Landscape and Visual - ERM · Deep Mine PV Solar Power Facility Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, ... VRM AFRICA PROJECTS ASSESSMENTS TABLE ... The Level 3 LVIA included a site

Annex E3

Landscape and Visual

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT SOUTH DEEP SOLAR PV EIA

Silver Solutions 887 CC trading as Visual Resource Management Africa P O Box 7233, George, 6531 Cell: 083 560 9911 E-Mail: [email protected] Web: www.vrma.co.za

Attention: Alan Cochran, ERM Project Manager ERM Southern Africa 1st Floor Building 32 Woodlands Office Park Woodlands Drive Johannesburg Your ref: 0390166 Re: South Deep Solar ESIA Updated Project Layout Dear Alan, This letter serves to inform you that I have received and reviewed the revised layout (Rev.04) as below:

The changes to the layout do not have a material effect on my specialist report “Enel South Deep Mine PV Solar Power Facility Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, 19 August 2017” thus the findings of my report still stand. Regards, Stephen Stead Director

LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

FOR THE PROPOSED GOLD FIELDS SOUTH DEEP

MINE PV SOLAR POWER FACILITY,

GAUTENG PROVINCE,

SOUTH AFRICA

Date: 15th August 2017

Document prepared for ERM (Pty) Ltd.

Visual Resource Management Africa cc

P O Box 7233, George, 6531

Cell: +27 (83) 560 9911

E-Mail: [email protected]

Web: www.vrma.co.za

http://www.vrma.co.za/

Gold Fields South Deep Mine PV LVIA

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2 NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY ........................................................................................... 7

3 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 10 3.1 STUDY TEAM ............................................................................................................................... 10 3.2 SCOPE OF STUDY ........................................................................................................................ 10 3.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION ......................................................................................... 11 3.4 ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................................... 13

4 LEGAL FRAMEWORK ..................................................................................................... 14 4.1 LEGISLATION AND POLICIES .......................................................................................................... 14 4.2 INTERNATIONAL GOOD PRACTICE ................................................................................................. 15

4.2.1 Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Second Edition ...................... 16 4.2.2 Guideline for Involving Visual and Aesthetic Specialists in the EIA Process ..................... 16 4.2.3 Performance Standard 6 (PS6): Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources .................................................................................... 17

5 APPROACH AND METHODS .......................................................................................... 18 5.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 18

5.1.1 Objectives ........................................................................................................................ 18 5.1.2 Approach .......................................................................................................................... 18 5.1.3 Methods and Activities ...................................................................................................... 18 5.1.4 Assumptions and Limitations ............................................................................................ 20

5.2 SURVEYS AND DATA ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................... 20 5.2.1 Sampling Sites/ Areas ...................................................................................................... 20

5.3 IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................... 22

6 BASELINE ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................................ 22 6.1 AREA OF INFLUENCE .................................................................................................................... 22 6.2 VISUAL BASELINE ENVIRONMENT .................................................................................................. 23

6.2.1 Visual Receptors .............................................................................................................. 23 6.2.2 Broad Landscape Descriptions ......................................................................................... 26 6.2.3 Visual Resources ............................................................................................................. 27 6.2.4 Visual Resource Management Classes ............................................................................ 30 6.2.5 Threats to Scenic Quality ................................................................................................. 31

7 IMPACT ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................. 32 7.1 VISUAL AND LANDSCAPE .............................................................................................................. 32

7.1.1 Reduction in visual resources for the Northern Receptors due to the construction of the solar PV facility ............................................................................................... 32 7.1.2 Reduction in visual resources for the Western Receptors due to the construction of the solar PV facility ............................................................................................... 33 7.1.3 Reduction in visual resources for the Southern Receptors due to the construction of the solar PV facility ............................................................................................... 35 7.1.4 Degradation of the landscape to due to the construction and operation of the solar PV facility ............................................................................................................................ 36

8 ESMP ................................................................................................................................ 38 8.1 VISUAL AND LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT PLAN ................................................................................ 38 8.2 MONITORING ............................................................................................................................... 39

8.2.1 Construction and Operational Phases .............................................................................. 39

9 OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS ......................................................................... 40 9.1 OPPORTUNITIES ........................................................................................................................... 40 9.2 CONSTRAINTS.............................................................................................................................. 40

10 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 41


3

11 ANNEXURE A: LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT MAPS ....................................... 42

12 ANNEXURE B: PHOTOMONTAGES ............................................................................. 53

13 ANNEXURE C: SPECIALIST INFORMATION ............................................................... 54 13.1 DECLARATION OF INTEREST ........................................................................................................ 54 13.2 CURRICULUM VITAE ................................................................................................................... 55

14 ANNEXURE D: VRM CHECKLISTS AND TERMINOLOGY .......................................... 61

15 ANNEXURE E: GENERAL LIGHTS AT NIGHT GUIDELINES ...................................... 64

TABLE OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1: TYPICAL PV ARRAY INDICATING THE LINEAR AND DARK COLOUR NATURE OF THE PROPOSED PV

PROJECT (ERM (PTY) LTD, 2017)..................................................................................................................................... 12 FIGURE 2: TYPICAL INVERTER ENCLOSURE (ERM (PTY) LTD, 2017) ........................................................................................ 12 FIGURE 3: TYPICAL POWER TRANSFORMER (ERM (PTY) LTD, 2017) ....................................................................................... 13 FIGURE 4: PANORAMIC PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN SOUTHEAST FROM SAMPLE POINT 1 OF THE GRASSLANDS,

ALIEN TREES AND THE SOUTH DEEP TWIN SHAFT MINE IN THE BACKGROUND AND THE D12324 ROAD

ADJACENT TO THE PROPOSED SITE. ............................................................................................................................... 21 FIGURE 5: PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN SOUTHWEST FROM SAMPLE POINT 2 OF THE GRASSLANDS, AND SLIGHTLY

UNDULATING TERRAIN................................................................................................................................................... 21 FIGURE 6: PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN SOUTHEAST FROM SAMPLE POINT 2 OF THE GRASSLANDS, AND SLIGHTLY

UNDULATING TERRAIN................................................................................................................................................... 21 FIGURE 7: VIEW OF THE D12324 ROAD LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE PROPOSED PV SITE. ................................................... 24 FIGURE 8: ZOOMED VIEW OF THE NORTHERN FARMSTEAD AS SEEN FROM THE PROPOSED SITE AT 1.2 KM

DISTANCE. ...................................................................................................................................................................... 25 FIGURE 9: ZOOMED VIEW OF THE WESTERN FARMSTEAD AS SEEN FROM THE PROPOSED SITE AT 1.3 KM

DISTANCE. ...................................................................................................................................................................... 25 FIGURE 10: ZOOMED VIEW OF THE SOUTH-WESTERN FARMSTEAD LOCATED AMONGST THE TREES AS SEEN

FROM THE PROPOSED SITE AT 1.6 KM DISTANCE. ......................................................................................................... 26 FIGURE 11: ECOPARTNER VEGETATION TYPES MAP (ERM (PTY) LTD, 2017) ......................................................................... 27 FIGURE 12: EXAMPLE OF LOW GLARE EFFECT FROM LOW ANGLE SUNLIGHT. ..................................................................... 31 FIGURE 13: PERCENTAGE SCALE OF LIGHT REFLECTING OF A VARIETY OF SURFACES. ......................................................... 32 FIGURE 14: PROJECT LOCALITY MAP IN RELATION TO THE GOLD FIELD’S SOUTH DEEP MINE. ............................................ 43 FIGURE 15: PROJECT PREFERRED PROPOSED SITE OVERLAY ONTO SA 1:50 000 TOPOCADASTRAL MAPS

SHEETS. ........................................................................................................................................................................... 44 FIGURE 16: PROJECT PRELIMINARY LAYOUT PLAN INDICATING THE PV ARRAYS AND 11 KV EMERGENCY

TRANSMISSION LINE. ..................................................................................................................................................... 45 FIGURE 17: WEST RAND DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY ENVIRONMENTAL OPPORTUNITIES MAPPING WITH

APPROXIMATE PROJECT LOCATION DEPICTED (BLUE ARROW). .................................................................................... 46 FIGURE 18: WEST RAND DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY ENVIRONMENTAL OPPORTUNITIES HERITAGE MAPPING

