proposed realignment of gauging weirs downstream … - ba clanwilliam weirs/bar/appe… · hia –...

PGS Heritage (Pty) Ltd PO Box 32542 Totiusdal 0134, T +27 12 332 5305 F: +27 86 675 8077

Reg No 2003/008940/07

PROPOSED REALIGNMENT OF GAUGING WEIRS DOWNSTREAM OF THE BULSHOEK DAM AND IN THE DORING RIVER, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE

Phase 1 – Heritage Impact Assessment

Issue Date - 3 December 2015

Revision No. - 2

Project No. - 131HIA

HIA – Realignment of Gauging Weirs Downstream of the Bulshoek Dam and in the Doring River ii

Declaration of Independence

The report has been compiled by PGS Heritage, an appointed Heritage Specialist for Zitholele

Consulting. The views stipulated in this report are purely objective and no other interests are

displayed during the decision making processes discussed in the Heritage Impact Assessment

Process.

HERITAGE CONSULTANT - PGS Heritage

CONTACT PERSON - W Fourie

Tel - +27 (0) 12 332 5305

Email - [email protected]

SIGNATURE - ______________________________

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT

CLIENT - Zitholele Consulting

CONTACT PERSON - Kariesha Tilakram

T: +27 11 207 2060

E: [email protected]

SIGNATURE - ______________________________

HIA – Realignment of Gauging Weirs Downstream of the Bulshoek Dam and in the Doring River iii

Date - 11 November 2015

Document Title - Proposed realignment of gauging weirs downstream of the Bulshoek Dam and in

the Doring River, Western Cape Province

Control Name Signature Designation

Author W. Fourie

Heritage Specialists/

Principal Investigator

Reviewed K. Tilakram

Zitholele Consulting

HIA – Realignment of Gauging Weirs Downstream of the Bulshoek Dam and in the Doring River iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PGS Heritage (PGS) was appointed by Zitholele Consulting to undertake a Heritage Impact

Assessment (HIA) that forms part of the Basic Environmental Impact Report (BAR) for the proposed

realignment of the gauging weirs downstream of the Bulshoek Dam and in the Doring river, Western

Cape Province.

The following section provides a summary of the project locality, scope, heritage resources,

envisaged impacts and recommendations as required by Heritage Western Cape (HWC) in the 12

March 2014 circular.

1 SITE NAME

Bulshoek - and Doring river gauging weirs, Clanwilliam and Klawer, Western Cape Province

2 LOCATION

Bulshoek gauging weir Doring river gauging weir

Erf and farm number:

Portion 10, Farm - Kromme Valley 117 and

Portion 1, Farm - Bulshoek 583

Coordinates: 31°59'33.37S 18°47'18.38E

Cederberg district, Cederberg Local

Municipality

Erf and farm number:

Portion 178, Farm - Annex Mielie Draai 384

Coordinates: 31°51'45.48"S 18°41'9.70"E

Matzikama District, Matzikama Local

Municipality

HIA – Realignment of Gauging Weirs Downstream of the Bulshoek Dam and in the Doring River v

3 LOCALITY PLAN

4 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

The Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS) has identified two existing gauging weirs, the

gauging weir directly downstream of the Bulshoek Dam and the Doring River gauging weir, along

the Olifants River system that is currently located at an angle to the direction of river flow. The

DWS therefore intends to realign the weir and gauging infrastructure to be located at a right

angle (i.e. perpendicular) to the direction of water flow, further upgrading the existing gauging

instrumentation and engineering additional scour and erosion prevention infrastructure along

the flanks. The weirs and gauging structure will function to provide information on the

magnitude of flows in the Olifants River. The existing Doring River Weir is located within the

Doring River which is a tributary of the Olifants River. The proposed realigned Doring River Weir

will be constructed on the footprint of the existing gauging weir, which will be demolished first.

The realigned gauging weir downstream of the Bulshoek Dam will be constructed approximately

20 meters upstream of the existing gauging weir within the Olifants River. Graded rocks placed

in a layer (i.e. riprap) will be employed as a means for providing river bank and scour protection.

HIA – Realignment of Gauging Weirs Downstream of the Bulshoek Dam and in the Doring River vi

The graded rocks will be sourced from a rock outcrop upstream of the Doring River gauging weir

that will be blasted.

5 HERITAGE RESOURCES IDENTIFIED

5.1.1 Gauging weir downstream of the Bulshoek Dam

a) Site BHW 001

GPS: 31º 59’ 32.8” S 18º 47’ 18.6” E

The existing gauging weir is situated approximately 20m further downstream of the

proposed development of the new weir. This weir is brick and cement built and measures

approximately 112m in length and approximately 1.2m high. The weir was constructed on

rocky outcrops across the Olifants River and was designed to be grounded and let no water

through at the bottom. Its purpose is to gauge water flow from the river. A water gauging,

control room forms part of the weir. This control room was constructed on top of the weir

wall next to the overflow section of the weir.

According to the DWS website measurements in the Olifants River at Bulshoek Dam started

on 1 April 1923. During dam rehabilitation work performed by DWS in the early 2000's, the

wall of an old diversion weir across the Olifants River was discovered nearly 430m

downstream of the dam (BHW001). This structure was partially lowered to incorporate a 9m

long Crump weir gauging structure in an attempt to measure the leakages from the dam into

the river.

No record exist of the original broad-crested diversion structure, but it is assumed that this

structure was originally used to divert water into an irrigation canal before the construction

of Bulshoek Dam.

The structure or part of the structure is older than 60 years and most probably dates

between 1921 and 1948 as shown by flow data and gauge information received from DWS.

The weir is older than 60 years and protected under section 34 of the NHRA. It cannot be

seen as a unique example of this type of gauging structures as numerous similar examples

HIA – Realignment of Gauging Weirs Downstream of the Bulshoek Dam and in the Doring River vii

exist along the Olifants River as well as further afield. The site is graded as generally

protected (GP.B) and will not require further mitigation work.

5.1.2 Structures just outside the study area

b) Site BHW 002

GPS: 31º 59’ 45.9” S 18º 47’ 14.5” E

The Bulshoek Barrage (Dam Wall), situated approximately 410m further upstream from the

proposed development, was completed in 1920 and formed part of one of the oldest

irrigation schemes in South Africa. The dam wall measures approximately 143m across and

approximately 17m high. The barrage is a massive structure and it features 15 hand

operated steel gates to be raised during floods.

The construction of the Bulshoek dam started off with planning of an irrigation scheme for

the Olifants River in 1908. The original planned design was a solid masonry weir with falling

shutters, however by 1912 the Cape Irrigation Department indicated that the proposed

design would not be sufficient for the planned irrigation project. The design was amended

to add 15 hand-operated Ashford type gates to the top of the proposed weir, in effect

creating a full dam wall.

The final design was undertaken by the firm Glenfield & Kennedy of Scotland in cooperation

with engineer WM Watt. The firm also oversaw the construction of the weir. The

construction of the Bulshoek dam was completed in 1924 (The Water Wheel

September/October 2010).

c) Site BHW 003

GPS: 31º 59’ 32.1” S 18º 47’ 13.7” E

A water canal which formed part of the Bulshoek Dam irrigation scheme and which was

completed in 1924 is situated on the western banks of the Olifants River approximately 50m

west from the proposed weir. This canal system is approximately 83km long and serves

irrigation purposes for approximately 9330 hectares of listed land. The canal is lined (with

cement/concrete) and varies in size along the system.

HIA – Realignment of Gauging Weirs Downstream of the Bulshoek Dam and in the Doring River viii

5.1.3 Doring River gauging weir

a) Site DRW 001

GPS: 31º 51’ 46.0” S 18º 41’ 10.3” E

The proposed new Doring River Gauging Weir will be situated at the same location as the

existing Doring River Gauging Weir. This weir was brick and cement built and measures

approximately 130m in length and approximately 2m high. The weir was constructed on

rocky outcrops across the Doring River and was designed to gauge water-flow from the river.

A water gauging tower forms part of the weir. The tower is situated on the southern banks

of the river and just on the upstream side of the weir.

According to the DWS website measurements in the Doring River at this point started on 17

May 1908. Only stage (water level in river) readings taken once day are available from this

date. A compounded sharp-crested gauging weir structure was commissioned on 9 April

1927 and since then daily stage and a calculated discharge for that stage reading are

available.

The gauging weir underwent several structural changes since 1927 and in 1948 for instance

the structure height was increased.




protected (GP.B) and will not require further mitigation work.


b) Site DRW 002

GPS: 31º 59’ 45.9” S 18º 47’ 14.5” E

A rock art site was identified approximately 700m to the west of the proposed development.

The rock art is on an overhanging rock away from the river. The art contained a few figure

and a circle with radiant lines coming from the circle. The rock art site is situated within the

Doring River Valley and is not close to the river or the proposed weir itself.

HIA – Realignment of Gauging Weirs Downstream of the Bulshoek Dam and in the Doring River ix

6 ANTICIPATED IMPACTS ON HERITAGE RESOURCES

6.1 Status Quo and “No Go” option

6.1.1 Status Quo

No fatal flaws were identified from a cultural, historical, archaeological perspective

6.1.2 “No go” Option

No such option is contemplated

6.2 Project Impact (Unmitigated)

During the construction of the new gauging weirs both the existing gauging weirs will be demolished.

The combined weighted project impact to the heritage resources (prior to mitigation) will have a

moderate negative significance taking the heritage significance of the two weirs in to account. The

impact will be permanent and will happen. The impact risk class is thus Moderate.

The two weirs are protected under Section 34 of the NHRA. However due to it low heritage

significance no further mitigation measures is required.

6.3 Cumulative Impact

The baseline impacts are considered to be Very Low, and additional project impacts (if no mitigation

measures are implement) will increase the significance of the existing baseline impacts, the

cumulative unmitigated impact will probably be of a Low to Medium negative significance on the

identified furrow. The impact is going to happen and will be of short term in nature. However with

the implementation of the recommended management and mitigation measures this risk class can

be minimized to a rating of Low.

