Visual Resource. July 2017

Transcription

1 Visual Resource 35

2 Visual Receptors 9. VISUAL RECEPTORS 9.1 Views Typically visual receptors within the study area are people travelling along local roads, residents staying in the farmsteads or workers residences, people in residential areas or eco estates and guests visiting game farms / lodges / or any other tourism facilities within the study area Potential Sensitive Viewers People potentially sensitive to the proposed LCPP are residents of nearby farmsteads, locals and tourists travelling along roads as well as guests visiting the game farms. Sensitive viewing locations are OpiKopi Game Ranch, Grootgenoeg Farm, Trompietersfontein, Bush Africa Safaris, Quagga Safaris, Simba Safaris, Lewia, Lindelani, Waterkloof Safaris and Commiphora Eco Park/Estate. Refer to Figure 4 for the location of these sites. Table 4: Potential Sensitivity of Visual Receptors High Farmsteads, workers residence s, farmers travelling along dirt roads, tourist destinations such as OpiKopi Game Ranch, Grootgenoeg Farm, Trompietersfontein, Bush Africa Safaris, Quagga Safaris, Simba Safaris, Lewia, Lindelani, Waterkloof Safaris, Commiphora Eco Park/Estate. Where the development results in changes in the landscape setting or valued views enjoyed by the community; Occupiers of residential properties state these with views affected by the development. Moderate s and visitors travelling through the study area People travelling through or past the affected landscape in vehicles. Low Employees in the mining / industrial sector or motorist travelling for mining purposes Visitors and people working on farms within the study area and travelling along local roads whose attention may be focused on their work or activity and who therefore may be potentially less susceptible to changes in the view. 36

3 10. LANDSCAPE IMPACT Landscape Impact Landscape Impact The landscape impact (i.e. the change to the fabric and character of the landscape caused by the physical presence of the intervention) of the project is predicted to be high due to the effect of the project s activities as described in Section 4 on the site. The proposed LCPP activities will be extensive and although there are similar projects located within the region these projects are not clearly visible from the study area. The proposed LCPP will be in contrast to the surrounding land use and will appear out of place and will therefore have a negative landscape impact. As stated in the approach section, the physical change to the landscape (landscape impact) must be understood in terms of the visibility of the proposed new mining activities (impact on sensitive viewers) and its effect on the visual aesthetics of the study area (intensity of impact on the baseline visual resource). The following sections discuss the effect that the expansion project could have on the visual and aesthetic environment. 37

4 Visual Impact 11. VISUAL IMPACT Visual impacts will be caused by the project s activities and infrastructure in all projects phases i.e. construction, operational, closure & decommissioning and post-closure. The activities associated with the LCPP will be visible during the day to varying degrees from a variety of distances around the project site. During start up and operation the project s visibility will be influenced by the increase of earth moving activities, removal of vegetation, the creation of dust and the increase in height of the different project structures. During closure & decommissioning and the post-closure phases the visual qualities of the project will be influenced by the success and effectiveness of rehabilitation measures. The intensity of visual impact is determined using visibility, visual intrusion, visual exposure and viewer sensitivity criteria. When the intensity of impact is qualified with spatial, duration and probability criteria the significance of the impact can be predicted. Consequence is a function of intensity, spatial extent and duration and significance is the function of consequence and probability. Refer also to Appendix C (Kongiwe Environmental s Impact Assessment Criteria) and Figure A Visual Receptors Areas and sites considered potentially sensitive to project activities in the study area are public roads, farmsteads and tourist facilities. Figure 4 identifies these places relative to the project site where potential conflict could occur i.e. visibility of the project activities impact on sensitive viewers. Typically, high receptor sensitivity includes people using outdoor recreational/tourism facilities, public rights of way and residents of housing areas, whose intention or interest may be focused on the landscape; medium sensitivity relates to people engaged in outdoor sport or recreation (other than appreciation of the landscape); and low sensitivity would be people at their place of work, or engaged in similar activities, whose attention may be focused on their work or activity and who therefore may be potentially less susceptible to changes in the view (i.e. office, industrial areas and active sports such as soccer). Refer also to Appendix B. Views from tourist facilities (lodges and/or game farms) will mostly be from ground level with the exception of Opikopi Game Ranch, refer to Figure 8 View 8. Private views from nearby homesteads, as described above, will vary depending on the orientation of the houses as well as the position (elevation) within the topography. Receptors located within the Commiphora Eco Park/Estate would be exposed to the project if their houses are located on an elevated area such as the koppie. Receptors (houses) located on the lower lying areas of the property will not necessarily see the proposed LCPP from their home as the koppie will screen their views. The panoramic views illustrated in Figures 6 View 4, Figure 9 View 10 and Figure 11 View 13 were taken along the public routes within the study area and are typical of views that people living in and travelling through the area would experience. 38

