty and ferruginous BIF laminae of the Kuruman Formation showing dispersed sphaeroidal diagnetic concretions up to 1 cm across.

Figure 9.31 and 9.32: Giant (> 10 m wide), gently-domed, elongate stromatolites within the upper Kogelbeen Formation on Rossdale Re/382 (Loc. 364) (Hammer = 30 cm). Detail of stromatolitic lamination within the giant stromatolites. The irregular stromatolitic columns seen here are 3-4 cm wide.

Figure 9.31 and 9.32: Dome-shaped structure (c . 30 cm across) within the Gamohaan Formation showing markedly isopachous internal layering and smaller-scale domes on top – a product of abiogenic seafloor precipitation rather than a true stromatolite and Lilac-grey carbonates of the Tsineng Formation (Loc. 328) showing typical stromatolite-like Liesegang rings that are diagenetic rather than biological in origin (Hammer = 30 cm).

32 CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (087) 073 5739 Email: [email protected] W eb: www.ctsheritage.com

5. ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPACT OF THE DEVELOPMENT

5.1 Assessment of impact to Heritage Resources

Archaeology Overall, the proposed activity (i.e. Phase 1 and 2 of the Kuruman Wind Energy Farm, and associated infrastructure such as internal access roads, powerline route, substations, laydown areas and the proposed grid connection infrastructure), will not directly impact on significant archaeological heritage. The heritage impact significance is rated as being low.

A number of rock art sites were identified during this field assessment. Rock art in this area is rare and as such, these are significant findings. These rock art sites are all located in small caves or rock overhangs. As such, it is very unlikely that the proposed development will directly impact on these sites. In addition, as indicated in Figures 8a to 8e, none of the sites are located within the proposed footprint of the development. In general, however, it is recommended that a 20m buffer area be kept around known rock art sites.

In addition, often increased human activity in proximity to known rock art sites results in negative impact to the rock art sites as a result of inappropriate behaviour at these sites.

DON’T: Dig into the sediment, remove any archaeological material from the site, graffiti the cave walls, wet or add any substance to the rock surface to make the paintings more visible, kick up dust in the cave, touch the paintings, try to chip the paint off or light fires in the caves/overhangs.

DO: Take photographs, report any disturbance to the site, report any evidence of graffiti, respect the rarity and heritage value of rock paintings in the area, be aware that they were made at least a thousand years ago, be reminded that the paintings are part of the irreplaceable heritage of the San and Khoekhoe and their descendants, and if they are damaged by careless behaviour, they cannot be repaired.

Sites TK2A, 7 and 8 located within the footprint of the Phase 2 development are identified as burial grounds or graves, with TK2A associated with a historic farm werf located at TK2. These resources do not fall within the development footprint and as such, should not be directly impacted. However, the proposed Phase 2 electrical infrastructure is located in close proximity to site TK2A. It is therefore recommended that a 50m buffer area be kept around sites TK2 and TK2A.

In addition, the proposed construction yards for Phase 2 are located in close proximity to the burial grounds identified at TK7 and TK8. It is recommended that a 50m buffer area also be kept around these sites, and that access to these sites be permitted to relatives and friends of the deceased wishing to pay their respects.

Palaeontology Given the low overall low palaeosensitivity of the proposed footprint it is concluded that, in terms of palaeontological heritage resources, the impact significance of the Kuruman WEF Phase 1 and 2 is low (negative), both before and after mitigation. This assessment applies to the construction phase and to all relevant components of the WEF infrastructure (e .g. wind turbines, internal and external access roads, underground cabling, on-site substation and construction yards). Significant impacts during the operational and de-commissioning phases are not anticipated. Confidence levels for this assessment are medium, given the low levels of bedrock exposure.

33 CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (087) 073 5739 Email: [email protected] W eb: www.ctsheritage.com

bedrocks proved to be stromatolitic, and hence palaeontologically sensitive, while the BIF of the Kuruman and Daniëlskuil Formations contained no identifiable macrofossils. It is concluded that, in the context of these other alternative energy developments in the broader region, cumulative impacts posed by the Kuruman WEFs (Phase 1 and Phase 2), which are almost entirely underlain by unfossiliferous Asbestos Hills Subgroup BIFs, are of l ow impact significance.

5.2 Cumulative Impacts Of the 72 known heritage studies conducted within 50km of the proposed development area (Table 3), none are for Wind Energy Facilities and only 13 relate to the proposed development of Solar Energy Facilities and PV Plants (highlighted in blue). The remaining assessments relate to the development of housing, road and electricity infrastructure associated with the expansion of Kathu town and the development of new mines and the extension of existing mines. From this it is assumed that the proposed Kuruman WEF Phase 1 project is unique in this area. As such, cumulative impacts on the cultural landscape are limited at this stage.

Comparatively few palaeontological impact assessments are available for proposed and authorised alternative energy projects within a 50 km radius of the Kuruman WEF project area; most impact assessments in this region refer to mining and railway developments. Reports by Almond (2015a, 2015b, 2018) refer to small-scale solar energy projects near Kathu, while Almond (2012b, 2014a and preceding PIA reports listed therein) dealt with solar energy developments in the Postmasburg – Daniëlskuil region, situated some 75 km south of the present study area. Field studies on similar Precambrian bedrock units to those encountered in the Kuruman WEF project area – notably the Campbell Rand and Asbestos Hills Subgroups - are covered by Almond (2012b, 2013a and 2014b) in particular. In general, the carbonate bedrocks proved to be stromatolitic, and hence palaeontologically sensitive, while the BIF of the Kuruman and Daniëlskuil Formations contained no identifiable macrofossils. It is concluded that, in the context of these other alternative energy developments in the broader region, cumulative impacts posed by the Kuruman WEF (Phase 1), which are almost entirely underlain by unfossiliferous Asbestos Hills Subgroup BIFs, are of low impact significance.

Figure 10: Map of all known heritage studies conducted within 50km of the proposed development area

34 CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (087) 073 5739 Email: [email protected] W eb: www.ctsheritage.com

Table 3: HIA’s conducted within 50km of the proposed development area

Heritage Impact Assessments within 50km

Report Nid Author/s Date Title Type

A REPORT ON ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENTS (AIA’S) FOR Anton PROPOSED HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS ON ERVEN 83 AND 2467, KURUMAN, 471 AIA Phase 1 Pelser 01/06/2012 IN THE NORTHERN CAPE Cultural Heritage Resources Impact Assessment of Erf 5041 (Portion of Erf 1) 697 AIA Phase 1 Udo Kusel 02/06/2011 Kuruman Municipality Ga-Segonyana Administrative District Northern Cape Phase 1 Heritage Impact Assessment Report on a Portion of the Remainder of Peter the Farm Sekgame 461, Kathu, Gamagara Municipality, Northern Cape 4116 AIA Phase 1 Beaumont 06/02/2008 Province Peter Phase 1 Heritage Impact Assessment Report on Portion 463/8 of the Farm 4117 AIA Phase 1 Beaumont 07/02/2008 Uitkoms 463, near Kathu, Kgalagadi Municipality, Northern Cape Province Report on a Phase 1 Archaeological Assessment of Proposed Mining Areas of David the Farms Bruce, King, Mokaning and Parson, Between Postmasburg and 4372 AIA Phase 1 Morris 01/02/2005 Kathu, Northern Cape Cobus Archaeological and Historical Investigation of the Proposed New Road from 4373 AIA Phase 1 Dreyer 20/06/2005 Vergenoeg to Maruping (Moropeng), Kuruman District, Northern Cape Cobus Archaeological and Historical Investigation of the Site for the Proposed New 4374 AIA Phase 1 Dreyer 20/06/2005 Maruping Sport Stadium, Kuruman District, Northern Cape Cobus Archaeological and Historical Investigation of the Proposed New Sport 4375 AIA Phase 1 Dreyer 20/06/2005 Stadium at Geelboom, Kuruman District, Northern Cape Phase 1 Heritage Impact Assessment Report on Erf 1439, Remainder of Erf Peter 2974 and Remainder of Portion 1 of the Farm Uitkoms No 463, and Farms 4376 AIA Phase 1 Beaumont 30/04/2006 Kathu 465 and Sims 462 at and near Kathu in the Northern Cape Province Peter Phase 1 Heritage Impact Assessment Report on Portion 5 of the Farm 4378 AIA Phase 1 Beaumont 30/05/2006 Uitkoms 463, Kgalagadi District, Northern Cape Province Peter Phase 1 Heritage Impact Assessment Report on Portions A and B of the Farm 4379 AIA Phase 1 Beaumont 31/05/2006 Sims 462, Kgalagadi District, Northern Cape Province Cobus First Phase Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Assessment of the Proposed 4380 AIA Phase 1 Dreyer 28/06/2006 Residential Developments at the Farm Hartnolls 458, Kathu, Northern Cape A Phase 1 Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) Study for the Proposed New United Manganese of Kalahari (Umk) Mine on the Farms Botha 313, Smartt Julius CC 314 and Rissik 330 near Hotazhel in the Northern Cape Province of South 4381 AIA Phase 1 Pistorius 01/08/2006 Africa Supplementary Archaeological Impact Assessment Report on Sites near or on Peter the Farm Hartnolls 458, Kgalagadi District Municipality, Northern Cape 4383 AIA Phase 1 Beaumont 17/01/2007 Province

Phase 1 Heritage Impact Assessment Report on Six Borrow Pits on Communal Peter Ground Along the D320 Road from Batlharos to Tsineng, near Kuruman, in 4384 AIA Phase 1 Beaumont 06/03/2007 the Northern Cape Province Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment Report on Portion 459/49 of the Peter Farm Bestwood 459 at Kathu, Kgalagadi District Municipality, Northern Cape 4387 AIA Phase 1 Beaumont 12/06/2008 Province

4390 AIA Phase 1 Jonathan 01/08/2008 An Archaeological Assessment of Three Borrow Pits Alongside D300

35 CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (087) 073 5739 Email: [email protected] W eb: www.ctsheritage.com

Kaplan Mothibistad, Northern Cape Province

First Phase Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Assessment of the Proposed Cobus Residential Developments at a Portion of the Remainder of the Farm 4391 AIA Phase 1 Dreyer 11/08/2008 Bestwood 459 Rd, Kathu, Northern Cape Lita Webley, Phase 1 Heritage Impact Assessment: Proposed Prospecting on the Farms Dave Adams 328 and Erin 316, Kuruman, Ga-Segonyana Municipality in the 4393 HIA Phase 1 Halkett 01/10/2008 Northern Cape Peter 4596 AIA Phase 1 Beaumont 01/05/2004 Heritage EIA of Two Areas at Sishen Iron Ore Mine Peter Heritage Impact Assessment of an Area of the Sishen Iron Ore Mine that may 4597 AIA Phase 1 Beaumont 01/10/2005 be Covered by the Vliegveldt Waste Dump HIA Letter of Peter Heritage Impact Assessment for EMPR Amendment for Crusher at Sishen Iron 4598 Exemption Beaumont 15/10/2005 Ore Mine Archaeological and Heritage Phase 1 Impact Assessment for Proposed David Upgrading of Sishen Mine Diesel Depot Storage Capacity at Kathu, Northern 4603 AIA Phase 1 Morris 01/09/2008 Cape

First Phase Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Assessment of the Proposed Cobus Bourke Project, Ballast Site and Crushing Plant at Bruce Mine, Dingleton, near 6355 AIA Phase 1 Dreyer 10/12/2008 Kathu, Northern Cape Jonathan Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment: Proposed Housing Development, 6639 AIA Phase 1 Kaplan 01/09/2008 Erf 5168, Kathu, Northern Cape Province A Phase I Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) Study for a Proposed New HIA Letter of Julius CC Power Line for the United Manganese of Kalahari (UMK) Mine near Hotazel in 6720 Exemption Pistorius 01/04/2008 the Northern Cape Province of South Africa

Peter Archaeological Impact Assessment: Archaeological Scoping Survey for the 6804 AIA Phase 1 Beaumont 01/04/2000 Purpose of an EMPR for the Sishen Iron Ore Mine

PROPOSED KATHU-SISHEN SOLAR ENERGY FACILITIES. SPECIALIST INPUT FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT PHASE AND David ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED KATHU SISHEN 7038 AIA Phase 1 Morris 07/11/2010 SOLAR ENERGY FACILITIES, NORTHERN CAPE

Thomas 7930 AIA Phase 1 Huffman 01/04/2001 Draft Archaeological Survey of the Smartt/Rissik Mine, Northern Cape

Heritage Impact Assessment: Ntsimbintle Mining (Pty) Ltd on Portions 1, 2, 3 and 8 of the Farm Mamatwan 331 and the Farm Moab 700 in the Kgalagadi 8460 HIA Phase 1 H Steyn 25/03/2009 District Municipality of the Northern Cape Province BRIEF PALAEONTOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (Desktop Study) John PROPOSED KATHU & SISHEN SOLAR ENERGY FACILITIES Portions 4 & 6 of the 8944 PIA Phase 1 Pether 17/01/2011 Farm WINCANTON 472 Kuruman District, Northern Cape

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SCOPING REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED PROSPECTING FOR IRON ORE AND MANGANESE ORE FOR AMARI MANGANESE (PTY) LTD Heritage Tobias ON THE FARMS CONSTANTIA 309, SIMONDIUM 308 AND PORTIONS 1, 2, 3 49754 Scoping Coetzee 31/07/2012 AND 8 OF THE FARM GOOLD 329 IN THE VICINITY OF District Municipality:

Archaeologic REPORT ON A HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT (AIA) FOR THE PROPOSED al Specialist Anton PHOTO-VOLTAIC SOLAR POWER GENERATION PLANT ON THE FARM ADAMS 83651 Reports Pelser 01/04/2012 328 NEAR HOTAZEL IN THE NORTHERN CAPE 93163 HIA Phase 1 Stephan 09/05/2012 Heritage Impact Assessment Report Environmental Impact Assessment

36 CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (087) 073 5739 Email: [email protected] W eb: www.ctsheritage.com

Gaigher Phase: Proposed Establishment of the San Solar Energy Facility, Located North of Kathu on a Portion of Farm Wincanton 472, Northern Cape Province

CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCES IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF ERF 5041 (PORTION OF ERF 1) KURUMAN MUNICIPALITY GA-SEGONYANA 104467 HIA Phase 1 Udo Kusel 02/06/2011 ADMINISTRATIVE DISTRICT NORTHERN CAPE PROVINCE Phase 1 archaelogical impact assessment report on a portion of the farm Christine Lylyveld 545 near Kathu, Kagalagadi District Municipality, Northern Cape 108346 AIA Phase 1 Vivier 12/11/2009 province. Archaeological impact assessment (AIA) of demarcated surface areas on the Neels farms Fritz 540, Gamagara 541, Sishen 543 and Parsons 564, Sishen Iron Ore 108351 AIA Phase 1 Kruger 01/04/2012 Mine Complex, Kgalagadi District Municipality, Northen Cape province.

HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT PHASE Proposed establishment of the San Solar Energy Facility Stephan located south of Kathu on a Portion of the Farm Wincanton 472, Northern 110652 HIA Phase 1 Gaigher 01/02/2013 Cape Province

ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (AIA) OF DERMACAED SURFACE AREAS ON THE FARMS GAMAGARA 541, ONVERWACHT 540 (FRITZ 540 Nelius PORTION 1) AND NOOITGEDACHT 469 (WOON 469), SISHEN IRON ORE MINE, 108970 AIA Phase 1 Kruger 01/09/2012 KGALAGADI DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY, NORTHERN CAPE PROVINCE.

AIA REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED EXTENSION OF AN ABANDONED GRAVEL Jaco van PIT ON THE FARM HARVARD 171 IN THE KUDUMANE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 109330 AIA Phase 1 der Walt 12/12/2012 13KM EAST OF KURUMAN HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT PHASE Proposed establishment of the San Solar Energy Facility Heritage Stephan located south of Kathu on a Portion of the Farm Wincanton 472, Northern 109484 Statement Gaigher 09/05/2012 Cape Province. HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT PHASE Proposed establishment of the San Solar Energy Facility Stephan located north of Kathu on a Portion of the Farm Wincanton 472, Northern 110765 HIA Phase 1 Gaigher 26/02/2013 Cape Province Palaeontological specialist assessment: desktop study PROPOSED 16 MTPA EXPANSION OF TRANSNET’S EXISTING MANGANESE ORE EXPORT RAILWAY John E LINE & ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE BETWEEN HOTAZEL AND THE PORT 114648 PIA Desktop Almond 01/09/2012 OF NGQURA, NORTHERN & EASTERN CAPE. Part 1: Hotazel to K PHASE 1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT SPECIALIST STUDY REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED PROSPECTING FOR MINING OF MINERALS ON Munyadzi PORTIONS 1, 2 REMAINDER EXTENT OF THE FARM 219 AND LOWER wa KURUMAN 219 IN KURUMAN AREA WITHIN GA-SEGONYANA LOCAL 116859 AIA Phase 1 Magoma 08/04/2013 MUNICIPALITY, JOHN GAET

PHASE 2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL PERMIT MITIGATION REPORT ON A ~0.7 HA PORTION OF THE FARM BESTWOOD 549, SITUATED ON THE EASTERN Peter OUTSKIRTS OF KATHU, JOHN TAOLO GAETSEWE DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY, 123399 AIA Phase 2 Beaumont 15/05/2013 NORTHERN CAPE PROVINCE.

Archaeological Impact Assessment For The Proposed Prospecting Right of a Jaco van Quarry On The Farm Gamohaan 438 Portion 1 In The Kuruman Magisterial 128171 AIA Phase 1 der Walt 08/08/2013 District Elize Phase 1 Heritage Impact Assessment Hotazel to Kimberley and De Aar to Port 129751 HIA Phase 1 Becker 20/02/2013 of Ngqura

37 CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (087) 073 5739 Email: [email protected] W eb: www.ctsheritage.com

Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment specialist study report for the Munyadzi proposed development of prospecting rights of iron ore and manganese on wa remaining extent of Mashwening 557 in Khathu, within the Local Municipality 145005 AIA Phase 1 Magoma 01/07/2013 of Gamagara, John Taolo Gaetsewe

Johnny Heritage impact assessment for the proposed estate development on the Van farm Kalahari Golf and Jag Landgoed 775, KATHU, NORTHERN CAPE 152157 HIA Phase 1 Schalkwyk 15/05/2012 PROVINCE Heritage Impact Assessment HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT: PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL Specialist Robert de DEVELOPMENT AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE ON A 200 HA PORTION 152170 Reports Jong 03/09/2008 OF THE FARM BESTWOOD 429 RD AT KATHU, NORTHERN CAPE PROVINCE

FIRST PHASE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL HERITAGE ASSESSMENT OF Cobus THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS AT A PORTION OF THE 152171 AIA Phase 1 Dreyer 11/08/2008 REMAINDER OF THE FARM BESTWOOD 459RD, KATHU, NORTHERN CAPE Heritage Impact Assessment Specialist Robert de Kalahari Solar Power Project Heritage Impact Assessment Report and 153307 Reports Jong 22/02/2011 Heritage Management Plan developed by Robert De Jong and Associates

Archaeological Impact Assessment for Assmang Ltd - Black Rock Mine 156525 AIA Phase 1 02/09/2013 Operations on a demarcated section of Erf 01 Kuruman

Rectification and/or regularistion of activities relating to the Bestwood David Township development near Kathu, Northern Cape: Phase 1 Archaeological 156617 AIA Phase 1 Morris 01/02/2014 Impact Assessment Heritage Scoping Report for the Proposed Kalahari Solar Project on Portions Heritage R. C. De of the Farm Kathu 465, Kuruman Registration Division, Gamagara Local 157923 Scoping Jong 10/12/2010 Municipality, Northern Cape Province Johnny Archaeological impact survey report for THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF Van A SOLAR POWER PLANT ON THE FARM BESTWOOD 459, KATHU REGION, 159473 AIA Phase 1 Schalkwyk NORTHERN CAPE PROVINCE

Johnny Archaeological impact survey report for THE PROPOSED KALAHARI SOLAR Van PARK DEVELOPMENT ON THE FARM KATHU 465, NORTHERN CAPE 160089 AIA Phase 1 Schalkwyk PROVINCE Tobias Archaeological Impact Assessment for the proposed Mamatwan Manganese 160188 AIA Phase 1 Coetzee 02/09/2013 Mine Stephan Proposed Establishment of Several Electricity Distribution Lines within the 161427 HIA Phase 1 Gaigher 15/04/2014 Northern Cape Province Request: Exemption from having to conduct an archaeological assessment, HIA Letter of the proposed reuse of an existing borrow pit at Mothibistad near Kuruman, 162320 Exemption 19/04/2014 Northern Cape

ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (AIA) OF A DEMARCATED SURFACE PORTION ON THE FARM SHIRLEY 367 FOR THE PROPOSED SHIRLEY PHOTOVOLTAIC POWER PLANT AND POWER LINE DEVELOPMENT, Neels GAMAGARA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY, JOHN TAOLO GAETSEWE DISTRICT 165295 AIA Phase 1 Kruger 18/05/2014 MUNICIPALITY, NORTHERN

Heritage Jonathan HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT PROPOSED MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT IN 167779 Impact Kaplan 30/06/2014 KATHU, NORTHERN CAPE PROVINCE Remainder & Portion 1 of the Farm Sims

38 CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (087) 073 5739 Email: [email protected] W eb: www.ctsheritage.com

Assessment 462, Kuruman RD Specialist Reports ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (AIA) OF DEMARCATED SURFACE PORTIONS ON THE FARMS SACHA 468, SIMS 462 AND SEKGAME 461 FOR THE PROPOSED STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE (CLEAN WATER CUT-OFF Neels BERM & GROUNDWATER DAM) FOR THE SISHEN MINE, KATHU, NORTHERN 170455 AIA Phase 1 Kruger 31/03/2014 CAPE PROVI ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (AIA) OF DEMARCATED SURFACE PORTIONS ON THE FARMS SACHA 468 AND WOON 469 FOR THE PROPOSED HIGH ENERGY FUEL PLANT AND RAILWAY SIDING, SISHEN IRON ORE MINE, Neels JOHN TAOLO GAETSEWE DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY, NORTHERN CAPE 170460 AIA Phase 1 Kruger 31/01/2014 PROVINCE

ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (AIA) OF DEMARCATED SURFACE PORTIONS ON THE FARMS SACHA 468 AND WOON 469 FOR THE PROPOSED HIGH ENERGY FUEL PLANT AND RAILWAY SIDING, SISHEN IRON ORE MINE, Neels JOHN TAOLO GAETSEWE DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY, NORTHERN CAPE 174359 AIA Phase 1 Kruger 25/08/2014 PROVINCE

Heritage Impact Assessment Specialist Jayson Heritage Impact Assessment for a Proposed 132 kV Power Line, Kuruman 251329 Reports Orton 20/02/2015 Magisterail District, Northern Cape

Heritage Impact Marko Assessment Hutten, Heritage Impact Assessment for the Proposed Kathu Supplier Park on parts Specialist Polke of the Remainder and on Portion 9 of the Farm Sekgame 461 on the southern 252975 Reports Birkholtz 18/07/2014 side of the town of Kathu in the Gamagara Local Municipality, Northern Cape. Jayson Archaeologic Orton, al Specialist Steven Archaeological Survey for the Proposed Kalahari Solar Project, Kuruman 272118 Reports Walker 20/04/2015 Magisterial District, NC Province

Heritage Impact Assessment Heritage Impact Assessment for the Proposed Establishment of a Grazing Specialist Polke Project on a Portion of the Farm Marsh 467, Dingleton, Gamagara Local 273602 Reports Birkholtz 20/04/2015 Municipality, Northern Cape.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (AIA) OF DEMARCATED SURFACE PORTIONS ON THE FARM SEKGAME 461 FOR THE PROPOSED SEKGAME Neels ELECTRICITY INFRASTRUCTURE EXPANSION PROJECT, SISHEN MINE, 279906 AIA Phase 1 Kruger 02/12/2014 NORTHERN CAPE PROVINCE ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (AIA) OF AREAS DEMARACTED FOR THE PROPOSED LYLEVELD NORTH WASTE ROCK DUMP EXPANSION AND Neels LYLEVELD SOUTH HAUL ROAD EXTENSION PROJECT, SISHEN MINE, 294454 AIA Phase 1 Kruger 05/04/2015 NORTHERN CAPE PROVINCE

39 CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (087) 073 5739 Email: [email protected] W eb: www.ctsheritage.com

6. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that a Heritage Conservation Management Plan be developed for the WEF to ensure that heritage resources are continuously managed throughout the construction and operational phases of the development. This CMP must be required as a condition of Environmental Authorisation.

Rock Art - All rock art sites (Sites KUR28, KUR36, KUR37, KUR44, KUR45, KUR46 and TK1, TK3, TK4 and TK5), must be avoided and should not be visited. Location of rock art sites should not be made public. The location of these sites can be identified in site development plans and in the CMP. - A no-go buffer zone of 20m must be kept around each rock art site

Palaeontology All of the palaeontologically significant fossil sites identified (See Appendix 2 for gps data and short descriptions) are associated with small outcrop areas of Campbell Rand Subgroup carbonate bedrocks that lie o utside and east of the WEF development footprint. These areas should be designated as no-go areas and protected from any disturbance or development during the construction phase.

Should substantial fossil remains be encountered at surface or exposed during construction, the ECO should safeguard these, preferably i n situ. They should then alert the South African Heritage Resources Agency as soon as possible (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). This is to ensure that appropriate action (i .e. r ecording, sampling or collection of fossils, recording of relevant geological data) can be taken by a professional palaeontologist at the proponent’s expense. A procedure for Chance Fossil Finds is tabulated in Appendix 2. These recommendations must be incorporated in the Environmental Management Programme for the WEF project.

The above recommendations must be incorporated into the Environmental Management Programme (EMPr) for the proposed development.

40 CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (087) 073 5739 Email: [email protected] W eb: www.ctsheritage.com

7. REFERENCES

Heritage Impact Assessments

Report Nid Author/s Date Title Type

123045 AIA Cobus Dreyer 26/06/2013 Report Eskom Garona Ferrum Mercury Heritage Impact Assessment Report: Proposed Residential Development 152170 HIA Robert de Jong 03/09/2008 And Associated Infrastructure On A 200 Ha Portion Of The Farm Bestwood 429 Rd At Kathu, Northern Cape Province First Phase Archaeological And Cultural Heritage Assessment Of The 152171 AIA Cobus Dreyer 11/08/2008 Proposed Residential Developments At A Portion Of The Remainder Of The Farm Bestwood 459rd, Kathu, Northern Cape Rectification and/or regularisation of activities relating to the Bestwood 156617 AIA David Morris 01/02/2014 Township development near Kathu, Northern Cape: Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment Anton van 163959 HIA 17/03/2014 HIA Eskom Manganore to Ferrum Scoping Phase Vollenhoven Archaeological Impact Assessment Of Demarcated Surface Portions On The Farms Sacha 468, Sims 462 And Sekgame 461 For The Proposed 170455 AIA Neels Kruger 31/03/2014 Stormwater Infrastructure (clean Water Cut-off Berm & Groundwater Dam) For The Sishen Mine, Kathu, Northern Cape Province. First Phase Archaeological & Heritage Assessment Of the Proposed 170660 AIA Cobus Dreyer 31/01/2014 Vaal-gamagara Water Pipeline Project, Northern Cape First Phase Archaeological And Heritage Assessment Of the Proposed 170664 AIA Cobus Dreyer 28/09/2012 Vaal-gamagara Water Pipeline Project, Northern Cape First Phase Archaeological And Heritage Assessment Of The Proposed 170666 AIA Cobus Dreyer 31/12/2013 Vaal-gamagara Water Pipeline Project, Northern Cape Archaeological Impact Assessment Of Demarcated Surface Portions On The 279906 AIA Neels Kruger 02/12/2014 Farm Sekgame 461 For The Proposed Sekgame Electricity Infrastructure Expansion Project, Sishen Mine, Northern Cape Province Archaeological Impact Assessment Of Areas Demaracted For The Proposed 294454 AIA Neels Kruger 05/04/2015 Lyleveld North Waste Rock Dump Expansion And Lyleveld South Haul Road Extension Project, Sishen Mine, Northern Cape Province Phase 1 Heritage Impact Assessment of the 2.3 km long 40478 324952 HIA Lloyd Rossouw 07/07/2015 Vaal-Gamagara water pipeline alternative route around Kathu Pan, Northern Cape Province Anton van 329708 HIA 01/11/2014 HIA Eskom Manganore-Ferrum for EIA Phase Vollenhoven An archaeological scoping assessment of the remainder and portion 1 6339 AIA David Halkett 24/08/2009 (Tierkop) of farm Bramcote 446, Northern Cape Priovince.

Palaeontological Impact Assessments

Report Nid Author/s Date Title Type

Palaeontological Specialist Assessment: Desktop Study Proposed 16 Mtpa Expansion Of Transnet’s Existing Manganese Ore Export Railway Line & 114648 PIA John E Almond 01/09/2012 Associated Infrastructure Between Hotazel And The Port Of Ngqura, Northern & Eastern Cape.

41 CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (087) 073 5739 Email: [email protected] W eb: www.ctsheritage.com

Web References

http://pza.sanbi.org/vegetation/nama-karoo-biom http://pza.sanbi.org/vachellia-erioloba http://pza.sanbi.org/sites/default/files/info_library/camelthorns_khathu_pdf.pdf http://www.museumsnc.co.za/aboutus/depts/education/GuidePlants.pdf https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925509000857

42 CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (087) 073 5739 Email: [email protected] W eb: www.ctsheritage.com

APPENDICES

43 CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (087) 073 5739 Email: [email protected] W eb: www.ctsheritage.com

APPENDIX 1: Complete Table of Archaeological Observations

Lat/Long Description Grading Mitigation Site Name Site No.