HIA – Realignment of Gauging Weirs Downstream of the Bulshoek Dam and in the Doring River x

7 RECOMMENDATIONS

The Department of Water and Sanitation has identified the gauging weirs downstream of the

Bulshoek Dam and in the Doring river in need of upgrades and realignment to improve their

effectiveness. The realignment of the weirs will require the demolition of both and the construction

of new structures to replace the aging and ineffective gauging weirs.

The gauging weirs were constructed in the early part of the 20th century to assist the management of

the water resources within the Olifants river system as part of the larger lower Olifants river

irrigation scheme. The archival research has shown that both the weirs date between 1908 and

1924, are both older than 60 years and protected under section 34 of the NHRA. Numerous similar

gauging weirs have been constructed by the Department of Water and Sanitation (and their historic

predecessors) throughout South Africa as part of their water management strategy. These two

weirs cannot be seen as unique and as such are graded as Generally protected (GP.B).

The evaluation of the type of construction activity proposed indicates a direct Moderate impact. The

two weirs are protected under Section 34 of the NHRA. However due to it low heritage significance

no further mitigation measures is required.

An evaluation of the cultural landscape around the two gauging weirs has shown that both are

situated in a rural landscape in fairly narrow valleys. The impact of the construction activities on the

cultural landscape will only be during the construction of the new gauging weirs after which

environmental rehabilitation will assist in the recovery of vegetation that will again shield the new

gauging weirs and eventually lead to the incorporation into the cultural landscape.

The rock art site (DR2) is situated 700 meters to the west of the proposed Doring river gauging weir

construction area. No impacts are foreseen but the area must be listed as a “no-go” area during

construction,

The overall impact of the development on heritage resources is seen as acceptably low and impacts

can be mitigated to acceptable levels. It follows that if the management measures outlined in this

report are implemented there is no reason why the realignment of the Bulshoek and Doring river

gauging weirs cannot be approved.

HIA – Realignment of Gauging Weirs Downstream of the Bulshoek Dam and in the Doring River xi

8 AUTHOR/S AND DATE

Wouter Fourie

Accredited Professional Archaeologist

(ASAPA)

Accredited Professional Heritage Practitioner

(APHP)

Marko Hutten (Field assessment)


(ASAPA)

Date: 3 December 2015

Jessica Angel (Archival research)


(ASAPA)

HIA – Realignment of Gauging Weirs Downstream of the Bulshoek Dam and in the Doring River xii

The heritage impact assessment report has been compiled taking into account the NEMA appendix 6

requirements for specialist reports as indicated in the table below.

NEMA Regs (2014) - Appendix 6 Relevant section in report

Details of the specialist who prepared the report Page i of Report – Contact details and company

The expertise of that person to compile a specialist report including a curriculum vitae Section 1.2 – refer to Appendix B

A declaration that the person is independent in a form as may be specified by the competent authority Page 2 of the report

An indication of the scope of, and the purpose for which, the report was prepared Section 1.1

The date and season of the site investigation and the relevance of the season to the outcome of the assessment Section 5

A description of the methodology adopted in preparing the report or carrying out the specialised process Section 3.1

The specific identified sensitivity of the site related to the activity and its associated structures and infrastructure Section 5.1

An identification of any areas to be avoided, including buffers Section 5.1

A map superimposing the activity including the associated structures and infrastructure on the environmental sensitivities of the site including areas to be avoided, including buffers; Section 2.3, 5.1

A description of any assumptions made and any uncertainties or gaps in knowledge; Section 1.3

A description of the findings and potential implications of such findings on the impact of the proposed activity, including identified alternatives, on the environment Section 6.1

Any mitigation measures for inclusion in the EMPr Section 7

Any conditions for inclusion in the environmental authorisation Section 7

Any monitoring requirements for inclusion in the EMPr or environmental authorisation NA

A reasoned opinion as to whether the proposed activity or portions thereof should be authorised and

Section 7

If the opinion is that the proposed activity or portions thereof should be authorised, any avoidance, management and mitigation measures that should be included in the EMPr, and where applicable, the closure plan

A description of any consultation process that was undertaken during the course of carrying out the study

Not applicable. A public consultation process was handled as part of the EIA and EMP process.

A summary and copies if any comments that were received during any consultation process

Not applicable. To date not comments regarding heritage resources that require input from a specialist have been raised.

Any other information requested by the competent authority. Not applicable.

HIA – Realignment of Gauging Weirs Downstream of the Bulshoek Dam and in the Doring River xiii

CONTENTS Page

1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Scope of the Study 1

1.2 Specialist Qualifications 1

1.3 Assumptions and Limitations 2

1.4 Legislative Context 2

1.5 Terminology and Abbreviations 3

2 TECHNICAL DETAILS OF THE PROJECT 7

2.1 Site Location 7

2.2 Project Motivation 8

2.3 Site Description 10

3 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY 11

3.1 Methodology for Assessing Heritage Site Significance 11

3.2 Methodology for Impact Assessment 13

3.2.1 Nature of the impact 13

3.2.2 Extent of the impact 13

3.2.3 Duration of the impact 14

3.2.4 Potential intensity of the impact 15

3.2.5 Likelihood of the impact 16

3.2.6 Cumulative Impacts 17

3.2.7 Significance Assessment 17

4 ARCHIVAL AND DESKTOP RESEARCH FINDINGS 18

4.1 Archival findings 18

5 FIELD WORK FINDINGS 24

5.1 Heritage Findings 26

5.1.1 Gauging weir downstream of the Bulshoek Dam 26

5.1.2 Structures just outside the study area 28

5.1.3 Doring River gauging weir 31

5.2 Cultural landscape 34

5.2.1 Gauging weir downstream of the Bulshoek Dam 34

5.2.2 Doring River weir 36

6 IMPACT ASSESSMENT 38

6.1 Status Quo and “No Go” option 38

HIA – Realignment of Gauging Weirs Downstream of the Bulshoek Dam and in the Doring River xiv

6.1.1 Status Quo 38

6.1.2 “No go” Option 38

6.2 Project Impact (Unmitigated) 38

6.3 Cumulative Impact 38

6.4 Impact Matrix 39

7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 41

7.1 General 41

8 PREPARERS 42

9 REFERENCES 42

List of Appendices

A Legislative Requirements – Terminology and Assessment Criteria

B Project team CV’s

List of Figures Figure 1 - Human and Cultural Time line in Africa (Morris, 2009). ........................................................ 6

Figure 2 – Study area locality .................................................................................................................. 7

Figure 3 - Proposed realignment of the Bulshoek gauging weir ............................................................. 9

Figure 4 - proposed realignment of the Doring river gauging weir ........................................................ 9

Figure 5 – View of the gauging weir from the south ............................................................................ 10

Figure 6 – View of gauging weir and instrument cubicle from the south ............................................ 10

Figure 7 – Upstream view of gauging weir .......................................................................................... 10

Figure 8 – View of the gauging weir from the west .............................................................................. 11

Figure 9 – View from the Doringrivier weir towards the bridge over the river (yellow arrow indicating

bridge .................................................................................................................................................... 11

Figure 10 – View of gauging weir and instrument cubicle from the south .......................................... 11

Figure 11: Historic Photograph of the Bulshoek Dam (wrc.org.za) ....................................................... 24

Figure 12 - Map indicating tracklogs of the fieldwork at the gauging weir downstream of the

Bulshoek Dam ....................................................................................................................................... 25

Figure 13 - Map indicating tracklogs of the fieldwork at the Bulshoek gauging weir .......................... 25

Figure 14 - Upstream view of gauging weir downstream of the Bulshoek Dam and instrument cubicle

.............................................................................................................................................................. 27

Figure 15 - View of gauging weir from the south ................................................................................. 27

HIA – Realignment of Gauging Weirs Downstream of the Bulshoek Dam and in the Doring River xv

Figure 16 - High level view of weir and surrounds ................................................................................ 28

Figure 17 - Southern view of Bulshoek dam wall .................................................................................. 29

Figure 18 - View of Bulshoek dam wall and canal on the northern side of the Olifants River .............. 30

Figure 19 - Downstream view of gauging weir and instrument cubicle ............................................... 32

Figure 20 - View of weir from north towards cottage .......................................................................... 32

Figure 21 - Upstream view of weir ........................................................................................................ 33

Figure 22 - Rock art panel some 700 west of site ................................................................................. 34

Figure 23 - View from Bulshoek dam wall toward the weir (Small white speck is the weir gauging

house) .................................................................................................................................................... 35

Figure 24 - Landscape feature at Bulshoek weir ................................................................................... 35

Figure 25 - View from the Doring River weir towards the bridge over the river (yellow arrow

indicating bridge) .................................................................................................................................. 36

Figure 26 - Cottage just south of weir ................................................................................................... 37

Figure 27 - Doring river landscape ........................................................................................................ 37

HIA – Realignment of Gauging Weirs Downstream of the Bulshoek Dam and in the Doring River 1

1 INTRODUCTION

PGS Heritage (PGS) was appointed by Zitholele Consulting to undertake a Heritage Impact

Assessment (HIA) that forms part of the Basic Environmental Impact Report (BAR) for the proposed

realignment of the gauging weirs downstream of the Bulshoek and in the Doring River, Western Cape

Province.

1.1 Scope of the Study

The aim of the study is to identify possible heritage sites and finds that may occur in the proposed

development area. The Heritage Impact Assessment aims to inform the Basic Environmental Impact

Assessment Report (BAR) in the development of a comprehensive EMP to assist the developer in

managing the discovered heritage resources in a responsible manner, in order to protect, preserve,

and develop them within the framework provided by the National Heritage Resources Act of 1999

(Act 25 of 1999) (NHRA).

1.2 Specialist Qualifications

This Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) was compiled by PGS Heritage (PGS).

The staff at PGS has a combined experience of nearly 80 years in the heritage consulting industry.

PGS and its staff have extensive experience in managing HIA processes and will only undertake

heritage assessment work where they have the relevant expertise and experience to undertake that

work competently.