5 Visual Impact 11.2 Visibility, Visual Exposure and Visual Intrusion The zone of potential influence was established at 15km. Over 15km the impact of the proposed LCPP activities would have reduced due to the diminishing effect of distance and atmospheric conditions (haze) on visibility. Visual exposure is determined by qualifying the view with a distance rating to indicate the degree of potential intrusion and visual acuity. At night the proposed Project s light sources will not be able to blend with the existing light sources generated by the farmsteads and tourist facilities. The directly surrounding area comprises farmsteads and tourist facilities and the evening sky is therefore not lit up by lights. The lights associated with the proposed Project will stand out against this dark background and would not be absorbed as easily into the background as project activities would be in a day time view Visibility In determining the visibility of the LCPP project the existing ground level/topography was used as the offset to generate the viewshed analyses. It can be seen from the patterns generated by the viewsheds (Figure 16) that the proposed project operations would be highly visible within the study area and that sensitive viewing areas (Figure 4) would be impacted. It must be understood that these patterns represent potential viewing sites and illustrate the worst-case scenario i.e. the landscape without vegetation. It is therefore imperative that the viewsheds be interpreted in terms of the site visit findings as illustrated in the panoramas in Figures 5-14, the simulations in Figures 17, 18 and 19 and the fact that the study area has a flat topography with mostly bushveld cover. The project site is located within a landscape characterised by a relatively flat topography and dense vegetation which would effectively screen some views to the site especially from areas that are not elevated or that are lower in elevation than the proposed project site. According to the viewshed analysis (Figure 16) the proposed LCPP will be visible from approximately 75% of the Zone of Potential Influence (study area). The visibility of the LCPP will be low for visual receptors located behind the koppies (south and east of Ga-Mabula and Tafelkop and west, south-west of Opikopi and Uitkyk). Visual receptors that are located closer to the rivers (Mokolo and Phalela River) will also have a low visibility due to the topography that is tapering towards the rivers. Most of the visual receptors in the study area are located on ground level and the visibility of the proposed LCPP will therefore be moderate to low since only sections of the proposed LCPP, that is, structures that break the tree horizon, will be visible. The main reason for this is due to the dense vegetation cover and the flat topography of the study area. This is also true for motorist travelling on the public roads. The visibility of the LCPP will differ along the public roads and will be visible when breaking the tree line or when there is a 39

6 Visual Impact gap in the dense vegetation cover. It should however be noted that tourist travelling to their destination are anticipating that they will be going to an area that is scenically beautiful due to the natural habitat or pristine environment. Their experience of their visit to the tourist destination as well as their journey to the tourist destination will be influenced by the visibility of the LCPP along their route. If the LCPP is visible on the journey to the tourist destination it might change their experience of their visit even though the LCPP will not be visible from the tourist destination. 40

7 Visual Impact 41

8 Visual Impact Visual Exposure and Sensitivity Table 5 below indicates the potential visual exposure of the various sensitive viewing areas. Distance from a viewer to a viewed object or area of the landscape influences how visual changes are perceived in the landscape. Generally, changes in form, line, colour, and texture in the landscape become less perceptible with increasing distance. Again it must be realized that although the exposure ratings given below would contribute to the intensity of impact, the effect topography and the dense vegetation cover has would completely or partially block some of these views. Visual exposure is considered high when the LCPP activities are visible in foreground views and would contribute greatly to the intensity of visual impact. This will be the case for residents of the farm Weltevreden and Grootgenoeg as well as people travelling on the local roads as indicated in Figure 4, 6 and 7. Residential/tourist areas that would have moderate exposure are the farms: Billards, Section of Rondebosch, Alomfraai, Section of Wolvendraai, Sebright, Trompietersfontein, Bush Africa Safaris, Quagga Safaris, Simba Safaris, Lewia, Lindelani and Waterkloof Safaris, refer to Figure 11 and 13. Residential/tourist areas that would have low exposure are the farms: Commiphora ECO Park/Estate, Opikopi Game Ranch, Smitfield, Walkerskloof, Ramusio, Stutgard, Wellington, Grootfontein, Rotterdam, Amsterdam, Onlust, Stilstroom, Samaria, Franschhoek, Eerstevley, Kromhoek and Nieuwe Holland, refer to Figures 9, 10 and 12. Table 5: Visual Exposure of the Expansion Project Foreground view i.e. Middle-ground view i.e. Background view i.e. 5km 0 1km from Project Site 1-5km from Project Site and beyond Public roads Main feeder road Main feeder road (D171), R518 (D171) and road traversing thru the project site (east west direction) road traversing thru the project site (east west direction), road located to the west of the site (north south direction) and the R 518. Residential areas (Farmsteads) Weltevreden Farm Billards Farm, Section of Rondebosch Farm Alomfraai Farm, Section of Wolvendraai and Sebright Commiphora ECO Park/Estate, Smitfield Farm, Walkerskloof, Ramusio, Stutgard, Wellington, Grootfontein, Rotterdam, Amsterdam, Onlust, Stilstroom, Samaria, Franschhoek, Eerstevley, Kromhoek and Nieuwe Holland Tourist Facilities Grootgenoeg Farm Trompietersfontein, Bush Africa Safaris, Quagga Opikopi Game Ranch 42

