HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT of the PROPOSED ESKOM CERES to WITZENBERG 132Kv OVERHEAD POWERLINE

HWC CASE: 20111710SB1118E

HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE PROPOSED ESKOM CERES TO WITZENBERG 132kV OVERHEAD POWERLINE

HWC CASE: 20111710SB1118E DEFF CASE: not allocated yet

(Assessment conducted under Section 38 (8) of the National Heritage Resources Act (No. 25 of 1999) as part of a NEMA Basic Assessment process)

Prepared for

SRK Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd

On behalf of

Eskom Holdings SOC Limited

February 2021

Prepared by

David Halkett

ACO Associates cc

Physical: Unit D17, Prime Park, 21 Mocke Rd, Diep River Postal: 8 Jacobs Ladder St James, 7945 [email protected] Tel: 021 7064104 Cell: 0731418606 Fax to e-mail: 086 603 7195

INTEGRATED EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (HWC CASE: 20111710SB1118E)

The Integrated Executive Summary conforms to the specific requirements of Heritage Western Cape.

SITE NAME:

Proposed Eskom Ceres to Witzenberg 132kv Overhead Powerline

LOCATION:

Logical centrepoint: S33.294864° E19.296151°

The regional location of the site is off R303 near the towns of Ceres and Prince Alfred Hamlet in the Witzenberg Municipality.

Figure: Location of the project in regional context (Powerline - Red line)

Table: Proposed powerline crosses the following parcels of land REGISTERED OWNER AND NO ADDRESS CONTACT PERSON PROPERTY

Hennie Taljaard (Town Planner) WITZENBERG MUNICIPALITY Po Box 44 [email protected] Erf 1002 Ceres

Erf 5137 6835 Raymond Haywood (Supervisor) 1 Erf 1 (PA Hamlet) Anita Grobelaar (Secretary) Farm 2/323 Voortrek Street 53

Farm 1/316 Ceres Johan Swanepoel (Manager) Farm 3/316 (Witzenberg s/s site) 6835 [email protected]

REGISTERED OWNER AND NO ADDRESS CONTACT PERSON PROPERTY Fanie Van der Merwe (Dir) BOPLAAS 1743 LANDGOED PTY P O Box 5 [email protected] 3 LTD Koue-Bokkeveld Erf 5018 6836 Carl Van der Merwe (Dir) [email protected] P O Box 174 BERGVLIET FARMS PTY LTD David Wesson 4 Ceres Erf 8027 [email protected] 6835

MANUPONT 173 PTY LTD P O Box 82 Andries Deetlefs (Dir) 5 Farm 35/371 (existing) Ceres [email protected] 6835 PC MALHERBE TRUST Posbus 51 Connie Malherbe Farm 371 6 Ceres [email protected] Farm 1/375 6835 [email protected] Re/376 P O Box 106 CERES CASCADE FARMS PTY LTD Petrus Wolfaardt (Dir) 7 Prince Alfred Hamlet Farm 375 [email protected] 6840 John Roux P O Box 714 [email protected] ROUX FAMILY TRUST 8 Ceres Farm 2/375 6835 RJ Roux (Managing Director) [email protected] BUDDENBROCK PETER EAN VON P O Box 20 Peter Ean Von Buddenbrock (Dir) 9 Farm 374 Prince Alfred Hamlet Farm 423 6840 [email protected]

VERDUN FARMIN ESTATES PTY P O Box 38 Adriaan Wolfaardt (Dir) LTD 10 Prins Alfred Hamlet Farm 1/374 6840 [email protected] Farm 97/372

KOELEFONTEIN EIENDOMME PTY P O Box 4 Johannes Conradie (Dir) LTD 11 Prince Alfred Hamlet Farm 21/323 6840 [email protected] Farm 323

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT:

The Witzenberg 132/66/11kV 2x80MVA substation provides a 66kV input point to agricultural, residential and commercial loads in the Witzenberg area. The main and only supply into Witzenberg substation is from Romansrivier substation south of Ceres via a single circuit 132kV Bear line. Three 66kV feeders out of Witzenberg supply several 66/11kV and 66/22kV substations. There is also a 11kV supply point at Witzenberg itself.

A new 132kV substation at PA Hamlet is also required for the project to reduce the loading on the Romansrivier 132/66kV and or Witzenberg 132/66kV transformers (depending from which side PA Hamlet is supplied) and on the proposed Witzenberg-Ceres 66kV Kingbird line which has a normal rating of 88MVA. Tie-in lines will tee off from the new Ceres to Witzenberg single circuit 132kV line to connect at the new PA Hamlet substation. Key aspects of the project include:

• Construction of a new 132kV distribution powerline between Ceres and Witzenberg substations alongside an existing 66 kV powerline; • The new line will be ~32m from the existing 66kV line; • Installation of a 132kV bay at Ceres and Witzenberg substations to accommodate the line; • The proposed structures will be a mix of braced double steel poles and steel monopoles; • Existing formal and informal access tracks/farm roads will be utilised for the full extent of the route to facilitate construction except on the Witzenberg ridge where access to pylon locations 67 – 88 will be by helicopter.

sensitive areas. Most of the issues were to do with botanical and freshwater resources, while heritage issues were relatively few. Based on the reservations of various specialists, a revised route was tabled in March 2020 and after specialist comments, was revised in October 2020.

HERITAGE RESOURCES

Palaeontology

Dr John Almond provided an email comment at the NID stage: "The 132 kV powerline route traverses the outcrop area of the Table Mountain Group for the most part, most of which is of low palaeontological sensitivity (Ordovician - Early Devonian fluvial to shallow marine sandstones of the Peninsula, Goudini, Skurweberg and Rietvlei Formations plus thin glacial tillites of the Pakhuis Formation). Where the route runs along the Skurweberg mountain front to the north of Ceres, as well as to the southwest of Michell's Pass, it overlies low-sensitivity colluvial deposits (Late Caenozoic scree, sheetwash). The sector close to Romansrivier overlies unfossiliferous, tectonised sediments of the Late Precambrian Malmesbury Group. The only palaeontologically sensitive sector of the powerline route is located in Michell's Pass close to the Ou Tol where the route crosses the narrow outcrop band of the Cederberg Formation (Late Ordovician marine mudrocks, very high palaeontological sensitivity). However, the Cederberg mudrocks here are likely to be mantled with colluvial deposits and weathered near-surface, so I doubt that significant fossil impacts would occur." No assessment was requested as impacts were adjudged to be non-existent to very minimal.

The sensitive formations discussed by Dr Almond are in the Mitchell’s Pass area on the Romansrivier to Ceres powerline and are not affected by this section of powerline.

Pre-colonial heritage

Much of the route is through land modified by agriculture or other activities or on steep exposed terrain, and hence pre-colonial sites are few.

A slight change to the powerline route was proposed in March 2020, placed it in areas at the foot of the mountains close to rock outcrops that had the potential to contain Later Stone Age material. This area was assessed on 26th March 2020 by Mr J. Gribble and it was in this area that some MSA/LSA artefactual material was recognised. Detailed discussion can be found in the specialist Archaeological report in Appendix E.

Site JG004 was found along the northern side of a large rocky outcrop ~30 m to south-west of the proposed pylon #45. The site consists of a thin scatter (no more than 1 piece/m2) of LSA silcrete flakes and pottery (the silcrete is yellow-grey in colour) and there is a possible piece of CCS material. The pottery includes small fragments with red burnish (Plate 1). Proposed grade: IIIC.

JG016 is aflat open area where two weathered grey silcrete flakes were observed. It is not clear from the forms if these are LSA or possibly MSA, but possibly the latter based on the degree of weathering. This not a particularly significant site, but does indicate a presence of ancient people on the landscape. Proposed grade: NCW.

Historic built environment

Since much of the route is through land modified by agriculture or other activities or on steep exposed terrain, the historic built environment is limited.

JG005 is a possible stone building foundation on sandy flat area at the foot of mountain consisting of a low rectangular mound ~18 x 6.5 m. Stone is scattered about the area but no brick was observed. Associated scattered cultural material noted around foundation includes green and white glass, iron, copper/brass, and refined earthenware transfer printed ceramics. Based on the ceramics it probably dates to the late nineteenth to early twentieth century. Proposed grade: NCW.

JG001/002 consists of a line of stone plinths on which to elevate a water pipeline. Most were simply packed structures but a few had cement to bond the stones. The pipeline is no longer in use but

pieces of fibre-cement water pipe are still present in places. To the west of the waypoint JG001, is a stone and cement furrow which brought water to the pipeline. This was probably associated with the dwelling (R002) described below. Proposed grade: NCW.

R002 is a ruined vernacular style four room dwelling (two rooms each divided by a central wall) built from Table Mountain Sandstone and measuring ~8 x 3 meters (Plates 2 and 3). R002 lies 50 meters west of the powerline centre line on the farm Dassenklip 375. Exterior stone walls are pointed in raised ribbon style suggesting a late 19th- early 20th century construction date. Some use of newer cement plaster on interior walls is noted, and the tops of walls have new brick cemented on in places and vacant beam slots are evidence of wooden beams for a roof (probably corrugated iron) in the more recent past. There is no evidence of any roof today. We have not carried out a detailed background archival assessment of the building but it was probably a farmhouse at one time. Proposed grade: IIIC.

Cemeteries

During the fieldwork to assess the line on 10th May 2017, one fairly extensive farm cemetery (D017) was identified on the Re/Erf 4963 (Crispy Farming) close to a cluster of small workers cottages (Plates 4 and 5). The existing 66 kV powerline crosses directly over it and one lattice tower is placed immediately to the south, though not impacting any graves. There are a variety of grave markers – some simple head and foot stones consisting of river cobbles, while others are more formal with crosses and cement surrounds, but a variety other forms of headstones are also present. It is difficult to estimate the number of graves as not all are formally designated, but we estimate that there may be as many as one hundred. We believe that the older section could be on the east where most of the simple graves marked by traditional head and footstones seem to be, while to the west, are the more formal grave types. Burial dates in the western section, where indicated on the markers, range from 1946 – 1998 and the names Van Wyk, Sas, Swarts, Gelant, Antonie, and Mars were observed on headstones. Proposed grade: IIIA.