WITH APPROXIMATE PROJECT LOCATION DEPICTED. ................................................................................................... 47 FIGURE 19: REGIONAL DIGITAL ELEVATION AND PROFILE LOCALITY MAP ............................................................................ 48 FIGURE 20: NORTH TO SOUTH (ABOVE) AND WEST TO EAST (BELOW) PROFILES WITH THE YELLOW AND

GREEN LINES REPRESENTING THE PROPOSED PROJECT EXTENTS AND THE RED LINES REPRESENTING

THE DISTANCE BUFFERS. ................................................................................................................................................ 49 FIGURE 21: DEEP SOUTH MINE PV APPROXIMATE VIEWSHED AND ANTICIPATED AREA OF INFLUENCE MAP ..................... 50 FIGURE 22: DEEP SOUTH MINE PV KEY OBSERVATION POINT MAP ...................................................................................... 51 FIGURE 23: DEEP SOUTH MINE PV SITE LANDSCAPE CHARACTERISATION MAPPING WITH THE AREA MAINLY

DEFINED AS HIGHVELD GRASSLANDS ............................................................................................................................ 52


4

FIGURE 24: PANORAMIC PHOTOGRAPH AMENDMENT INDICATING THE APPROXIMATE EXTENT OF THE

PROPOSED PV FOOTPRINT. ............................................................................................................................................ 53

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1: AUTHORS AND CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT. .................................................................................................. 10 TABLE 2: PROPERTY NAME PER WIND FARM PORTION .......................................................................................................... 11 TABLE 3: SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF PV ARRAY PROJECT COMPONENTS............................................................................ 13 TABLE 4: LEGISLATION AND POLICY TABLE ............................................................................................................................. 15 TABLE 5: VRM CLASS MATRIX TABLE ...................................................................................................................................... 19 TABLE 6: LIST OF SAMPLING SITES WHERE LANDSCAPE AND AESTHETIC SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED ................................... 20 TABLE 7: LANDSCAPE IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE RATING TABLE ................................................................................................. 22 TABLE 8: VISUAL IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE RATING TABLE ........................................................................................................ 22 TABLE 9: SCENIC QUALITY AND RECEPTOR SENSITIVITY TABLE .............................................................................................. 29 TABLE 10: PRE-MITIGATION VISUAL IMPACTS FOR THE REDUCTION IN VISUAL RESOURCES FOR THE

NORTHERN RECEPTORS DUE TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SOLAR PV FACILITY ...................................................... 33 TABLE 11: PRE-MITIGATION VISUAL IMPACTS FOR THE REDUCTION IN VISUAL RESOURCES FOR THE

WESTERN RECEPTORS DUE TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SOLAR PV FACILITY ......................................................... 34 TABLE 12: PRE-MITIGATION VISUAL IMPACTS FOR THE REDUCTION IN VISUAL RESOURCES FOR THE

SOUTHERN RECEPTORS DUE TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SOLAR PV FACILITY ...................................................... 35 TABLE 13: PRE-MITIGATION IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE RATING FOR THE DEGRADATION OF THE LANDSCAPE TO

DUE TO THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE SOLAR PV FACILITY ................................................................. 36 TABLE 14: VRM AFRICA PROJECTS ASSESSMENTS TABLE ....................................................................................................... 56 TABLE 15: SCENIC QUALITY CHECKLIST ................................................................................................................................... 61 TABLE 16: SENSITIVITY LEVEL RATING CHECKLIST .................................................................................................................. 62 TABLE 17: VRM TERMINOLOGY TABLE ................................................................................................................................... 63


5

GLOSSARY

Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO)

This is the option that provides the most benefit, or causes the least damage, to the

environment as a whole, at a cost acceptable to society, in the long, as well as the short,

term.

Cumulative Impact

The impact on the environment, which results from the incremental impact of the action

when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless

of what agency or person, undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result

from individually minor, but collectively significant, actions taking place over a period of

time.

Impact (visual)

A description of the effect of an aspect of a development on a specified component of the

visual, aesthetic or scenic environment, within a defined time and space.

Issue (visual)

Issues are concerns related to the proposed development, generally phrased as

questions, taking the form of “what will the impact of some activity be on some element of

the visual, aesthetic or scenic environment?”

Key Observation Points (KOPs)

KOPs refer to receptors (people affected by the visual influence of a project) located in the

most critical locations surrounding the landscape modification, who make consistent use of

the views associated with the site where the landscape modifications are proposed. KOPs

can either be a single point of view that an observer/evaluator uses to rate an area or

panorama, or a linear view along a roadway, trail or river corridor.

Management Actions

Actions that enhance the benefits of a proposed development, or avoid, mitigate, restore or

compensate for, negative impacts.

Receptors

Individuals, groups or communities who would be subject to the visual influence of a

particular project.

Sense of Place

The unique quality or character of a place, whether natural, rural or urban.

Scenic Corridor

A linear geographic area that contains scenic resources, usually, but not necessarily,

defined by a route.

Scoping

The process of determining the key issues, and the space and time boundaries, to be

addressed in an environmental assessment.

Viewshed

The outer boundary defining a view catchment area, usually along crests and ridgelines.

Similar to a watershed. This reflects the area in which, or the extent to which, the

landscape modification is likely to be seen.

Zone of Visual Influence (ZVI)

The ZVI is defined as ‘the area within which a proposed development may have an

influence or effect on visual amenity.’

Glare and Glint


6

Glare is defined in the Oxford dictionary (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com) as ‘shine with

a strong or dazzling light’. Glint is defined as the circumstance relating to ‘reflect small

flashes of light’

LIST OF ACRONYMS

APHP Association of Professional Heritage Practitioners

BLM Bureau of Land Management (United States)

BPEO Best Practicable Environmental Option

CALP Collaborative for Advanced Landscape Planning

DEA Department of Environmental Affairs (National)

DEA&DP Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (Western

Cape Province)

DEM Digital Elevation Model

DoC Degree of Contrast

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EMP Environmental Management Plan

GIS Geographic Information System

I&APs Interested and Affected Parties

IEMA Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (United Kingdom)

IEMP Integrated Environmental Management Plan

KOP Key Observation Point

MAMSL Metres above mean sea level

NELPAG New England Light Pollution Advisory Group

PSDF Provincial Spatial Development Framework

SAHRA South African National Heritage Resources Agency

SDF Spatial Development Framework

SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment

VAC Visual Absorption Capacity

VIA Visual Impact Assessment

VRM Visual Resource Management

ZVI Zone of Visual Influence

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/reflect#reflect__2


7

2 NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY

Visual Resource Management Africa CC (VRMA) was appointed by ERM (Pty) Ltd to

undertake a LEVEL 3 Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment for the proposed Gold

Fields South Deep Mine PV Solar Energy Facility (SEF). The Level 3 LVIA included a site

visit, viewshed mapping and a landscape and visual impact assessment. Photomontages

were not generated due to the semi-industrial and mining nature of the existing

surrounding landscapes.

The finding of the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment is that the site and local

visual resources will not be significantly degraded by the proposed PV Solar Energy

Facility landscape modification. Risks to the land degradation from cumulative landscape

and visual effects is rated Low. This is due to the low visual resources of the proposed site

in relation to the existing mining landscape context of the region, and the contained visual

extent of the project.

Baseline Phase

Based on the viewshed analysis, and the site visit, the Areas of Influence (AoI) of the

proposed project was mapped. This area is mainly located within the Foreground extent

(up to three kilometres) due to the following reasons:

The location of the low hills and ridgelines located to the north, west and east of the

proposed site.

The location of the Deep South mine dumps to the east of the proposed site.

Higher ground to the south.

Although the viewshed does extend outside of the Foreground (2 km) distance buffers, it is

very likely that vegetation and atmospheric influence would reduce the visual intensity of

the landscape effects. The mine landscapes adjacent to the site also increase the visual

absorption capacity of the area, reducing visual contrast to some degree. A such the

visual AoI of the proposed project is defined as Local and the zone of visual influence is

likely to be contained to the Foreground / Middle ground (6km) distance zone.

The field survey confirmed the grassland biome landscape, but also found that

transformation has taken place which includes old settlement areas and cultivation, alien

tree species, road access modifications as well as illegal dumping. The two broad

vegetation dominated landscapes are thus defined as:

Rand Highveld Grassland.