S27° 42.712' CCS /chalcedony core and flake on steep rocky slope heading up NCW None required Kuruman WEF 1 KUR 1 E23° 17.291' to Bothaskop

S27° 42.832' Dispersed scatter of LSA tools (mostly CCS & chert, but some Grade IIIC None required Kuruman WEF 2 KUR 2 E23° 17.326' banded ironstone) on top of Bothaskop (excellent views all round)

S27° 42.686' Large banded ironstone flakes & chunks and ESA flake in gravel NCW None required Kuruman WEF 3 KUR 3 E23° 17.451' road/powerline servitude

S27° 42.716' A few ESA tools in powerline servitude below Bothaskop NCW None required Kuruman WEF 4 KUR 4 E23° 17.063'

S27° 42.841' Dispersed LSA and ESA tools in eroded lands below Bothaskop NCW None required Kuruman WEF 5 KUR 5 E23° 16.980'

S27° 42.340' Banded ironstone flakes and chunks on rocky slopes above NCW None required Kuruman WEF 6 KUR 6 E23° 18.388' powerline servitude

S27° 41.440' Banded ironstone ESA biface/hand axe near animal camp NCW None required Kuruman WEF 7 KUR 7 E23° 19.340'

S27° 41.553' A few large banded ironstone tools (retouched flakes, chunks) on NCW None required Kuruman WEF 8 KUR 8 E23° 19.234' extensive scatter of ironstone gravels

S27° 41.641' A few large banded ironstone tools (retouched flakes and chunks) NCW None required Kuruman WEF 9 KUR 9 E23° 19.059' on large surface scatter of ironstone gravels

S27° 41.668' A few large banded ironstone tools (retouched flakes, chunks, core) NCW None required Kuruman WEF KUR 10 E23° 19.014' on scatter of ironstone gravels 10

S27° 41.691' A few banded ironstone tools (retouched flakes, chunks) on scatter NCW None required Kuruman WEF 11 KUR 11 E23° 18.980' of ironstone gravels

S27° 41.730' A few banded ironstone tools(flakes, chunks, flaked chunk/core) on NCW None required Kuruman WEF KUR 12 E23° 18.923' surface scatter of ironstone gravels 12

S27° 41.743' A few banded ironstone tools (retouched flakes, flaked / retouched NCW None required Kuruman WEF KUR 13 E23° 18.909' chunks) on surface scatter of ironstone gravels 13

S27° 41.796' A few banded ironstone tools (flakes, chunks) on surface scatter of NCW None required Kuruman WEF KUR 14 E23° 18.849' ironstone gravels 14

S27° 41.851' A few banded ironstone tools (retouched / utilized flakes, flaked NCW None required Kuruman WEF KUR 15 E23° 18.797' chunks) on scatter of ironstone gravels 15

S27° 41.878' A few banded ironstone tools (flakes, flaked chunks, round core) on NCW None required Kuruman WEF KUR 16 E23° 18.771' scatter of ironstone gravels 16

S27° 41.946' A few banded ironstone tools (retouched flakes, chunks/ retouched NCW None required Kuruman WEF 17 KUR 17 E23° 18.656' chunk) on scatter of ironstone gravels

S27° 41.969' A few ironstone tools (flakes and chunks) on scatter of ironstone NCW None required Kuruman WEF KUR 18 E23° 18.625' gravels 18

S27° 41.999' Several banded ironstone tools (flakes, chunks) on scatter of NCW None required Kuruman WEF KUR 19 E23° 18.606' ironstone gravels 19

S27° 42.116' Flakes and flaked chunks in banded ironstone tools on scatter of NCW None required Kuruman WEF KUR 20 E23° 18.460' ironstone gravels 20

S27° 41.972' A few banded ironstone tools (retouched flakes & chunks) on NCW None required Kuruman WEF KUR 21 E23° 18.815' scatter of ironstone gravels 21

S27° 41.753' Low density scatter of banded ironstone retouched/utilized tools NCW None required Kuruman WEF KUR 22 E23° 19.074' on surface scatter ironstone gravels 22

44 CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (087) 073 5739 Email: [email protected] W eb: www.ctsheritage.com

S27° 41.641' A few banded ironstone tools (flakes, chunks) on surface layer of NCW None required Kuruman WEF KUR 23 E23° 19.218' ironstone gravels 23

S27° 41.583' A few banded ironstone tools (retouched flakes, flaked chunks) on NCW None required Kuruman WEF KUR 24 E23° 19.229' surface layer of ironstone gravels 24

S27° 40.702' Low density scatter of banded ironstone tools (flaked/utilized NCW None required Kuruman WEF KUR 25 E23° 21.594' chunks, flakes, core) on extensive, dense scatter of ironstone 25 gravels alongside district gravel road (Between Point 10 & 11)

S27° 32.218' Low density scatter of large, banded ironstone tools (flakes, NCW None required Kuruman WEF KUR 26 E23° 22.695' retouched flakes, chunky retouched blades, chunks, flaked chunks, 26 denticulate flake) on extensive scatter of iron stone gravels on hill top turbine site

S27° 35.066' A few dispersed banded ironstone tools (chunks and flakes) on NCW None required Kuruman WEF KUR 27 E23° 23.849' extensive, disturbed ironstone gravels (hunting camp) 27

S27° 35.775' Banded ironstone rock overhang / shelter on steep north facing Grade IIIA None required, will Kuruman WEF KUR 28 E23° 22.631' grass covered slope. Very faded rock art (finger stripes) in red not be impacted by 28 ochre. Small collection of LSA stone tools including denticulate proposed flake, retouched flakes, chunks, convex scraper, core in chert , construction banded ironstone, indurated shale and chert. No pottery or OES activities.

S27° 35.878' Banded iron stone flake and chunks on hilltop site NCW None required Kuruman WEF KUR 29 E23° 22.804' 29

S27° 35.931' Banded iron stone chunk on hilltop site NCW None required Kuruman WEF KUR 30 E23° 22.869' 30

S27° 34.553' Banded ironstone retouched flake and chunk in steep gravel NCW None required Kuruman WEF KUR 31 E23° 22.125' access road and on rocky hilltop site 31

S27° 34.036' Banded ironstone chunk in gravel road NCW None required Kuruman WEF KUR 32 E23° 24.400' 32

S27° 34.007' Banded ironstone retouched / utilized flake in gravel road and NCW None required Kuruman WEF KUR 33 E23° 24.478' hilltop turbine site 33

S27° 34.189' Banded ironstone flaked chunk in footprint area of WEF substation NCW None required Kuruman WEF KUR 34 E23° 23.026' 34

S27° 34.227' Banded ironstone retouched flake and several chunk/flaked NCW None required Kuruman WEF KUR 35 E23° 23.110' chunks below top soils on compact patch of sand in footprint area 35 of WEF substation

S27° 31.652' Rock art site – banded ironstone overhang at base of cliff. Grade IIIA None required, will Kuruman WEF KUR 36 E23° 24.557' Shallow, trampled, disturbed bedrock archaeological deposit. not be impacted by 36 Relatively large number of LSA tools inside shelter and rocky construction boulder covered slopes. Mostly in banded iron stone, CCS & activities chert. No pottery or OES. Extensive, enigmatic rock art, All rock art sites to geometric finger painted images, finger stripes, finger dots, be avoided superimposing, `formlings’, indeterminate faded human figures, possible bags; ?cave scene (aggregation site). All monochrome red ochre, but some orange. Large site runs alongside the base of the cliff for about 75/80m; extensive concentrated rock art on wall and ledges. Possibly earlier LSA and later ?Herder style

S27° 33.700' Rock art site, shallow trampled bedrock archaeological deposit. Grade IIIA None required, will Kuruman WEF KUR 37 E23° 24.900' Small number of LSA tools in shelter, and on steep rocky and not be impacted by 37 grass covered slope. Enigmatic and faded monochrome art construction (painted geometric finger strips) in red ochre. No pottery. One activities fragment of weathered OES.

S27° 35.174' Banded ironstone chunk on hilltop NCW None required Kuruman WEF KUR 38 E23° 25.216' 38

S27° 34.676' A few banded ironstone chunks and flake on extensive gravel / NCW None required Kuruman WEF KUR 39 E23° 24.745' water reservoir on hilltop 39

45 CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (087) 073 5739 Email: [email protected] W eb: www.ctsheritage.com

S27° 33.718' Banded ironstone chunk on hilltop NCW None required Kuruman WEF KUR 40 E23° 24.394' 40

S27° 32.936' Banded ironstone chunk on hilltop NCW None required Kuruman WEF KUR 41 E23° 23.988' 41

S27° 33.577' Quartz core in small animal track NCW None required Kuruman WEF KUR 42 E23° 24.543' 42

S27° 33.593' Lower grindstone near small dry stream coming off the mountain NCW None required Kuruman WEF KUR 43 E23° 24.836' 43

S27° 33.692' Shallow banded ironstone shelter / overhang at base of cliff; Grade IIIA None required, will Kuruman WEF KUR 44 E23° 24.897' very faded, indeterminate monochrome art (red ochre), faded not be impacted by 44 geometric painted images / stripes; trampled bedrock construction archaeological deposit, a few LSA stone flakes inside overhang activities and on steep rocky slopes

S27° 34.090' Large, painted, tiered rock shelter ± 60-70m long, above steep Grade IIIA None required, will Kuruman WEF KUR 45 E23° 25.010' rocky and grass covered slope. Relatively well preserved not be impacted by 45 paintings (but also faded art), including inverted crescents, construction serpent like shapes, geometric finger paintings/stripes. activities `formlings’, superimposition and indeterminate art. Possible human figures; bags/?tassels; cave scene. Extensive panel of rock art. Red, yellow and orange ochre. Possible Karros clad (hook headed) figures. Shallow trampled bedrock archaeological deposit, with stone artefacts, inc. CCS, ?lydianite, and some banded ironstone. No pottery or OES. Art possibly earlier LSA and later ?Herder style. Maybe another aggregation site

S27° 34.708' Small, painted rock shelter / overhang with shallow bedrock Grade IIIA None required, will Kuruman WEF KUR 46 E23° 25.364' deposit and stone implements in CCS and banded ironstone. No not be impacted by 46 pottery. Enigmatic art, geometric finger paintings, faded and construction indeterminate ?human figures in red, orange and white ochre activities

S27° 29.094' Ironstone flake on surface scatter of gravels NCW None required Kuruman WEF KUR 47 E23° 24.623' 47

S27° 29.053' CCS flake on thin scatter of gravel/red windblown sands NCW None required Kuruman WEF KUR 48 E23° 24.666' 48

S27° 28.875' Ironstone chunk on gravelly patch of red windblown sands NCW None required Kuruman WEF KUR 49 E23° 24.836' 49

S27° 28.800' CCS chunk, ironstone flake and chunk on gravelly patch of red NCW None required Kuruman WEF KUR 50 E23° 24.920' windblown sand 50

S27° 28.745' CCS chunk NCW None required Kuruman WEF KUR 51 E23° 24.965' 51

S27° 28.705' CCS flake and chunk on thin scatter of gravel/windblown sands NCW None required Kuruman WEF KUR 52 E23° 25.000' 52

S27° 28.654' Several banded ironstone flakes and chunks among surface Grade IIIC None required Kuruman WEF KUR 53 E23° 25.004' outcropping of banded ironstone on slight elevation in 53 powerline servitude. Large Acacia marks the site

S27° 28.742' Several black CCS flakes on thin scatter of gravels / windblown red NCW None required Kuruman WEF KUR 54 E23° 24.939' sands in powerline servitude 54

S27° 29.021' 2 CCS blackish flakes, chunks, grooved quartz chunk on thin scatter NCW None required Kuruman WEF KUR 55 E23° 24.622' of gravels / windblown red sands in powerline servitude 55

S27° 29.154' A few banded ironstone retouched flakes and chunks, on patch of NCW None required Kuruman WEF KUR 56 E23° 24.196' ironstone gravels in powerline servitude 56

S27° 29.155' A few banded ironstone flakes, chunks & a core on patch of NCW None required Kuruman WEF KUR 57 E23° 24.146' ironstone gravels in powerline servitude 57

46 CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (087) 073 5739 Email: [email protected] W eb: www.ctsheritage.com

S27° 29.135' A few banded ironstone retouched flakes and chunks on patches of NCW None required Kuruman WEF KUR 58 E23° 24.099' ironstone gravels in powerline servitude 58

S27° 42.832' Scatter on Bothaskop – CCS/chert LSA blades chunks, flakes Grade IIIC None required Kuruman WEF KUR 59 E23° 17.327' 59

S27° 42.723' Large banded ironstone flake, chunks in powerline servitude NCW None required Kuruman WEF KUR 60 E23° 17.532' 60

S27° 42.390' Quartz core – Bothaskop farm NCW None required Kuruman WEF KUR 61 E23° 18.485' 61

S27° 41.376' Banded ironstone flake alongside fence line NCW None required Kuruman WEF KUR 62 E23° 19.578' 62

S27° 41.371' semi-formal circle of stone alongside fence line, no artefactual NCW None required Kuruman WEF KUR 63 E23° 19.600' material 63

S27° 41.373' Banded ironstone flake NCW None required Kuruman WEF KUR 64 E23° 19.619' 64

S27° 32.324' Low density scatter of ironstone flakes, chunky retouched flakes NCW None required Kuruman WEF KUR 65 E23° 22.780' and blade tools, on hilltop site 65

S27° 35.576' Rock overhang on boundary of Woodstock Farm, some Grade IIIA None required Kuruman WEF KUR 66 E23° 22.420' extremely faded art 66

S27° 34.457' Banded ironstone flake on hilltop NCW None required Kuruman WEF KUR 67 E23° 22.201' 67

S27° 34.448' Retouched banded ironstone flake /?saw in kloof NCW None required Kuruman WEF KUR 68 E23° 22.236' 68

S27° 34.438' Retouched banded ironstone chunky blade/adze NCW None required Kuruman WEF KUR 69 E23° 22.283' 69

S27° 34.419' Banded ironstone utilized bladelet in kloof NCW None required Kuruman WEF KUR 70 E23° 22.335' 70

S27° 33.401' Banded ironstone core NCW None required Kuruman WEF 71 KUR 71 E23° 24.629'

S27° 33.408' Chert flake NCW None required Kuruman WEF KUR 72 E23° 24.744' 72

S27° 33.420' Banded ironstone chunk/core NCW None required Kuruman WEF KUR 73 E23° 24.785' 73

S27° 29.208' Ironstone flake in powerline servitude NCW None required Kuruman WEF KUR 74 E23° 24.429' 74

S27° 28.993' CCS flake and chunk in powerline servitude NCW None required Kuruman WEF KUR 75 E23° 24.753' 75

S27° 28.782' Banded ironstone handaxe (no pic) NCW None required Kuruman WEF KUR 76 E23° 24.949' 76

47 CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (087) 073 5739 Email: [email protected] W eb: www.ctsheritage.com

