Appendix C5: Heritage Imapct Assessment

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.

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.

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

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

• 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 graduating from UCT with my honours degree I joined the Southern Methodist University (SMU Dallas Texas, USA) team undertaking Stone Age research in the Great Karoo. After working in the field for a year I registered for a Masters degree in pre-colonial archaeology at UCT with support from SMU. On completion of this degree in 1987 I commenced working for the ACO when it was based at UCT. This was the first unit of its kind in RSA.

In 1991 I took over management of the unit with David Halkett. We nursed the office through new legislation and were involved in setting up the professional association and assisting SAHRA with compiling regulations. The office developed a reputation for excellence in field skills with the result that ACO was contracted to provide field services for a number of research organisations, both local and international. Since 1987 in professional practise I have been involved in a wide range of heritage related projects ranging from excavation of fossil and Stone Age sites to the conservation of historic buildings, places and industrial structures. To date ACO Associates cc (of which I am co-director) has completed more than 1500 projects throughout the country ranging from minor assessments to participating as a specialist in several substantial EIA’s as well as international research projects. Some of these projects are of more than 4 years duration

Together with my colleague Dave Halkett I have been involved in heritage policy development, development of the CRM profession, the establishment of 2 professional bodies and development of professional practice standards. Notable projects I have been involved with are the development of a heritage management plan and ongoing annual mitigation for the De Beers Namaqualand Mines Division, heritage management for Namakwa Sands and other west coast and Northern Cape mining firms. Locally, I was responsible for the discovery of the “Battery Chavonnes” at the V&A Waterfront (now a conserved as a museum), the discovery of a massive paupers burial ground in Green Point (now with museum and memorial, and a published book), the fossil deposit which is now the subject of a

7 public display at the West Coast Fossil Park National Heritage Site as well as participating in the development of the Robben Island Museum World Heritage Site. I have teaching experience within a university setting and have given many public lectures on archaeology and general heritage related matters locally and internationally.

Academic Publications

Hart, T.J.G. 1987. Porterville survey. In Parkington, J. & Hall, M.J. eds. Papers in the Prehistory of the Western Cape, South Africa. Oxford: BAR International Series 332.

Sampson, C.G., Hart, T.J.G., Wallsmith, D.L. & Blagg, J.D. 1988. The Ceramic sequence in the upper Sea Cow Valley: Problems and implications. South African Archaeological Bulletin 149: 3-16.

Plug, I., Bollong, C.A., Hart, T.J.G. & Sampson, C.G. 1994. Context and direct dating of pre-European livestock in the Upper Seacow River Valley. Annals of the South African Museum, Cape Town.

Hart, T. & Halkett, D. 1994. Reports compiled by the Archaeology Contracts Office, University of Cape Town.

Hart, T. & Halkett, D. 1994. The end of a legend? Crossmend, HARG. University of Cape Town.

Hart, T. 2000. The Chavonnes Battery. Aquapolis. Quarterly of the International Center for Cities on Water. 3-4 2000.

Hine, P., Sealy, J., Halkett, D. & Hart, T. 2010. Antiquity of stone walled fish traps on the Cape Coast of South Africa. The South African Archaeological Bulletin. Vol. 65, No. 191 (JUNE 2010), pp. 35-44.

Klein, R.G., Avery, G., Cruz-Uribe, K., Halkett, D., Hart, T., Milo, R.G., Volman, T.P. 1999. Duinefontein 2: An Acheulean Site in the Western Cape Province of South Africa. Journal of Human Evolution 37, 153-190.

Klein, R.G., Cruz-Uribe, K., Halkett, D., Hart, T., Parkington, J.E. 1999. Paleoenvironmental and human behavioral implications of the Boegoeberg 1 late Pleistocene hyena den, Northern Cape province, South Africa. Quaternary Research 52, 393-403.

Malan, A, Webley, L. Halkett, D. and Hart, T., 2013. People and places on the west Coast since AD 1600. In Jerardino, A. Malan, A and Braun, D. The Archaeology of the West Coast of South Africa. Cambridge Monographs in Archaeology. BAR International series 2526.

Smith, A., Halkett, D., Hart, T. & Mütti, B. 2001. Spatial patterning, cultural identity and site integrity on open sites: evidence from Bloeddrift 23, a pre-colonial herder camp in the Richtersveld, Northern Cape Province, South Africa. South African Archaeological Bulletin 56 (173&174): 23-33.