9 Safaris, Simba Safaris, Lewia, Lindelani, Waterkloof Safaris Visual Impact Visual Intrusion Visual intrusion deals with the notion of contextualism i.e. how well does a project component fit with or disrupt / enhance the ecological and cultural aesthetic of the landscape as a whole? The simulations in Figures illustrate the effect that the LCPP project will have on the visual landscape when viewed from a variety of sensitive viewing locations about the site. The simulations illustrate the project at its completed stage i.e. the worst-case scenario. It is evident, when one considers the before (current situation) and after scenarios, that the project will have a high visual intrusion on sensitive viewing areas, particularly those sites (Commiphora and Opikopi Game Ranch) that are elevated or where the project will be in the foreground of views such as the public roads. Table 6 below rates the potential visual intrusion of the project. The simulation in Figure 17 and 18 (view 8) is typical of views from Opikopi Game Ranch which is an elevated view from the south east of the Project site. The LCPP project will occur unobstructed in the middleground to background view of receptors visiting the game ranch and would be more visible during the evenings due to the impact of the lights. This will result in a moderate to high effect on views. The panorama in Figure 19 and 20 (view 21) is typical of views from the elevated section of the Commiphora Eco Park/Estate. The LCPP project would typically occur in the middleground to background of views from this elevated area (koppie). The view will however be obstructed and only a section of the LCPP project will be visible. At night the visibility will increase as the lights will be more visible and the project will become more intrusive for viewers from the elevated areas. This will result in a moderate to high effect on views. The simulation in Figure 21 (view 17) illustrates the typical view experienced by motorist travelling along the local farms roads in the study area. The visual intrusion of the LCPP project will increase as the vehicle approaches the LCPP project site. The thick bushveld vegetation will however obstruct the view towards the LCPP project but will not be able to completely screen the views. The overall visual intrusion was rated as high since the LCPP project is in complete contrast to the patterns of the landscape and would have a negative effect on the visual quality of the landscape. 43

10 Table 6: Visual Intrusion of the Project Visual Impact High Moderate Low The proposed project would have a substantial negative effect on the visual quality (sense of place) of the landscape relative to the baseline landscape because it would: - Contrast with the patterns or elements that define the structure of the landscape; The proposed project would have a negative effect on the visual quality (sense of place) of the landscape; - Have a moderate negative effect on the visual quality (sense of place) of the landscape; - Contrast moderately with the current patterns or elements that define the structure of the landscape; - Be partially compatible with land use (mining), settlement or enclosure patterns of the general area; The proposed project would have a minimal effect on the visual quality (sense of place) of the landscape; - Contrasts minimally with the patterns or cultural elements that define the structure of the landscape; - Is mostly compatible with land use, settlement or enclosure patterns; RESULT: Notable change in landscape characteristics over an extensive area and an intensive change over a localized area resulting in major changes in key views. RESULT: Moderate change in landscape characteristics over localized area resulting in a moderate change to key views. RESULT: Imperceptible change resulting in a minor change to key views. 44

11 Visual Impact 45

12 Visual Impact 47

13 Visual Impact 49

14 Visual Impact 51

15 Visual Impact 53

16 Visual Impact Severity of Visual Impact Referring to discussions in Section 11 above and using the sensitivity criteria listed in Table 6, the visual intrusion and intensity of visual impact of the LCPP is rated in Table 7 below. To assess the severity of visual impact four main factors are considered. Visual Intrusion: The nature of intrusion or contrast (physical characteristics) of a project component on the visual quality of the surrounding environment and its compatibility/discord with the landscape and surrounding land use. Visibility: The area / points from which project components will be visible. Visual exposure: Visibility and visual intrusion qualified with a distance rating to indicate the degree of intrusion. Sensitivity: Sensitivity of visual receptors to the proposed development In synthesising the criteria used to establish the intensity of visual impact, a numerical or weighting system is avoided. Attempting to attach a precise numerical value to qualitative resources is rarely successful, and should not be used as a substitute for reasoned professional judgement (Institute of Environmental Assessment & The Landscape Institute (1996). The severity of visual impact (highlighted column and based on the worst case scenario) is rated in Table 7 below. Refer also the intensity ranking table in Appendix C. Table 7: Severity of Visual Impact High Moderate Low Negligible The LCPP will cause a There will be a partial Minor loss of or Very minor loss or major alteration to key loss of or alteration to alteration to key alteration to key elements/features/ key elements / features / elements / features / elements / features / characteristics of the characteristics of the characteristics of the characteristics of the baseline through the visual and landscape baseline. baseline. introduction of baseline. elements considered to be uncharacteristic I.e. The introduction of I.e. Pre-development I.e. Pre-development when set within the project elements that landscape or view and / landscape or view and / attributes of aspects may be prominent but or introduction of or introduction of of the current and may not necessarily be elements that may not elements that are not future receiving considered to be be uncharacteristic uncharacteristic with the landscape. substantially when set within the surrounding landscape uncharacteristic when attributes of the approximating the no set within the attributes receiving landscape. change situation. of the receiving landscape. 54

