A Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment for the Proposed Happy Valley Wind Energy Facility

AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL WALKTHROUGH SURVEY OF THE PROPOSED 132KV POWER LINE ROUTE FROM THE MELKHOUT SUBSTATION TO THE DIEPRIVIER SUBSTATION KOUGA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY, SARAH BAARTMAN DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY, EASTERN CAPE PROVINCE

Prepared for: GIBB Engineering & Science P.O. Box 63703 Greenacres 6057 Tel: 041 392 7510 Fax: 086 608 2522 Contact person: Mr Walter Fyvie Cell: 72 8439 630 Email: [email protected]

Compiled by: Dr Johan Binneman and Mr Kobus Reichert On behalf of: Eastern Cape Heritage Consultants P.O. Box 689 Jeffreys Bay 6330 Tel/Fax: 042 2960399 Cell: 0728006322 Email: [email protected] [email protected]

Date: June 2015 CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.…....…….……………………..…….………………….……..…. 1 BRIEF PROJECT INFORMATION ………………………………………………………….. 2 Background ……………………………………………………………………………………. 2 Purpose of the walkthrough ………………………………...……………………..…...... 2 Site and location ……………………………………………………………………………..… 2 Relevant impact assessments ……………………………………………………………….…. 4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL WALKTHROUGH ………………………….……………….…….… 5 Methodology……………………………………….…………….…….………………….…… 5 Limitations and assumptions……………………………………………………….….…….…. 5 Results of the walkthrough ………..……………………….…………………….….………… 5 DISCUSSION AND MITIGATION…………………………………….…..…………….…... 8 GENERAL REMARKS AND CONDITIONS………………………….……………….……. 9 APPENDIX A: List of observations …………………………………………………………. 10 APPENDIX B: Brief legislative requirements ………….....…………………………..…….. 11 APPENDIX C: Guidelines and procedures for developers …………...……..….…………… 13 APPENDIX D: Aerial maps and general digital landscape images ...... ………….. 14

Compiled by: Dr Johan Binneman On behalf of: Eastern Cape Heritage Consultants P.O. Box 689 Jeffreys Bay, 6330 Tel/Fax: 042 2960399 Cell: 0728006322 Email: [email protected]

Note: This report follows the minimum standard guidelines required by the South African Heritage Resources Agency for compiling Archaeological Phase 1 Impact Assessment (AIA) reports and is part of an Environmental Impact Assessment.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Eastern Cape Heritage Consultants cc was appointed by GIBB Engineering & Science on behalf of Eskom Holdings SOC Limited to conduct an Archaeological walkthrough survey for the proposed 132kV power line route linking the Melkout Substation north of Humansdorp to the proposed Dieprivier substation.

Only the layout of the power line route was available for the walkthrough. No information was available for the access/maintenance roads, construction camps and administrative centers and these could therefore not be assessed during the walkthrough. The survey was conducted to establish the range and importance of possible exposed and in situ archaeological heritage remains and features, the potential impact of the development and, to make recommendations to minimize possible damage to these sites.

The power line route runs over land covered by dense vegetation and fields which have been ploughed extensively in the past and now covered by dense grass used for grazing. The dense ground cover impeded the archaeological visibility and made it difficult to locate sites/materials. Notwithstanding, Middle and Earlier Stone Age stone tools were observed in several areas along the power line route where the surface soils have been disturbed by ploughing, erosion or vehicle tracks. These stone tools were in secondary contexts and of low archaeological significance. Several historical features were also observed near the power line route, such as the narrow gauge railway line (which is 109 years old), graves and buildings older than 60 years. However, the development will not have direct impact on these features, but must be protected against possible damage/vandalism.

It is recommended that the three historical sensitive areas be treated as ‘no-go’ areas and must be communicated to managers and workers before construction starts. Construction managers/ECO should be informed before construction starts on the possible types of heritage sites/materials they may encounter and the procedures to follow when they find sites. Should any archaeological material be exposed during construction, all work must cease in the immediate area and reported to the archaeologist at the Albany Museum in Grahamstown or to the Eastern Cape Provincial Heritage Resources Authority so that a systematic and professional investigation can be undertaken. In general the proposed power line route is of low archaeological significance and the construction activities will have little impact on possible archaeological sites/material. There are power lines in the area and the proposed power line will add a slight negative cumulative visual impact to the cultural landscape. 2

BRIEF PROJECT INFORMATION

Background

Two Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessments have been conducted for the proposed 132kV power line linking the Melkhout Substation north of Humansdorp) to the proposed extension of the Dieprivier substation (Van Schalkwyk 2012, 2013) and one from the Melkhout Substation to west of Kruisfontein (Anderson 2010). Comprehensive reports of these assessments were compiled and contain all the project information, environmental descriptions, background studies, local heritage summary, results and recommendations and will not be repeated here in any detail.