Mr. Wouter Fourie, the Project Coordinator, is registered with the Association of Southern African

Professional Archaeologists (ASAPA) as a Professional Archaeologist and is accredited as a Principal

Investigator; he is further an Accredited Professional Heritage Practitioner with the Association of

Professional Heritage Practitioners (APHP).

Jessica Angel, holds a Masters degree in Archaeology and is registered as a Professional

Archaeologist with the Association of Southern African Professional Archaeologists (ASAPA).

Marko Hutten, heritage specialist and project archaeologist, has 15 years of experience in the

industry and is registered with the Association of Southern African Professional Archaeologists

(ASAPA) as a Professional Archaeologist and is accredited as a Field Director.


Refer to Appendix B for CV’s.

1.3 Assumptions and Limitations

Not detracting in any way from the comprehensiveness of the fieldwork undertaken, it is necessary

to realise that the heritage resources located during the fieldwork do not necessarily represent all

the possible heritage resources present within the development area. Various factors account for

this, including the subterranean nature of some archaeological sites. As such, should any heritage

features and/or objects not included in the present inventory be located or observed, a heritage

specialist must immediately be contacted.

Such observed or located heritage features and/or objects may not be disturbed or removed in any

way until such time that the heritage specialist has been able to make an assessment as to the

significance of the site (or material) in question. This applies to graves and cemeteries as well. In the

event that any graves or burial places are located during the development, the procedures and

requirements pertaining to graves and burials will apply as set out below.

1.4 Legislative Context

The identification, evaluation and assessment of any cultural heritage site, artefact or find in the

South African context is required and governed by the following legislation -

i. National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) Act 107 of 1998

ii. National Heritage Resources Act (NHRA) Act 25 of 1999

iii. Minerals and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) Act 28 of 2002

The following sections in each Act refer directly to the identification, evaluation and assessment of

cultural heritage resources.

i. National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) Act 107 of 1998

a. Basic Environmental Assessment (BEA) – Section (23)(2)(d)

b. Environmental Scoping Report (ESR) – Section (29)(1)(d)

c. Environmental Impacts Assessment (EIA) – Section (32)(2)(d)

d. Environmental Management Plan (EMP) – Section (34)(b)

ii. National Heritage Resources Act (NHRA) Act 25 of 1999

a. Protection of Heritage Resources – Sections 34 to 36; and

b. Heritage Resources Management – Section 38


iii. Minerals and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) Act 28 of 2002

a. Section 39(3)

The NHRA stipulates that cultural heritage resources may not be disturbed without authorization

from the relevant heritage authority. Section 34 (1) of the NHRA states that, “no person may alter or

demolish any structure or part of a structure which is older than 60 years without a permit issued by

the relevant provincial heritage resources authority…”. The NEMA (Act No 107 of 1998) states that

an integrated EMP should, (23 -2 (b)) “…identify, predict and evaluate the actual and potential

impact on the environment, socio-economic conditions and cultural heritage”. In accordance with

legislative requirements and EIA rating criteria, the regulations of SAHRA and ASAPA have also been

incorporated to ensure that a comprehensive legally compatible AIA report is compiled.

1.5 Terminology and Abbreviations

Archaeological resources

This includes -

i. material remains resulting from human activity which are in a state of disuse and are

in or on land and which are older than 100 years including artefacts, human and

hominid remains and artificial features and structures;

ii. rock art, being any form of painting, engraving or other graphic representation on a

fixed rock surface or loose rock or stone, which was executed by human agency and

which is older than 100 years, including any area within 10m of such representation;

iii. wrecks, being any vessel or aircraft, or any part thereof which was wrecked in South

Africa, whether on land, in the internal waters, the territorial waters or in the

maritime culture zone of the republic as defined in the Maritimes Zones Act, and any

cargo, debris or artefacts found or associated therewith, which is older than 60 years

or which SAHRA considers to be worthy of conservation;

iv. features, structures and artefacts associated with military history which are older

than 75 years and the site on which they are found.

Cultural significance

This means aesthetic, architectural, historical, scientific, social, spiritual, linguistic or technological

value or significance


Development

This means any physical intervention, excavation, or action, other than those caused by natural

forces, which may in the opinion of the heritage authority in any way result in a change to the

nature, appearance or physical nature of a place or influence its stability and future well-being,

including -

i. construction, alteration, demolition, removal or change in use of a place or a

structure at a place;

ii. carrying out any works on or over or under a place;

iii. subdivision or consolidation of land comprising a place, including the structures or

airspace of a place;

iv. constructing or putting up for display signs or boards;

v. any change to the natural or existing condition or topography of land; and

vi. any removal or destruction of trees, or removal of vegetation or topsoil

Early Stone Age

The archaeology of the Stone Age, between 400 000 and 2500 000 years ago.

Fossil

Mineralised bones of animals, shellfish, plants and marine animals. A trace fossil is the track or

footprint of a fossil animal that is preserved in stone or consolidated sediment.

Heritage

That which is inherited and forms part of the National Estate (Historical places, objects, fossils as

defined by the National Heritage Resources Act 25 of 1999).

Heritage resources

This means any place or object of cultural significance.

Holocene

The most recent geological time period which commenced 10 000 years ago.


Late Stone Age

The archaeology of the last 30 000 years, associated with fully modern people.

The archaeology of the last 1000 years up to the 1800s, associated with people who carried out iron

working and farming activities such as herding and agriculture.

Middle Stone Age

The archaeology of the Stone Age between 30-300 000 years ago, associated with early modern

humans.

Palaeontology

Any fossilised remains or fossil trace of animals or plants which lived in the geological past, other

than fossil fuels or fossiliferous rock intended for industrial use, and any site which contains such

fossilised remains or trace.

Abbreviations Description

AIA Archaeological Impact Assessment

ASAPA Association of Southern African Professional Archaeologists

CRM Cultural Resource Management

DEA Department of Environmental Affairs

EIA practitioner Environmental Impact Assessment Practitioner

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

ESA Early Stone Age

GPS Global Positioning System

HIA Heritage Impact Assessment

HWC Heritage Western Cape

I&AP Interested & Affected Party

LSA Late Stone Age

LIA Late Iron Age

MSA Middle Stone Age

MIA Middle Iron Age


NEMA National Environmental Management Act

NHRA National Heritage Resources Act

PHRA Provincial Heritage Resources Authority

ROD Record of Decision

SADC Southern African Development Community

SAHRA South African Heritage Resources Agency

Refer to Appendix A for further discussions on heritage management and legislative frameworks.

Figure 1 - Human and Cultural Time line in Africa (Morris, 2009).


2 TECHNICAL DETAILS OF THE PROJECT

2.1 Site Location

The Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS) has identified two existing gauging weirs, the

gauging weir downstream of the Bulshoek Dam and the Doring River gauging weir, along the Olifants

River system that is currently located at an angle to the direction of river flow (Figure 2). The DWS

therefore intends to realign the weir and gauging infrastructure to be located at a right angle (i.e.

perpendicular) to the direction of water flow, further upgrading the existing gauging instrumentation

and engineering additional scour and erosion prevention infrastructure along the flanks. The weirs

and gauging structure will function to provide information on the magnitude of flows in the Olifants

River. The existing Doring River Weir is located within the Doring River which is a tributary of the

Olifants River. The proposed realigned Doring River Weir will be constructed on the footprint of the

existing gauging weir, which will be demolished first. The realigned gauging weir downstream of

Bulshoek Dam will be constructed approximately 20 meters upstream of the existing gauging weir

within the Olifants River. Graded rocks placed in a layer (i.e. riprap) will be employed as a means for

providing river bank and scour protection. The graded rocks will be sourced from a rock outcrop

upstream of the Doring River gauging weir that will be blasted.

Figure 2 – Study area locality


2.2 Project Motivation

The initiation of the proposed project is driven by the need to obtain accurate flow measurements of

the associated watercourses. The existing gauging weirs were not constructed according to

international accepted accuracies, which has compromised the accuracy of the recorded flow within

the watercourses. The proposed gauging weirs will be designed in accordance with internationally

and nationally accepted design parameters, which will in turn ensure that the gauging weir

structures are capable of accurately measuring the watercourse flows.

The over-arching project activities which will be carried out as part of the realignment of the weirs

and gauging infrastructure will entail:

Decommissioning of the existing infrastructure which will entail demolishing and removing

the existing weir structures;

Site preparation and construction of the new weirs perpendicular to the watercourse flow;

and

Site preparation for the realigned Doring River weir will necessitate blasting of an existing

rock outcrop to produce an estimate 270m3 of rock. The blasted rock will be utilised for

erosion protection through the placement of a rip-rap structure including a geotextile layer

along the flanks of the watercourse.


Figure 3 - Proposed realignment of the Bulshoek gauging weir

Figure 4 - proposed realignment of the Doring river gauging weir


2.3 Site Description

The Bulshoek gauging weir is situated some 430 meters downstream the Bulshoek Dam wall in a

narrow valley with dense vegetation in the river foot print. The river flood plain is characterised by

large eucalyptus trees growing on small sandy island, and rocky river channels lined by thickets of

riverine vegetation.

Figure 5 – View of the gauging weir from the south

Figure 6 – View of gauging weir and instrument cubicle from the south

Figure 7 – Upstream view of gauging weir

The Doring River weir is situated at the foot of a narrow valley from where it opens up into the larger

Olifantsrivier valley. The vegetation is less dense as in the case of the gauging weir area downstream

of the Bulshoek Dam. It is situated some 800 meters upstream of the historic steel bridge crossing

the Doring River.

A small cottage situated 150 meters upslope of the gauging weir. No dense vegetation or large trees

obscure the view from the cottage towards the gauging weir.


Figure 8 – View of the gauging weir from the west

Figure 9 – View from the Doringrivier weir towards the bridge over the river (yellow arrow indicating bridge

Figure 10 – View of gauging weir and instrument cubicle from the south

3 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

The section below outlines the assessment methodologies utilised in the study.