Cultural landscape

The Ceres Valley (also known as the Warm Bokkeveld) is enclosed by the Skurweberg Mountains to the west, the Hex River Mountains to the south and the Gydoberg Mountains and Waboomberg Mountains to the north. The landscape rises gently across the western and central portions of the valley (with Ceres at approximately 460 m above sea level), then rising sharply at the foothills in the east. The Gydo Pass (R303) in the north of Ceres Valley connects the Warm Bokkeveld with the higher altitude Koue Bokkeveld.

The Ceres sub-station is located on the north western edge of Ceres, immediately north of the Pine Forest camping and caravan park nestled amongst the remnant of an older pine e plantation. This is a transitional area between the town and mountain slopes to the west, and the intensive agricultural areas along the Dwars River to the north. Waterworks infrastructure and roads leading up to the Koekedouw/Ceres Dam can be found above the substation. Existing 66 kV powerlines from the Witzenberg s/s and Romansrivier s/s converge here. Proposed landscape grading: Generally IIIC but with IIIB towards the north (Witzenberg Ridge and Gydo Pass).

The powerline runs along the extreme western edge of Winter and Oberholzer’s “Winelands Cultural Landscape” (Wcl.12) (Figure 6). The part of Wcl.12 to the west of the R303 contains only one historical built environment resource, namely the Blouberg Victorian farmhouse (see below). The Gydo Pass / R303 was first formalised in 1848 having been built in the position of a pre-existing cattle route and formed the access road between the Warm- and Kouebokkeveld between Ceres and Citrusdal. It has “outstanding scenic qualities with views over the Ceres Valley” (Ross 2002). It is indicated on Figure 5 (Ws7). The pass has been modernised over the years and today is the main route for transporting fruit from the Kouebokkeveld through to Ceres.

Figure 6: A section of the Winter and Oberholzer (2014) Cape Winelands map showing the powerline route in red at the western edge of Wcl.12. (Winelands Cultural Landscape – Light green boundary, Purple – mountain pass/poort of scenic/heritage value, Light mauve – scenic routes with major scenic/heritage value (lower left), Light blue – secondary importance link routes; Yellow circle with “f” – Historic farmsteads/buildings of local significance (Grade III –unspecified sub-grade. Natural landscapes – dak green boundaries).

A grade III building is identified by Winter and Oberholzer (2014) to the east of the powerline on Erf 5018 (Boplaas 1743 Landgoed (Pty) Ltd). Although they have not provided a sub-grade, Fransen (2006:377) describes the building thus: ”Blouberg: A very fine high-Victorian farmhouse, its high iron roof pierced by two ventilation dormers and crowned by cast-iron decoration. It has bay-stoepkamers on two façade ends, between which runs a striped verandah with fretwork. All windows have louvred shutters, and a good fence runs all along the front.” (Fransen 2004:377). The photograph presented in Fransen (ibid) gives a sense of the building and the exterior appears to suggest a sub-grade of IIIB.

The powerline is situated ~300 meters to the rear of the building and no direct impacts will occur.

Prince Alfreds Hamlet

According to the Ceres Museum website (https://ceresmuseum.co.za/history/prince-alfreds-hamlet), in March 1851 Johannes Cornelis Goosen, a Warm Bokkeveld farmer, bought the farm Wagenbooms Rivier from George Sebastiaan Wolfaardt at the “fantastic” price of £6000. Ten years later he measured out first 80 and then another 10 plots and sold them for £6000 each. These plots had water rights and each owner also received one morgen of land to cultivate in the Bakoven River to grow feed for their animals. To commemorate the Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Alfred’s, visit to the Cape Colony in 1860, in 1861 Goosen decided to name the new town after the Prince and henceforth it has been known as Prince Alfred’s Hamlet. A Town Council was inaugurated on 8 December 1874 and on 28 December 1910 the town was given the status of Municipality under the Municipality Law of 1882. In 1926 the Town Hall was built. The Hamlet Country Hotel is the oldest business still in operation, with part of the building constructed in the 19th century.

character over recent years. The 1969 earthquake has done further damage”. It is not identified as a village of significance by Winter and Oberholzer (2014).

Impact on heritage resources relative to the sustainable social and economic benefits

This work is required as part of the program of upgrading and stabilising electricity supply to Ceres and Prince Alfreds Hamlet and the broader region where it is proposed to build the new PA Hamlet substation at 132kV in order to reduce the loading on the Romansrivier 132/66kV and/or Witzenberg 132/66kV transformers, as well as the loading on the proposed Witzenberg-Ceres 66kV Kingbird line which has a normal rating of 88MVA.

The upgrade improves electricity supply to the numerous agricultural enterprises in the region, and in turn affects job opportunities and economic production.

In terms of S38 (3)d of the NHRA, the imapcts on heritage resources are considered acceptable relative to the social and economic benefits resulting from the installation of the powerline and substations.

ENVIRONMENTAL ACCEPTABILITY

In our opinion, the powerline as proposed can be supported from an archaeological, palaeontological, built environment and visual perspective provided that the proposed mitigation is implemented. The impacts on heritage resources are considered acceptable relative to the social and economic benefits resulting from the installation of the powerline and sub-stations.

CONSULTATION

There is no registered Heritage conservation body for this area. The comments of the municipality along with comments of other I&AP’s will be canvassed via the NEMA BAR process and will be presented in the FBAR.

AUTHORS

Heritage Impact Assessment, ACO Associates cc, David Halkett (2021); Archaeological Specialist study, ACO Associates cc, David Halkett (2021); Palaeontological comment at NID stage - Mr John Almond (2016/2017); Environmental Impact Assessment – SRK Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd, Ms Kelly Armstrong (2021); Visual Impact Assessment – SRK Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd, Mr Chris Dalgliesh (2021)

DECLARATIONS OF INDEPENDENCE

Declarations by the authors of the Specialist reports can be found in the respective reports.

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 11 1.1 Background ...... 11 1.2 Terms of Reference ...... 11 1.3 Content of the Report ...... 12 1.4 Project description, motivation and technical data ...... 13 1.4.1 Season of the investigation ...... 13 1.5 List of affected properties ...... 15 1.6 Powerline alternatives ...... 19 1.7 The No-Go Alternative ...... 19 2. APPLICABLE LEGISLATION ...... 19 2.1 Heritage authorities ...... 20 2.1.1 Consultation ...... 20 2.2 HWC requirements for the Ceres Witzenburg 132kV ...... 20 2.3 Grading of heritage resources ...... 20 3. METHODOLOGY ...... 21 4. FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSMENT ...... 21 4.1 Palaeontology ...... 21 4.2 Archaeology ...... 21 4.2.1 Pre-colonial heritage ...... 21 4.2.2 Historic built environment (ruins) ...... 22 4.2.3 Graves and cemeteries ...... 23 4.3 Historical Built environment and Cultural Landscape ...... 23 4.3.1 Landscape ...... 25 5. IMPACT ASSESSMENT ...... 29 5.1 Archaeological and built environment resources ...... 29 5.2 Visual resources ...... 30 5.2.1 Findings of the VIA ...... 30 5.3 impact on heritage resources relative to the sustainable social and economic benefits ...... 32 6. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 33 6.1 Summary of findings ...... 33 6.1.1 Archaeological and built environment resources ...... 33 6.1.2 Visual resources ...... 34 6.2 Environmental acceptability ...... 34 7. REFERENCES ...... 34

GLOSSARY

Remains resulting from human activity which is in a state of disuse and are in or on land Archaeological and which are older than 100 years, including artefacts, human and hominid remains and artificial features and structures. Information gathered at the beginning of a study which describes the environment prior to Baseline development of a project and against which predicted changes (impacts) are measured. The stage of project development comprising site preparation as well as all construction Construction Phase activities associated with the development. Direct and indirect impacts that act together with current or future potential impacts of Cumulative Impacts other activities or proposed activities in the area/region that affect the same resources and/or receptors. The external circumstances, conditions and objects that affect the existence of an Environment individual, organism or group. These circumstances include biophysical, social, economic, historical and cultural aspects. Environmental Permission granted by the competent authority for the applicant to undertake listed Authorisation activities in terms of the NEMA EIA Regulations, 2014. Environmental Impact A process of evaluating the environmental and socio-economic consequences of a Assessment proposed course of action or project. Environmental Impact The report produced to relay the information gathered and assessments undertaken Assessment Report during the Environmental Impact Assessment. Environmental A description of the means (the environmental specification) to achieve environmental Management objectives and targets during all stages of a specific proposed activity. Programme Mineralised bones of animals, shellfish, plants and marine animals. A trace fossil is the Fossil track or footprint of a fossil animal that is preserved in stone or consolidated sediment That which is inherited and forms part of the National Estate (Historical places, objects, Heritage fossils as defined by the National Heritage Resources Act 25 of 1999 A change to the existing environment, either adverse or beneficial, that is directly or Impact indirectly due to the development of the project and its associated activities. Design or management measures that are intended to minimise or enhance an impact, Mitigation measures depending on the desired effect. These measures are ideally incorporated into a design at an early stage. The stage of the works following the Construction Phase, during which the development Operational Phase will function or be used as anticipated in the Environmental Authorisation. Any fossilised remains or fossil trace of animals or plants which lived in the geological Palaeontological past, other than fossil fuels or fossiliferous rock intended for industrial use, and any site which contains such fossilised remains or trace. A procedure to consult with stakeholders to determine issues and concerns and for determining the extent of and approach to an EIA and EMP (one of the phases in an EIA Scoping and EMP). This process results in the development of a scope of work for the EIA, EMP and specialist studies. Specialist study A study into a particular aspect of the environment, undertaken by an expert in that disciplin All parties affected by and/or able to influence a project, often those in a position of Stakeholders authority and/or representing others. Any building, works, device or other facility made by people and which is fixed to land, and Structure (historic) includes any fixtures, fittings and equipment associated therewith. Generally protected structures are those which are over 60 years old.