APPENDIX 2: Palaeontological Specialist Reports

48 CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (087) 073 5739 Email: [email protected] W eb: www.ctsheritage.com

APPENDIX 3: Heritage Screening Assessment

43 CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (087) 073 5739 E mail: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

HERITAGE SCREENER CTS Reference CTS17_155 Number:

SAHRIS Case ID:

Client: CSIR

Date: 11 December 2017

Title: Kuruman WEF

Figure 1a. Satellite map indicating the location of the proposed development in the Northern Cape Province Recommendation by RECOMMENDATION:The heritage resources along the routes proposed for development are only partially recorded CTS Heritage See Section 8 for full recommendations. Specialists: (Type 2)

CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (021) 0130131 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

1. Proposed Development Summary

Name of relevant heritage authority(s) SAHRA Name of decision making authority(s) DEA 3. Property Information

Latitude / Longitude -27.602952° / 23.400094° Erf number / Farm number RE/381, 2/381, 1/381, RE/382, RE/441, 1/446, RE/448, 1/450, 2/450, 3/453, 4/454, RE/548, 9/461, 1/48, RE/546, 2/261 Local Municipality Gamagara Municipality / Ga-Segonyana Municipality District Municipality Kgalagadi Municipality Previous Magisterial District Kuruman Province Northern Cape Province Current Use Agricultural Current Zoning Agricultural EIA Phase 1: 637.586ha turbine corridors, 14.485ha construction yards & infrastructure; EIA Phase 2: 396.454ha turbine corridors, Total Extent 15.577ha construction yards & infrastructure; BA transmission lines: 50km and 10km, ~2ha stations 4. Nature of the Proposed Development

Total Surface Area Footprint impact of 99 turbines, jeep tracks, turbine connecting roads of width 5m, construction yards, associated infrastructure Depth of excavation (m) 3m Height of development (m) 140m turbines, 30m collector substation, overhead powerlines (5-10m) Expected years of operation before decommission n/a

CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (021) 0130131 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

5. Category of Development Triggers: Section 38(8) of the National Heritage Resources Act X Triggers: Section 38(1) of the National Heritage Resources Act X 1. Construction of a road, wall, powerline, pipeline, canal or other similar form of linear development or barrier over 300m in X length. 2. Construction of a bridge or similar structure exceeding 50m in length. 3. Any development or activity that will change the character of a site- 2 a) exceeding 5 000m in extent X b) involving three or more existing erven or subdivisions thereof c) involving three or more erven or divisions thereof which have been consolidated within the past five years 4. Rezoning of a site exceeding 10 000m2 5. Other (state):

6. Additional Infrastructure Required for this Development

Access and maintenance roads between turbines, substations, construction yards, jeep tracks, transmission lines

CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (021) 0130131 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

7. Mapping (please see Appendix 3 and 4 for a full description of our methodology and map legends)

Figure 1b. Overview Map. Satellite image (2017) indicating the proposed development area at closer range.

CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (021) 0130131 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

Figure 2a. Previous HIAs Map. Previous Heritage Impact Assessments surrounding the proposed development area within 30kms, with SAHRIS NIDS indicated (please see Appendix 2 for full reference list).

CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (021) 0130131 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

Figure 2b. Inset Map.

CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (021) 0130131 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

Figure 2c. Previous PIAs Map Previous Palaeontological Impact Assessments surrounding the proposed development area within 30km, with SAHRIS NIDS indicated (please see Appendix 2 for full reference list).

CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (021) 0130131 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

Figure 3a. Heritage Resources Map. Heritage resources previously identified in and near the study area, with SAHRIS Site IDs indicated (see Figures 3b-3d for Insets). See Appendix 4 for full description of heritage resource types.

CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (021) 0130131 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

Figure 3b. Inset Map.

CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (021) 0130131 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

Figure 3c. Inset Map.

CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (021) 0130131 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

Figure 3d. Inset Map. indicating spatial layout of sites in this region. Please see Appendix 1 for all Site IDs

CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (021) 0130131 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

Figure 4a. Palaeosensitivity Map, indicating varied fossil sensitivity underlying the study area. See Appendix 3 for full guide to the legend. Note the current colour codes of the geological formations in this area on SAHRIS are incorrect and are awaiting an update by SAHRA - see Heritage Statement below

CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (021) 0130131 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

Figure 4b. 1:250 000 Geological Map (Council for Geoscience).

CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (021) 0130131 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

8. Heritage statement, character of the area and anticipated impacts

Mulilo Renewable Project Developments (Pty) Ltd has proposed to build the Kuruman Wind Energy Facility (WEF) in two phases (1&2). 47 turbines will be completed in Phase 1 and 52 in Phase 2. Each turbine has a maximum output of 4.5MW, blade height of 140m and blade length of 80m. Additional infrastructure assessed for the EIA will include 5m wide connecting roads between the turbines, widening of existing roads to 5m, 33kV overhead lines (at a height of 5m), jeep tracks as service roads below the overhead lines, a collector substation reaching a height of 30m over a 20ha footprint and three construction yards. A Basic Assessment (BA) process will also be undertaken for an Eskom metering station, substation and 132kV transmission lines to the Ferrum Substation (distance 50km) and the Segame Substation (distance 10km). The development area for Phase 1 & 2 of the wind turbines, substations and ancillary infrastructure is about 10km southwest of Kuruman in the heart of the Kuruman Hills. A connecting 132kV overhead powerline from Kuruman’s Segame Substation to the WEF will be constructed along an existing electrical servitude and access road. A longer 132kV overhead transmission line spanning 50km will connect the WEF to Kathu’s Ferrum Substation. This route also follows, for the most part, in the servitude of a network of existing access roads.

The development has a highly significant scale and footprint. The Kuruman Hills have historically been used for small scale pastoralist farming activities with goats and sheep, a practice which extends back possibly as much as 2000 years ago when Khoekhoe herders first entered the area. Three sites with possible herder art (TK1, TK3 & TK5) were found in association with Later Stone Age artefact assemblages on the Tierkop farm. These sites were recorded during a survey by Dave Halkett and Jayson Orton (Halkett 2009) for the impacts of iron and manganese ore mining on Bramcote farm (No 446). The construction yard and substation for Phase 2 of the WEF will be constructed in the vicinity of Tierkop homestead which was recorded in Halkett’s report but was not graded as having high significance. The homestead will not be impacted directly by the proposed WEF and updated photographs of the condition of the buildings will suffice during the upcoming foot survey. Of more interest to this study, is the fact that various sections of the valleys and surrounding hills on Bramcote were surveyed for archaeological and historical heritage sites. Their survey is an excellent account of the heritage resources on the property and GPS tracks were provided. It is therefore not necessary to resurvey the areas covered by Halkett and Orton where the development footprint of the proposed WEF in Phase 2 overlaps with the 2009 study. These sites have all been extracted and mapped on SAHRIS by CTS Heritage for this Screener.

Phase 1 of the WEF is located on farm Woodstock 441 directly north of Bramcote 446. This area has not been surveyed previously and we expect similar findings will be made such as ruined farm infrastructure, possible old mines, ESA, MSA and LSA open site scatters of artefacts, possibly more rock art sites in overhangs and a number of visual impacts will have to be assessed in terms of the cultural landscape encompassed by the inner valley and boundary hills containing the proposed WEF. Wonderwerk Cave, a National Heritage Site containing archaeological traces stretching back over 2 million years, is located ~25km to the southeast of the WEF.

The WEF will also be connected to the grid via two 132kV overhead power lines to Kuruman (Segame Substation, 10km in length) and Kathu (Ferrum Substation, 50km in length). A drive along the access road for the Segame connection will suffice as it is being built in the road servitude. Similarly large sections of the Ferrum connection will also be built in the road servitude and a combination of a drive through and walkthrough of currently undisturbed areas must be done to record and assess possible heritage resources in the line of the development.

In terms of geology, the WEF and powerline footprint is underlain by Precambrian sediments and lavas of the Transvaal Supergroup, including the Ghaap Group (marine carbonates of the Campbell Rand Subgroup followed by banded iron formations of the Asbestos Hills Subgroup) and Postmasburg Group (Ongeluk Formation lavas). Most of these rock units are of low palaeontological sensitivity, but the Campbell Rand carbonates near Kuruman may be stromatolite-rich (high sensitivity). Late Cenozoic superficial sediments include wind blown sands (Kalahari Group), colluvial and other surface gravels, alluvium and pedocretes (e.g. calcretes). Most of these younger sediments are of low sensitivity but older alluvial deposits along major drainage lines as well as calcretes need to be inspected for fossils (e.g. mammalian remains). Currently the SAHRIS Fossil Sensitivity Map for this area is incorrectly colour coded.

CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (021) 0130131 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

RECOMMENDATION: The heritage resources along the routes proposed for development are only partially recorded Based on the available information, the proposed development is likely to impact on heritage resources and as such, it is recommended that a complete Heritage Impact Assessment is required that assesses impacts to landscape character, secondary (and possibly primary) impacts on built environment resources, archaeological resources, graves and burial grounds, fossil heritage and mining heritage.

CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (021) 0130131 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

APPENDIX 1 List of heritage resources within the 30km Inclusion Zone

Site ID Site no Full Site Name Site Type Grading Declaration 7 Bestwood01 Bestwood 1, Kathu Archaeological, Deposit Grade I NA 8 Kathu Pan Sites Kathu Pan Sites 1-11 Archaeological, Deposit Grade I NA 24817 Kathu Townlands Kathu Townlands 1 Deposit Grade I NA 25481 Kathu Uitkoms Sites Uitkoms Sites 1-4, Kathu Cemetery, Kathu Deposit, Artefacts Grade I NA 25782 Kathu Pan 1 Kathu Pan 1, Kathu, Northern Cape Deposit Grade I NA 25783 Kathu Pan 2 Kathu Pan 2, Kathu, Northern Cape Archaeological Grade I NA 25787 Kathu Pan 3 Kathu Pan 3, Kathu, Northern Cape Deposit Grade I NA 25789 Kathu Pan 4 Kathu Pan 4, Kathu, Northern Cape Archaeological Grade I NA 25790 Kathu Pan 5 Kathu Pan, Kathu, Northern Cape Deposit Grade I NA 25791 Kathu Pan 6 Kathu Pan 6, Kathu, Northern Cape Deposit Grade I NA 25792 Kathu Pan 7 Kathu Pan 7, Kathu, Northern Cape Deposit Grade I NA 25793 Kathu Pan 8 Kathu Pan 8, Kathu, Northern Cape Deposit Grade I NA 25794 Kathu Pan 9 Kathu Pan 9, Kathu, Northern Cape Deposit Grade I NA 25795 Kathu Pan 10 Kathu Pan 10, Kathu, Northern Cape Deposit Grade I NA 25796 Kathu Pan 11 Kathu Pan 11, Kathu, Northern Cape Deposit NA NA 25808 Kathu Uitkoms 1 Uitkoms Site 1, Kathu Cemetery, Kathu, Northern Cape Deposit Grade I NA 25809 Kathu Uitkoms 2 Uitkoms Site 2, Kathu Cemetery, Kathu, Northern Cape Deposit Grade I NA 25810 Kathu Uitkoms 3 Uitkoms Site 3, Kathu Cemetery, Kathu, Northern Cape Deposit Grade I NA 25811 Kathu Uitkoms 4 Uitkoms Site 4, Kathu Cemetery, Kathu, Northern Cape Deposit, Artefacts Grade IIIa NA

CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (021) 0130131 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

28205 9/2/055/0004 The Eye, cnr Voortrekker and Fontein Streets, Kuruman Building Grade II Provincial Heritage Site 28207 9/2/055/0008 Moffat Press, Moffat Mission, Seodin Street, Kuruman Building NA Heritage Object 28208 9/2/055/0003-001 Mission Church, Kuruman Moffat Mission, Seodin Street, Kuruman Building Grade II Provincial Heritage Site 33532 GARO1 GARONA 1 Burial Grounds Graves NA NA 33533 GARO2 GARONA 2 Stone walling NA NA 37645 KURU001 Kuruman 001 Structures Grade IIIb NA 37646 KURU002 Kuruman 002 Building Grade IIIb NA 37647 KURU003 Kuruman 003 Artefacts Grade IIIc NA 40234 BEST001 Bestwood, Kathu 001 Artefacts, Deposit Grade IIIa NA 40236 UKM001 Uitkoms, Kathu 001 Artefacts Grade IIIb NA 45445 DELP01 Delportshoop 01 Archaeological Grade IIIb NA 45503 BEST002 Bestwood, Kathu 002 Artefacts Grade IIIa NA 45570 SIMS01 Sims 462 - 01 Artefacts Grade IIIc NA 45577 SIMS02 Sims 462 - 02 Artefacts Grade IIIc NA 45578 SIMS03 Sims 462 - 03 Artefacts Grade IIIc NA 45579 SIMS04 Sims 462 - 04 Artefacts Grade IIIc NA 45580 SIMS05 Sims 462 - 05 Artefacts Grade IIIc NA 45581 SIMS06 Sims 462 - 06 Artefacts Grade IIIc NA 45582 SIMS07 Sims 462 - 07 Artefacts Grade IIIc NA 45583 SIMS08 Sims 462 - 08 Artefacts Grade IIIc NA 45584 SIMS09 Sims 462 - 09 Artefacts Grade IIIc NA 45585 SIMS10 Sims 462 - 10 Artefacts Grade IIIc NA 45586 SIMS11 Sims 462 - 11 Artefacts Grade IIIc NA

CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (021) 0130131 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

45587 SIMS12 Sims 462 - 12 Artefacts Grade IIIc NA 45588 SIMS13 Sims 462 - 13 Artefacts Grade IIIc NA 45589 SIMS14 Sims 462 - 14 Artefacts Grade IIIc NA 45590 SIMS15 Sims 462 - 15 Artefacts Grade IIIc NA 45591 SIMS16 Sims 462 - 16 Artefacts Grade IIIc NA 45592 SIMS17 Sims 462 - 17 Artefacts Grade IIIc NA 45593 SIMS18 Sims 462 - 18 Artefacts Grade IIIc NA 45594 SIMS19 Sims 462 - 19 Artefacts Grade IIIc NA 45595 SIMS20 Sims 462 - 20 Artefacts Grade IIIc NA 46298 KAT-SIS07 Kathu-Sishen 07 Artefacts Grade IIIc NA 46299 KAT-SIS08 Kathu-Sishen 08 Artefacts Grade IIIc NA 86835 WHITE001 Whitebank 001 Artefacts Grade IIIc NA 86836 WHITE002 Whitebank 002 Artefacts Grade IIIc NA 86837 WHITE003 Whitebank 003 Artefacts Grade IIIc NA 86838 WHITE004 Whitebank 004 Artefacts Grade IIIc NA 86839 WHITE013 Whitebank 013 Artefacts Grade IIIc NA 86840 WHITE014 Whitebank 014 Artefacts Grade IIIc NA 86847 WHITE015 Whitebank 015 Artefacts Grade IIIc NA 86848 WHITE017 Whitebank 017 Artefacts Grade IIIc NA 86850 WHITE018 Whitebank 018 Artefacts Grade IIIc NA 86853 WHITE021 Whitebank 021 Artefacts Grade IIIc NA 86855 WHITE022 Whitebank 022 Artefacts Grade IIIc NA

CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (021) 0130131 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

Kurumankop, Archaeological, Artefacts, 88069 Kurumankop, Gamohana Hill NA Gamohana Hill Rock Art, Geological 89871 GAPA001 Ghaap Abattoir 001 Artefacts Grade IIIc NA 89872 GAPA002 Ghaap Abattoir 002 Structures Grade IIIb NA 91352 DG001 Dingleton 001 Artefacts Grade IIIc NA 93876 TK5 - NC Tierkop 5 Rock Art, Artefacts Grade IIIa NA 93877 TK3 - NC Tierkop 3 Rock Art, Artefacts Grade IIIa NA 93878 TK1 - NC Tierkop 1 Rock Art, Artefacts Grade IIIa NA 95596 Vaal-Gamagara 01 Vaal-Gamagara 01 Palaeontological Grade IIIa NA 95597 Vaal-Gamagara 02 Vaal-Gamagara 02 Palaeontological Grade IIIa NA 95598 Vaal-Gamagara 03 Vaal-Gamagara 03 Palaeontological Grade IIIa NA 95599 Vaal-Gamagara 04 Vaal-Gamagara 04 Palaeontological Grade IIIa NA 95600 Vaal-Gamagara 05 Vaal-Gamagara 05 Palaeontological Grade IIIa NA 102656 Uitkomst 1 Kathu Pan Sites Archaeological NA NA 102657 Uitkomst 2 Kathu Pan Sites Archaeological NA NA 102658 Uitkomst 3 Kathu Pan Sites Archaeological NA NA 102659 Uitkomst 4 Kathu Pan Sites Archaeological NA NA 102660 Bestwood 1 Kathu Pan Sites Archaeological NA NA 102661 Bestwood 2 Kathu Pan Sites Archaeological NA NA 102662 Bestwood ESA Kathu Pan Sites Artefacts NA NA 102663 Kathu Pan Kathu Pan Sites Archaeological NA NA 102664 Reserve 1 Kathu Pan Sites Settlement NA NA 102665 Reserve 2 Kathu Pan Sites (Pietersburg Site) Archaeological NA NA

CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (021) 0130131 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

102666 Graveyard Kathu Pan Sites Burial Grounds Graves NA NA 108046 KC1 New Kathu Cemetery - Findspot KC1 Deposit NA NA 127264 BR1 Bramcote 1 Archaeological Grade IIIc NA 127265 BR2 Bramcote 2 Burial Grounds Graves Grade IIIa NA 127266 BR3 Bramcote 3 Artefacts Grade IIIc NA 127267 BR4 Bramcote 4 Artefacts Grade IIIc NA 127268 BR5 Bramcote 5 Artefacts Grade IIIc NA 127269 BR6 Bramcote 6 Burial Grounds Graves Grade IIIa NA 127270 BR7 Bramcote 7 Archaeological Grade IIIb NA 127271 BR8 Bramcote 8 Ruin > 100 years Grade IIIb NA 127272 BR9 Bramcote 9 Artefacts Grade IIIc NA 127273 TK2 Tierkop 2 Ruin 100 years Grade IIIc NA 127274 TK2A Tierkop 2A Burial Grounds Graves Grade IIIa NA 127275 TK4 Tierkop 4 Artefacts Grade IIIb NA 127276 TK6 Tierkop 6 Ruin 100 years Grade IIIc NA 127277 TK7 Tierkop 7 Burial Grounds Graves Grade IIIa NA 127278 TK8 Tierkop 8 Burial Grounds Graves Grade IIIa NA 127279 TK9 Tierkop 9 Artefacts Grade IIIc NA 127280 TK10 Tierkop 10 Artefacts Grade IIIc NA

CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (021) 0130131 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

APPENDIX 2 Reference List Heritage Impact Assessments

Report Nid Author/s Date Title Type

123045 AIA Cobus Dreyer 26/06/2013 Report Eskom Garona Ferrum Mercury Heritage Impact Assessment Report: Proposed Residential Development And Associated Infrastructure On A 200 Ha Portion Of 152170 HIA Robert de Jong 03/09/2008 The Farm Bestwood 429 Rd At Kathu, Northern Cape Province First Phase Archaeological And Cultural Heritage Assessment Of The Proposed Residential Developments At A Portion Of The 152171 AIA Cobus Dreyer 11/08/2008 Remainder Of The Farm Bestwood 459rd, Kathu, Northern Cape Rectification and/or regularisation of activities relating to the Bestwood Township development near Kathu, Northern Cape: 156617 AIA David Morris 01/02/2014 Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment Anton van 163959 HIA 17/03/2014 HIA Eskom Manganore to Ferrum Scoping Phase Vollenhoven Archaeological Impact Assessment (aia) Of Demarcated Surface Portions On The Farms Sacha 468, Sims 462 And Sekgame 170455 AIA Neels Kruger 31/03/2014 461 For The Proposed Stormwater Infrastructure (clean Water Cut-off Berm & Groundwater Dam) For The Sishen Mine, Kathu, Northern Cape Province. 170660 AIA Cobus Dreyer 31/01/2014 First Phase Archaeological & Heritage Assessment Of the Proposed Vaal-gamagara Water Pipeline Project, Northern Cape 170664 AIA Cobus Dreyer 28/09/2012 First Phase Archaeological And Heritage Assessment Of the Proposed Vaal-gamagara Water Pipeline Project, Northern Cape 170666 AIA Cobus Dreyer 31/12/2013 First Phase Archaeological And Heritage Assessment Of The Proposed Vaal-gamagara Water Pipeline Project, Northern Cape Archaeological Impact Assessment (aia) Of Demarcated Surface Portions On The Farm Sekgame 461 For The Proposed 279906 AIA Neels Kruger 02/12/2014 Sekgame Electricity Infrastructure Expansion Project, Sishen Mine, Northern Cape Province Archaeological Impact Assessment (aia) Of Demarcated Surface Portions On The Farm Sekgame 461 For The Proposed 279906 AIA Neels Kruger 02/12/2014 Sekgame Electricity Infrastructure Expansion Project, Sishen Mine, Northern Cape Province Archaeological Impact Assessment (aia) Of Areas Demaracted For The Proposed Lyleveld North Waste Rock Dump Expansion 294454 AIA Neels Kruger 05/04/2015 And Lyleveld South Haul Road Extension Project, Sishen Mine, Northern Cape Province

CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (021) 0130131 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

Phase 1 Heritage Impact Assessment of the 2.3 km long 40478 Vaal-Gamagara water pipeline alternative route around Kathu 324952 HIA Lloyd Rossouw 07/07/2015 Pan, Northern Cape Province Anton van 329708 HIA 01/11/2014 HIA Eskom Manganore-Ferrum for EIA Phase Vollenhoven 6339 AIA David Halkett 24/08/2009 An archaeological scoping assessment of the remainder and portion 1 (Tierkop) of farm Bramcote 446, Northern Cape Priovince.

Palaeontological Impact Assessments

Report Nid Author/s Date Title Type

Palaeontological Specialist Assessment: Desktop Study Proposed 16 Mtpa Expansion Of Transnet’s Existing Manganese 114648 PIA John E Almond 01/09/2012 Ore Export Railway Line & Associated Infrastructure Between Hotazel And The Port Of Ngqura, Northern & Eastern Cape.

CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (021) 0130131 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

APPENDIX 3 - Keys/Guides Key/Guide to Acronyms AIA Archaeological Impact Assessment DARD Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (KwaZulu-Natal) DEA Department of Environmental Affairs (National) DEADP Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (Western Cape) DEDEAT Department of Economic Development, Environmental Affairs and Tourism (Eastern Cape) DEDECT Department of Economic Development, Environment, Conservation and Tourism (North West) DEDT Department of Economic Development and Tourism (Mpumalanga) DEDTEA Department of economic Development, Tourism and Environmental Affairs (Free State) DENC Department of Environment and Nature Conservation (Northern Cape) DMR Department of Mineral Resources (National) GDARD Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (Gauteng) HIA Heritage Impact Assessment LEDET Department of Economic Development, Environment and Tourism (Limpopo) MPRDA Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, no 28 of 2002 NEMA National Environmental Management Act, no 107 of 1998 NHRA National Heritage Resources Act, no 25 of 1999 PIA Palaeontological Impact Assessment SAHRA South African Heritage Resources Agency SAHRIS South African Heritage Resources Information System VIA Visual Impact Assessment

Full guide to Palaeosensitivity Map legend RED: VERY HIGH - field assessment and protocol for finds is required ORANGE/YELLOW: HIGH - desktop study is required and based on the outcome of the desktop study, a field assessment is likely GREEN: MODERATE - desktop study is required BLUE/PURPLE: LOW - no palaeontological studies are required however a protocol for chance finds is required GREY: INSIGNIFICANT/ZERO - no palaeontological studies are required WHITE/CLEAR: UNKNOWN - these areas will require a minimum of a desktop study.

CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (021) 0130131 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

APPENDIX 4 - Methodology

The Heritage Screener summarises the heritage impact assessments and studies previously undertaken within the area of the proposed development and its surroundings. Heritage resources identified in these reports are assessed by our team during the screening process.

The heritage resources will be described both in terms of type: ● Group 1: Archaeological, Underwater, Palaeontological and Geological sites, Meteorites, and Battlefields ● Group 2: Structures, Monuments and Memorials ● Group 3: Burial Grounds and Graves, Living Heritage, Sacred and Natural sites ● Group 4: Cultural Landscapes, Conservation Areas and Scenic routes and significance (Grade I, II, IIIa, b or c, ungraded), as determined by the author of the original heritage impact assessment report or by formal grading and/or protection by the heritage authorities.

Sites identified and mapped during research projects will also be considered.

DETERMINATION OF THE EXTENT OF THE INCLUSION ZONE TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION The extent of the inclusion zone to be considered for the Heritage Screener will be determined by CTS based on: ● the size of the development, ● the number and outcome of previous surveys existing in the area ● the potential cumulative impact of the application.

The inclusion zone will be considered as the region within a maximum distance of 50 km from the boundary of the proposed development.

DETERMINATION OF THE PALAEONTOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY The possible impact of the proposed development on palaeontological resources is gauged by: ● reviewing the fossil sensitivity maps available on the South African Heritage Resources Information System (SAHRIS) ● considering the nature of the proposed development ● when available, taking information provided by the applicant related to the geological background of the area into account

DETERMINATION OF THE COVERAGE RATING ASCRIBED TO A REPORT POLYGON Each report assessed for the compilation of the Heritage Screener is colour-coded according to the level of coverage accomplished. The extent of the surveyed coverage is labeled in

CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (021) 0130131 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com three categories, namely low, medium and high. In most instances the extent of the map corresponds to the extent of the development for which the specific report was undertaken.

Low coverage will be used for: ● desktop studies where no field assessment of the area was undertaken; ● reports where the sites are listed and described but no GPS coordinates were provided. ● older reports with GPS coordinates with low accuracy ratings; ● reports where the entire property was mapped, but only a small/limited area was surveyed. ● uploads on the National Inventory which are not properly mapped.

Medium coverage will be used for ● reports for which a field survey was undertaken but the area was not extensively covered. This may apply to instances where some impediments did not allow for full coverage such as thick vegetation, etc. ● reports for which the entire property was mapped, but only a specific area was surveyed thoroughly. This is differentiated from low ratings listed above when these surveys cover up to around 50% of the property.

High coverage will be used for ● reports where the area highlighted in the map was extensively surveyed as shown by the GPS track coordinates. This category will also apply to permit reports.

RECOMMENDATION GUIDE The Heritage Screener includes a set of recommendations to the applicant based on whether an impact on heritage resources is anticipated. One of three possible recommendations is formulated:

(1) The heritage resources in the area proposed for development are sufficiently recorded - The surveys undertaken in the area adequately captured the heritage resources. There are no known sites which require mitigation or management plans. No further heritage work is recommended for the proposed development.

This recommendation is made when: ● enough work has been undertaken in the area ● it is the professional opinion of CTS that the area has already been assessed adequately from a heritage perspective for the type of development proposed

(2) The heritage resources and the area proposed for development are only partially recorded - The surveys undertaken in the area have not adequately captured the heritage resources and/or there are sites which require mitigation or management plans. Further specific heritage work is recommended for the proposed development.

This recommendation is made in instances in which there are already some studies undertaken in the area and/or in the adjacent area for the proposed development. Further studies in a limited HIA may include:

CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (021) 0130131 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

● improvement on some components of the heritage assessments already undertaken, for instance with a renewed field survey and/or with a specific specialist for the type of heritage resources expected in the area ● compilation of a report for a component of a heritage impact assessment not already undertaken in the area ● undertaking mitigation measures requested in previous assessments/records of decision.

(3) The heritage resources within the area proposed for the development have not been adequately surveyed yet - Few or no surveys have been undertaken in the area proposed for development. A full Heritage Impact Assessment with a detailed field component is recommended for the proposed development.

Note: The responsibility for generating a response detailing the requirements for the development lies with the heritage authority. However, since the methodology utilised for the compilation of the Heritage Screeners is thorough and consistent, contradictory outcomes to the recommendations made by CTS should rarely occur. Should a discrepancy arise, CTS will immediately take up the matter with the heritage authority to clarify the dispute.

The compilation of the Heritage Screener will not include any field assessment. The Heritage Screener will be submitted to the applicant within 24 hours from receipt of full payment. If the 24-hour deadline is not met by CTS, the applicant will be refunded in full.

CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (021) 0130131 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

APPENDIX 4: HWC Fossil Finds Procedure as an example for the EMPr

44 CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (087) 073 5739 E mail: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

HWC PROCEDURE: CHANCE FINDS OF PALAEONTOLOGICAL MATERIAL June 2016

Introduction This document is aimed to inform workmen and foremen working on a construction and/or mining site. It describes the procedure to follow in instances of accidental discovery of palaeontological material (please see attached poster with descriptions of palaeontological material) during construction/mining activities. This protocol does not apply to resources already identified under an assessment undertaken under s. 38 of the National Heritage Resources Act (no 25 of 1999).

Fossils are rare and irreplaceable. Fossils tell us about the environmental conditions that existed in a specific geographical area millions of years ago. As heritage resources that inform us of the history of a place, fossils are public property that the State is required to manage and conserve on behalf of all the citizens of South Africa. Fossils are therefore protected by the National Heritage Resources Act and are the property of the State. Ideally, a qualified person should be responsible for the recovery of fossils noticed during construction/mining to ensure that all relevant contextual information is recorded.

Heritage Authorities often rely on workmen and foremen to report finds, and thereby contribute to our knowledge of South Africa’s past and contribute to its conservation for future generations.

