Proposed De Aar Solar One Photovoltaic Power Project, Northern Cape. Visual Impact Assessment

Transcription

1 Proposed De Aar Solar One Photovoltaic Power Project, Northern Cape Visual Impact Assessment 10 May 2012 Prepared by Bernard Oberholzer Landscape Architect and Environmental Planner In association with Quinton Lawson MLB Architects and Urban Designers Prepared for CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd

2

3 CONTENTS Section 1: Introduction 5 Section 2: Approach and methodology 6 Section 3: Description of the project in terms of visual considerations 7 Section 4: Description of the affected environment 8 Section 5: Identification of applicable policies, legislation, standards and guidelines 10 Section 6: Specification of relevant visual thresholds 12 Section 7: Identification of key visual issues 12 Section 8: Alternatives considered in the impact assessment 13 Section 9: Visual Assessment Criteria 13 Section 10: Visual Mitigation Measures 17 Section 11: Summary of Visual Impacts 19 Section 12: Conclusion and Recommendation 20 References Tables Table 1: List of energy facilities at the DeAar site Table 2: Landscape description of the De Aar site Table 3: Criteria for Visual Buffers Table 4: Key visual issues Table 5: Potential Visibility Table 6: Visual Assessment Criteria and Potential Visual Impacts/Benefits Table 7: Summary of Potential Visual Impacts before and after Mitigation Figures Fig. 1: Landscape characteristics of the De Aar site Fig. 2 : De Aar Solar Facility Locality Map Fig. 3 : De Aar Solar Facility Illustration of Components Fig. 4 : De Aar Solar Facility: Viewpoints and Facilities Layout Fig. 5 : De Aar Solar Facility: Proposed Layout Fig. 6 : De Aar Solar Facility: Viewpoints and Viewshed of PV Arrays Fig. 7 : De Aar Solar Facility: Viewpoints and Viewshed of Proposed Power Lines Fig. 8 : De Aar Solar Facility: Viewpoint Panoramas Fig. 9 : De Aar Solar Facility: Viewpoint Panoramas Fig.10 : De Aar Solar Facility: Viewpoint Panoramas Fig.11 : De Aar Solar Facility: Viewshed indicating screening effect of 2M high berm and 1.5M planting Fig.12 : De Aar Solar Facility: Cumulative Impacts: Other proposed solar power projects in the vicinity 2

4

5 3 DETAILS OF SPECIALIST AND DECLARATION OF INTEREST (For official use only) File Reference Number: 12/12/20/2313 NEAS Reference Number: DEAT/EIA/ /2011 Date Received: Application for authorisation in terms of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998), as amended and the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2010 PROJECT TITLE De Aar Solar One Photovoltaic Power Project, Northern Cape Specialist: Bernard Oberholzer and Quinton Lawson Contact person: as above Postal address: PO Box 471, Stanford Postal code: 7210 Cell: or Telephone: or Fax: or Professional affiliation(s) (if any) Professional members SACLAP and SACAP Project Consultant: CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd Contact person: Jeremy Blood Postal address: PO Box 10145, Caledon Square, Cape Town Postal code: 7905 Cell: Telephone: Fax:

6 4.2 The specialist appointed in terms of the Regulations_ We, Bernard Oberholzer and Quinton Lawson, declare that -- General declaration: We act as the independent specialists in this application We will perform the work relating to the application in an objective manner, even if this results in views and findings that are not favourable to the applicant We declare that there are no circumstances that may compromise our objectivity in performing such work; We have expertise in conducting the specialist report relevant to this application, including knowledge of the Act, regulations and any guidelines that have relevance to the proposed activity; We will comply with the Act, regulations and all other applicable legislation; We have no, and will not engage in, conflicting interests in the undertaking of the activity; We undertake to disclose to the applicant and the competent authority all material information in our possession that reasonably has or may have the potential of influencing - any decision to be taken with respect to the application by the competent authority; and - the objectivity of any report, plan or document to be prepared by myself for submission to the competent authority; all the particulars furnished by us in this form are true and correct; and We realise that a false declaration is an offence in terms of Regulation 71 and is punishable in terms of section 24F of the Act. 4 Expertise Bernard Oberholzer has a B. Arch. (UCT) and Master of Landscape Architecture (U. of Pennsylvania), and has more than 20 years experience in undertaking visual impact assessments. He has presented papers on Visual and Aesthetic Assessment Techniques, and is the author of Guideline for Involving Visual and Aesthetic Specialists in EIA Processes, prepared for the Dept. of Environmental and Development Planning, Provincial Government of the Western Cape, Bernard is a Professional Member, South African Council of the Landscape Architects Profession (SACLAP). Quinton Lawson has a B.Arch Degree (Natal) and has more than 10 years experience in visual assessments. Bernard and Quinton have both been involved in visual assessments for numerous wind and solar energy farms, harbour and container terminals, industrial facilities, waste water treatment plants, landfill sites, residential developments and heritage sites. Quinton is a Professional Member, South African Council of the Architects Profession (SACAP). Signature of the specialist: Bernard Oberholzer Landscape Architect MLB Architects Name of company (if applicable): 10 May 2012