17 Visual Impact Result: Result: Result: High scenic quality Result: Low scenic quality Negligible scenic quality impacts would result Moderate scenic quality impacts would result. impacts would result. as well as impacts on impacts would result. sensitive viewing areas. The Severity of impact (using the worst-case scenario) is therefore predicted to be high (during the Construction/Operational and Decommission phases). The expansion project will: Have a high negative effect on the visual quality of the landscape. The project is not compatible with the patterns (natural bushveld and koppies) that generally define the study area s landscape - the study area s visual resource is rated high (natural hills) to low (roads and eroded veld). Have a high negative effect on key views From Opikopi game Ranch and the Commiphora Eco Park/Estate. From most of the farmsteads the project activities would appear in the middle to background of their views. In the worst-case scenario, the activities will appear in the foreground of views for people travelling thru the study area. At decommission/closure the Severity of impact is rated low to moderate assuming mitigating measures are effectively implemented. 55

18 12. MITIGATION MEASURES Mitigation Measures In considering mitigating measures there are three rules that were considered - the measures should be feasible (economically), effective (how long will it take to implement and what provision is made for management / maintenance) and acceptable (within the framework of the existing landscape and land use policies for the area). To address these, the following principles have been considered: Mitigation measures should be designed to suit the existing landscape character and needs of the locality. They should respect and build upon landscape distinctiveness. It should be recognized that many mitigation measures, especially the establishment of planted screens and rehabilitation, are not immediately effective. The following mitigation measures are suggested and should be included as part of the Environmental Management Programme (EMPr) Project Area Development / Earthworks It is proposed that as little vegetation as possible be removed during the construction and operational phases. Only the footprint and a small construction buffer zone around the proposed mining areas should be exposed. In all other areas, the natural vegetation should be retained. Ensure, wherever possible, all existing natural vegetation is retained and incorporated into the project site rehabilitation. Dust suppression techniques should be in place at all times during all phases of the project Rehabilitation It is imperative that the mined-out areas be effectively rehabilitated back to the natural vegetation associated with the Limpopo Sweet Bushveld and the Roodeberg Bushveld Biomes. A registered Professional Landscape Architect, working alongside the project ecologist and rehabilitation specialist should be appointed to assist with the rehabilitation plan for the project. Rehabilitate / restore exposed areas as soon as possible after mining activities are complete or if possible, concurrent rehabilitation should take place. Only indigenous vegetation should be used for rehabilitation / landscaping purposes. The mined areas should be shaped such that the cut blends with the existing topography and water is drained away from the newly top-soiled and hydroseeded slopes to avoid erosion during the rehabilitation period. Where slopes compatible with the surrounding landscape can be achieved, an attempt should be made to visually soften steeper slopes by avoiding strait engineered ridges and sharp changes of angle; 56

19 Mitigation Measures 12.3 Soil stockpiles It is recommended that the soil stockpiles/berms should rather be located between the main access road (R518) and the mining infrastructure, plant and IPP. The soil stockpiles/berms should be located as close as possible to the road and must be vegetated. Maintenance is essential in order to ensure the success of the visual screen created by the soil stockpiles/berms. Although the berms will not screen the entire project they will screen the ground level clutter of the project Structures/Buildings/Screens Paint buildings/structures and screens (such as the noise screen referred to by the noise specialist) with colours that reflect and compliment the natural browns and greens of the surrounding landscape. Avoid pure light colours and pure black. To reduce the potential of glare, external surfaces of buildings/structures and screens should be articulated or textured to create interplay of light and shade. Should there be a flare on the stack it is suggested that a baffle be designed to screen the flame Access and Haul Roads During construction/operation, rehabilitation and closure of the Project, access and haul roads will require an effective dust suppression management programme, such as the use of non-polluting chemicals that will retain moisture on the road surface Lighting Light pollution will contribute to the overall visual impact of the proposed project and should therefore be seriously and carefully considered and kept to a minimum wherever possible. Light pollution is largely the result of bad lighting design, which allows artificial light to shine outward and upward into the sky, where it is not wanted, instead of focusing the light downward, where it is needed. Ill designed lighting washes out the darkness of the night sky and radically alters the light levels in rural areas where light sources shine as beacons against the dark sky and are generally not wanted. Of all the pollutions we face, light pollution is perhaps the most easily remedied. Simple changes in lighting design and installation yield immediate changes in the amount of light spilled into the atmosphere. The following are essential measures that must be considered in the lighting design of the Project: Install light fixtures that provide precisely directed illumination to reduce light spillage beyond the immediate surrounds of the site. Avoid high pole top security lighting along the periphery of the site and use only lights that are activated on illegal entry to the site. Minimise the amount of light fixtures to the bare minimum, including security lighting. With the construction of the proposed project security lighting should only be used where absolutely necessary and carefully directed, preferably away from sensitive viewing areas. Wherever possible, lights should always be directed downwards so as to avoid illuminating the sky. Movable visual barriers could also be considered on the dumps to screen vehicles working in a particular area at night and that would be seen from sensitive receptor areas. 57