Halkett, D., Hart, T., Yates, R., Volman, T.P., Parkington, J.E., Klein, R.J., Cruz- Uribe, K. & Avery, G. 2003. First excavation of intact Middle Stone Age layers at Ysterfontein, Western Cape province, South Africa: implications for Middle Stone Age ecology. Journal of Archaeological Science.

Cruz-Uribe, K., Klein, R.G., Avery, G., Avery, D.M., Halkett, D., Hart, T., Milo, R.G., Sampson, C.G. & Volman, T.P. 2003. Excavation of buried late Acheulean (mid- quaternary) land surfaces at Duinefontein 2, Western Cape province, South Africa. Journal of Archaeological Science 30.

Parkington, J.E., Poggenpoel, C., Halkett, D. & Hart, T. 2004. Initial observations from the Middle Stone Age coastal settlement in the Western Cape. In Conard, N. Ed. Settlement dynamics of the Middle Paleolithic and Middle Stone Age. Tubingen: Kerns Verlag.

Orton, J., Hart, T. & Halkett, D. 2005. Shell middens in Namaqualand: two later Stone Age sites at Rooiwalbaai, Northern Cape Province, South Africa. South African Archaeological Bulletin. Volume 60 No 181.

Dewar, G., Halkett, D., Hart, T., Orton, J. & J. Sealy 2006. Implications of a mass kill site of springbok (Antidorcas marsupialis) in South Africa: hunting practices, gender relations, and sharing in the Later Stone Age. Journal of Archaeological Science 33 (9), 1266-127.

Finnegan, E., Hart, T. and Halkett, D. 2011. The informal burial ground at Prestwich Street, Cape Town: Cultural and chronological indicators for the informal Cape underclass. The South African Archaeological Bulletin Vol. 66, No. 194 (December 2011), pp. 136-148.

Declaration of independence

PROJECT:

I, Tim Hart, as the appointed independent specialist hereby declare that I acted as the independent specialist in this application; and that I

• 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 any 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.

Note: The terms of reference must be attached.

Signature of the specialist:

Name of company: ACO Associates cc

Date: 5 June 2019

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 13 Scope of works ...... 14 Gaps in Knowledge ...... 15 Assumptions ...... 15 Uncertainties ...... 15 2 METHODOLOGY ...... 15 3 LEGISLATION, POLICIES AND GUIDELINES ...... 16 Cultural Landscapes ...... 16 Scenic Routes ...... 17 2.3 Heritage Grading ...... 17 4 RECIEVING ENVIRONMENT ...... 18 Paleontology ...... 19 Pre-colonial Archaeology ...... 20 4.1.1 Kasteelberg ...... 21 Colonial Heritage ...... 22 5 The proposed activity ...... 23 6 Findings ...... 25 Artefactual material – Stone age...... 25 Cemeteries ...... 25 7 Impact of the proposed activity...... 26 Palaeontology ...... 26 Archaeology...... 27 Cultural Landscape ...... 28 Ranking of the five alternative routes ...... 29 Accumulative Impacts ...... 29 8 CONCLUSIONS ...... 31 9 References ...... 31

1 INTRODUCTION

Vredenburg Wind Farm (Pty) Ltd proposes to develop a 132kV above-ground electricity distribution line located within and adjacent to the proposed Boulders Wind Energy Farm (WEF), approximately 12km northeast of the commercial centre of Vredenburg in the Saldanha Bay Local Municipality, within the West Coast District Municipality in the Western Cape (Figure 1).

Figure 1 Location of the proposed activity.

The project site is located on properties which are currently used for dryland agricultural activities (including small-grain, cattle and sheep farming). ACO has been appointed by CES Pty Ltd to conduct an HIA (Section 38.8 of the National Heritage Resources Act). The land portions involved are as follows in Table 1.

Table 1: Property portions and farm names associated with the project area.