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

BA Basic Assessment Process

CRM Cultural Resource Management

EA Environmental Authorisation

EAP Environmental Assessment Practitioner

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

ESA Early Stone Age >~3000 0000 years –~ 1.1 Million years

GPS Global Positioning System

HIA Heritage Impact Assessment

HWC Heritage Western Cape – Provincial Heritage Authority

I&AP Interested and Affected parties

kV Kilo Volt

LSA Late Stone Age <~20 000 years

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

MSA Middle Stone Age – between ~300 000 and ~20 000 years

MVA Megavolt amperes

NEMA National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998, as amended

NHRA National Heritage Resources Act of 1999

NID Notice of intent to Develop – application to HWC at inception of the project

PHRA Provincial Heritage Resources Authority

SAHRA South African Heritage Resources Agency – the National Heritage Authority

SAHRIS South African Heritage Resources Information System

S&EIR Scoping and Environmental Impact Reporting

SRK SRK Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd

ToR Terms of Reference

VIA Visual Impact Assessment

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

ACO Associates cc has been requested by SRK Consulting on behalf of Eskom Holdings SOC Limited to undertake a Basic Assessment Report of the impacts on heritage resources from the proposed Eskom Ceres to Witzenberg 132kV overhead powerline, north of Ceres and to the west of the R303 in the Western Cape (Figure 1). A “Notice of Intent to Develop” (NID) application was submitted to Heritage Western Cape on the the 20th November 2020 and in their response of 30th November 2020 (Appendix C), HWC requested that an HIA be conducted consisting of a Visual Impact Assessment and Archaeological Impact Assessment with integrated findings. Having looked at the proposed activity during compilation of the NID, the Palaeontologist Dr John Almond (Appendix D) concluded that no significant impacts on Palaeontological resources would result from the activity and hence no Specialist Palaeontological assessment was required for the HIA. The comments of the municipality and the registered conservation body for the area were also requested by HWC, though no registered heritage conservation bodies for this area are listed on HWC’s website when consulted on 13 January 2021. The AIA and VIA are included as an Annexures to the HIA (Appendices E and F).

ACO Associates cc was appointed to compile an the requested Integrated Heritage Impact Assessment and an Archaeological Specialist study of the project to inform the Basic Assessment process.

While the project was initially proposed to be a 132/66kV powerline from the Romansrivier s/s (near Wolseley) through to the Witzenberg s/s near the top of the Gydo Pass, ESKOM subsequently decided to split the route into two, and this report is part of the Basic Assessment processes for the section from the Ceres s/s to the Witzenberg s/s.

Figure 1: The location of the proposed powerline route and sub-stations in local context.

1.2 Terms of Reference

The generic ToR and principal objectives for each specialist study are to: • Describe the existing baseline characteristics of the study area and place this in a regional context;

• Identify and assess potential impacts of the project and the alternatives, including impacts associated with the construction and operation phases, using SRK’s prescribed impact rating methodology (Appendix H); • Indicate the acceptability of alternatives and recommend a preferred alternative (where applicable); • Identify and describe potential cumulative impacts of the proposed development in relation to proposed and existing developments in the surrounding area; • Recommend mitigation measures to avoid and/or minimise impacts and/or optimise benefits associated with the proposed project; and • Recommend and draft a monitoring campaign, if applicable.

The main deliverable from each specialist will be an impact assessment report with appropriate maps, drawings and figures. Reports will consist of the following components:

• Baseline description1: a description of the environment of the study area in its current state, relevant to the specialist’s field of study; and Impact assessment: an assessment of how the proposed project will alter the status quo as described in the baseline description, and recommended measures to mitigate and monitor impacts.

1.3 Content of the Report

The EIA Regulations, 2014 (R982 of 2014, as amended by R326 of 2017), prescribe the required content of a specialist report prepared in terms of the EIA Regulations, 2014. These requirements, and the sections of this HIA in which they are addressed, are summarised in Table 1.

Table 1: Required content of a specialist report App 6 Item Section (a) (i) Details of the specialist who prepared the report; App A (a) (ii) Expertise of that specialist to compile a specialist report, including a curriculum vitae App A A declaration that the specialist is independent in a form as may be specified by the competent (b) App B authority; (c) An indication of the scope of, and the purpose for which the report was prepared; 1.1 (cA) An indication of the quality and age of base data used for the specialist report; 1.4 A description of existing impacts on the site, cumulative impacts of the proposed development and (cB) 4 levels of acceptable change; The duration, date and season of the site investigation and the relevance of the season to the (d) 1.4.1 outcome of the assessment; A description of the methodology adopted in preparing the report or carrying out the specialised (e) 3 process inclusive of equipment and modelling used; Details of an assessment of the specific identified sensitivity of the site related to the proposed (f) activity or activities and its associated structures and infrastructure, inclusive of a site plan 4.3 identifying site alternatives; (g) An identification of any areas to be avoided, including buffers; 4.3 A map superimposing the activity including the associated structures and infrastructure on the App E (h) environmental sensitivities of the site including areas to be avoided, including buffers; App F App E (i) A description of any assumptions made and any uncertainties or gaps in knowledge; App F A description of the findings and potential implications of such findings on the impact of the (j) 4.3 proposed activity or activities; Tables 4, 5 (k) Any mitigation measures for inclusion in the EMPr; 6.1.1, 6.1.2 Table 5, (l) Any conditions for inclusion in the environmental authorisation; 6.1.2 (m) Any monitoring requirements for inclusion in the EMPr or environmental authorisation; n/a (n) (i) A reasoned opinion whether the proposed activity or portions thereof should be authorised; 6.2 (n) (iA) A reasoned opinion regarding the acceptability of the proposed activity or activities; 6.2 If the opinion is that the proposed activity, activities or portions thereof should be authorised, any Tables 4,5, (n) (ii) avoidance, management and mitigation measures that should be included in the EMPr, and where 6.1.2, applicable, the closure plan; (o) A description of any consultation process that was undertaken during the course of preparing the 2.2.1.2

1See Halkett 2017c – the baseline study was part of an extensive examination of powerline routes from Romansrivier s/s near Wolseley to the Witzenberg s/s. 12

specialist report; A summary and copies of any comments received during any consultation process and where not yet (p) applicable all responses thereto; and available (q) Any other information requested by the competent authority. n/a

1.4 Project description, motivation and technical data

The Witzenberg 132/66/11kV 2x80MVA sub-station provides a 66kV input point to agricultural, residential and commercial loads in the Witzenberg area. The main and only supply into Witzenberg sub-station is from Romansrivier substation south of Ceres via a single circuit 132kV Bear line. Three 66kV feeders out of Witzenberg supply several 66/11kV and 66/22kV substations. There is also a 11kV supply point at Witzenberg itself. Existing electrical infrastructure as of 2017 can be seen in Figure 2.

• Construction of a new 132kV distribution powerline between Ceres and Witzenberg substations alongside an existing 66 kV powerline; • The new line will be ~32m from the existing 66kV line; • Installation of a 132 kV bay at Ceres and Witzenberg substations to accommodate the line; • The proposed structures will be a mix of braced double steel poles and steel monopoles; • Existing formal and informal access tracks/farm roads will be utilised for the full extent of the route to facilitate construction except on the Witzenberg ridge where access to pylon locations 67 – 88 will be by helicopter.

The route proposed by ESKOM was evaluated as part of a Baseline study by various specialists in May 2017. A number of issues with respect to environmental and heritage sensitivity were raised with respect to proposed layout of infrastructure. Subsequently, a walkdown of the proposed route was undertaken by specialists and ESKOM representatives on 23 and 24 May 2017. The issues raised in the baseline study were discussed on site and alternative infrastructure positions were proposed in sensitive areas. Most of the issues were to do with botanical and freshwater resources, while heritage issues were relatively few. Based on the reservations of various specialists, a revised route was tabled in March 2020 and after specialist comments, was revised in October 2020.

1.4.1 Season of the investigation

The Archaeological Impact Assessment was undertaken in May 2017 and March 2020. The season has no effect on the findings of that report The Visual Impact Assessment site visit was undertaken in May 2017 and duration and timing were appropriate to provide the specialist with impressions of the site and surroundings. As the project area is very remote, the site characteristics observed in May 2017 remain representative of present site characteristics.

Figure 2: Existing electrical infrastructure (2017). The Ceres – Witzenburg route has changed moderately.

1.5 List of affected properties

The affected erven/farm portions crossed by the powerline was provided by ESKOM and are listed on Table 2. The powerline in relation to the cadastral boundaries of relevant farm portions and erven are shown in Figures 3 – 5.

