The South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA) would like to thank you for submitting the letter in response to the comment issued on 12 September 2022 on the Draft Basic Assessment Report (DBAR) for the proposed Searcher Seismic Survey Reconnaissance Basic Assessment project.
You commented that “We appreciate the concerns raised. We must, however, note that the depth of the seafloor in the specific application area varies between 1500, and 3600, meters (SLR, 2022). We do not foresee that there can be any impact on wrecks on the seafloor at those depths due to the proposed survey activity.
The potential of discovering unknown wrecks with the 3D seismic survey is also very slim due to the depth and resolution of data recorded. However, research has shown potential for discovering wrecks at depth, and examples of exploration identifying wrecks at 1600mbsl exist (Irion, 2022; Church et al, 2004).
Considering the above, we propose that the following be included in the Environmental Management Plan for the project:
• survey positioning data and/or any resulting information that could aid in discovering offshore heritage resources, such as shipwrecks, will be shared with SAHRA.
We believe the additional study for inclusion in the existing HIA will not add to assessing the project's impacts. By adding the proposed management measures, we consider it will be sufficient to address the potential benefits of the survey to ward maritime heritage.
SARHA agrees with your comment but notes that we did not ask for an additional study to be included in the HIA, only that the existing HIA be updated to consider maritime heritage and to include mitigation measures should any shipwrecks be recorded.
Therefore it is requested that your above comment and above assessment for the low possibilities for impacts on any heritage resources be included in the HIA and BAR and that you also include the above suggested mitigation measures in the updated reports.
CaseReference
Applicable legislation
38(8)
Decision Date
Committee
Decision Status
Case Decision