Purpose of the walkthrough

The purpose of the study was to conduct an archaeological walkthrough survey of the proposed 132kV power line linking the Melkhout Substation north of Humansdorp to the proposed Dieprivier substation close to the R62 main road to Kareedouw, to establish;

• the range and importance of possible exposed and in situ archaeological sites, features and materials, • the potential impact of the development on these resources and, • to make recommendations to minimize possible damage to these resources.

Site and location

The development is located within the 1:50 000 topographic reference maps 3424BB Humansdorp, 3424BA Kruisfontein and 3324 DC Andrieskraal. The proposed power line runs from the Melkhout Substation north of Humansdorp to the proposed Dieprivier Substation, which is situated approximately 26 km west of Humansdorp The Dieprivier Substation is situated 300 metres north-east of the R62 main road from the N2 National Road to Kareedouw. The power line is approximately 26 km in length and runs over a number of farms and includes the following properties;

Farm 810/1 HappyValley Trust Farm 349/0 Waterwheel Inv 114 (Pty) Ltd Farm 352/5 Rhebuck Trust Farm 352/6 Nic Heynes Family Trust Farm 357/6 John Strydom Family Trust Farm 357/0 Zietzman Pienaar Farm 357/11 Zietzman Pienaar Farm 954/0 Deca familie Trust

The general landscape comprises a gentle undulating hill landscape deeply incised by the Seekoeirivier, Leeubosrivier and Dieprivier (Maps 1). The area is currently being used for general farming activities such as grazing and cultivation and has therefore been ploughed extensively. General small scale farming activities such as the construction of fences, dams, kraals, farm roads, dams, power lines and soil erosion has disturbed the study area in the past. The eastern section from the Melkhout Substation to the Seekoeirivier (Maps 2-3) is low lying land densely covered by alien wattle trees, grass and vlei areas in places (Figure 1). The area has also been disturbed in the past by bush clearing, ploughing and planting of grass for grazing along the northern periphery of Kruisfontein. From the Seekoeirivier gorge westwards to the Dieprivier Substation the landscape changes to rolling hills extensively ploughed and deeply carved by the Leeubosrivier and Dieprivier (Maps 3-5, figures 2-8).

Map 1a-c. 1: 50 000 Topographic map and aerial views of the layout of the proposed power line from the Melkhout Substation to the proposed Dieprivier Substation (Maps courtesy of GIBB Engineering & Science). 4