Transformed Rand Highveld Grassland.

The main landscape finding is that the two broad brush landscape types are similar in

character and the overall site Scenic Quality is graded Low. This is predominantly due

to the lack of uniqueness of the site, the homogeneity of the vegetation and the degraded

nature of the adjacent mine landscapes. The Landform is predominantly of shallow

gradient, located on a low ridge running along the length of the proposed site. The

vegetation is predominantly grassland but is modified with alien tree species, and some


8

access roads from previous farm related settlement. There are no visible water bodies on

site to add visual focus areas and colours are vegetation dominated, specifically the muted

browns of the grasslands. The grassland landscape is not a scarce feature in the

landscape and to the south of the proposed site is a common landscape. Adjacent

landscapes to the east are strongly mine infrastructure dominated, including mine

headgear, large structures, mine dumps and quarry landscapes. Adjacent landscapes to

the west include small farmstead settlements, small-holdings and road / power line

infrastructure which, although interesting in the setting, are not unique. Man-made

modifications on site include access roads associated with previous farming practices,

alien trees as well as illegal dumping which degrade the landscape to some degree.

The expected Receptor Sensitivity of the two landscapes is also graded Medium to Low

for both landscape types. During the public participation process, no landscape change

issues were raised. Local residents did indicate a concern relating to possible glare

impacts, which were addressed in the impact assessment phase. Due to the adjacent

Gold Field’s mines, the Type of Users in the area are mainly going to be mine related, with

some medium exposure views from the west related to farm / small-holding settlements.

Due to the residential nature of the western farming areas, the Type of User is rated as

Medium. The mine and adjacent access road result in a large volume of traffic utilising the

area and the Amount of Use is defined as High. Due to the predominant mining

landscapes of the adjacent lands, as well as the uniformity of the site which has no unique

landscape features, Public Interest is likely to be Low. Adjacent Land Users do not include

any tourists and are rated Low. The site has no legal protection and as such is rated Low

in terms of the Special Area category.

The existing built nature of the mine landscape, which increases the visual absorption

capacity of the site, in conjunction with the lower visual resources of the areas, result in a

Class IV visual objective being assigned to the proposed development area. The Class IV

objective is to provide for management activities that require major modifications to

the existing character of the landscape.

Impact Phase

The Visual impacts assessed related to changes that arise in the composition of available

views as a result of changes to the landscape, to people’s response to any changes, and

the overall impacts with respect to visual amenity. These include the colour change and a

massing effect created by the PV panels covering a large area, limited early morning glare

and some security lights at night. Based on the Area of Influence mapping, four receptor

locations were captured and evaluated in terms of the Key Observation Point Status. As

all the identified receptors are located with the Medium to High Exposure distance zone,

where views of the proposed PV landscape modification would be clearly visible all the

receptors view points were included as KOPs as visual impact points. The KOPs include:

Northern Farmstead.

Western Farmsteads.

South-western Farmstead.

The Construction and Operation Phase Pre-Mitigation Landscape and Visual

Significance is rated Minor due to Medium Resource Magnitude and Medium to Low


9

Receptor Sensitivity to landscape change. As the site is strongly associated with an

existing mining landscape, which includes mine head-gear, large structures, mine dumps

and movement of vehicles, landscape resources are rated Medium. As no visual concerns

(other than glare) were raised during the public participation process, it is likely that

receptor sensitivity to landscape change is likely to be Medium to Low. Due to the limited

mitigations measures required or available for this development, Residual Landscape and

Visual Impacts reflect the same rating as Pre-Mitigation Landscape Impacts.


10

3 BACKGROUND

Visual Resource Management Africa CC (VRMA) was appointed by ERM (Pty) Ltd to

undertake a LEVEL 3 Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment for the proposed Gold

Fields South Deep Mine PV Solar Energy Facility (SEF). A Level 3 assessment includes a

site visit, which was undertaken on the 8th of June 2016, viewshed mapping and impact

assessment. Photomontages were not required due to the semi-industrial nature of the

existing surrounding landscapes.

As defined in the draft scoping study, “Gold Fields in collaboration with Enel Green Power (EGP) is proposing a solar PV plant at their South Deep Gold mine near Westonaria, Gauteng. EGP will build, own and operate the solar plant. South Deep Joint Venture (SDJV), an unincorporated joint venture between GFI Joint Venture Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Gold Fields Operations Ltd, proposes to establish two solar photovoltaic (PV) power plants to:

Supplement power supply with “green/ clean” energy;

Diversify the Mine’s energy mix to reduce the mines reliance on fossil fuels and

include renewable energy; and

Contribute to the Mine’s strategic objective to reduce energy costs and decrease

the environmental footprint of the mine. (ERM (Pty) Ltd, 2017)

3.1 Study Team

Contributors to this study are summarised in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Authors and Contributors to this Report.

Aspect Person Organisation /

Company Qualifications

Landscape and Visual Assessment (author of this report)

Stephen Stead B.A (Hons) Human Geography, 1991 (UKZN, Pietermaritzburg)

VRMA Accredited with the Association of Professional

Heritage Practitioner and

16 years of experience in visual assessments including

renewable energy, powerlines, roads, dams across

southern Africa.

Undertook visual assessment studies of 45 renewable

energy projects in South Africa.

Contrast rating and editing.

Lisa Schultz B.A Fine Art 1989 (UKZN, Pietermaritzburg)

VRMA 8 years of experience in contrast ratings.

3.2 Scope of Study The scope of work for the visual study required the following:

Literature and policy review and mapping.

Preparation of visual baseline.

Assessment of viewshed landscape context.

Identification and Assessment of main receptors.

Assessment of site scenic quality of landscape.

Contrast rating from Key Observation Points.


11

Impact assessment as per defined criteria.

Describe relevant and implementable mitigation measures to reduce, avoid, or

minimise negative impacts and enhance positive impacts and recommendations.

Review of I&AP / Relevant Authority comments.

3.3 Project Description and Location

According to the scoping report, Enel Green Power has proposed the development of a 2x20MW solar photovoltaic (PV) power facility to supply power to the Gold Field South Deep Gold Mine. Photovoltaic Solar Panel technology is being proposed which will occupy up to a maximum of 120 ha (1.2 km2) for the 2x20MW Solar PV Plants. Motivation for the project by Gold Field’s is based on electricity prices that started to rise steeply from 2007 and have increased by 328% up to 2015 / 16 which presents a significant strain on the financial viability of operations at the Gold Field’s South Deep Gold Mine. Electricity costs constitute almost 11% of South Deep Gold Mine’s operating costs. As a result, Gold Fields Limited (GFL) “intend to make renewable energy a key part of their future energy mix at their South Deep Mine operations, especially given that the life of mine is more than 70 years”. GFL is also motivated by the need to reduce the carbon footprint of the mine by introducing renewable energy and this solar project. The ERM scoping report indicates that proposed project is to be developed on a green field site owned by Goldfields South Africa located on the Gold Field South Deep Gold Mine property near Westonaria in the Gauteng Province (Figure 12). The proposed site is located approximately 50 kilometres south-west of Johannesburg, South Africa. The GPS coordinates are 26°24’44” South and 27°40’ 30” East. As can be seen on the map, the site is located adjacent to existing mining operations but the site has not been used for mining activities or development. Table 2: Property Name per Wind Farm Portion

Property Attribute SG Number

Farm Name 347 Doornpoort

Portion Number 2,7,12 and 34

Parcel Number

SG21 codes T0IQ000000000347000002 T0IQ000000000347000007 T0IQ000000000347000012 T0IQ000000000347000034

The proposed PV SEF includes the following project components:

PV arrays

Invertors

Transformer

Power evacuation

Required road infrastructure

The PV modules are c-Si (Multicrystalline Silicon) which will be mounted on a single axis tracker. Central inverters with unit transformers will be used and the voltage level is 1500V. The panels will be mounted a 00 angle and the tracking angle will be 450. The expected maximum height of the PV Arrays is 4m above ground (see Photographs in Figure 1 below). The invertors will be enclosed and will not be visually dominating due to the size of the enclosure being smaller than the PV Array, as well as being located within the PV


12

Array (see Photographs in Figure 2 below). A single Power Transformer (see Photographs in Figure 3 below) will be required on site as well as power lines to evacuate the power from the facility. According to the scoping report, there is an existing 11 kV emergency overhead power line that connects to both South shaft with Twin shaft. As this line is not being utilised, it is proposed that this line be used to supply 20 MW to South shaft and 20 MW to Twin shafts by the solar plant cables “looping in and looping out” (LILO) of this existing power line. The reports also states that due to the importance of this line during a power outage, it is anticipated that two ‘loop in, loop out’ tie-in configurations will be used, one for each PV solar plant. Due to the close proximity of the existing 11 kV line, the two LILO routings will be less than one kilometre each and will be located between the proposed PV Array and the existing mine.

