APPENDIX C5: HERITAGE IMAPCT ASSESSMENT A Heritage Impact Assessment for the Grid Connection Alternatives, Boulders Wind Farm, Vredenberg Peninsula Prepared for CES Pty Ltd June 2019 Draft 1 Prepared by Tim Hart ACO Associates 8 Jacobs Ladder St James Cape Town 7945 Phone (021) 706 4104 Fax (086) 603 7195 Email: [email protected] EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ACO Associates was appointed by CES Pty Ltd to assess the impact of the installation of a 132 KV power line to evacuate power from the Proposed Boulder Wind Farm on the Vredenberg Peninsula. The proposed activity is the construction of a powerline to evacuate electricity from the Boulders Wind farm (NID and HIA completed by Kathryn Smuts 2018) to the Eskom distribution network. Some 5 routes have been proposed of which route 3 is considered the most favorable by the proponent. Given that the entire landscape incorporating all the 5 routes has been surveyed and heritage sites recorded, it is with confidence that the impacts on heritage are assessed. Impacts Paleontology All the proposed activity is confined to the granite hills terrain which is considered not very palaeontologically sensitive. This fact combined with the small footprint of the proposed activity means that the chances of encountering any paleontological material are extremely low. As a precaution, a fossil finds protocol is included in Appendix 1. Mitigation • No specific mitigation is recommended • In the unlikely event of a find, the matter must be reported to Heritage Western Cape and a Palaeontologist. • The fossil finds protocol must be implemented. Archaeology The impact on archaeology and historic sites is very low, with only one archaeological site previously identified in the corridor of Route 3. Spanning or avoiding the rocky outcrop on which the finds were made would serve as mitigation. The Pienaar Lombard cemetery has been identified in power line corridor 2. Impacts to the site are easily avoidable by diverting the powerline away from the site within the identified corridor, or using another route option. Mitigation • Span power line past cemeteries on Route 2 and over the rocky outcrop on route 3 where there is a possibility of archaeological material. Cultural Landscape While the National Heritage Resources Act 25 of 1999 protects cultural landscapes, more specifically Scenic Routes are recognised by DEA&DP as a category of heritage resources. In the DEA&DP Guidelines for involving heritage specialists in the EIA process, Baumann & Winter (2005) comment that the visual intrusion of development on a scenic route should be considered a heritage issue. The landscape is somewhat unique in the Western Cape with its boulder outcrops and rolling wheat lands. Prior to European cultivation it was a center of indigenous cattle farming being inhabited by the major Khoikhoi groups of the west coast. It 2 has therefore been given Grade 2 heritage status (provincial significance). In an effort to conserve part of this landscape, an agreed to principal endorsed by HWC in their response to the Moyeng West Coast 1 development, was to exclude the turbines on the western side of the Vredenberg-Stompneus Bay road. The proposed activity takes place entirely to the east of the Vredenberg-Stompneus Bay Road. The proposed power line will be much smaller and more gracile than the proposed turbines and is therefore likely to be absorbed into the landscape given the milieu of existing West Coast 1 turbines and the future Boulders turbines. Although the power line will be an added industrial element, its impact on the setting of the area will be comparatively low, especially if it is mainly viewed from an angle of 90 degrees from the road. Mitigation • Route 3 is best for avoiding landscape impacts as it is short and direct • Consider using a permeable tower form that is visually absorbed against the rolling hill backdrop. Ranking of the five alternative routes Given that there is a complete data-set for archaeology, structures and places of heritage significance derived from three separate surveys, it has been possible to test the relative impact of the power line options. The results are presented below. Powerline Identified impacts Ranking alternative Route 1 No sensitive areas, visual impact from STNB road. 2 Route 2 Crosses 4 areas of possible sensitivity as well as the 3 Lombard and Pienaar cemetery. Low visual impact. Route 3 Crosses 3 expanses of possible sensitivity as well as 4 archaeological site SKT 1 (14 fragments of Khoikhoi ceramics). Right angles to STNB rd, low visual impact. Route 4 No sensitive areas, low visual impact 1 Route 5 Crosses 2 small expanses of possible sensitivity. 