Relevant impact assessments

Anderson, G. 2010. Heritage survey of the proposed Melkhout-Oyster Bay Distribution line. Prepared for Coastal Environmental Sevices, Grahamstown. Umlando. Meerensee. Binneman, J. 2010. A phase 1 archaeological heritage impact assessment for the proposed Deep River Wind Energy Project, Kouga Municipality, District Of Humansdorp, Eastern Cape Province. Prepared for Savannah Environmental (Pty) Ltd, Sunninghill. Eastern Cape Heritage Consultants. Jeffreys Bay. Binneman, J. 2011. A Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment for the proposed Happy Valley Wind Energy Facility. Prepared for Savannah Environmental (Pty) Ltd, Sunninghill. Eastern Cape Heritage Consultants. Jeffreys Bay. Binneman, J. 2011. A phase 1 archaeological impact assessment for the proposed Tsitsikamma Community Wind Energy Facility, Kouga Local Municipality, Humansdorp District, Eastern Cape Province. Prepared for Savannah Environmental (Pty) Ltd, Sunninghill. Prepared for Savannah Environmental (Pty) Ltd, Sunninghill. Eastern Cape Heritage Consultants. Jeffreys Bay. Binneman, J. 2012. An archaeological walk through survey of the final turbine footprint for the proposed Tsitsikamma Community Wind Energy Facility, Kouga Local Municipality, Humansdorp District, Eastern Cape Province: an amendment to the phase 1 archaeological impact assessment conducted during august 2011. Prepared for Savannah Environmental (Pty) Ltd, Sunninghill. Prepared for Savannah Environmental (Pty) Ltd, Sunninghill. Eastern Cape Heritage Consultants. Jeffreys Bay. Binneman, J. 2012. A phase 1 archaeological impact assessment for the proposed 132kv power line linking the Tsitsikamma Community Wind Energy Facility to the proposed extension of the Dieprivier Substation, Kouga Local Municipality, Humansdorp District, Eastern Cape Province. Prepared for Savannah Environmental (Pty) Ltd, Sunninghill. Prepared for Savannah Environmental (Pty) Ltd, Sunninghill. Eastern Cape Heritage Consultants. Jeffreys Bay. Binneman, J. 2013. Amendment: a phase 1 archaeological impact assessment for the revised 132kv power line linking the Tsitsikamma Community Wind Energy Facility to the proposed extension of the Dieprivier Substation, Kouga Local Municipality, Humansdorp District, Eastern Cape Province. Prepared for Savannah Environmental (Pty) Ltd, Sunninghill. Prepared for Savannah Environmental (Pty) Ltd, Sunninghill. Eastern Cape Heritage Consultants. Jeffreys Bay. Binneman, J. 2014. An archaeological walkthrough survey of the preferred 132kv power line route linking the Tsitsikamma Community Wind Energy Facility to the proposed extension of the Dieprivier Substation, Kouga Local Municipality, Humansdorp District, Eastern Cape Province. Prepared for Savannah Environmental (Pty) Ltd, Sunninghill. Prepared for Savannah Environmental (Pty) Ltd, Sunninghill. Eastern Cape Heritage Consultants. Jeffreys Bay. Wahl, B and van Schalkwyk, L. 2012. Phase 1 archaeological impact assessment report: proposed 132kV power line and substation infrastructure, Melkhout-Dieprivier, Kouga Local Municipality, Cacadu District, Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. Prepared for GIBB Engineering & Science.Greenacres, Ethembeni Cultural Heritage. Ashburton. Wahl, B and van Schalkwyk, L. 2013. Phase 1 archaeological impact assessment report: proposed 132kV power line and substation infrastructure, Melkhout-Dieprivier, Kouga Local Municipality, Cacadu District, Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. Prepared for GIBB Engineering & Science.Greenacres, Ethembeni Cultural Heritage. Ashburton. 5

ARCHAEOLOGICAL WALKTHROUGH

Methodology

The landowners were contacted telephonically prior to the survey to inform them about the walkthrough and to gain access to their land. They were also consulted (in some instances in person) on possible locations of archaeological remains, graves and historical buildings and features.The walkthrough of the proposed 132kV power line route from the Melkhout Substation north of Humansdorp to the proposed Dieprivier Substation was conducted by two archaeologists on foot and from a vehicle. An extensive Google aerial image investigation was conducted of the area prior to the investigation. GPS readings were taken with a Garmin and all important features were digitally recorded (for views of the power line route and the surrounding landscape and vegetation see Appendix D for Maps and Figures).

Consultation with the Gamtkwa KhoiSan Council was conducted as required by the National Heritage Resources Act No. 25 of 1999, Section 38(3e). They will communicate their recommendations to GIBB Engineering and Science and/or Eskom Holdings SOC Limited if required.

Limitations and assumptions

Due to the dense ground vegetation cover and the disturbed/transformed nature of the landscape the archaeological visibility was poor for most of the proposed power line route. Virtually all the pylon positions were situated in areas well-covered by dense vegetation which made it extremely difficult to locate archaeological sites/materials. However, the visibility improved on ploughed fields and areas where the underlying sub surfaces were exposed by erosion and/or by human activities. Only the layout of the power line route was available for the walkthrough. No information was available for the access/maintenance roads, construction camps and administrative centers and these could therefore not be assessed during the study. Regardless of these restrictions imposed by the dense vegetation and lack of information, the experiences and knowledge gained from research and investigations in the wider surrounding region, provided background information to make assumption and predictions on the incidences and the significance of possible pre-colonial archaeological sites/material which may be located in the area, or which may be covered by soil and vegetation.

Results from the walkthrough

The first section of the proposed 132kv power line route starts at the Melkhout Substation north of Humansdorp. (Map 2). From the substation it runs south towards Humansdorp, crosses the N2 National Road to Port Elizabeth.through and continues through dense wattle stands and grass. After a few hundred metres the route turns west, crosses the R330 main road to Humansdorp and runs parallel to the newly constructed power line to the Kruisfontein settlement. West of Kruisfontein the line turns north and crosses the N2 and then west again crossing the Seekoeiriver. From there it follows an existing power line along the foot of high hills for approximately 4 kilometres (Map 3). The route then turns southwest towards the N2 crossing the narrow gauge railway line and the Leeubosrivier (Map 4). Near the N2 the route turns westwards, crossing over ploughed fields, the railway line and the Dieprivier from where it follows the railway line to the proposed Dieprivier Substation (Map 5).

