HERITAGE STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED VERLORENVLEI DIVERSION CANAL, CERES MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT,

(Assessment conducted under Section 38 (8) of the National Heritage Resources Act (No. 25 of 1999) as part of an EIA)

Prepared for

Holland & Associates P.O. Box 31108, Tokai, 7966. Phone: (021) 481 2400 Fax: (021) 424 5588 Email: [email protected]

26 May 2011

Prepared by

Jayson Orton

Archaeology Contracts Office Department of Archaeology University of Private Bag Rondebosch 7701

Phone (021) 650 2357 Fax (021) 650 2352 Email [email protected] EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Archaeology Contracts Office was requested by Holland & Associates to conduct an assessment of heritage resources that might be impacted by proposed weirs and diversion canals/pipelines on the farm Laaste Drift 345 in the northern Mountains, Ceres Magisterial District. The weirs (6 m to 10 m wide and 1.2 m to 1.5 m high) and canals (< 500 m long) and/or pipeline (c. 1.7 km long) are required to capture water from streams and divert some of their flows into existing streams that lead into the existing Verlorenvlei farm dam, on the adjacent Verlorenvlei farm. The project overlooks a declared provincial heritage site (Portion 1 of Verloren Valley 344 and buildings thereon) but does not impinge on it in any way.

The project is subject to an EIA and HWC is required to provide comment on the proposed activities.

The study area is up in the mountains and the substrate is almost entirely rocky with very light vegetation cover. Heritage material was not expected in this context but visual impacts were considered a possibility. However, it was found that the proposed weirs and canals/pipelines would not pose any visual impacts and that the access road, so long as it is not formalised in any way, will similarly not be of concern.

Subject to the approval of Heritage Western Cape, it is recommended that the proposed project be allowed to proceed with no further heritage work required.

2

Contents

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 4 2. HERITAGE LEGISLATION ...... 5 3. DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ...... 7 4. HERITAGE CONTEXT ...... 7 5. METHODS ...... 8 5.1. Limitations ...... 8 6. FINDINGS ...... 8 6.1. Archaeology ...... 8 6.2. Built environment ...... 8 6.3. Cultural landscapes ...... 8 6.4. Visual impacts ...... 9 7. ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS ...... 10 8. CONCLUSIONS ...... 11 9. RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 11 10. REFERENCES ...... 11

3 1. INTRODUCTION

The UCT Archaeology Contracts Office was requested by Holland and Associates to conduct an assessment of heritage resources that might be impacted by proposed weir and diversion canals/pipelines on the farm Laaste Drift 345 in the northern , Ceres Magisterial District (Figures 1 & 2). The weirs and canals/pipelines are proposed to capture the headwaters from small tributary streams and divert some of their flows into the Verlorenvlei Dam on the Smalblaar River on the farm Verlorenvalley 344. The sites are known as Point A, Point B, Point C (with two options) and Point D (Figures 2 & 3). Up to three weirs will be constructed depending on the most suitable options. A small existing track runs up the mountain immediately west of the main tributary stream

Figure 1: Map showing the location of the study area approximately mid-way between Ceres and . Note that the boxed area is enlarged in Figure 2.

Points A and D would require either a pipeline or a canal, while the chosen option at Point C would have an open canal. Their lengths would be approximately 480 m (Point A), 130 m (Point D) and 280 m (Point C). The proposed weirs would be 6 m to 10 m wide and 1.2 m to 1.5 m high. It is currently preferred to construct three weirs (one each at Points A, C & D), but should this option not be possible, then Point B (with a pipeline of c. 1.7 km) will be considered as an alternative. The weirs would be either of concrete or of cobbles and gravel. The scheme would serve to divert water to the watershed to the west such that flows would reach the Verlorenvlei Dam. A mechanical excavator will be required to excavate the canals or pipeline trenches. Canals would likely be lined with either concrete or HDPE (plastic) and pipes would be buried within their trenches.

The proposed development area looks down onto Portion 1 of Verloren Valley 344, which, in its entirety, is a declared Provincial Heritage Site (SAHRA, n.d.). The development does not intersect this property at all.

4 B

A D

C1 C2

3319BC Langvlei (Mapping information supplied by - Chief Directorate: Surveys and Mapping. Website: w3sli.wcape.gov.za)

Figure 2: Map showing the location of the study site on the northern slopes of . The blue oval shows the position of the Verlorenvlei Dam, the red circles the proposed weir sites and the red dotted lines the approximate lines of the proposed canals/pipe lines.

2. HERITAGE LEGISLATION

The National Heritage Resources Act (NHRA) No. 25 of 1999 protects a variety of heritage resources including palaeontological, prehistoric and historical material (including ruins) more than 100 years old (Section 35), human remains (Section 36) and non-ruined structures older than 60 years (Section 34). Landscapes with cultural significance are also protected under the definition of the National Estate (Section 3 (3.2d)). Under Section 38 (1) of the act the project requires heritage assessment based on the length of the canal being greater than 300 m.

5 Since the project is subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment, Heritage Western Cape (HWC) is required to provide comment on the proposed project in order to facilitate final decision making by the Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (DEA&DP).

Figure 3: Aerial view of the study area showing the spatial relationship between the (upper right hand corner), the main house, the start of the jeep track up the hill and the proposed abstraction points. The main house is 1.2 km from Point B and 2.9 km from Point C2.

6 3. DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The proposed weirs lie along small, unnamed streams in the mountains above the Verlorenvlei farm. The general area is very rocky (sandstone) with only small plants present. An ephemeral two-track road runs up the rocky spur to the west of the river system (Figures 4 & 5) but the area is otherwise completely natural and unmodified. The stream arises in a shallow valley which becomes progressively more incised down slope (Figures 6 & 7).