2 Visual impact due to length. While the 5 routes have been ranked above, the impact of any one of them in the broader context is that they are all low-very low significance. This means that other significant environmental or social considerations should take precedent in selecting the route. Even route 3 which is favoured by the proponent is feasible without onerous mitigation. The sensitive undeveloped areas (which includes archaeological site SKT 1) can be spanned by the powerline with no impacts. 3 1.1 Accumulative Impacts It is not expected that the installation of the powerlines will have any impact at all therefore the accumulative impacts will be low-zero. The natures of the accumulative visual impacts are described by Smuts (2018:62) as follows: The existence of West Coast 1 sets precedent for the presence of the turbines in this environment and serves to moderate the impact by virtue of its established presence. The impact of this initial development – the presence of turbines in an unaltered rural landscape - represents a greater impact on the cultural landscape than the increase in number and coverage of turbines proposed in this development. By expanding the area under turbines, rather than introducing turbines to an area that currently has none, contained geographically and across a continuous area, rather than localised in pockets across the region, such that the altered landscape is perceived as a single installation. Further, the agricultural processes that comprise the cultural landscapes will continue within the wind farm area, limiting the disruption even in the areas where the turbine density is greatest. The construction of the proposed 132 kV power line is a diminutive element, the accumulative impact of which will be very low given the context in which it will exist. Conclusion All identified impacts have a low negative significance therefore the proposed activity is supported. The preferred powerline alternative 3 is considered acceptable however all alternatives will result in low negative impacts. 4 SPECIALIST DETAILS, EXPERTISE AND DECLARATION Details of the specialist This study has been undertaken by Tim Hart BA Hons, MA (ASAPA, APHP) of ACO Associates CC, archaeologists and heritage consultants. Unit D17, Prime Park, Mocke Road, Diep River, Cape Town, 7800 Email: [email protected] Phone: 021 7064104 Fax: 086 6037195 5 CURRICULUM VITAE Name: Timothy James Graham Hart Profession: Archaeologist Date of Birth: 29/07/60 Parent Firm: ACO Associates cc Position in Firm: Partner Years with Firm: 11 Years experience: 33 years Nationality: South African HDI Status: n/a Education: Matriculated Rondebosch Boys High, awarded degrees BA (UCT) BA Hons (UCT) MA (UCT). Professional Qualifications: Principal Investigator ASAPA, member of Association of Heritage Professionals (APHP) Languages: Fully literate in English, good writing skills. Conversation in Afrikaans, mediocre writing skills, good reading skills. Some knowledge of Latin. PROPOSED POSITION ON TEAM: Overall project co-director, task leader on field projects. KEY QUALIFICATIONS • Bachelor of Arts in Archaeology and Psychology • BA Honours in archaeology • MA in Archaeology • Recipient of Frank Schweitzer Memorial Prize (UCT) for student excellence • Professional member (no 50) Association of Southern African Professional Archaeologists (ASAPA) • Principal Investigator, cultural resources management section (ASAPA) • Professional member in specialist and generalist categories Association of Heritage Professionals (APHP) • Committee Member Heritage Western Cape, Committee Member SAHRA • Awarded Department of Arts and Culture and Sport award for best heritage study in 2014 Relevant recent Project Experience with respect to large projects: • Specialist consultant – Eskom’s Kudu Integration project (identifying transmission line routes across Namaqualand) • Specialist consultant – Eskom’s Atlantis Open Cycle Gas Turbine project, upgrade and power lines • Specialist consultant – Eskom’s Mossel Bay Open Cycle Gas Turbine project, substations and power lines • Specialist consultant – Eskom’s proposed Omega sub-station • Specialist consultant – Eskom’s Nuclear 1 programme • Specialist consultant – Eskom’s PBMR programme 6 • Specialist consultant – Department of Water Affairs raising of Clanwilliam Dam project • Specialist consultant to De Beers Namaqualand Mines (multiple projects since 1995) • Specialist consultant – Saldanha Ore Handling Facility phase 2 upgrade • Three years of involvement in Late Stone Age projects in the Central Great Karoo • Wind Energy systems: Koekenaap, Hopefield, Darling, Vredendal, Bedford, Sutherland, Caledon • Bantamsklip Nuclear 1 TX lines • Koeberg Nuclear 1 TX lines • Karoo uranium prospecting - various sites • HIA Houses of Parliament • Proposed Ibhubesi gas project, West Coast of South Africa. Experience After