Figure 1: Typical PV Array indicating the linear and dark colour nature of the proposed PV

project (ERM (Pty) Ltd, 2017)

Figure 2: Typical Inverter Enclosure (ERM (Pty) Ltd, 2017)


13

Figure 3: Typical Power Transformer (ERM (Pty) Ltd, 2017)

Table 3: Summary Description of PV Array project components Feature Details

PV Array Area ##

PV Array Height

Road access

Length of powerline

Power line Height

Power Transformer Height

3.4 Assessment of Alternatives The scoping report indicates that consideration was undertaken of five alternative sites for the development of the Solar PV plant based on proximity to the existing Gold Fields Facilities. In terms of the technical alternatives assessment three of the sites were deemed as not technically suitable due to their smaller size. The most northern site was deemed technically suitable but was ranked as a No-Go due to biodiversity concerns raised during the environmental and social assessment. As the northern site was not a viable option in the final integrated assessment, the three other sites too small, Site 1 was selected for further assessment. The key considerations in the assessment of the preferred site were as follows:

Positives:

o The site is a greenfields site;


14

o Site 1 is located next to the mine’s main access road, no permissions

required from outside agencies for access roads;

o The entire 40MW plant (2 X 20MW) can be accommodated;

o The site is reasonably flat;

o Ease of Interconnection with Mine network; and

o The site is close to existing Mine infrastructure.

Negatives:

o Localized areas with dense bushes and trees to be cleared. This will

however not be problematic; and

o Selected outcrop can affect the installation of the solar panel steel supports

(possible localized drilling and / or excavation). (ERM (Pty) Ltd, 2017)

4 LEGAL FRAMEWORK

4.1 Legislation and Policies

In order to comply with the Visual Resource Management requirements, it is necessary to

clarify which planning policies govern the proposed property area to ensure that the scale,

density and nature of activities or developments are harmonious and in keeping with the

sense of place and character of the area. The proposed landscape modifications must be

viewed in the context of the planning policies from the following West Rand District

Municipality (WRDM) – Regional Growth and Development Strategy (West Rand District

Municipality, 2012) guidelines:


15

Table 4: Legislation and Policy Table

Legislation Requirements

West Rand District

Municipality (WRDM) – Regional Growth and Development Strategy (March 2012)

Environmental Opportunities

The West Rand District does have very valuable environmental assets and opportunities, which includes the following:

Ridges with high aesthetic and ecological values Agricultural potential Heritage (West Rand District Municipality, 2012)

The proposed project is located in an area that does include hilly terrain, but mapping in the WRDM Regional Growth and Development Strategy indicates the ridgelines in the Westonaria area to the north of the proposed site as having Class 1 aesthetic value, and ridgelines to the west as Class 2. Agricultural potential is also indicated as Medium or Low Potential in the mapping, and a Heritage mapping indicated that no important heritage sites lie within the proposed project area (refer to maps in Appendix A).

West Rand District

Municipality (WRDM) – Regional Growth and Development Strategy (March 2012)

Environmental Management

“It is the intention of the District (as part of the 2016 vision) to become the greenest district in South Africa, and have committed themselves to this goal through the Green IQ. Therefore, the District should focus on taking advantage of new opportunities in the knowledge and green economies as stated in the new National Growth Path. The following emerging issues were identified for consideration within the District”:

Biofuel Alternative energies (such as photovoltaic) Hazardous and new waste types Mine water pollution (e.g. Acid Mine Drainage) Nanotechnology Land Degradation

As indicated above, the WRDM environmental strategic planning does include alternative energies, which does include photovoltaic. Care should be taken to ensure that further land degradation does not take place.

4.2 International Good Practice For cultural landscapes, the following documentation provides good practice guidelines, specifically:

Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA), Second Edition; (The

Landscape Institute, 2003);

Guideline for Involving Visual and Aesthetic Specialists in EIA Processes; (Oberholzer,

2005);

International Finance Corporation (IFC) Performance Standard 6 – Biodiversity

Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources; (IFC, 2012).


16

4.2.1 Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Second Edition

The Landscape Institute and the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment have compiled a book outlining best practice in landscape and visual impact assessment. This has become a key guideline for LVIA in the United Kingdom. “The principal aim of the guideline is to encourage high standards for the scope and context of landscape and visual impact assessments, based on the collegiate opinion and practice of the members of the Landscape Institute and the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment. The guidelines also seek to establish certain principles and will help to achieve consistency, credibility and effectiveness in landscape and visual impact assessment, when carried out as part of an EIA” (The Landscape Institute, 2003: pg 4). In the introduction, the guideline states that ‘Landscape encompasses the whole of our external environment, whether within village, towns, cities or in the countryside. The nature and pattern of buildings, streets, open spaces and trees – and their interrelationships within the built environment – are an equally important part of our landscape heritage” (The Landscape Institute, 2003: pg 9). The guideline identified the following reasons why landscape is important in both urban and rural contexts, in that it is:

An essential part of our natural resource base;

A reservoir of archaeological and historical evidence;

An environment for plants and animals (including humans);

A resource that evokes sensual, cultural and spiritual responses and contributes to our

urban and rural quality of life;

A valuable recreation resource.

4.2.2 Guideline for Involving Visual and Aesthetic Specialists in the EIA Process

This guideline for visual and aesthetic specialists in the EIA process was coordinated by the CSIR, compiled by Bernand Oberholzer Landscape Architects, and issued by the Provincial Government of the Western Cape (Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning). The purpose of this guideline was to provide decision-makers with adequate and appropriate information about the potential positive and negative visual and aesthetic impacts of a proposed development and any associated management actions in order to make an informed decision on whether or not to approve, proceed with or finance the development (Oberholzer, 2005; pg 2). The following specific concepts should be considered during visual input into the EIA process:

An awareness that 'visual' implies the full range of visual, aesthetic, cultural and

spiritual aspects of the environment that contribute to the area's sense of place;

The consideration of both the natural and the cultural landscape, and their inter-

relatedness;

The identification of all scenic resources, protected areas and sites of special interest,

together with their relative importance in the region;

An understanding of the landscape processes, including geological, vegetation and

settlement patterns, which give the landscape its particular character or scenic

attributes;

The need to include both quantitative criteria, such as 'visibility', and qualitative criteria,

such as aesthetic value or sense of place;

The need to include visual input as an integral part of the project planning and design

process, so that the findings and recommended mitigation measures can inform the

final design, and hopefully the quality of the project; and


17

The need to determine the value of visual/aesthetic resources through public

involvement. (Oberholzer, 2005; Pg. 2).

4.2.3 Performance Standard 6 (PS6): Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management

of Living Natural Resources

Under IFC PS 6, ecosystem services are organized into four categories, with the third

category related to cultural services which are defined as “the non-material benefits people

obtain from ecosystems”; and “may include natural areas that are sacred sites and areas

of importance for recreation and aesthetic enjoyment” (IFC, 2012). The Millennium

Ecosystem Assessment (2005) defined these non-material benefits that can be obtained

from ecosystems:

Inspiration: Ecosystems provide a rich source of inspiration for art, folklore, national

symbols, architecture, and advertising;

Aesthetic values: Many people find beauty or aesthetic value in various aspects of

ecosystems, as reflected in the support for parks, scenic drives, and the selection of

housing locations;

Sense of place: Many people value the “sense of place” that is associated with

recognised features of their environment, including aspects of the ecosystem;

Cultural heritage values: Many societies place high value on the maintenance of either

historically important landscapes (“cultural landscapes”) or culturally significant

species; and

Recreation and ecotourism: People often choose where to spend their leisure time

based in part on the characteristics of the natural or cultivated landscapes in a

particular area.

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis report indicates that there has been a “rapid decline in sacred groves and species” in relation to spiritual and religious values, and aesthetic values have seen a “decline in quantity and quality of natural lands”.


