HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT PROPOSED KAREERAND TSF EXPANSION PROJECT, LOCATED ON CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE FARMS KROMDRAAI 420 IP, HARTEBEESTFONTEIN 422 IP, WILDEBEESTPAN 442 IP, BUFFELSFONTEIN 443 IP, UMFULA 575 IP AND MEGADAM 574 IP, EAST AND SOUTH-EAST OF KLERKSDORP, CITY OF MATLOSANA AND POTCHEFSTROOM LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES, NORTH WEST PROVINCE Project Number: HIA459 DatE of REport: 2 JunE 2020 PGS Heritage PO Box 32542 Totiusdal 0134, T +27 12 332 5305 F: +27 86 675 8077 Reg No 2003/008940/07 Declaration of IndEpEndEncE The report has been compiled by PGS Heritage (Pty) Ltd, an appointed Heritage Specialist for GCS Water & Environmental Consultants. The views stipulated in this report are purely objective and no other interests are displayed during the decision making processes discussed in the Heritage Impact Assessment. HERITAGE CONSULTANT: PGS Heritage (Pty) Ltd CONTACT PERSON: Polke Birkholtz Tel: +27 (0) 12 332 5305 Email: [email protected] SIGNATURE: ______________________________ DETAILS OF CLIENT: CLIENT: GCS Water & ENviroNmeNtal CoNsultaNts CONTACT PERSON: SharoN Meyer Tel: +27 (0) 11 803 5726 Email: [email protected] HIA – PROPOSED KAREERAND TSF EXPANSION 2 JuNe 2020 Page ii of xi HeritagE Impact AssEssmEnt for thE ProposEd Kareerand TSF Expansion Project locatEd on cErtain portions of thE farms Kromdraai 420 IP, Report TitlE HartEbEEstfontEin 422 IP, WildEbEEstpan 442 IP, BuffElsfontein 443 IP, Umfula 575 IP and MEgadam 574 IP, East and south-east of Klerksdorp, CitY of Matlosana and PotchEfstroom Local MunicipalitiEs, North WEst ProvincE. Control NamE SignaturE Designation Project Manager / HeritagE SpEcialist & Author Polke Birkholtz ArchaEologist Input bY SpEcialists: • Ms ElizE ButlEr was commissioNed as PalaeoNtologist to carry out a PalaeoNtological Desktop Study. This report is attached uNder AppEndix C. HIA – PROPOSED KAREERAND TSF EXPANSION 2 JuNe 2020 Page iii of xi As indicated in the table below, this Heritage Impact Assessment report was compiled in accordance with the NEMA AppeNdix 6 requiremeNts for specialist reports. REQUIREMENT STATUS 1. A specialist report prepared in terms of these Regulations must coNtaiN— (a) details of— (i) the specialist who prepared the report; aNd Included at beginNing of report (ii) the expertise of that specialist to compile a specialist report Included in AppeNdix B including a curriculum vitae; (b) a declaratioN that the specialist is indepeNdeNt in a form as may be Included at beginNing of report specified by the competeNt authority; (c) an iNdicatioN of the scope of, and the purpose for which, the report Included in SectioN 1 was prepared; (cA) aN iNdicatioN of the quality aNd age of base data used for the Included in SectioN 5 specialist report; (cB) a descriptioN of existiNg impacts oN the site, cumulative impacts Included in SectioNs 4 & 7 of the proposed development and levels of acceptable change; (d) the duratioN, date aNd seasoN of the site iNvestigatioN aNd the Included in SectioN 3 relevaNce of the seasoN to the outcome of the assessmeNt; (e) a descriptioN of the methodology adopted iN prepariNg the report or Included in SectioN 3 carryiNg out the specialised process iNclusive of equipmeNt aNd modelliNg used; (f) details of an assessment of the specific identified sensitivity of the Included in SectioN 6 - 8 site related to the proposed activity or activities aNd its associated structures aNd iNfrastructure, iNclusive of a site plaN ideNtifyiNg site alterNatives; (g) an identificatioN of any areas to be avoided, iNcludiNg buffers; Included in SectioN 6 - 8 (h) a map superimposiNg the activity iNcludiNg the associated structures Included in SectioN 6 and iNfrastructure oN the enviroNmental sensitivities of the site including areas to be avoided, including buffers; (i) a descriptioN of any assumptioNs made and any uncertainties or gaps Included in SectioN 1 in kNowledge; (j) a descriptioN of the fiNdiNgs and potential implicatioNs of such Included in SectioN 7 fiNdiNgs oN the impact of the proposed activity or activities; (k) any mitigatioN measures for iNclusioN iN the EMPr; Included in SectioNs 8 and 9 HIA – PROPOSED KAREERAND TSF EXPANSION 2 JuNe 2020 Page iv of xi REQUIREMENT STATUS (l) any coNditioNs for iNclusioN iN the enviroNmental authorisatioN; Included in SectioNs 8 and 9 (m) any moNitoriNg requirements for iNclusioN iN the EMPr or Included in SectioNs 8 and 9 enviroNmental authorisatioN; (n) a reasoNed opinion— (i) whether the proposed activity, activities or portioNs thereof Included in SectioN 9 should be authorised; (iA) regardiNg the acceptability of the proposed activity or activities; Included in SectioN 9 and (ii) if the opinioN is that the proposed activity, activities or portioNs Included in SectioN 9 thereof should be authorised, aNy avoidaNce, maNagemeNt aNd mitigatioN measures that should be iNcluded iN the EMPr, aNd where