Proposed SANSA Space Operations at Portion 8 of Farm Matjiesfontein Western Cape

HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT

In terms of Section 38(8) of the NHRA for the Proposed SANSA Space Operations at portion 8 of Farm Matjiesfontein Western Cape

HWC Ref: 19092518WD0926E

Prepared by

In Association with CES

April 2020 Updated October 2020

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

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

Signature of the specialist

CTS Heritage Name of company

8 October 2020 Date

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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. Site Name: Portion 8 of Fram 148 near Matjiesfontein, Laingsburg

2. Location: Located south of the N1, and south west of Matjiesfontein PHS

3. Locality Plan:

Figure 1: Location of the proposed development site

4. Description of Proposed Development: The South African National Space Agency (SANSA) proposes to construct new radio antennae and associated infrastructure on Portion 8 of Farm 148 near Matjiesfontein in the Western Cape Province. Two separate sites have been identified for this area. One site will house 20 small scientific antenna, each with a footprint of 4m2 and a height of 3m. Two alternative sites have been proposed for this infrastructure - Area A and Area A2. The other site (A rea B) will house 7 antenna and a storehouse. It is anticipated that the antenna footprints at this site will be 225m2 with their heights ranging from 4m up to 40m. Other associated infrastructure will include internal, gravel access roads that are 4m wide as well as laydown areas.

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

5. Heritage Resources Identified: Cultural Landscape and Visual Impacts Matjiesfontein lies on the N1, isolated from surrounding towns by long distances, set in a narrow valley at the foot of the Witteberg. This area is largely natural but for the railway and highway running through it. A variety of infrastructure runs through the zone along the road-railway including the electric cables of the railway itself, a major radio mast on the peak of the Witteberge, various cell phone towers towards Touws River, farm fences and a line of pylons nearer the Witteberge. The Provincial Heritage SIte of Matjiesfontein incorporates a stand-alone rail-side hotel and ancillary facilities. Relegated to a side road off the N1, it is located next to the railway and still serves its tourist trade. The lower Matjiesfontein valley is covered with dull Karoo bossies well under 1m in height and subtle landforms including hidden depressions and hillocks. The Witteberg mountains rise steeply to the south where a track leads up before disappearing. The N1 as a scenic route, the village of Matjiesfontein as well as the surrounding Moordenaars Karoo are identified as significant heritage resources that form key aspects of this cultural landscape.

Archaeology The foot survey conducted provided a good description of the heritage resources located within the proposed development area. Only one low density and diffuse Later Stone Age scatter was found around a low sandstone outcrop within Area A and was graded as having low, local significance (IIIC). Middle Stone Age stone tools were found relatively evenly distributed across Area A but in low numbers. Similar artefacts in lower densities were identified in Area A2.

No archaeological finds were made in Area B.

Palaeontology The two small project areas for the SANSA antenna developments near Matjiesfontein are located within the margins of the Cape Fold Belt on the northern side of the Witteberg Range. Site A to the north is underlain by poorly-exposed Early Permian glacial bedrocks of the Elandsvlei Formation (Dwyka Group). These massive, dark grey, tombstone-weathered tillites as well as several irregular quartzite bodies enclosed within them – variously interpreted as esker or glacial outwash sandstones - are apparently unfossiliferous. Sparse vascular plant remains have been previously recorded from Dwyka Group sandstone bodies near Matjiesfontein by the famous South African geologist Du Toit in 1921. Stratified post-glacial mudrocks, diamictites and wackes exposed in stream beds and banks just south of Site A represent potentially-fossiliferous Dwyka Group / Ecca Group contact beds but lie outside the development footprint. Most of the site is mantled with sandy to gravelly alluvial sediments as well as downwasted polymict surface gravels that are of low palaeontological sensitivity. No fossils were recorded at this site.

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

carbonate erratics, as recorded previously from the southern Karoo margins and also in the Ceres Karoo have - as yet - been seen near Matjiesfontein. The basal post-glacial mudrocks of the Prince Albert succession – not well exposed in Area A2 - are a key fossil horizon in the Northern Cape and Tanqua Karoo where diagenetic concretions within these beds have yielded a variety of marine invertebrates, fish and petrified wood. In Area A2 the lower Prince Albert beds, where exposed, are highly weathered and tectonically deformed locally. It is noted that thin-sectioning of phosphatic diagenetic concretions from the Prince Albert Formation near Matjiesfontein revealed the spinose, spherical silica tests of radiolarian microfossils. The unconsolidated gravelly to sandy superficial deposits overlying the Palaeozoic bedrocks in Area A2 are, at most, very sparsely fossiliferous and no fossils were recorded from these younger sediments during the field survey.

Site B to the south of Matjiesfontein Village lies within a tectonically-complex, intensely-folded and probably faulted zone embedded in the rugged foothills of the Witteberg Range. Bedrocks of the Late Devonian to Early Carboniferous Witteberg Group (Cape Supergroup) represented here include highly-resistant, clean-washed quartzites of the Witpoort Formation, the recessive-weathering, mudrock-dominated Kweekvlei Formation and overlying prominent-weathering, cross-bedded, pebbly sands of the Floriskraal Formation (The presence of younger Waaipoort Formation mudrocks and wackes here is equivocal). The Witpoort and Floriskraal arenites are of low palaeosensitivity, having only yielded sparse reworked vascular plant debris, low-diversity trace fossil assemblages and rare fish remains in the Matjiesfontein region and elsewhere. The Kweekvlei mudrocks in the study area are poorly-exposed, highly-weathered as well as fractured near-surface and show zones of intense soft-sediment and / or tectonic deformation. Good Witteberg Group bedding plane exposures are not seen and no fossils were recorded at this site. Most of Site B is covered by a thick (1 m or more) blanket of coarse, rubbly and partially-ferruginised quartzitic gravels and sands of both colluvial and alluvial origin which are generally of low palaeontological sensitivity. It is noted, however, that well-preserved Holocene elephant remains are known from comparable deposits near Laingsburg.

6. Anticipated Impacts on Heritage Resources: The proposed development will not negatively impact on any significant archaeological or palaeontological resources for the proposed SANSA communications facility. The isolated artefacts identified within Areas A and Area A2 were determined to have low heritage significance and as such, no further mitigation is recommended for these observations or the single site recorded (MATJIESFONTEIN002). This site was identified around a small sandstone outcrop and was determined to have low local heritage significance (Grade IIIC). Area A2 is, however, preferred in terms of impacts to archaeological resources due to the lower density of artefacts found here.

Without mitigation, the overall impact significance of the proposed SANSA antenna and associated infrastructure project is evaluated as LOW as far as palaeontological heritage resources are concerned. Unless substantial new fossil finds are made before or during the construction phase, no specialist palaeontological mitigation is recommended for this development and there are no objections on palaeontological heritage grounds to its authorisation. However, due to the generally high palaeontological sensitivity of the area, it is recommended that the HWC Chance Finds Procedure be adopted during the construction phase.

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

According to the VIA and cultural landscape assessment conducted for this project, the proposed development will have a moderate (Area B) to high (Area A) impact on the landscape causing noticeable (Area B) to some (Area A) change to the visual environment. The development has moderate (Area B) to high (Area A) visual exposure; low (Area A) to high (Area B) visual absorption capacity and low compatibility (both Areas A and B). The proposed development has marginal (Area B) and moderate to high (Area A) visibility. In terms of the cultural landscape of the area, key heritage elements that will be impacted by the proposed development at Area A include the Matjiesfontein PHS, the N1 Scenic Route and the wilderness characteristics of the Moordenaars Karoo in general.

In order to mitigate the impacts to these significant heritage resources, an alternative Area A2 was identified. This alternative is located between 3km and 5km away from the historic core of Matjiesfontein Provincial Heritage Site and is placed sensitively behind topographical buffers such as koppies to limit negative impact to the scenic qualities of the Matjiesfontein Valley. Area A2 is further west on the same farm, and the proposed location was chosen taking local landform into consideration. Area A2 is less visible from the N1 and other significant cultural sites and is screened from these by local landforms. Area A2 is preferred in terms of impacts to heritage resources.

Furthermore, the VIA has provided a number of recommendations that will assist to mitigate the impacts to the significant heritage resources located in proximity to the proposed development. These include screening vegetation and landscaping, changing the colour of the infrastructure as well as recommendations pertaining to site clearing and lighting. These are integrated into the recommendations below.

Alternative 1 (Area A and Area B) is not preferred as the proposed location of Area A for the antennae infrastructure is not supported due to the high visual impact this infrastructure is likely to have on the Provincial Heritage Site of Matjiesfontein.

Alternative 2 is preferred (Area A2 and Area B) in terms of impacts to heritage resources. Area 2 is located between 3 and 5km away from the PHS and is screened from the N1 and the PHS by local landforms.

7. Recommendations: Based on the available information, there is no objection to the proposed development on condition that: 1. Alternative 2 (Area A2 and Area B) is the preferred development alternative in terms of impacts to heritage 2. The HWC Chance Finds Procedure must be adopted during the construction phase due to the high palaeontological sensitivity of the area 3. The recommendations included in the VIA be implemented including: a. The perimeter treatment and fencing must be sensitive to the natural context and must be appropriately coloured to blend into the surrounding vegetation. Silver, black and bright green fencing should not be used.

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

b. Where safety and technical standards permit, colours that blend into the natural environment and vegetation must be used for the antennae and associated infrastructure. These should be darker, duller colours that can disguise the infrastructure in the landscape. In the case of the reflective areas of the four large antennae, a naturally coloured tint should be considered for the working surface. c. Buildings must be made from local materials where possible and should draw from existing building traditions. d. A landscape plan is developed for avenue or block planting of gum trees or similar that fit into the cultural landscape to screen the proposed infrastructure from the PHS. This planting should be focussed on the south and eastern side of the railway line. e. Wanton stripping of vegetation that causes scarring on the landscape must be avoided f. Lighting must be minimised and carefully controlled, and must be developed with sensitivity to the rural landscape g. Waterwise and indigenous planting, and green-star building practices must be used h. Equipment must not be placed on the upper southern slopes of the perched valley in Area B that have a long distance view of Matjiesfontein.

8. Author/s and Date: Jenna Lavin October 2020

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

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 8 1.1 Background Information on Project 8 1.2 Description of Property and Affected Environment 8

2. METHODOLOGY 11 2.1 Purpose of HIA 11 2.2 Summary of steps followed 11 2.3 Assumptions and Limitations 12

3. HISTORY AND EVOLUTION OF THE SITE AND CONTEXT 14 3.1 Definition of the property 14 3.2 Geology, geomorphology, climate and vegetation 14 3.3 Historical Background of the Area 14

4. IDENTIFICATION OF HERITAGE RESOURCES 17 4.1 Summary of specialist findings 17 4.2 Heritage Resources identified 19 4.3 Selected photographic record 20

5. ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPACT OF THE DEVELOPMENT 21 5.1 Assessment of impact to Heritage Resources 21 5.2 Sustainable Social and Economic Benefit 26 5.3 Proposed development alternatives 26

6. RESULTS OF PUBLIC CONSULTATION 28

7. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 28

8. REFERENCES 31

APPENDICES 32 1. Sites known in close proximity to the development area 2. Archaeological Field Assessment 2019, updated 2020 3. Palaeontological Field Assessment 2019, updated 2020 4. Visual and Cultural Landscape Assessment 2020 5. HWC Response to NID dated 22 October 2019 6. Results of PPP

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

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background Information on Project The South African National Space Agency (SANSA) is proposing to construct new radio antennae and associated infrastructure on Portion 8 of Farm 148 (Koenie Kraal) near Matjiesfontein, Laingsburg Municipality (Central Karoo District) in the Western Cape Province (Fig. 1).

1.1.1. Original project description The SANSA developments were originally planned to take place on two separate sites labeled A and B in Figures 2 to 4. Site A, located in gently sloping Karoo veld some 1.5 km southwest of Matjiesfontein Village, would accommodate 20 small scientific antenna, each with a footprint of 4 m2 and a height of 3 m. Site B, situated in rocky terrain on the northern flank of the Witberge Range some 3.75 km due south of the village, would house 7 antennae and a storehouse. It was anticipated that the footprints of the antennae at this second site would be 225 m2 with their heights ranging from 4 m up to 40 m. Other associated infrastructure would include internal gravel access roads that are 4 m wide as well as laydown areas.

1.1.2. Revised project description (September 2020) The following revised project description for a preferred new site, labeled Area A2 in the map figures and situated to the west of the airstrip in gently sloping Karoo veld some 3.3 km SW of Matjiesfontein Village, has been provided by the applicant.

The proposed project will consist of 4 large Deep Space Navigation antennae (DSN 1-4) which will not exceed 45 m in height and have a physical footprint of 360 m2 as well as 3 smaller planned radio antennae (SANSA 1,2,3) up to 12 m in height with an anticipated physical footprint of 100 m2 . There will also be a 18 m Ku antenna (LGS 18) which will be up to 30 m in height and have a footprint of 400 m2.

Other associated infrastructure will consist of a guard house at the site entrance and a signal processing building with an anticipated physical footprint of 525 m2 which will house the signal processor room, an operations and control room, lobby, reception, kitchen and ablution facility and an accompanying 900 m2 curbed, gravel parking area. Alongside the main building will be a 70 000 l water storage tank as part of a fire management system and a conservancy tank for temporary waste water and sewerage storage which will be serviced regularly by a licenced waste hauling company.

On the western edge of the site, a power station is planned which will be of similar size to the main building on the eastern edge. The power station will consist of the stores, workshop, generators and fuel storage and will also have an accompanying 900 m2 c urbed parking area. An overhead powerline of 750 m in length is planned to connect the power station to the existing Eskom substation outside of the site. The diesel storage at the PowerStation has a combined storage capacity of 280 000 l which will be kept above-ground within self-bunded, moveable systems. Each bunded tank holds 70 000 l. The tanks will be connected to one another as the site grows and the required power capacity increases. The generators will also be installed in phases as the site expands. The first generator of four will be 1200 KVA

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

and be housed in the generator room. Electricity will be distributed within the site through underground cables from the power station to the antennae and buildings. The cables will be buried at a depth of 1 m with a 200 mm covering of river sand plus a layer of danger tape and then backfilled with the original soil.

Water will be sourced from a municipal water point approximately 2 km from the site and will need to be connected with underground piping. SANSA also intends to drill a borehole to supplement the water supply. New access roads will need to be constructed within the site and are anticipated to be 4 m wide, graded and compacted with overlain gravel. PVC ducting will be laid to connect the fibre and electricity from the power station and the control room to each antenna. This will be laid 600 mm below the ground surface and consist of 4x100 mm PVC pipes with a PVC manhole at 50 m intervals for maintenance. The entire site will be fenced, either with diamond mesh with flatwrap or clearvu fencing.

Area A or Area A2 is proposed to include: - Two radio antennas that are 34m in diameter - one 18m radio antenna - one 7m radio antenna - A storehouse with a footprint of 20m x 50m - A mini substation - A diesel tank - A conservancy tank - Internal access roads (4m wide) - Laydown areas - Double diamond mesh fence that will be 4m high and 2m apart - Underground 11kV power cable (approximately 700m) linking the mini substation with an existing substation buried approximately 1m below ground - Water pipeline (approximately 700m) buried approximately 500mm below ground along the same alignment as the powerline

Area B is proposed to include: - Two 4m high Seismic Low Level Radio (S/LLR) antennas (approximately the size of shipping containers - 6m x 2.3m and 4m high) with solar panels on the roof - An administration hut 3m x 3m and 2.4m high

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

1.2 Description of Property and Affected Environment Area A is located about 1km southwest of Matjiesfontein, Area A2 is located about 3.4km southwest of Matjiesfontein and Area B is located just over 3km south of Matjiesfontein.

Area A lies behind a sandstone koppie that could potentially shield much of the visual impact of the proposed communications station when viewed from the town of Matjiesfontein and a low ridgeline runs east - west along the northern boundary of Area A. The slope runs from a height of 935m on the northern end down to around 918m on the southern end of Area A, providing about 17m of visual coverage from the N1 highway which runs parallel to this area another kilometre to the north. Some disturbance has occurred at Area A in the past with jeep tracks, a poorly maintained gravel landing strip and historic dumping of metal and glass items sometime in the 20th century. However, the site is still fairly undeveloped within the urban periphery of the town besides using the land for grazing of stock animals.

Area A2 is similar in nature to Area A. This site was identified as an alternative when concerns were raised regarding the proximity of Area A to the Matjiesfontein PHS. The updated area is located approximately 2.5km southwest of Matjiesfontein. The new proposed area lies in an area that shields much of the visual impact of the proposed communications station when viewed from Matjiesfontein. Besides some disturbance that has occurred in the area in the past with jeep tracks, the site is fairly undeveloped. The land has only been used for grazing of stock animals and 4x4 driving by guests from the Lord Milner Hotel.

Area B is much more rugged and is located on the edge of the Witteberge. A ridge lies on the northern side of Area B which is around 40m higher than the lowest point of Area B. This area would therefore be completely hidden from view should facilities be built here. However, at least three shallow streams cut through this area and sharp inclines form from the centre of the site up the northern, western and southern sides. A large folded ridge of the Witteberg lies just outside Area B on the eastern side and a possible shelter suitable for rock paintings and archaeological material was surveyed but no artefacts or paintings were found.

A jeep track has been created into Area B and small solar powered stations have been erected in two places. There is also a borehole and a small stone building overlooking the site from the northern end.

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

Figure 1.1: Close up satellite image indicating proposed location of development

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

Figure 1.2: Close up satellite image indicating proposed location of development (Area Aand Area A2 in the north and Area B in the south)

2. METHODOLOGY 2.1 Purpose of HIA The purpose of this HIA is to satisfy the requirements of section 38(8), and therefore section 38(3) of the National Heritage Resources Act (Act 25 of 1999), as per the NID response from HWC dated 22 October 2019, an HIA was required by HWC to assess impacts to archaeological resources, palaeontological resources and the general cultural landscape within a Visual Impact Assessment.

2.2 Summary of steps followed ● An archaeologist (Wiltshire and Lavin 2019, Updated 2020, Appendix 2) conducted a survey of the site and its environs on 22 August 2019 and 24 September 2020 to determine what heritage resources are likely to be impacted by the proposed development. ● A palaeontologist (Almond 2019, Updated 2020, Appendix 3) visited the site from 6 to 7 September 2019, and 13 September 2020 to determine likely impacts to palaeontological resources. ● A Visual and Cultural Landscape specialist (Eitzen 2020, Appendix 4) conducted a site visit from 21 to 23 February 2020 to determine likely visual impacts to the cultural landscape.

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

● The identified resources were assessed to evaluate their heritage significance in terms of the grading system outlined in section 3 of the NHRA (Act 25 of 1999). ● Alternatives and mitigation options were discussed with the Environmental Assessment Practitioner.

2.3 Assumptions and Limitations The level of detail provided regarding the look and feel of the proposed infrastructure has been piecemeal and limited in that only very basic sketch proposals have been provided. This has impacted the ability of the Visual and Cultural Landscape specialist to accurately assess the Visual Impacts of the proposed development.

It is assumed that should any changes be made to the proposed layout as illustrated in figures 1.3 to 1.7, this Heritage Impact Assessment report would need to be revised accordingly. A similar assumption is made for any proposed changes in the design or location of the proposed infrastructure.

Figure 1.3: Close up satellite image indicating proposed layout of the development at Area A

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

Figure 1.4: Close up satellite image indicating proposed layout of the development at Area A

Figure 1.5: Close up satellite image indicating proposed layout of the development at Area A2 relative to Area A

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

Figure 1.6: Close up satellite image indicating proposed layout of the development at Area A2

Figure 1.7: Close up satellite image indicating proposed layout of the development at Area B

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

3. HISTORY AND EVOLUTION OF THE SITE AND CONTEXT 3.1 Definition of the property The area proposed for development is located on Portion 8 of Fram 148 near Matjiesfontein, Laingsburg. The sites are located south of the N1, and south west of Matjiesfontein PHS.

3.2 Geology, geomorphology, climate and vegetation The study area near Matjiesfontein Village, Western Cape, is situated in semi-arid, hilly terrain along the southern margins of the Great Karoo. The area is drained by numerous small, non-perennial tributaries of the Buffelsrivier drainage system such as the Bobbejaansrivier and its tributary streams. In geological terms it lies within the northern margins of the Cape Fold Belt; the sedimentary bedrocks here are structured by major west-east trending folds, as clearly seen in satellite images, as well as occasional northward-directed thrusts. Examples of these large-scale folds include the rugged quartzitic Witteberge anticline to the south of Matjiesfontein, the Ghaapkop syncline in the east, as well as the major anticline to the north of the N1 with Boelhouerrante at its core. From a stratigraphic viewpoint the bedrocks underlying the project footprint include Early Carboniferous to Early / Middle Permian glacial and marine sediments assigned to the Witteberg Group (Cape Supergroup) as well as to the Dwyka and Ecca Groups. A key section through the geologically significant contact between the Cape and Karoo Supergroups runs across the N1 near the Wauchope Memorial, just west of the present study area. Large parts of the Palaeozoic outcrop area is mantled by Late Caenozoic superficial sediments such as colluvium (scree, hillwash), alluvium, pediment gravels and downwasted surface gravels.

3.3 Historical Background of the Area Numerous significant heritage resources are known from this area including, most importantly, Matjiesfontein Provincial Heritage Site as well as the archaeological remains from a Boer War Camp. Hart and Webley (2013 NID: 152531) give a brief description of the general area to be impacted: “The study area is situated towards the southern margin of the Main Karoo basin... To the south, rocks of the Cape Supergroup make up the Cape Fold Belt mountains.” Based on the information included in Hart and Webley (2013 NID: 152531), Early, Middle and Later Stone Age archaeological artefacts are expected to occur in this area, as well as stone-walled kraals and what are described as open Khoekhoen encampments situated among the Kameeldoring trees along the dry river beds in the bottom of the valleys. Archaeological sites of this kind are very rare in the Western Cape, having been only previously recorded in the Richtersveld (Hart and Webley 2013). Due to the long history of agriculture in this area, historical archaeological sites may also occur in this area. The historical town of Matjiesfontein is of substantial heritage significance due to its age and level of intactness. It forms an important part of the tourism in this area. It is therefore likely that the proposed borrow pits and/or quarries will impact these significant archaeological and cultural landscape resources.

A recent survey by the eastern Cederberg Group (eCRAG) on the neighbouring Rietfontein farm revealed a series of rock art sites on the Dwyka tillites. These findings have opened up a new geographical area for rock art research. Dr John Almond had also written up a geological and palaeontological guidebook for the landowners of the farm as this area is frequently visited by palaeontologists. A site containing extremely well-preserved fossilised fish was visited by the group (SAHRIS SITE ID 127223) to the southwest of Matjiesfontein.

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

Figure 2a. Heritage Resources Map. Heritage Resources previously identified in and near the study area, with SAHRIS Site IDs indicated (see Screening Assessment for insets) See Appendix 1 for full site descriptions

Figure 2b. Heritage Resources Map. Heritage Resources previously identified in and near the study area, with SAHRIS Site IDs indicated

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

Figure 3a. Palaeosensitivity Map. Indicating varied fossil sensitivity underlying the study area.

Figure 3b. Geology Map. Indicating the underlying geology across the study area through overlaying the geology maps from the CGS series 3320 Ladismith (Tg: High-level terrace gravel, silcrete and ferricrete, Dwi: Waaipoort (Quartzite sandstone, weathering prominently white at the top, reddish brown lower down; thin siltstone beds), Pp: Prince Albert (Dark grey shale with reddish brown-weathering siltstone))

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

The SANSA study area near Matjiesfontein Village, Western Cape, is situated in semi-arid, hilly terrain along the southern margins of the Great Karoo. The area is drained by numerous small, non-perennial tributaries of the Buffelsrivier drainage system such as the Bobbejaansrivier and its tributary streams. In geological terms it lies within the northern margins of the Cape Fold Belt; the sedimentary bedrocks here are structured by major west-east trending folds, as clearly seen in satellite images and geological maps, as well as occasional northward-directed thrusts. Examples of these large-scale folds include the rugged quartzitic Witteberge anticline to the south of Matjiesfontein and the Ghaapkop syncline to the east of the village. From a stratigraphic viewpoint the Palaeozoic bedrocks underlying the SANSA project footprint comprise Late Devonian to Early Permian glacial and marine shelf sediments assigned to the Witteberg Group (Cape Supergroup) as well as to the Dwyka Group (Karoo Supergroup). Much of the Palaeozoic outcrop area is mantled by Late Caenozoic superficial sediments such as colluvium (scree, hillwash), alluvium, pediment gravels and downwasted surface gravels.

4. IDENTIFICATION OF HERITAGE RESOURCES 4.1 Summary of specialist findings Cultural Landscape and Visual Impacts Matjiesfontein lies on the N1, isolated from surrounding towns by long distances, set in a narrow valley at the foot of the Witteberg. This area is largely natural but for the railway and highway running through it. A variety of infrastructure runs through the zone along the road-railway including the electric cables of the railway itself, a major radio mast on the peak of the Witteberge, various cell phone towers towards Touws River, farm fences and a line of pylons nearer the Witteberge. The Provincial Heritage SIte of Matjiesfontein is a rail-side hotel and ancillary facilities. Located off the N1, it is situated next to the railway and still serves its tourist trade. The lower Matjiesfontein valley is covered with dull Karoo bossies well under 1m in height and subtle landforms including hidden depressions and hillocks. The Witteberg mountains rise steeply to the east where a track leads up before disappearing. The N1 as a scenic route, the village of Matjiesfontein as well as the surrounding Moordenaars karoo are identified as significant heritage resources that form key aspects of this cultural landscape.

Area A lies between a small hillock and the river-course, located approximately 1km to 2km away from Matjiesfontein, while Area B is distant at over 4km from the town. The visibility of Area A and B are highly reduced due to their location in hidden valleys, the one at low level, the other at high level. The proposed development at Area A is likely to have a moderate to high impact on the scenic route of the N1, the Provincial Heritage Site of Matjiesfontein village and the Karoo landscape generally. Area A2 is located approximately 3 to 4km away from Matjiesfontein and was identified as an alternative when concerns were raised regarding the proximity of Area A to the Matjiesfontein PHS.

Archaeology A number of Middle Stone Age artefacts were found throughout Area A. The visibility of these finds depended on the layer of topsoil that had built up in some areas through slope wash and erosion, however, where the topsoil was washed away, the visibility of MSA artefacts was high. Manuports, cobbles and anvils could be seen in various locations with associated flake production in low densities. The only “site” was recorded around the only sandstone outcrop on Area A

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

where low density Later Stone Age artefacts were found surrounding the outcrop. The outcrop was low and barely provided any shelter and no rock paintings were found here.

The MSA stone artefacts were predominantly made from various grades of hornfels that had been locally sourced. High percentages of cortex remained and many of the pieces were heavily weathered and patinated. Quartzite flakes were also found with several notched and denticulated pieces with much lower percentages of the tools made in chert. There were also retouched quartz flakes but these were harder to isolate as there were many naturally occurring quartz stones in certain areas. These observations were recorded using a GPS and photographed but only one site, MATJIESFONTEIN002, was classified as a ‘site’ and the record has been created on SAHRIS.

The eastern end of Area A was surprisingly less densely covered by MSA artefacts but signs of historical dumping of metal and glass items were found here, most likely associated with the gravel landing strip. The highest concentrations of dumping were found on the slopes of the sandstone koppie which lies just outside of Area A and a bullet was also found here. Area A lies on the margins of the Boer War remount camp at Matjiesfontein (the small koppie just to the NE with the flag post was part of the camp, and some of the camp roads are visible on satellite images). At least some of the metal / glass / ceramic detritus on the site is almost certainly of Boer War vintage, although other artefacts (some of the cooldrink cans, for instance) are obviously much younger. It is noted that the Lord Milner website directs guests to the remount camp near the defunct airstrip and continues to encourage people to pick up Boer War material.

In traversing the area that was proposed for a powerline associated with Area A2, one hornfels flake (M1) was identified. There was a substantial amount of angular quartz vein, shale or quartzite fragments, that were smaller than 20cm in diameter, present within Area A2, but no artefacts were observed in these localities. SANSA123 was located on a ridge of shale outcrops. A sparse amount of vegetation was present and the predominant rock types were shale and quartz. One silicified shale flake (M2) was identified. LGS18 was located on a slope with scattered shale and quartz vein fragments. One hornfels flake was identified (M3) near this site. The proposed development of an area for sewage and parking lay on a dwyka tillite ridge that was sparsely vegetated and covered in brown soil. No archaeological finds were observed in this area. Area A2 has very low archaeological sensitivity.

Area B did not provide extensive evidence of stone tools even after extending the surveyed area onto an adjacent outcrop containing a small shelter and rock wall just outside of Area B on the eastern end. Approximately 650m east of Area B, at the entrance to Perdepoort, a small scatter of MSA/LSA artefacts was identified (017). These are determined to be not conservation-worthy. The ground is extremely rocky, rugged and there are three shallow streams that cut through the site. Exposures of weathered and laminated shale were found in these streams which have been assessed by the palaeontologist but no archaeological evidence was identified within Area B.

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

Early Permian glacial bedrocks of the Elandsvlei Formation (Dwyka Group). These massive, dark grey, tombstone-weathered tillites as well as several irregular quartzite bodies enclosed within them – variously interpreted as esker or glacial outwash sandstones - are apparently unfossiliferous. Sparse vascular plant remains have been previously recorded from Dwyka Group sandstone bodies near Matjiesfontein by the famous South African geologist Du Toit in 1921. Stratified post-glacial mudrocks, diamictites and wackes exposed in stream beds and banks just south of Site A represent potentially-fossiliferous Dwyka Group / Ecca Group contact beds but lie outside the development footprint. Most of the site is mantled with sandy to gravelly alluvial sediments as well as downwasted polymict surface gravels that are of low palaeontological sensitivity. No fossils were recorded at this site.

No fossil remains were recorded from the Area A2 project area during the recent field survey. As discussed above, the palaeosensitivity of the Dwyka Group sediments is generally low. No fossils were seen within the dropstone laminates and thin-bedded diamictites locally exposed in the main axial stream bed. The “elephant ball” diagenetic carbonate concretions and esker / glacial outwash fan sandstones seen near here are apparently unfossiliferous. No fossil-rich carbonate erratics, as recorded previously from the southern Karoo margins and also in the Ceres Karoo have - as yet - been seen near Matjiesfontein. The basal post-glacial mudrocks of the Prince Albert succession – not well exposed in Area A2 - are a key fossil horizon in the Northern Cape and Tanqua Karoo where diagenetic concretions within these beds have yielded a variety of marine invertebrates, fish and petrified wood. In Area A2 the lower Prince Albert beds, where exposed, are highly weathered and tectonically deformed locally. It is noted that thin-sectioning of phosphatic diagenetic concretions from the Prince Albert Formation near Matjiesfontein revealed the spinose, spherical silica tests of radiolarian microfossils. The unconsolidated gravelly to sandy superficial deposits overlying the Palaeozoic bedrocks in Area A2 are, at most, very sparsely fossiliferous and no fossils were recorded from these younger sediments during the field survey.

Area B to the south of Matjiesfontein Village lies within a tectonically-complex, intensely-folded and probably faulted zone embedded in the rugged foothills of the Witteberg Range. Bedrocks of the Late Devonian to Early Carboniferous Witteberg Group (Cape Supergroup) represented here include highly-resistant, clean-washed quartzites of the Witpoort Formation, the recessive-weathering, mudrock-dominated Kweekvlei Formation and overlying prominent-weathering, cross-bedded, pebbly sands of the Floriskraal Formation (The presence of younger Waaipoort Formation mudrocks and wackes here is equivocal). The Witpoort and Floriskraal arenites are of low palaeosensitivity, having only yielded sparse reworked vascular plant debris, low-diversity trace fossil assemblages and rare fish remains in the Matjiesfontein region and elsewhere. The Kweekvlei mudrocks in the study area are poorly-exposed, highly-weathered as well as fractured near-surface and show zones of intense soft-sediment and / or tectonic deformation. Good Witteberg Group bedding plane exposures are not seen and no fossils were recorded at this site. Most of Site B is covered by a thick (1 m or more) blanket of coarse, rubbly and partially-ferruginised quartzitic gravels and sands of both colluvial and alluvial origin which are generally of low palaeontological sensitivity. It is noted, however, that well-preserved Holocene elephant remains are known from comparable deposits near Laingsburg.

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

4.2 Heritage Resources identified Table 1: Heritage resources that may be directly/indirectly impacted by the proposed development SAHRIS Site Area Description Type Latitude Longitude Grading ID Number "Site". Natural outcrop of sandstone with broken quartzite around it. Hornfels flakes, chert on west side LSA. Not high density. General MSA MATJIESFO around it. Broken quartzite 129550 Area A NTEIN002 hammerstone LSA & MSA -33.23925368 20.56460096 IIIC 9/2/058/00 17762 NA 01 Matjiesfontein Village PHS -33.23055556 20.58250000 II Moordenaars Karoo Cultural Cultural NA NA NA Landscape Landscape NA NA IIIA Scenic NA NA NA N1 Scenic Route Route NA NA IIIA

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

4.3 Selected photographic record

Figure 5.1 View of site from starting point of track paths

Figure 5.2 View over Area B

Figure 5.3 and 5.4: Contextual images of Area A

Figure 5.5 and 5.6: Contextual images of Area A

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

Figure 5.7 and 5.8 Context of site Matjiesfontein 002 (129550)

Figure 5.9 and 5.10 View over Area B

Figure 5.11: View towards Matjiesfontein from Area A2

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

Figure 5.12: View towards Witteberge from Area A2

Figure 5.13: Existing infrastructure at Area A2

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

5. ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPACT OF THE DEVELOPMENT 5.1 Assessment of impact to Heritage Resources The proposed construction of new radio antennae and associated infrastructure for SANSA will not have a detrimental impact to significant archaeological or palaeontological heritage resources. While a number of archaeological resources were identified within the development area, only one of these was determined to have any heritage significance (Matjiesfontein002). This site has been recorded as site 129550 on SAHRIS. The isolated artefacts were determined to have low heritage significance and as such, no further mitigation is recommended for these observations or the single site recorded (MATJIESFONTEIN002). This site was identified around a small sandstone outcrop and was determined to have low local heritage significance (Grade IIIC).

Similar findings were made in Area A2. Neither Area A nor Area A2 are very archaeologically sensitive. No archaeological finds were made within Area B.

Without mitigation, the overall impact significance of the proposed SANSA antenna and associated infrastructure project is evaluated as LOW as far as palaeontological heritage resources are concerned. Unless substantial new fossil finds are made before or during the construction phase, no specialist palaeontological mitigation is recommended for this development and there are no objections on palaeontological heritage grounds to its authorisation.

Figure 6: All known resources in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development

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

Figure 6.1: All known resources in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development at Area A

Figure 6.2: All known resources in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development at Area A2

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

Figure 6.3: All known resources in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development at Area B

According to the VIA and cultural landscape assessment conducted for this project, the proposed development will have a moderate (Area B) to high (Area A) impact on the landscape causing noticeable (Area B) to some (Area A) change to the visual environment. The development has moderate (Area B) to high (Area A) visual exposure; low (Area A) to high (Area B) visual absorption capacity and low compatibility (both Areas A and B). The proposed development has marginal (Area B) and moderate to high (Area A) visibility. As a result, Area A2 was identified as an alternative when concerns were raised regarding the proximity of Area A to the Matjiesfontein PHS. In terms of the cultural landscape of the area, key heritage elements include the Matjiesfontein PHS, the N1 Scenic Route and the wilderness characteristics of the Moordenaars Karoo in general.

Some visual impact on the Matjiesfontein Provincial Heritage Site is anticipated, however this impact is greatly reduced at Area A2. The views towards the Witteberg mountains from the centre of town are blocked by vegetation, tall trees and the elevated railway platform and buildings. It may be possible that Area B may be visible from an upper window of the Lord Milner Hotel, however the proposed infrastructure is located some distance away and it is likely the view would be incomplete. However, the larger 34m and 18m antennae located within Area A will be visible from the historic core of Matjiesfontein where not obscured or obstructed by vegetation and structures. The proposed antennae within Area A will be highly visible from the entrance road that links Matjiesfontein to the N1. Additionally, tourists alighting on

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

the platform may be able to view the sites through the houses on the far side of the tracks. However, the best view of the proposed development from Matjiesfontein towards Area A is from the sports field located southeast of the village away from the historic centre (Figure 6.3).

The proposed antennae will be visible from the train carriages on their way into Matjiesfontein, as well as from the N1 Scenic Route, although most of the development will be shielded from the N1 by a ridgeline that runs parallel to the N1. As such, the visual impact of the N1 scenic route will be mitigated by its location behind the ridgeline, although due to the height of the proposed infrastructure it is still likely to be a visible and foreign element in the landscape. The anticipated negative visual impacts of the larger antennae are substantially reduced when located further away in proposed Area A2 (Figure 6.6, 6.7 and 6.8).

According to the VIA (Appendix 3), the “Zone of Visual Influence” (ZVI) of Area A is large due to the substantial height of the proposed infrastructure which will be visible for long distances. There is a small island of no visibility in the historic core of Matjiesfontein (Figure 6.4), however the tallest of the antennae may still be visible through gaps between buildings and vegetation, depending on the angle of view. The ZVI for Area B is much smaller and will likely only be visible from within the valley itself (Figure 6.5). As such, the impact of the proposed development on the cultural landscape will be limited to an area within 5km of Area A, a relatively small area of impact within the broader area of the Moordenaars Karoo (approximately 150km x 120km in area). Although the ZVI has not been determined for Area A2, this site is located between 3km and 5km away from the historic core of Matjiesfontein Provincial Heritage Site and is placed sensitively behind topographical buffers such as koppies to limit negative impact to the scenic qualities of the Matjiesfontein Valley. As such, this alternative complies with the recommendations of the Visual and Cultural Landscape

Assessment (Eitzen, 2020).

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

Figure 6.3: ZVI for Area A (from VIA, Appendix 3)

Figure 6.4: ZVI for Area B (from VIA, Appendix 3)

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

Figure 6.5: The green areas in the attached indicate the areas visible from the yellow pin labelled “Matjies” with Area A2 marked by the red polygon

Figure 6.6: The green areas in the attached indicate the areas visible from the yellow pins in Area A2 marked by the red polygon

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

Figure 6.7: The green areas in the attached indicate the areas visible from the yellow pin labelled “View from N1” with Area A2 marked by the red polygon

5.2 Sustainable Social and Economic Benefit The socio-economic benefits associated with this project largely pertain to South Africa’s standing regarding space science and exploration. Employment opportunities associated with this development will be limited to the construction phase, and further limited as skilled labourers would need to be brought in for the assembly of the antennae.

5.3 Proposed development alternatives Alternative 1: Area A and Area B are developed as proposed. The proposed antennae are placed without consideration of impacts to the scenic qualities of the Matjiesfontein Valley. This Alternative is not recommended from a heritage perspective as the negative impact of the proposed development to the sense of place associated with Matjiesfontein is considered too high.

Alternative 2 (Preferred): Area A2 and Area B are developed as proposed. The development at Area A2 is located between 3km and 5km away from the historic core of Matjiesfontein Provincial Heritage Site and is placed sensitively behind topographical buffers such as koppies to limit negative impact to the scenic qualities of the Matjiesfontein Valley. In addition, this Alternative includes the implementation of recommendations included in the HIA (section 7) including the cultivation of screening landscaping, sensitive planting, painting and design of infrastructure as per the attached SANSA document.

Alternative 3: The no-go alternative.

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

Figure 7.1: An example of the kinds of antennae proposed

Figure 7.2: 34m deep space antennae proposed

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

Figure 7.3: 18m and 7m full motion antennae proposed. Antenna scales to required size. The 18m antenna protrudes ~20m above ground level and the 7m antenna will be mounted on a raised platform and will extend ~ 11m above ground level.

6. RESULTS OF PUBLIC CONSULTATION An Environmental Impact Assessment, i.e. Basic Assessment application process is currently being facilitated for the proposed development in terms of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998). Public Participation will form part of the EIA application which is currently being facilitated. In addition, the Laingsburg Municipality, and the Lord Milner Hotel were provided with an opportunity to comment on this draft HIA from Friday 1 May to Monday 1 June 2020.

7. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The proposed development will not negatively impact on any significant archaeological or palaeontological resources for the proposed SANSA communications facility. The isolated artefacts identified within Areas A and Area A2 were determined to have low heritage significance and as such, no further mitigation is recommended for these observations or the single site recorded (MATJIESFONTEIN002). This site was identified around a small sandstone outcrop and was determined to have low local heritage significance (Grade IIIC). Area A2 is, however, preferred in terms of impacts to archaeological resources due to the lower density of artefacts found here.