7 5 SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 SCOPE OF THE STUDY The visual assessment of the De Aar site has been divided into 2 phases, the first phase being a visual baseline study, completed in January 2012, and the second phase being the current visual impact assessment, which incorporates the baseline study. The general terms of reference for specialist studies are outlined below (CCA Environmental Final Scoping Report, (FSR), March 2012): Describe the baseline conditions that exist on site and identify any sensitive areas that would need special consideration; Review the Comments and Responses Reports in the FSR to ensure that all relevant issues or concerns relevant to the field of expertise are addressed; Identify and assess potential impacts of the construction, operation and decommissioning phases, as well as the No- Go Alternative; Identify and list all legislation and permit requirements that are relevant to the development proposal; Identify areas where issues could combine or interact with issues likely to be covered by other specialists, resulting in aggravated or enhanced impacts; Indicate the reliability of information utilised in the assessment of impacts as well as any constraints to which the assessment is subject (e.g. any areas of insufficient information or uncertainty); Consider the precautionary principle in the assessment of all potential impacts; Identify feasible ways in which impacts could be mitigated and benefits enhanced giving an indication of the likely effectiveness of such mitigation and how these could be implemented in the construction and management of the proposed development; To ensure that specialists use a common standard, the determination of the significance of the assessed impacts will be undertaken in accordance with a common Convention (see Section 6.3 of the FSR); Comply with DEA guidelines as well as any other relevant guidelines on specialist study requirements for EIAs; Include specialist expertise and a signed statement of independence; and Comply with Sections 17 and 32 of the EIA Regulations 2010, which specifies requirements for all specialist reports. The specific terms of reference for the visual assessment are as follows: Quantify and assess the existing scenic resources/visual characteristics in and around the proposed site in relation to the surrounding areas; Evaluate and classify the landscape in terms of its sensitivity to a changing land use; Determine viewsheds (visual horizons) and important viewpoints in order to assess the visual impact of the proposed project; Assess the significance of potential visual impacts resulting from the proposed project from various

8 important viewpoints, e.g. transport corridors, neighbouring farmsteads / residential areas, recreational areas and other surrounding land-uses (i.e. viewer-observer distances, bulk, compatibility with surrounding area, viewer catchments, etc.); and Identify practicable mitigation measures to reduce negative visual impacts and to identify how these can be built into the project design LIMITATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS The current layout of the proposed energy facilities at De Aar has been adapted according to the first phase specialist studies. The final layout may be further refined to take into account the findings of the various specialist impact assessments. Little detailed information about building finishes and colours, as well as lighting are available at this stage of the project, but some recommendations are given in this Report. Similarly, no information on borrow pits is available. Borrow pits for the construction are assumed to be from local approved sites. New borrow pits would be subject to permits from the relevant authorities. 1.3 LOCATION OF THE DE AAR SITE The De Aar site is illustrated in Fig. 1, and the location is indicated on Fig. 2. The proposed site, is about 5.5km southeast of De Aar in the Northern Cape, located on Portion 3 Hartebeestplaats 135. SECTION 2: APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY The methodology used for the baseline study included the following steps: Photographic survey of the site and surroundings during a field trip in January 2012; Mapping of the proposed energy facilities, including distance circles and critical viewpoints; Determination of the viewshed, using a digital terrain model (DTM) to determine the area that would be visually affected; and Identification of landscape features and receptors in the area. The current visual assessment phase includes a revised viewshed based on the latest layout, as well as a series of photomontages providing a visual simulation of the proposed energy facilities. Based on the visual method used above, and using recognised visual criteria, an assessment is made of the visual impacts for the proposed energy facilities and related infrastructure.