applicable, the closure plan; (o) a descriptioN of aNy coNsultatioN process that was uNdertakeN duriNg Not applicable the course of prepariNg the specialist report; (p) a summary and copies of any comments received duriNg any Not applicable coNsultatioN process aNd where applicable all respoNses thereto; aNd (q) any other iNformatioN requested by the competent authority. Not applicable 2. Where a goverNmeNt Notice gazetted by the MiNister provides for - any protocol or miNimum iNformatioN requirement to be applied to a specialist report, the requirements as iNdicated iN such Notice will apply. HIA – PROPOSED KAREERAND TSF EXPANSION 2 JuNe 2020 Page v of xi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PGS Heritage (Pty) Ltd was appoiNted by GCS Water & EnviroNmeNtal CoNsultants to uNdertake a Heritage Impact AssessmeNt (HIA), which forms part of the eNviroNmeNtal process for the proposed Kareerand TSF ExpansioN Project, located oN certaiN portioNs of the farms Kromdraai 420 IP, HartebeestfoNteiN 422 IP, WildebeestpaN 442 IP, BuffelsfoNteiN 443 IP, Umfula 575 IP aNd Megadam 574 IP, to the east aNd south-east of Klerksdorp, withiN the City of Matlosana and Potchefstroom Local MuNicipalities, North West ProviNce. An archival and historical desktop study was undertaken to provide a historic framework for the project area and surrouNdiNg landscape. This was augmented by a study of available historical topographical maps and an assessment of previous archaeological and heritage studies completed for the study area and surrouNdiNg landscape. The desktop study revealed that the study area is located iN surrouNdiNgs characterised by a loNg aNd sigNificaNt history. The study area was assessed iN the field by way of iNteNsive walkthroughs that were augmeNted by vehicle surveys. The fieldwork was undertaken by experienced fieldwork teams comprising one heritage specialist/archaeologist and one fieldwork assistant. A total of four fieldwork trips were undertaken by experienced fieldwork teams between 2017 and 2018. DuriNg all these fieldwork trips these teams comprised oNe heritage specialist/archaeologist aNd oNe fieldwork assistaNt. The fieldwork resulted iN the ideNtificatioN of 48 archaeological aNd heritage sites. These ideNtified sites comprise the followiNg: • Six Cemeteries (see sites AGA-MWS-WBP-6, AGA-MWS-WBP-12, AGA-MWS-UMF-4, AGA-MWS- MGD-2, AGA-MWS-MGD-3 and AGA-MWS-BFF-7); • Eight Possible Graves (see sites AGA-MWS-HBF-5, AGA-MWS-WBP-15, AGA-MWS-WBP-18, AGA-MWS-WBP-19, AGA-MWS-KRD-1, AGA-MWS-MGD-7, AGA-MWS-MGD-8, AGA-MWS- MGD-9); • One Historic Black Homestead coNtaiNiNg CoNfirmed Graves (AGA-MWS-MGD-5); • TweNty Historic Black Homesteads (AGA-MWS-WBP-1, AGA-MWS-WBP-2, AGA-MWS-WBP-3, AGA-MWS-WBP-4, AGA-MWS-WBP-7, AGA-MWS-WBP-8, AGA-MWS-WBP-9, AGA-MWS-WBP- 10, AGA-MWS-WBP-11, AGA-MWS-WBP-13, AGA-MWS-WBP-14, AGA-MWS-WBP-16, AGA- MWS-UMF-5, AGA-MWS-MGD-4, AGA-MWS-MGD-6, AGA-MWS-BFF-9, AGA-MWS-BFF-10, AGA-MWS-BFF-11, AGA-MWS-BFF-12 and AGA-MWS-BFF-13); HIA – PROPOSED KAREERAND TSF EXPANSION 2 JuNe 2020 Page vi of xi • Three ReceNt Structures (see sites AGA-MWS-HBF-6, AGA-MWS-UMF-1 & AGA-MWS-MGD-1); • Two Historic Farmsteads (see sites AGA-MWS-WBP-17 & AGA-MWS-UMF-3); • Seven StoNe Age sites (see sites AGA-MWS-WBP-5, AGA-MWS-UMF-2, AGA-MWS-BFF-14, AGA- MWS-BFF-15, AGA-MWS-BFF-16, AGA-MWS-BFF-17 and AGA-MWS-BFF-18); aNd • One old laNe of trees (AGA-MWS-BFF-8). The impact of the proposed developmeNt oN the located heritage sites was assessed in Chapter 7 of this report. For this purpose, aN overlay of the ideNtified archaeological aNd heritage sites over the proposed development footprint areas was made. This overlay revealed that four sites are located withiN, or iN proximity to, these proposed developmeNt footpriNt areas. These four sites are AGA-MWS- WBP-2, AGA-MWS-MGD-5, AGA-MWS-MGD-6 AND AGA-MWS-MGD-7. Assessments of the impact before and after mitigation were undertaken. MitigatioN measures are outliNed iN Chapter 8 of this report. The mitigatioN measures required for sites AGA-MWS-WBP-2, AGA-MWS-MGD-5 and AGA-MWS-MGD-6 will be outlined first. The followiNg iNitial mitigatioN measure is required for the four sites: • A social consultation process to assess whether any local residents or the wider public is aware of the preseNce of graves here. DepeNdiNg oN the outcome of the social coNsultatioN process, three differeNt outcomes would be the result, Namely: • Outcome 1: The social coNsultatioN absolutely coNfirms that No graves are located here. • Outcome 2: The social coNsultatioN absolutely coNfirms that graves are located here. • Outcome 3: The social coNsultatioN does Not yield aNy coNfideNt results. The followiNg mitigatioN measures would be required for sites falliNg uNder Outcome 1: • No further mitigatioN with regards to the uNmarked stillborn graves would be required. The followiNg mitigatioN measures would be required for sites falliNg uNder Outcome 2: • A grave relocation process must be undertaken.