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

Recommendation Based on the available information, there is no objection to the proposed development on condition that: 4. Alternative 2 (Area A2 and Area B) is the preferred development alternative in terms of impacts to heritage 5. The HWC Chance Finds Procedure must be adopted during the construction phase due to the high palaeontological sensitivity of the area 6. The recommendations included in the VIA be implemented including: a. The perimeter treatment and fencing must be sensitive to the natural context and must be appropriately coloured to blend into the surrounding vegetation. Silver, black and bright green fencing should not be used. b. Where safety and technical standards permit, colours that blend into the natural environment and vegetation must be used for the antennae and associated infrastructure. These should be darker, duller

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

colours that can disguise the infrastructure in the landscape. In the case of the reflective areas of the four large antennae, a naturally coloured tint should be considered for the working surface. c. Buildings must be made from local materials where possible and should draw from existing building traditions. d. A landscape plan is developed for avenue or block planting of gum trees or similar that fit into the cultural landscape to screen the proposed infrastructure from the PHS. This planting should be focussed on the south and eastern side of the railway line. e. Wanton stripping of vegetation that causes scarring on the landscape must be avoided f. Lighting must be minimised and carefully controlled, and must be developed with sensitivity to the rural landscape g. Waterwise and indigenous planting, and green-star building practices must be used h. Equipment must not be placed on the upper southern slopes of the perched valley in Area B that have a long distance view of Matjiesfontein.

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

8. REFERENCES

Impact Assessment References

Report Nid Author/s Date Title Type

A PHASE 1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (AIA) FOR THE PROPOSED POWER LINE ALTERNATIVES AND SUBSTATION OPTIONS FOR THE AIA 365021 Celeste Booth 21/05/2016 RIETKLOOF WIND ENERGY FACILITY (WEF) SITUATED IN THE WITZENBURG Phase 1 LOCAL MUNICIPALITY AND LAINGSBURG LOCAL MUNICIPALITY, CAPE WINELANDS HIA Timothy Hart, 152531 20/12/2013 Heritage Impact Assessment Report for the Phase 1 Roggeveld Wind Farm Phase 1 Lita Webley PIA Phase 337370 Duncan Miller 01/03/2011 Palaeontological Impact Assessment Proposed Roggeveld Wind Energy Facility 1 Mariagrazia Galimberti, Kyla 356318 01/02/2016 Heritage Screener CTS15_015a EOH Rietkloof Wind Energy Facility Bluff, Nicholas Wiltshire HIA Heritage Impact Assessment Worcester-Cape Winelands District Municipality, 329795 Quahnita Samie 29/08/2012 Phase 1 Western Cape A PHASE 1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (AIA) FOR THE PROPOSED POWER LINE ALTERNATIVES AND SUBSTATION OPTIONS FOR THE AIA 365021 Celeste Booth 21/05/2016 RIETKLOOF WIND ENERGY FACILITY (WEF) SITUATED IN THE WITZENBURG Phase 1 LOCAL MUNICIPALITY AND LAINGSBURG LOCAL MUNICIPALITY, CAPE WINELANDS HIA Timothy Hart, 152531 20/12/2013 Heritage Impact Assessment Report for the Phase 1 Roggeveld Wind Farm Phase 1 Lita Webley

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

APPENDICES

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

APPENDIX 1: Table 1: Sites previously identified within 25km of the proposed development area (Figure 2)

Site ID Site no Full Site Name Site Type Grading

Archaeological, Artefacts, Rock 127026 RTFN7 Rietfontein 7 Grade IIIa Art 33282 ANY33 Anysberg 33 (Tapfontein 22) Rock Art, Artefacts Grade IIIa

Archaeological, Artefacts, Rock 127028 RTFN10 Rietfontein 10 Grade IIIa Art

33281 ANY32 Anysberg 32 (Tapfontein 08) Rock Art, Artefacts Grade IIIa Archaeological, Rock Art, 127029 RTFN12 Rietfontein 12 Grade IIIb Artefacts 28195 9/2/058/0001 Matjiesfontein Village, Laingsburg District Building Grade II

Railway Station building, Matjiesfontein, 28193 9/2/058/0002 Building Grade II Laingsburg District Matjiesfontein Cemetery, Pieter 28192 9/2/058/0004 Burial Grounds & Graves Grade II Meintjiesfontein, Laingsburg District Rock Art, Artefacts, 127031 RTFN11 Rietfontein 11 Grade IIIb Archaeological 127027 RTFN6 Rietfontein 6 Rock Art, Artefacts Grade IIIa

Rock Art, Artefacts, 127030 RTFN8 Rietfontein 8 Grade IIIa Archaeological 33280 ANY31 Anysberg 31 (Kleynspreeufontein 03) Rock Art, Artefacts Grade IIIa

Archaeological, Rock Art, 127025 RTFN9 Rietfontein 9 Grade IIIa Artefacts

33267 ANY18 Anysberg 18 (Matjiesgoedkloof 04) Rock Art Grade IIIa 33266 ANY17 Anysberg 17 (Klipfontein 36) Rock Art, Artefacts Grade IIIa

Holostratotype: Whitehill Formation near 29583 GEO052 Geological Grade IIIb Whitehill Station Holostratotype: Whitehill Formation near 29584 GEO053 Geological Grade IIIb Whitehill Station 29587 GEO054 Geosite: Witteberg River section base Geological Grade IIIa

35216 ROG034 Roggeveld 034 Building Grade IIIc 35753 ROG050 Roggeveld 050 Building Grade IIIb

17444 ELKLOOF1 Elandskloof 1 Artefacts Grade IIIb 17445 ELKLOOF10 Elandskloof 10 Artefacts Grade IIIb

17446 ELKLOOF11 Elandskloof 11 Ruin >100 years Grade IIIb 17447 ELKLOOF12 Elandskloof 12 Palaeontological Grade IIIb

17448 ELKLOOF13 Elandskloof 13 Rock Art, Artefacts, Deposit Grade IIIa 17449 ELKLOOF2 Elandskloof 2 Rock Art, Artefacts, Deposit Grade IIIa

17450 ELKLOOF3 Elandskloof 3 Artefacts Grade IIIb 17451 ELKLOOF4 Elandskloof 4 Artefacts Grade IIIb

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

17452 ELKLOOF5 Elandskloof 5 Artefacts Grade IIIb

17453 ELKLOOF6 Elandskloof 6 Artefacts Grade IIIb 17454 ELKLOOF7 Elandskloof 7 Artefacts Grade IIIb

17455 ELKLOOF8 Elandskloof 8 Palaeontological Grade IIIb 17456 ELKLOOF9 Elandskloof 9 Rock Art Grade IIIa

127223 MATJIESFONTEIN001 Matjiesfontein 001 Palaeontological Grade IIIa 127224 RTFN13 Rietfontein 13 Geological Grade IIIb

127225 RTFN14 Rietfontein 14 Artefacts Grade IIIb 127358 SLR-N1-M002 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 002 Artefacts Grade IIIc

99104 RTFN4 Rietfontein 4 Artefacts, Archaeological Grade IIIa 99105 RTFN3 Rietfontein 3 Artefacts, Rock Art Grade IIIb

99107 RTFN1 Rietfontein 1 Artefacts Grade IIIc 127593 SLR-N1-M039 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 039 Artefacts Grade IIIc

127594 SLR-N1-M040 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 040 Artefacts Grade IIIc 127595 SLR-N1-M041 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 041 Artefacts Grade IIIc

127596 SLR-N1-M042 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 042 Artefacts Grade IIIc 127597 SLR-N1-M043 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 043 Artefacts Grade IIIc

127598 SLR-N1-M044 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 044 Artefacts Grade IIIc 127599 SLR-N1-M045 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 045 Artefacts Grade IIIc

127600 SLR-N1-M047 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 047 Artefacts Grade IIIc 127601 SLR-N1-M048 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 048 Artefacts Grade IIIc

127602 SLR-N1-M049 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 049 Artefacts Grade IIIc 127603 SLR-N1-M050 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 050 Artefacts Grade IIIb

127604 SLR-N1-M051 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 051 Artefacts Grade IIIb 127605 SLR-N1-M052 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 052 Artefacts Grade IIIb

127606 SLR-N1-M053 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 053 Artefacts Grade IIIb 127607 SLR-N1-M054 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 054 Artefacts Grade IIIc

127608 SLR-N1-M055 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 055 Artefacts Grade IIIc 127487 SLR-N1-M001 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 001 Artefacts Grade IIIc

127488 SLR-N1-M003 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 003 Artefacts Grade IIIc 127489 SLR-N1-M004 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 004 Artefacts Grade IIIc

127490 SLR-N1-M005 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 005 Artefacts Grade IIIc 127491 SLR-N1-M006 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 006 Artefacts Grade IIIc

127492 SLR-N1-M007 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 007 Artefacts Grade IIIc 127493 SLR-N1-M008 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 008 Artefacts Grade IIIc

127494 SLR-N1-M010 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 010 Artefacts Grade IIIc 127495 SLR-N1-M011 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 011 Burial Grounds & Graves Grade IIIa

127496 SLR-N1-M013 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 013 Artefacts Grade IIIc

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

127497 SLR-N1-M014 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 014 Artefacts Grade IIIc

127498 SLR-N1-M015 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 015 Artefacts Grade IIIc 127499 SLR-N1-M016 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 016 Artefacts Grade IIIc

127500 SLR-N1-M019 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 019 Artefacts Grade IIIc 127501 SLR-N1-M020 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 020 Artefacts Grade IIIc

127502 SLR-N1-M021 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 021 Artefacts Grade IIIc 127503 SLR-N1-M022 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 022 Artefacts Grade IIIc

127504 SLR-N1-M023 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 023 Artefacts Grade IIIc 127505 SLR-N1-M024 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 024 Artefacts Grade IIIc

127506 SLR-N1-M025 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 025 Artefacts Grade IIIb 127507 SLR-N1-M026 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 026 Artefacts Grade IIIc

127508 SLR-N1-M027 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 027 Artefacts Grade IIIc 127509 SLR-N1-M028 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 028 Artefacts Grade IIIc

127510 SLR-N1-M029 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 029 Artefacts Grade IIIc 127511 SLR-N1-M030 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 030 Artefacts Grade IIIc

127512 SLR-N1-M031 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 031 Artefacts Grade IIIc 127513 SLR-N1-M032 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 032 Artefacts Grade IIIc

127514 SLR-N1-M033 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 033 Artefacts Grade IIIc 127515 SLR-N1-M034 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 034 Artefacts Grade IIIc

127516 SLR-N1-M035 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 035 Artefacts Grade IIIc 127517 SLR-N1-M036 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 036 Artefacts Grade IIIc

127518 SLR-N1-M037 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 037 Monuments & Memorials Grade IIIb 127519 SLR-N1-M038 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 038 Burial Grounds & Graves Grade IIIa

129269 RTFN15 Rietfontein 15 Artefacts, Rock Art Grade IIIa

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

APPENDIX 2: Archaeological Field Assessment

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

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SPECIALIST STUDY

In terms of Section 38(8) of the NHRA for a Proposed SANSA Space Operations on portion 8 of Farm Matjiesfontein Western Cape

HWC Ref:

Prepared by

In Association with CES

August 2019 Updated October 2020

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

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

Signature of the specialist

CTS Heritage Name of company

30 August 2019 Date

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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The South African National Space Agency (SANSA) proposes to construct new radio antennae and associated infrastructure on Portion 8 of Farm 148 near Matjiesfontein in the Western Cape Province. Two separate sites have been identified for this area. One site will house 20 small scientific antenna, each with a footprint of 4m2 and a height of 3m. Two alternative sites have been proposed for this infrastructure - Area A and Area A2. The other site (Area B) will house 7 antenna and a storehouse. It is anticipated that the antenna footprints at this site will be 225m2 with their heights ranging from 4m up to 40m. Other associated infrastructure will include internal, gravel access roads that are 4m wide as well as laydown areas.

The foot survey conducted provided a good description of the heritage resources located within the proposed development area. Only one low density and diffuse Later Stone Age scatter was found around a low sandstone outcrop within Area A and was graded as having low, local significance (IIIC). Middle Stone Age stone tools were found across Area A in low numbers but across the area. Similar artefacts in lower densities were identified in Area A2.

No archaeological finds were made in Area B.

The proposed development will not negatively impact on any significant archaeological resources for the proposed SANSA communications facility.

The isolated artefacts were determined to have low heritage significance and as such, no further mitigation is recommended for these observations or the single site recorded (MATJIESFONTEIN002). This site was identified around a small sandstone outcrop and was determined to have low local heritage significance (Grade IIIC).

Area A2 is preferred in terms of impacts to archaeological resources.

In summary; ● Alternative 2 is preferred from an archaeological perspective. ● The proposed development is unlikely to negatively impact on any significant archaeological resources. ● A representative record of the distribution of Middle Stone Age artefacts has been created through the survey which is consistent with previous findings in the area around Matjiesfontein. ● A low density Later Stone Age site was found around a small sandstone outcrop on Area A and was graded as having low local significance (Grade IIIC). Should Alternative 2 be implemented as recommended, this site will not be impacted. ● No archaeological material was found in Area B.

Therefore there is no objection to the proposed development with regard to impacts to archaeological resources on condition that. Alternative 2 is developed.

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

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 4 1.1 Background Information on Project 4 1.1.1. Original project description 4 1.1.2. Revised project description (September 2020) 4 1.2 Description of Property and Affected Environment 5

2. METHODOLOGY 9 2.1 Purpose of Archaeological Study 9 2.2 Summary of steps followed 9

3. HISTORY AND EVOLUTION OF THE SITE AND CONTEXT 9

4. IDENTIFICATION OF HERITAGE RESOURCES 11 4.1 Field Assessment 11 4.2 Archaeological Resources identified 11 4.3 Selected photographic record 14

5. ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPACT OF THE DEVELOPMENT 21 5.1 Assessment of impact to Archaeological Resources 21 5.2 Proposed development alternatives 24

6. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 24

7. REFERENCES 25

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

1.1.1. Original project description The SANSA developments were originally planned to take place on two separate sites labeled A and B in Figures 2 to 4. Site A, located in gently sloping Karroo veld some 1.5 km southwest of Matjiesfontein Village, would accommodate 20 small scientific antenna, each with a footprint of 4 m2 and a height of 3 m. Site B, situated in rocky terrain on the northern flank of the Witberge Range some 3.75 km due south of the village, would house 7 antennae and a storehouse. It was anticipated that the footprints of the antennae at this second site would be 225 m2 with their heights ranging from 4 m up to 40 m. Other associated infrastructure would include internal gravel access roads that are 4 m wide as well as laydown areas.

The proposed project will consist of 4 large Deep Space Navigation antennae (DSN 1-4) which will not exceed 45 m in height and have a physical footprint of 360 m2 as well as 3 smaller planned radio antennae (SANSA 1,2,3) up to 12 m in height with an anticipated physical footprint of 100 m2. There will also be a 18 m Ku antenna (LGS 18) which will be up to 30 m in height and have a footprint of 400 m2.

On the western edge of the site, a power station is planned which will be of similar size to the main building on the eastern edge. The power station will consist of the stores, workshop, generators and fuel storage and will also have an accompanying 900 m2 curbed parking area. An overhead powerline of 750 m in length is planned to connect the power station to the existing Eskom substation outside of the site. The diesel storage at the PowerStation has a combined storage capacity of 280 000 l which will be kept above-ground within self-bunded, moveable systems. Each bunded tank holds 70 000 l. The tanks will be connected to one another as the site grows and the required power capacity increases. The generators will also be installed in phases as the site expands. The first generator of four will be 1200 KVA

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

Some disturbance has occurred at Area A in the past with jeep tracks, a poorly maintained gravel landing strip and historic dumping of metal and glass items sometime in the 20th century. However, the site is still fairly undeveloped within the urban periphery of the town besides using the land for grazing of stock animals.

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

surveyed but no artefacts or paintings were found. A jeep track has been created into Area B and small solar powered stations have been erected in two places. There is also a borehole and a small stone building overlooking the site from the northern end.

Figure 1.2: Satellite image indicating proposed location of development

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

Figure 1.2: Close up satellite image indicating proposed location of development (Site A in the north and Site B in the south)

Figure 1.3: Close up satellite image indicating proposed layout of the development at Area A

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

Figure 1.4: Close up satellite image indicating proposed layout of the development at Area A2

Figure 1.5: Close up satellite image indicating proposed layout of the development at Area B

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

2. METHODOLOGY 2.1 Purpose of Archaeological Study The purpose of this archaeological study is to satisfy the requirements of section 38(8), and therefore section 38(3) of the National Heritage Resources Act (Act 25 of 1999) in terms of impacts to archaeological resources.

2.2 Summary of steps followed ● An archaeologist conducted a survey of the sites A1 and B and its environs on 22 August 2019 with the EAP to determine what archaeological resources are likely to be impacted by the proposed development. ● An archaeologist conducted a survey of site A2 and its environs on 24 September 2020 to determine what archaeological resources are likely to be impacted by the proposed development. ● The identified resources were assessed to evaluate their heritage significance in terms of the grading system outlined in section 3 of the NHRA (Act 25 of 1999). ● Alternatives and mitigation options were discussed with the Environmental Assessment Practitioner.

3. HISTORY AND EVOLUTION OF THE SITE AND CONTEXT Numerous significant heritage resources are known from this area including, most importantly, Matjiesfontein Provincial Heritage Site as well as the archaeological remains from a Boer War Camp. Hart and Webley (2013 NID: 152531) give a brief description of the general area to be impacted: “The study area is situated towards the southern margin of the Main Karoo basin... To the south, rocks of the Cape Supergroup make up the Cape Fold Belt mountains.” Based on the information included in Hart and Webley (2013 NID: 152531), Early, Middle and Later Stone Age archaeological artefacts are expected to occur in this area, as well as stone-walled kraals and what are described as open Khoekhoen encampments situated among the Kameeldoring trees along the dry river beds in the bottom of the valleys. Archaeological sites of this kind are very rare in the Western Cape, having been only previously recorded in the Richtersveld (Hart and Webley 2013). Due to the long history of agriculture in this area, historical archaeological sites may also occur in this area. The historical town of Matjiesfontein is of substantial heritage significance due to its age and level of intactness. It forms an important part of the tourism in this area. It is therefore likely that the proposed development will impact these significant archaeological and cultural landscape resources.

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

Figure 2.1. Heritage Resources Map. Heritage Resources previously identified in and near the study area, with SAHRIS Site IDs indicated (see Screening Assessment for insets)

Figure 2.2. Heritage Resources Map. Heritage Resources previously identified in and near the study area, with SAHRIS Site IDs indicated

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

4. IDENTIFICATION OF HERITAGE RESOURCES 4.1 Field Assessment The archaeological survey was conducted on 22 August 2019. Visibility across both Area A & B was excellent as the vegetation is sparse and does not obscure artefacts lying on the ground. Area A was much easier to survey as the ground only gradually sloped from north to south while Area B is rugged and much more difficult to survey. Much of the ground on Area B is also covered in broken sandstone weathering out of the Witteberg.

Area A2 was assessed on 22 September 2020. Visibility across area A2 was good as the area was either sparsely or slightly more vegetated. The Fynbos did not obscure any artefacts lying on the ground and archaeological finds were relatively easy to identify. In general, across the whole proposed development area, the area consisted of dwyka tillite outcrops which were covered in brown soils and various quantities of scattered rock fragments. There was also evidence of bioturbation (mole hills and burrows).

4.2 Archaeological Resources identified A number of Middle Stone Age artefacts were found throughout Area A. The visibility of these finds depended on the layer of topsoil that had built up in some areas through slope wash and erosion, however, where the topsoil was washed away, the visibility of MSA artefacts was high. Manuports, cobbles and anvils could be seen in various locations with associated flake production in low densities. The only “site” was recorded around the only sandstone outcrop on Area A where low density Later Stone Age artefacts were found surrounding the outcrop. The outcrop was low and barely provided any shelter and no rock paintings were found here.

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

A few Middle Stone Age artefacts were identified during the survey. The visibility of these finds depended on the layer of topsoil that had built up in some areas through slope wash and erosion. No “sites” were recorded during the survey. The MSA stone artefacts were made from either hornfels or quartzite that had been locally sourced.

In traversing the area that is proposed for a powerline associated with Area A2, one hornfels flake (M1) was identified. There was a substantial amount of angular quartz vein, shale or quartzite fragments, that were smaller than 20cm in diameter, present within Area A2, but no artefacts were observed in these localities. SANSA123 is located on a ridge of shale outcrops. A sparse amount of vegetation was present and the predominant rock types were shale and quartz. One silicified shale flake (M2) was identified. LGS18 is located on a slope with scattered shale and quartz vein fragments. One hornfels flake was identified (M3) near this site. The proposed development of an area for sewage and parking lay on a dwyka tillite ridge that was sparsely vegetated and covered in brown soil. No archaeological finds were observed in this area. Area A2 has very low archaeological sensitivity.

.F igure 5: Overall track paths of foot survey

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

Table 1: Artefacts identified during the field assessment

Artefact/ Site SAHRIS ID Number Description Type Latitude Longitude Grading AREA A n/a 001 Hornfels flakes near exposed jeep track MSA -33.23983471 20.5679419 NCW Hornfels cores and flakes, rock area, diffuse n/a 002 density MSA -33.23926365 20.56785565 NCW Fine grained cream/white quartzite. Near knapping site? Chalcedony core; leads up to rocky exposed area on northern side of area with patinated large manuports, n/a 003 cobbles flaked MSA -33.23872847 20.56762699 NCW Quartz retouched flakes, quartzite step n/a 004 flaked core MSA -33.2393815 20.56689953 NCW As soon there's soil cover and some vegetation the artefacts are buried and therefore most of the exposed artefacts are visible where the topsoil is not holding together; Probably not much later n/a 005 movement of artefacts MSA -33.23999162 20.56662292 NCW Hornfels core showing patination, cortex. Clearing with sand bank - artificial. Glass n/a 006 bottle broken MSA -33.24033788 20.5664666 NCW "Site". Natural outcrop of sandstone with broken quartzite around it. Hornfels flakes, chert on west side LSA. Not high MATJIESFO density. General MSA around it. Broken LSA & 129550 NTEIN002 quartzite hammerstone MSA -33.23925368 20.56460096 IIIC Cluster of hornfels flakes and cores, some n/a 008 embedded in edge of topsoil layer MSA -33.23981526 20.56293991 NCW n/a 010 Retouched hornfels, chert core MSA -33.24055128 20.56310898 NCW n/a 011 Quartzite cobble core flaked MSA -33.23961611 20.56434916 NCW MSA, n/a 013 Dwyka flake, metal trash historical -33.23816981 20.57147353 NCW Bullet, quartzite flakes near koppie, MSA, n/a 014 surprising low number of artefacts here historical -33.23791601 20.57220611 NCW Hornfels, heavy patination, cortex; elevation near southern end of this area 918m, n/a 015 therefore about 17m change MSA -33.23911512 20.57208692 NCW

Low stone walling on southern and eastern n/a 016 side of the main sandstone outcrop Historical -33.2397500001 20.5662501 NCW

AREA A2

n/a M1 Hornfels flake near proposed power line MSA -33.243417 20.541185 NCW

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

n/a M2 Silicified shale flake near SANSA123 MSA -33.244474 20.545383 NCW

n/a M3 Hornfels flake near LGS18 MSA -33.243905 20.551356 NCW

AREA B Extensive scatter of stone artefacts eroding out of sandy alluvial deposits at N n/a 017 entrance to Perdepoort, 650m east of B MSA, LSA -33.26355556 20.591114 NCW

4.3 Selected photographic record

Figure 6.1 View of site from starting point of track paths

Figure 6.2 and 6.3. Artefacts and context of observation 001

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

Figure 6.4 and 6.5 Artefacts and context of observation 003

Figure 6.6 Artefacts from observation 004 Figure 6.7 Context of observation 005

Figure 6.8 and 6.9. Artefacts and context from observation 006

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

Figure 6.10 and 6.11. Artefacts and context from observation 008

Figure 6.12 and 6.13. Artefacts and context from observation 013

Figure 6.14 and 6.15 Context of site Matjiesfontein 002 (129550)

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

Figure 6.16 and 6.17 Context of site Matjiesfontein 002 (129550)

Figure 6.18, 6.19 and 6.20 Artefacts from site Matjiesfontein 002 (129550).

Figure 6.21, 6.22 and 6.23 Low stone walling (016)

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

Figure 6.24 View of Area A from Matjiesfontein PHS

Figure 6.25 View over Area B

Figure 6.26 AND 6.27 View over Area B

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

Figure 6.28 and 6.29 View over Area B

Figure 6.30 and 6.31 View over Area B

Figure 6.33, 6.34 and 6.35 Site 017 650m east of Area B

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

Figure 6.36: View towards Matjiesfontein from Area A2

Figure 6.37: View towards Witteberge from Area A2

Figure 6.38: Existing infrastructure at Area A2

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

Figure 6.39, 6.40 and 6.41: Artefacts at M1, M2 and M3 from Area A2

5. ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPACT OF THE DEVELOPMENT 5.1 Assessment of impact to Archaeological Resources The foot survey conducted provided a good description of the heritage resources located within the proposed development area. Only one low density and diffuse Later Stone Age scatter was found around a low sandstone outcrop within Area A and was graded as having low, local significance (IIIC). Middle Stone Age stone tools were found across Area A in low numbers but across the area.

Similar findings were made in Area A2. Neither Area A nor Area A2 are very archaeologically sensitive.

No archaeological finds were made within Area B.

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

Figure 7.1: Map of heritage resources identified during the field assessment relative to the proposed development areas

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

Figure 7.2: Heritage resources identified during the field assessment relative to the proposed development in Area A

Figure 7.3: Heritage resources identified during the field assessment relative to the proposed development in Area A2

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

5.2 Proposed development alternatives Alternative 1: Area A and Area B are developed as proposed. The proposed antennae are placed without consideration of impacts to the scenic qualities of the Matjiesfontein Valley. This Alternative is not recommended from a heritage perspective as the negative impact of the proposed development to the sense of place associated with Matjiesfontein is considered too high.

Alternative 3: The no-go alternative.

6. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The proposed development will not negatively impact on any significant archaeological resources for the proposed SANSA communications facility.

Area A2 is preferred in terms of impacts to archaeological resources.

Therefore there is no objection to the proposed development with regard to impacts to archaeological resources on condition that. Alternative 2 is developed.

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

7. REFERENCES

Impact Assessment References

Report Nid Author/s Date Title Type

A PHASE 1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (AIA) FOR THE PROPOSED POWER LINE ALTERNATIVES AND SUBSTATION OPTIONS FOR THE AIA 365021 Celeste Booth 21/05/2016 RIETKLOOF WIND ENERGY FACILITY (WEF) SITUATED IN THE WITZENBURG Phase 1 LOCAL MUNICIPALITY AND LAINGSBURG LOCAL MUNICIPALITY, CAPE WINELANDS HIA Timothy Hart, 152531 20/12/2013 Heritage Impact Assessment Report for the Phase 1 Roggeveld Wind Farm Phase 1 Lita Webley PIA Phase 337370 Duncan Miller 01/03/2011 Palaeontological Impact Assessment Proposed Roggeveld Wind Energy Facility 1 Mariagrazia Galimberti, Kyla 356318 Scoping 01/02/2016 Heritage Screener CTS15_015a EOH Rietkloof Wind Energy Facility Bluff, Nicholas Wiltshire HIA Heritage Impact Assessment Worcester-Cape Winelands District Municipality, 329795 Quahnita Samie 29/08/2012 Phase 1 Western Cape A PHASE 1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (AIA) FOR THE PROPOSED POWER LINE ALTERNATIVES AND SUBSTATION OPTIONS FOR THE AIA 365021 Celeste Booth 21/05/2016 RIETKLOOF WIND ENERGY FACILITY (WEF) SITUATED IN THE WITZENBURG Phase 1 LOCAL MUNICIPALITY AND LAINGSBURG LOCAL MUNICIPALITY, CAPE WINELANDS HIA Timothy Hart, 152531 20/12/2013 Heritage Impact Assessment Report for the Phase 1 Roggeveld Wind Farm Phase 1 Lita Webley

Additional References: Wiltshire, N and Lavin, J. et al. (2018). Heritage Impact Assessment for the proposed Upgrade of the N1 between Monument River and Doornfontein, Laingsburg. Unpublished report for SLR Consultants.

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

APPENDIX 3: Palaeontological Field Assessment

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

PALAEONTOLOGICAL SPECIALIST STUDY

In terms of Section 38(8) of the NHRA

Proposed SANSA Space Operations on Portion 8 of Farm 148 near Matjiesfontein, Laingsburg Local Municipality, Western Cape Province

Prepared by

John E. Almond PhD (Cantab.) Natura Viva cc, CAPE TOWN

and

In Association with EOH Coastal & Environmental Services (CES)

September 2019 Updated October 2020

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

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

Dr John E. Almond, Natura Viva cc, CAPE TOWN Date 5 October 2020

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The South African National Space Agency (SANSA) is proposing to construct new radio antennae and associated infrastructure on Portion 8 of Farm 148 (Koenie Kraal) near Matjiesfontein Village, Laingsburg Municipality (Central Karoo District) in the Western Cape Province. The developments will take place on two separate sites situated within a radius of 4 km towards the southwest and south of the village.

The two small project areas for the SANSA antenna developments near Matjiesfontein are located within the margins of the Cape Fold Belt on the northern side of the Witberg Range. Site A to the north is underlain by poorly-exposed Early Permian glacial bedrocks of the Elandsvlei Formation (Dwyka Group). These massive, dark grey, tombstone-weathered tillites as well as several irregular quartzite bodies enclosed within them – variously interpreted as esker or glacial outwash sandstones - are apparently unfossiliferous. Sparse vascular plant remains have been previously recorded from Dwyka Group sandstone bodies near Matjiesfontein by the famous South African geologist Du Toit in 1921. Stratified post-glacial mudrocks, diamictites and wackes exposed in stream beds and banks just south of Site A represent potentially-fossiliferous Dwyka Group / Ecca Group contact beds but lie outside the development footprint. Most of the site is mantled with sandy to gravelly alluvial sediments as well as downwasted polymict surface gravels that are of low palaeontological sensitivity. No fossils were recorded at this site.

Site B to the south of Matjiesfontein Village lies within a tectonically-complex, intensely-folded and probably faulted zone embedded in the rugged foothills of the Witberg Range. Bedrocks of the Late Devonian to Early Carboniferous Witteberg Group (Cape Supergroup) represented here include highly-resistant, clean-washed quartzites of the Witpoort Formation, the recessive-weathering, mudrock-dominated Kweekvlei Formation and overlying prominent-weathering, cross-bedded, pebbly sands of the Floriskraal Formation (The presence of younger Waaipoort Formation mudrocks and wackes here is equivocal). The Witpoort and Floriskraal arenites are of low palaeosensitivity, having only yielded sparse reworked vascular plant debris, low-diversity trace fossil assemblages and rare fish remains in the Matjiesfontein region and elsewhere. The Kweekvlei mudrocks in the study area are poorly-exposed, highly-weathered as well as fractured near-surface and show zones of intense soft-sediment and / or tectonic deformation. Good Witteberg Group bedding plane exposures are not seen and no fossils were recorded at this site. Most of Site B is covered by a thick (1 m or more) blanket of coarse, rubbly and partially-ferruginised quartzitic gravels and sands of both colluvial and alluvial origin which are generally of low palaeontological sensitivity. It is noted, however, that well-preserved Holocene elephant remains are known from comparable deposits near Laingsburg.

2 The preferred Site C, situated in gentle hilly terrain some 3.3 km SW of Matjiesfontein Village, is underlain in the north by poorly-exposed Dwyka Group tillites with occasional esker sandstone outcrops and exposures of thin-bedded dropstone laminates along the axial stream bed. The southern half of the site overlies weathered, tabular-bedded basinal marine and possible lower shoreface sediments of the Prince Albert Formation (Ecca Group) that include a zone of large, lenticular to tabular phosphatic concretions. The commercial potential of these phosphatic ores has been investigated in the 1950s but their exploitation was assessed as uneconomic (Strydom 1950). During the field survey no trace or body fossils were recorded either within the Dwyka or Ecca Group bedrocks or the overlying unconsolidated superficial sediments, including thick sandy to gravelly alluvium along drainage lines as well as sandy to gravelly soils elsewhere.

Without mitigation, the overall impact significance of the proposed SANSA antenna and associated infrastructure project is evaluated as LOW as far as palaeontological heritage resources are concerned. Unless substantial new fossil finds are made before or during the construction phase, no specialist palaeontological mitigation is recommended for this development and there are no objections on palaeontological heritage grounds to its authorisation.

The Environmental Control Officer (ECO) for the project should be alerted to the potential for, and scientific significance of, new fossil finds during the construction phase. Should important new fossil remains - such as vertebrate bones and teeth, plant-rich lenses or layers, fossil shells, fish remains or dense fossil burrow assemblages - be exposed during construction, the responsible Environmental Control Officer should alert Heritage Western Cape, HWC as soon as possible (Contact details: Protea Assurance Building, Green Market Square, Cape Town 8000. Private Bag X9067, Cape Town 8001. Tel: 086-142 142. Fax: 021-483 9842. Email: [email protected]). This is so that appropriate action can be taken in good time by a professional palaeontologist at the developer’s expense. Palaeontological mitigation would normally involve the scientific recording and judicious sampling or collection of fossil material as well as of associated geological data (e.g. stratigraphy, sedimentology, taphonomy). The palaeontologist concerned with mitigation work will need a valid fossil collection permit from HWC and any material collected would have to be curated in an approved repository (e.g. museum or university collection). All palaeontological specialist work should conform to international best practice for palaeontological fieldwork and the study (e.g. data recording fossil collection and curation, final report) should adhere as far as possible to the minimum standards for Phase 2 palaeontological studies developed by SAHRA (2013).

Recommendations for Chance Fossil Finds are summarized in tabular form in Appendix 2 and should be incorporated into the Environmental Management Programme (EMPr) for the SANSA development.

3 CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 5 1.1 Background Information on Project 5 1.1.1. Original project description 5 1.1.2. Revised project description (September 2020) 5

2. METHODOLOGY 10 2.1 Purpose of Palaeontological Study 10 2.2 Study approach 10

3. GEOLOGICAL CONTEXT OF THE STUDY AREAS 11 3.1. Geology of Site A 11 3.2. Geology of Site B 23 3.3. Geology of Site C 31

4. PALAEONTOLOGICAL HERITAGE RESOURCES 40

5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 42

6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 44

7. REFERENCES 45

APPENDICES 50 1. Specialist CVs 2. Chance Fossil Finds Procedure

4 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background Information on Project

1.1.1. Original project description

The SANSA developments were originally planned to take place on two separate sites labeled A and B in Figures 2 to 4. Site A, located in gently sloping Karroo veld some 1.5 km southwest of Matjiesfontein Village, would accommodate 20 small scientific antenna, each with a footprint of 4 m2 and a height of 3 m. Site B, situated in rocky terrain on the northern flank of the Witberge Range some 3.75 km due south of the village, would house 7 antennae and a storehouse. It was anticipated that the footprints of the antennae at this second site would be 225 m2 with their heights ranging from 4 m up to 40 m. Other associated infrastructure would include internal gravel access roads that are 4 m wide as well as laydown areas.

1.1.2. Revised project description (September 2020)

The following revised project description for a preferred new site, labeled C in the map figures and situated to the west of the airstrip in gently sloping Karoo veld some 3.3 km SW of Matjiesfontein Village, has been provided by the applicant (Figs. 2, 5 & 6).

The proposed project will consist of 4 large Deep Space Navigation antennae (DSN 1-4) which will not exceed 45 m in height and have a physical footprint of 360 m² as well as 3 smaller planned radio antennae (SANSA 1,2,3) up to 12 m in height with an anticipated physical footprint of 100 m². There will also be a 18 m Ku antenna (LGS 18) which will be up to 30 m in height and have a footprint of 400 m².

Other associated infrastructure will consist of a guard house at the site entrance and a signal processing building with an anticipated physical footprint of 525 m² which will house the signal processor room, an operations and control room, lobby, reception, kitchen and ablution facility and an accompanying 900 m² curbed, gravel parking area. Alongside the main building will be a 70 000 l water storage tank as part of a fire management system and a conservancy tank for temporary waste water and sewerage storage which will be serviced regularly by a licenced waste hauling company.

5 m in length is planned to connect the power station to the existing Eskom substation outside of the site. The diesel storage at the PowerStation has a combined storage capacity of 280 000 l which will be kept above-ground within self-bunded, moveable systems. Each bunded tank holds 70 000 l. The tanks will be connected to one another as the site grows and the required power capacity increases. The generators will also be installed in phases as the site expands. The first generator of four will be 1200 KVA and be housed in the generator room. Electricity will be distributed within the site through underground cables from the power station to the antennae and buildings. The cables will be buried at a depth of 1 m with a 200 mm covering of river sand plus a layer of danger tape and then backfilled with the original soil.

10 km

Figure 1: Extract from 1: 250 000 topographical sheet 3320 Ladismith (Courtesy of The Chief Directorate: National Geo-spatial Information, Mowbray) showing the approximate location of the project areas considered for the proposed SANSA radio antennae project on the southwestern outskirts of the small village of Matjiesfontein, Portion 8 of Farm 148 (Koenie Kraal), c. 27.5 km WSW of Laingsburg, Western Cape (black rectangle).

6 Site A

Site C

Site B

WITBERGE 2 km Perdekloof

Figure 2: Google Earth© satellite image of the southern margins of the Great Karoo near Matjiesfontein Village. The two developmental sites, A and B, originally considered for the proposed SANSA radio antennae and associated infrastructure are indicated by the red and yellow polygons (See following two figures for more detail). Site C (yellow polygon) is the currently preferred site. The white dotted line approximately indicates the trace of the paraconformable contact between the Cape Supergroup (Witteberg Group) and Karoo Supergroup in this area within the northern margins of the Cape Fold Belt.

Elandsvlei Fm diamictites (DS4)

alluvium Elandsvlei Fm (upper Prince DS4 mudrocks) Albert Fm

Figure 3: Google Earth© satellite image of the original proposed development Site A located in gently sloping Karroo veld some 1.5 km southwest of Matjiesfontein Village (red polygon). The site is underlain by Early Permian massive to bedded glacial diamictites of the Elandsvlei Formation (Dwyka Group) (Deglaciation Sequence 4, DS4). Well-bedded to laminated mudrocks at the top of DS4 are exposed in the stream bed just south of the site, while thin-bedded to laminated dark basinal mudrocks of the Prince Albert Formation (Ecca Group) crop out south of the stream. The orange arrows highlight several of the prominent-weathering sandstone bodies seen within the Dwyka Group near Matjiesfontein that are interpreted as eskers or glacial outwash fan deposits. Thin gravelly to sandy alluvial and colluvial deposits are exposed along stream banks as well as shallow gullies within or bordering the study area (Note that this site has now been rejected due to its proximity to historical heritage resources near the old Boer War camp). Scale bar = 300 m. N towards the top of the image.

Cf Ck Ck (or Cw)

coll Dpp Cf Ck? coll

Dpp Dpp

Figure 4: Google Earth© satellite image of the original proposed development Site B situated in disturbed rocky terrain on the northern flank of the Witberge Range, some 3.75 km due south of Matjiesfontein Village (yellow polygon). As discussed in the text, the stratigraphy of this tectonically complex, tightly folded and faulted sector of the Cape Fold Belt is currently unresolved, pending detailed mapping. Most of the bedrock geology within the study area is obscured by a mantle of Late Caenozoic sandy to gravelly colluvial and alluvial deposits. Thick-bedded, clean-washed white quartzites (“Witstreep”) of the Perdepoort Member (Witpoort Formation) (Dpp) crop out along the northern front of the Witberge Range just south of the study area. Pale brown, medium-bedded, cross-bedded pebbly quartzites of the Floriskraal Formation (Cf) run along its northern edge and are tectonically repeated, by tight folding and / or thrust faulting, to the west. Grey to grey-green, laminated to thin-bedded mudrocks exposed along gullies and stream banks within the study area probably belong to the Kweekvlei Formation (Ck). Occasional packages of grey-green wackes seen here might be the tops of minor shoaling parasequences within the Kweekvlei succession. Alternatively, some of these beds may rather belong to the younger Waaipoort Formation (Cw) which also crops out north of the northern Floriskraal ridge (See geological map Fig. 6 below). Scale bar = 500 m. N towards the top of the image.

Figure 5: Google Earth© satellite image of the preferred development Site C, situated in gently sloping Karoo veld some 3.3 km SW of Matjiesfontein Village and just south of the railway line to Cape Town. Scale bar = 1 km. N toward the top of the image. Also shown here is the water supply line (dark blue), transmission line (red) and access roads (blue-grey).

C-Pd

All

Pp Phos

Figure 6: More detailed Google Earth© satellite image of preferred project Area C indicating outcrop areas of the Dwyka Group (C-Pd), Prince Albert Formation (Pp), the approximate Dwyka – Ecca boundary (white dashed line), zone of phosphatic concretions (Phos) and alluvium (All). Brownish areas with dark spots are mantled with sandy to gravelly soils with heuweltjies / bush clumps. SANSA antennae shown in yellow and ancillary buildings, parking areas in white. Scale bar = 500 m. N towards the top of the image.