18

5 APPROACH AND METHODS

5.1 Introduction

5.1.1 Objectives

The ERM Landscape and Visual guidelines recommend that separate reports for Landscape and Visual Impacts be provided (ERM, 2014). However, the project scope was for a single report, which takes both landscape and visual impacts into consideration. The follow quotation from the report indicates the difference between the two assessments. “Landscape impacts derive from changes in the physical landscape; which may give rise to changes in its character and how this is experienced. This in turn may affect the perceived value attributed to the landscape. Visual impacts relate to changes that arise in the composition of available views as a result of changes to the landscape, to people’s response to any changes, and the overall impacts with respect to visual amenity”. (ERM, 2014)

5.1.2 Approach

. The following criteria defined by ERM represent the approach of the assessment:

Define the scenic values of the potentially affected area required to preserve areas

of high scenic value.

Review the project design in the context of the identified scenic values to identify

focus areas for field work.

Undertake a field survey to confirm the visual impacts of the project and define

potential mitigation through proposing alternative routing, where considered

feasible.

Undertake a landscape and visual impact assessment of the agreed and final

project.

5.1.3 Methods and Activities

The process that VRMA follows when undertaking a LVIA is based on the United States

Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Visual Resource Management method (USDI.,

2004). This mapping and GIS-based method of assessing landscape modifications allows

for increased objectivity and consistency by using standard assessment criteria.

Objectivity and consistency in VIA studies are increased by using the basic design

elements of form, line, colour, and texture. These landscape attributes are used as the

context for describing potential visual effects of proposed projects and to identify options

for management intervention, such as measures for adjusting project design to minimise

visual impacts. The assessment comprises two main sections; firstly the Visual Inventory

to identify the visual resources along the proposed routing; and secondly, the Analysis

Stage. This stage requires a Contrast Rating to assess the expected degree of contrast

the proposed project would generate within the receiving landscape in order to define the

Magnitude of the impact.

In terms of VRM methodology, landscape character is derived from a combination of

scenic quality and receptor sensitivity to landscape change. Thus the Importance of the

Visual Resource is based on the findings of the Scenic Quality and Receptor Sensitivity

check sheets located in Appendix C. These findings are then submitted to a VRM Matrix


19

(Table 3.1) to determine VRM Classes. The VRM Classes are not prescriptive and are

used as a guideline to determine the carrying capacity of a visually preferred landscape as

a basis for assessing the suitability of the landscape change associated with the proposed

project. The visual objectives of each of the classes are listed below:

The Class I objective is to preserve the existing character of the landscape, the level

of change to the characteristic landscape should be very low, and must not attract

attention. Class I is assigned when a decision is made to maintain a natural

landscape;

The Class II objective is to retain the existing character of the landscape and the level

of change to the characteristic landscape should be low. The proposed development

may be seen, but should not attract the attention of the casual observer, and should

repeat the basic elements of form, line, colour and texture found in the predominant

natural features of the characteristic landscape;

The Class III objective is to partially retain the existing character of the landscape,

where the level of change to the characteristic landscape should be moderate. The

proposed development may attract attention, but should not dominate the view of the

casual observer, and changes should repeat the basic elements found in the

predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape; and

The Class IV objective is to provide for management activities that require major

modifications of the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the

landscape can be high, and these The proposed development may dominate the view

and be the major focus of the viewer’s (s’) attention.

Table 5: VRM Class Matrix Table

VISUAL SENSITIVITY LEVELS

High Medium Low

SCENIC

QUALITY

A (High)

II II II II II II II II II

B (Medium)

II III III/ IV * III IV IV IV IV IV

C (Low)

III IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV

DISTANCE ZONES

Fo

re/m

iddle

gro

und

Ba

ckg

rou

nd

Se

ldom

se

en

Fo

re/m

iddle

gro

und

Ba

ckg

rou

nd

Se

ldom

se

en

Fo

re/m

iddle

gro

und

Ba

ckg

rou

nd

Se

ldom

se

en

* If adjacent areas are Class III or lower, assign Class III, if higher, assign Class IV

The contrast rating is undertaken from the receptor Key Observation Points, where the

level of change to the existing landscape is assessed in terms of line, colour, texture and

form, in relation to the visual objectives defined for the area. KOPs are defined by the

BLM as the people (receptors) located in strategic locations surrounding the property or

development that make consistent use of the views associated with the site where the

landscape modifications are proposed. To define the KOPs, potential receptor locations


20

were identified in the viewshed analysis, and screened, based on the following generic

criteria:

Angle of observation;

Number of viewers;

Length of time the project is in view;

Relative project size;

Season of use;

Critical viewpoints, e.g. views from communities, road crossings; and

Distance to the landscape modification.

5.1.4 Assumptions and Limitations

Although every effort to maintain accuracy was undertaken, as a result of the

Digital Elevation Model (DEM) being generated from satellite imagery and not

being a true representation of the earth’s surface, the viewshed mapping is

approximate and may not represent an exact visibility incidence.

The use of open source satellite imagery was utilised for base maps in the report.

The viewsheds were generated using ASTER elevation data. (NASA, 2009)

Some of the mapping in this document was created using Bing Maps (previously

Live Search Maps, Windows Live Maps, Windows Live Local, and MSN Virtual

Earth) and powered by the Enterprise framework.

VRM Africa reserves the right to modify aspects of the project deliverables if and

when new/additional information may become available from research or further

work in the applicable field of practice, or pertaining to this study.

5.2 Surveys and Data Analysis

5.2.1 Sampling Sites/ Areas

A site survey was undertaken on the 18th of June 2017 in fair weather conditions. A mine

safety assessment was conducted prior to the site survey and the required PPE was

utilised during the survey. During the field survey, due to the uniformity of the site

landscape, two sampling sites were visited. Photographs were taken from each of the

points and approximate compass points captured. The nature of the dominant landscape

was also noted. From the site, zoomed photographs were also taken of the receptors that

would have views of the proposed landscape modification to inform the Area of Influence

mapping. These receptor locations were then visited to determine the significance of the

views and to take photographs of the views back towards the proposed site replicating the

main views of the receptors. To get a perspective view of the site which is fairly flat, a

panoramic photograph was taken from an adjacent high ground point to the west of the

site which afforded clear views of the southern section of the proposed site.

Table 6: List of Sampling Sites where Landscape and Aesthetic Survey was Conducted

ID Date Latitude Longitude

1 18 Jun 2017 26°24' 13.1"S 27° 39' 59"E

2 18 Jun 2017 26°24' 37.35"S 27°39'14.23"E


21

Figure 4: Panoramic photograph taken southeast from Sample Point 1 of the grasslands, alien trees and the South Deep Twin Shaft Mine in the background and the D12324 road adjacent to the proposed site.

Figure 5: Photograph taken southwest from Sample Point 2 of the grasslands, and slightly undulating terrain.

Figure 6: Photograph taken southeast from Sample Point 2 of the grasslands, and slightly undulating terrain.


22

5.3 Impact Assessment Methodology Impacts were assessed in accordance with the standard impact assessment methodology provided by ERM and the ratings table provided in Error! Reference source not found. and 4.4 below. The VRM assessment methodology will be utilised to inform the ERM impact criteria. Table 7: Landscape Impact Significance Rating Table

Evaluation of Significance Importance of Landscape Resource

Low Medium High

Magnitude of Landscape Effect

Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible

Small Negligible Minor Moderate

Medium Minor Moderate Major

Large Moderate Major Major

Positive Impacts

Positive Minor Moderate Major

The Importance of the Landscape Resource is based on the Classification of the Visual Resource classification, which represent the relative value of the visual resources of an area, where:

Classes I and II are the most valued (High);

Class III represents a moderate value (Medium); and

Class IV is of least value (Low).

Table 8: Visual Impact Significance Rating Table

Evaluation of Significance Sensitivity of the Visual Resource

Low Medium High

Magnitude of Visual Effect

Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible

Small Negligible Minor Moderate

Medium Minor Moderate Major

Large Moderate Major Major

Positive Impacts

Positive Minor Moderate Major

The following Degree of Contrast rating criteria are utilised to inform the Magnitude

None: The element contrast is not visible or perceived (Negligible Magnitude).

Weak: The element contrast can be seen but does not attract attention (Small

Magnitude).