DESCRIPTION OF AFFECTED FARM PORTIONS

Farm Name Farm 21 digit SG Code number

Schuitjes Klip 3/22 C04600000000002200003

Boebezaks Kraal 5/40 C04600000000004000005

Het Schuytje 1/21 C04600000000002100001

Boebezaks Kraal 2/40 C04600000000004000002

Boebezaks Kraal 1/40 C04600000000004000001

Frans Vlei 5/46 C04600000000004600005

Frans Vlei 9/46 C04600000000004600009

Frans Vlei 4/46 C04600000000004600004

Frans Vlei 3/46 C04600000000004600003

Frans Vlei 2/46 C04600000000004600002

Frans Vlei 6/46 C04600000000004600006

Zoutzaksfontyn 16/95 C04600000000009500016

1.2 Scope of works

The Heritage Impact Assessment for the project will establish the location and extent of heritage resources such as archaeological and historical sites and features, graves and places of religious and cultural significance in the development area. If and where present, such resources will then be rated according to heritage significance and relevant heritage mitigation and management actions will be provided. As such, the HIA will function subject to the following terms of reference for heritage specialist input:

• Provide a description of archaeological artefacts, structures and settlements – if present - in the project area; • Provide a cultural context and provenience for archaeological artefacts, structures and settlements in the project area and in the surrounding landscape, by means of a detailed desktop background study; • Assess the nature and degree of significance of such resources within the area; • Assess any current and future developmental impacts on the archaeological and historical remains and apply these in a standard impact assessment matrix; • Propose heritage management measures for heritage mitigation, management and permitting where applicable. • Proposed general heritage mitigation and management procedures for future development activities in the study area. • Provide an integrated HIA Report complying to SAHRA’s minimum standards for Heritage Impact Assessment Studies and Reporting and the National Heritage Resources Act, 1999. • Liaise and consult with the relevant Heritage Resources Authority (Heritage Western Cape) with regards to the initial NID, the HIA process and review comments from the authority.

1.3 Gaps in Knowledge

No Heritage Impact Assessment has the privilege of being advantaged by a complete knowledge base. In this instance our gaps in knowledge stem from the fact that all our observations are surface only and limited to those areas where the soil surface is visible.

1.4 Assumptions

It is assumed that information derived from other studied sites in the area is relevant.

1.5 Uncertainties

Uncertainties relate to visibility of the ground surface as in terms of both paleontology and archaeology the ability to see artefacts and fossil material is important. In areas where there is dense grass cover, leaf litter and wetlands, successful surveying becomes very difficult. In wheat lands surface visibility is poor in the growing season.

2 METHODOLOGY

The findings of existing surveys which have covered the entire area are of importance and are referred to. These surveys are known to be comprehensive and reliable. The Vredenberg Peninsula was first surveyed by Sadr et al in 1992 as part of an academic project. Since that time ACO has digitized the project findings and records compiling them into a shape file/Google-Earth overlay. In 2010 ACO Associates was appointed to the West Coast 1 project, during which time they re- surveyed the WC1 project area which was rather wider than it is today. Furthermore the heritage sites documented by Sadr et al in 1992 were re-verified. In 2016-2018 ACO Associates and Kathryn Smuts were appointed to the Vredenberg WEF project which later became the Boulders Wind farm project. Once again, several days’ worth of field survey was carried out verifying old observations and checking any gaps on the landscape that had not been covered. The resulting dataset from these three studies represents an unusually high degree of coverage of the landscape. The proposed powerline routes were superimposed over maps of recorded heritage sensitivity which allowed a comparison of the potential impacts of each route option.

The paleontology of the area has been well-studied by John Pether, both from an academic point of view and from the perspective of various wind energy projects. ACO has been heavily involved palaeontological work in the West Coast Fossil Park, the Elandsfontein mining operation as well as various projects in the Saldanha area – notably Spreeuwalle and Hoedjiespunt. The basal rocks of the project area are granites and Malmesbury shales which are non-fossiliferous. Any fossiliferous material is confined to calcretes and later sands, particularly along the western edge of the Peninsula. The main find sites in the region are well recorded with

15 none identified so far in the project area. Again, known data has informed the study.

The assessment of impacts has been carried out in terms of the methodology provided by CES Environmental and Social Advisory Services.

3 LEGISLATION, POLICIES AND GUIDELINES

The basis for all heritage impact assessment is the National Heritage Resources Act 25 (NHRA) of 1999, which in turn prescribes the manner in which heritage is assessed and managed. The National Heritage Resources Act 25 of 1999 has defined certain kinds of heritage as being worthy of protection, by either specific or general protection mechanisms. In South Africa the law is directed towards the protection of human made heritage, although places and objects of scientific importance are covered. The National Heritage Resources Act also protects intangible heritage such as traditional activities, oral histories and places where significant events happened. Generally protected heritage which must be considered in any heritage assessment includes:

• Cultural landscapes • Buildings and structures (greater than 60 years of age) • Archaeological sites (greater than 100 years of age) • Palaeontological sites and specimens • Shipwrecks and aircraft wrecks • Graves and grave yards.