3.1 Methodology for Assessing Heritage Site Significance

This Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) report was compiled by PGS Heritage (PGS) for the proposed

realignment of the gauging weirs downstream of the Bulshoek Dam and in the Doring River, Western

Cape Province.

The applicable maps, tables and figures are included, as stipulated in the NHRA (no 25 of 1999) and

the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) (no 107 of 1998). The HIA process consisted of

three steps -


Step I – Literature Review - The background information to the field survey relies greatly on the

Heritage Background Research.

Step II – Physical Survey - A physical survey was conducted by foot along the proposed gauging weir

positions by a qualified archaeologist, which aimed at locating and documenting sites falling within

and adjacent to the proposed development footprint.

Step III – The final step involved the recording and documentation of relevant archaeological

resources, the assessment of resources in terms of the HIA criteria and report writing, as well as

mapping and constructive recommendations.

The significance of identified heritage sites are based on four main criteria -

Site integrity (i.e. primary vs. secondary context),

Amount of deposit, range of features (e.g., stonewalling, stone tools and enclosures),

Density of scatter (dispersed scatter)

o Low - <10/50m2

o Medium - 10-50/50m2

o High - >50/50m2

Uniqueness; and

Potential to answer present research questions.

Management actions and recommended mitigation, which will result in a reduction in the impact on

the sites, will be expressed as follows -

A - No further action necessary;

B - Mapping of the site and controlled sampling required;

C - No-go or relocate development activity position;

D - Preserve site, or extensive data collection and mapping of the site; and

E - Preserve site.

Impacts on these sites by the development will be evaluated as follows -

Site Significance

Site significance classification standards prescribed by the SAHRA (2006) and approved by the ASAPA

for the Southern African Development Community (SADC) region, were used for the purpose of this

report.


Table 1 - Site significance classification standards as prescribed by SAHRA.

FIELD RATING GRADE SIGNIFICANCE RECOMMENDED MITIGATION

National Significance

(NS)

Grade 1 Conservation; National Site

nomination

Provincial Significance

(PS)

Grade 2 Conservation; Provincial Site

nomination

Local Significance (LS) Grade 3A High Significance Conservation; Mitigation not advised

Local Significance (LS) Grade 3B High Significance Mitigation (Part of site should be

retained)

Generally Protected A

(GP.A)

Grade 4A High / Medium

Significance

Mitigation before destruction

Generally Protected B

(GP.B)

Grade 4B Medium Significance Recording before destruction

Generally Protected C

(GP.A)

Grade 4C Low Significance Destruction

3.2 Methodology for Impact Assessment

The impacts will be ranked according to the methodology described below. Where possible,

mitigation measures will be provided to manage impacts. In order to ensure uniformity, a standard

impact assessment methodology will be utilised so that a wide range of impacts can be compared

with each other. The impact assessment methodology makes provision for the assessment of

impacts against the following criteria, as discussed below.

3.2.1 Nature of the impact

Each impact should be described in terms of the features and qualities of the impact. A detailed

description of the impact will allow for contextualisation of the assessment.

3.2.2 Extent of the impact

Extent intends to assess the footprint of the impact. The larger the footprint, the higher the impact

rating will be. The table below provides the descriptors and criteria for assessment.


Table 2: Criteria for the assessment of the extent of the impact.

Extent Descriptor Definition Rating

Site Impact footprint remains within the boundary of the site. 1

Local Impact footprint extends beyond the boundary of the site

to the adjacent surrounding areas.

2

Regional Impact footprint includes the greater surrounds and may

include an entire municipal or provincial jurisdiction.

3

National The scale of the impact is applicable to the Republic of

South Africa.

4

Global The impact has global implications 5

3.2.3 Duration of the impact

The duration of the impact is the period of time that the impact will manifest on the receiving

environment. Importantly, the concept of reversibility is reflected in the duration rating. The longer

the impact endures, the less likely it is to be reversible. See for rating duration of impacts.

Table 3 for the criteria for rating duration of impacts.

Table 3: Criteria for the rating of the duration of an impact.

Duration

Descriptor

Definition Rating

Construction /

Decommissioning

phase only

The impact endures for only as long as the construction or

the decommissioning period of the project activity. This

implies that the impact is fully reversible.

1

Short term The impact continues to manifest for a period of between

3 and 5 years beyond construction or decommissioning.

The impact is still reversible.

2

Medium term The impact continues between 6 and 15 years beyond the

construction or decommissioning phase. The impact is still

reversible with relevant and applicable mitigation and

management actions.

3

Long term The impact continues for a period in excess of 15 years

beyond construction or decommissioning. The impact is

4


Duration

Descriptor

Definition Rating

only reversible with considerable effort in implementation

of rigorous mitigation actions.

Permanent The impact will continue indefinitely and is not reversible. 5

3.2.4 Potential intensity of the impact

The concept of the potential intensity of an impact is the acknowledgement at the outset of the

project of the potential significance of the impact on the receiving environment. For example, SO2

emissions have the potential to result in significant adverse human health effects, and this potential

intensity must be accommodated within the significance rating. The importance of the potential

intensity must be emphasised within the rating methodology to indicate that, for an adverse impact

to human health, even a limited extent and duration will still yield a significant impact.

Within potential intensity, the concept of irreplaceable loss is taken into account. Irreplaceable loss

may relate to losses of entire faunal or floral species at an extent greater than regional, or the

permanent loss of significant environmental resources. Potential intensity provides a measure for

comparing significance across different specialist assessments. This is possible by aligning specialist

ratings with the potential intensity rating provided here. This allows for better integration of

specialist studies into the environmental impact assessment. See Table 4 and Table 5 below.

Table 4: Criteria for impact rating of potential intensity of a negative impact.

Potential

Intensity

Descriptor

Definition of negative impact Rating

High Significant impact to human health linked to mortality/loss

of a species/endemic habitat.

16

Moderate-High Significant impact to faunal or floral populations/loss of

livelihoods/individual economic loss.

8

Moderate Reduction in environmental quality/loss of habitat/loss of

heritage/loss of welfare amenity

4

Moderate-Low Nuisance impact 2

Low Negative change with no associated consequences. 1


Table 5: Criteria for the impact rating of potential intensity of a positive impact.

Potential

Intensity

Descriptor

Definition of positive impact Rating

Moderate-High Net improvement in human welfare 8

Moderate Improved environmental quality/improved individual

livelihoods.

4

Moderate-Low Economic development 2

Low Positive change with no other consequences. 1

It must be noted that there is no HIGH rating for positive impacts under potential intensity, as it must

be understood that no positive spinoff of an activity can possibly raise a similar significance rating to

a negative impact that affects human health or causes the irreplaceable loss of a species.

3.2.5 Likelihood of the impact

This is the likelihood of the impact potential intensity manifesting. This is not the likelihood of the

activity occurring. If an impact is unlikely to manifest then the likelihood rating will reduce the

overall significance. Table 6 provides the rating methodology for likelihood.

Table 6: Criteria for the rating of the likelihood of the impact occurring

Likelihood

Descriptor

Definition Rating

Improbable The possibility of the impact occurring is negligible and

only under exceptional circumstances.

0.1

Unlikely The possibility of the impact occurring is low with a less

than 10% chance of occurring. The impact has not occurred

before.

0.2

Probable The impact has a 10% to 40% chance of occurring. Only

likely to happen once in every 3 years or more.

0.5

Highly Probable It is most likely that the impact will occur and there is a

41% to 75% chance of occurrence.

0.75

Definite More than a 75% chance of occurrence. The impact will 1


occur regularly.

The rating for likelihood is provided in fractions in order to provide an indication of percentage

probability, although it is noted that mathematical connotation cannot be implied to numbers

utilised for ratings.

3.2.6 Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impact are reflected in the in the potential intensity of the rating system. In order to

assess any impact on the environment, cumulative impacts must be considered in order to

determine an accurate significance. Impacts cannot be assessed in isolation. An integrated

approach requires that cumulative impacts be included in the assessment of individual impacts.

The nature of the impact should be described in such a way as to detail the potential cumulative

impact of the activity.

3.2.7 Significance Assessment

The significance assessment assigns numbers to rate impacts in order to provide a more quantitative

description of impacts for purposes of decision making. Significance is an expression of the risk of

damage to the environment, should the proposed activity be authorised.

To allow for impacts to be described in a quantitative manner in addition to the qualitative

description given above, a rating scale of between 1 and 5 was used for each of the assessment

criteria. Thus the total value of the impact is described as the function of significance, which takes

cognisance of extent, duration, potential intensity and likelihood.

Impact Significance = (extent + duration + potential intensity) x likelihood


Table 7 provides the resulting significance rating of the impact as defined by the equation as above.

Table 7: Significance rating formulas.

Score Rating Implications for Decision-making

< 3 Low Project can be authorised with low risk of environmental degradation

3 - 9 Moderate Project can be authorised but with conditions and routine inspections.

Mitigation measures must be implemented.

10 - 20 High Project can be authorised but with strict conditions and high levels of

compliance and enforcement. Monitoring and mitigation are essential.

21 - 26 Fatally

Flawed

Project cannot be authorised

4 ARCHIVAL AND DESKTOP RESEARCH FINDINGS

4.1 Archival findings

The aim of the archival background research is to identify possible heritage resources that could be

encountered during the fieldwork, as summarised in Table 8.

Table 8 - Summary of History of the study area

DATE DESCRIPTION

2.5 million to

250 000 years

ago

The Earlier Stone Age is the first and oldest phase identified in South Africa’s

archaeological history and comprises two technological phases. The earliest of

these is known as Oldowan and is associated with crude flakes and hammer

stones. It dates to approximately 2 million years ago. The second technological

phase is the Acheulean and comprises more refined and better made stone


artefacts such as the cleaver and bifacial hand axe. The Acheulean dates back to

approximately 1.5 million years ago.

ESA in the area was first reported by Mabbutt (1954, 1957). However, according

to Orton & Hart (2005) artefacts have mostly been restricted to sporadic scatters

found on the current land surface. In general in the Western Cape, ESA material

is not found in its primary context.