Training Workmen and foremen need to be trained in the procedure to follow in instances of accidental discovery of fossil material, in a similar way to the Health and Safety protocol. A brief introduction to the process to follow in the event of possible accidental discovery of fossils should be conducted by the designated Environmental Control Officer (ECO) for the project, or the foreman or site agent in the absence of the ECO

It is recommended that copies of the attached poster and procedure are printed out and displayed at the site office so that workmen may familiarise themselves with them and are thereby prepared in the event that accidental discovery of fossil material takes place.

Actions to be taken One person in the staff must be identified and appointed as responsible for the implementation of the attached protocol in instances of accidental fossil discovery and must report to the ECO or site agent. If the ECO or site agent is not present on site, then the responsible person on site should follow the protocol correctly in order to not jeopardize the conservation and well-being of the fossil material.

Once a workman notices possible fossil material, he/she should report this to the ECO or site agent.

Procedure to follow if it is likely that the material identified is a fossil:

i. The ECO or site agent must ensure that all work ceases immediately in the vicinity of the area where the fossil or fossils have been found;

ii. The ECO or site agent must inform HWC of the find immediately. This information must include photographs of the findings and GPS co-ordinates; iii. The ECO or site agent must compile a Preliminary Report and fill in the Fossil Discoveries: HWC Preliminary Record Form within 24 hours without removing the fossil from its original position. The Preliminary Report records basic information about the find including:

● The date ● A description of the discovery ● A description of the fossil and its context (e.g. position and depth of find) ● Where and how the find has been stored ● Photographs to accompany the preliminary report (the more the better): ➔ A scale must be used ➔ Photos of location from several angles ➔ Photos of vertical section should be provided ➔ Digital images of hole showing vertical section (side); ➔ Digital images of fossil or fossils.

Upon receipt of this Preliminary Report, HWC will inform the ECO or site agent whether or not a rescue excavation or rescue collection by a palaeontologist is necessary.

v. Exposed finds must be stabilised where they are unstable and the site capped, e.g. with a plastic sheet or sand bags. This protection should allow for the later excavation of the finds with due scientific care and diligence. HWC can advise on the most appropriate method for stabilisation. vi. If the find cannot be stabilised, the fossil may be collect with extreme care by the ECO or the site agent and put aside and protected until HWC advises on further action. Finds collected in this way must be safely and securely stored in tissue paper and an appropriate box. Care must be taken to remove the all fossil material and any breakage of fossil material must be avoided at all costs.

No work may continue in the vicinity of the find until HWC has indicated, in writing, that it is appropriate to proceed.

FOSSIL DISCOVERIES: HWC PRELIMINARY RECORDING FORM

Name of project:

Name of fossil location:

Date of discovery:

Description of situation in which the fossil was found:

Description of context in which the fossil was found:

Description and condition of fossil identified:

GPS coordinates: Lat: Long:

If no co-ordinates available then please describe the location:

Time of discovery:

Depth of find in hole

Photographs (tick as appropriate Digital image of vertical and indicate number of the section (side) photograph)

Fossil from different angles

Wider context of the find

Temporary storage (where it is located and how it is conserved)

Person identifying the fossil Name: Contact:

Recorder Name: Contact:

Photographer Name: Contact:

Palaeontology: what is a fossil? Types of palaeontological finding - What does a fossil look like?

Fossils are the traces of ancient life (animal, plant Fossils vary in size, from fossilised tree trunks and dinosaur bones down to very small animals or plants. or microbial) preserved within rocks and come in Finds can be individual fossils (one isolated wood log or bone) or clusters and beds (several bones, two forms: teeth, animal or plant remains, trace fossils in close proximity or bones resembling part of a skeleton). A • Body fossils preserve parts, casts or impressions bed of fossils is a layer with many fossil remains. of the original tissues of an organism (e.g. bones, teeth, wood, pollen grains); and Below there is a list of few examples of fossils which may be identified during excavations in the Western • Trace fossils such as trackways and burrows Cape. record ancient animal behaviour. Image Description Image Description

Leaves Snail shells and other shells

Bones of larger animals Fossil wood

Large burrows The remains of fish made by moles and marine life and other animals How to report chance fossil finds: (e.g. teeth, scales, What should I do if I find a fossil during starfish) construction/mining?

If you think you have identified a fossil:

Stromatolites Traces made by Immediately inform the ECO or Site Agent. burrowing insects He/she will then contact HWC and write a report and if necessary operations will stop in that (ants, wasps, dung- specific area until the fossil is recovered beetles etc.).

Heritage Western Cape Animal footprints [email protected] 021 483 5959 Images provided by Dr John Almond

www.hwc.org.za Text by HWC’s Archaeology, Palaeontology & Meteorites Committee June 2016

APPENDIX 5: CVs of Specialists

45 CTS Heritage 34 Harries Street, Plumstead, Cape Town, 7800 Tel: (087) 073 5739 E mail: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

CURRICULUM VITAE: JOHN EDWARD ALMOND

Name: JOHN EDWARD ALMOND Profession: PALAEONTOLOGIST / GEOLOGIST / EDUCATOR Date of Birth: 27 MAY 1959 Parent Company: NATURA VIVA CC, PO Box 124 10 Mill Street, CAPE TOWN 8010, RSA Position in Company: MANAGING MEMBER Years with Company: 17 Years of experience: 35 (palaeontological and geological research) Nationality: UK (RSA Permanent Resident) HDI Status: White male Education: Dorking County Grammar School, Surrey, UK BA (Hons.) Natural Sciences (Zoology), University of Cambridge, 1980 Part II (Hons.) Natural Sciences (Geology), University of Cambridge, 1981 PhD (Palaeontology), University of Cambridge, 1986

Professional Qualifications: PhD in Earth Sciences (Palaeontology), University of Cambridge, UK (1986).

Languages: Reading Speaking Writing English: Good Good Good German: Good Fair Fair Spanish: Good Fair Limited French: Fair Limited Limited Afrikaans: Fair Limited Limited  Deutsche Mittelstufeprufung (Goethe-Institut, Schwäbisch-Hall)

 Curso de Espaňol (Superior Alto), Universidad de Salamanca

Membership of Professional Bodies: • Palaeontological Society of South Africa (PSSA) • Geological Society of South Africa (Western Cape) • Association of Heritage Assessment Practitioners (AHAP)

BRIEF SUMMARY OF WORK EXPERIENCE: 1981-1990  Visiting Scientist to various academic institutions (universities, museums) in the USA, Czech Republic, France, South Africa, Sudan, Germany: palaeontological research (Palaeozoic invertebrates) 1985-1988  Research Fellow, Corpus Christi College, Cambridge University: palaeontological research (Palaeozoic invertebrates)  Undergraduate teaching (course supervisor), extra mural lecturing (Workers Educational Association) 1989-1990  Humboldt Foundation Postdoctoral Research Fellow, University of Tübingen, Germany: palaeontological research (Palaeozoic invertebrates and trace fossils)  Deutsche Mittelstufeprufung (Goethe-Institut, Schwäbisch-Hall) 1991-1998  Scientific Officer (Palaeontology), Council for Geoscience, South Africa: palaeontological field work and research in Western and Northern Cape, Namibia (Late Precambrian – Palaeozoic fossil biotas), collaboration with foreign scientists, curation of Bellville fossil collections, member of SACS Biostratigraphy Committee, Chairman of Western Cape Branch of Geological Society of SA  Adult education (e.g. UCT and SA Museum Summer School Programmes) 1998-2000  Field guide registration and training in South Africa (FGASA, Field Guides Association of South Africa) and Namibia (NATH)  Curso de Espaňol (Superior Alto), Universidad de Salamanca  Palaeontological research (Palaeozoic fish and trace fossils)  2000-2015  Establishment of private company Natura Viva cc (Cape Town), specializing in natural history excursions, adult educational courses (geology / palaeontology / botany / astronomy / zoology etc), public lectures, developing databases for nature reserves - especially in the arid west of southern Africa (RSA, Namibia), palaeontological heritage assessments, palaeontological and geological consultancy  Development of science educational materials for schools in geology / fossils / evolution: textbooks, teacher training courses (new GET, FET science curricula)  Scientific research: Late Proterozoic to Palaeozoic invertebrates, trace fossils, fish of RSA and S. Namibia; Mid Palaeozoic glacial events (Cape Supergroup); trace fossils, invertebrates, petrified wood and vertebrate remains, Karoo Supergroup; geobotanical relationships in arid areas (Great and Little Karoo)  Field supervision of undergraduate geology mapping projects (University of Cambridge)  Re-organisation of W. Cape fossil collections, Council for Geoscience (Bellville)  Reviews of regional palaeontological records on a provincial basis (W. Cape, E. Cape, N. Cape) for South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA), Heritage Western Cape (HWC);  Geological and palaeontological contributions to 1: 250 000 geology sheet explanations for Council for Geoscience (Clanwilliam, Loeriesfontein, Alexander Bay sheets)  Organization of 15th Biennial Conference of the Palaeontological Society, Matjiesfontein (Laingsburg), September 2008.  Geological and palaeontological fieldwork in Madagascar with team from the Council for Geoscience (2012)  Fossil heritage conservation and management in the Cape region, RSA (Archaeology, Palaeontology & Meteorites Committee, Heritage Western Cape); numerous palaeontological heritage assessment studies for developments in Western, Northern and Eastern Cape, Free State, Mpumalanga, Gauteng, Limpopo and Northwest

Selected publications and reviewed research reports (excluding the great majority of palaeontological impact assessment reports):