9 SECTION 3: DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT IN TERMS OF VISUAL CONSIDERATIONS 7 The proposed energy facilities that have visual implications are summarised in Table 1 below, and are illustrated in Fig. 3. It is intended that the proposed development would consist of photovoltaic solar panels with a projected output of up to 30MW. The north-facing panels would be mounted on metal frames supported by ballasted or piled foundations. The use of a tracker system is also being considered. The implementation would involve the removal of any tall vegetation and the construction of access roads between the solar arrays for maintenance. The proposed facility would connect to the Hydra Substation by means of an overhead power line. In addition, maintenance buildings, offices and some parking would be required on site. The entire area within the power plant site would be treated as a conservancy with all avian and small mammals protected. Table 1: List of Energy Facilities at the De Aar Site Facility Footprint Height Comments PV energy facility: 25 to 75 to 80 ha n/a 30MW Solar modules (panels) 2m 2 per module Tilted at 30 degrees Module type and tracker system still to be determined. Specifications are indicative. Racking Rows 40 to 180m length. 2.5m to 3.0m max. ht. Galvanised rolled mild steel sections on concrete ballast or piled foundations. Inverters Container ±15m 2 Central inverters, min. size 250kW. Electrical substation 500m 2 within fence ±5m busbars Plastered and painted masonry buildings. External transformer and switchgear. Electrical power line and pylons 2 to 2.5km in length 17.5 to 21m ht. 132kV overhead power line. Steel monopole. Maintenance and storage buildings Main building 150m 2 Warehouse 500m 2 Single storey Masonry walls and metal roof. Storage: portal frame. Internal access roads 4 to 7m wide roads n/a Gravel or semi-permeable block roads. between rows. Parking area ±500m 2 Future shade structures Approx. 10 parking bays. Gravel permeable surfaces. Security fencing and gates Perimeter wire mesh security fencing around ±2.5m ht. Single controlled access off the local district road. entire farm Security lighting n/a 5m ht. Lighting at entrances and substation. Construction Stage (per phase): Lay down area 5 000m 2 max. n/a Temporary gravel hard standing, fenced. Construction camp m 2 (1ha) Single storey Temporary prefab structures, fenced. Borrow pits undetermined n/a Assumed from existing approved sources.

10 SECTION 4: DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 8 The De Aar site is briefly described in Table 2 and Fig.1 below, including its visual/scenic significance, and visual opportunities and constraints in relation to the siting of the proposed solar energy facilities. Viewpoints and viewsheds are indicated on Figures 6 and 7, and photomontages are given in Figures 8 to 10. Table 2: Landscape Description of the De Aar Site Location Geology Physical landscape Vegetation cover and land use Visual significance of the area Opportunities and constraints The site is situated on Portion 3 Hartebeestplaats 135, 5.5km south-east of De Aar within the Emthanjeni District Municipal area. Road access is via the Hydra access road only. The site is adjacent to the existing Hydra main transmission substation, which is a national transmission hub. The general area consists of shales of the Ecca and Dwyka Group of rocks with dolerite characteristically forming the koppies. Soils tend to be reddish in colour on the koppies and pale yellow in the plains. Alluvium can be expected along the drainage courses, which are dry for most of the year. The topography is dictated by the geology and gently slopes to the northwest and southwest on the site. A small hill and rock outcrops occur at the edge of the site. The vegetation of the area consists generally of dwarf shrubland and grasses of the Northern Upper Karoo vegetation type (Mucina and Rutherford, 2006). Koppies and rock outcrops tend to have sparse dwarf Karoo scrub and drought-tolerant grasses and aloes of the Upper Karoo Hardeveld vegetation type. The vegetation therefore provides little visual cover for structures. Isolated farmsteads in the area tend to be shaded by clumps of exotic trees including gums. The site has a number of blesbok and springbok, and 15 dorper sheep. Adjacent farms are also stocked with gemsbok, the buck being used for hunting purposes. The site has 12 boreholes used on a rotational basis for water supply. A small guest lodge, Kampfontein, is located on the site. The study area has a rural character consisting of open grassland and low scrub vegetation. It is an arid landscape, with scattered farmsteads surrounding the site. The area is already visually disturbed by existing power lines, pylons and the large Hydra Substation to the northeast of the site. The flat open terrain provides little opportunity for visual screening. The subtle ridges and hill crests would tend to be more visually exposed and therefore visually sensitive. The proposed solar energy facility would be visible from the N10 route along the southwest boundary, although some screening with berms would be possible.