The study area has revealed ESA artefacts on the upper edges of the floor of the

Clanwilliam dam which occurs approximately 26 Km from the Bulshoek Site and

44 km from the Doring River site.

A previous AIA by Kaplan (2008) in the Vredendal area (approximately 42 Km

from the Bulshoek weir and 25 Km from Doring River weir) and the farm

Zypherfontein in Clanwilliam (11.5 Km from the Bulshoek weir and 7 Km from the

Doring River weir) located ESA flakes in these area.

250 000 to 40

000 years ago

The Middle Stone Age is the second oldest phase identified in South Africa’s

archaeological history. This phase is associated with flakes, points and blades

manufactured by means of the so-called ‘prepared core’ technique.

Like the ESA, MSA in the greater study area have mostly been restricted to

sporadic artefact scatters found on the current land surface (Orton & Hart, 2005),

however MSA has occasionally been found in primary context. Excavated sites in

the area, which have been found to contain MSA material, include

Klipfonteinrand 1 (Parkington & Poggenpoel, 1971), Andriesgrond (Anderson

1991) 23Km from Bulshoek Weir and 39 Km from Doring River Weir, Klien

Kliphuis (Van Rijssen 1992) and Hollow Rock Shelter (Evans, 1993). The evidence

collected from these sites suggests that people have used the area for over five

hundred thousand years (Orton & Hart, 2005).

An AIA conducted by Kaplan (2008) on the farm Kromme Valley (2 Km from the

gauging weir downstream of the Bulshoek Dam and 19 Km from the Doring River

weir) revealed one quartz flake and one retouched MSA quartzite flake. And the

farm Zypherfontein in Clanwilliam (11.5 Km from the gauging weir downstream

of the Bulshoek Dam and 7 Km from the Doring River weir) revealed MSA

material.

40 000 years

ago to the

historic past

The Later Stone Age is the third archaeological phase identified and is associated

with an abundance of very small artefacts known as microliths as well as the

presence of rock paintings.


The LSA of the study area has been extensively researched, with many of the rock

shelters having been excavated. Excavations and surface scatter collections have

been carried out at de Hangen, Klipfonteinrand 1 and Klipfonteinrand 2, Klein

Kliphuis, Sevilla 46 and 48, Andriesgrond, Renbaan, Malgashoek, Driehoek and

Procession Shelter (Orton & Hart, 2005).

The rock art of the study area is very diverse with subject matter varying

considerably with humans, animals and entoptic forms (images seen by shamans

in a trance state) being frequent (Orton &Hart, 2005).

An AIA conducted by Kaplan (2008) on the farm Kromme Valley (2 Km from the

gauging weir downstream of the Bulshoek Dam and 19 Km from the Doring River

weir) and Halkett 2009 between Clanwilliam and Graafwater, revealed rock art

sites.

AD 200 – AD

900

The earliest phase in the Iron Age history of Southern African is known as the

Early Iron Age.

The rapid spread of farming, distinctive ceramics and metallurgy is generally

understood as the expansion of a Bantu-speaking population (Mitchell, 2002). It

is believed that there are two branches of movement. These include the

ancestral Western Bantu-speakers which moved south along the Atlantic coast

and inland up rivers draining into it, and the Proto-Eastern Bantu speakers, which

are thought to have spread along the rainforest’s northern edge towards the

Great Lakes (Mitchell, 2002)

Mitchell (2002) explains that ceramic typology is the central aspect to current

discussions of the expansion of iron using farmers across southern Africa. The

Chifumbaze Complex groups together most of the Early Iron Age assemblages of

eastern, south-central and southern Africa. Within this complex occur two

Traditions. The Urewe Tradition which has two divisions, these include

assemblages belonging to the Kwale branch which extend along the coast from

Kenya to Kwazulu Natal and secondly Nkope branch which occurs inland,

reaching from southern Tanzania through Malawi and eastern Zambia into

Zimbabwe. The second Tradition is the Kalundu Tradition, which stretches from

Angola through western Zambia, Botswana and Zimbabwe into South Africa

(Mitchell, 2002).


As the subsistence base in southern Africa included pearl millet, finger millet and

sorghum, environmental factors needed to sustain such agriculture limited the

farmers to the Miombo and Savanna Biomes.

This period is not known to occur within in the study area.

AD 900 – AD

1300

The second phase in the Iron Age history of Southern Africa is known as the

Middle Iron Age. This period is not known to occur within in the study area.

Ad 1300 – AD

1850

The third and final phase in the Iron Age history of Southern Africa is known as

the Late Iron Age. This period in the Iron Age history of South Africa is associated

with the Nguni and Sotho-Tswana speaking people (Huffman, 2007). During this

time there is an increased specialisation of production and exchange, the

development of more nucleated settlement patterns and growing political

centralisation (Mitchell, 2002). Together they form the background to what

Mitchell (2002) calls, the cataclysmic events of the late eighteenth and early

nineteenth centuries termed by the Nguni-speakers the Mfecane and by the

Sotho/Tswana-speakers as the Lifaqane or Difaqane.

Iron age herders did not permanently settle this area due to the climate

restraints on the preferred crops such as sorghum. However there have been no

recordings of this period in the area.

1660 First European travellers from the Cape passed over the mountain into the

Olifants River Valley in the area of what is currently Piekenierskloof Pass 72 Km

from the gauging weir downstream of the Bulshoek Dam and 90 Km from the

Doring River weir positions) under Jan Dankaert. The party continues to a point

near what would become Clanwilliam before they returned to the Cape.

A second exploration company under Pieter Cruythoff took a route along the

west bank to the area where the Elands Kloof River flows in from the west and

then continued up the hills to the west (Orton & Hart, 2005).

1661 15 December, Vlermuisklip near Vredendal is used as stay-over for the first time

by Pieter Everaerts and his group on an exploration expedition to the north

(sahistory.org.za)

1662 Exploration continues in the area with a group following the route set out by

Cruythoff. The first ox-wagon entered the valley during this time.

1720’s First colonial settlement occurred in the Olifants River Valley. The first Farmer in


the region was Jan Dissels. In 1726 Dissels acquired a loan farm at the confluence

of the Olifants River and a lesser River which was later named the Jan Dissels

River. The Farm was called Seekoeivlei and it is on this farm where present day

Clanwilliam occurs (Orton & Hart, 2005).

1730’s Most of the Olifants River Valley as far north as the Doorn River had been

allocated to settlers (Nell 1997)

1761-1794 First formal land grants within the Olifants Valley took place. Rondegat (1761),

Andries grond (1792) and Holfontein (1794) which also contains a complex of

historic ruins. Holfontein occurs 10 Km from the Bulshoek Weir and about 15 Km

from the Doring River Weir.

Small scale irrigation was well established around the Olifants River Valley.

1808 Resistance to colonial expansion resulted in tension. In an attempt to restore

order in the area it was decided in 1808 that a sub-drostdy should be established

(Orton & Hart, 2005). Seekoeivlei was bought from its then owner, Sebastian van

Reenen, and the farmhouse was converted into offices for the newly appointed

Deputy-Landdrost, Daniel van Ryneveld. A garrison and two houses were built

and the tiny village, situated on the wagon track between Cape Town and

Namaqualand, became known as Jan Dissel’s Vlei (Orton & Hart, 2005).

1814 Sir John Craddock changed the name of Seekoeivlei, naming it in honour of his

father-in-law who had just become the first Earl of Clanwilliam. At this stage

there were a total of sixteen freeburgher families living in Clanwilliam (Dickason

1973).

1820 Efforts were made to settle four groups of Irish settlers under William Parker

anong the Jan Dissels River, but with little success (sahistory.org.za)

1822 First flood ever recorded in the Olifants River.

1837 Clanwilliam was separated from Worcester and proclaimed a district

(sahistory.org.za)

1858 Patrick Fletcher left Cape Town for Clanwilliam on orders from the Colonial

Secretary to undertake one of the first surveys for a potential large irrigation

scheme in the Cape.

1883 Hydraulic Engineer to the Cape Colony, John Gamble, suggested the construction

of a series of moderately-sized weirs to restore original conditions in the river

i.e. resulting in floodwaters once again spilling over its banks (wrc.org.za).


1901 The village of Clanwilliam became a municipality, the first mayor being Charles

Fryer, an Irish descendant of the 1820 Settlers (sahistory.org.za)

1907 The Cape government asked the Director of Irrigation, Francis Edgar Kanthack, to

determine the possibility of an irrigation scheme on the Olifants River. Kanthack’s

brief was to investigate the possibility of introducing irrigation in the area on a

perennial basis by means of a canal system fed from a high weir with

‘considerable storage capacity’ as much land as possible on both banks of the

Olifants River and along the lower reaches of the Doorn and Hol Rivers

(wrc.org.za)

1909 Kanthack laid down the final alignment for the main canal and branches, fixed

the site of the headworks and designed the Bulshoek weir (wrc.org.za).

1911 An irrigation district was proclaimed and Parliament approved the sum of £155

000 for the construction of the weir and the associated irrigation canals. These

canals were to extend down the Olifants River valley for about 80 km. The site

originally selected for the weir and off take was at the head of a rocky rapid

named Oshoek, on the farm Rondeberg. The original design in this case was for a

solid masonry weir in Roman style, with falling shutters, each 1,8 m wide and 0,9

m high (wrc.org.za).

However, when the project was initially prepared, very little was known of the

flow of the Olifants River at the proposed weir site. Observations by the Cape

Irrigation Department between 1909 and 1912 indicated that if the original

design were to be carried out, the flow would not be sufficient to fill the

irrigation canals at periods of greatest demand (wrc.org.za).

It was therefor decided to increase this storage by erecting gates 4,6 m high

above the solid weir. These 15 hand-operated gates are of the Ashford type,

which consists of gates sliding in cast-iron grooves of special construction with a

patent system of anti-friction rollers (wrc.org.za). The gates, each 6 m wide, are

capable of being raised clear of flood by lifting gear mounted on an overhead

super- structure and is supported by 2 m wide sandstone masonry pillars

(wrc.org.za). A 16th gate of 6,9 m clear span, but 5,7 m high, was placed on the

extreme left flank near the head gates of the canal to act as a scour, the sill being

considerably lower than that of the other 15 gates.