Table 2: Affected properties and owners

REGISTERED OWNER AND ADDRESS CONTACT PERSON PROPERTY

Hennie Taljaard (Town Planner) WITZENBERG MUNICIPALITY Po Box 44 [email protected] Erf 1002 Ceres

Erf 5137 6835 Raymond Haywood (Supervisor) 1 Erf 1 (PA Hamlet) Anita Grobelaar (Secretary) Farm 2/323 Voortrek Street 53

Farm 1/316 Ceres Johan Swanepoel (Manager) Farm 3/316 (Witzenberg s/s site) 6835 [email protected]

CRISPY FARMING PTY LTD Erf 1884 Geysbertus Christiaan Du Toit (Director) Erf 4963 Posbus 236 [email protected] Erf 207 (PA Hamlet) Ceres 2 6835 Johannes Engelbrecht (Financial Director) Du Toit Agri PTY LTD [email protected] Farm 1/323 Farm 316 Fanie Van der Merwe (Dir) BOPLAAS 1743 LANDGOED PTY P O Box 5 [email protected] 3 LTD Koue-Bokkeveld Erf 5018 6836 Carl Van der Merwe (Dir) [email protected] P O Box 174 BERGVLIET FARMS PTY LTD David Wesson 4 Ceres Erf 8027 [email protected] 6835 MANUPONT 173 PTY LTD P O Box 82 Andries Deetlefs (Dir) 5 Farm 35/371 (existing ) Ceres [email protected] Re/376 6835

PC MALHERBE TRUST Posbus 51 Connie Malherbe 6 Farm 371 Ceres [email protected] Farm 1/375 6835 [email protected] CERES CASCADE FARMS PTY P O Box 106 Petrus Wolfaardt (Dir) 7 LTD Prince Alfred Hamlet [email protected] Farm 375 6840 John Roux P O Box 714 [email protected] ROUX FAMILY TRUST 8 Ceres Farm 2/375 6835 RJ Roux (Managing Director) [email protected] BUDDENBROCK PETER EAN P O Box 20 Peter Ean Von Buddenbrock (Dir) VON 9 Prince Alfred Hamlet Farm 374 6840 [email protected] Farm 423 VERDUN FARMIN ESTATES PTY P O Box 38 Adriaan Wolfaardt (Dir) LTD 10 Prins Alfred Hamlet Farm 1/374 6840 [email protected] Farm 97/372

KOELEFONTEIN EIENDOMME P O Box 4 Johannes Conradie (Dir) PTY LTD 11 Prince Alfred Hamlet Farm 21/323 6840 [email protected] Farm 323

Figure 3: Cadastral map of the northern section of the powerline route terminating at the Witzenberg s/s. The perpendicular branch line to the proposed Prince Alfred Hamlet s/s is also indicated.

Figure 4: Cadastral map of the central section of the powerline route (two blue lines at right angles on Ptn35/371 are exiting powerline feeds).

Figure 5: Cadastral map of the southern section of the powerline route originating at the Ceres s/s to the north west of Ceres.

1.6 Powerline alternatives

1.7 The No-Go Alternative

The No-Go Alternative will retain the status quo and involve no construction of a powerline.

2. APPLICABLE LEGISLATION

The National Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries is the decision making authority acting in terms of the National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998) (NEMA) and the NEMA Regulations (2014). In terms of Section 38 (8) National Heritage Resources Act (Act 25 of 1999) (NHRA), DEA must ensure that the evaluation of the statutorily defined broad range of heritage resources fulfils the requirements of the relevant heritage resources authority in terms of Section 38 (3) of the NHRA, and that any comments and recommendations of the relevant heritage resources authority with regard to proposed development have been taken into account prior to the granting of the consent.

Section 38 of the NHRA applies to development where HWC is not the decision making authority. Triggers for the NHRA are as follows:

38. (1) Subject to the provisions of subsections (7), (8) and (9), any person who intends to undertake a development categorised as— (a) the construction of a road, wall, powerline, pipeline, canal or other similar form of linear development or barrier exceeding 300m in length; (b) the construction of a bridge or similar structure exceeding 50 m in length; (c) any development or other activity which will change the character of a site—` (i) exceeding 5 000 m2 in extent; or (ii) involving three or more existing erven or subdivisions thereof; or (iii) involving three or more erven or divisions thereof which have been consolidated within the past five years; or (iv) the costs of which will exceed a sum set in terms of regulations by SAHRA or a provincial heritage resources authority; (d) the re-zoning of a site exceeding 10 000 m2 in extent; or (e) any other category of development provided for in regulations by SAHRA or a provincial heritage resources authority…..

The person who intends to undertake the development must notify SAHRA/HWC at the very earliest stages of initiating such a project of the location, nature and extent of the development. Section 38 (2a) states that if there is reason to believe that heritage resources will be affected then an impact assessment report must be submitted that fulfils the requirements of S38 (3).

38 (3) The responsible heritage resources authority must specify the information to be provided in a report required in terms of subsection (2)(a): Provided that the following must be included: (a) The identification and mapping of all heritage resources in the area affected; (b) 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; (c) an assessment of the impact of the development on such heritage resources; (d) 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; (e) the results of consultation with communities affected by the proposed development and other interested parties regarding the impact of the development on heritage resources; (f) if heritage resources will be adversely affected by the proposed development, the consideration of alternatives; and (g) plans for mitigation of any adverse effects during and after the completion of the proposed development. 19

The NHRA provides protection for the following categories of heritage resources:

• Cultural landscapes (Section 3(3)) • Buildings and structures greater than 60 years of age (Section 34) • Archaeological sites greater than 100 years of age (Section 35) • Palaeontological sites and specimens (Section 35) • Shipwrecks and aircraft wrecks (Section 35) • Graves and grave yards (Section 36).

2.1 Heritage authorities

SAHRA is the National Heritage Resources Authority and is responsible for Grade 1 heritage sites and the management of heritage in provinces where no Provincial authority has been established. As there are no Grade 1 heritage sites identified for the powerline project, SAHRA has no part to play in this application.

HWC is the relevant Provincial Heritage Resources Authority (PHRA) for the Western Cape and therefore for this application. They have a defined process in order to achieve a final comment with respect to heritage resources as follows:

In terms of Section 38 of the NHRA, the appointed Heritage Practitioner must submit a “Notice of Intent to Develop” (NID) form to the Provincial Heritage Resources Authority (PHRA) for initial adjudication of the project and for them to determine the need for, and scope of further specialist heritage studies. If it is clear from the NID that no significant heritage resources will be impacted, no further action in terms of heritage will be requested. The comment is submitted to the Environmental Assessment practitioner (EAP) for inclusion in the Environmental process. If the decision is that further studies are required, the PHRA will request that the additional specialist studies are done as part of an Integrated Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA). The integration is to ensure that there is a recommendation that takes into account the findings of the various requested specialist Heritage studies. The specialist studies may include studies undertaken routinely as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process e.g. a Visual Impact Assessment (VIA), but most often include Archaeological and/or Palaeontological Impact Assessments. If there is significant Built Environment heritage at the affected site, a study of the buildings and their significance could be requested.

2.1.1 Consultation

HWC requires that consultation with the responsible Municipality and conservation bodies registered with HWC where there is jurisdiction for the area in which the project falls. A list of registered conservation bodies and a spatial map of jurisdictions is found on HWC’s website (https://www.hwc.org.za/conservation-bodies).

2.2 HWC requirements for the Ceres Witzenburg 132kV

In the case of the Ceres to Witzenberg 132kV powerline, HWC has requested that an HIA be undertaken consisting of Archaeological and Visual Impact studies, and that the comments from any registered conservation body and the municipality be included. The requested specialist reports will be included as appendices of the integrated HIA, and comments of the Witzenberg Municipality will be included in the final BAR, once the HIA has been submitted to them for comment. There is no registered conservation body for this area and therefore broader consultation is limited to the I&AP process conducted as part of the NEMA BAR application process.

2.3 Grading of heritage resources

The significance of heritage resources is assessed according to the grading criteria established by the NHRA. The grading system in Table 3 is currently applied by HWC.

Table 3: Grading of heritage resources (only categories I, II and III are defined in the NHRA), but HWC have introduced additional categories under III). Level of Grade Description significance Of high intrinsic, associational and contextual heritage value within a national context, i.e. formally I National declared or potential Grade 1 heritage resources. Of high intrinsic, associational and contextual heritage value within a provincial context, i.e. formally II Provincial declared or potential Grade 2 heritage resources. Of high intrinsic, associational and contextual heritage value within a local context, i.e. formally declared or IIIA Local potential Grade 3a heritage resources. Of moderate to high intrinsic, associational and contextual value within a local context, i.e. potential Grade IIIB Local 3b heritage resources. Of medium to low intrinsic, associational or contextual heritage value within a national, provincial and local IIIC Local context, i.e. potential Grade 3c heritage resources. Not conservation-worthy - The Heritage Authority has applied its mind and the resource does not have enough heritage significance to be included in the National Estate. i.e. Insufficient Heritage Significance or NCW “Ungradeable”. This category is important as not all old places or structures are significant in terms of the NHRA. Not yet The Heritage Authority has not yet applied its mind in order to determine a grading for the resource or

graded there is not, yet, sufficient information to determine the grading.

3. METHODOLOGY

The methodologies of the requested specialist studies are described in detail in the respective specialist reports (Visual Impact Assessment and Archaeological Impact Assessment: Appendices E and F) and are not repeated here.

4. FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSMENT

Although no specialist report was required for Palaeontological resources, we have included Dr Almond’s comment from the NID application for completeness. The findings of the requested specialist reports are summarised below:

4.1 Palaeontology

Dr John Almond provided the following email comment for the entire route from Romansrivier-Ceres- Witzenberg at the NID stage (Appendix D)2: "The 132 kV powerline route traverses the outcrop area of the Table Mountain Group for the most part, most of which is of low palaeontological sensitivity (Ordovician - Early Devonian fluvial to shallow marine sandstones of the Peninsula, Goudini, Skurweberg and Rietvlei Formations plus thin glacial tillites of the Pakhuis Formation). Where the route runs along the Skurweberg mountain front to the north of Ceres, as well as to the southwest of Michell's Pass, it overlies low-sensitivity colluvial deposits (Late Caenozoic scree, sheetwash). The sector close to Romansrivier overlies unfossiliferous, tectonised sediments of the Late Precambrian Malmesbury Group. The only palaeontologically sensitive sector of the powerline route is located in Michell's Pass close to the Ou Tol where the route crosses the narrow outcrop band of the Cederberg Formation (Late Ordovician marine mudrocks, very high palaeontological sensitivity). However, the Cederberg mudrocks here are likely to be mantled with colluvial deposits and weathered near- surface, so I doubt that significant fossil impacts would occur."

