Heritage Statement for the Proposed Verlorenvlei Diversion Canal, Ceres Magisterial District, Western Cape
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
HERITAGE STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED VERLORENVLEI DIVERSION CANAL, CERES MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, WESTERN CAPE (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 Cape Town 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 Hex River 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 Hex River Mountains, 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 Touws River. 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 Matroosberg. 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 R46 (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 South Africa (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