The final design was undertaken by the firm Glenfield & Kennedy of which time

materials and equipment were extremely scarce and expensive. Many labourers


also left to join the war effort.

1918 During October 1918, construction of the Bulshoek Dam was halted for a third

time as a result of an outbreak of Spanish Influenza as those who remained

unaffected were left taking care of the ill (Orton & Hart, 2005, wrc.org.za).

1920-1924 The canal on the left bank of the Bulshoek Dam construction was completed up

to Bakleiplaas and the masonry of the 143,3-m-long weir and headworks as well

as the erection of the steel gates and superstructures were practically finished by

31 March of that year (wrc.org.za). The entire scheme was eventually completed

in 1924 at a total cost of £601 569 (wrc.org.za).

Figure 11: Historic Photograph of the Bulshoek Dam (wrc.org.za)

1935 Water is obtained from the Jan Dissels River and electricity supplied by a hydro-

electric plant below the Clanwilliam Dam in the Olifants River, completed in 1935

(sahistory.org.za)

5 FIELD WORK FINDINGS

Due to the nature of cultural remains, with the majority of artefacts occurring below the surface, a

controlled-exclusive surface survey was conducted over a period of 1 day by vehicle and on foot by

an archaeologist from PGS. The fieldwork was conducted on the 22nd of September 2015.

The track logs (in blue) for the survey are indicated on the map below (


Figure 12 and Figure 13).

Figure 12 - Map indicating tracklogs of the fieldwork at the gauging weir downstream of the Bulshoek Dam


Figure 13 - Map indicating tracklogs of the fieldwork at the Bulshoek gauging weir

5.1 Heritage Findings


a) Site BHW 001

GPS: 31º 59’ 32.8” S 18º 47’ 18.6” E

The existing gauging weir is situated approximately 20m further downstream of the

proposed development of the new weir. This weir is brick and cement built and measures

approximately 112m in length and approximately 1.2m high. The weir was constructed on

rocky outcrops across the Olifants River and was designed to be grounded and let no water

through at the bottom. Its purpose is to gauge water flow from the river. A water gauging,

control room forms part of the weir. This control room was constructed on top of the weir

wall next to the overflow section of the weir.


According to the DWS website measurements in the Olifants River at Bulshoek Dam started

on 1 April 1923. During dam rehabilitation work performed by DWS in the early 2000's, the

wall of an old diversion weir across the Olifants River was discovered nearly 450m

downstream of the dam (BHW001). This structure was partially lowered to incorporate a 9m

long Crump weir gauging structure in an attempt to measure the leakages from the dam into

the river.

No record exist of the original broad-crested diversion structure, but it is assumed that this

structure was originally used to divert water into an irrigation canal before the construction

of Bulshoek Dam.

The structure or part of the structure is older than 60 years and most probably dates

between 1921 and 1948 as shown by flow data and gauge information received from DWS.

Site size: Approximately 120m x 30m in size.




protected (GP.B) .


Figure 14 - Upstream view of gauging weir downstream of the Bulshoek Dam and instrument cubicle

Figure 15 - View of gauging weir from the south


Figure 16 - High level view of weir and surrounds

Mitigation required:

The site is protected under Section 34 of the NHRA. However due to it low heritage significance no

further mitigation measures is required.


a) Site BHW 002

GPS: 31º 59’ 45.9” S 18º 47’ 14.5” E

The Bulshoek Barrage (Dam Wall), situated approximately 300m further upstream from the

proposed development, was completed in 1920 and formed part of one of the oldest

irrigation schemes in South Africa. The dam wall measures approximately 143m across and

approximately 17m high. The barrage is a massive structure and it features 15 hand operated

steel gates to be raised during floods.



The construction of the Bulshoek dam started off with planning of an irrigation scheme for

the Olifants River in 1908. The original planned design was a solid masonry weir with falling

shutters, however by 1912 the Cape Irrigation Department indicated that the proposed

design would not be sufficient for the planned irrigation project. The design was amended to

add 15 hand-operated Ashford type gates to the top of the proposed weir, in effect creating

a full dam wall.

The final design was undertaken by the firm Glenfield & Kennedy of Scotland in cooperation

with engineer WM Watt. The firm also oversaw the construction of the weir. The

construction of the Bulshoek dam was completed in 1924 (The Water Wheel

September/October 2010).

Figure 17 - Southern view of Bulshoek dam wall


b) Site BHW 003

GPS: 31º 59’ 32.1” S 18º 47’ 13.7” E

A water canal which formed part of the Bulshoek Dam irrigation scheme and which was

completed in 1924 is situated on the western banks of the Olifants River approximately 50m

west from the proposed weir. This canal system is approximately 83km long and serves

irrigation purposes for approximately 9330 hectares of listed land. The canal is lined (with

cement/concrete) and varies in size along the system.

Site size: Approximately 10m across.

Figure 18 - View of Bulshoek dam wall and canal on the northern side of the Olifants River


5.1.3 Doring River gauging weir

a) Site DRW 001

GPS: 31º 51’ 46.0” S 18º 41’ 10.3” E

The proposed new Doring River Gauging Weir will be situated at the same location as the

existing Doring River Gauging Weir. This weir was brick and cement built and measures

approximately 130m in length and approximately 2m high. The weir was constructed on

rocky outcrops across the Doring River and was designed to gauge water-flow from the river.

A water gauging tower forms part of the weir. The tower is situated on the southern banks of

the river and just on the upstream side of the weir.

According to the DWS website measurements in the Doring River at this point started on 17

May 1908. Only stage (water level in river) readings taken once day are available from this

date. A compounded sharp-crested gauging weir structure was commissioned on 9 April

1927 and since then daily stage and a calculated discharge for that stage reading are

available.

The gauging weir underwent several structural changes since 1927 and in 1948 for instance

the structure height was increased.





protected (GP.B).


Figure 19 - Downstream view of gauging weir and instrument cubicle

Figure 20 - View of weir from north towards cottage


Figure 21 - Upstream view of weir

Mitigation required:

The site is protected under Section 34 of the NHRA. However due to it low heritage significance no

further mitigation measures is required.

b) Site DRW 002

GPS: 31º 59’ 45.9” S 18º 47’ 14.5” E

A rock art site was identified approximately 700m to the west of the proposed development.

The rock art is on an overhanging rock away from the river. The art contained a few figure

and a circle with radiant lines coming from the circle. The rock art site is situated within the

Doring River Valley and is not close to the river or the proposed weir itself.



Figure 22 - Rock art panel some 700 west of site

Mitigation:

The site must be declared a “no-go” area for construction workers during the whole

construction timeframe

5.2 Cultural landscape

Both the weirs are situated in a rural landscape characterised by a narrow valley.


The weir is situated in a narrow valley filled with vegetation and dense river shrubbery that shields

the existing weir structure from the dirt road running to the south of the Olifants river. The Bulshoek

dam wall is situated some 400 meters upstream from the weir and the general view between the

two structures are obscured by large eucalyptus trees (Figure 23).


Figure 23 - View from Bulshoek dam wall toward the weir (Small white speck is the weir gauging

house)

Down river from the weir a single residence can be seen just protruding between the trees.

Figure 24 - Landscape feature at Bulshoek weir

Bulshoek dam

wall

Gauging weir

downstream of

Bulshoek Dam

Residence


5.2.2 Doring River weir

The Doring River weir is situated at the foot of a narrow valley from where it opens up into the larger

Olifantsrivier valley. The vegetation is less dense as in the case of the Bulshoek weir area. It is

situated some 800 meters upstream of the historic steel bridge crossing the Doring River (Figure 25).

A small cottage situated 150 meters upslope of the gauging weir. No dense vegetation or large trees

obscure the view from the cottage towards the gauging weir (Figure 26).

Figure 25 - View from the Doring River weir towards the bridge over the river (yellow arrow indicating

bridge)


Figure 26 - Cottage just south of weir

Figure 27 - Doring river landscape

Doring river

gauging weir

Cottage


The impact of the construction activities on the cultural landscape will only be during the

construction of the new gauging weirs after which environmental rehabilitation will assist in the

recovery of vegetation that will again shield the new gauging weirs and eventually lead to the

incorporation into the cultural landscape.

6 IMPACT ASSESSMENT

6.1 Status Quo and “No Go” option

6.1.1 Status Quo

No fatal flaws were identified from a cultural, historical, archaeological perspective

6.1.2 “No go” Option

No such option is contemplated.

6.2 Project Impact (Unmitigated)

During the construction of the new gauging weirs both the existing gauging weirs will be demolished.

The combined weighted project impact to the heritage resources (prior to mitigation) will have a

moderate negative significance taking the heritage significance of the two weirs in to account. The

impact will be permanent and will happen. The impact risk class is thus Moderate.

Mitigation measures as recommended in this report will have to be implemented to document the

structures as well as shield the visual impact on the cultural landscape.

6.3 Cumulative Impact

The baseline impacts are considered to be Very Low, and additional project impacts (if no mitigation

measures are implement) will increase the significance of the existing baseline impacts, the

cumulative unmitigated impact will probably be of a Low to Medium negative significance on the

identified furrow. The impact is going to happen and will be of short term in nature. However with

the implementation of the recommended management and mitigation measures this risk class can

be minimized to a rating of Low.


