Annex E3. Landscape and Visual ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT SOUTH DEEP SOLAR PV EIA

Transcription

1 Annex E3 Landscape and Visual ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT SOUTH DEEP SOLAR PV EIA

2 Silver Solutions 887 CC trading as Visual Resource Management Africa P O Box 7233, George, 6531 Cell: steve@vrma.co.za Web: Attention: Alan Cochran, ERM Project Manager ERM Southern Africa 1st Floor Building 32 Woodlands Office Park Woodlands Drive Johannesburg Your ref: 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

3 LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED GOLD FIELDS SOUTH DEEP MINE PV SOLAR POWER FACILITY, GAUTENG PROVINCE, SOUTH AFRICA Date: 15 th August 2017 Document prepared for ERM (Pty) Ltd. Visual Resource Management Africa cc P O Box 7233, George, 6531 Cell: +27 (83) steve@vrma.co.za Web:

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY BACKGROUND STUDY TEAM SCOPE OF STUDY PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVES LEGAL FRAMEWORK LEGISLATION AND POLICIES INTERNATIONAL GOOD PRACTICE Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Second Edition Guideline for Involving Visual and Aesthetic Specialists in the EIA Process Performance Standard 6 (PS6): Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources APPROACH AND METHODS INTRODUCTION Objectives Approach Methods and Activities Assumptions and Limitations SURVEYS AND DATA ANALYSIS Sampling Sites/ Areas IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY BASELINE ENVIRONMENT AREA OF INFLUENCE VISUAL BASELINE ENVIRONMENT Visual Receptors Broad Landscape Descriptions Visual Resources Visual Resource Management Classes Threats to Scenic Quality IMPACT ASSESSMENT VISUAL AND LANDSCAPE Reduction in visual resources for the Northern Receptors due to the construction of the solar PV facility Reduction in visual resources for the Western Receptors due to the construction of the solar PV facility Reduction in visual resources for the Southern Receptors due to the construction of the solar PV facility Degradation of the landscape to due to the construction and operation of the solar PV facility ESMP VISUAL AND LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT PLAN MONITORING Construction and Operational Phases OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS OPPORTUNITIES CONSTRAINTS REFERENCES Gold Fields South Deep Mine PV LVIA 2

5 11 ANNEXURE A: LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT MAPS ANNEXURE B: PHOTOMONTAGES ANNEXURE C: SPECIALIST INFORMATION DECLARATION OF INTEREST CURRICULUM VITAE ANNEXURE D: VRM CHECKLISTS AND TERMINOLOGY ANNEXURE E: GENERAL LIGHTS AT NIGHT GUIDELINES TABLE OF FIGURES 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) FIGURE 3: TYPICAL POWER TRANSFORMER (ERM (PTY) LTD, 2017) 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 FIGURE 7: VIEW OF THE D12324 ROAD LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE PROPOSED PV SITE FIGURE 8: ZOOMED VIEW OF THE NORTHERN FARMSTEAD AS SEEN FROM THE PROPOSED SITE AT 1.2 KM DISTANCE FIGURE 9: ZOOMED VIEW OF THE WESTERN FARMSTEAD AS SEEN FROM THE PROPOSED SITE AT 1.3 KM DISTANCE FIGURE 10: ZOOMED VIEW OF THE SOUTH-WESTERN FARMSTEAD LOCATED AMONGST THE TREES AS SEEN FROM THE PROPOSED SITE AT 1.6 KM DISTANCE FIGURE 11: ECOPARTNER VEGETATION TYPES MAP (ERM (PTY) LTD, 2017) FIGURE 12: EXAMPLE OF LOW GLARE EFFECT FROM LOW ANGLE SUNLIGHT FIGURE 13: PERCENTAGE SCALE OF LIGHT REFLECTING OF A VARIETY OF SURFACES FIGURE 14: PROJECT LOCALITY MAP IN RELATION TO THE GOLD FIELD S SOUTH DEEP MINE FIGURE 15: PROJECT PREFERRED PROPOSED SITE OVERLAY ONTO SA 1: TOPOCADASTRAL MAPS SHEETS FIGURE 16: PROJECT PRELIMINARY LAYOUT PLAN INDICATING THE PV ARRAYS AND 11 KV EMERGENCY TRANSMISSION LINE FIGURE 17: WEST RAND DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY ENVIRONMENTAL OPPORTUNITIES MAPPING WITH APPROXIMATE PROJECT LOCATION DEPICTED (BLUE ARROW) FIGURE 18: WEST RAND DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY ENVIRONMENTAL OPPORTUNITIES HERITAGE MAPPING WITH APPROXIMATE PROJECT LOCATION DEPICTED FIGURE 19: REGIONAL DIGITAL ELEVATION AND PROFILE LOCALITY MAP 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 FIGURE 21: DEEP SOUTH MINE PV APPROXIMATE VIEWSHED AND ANTICIPATED AREA OF INFLUENCE MAP FIGURE 22: DEEP SOUTH MINE PV KEY OBSERVATION POINT MAP FIGURE 23: DEEP SOUTH MINE PV SITE LANDSCAPE CHARACTERISATION MAPPING WITH THE AREA MAINLY DEFINED AS HIGHVELD GRASSLANDS Gold Fields South Deep Mine PV LVIA 3