Moderate: The element contrast begins to attract attention and begins to

dominate the characteristic landscape (Medium Magnitude).

Strong: The element contrast demands attention, will not be overlooked, and is

dominant in the landscape (Large Magnitude).

6 BASELINE ENVIRONMENT

6.1 Area of Influence


23

The Visual Receptors and Area of Influence are identified by means of a viewshed analysis. The visible extent, or viewshed, is “the outer boundary defining a view catchment area, usually along crests and ridgelines” (Oberholzer, 2005). In order to define the extent of the possible influence of the proposed project, a viewshed analysis was undertaken from the proposed site at 4 m height above ground level, making use of open source NASA ASTER for the generation of the Digital Elevation Model data (NASA, 2009). This mapped area indicates the approximate maximum visual influence. However, as this mapping does not take vegetation into consideration, and visual intensity tends to diminish over distance (Hull & Bishop, 1988), the Area of Influence is mainly informed by the site visit. A regional topographic mapping exercise was undertaken to better understand the

topography of the surrounding areas (Figure 12). The map indicates that a series of low

hills and ridgelines are located to the north of the proposed site, with the areas to the south

having flatter terrain. Also potentially influencing visibility are the large mine dumps

located in the vicinity, which would also result in topographic screening. From profiles

generated across the proposed site in a West to East and North to South axis (Figure 13),

it is evident that the extent of the visibility is likely to be contained within the foreground

(6km) distance zone for both axis lines. Based on the viewshed analysis, and the site visit,

the Areas of Influence (AoI) of the proposed project was mapped (Figure 14). This area is

mainly located within the Foreground extent (up to three kilometres) due to the following

reasons:

The location of the low hills and ridgelines located to the north, west and east of the

proposed site.

The location of the Deep South mine dumps to the east of the proposed site.

Higher ground to the south.

Although the viewshed does extend outside of the Foreground (2 km) distance buffers, it is

very likely that vegetation and atmospheric influence would reduce the visual intensity of

the landscape effects. A such the visual AoI of the proposed project is defined as Local

and the zone of visual influence is likely to be contained to the Foreground / Middleground

(6km) distance zone. The main visual issues occurring within the AoI are:

Agricultural landscapes and settlement.

Local access roads.

Mining landscapes.

6.2 Visual Baseline Environment

6.2.1 Visual Receptors

Based on the AoI, four receptor locations were captured and evaluated in terms of the Key Observation Point Status. As all the identified receptors are located with the Medium to High Exposure distance zone, where views of the proposed PV landscape modification would be clearly visible (refer to Figure 20 for KOP mapped locations), all the receptors view points were included as KOPs as listed below:

D12324 road.


24

Northern Farmstead.

Western Farmsteads.

South-western Farmstead.

The D12324 Road

Figure 7: View of the D12324 Road located adjacent to the proposed PV site. The D12324 road, which is located adjacent to the northern boundary of the proposed site, is in a Very High Exposure location. The traffic making use of this road is mostly related to the two Gold Field’s Deep South Mines, where receptors are less likely to be sensitive to landscape change.


25

Northern Farmstead

Figure 8: Zoomed view of the northern farmstead as seen from the proposed site at 1.2 km distance. This receptor location is located 1.2 km to the northwest of the proposed site. The farmstead comprises a cluster of farm dwellings as well as large sized garden shade trees located to the north of the site. Views from the structures towards the proposed site would be partially obscured by scattered vegetation. Western Farmstead

Figure 9: Zoomed view of the western farmstead as seen from the proposed site at 1.3 km distance. South-western Farmstead


26

Figure 10: Zoomed view of the south-western farmstead located amongst the trees as seen from the proposed site at 1.6 km distance.

6.2.2 Broad Landscape Descriptions

As part of the scoping assessment, a botanical survey was undertaken by EcoPartner in 2011. According to the findings described in the scoping report, the Project Area falls within the Grassland Biome of southern Africa, and the vegetation type is described as Rand Highveld Grassland. This vegetation type is a species–rich unit with wiry, sour grassland alternating with low, sour shrubland on rocky outcrops and steeper slopes. The report indicates that the mining area was originally covered by grassland but that large areas were cleared for the construction of the mining infrastructure. The site visit confirmed that trees are generally absent, except in a few localized areas where invasive alien tree species dominate. The following botanical mapping was provided, which informs the dominant landscape types due to the lack of development and uniformity of the site. The field survey confirmed the grassland biome but also found that modification has taken place which includes old settlement areas, alien tree species, and road access modifications. The two broad vegetation dominated landscapes are thus defined as:

Rand Highveld Grassland.

Transformed Rand Highveld Grassland.


27

Figure 11: EcoPartner Vegetation Types Map (ERM (Pty) Ltd, 2017)

6.2.3 Visual Resources

The Scenic Quality of a site/ area is determined by making use of the VRM Scenic Quality

checklists (Appendix D) which rate the different broad-brush landscapes found within the

study area. Seven scenic quality criteria are scored on a 1 (low quality) to 5 (high quality)

scale. If applicable, the Cultural Modification can be assigned a negative value if the

landscape is significantly degraded by human-made modifications. The seven scenic

quality criteria are defined below:

Land Form: Topography becomes more of a factor as it becomes steeper, or more

severely sculptured;

Vegetation: Primary consideration given to the variety of patterns, forms, and textures

created by plant life;

Water: The component that adds movement or serenity to a scene. The degree to

which water dominates the scene is the primary consideration;

Colour: The overall colour(s) of the basic components of the landscape (e.g., soil,

rock, vegetation, etc.) are considered as they appear during seasons or periods of

high use;

Scarcity: This factor provides an opportunity to give added importance to one, or all,

of the scenic features that appear to be relatively unique or rare within one

physiographic region;

Adjacent Land Use: Degree to which scenery and distance enhance, or start to

influence, the overall impression of the scenery within the rating unit; and


28

Cultural Modifications: Cultural modifications should be considered, and may

detract from the scenery or complement or improve the scenic quality of an area.

(USDI., 2004)

The scenic quality scores are totalled and assigned an A (High scenic quality), B

(Moderate scenic quality) or C (Low scenic quality) category based on the following split:

A= scenic quality rating of ≥19; B = rating of 12 – 18, C= rating of ≤11

Receptor Sensitivity levels are a measure of public concern for scenic quality. Receptor

sensitivity to landscape change is determined by rating the following factors in terms of

Low to High:

Type of Users: Visual sensitivity will vary with the type of users, e.g. recreational

sightseers may be highly sensitive to any changes in visual quality, whereas

workers who pass through the area on a regular basis may not be as sensitive to

change;

Amount of Use: Areas seen or used by large numbers of people are potentially

more sensitive;

Public Interest: The visual quality of an area may be of concern to local, or

regional, groups. Indicators of this concern are usually expressed via public

controversy created in response to proposed activities; and

Adjacent Land Uses: The interrelationship with land uses in adjacent lands. For

example, an area within the viewshed of a residential area may be very sensitive,

whereas an area surrounded by commercially developed lands may not be as

visually sensitive.

Special Areas: These areas refer to landscapes that are protected status which

require specific management objectives, or have a uniqueness that implies cultural

landscape significance. (USDI., 2004)

Table 9: Scenic Quality and Receptor Sensitivity Table

Visual Resources Scenic Quality Receptor Sensitivity

VRM A= scenic quality rating of ≥19; B = rating of 12 – 18, C= rating of ≤11 H = High; M = Medium; L = Low

NAME

La

nd

form

Ve

ge

tati

on

Wa

ter

Co

lou

r

Sc

arc

ity

Ad

jac

en

t

La

nd

sca

pe

Cu

ltu

ral

Mo

dif

ica

tio

ns

Su

m

Rati

ng

Ty

pe

of

Us

ers

Am

ou

nt

of

Use

Pu

bli

c I

nte

res

t

Ad

jac

en

t L

an

d

Use

s

Sp

ec

ial

Are

as

Rati

ng

Cla

ss

Rand Highveld Grassland 1 2 0 2 2 2 0 9 C M H L L L L IV

Transformed Rand Highveld Grassland 1 2 0 2 2 2 -1 7 C M H L L L L IV

SUM (Avg) 1 2 0 2 2 2 0 C M H L L L L


30

6.2.4 Visual Resource Management Classes

The following VRM Classes are not prescriptive and are presented as a guideline to

determine the capacity and sensitivity of the landscape to visually absorb landscape

changes associated with the proposed development.