6.4 Impact Matrix

Table 9: Rating Matrix for impacts in the Pre-Construction phase

PRE-CONSTRUCTION PHASE

Activity Nature of Impact Impact type Extent Duration Potential Intensity

Likelihood Rating Mitigation Interpretation

Impact on heritage resources

Direct Impact: Existing 1 4 1 0.2 1 - LOW

General maintenance

Deteriorations of the structure overtime due to water and flood damage. Both weirs show leaking and cracks

Deterioration of existing weirs due to flooding and water damage

Cumulative 1 4 1 0.2 1 - LOW

Residual 1 4 1 0.2 1 - LOW General maintenance as required to be done by DWS would support the conservation of the weirs


Table 10: Rating Matrix for impacts on Construction phase

CONSTRUCTION PHASE

Activity Nature of Impact Impact type Extent Duration Potential Intensity

Likelihood Rating Mitigation Interpretation

Impact on historic structures

Direct Impact: Existing 1 5 2 1 8 - MOD

The site is protected under Section 34 of the NHRA. However due to it low heritage significance no further mitigation measures is required.

The two gauging weirs are older than 60 years. The site is protected under Section 34 of the NHRA. However due to it low heritage significance no further mitigation measures is required.

Destruction of current weir structures Cumulative 1 5 2 1 8 - MOD

Residual 1 5 1 0.2 1 - LOW

Impact on cultural landscape

Direct Impact: Existing 1 1 2 0.2 1 - LOW

Screen where possible construction camp. Reduce footprint of construction area to minimum.

The impact of vegetation stripping and construction activity on the cultural landscape will be confined to the construction time and will with implementation of mitigation measures be reduced

Impact on cultural landscape during construction

Cumulative 1 1 1 0.2 1 - LOW

Residual 1 4 1 0.1 1 - LOW

Implementation of the recommended mitigation measures will cause a reduction in the impact. While natural vegetation restoration will further aid in the residual impact being reduced.


7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Department of Water and Sanitation has identified the gauging weir downstream of the

Bulshoek Dam and Doring river gauging weir in need of upgrades and realignment to improve their

effectiveness. The realignment of the weirs will require the demolition of both and the construction

of new structures to replace the aging and ineffective gauging weirs.

The Bulshoek and Doring river gauging weirs were constructed in the early part of the 20th century to

assist the management of the water resources within the Olifants river system as part of the larger

lower Olifants river irrigation scheme. The archival research has shown that both the weirs date

between 1908 and 1924, are both older than 60 years and protected under section 34 of the NHRA.

Numerous similar gauging weirs have been construct by the Department of Water and Sanitation

(and their historic predecessors) throughout South Africa as part of their water management

strategy. These two weirs cannot be seen as unique and as such are graded as Generally protected

(GP.B).

The evaluation of the type of construction activity proposed indicates a direct Moderate impact. The

two weirs are protected under Section 34 of the NHRA. However due to it low heritage significance

no further mitigation measures is required.

An evaluation of the cultural landscape around the two gauging weirs has shown that both are

situated in a rural landscape in fairly narrow valleys. The impact of the construction activities on the

cultural landscape will only be during the construction of the new gauging weirs after which

environmental rehabilitation will assist in the recovery of vegetation that will again shield the new

gauging weirs and eventually lead to the incorporation into the cultural landscape.

The rock art site (DR2) is situated 700 meters to the west of the proposed Doring River gauging weir

construction area. No impacts are foreseen but the area must be listed as a “no-go” area during

construction,

7.1 General

The overall impact of the development on heritage resources is seen as acceptably low and impacts

can be mitigated to acceptable levels. It follows that if the management measures outlined in this


report are implemented there is no reason why the realignment of the gauging weir downstream of

the Bulshoek Dam and Doring river gauging weir cannot be approved.

8 PREPARERS

Wouter Fourie – Senior Heritage Specialist

Marko Hutten - Archaeologist

Jessica Angel – Archaeologist

9 REFERENCES

Cape of Good Hope. ‘Report on a proposed irrigation project in the Clanwilliam and Van Rhynsdorp

districts, 1909’ by FE Kanthack

‘Clanwilliam’, www.sahistory/org.za/ places.villages/westernCape/clanwilliam.htm

‘Dam project could improve aquatic environment’ by L van Vuuren in the Water Wheel,

January/February 2006

‘Die Bulshoekdam’ by J Butler in The Civil Engineer in South Africa, May 1991

Large Dams and Water Systems in South Africa by SANCOLD

‘A short history of irrigation develop ment in South Africa’ by CO Linscott in South African Irrigation

Department Magazine, June 1924

Union of South Africa. ‘Report of the Director of Irrigation for the period 1 January 1912 to 31 March

1913’

Union of South Africa. ‘Report of the Director of Irrigation for the period 1 April 1933 to 31 March

1934’

Union of South Africa. ‘Report of the Director of Irrigation for the period 1 April 1934 to 31 March

1935’

Thanks and appreciation to eWISA and André Roux for photographs, and the Department of Water

Affairs for additional information.

http://www.wrc.org.za/Knowledge%20Hub%20Documents/Water%20Wheel/Articles/2010/2010%2

0Sep-Oct_clanwilliam.pdf

HIA – Realignment of Gauging Weirs Downstream of the Bulshoek Dam and in the Doring River i

Appendix A

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS – TERMINOLOGY AND ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

1 General principles

In areas where there has not yet been a systematic survey to identify conservation worthy places, a

permit is required to alter or demolish any structure older than 60 years. This will apply until a

survey has been done and identified heritage resources are formally protected.

Archaeological and paleontological sites, materials, and meteorites are the source of our

understanding of the evolution of the earth, life on earth and the history of people. In the NHRA,

permits are required to damage, destroy, alter, or disturb them. People who already possess

material are required to register it. The management of heritage resources is integrated with

environmental resources and this means that before development takes place heritage resources

are assessed and, if necessary, rescued.

In addition to the formal protection of culturally significant graves, all graves, which are older than

60 years and are not in a formal cemetery (such as ancestral graves in rural areas), are protected.

The legislation protects the interests of communities that have an interest in the graves - they

should be consulted before any disturbance takes place. The graves of victims of conflict and those

associated with the liberation struggle are to be identified, cared for, protected and memorials

erected in their honour.

Anyone who intends to undertake a development must notify the heritage resource authority and if

there is reason to believe that heritage resources will be affected, an impact assessment report must

be compiled at the construction company’s cost. Thus, the construction company will be able to

proceed without uncertainty about whether work will have to be stopped if an archaeological or

heritage resource is discovered.

According to the National Heritage Act (Act 25 of 1999 section 32) it is stated that -

An object or collection of objects, or a type of object or a list of objects, whether specific or generic,

that is part of the national estate and the export of which SAHRA deems it necessary to control, may

be declared a heritage object, including –

• objects recovered from the soil or waters of South Africa, including archaeological and

paleontological objects, meteorites and rare geological specimens;

HIA – Realignment of Gauging Weirs Downstream of the Bulshoek Dam and in the Doring River ii

• visual art objects;

• military objects;

• numismatic objects;

• objects of cultural and historical significance;

• objects to which oral traditions are attached and which are associated with living

heritage;

• objects of scientific or technological interest;

• books, records, documents, photographic positives and negatives, graphic material, film

or video or sound recordings, excluding those that are public records as defined in

section 1 (xiv) of the National Archives of South Africa Act, 1996 ( Act No. 43 of 1996), or

in a provincial law pertaining to records or archives; and

• any other prescribed category.

Under the National Heritage Resources Act (Act No. 25 of 1999), provisions are made that deal with,

and offer protection to, all historic and pre-historic cultural remains, including graves and human

remains.

2 Graves and cemeteries

Graves younger than 60 years fall under Section 2(1) of the Removal of Graves and Dead Bodies

Ordinance (Ordinance no. 7 of 1925) as well as the Human Tissues Act (Act 65 of 1983) and are

under the jurisdiction of the National Department of Health and the relevant Provincial Department

of Health and must be submitted for final approval to the Office of the relevant Provincial Premier.

This function is usually delegated to the Provincial MEC for Local Government and Planning, or in

some cases the MEC for Housing and Welfare. Authorisation for exhumation and reinterment must

also be obtained from the relevant local or regional council where the grave is situated, as well as

the relevant local or regional council to where the grave is being relocated. All local and regional

provisions, laws and by-laws must also be adhered to. In order to handle and transport human

remains, the institution conducting the relocation should be authorised under Section 24 of Act 65 of

1983 (Human Tissues Act).

Graves older than 60 years, but younger than 100 years, fall under Section 36 of Act 25 of 1999

(National Heritage Resources Act) as well as the Human Tissues Act (Act 65 of 1983) and are under

the jurisdiction of the South African Heritage Resource Agency (SAHRA). The procedure for

Consultation Regarding Burial Grounds and Graves (Section 36(5) of Act 25 of 1999) is applicable to

graves older than 60 years that are situated outside a formal cemetery administrated by a local

HIA – Realignment of Gauging Weirs Downstream of the Bulshoek Dam and in the Doring River iii

authority. Graves in the category located inside a formal cemetery administrated by a local

authority will also require the same authorisation as set out for graves younger than 60 years, over

and above SAHRA authorisation.

If the grave is not situated inside a formal cemetery but is to be relocated to one, permission from

the local authority is required and all regulations, laws and by-laws set by the cemetery authority

must be adhered to.