6 FIGURE 24: PANORAMIC PHOTOGRAPH AMENDMENT INDICATING THE APPROXIMATE EXTENT OF THE PROPOSED PV FOOTPRINT LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1: AUTHORS AND CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT TABLE 2: PROPERTY NAME PER WIND FARM PORTION TABLE 3: SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF PV ARRAY PROJECT COMPONENTS TABLE 4: LEGISLATION AND POLICY TABLE TABLE 5: VRM CLASS MATRIX TABLE TABLE 6: LIST OF SAMPLING SITES WHERE LANDSCAPE AND AESTHETIC SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED TABLE 7: LANDSCAPE IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE RATING TABLE TABLE 8: VISUAL IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE RATING TABLE TABLE 9: SCENIC QUALITY AND RECEPTOR SENSITIVITY TABLE 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 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 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 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 TABLE 14: VRM AFRICA PROJECTS ASSESSMENTS TABLE TABLE 15: SCENIC QUALITY CHECKLIST TABLE 16: SENSITIVITY LEVEL RATING CHECKLIST TABLE 17: VRM TERMINOLOGY TABLE Gold Fields South Deep Mine PV LVIA 4

7 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 Gold Fields South Deep Mine PV LVIA 5

8 Glare is defined in the Oxford dictionary ( 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 BLM BPEO CALP DEA DEA&DP DEM DoC EIA EMP GIS I&APs IEMA IEMP KOP MAMSL NELPAG PSDF SAHRA SDF SEA VAC VIA VRM ZVI Association of Professional Heritage Practitioners Bureau of Land Management (United States) Best Practicable Environmental Option Collaborative for Advanced Landscape Planning Department of Environmental Affairs (National) Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (Western Cape Province) Digital Elevation Model Degree of Contrast Environmental Impact Assessment Environmental Management Plan Geographic Information System Interested and Affected Parties Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (United Kingdom) Integrated Environmental Management Plan Key Observation Point Metres above mean sea level New England Light Pollution Advisory Group Provincial Spatial Development Framework South African National Heritage Resources Agency Spatial Development Framework Strategic Environmental Assessment Visual Absorption Capacity Visual Impact Assessment Visual Resource Management Zone of Visual Influence Gold Fields South Deep Mine PV LVIA 6

9 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 Gold Fields South Deep Mine PV LVIA 7

10 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 Gold Fields South Deep Mine PV LVIA 8

11 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. Gold Fields South Deep Mine PV LVIA 9

12 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 8 th 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 / Qualifications Company Landscape and Stephen Stead B.A VRMA Accredited with the Association of Professional Visual Assessment (Hons) Human Heritage Practitioner and (author of this report) Contrast rating and editing. Geography, 1991 (UKZN, Pietermaritzburg) Lisa Schultz B.A Fine Art 1989 (UKZN, Pietermaritzburg) 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. 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. Gold Fields South Deep Mine PV LVIA 10