20 Mitigation Measures Berms constructed on top of the dumps, suggested by noise specialist, could also be used to mitigate light impact on the dumps but also mitigate the visual impact during day time. 58

21 13. SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT Significance of Impact The Severity of impact, rated in Table 7, is further qualified with extent, duration and probability criteria to determine the significance of the visual impact (refer also to Appendix C). Table 8 below summarises the significance of the visual impact during the Operational, Construction, Closure and Decommissioning and the Post Closure Phase; refer to Appendix C for the detailed impact assessment. These results are based on the worst-case scenario when the impacts of all aspects of the LCPP are taken together using the impact criteria in Appendix C. The unmitigated impact for the Construction and Operational Phase is rated high significance. This is when there will be major earth movement and activities (removal of vegetation, topsoil and excavation of the pit; movement of trucks; growth of the discard and waste dumps; growth of the plant and IPP, and lighting of the area including security lighting) associated with the open pit mining operations. Mitigation will be difficult during this period and the rated impact would not drop significantly even with management measures such as good housekeeping and dust suppression techniques. At Closure and Decommissioning, when all the LCPP structures and infrastructure is removed and the final grading of the dumps are carried out and successfully rehabilitated the impact will be moderate. At Post Closure, the impact could reduce to low but only if there is successful and effectively managed rehabilitation techniques. 59

22 Table 8: Summary of the visual impact of the project Significance of Impact ACTIVITY IMPACT DESCRIPTION SIGNIFICANCE Before Mitigation CONSTRUCTION PHASE Mitigation Measures After Mitigation Vegetation clearance for infrastructure Destruction/ loss of scenic quality Clearly define areas to be cleared. Do not Loss of "sense of place" clear past designated areas Dust Clearly define areas to be cleared. Do not clear past designated areas. Appropriate dust suppression must be implemented to minimise dust on construction site. Transporting or movement of vehicles (especially heavy vehicles) on dirt/haul road Dust Appropriate dust suppression must be implemented to minimise dust on the roads. Construction of the infrastructure (Plant, IPP, MIA) Destruction/ loss of scenic quality High Visual berms or screens could be constructed to limit or screen the view from High Loss of "sense of place" High sensitive viewing point/visual receptors. The soil stockpiles can be designed as visual High Increase in visibility / visual exposure High berms but must be vegetated as soon as possible, the visual impact will only reduce High Increase in visual intrusion High once the berms are successfully rehabilitated. Should visual screens be used the visual screen will only be effective once the vegetation has grown to its full potential. High Stockpiling of soil, discard Destruction/ loss of scenic quality Visual berms or screens could be Loss of "sense of place" constructed to limit or screen the view from sensitive viewing point/visual receptors. The Increase in visibility / visual exposure soil stockpiles can be designed as visual berms but must be vegetated as soon as 60

23 Increase in visual intrusion possible, the visual impact will only reduce once the berms are successfully rehabilitated. Should visual screens be used the visual screen will only be effective once the vegetation has grown to its full potential. Significance of Impact Dust Appropriate dust suppression must be implemented to minimise dust on construction site. Lights during the evening Loss in sense of place Only lights that is necessary for security and safety. Implementation of lights that only Visual Intrusion switch on when there is movement. Lights should shine downwards. OPERATIONAL PHASE Mitigation measures are difficult and due to the nature of the mining activities the impact will not be significantly reduced during the operational phase Transporting or movement of vehicles (especially heavy vehicles) on dirt/haul road Dust High Appropriate dust suppression must be implemented to minimise dust on the roads. High The mining infrastructure (Plant, IPP, MIA) Destruction/ loss of scenic quality High Visual berms or screens could be High Loss of "sense of place" High constructed to limit or screen the view from sensitive viewing point/visual receptors. The High Increase in visibility / visual exposure High soil stockpiles can be designed as visual berms but must be vegetated as soon as High Increase in visual intrusion High possible, the visual impact will only reduce once the berms are successfully rehabilitated. Should visual screens be used the visual screen will only be effective once the vegetation has grown to its full potential. High Stockpiling of soil, discard, waste and the product Destruction/ loss of scenic quality High Visual berms or screens could be High constructed to limit or screen the view from Loss of "sense of place" High sensitive viewing point/visual receptors. The soil stockpiles can be designed as visual High 61