9 2. METHODOLOGY

2.1 Purpose of Palaeontological Study

The three small SANSA antenna project areas shown in Figures 2 to 6 are underlain by potentially- fossiliferous Palaeozoic sediments of the Witteberg, Dwyka and Ecca Groups (Cape and Karoo Supergroups). A Heritage Screener report for the proposed SANSA development (as originally designed) by CTS (2019) made the following recommendation regarding heritage resources in the project area:

As the proposed development is likely to impact significant archaeological, palaeontological and cultural landscape heritage resources, it is recommended that an HIA is required that satisfies section 38(3) of the NHRA with specific reference to these impacts.

The purpose of this palaeontological heritage study (PIA) is to satisfy the requirements of section 38(8), and therefore section 38(3) of the National Heritage Resources Act (Act 25 of 1999) in terms of potential impacts to palaeontological resources. It contributes to the consolidated Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for the development that is being compiled by CTS Heritage, Cape Town (Contact details: Ms Jenna Lavin. CTS. 16 Edison Way, Century City. Tel: +27 (0)87 073 5739. Cell: +27 (0)83 619 0854. E- mail: [email protected]) which in turn forms part of the Basic Assessment that is being co-ordinated by EOH Coastal & Environmental Services (CES) (Contact details: Ms Tarryn Martin, EOH Coastal & Environmental Services. Address: The Point, Suite 408, 4th Floor, 76 Regent Road, Sea Point, Cape Town, South Africa. Tel: +27 43 726 7809. Fax: +27 43 726 8352).

2.2 Study approach

This PIA report provides a record of the observed or inferred palaeontological heritage resources within the SANSA antenna project study areas. The identified resources have been assessed to evaluate their heritage significance in terms of the grading system outlined in Section 3 of the NHRA (Act 25 of 1999). Recommendations for specialist palaeontological mitigation are made where this is considered necessary. The report is based on (1) a review of the relevant scientific literature, including several previous desktop and field-based palaeontological impact assessments in the broader study region (e.g. Almond 2010a, 2010b, 2010c, 2010d, 2010e, 2010f, 2015a, 2015b, 2015c, 2016a, 2016b, 2018, 2019a, 2019b, 2019c), (2) published geological maps and accompanying sheet explanations (e.g. Theron et al. 1991), and (3) a two-day palaeontological field study of the three project areas near Matjiesfontein Village on 3 September 2019 (Sites A and B) and 13 September 2020 (Site C) by the author plus an experienced field assistant.

3. GEOLOGICAL CONTEXT OF THE STUDY AREAS

The SANSA project study area near Matjiesfontein Village, Western Cape, is situated in semi-arid, hilly terrain along the southern margins of the Great Karoo (Figs. 1 to 6). The area is drained by numerous small, non-perennial tributaries of the Buffelsrivier drainage system such as the Bobbejaansrivier and its tributary streams. In geological terms it lies within the northern margins of the Cape Fold Belt; the sedimentary bedrocks here are structured by major west-east trending folds, as clearly seen in satellite images and geological maps, as well as occasional northward-directed thrusts. Examples of these large- scale folds include the rugged quartzitic Witberge anticline to the south of Matjiesfontein and the Ghaapkop syncline to the east of the village. From a stratigraphic viewpoint the Palaeozoic bedrocks underlying the SANSA project footprint comprise Late Devonian to Early Permian glacial and marine shelf sediments assigned to the Witteberg Group (Cape Supergroup) as well as to the Dwyka and Ecca Groups (Karoo Supergroup). Much of the Palaeozoic outcrop area is mantled by Late Caenozoic superficial sediments such as colluvium (scree, hillwash), alluvium, pediment gravels and downwasted surface gravels.

The Matjiesfontein – Laingsburg region has historically played a major research and teaching role regarding the Witteberg, Dwyka and Ecca Groups of South Africa, as shown in a series of field excursion guidebooks (e.g. Cole et al. 1990, 1998) as well as many scientific publications (See References). The geology of the area is shown on 1: 250 000 sheet 3320 Ladismith (Council for Geoscience, Pretoria) with an accompanying sheet explanation by Theron et al. (1991) (Fig. 8). The sedimentology of the Cape and Karoo bedrock units represented within the proposed SANSA development footprint has been outlined in several previous palaeontological assessment reports by the author (e.g. Almond 2010a, 2010d, 2010e, 2010f, 2015a, 2018, 2019a-b) and is only briefly reviewed here.

3.1. Geology of Site A

The Site A study area on Farm Matjiesfontein 148 (Figs. 2, 3 & 8) lies in gently hilly, semi-arid Karoo veld at an elevation of between c. 920 to 940 m amsl. The site is traversed by several shallow stream gullies which feed into a more deeply-incised stream just to the south – a minor tributary of the eastward-flowing, intermittent Bobbejaanrivier drainage system. Rocky exposures are for the most part very low (< 1 m) and patchy, due to superficial sediment as well as bossieveld cover, with a single prominent sandstone outcrop in the central western sector of the study site (Fig. 13). A small conical sandstone koppie is situated just outside the NE corner of the study site in an area that was formerly occupied by a remount camp during the last Boer War. Some of the farm tracks crossing the site may also date back to the Boer War, while the narrow airstrip along the southern edge of the site is of more recent origin.

As shown on the geological map in Figure 8, Site A is entirely underlain by glacial sediments of the Elandsvlei Formation (Dwyka Group, Karoo Supergroup) (Theron et al., 1991, Visser 2003, Johnson et

11 al. 2006a, Cole & Wickens 1998) (grey, C-Pd in Fig. 8). Massive to stratified glacial diamictites as well as subordinate basinal mudrocks were deposited beneath the base of floating or grounded ice sheets as well as further offshore in the subsiding Main Karoo Basin during a major Late Palaeozoic glacial episode on Gondwana. A succession of three to four, laterally-persistent deglaciation cycles, overstepping to the north, can be clearly recognized in the Matjiesfontein – Laingsburg region (Theron & Blignault 1975, Visser 1992, 1997, Cole & Wickens 1998). The Dwyka sediments beneath Site A can be assigned to Dwyka Deglaciation Sequence 4 of Early Permian age (DSIV in Fig. 7). Stratified diamictites and mudrocks with sparse glacial dropstones exposed in the stream banks immediately to the south represent the uppermost portion of DSIV that grades upwards into post-glacial mudrocks and dropstone laminates of the Prince Albert Formation (Ecca Group) (Figs. 16 & 21). Ecca Group mudrocks crop out south of the study area but not within it. In general, Dwyka bedrock exposure within Site A is poor, with occasional low, patchy exposures of clast-poor diamictite showing characteristic tombstone weathering (Figs. 10 to 12). Cobble to small boulder-sized glacial erratics of granitoid, quartzitic and other rock types are best seen in stream bed exposures just south of Site A.

An interesting feature of the Dwyka Group outcrop area near Matjiesfontein is the occurrence of several resistant-weathering, irregular-shaped to lenticular bodies of white, well-sorted (“clean-washed”) quartzite (Borchers 1930). These bodies may be variously massive, crudely-bedded to cross-bedded and locally pebbly, and often have a rubbly weathering style. A prominent example builds the small conical koppie just to the northeast of Site A, another lies on the southern edge of Matjiesfontein Village, while smaller quartzite bodies occur (perhaps along strike) within the southern and west-central sectors of the site (Figs. 13 & 15). These originally sandstone bodies have been interpreted as subaqueous outwash fans and eskers by Visser et al. (1987).

The Dwyka Group bedrocks over the great majority of Site A are mantled by thin (< 1m) veneer of unconsolidated superficial sediments that mainly comprise sandy to gravelly alluvial soils and sheetwash deposits of Late Caenozoic age (Figs. 17 to 20, 23). The gravels are typically poorly-sorted, angular to to well-rounded and highly polymict, since many of the clasts represent erratics weathered out of the Dwyka bedrocks while others originate from the Ecca Group. Lithologies such as sandstones, wackes and black and pale yellowish cherts are common, as well milky quartz from local veins and white quartzite from denuded Dwyka esker / outwash fan bodies. As seen in modern erosion gullies, the gravels have often been concentrated by downwasting and sheetwash processes. Large-scale polygonal cracking within semi-consolidated older sands may be an example of patterned ground generated by repeated free-thaw cycles in Pleistocene periglacial environments (cf Lewis 1988) (Fig. 20). Aprons of quartzitic colluvial rubble extend downslope from prominent-weathering Dwyka sandstone bodies (Fig. 14).

Good sections though thicker alluvial deposits are seen in the banks of the stream flowing just south of Site A (Fig. 22). The basal gravels here may be partially consolidated by calcrete, which also extends as

12 veins into the underlying bedrock, and locally contain water-worn stone artefacts of Matjiesfontein chert and indurated mudrock (Fig. 24). The overlying pale brownish to orange-brown sands contain fine dispersed gravels as well as coarser gravel lenses and are unconsolidated. Coarse, poorly-sorted “High Level” terrace gravels perched on bedrock pediments up to several meters above present river level are also seen along the stream banks; they are likely to be of Pleistocene age and contain sparse worn stone artefacts (Fig. 16).

Figure 7: Stratigraphic subdivision of the Dwyka Group and lower Ecca Group in the southwestern sector of the Main Karoo Basin, South Africa (From Césari, S.N. 2007). The vertical red line indicates Early Permian massive and stratified facies of Deglaciation Sequence 4 (DSIV) of the Elandsvlei Formation (Dwyka Group) and the overlying post-glacial basinal mudrocks of the Prince Albert Formation that underlie Sites A and C.

5 km

Figure 8: Extract from 1: 250 000 geological map sheet 3320 Ladismith (Council for Geoscience, Pretoria) showing the approximate locations of the study Site A (red rectangle), Site B (green rectangle) and the preferred Site C (yellow rectangle) on Portion 8 of Farm 148 (Koenie Kraal) for the proposed SANSA antenna development near Matjiesfontein, Western Cape (village marked by yellow triangle). Site A is underlain by Early Permian glacial deposits of the Elandsvlei Formation (Dwyka Group, Karoo Supergroup) (C-Pd, grey). Site B is underlain by folded and faulted Early Carboniferous shallow marine shelf / lacustrine beds of the Lake Mentz Subgroup (Cape Supergroup). Detailed mapping is required to resolve the stratigraphy of this area. Formations represented here include the mudrock-dominated Kweekvlei Formation (Ck, middle green) and sandstone-dominated Floriskraal Formation (Ck, middle blue) but it is also possible that mudrocks and wackes of the Waaipoort Formation (Cw, pale green) occur here too. Shallow water (possibly coastal) quartzites of the Perdepoort Member (Witpoort Formation) (Dwi, pale blue) build the steep mountain slopes of the Witberge Range bordering Site B in the south. Site C lies on the northern limb of a small E-W syncline and is underlain by the Elandsvlei and Prince Albert Formations. N.B. The Palaeozoic bedrocks underlying Sites A, B and C are extensively mantled by Late Caenozoic superficial deposits such as colluvium (e.g. scree), alluvial sands and gravels, surface gravels and soils. These, mostly thin (< few m) unconsolidated deposits are for the most part not mapped at 1: 250 000 scale.

Figure 9: Flat-lying to gently-sloping terrain within Site A, viewed towards the NW, showing superficial sandy and gravelly soils, paucity of bedrock exposure and extensive cover by karroid bossies.

Figure 10: Low rocky exposures of Dwyka Group bedrocks within Site A showing distinctive peaked tombstone-weathering parallel to regional Cape Fold Belt cleavage / fracture systems. Prominent Dwyka exposures are often extensively patinated by epilithic lichens.

Figure 11: Rare exposure of relatively fresh (unweathered) Dwyka Group bedrocks within Site A – here dark grey, massive, clast-poor diamictite (Hammer = 30 cm).

Figure 12: Hackly-weathering exposure of stratified, clast-poor upper Dwyka Group sediments in the stream bed south of Site A, here showing a row of cobble-sized glacial erratics (Hammer = 30 cm).

Figure 13: Prominent irregular, rubbly exposure of white, clean-washed quartzite within the Dwyka Group succession in the west-central sector of Site A (view towards the south). Quartzite bodies such as these have been interpreted as glacial outwash fan or esker deposits.

Figure 14: Apron of quartzitic colluvial debris shed downslope from the glacial outwash / esker body illustrated above, viewed towards the southeast.

Figure 15: Elongate, lenticular exposure of resistant-weathring quartzite within the Dwyka Group outcrop area within the southern portion of Site A, viewed towards the southeast (Hammer = 30 cm).

Figure 16: Tabular-bedded succession of grey-green mudrock and clast-poor, sandy diamictite or wackes exposed in the bank of the stream bed just south of Site A. This well-bedded succession builds the upper part of Deglaciation Sequence IV of the Elandsvlei Formation that is conformably overlain by the Prince Albert Formation (Ecca Group) to the south, outside the study area.

Figure 17: Gulley erosion within Site A showing incision of sandy alluvial soils down to bedrock and concentration of downwasted polymict gravel clasts, many of which have originally weathered out from the Dwyka bedrocks in the region.

Figure 18: Gullied area within Site A showing concentration of downwasted gravels by recently active erosive sheetwash processes (View towards the south). Some of these areas show a high concentration of white vein quartz.

Figure 19: Gullied section through thin alluvial deposits close to the SE edge of Site A showing orange-brown sandy deposits with a surface concentration of downwasted polymict to oligomict gravels (Hammer = 30 cm).

Figure 20: Detail of gullied alluvium illustrated above, here showing large-scale polygonal cracking (arrowed) within the lower, semi-consolidated sandy facies - possibly related to patterned ground seen in Pleistocene periglacial deposits (Hammer = 30 cm).

Figure 21: Raised gravelly alluvial terrace deposits (“High Level Gravels”) at elevations of up to several meters above modern streambed level, here seen just south of Site A (Hammer = 30 cm). The gravels include occasional water-worn stone artefacts.

Figure 22: Steep bank section through semi-consolidated, partially calcretised basal alluvial gravels overlain by thick (> 1m) unconsolidated modern alluvial sands and fine gravels with occasional coarser gravel lenses, incised stream just south of Site A (Hammer = 30 cm). The basal gravels include occasional waterworn stone artefacts of Matjiesfontein chert and indurated mudrock.

Figure 23: Relict thin capping of pale alluvial sands and dispersed fine gravels overlying eroded surface of Dwyka Group bedrock close to the southwestern corner of Site A.

Figure 24: Veins of pale cream-coloured calcrete, probably in Pleistocene age, transecting Dwyka Group bedrocks along a stream bank just south of Site A (Hammer = 30 cm).

22 3.2. Geology of Site B

The second, more southerly site chosen for the SANSA project comprises a topographically varied area of rocky to rubbly terrain between c. 1040 to 1160 m amsl on the northern flank of the Witberge Range (Figs. 2 & 26). The area is largely mantled by shrubby renosterveld vegetation and is drained to the northeast by a minor tributary stream of the Bobbejaanrivier. The deeply-incised Perdekloof gorge is situated less than one kilometer to the east (Fig. 2). The study site is traversed by several old farm tracks as well as more recent access roads that have caused considerable surface disturbance.

The site is underlain by coastal to shelf sediments of the Witpoort Formation and Lake Mentz Subgroup of the Witteberg Group (Cape Supergroup) that are Late Devonian to Early Carboniferous in age (Broquet 1992, Thamm & Johnson 2006) (Fig. 25). The stratigraphy of the Site B area is complicated by intense Cape-age folding and possible thrusting; the bedrock units represented here remain uncertain and can only be resolved by detailed mapping. According to the published 1: 250 000 Ladismith sheet 3320 (Fig. 8) the lower-lying portions of the site are underlain by the mudrock-dominated Kweekvlei Formation. Dark grey, grey-green to khaki laminated to thin-bedded mudrocks assigned to this unit are well exposed along stream gullies in the eastern portion of the study area (Figs. 28 to 31). They show zones of intense deformation (e.g. tight folding) that may be ascribed to soft-sediment deformation rather than tectonism. Good bedding plane exposures suitable for fossil hunting are not available, however. The northern edge of the site is defined by a package of subvertical to overturned, brownish-yellow, tabular- bedded, tabular cross-bedded and occasionally pebbly quartzites that form the basal cycle of the Early Carboniferous Floriskraal Formation (Figs. 32 to 34). The stratigraphy and sedimentology of the shallow marine, storm-influenced Kweekvlei and Floriskraal Formations has been recently reviewed by Browning and Reid (2017) and Browning and Penn-Clarke (2016) respectively. Resistant-weathering quartzites of the Witpoort Formation build the steep Witberge mountain slopes to the south (Figs. 26 & 35). The white, thick-bedded, well-sorted quartzites of the latest Devonian Perdepoort Member (possible beach deposits) seen here also form an isolated ridge just to the east of the site (Fig. 27). Satellite imagery suggests tight infolding of Kweekvlei. Floriskraal and Waaipoort Formation beds to the west of the study area, with the additional possible complication of thrust faulting. The presence of lacustrine to lagoonal, ripple cross-laminated mudrocks and wackes of the Early Carboniferous Waaipoort Formation beneath the study site itself has not been confirmed and is provisionally discounted here. Thin heterolithic packages of siltstone and wacke exposed along stream banks in the east (Fig. 31) probably represent the upper portions of upward-shoaling Kweekvlei parasequences rather than Waaipoort Formation beds, but this requires further study.

The greater part of Site B is covered by a pervasive mantle of Late Caenozoic sandy to gravelly colluvial and alluvial deposits ranging from one to several meters in thickness. Coarse scree and colluvial fans of large angular quartzite blocks are found on steeper hillslopes, while poorly-sorted, semi-consolidated to unconsolidated sands and gravels (locally partially ferruginised) occur on the lower hillslopes and on the valley floor (Figs. 27, 35 to 38).

Figure 25: Stratigraphy of the Witteberg Group (Cape Supergroup) emphasizing the rock units represented in the SANSA Site B study area (red line) (From Thamm & Johnson 2006). The presence of Waaipoort Formation beds here is equivocal.

Figure 26: View south-westwards across the SANSA Site B project area in the northern foothills of the Witberge Range. Greyish renosterveld, alluvial gravels and sands mantle the floor of a wide stream valley excavated into weathered Witteberg Group mudrocks. The valley lies between pale, tightly-folded Witpoort Formation quartzites in the background and brownish pebbly quartzites of the Floriskraal Formation in the background.

Figure 27: Prominent isolated ridge of Perdepoort Member quartzites just east of the Site B study area with an apron of rubbly quartzite scree in the foreground. The khaki-hued mudrocks assigned to the Kweekvlei Formation seen on the RHS may have a faulted contact with the Perdepoort ridge.

Figure 28: A thick, north-dipping succession of grey-green Kweekvlei Formation mudrocks exposed along a deeply-incised stream along the eastern margins of Site B.

Figure 29: Monotonous, grey-green, thin-bedded to thick-laminated siltstones of the Kweekvlei Formation exposed in a stream bank in the NE sector of Site B (Hammer = 30 cm).

Figure 30: Zone of Kweekvlei Formation showing rapid variations in dip and strike suggesting soft-sediment deformation of basinal mudrocks (e.g. slumping and folding), NE sector of Site B (Hammer = 30 cm).

Figure 31: Heterolithic package of interbedded grey-green, wavy-laminated siltstones and wackes showing upward-coarsening and -thickening towards the top of a shoaling Kweekvlei parasequence (Hammer = 30 cm).

Figure 32: Steeply-dipping to overturned, tabular-bedded, brownish quartzites of the lower Floriskraal Formation building a prominent-weathering ridge along the northern edge of Site B.

Figure 33: Detail of the Floriskraal quartzites seen in the previous figure showing well-defined sets of tabular cross-bedding (~ easterly palaeocurrents) (Hammer = 30 cm). The erosive surface truncating the lower bed is very sharp and planar.

Figure 34: Upper bedding-plane view of the Florisikraal Formation showing laterally-extensive, thin winnowed lag of peanut-sized quartz pebbles (Hammer = 30 cm).

Figure 35: Steep, rugged Witpoort Formation terrain in the southern sector of Site B mantled with colluvial debris, including a well-defined colluvial fan of large, angular blocks of quartzite seen here in the foreground.

Figure 36: Semi-consolidated greyish-brown sands and rubbly, brown-stained quartzite gravels of mixed colluvial and alluvial origin mantling the lower hillslopes on the southern sector of Site B.

Figure 37: Thick lens of poorly-consolidated and poorly-sorted, slightly-ferruginised fluvial gravels exposed in a stream section on the eastern margins of Site B.

Figure 38: Sharp contact between weathered Kweekvlei bedrocks and overlying alluvial gravels, stream gulley in the eastern sector of Site B.

3.3. Geology of Site C

The parallelogram-shaped Site C is approximately one square kilometer in area and situated less than a kilometer west of Site A, on the western boundary of Farm 148 (Koenie Kraal) (Figs. 2, 5 & 6). It shares several topographical and geological features with the latter area. It comprises gently sloping to low hilly terrain rising up to 952 m amsl in the northeast (Fig. 39). The area is dissected by a dendritic network of shallow incised streams with vegtated margins, tributaries of the Baviaansrivier system, the largest of which runs west to east across the area’s midline. Several low, rocky outcrops occur in both northern and southern sectors while in the intervening areas bedrock exposure is for the most part limited to stream beds and erosion gullies; the majority of the area is mantled by gravelly soils, sandy to gravelly alluvium and colluvial debris as well as typical karroid dwarf bossieveld vegetation.

Area C overlies the northern limb of a small W-E trending syncline that spans the Dwyka – Ecca boundary (Figs. 6 & 8). S-dipping beds of the Prince Albert Formation in the south overlie the uppermost Dwyka Group (Elandsvlei Formation, Deglaciation Sequence 4; Fig. 7) cropping out towards the north. On satellite images pale-hued, weathered lowermost Prince Albert beds contrast with the brownish Dwyka outcrop area, allowing the Dwyka – Ecca boundary to be traced to the south of the central stream (Fig. 6).

The geological features of the uppermost Dwyka Group in the Matjiesfontein area are outlined in Section 3.1 above. Low, hackly, lichen-patinated exposures of clast-poor tillite are seen in the northeastern corner of the study area (Fig. 40) and there are several, scattered small, prominent-weathering exposures of pale brownish, rubbly, irregular-weathering sandstones and quartzites of esker / glacial outwash fan origin (Figs. 41). Thin-bedded dropstone argillites and tillites within the upper part of DGS4 crop out within the main, central stream bed (Fig. 49) where they contain sparse, cobble-sized erratics. Several pale- weathering, sphaeroidal carbonate concretions (“elephant balls”) were noted within float in the same area (Fig. 42) (N.B. It is also possible these concretions have weathered out of the lowermost Ecca Group succession, but this is considered less likely).

Where locally well-exposed on gullies hillslopes south of the main stream the lower Prince Albert Formation beds of Early Permian age consist of highly-tabular, fine-grained wacke and brownish, laminated mudrocks (Fig. 43). The succession here seems to contain one or more upward-coarsening, shoaling cycles capped by a heterolithic package of interbedded siltstone and wacke; these might represent lower shoreface sediments. Some of the pale prominent-weathering, thin-bedded tabular units appear to be silicified mudrock or fine-grained wacke and show conchoidal fracture (Fig. 44). Like the Matjiesfontein Member chert in the younger Collingham Formation, silicification of these cherty beds might be related to diagenetic remobilisation of silica from volcanic ashes (tuffs) within the Prince Albert Formation.

31 The overlying central zone of the Prince Albert succession, cropping out towards the southern edge of the study area, appears as a dark grey-green band on satellite images. It is characterized by numerous lenticular to tabular or irregular, prominent-weathering concretionary bodies that impact an E-W grain to the hillslopes as seen from above. The concretionary bodies, which range from a dm to around half a meter or more in thickness, are extensively jointed, and contain a range of minerals including rusty-brown ferruginous material, metallic black manganese ores as well as pearly-grey bands of phosphatic ore (amorphous collophanite) (Figs. 45 to 47). They have been described in some detail for the Laingsburg area by Strydom (1950) as part of a study on the economic potential of the Prince Albert phosphorites, from which it was concluded that their exploitation would be uneconomical. Several artificial heaps of phosphorite blocks present in Area C are probably related to fruitless early attempts to exploiting this resource (Fig. 48). It is noted that Strydom (1950) illustrated radiolarian fossils from the Matjiesfontein phosphorites (Fig. 53) and may therefore have prospected in this area. Concentrations of vein quartz on hillslopes as well as the irregular configuration and abundant jointing of some concretionary bodies suggest that the Prince Albert beds are locally tectonically deformed, as is commonly the case in the foothills of the Witteberg Range.

Good vertical sections through 2-3 m thick sandy to gravelly alluvial deposits of Late Caenozoic age are seen along the banks of the central stream (Figs. 49 & 50). The sediments are variously massive, horizontally laminated to cross-bedded and include oligomict basal gravels as well as gravely lenses higher up. No convincing flaked stone artefacts were observed within these beds, although they are likely to be Pleistocene or younger. Local occurrences of orange-hued, gritty to sparsely gravelly sandy debrites with polygonal cracking, as previously discussed for Area A, are exposed beneath gravelly alluvium along the beds of stream gullies (Fig. 51). Gulley erosion on hilllslopes has exposed sections through gravelly to sandy colluvium, downwasted, oligomict to polymict gravels and hillwash surface sediments mantling the Dwyka and Ecca Group bedrocks (Fig. 52).

32 C-Pd Pp

All

C-Pds

Figure 39: View southwards towards the Witberge across the syncline in Area C showing rubbly pale sandstone body within the Dwyka Group (C-Pds) in the foreground, thick Late Caenozoic alluvium along the main drainage line (All), low hills of weathered Prince Albert Formation (Pp) and Dwyka bedrocks on the southern limb of the syncline in the distance (C-Pd). The Dwyka – Ecca boundary runs shortly south of the stream.

Figure 40: Lichen-patinated low exposures of cleaved, clast-poor Dwyka tillite building E-W ridges in the NE corner of Area C.

Figure 41: One of several small bodies of brownish, massive to irregular-bedded sandstone within the Dwyka outcrop area in the northern sector of Area C (Hammer = 30 cm).

Figure 42: Pale sphaeroidal carbonate concretions that have probably weathered-out from the Dwyka Group near the central stream in Area C (Scale in cm and mm). In the Dwyka beds such diagenetic concretions (“elephant balls”) are usually unfossiliferous. It is noted that potentially fossiliferous concretions are known from the overlying lowermost Ecca Group in the Tanqua Karoo and Northern Cape and it is possible that these examples may have been downwasted from the basal Prince Albert Beds.

Figure 43: Gullied hillslope exposures of pale brownish, weathered siltstones and wackes in the lowermost portion of the Prince Albert Formation (Hammer = 30 cm), just south of the axial stream in Area C. This weathered zone appears clearly on satellite images.

Figure 44: Pale, thin-bedded silicified mudrock showing evidence for conchoidal fracture (Scale in mm and cm). This facies forms prominent-weathering ridges across the landscape and might relate to remobilized silica from tuffs within the lower Prince Albert Formation succession.

Figure 45: Large, prominent-weathering, lenticular body of diagenetic phosphate and other minerals (here c. 40-50 cm maximum thickness) within the middle portion of the Prince Albert Formation succession. This phosphatic concretion–rich zone is well exposed towards the southern margins of Area C (Hammer = 30 cm).

Figure 46: Vertical section through a large diagenetic concretionary lens showing dark, metallic manganese-rich zone as well as pale pearly-grey phosphatic mineral zones (Hammer = 30 cm). The matrix is weathered, brownish-green, laminated basinal siltstone.

Figure 47: The irregular shape and extensive fracturing of many of the brittle Prince Albert Formation phosphatic concretions suggest that they have been influenced by Cape Fold Belt tectonism (Hammer = 30 cm).

Figure 48: One of several artificial heaps of pale greyish phosphatic material noted in the southern sector of Area C – possibly related to economic interest in these ores in the 1950s.

Figure 49: Streambed exposure of thin-bedded diamictites and dropstone laminites towards the top of Dwyka Deglaciation Sequence 4 capped by over a meter of orange-brown, sparsely gravelly colluvial sands (Hammer = 30 cm).

Figure 50: Streambank section through well-bedded, unconsolidated Late Caenozoic alluvial deposits showing current cross-bedding, gravel lenses and horizontal lamination (Hammer = 30 cm).

Figure 51: Polygonally-cracked, gritty to sparsely gravelly, orange-hued diamictites of possible debrite origin mantled by sandy to gravelly younger alluvium and sheetwash deposits, bed and banks of a shallow erosion gulley just south of the main stream (Hammer = 30 cm).

Figure 52: Erosion gulley exposure of rubbly sandstone basal gravels beneath finer sands overlying the Dwyka outcrop area in southern sector of Area C.

39 4. PALAEONTOLOGICAL HERITAGE RESOURCES

Fossil groups that have been recorded from the sedimentary rock units represented within the SANSA project study areas near Matjiesfontein Village have been reviewed by Almond and Pether (2008) as well as in several more recent palaeontological heritage reports for the Matjiesfontein – Lainsgburg region by the present author (e.g. Almond 2008b, 2010c, 2010d, 2010e, 2015a, 2016a, 2016b, 2018, 2019a-c). These data are summarized below in Table 1.

No macrofossil remains were recorded during the recent field survey of the SANSA Site A project area. Although a wide range of fossils are now known from the Dwyka Group, as recently reviewed by Almond (2019a), most sediments assigned to this succession are unfossiliferous (with the possible exception of microfossils). The overall palaeontological sensitivity of the Dwyka Group is therefore rated as low (Almond & Pether 2008). Any interglacial mudrocks and heterolithic successions (i.e. interbedded sandstones, diamictites and mudrocks) such as those exposed in the stream bed just south of the SANSA Site A (and possibly along the main stream in Area C) are worth investigating for fossils, however and, applying the precautionary principle, may be considered to be potentially of moderate to high palaeontological sensitivity. It is important to note that fragments of gymnosperm foliage (cordaitalean or ginkgoalean) as well as unidentified trace fossils have been reported from quartz arenite bodies within the Elandsvlei Formation at Matjiesfontein and elsewhere (Du Toit 1921, Visser et al. 1987).

No macrofossil remains, including trace and body fossils, were recorded during the field study within the upper Witteberg Group bedrocks represented in the Site B study area. Where exposed in stream sections the potentially-fossiliferous Kweekvlei Formation mudrocks here are generally too weathered and, in part, deformed, while good bedding plane exposures are lacking. It is noted that bedding plane assemblages of reworked vascular plant debris within the Floriskraal Formation as well as very sparse (and probably unidentifiable) plant fragments within the upper Witpoort Formation has been recorded to the southeast of Matjiesfontein (J. Almond, pers. obs). A mass-mortality assemblage of well-preserved fossil fish (various palaeoniscoid taxa) have recently been recorded from the Waaipoort Formation on Farm Matjesfontein 148. However, unequivocal outcrops of this last rock unit were not identified within the present study areas. The coarse-grained, loosely-consolidated Late Caenozoic colluvial and alluvial deposits that mantle most of Site B are of low palaeontological sensitivity. However, it is notable that a partial elephant lower jaw with in situ molars – presumably Holocene in age - has recently been recovered from gravelly soils in the Witberge foothills southwest of Laingsburg (Almond, pers. obs).

No fossil remains were recorded from Site C project area during the recent field survey. As discussed above, the palaeosensitivity of the Dwyka Group sediments is generally low. No fossils were seen within the dropstone laminates and thin-bedded diamictites locally exposed in the main axial stream bed. The “elephant ball” diagenetic carbonate concretions and esker / glacila outwash fan sandstones seen near here are apparently unfossiliferous (Fig. 42). No fossil-rich carbonate erratics, as recorded previously

40 from the southern Karoo margins and also in the Ceres Karoo (e.g. silicified stromatolitic carbonates illustrated by Almond 2016b) have - as yet - been seen near Matjiesfontein. The fossil record of the Prince Albert Formation is summarized in Table 1, based in part on benchmark review articles by McLachlan & Anderson (1973) and Cole (2005). The basal post-glacial mudrocks of the Prince Albert succession – not well exposed in Area C - are a key fossil horizon in the Northern Cape and Tanqua Karoo where diagenetic concretions within these beds have yielded a variety of marine invertebrates, fish and petrified wood. In Area C the lower Prince Albert beds, where exposed, are highly weathered and tectonically deformed locally. It is noted that thin-sectioning of phosphatic diagenetic concretions from the Prince Albert Formation near Matjiesfontein revealed the spinose, spherical silica tests of radiolarian microfossils (Fig. 53). The unconsolidated gravelly to sandy superficial deposits overlying the Palaeozoic bedrocks in Area C are, at most, very sparsely fossiliferous and no fossils were recorded from these younger sediments during the field survey.

Figure 53: Illustrations of spinose, spherical silica tests of radiolarian protozoans visible within thin sections of diagenetic phosphatic concretions from the Prince Albert Formation at Matjiesfontein (From Strydom 1950, Plate II, x 500 magnification in original plate).

41 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The three small project areas for the SANSA antenna developments on Portion 8 of Farm 148 (Koenie Kraal) near Matjiesfontein Village are located within the margins of the Cape Fold Belt on the northern side of the Witberg Range. Site A to the north is underlain by poorly-exposed Early Permian glacial bedrocks of the Elandsvlei Formation (Dwyka Group). These massive, dark grey, tombstone-weathered tillites as well as several irregular quartzite bodies enclosed within them – variously interpreted as esker or glacial outwash sandstones - are apparently unfossiliferous. Sparse vascular plant remains have been previously recorded from Dwyka Group sandstone bodies near Matjiesfontein by the famous South African geologist Du Toit in 1921. Stratified post-glacial mudrocks, diamictites and wackes exposed in stream beds and banks just south of Site A represent potentially-fossiliferous Dwyka Group / Ecca Group contact beds but lie outside the development footprint. Most of the site is mantled with sandy to gravelly alluvial sediments as well as downwasted polymict surface gravels that are of low palaeontological sensitivity. No fossils were recorded at this site.

Site B to the south of Matjiesfontein Village lies within a tectonically-complex, intensely-folded and probably faulted zone embedded in the rugged foothills of the Witberg Range. Bedrocks of the Late Devonian to Early Carboniferous Witteberg Group (Cape Supergroup) represented here include highly- resistant, clean-washed quartzites of the Witpoort Formation, the recessive-weathering, mudrock- dominated Kweekvlei Formation and overlying prominent-weathering, cross-bedded, pebbly sands of the Floriskraal Formation (The presence of younger Waaipoort Formation mudrocks and wackes here is equivocal). The Witpoort and Floriskraal arenites are of low palaeosensitivity, having only yielded sparse reworked vascular plant debris, low-diversity trace fossil assemblages and rare fish remains in the Matjiesfontein region and elsewhere. The Kweekvlei mudrocks in the study area are poorly-exposed, highly-weathered as well as fractured near-surface and show zones of intense soft-sediment and / or tectonic deformation. Good Witteberg Group bedding plane exposures are not seen and no fossils were recorded at this site. Most of Site B is covered by a thick (1 m or more) blanket of coarse, rubbly and partially-ferruginised quartzitic gravels and sands of both colluvial and alluvial origin which are generally of low palaeontological sensitivity. It is noted, however, that well-preserved Holocene elephant remains are known from comparable deposits near Laingsburg.

The preferred Site C, situated in gentle hilly terrain some 3.3 km SW of Matjiesfontein Village, is underlain in the north by poorly-exposed Dwyka Group tillites with occasional esker sandstone outcrops and exposures of thin-bedded dropstone laminates along the axial stream bed. The southern half of the site overlies weathered, tabular-bedded basinal marine and possible lower shoreface sediments of the Prince Albert Formation (Ecca Group) that include a zone of large, lenticular to tabular phosphatic concretions. The commercial potential of these phosphatic ores has been investigated in the 1950s but their exploitation was assessed as uneconomic (Strydom 1950). During the field survey no trace or body fossils were recorded either within the Dwyka or Ecca Group bedrocks or the overlying unconsolidated

42 superficial sediments, including thick sandy to gravelly alluvium along drainage lines as well as sandy to gravelly soils elsewhere.

Without mitigation, the overall impact significance of the proposed SANSA antenna and associated infrastructure project is evaluated as LOW as far as palaeontological heritage resources are concerned. This assessment applies equally to all three project areas covered by this report as well as to all infrastructural components of the project including, among others, radio antennae, ancillary buildings and car parks, access roads, underground cabling, overhead grid connection and the water supply line. Unless substantial new fossil finds are made before or during the construction phase, no specialist palaeontological mitigation is recommended for this development and there are no objections on palaeontological heritage grounds to its authorization.

The Environmental Control Officer (ECO) for the project should be alerted to the potential for, and scientific significance of, new fossil finds during the construction phase. Should important new fossil remains - such as vertebrate bones and teeth, plant-rich lenses or layers, fossil shells, fish remains or dense fossil burrow assemblages - be exposed during construction, the responsible Environmental Control Officer should safegaurd them and alert Heritage Western Cape, HWC as soon as possible (Contact details: Protea Assurance Building, Green Market Square, Cape Town 8000. Private Bag X9067, Cape Town 8001. Tel: 086-142 142. Fax: 021-483 9842. Email: [email protected]). This is so that appropriate action can be taken in good time by a professional palaeontologist at the developer’s expense. Palaeontological mitigation would normally involve the scientific recording and judicious sampling or collection of fossil material as well as of associated geological data (e.g. stratigraphy, sedimentology, taphonomy). The palaeontologist concerned with mitigation work will need a valid fossil collection permit from HWC and any material collected would have to be curated in an approved repository (e.g. museum or university collection). All palaeontological specialist work should conform to international best practice for palaeontological fieldwork and the study (e.g. data recording fossil collection and curation, final report) should adhere as far as possible to the minimum standards for Phase 2 palaeontological studies developed by SAHRA (2013) and Heritage Western Cape (2016).

Recommendations for Chance Fossil Finds are summarized in tabular form in Appendix 2 and should be incorporated into the Environmental Management Programme (EMPr) for the SANSA development.

43 Table 1: Summary of known fossil record of the main sedimentary bedrock units represented in the SANSA study areas near Matjiesfontein, Western Cape.

PALAEONTOLOGICAL FORMATION GROUP FOSSIL BIOTAS & AGE SENSITIVITY Bones and teeth of wide range of mammals, including High Level Gravels, mammals (e.g. teeth & bones of proboscideans, alluvium, colluvium, rhinos, bovids, horses, micromammals), reptiles pedocretes (crocodiles, tortoises), ostrich egg shells, fish, SUPERFICIAL (e.g. calcrete), soils freshwater and terrestrial molluscs (unionid bivalves, MEDIUM TO LOW DEPOSITS gastropods), crabs, trace fossils (e.g. calcretised LATE TERTIARY TO termitaria, horizontal invertebrate burrows, stone RECENT artefacts), petrified wood, leaves, rhizoliths, diatom floras, peats and palynomorphs. ECCA GROUP Prince Albert Fm Low diversity marine invertebrates (bivalves, nautiloids, brachiopods), palaeoniscoid fish, sharks, fish coprolites, protozoans (foraminiferans, Marine to hyposaline radiolarians), petrified wood, palynomorphs (spores, basin plain mudrocks, acritarchs), non-marine trace fossils (especially minor volcanic ashes, arthropods, fish, also various “worm” burrows), MEDIUM TO HIGH phosphates and possible stromatolites, oolites. ironstones, post- glacial mudrocks at Key marine fossiliferous zone along the Dwyka – base. Ecca contact in N. Cape.

EARLY PERMIAN Interglacial mudrocks occasionally with low diversity marine fauna of invertebrates (molluscs, starfish, DWYKA GROUP brachiopods, coprolites etc), palaeoniscoid fish, Elandsvlei Formation petrified wood, leaves (rare) and palynomorphs of

Glossopteris Flora. Well-preserved non-marine LATE LOW ichnofauna (traces of fish, arthropods) in laminated CARBONIFEROUS TO mudrocks. Possible stromatolites, oolites at top of EARLY PERMIAN succession. Limestone erratics with Cambrian archaeocyathid sponges, trilobites, Precambrian / Cambrian stromatolites. Low diversity trace fossil assemblages, vascular Waaipoort Formation plants (e.g. lycopods) plus

important fish fauna (palaeoniscoids, sharks, HIGH EARLY acanthodians etc), non-marine bivalves, giant water CARBONIFEROUS scorpions, palynomorphs Floriskraal Formation Low-diversity trace fossil assemblages, reworked WITTEBERG vascular plants (e.g. lycopod Longicicatrix, possible MEDIUM GROUP EARLY progymnospern Praeramunculus), possible fish CARBONIFEROUS remains (e.g. acanthodians). Low-diversity trace fossil assemblages, reworked Kweekvlei Formation vascular plants (e.g. possible progymnospern

Praeramunculus), possible fish remains (e.g. shark MEDIUM EARLY spines). Organic-walled microfossils in dark CARBONIFEROUS mudrocks and early diagenetic concretions.