13 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 South and 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 Farm Name SG Number 347 Doornpoort Portion Number 2,7,12 and 34 Parcel Number SG21 codes T0IQ T0IQ T0IQ T0IQ 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 Gold Fields South Deep Mine PV LVIA 11

14 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) Gold Fields South Deep Mine PV LVIA 12

15 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; Gold Fields South Deep Mine PV LVIA 13

16 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: Gold Fields South Deep Mine PV LVIA 14

17 Table 4: Legislation and Policy Table Legislation West Rand District Municipality (WRDM) Regional Growth and Development Strategy (March 2012) West Rand District Municipality (WRDM) Regional Growth and Development Strategy (March 2012) Requirements 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). 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 4.2 International Good Practice 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. 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). Gold Fields South Deep Mine PV LVIA 15

18 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 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 interrelatedness; 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 Gold Fields South Deep Mine PV LVIA 16

19 The need to determine the value of visual/aesthetic resources through public involvement. (Oberholzer, 2005; Pg. 2) 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. Gold Fields South Deep Mine PV LVIA 17

20 5 APPROACH AND METHODS 5.1 Introduction 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) 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 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 Gold Fields South Deep Mine PV LVIA 18

21 Fore/middle ground Background Seldom seen Fore/middle ground Background Seldom seen Fore/middle ground Background Seldom seen (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 SCENIC QUALITY A (High) B (Medium) C (Low) VISUAL SENSITIVITY LEVELS High Medium Low II II II II II II II II II II III III/ IV * III IV IV IV IV IV III IV IV IV IV IV IV IV IV DISTANCE ZONES * 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 Gold Fields South Deep Mine PV LVIA 19

22 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 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 Sampling Sites/ Areas A site survey was undertaken on the 18 th 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 ' 13.1"S 27 39' 59"E 2 18 Jun ' 37.35"S 27 39'14.23"E Gold Fields South Deep Mine PV LVIA 20

23 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. Gold Fields South Deep Mine PV LVIA 21

24 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 Magnitude Landscape Effect Evaluation of Significance of Importance of Landscape Resource Low Medium High 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 Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Small Negligible Minor Moderate Magnitude of Medium Minor Moderate Major Visual Effect 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 Gold Fields South Deep Mine PV LVIA 22

25 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 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. Gold Fields South Deep Mine PV LVIA 23

26 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. Gold Fields South Deep Mine PV LVIA 24

27 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 Gold Fields South Deep Mine PV LVIA 25

28 Figure 10: Zoomed view of the south-western farmstead located amongst the trees as seen from the proposed site at 1.6 km distance Broad Landscape Descriptions As part of the scoping assessment, a botanical survey was undertaken by EcoPartner in 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. Gold Fields South Deep Mine PV LVIA 26

29 Figure 11: EcoPartner Vegetation Types Map (ERM (Pty) Ltd, 2017) 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 Gold Fields South Deep Mine PV LVIA 27

30 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) Gold Fields South Deep Mine PV LVIA 28

31 Landform Vegetation Water Colour Scarcity Adjacent Landscape Cultural Modifications Sum Rating Type of Users Amount of Use Public Interest Adjacent Land Uses Special Areas Rating Class Table 9: Scenic Quality and Receptor Sensitivity Table Visual Resources Scenic Quality A= scenic quality rating of 19; B = rating of 12 18, C= rating of 11 Receptor Sensitivity H = High; M = Medium; L = Low VRM NAME Rand Highveld Grassland C M H L L L L IV Transformed Rand Highveld Grassland C M H L L L L IV SUM (Avg) C M H L L L L

32 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, smallholdings 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. Gold Fields South Deep Mine PV LVIA

33 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 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. Gold Fields South Deep Mine PV LVIA 31

34 Figure 13: Percentage scale of light reflecting of a variety of surfaces. 7 IMPACT ASSESSMENT 7.1 Visual and Landscape 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.). Gold Fields South Deep Mine PV LVIA 32