Section 38 of the NHRA requires that Heritage Impact Assessments (HIA’s) are required for certain kinds of development such as rezoning of land greater than 10 000 sq m in extent or exceeding 3 or more sub-divisions, or for any activity that will alter the character or landscape of a site greater than 5000 sq m.

1.6 Cultural Landscapes

Section 3(3) of the NHRA, No 25 of 1999 defines the cultural significance of a place or objects with regard to the following criteria:

(a) its importance in the community or pattern of South Africa’s history; (b) its possession of uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of South Africa’s natural or cultural heritage; (c) its potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of South Africa’s natural or cultural heritage; (d) its importance in demonstrating the principal characteristics of a particular class of South Africa’s natural or cultural places or objects; (e) its importance in exhibiting aesthetic characteristics valued by a community or cultural group; (f) its importance in demonstrating a high degree of creative or technical achievement at a particular period;

(g) its strong or special association with a particular community or cultural group for social cultural or spiritual reasons; (h) its strong or special association with the life or work of a person, group or organisation of importance in the history of South Africa; and (i) sites of significance relating to the history of slavery in South Africa.

1.7 Scenic Routes

While not specifically mentioned in the NHRA, No 25 of 1999, 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. This is also given recognition in the Notice of Intent to Develop (NID) application which is used by Heritage Western Cape.

1.8 Heritage Grading

Heritage resources are graded following the system established by Baumann and Winter (2005) in the guidelines for involving heritage practitioners in EIAs (Table 1).

Table 2 Grading of heritage resources (Source: Winter & Baumann 2005).

Level of Grade Description significance

Of high intrinsic, associational and contextual heritage 1 National value within a national context, i.e. formally declared or potential Grade 1 heritage resources.

Of high intrinsic, associational and contextual heritage 2 Provincial value within a provincial context, i.e. formally declared or potential Grade 2 heritage resources.

Of high intrinsic, associational and contextual heritage 3A Local value within a local context, i.e. formally declared or potential Grade 3A heritage resources.

Of moderate to high intrinsic, associational and 3B Local contextual value within a local context, i.e. potential Grade 3B heritage resources.

Of medium to low intrinsic, associational or contextual 3C Local heritage value within a national, provincial and local context, i.e. potential Grade 3C heritage resources.

4 RECIEVING ENVIRONMENT

The project area is located on the central area of the Vredenburg peninsula, immediately north of the town of Vredenburg (Figure 1). The geological structures exposed today include the granite rocks of the Vredenburg pluton, interspersed with recent sands. The vegetation on the on the few undisturbed un-disturbed lands is variously described as Strandveld or West Coast Renosterveld. The vegetation is a short scrub with taller shrubs in protected places amongst the granite boulders. Very little of the indigenous vegetation has survived as most of the land is either used for grazing or predominantly wheat cultivation.

The kopje of Kasteelberg, a landmark of the area (Plate 1) is part of a batholith of young intrusive granite of the Saldanha Bay area standing 187 m above sea level surrounded by agricultural land on the granite derived soils of the Vredenburg Peninsula. Although not in the project area, the kopje has regional importance as a heritage site and has played a significant role in the placement of wind energy facilities on the Peninsula.

Plate 1: View of Kasteelberg – the site of some 30 rich archaeological sites attributed to Khoikhoi people of the Cape.

However, the most of the landscape consists of undulating lands covered in various cereals (Plate 3).

Plate 2. The typically undulating landscape of rolling hills and ridges, most of which has been transformed by farming.

The study area is bordered on the west side by the gravel road between Vredenburg and Stompneus Bay, and the farm lands are crossed by numerous farm roads.

Plate 3: View to Vredenburg. Typical landscape of the area.

1.9 Paleontology

The project area has been previously assessed by John Pether (2017) who determined that the general area has mixed palaeontological sensitivity.

The original project area encompassed two terrains, one of which was highly sensitive and the other not. The proponent responded to Pether’s findings by adjusting the form of the proposed WEF to confine works to the areas of least sensitivity.