6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Ms Jenna Lavin of CTS Heritage, Century City, Cape Town, is thanked for commissioning this study, for providing the relevant background information and for facilitating the fieldwork. I am also grateful to the Lord Milner Hotel for access permission for the study sites and, as ever, to Ms Madelon Tusenius for logistical backup as well as invaluable assistance and companionship in the field.

44 7. REFERENCES

ALMOND, J.E. 1998. Trace fossils from the Cape Supergroup (Early Ordovician – Early Carboniferous) of South Africa. Journal of African Earth Sciences 27 (1A): 4-5.

ALMOND, J.E. 2008a. Fossil record of the Loeriesfontein sheet area. Unpublished report for the Council for Geoscience, Pretoria, 32pp.

ALMOND, J.E. 2008b. Palaeozoic fossil record of the Clanwilliam sheet area. Unpublished report for the Council for Geoscience, Pretoria, 49pp.

ALMOND, J.E. 2010a. Eskom Gamma-Omega 765kV transmission line: Phase 2 palaeontological impact assessment. Sector 1, Tanqua Karoo to Omega Substation (Western and Northern Cape Provinces), 95 pp + appendix. Natura Viva cc, Cape Town.

ALMOND, J.E. 2010b. Proposed Kappa electrical substation on Platfontein Outspan 240, Ceres Magesterial District, Western Cape Province, 17 pp. Natura Viva cc, Cape Town.

ALMOND, J.E. 2010c. Eskom Gamma-Omega 765kV transmission line: Phase 2 palaeontological impact assessment. Sector 2, Omega to Kappa Substation (Western Cape Province), 100 pp + appendix. Natura Viva cc, Cape Town.

ALMOND, J.E. 2010d. Falcon Oil & Gas Ltd Exploration Right – southern Main Karoo Basin, Western, Northern and Eastern Cape Provinces, RSA. Palaeontological baseline study, 22 pp. Natura Viva cc, Cape Town.

ALMOND, J.E. 2010e. Proposed Mainstream Wind Farm at Konstabel near Touwsrivier, Laingsburg Magisterial District, Western Cape. Palaeontological impact assessment: pre-scoping desktop study, 19 pp. Natura Viva cc, Cape Town.

ALMOND, J.E. 2010f. Proposed Mainstream wind farm at Perdekraal, Ceres Karoo, Ceres Magisterial District, Western Cape Province. Palaeontological impact assessment: pre-scoping desktop study, 22 pp. Natura Viva cc, Cape Town.

ALMOND, J.E. 2015a. Proposed Perdekraal East wind & solar renewable energy facility near Touwsrivier, Ceres Magisterial District, Western Cape Province. Palaeontological impact assessment: field study, 68 pp. Natura Viva cc, Cape Town.

ALMOND, J.E. 2015b. Existing borrow pit along the DR1481 on the Farm Viskuil 685, Laingsburg Municipality, Central Karoo District, Western Cape. Palaeontological specialist study: field assessment, 11 pp. Natura Viva cc, Cape Town.

ALMOND, J.E. 2015. Proposed Perdekraal East wind & solar renewable energy facility near Touwsrivier, Ceres Magisterial District, Western Cape Province. Palaeontological impact assessment: field study, 68 pp. Natura Viva cc, Cape Town.

ALMOND, J.E. 2016a. Proposed Kolkies Wind Energy Facility near Touwsrivier, Witzenberg Local Municipality, Western Cape. Palaeontological input to heritage scoping assessment, 30 pp. Natura Viva cc, Cape Town.

45 ALMOND, J.E. 2016b. Proposed Karee Wind Energy Facility near Touwsrivier, Witzenberg Local Municipality, Western Cape. Palaeontological input to heritage scoping assessment, 33 pp. Natura Viva cc, Cape Town.

ALMOND, J.E. 2018. Proposed Rietkloof Wind Energy Facility near Laingsburg, Laingsburg Local Municipality, Western Cape. Palaeontological heritage assessment: combined desktop & field-based study, 85 pp. Natura Viva cc, Cape Town.

ALMOND, J.E. 2019a. Proposed development of an existing aggregate quarry on the Remainder of Farm 277 near Matjiesfontein Village, Laingsburg District, Western Cape. Palaeontological heritage report: combined desktop & field study, 37 pp. Natura Viva cc, Cape Town.

ALMOND, J.E. 2019b. Upgrade of the N1 (Section 4) between Monument River (km 46.0) and Doornfontein (km 63.0), Laingsburg Local Municipality, Western Cape Province, 53 pp. Natura Viva cc for CTS Heritage, Cape Town.

ALMOND, J.E. 2019c. Proposed SANSA Space Operations on Portion 8 of Farm 148 near Matjiesfontein, Laingsburg Local Municipality, Western Cape Province. Palaeontological specialist study, 40 pp. Natura Viva cc for CTS Heritage, Cape Town.

ALMOND, J.E. & PETHER, J. 2008. Palaeontological heritage of the Western Cape. Interim SAHRA technical report, 20 pp. Natura Viva cc., Cape Town.

ANDERSON, A.M. 1974. Arthropod trackways and other trace fossils from the Early Permian lower Karoo Beds of South Africa. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, 172 pp.

ANDERSON, A.M. 1975. Turbidites and arthropod trackways in the Dwyka glacial deposits (Early Permian) of southern Africa. Transactions of the Geological Society of South Africa 78: 265-273.

ANDERSON, A.M. 1976. Fish trails from the Early Permian of South Africa. Palaeontology 19: 397-409, pl. 54.

ANDERSON, A.M. 1981. The Umfolozia arthropod trackways in the Permian Dwyka and Ecca Groups of South Africa. Journal of Paleontology 55: 84-108, pls. 1-4.

ANDERSON, A.M. & McLACHLAN, I.R. 1976. The plant record in the Dwyka and Ecca Series (Permian) of the south-western half of the Great Karoo Basin, South Africa. Palaeontologia africana 19: 31-42.

ANDERSON, J.M. & ANDERSON, H.M. 1985. Palaeoflora of southern Africa. Prodromus of South African megafloras, Devonian to Lower Cretaceous, 423 pp. Botanical Research Institute, Pretoria & Balkema, Rotterdam.

BORCHERS, R. 1930. An investigation of the inclusions in the Dwyka tillite at Matjiesfontein, Cape. Unpublished MSc thesis, University of Cape Town, 85 pp.

BROQUET, C.A.M. 1992. The sedimentary record of the Cape Supergroup: a review. In: De Wit, M.J. & Ransome, I.G. (Eds.) Inversion tectonics of the Cape Fold Belt, Karoo and Cretaceous Basins of Southern Africa, pp. 159-183. Balkema, Rotterdam.

46 BROWNING, C. & PENN-CLARKE, C.R. 2016. Lithostratigraphy of the Floriskraal Formation (Witteberg Group), South Africa. South African Journal of Geology 119, 425-434.

BROWNING, C. & REID, M. 2016. Lithostratigraphy of the Kweekvlei Formation (Witteberg Group), Cape Supergroup. South African Journal of Geology 120, 421-432.

CÉSARI, S.N. 2007. Palynological biozones and radiometric data at the Carbinoferous – Permian boundary in western Gondwana. Gondwana Research 11, 529-536.

COLE, D.I. 2005. Prince Albert Formation. SA Committee for Stratigraphy, Catalogue of South African Lithostratigraphic Units 8: 33-36.

COLE, D.I. & WICKENS, H. DE V. 1998. Lower Karoo Supergroup: glacial, basinal and terrestrial environments in the southwestern part of the main Karoo Basin. Guidebook 10th Gondwana Conference. University of Cape Town, South Africa, Pr1, 1-77.

COLE, D.I., SMITH, R.M.H. & WICKENS, H. de V. 1990. Basin-plain to fluvio-lacustrine deposits in the Permian Ecca and Lower Beaufort groups of the Karoo Sequence. Geological Society of South Africa Guidebook Geocongress ’90, PO2, 1-83 pp.

COOPER, M.R. & OOSTHUIZEN, R. 1974. Archaeocyathid-bearing erratics from Dwyka Subgroup (Permo-Carboniferous) of South Africa, and their importance to continental drift. Nature 247, 396-398.

CTS 2019. Proposed SANSA Space Operations at Portion 8 of Farm, Matjiesfontein, Western Cape. CTS Heritage Screener, 28 pp.

DU TOIT, A.L. 1921. The Carboniferous glaciation of South Africa. Transactions of the Geological Society of South Africa 24, 188-227.

EVANS, F.J. 1997. Palaeobiology of Early Carboniferous fishes and contemporary lacustrine biota of the Waaipoort Formation (Witteberg Group), South Africa. Unpublished MSc thesis, University of Stellenbosch, xii + 213 pp, 85 pls.

EVANS, F.J. 1998. Taphonomy of some Upper Palaeozoic actinopterygian fish from southern Africa. Journal of African Earth Sciences 27(1A): 69-70.

EVANS, F.J. 1999. Palaeobiology of Early Carboniferous lacustrine biota of the Waaipoort Formation (Witteberg Group), South Africa. Palaeontologia africana 35: 1-6.

EVANS, F.J. 2005. Taxonomy, palaeoecology and palaeobiogeography of some Palaeozoic fish of southern Gondwana. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Stellenbosch, 629 pp.

FILDANI A., WEISLOGEL A., DRINKWATER N.J., MCHARGUE T., TANKARD A., WOODEN J., HODGSON D. & FLINT S. 2009. U-Pb zircon ages from the southwestern Karoo Basin, South Africa— implications for the Permian-Triassic boundary. Geology 37, 719–722.

GARDINER, B.G. 1969. New palaeoniscoid fish from the Witteberg series of South Africa. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, London 48: 423-452.

GARDINER, B.G. 1973. New Palaeozoic fish remains from southern Africa. Palaeontologia africana 15: 33-35.

GESS, R.W. 2016. Vertebrate biostratigraphy of the Witteberg Group and the Devonian-Carboniferous boundary in South Africa. In: Linol, B. & De Wit, M.J. (Eds.) Origin and evolution of the Cape Mountains and Karoo Basin., pp. 131-140. Springer International Publishing, Switzerland.

HERITAGE WESTERN CAPE 2016. Guide for minimum standards for archaeology and palaeontology reports submitted to Heritage Western Cape, 4 pp.

JOHNSON, M.R., VAN VUUREN, C.J., VISSER, J.N.J., COLE, D.I., WICKENS, H. DE V., CHRISTIE, A.D.M., ROBERTS, D.L. & BRANDL, G. 2006a. Sedimentary rocks of the Karoo Supergroup. In: Johnson. M.R., Anhaeusser, C.R. & Thomas, R.J. (eds.) The geology of South Africa, pp. 461-499. Geological Society of South Africa, Johannesburg & the Council for Geoscience, Pretoria.

JOHNSON, M.R., THERON, J.N. & LOOCK, J.C. 2006b. Witteberg Group. South African Committee for Stratigraphy, Catalogue of South African Lithostratigraphic Units 9: 47-49. Council for Geoscience, Pretoria.

JUBB, R.A. 1965. A new palaeoniscoid fish from the Witteberg Series (Lower Carboniferous) of South Africa. Annals of the South African Museum 48: 267-272, pl. 6.

JUBB, R.A. & GARDINER, B.G. 1975. A preliminary catalogue of identifiable fossil fish material from southern Africa. Annals of the South African Museum 67: 381-440.

KLEIN, R.G. 1984. The large mammals of southern Africa: Late Pliocene to Recent. In: Klein, R.G. (Ed.) Southern African prehistory and paleoenvironments, pp 107-146. Balkema, Rotterdam.

LEWIS, C.A. 1988. Periglacial landforms. In: Moon, B.P. & Dardis, G.F. (Eds.) The geomorphology of southern Africa, pp. 103-119. Southern Book Publishers, Halfway House.

LOOCK, J.C. 1967. The stratigraphy of the Witteberg – Dwyka contact beds. Unpublished MSc thesis, University of Stellenbosch, 139 pp, 2 pls.

MACRAE, C. 1999. Life etched in stone. Fossils of South Africa, 305 pp. The Geological Society of South Africa, Johannesburg.

MARAIS, J.A.H. 1963. Fossil fish from the Upper Witteberg Beds near Lake Mentz, Jansenville District, Cape Province. Annals of the Geological Survey of South Africa 2: 193-202.

McCARTHY, T. & RUBIDGE, B. 2005. The story of Earth and life: a southern African perspective on a 4.6-billion-year journey. 334pp. Struik, Cape Town.

McLACHLAN, I.R. & ANDERSON, A. 1973. A review of the evidence for marine conditions in southern Africa during Dwyka times. Palaeontologia africana 15: 37-64.

OELOFSEN, B.W. 1981. The fossil record of the Class Chondrichthyes in southern Africa. Palaeontologia africana 24: 11-13.

OELOFSEN, B.W. 1986. A fossil shark neurocranium from the Permo-Carboniferous (lowermost Ecca Formation) of South Africa. In: Uyeno, T, Arai, R., Taniuchi, T & Matsuura, K. (Eds.) Indo-Pacific fish biology. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Indo-Pacific Fishes. Ichthyological Society of Japan, Tokyo, pp 107-124.

PARTRIDGE, T.C. & MAUD, R.R. 1987. Geomorphic evolution of southern Africa since the Mesozoic. South African Journal of Geology 90: 179-208.

PARTRIDGE, T.C., BOTHA, G.A. & HADDON, I.G. 2006. Cenozoic deposits of the interior. In: Johnson, M.R., Anhaeusser, C.R. & Thomas, R.J. (Eds.) The geology of South Africa, pp. 585-604. Geological Society of South Africa, Marshalltown.

SAHRA 2013. Minimum standards: palaeontological component of heritage impact assessment reports, 15 pp. South African Heritage Resources Agency, Cape Town.

SKEAD, C.J. 1980. Historical mammal incidence in the Cape Province. Volume 1: The Western and Northern Cape, 903pp. Department of Nature and Environmental Conservation, Cape Town.

STREEL, M. & THERON, J.N. 1999. The Devonian-Carboniferous boundary in South Africa and the age of the earliest episode of the Dwyka glaciation: new palynological result. Episodes 22: 41-44.

STRYDOM, H.C. 1950. The geology and chemistry of the Laingsburg phosphorites. Annals of the University of Stellenbosch 26 (A6), 267-285.

THAMM, A.G. & JOHNSON, M.R. 2006. The Cape Supergroup. In: Johnson, M.R., Anhaeusser, C.R. & Thomas, R.J. (Eds.) The geology of South Africa, pp. 443-459. Geological Society of South Africa, Marshalltown.

THERON, J.N. 1962. The occurrence of fish remains in the Witteberg-Dwyka Transition Zone. Annals of the Geological Survey of South Africa 1: 263-267.

THERON, J.N. & BLIGNAULT, H.J. 1975. A model for the sedimentation of the Dwyka glacials in the southwestern Cape. In: Campbell, K.S.W. (Ed.) Gondwana geology, 347-356. Australian National University Press, Canberra.

THERON, J.N. & LOOCK, J.C. 1988. Devonian deltas of the Cape Supergroup, South Africa. In: McMillan, N.J., Embry, A.F. & Glass, D.J. (Eds.) Devonian of the World, Volume I: Regional syntheses. Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists, Memoir No. 14, pp 729-740.

THERON, J.N., WICKENS, H. DE V. & GRESSE, P.G. 1991. Die geologie van de gebied Ladismith. Explanation of Sheet 3320. 99 pp. Geological Survey / Council for Geoscience, Pretoria.

VISSER, J.N.J. 1992. The Dwyka Group in the western half of the Karoo Basin, South Africa. Field Guidebook for Excursion 1, 24th Geocongress of the Geoloogical Society of South Africa, 38 pp. University of the Orange Free State, Bloemfontein.

VISSER, J.N.J. 1994. A Permian argillaceous syn- to post-glacial foreland sequence in the Karoo Basin, South Africa. In Deynoux, M., Miller, J.M.G., Domack, E.W., Eyles, N. & Young, G.M. (Eds.) Earth’s Glacial Record. International Geological Correlation Project Volume 260, pp. 193-203. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

VISSER, J.N.J. 1997. Deglaciation sequences in the Permo-Carboniferous Karoo and Kalahari Basins of southern Africa: a tool in the analysis of cyclic glaciomarine basin fills. Sedimentology 44: 507-521.

49 VISSER, J.N.J. 2003. Lithostratigraphy of the Elandsvlei Formation (Dwyka Group). South African Committee for Stratigraphy, Lithostratigraphic Series No. 39, 11 pp.

VISSER, J.N.J., LOOCK, J.C. & COLLISTON, W.P. 1986. Subaqueous outwash fan and esker sandstones in the Permo-Carboniferous Dwyka Formation of South Africa. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 57, 467-478.

VISSER, J.N.J., VON BRUNN, V. & JOHNSON, M.R. 1990. Dwyka Group. South African Committee for Stratigraphy Catalogue of South African Lithostratigraphic Units 2, 15-17. Council for Geoscience, Pretoria.

50 APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Specialist CV

Dr John Almond has an Honours Degree in Natural Sciences (Zoology) as well as a PhD in Palaeontology from the University of Cambridge, UK. He has been awarded post-doctoral research fellowships at Cambridge University and in Germany, and has carried out palaeontological research in Europe, North America, the Middle East as well as North and South Africa. For eight years he was a scientific officer (palaeontologist) for the Geological Survey / Council for Geoscience in the RSA. His current palaeontological research focuses on fossil record of the Precambrian - Cambrian boundary and the Cape Supergroup of South Africa. He has recently written palaeontological reviews for several 1: 250 000 geological maps published by the Council for Geoscience and has contributed educational material on fossils and evolution for new school textbooks in the RSA.

Since 2002 Dr Almond has also carried out palaeontological impact assessments for developments and conservation areas in the Western, Eastern and Northern Cape, Limpopo, Northwest, KwaZulu-Natal, Mpumalanga and the Free State under the aegis of his Cape Town-based company Natura Viva cc. He has served as a long-standing member of the Archaeology, Palaeontology and Meteorites Committee for Heritage Western Cape (HWC) and an advisor on palaeontological conservation and management issues for the Palaeontological Society of South Africa (PSSA), HWC and SAHRA. He is currently compiling technical reports on the provincial palaeontological heritage of Western, Northern and Eastern Cape for SAHRA and HWC. Dr Almond is an accredited member of PSSA and APHP (Association of Professional Heritage Practitioners – Western Cape).

51 Appendix 2: Chance Fossil Finds Procedure

Appendix 2: CHANCE FOSSIL FINDS PROCEDURE: SANSA antennae and associated infrastructure on Farm Coenie Kraal 148 near Matjiesfontein Village

Province & region: Western Cape, Laingsburg District Responsible Heritage HERITAGE WESTERN CAPE (Contact details: Protea Assurance Building, Green Market Square, Cape Town 8000. Private Bag X9067, Cape Town 8001. Tel: Resources Agency 086-142 142. Fax: 021-483 9842. Email: [email protected]) Rock unit(s) Witteberg Group (Witpoort, Kweekvlei and Floriskraal Fms), Dwyka Group, Ecca Group (Prince Albert Fm), Late Caenozoic colluvium and alluvium. In bedrocks: rare fossil fish, shells, vascular plants, petrified wood, trace fossil assemblages. In colluvium and alluvium: teeth, bones and horncores of mammals, Potential fossils calcretised trace fossils (e.g. termitaria). 1. Once alerted to fossil occurrence(s): alert site foreman, stop work in area immediately (N.B. safety first!), safeguard site with security tape / fence / sand bags if necessary. 2. Record key data while fossil remains are still in situ: ● Accurate geographic location – describe and mark on site map / 1: 50 000 map / satellite image / aerial photo ● Context – describe position of fossils within stratigraphy (rock layering), depth below surface ● Photograph fossil(s) in situ with scale, from different angles, including images showing context (e.g. rock layering)

3. If feasible to leave fossils in situ: 3. If not feasible to leave fossils in situ (emergency procedure only): ● Alert Heritage Resources ● Carefully remove fossils, as far as possible still enclosed within the original sedimentary matrix (e.g. entire block Agency and project of fossiliferous rock) ECO protocol palaeontologist (if any) ● Photograph fossils against a plain, level background, with scale who will advise on any ● Carefully wrap fossils in several layers of newspaper / tissue paper / plastic bags necessary mitigation ● Safeguard fossils together with locality and collection data (including collector and date) in a box in a safe place ● Ensure fossil site remains for examination by a palaeontologist safeguarded until ● Alert Heritage Resources Agency and project palaeontologist (if any) who will advise on any necessary mitigation clearance is given by the Heritage Resources Agency for work to resume 4. If required by Heritage Resources Agency, ensure that a suitably-qualified specialist palaeontologist is appointed as soon as possible by the developer. 5. Implement any further mitigation measures proposed by the palaeontologist and Heritage Resources Agency Record, describe and judiciously sample fossil remains together with relevant contextual data (stratigraphy / sedimentology / taphonomy). Ensure that fossils are Specialist curated in an approved repository (e.g. museum / university / Council for Geoscience collection) together with full collection data. Submit Palaeontological palaeontologist Mitigation report to Heritage Resources Agency. Adhere to best international practice for palaeontological fieldwork and Heritage Resources Agency minimum standards.

APPENDIX 4: Visual Impact Assessment (Eitzen, 2020)

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

SANSA SPACE OPERATIONS, MATJIESFONTEIN VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT PORTION 8 OF FARM 148, MATJIESFONTEIN APRIL 2020  PHOTOGRAPH 1: VIEW OF MATJIESFONTEIN FROM THE N1 researched and produced by New World Associates © for CTS Heritage SANSA Space Operations, Matjiesfontein VIA | Page ii

NEW WORLD ASSOCIATES © 15 April, 2020 All Rights Reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of: New World Associates, Landscape Architects

Email: [email protected] Visit: new-world-associates.com

Landscape Architecture | Landscape Management Landscape Planning | Heritage Planning | Visual Planning This report should be printed double-sided if at all. Viewing of images is best done on screen.

NEW WORLD ASSOCIATES © 15 April, 2020 SANSA Space Operations, Matjiesfontein VIA | Page iii

Reflection

 “The term ‘visual and aesthetic’ is intended to cover the broad range of visual, scenic, cultural, and spiritual aspects of the landscape. However, for the purpose of brevity, the term ‘visual’ is used in the text’ (p 1). Thus it includes aspects of “the area’s sense of place, … natural and cultural landscapes, … the identification of all scenic resources, protected areas and sites of special interest, together with their relative importance in the region, … the need to include both quantitative criteria, such as ‘visibility’, and qualitative criteria, such as landscape or townscape ‘character’ (pp 1-2).”

This report (p 31) from the PGWC Guideline for Involving Visual and Aesthetic Specialists in EIA Processes (November 2005)

 “Visual impact. The value of the environment is often under-estimated from a visual perspective. It is the visual quality of the environment that, to a large degree, generates the attraction for the tourism industry and draws people to certain areas as desired locations for living a lifestyle outside of the large cities and densely developed urban areas. The visual resources of rural areas, such as scenic landscapes and the cultural streetscapes and farmsteads, and environments such as the Garden Route [Swartland], constitute major tourist attractions. …

Each area has its own unique visual character and atmosphere, which plays an important role in the quality of any tourist experience. The diversity of the landscapes makes it essential to consider all development and more particularly the expansion of urban areas, an issue that requires special consideration. The intention is to manage urban development in such a way that no development would detract from the visual quality of the environment and that all development conform to a characteristic style and urban form that suits the character of the area.”

This report (p 33) from the PGWC Urban Edge Guideline (December 2005)

NEW WORLD ASSOCIATES © 15 April, 2020 SANSA Space Operations, Matjiesfontein VIA | Page iv

 Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. What the eye doesn’t see, the heart doesn’t grieve over.

English Proverbs

NWA

NEW WORLD ASSOCIATES © 15 April, 2020 SANSA Space Operations, Matjiesfontein VIA | Page v

Table of Contents

Reflection iii Table of Contents v List of Figures vii List of Photographs viii 1 Executive Summary 11 1.1 Summary 11 1.2 Project Description (see page 14) 11 1.3 Legal and Administrative Requirements (see page 27) 12 1.4 Visual Environment Description (see page 54) 12 1.5 Visual Impact Assessment (see page 81) 13 2 Project Description 14 2.1 Summary 14 2.2 Introduction 14 2.2.1 Background 14 2.2.2 Accreditation 15 2.2.3 Statement of Independence 15 2.2.4 Reporting Requirements 15 2.3 Project Proposal 15 2.3.1 Location 15 2.3.2 Planning Application 15 2.3.3 Project Description 16 2.3.4 Photographs of the SANSA Radio Antennas at Cradle of Mankind 24 2.4 Alternatives 25 3 Legal and Administrative Requirements 27 3.1 Summary 27 3.2 Introduction 27 3.2.1 Background 27 3.3 Policy Framework 28 3.3.1 Environment Conservation Act No. 73 of 1989 (ECA), Part I: Policy for Environment Conservation 28 3.3.2 IEM Guideline Series (1992) 28 3.3.1 Environmental Impact Management: A National Strategy for IEM in South Africa (April 1998) 28 3.4 Legal Framework 29 3.4.1 National Environmental Management Act No. 107 of 1998 (NEMA) 29 3.4.2 South African National Heritage Resources Act, 1999 (NHRA) 29 3.4.3 National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Bill, 2003 (BB) 31 3.4.4 PGWC Guideline for Involving Visual and Aesthetic Specialists in EIA Processes (Edition 1, June 2005) 31 3.4.5 PGWC Guideline for Involving Heritage Specialists in EIA Processes (Edition 1, June 2005) 32 3.4.6 Other Documents 33 3.5 Administrative Framework 33 3.5.1 Western Cape Provincial Urban Edge Guideline (DEA&DP December 2005) 33 3.5.2 Western Cape Provincial Spatial Development Framework (March 2014) 34

NEW WORLD ASSOCIATES © 15 April, 2020 SANSA Space Operations, Matjiesfontein VIA | Page vi

3.5.3 Heritage and Scenic Resources Inventory and Policy Framework for the Western Cape (May 2013) 43 3.5.4 The following listed heritage and scenic resources are found in the area: Laingsburg Municipal SDF (September 2012, amended March 2017) 48 3.5.5 South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA) 52 3.6 Strategic Issues 53 3.6.1 Strategic Assessment 53 4 Visual Environment Description 54 4.1 Summary 54 4.2 Introduction 54 4.2.1 Background 54 4.2.2 Key Issues 54 4.3 Physical Environment 55 4.3.1 Location 55 4.3.2 Landform 56 4.4 Natural Environment 57 4.4.1 Vegetation 57 4.5 Social Environment 58 4.5.1 Land Use 59 4.5.2 Rural Context 59 4.6 Cultural Environment 59 4.6.1 Heritage 59 4.6.2 Aesthetics 62 4.6.3 Visual 63 4.6.4 Views from the N1 65 4.6.5 Views from Historic Matjiesfontein 76 4.6.6 Views from Other Roads 77 4.6.7 Views of the Sites 78 5 Visual Impact Assessment 81 5.1 Summary 81 5.2 Introduction 81 5.2.1 Key Issues 81 5.2.2 Assumptions and Limitations 82 5.3 Methodology 82 5.3.1 The Visual Assessment 82 5.3.2 Triggers for Visual Assessment 83 5.3.3 Key Issues Requiring Specialist Input 84 5.3.4 Level of Assessment 86 5.4 Visual Analysis 86 5.4.1 Visual Mapping 86 5.4.2 Key to the Visual Analysis Map 86 5.4.3 Viewshed 87 5.4.4 Zone of Visual Influence (ZVI) 88 5.4.5 Visual Absorption Capacity 91 5.4.6 Visual Sensitivity 91 5.4.7 VIA Criteria and Assessment 92 5.4.8 Plomp Methodology 95 5.4.9 Distribution of Impacts 95 5.4.10 Photomontages 95 5.5 Analysis of Alternatives 95 5.6 Planning Phase Impacts 96 5.6.1 Planning and Design 96 5.7 Construction Phase Impacts 99 5.7.1 Construction 99 5.8 Operation Phase Impacts 99 5.8.1 Lighting 99 5.8.1 Conservation Management and Landscape Maintenance 100 5.9 Decommissioning Phase Impacts 100

NEW WORLD ASSOCIATES © 15 April, 2020 SANSA Space Operations, Matjiesfontein VIA | Page vii

5.9.1 Refurbishment and Resale 100 Bibliography 101 Appendices 103

List of Figures Figure 2-1: Regional Context. 16 Figure 2-2: Site Locations (November 2019). 17 Figure 2-3: Satellite image of the sites in the wider landscape. 18 Figure 2-4: Satellite image of the sites in the closer landscape. 18 Figure 2-5: Provisional Site A Layout (March 2020). 19 Figure 2-6: Provisional Site A Layout Enlarged (March 2020). 19 Figure 2-7: Example of a 34m Deep Space Antenna. 20 Figure 2-8: Example of 18m and 7m Full Motion Antenna. 20 Figure 2-9: Site B Provisional Detailed Layout (March 2020). 23 Figure 2-10: Site B Provisional Layout (March 2020). 23 Figure 3-1: Western Cape Province Municipal Jurisdictions. 34 Figure 3-2: Western Cape Province Landscape and Scenic Assets. 35 Figure 3-3: Western Cape Province Cultural Landscapes and Heritage Resources. 38 Figure 3-4: Western Cape Province Primary Sectors. 40 Figure 3-5: Western Cape Province Consolidated Framework Proposals. 44 Figure 3-6: Western Cape Heritage and Scenic Resources. 44 Figure 3-7: Western Cape Heritage and Scenic Resources: Central Karoo District Municipality. 46 Figure 3-8: Western Cape Heritage and Scenic Resources: Central Karoo around Matjiesfontein. 46 Figure 3-9: Western Cape Heritage and Scenic Resources: Appendix B—Inventories of Each Municipal District (September 2014): Table B.6: The Central Karoo (K) Matjiesfontein area excerpts. 47 Figure 3-10: Laingsburg Municipality SDF (2012): Matjiesfontein Aerial. 50 Figure 3-11: Laingsburg Municipality SDF (2012): Matjiesfontein SDF Proposal. 50 Figure 3-12: Laingsburg Municipality SDF (2012): Photographs 1. 51 Figure 3-13: Laingsburg Municipality SDF (2012): Photographs 2. 51 Figure 3-14: Gazette Notices of the Matjiesfontein Village as a National Monument (1971). 52 Figure 4-1: Site and Photographic Locations (± 1:100,000). 55

Figure 4-2: Slope Classes Map of Farm 148 Matjiesfontein and Matjiesfontein (± 1:100,000). 56

Figure 4-3: Vegetation Map of Farm 148 Matjiesfontein and Matjiesfontein (± 1:100,000). 57

Figure 4-4: Land Cover of Farm 148 Matjiesfontein and Matjiesfontein (± 1:100,000). 58 Figure 5-1: Table of Visual Impacts ex DEA&DP Guidelines. 84

NEW WORLD ASSOCIATES © 15 April, 2020 SANSA Space Operations, Matjiesfontein VIA | Page viii

Figure 5-2: Zone of Visual Influence Site A. 88 Figure 5-3: Zone of Visual Influence Site B. 89 Figure 5-4: Visibility of 143m Sentech Tower on Bantamskop. 90 Figure 5-5: Comparative Assessment of the Sites. 94 Figure 5-6: Plomp Methodology Assessment. 95 Figure A-1: Impact Significance Criteria. 105 Figure A-2: Attribute Weighting. 105

List of Photographs April 2020  Photograph 1: View of Matjiesfontein from the N1 i Photograph 2-1: Photograph of Radio Antenna from nearby at Cradle of Mankind. 24 Photograph 2-2: Photograph of Radio Antennas in the landscape at Cradle of Mankind. 24 Photograph 2-3: Photograph of Radio Antennas protruding over a ridgeline at Cradle of Mankind. 25 Photograph 4-1: View of the Matjiesfontein from the N1 just east of the village. 63 Photograph 4-2: View of Matjiesfontein, Site B and Site A from the entrance road. 64 Photograph 4-3: View of Site A from the sports field. 64 Photograph 4-4: View in the direction of Site A from Matjiesfontein’s historic core. 64 Photograph 4-5: N1 Hex River showing telephone poles (left) and cell phone towers (right). 65 Photograph 4-6: N1 De Doorns showing solid cell phone tower below the skyline. 65 Photograph 4-7: N1 eastbound showing cell phone towers on the horizon and protruding above the skyline. 65 Photograph 4-8: N1 Worcester showing telephone poles (left); street lamps, telephone poles and a cell phone tower (right). 66 Photograph 4-9: N1 eastbound showing cell phone towers, etc (left) and electric rail lines (right). 66 Photograph 4-10: N1 Konstabel showing major communications tower on the horizon and protruding above the skyline. 66 Photograph 4-11: N1 Tweedside showing an old wind pump (right) and a new cell phone tower (centre) hidden among the trees. 66 Photograph 4-12: N1 eastbound overlooking the valley and railway line and Witberge with Sentech Tower on top at Bantamskop. 67 Photograph 4-13: N1 eastbound approaching the ridge that contains the Matjiesfontein Valley. 67 Photograph 4-14: N1 eastbound past Pieter Meintjies Rand (left) towards Ghaapkop (ahead). 67 Photograph 4-15: N1 eastbound past Pieter Meintjies Rand (left) and Witberge (right). 67

NEW WORLD ASSOCIATES © 15 April, 2020 SANSA Space Operations, Matjiesfontein VIA | Page ix

Photograph 4-16: N1 eastbound 2km from Matjiesfontein coming into view (right). 67 Photograph 4-17: N1 eastbound Matjiesfontein in view to right in valley. 67 Photograph 4-18: N1 eastbound showing Matjiesfontein below the Witberge. 68 Photograph 4-19: N1 eastbound approaching the turnoff to Matjiesfontein to the right, Ghaapkop ahead. 68 Photograph 4-20: N1 eastbound past the Matjiesfontein turnoff towards Ghaapkop. 68 Photograph 4-21: N1 eastbound past the Matjiesfontein turnoff towards Ghaapkop. 68 Photograph 4-22: N1 eastbound approaching the Boelhouer River and Ghaapkop. 69 Photograph 4-23: N1 westbound approaching Matjiesfontein, Witberge at left. 69 Photograph 4-24: N1 westbound view of Matjiesfontein showing location. 69 Photograph 4-25: N1 closer view of Sentech Tower and other infrastructure on the Witberge. 69 Photograph 4-26: N1 close-up view of Sentech Tower and other infrastructure on the Witberge 70 Photograph 4-27: N1 westbound approaching Matjiesfontein seen on the left (right). 70 Photograph 4-28: N1 westbound approaching Matjiesfontein turnoff. 70 Photograph 4-29: N1 westbound approaching Matjiesfontein turnoff. 70 Photograph 4-30: N1 westbound at the Matjiesfontein turnoff with its various signage. 71 Photograph 4-31: N1 westbound past Matjiesfontein. 71 Photograph 4-32: N1 from above/just west of Matjiesfontein one can see the location of both sites, one low and one high, although both sites are hidden. 71 Photograph 4-33: Local road to the rail crossing and old Landing Strip. 71 Photograph 4-34: Views after crossing the railway to the village (left) and mountains/Site A (right). 72 Photograph 4-35: Site A is located in the dip and falling land partially behind and right/south of this hillock. 72 Photograph 4-36: View towards Matjiesfontein from the Landing Strip turnoff (left) and gate to the Landing Strip (right). 72 Photograph 4-37: View of Site A at the lower Landing Strip behind the front hillock. 72 Photograph 4-38: View in the direction of Site B up in the kloof. 73 Photograph 4-39: Close-up view in the direction of Site B’s kloof and the pylon below it. 73 Photograph 4-40: The urban edge of Matjiesfontein to the south. 73 Photograph 4-41: View of the local township and mast lighting (left) and their view of Site A (right). 74 Photograph 4-42: View from the township edge to Site A and the Sentech Tower above. 74 Photograph 4-43: Panorama across the edge of town with the sports field at left and Site A. 74 Photograph 4-44: Views through the southern edge of the suburb with many poles visible. 74

NEW WORLD ASSOCIATES © 15 April, 2020 SANSA Space Operations, Matjiesfontein VIA | Page x

Photograph 4-45: Views of some houses and their electrical poles. 74 Photograph 4-46: Views across a dumpsite near the sports field to Site A. 75 Photograph 4-47: View from the sports field over a dump towards Site B’s kloof. 75 Photograph 4-48: Views in the centre of the suburb with its many poles and mast lights. 75 Photograph 4-49: Views in the centre of the suburb with its many poles and mast lights 75 Photograph 4-50: View of the local pub Riek-Kelly’s Tavern. 75 Photograph 4-51: Views from the railway road are mostly blocked nearest Site A. 76 Photograph 4-52: Views from the platform with the Witberge more exposed than the ground. 76 Photograph 4-53: Substantial buildings line the railway (left) with a tourist train arriving (right). 77 Photograph 4-54: A final view of Matjiesfontein and the Witberge to Site B’s kloof from the N1. 77 Photograph 4-55: Views of the 143m-Sentech Tower from 25km away at Snyderskloof. 77 Photograph 4-56: View of the 143m-Sentech Tower from about 20km away at Snyderskloof. 78 Photograph 4-57: Panorama across Site A from the east. 78 Photograph 4-58: Panorama across Site A to the west. 78 Photograph 4-59: View of Site A towards the east and Matjiesfontein (not visible). 78 Photograph 4-60: View of Site A towards the west. 79 Photograph 4-61: View of Site B towards the north with a prominent rocky point at right. 79 Photograph 4-62: View of Site B towards the south as it rises into the Witberge. 79 Photograph 4-63: View from Site B’s upper slopes showing Matjiesfontein in the distance at this point but also showing the intervening ridge blocking most lower views. 79 Photograph 4-64: View of Site B from the southwest displaying the fantastic folds and deep dip. 80 Photograph 4-65: View of Site B’s rocky quartzite fynbos and prominent crest. 80

NWA

NEW WORLD ASSOCIATES © 15 April, 2020 SANSA Space Operations, Matjiesfontein VIA | Page 11

1 Executive Summary

1.1 Summary Two sites are being developed by SANSA Space Operations on Farm 148/8 Mat- jiesfontein. Both sites are near old landing strips. Site A lies between 1 and 2km from Mat- jiesfontein at a low level near a river, while Site B is 4km distant, located high up in a mostly hidden valley in the Witberge overlooking the village. Matjiesfontein lies in the southwestern Karoo in an area sometimes known as the Koup (or Goup). It is an arid environment, currently in a seven year unbroken drought. The lowlands are covered with Koedoesberge–Moordenaars Karoo vegetation that sums up the arid environment and dull karoo bossies aptly. The mountains are a mix of quartzite fynbos and shale renosterveld. The visibility of Site B is reduced due to its location in a high level, hidden valley, its fittings being generally low (3-5m high). By contrast, Site A has 4 significant structures, namely, 2x 34m radio antennas, 1x 18m and 1x 7m radio antennas surrounded by a double 4m high diamond mesh fence. It is likely to have a high general impact on the Grade II historic village of Matjiesfontein and the landscape generally. Recommendations are made to minimise visual and aesthetic impacts with particular reference to location, colouration, materials and design that will subtly match the natural landscape. Site A’s location should be reconsidered in light of the findings of this Visual Impact Assessment (VIA).

1.2 Project Description (see page 14) 1. The SANSA Space Operations project on Portion 8 of the Farm 148, Matjiesfontein comprises two sites. These will be used to develop various antenna arrays. 2. Site A, some 2km from Matjiesfontein contains the largest equipment: 2x 34m high radio antenna; 1x 18m and 1x 7m high radio antennas; 4m high diamond-mesh, double fencing 2m apart; a 20 x 50m storehouse and other infrastructure.

NEW WORLD ASSOCIATES © 15 April, 2020 SANSA Space Operations, Matjiesfontein VIA | Page 12

3. Site B, located 4km from Matjiesfontein in the mountains, comprises smaller equipment including 2x 4m high Seismic Low Level Radiation (S/LLRs) scattered over a larger area, individually fenced, and an administration hut. 4. Site A will receive a graded gravel road and underground 11kV power cable as well as a generator with 10,000-litre diesel storage. The 34m-radio antennas are substantial structures with a basement. 5. Basic provisional layouts have been provided of the sites but no final engineering plans or designs of the larger structures, only indicative photographs.

1.3 Legal and Administrative Requirements (see page 27) 1. There is a long history of environmental protection and management in South Africa rooted in EIA and, later, IEM, which has given rise to the current requirement for VIA. 2. The Provincial Government of the Western Cape Guideline for Visual and Aesthetic Special- ists in EIA processes defines the scope and preparation of VIAs.1 3. Provision is made for scenic, visual and aesthetic protection in various Acts, IDPs, Provin- cial and Municipal SDFs, and Urban Edge Guidelines, notably the NHRA (1999), WC Pro- vincial Urban Edge Guideline (2005), WC Provincial SDF (2014) and the Laingsburg Mu- nicipal SDF (2012). 4. Matjiesfontein Valley and Matjiesfontein Village are recommended as a Grade II (Provin- cial) Landscape and Settlement respectively in the WCPSDF. SAHRA records Matjiesfon- tein Village as a Provincial Heritage Site (PHS). 5. VIA is integral to assessing heritage impact in scenic cultural landscapes like Matjiesfon- tein.