APPENDIX B – CV’S OF TEAM

WOUTER FOURIE Professional Heritage Specialist and Professional Archaeologist and Director PGS Heritage

Summary of Experience Specialised expertise in Archaeological Mitigation and excavations, Cultural Resource Management and Heritage Impact Assessment Management, Archaeology, Anthropology, Applicable survey methods, Fieldwork and project management, Geographic Information Systems, including inter alia - Involvement in various grave relocation projects (some of which relocated up to 1000 graves) and grave “rescue” excavations in the various provinces of South Africa Involvement with various Heritage Impact Assessments, within South Africa, including - • Archaeological Walkdowns for various projects • Phase 2 Heritage Impact Assessments and EMPs for various projects • Heritage Impact Assessments for various projects

Iron Age Mitigation Work for various projects, including archaeological excavations and monitoring

Involvement with various Heritage Impact Assessments, outside South Africa, including - • Archaeological Studies in Democratic Republic of Congo • Heritage Impact Assessments in Mozambique, Botswana and DRC • Grave Relocation project in DRC

Key Qualifications BA [Hons] (Cum laude) - Archaeology and Geography - 1997 BA - Archaeology, Geography and Anthropology - 1996 Professional Archaeologist - Association of Southern African Professional Archaeologists (ASAPA) - Professional Member Accredited Professional Heritage Specialist – Association of Professional Heritage Practitioners (APHP) CRM Accreditation (ASAPA) -

Principal Investigator - Grave Relocations

Field Director – Iron Age

Field Supervisor – Colonial Period and Stone Age

Accredited with Amafa KZN Key Work Experience 2003- current - Director – Professional Grave Solutions (Pty) Ltd 2007 – 2008 - Project Manager – Matakoma-ARM, Heritage Contracts Unit, University of the Witwatersrand 2005-2007 - Director – Matakoma Heritage Consultants (Pty) Ltd 2000-2004 - CEO– Matakoma Consultants 1998-2000 - Environmental Coordinator – Randfontein Estates Limited. Randfontein, Gauteng 1997-1998 - Environmental Officer – Department of Minerals and Energy. Johannesburg, Gauteng Worked on various heritage projects in the SADC region including, Botswana, Mozambique and the Democratic Republic of the Congo


MARKO HUTTEN Professional Archaeologist

Name: Marko Hutten Profession: Archaeologist Date of birth: 1971-06-24 Parent Firm: PGS Heritage a Position at Firm: Freelance Archaeologist Years with firm: 6 Years of experience: 18 Nationality: South African HDI Status: White Male EDUCATION: Name of University or Institution : University of Pretoria Degree obtained : BA Major subjects : Archaeology & Anthropology Year : 1996 Name of University or Institution : University of Pretoria Degree obtained : BA [Hons] Major subjects : Archaeology Year : 1997 Professional Qualifications: Professional Archaeologist - Association of Southern African Professional Archaeologists - Professional Member CRM Accreditation:

• Field Director - Iron Age • Field Director - Grave Relocation

Languages: Afrikaans English – Speaking (Good) Reading (Good), Writing (Good) KEY QUALIFICATIONS Archaeological mitigation and excavations, Social consultation on grave relocation projects, Cultural Resource Management and Heritage Impact Assessment Management, Historical and Archival Research, Archaeology, Anthropology, Applicable survey methods, Fieldwork and project management. EXPERIENCE Archaeological Impact Assessments 1998 – 2008 Performed 300+ Archaeological Impact Assessments (1st phase). Clients include:

Vodacom

Telkom

Eskom

Roads Agency of Limpopo (RAL)


Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF)

South African National Parks (SANParks)

Impala Platinum

Various Environmental Impact Assessment Companies such as: Naledzi Environmental Consultants; Tekplan Environmental; Lokisa Environmental Consulting

Grave Relocation Projects:

Nandoni Dam Grave Relocation Project, ± 1000 graves, 2000/01 (Field Director)

Tavistock Colliery Grave Relocation Project, ± 700 graves, 2002 (Field Director)

Marula Platinum Grave Rescue Project, x 2 graves, 2003 (Field Director)

Silverlakes Grave Relocation Project, x 5 graves, 2005 (Field Director)

Bela-Bela (Outpost) Grave Relocation Project, x 80 graves, 2008 (Field Director)

Potgieters Rus Platinum Mine Grave Relocation Project, x 16 graves, 2008 (Field Director)

New Vaal Colliery Grave Relocation Project, x 1700 graves, 2007 (Field Director)

Shakadza Road Upgrade Grave Rescue Project, x 1 grave, 2007 (Field Director)

Mapungubwe Grave Repatriation Project 2007 (Field Supervisor) Second Phase Investigations/Excavations: (Including Site Stabilization and Rehabilitation)

Nandoni Dam Archaeological Project 1998 (Field Supervisor)

Nandoni Dam Archaeological Project 1998 – 1999 (Field Director)

Mapungubwe Rehabilitation Project 2003 ( Field Director)

Schroda Rehabilitation Project 2006 (Field Director)

K2 Rehabilitation Project 2006 (Field Director)

Mapungubwe Rehabilitation Project 2006 (Field Director)

Shakadza Rescue and Rehabilitation Project 2007 (Field Director) 2008-2011 Archaeological Impact Assessments (1st phase): (Projects in conjunction with, in brackets):

Premier Mine Heritage Survey 2008 (PGS)

Gope Transmission Line Survey 2008 (Botswana– Archaeology Africa)

Argent Siding Heritage Survey 2008 (Archaeology Africa)

Morgenzon Pipe Line Heritage Survey 2008 (Archaeology Africa)

Klipfontein Heritage Survey 2008 (PGS)

Spitzkop Mine Heritage Survey 2008 (PGS)

Elandsfontein Heritage Survey 2008 (PGS)

Makobe Township Heritage Survey 2008

Tswinga Township Heritage Survey 2008

Mankweng Borrow Pits Heritage Survey 2008

Knapdaar Heritage Survey 2008 (PGS)

Hotazel Heritage Survey 2008 (PGS)

Lisbon Township Heritage Survey 2009

Koert Louw Heritage Survey 2009 (PGS)

Knapdaar Heritage Survey 2009 (PGS)

De Wittekrans Heritage Survey 2009 (PGS)

Ga-Kgapane Township Heritage Survey 2009

Guernsey Eco-estate Heritage Survey 2009

De Deur Heritage Survey 2009 (PGS)

Bultfontein Heritage Survey 2009 (PGS)

Optimum Mine Heritage Survey 2009


Gorkum Eco-Estate Heritage Survey 2009

Planknek Pipe line Heritage Survey 2009

Regorogile Ext. 9 Heritage Survey 2009

Haddon Agricultural Heritage Survey 2009

Jansenpark Residential Development Heritage Survey 2009

Klein Kariba Residential Development Heritage Survey 2009

Kangala Mine Heritage Survey 2009 (PGS)

Hoedspruit Juice Factory Heritage Survey 2009

Kameelfontein Heritage Survey 2009 (PGS)

Leolo Township Heritage Survey 2010

Rietpol Agricultural Development Heritage Survey 2010

Lwamondo Mining Heritage Survey 2010

VanderBijlpark Heritage Survey 2010 (PGS)

Kongoni Mine Heritage Survey 2010 (PGS)

Lehating Mine Heritage Survey 2010 (PGS)

Donkerpoort Township Heritage Survey 2010

Klerksdorp Township Heritage Survey 2010 (PGS)

Boikarabelo Heritage Survey 2010 (PGS)

Mountain View Township Heritage Survey 2010

De Put Township Heritage Survey 2010

Vygeboomfontein Eco-Estate Heritage Survey 2010

Vuyani-Neptune Power Line Heritage Survey 2010 (PGS)

Gamma-Kappa Power Line Heritage Survey 2010 (PGS)

Olifants River Bridge Heritage Survey 2010

Bon Accord Mine Heritage Survey 2010 (PGS)

Olifants River Water Scheme Heritage Survey 2010 (PGS)

Buffelskloof Mine Heritage Survey 2010 (Gem-Science)

Vlakvarkfontein Mine Heritage Survey 2010 (Gem-Science)

Spitskop Solar Park Heritage Survey 2011

Geluksfontein farm Heritage Survey 2011

Leeuwvallei Town Development Heritage Survey 2011

De Aar Solar Park Heritage Survey 2011 (PGS)

Onbekend Mine Heritage Survey 2011 (Gem-Science)

Witkop Solar Park Heritage Survey 2011

Bel-Bela Solar Park Heritage Survey 2011

Delta Solar Park Heritage Survey 2011

Madibeng Pipe Line Heritage Survey 2011 (PGS)

Soutpan Solar Park Heritage Survey 2011

Vlakvarkfontein Mine Heritage Survey 2011 (PGS)

Vuwani & Valdezia Pipe Lines Heritage Survey 2011


JESSICA ANGEL Professional Archaeologist

Personal Details

Name: Jessica

Surname: Angel

Identity Number: 8312250052082

Date of Birth: 25-12-1983

Citizenship: South African

Gender: Female

Marital Status: Single

Languages Spoken: English and Afrikaans

Education History

2002: Matriculated from Northcliff High School with the following subjects: English,

Afrikaans, Mathematics, Science, Biology and Art.

2005: Completed BA at University of the Witwatersrand with Geography and

Archaeology Majors.

2006: Completed BSc Hons (Geography) at the University of the Witwatersrand with

the following subjects: Environmental Management, Advanced Geographic Information Systems (GIS), Paleogeomorphology and Globalisation and Agro Food Restructuring.

2009 – 2013: M.Sc Archaeology and Geography, with thesis title: Mpumalanga Late

Iron Age: Incorporating Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and Archaeological Data to Better Understand Spatial and Temporal Distribution of Past Societies. (Graduated March 2014).

Employment History Part time employment as a student:

2011: Research Assistant: GIS work for Prof Karim Sadr. Duties include: Google Earth survey work

and digitising.

2012-2013: Basic internship at PGS. Duties include gaining familiarity with gathering relevant

background data, field surveys, exhumations and report writing.

2013: Heritage work at NGT. Background research, report writing and ground surveys.

2015 – Archaeologist – PGS Heritage

Experience in the field of archaeology:

September 2012: First Phase Heritage Assessment. Belfast. Marko Hutten and Jennifer Kitto August 2012: First Phase Heritage Assessment. Delareyville. Wouter Fourie. Stone Age survey August 2012: Heritage Assessment. MP. Chris van Vuuren and Jennifer Kitto. Ndebele initiation site. February 2013: Map survey. PTA East. Polka Birkholtz. Mapping Iron Age site. February 2013: Grave Exhumation. Chlorkop. Marko Hutten March 2013: First Phase Heritage Assessment. MP. Jennifer Kitto. July 2013: Grave Exhumation. Mafikeng. Prof Maryna Steyn and Coen Nienaber. November 2013: First Phase Heritage Assessment. Port Nolloth. Luke Verbant, Ursula Verbant. January 2015 – June 2015: 10 Heritage Impact assessments and background research for PGS Heritage