The granite hills to the inner (eastern) peninsula are ancient but since they are of igneous origin are not fossiliferous. The eastern Granitic Hills Terrain which lacks significant coastal-plain deposits, are covered with a thin mantle of mostly recent aeolian sands which contain very few fossils. There is however surface archaeology associated with the many granite outcrops in the area.

The western Coastal Formations Terrain which includes the Miocene formations forming Soetlandskop in the north and the Pliocene to recent formations which infill the Uitkomst Embayment are very much more sensitive. The various transgressions and regressions of the sea and its influence have resulted in a complex and rich stratigraphy bearing fossils of Pliocene - Miocene origin (5-23 million years ago). The Western Coastal Formation will not be impacted by the proposed activity.

1.10 Pre-colonial Archaeology

The West Coast of South Africa has been settled for at least 100 000 years. There are shell middens dating to the Middle Stone Age (MSA) both north and south of the Vredenburg peninsula. Associated with these middens are MSA stone tools and a single clearly modern human tooth from Sea Harvest. All these sites are older than 50 000 years.

Hunter-gatherers living on the Vredenburg Peninsula during the latter part of the Holocene (last 10 000 years) also made seasonal use of the coastal resources. Archaeological excavations at coastal sites confirm the importance of shellfish, seals, marine birds, crayfish and beached whales. Archaeologists have discovered, that around 2000 years ago, a new mix is added to the hunter-gatherer economy. Sheep and cattle bones, as well as pottery are introduced to the sub-continent. We know that by the time of European settlement at the Cape in the 17th century there were pastoralist groups, called the Khoekhoen, who were living in large tribal groupings, with herds of sheep and cattle, across the coastal forelands of the southern Cape. Their ancestors may have been responsible for the introduction of the sheep, cattle and pottery some 2000 years ago.

However, archaeologists have had great difficulty in locating the large pastoralist encampments described in the 17th century accounts and surveys in the wheat fields further south have shown that the Khoekhoen were highly nomadic and interior sites are therefore difficult to locate, partially due to the impact of agricultural activities in the area (Hart 1987). Favelle-Aymar et al. (2006) have recently claimed to have located such an open encampment at KFS5, located to the north of Kasteelberg, but the evidence is not as convincing as that of Kasteelberg.

The significance of the archaeological sites on the Kasteelberg kopje on the farm Boebezaks Kraal needs to be evaluated in the light of this brief background.

4.1.1 Kasteelberg

Kasteelberg is a large granite kopje on the farm Rooiheuwel (Boebezaks Kraal). There are two main extrusions of the granite, but only one of these formed the main focus of human attention since Middle Stone Age times. Of the 32 sites located around the kopje, five have been excavated and labelled KBA-KBE. The kopje is 4km from the sea, explaining the vast amounts of shellfish, crayfish and seal remains in the excavated sites. Pebbles from the beach may also have been used to make the stone artefacts found in the excavations.

Initial excavations by AB Smith of the University of Cape Town at Kasteelberg A (KBA) and Kasteelberg B (KBB) started in 1981.

Kasteelberg A: There is a lower stratum of MSA tools and faunal remains at the base of this site. KBA produced large numbers of sheep bones and a few cattle bones dated to circa 100 AD and Smith (2006) that this represents a pastoralist group herding sheep with limited numbers of cattle.

Kasteelberg B: is the largest of the Later Stone Age sites with high concentrations of pottery. It has an estimated area of at least 1 500m² and a depth of deposit of up to 1.7m thick. It has three main occupation horizons; the lowest dated to c. 700-900 AD. The upper layers of the site contain large amounts of seal and tortoise bones, but much fewer sheep. Smith suggests that the inhabitants were becoming large scale cattle herders at this time. However, domestic stock was clearly becoming important in the ritual life of the inhabitants as archaeologists recovered a lamb skeleton, covered in red ochre, which had been deliberately buried. There are more than 100 bedrock grinding grooves on the flat rocks around the site where the inhabitants were grinding red ochre. Smith (2006) has postulated that the inhabitants combined the ochre with seal fat and smeared this on their skin karosses.

Kasteelberg C: is a small rock shelter half the way up the kopje, with a stratified sequence with domestic stock in the top layers and microlithic stone artefacts in the lower levels dating to c. 200 BC. This site is interesting as it shows the replacement of a possible San hunter-gatherer occupation of the kopje with an incoming pastoralist group.