1.4 Visual Environment Description (see page 54) 1. Matjiesfontein lies on the N1, isolated from surrounding towns by long distances, set in a narrow valley at the foot of the Witberge. The area is largely natural but for the railway and highway running through it. 2. A variety of infrastructure runs through the zone along the road–railway including the electrical cables of the railway itself, a major radio mast on the peak of the Witberge, various cell phone towers towards Touws River, farm fences, and a line of pylons nearer the Witberge.

1 Oberholzer, B (2005) by CSIR Environmentek. Guideline for Involving Visual and Aesthetic Specialists in EIA Processes: Edition 1. CSIR Report No. ENV-S-C 2005 053 F. Republic of South Africa, Provincial Government of the Western Cape, Department of Environmental

NEW WORLD ASSOCIATES © 15 April, 2020 SANSA Space Operations, Matjiesfontein VIA | Page 13

3. The village of Matjiesfontein, famous since its entrepreneurial creation in its late Victorian heyday, is a stand-alone rail-side hotel and ancillary facilities. Relegated to a side road off the N1, it is located next to the railway and still serves its tourist trade. 4. The lower Matjies valley is covered with dull karoo bossies well under 1m in height and subtle landforms including hidden depressions and hillocks. The Witberge rise steeply to the east where a track leads up before disappearing.

1.5 Visual Impact Assessment (see page 81) 1. VISUAL IMPACT: The proposed development will have a moderate (Site B) to high (Site A) impact on the landscape causing noticeable (Site A) to some (Site B) change to the visual environment. 2. VISIBILITY: The development has moderate (Site B) to high (Site A) visual exposure; low (Site A) to high (Site B) visual absorption capacity; low compatibility (Both Sites); and marginal (Site B) to high (Site A) visibility. 3. NATURE OF IMPACT: The development’s visual impact has local (Site A) to district (Site B) extent, long term duration, low (Site A) to medium (Site B) intensity, highly probability, and low (Site A) to high (Site B) significance on the landscape. 4. Recommendations are made to mitigate the impacts where possible.

NWA

NEW WORLD ASSOCIATES © 15 April, 2020 SANSA Space Operations, Matjiesfontein VIA | Page 14

2 Project Description

2.1 Summary The SANSA Space Operations project on Portion 8 of the Farm 148, Matjiesfontein comprises two sites. These will be used to develop various antenna arrays. Site A, some 2km from Matjiesfontein contains the largest equipment: 2x 34m high radio antenna; 1x 18m and 1x 7m high radio antennas; 4m high diamond-mesh, double fencing 2m apart; a 20 x 50m storehouse and other infrastructure. Site B, located 4km from Matjiesfontein in the mountains, comprises smaller equipment including 2x 4m high Seismic Low Level Radi- ation (S/LLRs) scattered over a larger area, individually fenced, and an administration hut. Site A will receive a graded gravel road and underground 11kV power cable as well as a generator with 10,000-litre diesel storage. The 34m-radio antennas are substantial structures with a basement. Basic provisional layouts have been provided of the sites but no final engineering plans or designs of the larger structures, only indicative photographs.

2.2 Introduction Combined with Section 3, this chapter presents the relevant project data required to develop a Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) of the development for Environmental Impact Assess- ment (EIA) purposes, in particular, Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA). This chapter reviews the relevant aspects of the proposed development and includes plans and diagrams as appropriate to this end.

2.2.1 Background New World Associates was commissioned by CTS Heritage to prepare the VIA for this project for the South African National Space Agency (SANSA). CES will be undertaking the environmental application to the National Department of Environment, Forestry & Fisheries (DEFF), while this VIA is being prepared for the Heritage Western Cape (HWC) application. Develop- ments of this scale and nature in scenic and historic environments, within or without the Urban Edge, require Visual Assessments in accordance with the Provincial Government of the Western

NEW WORLD ASSOCIATES © 15 April, 2020 SANSA Space Operations, Matjiesfontein VIA | Page 15

Cape (PGWC) Guideline for Involving Visual and Aesthetic Specialists in EIA Processes (2005, pp 11-12).

2.2.2 Accreditation Bruce Eitzen ML BSc PrLArch MEMBER ILASA APHP conducted this assessment. He is a reg- istered Landscape Architect and Environmental Planner with the South African Council of Land- scape Architecture Professionals (SACLAP), and Specialist Practitioner in Visual and Landscape Heritage. He has thirty years experience across the board of Landscape Architecture and Envi- ronmental Planning and has practised in South Africa, Central Africa and East Africa. He holds a BSc (Botany) from the University of Cape Town and a Masters in Landscape Architecture from the University of Pretoria. His public service includes serving for three years on the Association of Professional Her- itage Practitioners (APHP) Executive Committee chairing Professional Practice. He also served on the National Executive Committee of the Institute for Landscape Architects in South Africa (ILASA) and was the Chair of ILASA Cape for four years. He also chaired the Local Organising Committee for the International Federation of Landscape Architect’s 2012 World Congress (IFLA 2012) held in Cape Town.

2.2.3 Statement of Independence New World Associates is an independent consulting firm practising in the abovemen- tioned fields. None of its members have any financial interest in the proposed development nor are involved in any other projects being undertaken by the developer.

2.2.4 Reporting Requirements This report is generally based on South African environmental management procedures and, more specifically, on the provincial guideline endorsed by the Provincial Government of the Western Cape (PGWC) on 3 November 2005: Guideline for Involving Visual and Aesthetic Special- ists in EIA Processes (November 2005, PGWC).

2.3 Project Proposal 2.3.1 Location There are two sites (see Figure 2-1). The first lies about 2km south of Matjiesfontein on the northern slopes of the Witberge Mountains while the second lies in an elevated valley on the Witberge about 4km from Matjiesfontein.

2.3.2 Planning Application The applicant wishes to develop new radio antennae and associated infrastructure on Por- tion 8 of Farm 148 near Matjiesfontein, WC.

NEW WORLD ASSOCIATES © 15 April, 2020 SANSA Space Operations, Matjiesfontein VIA | Page 16

Source: Reproduced courtesy of the Chief Directorate: Surveys and Mapping, State Copyright 2000. Figure 2-1: Regional Context. Portion of a 1:250,000 map of South Africa showing the two site locations to the south of Mat- jiesfontein (3320 2000 ED4 GEO LADISMITH). NTS. 2.3.3 Project Description During the compilation of the report starting July 2019, a very brief description of the two project sites was initially provided. These descriptions were added to and revised gradually during March with this final description received on 14 April 2020 from CTS Heritage.

The South African National Space Agency (SANSA) proposes to construct new radio antennae and associated infrastructure on Portion 8 of Farm 148 near Matjiesfontein in the Western Cape Province. Two separate sites have been identified for this project within the broader area, Area A and Area B, both near old landing strips. Site A is located approximately 2km from the centre of Matjiesfontein while Area B is located further south, within the Witteberg Mountain Range.

Area A is proposed to include: • Two radio antennas that are 34m in diameter • One 18m radio antenna • One 7m radio antenna • A storehouse with a footprint of 20m x 50m • A mini substation • A diesel tank

NEW WORLD ASSOCIATES © 15 April, 2020 SANSA Space Operations, Matjiesfontein VIA | Page 17

• A conservancy tank • Internal access roads (4m wide) • Laydown areas • Double diamond mesh fence that will be 4m high and 2m apart • Underground 11kV power cable (approximately 700m) linking the mini substation with an existing substation buried approximately 1m below ground • Water pipeline (approximately 700m) buried approximately 500mm below ground along the same alignment as the power line.

Area B is proposed to include: • Two 4m high Seismic Low Level Radio (S/LLR) antennas (approximately the size of shipping containers – 6m x 2.3m and 4m high) with solar panels on the roof • An administration hut 3m x 3m and 2.4m high.

Source: CES. Figure 2-2: Site Locations (November 2019). The EAP CES has named the sites Site 1 (southern, in the mountains) and Site 2 (northern, near Matjiesfontein) as in Figure 2-2 above. However, we are using CTS Heritage’s labelling for consistency within the HIA, namely, reversed as Site A (northern) and Site B (southern).

NEW WORLD ASSOCIATES © 15 April, 2020 SANSA Space Operations, Matjiesfontein VIA | Page 18

Satellite Imagery of the Two Sites

Source: CTS Heritage, Heritage Screener Figure 1c. Figure 2-3: Satellite image of the sites in the wider landscape.

Source: CTS Heritage, Heritage Screener Figure 1d. Figure 2-4: Satellite image of the sites in the closer landscape. The rugged nature of the landscape is evident from the satellite imagery.

NEW WORLD ASSOCIATES © 15 April, 2020 SANSA Space Operations, Matjiesfontein VIA | Page 19

Site A (CES Site 2) – 2km from Matjiesfontein

Source: CTS Heritage. Figure 2-5: Provisional Site A Layout (March 2020).

Source: CTS Heritage. Figure 2-6: Provisional Site A Layout Enlarged (March 2020).

NEW WORLD ASSOCIATES © 15 April, 2020 SANSA Space Operations, Matjiesfontein VIA | Page 20

Site A is located about 2km from Matjiesfontein in a low-lying valley and comprises the following equipment and infrastructure.

34m Deep Space Antenna

Antenna protrudes 34m above ground level

Ground level

Source: SANSA. Figure 2-7: Example of a 34m Deep Space Antenna. The largest of these is a deep space antenna. It has a very substantial structure with a 34m-diameter circular “dish”. There is also a substantial structure underneath which will require considerable construction.

18m and 7m Full Motion Antennas Two other substantial antennas with diameters of 18m and 7m are also shown on the plan, which will look something like the following image.

Source: SANSA. Figure 2-8: Example of 18m and 7m Full Motion Antenna. The scaling and overall heights of some 20m and 11m are as follows:

2 CTS Heritage (July 2019: page 2). Heritage Screener: Proposed SANSA Space Operations at portion 8 of Farm Matjiesfontein Western Cape. Cape Town. 3 Provisional Matjiesfontein site layout and antenna examples (email dated 2 March, 2020).

NEW WORLD ASSOCIATES © 15 April, 2020 SANSA Space Operations, Matjiesfontein VIA | Page 21

Antenna scales to required size: • 18m protrudes ~ 20m above ground level • 7m will be mounted on raised platform and extend ~ 11m above ground level.

Antenna Colouration SANSA provided the following feedback (received 3 March 2020) to our RFI: “Also, does the equipment have to be white or can it be painted dull colours? This is critical to mitigating the visual impact after location/placement.”

As for the antennas being white, that is the industry standard. Theoretically it can be painted a different colour, but this would change the thermal properties of the reflectors. Espe- cially during sunrise and sunset one may experience differential heating across the reflector surface which in turn could deform the reflector influencing the performance, so first choice would be for white, but with additional research a different colour could be considered. At most a ‘khaki’ type colour which is still fairly light and would blend into the surround could be considered.

Fencing SANSA provided the following feedback (received 12 March 2020) to our RFI: • No fencing to antennas, storehouse or administration structure. • 3m high 10 x 10 diamond mesh fencing with flat wrap at top around 2x S/LLRs. • Double fence 4m high with flat wrap on the top 2m apart to Site A as per national key point regulations.

Lighting SANSA provided the following feedback (received 12 March 2020) to our RFI: • No lighting around project sites. • Security lighting around storehouse, S/LLRs and administration block. • Strobe lighting to antennas: red strobe at highest point on after dark for aviation safety; blue strobe to indicate when the antenna is transmitting signal; yellow strobe to indicate the antenna is repositioning/moving.

Power SANSA provided the following feedback (received 12 March 2020) to our RFI: Where will the electricity be sourced from? • Generators, municipal and solar power will be used. • An underground cable to Site A + a generator will be used there. There will also be a mini substation about 1.2m high. • Generators with operational noise of 70dB. • There is a possibility that solar power might be also used and housed near the generator but this is not certain.

NEW WORLD ASSOCIATES © 15 April, 2020 SANSA Space Operations, Matjiesfontein VIA | Page 22

Construction and Site Clearance SANSA provided the following feedback (received 12 March 2020) to our RFI: • No construction camps on site. • No site clearance of vegetation around the facilities besides for the upgrading of access road to nearest side, for construction of storehouse, antennas, S/LLRs and administration hut. • A septic tank and French drain to the ablution block attached to the storehouse.4 • 10,000l diesel storage for the generators (no specifics provided). • Diesel tank will have 1m high bund and a 2m high tank. • All spoil will be removed from the site to a disposal site. • The existing road to Site A will be graded and new gravel brought in, not surfaced. • Pipelines will be laid to Site A as per the site plan.

Structures • The storehouse will be a warehouse type structure, 20 x 50m and about 5m in height.

Site B (CES Site 1) – 4km from Matjiesfontein Site B is located about 4km from Matjiesfontein high in the mountains but mostly in a hidden valley only partially overlooking Matjiesfontein.

Structures • The administration hut will be 2.4m high. • The 2x S/LLRs are 4m high.

4 The EAP has advised by email on 7 April 2020 that this was changed to a conservancy tank. 5 S/LLR = Seismic Low Level Radiation scientific instruments.

NEW WORLD ASSOCIATES © 15 April, 2020 SANSA Space Operations, Matjiesfontein VIA | Page 23

Source: SANSA. Figure 2-9: Site B Provisional Detailed Layout (March 2020).

Source: CTS Heritage. Figure 2-10: Site B Provisional Layout (March 2020). Figure 2-9’s more detailed layout from SANSA has been simplified in Figure 2-10 by CTS Heritage.

NEW WORLD ASSOCIATES © 15 April, 2020 SANSA Space Operations, Matjiesfontein VIA | Page 24

2.3.4 Photographs of the SANSA Radio Antennas at Cradle of Mankind The following photographs were taken of a similar group of radio antenna at the Cradle of Mankind on 6 March 2020 by CTS Heritage. This project is related to the new array being developed near Matjiesfontein.

Source: CTS Heritage March 2020. Photograph 2-1: Photograph of Radio Antenna from nearby at Cradle of Mankind. The above antenna is similar to the smaller 7m antenna.

Source: CTS Heritage March 2020. Photograph 2-2: Photograph of Radio Antennas in the landscape at Cradle of Mankind. This grouping shows how the large antennas sit in the landscape dominating even large trees and protruding over the skyline on a flat plain at a distance of a few hundred meters.

NEW WORLD ASSOCIATES © 15 April, 2020 SANSA Space Operations, Matjiesfontein VIA | Page 25

Source: CTS Heritage March 2020. Photograph 2-3: Photograph of Radio Antennas protruding over a ridgeline at Cradle of Man- kind. This view shows the large antenna from further away as they begin to fall away in the landscape. This view might be similar to that visible from Matjiesfontein.

2.4 Alternatives At this time there are no alternatives under consideration beyond the variations developed during the reporting period (February/March 2020).

NWA

NEW WORLD ASSOCIATES © 15 April, 2020 SANSA Space Operations, Matjiesfontein VIA | Page 27

3 Legal and Administrative Requirements

3.1 Summary There is a long history of environmental protection and management in South Africa rooted in EIA and, later, IEM, which has given rise to the current requirement for VIA. The Provincial Government of the Western Cape Guideline for Visual and Aesthetic Specialists in EIA processes defines the scope and preparation of VIAs.6 Provision is made for scenic, visual and aesthetic protection in various Acts, IDPs, Provincial and Municipal SDFs, and Urban Edge Guidelines, notably the NHRA (1999), WC Provincial Urban Edge Guideline (2005), WC Provincial SDF (2014) and the Laingsburg Municipal SDF (2012). Matjiesfontein Valley and Matjiesfontein Village are recommended as a Grade II (Provincial) Landscape and Settlement respectively in the WCPSDF. SAHRA records Matjiesfontein Village as a Provincial Heritage Site (PHS). VIA is integral to assessing heritage impact in scenic cultural landscapes such as Matjiesfontein.

3.2 Introduction This chapter provides the important and necessary policy, legal and administrative background for the visual impact study. A general overview of the relevant documents with specific reference to those applicable to visual planning is included. Particular mention is made of local planning guidelines that have the most direct bearing on the project such as the Spatial Devel- opment Framework (SDF) for the given area.

3.2.1 Background The policy, legal and administrative framework for conservation, EIA and development in South Africa has long roots. Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) is mentioned in the national re-

6 Oberholzer, B (2005) by CSIR Environmentek. Guideline for Involving Visual and Aesthetic Specialists in EIA Processes: Edition 1. CSIR Report No. ENV-S-C 2005 053 F. Republic of South Africa, Provincial Government of the Western Cape, Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, Cape Town.

NEW WORLD ASSOCIATES © 15 April, 2020 SANSA Space Operations, Matjiesfontein VIA | Page 28

quirements for EIA under the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) and the Envi- ronmental Conservation Act. Furthermore, the provincial government now endorsed its own guidelines for various EIA processes including VIA (PGWC, November 2005). Specific requirements for VIA may also included in local Spatial Development Frameworks (SDF) and Integrated development Plans (IDP).

3.3 Policy Framework 3.3.1 Environment Conservation Act No. 73 of 1989 (ECA), Part I: Policy for Environment Conservation The policy for environmental protection and management is found in the Environment Conservation Act (ECA) No. 73 of 1989, Part I: Policy for Environment Conservation and is well established in South African environmental policy and law.

3.3.2 IEM Guideline Series (1992) This Guideline Series issue by the DEA in 1992 is the foundation of the current IEM procedure and contains highly useful information on IEM and EIA in South Africa including the preparation of EIA reports and the typical outline used in this VIA. IEM Guideline Series: 3 Guidelines for Report Requirements included “Cultural and historic environment (e.g. site of architectural and cultural interest, visual impact).” This is the first specific reference to Visual Impact in the national legislation and documentation covering EIA.

3.3.1 Environmental Impact Management: A National Strategy for IEM in South Africa (April 1998) This discussion document on Integrated Environmental Management (IEM) defines IEM as: “the coordinated planning and management of all human activities in a defined environmental system, to achieve and balance the broadest possible range of short- and long-term environmental objectives.” Further: “The overarching goal of IEM is to help ensure that South Africa’s develop- ing economy is redirected (or reoriented) from environmentally unsustainable growth and development towards environmental sustainability” (p 14). “Activities that IEM should manage” include: land use zoning plans and schemes, new activities, existing activities, and activities undertaken in terms of a land use zoning plan or scheme that has already been approved through IEM.” In terms of Scoping as it relates to the compilation of reports such as this VIA, the Main Aims of Scoping are “to focus the study on reasonable alternatives and relevant issues to ensure that the resulting Impact Assessment is useful to the decision-maker and address- es the concerns of interested and affected parties” (p 5, IEM Guideline Series: 2 Guidelines for Scoping, 1992).

NEW WORLD ASSOCIATES © 15 April, 2020 SANSA Space Operations, Matjiesfontein VIA | Page 29

3.4 Legal Framework This review of current documentation is made with specific reference to requirements for VIA in the Law and by National Guidelines.

3.4.1 National Environmental Management Act No. 107 of 1998 (NEMA) This Act is “To provide for co-operative environmental governance by establishing principles for decision-making on matters affecting the environment, institutions that will promote co- operative governance and procedures for co-ordinating environmental functions exercised by organs of state; and to provide for matters connected therewith.” Chapter 5: Integrated Environmental Management has among its general objectives: (b) “identify, predict and evaluate the actual and potential impact on the environment, socio- economic conditions and cultural heritage, the risks and consequences and alternatives and options for mitigation of activities, with a view to minimising negative impacts, max- imising benefits, and promoting compliance with the principles of environmental management set out in section 2” (p 34). The Act also allows for Chapter 7: Compliance, Enforcement and Protection of Part 1: Envi- ronmental Hazards and the Duty of Care and Remediation of Environmental Damage (28). Chapter 9: Administration of Act allows for Model Environmental Management Bylaws (46), “aimed at establishing measures for the management of environmental impacts of any development with the jurisdiction of a municipality. … (4) The purpose of the model bylaws… must be to—

1. (a) mitigate adverse environmental impacts; 2. (b) facilitate the implementation of decisions taken, and conditions imposed as a result of the authorisation of new activities and developments, or through the setting of norms and standards in respect of existing activities and developments; and 3. (c) ensure effective environmental management and conservation of resources and impacts within the jurisdiction of a municipality in co-operation with other organs of state.

5. …must include measures for environmental management, which may include—(a) auditing, monitoring and ensuring compliance; and (b) reporting requirements and the furnishing of information.”

3.4.2 South African National Heritage Resources Act, 1999 (NHRA) NHRA regulations cover the protection of historic sites, objects, buildings and landscapes. It covers (ii) “archaeological items,” namely, “material remains resulting from human activity… older than 100 years;” rock art, wrecks and “features, structures and artefacts associated with military history which are older than 75 years and the sites on which they are found (2 Defini-

NEW WORLD ASSOCIATES © 15 April, 2020 SANSA Space Operations, Matjiesfontein VIA | Page 30

tions). The Definitions also include the term “(vi) ‘cultural significance’ [which] means aesthetic, architectural, historical, scientific, social, spiritual, linguistic or technological value or significance.” Further, (xxi) “‘living heritage’ means the intangible aspects of inherited culture, and may include: cultural tradition oral history, performance, ritual, popular memory, skills and tech- niques, indigenous knowledge systems and the holistic approach to nature, society and social relationships.” (xxxi) “‘Palaeontological’ means any fossilised remains or fossil trace of animals or plants which lived in the geological past, other than fossil fuels or fossiliferous rock intended for industrial use, and any site which contains such fossilised remains or trance.” (xxxviii) “Pub- lic monuments and memorials” and (xviii) “victims of conflict” relating to wars are also defined. Section 38(1) defines triggers for HIA as a linear development over 300m long, or a bridge 50m long, or any development over 5,000 square metres (½ Hectare), involving three or more erwen, rezoning over 10,000 square metres (1 Hectare) requires an HIA to be submitted if a heritage resource is likely to be affected. A Notification of Intent to Develop (NID) must be submitted the Heritage Authority “at the very earliest stages of initiating such a development.” The Act prescribes in section 38(3) that the HIA must include:

• The identification and mapping of all heritage resources in the area affected; • An assessment of the significance of such resources in terms of the heritage assessment criteria set out in section 6(2) or prescribed under section 7; • An assessment of the impact of the development on such heritage resources; • An evaluation of the impact of the development on heritage resources relative to the sustainable social and economic benefits to be derived from the development; • The results of consultations with communities affected by the proposed development and other interested parties regarding the impact of the development on heritage resources; • If heritage resources will be adversely affected by the proposed development, the consideration of alternatives; and • Plans for mitigation of any adverse effects during and after the completion of the proposed development.”

The NHRA makes provision for two forms of protection, formal and informal, and sets up a three tier system of formal protection as:

1. Grade 1 or National Heritage Sites managed by SAHRA. 2. Grade 2 or Provincial Heritage Sites managed by HWC. 3. Grade 3 or Local Heritage Sites manage by the Local Authority.

NEW WORLD ASSOCIATES © 15 April, 2020 SANSA Space Operations, Matjiesfontein VIA | Page 31

Generally protected sites include:

• Human burials older than 60 years. • Archaeological and palaeontological sites. • Shipwrecks and associated remains older than 70 years. • Structures older than 60 years.

3.4.3 National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Bill, 2003 (BB) This Bill is: “To provide for the management and conservation of South Africa’s biodiversity within the framework of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998; the protection of species and ecosystems that warrant national protection; the sustainable use of indigenous biological resources, the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from bioprospecting involving indigenous biological resources; the establishment and functions of a South African National Bi- odiversity Institute; and for matters connected therewith.” Of particular interest here is Chapter 3: Biodiversity Planning and Monitoring; Chap- ter 4: Threatened or Protected Ecosystems and Species; and Chapter 5: Species and Or- ganisms Posing Potential Threats to Biodiversity, notably Part 1: Alien Species and Part 2: Invasive Species.

3.4.4 PGWC Guideline for Involving Visual and Aesthetic Specialists in EIA Processes (Edition 1, June 2005) This long since endorsed guideline (November 2005) is the most relevant document that now guides VIA in the Western Cape. It is a highly useful document and has been used to guide this report. While lacking a definition of VIA, it states in the Introduction: “This visual guideline document is therefore an attempt to develop a ‘best practice’ approach for visual specialists, EIA practitioners and authorities involved in the EIA process. The term ‘visual and aesthetic’ is intended to cover the broad range of visual, scenic, cultural, and spiritual aspects of the landscape; however, for the purpose of brevity, the term ‘visual’ is used in the text’ (p 1). Thus it includes aspects of “the area’s sense of place, … natural and cultural landscapes, … the identification of all scenic resources, protected areas and sites of special interest, together with their relative importance in the region, … the need to include both quantitative criteria, such as ‘visibility’, and qualitative criteria, such as landscape or townscape ‘character’ (pp 1-2).

NEW WORLD ASSOCIATES © 15 April, 2020 SANSA Space Operations, Matjiesfontein VIA | Page 32

3.4.5 PGWC Guideline for Involving Heritage Specialists in EIA Processes (Edition 1, June 2005) Continuing on from the NHRA (1999), this now legally adopted Provincial Guideline further records (p 3): “Types of heritage resources as defined in the relevant legislation may include the following:

• Places, buildings, structures and equipment of cultural significance • Places to which oral traditions are attached or are associated with living heritage • Historical settlements or townscapes • Landscape and natural features of cultural significance • Geological sites of scientific or cultural importance • Archaeological and palaeontological sites • Graves and burial grounds • Sites related to the history of slavery (NHRA).”

These are the so-called “tangibles” of the heritage concept (p 5). Thus the “cultural landscape” is seen as having a range from Archaeology to Palaeontology to Historical Architecture to Social History to Public Memory and Natural Landscape (p 6). Two categories of heritage significance/sensitivity are used: Category 1: Formally protected heritage sites and Category 2: Landscapes of recognised or potential significance or sensitivity (not yet formally protected) (p 18). This extensive list of sites include Grade I-III, National and Provincial Heritage Sites and Protected Areas, as well as Provisionally Protected Sites, Urban Conservation Areas, Nature Re- serves, proclaimed Scenic Routes, etc as well as World Heritage Sites e.g. Robben Island and Cra- dle of Humankind (Sterkfontein). A very large list of landscapes is also included starting with Scenic/Historical Routes or Landscapes, Pristine Natural Areas e.g. Cedarberg and many other types of landscapes including Historic Farm Werfs e.g. Boschendal, Morgenster, Alphen, and historical farmlands e.g. Winelands, Swartland, Karoolands, and many more. This long list has been ordered into twelve types of Heritage Context in Table 1 (pp 21-27), namely:

1. Palaeontological Landscape 7. Relic Landscape 2. Archaeological Landscape 8. Burial Ground and Grave Site 3. Historical Built Urban Landscape 9. Associated Landscape 4. Historical Farmland 10. Historical Farm Werf 5. Historical Rural Town 11. Historical Institutional Landscape 6. Pristine/Natural Landscape 12. Scenic/Visual Amenity Landscape.

NEW WORLD ASSOCIATES © 15 April, 2020 SANSA Space Operations, Matjiesfontein VIA | Page 33

Many of these could be grouped under the broad term Regional Cultural Landscapes (p 31). Thus the Landscape is considered a vital part or domain of Heritage Resources. As a visual resource, Landscape is very much seen and perceived in every human sense.

3.4.6 Other Documents Other documents that refer to visual aspects of EIA include Aide Memoir for the Prepara- tion of Environmental Management Programme Reports for Prospecting and Mining 5.2.13 Sensi- tive Landscapes and 5.2.14 Visual Aspects which states: “Describe the impact the project will have when viewed form scenic views, tourist routes and existing residential areas” (pp 17-18). The SAMOAC (South African Manual for Outdoor Advertising Control) controls also specifically define visual impact with particular reference to signage in natural, urban and rural landscapes.

3.5 Administrative Framework 3.5.1 Western Cape Provincial Urban Edge Guideline (DEA&DP December 2005) This document notes the following on visual impact that has special reference to this and all similar types of development, bold added (p 30):

“Visual impact. The value of the environment is often under-estimated from a visual perspective. It is the visual quality of the environment that, to a large degree, generates the attraction for the tourism industry and draws people to certain areas as desired locations for living a lifestyle outside of the large cities and densely developed urban areas. The visual resources of rural areas, such as scenic landscapes and the cultural streetscapes and farmsteads, and environments such as the Garden Route, constitute major tourist attractions. Visual qualities of the environment also forms the backdrop to most other tourist activities, such as 4 x 4 routes, hiking trails, camping and recreational activities and even sporting facilities that sustain local economic activity. The growth of golf resorts in the Garden Route serve as examples of the attraction of the environment and more particularly the visual environment for interest in sporting facilities. Added thereto, the experience of reserves and resorts in the Cedarberg and Karoo are as much in the visual quality of the environment as it is in the attraction of the facilities. Each area has its own unique visual character and atmosphere, which plays an important role in the quality of any tourist experience. The diversity of the landscapes makes it essential to consider all development and more particularly the expansion of urban areas, an issue that requires special consideration. The intention is to manage urban development in such a way that no development would detract from the visual quality of the environment and that all development conforms to a characteristic style and urban form that suits the character of the area.” This implies that edge development should not only be limited to certain areas through inclusion or exclusion, but that edge development should also be subject to urban design guidelines, architectural consideration and general aesthetic treatment. The visual quality of the en-

NEW WORLD ASSOCIATES © 15 April, 2020 SANSA Space Operations, Matjiesfontein VIA | Page 34

vironment is not limited to the natural environment. The built environment has as much of an effect on the aesthetic appeal of an area as has the natural environment.”

3.5.2 Western Cape Provincial Spatial Development Framework (March 2014)

Source: WCPSDF (2014), Figure 1. Figure 3-1: Western Cape Province Municipal Jurisdictions. The Western Cape Provincial SDF (WCPSDF) shows the study area occurring in Central Karoo District Municipality in the Laingsburg Municipality (see Figure 3-1). It lies in the western half of the Laingsburg District.

WCPSDF Landscape and Scenic Assets The following figure (Figure 3-2) illustrates where the site fits into the province’s Land- scape and Scenic Assets. Matjiesfontein lies at the centre of a band of low lying Rural / Agricul- tural Landscapes surrounded to the north and south by Wilderness / Natural Landscapes covering the mountains, particularly to the south. There are numerous mountain ranges in the wider area. A Primary Scenic Route —— runs north from Matjiesfontein.

NEW WORLD ASSOCIATES © 15 April, 2020 SANSA Space Operations, Matjiesfontein VIA | Page 35

Matjiesfontein

Source: WCPSDF (2014), Figure 22. Figure 3-2: Western Cape Province Landscape and Scenic Assets. The following extracts from the WCPSDF are relevant (bold added):

3.1.7 LANDSCAPE AND SCENIC ASSETS 3.1.7.1 Key Challenges Arising from the review of the 2009 PSDF a specialist study was undertaken into the Prov- ince’s cultural and scenic landscapes (see Box 6 and Figure 22). This study established that Western Cape’s cultural and scenic landscapes are significant assets that underpin the tourism economy, but that these resources are being incrementally eroded and fragmented. Agriculture is being reduced to ‘islands’, visual cluttering of the landscape by non-agricultural development is prevalent, and rural authenticity, character and scenic value is being eroded (e.g. urban sprawl into Cape Winelands). The mountain ranges belonging to the Cape Fold Belt together with the coastline, are the most significant in scenic terms, and underpin the Western Cape’s tourism economy. Losses of scenic and heritage rural character are taking place due to recent patterns of residential sprawl on the outskirts of urban centres associated with low-density property developments. A number of scenic landscapes of high significance are under threat and require strategies to ensure their long-term protection. These include:

NEW WORLD ASSOCIATES © 15 April, 2020 SANSA Space Operations, Matjiesfontein VIA | Page 36

i. Rural landscapes of scenic and cultural significance that are situated in close proximity to major urban development pressure (e.g. Cape Winelands).7 ii. Undeveloped coastal landscapes under major development pressure. iii. Landscapes under pressure for large-scale infrastructural developments such as wind farms, solar energy facilities, transmission lines and shale gas development in the Central Karoo. iv. Historic mountain passes and ‘poorts’ vulnerable to falling into disrepair, or alternatively inappropriate repairs and upgrading (e.g. Swartberg Pass). v. Loss of scenic qualities of wilderness landscapes. 3.1.7.2 Spatial Implications i. In terms of landscape significance, the overall natural and cultural landscape, and the layered pattern of settlements in response to the natural landscape over time is a Provincial asset worthy of protection. ii. In terms of landscape integrity, retaining the essential character and intactness of wilderness, rural and urban areas in the face of fragmentation through unstructured urbanisation and commercial agriculture, must be achieved. iii. In terms of landscape connectivity, continuity and interconnectedness of wilderness and agricultural landscapes must be retained, including ecological corridors and green linkages. iv. In terms of landscape setting, maintain the role of the natural landscape as a ‘con- tainer’ within which settlements are embedded, the landscape providing the dominant setting or backdrop. v. In terms of the logic of landscape, recognise the intrinsic characteristics and suitabil- ity of the landscape and its influence on land use, settlement and movement patterns, in response to geology, topography, water, soil types and microclimate.

3.1.7.3 Provincial Spatial Policies POLICY R5: SAFEGUARD CULTURAL AND SCENIC ASSETS 1. Input townscape and landscape making considerations into municipal SDFs, land use management systems and infrastructure development programmes. 2. Protect heritage and scenic assets from inappropriate development and land use change. 3. The delineation of urban edges have significant implications from a scenic perspective, especially with respect to the protection of natural and cultural landscapes from urban encroachment, defining an appropriate interface between urban development and significant landscapes, and protecting the visual and agricultural setting of histor-

7 Here we could reference Matjiesfontein as a significant cultural landscape with Provincial Heritage Site (PHS) status.

NEW WORLD ASSOCIATES © 15 April, 2020 SANSA Space Operations, Matjiesfontein VIA | Page 37

ical settlements. However, it should be noted that the urban edges on their own do not provide effective long-term protection of landscapes of heritage and scenic value. 4. Strategies towards achieving adequate legislation to protect scenic resources, as well as towards establishing more detailed classification of landscape and scenic typologies are required. Conservation strategies and guidelines are also particularly important in the effective management of scenic landscape quality and form. They must describe the qualities of an area and the nature of development that is likely to be permitted, thus preventing wasteful expenditure, misunderstanding and conflict on the part of owners, developers, architects and the local authority. They can also ensure that the local authority is consistent in its management of the area in terms of the maintenance and enhancement of the public realm and in terms of development control. 5. Priority focus areas proposed for conservation or protection include: i. Rural landscapes of scenic and cultural significance situated on major urban edges and under increasing development pressure, e.g. Cape Winelands. ii. Undeveloped coastal landscapes under major development pressure. iii. Landscapes under pressure for large-scale infrastructural developments such as wind farms, solar energy facilities, transmission lines and fracking, e.g. Central Karoo. iv. Vulnerable historic mountain passes and ‘poorts’.

WCPSDF Sense of Place and Settlement Patterns The following figure (Figure 3-3) illustrates where the site fits into the province’s cultural landscapes and heritage resource concentrations, namely, south of the Historic Settlement Matjiesfontein . The following extracts from the WCPSDF are relevant (bold added):

3.3.2 SENSE OF PLACE AND SETTLEMENT PATTERNS 3.3.2.1 Key Challenges The Western Cape’s distinctive settlement patterns and typologies have developed in response to environmental conditions, historic patterns of subdivision, and built forms. These settlement typologies and spatial distribution relate to their rural and agrarian contexts in ways that remain relevant to their long-term viability. The scenic and heritage resources of the Western Cape, issues relating to their long-term protection, as well as recommendations for maintaining their productive value are contained in the PSDF Heritage and Scenic Landscapes specialist study (Oberholzer and Winter, 2013). The historical settlement chronology documented in this report is illustrated in Figure 43 (see Box 10).

NEW WORLD ASSOCIATES © 15 April, 2020 SANSA Space Operations, Matjiesfontein VIA | Page 38

Scenic landscapes, historic settlements and the sense of place which underpins their quality are being eroded by inappropriate developments that detract from the unique identify of towns. Causes include inappropriate development, a lack of adequate information and pro- active management systems.

Matjiesfontein

Source: WCPSDF (2014), Figure 39. Figure 3-3: Western Cape Province Cultural Landscapes and Heritage Resources. 3.3.2.2 Spatial Implications The Western Cape’s unique sense of place and identity underpins its economy in numerous ways and requires appropriate responses to the heritage, cultural and scenic assets of the Province. Landscape and heritage management are an essential and integral aspect of spatial planning and not separate from it. Principles pertaining to settlement development should always support the protection and enhancement of cultural and heritage assets. Underpinning the strength of the Province’s tertiary sector is its unique lifestyle offering. Growing the Western Cape’s economy is dependent on safeguarding these assets. The integrity of the Province’s natural and built environments is of critical importance to the further develop-

NEW WORLD ASSOCIATES © 15 April, 2020 SANSA Space Operations, Matjiesfontein VIA | Page 39

ment of tourism, as the Western Cape’s tourism economy is nature and heritage based, and built on a foundation of a high-quality and unique environment. Similarly, long term economic resilience relies on upgrading of the built environment in dysfunctional townships so that they become enabling living environments overcoming negative perceptions and building investor confidence. Inappropriate, sprawling development, which erodes these assets, also undermines the foundations of the Western Cape’s economy. The delineation of urban edges is an important tool to protect heritage and scenic assets. However, sole dependency on urban edges to provide the necessary effective long-term protection and management of scenic landscapes and heritage assets is not sufficient. Heritage input into the preparation of Spatial Development Frameworks is essential to ensure effective integration of heritage management and planning issues and to develop ways to use these assets so that they contribute to regeneration and build economic resilience. Finally, well-designed settlements support civic interaction and equitable access throughout the public environment. Inclusion and integration through an enhanced sense of belonging can be promoted through a focus on the public realm rather than on private enclaves, and by promoting the clustering and agglomeration of complementary activities and land uses. 3.3.2.3 Provincial Spatial Policies POLICY S1: PROTECT, MANAGE AND ENHANCE SENSE OF PLACE, CULTURAL AND SCENIC LANDSCAPES 1. Prevent settlement encroachment into agricultural areas, scenic landscapes and biodiversity priority areas, especially between settlements, and along coastal edges and river corridors. 2. Promote smart growth ensuring the efficient use of land and infrastructure by containing urban sprawl and prioritising infill, intensification and redevelopment within settlements. 3. Respond to and enhance an economically, socially and spatially meaningful settlement hierarchy that takes into account the role, character and location of settlements in relation to one another while preserving the structural hierarchy of towns, villages, hamlets and farmsteads in relation to historical settlement patterns. 4. Use heritage resources, such as the adaptive use of historic buildings, to enhance the character of an area, stimulate urban regeneration, encourage investment and create tourism opportunities, while ensuring that interventions in these heritage contexts are consistent with local building and landscape typologies, scale, massing, form and architectural idiom. 5. Conservation strategies, detailed place-specific guidelines and explicit development parameters must supplement urban edges to ensure the effective management of settlement and landscape quality and form.

NEW WORLD ASSOCIATES © 15 April, 2020 SANSA Space Operations, Matjiesfontein VIA | Page 40

Rural Space-Economy Matjiesfontein lies in a much wider area of Extensive Farming (Grazing & Game Re- serves) with some traces of Grain Fields and Pastures to the southwest (see Figure 3-4).

Matjiesfontein

Source: WCPSDF (2014), Figure 28. Figure 3-4: Western Cape Province Primary Sectors. The following extracts from the WCPSDF are relevant (bold added):

3.2.3 RURAL SPACE-ECONOMY 3.2.3.1 Key Challenges The rural economy includes but is not limited to farming; fishing and aquaculture; mining; forestry; commodity processing and servicing; eco and agri-tourism; outdoor recreation and events; infrastructure and service delivery; and diverse natural resource related activities (e.g. extraction, rehabilitation, harvesting, etc). Agriculture is going through a difficult transition period with its traditional export market in recession, escalating pressure on operating margins (i.e. input costs escalations exceed commodity price increases), more stringent international and national compliance requirements, and instability in the labour market.