All the archaeological materials observed during the walkthrough, whether in large or small concentrations or single occurrences, were in secondary/disturbed contexts (see Appendix A for a list of sites and observations). In some cases ploughed fields were cleared of stones and 6 dumped in large piles. Large numbers of Earlier Stone Age stone tools were observed among these piles of stones, but occasional stone tools were still found in the fields. In other cases where stones were not cleared from the fields, large numbers of stone tools were distributed over large areas. Due to the disturbed nature of the stone tool occurrences, a few tools or stone piles are referred to in the text as ‘observations’. If a number of these tools were still ‘naturally’ distributed in the fields, it is referred ‘loosely’ to as ‘sites. For these reasons and the scattered nature of the stone tools, the blue GPS pegs mark general locations of stone tools and not necessarily the precise locations.

Historical features such as graves, buildings and the narrow gauge railway line near the proposed power line have also been recorded. Although these features will not be impacted directly by the development, the possibility exists that they may be damaged/vandalised during the construction phase and are therefore reported as ‘concerns’.

Apart from a few Middle Stone Age stone tools the greater majority of stone tools observed throughout the area were of Earlier Stone Age origin dating between 1,5 million and 250 000 years old. The stone tools included hand axes, cleavers, cores, flaked cobbles and flakes all manufactured from quartzite river cobbles.

Observation 1

A few weathered Earlier and Middle Stone Age stone tools were observed on an exposed quartzite outcrop along the service track next to the existing power line route near the R330 main road to Humansdorp (Map 1, figure 1c). These tools were in secondary context and not associated with other archaeological remains and are of low significance. No mitigation is required. General GPS reading: 34.0.763S; 24.46.850E.

Anderson (2010) conducted a survey for the 132kVpower line from the proposed Oyster Bay Substation (not finalised at the time) to the Melkhout Substation. He recorded 4 sites along the section from Kruisrivier to the Melkhout Substation. The proposed power line from Melkhout to the proposed Dieprivier Substation follows this completed power line as far as Kruisrivier. No effort was made to relocate these sites as they were a fair distance from the current walkthrough route and also the sites were rated as low significance.

Site 1 – concern

The Plantation Cemetery is situated on the western perimeter of Kruisfontein and is approximately 200 metres south of the proposed power line route (Map 2). The development therefore will not impact directly on the cemetery, but may be indirect impacted during the construction of the power line. General GPS reading: 34.0.034S; 24.43.273E.

The above mentioned power line route (Anderson 2010) was originally placed approximately 50 metres west of the Plantation Cemetery, but were finally constructed within 25 metres of the cemetery in the narrow corridor between the cemetery and the Kruisfontein settlement (Map 2). The cemetery was not recorded by Anderson (2010, Fig. 5). From a heritage impact assessment point of view, the construction of the power line so close to the cemetery should never have taken place/approved. Therefore it is recommended that no access service roads, construction camps or any other activity may be conducted within 100 metres of the cemetery.

Observation 2

A few Earlier Stone Age stone tools were observed next to a gravel road where the proposed power line crosses the Seekoeirivier (Map 3). These tools were in secondary context and not 7 associated with other archaeological remains and are of low significance. General GPS reading: 33.59.517S; 24.42.300E. No mitigation is required.

Observation 3

A few Earlier Stone Age stone tools were observed next to a gravel track near the proposed power line where it crosses the narrow gauge railway line from Port Elizabeth to Avontuur in the Langkloof (Map 3). These tools were in secondary context with no association with other archaeological remains and are of low significance. General GPS reading: 33.59.614S; 24.42.662E. No mitigation is required.

Site 2 - concerns

Site 2 includes 3 historical features. There are at least three graves of which one dates to 1926, farm buildings of which at least one possibly dates older than 60 years and the narrow gauge railway line (Map 4, figure 3). The graves and the buildings are part of an historical farm yard/landscape (Kerkplaatz) and are approximately 150 metres from the proposed power line. These features will not directly be impacted by the power line development, but may be damaged/vandalised during the constructed phase. It is therefore recommended that the area must be a ‘no-go’ area during the construction of the power line and must be communicated to management and workers before construction start. A general GPS reading for the graves/farm yard is 33.59.532S; 24.39.916E.