24 Significance of Impact Increase in visibility / visual exposure High berms but must be vegetated as soon as High Increase in visual intrusion High possible, the visual impact will only reduce once the berms are successfully rehabilitated. Should visual screens be used the visual screen will only be effective once the vegetation has grown to its full potential. High Dust Appropriate dust suppression must be implemented to minimise dust on construction site. Stack and associated emissions Increase in visibility / visual exposure High Visual berms or screens could be High Increase in visual intrusion High constructed to limit or screen the view from sensitive viewing point/visual receptors. The soil stockpiles can be designed as visual berms but must be vegetated as soon as possible, the visual impact will only reduce once the berms are successfully rehabilitated. Should visual screens be used the visual screen will only be effective once the vegetation has grown to its full potential. High Lights during the evening Loss in sense of place High Only lights that is necessary for security and High safety. Implementation of lights that only Visual Intrusion High switch on when there is movement. Lights should shine downwards. High CLOSURE & DECOMMISSIONING Transporting or movement of vehicles (especially heavy vehicles) on dirt/haul road Dust Low Appropriate dust suppression must be implemented to minimise dust on the roads. Low Demolishing and removal of the mining infrastructure (Plant, IPP, MIA) Visual nuisance Low Visual berms or screens that were constructed during the construction phase of the project should still be in place and therefore the structures will still limit or screen the view from sensitive viewing Low 62

25 point/visual receptors. Should visual screens be used the visual screen will only be effective if the vegetation is well established and if the berms are well maintained throughout the life of the mine. Significance of Impact Shaping/Rehabilitation of the discard/waste dump Loss of scenic quality Visual berms or screens that were constructed during the construction phase of Visibility / visual exposure the project should still be in place and therefore the structures will still limit or Visual intrusion screen the view from sensitive viewing point/visual receptors. Should visual screens be used the visual screen will only be effective if the vegetation is well established and if the berms are well maintained throughout the life of the mine. Dust Low Appropriate dust suppression must be implemented to minimise dust on construction site. Low Lights during the evening Visual Intrusion Low POST-CLOSURE Only lights that is necessary for security and safety. Implementation of lights that only switch on when there is movement. Lights should shine downwards. Low Remains of the discard/waste dump Loss of scenic quality The discard/waste dumps and any other Visibility / visual exposure stockpiles that will be left on site must be shaped and rehabilitated as far as possible. Visual intrusion Maintenance must be done on a regular basis to ensure the success of the rehabilitation. 63

26 Conclusion 14. CONCLUSION The landscape of the area is characterised by a relatively flat topography with dense bushveld vegetation. The study area has a moderate visual resource value with a pastoral sense of place. The visibility of the project was rated as moderate and will only be high for viewers located on an elevated area such as Opikopi Game Ranch and the elevated areas of the Commiphora Eco Park/Estate. This is mainly due to the flat topography and the dense bushveld vegetation. Although the scenic value of the area was rated as moderate, when viewed within the context of the sub-region, the proposed Project will be out of place and will be visually intrusive to the study area. The project will completely change the character of the study area and will have a high impact on the sense of place of the area. The overall intensity of the was regarded as high. The will have a moderate to high significance during the construction, operation and decommission phase of the project. This is mainly due to the intrusiveness of the project and the sensitivity of the visual receptors in the area. During the closure phase the dumps will remain on site while the rest of the structures and infrastructures will be removed. The significance will reduce to moderate. Mitigation will be difficult and creative measures, such as vegetation berms and vegetation screens must be considered. It should be noted that even though these mitigation measures are implemented it will not fully screen views towards the proposed Project. It is of the opinion of the author of this report that the proposed activity will have a significant impact and that the management measures must be rigorously applied and effectively managed. **NLA** 64

27 References 15. REFERENCES Crawford, D., Using remotely sensed data in landscape visual quality assessment. Landscape and Urban Planning. 30: Hull, R.B. & Bishop, I.E., Scenic Impacts of Electricity Transmission Towers: The Influence of Landscape Type and Observer Distance. Journal of Environmental Management. 27: Institute of Environmental Assessment & The Landscape Institute, Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, E & FN Spon, London (117) Ittelson, W.H., Proshansky, H.M., Rivlin, L.g. and Winkel, G.H., An Introduction to Environmental Psychology. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York. Lange, E., Integration of computerized visual simulation and visual assessment in environmental planning. Landscape and Environmental Planning. 30: Lynch, K., Good City Form, The MIT Press, London. (131) Mucina, L. & Rutherford, M.C. (eds) The vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Strelitzia 19. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria. Sama, J. (2000), Program Policy, Assessing and Mitigating Visual Impact, Department of Environmental Conservation. New York. Schapper, J. (October 1993), The importance of aesthetic value in the assessment of landscape heritage. More than meets the eye: identifying and assessing aesthetic value. Report of the Aesthetic Value Workshop held at the University of Melbourne. Walmsley, B., & Tshipala, K. E. (2007). Handbook on Environmental Assessment Legislation in the SADC Region. Midrand: The Development Bank of South Africa in collaboration with the South African Institute for Environmental Assessment. Warnock, S. & Brown, N., Putting Landscape First. Landscape Design. 268:

