Palaeontological Impact Assessment May Be Significantly Enhanced Through Field Assessment by a Professional Palaeontologist
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
PALAEONTOLOGICAL HERITAGE ASSESSMENT – DESKTOP STUDY: Proposed development of an Interpretive Centre on the farm Nieuwe Kloof 202 in the Baviaanskoof World Heritage Site, Willowmore District, Eastern Cape John E. Almond PhD (Cantab.) Natura Viva cc, PO Box 12410 Mill Street, Cape Town 8010, RSA [email protected] August 2019 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Two site options on Farm Nieuwe Kloof 202 in the Bavaainsklof World Heritage Site, Willowmore District, Eastern Cape, are under consideration for a proposed new Interpretive Centre. Ordovician-aged fluvial bedrocks of the Peninsula Formation (Table Mountain Group) as well as the overlying Late Caenozoic colluvial or alluvial deposits at the preferred Alternative 1 site are all of low palaeontological sensitivity. The bedrocks here lie close to or within the major Baviaanskloof Fault Zone and are probably deformed and brecciated (fractured in situ), further compromising fossil preservation. The impact significance of the proposed Interpretive Centre on fossil heritage resources in the Baviaanskloof WHS is considered to be VERY LOW in the case of the preferred Alternative 1 site. The highly-disturbed Late Caenozoic alluvium mapped at surface at the Alternative 2 site is likewise of low palaeontological sensitivity. However, satellite images suggest that potentially- fossiliferous Mesozoic sediments of the Uitenhage Group might occur here at depth, close to or beneath the site, since they are well-exposed on the southern flanks of the Baviaanskloof immediately to the south. Potentially-fossiliferous mudrocks of the Late Ordovician Cederberg Formation mapped just to the north of the Alternative 2 site are probably mantled by thick superficial deposits (colluvium / alluvium / soils) and so are unlikely to be directly affected by the proposed development (e.g. upgrading of access roads). On a precautionary basis, the impact significance of the proposed Interpretive Centre on fossil heritage resources in the Baviaanskloof WHS in the case of the Alternative 2 site is considered to be MEDIUM. There is therefore a preference on palaeontological heritage grounds for the Alternative 1 site which is already preferred on other grounds. However, the stratigraphy and palaeontological sensitivity of the two site options can only be accurately assessed through fieldwork. Confidence levels for this study are accordingly rated as only MODERATE. It is recommended that, pending the potential discovery of significant new fossil remains during construction of the Baviaanskloof WHS Interpretive Centre development: An exemption from further specialist palaeontological studies and mitigation should be granted if the Alternative 1 site is chosen; A pre-construction site visit by a suitably qualified palaeontologist should be commissioned by the developer if the Alternative 2 site is chosen. The palaeontologist concerned should record any fossil heritage resources within the development footprint or its vicinity and John E. Almond (2019) 1 Natura Viva cc submit a specialist report to ECPHRA with recommendations for any monitoring or mitigation measured relevant to the construction phase. In either case, any substantial fossil remains (e.g. fossil shells, petrified wood or plant remains, vertebrate bones, teeth) encountered during the construction phase of the development should be reported by the ECO to the Eastern Cape Provincial Heritage Resources Agency, ECPHRA (Contact details: Mr Sello Mokhanya, 74 Alexander Road, King Williams Town 5600; [email protected]) for possible mitigation by a professional palaeontologist. A tabulated Chance Fossil Finds Procedure is appended to this report. 1. OUTLINE OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The Eastern Cape Parks and Tourism Agency (ECPTA) is proposing to develop an Interpretive Centre to be situated on the farm Nieuwe Kloof 202 in the western section of the Baviaanskloof Nature Reserve and World Heritage Site (WHS), Willowmore District, Eastern Cape Province (Fig. 1). The two site options for the Interpretive Centre under consideration - Alternative 1 (the preferred option) and Alternative 2 - are both located some 30 km SE of Willowmore and close to the unpaved R332 road near to where it enters the Baviaanskloofrivier Valley from the northwest via the Nuwekloof Gorge (Fig. 2). The main infrastructural components of the proposed development include: An information centre, gallery, conference room, admin area, reception area and curio shop; Staff areas, kitchen, scullery, store room and female and male toilets; Walkways and decks made from hardwood; Water, electrical and sewer services; and Roads, parking bays and a guard house. The Baviaanskloof study region is underlain by potentially fossiliferous rocks of Palaeozoic, Mesozoic and Caenozoic age. The present desktop palaeontological heritage assessment forms part of a Basic Assessment for the proposed development under the NEMA EIA Regulations of 2014 (as amended) that has been commissioned by MBSA Consulting, East London (Contact details: Mr Bathini Vanqa. MBSA Consulting, MBSA House, 8 Pine Park Street, Vincent, East London, RSA. Tel: 043 726 6513; E-Mail: [email protected]). 