The sensitive formations discussed by Dr Almond are in the Mitchell’s Pass area on the Romansrivier to Ceres powerline and are not affected by this section of powerline.

4.2 Archaeology

4.2.1 Pre-colonial heritage

Much of the route is through land modified by agriculture or other activities or on steep exposed

2 ESKOM later split the powerline into two sections – Romansrivier s/s to Ceres s/s (section 1) and Ceres s/s to Witzenberg s/s (section 2). 21

terrain, and hence pre-colonial sites are few.

Site JG004 was found along the northern side of a large rocky outcrop ~30 m to south-west of the proposed pylon #40. The site consists of a thin scatter (no more than 1 piece/m2) of LSA silcrete flakes and pottery (the silcrete is yellow-grey in colour) and there is a possible piece of CCS material. The pottery includes small fragments with red burnish (Plate 1). Proposed grade: IIIC.

Plate 1: Artefacts at a small localised surface LSA scatter at JG004 (notebook size ~14x10cm)

JG016 is a flat open area where two weathered grey silcrete flakes were observed. It is not clear from the forms if these are LSA or possibly MSA, but possibly the latter based on the degree of weathering. This not a particularly significant site, but does indicate a presence of ancient people on the landscape. Proposed grade: NCW.

4.2.2 Historic built environment (ruins)

Since much of the route is through land modified by agriculture or other activities or on steep exposed terrain, the historic built environment is limited.

JG001/002 consists of a line of stone plinths on which to elevate a water pipeline. Most were simply packed structures but a few had cement to bond the stones. The pipeline is no longer in use but pieces of fibre-cement water pipe are still present in places. To the west of the waypoint JG001, is a stone and cement furrow which brought water to the pipeline. This was probably associated with the dwelling (R002) described below. Proposed grade: NCW.

Plates 2 and 3: A three roomed vernacular structure (R002) is found to the west of the proposed powerline route. Architectural detail suggests that it dates to the late 19th or early 20th century. More recent additions of brick and cement on top of the rear wall and beam slots, suggest a more recent addition of a simple flat roof with timber trusses. The existing powerline can be seen in the background.

4.2.3 Graves and cemeteries

During the fieldwork to assess the line on 10th May 2017, one fairly extensive farm cemetery (D017) was identified on the Re/Erf 4963 (Crispy Farming) close to a cluster of small workers cottages (Plates 4 and 5). The existing 66 kV powerline crosses directly over it and one lattice tower is placed immediately to the south, though not impacting any graves. There are a variety of grave markers – some simple head and foot stones consisting of river cobbles, while others are more formal with crosses and cement surrounds, but a variety other forms of headstones are also present. It is difficult to estimate the number of graves as not all are formally designated, but we estimate that there may be as many as one hundred? We believe that the older section could be on the east where most of the simple graves marked by traditional head and footstones seem to be, while to the west, are the more formal grave types. Burial dates in the western section, where indicated on the markers, range from 1946 – 1998 and the names Van Wyk, Sas, Swarts, Gelant, Antonie, and Mars were observed on headstones. Proposed grade: IIIA.

Plates 4 and 5: Two views of the farm cemetery(D017) showing proximity of the existing 66 kV powerline infrastructure.

The cemetery has been taken into account in the planning of the new powerline, and pylons are placed well away from it, in fact to the east of the existing 66kV powerline. As such, no impacts are anticipated from the construction.

4.3 Historical Built environment and Cultural Landscape

The Ceres sub-station is located on the north western edge of Ceres, immediately north of the Pine Forest camping and caravan park nestled amongst the remnant of an older pine plantation. This is a transitional area between the town and mountain slopes to the west, and the intensive agricultural areas along the Dwars River to the north. Waterworks infrastructure and roads leading up to the Koekedouw/Ceres Dam can be found above the substation. Existing 66 kV powerlines from the Witsenberg s/s and Romansrivier s/s converge here. Proposed landscape grading: Generally IIIC but with IIIB towards the north (Witzenberg Ridge and Gydo Pass).

A grade III building is identified by Winter and Oberholzer (2014) to the east of the powerline on Erf 5018 (Boplaas 1743 Landgoed (Pty) Ltd). Although they have not provided a sub-grade, Fransen (2006:377) describes the building thus: ”Blouberg: A very fine high-Victorian farmhouse, its high iron roof pierced by two ventilation dormers and crowned by cast-iron decoration. It has bay-stoepkamers on two façade ends, between which runs a striped verandah with fretwork. All windows have louvred shutters, and a good fence runs all along the front.” (Fransen 2004:377). The photograph (Plate 6), presented in Fransen (ibid) gives a sense of the building and the exterior appears to suggest a sub- grade of IIIB.

Plate 6: Blouberg is a high-Victorian farmhouse (in: Fransen 2004:377)

The powerline is situated ~300 meters to the rear of the building and no direct impacts will occur.

Prince Alfreds Hamlet

Fransen (2004:277) notes of the village: “Until two decades ago, several houses survived that dated from just after its foundation in 1861. They all had half-hipped ends, one or two with small dormers in front, and most of them simple rectangular rows of rooms. The village has however lost most of its character over recent years. The 1969 earthquake has done further damage”. It is not identified as a village of significance by Winter and Oberholzer (2014).

4.3.1 Landscape

The following photographs show the existing 66kV and 11kV to give broad sense of the landscape along different sections of the route. These are in addition to those presented in the VIA.

Plate: 7: Looking west towards the Ceres sub-station (at lower left) and the rocky mountain slopes beyond. Plate 8: Just to the north of the Ceres s/s with the powerline on wooden “H” poles.

Plates 9 and 10: Typical views of lattice towers crossing cultivated land

Plate 11: The powerline runs along the foot of the mountain to the south of Prince Alfred’s Hamlet. Plate 12: The site of the proposed Prince Alfred’s Hamlet s/s is highly modified.

Plate 13: The existing 765kV powerline crosses the mountain to the west of Prince Alfred’s Hamlet and runs parallel to the proposed 132kV branch to the new s/s. Plate 14: The existing 765kV powerline crosses the R303 north of Prince Alfred’s Hamlet. Witzenberg ridge carrying the existing 66 and 11kV powerlines up to the Witzenburg s/s lies directly ahead in the photo.

Plate 15: 66kV and 11kV in fynbos north of Prince Alfred’s Hamlet. Plate 16: Zoomed image looking north east towards Witzenburg ridge carrying the powerlines.

Plates 17 and 18: Looking south from different positions on Witzenburg ridge from the existing powerline route. The cleared servitude through old plantations is clearly visible in the lower distance in Plate 18.

Plate 19: Looking south east towards the Gydo Pass at the point on Witzenburg ridge where the powerlines head down into the valley towards the Witzenburg s/s.

Figures 7: Oblique Google Earth view looking north west showing the Gydo Pass (thin yellow route line) with ridge screening most of the way from the powerline (red line) on the Witzenberg

ridg e.

Figures 8: Oblique Google Earth view looking south showing the Gydo Pass (thin yellow route line) on the left with ridge screening most of the way from the powerline (red line) on the

Witzenberg ridge.

Plate 20: Looking north west from the Witzenberg Ridge down to the Witzenberg sub-station. Plate 21: Looking west towards the rear of the Witzenberg sub-station.

5. IMPACT ASSESSMENT

The full Archaeological and Visual Impact assessment reports are found in Appendices E and F.

5.1 Archaeological and built environment resources

Bearing in mind that impacts on significant physical heritage resources have been mitigated during ongoing planning of the powerline route, the findings of the impact assessment evaluated in terms of the Impact Methodology (Appendix H) are summarised in Table 4. The assessment suggests that impacts on physical heritage resources will be minimal/non-existent with the implementation of mitigation.

Table 4: Summary of impacts and mitigation on physical heritage resources Significance rating Preferred Impact Key mitigation / optimisation measures Before mitigation After mitigation Alternative CONSTRUCTION PHASE IMPACTS Loss of pre-colonial • Although not directly impacted, it is archaeological suggested that site JG004 and associated resources during INSIGNIFICANT (-ve) INSIGNIFICANT (+ve) n/a rock outcrop is placed out of bounds during construction of the construction phase. powerline – towers Loss of pre-colonial archaeological • Although not directly impacted, it is resources during suggested that site JG004 and associated INSIGNIFICANT (-ve) INSIGNIFICANT (+ve) n/a construction of rock outcrop is placed out of bounds during powerline – access the construction phase. roads Loss of historical • The ruined building (R002) must be avoided built environment MEDIUM (-ve) INSIGNIFICANT (+ve) n/a during construction of the tower and hoisting during powerline the line into position. construction – towers Loss of historical • At the resource R002, no access tracks may built environment be placed to the west of the powerline during powerline INSIGNIFICANT (-ve) INSIGNIFICANT (+ve) n/a centreline; construction – • At the resource R002, use existing rough access roads tracks to access the tower site from the east. • Planning has ensured that the two towers in the vicinity of the cemetery (12 and 13) are placed ~100 meters distant and impacts Loss of cemetery should not occur as a result of construction; during powerline MEDIUM (-ve) INSIGNIFICANT (+ve) n/a construction – towers • To be sure that the cemetery is not impacted, no construction activities should occur to the west of the powerline centreline between towers 12 and 13. • Planning has ensured that the two towers in the vicinity of the cemetery (12 and 13) are Loss of cemetery placed ~100 meters distant and impacts during powerline should not occur as a result of construction; MEDIUM (-ve) INSIGNIFICANT (+ve) n/a construction – • To be sure that the cemetery is not impacted, access roads no construction activities should occur to the west of the powerline centreline between towers 12 and 13. OPERATIONAL PHASE IMPACTS • Use the same existing tracks and roads for maintenance as used during the construction phase; • Planning has ensured that the two towers (12 Loss of heritage and 13) in the vicinity of the farm workers resources - MEDIUM (-ve) INSIGNIFICANT (+ve) n/a cemetery (D017) are placed ~100 meters maintenance distant and impacts should not occur as a result of maintenance; • To be sure, that the cemetery is not impacted, no maintenance activities should occur to the west of the powerline centreline

Significance rating Preferred Impact Key mitigation / optimisation measures Before mitigation After mitigation Alternative between towers 12 and 13; • Although not directly impacted, it is suggested that site JG004 and associated rock outcrop is placed out of bounds during maintenance phase; • The ruined building (R002) must be avoided during maintenance of the tower 38 the powerline in that area; • At the resource R002, no access tracks may be placed to the west of the powerline centreline; • At the resource R002, use existing rough tracks to gain access to the site from the east of the tower site; • The remains of a structure (J005) and other corner points 6-8 (see above) to be avoided during maintenance of Tower 35 and the powerline in that area.