Class I is typically assigned when legislation restricts development in certain areas. The

visual objective is to preserve the existing character of the landscape, the level of change

to the characteristic landscape should be very low, and must not attract attention. As no

protected areas were identified within the area, the Class I visual objective was not

assigned to any of the landscapes.

A Class IV Visual Objective was assigned to the two landscapes of the proposed

development area. This was due to the Low Scenic Quality of the resource as well as the

anticipated Low Receptor Sensitivity to landscape change. The main finding is that the

two broad brush landscape types are similar in character and the overall site Scenic

Quality is graded Low. This is predominantly due to the lack of uniqueness of the site,

the homogeneity of the vegetation and the degraded nature of the adjacent mine

landscapes. The Landform is predominantly of shallow gradient, located on a low ridge

running along the length of the proposed site. The vegetation is predominantly grassland

but is modified with alien tree species, and some access roads from previous farm related

settlement. There are no visible water bodies on site to add visual focus areas and colours

are vegetation dominated, specifically the muted browns of the grasslands. The grassland

landscape is not a scarce feature in the landscape and to the south of the proposed site is

a common landscape. Adjacent landscapes to the east are strongly mine infrastructure

dominated, including mine headgear, large structures, mine dumps and quarry

landscapes. Adjacent landscapes to the west include small farmstead settlements, small-

holdings and road / power line infrastructure which, although interesting in the setting, are

not unique. Man-made modifications on site include access roads associated with

previous farming practices, alien trees as well as illegal dumping which degrade the

landscape to some degree.

The expected Receptor Sensitivity of the two landscapes is also graded Medium to Low for

both landscape types. Due to the adjacent Gold Field’s mines, the Type of Users in the

area are mainly going to be mine related, with some medium exposure views from the

west related to farm / small-holding settlements. Due to the residential nature of the

western farming areas, the Type of User is rated as Medium. The mine and adjacent

access road result in a large volume of traffic utilising the area and the Amount of Use is

defined as High. Due to the predominant mining landscapes of the adjacent lands, as well

as the uniformity of the site which has no unique landscape features, Public Interest is

likely to be Low. Adjacent Land Users do not include any tourists and are rated Low. The

site has no legal protection and as such is rated Low in terms of the Special Area category.


31

The existing built nature of the mine landscape, which increases the visual absorption

capacity of the site, in conjunction with the lower visual resources of the areas, result in a

Class IV visual objective being assigned to the proposed development area. The Class IV

objective is to provide for management activities that require major modifications to the

existing character of the landscape.

6.2.5 Threats to Scenic Quality

The main threat to scenic quality associated with the proposed PV Solar development is

the loss of the existing agricultural sense of place. This could take place should further

similar types of solar energy developments take place in the agricultural lands to the west

of the proposed site. Further threats also include degradation of the local ridgelines and

‘koppie’ landscapes to the north of the proposed site. However as the landscape is

already strongly associated with mining landscapes, these threats to local Scenic Quality

are rated Low.

Further visual issues related to glare that is generated from reflection of sunlight at low angles. This effect is depicted in Figure 12 below that shows a low glare reflecting off PV panels due to the low angle of the sun in relation to the horizon.

Figure 12: Example of low glare effect from low angle sunlight. The USA Federal Aviation Association research into this effect has found light reflection off PV panels to be insignificant. The following graphic was modified from an analysis undertaken by the FAA that depicts the percentage scale of light reflecting off a variety of surfaces. As depicted on the scale, PV reflection is very low with some of the latest PV panels reflecting a little as 2% of incoming sunlight (Federal Aviation Association (USA), 2010). Although, as depicted in the photograph, some early morning glare could take place, this effect is likely to be limited, in close proximity to existing sunlight glare (due to the low angle of the sun), and would only take place for short periods of time at first light.


32

Figure 13: Percentage scale of light reflecting of a variety of surfaces.

7 IMPACT ASSESSMENT

7.1 Visual and Landscape

7.1.1 Reduction in visual resources for the Northern Receptors due to the construction of the

solar PV facility

Sensitive receptors

The sensitive receptors are the Key Observation Point (KOP) Northern Receptors. Project attribute / activity

Visual impacts relate to changes that arise in the composition of available views as a result of changes to the landscape, to people’s response to any changes, and the overall impacts with respect to visual amenity. These include the colour change and a massing effect created by the PV panels covering a large area, limited early morning glare and some security lights at night. Embedded controls

Mitigation options for solar PV developments are limited. They relate mainly to locality/siting (non-development for significant visual resources) or can involve screening (for highly sensitive receptors in tourist landscapes). This proposed site is not a significant visual resource or a highly sensitive tourist landscape, as such the following embedded controls will be include:

Dust control during construction.

Limited signage along the R28 and on site.

Utilisation of earth coloured hues for structure walls.

Implementation of best practice for light management.

Utilisation of the latest technology PV panels that ensures limited light reflection / glare.

Pre-mitigation impact significance

The reduction in visual resources for the Northern Receptors due to the construction of the solar PV facility will result in a Minor impact (Error! Reference source not found.).


33

Table 10: Pre-mitigation Visual Impacts for the reduction in visual resources for the Northern Receptors due to the construction of the solar PV facility Type of Impact

In-Direct Negative Impact

Rating of Impacts

Characteristic Designation Summary of Reasoning

Extent Partial The single northern receptor dwelling is located approximately one kilometre to the north of the proposed project. Satellite imagery reveals the main dwelling to be well screened by structures and buildings located between the main north-facing residence and the south lying PV project.

Duration Permanent The expected life of the project is 25 years, however it is possible that the panels would then be renewed and the project would then continue for another time period. Due to the long time periods of the project life, the duration is defined as Permanent.

Scale 33% The full extent of the project footprint will be transformed by the construction of the PV panels but only the northwest section of the PV project is likely to be visible due to shallow dome nature of the site topography.

Frequency Continuous Daylight views of the proposed PV structures will be continuous for proximate receptors, with night-time view limited to areas where security lighting is required.

Likelihood Possible Due to the strong colour contrast generated by the proposed PV, it is possible that the landscape change will be visible.

Magnitude of the Visual Effect

Small

Sensitivity of the Visual Receptor

Medium

The visual sensitivity of the receptors is rated Medium due to the existing mine related views which dominate the views from the receptors. Views from the dwellings are also localised by structures and garden trees.

Landscape Significance Rating Before Mitigation

Minor

Mitigation measures

No further mitigation measures Residual impact significance

The residual impact remains Minor, therefore no further assessments are required.

7.1.2 Reduction in visual resources for the Western Receptors due to the construction of the

solar PV facility

Sensitive receptors

The sensitive receptors are the Key Observation Point (KOP) Western Receptors. Project attribute / activity

Visual impacts relate to changes that arise in the composition of available views as a result of changes to the landscape, to people’s response to any changes, and the overall impacts with respect to visual amenity. These include the colour change and a massing


34

effect created by the PV panels covering a large area, limited early morning glare and some security lights at night. Embedded controls

The embedded controls are the same as those discussed in Section 7.1.1. Pre-mitigation impact significance

The reduction in visual resources for the Western Receptors due to the construction of the solar PV facility will result in a Moderate impact ( ). Table 11: Pre-mitigation Visual Impacts for the reduction in visual resources for the Western Receptors due to the construction of the solar PV facility Type of Impact


Rating of Impacts


Extent Partial views The three western receptor dwellings are located approximately 800m to the west of the proposed project. Satellite imagery reveals that most of the dwellings to be partially screened by structures and tree vegetation located at the receptor site.




Likelihood Definite Due to the strong colour contrast generated by the proposed PV, the landscape change will definitely be visible.


Medium


Medium

The visual sensitivity of the receptors is rated Medium due to the existing mine related views which already dominate the views from the receptor dwellings. Views from the dwellings are also localised by structures and garden trees with mainly partial views of the proposed PV.


Moderate

Mitigation measures


The residual impact remains Moderate, therefore no further assessments are required.