In this area the proposed power line route crosses the narrow gauge railway line and runs parallel to it for about a kilometre (Map 4, figure 3). The narrow gauge railway line is the single most dominant historical feature in the landscape and is 109 years old. En route to the proposed Dieprivier Substation the power line runs close to and crosses the railway line several times. The railway line was authorized in 1899 and construction commenced in 1902, reaching Avontuur in the upper Langkloof near Uniondale late in 1906. The line was built to connect the scenic Langkloof with its fruit growing industry to the port of Port Elizabeth. The official opening of the line was in 1907, with a main line track length of 284 km (177 miles) from Port Elizabeth to Avontuur. GPS readings: 33.59.532S; 24.39.916E to 33.59.516S; 24.39.195E.

Sites and observations 3-7

These observations (Map 4, figures 4-5) were made on the contoured (walls/terraces) hill slopes which were extensively ploughed over the years. In some areas stones were cleared from the ploughed fields and dumped in large pills. Fields and the piles of stones were investigated. Many Earlier Stone Age stone tools (hand axes, cleavers, chunks and heavy flaked pieces) were observed on these piles of stones, but occasional stone tools were still observed scattered in the ploughed fields. The general locations of some of these scattered occurrences are marked by the blue pegs on Map 4. These stone tools are in secondary context without any distribution patterns and not associated with any other archaeological remains and are therefore of low significance. General GPS readings for the observations 3-7: (3) 34.0.667S; 24.38.280E, (4) 34.0.656S; 24.37.945E, (5) 34.0.703S; 24.37.848E, (6) 34.0.797S; 24.37.875E and (7) 34.0.991S; 24.37.366E. No mitigation is required.

Sites and observations 8-11 and 15-18

These sites and observations were situated on ploughed terraces where large numbers of Earlier Stone Age and occasional Middle Stone Age stone tools occurred (Map 5, figures 6). These sites represent some of the largest distribution and accumulation of Earlier Stone Age stone tools in the wider region. These stone tools are also in secondary context without any 8 distribution patterns and not associated with any other archaeological remains and are of low significance. General GPS readings for observations 8-17: (8) 34.1.083S; 24.36.447E, (9) 34.1.053S; 24.36.097E, (10) 34.1.042S; 24.36.035E, (11) 34.1.022S; 24.35.958E, (15) 34.1.130S; 24.35.666, (16) 34.1.090S; 24.35.532E, (17) 34.0.883S; 24.35.272E and (18) 34.0.712S; 24.35.942E. No mitigation is required.

Sites 3: 12, 13 and 14- concerns

Site 3 includes four historical features. A grave dating to 1926, a farmhouse possibly older than 60 years and the narrow gauge railway line and bridge over the Dieprivier (Map 5, figure 7). The house is approximately 100 metres from the proposed power line, the grave 50 metres and the bridge 150 metres. The power line will be suspended from pylons on both embankments of the Dieprivier and will not impact/effect the features in the valley directly. However, the features may be damaged/vandalised during the constructing phase. The grave is some 20 metres from the gravel track and it must be marked with danger tape for the duration of the construction phase so it is clearly visible at all times to prevent ‘accidental’ damage. The grave and the farmhouse must be ‘no-go’ areas during the construction of the power line and must be communicated to management and workers before construction start. GPS readings for the farmhouse (12) 34.0.966S; 24.35.857E, grave (13) 34.1.010S; 24.35.862E and bridge (14) 34.1.130S; 24.35.666E,

In the final section the power line crosses the railway line 3 times towards the proposed Dieprivier Substation (Map 5 figure 8). Due to the dense vegetation the archaeological visibility was poor and no significant site/materials were observed.

References

Anderson, G. 2010. Heritage survey of the proposed Melkhout-Oyster Bay Distribution line. Prepared for Coastal Environmental Sevices, Grahamstown. Umlando. Meerensee. http://www.appleexpresstrain.co.za/files/apple_express_history.pdf