Subsequently, from 1985 further excavations were undertaken at several other sites on the Vredenburg Peninsula, such as Witklip, De Krans, Heuningklip, Eerste Mosselbank, Vonk se Stal and Steenberg’s Cove.

These archaeological sites, as well as Kasteelberg, have featured prominently in the academic literature concerned with identifying exactly what represents a pastoralist site. Can we identify the ancestors of the 17th century Khoekhoen groups encountered by the Cape by early Dutch colonists? Were they a different group from the San hunter-gatherers or could San acquire sheep and cattle and become pastoralists? The “Great Debate”, which has attracted the views of both archaeologists and historians working in southern Africa and elsewhere, is concerned with whether the pastoralists had a different cultural signature from the hunter-gatherer groups.

The faunal composition (large numbers of sheep), lack of formal stone tools, pottery and the large size of the ostrich eggshell beads appear to support Smith’s hypothesis that Kasteelberg was a prehistoric herder site. Its location on a dominant feature on the landscape, the kopje, was determined by both its panoramic view of the surrounding countryside and proximity to the sea.

In 1991/2 Sadr et al. (1992) set out to test Smith’s hypothesis with a more detailed archaeological survey of the peninsula. The survey strategy was to find and record sites within the two minor drainage basins around Kasteelberg hill although they concentrated their search around the granite outcrops. They recorded 129 archaeological sites. They noted that during the dry season in this open landscape of extensive agricultural fields, pre-colonial sites are highly visible as surface scatters of shell sample and flaked stone. They removed small samples of shell for radio carbon dating and obtained a total of 89 dates for shell distributions on the Vredenburg Peninsula. Sadr (2009) concluded on the basis of this survey, that he was unable to identify two separate cultural signatures on the Vredenburg peninsula.

Nevertheless, despite these opposing views, Kasteelberg was clearly the most significant pastoralist site excavated in southern Africa.

1.11 Colonial Heritage Britannia Bay

Early travelers reported that large numbers of cattle and sheep were being pastured around St Helena Bay by the 17th century. Nienaber (1989) in his review of the historic accounts, confirms that the Chariguriqua (later the Griqua?), a Khoekhoen group, occupied the area around St Helena Bay during the 17th century, with the Cochoquas or Saldanhars further to the west around Saldanha Bay. The

22 name “Boebezaks Kraal” implies the presence of a Khoekhoen group in this area. Smith (2006) has postulated a seasonal transhumant cycle between the coast and the interior which was disrupted by the Dutch settlement.

The Saldanha Bay area was the focus of intense competition between French and Dutch interests during the 17th and 18th centuries. The Dutch established their first outpost at St Helena Bay in 1734 (Sleigh 1993). To determine the best location for their outpost, they asked the opinion of the most respected farmers with farms along the coast of St Helena Bay, and these included Hendrik Oostwald Eksteen who had already established a small fishing business in Saldanha in 1717 (Groenewald 2009). The farmers proposed that the outpost should be established at the foot of the Patrysenberg – located to the east of the project area. Historically, the Farm Boebezaks Kraal gave rise to most of the land portion affected by the project. Certainly, by the mid-18th century most of the Vredenberg Peninsula was under wheat cultivation, with local indigenous people fully displaced.

5 THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY

The proposed activity is the construction of a powerline to evacuate electricity from the Boulders Wind farm (NID and HIA completed by Kathryn Smuts 2019) 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.

Figure 2 The 5 alternative power line routes.

The powerlines will be erected above the ground surface, supported by pylons at 250m intervals. Thus the physical impact on the ground and in the ground will be minimal and the impact will be very low as all areas have been disturbed by centuries of ploughing and ground clearance.

6 FINDINGS

1.12 Artefactual material – Stone age

The majority of the archaeological occurrences around the project area are Late Stone age sites. These are usually identified by varying quantities of marine shell residues sometimes with associated stone artefacts and pottery. Stone artefacts are generally non-formal except for grindstones and hammerstones. Cores and occasional scrapers are noted but are not common. As with the Historical sites, LSA sites are sometimes associated with “waterbakke” in granite outcrops. There is only a single Late Stone Age archaeological site of moderate significance identified in the corridor of power line option 3 where 14 fragments of Khoikhoi type ceramic was identified by Sadr et all (1992). ACO was unable to relocate this site during the Boulders heritage survey indicating that the afore-mentioned ceramics had been illegally collected or had been obscured by vegetation growth.