1.1. Legislative context This report falls under Sections 35 and 38 (Heritage Resources Management) of the South African Heritage Resources Act (Act No. 25 of 1999), and it will also inform the Environmental Management Plan for this project. The various categories of heritage resources recognised as part of the National Estate in Section 3 of the National Heritage Resources Act include, among others: geological sites of scientific or cultural importance; palaeontological sites; John E. Almond (2019) 2 Natura Viva cc palaeontological objects and material, meteorites and rare geological specimens. According to Section 35 of the National Heritage Resources Act, dealing with archaeology, palaeontology and meteorites: (1) The protection of archaeological and palaeontological sites and material and meteorites is the responsibility of a provincial heritage resources Agency. (2) All archaeological objects, palaeontological material and meteorites are the property of the State. (3) Any person who discovers archaeological or palaeontological objects or material or a meteorite in the course of development or agricultural activity must immediately report the find to the responsible heritage resources Agency, or to the nearest local Agency offices or museum, which must immediately notify such heritage resources Agency. (4) No person may, without a permit issued by the responsible heritage resources Agency— (a) destroy, damage, excavate, alter, deface or otherwise disturb any archaeological or palaeontological site or any meteorite; (b) destroy, damage, excavate, remove from its original position, collect or own any archaeological or palaeontological material or object or any meteorite; (c) trade in, sell for private gain, export or attempt to export from the Republic any category of archaeological or palaeontological material or object, or any meteorite; or (d) bring onto or use at an archaeological or palaeontological site any excavation equipment or any equipment which assist in the detection or recovery of metals or archaeological and palaeontological material or objects, or use such equipment for the recovery of meteorites. (5) When the responsible heritage resources Agency has reasonable cause to believe that any activity or development which will destroy, damage or alter any archaeological or palaeontological site is under way, and where no application for a permit has been submitted and no heritage resources management procedure in terms of section 38 has been followed, it may— (a) serve on the owner or occupier of the site or on the person undertaking such development an order for the development to cease immediately for such period as is specified in the order; (b) carry out an investigation for the purpose of obtaining information on whether or not an archaeological or palaeontological site exists and whether mitigation is necessary; (c) if mitigation is deemed by the heritage resources Agency to be necessary, assist the person on whom the order has been served under paragraph (a) to apply for a permit as required in subsection (4); and (d) recover the costs of such investigation from the owner or occupier of the land on which it is believed an archaeological or palaeontological site is located or from the person proposing to undertake the development if no application for a permit is received within two weeks of the order being served. Minimum standards for the palaeontological component of heritage impact assessment reports (PIAs) have recently been published by SAHRA (2013). John E. Almond (2019) 3 Natura Viva cc N 10 km Figure 1: Excerpt from 1: 250 000 scale topographical sheet 1: 3322 Oudtshoorn (Courtesy of the Chief Directorate: National Geo-spatial Information, Mowbray) showing the location of the Baviaanskloof WHS Interpretive Centre project area on the farm Nieuwe Kloof 202, situated c. 30 km SW of Willowmore in the western section of the Baviaanskloof Nature Reserve, Willowmore District, Eastern Cape Province (black rectangle). John E. Almond (2019) 4 Natura Viva cc GT Saagkuilskloof Op Nuwekloof Oc alluvium UH3 Baviaanskloofrivier UH2 UH2 UH1 UH1 Sg Figure 2: Google Earth© satellite image of the western Baviaanskloof study area on the Farm Nieuwe Kloof 202, Willowmore District, Eastern Cape, showing the preferred and alternative sites for the proposed Interpretive Centre. Features of geological / palaeontological