35

7.1.3 Reduction in visual resources for the Southern Receptors due to the construction of the

solar PV facility

Sensitive receptors

The sensitive receptors are the Key Observation Point (KOP) Southern Receptors. Project attribute / activity

Visual impacts relate to changes that arise in the composition of available views as a result of changes to the landscape, to people’s response to any changes, and the overall impacts with respect to visual amenity. These include the colour change and a massing effect created by the PV panels covering a large area, limited early morning glare and some security lights at night. Embedded controls


The reduction in visual resources for the Southern Receptors due to the construction of the solar PV facility will result in a Negligible impact (Error! Reference source not found.). Table 12: Pre-mitigation Visual Impacts for the reduction in visual resources for the Southern Receptors due to the construction of the solar PV facility Type of Impact


Rating of Impacts


Extent Glimpse The southern receptors are located approximately 1.5 kilometres to the south of the proposed project. Satellite imagery reveals the main dwelling to be well screened by structures and buildings that would mainly allow for a glimpse of the proposed landscape modification.




Likelihood Possible Due to the strong colour contrast generated by the proposed PV, it is possible that the landscape change will be visible.


Negligible


High

The visual sensitivity of the receptors is rated High due to the occupiers of residential properties adjacent the proposed site with views affected by the development.


Negligible


36

Mitigation measures


The residual impact remains Negligible, therefore no further assessments are required.

7.1.4 Degradation of the landscape to due to the construction and operation of the solar PV

facility

Sensitive receptor

The sensitive receptor is the intrinsic value of the landscape associated with the proposed Project site and how it is perceived by those who experience it. Project attribute / activity

The construction and operation of the solar PV facility covering approximately 130 ha. Embedded controls


The degradation of the landscape to due to the construction and operation of the solar PV facility will result in a Minor impact (Error! Reference source not found.). Table 13: Pre-mitigation impact significance rating for the degradation of the landscape to due to the construction and operation of the solar PV facility Type of Impact

Direct Negative Impact

Rating of Impacts


Extent Local Due to topographic screening of the surrounding low hills and tailing storage facilities, the extent of the landscape change is localised.


Scale 130 ha The full extent of the project footprint will be transformed by the construction of the solar PV facility.


Likelihood Definite Due to the large scale of the area that will be covered by PV panels that will create a large massing effect, the likelihood of the landscape change taking place is Definite.

Magnitude of the Landscape Effect

Medium

Sensitivity of the Landscape Resource

Low


37

The sensitivity of the landscape resource is defined as Low as the proposed project site reflects a landscape that is not valued in a special way by the public. It has a low level of tranquillity and features detracting elements. The landscape contains industrialised areas and its character, land use, pattern and scale are such that it could absorb the Project without unacceptable damage. Landscape Significance Rating Before Mitigation

Minor


38

8 ESMP

8.1 Visual and Landscape Management Plan In order to develop a management plan for reduction in visual resources for the Northern, Western, and Southern KOP’s (1) and degradation of the landscape the factors causing these impacts will need to be addressed at a site level. Thus the following factors which contribute to the reduction in visual resources for all of the KOP’s will need to be managed:

Dust generation due to vehicle movement, wind-blown exposed soils, and construction

activities.

Site structure and aesthetics of the solar PV facility.

Glare off the solar PV panels and illumination from lights at night.

The management of dust as a visual and nuisance factor has been addressed in the Socio-economic Management plan, under the ‘Management plan for increased incidence of nuisance factors (noise, dust, and traffic) due to the construction of the solar PV facility’ and thus will not need to be addressed in the Visual and Landscape Management Plan. Management plans for the remaining two factors are detailed in the sections below. Management plan for site structure and aesthetics of the solar PV facility

Visual and Landscape Factor

Site structure and aesthetics of the solar PV facility

Project Commitment To construct and operate the proposed solar PV facility in a manner minimises the impact on visual and landscape resources as experienced by the Northern, Western, and Southern KOP’s as much as possible.

Key Responsibilities EPC Contractor

ECO

Performance Criteria Goal: Zero grievances logged in the grievance mechanism related to the visual impact of the site structure and aesthetics of the solar PV facility

Mitigation Measures Construction and Operational Phases

Structure walls need to be painted with an earth coloured hue so

that colour contrast to the grasslands landscape is reduced.

Shade trees or shrubs are incorporated into the office /

maintenance area design that enhance the office / maintenance

landscaping.

The PV project signage is clearly visible for construction purposes

but is restrained.

Monitoring & Auditing

Monitoring (Construction and Operational Phases) ECO On-going visual assessment to keep office and maintenance areas neat.

Reporting & Corrective Action

If issues are logged in the grievance mechanism then corrective actions are to be developed and implemented immediately.

Budget Considerations Monitoring ECO staff aware of EMP requirements for office and maintenance

(1) Key Observation Points.


39


Site structure and aesthetics of the solar PV facility

area landscaping and upkeep. Auditing NA

Management plan for glare off the solar PV panels and illumination from lights at night


Glare off the solar PV panels and illumination from lights at night

Project Commitment To construct and operate the proposed solar PV facility in a manner that glare and lights at night are not visually intrusive to the Northern, Western, and Southern KOP’s as much as possible.

Key Responsibilities EPC Contractor

ECO

Performance Criteria Goal: Zero grievances logged in the grievance mechanism related to glare and lights at night

Mitigation Measures Construction and Operational Phases

Pre-design specifications to ensure the procurement of glare

reduction panels in implemented by the design team.

Security lighting is located at the office site / maintenance area

only.

Downward lighting is used as much as possible.

Monitoring & Auditing

Monitoring (Construction and Operational Phases) On-going visual assessment by ECO and site operations manager

Reporting & Corrective Action

If issues are logged in the grievance mechanism then corrective actions are to be developed and implemented immediately.

Budget Considerations Monitoring None Auditing None

8.2 Monitoring

8.2.1 Construction and Operational Phases

No specific monitoring is required for visual impacts per se, although monitoring of on-

going erosion risks’ light spillage should be undertaken by the ECO.


40

9 OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS

9.1 Opportunities

Green energy electricity supply to Gold Field’s South Deep Mine.

Increased work opportunity associated with the construction and operation of the

proposed PV facility.

Improved management of an area that is currently being utilised for some illegal

dumping.

Low visual resources of the site due to the close proximity of the site to the existing

highly modified mining landscape associated with the Gold Field’s South Deep Mine.

9.2 Constraints

Reduction in the visual buffer space between the South Deep Mine landscape and

the Elandsfontein smallholdings agricultural landscape areas (average distance 2km

to 1km).

Medium visual intrusion to the more proximate Elandsfontein small holding receptors

due to a large area landscape change of grasslands to semi-industrial landscape, but

moderated by partial screening from vegetation located at receptor dwellings.


41

10 REFERENCES

ERM (Pty) Ltd. (2017). Scoping Study of a PV Solar Power Facility for Gold Field's South Deep Mine (Draft report). ERM. (2014). Annex B-* Landscape and Visual. Federal Aviation Association (USA). (2010). Technical guidance for evaluating selected solar technologies on airports. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com. (n.d.). IFC. (2012). International Finance Corporation (IFC) prescribes eight performance standards (PS) on environmental and social sustainability. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. International Dark-sky Association. (n.d.). From http://darksky.org NASA, A. G. (2009). Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER) Global Digital Elevation Model Version 2 (GDEM V2 2011). Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry (METI) of Japan and United States National Aeronauti. NELPAG. New England Light Pollution Advisory Group (NELPAG) http://cfa/ www.harvard .edu /cfa/ps/nelpag.html) and Sky & Telescope http://SkyandTelescope.com/). NELPAG and Sky & Telescope support the International Dark-Sky Association (IDA) (http://www.darksky.o. Oberholzer, B. (2005). Guideline for involving visual and aesthetic specialists in EIA processes: Edition 1. CSIR Report No ENV-S-C 2005 053 F. Republic of South Africa, Provincial Government of the Western Cape, Department of Environmental Affairs and Deve. The Landscape Institute. (2003). Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (Second ed.). Spon Press. USDI., B. (2004). Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of Interior. 2004. Visual Resource Management Manual 8400. West Rand District Municipality. (2012). West Rand District Municipality - Regional Growth & Development Strategy.


42

11 ANNEXURE A: LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT MAPS

Documents

Landscape and Visual - ERM · Deep Mine PV Solar Power Facility Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, ... VRM AFRICA PROJECTS ASSESSMENTS TABLE ... The Level 3 LVIA included a site