NEW WORLD ASSOCIATES © 15 April, 2020 SANSA Space Operations, Matjiesfontein VIA | Page 41

3.2.3.2 Strategy Informants The rural space-economy agenda is not only about agricultural development, it is also about broad based agrarian transformation, diversifying rural economic activities (see Figure 28), tourism, government promotion of rural development and land reform programmes, and func- tional ecosystems. Whilst Provincial and local government does not have an explicit rural development or land reform Constitutional mandate, all spheres of government have some level of control of rural development. Provincial and local government fulfil crucial support roles in the implementation of the national Comprehensive Rural Development Programme (CRDP) as well as the Land Reform Programme. The CRDP is targeted at 15 rural development nodes across the Province (see Figure 29) where participatory community-based planning is targeted at agrarian transformation as well as strategic investments in economic and social infrastructure. The PSDF establishes an enabling spatial framework for accommodating the CRDP and other national programmes. Land reform is about opening up new opportunities to those previously restricted in ac- cessing land and natural resources, and their beneficial use of these assets. Rural development involves government investment in economic and social infrastructure to improve the quality of rural life, skills and jobs. In this regard the Western Cape is rolling out three sub-programmes, namely Rural Nodal Development, Farmer Support Development and Farm Worker Development. Agrarian transformation encompasses: a change in the relations (systems and patterns of ownership and control), increased rural production; the sustainable use of natural resources; strengthening of rural livelihoods; the use of appropriate technology (indigenous and modern); and food security. The Western Cape Government will support rural communities (inclusive of farm labourers and owners) to take control of their destiny, and help build opportunities for growth and development in rural areas. This involves a shift from a compliance driven system to a developmental system that encourages rural entrepreneurship. In line with this agenda the PSDF strategy for opening-up opportunities in the rural space- economy has two dimensions, namely: i. Accommodating a greater diversity of compatible land use activities on farms and in the rural landscape in general. Compatible activities are those that do not compromise biodiversity, farming activities, cultural and scenic landscapes, and are of an appropriate scale and form to fit in with their context in the rural landscape (as specified in the to be updated 2009 PSDF Rural Land Use Planning and Management guidelines). ii. Channelling public investment in rural development initiatives (i.e. land reform, agrarian transformation, environmental rehabilitation, enterprise development, etc) to areas where it can offer real and sustained improvements to beneficiaries and the rural community.

NEW WORLD ASSOCIATES © 15 April, 2020 SANSA Space Operations, Matjiesfontein VIA | Page 42

Provincial Spatial Policies The following extracts from the WCPSDF are relevant (bold added):

3.2.3.3 PROVINCIAL SPATIAL POLICIES POLICY E2: DIVERSIFY AND STRENGTHEN THE RURAL ECONOMY RURAL PLANNING • Rural considerations to be factored into all municipal IDPs and SDFs, with priority given to getting rural coverage in all district SDFs and then refining the detail of the planning at local municipality level. SDFs should be able to assist in the identification of strategically located land for land reform purposes in terms of the Pro-active Land Acquisition Strategy (PLAS). Provincial Government should strengthen its partnership with DRDLR in giving support to municipalities in their undertaking rural planning. • The Provincial Department of Agriculture’s area based plans (1:10 000 scale) and associated spatial data are useful tools to use for detailed planning or assessing farm level land use applications. • Where regional SDFs are compiled by Provincial Government, rural considerations are to be dealt with on the same basis as municipal SDFs. DEVELOPMENT OUTSIDE THE URBAN EDGE • Compatible and sustainable rural activities (i.e. activities that are appropriate in a rural context, generate positive socio-economic returns, and do not compromise the environment or ability of the municipality to deliver on its mandate) and of an appropriate scale and form can be accommodated outside the urban edge (except in bona fide wilderness areas). • The 2009 PSDF draft Rural Land Use Planning and Management Guidelines to be reviewed and updated to serve as basis for clarifying the interpretation of this policy. The following criteria should be applied in assessing consistency with this policy: i. Environmental authorisation ii. Compatibility with land use activities suitable in the CBA it is situated in, and subject to an EIA iii. Does not alienate unique or high value agricultural land, or compromise existing farming activities. iv. Does not compromise the current or future possible use of mineral resources. v. Is consistent with the cultural and scenic landscapes within which it is situated. vi. Does not involve extensions to the municipality’s reticulation networks (i.e. served by off-grid technologies) vii. Does not impose real costs or risks to the municipality delivering on their mandate. viii. Does not infringe on the authenticity of rural landscapes.

NEW WORLD ASSOCIATES © 15 April, 2020 SANSA Space Operations, Matjiesfontein VIA | Page 43

• Land use incentives should be used to facilitate rural land use transitions that the State cannot afford to fund on its own (e.g. securing priority biodiversity areas or climate adaptation corridors; rural development; agrarian transformation). • The current Provincial Resort Policy to be reviewed to make it consistent with PSDF 2014, and its recommendations incorporated in the updated 2009 PSDF Rural Land Use Planning and Management Guidelines. • The new Provincial guidelines for renewal energy facilities to be incorporated in the update of the 2009 PSDF Rural Land Use Planning and Management Guidelines. FARM WORKER SETTLEMENT • The principles contained in the gazetted Provincial Farm Worker Settlement Policy are endorsed (see Box 8), but amendments may be warranted following decisions taken in terms of FARE’s recommendations. It remains Provincial policy to accommodate those seeking off-farm settlement in the nearest town or village as part of the state- assisted housing programme. RURAL DEVELOPMENT - STRENGTHENING RURAL LIVELIHOODS • Extend current rural livelihood support programme (i.e. CRDP) to cover a wider range of activities and build a broader rural skills base (e.g. environmental resource management, rural public works, land care, Working with Water, Working on Fire, Work- ing with Wetlands, etc). Target future support to settlements that are stagnating or situated in a remote rural area. Use broadband technology to extend the programme’s coverage and align with Thusong Centres.

The Composite PSDF Figure 3-5 illustrates where the sites fit into the province’s Composite PSDF. Matjiesfon- tein is a Secondary Settlement  that lies along the N1 Regional Connector Route —— west of the Regional Centre  of Laingsburg. It lies within a large area designated as the Spatial Planning Category of Buffer. The sites lie to the south of Matjiesfontein.

3.5.3 Heritage and Scenic Resources Inventory and Policy Framework for the Western Cape (May 2013) The best overview of the Western Cape Province’s Heritage and Scenic Resources can be found in this Western Cape Government Specialist Study.8 The provinces heritage and scenic resources are mapped in the following plans showing the WC Province (see Figure 3-6) and Central Karoo District Municipality (Figure 3-8) with a detailed inventory and key to the map found in Appendix B: Inventories of each Municipal District.9

8 Strangely enough, this valuable document is unpublished and not findable on the web or the web site of the WC Government or anywhere else. The document copies were kindly obtained directly from one of the authors Bernie Oberholzer. 9 Western Cape Government: Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (Updated September 2014).

NEW WORLD ASSOCIATES © 15 April, 2020 SANSA Space Operations, Matjiesfontein VIA | Page 44

Matjiesfontein

Source: WCPSDF (2014), Figure 59. Figure 3-5: Western Cape Province Consolidated Framework Proposals.

Matjiesfontein

Source: WC Government Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (2013). Figure 3-6: Western Cape Heritage and Scenic Resources.

NEW WORLD ASSOCIATES © 15 April, 2020 SANSA Space Operations, Matjiesfontein VIA | Page 45

The study area occurs right in the far west of Central Karoo District Municipality near its western boundary with the Cape Winelands District Municipality. Matjiesfontein lies almost central in the Western Cape with the large Provincial Nature Reserve of the Anysberg to the south of it.

The Central Karoo The WCPSDF references Winter and Oberholzer’s Heritage and Scenic Resources Inventory and Policy Framework. The following extract describes the Small Karoo region (pages 24-25).10

2.8 Central Karoo Between the Swartberg Mountain range in the south of the Great Karoo and the Nuweveld Mountains forming part of the ‘Great Escarpment’ to the north, lies an extensive plain known as ‘Die Vlakte’. This vast semi-desert area is composed of the Beaufort Group rocks con- sisting of shales, mudstone, sandstone and tillite. The only relief is provided by the ridges of dolerite, and the koppies capped by dolerite cills. This is a sparsely populated area with settlements far apart, including the towns of Laingsburg, Merweville, Prince Albert, Beaufort West and Murraysburg. Agriculture is restricted to sheep and game farming. Given the pre-historic nature of the Central Karoo, the area is of great palaeontological interest (fossils), as well as archaeological sites, such as at Nelspoort, near Beaufort West. During early colonial times the much of the game and the San inhabitants had all but been eliminated by the stock farmers expanding their grazing areas. Evidence of the Anglo-Boer War in the early 1900s still remains in the form of grave sites and blockhouses along the railway line, and places such as Matjiesfontein and Prince Albert were used as garrisons by the British. Matjiesfontein and the isolated Gamkaskloof have Pro- vincial Heritage Site status. Mountain passes and ‘poorts’ of scenic and heritage significance include the Swartberg Pass (Provincial Heritage Site), Gamkaskloof Pass, Meiringspoort, Seweweekspoort (all in the Swartberg range), as well as Molteno Pass in the Nuweveld range. The Karoo National Park near Beaufort West is a protected landscape incorporating the Great Escarpment. Many more sites of scenic and heritage value are listed in Appendix B and on the GIS maps, which accompany this report.

The Central Karoo (K) is the last region in the study and labelled K.11 Various types of

Heritage and Scenic Resources are mapped in the general area of Matjiesfontein: Natural landscapes (nl.), Cultural landscapes (cl.), Scenic routes and passes (s.), Water landscapes (wl.), Historic settlements (h.), Palaeontology and archaeology landscapes (pl.).

10 Sarah Winter and Bernie Oberholzer (May 2013, Version 5). Heritage and Scenic Resources Inventory and Policy Framework for the Western Cape. Provincial Government of the Western Cape: Department of Environmental and Developmental Planning. 11 This is a very awkward document to refer to as the maps contain codes that are only found in a separate table in an Appendix.

NEW WORLD ASSOCIATES © 15 April, 2020 SANSA Space Operations, Matjiesfontein VIA | Page 46

Matjiesfontein

Source: WC Government Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (2013). Figure 3-7: Western Cape Heritage and Scenic Resources: Central Karoo District Municipality.

Laingsburg MATJIESFONTEIN

Source: WC Government Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (2013). Figure 3-8: Western Cape Heritage and Scenic Resources: Central Karoo around Matjiesfontein.

NEW WORLD ASSOCIATES © 15 April, 2020 SANSA Space Operations, Matjiesfontein VIA | Page 47

Map Resource Description Significance/Existing Pro- Recommended Reference tection Grading Natural Landscapes Knl.1 Witberge A ridge reaching about 1500m. Scenic value, visible from Landscape III Overlooks the Matjiesfontein his- the N1 Route. torical area (Kcl.3). A series of ridges ranging from 1380 to 1500m. Knl.2 Suurberg / A series of ridges ranging from Scenic value, and water Landscape III Waaihoeksberg 1380 to 1500m. Includes the catchment area. Elandskloof area. Knl.6 Klein Roggeveld- An intermediate range reaching Lies on an important scenic Landscape III berge / Brand- about 1500m. tourist route between Mat- berg jiesfontein on the N1 and Sutherland on the plateau (Ks.6) Cultural Landscapes Kcl.3 Matjiesfontein Distinctive valley setting sur- Of heritage and scenic val- Landscape II Valley rounding the village of Mat- ue in terms of forming dis- jiesfontein 1884. tinctive remote valley setting of Matjiesfontein. Provincial Heritage Site. Kcl.4 Vleiland Discrete collection and combina- Of potential high local her- Landscape III tion of significant homesteads and itage value, subject to fur- hamlets at base of three highly ther investigation. significant passes Kcl.4, 5 (Schot- zekloof) and 6 (Klaarstroom). Scenic Routes and Passes Ks.6 R354 Route Matjiesfontein to Sutherland High scenic and rural value. Route III through Klein Roggeveld Moun- Important tourist route to tains Sutherland observatory. Ks.7 Rooinek Pass Malmesbury to Darling and Yz- High scenic and cultural Route III erfontein landscape value. Historic Settlements Kv.5 Matjiesfontein Resort 1884. Victorian health and High historical, architec- Settlement II Historic village holiday retreat for the elite. De- tural, aesthetic and social signed as a village street. Popular value. Important relation- destination for influential people ship with setting. Declared of the time, e.g. novelist Olive Provincial Heritage site. Schreiner, who spent time long periods there. Headquarters of the Cape Command during the Anglo Boer War. PHS, declared in 1979 (Fransen 2006). Kh.7 Vleiland Valley Scattered hamlet, 19th century Subject to heritage survey. Village III Historic village (Fransen 2013). Intact 19th century character (Fransen 2004). Gate- way to Seweekspoort Pass. Source: WC Government Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (2013). Figure 3-9: Western Cape Heritage and Scenic Resources: Appendix B—Inventories of Each Mu- nicipal District (September 2014): Table B.6: The Central Karoo (K) Matjiesfontein area excerpts. 12

12 Grade I (National) resources in bold; Grade II (Provincial) resources in bold italics; Grade III (Local) resources in plain text.

NEW WORLD ASSOCIATES © 15 April, 2020 SANSA Space Operations, Matjiesfontein VIA | Page 48

3.5.4 The following listed heritage and scenic resources are found in the area: Laingsburg Municipal SDF (September 2012, amended March 2017) Heritage The follow extract is taken from the Laingsburg Municipal SDF (page 88) (bold added):

3.2.6.2 Heritage Laingsburg Municipality is rich in heritage precincts and holdings, except in the town of Laingsburg where many historic buildings were destroyed in the 1981 flood. The national monuments and provincial conservation sites within the Laingsburg Municipality include the Anglo-Boer Blokhuis adjacent to the Geelbek River, the Anysberg Nature Reserve, Pieter Meintjiesfontein, Matjiesfontein and the Dutch Reform Church in Laingsburg (Laingsburg 2007 Status Quo Report for the Laingsburg SDF) One of Matjiesfontein’s best attributes is the well-preserved Victorian architecture that it displays. The Moordenaarskaroo is so named as it used to be hideaway for murderers and robbers who fled to escape the law. The Thomas Bains scenic route through the Seweweekspoort was known as a smugglers route. Laingsburg was established in 1881, initially called Befell, then Nassau then Laingsburg after the commissioner of the crown land, John Laing. Historic events include: • The town was formalised in 1881 and the municipality in 1904. Matjiesfontein was established in 1884. • In 1862 Stefanus Greeff acquired Zoutevlakte (Salty Flats) that became the source of water, up to this day, for the town. In 1879 he acquired Fischkuil, which is the original farm on which Laingsburg stands today, and the Buffelsrivier and started a settlement. It was surveyed to be established as a village. He initially built a church. His house was a very popular stop for travellers who passed through because it had shade and fresh drinking water. • In 1942 the N1 freeway through Laingsburg was completed. • 1981 the major flood in Laingsburg occurred. There is a museum commemorating this event in Laingsburg. • Matjiesfontein Hotel was a military hospital during the Anglo Boer War. • John Laing, then commissioner, allowed for the rerouting of a servitude, which gave rise to the development of the town, and essentially became named after him. It was initially called Laings Town and became Laingsburg. • The municipality was extended to include Bergsig, Goldnerville and Matjiesfontein. (Cen- tral Karoo EMF, 2011). The Karoo is an ancient, fossil-rich land with the largest variety of succulents found anywhere on earth and is therefore considered a wonder of the scientific world and immensely valuable to national and international conservation scientists. The South African Heritage Resource

NEW WORLD ASSOCIATES © 15 April, 2020 SANSA Space Operations, Matjiesfontein VIA | Page 49

Agency and Heritage Western Cape are currently in the process of compiling a heritage register. Matjiesfontein and the Dutch Reformed Church in Laingsburg already has heritage status.13 National monuments and Provincial Conservation sites within the Laingsburg Municipality include: • Anglo-Boer Blokhuis adjacent to the Geelbek River • Railway station at Matjiesfontein • Anysberg Nature Conservation • Gamkaskloof • Pieter Meintjies Fontein • Floods (source: Laingsburg Municipality SDF, 2007).

Matjiesfontein SDF Proposal The Laingsburg Municipal SDF notes the following on Matjiesfontein (p 149):

3.4.3 Matjiesfontein • Matjiesfontein was founded three years after Laingsburg in 1884 by James Douglas Logan during the early stages of the 1st Anglo-Boer war. • The now famous Lord Milner Hotel was initially a military hospital. • By 1899 it became a convalescent centre for relief from chest complaints. • The hotel and adjacent buildings were to have become a historic village with Victorian architecture. The village was restored in 1970 and then declared a national monument. • There are currently about 623 people living in Matjiesfontein. (IDP, 2017-2022) • Has one main street flanked by the railway station to the south and the Lord Milner hotel to the north. • There is a residential extension with schools and clinics and the odd shops, across the railway line. • Access to Laingsburg is off the N1 Freeway via the R354 Figure 3.4.3.1 shows an aerial view of Matjiesfontein. Figure 3.4.3.2 then shows the analysis map for Matjiesfontein.

An aerial photograph of the Matjiesfontein can be found in Figure 3-10 followed by images of the village in Figure 3-12 and Figure 3-13 illustrating the key features of the town. The Matjiesfontein SDF Proposal can be seen in Figure 3-11 showing its tightly drawn Ur- ban Edge. The town centres today on the railway with the historic portion between the railway and the river.

13 The 2012 authors did not have the benefit of the WCPSDF Scenic and Heritage studies of 2014.

NEW WORLD ASSOCIATES © 15 April, 2020 SANSA Space Operations, Matjiesfontein VIA | Page 50

Page | 150

b e c d f h

Figure 3.4.3.1 Matjiesfontein Aerial LAINGSBURG MUNICIPALITY (10.2023) CNdV Africa Planning and Design CC SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK September 2012 Source: Reproduced courtesy of CNdV Africa Planning and Design cc. Figure 3-10: Laingsburg Municipality SDF (2012): Matjiesfontein Aerial.

Page | 233

Figure 6.2.2 Matjiesfontein SDF

LAINGSBURG MUNICIPALITY (10.2023) CNdV africa Planning and Design CC SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK September 2012 Source: Reproduced courtesy of CNdV Africa Planning and Design cc. Figure 3-11: Laingsburg Municipality SDF (2012): Matjiesfontein SDF Proposal.

NEW WORLD ASSOCIATES © 15 April, 2020 SANSA Space Operations, Matjiesfontein VIA | Page 51

Page | 151

a. Entering Matjiesfontein b. Matjiesfontein entrance road c. Victorian architecture : Matjiesfontein

IMAGES OF MATJIESFONTEIN

d. Historic filling station e. Station at Matjiesfontein

f. Lord Milner hotel g. Avenue linking to north bank of river h. Matjiesfontein transport museum

LAINGSBURG MUNICIPALITY (10.2023) CNdV Africa Planning and Design CC SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK September 2012 Source: Reproduced courtesy of CNdV Africa Planning and Design cc. Figure 3-12: Laingsburg Municipality SDF (2012): Photographs 1.

Page | 152

i. Vehicle underpass between north and south section of village j. Historic workers homes (heritage project) k. Shop in southern section

IMAGES OF MATJIESFONTEIN

l. Tavern in Matjiesfontein m. New roads in Matjiesfontein

n. Matjiesfontein railway station o. Existing houses in Matjiesfontein p. Railway land settlement

LAINGSBURG MUNICIPALITY (10.2023) CNdV Africa Planning and Design CC SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK September 2012 Source: Reproduced courtesy of CNdV Africa Planning and Design cc. Figure 3-13: Laingsburg Municipality SDF (2012): Photographs 2.

NEW WORLD ASSOCIATES © 15 April, 2020 SANSA Space Operations, Matjiesfontein VIA | Page 52

3.5.5 South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA) Matjiesfontein Village Declaration SAHRA records the following Declaration of Matjiesfontein Village:14

Matjiesfontein Village, Laingsburg District Site Reference: 9/2/058/0001 Declaration Type: Provincial Heritage Site Gazette No: 4840 Gazette Date: Friday, September 12, 1975 Notice No: 1717 Notice Date: Friday, September 12, 1975 Gazette File: 4840-1717.pdf, 4840-1717a.pdf Archive Status: National monument Deeds No: T1649/1971, dated 26 January 1971

Source: SAHRIS Gazette Files 4840–1717 and 484–1717a. Figure 3-14: Gazette Notices of the Matjiesfontein Village as a National Monument (1971).

14 https://sahris.sahra.org.za/node/30738 (accessed 26 March 2020).

NEW WORLD ASSOCIATES © 15 April, 2020 SANSA Space Operations, Matjiesfontein VIA | Page 53

Historical and Architectural Interest The 1971 Gazette notes the following (bold added):

Historical and architectural interest The historic Matjiesfontein Village was built between 1895 and 1907 by Mr J. Logan. It was developed as a spa and as such it became the meeting place of historical figures like Cecil Rhodes and Olive Schreiner. During the Anglo-Boer War it served as the headquarters of the supreme command of the British forces in the Cape. The buildings of this unspoilt Victorian village form a unique whole and mirror the architecture of their era.

Thus the site holds socio-historical and architectural heritage significance. The latter significance is in its grouping and typical representation of the Victorian period. Under the NHRA it holds Provincial Heritage Status. The Matjiesfontein Valley Cultural Landscape (Kcl.3) was also recommended as having Provincial Landscape status (see Figure 3-9).

3.6 Strategic Issues 3.6.1 Strategic Assessment One of the difficulties of assessing visual impact at present is the lack of strategic Provin- cial or Municipal EIA, VIA or HIA studies which provide guidance on how the individual project fits into the overall context of development in any region. While an individual project seems to have an acceptable level of mitigatable impact, when viewed collectively, their sum total can well exceed the sum of the parts. That is, the impact of a single scheme such as this development may seem to be minimal when considered in isolation; however, when seen collectively with other developments also proposed in the area or region but as unknown to the assessor, or as not considered over the long term, the overall impact can become unsustainable. These are cumulative impacts. There are no strategic visual studies done of the area that we are aware of with the heritage surveys focussing on the built environment as opposed to landscape character. Therefore, it is not possible to consider strategic issues in detail at the project level as the information is generally not available and it is outside the scope of project assessments to do so.

NWA

NEW WORLD ASSOCIATES © 15 April, 2020 SANSA Space Operations, Matjiesfontein VIA | Page 54

4 Visual Environment Description

4.1 Summary Matjiesfontein lies on the N1, isolated from surrounding towns by long distances, set in a narrow valley at the foot of the Witberge. The area is largely natural but for the railway and highway running through it. A variety of infrastructure runs through the zone along the road–railway including the electrical cables of the railway itself, a major radio mast on the peak of the Witberge, various cell phone towers towards Touws River, farm fences, and a line of pylons nearer the Witberge. The village of Matjiesfontein, famous since its entrepreneurial creation in its late Victorian heyday, is a stand-alone rail-side hotel and ancillary facilities. Relegated to a side road off the N1, it is located next to the railway and still serves its tourist trade. The lower Matjies valley is covered with dull karoo bossies well under 1m in height and subtle landforms including hidden depressions and hillocks. The Witberge rise steeply to the east where a track leads up before disappearing.

4.2 Introduction Combined with Section 2, this chapter presents the relevant visual data required to develop a Visual Impact Assessment. This is a strongly visual chapter well illustrated with site and regional photographs. Visual impact is all about what can we see and how this affects us. This chapter shows us what we can see.

4.2.1 Background The description of the environment is undertaken with a view to presenting basic data for the VIA. A full presentation is made of the visual information collected and analysed as required for a Level 3 VIA.

4.2.2 Key Issues 1. Farm portion 8/148 Matjiesfontein is largely undeveloped, comprising grazing or unused farmland. 2. The general area is zoned Agricultural except for the small village of Matjiesfontein.

NEW WORLD ASSOCIATES © 15 April, 2020 SANSA Space Operations, Matjiesfontein VIA | Page 55

3. The setting to the south of the N1 Highway at Matjiesfontein is rural open space with a railway near the N1 and power lines about midway through the farm. 4. The Provincial SDF recognises the N1 as a National Route with a Scenic Route of Major Heritage value heading north. 5. The area around Matjiesfontein is a Grade II Cultural Landscape (Matjiesfontein Valley) sitting at the feet of a Grade III Natural Landscape in the Witberge. 6. There are clear views of the Witberge from the N1 and from Matjiesfontein. 7. The landscape is on the edge of the Great Karoo and includes important Fynbos– Renosterveld–Karoo ecotones with special vegetation transitions. 8. Neither site is easily visible from main routes and historic Matjiesfontein. Local landforms obscure clear views of the nearest site. The upper site is too far away to be seen easily. 9. There are a variety of manmade vertical elements in the landscape including a major mast on the Witberge visible for many miles, as well as railway power lines, telephone lines, power lines, etc.

4.3 Physical Environment 4.3.1 Location

Site A

Site B

Source: Cape Farm Mapper | New World Associates. Figure 4-1: Site and Photographic Locations (± 1:100,000). 1:50,000 map showing the site locations and indicative viewpoints (NTS).

NEW WORLD ASSOCIATES © 15 April, 2020 SANSA Space Operations, Matjiesfontein VIA | Page 56

1. The 2 sites lie south of Matjiesfontein on the foothills of the Witberge overlooking the village and N1 Highway (Figure 4-1). Both are situated at old Landing Strips: 2. Site A is lower down nearer the town. It lies in a shallow depression largely hidden from the village, particularly its heritage core. 3. Site B is higher up the mountains to the south and also occurs in an elevated valley not visible from below.

4.3.2 Landform The area lies between the Matjiesfontein Valley along the Bobbejaan River and the upper slopes of the mountains forming part of the Witberge range (Figure 4-2).

Site A

Site B

Source: Cape Farm Mapper | New World Associates. Figure 4-2: Slope Classes Map of Farm 148 Matjiesfontein and Matjiesfontein (± 1:100,000).

• Site A lies at 930m AMSL on a mid-slope of 3–10% bordering the watercourse that is relatively flat at <3%. • Site B lies in the foothills above at about 1495m on hilly ridgeline slopes 10–30% above the sharp descent of steep slopes >30% into the valley below/south. • Bantamskop lies at an elevation of 1498.3m. Site A is 565m lower at about 930m. Matjiesfontein lies slightly below this at 900m AMSL. • Overall there is a 595m-height difference between Matjiesfontein 900m elevation and Site B’s 1495m-elevation.

NEW WORLD ASSOCIATES © 15 April, 2020 SANSA Space Operations, Matjiesfontein VIA | Page 57

4.4 Natural Environment 4.4.1 Vegetation The vegetation in this area is very interesting in that it lies on the ecotone or border of two biomes, namely, the Fynbos and the Karoo. The fynbos types typically occur in the mountains with the Karoo vegetation on the lowlands. The mountains themselves are a combination of Shale and Quartzite formations.

Site A

Site B

Source: VegMap 2018 on Cape Farm Mapper (CFM/SANBI, 2006–). Figure 4-3: Vegetation Map of Farm 148 Matjiesfontein and Matjiesfontein (± 1:100,000). The lower half of Farm 148 (see Figure 4-3) is covered with SKv 6 Koedoesberge– Moordenaars Karoo (Site A). The upper half is covered with two fynbos types, FRs 6 Mat- jiesfontein Shale Renosterveld (Site B) interspersed with FFq 3 Matjiesfontein Quartzite Fynbos (Site B) patches extending onto the steep slopes to the south. Site B lies on the ecotone edges between the two fynbos vegetation types, one renosterveld on the clay, the other fynbos on the quartzite. The conservation status of the natural vegetation is provided in order to inform the landscape value with respect to the significance of the vegetation. Sometimes a site is covered with exotic aliens and these too have a significant impact on the visual and aesthetic value of a site. Furthermore it informs the landscaping/planting mitigation recommendations.

NEW WORLD ASSOCIATES © 15 April, 2020 SANSA Space Operations, Matjiesfontein VIA | Page 58

Conservation15 All three vegetation types are ranked as Least Threatened and are all poorly studied. To the layman’s eye, these three vegetation types are all very similar, comprising very low (<500mm) shrubby vegetation (karoo bossies). • SKv 6 Koedoesberge–Moordenaars Karoo is poorly studied, ranked as Least Threatened.16 • FRs 6 Matjiesfontein Shale Renosterveld is poorly studied, ranked as Least Threat- ened.17 • FFq 3 Matjiesfontein Quartzite Fynbos is poorly studied, ranked as Least Threat- ened.18

4.5 Social Environment

Site A

Site B

Source: Cape Farm Mapper (NGI 2017) | New World Associates. Figure 4-4: Land Cover of Farm 148 Matjiesfontein and Matjiesfontein (± 1:100,000).

15 South African National Biodiversity Institute (2006–). The Vegetation Map of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland, Mucina, L., Rutherford, M.C. and Powrie, L.W. (Editors), online http://bgis.sanbi.org/SpatialDataset/Detail/18, Version 2012. 16 Conservation: Least threatened. Target 19%. Only a very small portion enjoying statutory conservation in the Gamkapoort Na- ture Reserve. Transformed only to a very small extent. No serious alien plant invasions recorded. Erosion is moderate (88%) and only to lesser extent high or very low. 17 Conservation: Least threatened. Target 27%. About 7% in total conserved in the Anysberg Nature Reserve (CapeNature) and private conservation areas such as Rooikrans. Some 9% totally transformed (mainly cultivation). Erosion moderate to very low as well as very high in places. 18 Conservation: Least threatened. Target 27%. Statutorily conserved in the Anysberg Nature Reserve (5%) and a further 3% in Vaalkloof Private Nature Reserve. Only about 15% has been transformed (cultivation). Erosion low and moderate.

NEW WORLD ASSOCIATES © 15 April, 2020 SANSA Space Operations, Matjiesfontein VIA | Page 59

4.5.1 Land Use The general area is Rural, lying on the edge of the extensive Karoo interior. Land cover is mostly Shrubland with some Natural Wooded Land (see Figure 4-4). The village of Matjiesfon- tein is a relatively Built-up area, with some areas of Cultivation westwards along the N1. The two sites lie on the farm Matjiesfontein 148 Portion 8 to the south of the village and N1. Some other minor built-up areas are noted near Bantams and other small locations off the map.

4.5.2 Rural Context The two sites occur well outside the Urban Edge of Matjiesfontein in a natural area but adjacent to two old Landing Strips. The region is rural and extensive as described previously. Here, in the southwestern corner of the Great Karoo, a region locally known as the Coup/Goup, the great Karoo plain framed on its southern and western edges by mountain ranges dominates the landscape. Livestock farming with predominantly sheep is the norm with very large farms and long distances between both homesteads and settlements. The N1 is the primary road to the interior and it is along this important route that Matjiesfontein occurs, as it was historically, on the old hunting trail aka the Great North Road, and later railway route to the Diamond Fields of Kimberley and later the Gold Fields of the Witwatersrand.

4.6 Cultural Environment 4.6.1 Heritage The Karoo Matjiesfontein occurs in the southwest corner of the Karoo. The New Dictionary of South African Place Names (p 169) defines the Karoo as follows:19

Karoo (3019-3225). Semi-desert region … bounded by the Langeberg in the south and extending eastwards to Cradock, Pearston, Somerset East and Venterstad, and northwards into the Free State. Also encountered as Carro, Caro, Carrow, Karo, Karroo, Kuru and Xhaeruh, the name is of Khoikhoi origin and means ‘hard’, ‘dry’. Subdivisions include the Great Karoo north of the Swartberg, the Little Karoo between the Langeberg and the Swartberg, the Bo-Karoo north-west of Carnarvon, and so forth.

Our study area occurs in a subdivision of the wider Karoo sometimes known as the Koup.

The Koup (Goup) Matjiesfontein occurs in a region comprising the Koup (or Goup) and Die Vlakte south of Beaufort West. Both rather vague terms “include the extreme southern Karoo districts of Touws River, … Laingsburg, Prince Albert, Merweville, Beaufort West and Willowmore” (Erasmus,

19 Peter E Raper and the Human Sciences Resource Council (2004). New Dictionary of South African Place Names. Jonathan Ball Publishers, Johannesburg & Cape Town.

NEW WORLD ASSOCIATES © 15 April, 2020 SANSA Space Operations, Matjiesfontein VIA | Page 60

p162).20 The word Koup is thought to derive from the Khoe goub or houb meaning belly-fat. It is thought to be “most desolate and barren face of the Great Karoo” (ibid). The Koup has a very low average rainfall of under 200mm, while the soil is mostly thin bluish shale supporting sparse and stunted vegetation and “the ubiquitous karoo bush so loved by Merino sheep” (ibid). As the land’s carrying capacity is so low the sheep farms are enormous ranging from 20,000 to 50,000 hectares, making the distances between homesteads great. Raper (p 119) defines the Goup21 as “incorporating the headwaters of the Leeu and Gamka Rivers south of the Nuweveld Mountains and extending eastwards past the present Beaufort West. Of Khoikhoi origin, the name has variously been said to mean ‘fat’, referring to succulent vegetation or well-fed stock; ‘skeleton veld, ‘smelly hole’, etc. It probably means ‘flat, level, open veld’. The location of Matjiesfontein is given by Erasmus (p 163-164), describing that:

Beyond Touws River the N1 enters the vast and sere plains of the Great Karoo, a landscape punctuated by characteristic flat-topped hills (mesas). About 50km further on the road reaches Matjiesfontein, South Africa’s finest collection of Victorian buildings masquerading as a town.

Matjiesfontein Raper (p 231) makes these brief notes about Matjiesfontein:

It was established in 1883 by James Logan and purchased in 1968 to be preserved for its Victorian charm. The name is derived from a type of sedge, Cyperus textilis, used by Khoikhoi to make mats (matjies) employed in the construction of their huts. Matjiesfontein has a healthy climate for people with lung complaints.

Erasmus (ibid), however, writes extensively on Matjiesfontein, about the remarkable man who created it, the Scotsman James Douglas Logan, and the places he developed, perhaps especially because of their quality and enterprising nature in the vast and forbidding Great Karoo. They represented notable achievements in the Victorian development of the Cape interior and provide a colourful insight into the development of this Grade II heritage resource:

Matjiesfontein was developed as a health resort in 1883 by James Douglas Logan, an im- pecunious Scotsman from Berwickshire who, in his early twenties, was shipwrecked in Simon’s Bay on his way to Australia. Starting off as a porter with the infant Cape railways, he soon became station master of Cape Town and the superintendent of the Touws River–Prince Albert

20 BPJ Erasmus (2nd Ed, 2008). On Route in South Africa. Jonathan Ball Publishers, Johannesburg & Cape Town. 21 Another Goup is found in the Northern Cape between Prieska and Griquatown. The word can also be spelt Gouph, Coup, Koub, etc (ibid). Some authorities provide a Tswana origin referring to the grey jackal is another possibility.

NEW WORLD ASSOCIATES © 15 April, 2020 SANSA Space Operations, Matjiesfontein VIA | Page 61

Road section of the line that was being built to the diamond fields of Kimberley. Later he resigned to buy a hotel in Touws River and a wholesale liquor business in Cape Town. Matjiesfontein was his next venture. First he bought 3,000 ha of land for a farm and a village, a refuge where those with lung complaints could recuperate in the incomparable Karoo air which, he believed, had cured his own weak chest. His farm, 25km west of Matjiesfontein, was called Tweedside, and here his private railway siding has survived. He planted thousands of de- ciduous fruit trees as well as bluegums and pines, all of which were irrigated from South Africa’s first artesian well. More farms were bought until, eventually, Logan owned some 51,000 ha. The health resort was designed and built by Logan himself. He imported lampposts from London to light up the village’s main street. Indeed, Matjiesfontein was the first village in South Africa to have electricity and water-borne sewerage. Logan found so much water on his farms that he could even supply the railways. ‘Matjiesfontein Waterworks’ were opened in grand style in 1889, with the guest list reading like a ‘Who’s Who’ of Cape Town. … As construction of the railway progressed, the ‘Laird of Matjiesfontein’ built ‘refreshment rooms’ at every major stop along the way – from Wellington to, eventually, Bulawayo in Rhode- sian (Zimbabwe). There were no dining cars on trains in those days and passengers had to take their meals at these wayside venues. Logan built a mineral-water factory at Matjiesfontein to supply all thirsty railway travellers. The old plant is still there. During the Anglo-Boer War Matjiesfontein became the headquarters of Cape Command. About 12,000 British soldiers were billeted there, including famous regiments such as the Cold- stream Guards and the 17th Lancers. It was during this period that Logan built the double- storeyed Lord Milner Hotel, which also served as military hospital and its turret as a lookout post. Independent to a fault, Logan even recruited his own mounted corps for the war, equipping it at his own expense. … • In 1968 David Rawdon, a Stellenbosch hotelier, bought the village, including the hotel, town hall, police station, magistrate’s office, the shop and about 15 cottage, and restored them to their pristine Victorian splendour. • The village, the greater part of which has now been declared a national monument in its entirety, was named for the sedge matjiesgoed from which mats are made.22

22 Matjiesfontein has subsequently been confirmed as a Provincial Heritage Site many times (CTS Heritage).

NEW WORLD ASSOCIATES © 15 April, 2020 SANSA Space Operations, Matjiesfontein VIA | Page 62

4.6.2 Aesthetics The area’s aesthetic is strongly rural located 60km from the nearest major town, Touws River to the west, and the small town of Laingsburg to the east. Matjiesfontein occurs on the edge of the karoo in an area of flat plains interspersed and edged with craggy mountains, here, the Witberge. The scrubby vegetation has a particular clean feel, dry and parched in the summer, greener in winter and flowering brightly in spring. There are very wide-open spaces between the scattered hamlets of the Karoo and even greater distances between towns of any substance such as Touws River or Beaufort West, hundreds of kilometres apart. Penetrating this forbidding wild landscape are the transportation and communication corridors that first began as ancient hunting routes, later becoming dirt roads tracked by steel railway lines, then developed into tar roads and, ultimately, highways. Along this were the first tele- graph poles, later telephone poles, power lines, railway power lines, radio masts, and cell phone towers. The vineyards of the SW Cape are left behind at the Hex River Valley, as are the densely developed farms and communities of these powerful mountain landscapes. Rising onto the high karoo plateau the dry farms are enormous carrying livestock very thinly and some game. Farm fences and dirt roads criss-cross the landscape with occasional signage being the only indication that there is something beyond. Along the railway are small sidings, for the most part of little consequence, if there are any buildings at all. However, as you approach Matjiesfontein from Cape Town, after the gap past Touws River of any sizeable settlement, you pass the siding of Konstabel and a sizeable farm, the first arable land in the karoo landscape. This is followed by the buildings at Tweedside siding and a layout of old gum trees and three fancy Victorian farm gates with pillars over the road/N1, the home of the owner-developer of Matjiesfontein, James Logan. Finally, after a stretch of natural karoo-scape one approaches the hills around Matjiesfontein on the flanks of the Witberge. Set in the small narrow valley is the Matjiesfontein rail siding and heyday town of the late 19th century. In reality, a one-street town with a series of well-designed Victorian houses and facilities and the impressive, twin-towered Lord Milner Hotel with its period-faux fortifications, twin flagpoles and tree-lined garden strips. Over the way is the substantial siding and ancillary buildings, today arranged with vintage Cape Carts, wagons, a double-decker London Bus and so forth. A tourist train pulls into the station and tourists step out with mobile phones on selfie-wands recording all that this hamlet of Victoriana in the Karoo has to offer. To the back or east side (mountain-side) of the town across the rail tracks is the housing of the local inhabitants, a sports field with mast lighting and streets sparkling with ground glass. The Matjies valley stretches to the west and a small range of hills less than a kilometre distant marks the location of the old runway; set in a dip it can only be located by the adjacent koppies. The Witberge dominate the

NEW WORLD ASSOCIATES © 15 April, 2020 SANSA Space Operations, Matjiesfontein VIA | Page 63

eastern horizon and another range of mountains and open plain to the west, with the peak of Ghaapkop ahead just beyond Matjiesfontein. Besides the N1 and railway and the road heading north to Sutherland, there is nothing more than miles of karoo and mountains stretching off into the distance.

4.6.3 Visual The site has been the subject of a photographic survey that looks at the site itself, the local area and views from local roads. The bulk of the visual description is to be found in the photographs that are self explanatory and accompanied by descriptions. According to the PGWC Guidelines “the term ‘visual and aesthetic’ is intended to cover the broad range of visual, scenic, cultural and spiritual aspects of the landscape; however, for the purpose of brevity, the term ‘visual’ is used in the text” (p 1). Thus it is within the technical gambit of VIA to comment on all the varied aspects that make up the visual environment which is the aim of this study. The photographic survey is presented as if one were to visit the site for the first time, covering views from the approach road, scenic routes, local roads, views of and from the site then views from the neighbourhood. The following photographs were taken on 21/23 February during the peak of summer. The two sites under investigation are obscure, marked by nothing that the casual eye would per- ceive. The first and lower site is near a hillock west of the town and partially hidden in a hollow. The second and upper site is several kilometres distant high in the mountains and out of sight, at least without anything to mark it.

143m Sentech Tower

Site A Lord Milner

Source: All photographs in this report by Bruce Eitzen © 2020 unless otherwise stated. Photograph 4-1: View of the Matjiesfontein from the N1 just east of the village. The above photograph shows the location of Matjiesfontein in the valley below the Wit- berge. The area is generally natural karoo scrubland with various towers visible on the top of the mountains, notably the 143m-Sentech Tower on Bantamskop. Site A can be seen to the left/south of the village near a small hillock. Site B is off the photo in the mountains to the left.