DISCUSSION AND MITIGATION

Almost the entire proposed 132kV power line route from the Melkhout Substation to the Dieprivier Substation runs over land which has been transformed extensively in the past by bush clearing, ploughing and planting of grass for grazing. Large areas are also covered by dense wattle stands and grass. These activities most probably disturbed/destroyed any in situ archaeological sites/materials which may have been present. The main impact on archaeological sites/remains will be the physical disturbance of material and context. The clearing of the vegetation and other construction activities may expose, disturb and displace archaeological sites/material. Nevertheless, apart from large numbers of Earlier Stone Age stone tools observed adjacent to the power line reserve in some areas, no other archaeological sites/materials were observed. These stone tools are in secondary context and not associated with any other archaeological materials and are therefore of low significance. The impact of the development on archaeological sites/materials will be limited in this sense that material already disturbed by ploughing and other activities will be ‘further displaced’. No further action is required regarding the Earlier Stone Age stone tools. The Albany Museum houses a large collection of similar stone tools from the wider area. There are other power lines in the area and the proposed power line will add a slight negative cumulative visual impact to the cultural landscape. The development may proceed, but it is recommended that;

1. The historical features which were identified during the walkthrough at the three sites are protected by the National Heritage Resources Act No. 25 of 1999. The sites must be ruled as 9

‘no-go’ areas during the construction of the power line to prevent damage/vandalism to the features. Construction managers/foremen or ECO must be informed before construction starts on the importance of these features and communicate and inform workers of the ‘no- go’ areas.

• Site 1, the Plantation Cemetery: No construction activities must take place within 100 metres of the cemetery.

• Site 2, Kerkplaatz historical farmyard (graves, buildings and railway line): ‘no-go’ area to prevent possible damage/vandalism to the graves.

• Site 3, Dieprivier farmyard (grave, farmhouse and railway line): the farmhouse and grave must be ‘no-go’ areas to prevent damage/vandalism. The grave is close to the gravel track and it must be marked with danger tape for the duration of the construction phase so it is clearly visible at all times to prevent ‘accidental’ damage.

2. Construction managers/foremen should be informed before construction starts on the possible types of heritage sites and cultural material they may encounter and the procedures to follow when they find sites. Alternatively the ECO may be trained to report to the site manager if sites are found. . 3. Although it is unlikely that any sensitive archaeological sites/remains will be exposed during the development, there is always a possibility that human remains and/or other archaeological and historical material may be uncovered during the development. Should such material be exposed then work must ceased in the immediate area and it must be reported to the Albany Museum (046 6222312) or to the Eastern Cape Provincial Heritage Resources Authority (043 6422811), so that a systematic and professional investigation can be undertaken. Sufficient time should be allowed to remove/collect such material (See Appendix C for a list of possible archaeological sites that maybe found in the area).

GENERAL REMARKS AND CONDITIONS

Note: This is an Archaeological Walkthrough report compiled for the Eastern Cape Provincial Heritage Resources Authority (ECPHRA) to enable them to make informed decisions regarding the heritage resources assessed in this report and only they have the authority to revise the report. This Report must be reviewed by the ECPHRA where after they will issue their Review Comments to the EAP/developer. The final decision rests with the ECPHRA who must grant permits if there will be any impact on cultural sites/materials as a result of the development

This report is an Archaeological Walkthrough Impact Assessment and does not exempt the developer from any other relevant heritage impact assessments as specified below:

In terms of the National Heritage Resources Act, No. 25 of 1999 (section 38) ECPHRA may require a full Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) to assess all heritage resources, that includes inter alia, all places or objects of aesthetical, architectural, historic, scientific, social, spiritual, linguistic, or technological significance that may be present on a site earmarked for development. A full Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) should assess all these heritage components, and the assessment may include archaeology, shipwrecks, battlefields, graves, and structures older than 60 years, living heritage, historical settlements, landscapes, geological sites, palaeontological sites and objects.

It must be emphasized that this Phase 1 AIA is based on the visibility of archaeological sites/material and may not therefore reflect the true state of affairs. Sites and material may be covered by soil and vegetation and will only be located once this has been removed. In the event of such finds being uncovered during construction activities, ECPHRA or an archaeologist must be informed immediately so that they can investigate the importance of the sites and excavate or collect material before it is destroyed (see attached list of possible archaeological sites and material). The developer must finance the costs should additional studies be required as outlined above. The onus is on the developer to ensure that the provisions of the National Heritage Resources Act No. 25 of 1999 and any instructions from ECPHRA are followed. The EAP/developer must forward this report to ECPHRA in order to obtain their Review Comments, unless alternative arrangements have been made with the heritage specialist to submit the report. 11

APPENDIX A: List of observations made along the proposed power line from the Melkhout Substation to the proposed Dieprivier Substation.