5.2 Visual resources

The following text is from the VIA (Dalgliesh 2021,pp 38-39).

The primary aims of the VIA are to describe the visual baseline, assess the visual impacts of the project and identify effective and practicable mitigation measures. More specifically, the ToR for the VIA are as follows:

• Describe the baseline visual characteristics of the study area, including landform, visual character and sense of place, and place this in a regional context; • Identify potential impacts of the project on the visual environment through analysis and synthesis of the following factors: . Visual exposure; . Visual absorption capacity; . Sensitivity of viewers (visual receptors); . Viewing distance and visibility; and . Landscape integrity; • Assess the impacts of the project on the visual environment and sense of place using the prescribed impact assessment methodology (see Appendix C); • Assess the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts (pre- and post-mitigation) of the final location of infrastructure (and alternatives, if applicable) on visual resources in relation to other proposed and existing developments in the surrounding area; • Recommend practicable mitigation measures to avoid and/or minimise/reduce impacts and optimise benefits; and • Recommend and draft a monitoring campaign to ensure the correct implementation and adequacy of recommenced mitigation and management measures, if applicable.

5.2.1 Findings of the VIA

The VIA describes and interprets the visual context or affected environment in which the project is located: this provides a visual baseline or template and aims to ascertain the aesthetic uniqueness of the project area. To better understand the magnitude or intensity of visual and sense of place impacts, the capacity of the project area and receptors to accommodate, attenuate and absorb impacts was analysed in considerable detail. To assess impact significance, the powerline and substation were “introduced” into the baseline, taking account of the attenuating capacity of the project area.

The following findings are pertinent:

• Eskom proposes to construct a ~17 km single circuit 132 kV powerline between the existing Ceres and Witzenberg Substations, as well as a new substation in Prince Alfred Hamlet, and a powerline tie- in to this proposed new substation; • The basis for the visual character of the region is provided by the geology, vegetation and land use of the area. Most of the Ceres Valley can be defined as a natural transition landscape of mostly natural scenery, with rural and urban elements and artefacts visible in the landscape; • The visual quality of the overall area is largely ascribable to the rural and peri-urban patterns across the Ceres (and elevated Koue Bokkeveld) Valleys nestled in spectacular and rugged mountains covered in natural vegetation. Some elements detract from the visual quality in the study area, notably vertical elements traversing the landscape including the existing 66 kV and 11 kV powerlines from the Witzenberg Substation, 400 kV and 765 kV powerlines traversing the Skurweberg and Witzenberg respectively, existing substations, urban areas (Ceres and Prince Alfred Hamlet), roads and agro-processing facilities; • The region has scenic value in terms of the rural/agricultural setting and sense of nature invoked by the encircling spectacular mountainous backdrop. The region has attractive visual-spatial qualities and residents and tourists are attracted to the area because of its scenery and location in the landscape. The visualspatial qualities are influenced by the rural patterns created by rolling wheatfields, the patchwork of fruit orchards and vineyards in a mountainous setting, offset to some extent by urban developments, agro-processing facilities and some derelict portions adjoining these areas. Views across the valley and from Gydo Pass add to the sense of place of the area. Tourists are also attracted to the area during the winter months when the surrounding mountains, including the lower reaches of the Koue Bokkeveld at Gydo Pass are often covered in snow; • The visual exposure analysis indicates that the powerline will be exposed and will be visible throughout the study area. The viewsheds do not, however, take into consideration the screening provided by minor variations in topography, planted trees nor the built fabric in Ceres and Prince Alfred Hamlet. Exposure in the Koue Bokkeveld is limited; • The VAC (Visual Absorption Capacity) of the area is increased by topography as the area is surrounded by mountains thereby limiting the viewshed, particularly to the west. Effective screening is provided by orchards, trees and windrows to the east of the powerline, albeit ineffective on Witzenberg Ridge; • Receptors include residents of Ceres and Prince Alfred Hamlet, motorists on the provincial roads (R46 and R303), farmers and farm labourers, and visitors/tourists to the area. Many receptors are exposed to existing powerlines in the study area, including powerlines along the same route, but visitors / tourists are more sensitive receptors; • Visibility of the southern section of the powerline is lower in the Ceres Valley landscape units, but visibility (of Witzenberg Ridge) is higher the north eastern corner of the valley and from Gydo Pass; • Landscape integrity refers to the compatibility of the development with the existing landscape South of Witzenberg Ridge, the powerline is partially compatible with the existing land use of the Ceres Valley where it adjoins urban or agricultural areas. However, the powerline and access road on Witzenberg Ridge are not sympathetic to the sensitivity of the mountainous natural environment to the west and are not, therefore, compatible with this landscape. The remaining wooden pylons only marginally increase the compatibility of the powerline with the existing land use; • During construction, loss of sense of place in the Ceres Valley south of Witzenberg Ridge is limited as construction activities will be marginally congruent with the current nature of the surrounding area (viz. agricultural activities, agro-processing, urban development) and the construction footprints will be visible from only a limited number of viewpoints. Loss of sense of place is expected during installation of the pylons along the Witzenberg Ridge section of the powerline route since construction and the change in the state of the site (scarring, construction equipment and dust generation) is incongruent with the current natural state of the surrounding area and the construction footprints will be visible to highly sensitive receptors, e.g. on Gydo Pass. Vegetation clearance on the steeper vegetated mountain slopes will be particularly visible to receptors as the resultant scarring will be incongruent with the existing character of these natural areas. Very few construction activities will occur within the foreground (< 500 m), reduce exposure and construction impacts will be of comparatively short duration. The impact is assessed to be of low significance with and without the implementation of mitigation measures; • Although localised screening means that the 13 km southern section of the powerline up to Witzenberg Ridge will not be visible from much of the Ceres Valley, the 4 km section up Witzenberg Ridge will be highly visible to sensitive receptors in Gydo Pass and from the north western corner of Ceres Valley. The powerline will present to the former in the middle ground (i.e. marginally beyond

500 m) and is likely to alter the visual quality (of Gydo Pass) and, therefore, alter the sense of place to receptors moving through this space. In addition to other access options, a new access road along Witzenberg Ridge is contemplated. This will present as severe scar in the landscape and will be extremely incongruent with the current natural state of the surrounding area. The impact of the powerline and access roads is assessed to be of high significance and with the implementation of mitigation is reduced to medium. • Although localised structures may screen the Prince Alfred Hamlet Substation and tie-in powerline, they will be visible to some receptors in the hamlet, but are not likely to alter the visual quality and sense of place. Both are moderately compatible with the existing local land use, with limited effect on overall landscape integrity. The impact of the Prince Alfred Hamlet Substation is assessed to be of low significance and with and without the implementation of mitigation measures.

Table 5: Summary of impacts and mitigation on visual resources Significance rating Preferred Impact Key mitigation / optimisation measures Before mitigation After mitigation Alternative CONSTRUCTION PHASE IMPACTS ▪ Limit and phase vegetation clearance and the footprint of construction activities to what is absolutely essential; ▪ Utilise existing access roads as far as possible. If new roads are required, then avoid clearing natural vegetation to facilitate access to the final pylon positions. If access across natural vegetation is required, then prune/remove large trees and shrubs rather than clearing vegetation completely; Altered sense of ▪ Avoid excavation, handling and transport of place and visual LOW (-ve) LOW (-ve) n/a materials which may generate dust under high intrusion during wind conditions; construction ▪ Consolidate the footprint of the construction camp(s) to a functional minimum. Screen the yard with materials that blend into the surrounding area; ▪ Keep construction sites tidy and confine all activities, material and machinery to as small an area as possible; ▪ Rehabilitate disturbed areas incrementally and as soon as possible, not necessarily waiting until completion of the Construction Phase. OPERATIONAL PHASE IMPACTS ▪ Install pylons so that they do not protrude and “silhouette” above Witzenberg Ridge; ▪ Install lattice structure pylons as far as ossible, especially on Witzenberg Ridge (Figure 6-1). ▪ Do not install or affix lights on pylons; ▪ Do not construct an access road on Witzenberg Ridge; Altered sense of ▪ Rehabilitate areas affected by scarring and place and visual implement measures to prevent erosion; intrusion from the HIGH (-ve) MEDIUM (-ve) n/a ▪ Design access roads so that the surface of the proposed powerline access road faces away from receptors, where and access roads possible; ▪ Avoid clearing natural vegetation from access roads completely, rather prune vegetation as required; ▪ Do not prune vegetation adjacent to the roads; ▪ Construct terrace / foundation walls using materials that blend in with the surroundings (e.g. sandstone stone-packing, riverstone gabions).

5.3 impact on heritage resources relative to the sustainable social and economic benefits

In terms of S38 (3)d of the NHRA, this aspect must be considered as part of the assessment.

substation at 132kV in order to reduce the loading on the Romansrivier 132/66kV and/or Witzenberg 132/66kV transformers, as well as the loading on the proposed Witzenberg-Ceres 66kV Kingbird line which has a normal rating of 88MVA.