Figure 4: Part of the jeep track on the lower slopes. Figure 5: Part of the jeep track on the upper slopes.

Figure 6: One of the proposed weir locations at Figure 7: The river valley in the vicinity of Option B. Option C.

4. HERITAGE CONTEXT

Being high up in the mountains and on a very rocky substrate Stone Age material is very unlikely to be encountered and indeed none was seen during an earlier visit to the area further downstream (Orton 2009). However, isolated Stone Age artefacts (ESA and MSA) as well as one small site (LSA) have been observed elsewhere in the Hex River Mountains at similar elevations (personal observation). The latter included artefacts of quartz, quartzite and silcrete as well as a small upper grindstone. Historical material is highly unlikely in this mountain context but down in the valleys artefacts and old farmsteads do occur (Fransen

7 2004; Orton 2006). Portion 1 of Farm 344 with the main homestead and outbuildings thereon, including a water mill significant for being one of the few dated ones (1813) in (Walton 1974), is a declared Provincial Heritage site (SAHRA, n.d.). In front of the homestead lies an older structure, a long house, which was likely the original farmhouse. Old Anglo-Boer War fortifications are present in the surrounding hills as well. Palaeontological material is also known from this area but only from the shales which occur on the valley floor. A small collection of fossils made on the farm is stored in the homestead.

The area has high scenic value for its mountains and fruit and vegetable farms and is much visited during the winter months by snow-seekers. It is also close to the south-western ‘gateway’ to the and the site lies along the road linking Karoo Poort with the freeway.

5. METHODS

A foot survey was conducted on 13th May 2011. The jeep track was used to ascend the ridge, while the stream bed itself was used to descend. In this way both the track and its vicinity as well as the stream channel could be examined. GPS co-ordinates and tracks were supplied to indicate the locations of the weirs and canals/pipelines. A 40 m distance within the stream bed was considered at each point to allow for later micro-adjustment as required, although the entire stream was walked in order to check for proximate rock shelters. A working width of some 30 m was assumed for the canal/pipeline routes. With the large amount of exposed bedrock and very limited vegetation cover on the ridge and in the river valley, visibility was considered excellent.

5.1. Limitations

No limitations were experienced.

6. FINDINGS

6.1. Archaeology

No archaeological material or artefacts were seen during the survey. There is no chance at all of intersecting unmarked burials since the substrate is all rocky. Although Stone Age artefacts have been found in other parts of the Hex River Mountains, they are few and far between and nothing significant can be expected. The only anthropogenic item found was a fragment of modern glass near Point C2.

6.2. Built environment

No direct impacts to structures will be felt.

6.3. Cultural landscapes

Aside from the disused jeep track, no sign of human intervention in the natural landscape of the study area was seen. Concerns over minor impacts to the context of the main house (a

8 declared PHS) exist but can be easily mitigated (see also Section 6.3). No other cultural landscape issues were identified.

6.4. Visual impacts

The project site is well up the mountain 3.7 km from the nearest public road (the R46; Figure 8) and neither the weirs nor the canals at Options A, C or D would be visible from that road. All the weirs will be well hidden within the valley in which they would be built. The pipeline route for Option B would, however, be slightly visible from the road if not rehabilitated and well visible from the homestead. Of potential concern is the gravel track that will be used for access. Should this track be formalised or become well used it could result in increased scarring of the landscape and create a minor visual impact to road users on the R46 and to the homestead.

Figure 8: View from the R46 towards the study area showing the location of the river on which weirs will be constructed (left arrow) and the ridge up which the access track runs (right arrow).

9

Figure 9: View from the lower part of the gravel jeep track down towards the homestead.

Figure 10: View from the lower part of the gravel jeep track down towards the homestead with the old water mill being in the building to the left. Behind the tree in between these two structures is an older long house.

7. ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS

Two heritage impacts were identified: minor visual impacts and possible impacts to the context of the main house on Verlorenvalley 344. The latter is regarded as being far less

10 significant and the assessment in Table 1 thus relates to overall visual impacts. If the proposed canals and/or pipe lines are covered and allowed to revegetate then the overall impacts are considered to be of very low significance.

Table 1: Assessment of visual impacts to the natural and cultural landscape.

Before mitigation After mitigation Scale Local Local Magnitude Minor Negligible Duration Short term Short term Probability Highly probable Improbable Significance Low Very low Status Negative Negative Reversible Yes Cumulative impacts Not applicable.

8. CONCLUSIONS

All weir locations are hidden from view with regards to the scenic route and main house and, if appropriate management and mitigation are implemented then no significant impacts to heritage resources of any sort are expected from the proposed project.

9. RECOMMENDATIONS

Subject to the comment of Heritage Western Cape, it is recommended that the proposed project be allowed to proceed with no further heritage work being required but subject to the following conditions: • the jeep track should not be formalised; and • the canals/pipelines and associated excavated earth should be rehabilitated in such a way as to reduce their visibility from both the R46 and the farmhouse.

10. REFERENCES

Orton, J. 2006. Archaeological Impact Assessment for the construction of a dam on the Verlorenvlei Farm “Verlorenvalley” 344) near Touwsrivier. Unpublished report prepared for Ninham Shand Consulting Services. University of Cape Town, Archaeology Contracts Office.

Orton, J. 2009. Heritage statement for the proposed Verlorenvlei diversion canal, Ceres Magisterial District, Western Cape. Unpublished report prepared for Holland and Associates. University of Cape Town, Archaeology Contracts Office.

SAHRA, n.d. http://196.35.231.29/sahra/HeritageSitesDetail.aspx?id=13039. Accessed 16th May 2011.

Walton, J. 1974. Water-mills, windmills and horse mills of South Africa. Cape Town & Johannesburg: C. Struik Publishers.

11