Text description Text GPS Location Type of site Rating Location/ reference status Observation 1 Map 2 34.0.763S; Earlier Stone Age low next to servitude 24.46.850E stone tools Site1–concern Map 2 34.0.034S; cemetery high 200 metres from 24.43.273E. servitude Observation 2 Map 3 33.59.517S; Earlier Stone Age low next to servitude 24.42.300E stone tools Observation 3 Map 4 33.59.614S; Earlier Stone Age low close to servitude 24.42.662E stone tools Site2–concern Map 4 33.59.532S; graves and farm- high 150 metres from 24.39.916E house servitude

33.59.532S; narrow gauge medium next to and in 24.39.916E railway line servitude 33.59.516S; 24.39.195E Sites and obser- Map 4 (3) 34.0.667S; Earlier Stone Age low Close to and in vations 3-7 24.38.280E stone tools servitude (4) 34.0.656S; 24.37.945E (5) 34.0.703S; 24.37.848E (6) 34.0.797S; 24.37.875E (7) 34.0.991S; 24.37.366E Sites and obser- Map 5 (8) 34.1.083S; Earlier Stone Age low close to and in vations 8-11 and 24.36.447E stone tools servitude 15-18 (9) 34.1.053S; 24.36.097E (10) 34.1.042S; 24.36.035E (11) 34.1.022S; 24.35.958E (15) 34.1.130S; 24.35.666E (16) 34.1.090S; 24.35.532E (17) 34.0.883S; 24.35.272E (18) 34.0.712S; 24.35.942E Sites 3: 12, 13 Map 5 (12) 34.0.966S; farmhouse medium 100 metres from and 14- concerns 24.35.857E servitude

(13) 34.1.010S; grave high 50 metres from 24.35.862E servitude

(14) 34.1.130S; bridge medium 150 metres from 24.35.666E servitude 12

APPENDIX B: brief legislative requirements

Parts of sections 35(4), 36(3) and 38(1) (8) of the National Heritage Resources Act 25 of 1999 apply:

Archaeology, palaeontology and meteorites

35 (4) No person may, without a permit issued by the responsible heritage resources authority—

(a) destroy, damage, excavate, alter, deface or otherwise disturb any archaeological or palaeontological site or any meteorite; (b) destroy, damage, excavate, remove from its original position, collect or own any archaeological or palaeontological material or object or any meteorite; (d) bring onto or use at an archaeological or palaeontological site any excavation equipment or any equipment which assist in the detection or recovery of metals or archaeological and palaeontological material or objects, or use such equipment for the recovery of meteorites. Burial grounds and graves

36. (3) (a) No person may, without a permit issued by SAHRA or a provincial heritage resources authority—

(a) destroy, damage, alter, exhume or remove from its original position or otherwise disturb the grave of a victim of conflict, or any burial ground or part thereof which contains such graves; (b) destroy, damage, alter, exhume, remove from its original position or otherwise disturb any grave or burial ground older than 60 years which is situated outside a formal cemetery administered by a local authority; or (c) bring onto or use at a burial ground or grave referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) any excavation equipment, or any equipment which assists in the detection or recovery of metals.

Heritage resources management

38. (1) Subject to the provisions of subsections (7), (8) and (9), any person who intends to undertake a development categorized as –

(a) the construction of a road, wall, powerline, pipeline, canal or other similar form of linear development or barrier exceeding 300m in length; (b) the construction of a bridge or similar structure exceeding 50m in length; (c) any development or other activity which will change the character of the site – (i) exceeding 5000m2 in extent, or (ii) involving three or more erven or subdivisions thereof; or (iii) involving three or more erven or divisions thereof which have been consolidated within the past five years; or (iv) the costs of which will exceed a sum set in terms of regulations by SAHRA, or a provincial resources authority; (d) the re-zoning of a site exceeding 10 000m2 in extent; or (e) any other category of development provided for in regulations by SAHRA or a provincial heritage resources authority, must as the very earliest stages of initiating such a development, notify the responsible heritage resources authority and furnish it with details regarding the location, nature and extent of the proposed development. 13

APPENDIX C: IDENTIFICATION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL FEATURES AND MATERIAL FROM INLAND AREAS: guidelines and procedures for developers

Human Skeletal material

Human remains, whether the complete remains of an individual buried during the past, or scattered human remains resulting from disturbance of the grave, should be reported. In general the remains are buried in a flexed position on their sides, but are also found buried in a sitting position with a flat stone capping and developers are requested to be on the alert for this.

Stone artefacts

These are difficult for the layman to identify. However, large accumulations of flaked stones which do not appear to have been distributed naturally should be reported. If the stone tools are associated with bone remains, development should be halted immediately and archaeologists notified

Fossil bone

Fossil bones may be found embedded in geological deposits. Any concentrations of bones, whether fossilized or not, should be reported.