This upgrade improves electricity supply to the numerous agricultural enterprises in the region, and in turn affects job opportunities and economic production.

The imapcts on heritage resources are considered acceptable relative to the social and economic benefits resulting from the installation of the powerline and sub-stations.

6. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Summary of findings

6.1.1 Archaeological and built environment resources

The baseline study and impact assessment has indicated that the powerline “site” contains Archaeological, Built environment and Visual resources. For the most part, archaeological and built environment heritage resources will not be significantly impacted by the activities due to sites being identified in the baseline and subsequent studies that informed route planning. Although no direct impacts are anticipated, some mitigation is suggested to ensure that no impacts occur inadvertently during the construction and operational phases. We find the significance rating of impacts during the construction phase on the resources to be insignificant in all categories after the implementation of mitigation (in Table 4) and are therefore considered acceptable.

Similarly, we find the significance rating of impacts during the operational phase on the resources to be insignificant after the implementation of mitigation (in Table 4 and below) and are therefore considered acceptable.

During the construction phase:

• Although not directly impacted, it is suggested that site JG004 and associated rock outcrop is placed out of bounds during the construction phase; • Although not directly impacted, it is suggested that site JG004 and associated rock outcrop is placed out of bounds during the construction phase; • The ruined building (R002) must be avoided during construction of the tower and hoisting the line into position; • At the resource R002, no access tracks may be placed to the west of the powerline centreline; • At the resource R002, use existing rough tracks to access the tower site from the east; • Planning has ensured that the two towers in the vicinity of the cemetery (12 and 13) are placed ~100 meters distant and impacts should not occur as a result of construction; • To be sure that the cemetery is not impacted, no construction activities should occur to the west of the powerline centreline between towers 12 and 13; • Planning has ensured that the two towers in the vicinity of the cemetery (12 and 13) are placed ~100 meters distant and impacts should not occur as a result of construction; • To be sure that the cemetery is not impacted, no construction activities should occur to the west of the powerline centreline between towers 12 and 13.

During the operational phase:

• Use the same existing tracks and roads for maintenance as used during the construction phase; • Planning has ensured that the two towers (12 and 13) in the vicinity of the farm workers cemetery (D017) are placed ~100 meters distant and impacts should not occur as a result of maintenance; • To be sure, that the cemetery is not impacted, no maintenance activities should occur to the west of the powerline centreline between towers 12 and 13; • Although not directly impacted, it is suggested that site JG004 and associated rock outcrop is placed out of bounds during maintenance phase;

• The ruined building (R002) must be avoided during maintenance of the tower 38 the powerline in that area; • At the resource R002, no access tracks may be placed to the west of the powerline centreline; • At the resource R002, use existing rough tracks to gain access to the site from the east of the tower site; • The remains of a structure (J005) are to be avoided during maintenance of Tower 35 and the powerline in that area.

6.1.2 Visual resources

According to Dalgliesh (2021:39-40), the proposed powerline, access roads and new substation in Prince Alfred Hamlet are likely to transform the natural transition landscape in a region with attractive visual-spatial qualities. The powerline and contemplated access road on the Witzenberg Ridge will be visible throughout the study area, although localised screening and the VAC of the area limit the viewshed, particularly to the west. Many receptors are exposed to existing powerlines in the study area, including powerlines along the same route, while visitors / tourists are more sensitive receptors.

Construction phase impacts are deemed acceptable, but visual and sense of place impacts of the powerline and access roads are assessed to be of high significance. However, if the following mitigation measures, are implemented, the impacts reduce and are considered acceptable:

• Install pylons so that they do not protrude and “silhouette” above Witzenberg Ridge; and • Not construct an access road on Witzenberg Ridge;

On the assumption that mitigation measures are effectively implemented, the specialist is of the opinion that, in respect of visual impacts, there is no reason not to authorise the project.

6.2 Environmental acceptability

7. REFERENCES

Bulpin, T. 1986. Discovering South Africa. Treasury of Travel, Muizenberg.

Dalgliesh, C. 2021. Eskom Ceres – Witzenberg 132kV Powerline: Visual Impact Assessment Report. Prepared for Eskom Holdings SOC Limited. SRK Consulting. Report Number 532062/42A

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

Fransen, H. 2006. Old towns and villages of the Cape. Jonathan Ball, Cape Town.

Halkett, D. 2017a. Archaeological Impact Assessment of the proposed Eskom Romansrivier to Ceres 132kV overhead powerline. Unpublished report prepared for SRK Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd on behalf of Eskom Holdings SOC Limited. ACO Associates cc.

Halkett, D. 2017b. Heritage impact assessment of the proposed Eskom Romansrivier to Ceres 132kV overhead powerline. Unpublished report prepared for SRK Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd on behalf of Eskom Holdings SOC Limited. ACO Associates cc.

Halkett, D. 2017c. Heritage baseline study for the proposed Eskom Romansrivier - Witzenberg 132/66kV overhead powerline. Unpublished report prepared for SRK Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd on behalf of Eskom Holdings SOC Limited. ACO Associates cc.

Kaplan, J. 1995. Archaeological survey: New Koekedouw Dam, Ceres. Prepared for Ceres Municipality. Agency For Cultural Resource Management.

Kaplan, J. 1998. Proposal to develop heritage tourism products in Ceres. Unsolicited report prepared for Department of Water Affairs and Forestry Working for Water Project. Agency for Cultural Resource Management.

Kaplan, J. 2004. Archaeological impact Assessment: Proposed construction of the 132/66kV substation and tie in powerlines in Romansrivier, Witzenburg Municipality. Unpublished report prepared for ESKOM. Agency for Cultural Resources Management.

Kaplan, J.M. 2005. Phase 1 Archaeological Impact Assessment of the proposed Romansrivier Ceres 66kV powerline refurbishment, Western Cape Province. Unpublished report prepared for ESKOM Land Management. Agency for Cultural Resources Management.

Ross, G. 2002. The Romance of Cape Mountain Passes. David Philip: Cape Town.

Winter, S. & Oberholzer, B. 2014. Heritage and scenic resources: Inventory and policy framework for the western Cape. Prepared for the Provincial Government of the western Cape Department of Environmental and Development Planning.

Websites

(https://ceresmuseum.co.za/history/prince-alfreds-hamlet)

Appendix A: Specialists CV

Details

Name: Mr David John Halkett ID number: 5807235148080 Date of Birth: 23.07.1958 Company: ACO Associates cc (Registration 2008/234490/23) Principal business: Archaeological/Heritage Impact Assessment Position: Director (Principal investigator) Profession: Archaeologist, Heritage Impact Assessor Years with Firm: 9 Years’ experience: 33 Previous employment: Archaeology Contracts Office, UCT, 24 years Nationality: South African HDI Status: White Male Physical work address: Unit D17, Prime Park, 21 Mocke Road, Diep River 7800 Postal address: 8 Jacobs Ladder, St James, 7945 E-mail: [email protected]

Education

1991: M.A. (Archaeology) University of Cape Town 1982: B.A. (Hons) (Archaeology) University of Cape Town 1980: B.A. University of Cape Town 1976: Pinelands High School (matric exemption)

Professional Qualifications

MA (Archaeology) UCT Registered member of the Association of Southern African Professional Archaeologists (ASAPA)

Languages

First language – English Second language - Afrikaans (speaking, reading and writing).

Expertise

Having co-directed the Archaeology Contracts Office at the University of Cape Town for 24 years (one of the first heritage resource management companies in South Africa), David is now a director of ACO Associates cc, which has taken over from the UCT operation and retains most of its staff. ACO Associates provides Heritage and Archaeological Impact Assessment services to a range of clients in order for them to comply with Environmental and Heritage Legislation. He is a long standing member of the Association of Southern African Professional Archaeologists (ASAPA) and an accredited Principal Investigator of the Cultural Resource Management (CRM) section. With 28 years of working experience in heritage impact assessments, conservation and archaeological research, he has worked in a wide variety of contexts and participated in over a thousand heritage projects ranging from Heritage and archaeological impact assessments, to mitigation of archaeological sites in suburban, rural and industrial (mining) situations. He is an accredited with ASAPA to act as a Principal Investigator on Earlier Middle and Later Stone Age sites, especially coastal shell middens and rock painting sites, and Colonial period sites. David’s broad experience in heritage management has led to his participation as an advisor to the National Monuments Council up until 2000, and more recently he served as a member of two Heritage Western Cape regulatory committees, the Impact Assessment Review Committee (IACOM) and the Archaeology, Palaeontology and Meteorites Committee (APM), and he has served on occasion as a forensic consultant to the Missing Persons Unit of the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA). He has led field projects on behalf of both local and overseas research organisations, and continues to participate in archaeological research on an ad hoc basis. Research interests include aspects of the Middle Stone Age, Later Stone Age and Colonial

era of southern Africa. He has co-authored a number of peer reviewed journal articles on these topics. ACO Associates cc has assisted on numerous renewable energy projects in the Northern, Eastern and Western Cape and David has been personally involved in a number of these projects.

Summary of other experience

2008-present: Director and Principal Investigator: ACO Associates cc. Projects undertaken in the Eastern, Northern and Western Cape Provinces. 1988-2012: Principal Investigator and director: Archaeology Contracts Office, University of Cape Town. Projects undertaken in the Eastern, Northern and Western Cape Provinces. 1997: Junior Research Officer: Palaeoanthropology Research Unit, University of the Witwatersrand, (part time apt for one year) Cape Town based. 1984: Part time research assistant: Spatial Archaeology Research Unit, University of Cape Town

Relevant experience

Employment since 1988 has required management of all aspects of heritage projects, and management of the day to day functions of the business (including Financial, HR).

Powerline Projects selection

Halkett, D. 2013. An Assessment of the potential Impacts of an Informal Cemetery Situated on Ptn 32 of the Farm De Doorns 552 resulting from the upgrade of the 66kV between Hammanshof and Kwaggaskloof Substation near Worcester. Unpublished report prepared for SiVEST. ACO Associates cc.