Plate 4: Typical granite rock outcrop that is common on the Vredenburg Peninsula

1.13 Cemeteries

A single small farm cemetery with formal graves (2011/329) was found under a stand of bluegum trees on Ptn. 1 of Farm Het Schuytje 21. This lies within the corridor of route option 2.

The family graveyard contains two formal graves with marble headstones. Both graves contain 2 persons. According to the inscriptions, one grave contains Jacobus Lombaard (died Sept 1891) and Jacomina Lombard (daughter, aged 9, died May 1922). The other grave contains Benjamina Lombard (wife? Jacobus - died 10 Aug 1910) and Jacomina Pienaar (died 29 Aug 1910). Jacobus Lombards grave is walled, and the cemetery is fenced though rather neglected.

Plates 5 - 7: The small farm cemetery 2011/329. (l) the grave of Jacobus and Jacomina Lombard. (m) View across the two graves. (r) The grave of Benjamina Lombard and Jacomina Pienaar.

The farm cemetery is an obvious feature on the landscape that should be left intact through the selection of an alternative route option which will preserve the local sense of place, or by locally bypassing the cemetery within the route 2 corridor.

7 IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY.

1.14 Palaeontology

26 material are extremely low. As a precaution, a fossil finds protocol is in included in Appendix 1.

Table 3 Impact on palaeontology

Mitigation

• No specific mitigation is recommended

• In the unlikely event of a find, the matter must be reported to Heritage Western Cape and a qualified Palaeontologist.

• The fossil finds protocol should be implemented.

1.15 Archaeology.

Table 4 Impact on archaeology and graves

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.

1.16 Cultural Landscape

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 considered to be somewhat unique in the Western Cape with its boulder outcrops and rolling wheatlands. Prior to European cultivation it was a center of indigenous cattle farming being inhabited by the major Khoikhoi groups of the west coast. It has therefore been given Grade 2 heritage status (provincial significance).

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 it will be an added industrial element its impact on the setting of the area will be comparatively low, especially if is mainly viewed from an angle of 90 degrees from the road.

Table 5 Impact on cultural landscape

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.

1.17 Ranking of the five alternative routes

Table 6 Ranking of alternatives

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. Visual 2 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 of 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.

1.18 Accumulative Impacts

West Coast 1 was achieved with overall minimal impact to archaeological and historical heritage and it is likely that Boulders will have a similar result due to the pro-active placement of turbines away from areas of both palaeontological and archaeological sensitivity. 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 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.

Table 7 Accumulative impacts

Mitigation

• No mitigation recommended

Figure 3 The location of recorded heritage sites relative to the proposed power line alternatives.

8 CONCLUSIONS

The impacts of the proposed 132 KV powerline options have been as assessed in terms of the CES methodology which has found that the impact will be negative low in terms of every criteria assessed. The proposed Boulders Wind Energy Facility has heritage approval therefore the construction of a power line on any one of the 5 alternatives should be supported as it is essential to the Boulders Wind Energy Facility.

9 REFERENCES

Almond, J. & Pether, J. 2008. Palaeontological Heritage of the Western Cape. Interim Technical Report for Heritage Western Cape.

Baumann, N. & Winter, S. 2005. Guideline for involving heritage specialists in EIA process. Edition 1. CSIR report No ENV-S-C 2005 053E. Provincial Government of

31 the Western Cape: Department of Environmental Affairs and Developmental Planning.

CNdv Africa Planning & design. May 2006. Towards a Regional Methodology for Wind Energy Site Selection. Prepared for the Provincial Government of the Western Cape. Reports 1 & 6.

Fransen, H. 2004. The old buildings of the Cape. Jonathan Ball Publishers: Cape Town.

Halkett, D. 2008. Archaeological impact assessment of proposed development on a portion of the remainder of portion 3 of the farm Besters Kraal no 38, Paternoster, Vredenburg magisterial district. Prepared for Pieter Badenhorst Professional Services on behalf of Mr P Heydenrick. Unpublished report prepared by the Archaeology Contracts Office, UCT.

Halkett, D. 2011. Proposed wind energy facility on the farms Schuitjes Klip 22, Honing Klip 101, Zandfontein 105, Kliprug 282 and Holvlei 120 near Vredenburg, Saldanha Bay municipal area, western Cape. Unpublished report prepared for Aurecon South Africa (Pty) Ltd on behalf of IPD Power (Pty) Ltd. ACO Associates cc.