 ALMOND, J.E. 1985a. The Silurian-Devonian fossil record of the Myriapoda. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London B309, 227-237, pl. 1.  ALMOND, J.E. 1985b. A vermiform problematicum from the Dinantian of Foulden, Berwickshire, Scotland. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh (Earth Sciences) 76, 41-47.  ALMOND, J.E. 1985c. Les arthropleurides du Stephanien de Montceau-les- Mines, France. Bull. Hist. Soc. nature. Autun 115, 59-60.  ALMOND, J.E. 1986. Studies on Palaeozoic Arthropoda, 322pp, 21 pls. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, UK.  WHITTINGTON, H.B. & ALMOND, J.E. 1987. Appendages and habits of the Upper Ordovician trilobite Triarthrus eatoni. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London B317, 1-46, pls. 1-10.  KLITZSCH, E., ALMOND, J., BARAZI, N., EL HASSAN, A., MANSOUR, N. & SEMTNER, A. 1990. Short note on recently discovered Paleozoic strata of NE Sudan (Red Sea Hills). Berliner geowissenschaftliche Abhandlungen (A) 120.1, 87-88.  BRIGGS, D.E.G. & ALMOND, J.E. 1994. The arthropleurids from the Stephanian (Late carboniferous) of Montceau-les-Mines (Massif Central, France). In: Poplin, C. & Heyler, D. (Eds.) Quand le Massif Central était sous l’équateur. Un écosystème carbonifère à Montceau-les-Mines, 127- 135. Paris.  ALMOND, J.E. & EVANS, F.J. 1996. Early - Middle Devonian fish faunas from the Bokkeveld Group, South Africa. Abstracts, 9th Biennial Conference of the Palaeontological Society of South Africa, September 1996, Stellenbosch, 1p.  ALMOND, J.E. & GRESSE, P.G. 1996. Traces and dubiofossils from the Late Precambrian – Cambrian of South Africa. Abstracts, 9th Biennial Conference of the Palaeontological Society of South Africa, September 1996, Stellenbosch, 1p.  ALMOND, J.E., ROBERTS, D., & AVERY, G. 1996. Fossil sites in the southwestern Cape. Excursion Guide, 9th Biennial Conference of the Palaeontological Society of South Africa, September 1996, Stellenbosch, 46 p.  ALMOND, J.E. 1997. Fish fossils from the Devonian Bokkeveld Group of South Africa. Stratigraphy. African Anthropology, Archaeology, Geology and Palaeontology 1(2): 15-28.  ALMOND, J.E. 1998a. Early Palaeozoic trace fossils from southern Africa. Tercera Reunión Argentina de Icnologia, Mar del Plata, 1998, Abstracts p. 4.  ALMOND, J.E. 1998b. Trace fossils from the Cape Supergroup (Early Ordovician – Early Carboniferous) of South Africa. Journal of African Earth Sciences 27 (1A): 4-5.  ANDERSON, M.E., ALMOND, J.E., EVANS, F.J. & LONG, J.A. 1998. Devonian (Emsian-Eifelian) fishes from the Lower Bokkeveld Group (Ceres Subgroup) of South Africa. Journal of African Earth Sciences 27 (1A): 7-8.  BRADDY, S.J. & ALMOND, J.E. 1998. Eurypterid trackways from the Table Mountain Group (Ordovician) of South Africa. Journal of African Earth Sciences 27 (1A): 34-36.  ALMOND, J.E. 1998c. Non-marine trace fossils from the western outcrop area of the Permian Ecca Group, southern Africa. Tercera Reunión Argentina de Icnologia, Mar del Plata, 1998, Abstracts p. 3.  ALMOND, J.E. 1998d. Vendian-Early Palaeozoic biotas of the Western and Northern Cape Provinces, South Africa (Nama and Vanrhynsdorp Groups, Cape Supergroup). Excursion Guidebook, Gondwana-10 Post-conference Field Trip Po3b, 36pp.  SMITH, R.M.H. & ALMOND, J.E. 1998. Late Permian continental trace assemblages from the Lower Beaufort Group (Karoo Supergroup), South Africa. Tercera Reunión Argentina de Icnologia, Mar del Plata, 1998, Abstracts p. 29.  ALMOND, J.E., EVANS, F.J., & COTTER, E. 1998. Young Gondwana records. Cape Supergroup field trip. Excursion guidebook, Gondwana-10, 28 June– 04 July 1998, Cape Town, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Cape Town, 64 pp., table and maps.  FRIMMEL. H.E. ALMOND, J.E. & GRESSE, P.G. 1998. Gariep Belt and Nama Basin. Excursion guidebook, Gondwana-10, 28 June–04 July 1998, Cape Town, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Cape Town, 75 pp.  BRADDY, S.J. & ALMOND, J.E. 1999. Eurypterid trackways from the Table Mountain Group (Ordovician) of South Africa. Journal of African Earth Sciences 29: 165-177.  ANDERSON, M.E., ALMOND, J.E., EVANS, F.J. & LONG, J.A. 1999. Devonian (Emsian-Eifelian) fish from the Lower Bokkeveld Group (Ceres Subgroup), South Africa. Journal of African Earth Sciences 29: 179-194.  ANDERSON, M.E., LONG, J.A., EVANS, F.J., ALMOND, J.E., THERON, J.N. & BENDER, P.A. 1999. Biogeographic affinities of Middle and Late Devonian fishes of South Africa. Records of the Western Australian Museum, Supplement No. 57: 157-168.  ALMOND, J.E. 2000. Geology and palaeontology of central northern Namibia. Unpublished field guide prepared for NATH (Namibian Academy for Tourism and Hospitality) Windhoek, 45 pp.  WILSON, H.M. & ALMOND, J.E. 2001. New euthycarcinoids and an enigmatic arthropod from the British Coal Measures. Palaeontology 44, 143-156.  FOURIE, J. & ALMOND, J. 2001. Advanced nature guiding, 148 pp. The Nature College, Cape Town.  ALMOND, J.E. 2002a. Giant arthropod trackway from the Lower Ecca Group (Mid-Permian) of the Great Karoo, South Africa. Conference programme and abstracts, 12th Biennial Conference of the Palaeontological Society of South Africa, October 2002, Bloemfontein.  ALMOND, J.E. 2002b. Giant arthropod trackway, Ecca Group. Geobulletin 45: p28.  DE BEER, C.H., GRESSE, P.G., THERON, J.N. & ALMOND, J.E. 2002. The geology of the Calvinia area. Explanation to 1: 250 000 geology Sheet 3118 Calvinia. 92 pp. Council for Geoscience, Pretoria.  ALMOND, J., MARSHALL, J. & EVANS, F. 2002. Latest Devonian and earliest Carboniferous glacial events in South Africa. Abstracts, 16th International Sedimentological Congress, RAU, Johannesburg, pp 11-12.  MARSHALL, J.E.A., ASTIN, T.R., EVANS, F. & ALMOND, J. 2002. The palaeoclimatic significance of the Devonian – Carboniferous boundary. In: Geology of the Devonian System. Proceedings of the International Symposium, Syktyvkar, Republic of Komi, Russia, pp. 23-25.  ALMOND, J.E., COLE, D.I. & VLOK, A-L. 2003. Preliminary report on geology / botany relationships in the Groenefontein Nature Reserve, near Calitzdorp, Western Cape Province. Council for Geoscience Report Number 2003-0201, 40 pp. Council for Geoscience, Pretoria.  LOW, B., DIAMOND, R. & ALMOND, J. 2004. The Cederberg-Tanqua tension zone. Veld & Flora 90 (3), 114-117.  ALMOND, J.E. 2005a. Geology of the Gamkaberg-Rooiberg Conservation Area, Little Karoo, 255pp. Unpublished report for Cape Nature, Natura Viva cc., Cape Town.  ALMOND, J.E. 2005b. Geology of the Aardvark Private Nature Reserve, Little Karoo, 80 pp (including figs.). Natura Viva cc, Cape Town.  ALMOND, J.E. 2006. South African fossil heritage – a rich and exciting resource for science teachers. Keynote lecture, 6th Biennial Meeting and National Conference of SAASTE (South African Association of Science and Technology Educators), University of Kwazulu-Natal, Durban, July 2006, 9pp.  PREETHLALL, P., PILLAY, S., HANKS, K., GEBHARDT, A., ALMOND, J., & VAN RENSBURG, P. 2007a. Life sciences. Study & Master Grade 12 learner’s book, 365 pp. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge etc.  PREETHLALL, P., PILLAY, S., HANKS, K., GEBHARDT, A., ALMOND, J., & VAN RENSBURG, P. 2007b. Life sciences. Study & Master Grade 12 teacher’s book, 264 pp. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge etc.  FOURIE, J., RUST, I. & ALMOND, J. 2007. The nature guide, 362 pp. The Nature College, Cape Town.  BUATOIS, L.A., ALMOND, J., GRESSE, P. & GERMS, G. 2007. The elusive Proterozoic-Cambrian boundary: ichnologic data from the Vanrhynsdorp Group of South Africa. Abstracts, 9th International Ichnofabric Workshop, Calgary, p 8.  ALMOND, J.E. 2008a. Fossil record of the Loeriesfontein sheet area (1: 250 000 geological sheet 3018). Unpublished report for the Council for Geoscience, Pretoria, 32 pp. (To be published as part of sheet explanation by the Council for Geoscience).  ALMOND, J.E. 2008b. Palaeozoic fossil record of the Clanwilliam sheet area (1: 250 000 geological sheet 3218). Unpublished report for the Council for Geoscience, Pretoria, 49 pp. (To be published as part of sheet explanation by the Council for Geoscience).  PREETHLALL, P., PILLAY, S., GEBHARDT, A., ALMOND, J., FARNHAM, B. & VAN RENSBURG, P. 2008. Life sciences (2nd Edition). Study & Master Grade 10 learner’s book, 390 pp. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge etc.  PREETHLALL, P., PILLAY, S., GEBHARDT, A., ALMOND, J., FARNHAM, B. & VAN RENSBURG, P. 2008b. Life sciences (2nd Edition). Study & Master Grade 10 teacher’s book, 224 pp. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge etc.  ALMOND, J.E. & PETHER, J. 2008a. Palaeontological heritage of the Northern Cape. Interim SAHRA technical report, 124 pp. Natura Viva cc., Cape Town.  ALMOND, J.E. & PETHER, J. 2008b. Palaeontological heritage of the Western Cape. Interim Heritage Western Cape technical report, 20 pp. Natura Viva cc., Cape Town.  ALMOND, J.E., DE KLERK, W.J. & GESS, R. 2008. Palaeontological heritage of the Eastern Cape. Interim SAHRA technical report, 20 pp. Natura Viva cc., Cape Town.  RUBIDGE, B.S., DE KLERK, W.J. & ALMOND, J.E. 2008. Southern Karoo Margins, Swartberg and Little Karoo. Post-conference field excursion guide, 15th Biennial Conference of the Palaeontological Society of South Africa, Matjiesfontein, 35 pp.  ALMOND, J.E., BUATOIS, L.A., GRESSE, P.G. & GERMS, G.J.B. 2008. Trends in metazoan body size, burrowing behaviour and ichnodiversity across the Precambrian – Cambrian boundary: ichnoassemblages from the Vanrhynsdorp Group of South Africa. Conference programme and abstracts, Biennial Conference of the Palaeontological Society of South Africa, September 2008, Matjiesfontein, pp 15-20 (For publication in Palaeontologica africana, 2009).  ALMOND, J.E. 2009. Contributions to the palaeontology and stratigraphy of the Alexander Bay sheet area (1: 250 000 geological sheet 2816), 117 pp. Unpublished technical report prepared for the Council for Geoscience by Natura Viva cc, Cape Town.  ALMOND, J.E., BUATOIS, L.A., GRESSE, P.G. & GERMS, G.J.B. 2009. Trends in metazoan body size, burrowing behaviour and ichnodiversity across the Precambrian – Cambrian boundary: ichnoassemblages from the Vanrhynsdorp Group of South Africa. Palaeontologia Africana 44, 139-141.  ALMOND, J.E. 2010a. Eskom Gamma-Omega 765kV transmission line: Phase 2 palaeontological impact assessment. Sector 2, Omega Substation to Kappa Substation (Western Cape Province). 100pp. Natura Viva cc, Cape Town.  ALMOND, J.E. 2010b. Palaeontological heritage assessment of the Coega IDZ, Eastern Cape Province, 113 pp. Natura Viva cc, Cape Town.  ALMOND, J.E. 2010c. Falcon Oil & Gas Ltd Exploration Right – southern Main Karoo Basin, Western, Northern and Eastern Cape Provinces, RSA. Palaeontological baseline study, 52 pp. Natura Viva cc, Cape Town.  ALMOND, J.E. 2011. FibreCo Data Cable Project: Route 3 from Graaff-Reinet via George and Cape Town to Yzerfontein, Western and Eastern Cape Provinces. Palaeontological baseline assessment : desktop study, 96 pp + 11 p Appendix of maps.  MACEY, P.H., SIEGFRIED, H.P., MINNAAR, H., ALMOND, J. AND BOTHA, P.M.W. 2011. The geology of the Loeriesfontein Area. Explanation to 1: 250 000 Geology Sheet 3018 Loeriesfontein, 139 pp. Council for Geoscience, Pretoria.  ALMOND, J.E. 2012. Two wind energy facilities on the Eastern Plateau near De Aar, Northern Cape Province proposed by Mulilo Renewable Energy (Pty) Ltd. Palaeontological specialist study: combined desktop and field- based assessments, 55 pp. Natura Viva cc, Cape Town.  VILJOEN, J.A., MACEY, P.H., BROWNING, C., ALMOND, J.E., ENGELBRECHT, J., ANDRIAMIHAJA, S., M.A.Y. RAZANAMASO, RASANGARIVONY, H.F. & RANDRIANANTENAINA, M.H. 2012. A geological survey of the Ambilobe Basin, Northern Madagascar. Field Survey Services Block 1101 Madagascar, 301 pp plus maps, Appendices.  ALMOND, J.E. 2013a. Proposed Gamma – Perseus second 765kV transmission powerline and substations upgrade, Northern Cape & Free State. Palaeontological heritage assessment: desktop study, 62 pp. Natura Viva cc, Cape Town.  ALMOND, J.E. 2013b. Proposed Spitskop Wind Energy Facility, Somerset East and Albany Magisterial Districts, Eastern Cape Province. Palaeontological specialist study: combined desktop & field-based assessment, 82 pp.  ALMOND, J.E. 2013c. 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, J.E. 2013d. 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 2: De Aar to the Coega IDZ, Northern and Eastern Cape. Palaeontological specialist assessment: combined desktop and field-based study, 76 pp. Natura Viva cc, Cape Town.  ALMOND, J.E. 2013e. 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 3: Kimberley to De Aar, Northern Cape. Palaeontological specialist assessment: combined field-based and desktop study, 65 pp. Natura Viva cc, Cape Town.  ALMOND, J.E. 2013f. Palaeontological impact assessment – Middleton Wind Energy Facility, Eastern Cape Province, 69 pp. Natura Viva cc, Cape Town.  DAY, M., RUBIDGE, B., ALMOND, J. & JIRAH, S. 2013. Biostratigraphic correlation in the Karoo: the case of the Middle Permian parareptile Eunotosaurus. South African Journal of Science 109, 1-4.  BUATOIS, L.A., ALMOND, J.E. & GERMS, G.J.B. 2013. Environmental tolerance and range offset of Treptichnus pedum: Implications for the recognition of the Ediacaran-Cambrian boundary. Geology 41, 519–522.  ALMOND, J.E. 2014a. Proposed Aberdeen 200 MW wind farm, Camdeboo Local Municipality, Eastern Cape. Palaeontological impact assessment: desktop study, 46 pp. Natura Viva cc, Cape Town.

 ALMOND, J.E. 2014b. Proposed Nojoli Wind Farm near Cookhouse, Blue Crane Municipality, Eastern Cape. Palaeontological specialist assessment: combined desktop and field-based study, 69 pp. Natura Viva cc, Cape Town.

 ALMOND, J.E. 2014c. Proposed Dassiesridge Wind Energy Facility near Uitenhage, Cacadu District, Eastern Cape.Palaeontological specialist assessment: combined desktop and field-based study, 66 pp.

 FOURIE, W., ALMOND, J. & ORTON, J. 2014. National Wind and Solar PV SEA Specialist Assessment Report: Heritage Evaluation, 79 pp. CSIR.

 ALMOND, J.E. 2015a. Umsobomvu Wind Energy Facility near Middelburg, Pixley ka Seme & Chris Hani District Municipalities, Northern and Eastern Cape. Palaeontological specialist assessment: combined desktop and field- based study, 77 pp. Natura Viva cc, Cape Town.

 ALMOND, J.E. 2015b. Olifants-Doorn River Water Resources Project: raising of the Clanwilliam Dam Wall, Olifants River Valley, Clanwilliam District, Western Cape. Palaeontological specialist study: combined desktop and field assessment, 52 pp. Natura Viva cc, Cape Town.

 DAY, M.O., GÜVEN, S., ABDALA, F., JIRAH, S., RUBIDGE, B. & ALMOND, J. 2015. Youngest dinocephalian fossils extend the Tapinocephalus Zone, Karoo Basin, South Africa Research Letter, South African Journal of Science 111, 5 pp.

Dr John E. Almond Natura Viva cc PO Box 12410 Mill Street CAPE TOWN 8010 (021) 462 3622

CURRICULUM VITAE

NICHOLAS GEORGE WILTSHIRE Tel: 082 303 7870 (c); 021 013 0131 (w) E-mail addresses: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] ID number: 7902225066083

EDUCATION: ● M.Sc., Archeology - University of Cape Town (2011) ● B.Sc. (Honours), Archeology - University of Cape Town (2005) ● B.Sc., Archeology and Environmental & Geographical Sciences - University of Cape Town (2004) ● A+ and MCSE - New Horizons, Bloemfontein (1999) ● Matric (Distinction) - St Andrew’s School, Bloemfontein (1997)

EMPLOYMENT HISTORY: December 2013 - present : Cedar Tower Services (Pty) Ltd, Cape Town, South Africa Position : Owner/Director

April 2015 – present : OpenHeritage, Cape Town, South Africa Position : Founder Responsibilities :

● Director of OpenHeritage, a non-profit organisation tasked with rolling out free open source heritage management systems to developing nations

December 2013 - present : Mothers2Mothers - AgeWell Global LLC, (pilot) through Cedar Tower Services Cape Town, South Africa

March 2015 - present : IT Services Consultant to m2m Responsibilities : ● Currently providing ongoing project support

December 2013 – December 2014 : AgeWell Global LLC Developer Responsibilities : ● Drupal development of handheld recording system on smartphones and tablets for health data in the older persons sector

November 2011 – November 2013 : South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA) Cape Town, South Africa Position : Project Manager & Developer: SAHRIS (The South African Heritage Resource Information System) Responsibilities : Design and implement South Africa’s first national heritage management system. In summary this involves: ● Planning and selection of a suitable platform to develop SAHRIS ● Planning, selection, installation and setup of dedicated servers using Ubuntu Server OS ● Development of SAHRIS on the Drupal Platform ● Setup of a Geoserver to interface with Drupal ● Live Disaster Recovery Setup ● Installation and setup of mass storage devices (NAS Servers) across multiple data centres ● Setup of replication and backup ● Regular planning and assessment meetings with key stakeholders to outline future system improvements ● Training users, especially of SAHRA and the nine Provincial Heritage Resources Authorities, and museums ● Creation of training videos and help documentation ● Implementation of the website theme designed by an outside graphic design company ● Data Migration of Sites, Objects, Media Content, Profiles, Reports ● Designing, planning and overseeing SAHRA’s Digitisation ● Promotion of SAHRIS and production of peer reviewed articles

November 2008 - June 2010 : Heritage Western Cape Position : Senior Heritage Officer: Archaeology Responsibilities : ● Identify, protect and manage archaeological resources in the Western Cape ● Assess development applications, write policies, nominate sites for Provincial Heritage Site (grade 2) status ● Maintain and update GIS reporting database with SAHRA Project Involvement: November 2008 – March 2009 ● Designed, wrote and implemented database tracking system for applications and issuing of coded Records of Decision ● Implemented and maintained GIS system for archaeological sites, reports and provincial heritage sites ● Worked closely with SAHRA in bringing the GIS Reporting Project to its first release in November 2009 ● Ran a workshop in July 2009 to allow all the practitioners in the province to see the demonstration of the database and the updated requirements of the system in terms of the minimum standards ● Involved monthly reporting and quarterly reporting to management as per government policies December 2007 – September 2011 (and intermittently prior) : Archaeological Consultant, Independent