Halkett, D. 2014. An Archaeological Study of the Proposed Eskom Blanco Substation and line project: Alternatives 1-7. Unpublished report prepared for Vidamemoria. ACO Associates cc.

Halkett, D. 2014. Proposed Eskom Longdown Substation and Vyboom Turn in Powerline near Villiersdorp, Western Cape. Unpublished report prepared for SiVEST. ACO Associates cc.

Halkett, D. 2015. Specialist Archaeological Assessment of an amendment of an authorised 132kV Powerline Route to the South east of Oudsthoorn, Western Cape. Unpublished report prepared for SiVEST. ACO Associates cc.

Halkett, D. & Webley, L. 2015. Archaeological Impact Assessment: Proposed Construction of a 132 kV powerline from The Rheboksfontein Wind Energy facility to the Aurora Substation, Western Cape. Unpublished report prepared for Savannah Environmental (Pty) Ltd. ACO Associates cc.

Halkett, D. & Webley, L. 2011. Heritage impact assessment: proposed Aggeneis-Oranjemund 400kv line and substations upgrade, northern Cape Province. Unpublished report prepared for Savannah Environmental (Pty) Ltd. ACO Associates cc.

Halkett, D. 2016. Heritage impact assessment of the proposed Eskom Merino 66kv substation and 24km Bon-Chretien to Merino 66kv powerline, Ceres. Unpublished report prepared for SRK Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd on behalf of Eskom Holdings SOC Limited. ACO Associates cc.

Published articles in peer reviewed journals

Avery, G., Halkett, D., Orton, J., Steele, T. & Klein, R. 2009. The Ysterfontein 1 Middle Stone Age Rock shelter and the Evolution of Coastal Foraging. South African Archaeological Society Goodwin Series 10: 66–89

Cruz-Uribe, K., Klein, R.G., Avery, G., Avery, D.M., Halkett, D., Hart, T., Milo, R.G., Sampson, C.G. & Volman, T.P. 2003. Excavation of buried late Acheulean (mid-quaternary) land surfaces at Duinefontein 2, Western Cape Province, South Africa. Journal of Archaeological Science 30, 559-575

Dewar, G, Halkett, D, Hart, T., Orton, J. & Sealy, J. 2006. Implications of a mass kill site of springbok (antidorcas marsupialis) in South Africa: hunting practices, gender relations, and sharing in the later Stone Age. Journal of Archaeological Science 33, 1266-1275

Finnegan, E., Hart, T. & Halkett, D. 2011. The ‘informal’ burial ground at Prestwich Street, Cape Town: cultural and chronological indicators for the historical Cape underclass. South African Archaeological Bulletin 66 (194): 136–148

Halkett, D., Hart, T. and Malan, A. 2005. Bones of Contention: Archaeology and the Green Point burial grounds. South African Museums Association Bulletin. 30: 25-31

Halkett, D., Hart, T., Yates, R., Volman, T.P., Parkington, J.E., Klein, R.J., Cruz-Uribe, K. & Avery, G. 2003. First excavation of intact Middle Stone Age layers at Ysterfontein, Western Cape province, South Africa: implications for Middle Stone Age ecology. Journal of Archaeological Science 30, 955- 971

Halkett, D.J. 1984. The archaeology of the Putslaagte. In Parkington, J.E. & Hall, M. eds. Papers in the Prehistory of the Western Cape, South Africa. BAR International Series 332 (ii)

Hall, M., Halkett, D.J., Huigen van Beek, P. & Klose, J. 1990. “A stone wall out of the earth that thundering canon cannot destroy”? Bastion and Moat at the Castle, Cape Town. Social Dynamics 16 (1): 22-37

Hall, M., Halkett, D.J., Klose, J. & Ritchie, G. 1990. The Barrack Street Well: images of a Cape Town household in the 19th century. South African Archaeological Bulletin 152: 73-92

Hine, P., Sealy, J., Halkett D. & Hart T. 2010. Antiquity of stone-walled tidal fish traps on the cape coast, South Africa. South African Archaeological Bulletin 65 (191): 35–44

Jerardino, A., Halkett, D., Hart, T., Kaplan, J., Navarro, R., & Nilssen, P. in prep. Filling-in the gaps and testing past scenarios on the central West Coast: hunter-gatherer subsistence and mobility at ‘Deurspring 16’ shell midden, Lamberts Bay, South Africa.

Jerardino, A., Wiltshire, N., Webley, L., Tusenius, M., Halkett, D., Hoffman, M.T. & Maggs, T. 2014. Site distribution and chronology at Soutpansklipheuwel, a rocky outcrop on the West Coast of South Africa. Journal of Island & Coastal Archaeology.

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

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

Klein, R.G., Avery, G., Cruz-Uribe, K., Halkett, D.J., Parkington, J.E., Steele, T., Volman, T.P. & Yates, R.J. 2004. The Ysterfontein 1 Middle Stone Age site, South Africa, and early human exploitation of coastal resources. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 101: 5708–5715

Malan, A., Webley, L., Halkett, D. & Hart, T. 2013. People and places on the West Coast since AD 1600. In: Jerardino, A., Malan, A., & Braun, D. Eds. The Archaeology of the West Coast of South Africa. BAR International Series 2526, 124-142

Morris, A.G and Halkett, D.J. 2008. Fragmentary evidence: the analysis of the crushed human bone from the BP site, a secondary mass burial of historic skeletons from the Waterfront in Cape Town, South Africa. Paper presented at ASAPA conference, UCT.

Orton, J., Hart, T. and Halkett, D.J. 2005. Shell middens in Namaqualand: Two Later Stone Age sites at Rooiwalbaai, Northern Cape Province, South Africa. South African Archaeological Bulletin, 60 (181): 24-32

Orton, J. & Halkett, D. 2007. Excavations at Noetzie midden. The Digging Stick 24 (3)

Orton, J. & Halkett, D. 2001. Microlithic denticulates on a mid-Holocene open site near Jakkalsberg in the Richtersveld, Northern Cape Province, South Africa. Southern African Field Archaeology 10, 19- 22 Orton, J. & Halkett, D. 2010. Stone tools, beads and a river: two Holocene microlithic sites at Jakkalsberg in the north-western Richtersveld, Northern Cape, South Africa. South African Archaeological Bulletin, 65 (191):13-25

Orton, J., Halkett, D., Hart, T., Patrick, M. and Pfeiffer. 2015. An unusual pre-colonial burial from Bloubergstrand, Table Bay, South Africa. South African Archaeological Bulletin, 70 (201): 106–112

Parkington, J.E., Poggenpoel, C., Halkett, D. and Hart, T. 2004. Initial observations on the middle stone age coastal settlement in the Western Cape, South Africa. In: Conard N.J. ed. Settlement Dynamics of the Middle Palaeolithic and Middle Stone Age Vol II: 5-21. Kerns Verlag, Tubingen.

Parkington, J.E., Yates, R., Manhire, A. & Halkett, D. 1986. The social impact of pastoralism in the south-western Cape. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 5: 313-329

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

Wilson, M.L. & Halkett, D.J. 1981. The use of marine shell for decorating Cape coastal (Khoisan) pottery. South African Archaeological Bulletin 36: 43-44

Books

Malan A., Halkett D., Hart T. and Schietecatte L. 2017. Grave Encounters. Archaeology of the burial grounds, Green Point, South Africa.

Appendix B: Declaration of Independence

Appendix C: HWC NID comment

Appendix D: Palaeontological comment from Dr J Almond for the NID

On 21 April 2017 at 17:36, almond wrote:

Dear Dave,

The 132 kV powerline route traverses the outcrop area of the Table Mountain Group for the most part, most of which is of low palaeontological sensitivity (Ordovician - Early Devonian fluvial to shallow marine sandstones of the Peninsula, Goudini, Skurweberg and Rietvlei Formations plus thin glacial tillites of the Pakhuis Formation). Where the route runs along the Skurweberg mountain front to the north of Ceres as well as to the southwest of Michell's Pass it overlies low-sensitivity colluvial deposits (Late Caenozoic scree, sheetwash). The sector close to Romansrivier overlies unfossiliferous, tectonised sediments of the Late Precambrian Malmesbury Group. The only palaeontologically sensitive sector of the powerline route is located in Michell's Pass close to the Ou Tol where the route crosses the narrow outcrop band of the Cederberg Formation (Late Ordovician marine mudrocks, very high palaeontological sensitivity). However, the Cederberg mudrocks here are likely to be mantled with colluvial deposits and weathered near-surface here, so I doubt that significant fossil impacts would occur.

In my view, a specialist palaeontological study would mainly highlight the potentially sensitive Cederberg Formation outcrop area but conclude that significant impacts are unlikely.

Perhaps you can just say that and quote me?

If you can get by without doing a palaeo study at all, that would be just fine!

Regards,

John

On 2017-04-21 13:43, David Halkett wrote:

Hi John,

Sorry, just getting to this NID.

Sorry to be a pain but I was hoping you could give me a paragraph that describes more specifically the resource that may be impacted along this route in order to justify the need for a palaeo study. The palaeo Baseline report will have to be very specific and address the tower positions and (access roads when decided). The walk down will be to address any issues immediately on site via route tweaks so very likely at least walkdown fieldwork will be required. Just trying to figure out how the Palaeo will fit in without fieldwork? Reporting will have to be a baseline and then a BAR. SRK will appoint you directly depending on the NID requirement.

The new dates for reports are 12 May for baseline report, walkdown 23-24 May (tentative), and draft Bar by 7 June.

What say you?

Regards

Dave

Appendix E: Archaeological Specialist Study

Appendix F: Visual Impact Assessment

Appendix G: I&AP comments (to add after public process is completed)

Appendix H: Impact Assessment Methodology