Halkett, D. 2011. Heritage impact assessment of the proposed Afrisam cement plant, mine and associated infrastructure in Saldanha, western Cape. Prepared for Aurecon South Africa (Pty) Ltd On behalf of Afrisam (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd. ACO Associates cc.

Pether, J. 1995. Anglo-Alpha Saldanha cement project environmental impact assessment: specialist palaeontological study: the potential impacts of the shale and limestone mining. Draft report prepared for Mark Wood Consultants.

Pether, J. 2003. Palaeontological Mitigation Report: Development on Velddrif Fossil Shell Bar Noordhoek Phase 2 Velddrif Housing Berg River Municipality. Unpublished report by De Beers Marine Geolaboratory Mineral Resources Unit.

Pether, J. 2006. Palaeontological Mitigatory Actions - Development of Erf 578, Velddrif (Laaiplek). Unpublished report.

Pether, J. 2010. Palaeontological impact assessment (desktop study): proposed West Coast One wind energy facility, Vredenburg district, western Cape. Prepared for Savannah Environmental (Pty) Ltd.

Pether, J. 2013. Palaeontological impact assessment (desktop study): Proposed IPD Vredenburg Wind Farm (Pty) Ltd wind energy facilities on the Vredenburg peninsula, Saldanha Bay municipal area, western Cape

Pether, J 2017. Palaeontological scoping report of the Proposed Boulder Wind Farm prepared for Savannah Environmental Pty Ltd.

Sadr, K. 2009. Marine shell dates and surface lithic assemblages on the west coast of South Africa. Journal of Archaeological Science 36:2713-2729.

Sadr, K., Gribble, J. & Euston-Brown, G. 1992. The Vredenburg Survey, 1991-1992 Season. In Smith, A. & Mutti, B. (eds) Guide to Archaeological Sites in the south- western Cape. For the South African Association of Archaeologists Conference July 5-9, 1992.

Sadr, K., Smith, A., Plug, I,. Orton, J. & Mutti, B. 2003. Herders and foragers on Kasteelberg: interim report on excavations 1999-2002. South African Archaeological Bulletin 58: 27 – 32.

Smith, A.B. 2006. Excavations at Kasteelberg and the Origins of the Khoekhoen in the Western Cape, South Africa. BAR International Series 1537.

Smith, A.B., Sadr, K., Gribble, J. & and Yates, R. 1991. Excavations in the South- Western Cape, South Africa, and the Archaeological Identity of Prehistoric Hunter- Gatherers within the Last 2000 Years. South African Archaeological Bulletin, v 46, No. 154, 71-91

Smuts, K, Integrated HIA for the proposed Boulder Wind Farm, Vredenberg Peninsula, Cape Province. Prepared for Savannah Environmental Pty Ltd on behalf of Vredenberg Wind Farm Pty Ltd.

Webley, L. & Hart, T. 2010. Scoping heritage assessment: proposed Britannia Bay wind energy facility on the remainder of portion 7 and portion 14 of the farm Duyker Eiland 6, Vredenburg district, western cape. Prepared for Savannah Environmental (Pty) Ltd. Unpublished report prepared by the Archaeology Contracts Office, UCT.

Webley, L. 2010. Scoping Heritage Impact Assessment: Proposed wind energy facility to be situated on the Farm Langeklip 47, St Helena Bay in the Vredenburg District, Western Cape Province. Prepared for Arcus Gibb (Pty) Ltd. Unpublished report prepared by the Archaeology Contracts Office, UCT.

Webley, L., Orton, J. & Hart, T. 2010. Heritage impact assessment: proposed West Coast One wind energy facility, Vredenburg district, western Cape. Prepared for Savannah Environmental (Pty) Ltd. Unpublished report prepared by the Archaeology Contracts Office, UCT.

Winter, S. and Oberholzer, B. 2013. Heritage and scenic resources: Inventory and policy framework for the western Cape (version 5). Prepared for the Provincial Government of the western Cape, Department of Environmental and Development Planning.

Yates, R. & Stynder, D. 2003. Archaeological Heritage Resources Assessment Plot 10 and Allied Areas of Portion 1 of Farm No. 1050.

Yates, R. 2004. An Archaeological Survey of Portions 29 and 30 of Jacobs Bay No. 108. Unpublished report

Appendix 1

Fossil Finds Protocol

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

35 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 collected 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.