Large stone features

They come in different forms and sizes, but are easy to identify. The most common are roughly circular stone walls (mostly collapsed) and may represent stock enclosures, remains of wind breaks or cooking shelters. Others consist of large piles of stones of different sizes and heights and are known as isisivane. They are usually near river and mountain crossings. Their purpose and meaning is not fully understood, however, some are thought to represent burial cairns while others may have symbolic value.

Historical artefacts or features

These are easy to identified and include foundations of buildings or other construction features and items from domestic and military activities.

APPENDIX D

Aerial maps and general digital landscape images of the proposed 132kV power line route from the Melkhout Substation to the proposed Dieprivier Substation

Melkhout Substation

Observation 1

Site 1 - concern Plantation grave yard

d c

Map 2a-c. 1:50 000 Topographic map and aerial views of the first section of the power line route from the Melkhout Substation to the proposed Dieprivier Substation (a-b). The blue peg marks the location of a few weathered Earlier Stone Age stone tools (observation 1) and the green pegs sites identified by Anderson (2010). Insert (c-d) indicate the Plantation Cemetery next to the Kruisrivier settlement, the proposed Melkhout/Diep power line route (blue lines) and the newly constructed power line (the red dots mark the pylon positions). 16

a b

c d

c f

Figure 1a-f. General views of the power line route from the Melkhout Substation (main image) towards the N2 National Road and crossing of the N2 (a-b), general area where stone tools were observed near the crossing of the R330 (c, see map 2b) and views of the landscape at Kruisrivier near pylon 30 and pylon 35.

Observation 2

Map 3a-b. 1:50 000 Topographic map and aerial views of the second section of the power line route from the Melkhout Substation to the proposed Dieprivier Substation (a-b). The blue peg marks the location of a few Earlier Stone Age stone tools (observation 2) 18

Figure 2a-f. General views of the power line route from pylon 40 towards the Seekoei River gorge (main image), across the N2 (a) and Seekoei River gorge (b), along the ridge from the gorge (c), from pylon 56 towards the first crossing of the narrow gauge railway line (d), from pylon 61-64 parallel to the railway line (insert e, marked by the red arrow) and the route towards the N2 (f). 19

Historical farm yard Narrow gauge railway line

Observation 3

Sites and observations 3-7

b Narrow gauge railway line

Map 4a-b. 1:50 000 Topographic map and aerial views of the third section of the power line route to the proposed Dieprivier Substation (a-b). The blue pegs mark the locations of Earlier Stone Age stone tools (sites and observation 3-7), the pink dots in the red square mark the farmhouse and graves and the yellow oval the railway line. The white arrow marks the location where the power line crosses the railway line.

Figure 3. A view of the narrow gauge railway line (main image), one of the graves and one of the possible historical houses older than 60 years (Map 4b).

Figure 4. A reverse view from pylon 74 towards pylon position 64 next to the railway line (main image) and an example of Earlier Stone Age stone tools observed in the area (Map 4b, sites and observations 3-7). 21

Figure 5. A reverse view from pylon 80 towards pylon position 74 (main image) and an example of Earlier Stone Age stone tools observed in the area (Map 4b, sites and observations 3-7).

Site 3: concerns 12, 13 and 14 -Historical house, grave, railway line and bridge

Sites and observations 8-18 b

Map 5a-b. 1:50 000 Topographic map and aerial views of the final section of the power line route to the proposed Dieprivier Substation (a-b). The blue pegs mark the locations of Earlier Stone Age stone tools (sites and observation 8-18) the pink dots in the red oval mark the farmhouse (12), grave (13) and raiway bridge (14) and the white arrows mark the locations where the power line crosses the railway line.

a b

c d

Figure 6. A view from pylon 87 towards pylon positions 90-93 and the Dieprivier crossing of the power line (main image), the dense fynbos vegetation and the ploughed field over which the power line will cross and an example of Earlier (c) and Middle Stone Age (d) stone tools observed in the area.

a b

c d

Figure 7. A reverse view from pylon 90 towards pylon position 87 (main image). Images of the grave (a), farmhouse (b), the bridge and a sample of Earlier Stone Age stone tools observed in the area.

Dieprivier Substation

a b

c d

Figure 8. General views of the proposed Dieprivier Substation site indicated by the red arrows west of the railway line (main image) and the power line route towards the substation. The red arrow marks the railway line (c).