NEW WORLD ASSOCIATES © 15 April, 2020 SANSA Space Operations, Matjiesfontein VIA | Page 64

Site B

Site A Matjiesfontein

Photograph 4-2: View of Matjiesfontein, Site B and Site A from the entrance road. The best single views of the sites are taken from the entrance road when one exits the N1 towards the town. Both sites are relatively far away. Site A is 2km away, and Site B is 4km away. Both occur in depressions in the landscape, Site A occurs near a river while Site B is perched in a valley behind a ridge. A small hillock partially screens parts of Site A.

Site A Small Tower

Photograph 4-3: View of Site A from the sports field. Photograph 4-3 shows how Site A lies in a subtle dip east/left of the small hillock with its own small tower (4-6m). There are 4 major radio antenna here ranging from 7m to 34m in height. Some may be partially hidden behind the hillock depending where you are standing. The hillock is about 12-15m in height.

Photograph 4-4: View in the direction of Site A from Matjiesfontein’s historic core. Photograph 4-4 shows how the railway siding, station, structures and vegetation obscure views from the main road of Matjiesfontein towards the mountains and the old airfield where Site A is located.

4.6.4 Views from the N1 Views of Various Towers on the N1 Eastbound from Cape Town The N1 follows an often-narrow communications corridor from Cape Town. As one rises up from the coast through narrow passes and long valleys, one sees numerous communication and power towers/structures en route. They are part of the twentieth century landscape that saw the arrival of radio towers, telephone lines, mobile networks, electric railways, power lines and pylons, networked over the landscape. While the power-bearing pylon was the largest structure often seen in the rural landscape, wind farms have now eclipsed them with their mobile 190m-tall turbines and, to a lesser extent, solar farms. A selection of some of these numerous features is shown to provide some context to rural infrastructure that has a visual presence and impact on the landscape.

Photograph 4-5: N1 Hex River showing telephone poles (left) and cell phone towers (right).

Photograph 4-6: N1 De Doorns showing solid cell phone tower below the skyline.

Photograph 4-7: N1 eastbound showing cell phone towers on the horizon and protruding above the skyline.

The issue of whether a tower or any structure is situated on a ridgeline or horizon and protrudes above the skyline or is hidden by a mountain/vegetation backdrop is critical to reducing the visual impact of such constructions.

Photograph 4-8: N1 Worcester showing telephone poles (left); street lamps, telephone poles and a cell phone tower (right).

Photograph 4-9: N1 eastbound showing cell phone towers, etc (left) and electric rail lines (right).

Photograph 4-10: N1 Konstabel showing major communications tower on the horizon and protruding above the skyline.

Photograph 4-11: N1 Tweedside showing an old wind pump (right) and a new cell phone tower (centre) hidden among the trees.

The Konstabel Communication Tower is highly intrusive on the horizon/ridgeline exacer- bated by its chunky construction. Likewise the more slender, slim-line cell phone towers are less unsightly than the lattice-type, cell phone towers.

Views from the N1 Eastbound from Cape Town The following view sequence is taken travelling eastbound from Cape Town towards Mat- jiesfontein, starting after Konstabel and Tweedside (J Logan’s home), and later when the site first comes into view in the Cultural Landscape of Matjiesfontein Valley (Kcl.3).

Photograph 4-12: N1 eastbound overlooking the valley and railway line and Witberge with Sentech Tower on top at Bantamskop.

Photograph 4-13: N1 eastbound approaching the ridge that contains the Matjiesfontein Valley.

Photograph 4-14: N1 eastbound past Pieter Meintjies Rand (left) towards Ghaapkop (ahead).

Photograph 4-15: N1 eastbound past Pieter Meintjies Rand (left) and Witberge (right).

Photograph 4-16: N1 eastbound 2km from Matjiesfontein coming into view (right).

Photograph 4-17: N1 eastbound Matjiesfontein in view to right in valley.

Photograph 4-18: N1 eastbound showing Matjiesfontein below the Witberge. Matjiesfontein lies in a relatively narrow valley just before the landscape opens out into a broader karoo domain. The Witberge dominate the view on the east/left while the Pieter Meint- jies Mountains/Rand lies close to the N1 on the left/west. The valley is drained by the Bobbejaan River and its smaller tributaries—including the Matjies River at Matjiesfontein and the Boel- houer (or Bulhouer) River to the east before Ghaapkop—the dominating mountain that termi- nates the view and the valley. Proceeding past Matjiesfontein one approaches Ghaapkop more closely and notices that the amount of infrastructure clutter reduces leaving the landscape largely clean of technology, at least from the N1.

Photograph 4-19: N1 eastbound approaching the turnoff to Matjiesfontein to the right, Ghaap- kop ahead.

Photograph 4-20: N1 eastbound past the Matjiesfontein turnoff towards Ghaapkop.

Photograph 4-21: N1 eastbound past the Matjiesfontein turnoff towards Ghaapkop. Once one has past the minor intrusion of the trees and small buildings of Matjiesfontein, the road ahead is clear of other settlements for now, focussing instead on the lone hills and mountains ranges that punctuate and line the Karoo’s vast open spaces.

Photograph 4-22: N1 eastbound approaching the Boelhouer River and Ghaapkop. Views from the N1 Westbound to Cape Town The following view sequence is taken travelling westbound towards Cape Town and Mat- jiesfontein, starting near the Boelhouer River. The Witberge trail off into the distance on the left/east with the Pieter Meintjies Rand on the right. The dry karoo scrub presents a tufted, dark khaki embroidery at its feet that bursts into magenta and crimson jewelled mesems/vygies in October. Various towers including the 143-m Sentech Tower can be seen on the ridge above.

Photograph 4-23: N1 westbound approaching Matjiesfontein, Witberge at left. 143m Sentech Tower Other towers

Site A Lord Milner

Photograph 4-24: N1 westbound view of Matjiesfontein showing location.

Other towers 143m Sentech Tower

Site A Lord Milner

Photograph 4-25: N1 closer view of Sentech Tower and other infrastructure on the Witberge. Views such as the ones above are fleeting views from the N1 (although taken while sta- tionary to survey the scene).

Other towers Other towers 143m Sentech Tower

Lord Milner Site A

Photograph 4-26: N1 close-up view of Sentech Tower and other infrastructure on the Witberge One is not so aware of these towers from Matjiesfontein itself as views towards the Wit- berge are obstructed by the tall and bushy trees planted along the street, although views from the township/suburb to the east of the railway are more open. Continuing westward from there one approaches the turnoff to Matjiesfontein, which spreads out to the left in the valley.

Photograph 4-27: N1 westbound approaching Matjiesfontein seen on the left (right).

Photograph 4-28: N1 westbound approaching Matjiesfontein turnoff.

Photograph 4-29: N1 westbound approaching Matjiesfontein turnoff.

Photograph 4-30: N1 westbound at the Matjiesfontein turnoff with its various signage.

Photograph 4-31: N1 westbound past Matjiesfontein.

Site B

Site A

Photograph 4-32: N1 from above/just west of Matjiesfontein one can see the location of both sites, one low and one high, although both sites are hidden. Views from Local Roads The best views of Site A are taken on the entrance road into Matjiesfontein. Otherwise, it is not easy to see either site due to the local landform, which is subtly undulating around Site A lying between a small hillock and the river-course (some 1-2km from the town), while Site B is distant at over 4km away from the town.

Photograph 4-33: Local road to the rail crossing and old Landing Strip. Travelling to Site A at the old Landing Strip one crosses over the railway line and the road that travels to the township to the southeast of the town. From there one gets a broad view of the Witberge but only once one moves out of the more planted part of the town east of the rail crossing.

Site A

Photograph 4-34: Views after crossing the railway to the village (left) and mountains/Site A (right).

Site A

Photograph 4-35: Site A is located in the dip and falling land partially behind and right/south of this hillock.

Site A

Photograph 4-36: View towards Matjiesfontein from the Landing Strip turnoff (left) and gate to the Landing Strip (right).

Site A

Photograph 4-37: View of Site A at the lower Landing Strip behind the front hillock.

At present the landscape in the area of both sites is largely natural. There are old airstrips there but there is little left of them. As best as we could tell, Site B was completely hidden from view below, at least, in the area of Matjiesfontein.

Site B

Photograph 4-38: View in the direction of Site B up in the kloof.

Photograph 4-39: Close-up view in the direction of Site B’s kloof and the pylon below it. Views from the Neighbourhood There is a small township south of the railway line where the local residents live. It comprises a fairly neat arrangement of subsidy housing all served by a clutter of electrical poles. There is also some mast lighting at the centre of the suburb. There are gardens or trees in most properties but the scale of the low houses against the numerous dark electricity poles and tall grey mast lighting is striking. It creates an impression of very visible vertical clutter. This is the backdrop against which any antenna would be seen reducing their impact greatly.

Photograph 4-40: The urban edge of Matjiesfontein to the south.

Site A

Photograph 4-41: View of the local township and mast lighting (left) and their view of Site A (right). There is also a large area of stripped out veld with quite a lot of dumping on the urban edge making this side of town untidy, especially against the clean veld and countryside. General- ly where one is against the western edge of the suburb one has clear, unobstructed views across the landscape to Site A and the Sentech Tower beyond.

Site A

Photograph 4-42: View from the township edge to Site A and the Sentech Tower above.

Site A Site A

Photograph 4-43: Panorama across the edge of town with the sports field at left and Site A.

Photograph 4-44: Views through the southern edge of the suburb with many poles visible.

Photograph 4-45: Views of some houses and their electrical poles.

Site A Site A

Photograph 4-46: Views across a dumpsite near the sports field to Site A.

Site B

Photograph 4-47: View from the sports field over a dump towards Site B’s kloof.

Photograph 4-48: Views in the centre of the suburb with its many poles and mast lights.

Photograph 4-49: Views in the centre of the suburb with its many poles and mast lights

Photograph 4-50: View of the local pub Riek-Kelly’s Tavern.

Views from the Railways Road A few photographs from the railway road that connects through to Bantam siding shows that the railway line is actually raised over much of this stretch blocking views beyond it.

Site A

Photograph 4-51: Views from the railway road are mostly blocked nearest Site A. 4.6.5 Views from Historic Matjiesfontein Views from the Main Road and Historic Buildings There are no obvious views of either site from the main street of Matjiesfontein. This is because views towards the mountain are blocked by vegetation, tall trees, and the railway buildings and platform that is quite elevated. It may be possible to see from an upper window towards the Witberge and Site B but it would be a distant and likely incomplete view. Site B is 4km away and Site A is 1-2km away depending where on the site the radio antennas are.

However, the larger 18m and 34m-antenna on Site A will be visible from Matjiesfontein generally where not obscured or obstructed, and quite clearly from the entrance into Mat- jiesfontein as well as from the N1.

Views from the Railway and Platform Tourists alighting on the platform will be able to see something of the view through the houses on the other side of the tracks. They would also be able to see from the railway carriages themselves as they are travelling along.

Photograph 4-52: Views from the platform with the Witberge more exposed than the ground.

Photograph 4-53: Substantial buildings line the railway (left) with a tourist train arriving (right).

Photograph 4-54: A final view of Matjiesfontein and the Witberge to Site B’s kloof from the N1. 4.6.6 Views from Other Roads The hilly and mountainous topography of the area makes general views of Matjiesfontein few. However, one can see the 143m-Sentech Tower from other tourist sites in the wider area. The road from Snyderskloof, for example, happens to be angled directly onto the tower which can still be seen some 25km away. Obviously, the closer you get to a ridgeline structure, the clearer you see it. The antenna on the Witberge are all hidden in the perched valley while the large radio antenna will be visible in the plain below but not from here.

Sentech Tower

Photograph 4-55: Views of the 143m-Sentech Tower from 25km away at Snyderskloof.

Sentech Tower

Photograph 4-56: View of the 143m-Sentech Tower from about 20km away at Snyderskloof. 4.6.7 Views of the Sites The following images were taken by CTS Heritage on 22 August 2019.

Views of Site A Site A lies to the south and east of the small hillock along the line of the old landing strip, no longer in evidence, just the scrubby droughted karroid vegetation. Matjiesfontein is not visible from here being hidden behind the hillock and other subtle landforms. Matjiesfontein is behind the hillock

Photograph 4-57: Panorama across Site A from the east.

Photograph 4-58: Panorama across Site A to the west.

Photograph 4-59: View of Site A towards the east and Matjiesfontein (not visible).

Photograph 4-60: View of Site A towards the west. Views of Site B The site is elevated in a small valley not easily seen from below, if at all. The upper slopes of the valley as they rise are visible, however, although such detail is indiscernible from below. The valley is covered with Matjiesfontein Shale Renosterveld looking very dry for August so still badly droughted.

Photograph 4-61: View of Site B towards the north with a prominent rocky point at right.

Photograph 4-62: View of Site B towards the south as it rises into the Witberge.

Matjiesfontein

Photograph 4-63: View from Site B’s upper slopes showing Matjiesfontein in the distance at this point but also showing the intervening ridge blocking most lower views.

Photograph 4-64: View of Site B from the southwest displaying the fantastic folds and deep dip. This elevated valley is hidden away from view below and is quite deep making it a rather unusual feature high up in the Witberge. The ridges are clad with Matjiesfontein Quartzite Fyn- bos on the upper slopes.

Photograph 4-65: View of Site B’s rocky quartzite fynbos and prominent crest. This lower valley is well suited to the siting of equipment that could be hidden from the valley below. This concludes the visual description of the study area. A visual assessment of the site follows in the next chapter.

NWA

5 Visual Impact Assessment

5.1 Summary VISUAL IMPACT: The proposed development will have a moderate (Site B) to high (Site A) impact on the landscape causing noticeable (Site A) to some (Site B) change to the visual environment. VISIBILITY: The development has moderate (Site B) to high (Site A) visual exposure; low (Site A) to high (Site B) visual absorption capacity; low compatibility (Both Sites); and marginal (Site B) to high (Site A) visibility. NATURE OF IMPACT: The development’s visual impact has local (Site A) to district (Site B) extent, long term duration, low (Site A) to medium (Site B) intensity, highly probability, and low (Site A) to high (Site B) significance on the landscape. Recommendations are made to mitigate the impacts where possible.

5.2 Introduction This chapter uses the information collected in the previous chapters in an analysis that identifies and then describes the preliminary visual and aesthetic impacts of the project on the environment presented in tabular form due to the extent of the project. DEFINITION: “Visual impact is defined as a change in the appearance of the landscape as a result of development which can be positive (improvement) or negative (de- traction)” (IEA and the Landscape Institute, 1995).

5.2.1 Key Issues 1. Matjiesfontein is an historic village with Grade II heritage status as a Provincial Heritage Site. 2. The landscape is rural karoo at the foot of the Witberge with minimal development besides the village, N1 and railway. 3. The two sites have relatively small footprints and neither are easily visible from historic Matjiesfontein. 4. The railway siding and associated buildings generally obscure views towards Site A and the old landing strip.

5. The best view is from the new sports field on the southeast of the village away from the historic centre. 6. The general area is in view from the N1 Highway although Site A is hidden by local landform. 7. There is a prominent tall tower on the Witberge to the west but even that is not a dominant feature in the landscape despite being visible for miles.

5.2.2 Assumptions and Limitations We note the following concerns about the project proposal/descriptions: • The initial project descriptions, particularly of Site B, changed significantly during the course of the report writing and are relatively minimal in nature for a project of this significance and scale. • There are no substantial layout prepared by Engineers, only sketches on Google Earth screen shots and brief descriptions of the various components. This leads to doubts about the possible finality of the plans. • The sites were neither referred to clearly or consistently but the designations Site A and Site B came latterly from the Heritage Planners CTS Heritage, while the EAP CES used the reverse labelling Site 2 and Site 1 respectively. • The information seems to be preliminary only in the absence of any substantial design plans and drawings having evolved from the initial paragraph description of 2019.

5.3 Methodology A table is being used to scope the issues relating to visual and aesthetic impact of the wind turbines on the landscape.

5.3.1 The Visual Assessment The visual environment can be structured into the following components:

1. Natural Environment: comprising the Geomorphology (geology, soil, land form), Climate (atmosphere and water), and Nature (vegetation and wildlife). 2. Cultural Environment: comprising Land Use (urban, rural, agricultural, recreational, etc), the Structures (architecture, engineering, lighting, services), and History (ancient, colonial, modern, contemporary). 3. Visual Environment: comprising Views (aesthetics), Routes (scenic, transport), and Land- scapes (town, country, cultural, natural, mountainous, coastal, etc).

5.3.2 Triggers for Visual Assessment These have been extracted from the PGWC (November 2005) list of triggers (p 9) with potential aspects relevant to this project noted in bold:

The nature of the receiving environment: 1. Areas with protection status, such as national parks or nature reserves; 2. Areas with proclaimed heritage sites or scenic routes; 3. Areas with intact wilderness qualities, or pristine ecosystems; 4. Areas with intact or outstanding rural or townscape qualities; 5. Areas with a recognized special character or sense of place; 6. Areas lying outside a defined urban edge line; 7. Areas with sites of cultural or religious significance; 8. Areas of important tourism or recreation value; 9. Areas with important vistas or scenic corridors; 10. Areas with visually prominent ridgelines or skylines.

The nature of the project: 1. High intensity type projects including large-scale infrastructure;23 2. A change in land use from the prevailing use; 3. A use that is in conflict with an adopted plan or vision for the area; 4. A significant change to the fabric and character of the area; 5. A significant change to the townscape or streetscape; 6. Possible visual intrusion in the landscape; 7. Obstruction of views of others in the area.

As can be seen, the various sites could be described as falling within at least 8 of the 10 listed receiving environments (80%), and 3 out of 7 project types (43%) that may cause visual impact giving a combined total of 62%; the receiving environment is highly sensitive while the project character has moderate impact. Thus the factors triggering potential impact suggest that impact will be moderate to high. Regarding “the nature of the receiving environment,” categories apply to both the site and the area generally.

23 Site A’s large 34m radio antennas could be considered medium-scale infrastructure versus SALT in Sutherland being high- intensity infrastructure.

5.3.3 Key Issues Requiring Specialist Input The following table helps identify the likely level of impact:

TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT: Low to High Intensity TYPE OF ENVIRONMENT: Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4 Category 5 High to Low Sensitivity development development development development development Protected/wild areas of Moderate visual High visual im- High visual im- Very high visual Very high visual international, national, or impact expected pact expected pact expected impact expected impact expected regional significance Areas or routes of high Minimal visual Moderate visual High visual im- High visual im- Very high visual scenic, cultural, historical impact expected impact expected pact expected pact expected impact expected significance Areas or routes of medium Little or no visual Minimal visual Moderate visual High visual im- High visual im- scenic, cultural or historical impact expected impact expected impact expected pact expected pact expected significance Areas or routes of low Little or no visual Little or no visual Minimal visual Moderate visual High visual im- scenic, cultural, historical impact expected. impact expected impact expected impact expected pact expected significance / disturbed Possible benefits Disturbed or degraded Little or no visual Little or no visual Little or no visual Minimal visual Moderate visual sites / run-down urban impact expected. impact expected. impact expected impact expected impact expected areas / wasteland Possible benefits Possible benefits Figure 5-1: Table of Visual Impacts ex DEA&DP Guidelines.

Furthermore, the PGWC “Categorisation of issues to be addressed by the visual assessment” (Table 1, p 6) identifies the project as Site A: Category 4 development: i.e. medium-scale infrastructure; and Site B: Category 2 development: i.e. small-scale infrastructure.24 Terms are defined as follows (p 7): Low key development – generally small-scale, single-storey domestic structures, usually with more than 75% of the area retained as natural (undisturbed) open space.25 In the list of “Type of environment” this would be defined as a mix of “areas or routes of high scenic, cultural, historical significance.” This would result in a theoretical possible outcome: moderate visual impact expected. When considering the following descriptions, we find that the visual impact is described as Minimal:

24 Category 1 development: e.g. nature reserves, nature-related recreation, camping, picnicking, trails and minimal visitor facilities. Category 2 development: e.g. low-key recreation / resort / residential type development, small-scale agriculture / nurseries, narrow roads and small-scale infrastructure. Category 3 development: e.g. low density resort / residential type development, golf or polo estates, low to medium-scale infrastructure. Category 4 development: e.g. medium density residential development, sports facilities, small-scale commercial facilities / office parks, one-stop petrol stations, light industry, medium-scale infrastructure. Category 5 development e.g. high density township / residential development, retail and office complexes, industrial facilities, re- fineries, treatment plants, power stations, wind energy farms, power lines, freeways, toll roads, large-scale infrastructure generally. Large- scale development of agricultural land and commercial tree plantations. Quarrying and mining activities with related processing plants. 25 Low-key development – generally small-scale, single-storey domestic structures, usually with more than 75% of the area retained as natural (undisturbed) open space. Low density development – generally single or double-storey domestic structures, usually with more than 50% of the area retained as natural (undisturbed) open space. Medium density development – generally 1 to 3-storey structures, including cluster development, usually with more than 25% of the area retained as green open space. High density development – generally multi-storey structures, or low-rise high density residential development.

“High visual impact expected:26 1. Potential intrusion on protected landscapes or scenic resources; 2. Noticeable change in visual character of the area; 3. Establishes a new precedent for development in the area.

“Moderate visual impact expected:27 1. Potentially some affect on protected landscapes or scenic resources; 2. Some change in the visual character of the area; 3. Introduces new development or adds to existing development in the area.

“Minimal visual impact expected: 1. Potentially low level of intrusion on landscapes or scenic resources; 2. Limited change in the visual character of the area; 3. Low-key development, similar in nature to existing development.”

“Little or no visual impact expected: 1. Potentially little influence on scenic resources or visual character of the area; 2. Generally compatible with existing development in the area; 3. Possible scope for enhancement of the area.”

The following terms are used in the above assessments (p 8): 1. “Fundamental change – dominates the view frame and experience of the receptor; 2. Noticeable change – clearly visible within the view frame and experience of the receptor;28 3. Some change – recognisable feature within the view frame and experience of the receptor;29 4. Limited change – not particularly noticeable within the view frame and experience of the receptor; 5. Generally compatible – Practically not visible, or blends in with the surroundings.”

SUMMARY ASSESSMENT—VISUAL IMPACT: The proposed development will have moderate (Site B) to high (Site A) impact on the landscape causing noticeable (Site A) to some (Site B) change to the visual environment.

This assessment of the impact is confirmed by the following descriptions of the categories of issues:

26 Site A. 27 Site B. 28 Site A. 29 Site B.

5.3.4 Level of Assessment PGWC (November 2005) defines the selection of the appropriate approach to VIA for a minimal to moderate visual impact expected as a Level 2 Visual Assessment (p 19). However, given the uncertainty of the development details (no elevations or plans provided), and the significance of the Grade II Heritage site of Matjiesfontein, we have prepared a Level 3 VIA. This is defined as follows:

Approach Type A Assessment: which are relatively large in extent, and involve natural or rural landscapes. Visual impact assessment report by visual specialist qualified in landscape architecture or environmental planning; preferably affiliated to SACLAP. Method: 1. Identification of issues raised in scoping phase, and site visit; 2. Description of the receiving environment and the proposed project; 3. Establishment of view catchment area, view corridors, viewpoints and receptors; 4. Indication of potential visual impacts using established criteria; 5. Inclusion of potential lighting impacts at night; 6. Description of alternatives, mitigation measures and monitoring programmes; 7. Review by independent, experienced visual specialist (if required);

A Level 4 VIA for High Impact requires “Complete 3D modelling and simulations, with and without mitigation” in addition to the above.30

5.4 Visual Analysis 5.4.1 Visual Mapping This has been mapped in Figure 5-2 and shows the site’s visibility as defined by its Viewshed, Zones of Visual Influence and Viewpoint Analysis. Visual Absorption Capacity (or Vis- ual Sensitivity) is not mapped but discussed below. The mapping technique is a traditional, reflective mapping or viewshed mapping, which shows where, and to what extent, the site is visible from its surroundings. Projective mapping, that is, from viewpoints within the site (inside out) is not required but site views can be seen in the photographs.

5.4.2 Key to the Visual Analysis Map The Visual Catchment is shown as thick brown lines and approximately follows the ridgelines of the mountains and hills. Areas theoretically visible to the site (Zone of Visual Influ- ence or ZVI) are indicated in yellow overlain on a radiating circle centred on the site graded

30 This is not always possible depending on the planning information and time available.

from solid blue on the site being most visible to no shading beyond 5km visibility. Combined with the yellow ZVI this produces a green to yellow colour where the site is visible. Areas with no yellow colouring are those where the site is not visible (the view shadow). It should be noted that the term theoretically is significant as it is neither possible nor necessary to physically check all these locations. However, strategic views have been checked according to site inspection and analysis. Some views that would theoretically be possible are not possible due to ground level screening and the hilly terrain. Urban and subur- ban buildings and orientation are also important factors in visibility. Radiating circles of concen- tric rings encompass the site/s at 1km intervals but including a 250m and 500m circle.

5.4.3 Viewshed Viewshed Site A Site A’s viewshed is indicated by the edge of the yellow zones on the map (Figure 5-2) and either is terminated by ridgelines —— shown in brown or diminishes with distance. The viewshed of this site spreads out across the largely flat landscape stopping only on nearby hills and mountains. The two 34m-tall antennas will be the most visible, not only because of their height but also because of their unusual shapes.

Viewshed Site B Site B’s viewshed is indicated by the edge of the yellow zones on the map (see Figure 5-3) and either is largely terminated by very tall local ridgelines —— shown in brown that enclose and mostly hide this perched valley. The upper southern slopes on which no equipment is indicated do have long distance views right out across the plain including Matjiesfontein some 4km in the distance. This viewshed is not indicated as no equipment is intended in the southeast quadrant of Site B.

5.4.4 Zone of Visual Influence (ZVI) ZVI Site A

Source: New World Associates. Figure 5-2: Zone of Visual Influence Site A. Portion of a 1:50,000 map of South Africa (3320 BA Matjiesfontein, 3rd Edition 2007 and 3320 BC Fisantekraal, 2nd Edition 1987) showing the approximate Zone of Visual Influence (ZVI). The Zone of Visual Influence (ZVI) of Site A is shown in various shades of green with a potentially large visibility as you look down on it from the Witberge. The tall height of the two 34m antennas not to mention the 18m and 7m antennas will be visible for long distances, especially the three large antennas.

There is a small island of no visibility just in the area of the historic core of Matjiesfontein due to the tall vegetation and structures around the railway station and main road. Howev- er, the tallest structures may still be visible due to their size through gaps between buildings and vegetation, depending on the angle of view.

ZVI Site B

Source: New World Associates. Figure 5-3: Zone of Visual Influence Site B. Portion of a 1:50,000 map of South Africa (3320 BA Matjiesfontein, 3rd Edition 2007 and 3320 BC Fisantekraal, 2nd Edition 1987) showing the approximate Zone of Visual Influence (ZVI). The Zone of Visual Influence (ZVI) of Site B is shown in various shades of green a much smaller area of visual influence strongly contained within the ridges of this hidden valley. For all practical purposes it will only be visible from within the valley itself and any overlooking surrounding peaks. While the upper southeast slopes are visible from Matjiesfontein, at a distance of 4km you can hardly see them and the size of infrastructure planned in the area, none on these southeast slopes, would not be seen.

Visibility Zone of the 143m Sentech Tower on Bantamskop versus Konstabel and SANSA

Snyderskloof

Source: New World Associates. Figure 5-4: Visibility of 143m Sentech Tower on Bantamskop. Portion of a 1:250,000 map of South Africa (3320 Ladismith, 4th Edition 2000) showing the potential visibility zone of the 143m-tall Sentech Tower. While there are numerous cell phone masts and other communication towers en route to Matjiesfontein from Cape Town, the tallest is found on the Witberge at Bantamskop. This tower is 143m tall and can be seen from virtually everywhere along the N1 with views of the Witberge. It is visible from Matjiesfontein some 7km distant except where local structures or vegetation block views towards it. It is also visible from Snyderskloof to the north about 25km from the tower but not prominent at that distance. Wind turbines standing at 120m + 70m radius turbine blade (total 190m) are also becoming increasingly common and massed in the landscape. In contrast to this is the more massive communications tower at Konstabel (see Photo- graph 4-10, page 66). This is very prominently situated on a saddle through which the N1 passes. While not so tall, its massive structure and ridgeline location makes it solidly visible over a relatively short distance due to the way the road turns. By comparison a large round structure, 24m-antenna (8x 3m-storeys high), which is about one sixth of the Sentech tower’s height, could be visible to about 5-6km. Factors affecting visibility and impact include:

• atmospheric conditions, cloudy/hazy/clear (very clear in the karoo); • placement on/below a ridgeline; • placement along a straight/curved road; • protrusion above/below a ridgeline; • artificial, bright/natural, dull colouration; • scale/sizing of construction; • illuminated/dark at night; • standalone feature/grouped with others; • unusual/common feature in the landscape.

5.4.5 Visual Absorption Capacity The Visual Absorption Capacity (VAC) of the landscape is typically defined by landform, land use and vegetation. In this case, landform applies primarily while local vegetation such as trees is also a factor in historic Matjiesfontein as are structures along the railway.

VAC of the Land Form Landform is less significant in containing shorter views to the ZVI of Site A. The ZVI of Site B is mostly constrained by landform, particularly behind ridges that can cut off views below them. Any small-scale elements located in the narrow area of visible high slopes of Site B with its perched elevation on the Witberge are unlikely to be visible from Matjiesfontein.

VAC of the Land Use Land Use VAC is always a factor in urban areas with ground level structures usually blocking off views near buildings and walls. This is particularly significant for Site A which is already in a hollow and partially not visible, at least at ground level, from the historic street of Mat- jiesfontein which is blocked by railway buildings and platforms. However, the tall radio antennas will be visible in the general area around Site A, except where a local view behind the kopje might block the view. Land Use may have limited affect on Site B but to a much lesser effect.

VAC of the Vegetation The area has some vegetation VAC due to trees in and around historic Matjiesfontein, which will affect the visibility of Site A’s large infrastructure in certain locations. Outside of Mat- jiesfontein, the low karoo vegetation will have no screening effect on any of the structures or fences. Likewise, local views in the elevated valley will not be screened at all by the vegetation.

5.4.6 Visual Sensitivity The area has moderate to high sensitivity as it is part of a much wider landscape in the karoo; is in generally good condition; occurs in an area of natural vegetation and low intensity livestock farming; is near a historic rural settlement; situated along highly prominent transport and tourist routes with scenic value; has communication infrastructure and power lines.

5.4.7 VIA Criteria and Assessment The PGWC Guideline (June 2005, pp 18-19) defines Visual Impact Assessment Criteria as outlined following. We have included our assessment of the visual impact here along with the assessment criteria for ease of relating to the complex of terminology:

Specific Criteria for VIAs31—Visibility The following analysis presents the specific criteria findings in bold for the project.

Visual exposure of the area: the geographic area from which the project will be visible, or view catchment area. 1. High visual exposure – covers a large area (e.g. several square kilometres).32 2. Moderate visual exposure – covers an intermediate area (e.g. several hectares).33 3. Low visual exposure – covers a small area around the project site.

Visual absorption capacity (VAC): the potential of the landscape to conceal the proposed project, i.e. 1. High VAC – e.g. effective screening by topography and vegetation;34 2. Moderate VAC – e.g. partial screening by topography (and vegetation); 3. Low VAC – e.g. little screening by topography (or vegetation).35

Landscape integrity: the compatibility or congruence of the project with the qualities of the existing landscape or townscape, or the ‘sense of place.’ 1. Low compatibility – visually intrudes, or is discordant with the surroundings; 2. Medium compatibility – partially fits into the surroundings, but clearly noticeable; 3. High compatibility – blends in well with the surroundings.

Visibility of the project: based on distance from the project to selected viewpoints i.e.: 1. Highly visible – dominant or clearly noticeable (e.g. 0 to 1km);36 2. Moderately visible – recognisable to the viewer (e.g. 1 to 2km); 3. Marginally visible – not particularly noticeable to the viewer (e.g. 2km+).37

31 Note 1: These, as well as any additional criteria, need to be customised for different project assessments. Note 2: Various components of the project, such as the structures, lighting or power lines, may have to be rated separately, as one component may have fewer visual impacts than another. This could have implications when formulating alternatives and mitigations. 32 Site A. 33 Site B. 34 Site B. 35 Site A. 36 Site A. 37 Site B >1km.

SUMMARY ASSESSMENT—VISIBILITY: The development has moderate (Site B) to high (Site A) visual exposure; low (Site A) to high (Site B) visual absorption capacity; low compatibility (Both Sites); and marginal (Site B) to high (Site A) visibility.

The PGWC Guideline further notes: “To aid decision-making, the assessment and reporting of possible impacts requires consistency in the interpretation of impact assessment criteria. Var- ious criteria are defined in the EIA Regulations, such as ‘nature’, ‘extent’, ‘duration’, etc. The interpretation of these criteria for visual assessments is given in Box 11” repeated below:

Criteria Used for the Assessment of Visual Impacts—Visual Impact Assessment Once again, the following analysis presents the specific criteria findings in bold for the project. Nature of the impact: an appraisal of the visual effect the activity would have on the receiving environment. This description should include visual and scenic resources that are affected, and the manner in which they are affected, (both positive and negative effects).

Extent: the spatial or geographic area of influence of the visual impact, i.e.: 1. site-related: extending only as far as the activity; 2. local: limited to the immediate surroundings;38 3. district: affecting a smaller urban/rural area;39 4. regional: affecting a larger metropolitan or regional area; 5. national: affecting large parts of the country; 6. international: affecting areas across international boundaries.

Duration: the predicted life-span of the visual impact: 1. short term, (e.g. duration of the construction phase); 2. medium term, (e.g. duration for screening vegetation to mature); 3. long term, (e.g. lifespan of the project); 4. permanent, where time will not mitigate the visual impact.

Intensity: the magnitude of the impact on views, scenic or cultural resources. 1. low, where visual and scenic resources are not affected; 2. medium, where visual and scenic resources are affected to a limited extent;40 3. high, where scenic and cultural resources are significantly affected.41

38 Site B. 39 Site A. 40 Site B. 41 Site A.

Probability: the degree of possibility of the visual impact occurring: 1. improbable, where the possibility of the impact occurring is very low; 2. probable, where there is a distinct possibility that the impact will occur; 3. highly probable, where it is most likely that the impact will occur; or 4. definite, where the impact will occur regardless of any prevention measures.

Significance: The significance of impacts can be determined through a synthesis of the aspects produced in terms of their nature, extent, duration, intensity and probability, and be described as:

1. low, where it will not have an influence on the decision;42 2. medium, where it should have an influence on the decision unless it is mitigated; or 3. high, where it would influence the decision regardless of any possible mitigation.43

SUMMARY ASSESSMENT—NATURE OF IMPACT: The development’s visual impact has local (Site A) to district (Site B) extent, long term duration, low (Site A) to medium (Site B) intensity, highly probability, and low (Site A) to high (Site B) significance on the landscape.

Site A Site B VISUAL IMPACT Impact High Moderate Change Moderate Moderate VISIBILITY Visual Exposure High Moderate Visual Absorption Capacity Low High Compatibility Low Low Visibility High Low NATURE OF IMPACT Extent Regional Local Duration Long Term Long Term Intensity High Moderate Probability High High Significance High Low Figure 5-5: Comparative Assessment of the Sites.

42 Site B. 43 Site A.

5.4.8 Plomp Methodology Visual impact assessment using the Plomp (2004) methodology (see Appendix for full key details):

Probability: Improbable, 1; Probable, 2; Highly Probable, 4; Definite, 5. Duration: Short term, 1; Medium term, 3; Long term, 4; Permanent, 5. Scale/Extent: Local, 1; Site, 2; Regional, 3. Intensity/Severity: Low, 2; Medium, 6; High, 8. Significance: Sum = Negligible, <20; Low, <40; Moderate, <60; High, >60; Very High >80.

Activity Impact Phase Probability Duration Scale / Extent Intensity Significance44

Score Magni- Score Magni- Score Magni- Score Magni- Score WOM WM tude tude tude tude Visual Significance Score Calculation Site A = Probability x (Duration + Scale + Intensity) = 4 x (4 + 3 + 8) = 4 x 15 = 60 Construction Visual impact Construc- 4 High 4 Long 3 Regional 8 High 60 High High activities, of develop- tion, opera- term operational ment on tions and infrastructure surrounding closure and lighting, landscape decommissioning of infrastructure Visual Significance Score Calculation Site B = Probability x (Duration + Scale + Intensity) = 4 x (4 + 1 + 6) = 4 x 11 = 44 Construction Visual impact Construc- 4 High 4 Long 1 Local 6 Medium 44 Moder- Mod- activities, of develop- tion, opera- term ate erate operational ment on tions and infrastructure surrounding closure and lighting, landscape decommissioning of infrastructure

Figure 5-6: Plomp Methodology Assessment.

5.4.9 Distribution of Impacts “Beneficiaries and losers”45 (PGWC, p 21) of the project’s visual impacts are potentially regional as the development will have moderate to high visual impact on a Provincial Heritage Site.

5.4.10 Photomontages Photomontages were not prepared as modelling information was not available from the Developers at this stage of planning.

5.5 Analysis of Alternatives At this time there are no alternatives to consider but the plan is in an advanced state of re- vision.

44 Significance: Score calculation = Probability x (Duration + Scale + Magnitude); WOM Without Mitigation; WM With Mitigation. 45 Possible better designations are “winners and losers” or “beneficiaries and adversaries” as, so often objectors become oppo- nents in environmental and visual impact.

5.6 Planning Phase Impacts This is potentially the most significant phase of a Project as it is here that crucial planning and design decisions are taken. Critical Mitigation Recommendations are noted in bold.

5.6.1 Planning and Design While there is a conflict between the need to densify urban areas within the urban edge at the same time as maintaining rural character along the urban edge, there is a similar conflict in rural areas in the need to incorporate intrusive developments and incompatible infrastructure that can be unsightly and out-of-place. This has to be managed and mitigated. As the WC Provincial Urban Edge Guideline has referred to the need “to manage urban development in such a way that no development would detract from the visual quality of the environment and that all development conform to a characteristic style and urban form that suits the character of the area,” further stating that “this implies that edge development should not only be limited to certain areas through inclusion or exclusion, but that edge development should also be subject to urban design guidelines, architectural consideration and general aesthetic treatment” for both natural and built environment (see section 3.5.1). Furthermore, the WC Provincial SDF noted inter alia the following (see section 3.5.2):

• It also proposes “to ensure effective management of all municipal functions and fac- ets to ensure equitable and affordable services and amenities and a safe and aesthetically pleasing urban environment….”. • Cultural resources acknowledged and protected as the fundamental link with the historical past and a basis for planning and shaping of future urban and rural environments. • A safe, healthy and aesthetically pleasing urban environment, with the architectural and spatial character depicting the historical and cultural background of the habitat community. Many of these components such as the mountains, farms and historical structures are ir- replaceable national assets and accentuate the region’s unique character. For this reason, policy guidelines and actions must be formulated to emphasize, protect and promote these components. The character, the detail of the towns and any planned changes should thus be carefully considered.”

It is the guidelines resulting from the visual–aesthetic–landscape analysis that will achieve the balance as best as possible along with their implementation.

Planning and Design As the developers only provided provisional sketch information of their two antenna facilities with no substantive plans and elevations, recommendations to mitigate the potential impacts cannot be considered final. This is more significant with respect to Site A’s much larger equipment and its location within sight of historic Matjiesfontein. Any changes to the provisional layouts and equipment would require reassessment.