28 Appendix B APPENDIX A: DETERMINING A LANDSCAPE AND THE VALUE OF THE VISUAL RESOURCE To reach an understanding of the effect of development on a landscape resource, it is necessary to consider the different aspects of the landscape as follows: Landscape Elements and Character The individual elements that make up the landscape, including prominent or eye-catching features such as hills, valleys, savannah, trees, water bodies, buildings and roads are generally quantifiable and can be easily described. Landscape character is therefore the description of pattern, resulting from particular combinations of natural (physical and biological) and cultural (land use) factors and how people perceive these. The visual dimension of the landscape is a reflection of the way in which these factors create repetitive groupings and interact to create areas that have a specific visual identity. The process of landscape character assessment can increase appreciation of what makes the landscape distinctive and what is important about an area. The description of landscape character thus focuses on the nature of the land, rather than the response of a viewer. Landscape Value all encompassing (Aesthetic Value) Aesthetic value is the emotional response derived from the experience of the environment with its particular natural and cultural attributes. The response can be either to visual or non-visual elements and can embrace sound, smell and any other factor having a strong impact on human thoughts, feelings and attitudes (Ramsay 1993). Thus aesthetic value encompasses more than the seen view, visual quality or scenery, and includes atmosphere, landscape character and sense of place (Schapper 1993). Aesthetic appeal (value) is considered high when the following are present (Ramsay 1993): Abstract qualities: such as the presence of vivid, distinguished, uncommon or rare features or abstract attributes; Evocative responses: the ability of the landscape to evoke particularly strong responses in community members or visitors; Meanings: the existence of a long-standing special meaning to a particular group of people or the ability of the landscape to convey special meanings to viewers in general; Landmark quality: a particular feature that stands out and is recognised by the broader community. Sense of Place Central to the concept of a sense of place is that the place requires uniqueness and distinctiveness. The primary informant of these qualities is the spatial form and character of the natural landscape together with the cultural transformations and traditions associated with historic use and habitation. According to Lynch (1992) sense of place "is the extent to which a person can recognize or recall a place as being distinct from other places - as having a vivid, or unique, or at least particular, character of its own". Sense of place is the 66

29 Appendix B unique value that is allocated to a specific place or area through the cognitive experience of the user or viewer. In some cases these values allocated to the place are similar for a wide spectrum of users or viewers, giving the place a universally recognized and therefore, strong sense of place. Scenic Quality Assigning values to visual resources is a subjective process. The phrase, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, is often quoted to emphasize the subjectivity in determining scenic values. Yet, researchers have found consistent levels of agreement among individuals asked to evaluate visual quality. Studies for perceptual psychology have shown human preference for landscapes with a higher visual complexity particularly in scenes with water, over homogeneous areas. On the basis of contemporary research landscape quality increases when: Topographic ruggedness and relative relief increase; Where water forms are present; Where diverse patterns of grasslands and trees occur; Where natural landscape increases and man-made landscape decreases; And where land use compatibility increases and land use edge diversity decreases (Crawford 1994). Scenic Quality - Explanation of Rating Criteria: (After The Visual Resource Management System, Department of the Interior of the USA Government, Bureau of Land Management) Landform: Topography becomes more interesting as it gets steeper or more massive, or more severely or universally sculptured. Outstanding landforms may be monumental, as the Fish River or Blyde River Canyon, the Drakensberg or other mountain ranges, or they may be exceedingly artistic and subtle as certain badlands, pinnacles, arches, and other extraordinary formations. Vegetation: (Plant communities) Give primary consideration to the variety of patterns, forms, and textures created by plant life. Consider short-lived displays when they are known to be recurring or spectacular (wildflower displays in the Karoo regions). Consider also smaller scale vegetational features, which add striking and intriguing detail elements to the landscape (e.g., gnarled or wind beaten trees, and baobab trees). Water: That ingredient which adds movement or serenity to a scene. The degree to which water dominates the scene is the primary consideration in selecting the rating score. Colour: Consider the overall colour(s) of the basic components of the landscape (e.g., soil, rock, vegetation, etc.) as they appear during seasons or periods of high use. Key factors to use when rating "colour" are variety, contrast, and harmony. 67

30 Appendix B Adjacent Scenery: Degree to which scenery outside the scenery unit being rated enhances the overall impression of the scenery within the rating unit. The distance which adjacent scenery will influence scenery within the rating unit will normally range from 0-8 kilometres, depending upon the characteristics of the topography, the vegetative cover, and other such factors. This factor is generally applied to units which would normally rate very low in score, but the influence of the adjacent unit would enhance the visual quality and raise the score. 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. There may also be cases where a separate evaluation of each of the key factors does not give a true picture of the overall scenic quality of an area. Often it is a number of not so spectacular elements in the proper combination that produces the most pleasing and memorable scenery - the scarcity factor can be used to recognize this type of area and give it the added emphasis it needs. Cultural Modifications: Cultural modifications in the landform / water, vegetation, and addition of structures should be considered and may detract from the scenery in the form of a negative intrusion or complement or improve the scenic quality of a unit. Scenic Quality Inventory and Evaluation Chart (After The Visual Resource Management System, Department of the Interior of the USA Government, Bureau of Land Management) Key factors Rating Criteria and Score Landform High vertical relief as Steep canyons, mesas, Low rolling hills, foothills, expressed in prominent buttes, cinder cones, or flat valley bottoms; or cliffs, spires, or massive and drumlins; or few or no interesting rock outcrops, or severe interesting erosional landscape features. surface variation or highly eroded formations including major badlands or dune systems; or patterns or variety in size and shape of landforms; or detail features which are detail features dominant interesting though not and exceptionally dominant or exceptional. striking and intriguing such as glaciers Vegetation and A variety of vegetative Some variety of Little or no variety or landcover types as expressed in vegetation, but only one contrast in vegetation. interesting forms, or two major types. 68