IT Contractor & Research Assistant Project Involvement :

African Climate & Development Initiative (ACDI), UCT, Cape Town, 2011 ● Design of database system for the ACDI audit of projects, departments, people and research units engaged in climate change related research at UCT ● Pooled various GIS data repositories to initiate discussion around the impacts of CC on the

Cederberg Municipality and prepared the GIS groundwork for a demonstration presentation in May 2011 ● Collaborated with the MAPA project to setup the structure for an online solution to hosting the UCT projects audit ● Was also involved in the Southern African Regional Universities Association (SARUA) meeting in March 2011 and presented a Google Earth mapping layer linked to the audit database to provide a possible solution to their collaboration framework. Involved in setup and maintenance of WordPress website for the ACDI and UCT steering committee for the Enterprise Content Management (ECM) project eastern Cederberg Rock Art Group (eCRAG), Western Cape, 2008 ● Archaeological surveys for rock art and other archaeological sites from Wupperthal in the north to Op die Berg in the south of the Cederberg ● Contributed to three Conservation Management Plans handed to each owner for completed properties ● Current number of sites documented: 464 ● Created and managed the photographic, digital report and GIS archive

Just Fruit and Veg, Killarney Gardens (July 2008-January 2009, November 2010-February 2011) Spar Ordering System: ● Designed and implemented database system to run the Packing Sheets, Production Totals and automatic exports of the Spar Group’s orders to JFV Pastel Accounting system ● The system also imports weekly price updates from their unique pricing system

JFV Pricing System: ● Overhauled an Excel based pricing system which calculated suggested selling prices based on margins and cost inputs ● The new system tracks costs and selling price changes per product and is able to export the new prices across multiple price structures directly in Pastel ● Various choices can be manipulated to derive a new selling price and the database has been coded to prevent accidental errors which cropped up in the Excel based system that relied on macros

HIMAP – Historical Mapping Project, Cape Town, June 2009 – December 2009

● Digitally mapped the historical layers of the 18th century of Cape Town from various historical maps in a project with Dr Antonia Malan ● Combined archival data with the shape files so that various interpretative layers could easily be generated

ACO Prestwich Place, Cape Town, April 2008 – August 2008 ● Design and implementation of database system for the Prestwich Place burials ● This includes a GIS mapping of the data and a 3d modelling tool for point cloud data using VRML

Iziko Museums, Cape Town, December 2007 – March 2008 ● Design of interactive multimedia exhibit displayed in the rock art collection comprising a selection from the Bleek & Lloyd Archive and the Warmhoek rock art trail in Clanwilliam

Masters (& partly Honours) Project at UCT, Cape Town, 2005, 2008-2011 ● Design of database system for the SARU archaeological records ● This involved the digitisation of 10 000 slides and the organisation of all the digital photographs taken since 2001 ● All the site records were physically scanned and typed up, mapped on GIS and linked relationally to my system ● Archive generated over 250 gigabytes of data

Genex, Cape Town, July 2007 – October 2007 ● Project managed the migration of the accounting systems from Accpac for Windows to Fincon Accounting ● Ran the Accounting department on a short term basis as caretaker before taking on another project at Ellies in Maputo, Mozambique

Millennium Foods, Killarney Gardens, June 2007 Ordering System: ● Designed and implemented networked database system to capture EDI orders from Checkers and to automate standing orders from their other customers ● The system also exports these orders directly into Pastel Accounting and runs their packing and production reports

Ellies Electronics, Cape Town, February - May 2006 ● Project managed the migration of the accounting systems from Accpac (DOS version) to Fincon Accounting ● Setup and installed Windows NT server and email server Kardex and Tracking Systems, Bloemfontein, November 1999 - February 2000 ● Designed two database systems to track stock in a multi-company environment, produce dispatch labels and to automate tripsheets

January - July 2007 : Archaeological Contractor Responsibilities : ● Contract work undertaken for the Archaeological Contracts Office at UCT & Cape Archaeological Survey. ● Cape Nature Archaeological Survey Project from July 2007 – December 2007.

January 2006 – November 2007 : Fincon Position : IT Consultant Responsibilities : ● Training, installation and Accountancy services ● Main clients: Ellies Cape Town, Ellies Maputo, IT Outlook, Genex, Toshiba Central

1998 – 2002 : ● Spent two full years as well as two short term periods working and travelling in Europe and the UK

REFERENCES: Professor John Parkington, Supervisor at UCT 079 872 4807 Raymond Berkmann, Ellies Electronics, Cape Town 021 532 2225 Dr Janette Deacon, APM Committee, HWC, Cape Town 082 491 5067 Mamakomoreng Nkhasi EO, Corporate Affairs, SAHRA 021 462 4502 Dr Mitchell Besser, Mothers2Mothers, Cape Town 021 466 9160

CURRICULUM VITAE

Jenna Lavin Tel: 083 619 0854 (c) E-mail address: [email protected] ID number: 8512050014089

Address: 7 Carey Street, Woodstock, cape Town

EDUCATION: Tertiary 2014 M.Phil in Conservation of the Built Environment (University of Cape Town) - Not completed as of 2017 2011 Continued Professional Development Course in Urban Conservation Management (University of Cape Town) Part I and Part II 2010 M.Sc. with Distinction in Archaeology (University of Cape Town) Title: Palaeoecology of the KBS member of the Koobi Fora Formation: Implications for Pleistocene Hominin Behaviour. 2007 B.Sc. Honours in Archaeology (University of Cape Town) Title: The Lost Tribes of the Peninsula: An Investigation into the historical distribution of Chacma baboons (P apio ursinus) at the Cape Peninsula, South Africa. Koobi Fora Field School, Rutgers University (U.S.A.)/ National Museums of Kenya 2006 B.Sc. Archaeology (University of Cape Town) B.Sc. Environmental and Geographic Science (University of Cape Town)

Secondary 1999-2003 R ustenburg High School for Girls Firsts in English, Afrikaans, Mathematics HG, Biology HG, History HG, Entrepreneurship.

EMPLOYMENT HISTORY:

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT Environmental and Heritage Management:

● Director: Heritage for CTS heritage and member of OpenHeritage NPC. July 2016 to present

I am a member of the senior management of the company. I am responsible for project management and quality control on all of our heritage-related projects. I provide specialist heritage expertise when required and assist with the drafting of management plans, impact assessments and other specialist reports. I liaise with clients, authorities and other specialists to ensure the highest quality product from CTS Heritage. I manage the budgets and ﬁnancial compliance for all our projects and for the business in general. In addition, I manage a specialist team of two archaeologists. We have recently been involved in developing the online map for the National Resistance and Liberation Heritage Route with DAC.

Through OpenHeritage, I have been intimately involved with the development, and successful implementation of, of a digital heritage objects management system for the National Museum in Kenya as well as Tristan da Cuhna.

● Assistant Director for Policy, Research and Planning at Heritage Western Cape (HWC). August 2014 to June 2016

As a member of the management structure of HWC, I was responsible for the drafting of new heritage related policy, the grading and declaration of Provincial Heritage Sites, the development of Conservation Management Plans, facilitating the development of inventories of heritage resources through local authorities as well as managing the development of the Western Cape’s Heritage Information Management System (HIMS). I was also responsible for managing the project to nominate the Modern Human Origins proposed World Heritage Site.

I performed the role of Acting Deputy Director for HWC from April to December 2015, including ﬁnancial management responsibilities, problem solving and the training of new sta.

● Heritage Ocer for Palaeontology and for the Mpumalanga Province at the South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA). January 2013 to June 2014

Responsibilities include managing palaeontological permit applications in terms of Section 35 of the NHRA and development applications in terms of Section 38 of the NHRA. Projects included the development of a National Palaeotechnic Report identifying signiﬁcant palaeontological deposits throughout SA, as well as developing professional relationships between SAHRA and the Palaeontological Society of South Africa (PSSA) and the Geological Society of South Africa (GSSA). During this time, I was part of the team that developed the digitised National Palaeontological Sensitvity Map, the ﬁrst of its kind in the world.

● Heritage Ocer for Archaeology, Palaeontology and Meteorites at Heritage Western Cape (HWC). September 2010 to December 2012

HWC is a Public Entity that forms part of the Heritage Resource Management Component of the Provincial Governments’ Department of Cultural Aairs and Sport (DCAS). Projects included the declaration of Pinnacle Point and the West Coast Fossil Park as Provincial Heritage Sites (PHSs), the management of the development of the Baboon Point PHS Conservation Management Plan as well as an educational outreach program as part of the DCAS MOD Centre Project.

● Heritage Ocer for the Archaeology, Palaeontology and Meteorites Unit of the South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA) as part of a three month contract. January 2010 to March 2010

● Environmental Control Ocer, Amathemba Environmental Management Consulting Part time: 2007 to 2009

Field Work Experience: 2008-2009 Field Assistant, Dr. D. Braun, Elandsfontein Excavation Locality, University of Cape Town (UCT) Field Assistant, Dr. D. Braun, Koobi Fora Research Project (Kenya), Rutgers University, New Jersey 2006 Field Assistant, Damiana Ravasi (PhD), Zoology Department, University of Cape Town. 2005 Research Assistant, Dr. Becky Ackerman, Archaeology Department, University of Cape Town 2004 Field Assistant, Prestwich Place Excavation Locality, Archaeology Contracts Oce, UCT

Teaching Positions: 2017 Guest Lecturer, South African Heritage Legislation, George Washington University Heritage Management Field School 2016 Guest Lecturer, South African Heritage Legislation, Archaeology Honours Course, University of Cape Town 2015 Guest Lecturer, South African Heritage Legislation, Archaeology Honours Course, University of Cape Town 2014 Guest Lecturer, South African Heritage Legislation, Archaeology Honours Course, University of Cape Town 2013 Guest Lecturer, South African Heritage Legislation, Archaeology Honours Course, University of Cape Town 2010 Teaching Assistant, Langebaanweg Field School, Arizona State University 2009 Demonstrator, Archaeology in Practice, University of Cape Town (AGE3013H) Demonstrator, Introduction to Geography, Earth and Environmental Science, University of Cape Town (GEO1009F) Teaching Assistant, Koobi Fora Field School (Kenya), Rutgers University, New Jersey Lecturer, Introduction to Geography, Earth and Environmental Science: Supplementary Course, University of Cape Town (EGS1004S) Demonstrator, Elandsfontein Honours Field School, University of Cape Town (AGE4000W) 2008 Demonstrator, Introduction to Geography, Earth and Environmental Science, University of Cape Town (ERT1000F) Demonstrator, Elandsfontein Honours Field School, University of Cape Town (AGE4000W) Teaching Assistant, Koobi Fora Field School (Kenya), Rutgers University, New Jersey

Conferences and Papers 2017 ASAPA, Pretoria, RSA: “U sing Heritage Data to Guide Responsible Development: Tools to ensure high quality recording of heritage sites” ICAHM, Bagomoyo, Tanzania: “O penHeritage: Development and implementation of national heritage management systems - Lessons from South Africa, Namibia and Kenya” 2016 ICAHM, Salalah, Oman: “S traight to the (Baboon) Point: A look at the Conservation of Archaeological Landscapes in South Africa using Baboon Point as a Case Study” 2015 Leakey Foundation, Sonoma County, San Fransisco, USA: ““S traight to the (Baboon) Point: A look at the Conservation of Archaeological Landscapes in South Africa using Baboon Point as a Case Study” 2012 PSSA, Johannesburg, RSA: “SAHRIS Palaeosensitivity Map - Methodology and Implementation”

Other In 2013 I was asked to join the panel of judges for the Ministerial awards for Heritage in the Western Cape. From 2013 to July 2014, I was a member of the Heritage Western Cape Archaeology, Palaeontology and Meteorites Committee and I currently sit on the Heritage Western Cape Inventories, Gradings and Interpretations Committee.

In November 2013, I was awarded a bursary from the Department of Arts and Culture to complete a Masters in Philosophy in Conservation of the Built Environment through the UCT Faculty of Engineering and the Built Environment in 2014 and 2015. I was in the process of ﬁnalising this degree in 2017, however the arrival of my son has temporarily halted my progress.

I am a paid up member of the Association for Southern African Professional Archaeologists (ASAPA), the Association of Professional Heritage Practitioners (APHP) and I have been a member of the Executive Council of APHP since 2014.

In June 2017, I was selected as Chair of APHP. I am a member of the Palaeontological Society of South Africa (PSSA) and ICOMOS South Africa, for which I am Vice-President of the Board. I am also a member of the International Committee for Archaeological Heritage Management (ICAHM), a committee of UNESCO.

I am an active participant in a not-for-proﬁt company called OpenHeritage which is dedicated to opening access to heritage resources through digital innovation. To this end, we have been involved in a number of projects including Wikipeadia Training with Africa Centre, the development and implementation of a Collections Management System for the National Museums of Kenya and the development of a digital Inventory of the Vernacular Architecture of the Eastern Cape.

Referees Mary Leslie [email protected] 082 733 2611

Janette Deacon [email protected] 082 491 5067

Laura Robinson [email protected] 083 463 4765

Andrew Hall [email protected] (Currently based in Oman)

Wendy Black [email protected] 021 481 3883

PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION DURATION

SKA Scoping Project Provision of Heritage Specialist Assessment Services for 09/2015 - 09/2016 SKA Scoping Phase

National Liberation & Development of online mapping interface to promote 02/2017 - present Khoisan Heritage Routes national liberation and Khoisan heritage routes

Western Cape Coastal Heritage statements describing changing utilisation of 01/2016 - 02/2017 Access Strategy Western Cape coast through time

Robben Island PV Facility Heritage survey, Heritage Impact Assessment, 01/2016 - 02/2017 monitoring, mapping, report writing

Stawelklip Rock Art Site documentation, stakeholder consultation, CMP 10/2015 - 01/2016 Conservation Management compilation, development of signage Plan

Phillipskop Rock Art Site documentation, stakeholder consultation, CMP 04/2016 - 08/2016 Conservation Management compilation, development of signage Plan

Cape Winelands Heritage Data processing, heritage management and mapping 08/2016 - 09/2017 Inventory services

CTS Heritage Impact Assessments HIA Title Date Completed HIA: Brakke Kuyl Sand Mine 05/12/2016 HIA: Gouritz Abalone Farm 28/10/2016 HIA: Malmesbury Granite Quarry 28/11/2016 HIA: Expansion of Jacobsbaai Abalone Farm 26/08/2016 HIA: Mutsho Power Project near Makhado 02/02/2017 HIA: Vanrhynsdorp Prospecting 06/03/2017 HIA: Spitskop Power Lines 02/03/2007 Desktop HIA Namakwa Prospecting 21/06/2017 HIA: San Miguel Citrus 26/04/2017 HIA : Ash River Hydro In process HIA: 22kv Powerlines Eastern Cape 22/08/2017 HIA: Langa Telecommunications Mast 18/08/2017 HIA: Ouwerf HF Radar Wave Monitoring Antennae In process