Mitigation Recommendations 1. Planning Information: The developers should provide accurate engineering plans and diagrams of the two proposed antenna facilities and equipment arrays for this assessment to be anything more than provisional. The very preliminary nature of the information provided suggests that the final plans could be very different from the initial sketches. This causes a high level of uncertainty whether this assessment will be valid once the plans have been fully developed. 2. Site A Location: The location of Site A with its potentially high visual impact and intrusion on the Provincial Heritage Site and the scenic N1 should be reconsidered as follows: 2.1. A location that is less visible from Matjiesfontein and at a distance where the large antenna will not be visible from the general area of Matjiesfontein. This distance could be in the range 3-5km from Matjiesfontein. This could be further west on the existing farm with siting taking into consideration local landform or on another site that will also be: 2.2. A location that is less visible from the N1, if not sited in such a way that it is not visible from any major roads or scenic routes by placement behind a local landform e.g. small hill, ridge, small mountain, etc as the local topography easily allows. This should be the subject of a separate study related to the technical needs of the placement of this key infrastructure and the generally high scenic nature of the area in this narrow valley along the N1. 3. Site B Equipment: should not be placed on the upper southern slopes of the perched valley that have a long distance view of Matjiesfontein. No equipment, etc is currently placed there but should the need arise to rearrange or re-site any infrastructure then it needs to be done in such a way that any equipment, roads, fences or structures should be located in such a way as to remain hidden within this hidden valley. 4. Perimeter Treatment: Should be sensitive to the natural environment and appropriately coloured to blend into the surrounding vegetation. Silver, black and bright green fencing should not be used. 5. Colouration of Structures and Equipment: Where safety/technical standards require equipment to be painted certain colours, often red/white to improve visibility to aircraft,

if this is not an issue/requirement, then colours that blend into the natural environment/vegetation should be chosen. These should be darker, duller colours that one can use to disguise equipment in the landscape such as camouflage ranges appropriate to the area. In the case of the reflective areas of the 4 large antennas, a naturally coloured tint should be considered for the working surface. 6. Building Design: Buildings should be made from local materials where possible and make a contribution to the area’s architectural fabric, drawing from any local building traditions where possible, with the intent that later reuse may leave behind good quality buildings that still fit into the landscape. 7. Landscape Plan: As the visibility of the large antennas near Matjiesfontein is high and could be considered to negatively impact on the Provincial Heritage Site (PHS), and if re- location is considered undesirable or impossible, then a Landscape Plan should be prepared of Avenue and/or block planting of Gum Trees or similar that fit into the historical landscape. 7.1. Said trees to be located to screen off the antennas from the PHS and the general area of Matjiesfontein. This planting would tend to be on the south and eastern side of the railway line. 7.2. Planting here would coincidentally improve the general environment of the residential area east of the railway. 7.3. Any planting scheme would have to take into consideration the final approved layout of the radio antenna, etc. 7.4. For this mitigation measure to be effective, a secure water supply and maintenance regime must be put into place that will provide a permanent and sustainable solu- tion. 8. Biodiversity: Should any planting or rehabilitation be required, then endemic planting schemes should be used with the exception of traditionally planted trees, which are per- missible for practical and cultural landscape reasons. 9. Site Clearance: Where possible, wanton site stripping of vegetation that causes scarring of the landscape should be avoided and written into all construction documentation. 10. Maintenance: Scheme maintenance covering landscaping, infrastructure and buildings needs to be undertaken with commercial maintenance projects with this intention from the outset for the duration of the project. Good site tidiness should be maintained at all times. 11. Lighting: Lighting should be minimised and carefully controlled as part of the project’s management plan.

11.1. The use of green energy fittings and concepts should be encouraged and lighting developed with sensitivity to the rural landscape. 11.2. Flood lighting for security purposes should be avoided, and down lighting used instead. 11.3. The lighting of 4 the large antennas requires careful consideration if there is to be any.

5.7 Construction Phase Impacts Construction Phase visual impacts are no more than normal for an urban site although they will be extensive.

5.7.1 Construction Construction inevitably gives rise to noise, disruption and dust, amongst others. These are well covered by Municipal Bylaws. Site destruction and damage is also coincident with quarrying especially to water, soil and vegetation. Changes to the water table by excavations can also have a heavy impact on the trees with deaths occurring a few years later.

Mitigation Recommendation: Construction 1. Damage Control: All parties must make every effort to control the destruction of soils and vegetation on site, especially any remnants of natural vegetation. These must not be dam- aged under any circumstances. 2. Pollution: Chemical damage by cement mixing directly on the ground and by diesel, etc spills must also be prevented at all costs, as should vandalism of the plants and accidental damage to limbs by workers and machinery. Fires must be prevented also at all costs in all areas. Penalties and incentives should be implemented as can fencing off areas. 3. Monitoring: Monitoring of the landscape, soils and vegetation during construction is very important and must be attended to regularly. Damage to some is all too inevitable and often irreversible. Adequate indigenous (preferably endemic) vegetation must be planted.

5.8 Operation Phase Impacts Lighting, landscape maintenance and conservation management are discussed.

5.8.1 Lighting The Architectural and Landscape Guidelines need to consider lighting in their specific guidelines. Security lighting, while necessary, can be handled with care.

Mitigation Recommendation: Lighting 1. Lighting: Lighting should be minimised and carefully controlled as part of the project’s management plan.

1.1 The use of green energy fittings and concepts should be encouraged and lighting developed with sensitivity to the rural landscape. 1.2 Flood lighting for security purposes should be avoided, and down lighting used instead. 1.3 The lighting of 4 the large antennas requires careful consideration if there is to be any.

5.8.1 Conservation Management and Landscape Maintenance Waterwise landscaping should be used wherever possible and green star building practices.

Mitigation Recommendation: Conservation Management and Landscape Maintenance 1. Landscape Maintenance: must be carried out at all times in line with these recommendations to help keep the scheme green and encouraging local biodiversity.

5.9 Decommissioning Phase Impacts On-going landscape maintenance and conservation management remains necessary.

5.9.1 Refurbishment and Resale This is a continuing aspect of the property ownership cycle.

Mitigation Recommendation: Refurbishment and Resale 1. Refurbishment and Resale: The previous recommendations regarding Planning, Con- struction and Operation all apply to this process. The entire site can be dismantled and re- habilitated if no longer needed and restored to an appropriate land use.

This concludes the analysis of impacts and detailed recommendations for their mitigation.

NWA

Bibliography

CNdV Africa (November 2005). Provincial Spatial Development Framework. PGWC, CT. DEA&DP (December 2005). Provincial Urban Edge Guideline. PGWC, CT. Department of Environment Affairs (1992). Integrated Environmental Management Guideline Series: 2 Guidelines for Scoping. Also 1 The Integrated Environmental Management Proce- dure; 3 Guidelines for Report Requirements; 4 Guidelines for Review; 5 Checklist of Environ- mental Characteristics; 6 Glossary of Terms used in Integrated Environmental Management. Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism & CSIR (February 2000). Strategic Environ- mental Assessment in South Africa: Guideline Document. Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (April 1998). Environmental Impact Man- agement: A National Strategy for Integrated Environmental Management in South Africa. Erasmus, BPJ (2004). On Route in South Africa. Jonathan Ball Publishers, Jeppestown. Earth Summit Agreements (1992): Agenda 21, The Rio Declaration on Environment and Develop- ment, and the Statement of Forest Principles; and The United Nations Framework Conven- tion on Climate Change and The Convention on Biological Diversity. IEA and the Landscape Institute (1995). Guidelines for landscape and visual impact assessment, E and FN Spon, London. Oberholzer, B (2005) by CSIR Environmentek. Guideline for Involving Visual and Aesthetic Spe- cialists in EIA Processes: Edition 1. CSIR Report No. ENV-S-C 2005 053 F. Republic of South Africa, Provincial Government of the Western Cape, Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, Cape Town. Raper, Peter E and the Human Sciences Resource Council (2004). New Dictionary of South Afri- can Place Names. Jonathan Ball Publishers, Johannesburg & Cape Town. Republic of South Africa, Statutes of. National Environmental Management Act No. 107 of 1998 (NEMA). Republic of South Africa, Statutes of. National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Bill, 2003 (BB). Republic of South Africa, Statutes of—Land. Environment Conservation Act No. 73 of 1989.

Winter, S & Baumann, N (2005). Guideline for Involving Heritage Specialists in EIA Processes: Edi- tion 1. CSIR Report No. ENV-S-C 2005 053 E. Republic of South Africa, Provincial Govern- ment of the Western Cape, Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Plan- ning, Cape Town.

NWA

Appendices

Appendix A – Plomp Assessment Methodology (2004)

NWA

Appendix A: Plomp Assessment Methodology An impact can be defined as any change in the physical-chemical, biological, cultural and/or socio-economic environmental system that can be attributed to human activities related to alternatives under study for meeting a project need. The significance of the aspects/impacts of the process was rated by using a matrix derived from Plomp (2004) and adapted to some extent to fit this process.46 These matrices use the consequence and the likelihood of the different aspects and associated impacts to determine the significance of the impacts. The significances of the impacts were determined through a synthesis of the criteria below:

Probability This describes the likelihood of the impact actually occurring. Improbable The possibility of the impact occurring is very low, due to the circumstances, design or experience. Probable There is a probability that the impact will occur to the extent that provision must be made therefore. Highly Probable It is most likely that the impact will occur at some stage of the development. Definite The impact will take place regardless of any prevention plans, and there can only be re- lied on mitigatory actions or contingency plans to contain the effect. Duration The lifetime of the impact. Short term The impact will either disappear with mitigation or will be mitigated through natural processes in a time span shorter than any of the phases. Medium term The impact will last up to the end of the phases, where after it will be negated. Long term The impact will last for the entire operational phase of the project but will be mitigated by direct human action or by natural processes thereafter. Permanent Impact that will be non-transitory. Mitigation either by man or natural processes will not occur in such a way or in such a time span that the impact can be considered transient. Scale The physical and spatial size of the impact. Local The impacted area extends only as far as the activity, e.g. footprint. Site The impact could affect the whole, or a measurable portion of the above-mentioned properties. Regional The impact could affect the area including the neighbouring residential areas. Magnitude/ Severi- Does the impact destroy the environment, or alter its function. ty Low The impact alters the affected environment in such a way that natural processes are not affected. Medium The affected environment is altered, but functions and processes continue in a modified way. High Function or process of the affected environment is disturbed to the extent where it tem- porarily or permanently ceases. Significance This is an indication of the importance of the impact in terms of both physical extent and time scale, and therefore indicates the level of mitigation required. Negligible The impact is non-existent or unsubstantial and is of no or little importance to any stake- holder and can be ignored. Low The impact is limited in extent, has low to medium intensity; whatever its probability of occurrence is, the impact will not have a material effect on the decision and is likely to require management intervention with increased costs.

46 Plomp, H. (2004). A Process for Assessing and Evaluating Environmental Management Risk and Significance in a Gold Mining Company. Conference Papers – Annual National Conference of the International Association for Impact Assessment: South African Affiliate.

Moderate The impact is of importance to one or more stakeholders, and its intensity will be medium or high; therefore, the impact may materially affect the decision, and management intervention will be required. High The impact could render development options controversial or the project unacceptable if it cannot be reduced to acceptable levels; and/or the cost of management intervention will be a significant factor in mitigation. Figure A-1: Impact Significance Criteria.

The following weights were assigned to each attribute:

Aspect Description Weight Probability Improbable 1 Probable 2 Highly Probable 4 Definite 5 Duration Short term 1 Medium term 3 Long term 4 Permanent 5 Scale Local 1 Site 2 Regional 3 Magnitude/Severity Low 2 Medium 6 High 8 Significance Sum (Duration, Scale, Magnitude) x Probability Negligible <20 Low <40 Moderate <60 High >60 Figure A-2: Attribute Weighting.

The significance of each activity is rated without mitigation measures and with mitigation measures for both construction and operational phases of the development.

NWA

APPENDIX 5: HWC Response to NID dated 18 June 2018

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

APPLICATION FORM NOTIFICATION OF INTENT TO SECTION 38 (1) AND SECTION 38 (8)

Heritage Western Cape Reference No: To be completed by applicant

Completion of this form is required by Heritage Western Cape for the initiation of all impact assessment processes under Section 38 (1) & (8) of the National Heritage Resources Act (NHRA).

Whilst it is not a requirement, it may expedite processes and in particular avoid calls for additional information if certain of the information required in this form is provided by a heritage specialist/s with the necessary qualifications, skills and experience.

A. APPLICABILITY OF THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ACT (NEMA)

DEADP/ DMR Reference Number: Pending

X This application is made in terms of Section 38(8) of the NHRA and an application under NEMA has been made to the following authority: ☐ This development will not require a NEMA application.

Making an incorrect statement or providing incorrect information in this part of the form may NOTE: result in all or part of the application having to be reconsidered by HWC in the future, or submission of a new application.

B. BASIC DETAILS

PROPERTY DETAILS: Name of property: S ANSA - Matjiesfontein ARAO and S sites Street address or location (eg: off R44): Off N1, South est of Matjiesfontein -W

Heritage Western Cape Section 38 Application Form _ January 2019

C. DEVELOPMENT DETAILS: Please indicate below which of the following Sections of the National Heritage Resources Act, or other legislation has triggered the need for notification of intent to develop. S38(1)(a) Construction of a road, wall, powerline, pipeline, canal or S38(1)(c) Any development or activity that ☐ other similar form of linear will change the character of a site - development or barrier over 300m in length. S38(1)(b) Construction of a bridge or 2 ☐ similar structure exceeding 50m in X (i) exceeding 5 000m in extent; length. S38(1)(d) Rezoning of a site (ii) involving three or more existing ☐ 2 ☐ exceeding 10 000m in extent. erven or subdivisions thereof; (iii) involving three or more erven or ☐ divisions thereof which have been consolidated within the past five years.

If you have checked any of the three Other triggers, eg: in terms of other boxes above, describe how the proposed legislation, (ie: National Environment development will change the character of Management Act, etc.) Please set the site: Establishment of antennae on out details: currently vacant land X

If an impact assessment process has also been / will be initiated in terms of other legislation please provide the following information: Authority / government department (ie: consenting authority) to which information has been /will be submitted for final decision: DEADP Present phase at which the process with that authority stands:

Heritage Western Cape Section 38 Application Form _ January 2019 Provide a full description of the nature and extent of the proposed development or activity including its potential impacts: The South African Radio Astronomy Observatory (SARAO) and SANSA (South African National Space Agency) proposes to construct new radio antennae, scientific Earth monitoring instruments and associated infrastructure on Portion 8 of Farm 148 near Matjiesfontein in the Western Cape Province. Two separate sites have been identified for this area: • One site will house 20 smaller scientific instruments, each with a footprint of 4m2 and a height of 3m, as well as 3 larger antennas with a combined footprint of 200m2 and heights below 30m. • The other site will house 7 antennas and a store house. It is anticipated that the combined antenna footprints at this site will be 225m2 with their heights ranging from 3m up to 40m.

Other associated infrastructure will include internal, gravel access roads that are 4m wide as well as laydown areas.

D. ANTICIPATED IMPACTS ON HERITAGE RESOURCES

Section 3 of the National Heritage Resources Act sets out the following categories of heritage resource as forming part of the national estate. Please indicate the known presence of any of these by checking the box alongside and then providing a description of each occurrence, including nature, location, size, type Failure to provide sufficient detail or to anticipate the likely presence of heritage resources on the site may lead to a request for more detailed specialist information. (The assistance of relevant heritage professionals is particularly relevant in completing this section.)

Provide a short history of the site and its environs (Include sources where available): See attached Heritage Screening Assessment Please indicate which heritage resources exist on the site and in its environs, describe them and indicate the nature of any impact upon them: See attached Heritage Screening Assessment Places, buildings, structures and equipment of cultural significance Description of resource: ☐ Description of impact on heritage resource:

Places to which oral traditions are attached or which are associated with living heritage

☐ Description of resource:

Description of impact on heritage resource:

Historical settlements and townscapes Description of resource: see attached screening assessment X

Description of impact on heritage resource:

Heritage Western Cape Section 38 Application Form _ January 2019 Landscapes and natural features of cultural significance Description of resource: see attached screening assessment X Description of impact on heritage resource:

Geological resources of scientific or cultural importance

☐ Description of resource:

Description of impact on heritage resource: Archaeological resources (Including archaeological sites and material, rock art, battlefields & wrecks): Description of resource: see attached screening assessment X Description of impact on heritage resource: Palaeontological resources (ie: fossils): X Description of resource: see attached screening assessment Description of impact on heritage resource: Graves and burial grounds (eg: ancestral graves, graves of victims of conflict, historical graves & cemeteries): ☐ Description of Resource: Description of Impact on Heritage Resource: Other human remains: ☐ Description of resource: Description of impact on heritage resource: Sites of significance relating to the history of slavery in South Africa: ☐ Description of resource: Description of impact on heritage resource: Other heritage resources: ☐ Description of resource: Description of impact on heritage resource:

Heritage Western Cape Section 38 Application Form _ January 2019 Describe elements in the environs of the site that could be deemed to be heritage resources:

The study area near Matjiesfontein Village, Western Cape, is situated in semi-arid, hilly terrain along the southern margins of the Great Karoo. The area is drained by numerous small, non-perennial tributaries of the Buffelsrivier drainage system such as the Bobbejaansrivier and its tributary streams. In geological terms it lies within the northern margins of the Cape Fold Belt; the sedimentary bedrocks here are structured by major west-east trending folds, as clearly seen in satellite images, as well as occasional northward-directed thrusts. Examples of these large-scale folds include the rugged quartzitic Witteberge anticline to the south of Matjiesfontein, the Ghaapkop syncline in the east, as well as the major anticline to the north of the N1 with Boelhouerrante at its core. From a stratigraphic viewpoint the bedrocks underlying the project footprint include Early Carboniferous to Early / Middle Permian glacial and marine sediments assigned to the Witteberg Group (Cape Supergroup) as well as to the Dwyka and Ecca Groups. A key section through the geologically significant contact between the Cape and Karoo Supergroups runs across the N1 near the Wauchope Memorial, just west of the present study area. Large parts of the Palaeozoic outcrop area is mantled by Late Caenozoic superficial sediments such as colluvium (scree, hillwash), alluvium, pediment gravels and downwasted surface gravels.

Numerous significant heritage resources are known from this area including, most importantly, Matjiesfontein Provincial Heritage Site as well as the archaeological remains from a Boer War Camp. Hart and Webley (2013 NID: 152531) give a brief description of the general area to be impacted: “The study area is situated towards the southern margin of the Main Karoo basin... To the south, rocks of the Cape Supergroup make up the Cape Fold Belt mountains.” Based on the information included in Hart and Webley (2013 NID: 152531), Early, Middle and Later Stone Age archaeological artefacts are expected to occur in this area, as well as stone-walled kraals and what are described as open Khoekhoen encampments situated among the Kameeldoring trees along the dry river beds in the bottom of the valleys. Archaeological sites of this kind are very rare in the Western Cape, having been only previously recorded in the Richtersveld (Hart and Webley 2013). Due to the long history of agriculture in this area, historical archaeological sites may also occur in this area. The historical town of Matjiesfontein is of substantial heritage significance due to its age and level of intactness. It forms an important part of the tourism in this area. It is therefore likely that the proposed development will impact these significant archaeological and cultural landscape resources.

The area to be impacted by the proposed development is underlain by the Waaipoort Formation (very high paleontological sensitivity), the Prince Albert Formation (high palaeontological sensitivity) and the Dwyka Group (moderate palaeontological sensitivity). According to the SAHRIS Fossil Heritage Layer Browser, the Waaipoort Formation is known for non-marine fish fauna (palaeoniscoids, sharks, acanthodians), vascular plants (eg lycopods), freshwater bivalves and traces of organic-walled microfossils. The Prince Albert Formation is known for low diversity marine invertebrates (bivalves, nautiloids, brachiopods), palaeoniscoid fish, sharks, fish coprolites, protozoans (foraminiferans, radiolarians), petrified wood, palynomorphs (spores, acritarchs), non-marine trace fossils (especially arthropods, fish, also various “worm” burrows), possible stromatolites and oolites. The Dwyka Group is known for trace fossils, organic-walled

Heritage Western Cape Section 38 Application Form _ January 2019 microfossils, rare marine invertebrates (eg molluscs), fish and vascular plants. As indicated in Figure 4, it is likely that the proposed development will impact these significant palaeontological resources.

Description of impacts on heritage resources in the environs of the site: As the proposed development is likely to impact significant archaeological, palaeontological and cultural landscape heritage resources, it is recommended that an HIA is required that satisfies section 38(3) of the NHRA with specific reference to these impacts.

Summary of anticipated impacts on heritage resources: As the proposed development is likely to impact significant archaeological, palaeontological and cultural landscape heritage resources, it is recommended that an HIA is required that satisfies section 38(3) of the NHRA with specific reference to these impacts.

E. ILLUSTRATIVE MATERIAL (This form will not be processed unless the following are included): Attach to this form a minimum A4 sized locality plan showing the boundaries of the area affected by the proposed development, its environs, property boundaries and a scale. The plan must be of a scale and size that is appropriate to creating a clear understanding of the development. Attach also other relevant graphic material such as maps, site plans, satellite photographs and photographs of the site and the heritage resources on it and in its environs. These are essential to the processing of this notification. Please provide all graphic material on paper of appropriate size and on CD/ USB in JPEG format. It is essential that graphic material be annotated via titles on the photographs, map names and numbers, names of files and/or provision of a numbered list describing what is visible in each image.

F. RECOMMENDATION In your opinion do you believe that a heritage impact assessment is required? X Yes ☒ No Recommendation made by: Jenna Lavin Name Jenna Lavin Capacity Heritage Practitioner PLEASE NOTE: No Heritage Impact Assessment should be submitted with this form or conducted until Heritage Western Cape has expressed its opinion on the need for such and the nature thereof.

Heritage Western Cape Section 38 Application Form _ January 2019 G. INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED AND STUDIES TO BE CONDUCTED AS PART OF THE HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT (HIA)

If it is recommended that an HIA is required, please complete this section of the form.

DETAILS OF STUDIES TO BE CONDUCTED IN THE INTENDED HIA In addition to the requirements set out in Section 38(3) of the NHRA, indicate envisaged studies:

☐ Heritage resource-related guidelines and policies.

☐ Local authority planning and other laws and policies. ☐ Details of parties, communities, etc. to be consulted. Specialist studies, eg: archaeology, palaeontology, architecture, townscape, visual impact, etc. ☐ Provide details: ☐ Other. Provide details: PLEASE NOTE: Any further studies which Heritage Western Cape may resolve should be submitted must be in the form of a single, consolidated report with a single set of recommendations. Specialist studies must be incorporated in full, either as chapters of the report, or as annexures thereto.

Heritage Western Cape Section 38 Application Form _ January 2019

HERITAGE SCREENER CTS Reference CTS19_055 Number:

HWC Ref:

Client: EOH-CES

Date: July 2019

Title: Proposed SANSA Space Operations at portion 8 of Farm Matjiesfontein Western Cape

Figure 1a. Satellite map indicating the location of the proposed development in the Western Cape Province Recommendation by RECOMMENDATION: CTS Heritage As the proposed development is likely to impact significant archaeological, palaeontological and cultural landscape heritage resources, it is Specialists recommended that an HIA is required that satisfies section 38(3) of the NHRA with specific reference to these impacts.

CTS Heritage 16 Edison Way, Century City, 7441 Tel: +27 (0)87 073 5739 E mail: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

1. Proposed Development Summary

SANSA proposes to construct new radio antennae and associated infrastructure on Portion 8 of Farm 148 near Matjiesfontein in the Western Cape Province. Two separate sites have been identified for this area. One site will house 20 small scientific antenna, each with a footprint of 4m2 and a height of 3m. The other site will house 7 antenna and a store house. It is anticipated that the antenna footprints at this site will be 225m2 with their heights ranging from 4m up to 40m. Other associated infrastructure will include internal, gravel access roads that are 4m wide as well as laydown areas.

2. Application References

Name of relevant heritage authority(s) HWC Name of decision making authority(s) DEADP and DRDLR

3. Property Information

Latitude / Longitude SARAO site - 33°15′59.71″S, 20°34′50.27″E , Matjiesfontein site - 33°14′21.20″S, 20°34′03.40″E ERF 1- 12, 14, 15,70, 8/148, ERF 16, MUNICIPAL LAND ERF 17- 34, 36,40,41,43,44,45,46,47, 50-60, 62, 64, 65, 66, ERF 35, 37, 38, 39, 42, 48, 49, 61, 63, Erf number / Farm number 67, 72, 75, 185, 270, 282 and 1/150 Local Municipality Laingsburg District Municipality Central Karoo Previous Magisterial District Laingsburg Province Western Cape Current Use Vacant Current Zoning Agricultural Total Extent of Property 2368 Ha

CTS Heritage 16 Edison Way, Century City, 7441 Tel: +27 (0)87 073 5739 E mail: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

4. Nature of the Proposed Development

Total Surface Area of development 66.1 Ha Depth of excavation (m) <3m Height of development (m) 40m

5. Category of Development

x Triggers: Section 38(8) of the National Heritage Resources Act Triggers: Section 38(1) of the National Heritage Resources Act 1. Construction of a road, wall, powerline, pipeline, canal or other similar form of linear development or barrier over 300m in length. 2. Construction of a bridge or similar structure exceeding 50m in length. 3. Any development or activity that will change the character of a site-

2 x a) exceeding 5 000m in extent b) involving three or more existing erven or subdivisions thereof c) involving three or more erven or divisions thereof which have been consolidated within the past five years 4. Rezoning of a site exceeding 10 000m2 5. Other (state):

6. Additional Infrastructure Required for this Development

Other associated infrastructure will include internal, gravel access roads that are 4m wide as well as laydown areas.

CTS Heritage 16 Edison Way, Century City, 7441 Tel: +27 (0)87 073 5739 E mail: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

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

Figure 1b Overview Map. Satellite image (2019) indicating the proposed development area at closer range. CTS Heritage 16 Edison Way, Century City, 7441 Tel: +27 (0)87 073 5739 E mail: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

Figure 1c. Overview Map. Satellite image (2019) indicating the proposed development area at closer range. CTS Heritage 16 Edison Way, Century City, 7441 Tel: +27 (0)87 073 5739 E mail: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

Figure 1d. Overview Map. Satellite image (2019) indicating the proposed development area at closer range CTS Heritage 16 Edison Way, Century City, 7441 Tel: +27 (0)87 073 5739 E mail: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

Figure 2. Previous HIAs Map. Previous Heritage Impact Assessments surrounding the proposed development area within 25km, with SAHRIS NIDS indicated. Please see Appendix 2 for full reference list.

CTS Heritage 16 Edison Way, Century City, 7441 Tel: +27 (0)87 073 5739 E mail: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

Figure 3a. Heritage Resources Map. Heritage Resources previously identified in and near the study area, with SAHRIS Site IDs indicated. Please See Appendix 4 for full description of heritage resource types.

CTS Heritage 16 Edison Way, Century City, 7441 Tel: +27 (0)87 073 5739 E mail: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

Figure 3b. Heritage Resources Map. Heritage Resources Inset A CTS Heritage 16 Edison Way, Century City, 7441 Tel: +27 (0)87 073 5739 E mail: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

Figure 3c. Heritage Resources Map. Heritage Resources Inset B CTS Heritage 16 Edison Way, Century City, 7441 Tel: +27 (0)87 073 5739 E mail: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

Figure 3d. Heritage Resources Map. Heritage Resources Inset C CTS Heritage 16 Edison Way, Century City, 7441 Tel: +27 (0)87 073 5739 E mail: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

Figure 3e. Heritage Resources Map. Heritage Resources Inset D CTS Heritage 16 Edison Way, Century City, 7441 Tel: +27 (0)87 073 5739 E mail: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

Figure 3f. Heritage Resources Map. Heritage Resources Inset E CTS Heritage 16 Edison Way, Century City, 7441 Tel: +27 (0)87 073 5739 E mail: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

Figure 3g. Heritage Resources Map. Heritage Resources Inset F CTS Heritage 16 Edison Way, Century City, 7441 Tel: +27 (0)87 073 5739 E mail: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

Figure 3h. Heritage Resources Map. Heritage Resources In Close Proximity To The Proposed Development CTS Heritage 16 Edison Way, Century City, 7441 Tel: +27 (0)87 073 5739 E mail: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

Figure 4. Palaeosensitivity Map. Indicating Moderate and Very High fossil sensitivity underlying the study area. Please See Appendix 3 for full guide to the legend. CTS Heritage 16 Edison Way, Century City, 7441 Tel: +27 (0)87 073 5739 E mail: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

Figure 5. Map of known Palaeontological Sites. Extracted from the PalaeoBiology Database (PBDB - https://paleobiodb.org/#/) More detail in Appendix 1

CTS Heritage 16 Edison Way, Century City, 7441 Tel: +27 (0)87 073 5739 E mail: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

Figure 6. Geology Map. Indicating the underlying geology across the study area through overlaying the geology maps from the CGS series 3320 Ladismith (Tg: High-level terrace gravel, silcrete and ferricrete, Dwi: Waaipoort (Quartzite sandstone, weathering prominently white at the top, reddish brown lower down; thin siltstone beds), Pp: Prince Albert (Dark grey shale with reddish brown-weathering siltstone))

CTS Heritage 16 Edison Way, Century City, 7441 Tel: +27 (0)87 073 5739 E mail: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

8. Heritage statement and character of the area The study area near Matjiesfontein Village, Western Cape, is situated in semi-arid, hilly terrain along the southern margins of the Great Karoo. The area is drained by numerous small, non-perennial tributaries of the Buffelsrivier drainage system such as the Bobbejaansrivier and its tributary streams. In geological terms it lies within the northern margins of the Cape Fold Belt; the sedimentary bedrocks here are structured by major west-east trending folds, as clearly seen in satellite images, as well as occasional northward-directed thrusts. Examples of these large-scale folds include the rugged quartzitic Witteberge anticline to the south of Matjiesfontein, the Ghaapkop syncline in the east, as well as the major anticline to the north of the N1 with Boelhouerrante at its core. From a stratigraphic viewpoint the bedrocks underlying the project footprint include Early Carboniferous to Early / Middle Permian glacial and marine sediments assigned to the Witteberg Group (Cape Supergroup) as well as to the Dwyka and Ecca Groups. A key section through the geologically significant contact between the Cape and Karoo Supergroups runs across the N1 near the Wauchope Memorial, just west of the present study area. Large parts of the Palaeozoic outcrop area is mantled by Late Caenozoic superficial sediments such as colluvium (scree, hillwash), alluvium, pediment gravels and downwasted surface gravels.

RECOMMENDATION: As the proposed development is likely to impact significant archaeological, palaeontological and cultural landscape heritage resources, it is recommended that an HIA is required that satisfies section 38(3) of the NHRA with specific reference to these impacts.

CTS Heritage 16 Edison Way, Century City, 7441 Tel: +27 (0)87 073 5739 E mail: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

APPENDIX 1 List of heritage resources within the 25km Inclusion Zone from SAHRIS Site ID Site no Full Site Name Site Type Grading Archaeological, Artefacts, 127026 RTFN7 Rietfontein 7 Grade IIIa Rock Art 33282 ANY33 Anysberg 33 (Tapfontein 22) Rock Art, Artefacts Grade IIIa Archaeological, Artefacts, 127028 RTFN10 Rietfontein 10 Grade IIIa Rock Art 33281 ANY32 Anysberg 32 (Tapfontein 08) Rock Art, Artefacts Grade IIIa Archaeological, Rock Art, 127029 RTFN12 Rietfontein 12 Grade IIIb Artefacts 28195 9/2/058/0001 Matjiesfontein Village, Laingsburg District Building Grade II 28193 9/2/058/0002 Railway Station building, Matjiesfontein, Laingsburg District Building Grade II Matjiesfontein Cemetery, Pieter Meintjiesfontein, 28192 9/2/058/0004 Burial Grounds & Graves Grade II Laingsburg District Rock Art, Artefacts, 127031 RTFN11 Rietfontein 11 Grade IIIb Archaeological 127027 RTFN6 Rietfontein 6 Rock Art, Artefacts Grade IIIa Rock Art, Artefacts, 127030 RTFN8 Rietfontein 8 Grade IIIa Archaeological 33280 ANY31 Anysberg 31 (Kleynspreeufontein 03) Rock Art, Artefacts Grade IIIa Archaeological, Rock Art, 127025 RTFN9 Rietfontein 9 Grade IIIa Artefacts 33267 ANY18 Anysberg 18 (Matjiesgoedkloof 04) Rock Art Grade IIIa 33266 ANY17 Anysberg 17 (Klipfontein 36) Rock Art, Artefacts Grade IIIa 29583 GEO052 Holostratotype: Whitehill Formation near Whitehill Station Geological Grade IIIb 29584 GEO053 Holostratotype: Whitehill Formation near Whitehill Station Geological Grade IIIb

CTS Heritage 16 Edison Way, Century City, 7441 Tel: +27 (0)87 073 5739 E mail: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

29587 GEO054 Geosite: Witbergs River section base Geological Grade IIIa 35216 ROG034 Roggeveld 034 Building Grade IIIc 35753 ROG050 Roggeveld 050 Building Grade IIIb 17444 ELKLOOF1 Elandskloof 1 Artefacts Grade IIIb 17445 ELKLOOF10 Elandskloof 10 Artefacts Grade IIIb 17446 ELKLOOF11 Elandskloof 11 Ruin >100 years Grade IIIb 17447 ELKLOOF12 Elandskloof 12 Palaeontological Grade IIIb 17448 ELKLOOF13 Elandskloof 13 Rock Art, Artefacts, Deposit Grade IIIa 17449 ELKLOOF2 Elandskloof 2 Rock Art, Artefacts, Deposit Grade IIIa 17450 ELKLOOF3 Elandskloof 3 Artefacts Grade IIIb 17451 ELKLOOF4 Elandskloof 4 Artefacts Grade IIIb 17452 ELKLOOF5 Elandskloof 5 Artefacts Grade IIIb 17453 ELKLOOF6 Elandskloof 6 Artefacts Grade IIIb 17454 ELKLOOF7 Elandskloof 7 Artefacts Grade IIIb 17455 ELKLOOF8 Elandskloof 8 Palaeontological Grade IIIb 17456 ELKLOOF9 Elandskloof 9 Rock Art Grade IIIa 127223 MATJIESFONTEIN001 Matjiesfontein 001 Palaeontological Grade IIIa 127224 RTFN13 Rietfontein 13 Geological Grade IIIb 127225 RTFN14 Rietfontein 14 Artefacts Grade IIIb 127358 SLR-N1-M002 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 002 Artefacts Grade IIIc 99104 RTFN4 Rietfontein 4 Artefacts, Archaeological Grade IIIa 99105 RTFN3 Rietfontein 3 Artefacts, Rock Art Grade IIIb 99107 RTFN1 Rietfontein 1 Artefacts Grade IIIc 127593 SLR-N1-M039 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 039 Artefacts Grade IIIc 127594 SLR-N1-M040 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 040 Artefacts Grade IIIc

CTS Heritage 16 Edison Way, Century City, 7441 Tel: +27 (0)87 073 5739 E mail: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

127595 SLR-N1-M041 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 041 Artefacts Grade IIIc 127596 SLR-N1-M042 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 042 Artefacts Grade IIIc 127597 SLR-N1-M043 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 043 Artefacts Grade IIIc 127598 SLR-N1-M044 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 044 Artefacts Grade IIIc 127599 SLR-N1-M045 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 045 Artefacts Grade IIIc 127600 SLR-N1-M047 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 047 Artefacts Grade IIIc 127601 SLR-N1-M048 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 048 Artefacts Grade IIIc 127602 SLR-N1-M049 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 049 Artefacts Grade IIIc 127603 SLR-N1-M050 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 050 Artefacts Grade IIIb 127604 SLR-N1-M051 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 051 Artefacts Grade IIIb 127605 SLR-N1-M052 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 052 Artefacts Grade IIIb 127606 SLR-N1-M053 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 053 Artefacts Grade IIIb 127607 SLR-N1-M054 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 054 Artefacts Grade IIIc 127608 SLR-N1-M055 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 055 Artefacts Grade IIIc 127487 SLR-N1-M001 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 001 Artefacts Grade IIIc 127488 SLR-N1-M003 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 003 Artefacts Grade IIIc 127489 SLR-N1-M004 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 004 Artefacts Grade IIIc 127490 SLR-N1-M005 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 005 Artefacts Grade IIIc 127491 SLR-N1-M006 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 006 Artefacts Grade IIIc 127492 SLR-N1-M007 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 007 Artefacts Grade IIIc 127493 SLR-N1-M008 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 008 Artefacts Grade IIIc 127494 SLR-N1-M010 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 010 Artefacts Grade IIIc 127495 SLR-N1-M011 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 011 Burial Grounds & Graves Grade IIIa 127496 SLR-N1-M013 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 013 Artefacts Grade IIIc 127497 SLR-N1-M014 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 014 Artefacts Grade IIIc

CTS Heritage 16 Edison Way, Century City, 7441 Tel: +27 (0)87 073 5739 E mail: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

127498 SLR-N1-M015 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 015 Artefacts Grade IIIc 127499 SLR-N1-M016 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 016 Artefacts Grade IIIc 127500 SLR-N1-M019 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 019 Artefacts Grade IIIc 127501 SLR-N1-M020 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 020 Artefacts Grade IIIc 127502 SLR-N1-M021 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 021 Artefacts Grade IIIc 127503 SLR-N1-M022 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 022 Artefacts Grade IIIc 127504 SLR-N1-M023 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 023 Artefacts Grade IIIc 127505 SLR-N1-M024 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 024 Artefacts Grade IIIc 127506 SLR-N1-M025 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 025 Artefacts Grade IIIb 127507 SLR-N1-M026 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 026 Artefacts Grade IIIc 127508 SLR-N1-M027 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 027 Artefacts Grade IIIc 127509 SLR-N1-M028 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 028 Artefacts Grade IIIc 127510 SLR-N1-M029 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 029 Artefacts Grade IIIc 127511 SLR-N1-M030 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 030 Artefacts Grade IIIc 127512 SLR-N1-M031 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 031 Artefacts Grade IIIc 127513 SLR-N1-M032 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 032 Artefacts Grade IIIc 127514 SLR-N1-M033 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 033 Artefacts Grade IIIc 127515 SLR-N1-M034 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 034 Artefacts Grade IIIc 127516 SLR-N1-M035 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 035 Artefacts Grade IIIc 127517 SLR-N1-M036 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 036 Artefacts Grade IIIc 127518 SLR-N1-M037 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 037 Monuments & Memorials Grade IIIb 127519 SLR-N1-M038 SLR N1 Upgrade Matjiesfontein 038 Burial Grounds & Graves Grade IIIa 129269 RTFN15 Rietfontein 15 Artefacts, Rock Art Grade IIIa

CTS Heritage 16 Edison Way, Century City, 7441 Tel: +27 (0)87 073 5739 E mail: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

APPENDIX 2 Reference List from SAHRIS Heritage Impact Assessments

Report Nid Author/s Date Title Type

A PHASE 1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (AIA) FOR THE PROPOSED POWER LINE ALTERNATIVES 365021 AIA Phase 1 Celeste Booth 21/05/2016 AND SUBSTATION OPTIONS FOR THE RIETKLOOF WIND ENERGY FACILITY (WEF) SITUATED IN THE WITZENBURG LOCAL MUNICIPALITY AND LAINGSBURG LOCAL MUNICIPALITY, CAPE WINELANDS Timothy Hart, Lita 152531 HIA Phase 1 20/12/2013 Heritage Impact Assessment Report for the Phase 1 Roggeveld Wind Farm Webley 337370 PIA Phase 1 Duncan Miller 01/03/2011 Palaeontological Impact Assessment Proposed Roggeveld Wind Energy Facility Mariagrazia Galimberti, 356318 Kyla Bluff, Nicholas 01/02/2016 Heritage Screener CTS15_015a EOH Rietkloof Wind Energy Facility Wiltshire 329795 HIA Phase 1 Quahnita Samie 29/08/2012 Heritage Impact Assessment Worcester-Cape Winelands District Municipality, Western Cape

Sites from PalaeoBiology Database in figure 5

Collection No. Collection Formation Reference

J. M. Anderson and H. M. Anderson. 1985. Palaeoflora of Southern Africa. Prodromus of South African Megafloras Devonian to Lower 20716 Klipfontein (JL 56) Kweekvlei Shale Cretaceous. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema. J. M. Anderson and H. M. Anderson. 1985. Palaeoflora of Southern Africa. Prodromus of South African Megafloras Devonian to Lower 14089 De Kolken (JL 48) Waaiport Shale Cretaceous. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkem H. Geertsema and D. E. van Dijk. 1999. The earliest known Palaeozoic ensiferan insect from Africa, Afroedischia oosthuizeni gen. et 146349 2 km west of Laingsburg Laingsburg sp. nov. (Orthoptera: Oedischiidae). South African Journal of Science95:229-230

CTS Heritage 16 Edison Way, Century City, 7441 Tel: +27 (0)87 073 5739 E mail: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

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

Full guide to Palaeosensitivity Map legend

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

CTS Heritage 16 Edison Way, Century City, 7441 Tel: +27 (0)87 073 5739 E mail: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

APPENDIX 4 - Methodology

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

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

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

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

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

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

DETERMINATION OF THE COVERAGE RATING ASCRIBED TO A REPORT POLYGON

CTS Heritage 16 Edison Way, Century City, 7441 Tel: +27 (0)87 073 5739 E mail: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

Each report assessed for the compilation of the Heritage Screener is colour-coded according to the level of coverage accomplished. The extent of the surveyed coverage is labeled in three categories, namely low, medium and high. In most instances the extent of the map corresponds to the extent of the development for which the specific report was undertaken.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CTS Heritage 16 Edison Way, Century City, 7441 Tel: +27 (0)87 073 5739 E mail: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

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

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

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

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

CTS Heritage 16 Edison Way, Century City, 7441 Tel: +27 (0)87 073 5739 E mail: [email protected] Web: www.ctsheritage.com

APPENDIX 6: Results of Public Participation Process (to be completed once the PPP is concluded)

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