31 Appendix B textures, and patterns Water Clear and clean appearing, still, or cascading white water, any of which are a dominant factor in the landscape. 5 Colour Rich colour combinations, variety or vivid colour; or pleasing contrasts in the soil, rock, vegetation, water or snow fields. 5 Flowing, or still, but not dominant in the landscape. 3 Some intensity or variety in colours and contrast of the soil, rock and vegetation, but not a dominant scenic element. 3 Absent, or present, but not noticeable. 0 Subtle colour variations, contrast, or interest; generally mute tones. 1 Influence of adjacent Adjacent scenery greatly Adjacent scenery Adjacent scenery has scenery enhances visual quality. moderately enhances little or no influence on overall visual quality. overall visual quality Scarcity One of a kind; or Distinctive, though Interesting within its unusually memorable, or somewhat similar to setting, but fairly very rare within region. others within the region. common within the Consistent chance for region. exceptional wildlife or wildflower viewing, etc. National and provincial parks and conservation areas * Cultural modifications Modifications add favourably to visual variety while promoting visual harmony. 2 Modifications add little or no visual variety to the area, and introduce no discordant elements. 0 Modifications add variety but are very discordant and promote strong disharmony. 4 Scenic Quality (i.e. value of the visual resource) 69

32 Appendix B In determining the quality of the visual resource both the objective and the subjective or aesthetic factors associated with the landscape are considered. Many landscapes can be said to have a strong sense of place, regardless of whether they are considered to be scenically beautiful but where landscape quality, aesthetic value and a strong sense of place coincide - the visual resource or perceived value of the landscape is considered to be very high. When considering both objective and subjective factors associated with the landscape there is a balance between landscape character and individual landscape features and elements, which would result in the values as follows: Value of Visual Resource expressed as Scenic Quality (After The Landscape Institute with the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (2002)) High Moderate Low Areas that exhibit a very positive character with valued features that combine to give the experience of unity, richness and harmony. These are landscapes that may be considered to be of particular importance to conserve and which may be sensitive change in general and which may be detrimental if change is inappropriately dealt with. Areas that exhibit positive character but which may have evidence of alteration to /degradation/erosion of features resulting in areas of more mixed character. Potentially sensitive to change in general; again change may be detrimental if inappropriately dealt with but it may not require special or particular attention to detail. Areas generally negative in character with few, if any, valued features. Scope for positive enhancement frequently occurs. 70

33 Appendix B APPENDIX B: METHOD FOR DETERMINING THE SEVERITY OF LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT A visual impact study analysis addresses the importance of the inherent aesthetics of the landscape, the public value of viewing the natural landscape, and the contrast or change in the landscape from the project. For some topics, such as water or air quality, it is possible to use measurable, technical international or national guidelines or legislative standards, against which potential effects can be assessed. The assessment of likely effects on a landscape resource and on visual amenity is more complex, since it is determined through a combination of quantitative and qualitative evaluations. (The Landscape Institute with the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (2002). Landscape impact assessment includes a combination of objective and subjective judgements, and it is therefore important that a structured and consistent approach is used. It is necessary to differentiate between judgements that involve a degree of subjective opinion (as in the assessment of landscape value) from those that are normally more objective and quantifiable (as in the determination of magnitude of change). Judgement should always be based on training and experience and be supported by clear evidence and reasoned argument. Accordingly, suitably qualified and experienced landscape professionals carry out landscape and visual impact assessments (The Landscape Institute with the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (2002), Landscape and visual assessments are separate, although linked, procedures. The landscape baseline, its analysis and the assessment of landscape effects all contribute to the baseline for visual assessment studies. The assessment of the potential effect on the landscape is carried our as an effect on an environmental resource, i.e. the landscape. Visual effects are assessed as one of the interrelated effects on population. Landscape Impact Landscape impacts derive from changes in the physical landscape, which may give rise to changes in its character and from effects to the scenic values of the landscape. This may in turn affect the perceived value ascribed to the landscape. The description and analysis of effects on a landscape resource relies on the adoption of certain basic principles about the positive (or beneficial) and negative (or adverse) effects of change in the landscape. Due to the inherently dynamic nature of the landscape, change arising from a development may not necessarily be significant (Institute of Environmental Assessment & The Landscape Institute (2002)). Visual Impact Visual impacts relate to the changes that arise in the composition of available views as a result of changes to the landscape, to people s responses to the changes, and to the overall effects with respect to visual amenity. Visual impact is therefore measured as the change to the existing visual environment (caused by 71