11 9 Dolerite outcrops typical of the koppies Shale rocks typical of the plains The site seen from the N10 in the west The site from the south with the lodge Existing power lines criss-cross the area Hydra Substation seen from the Hydra Road Fig. 1 Landscape Characteristics of the De Aar Site

12 SECTION 5: IDENTIFICATION OF APPLICABLE POLICIES, LEGISLATION, STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES 10 At the national level the following legislation could apply to visual assessments: The National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) and Regulations in terms of Chapter 5, NEMA. (Act 107 of 1998). The Protected Areas Act (PAA) (Act 57 of 2003, Section 17), intended to, inter alia, protect natural landscapes. The National Heritage Resources Act (NHRA) (Act No. 25 of 1999) and the associated provincial regulations provide legislative protection for listed or proclaimed sites, such as urban conservation areas, nature reserves and proclaimed scenic routes. Although the proposed De Aar photovoltaic power plant is in the Northern Cape, a draft report prepared by the Provincial Government of the Western Cape (PGWC), of 2006, called "A Strategic Initiative to Introduce Commercial and Land Based Wind Energy Development to the Western Cape", may be helpful in providing some indicators for solar energy facilities. The PGWC Report of 2006 provides a broad guiding framework for the location of wind energy facilities based on the sensitivity and capacity of landscape types and the scale of the project. The Report indicates that, in the rural context, where most energy facilities will be located, large scale open landscapes and/or disturbed rural landscapes are preferred for the siting of wind farms. The Report further states the following in the Executive Summary: A. Commercial Wind Energy development should be excluded from: Areas of high aesthetic landscape value, particularly national parks and provincial nature reserves and other wilderness areas. Areas where technical and safety considerations apply. B. Wind energy should be encouraged: At strategic locations identified in a Regional Wind Plan (RWP) to be prepared by the relevant planning authority. Where they are well located in terms of visual impact, technical and safety criteria and landscape, environmental and planning criteria. In appropriate urban and industrial brownfield sites. Where visual disturbance to the landscape has already occurred (e.g. power transmission lines). At the local scale where energy facilities could provide power to small users. No formal guidelines have been published for solar energy to assist in the design and assessment of solar energy development at the local scale. However, using the guidelines for wind farms as a yardstick, the proposed De Aar solar energy facility meets the following criteria: The facility is not located in an area of high aesthetic landscape value, and there are no national parks, nature reserves or other conservation sites in the immediate vicinity;

13 The facility is not located in an area where technical and safety considerations apply. The facility is undergoing an assessment in relation to visual impact, technical and other planning criteria. The facility is in large concentrated clusters of solar arrays rather than small, dispersed locations. The facility is located in an area where visual disturbance to the landscape has already occurred, including existing power lines and the Hydra Substation. De Aar is seen as a renewable energy hub in the Emthanjeni Integrated Development Plan (IDP). 11 Table 3 provides a list of regional criteria, including key criteria to be mapped at a local project level, for proposed wind farms, together with suggested criteria for the proposed solar energy development at De Aar. These criteria have not been legislated, and only serve as guidelines, or site constraints. Table 3 : Criteria for Visual Buffers Criteria PGWC Recommended Buffers for Wind Farms (2006) Local Project Level Mapping: De Aar solar energy site Urban Areas 800m n/a (De Aar is approx. 5.5km away). Residential Areas, including rural dwellings 400m 100m buffer recommended from settlements. (Solar arrays are smaller than wind turbines and require a smaller visual buffer). National Roads 13km buffer. Depends on scenic value. 50m from the N10 National Road on the southwest boundary of the site. (Solar arrays are smaller than wind turbines and require a smaller visual buffer). Main Arterial Roads No indication n/a at De Aar site. Local District Roads 500m. (Review if high scenic value). 30m from the Hydra road that passes through the site. Provincial Tourist Route 4km buffer. Statutory scenic drives. n/a at De Aar site Local Tourist Route 2.5km (Can be reduced). n/a at De Aar site Railway lines 250m n/a at De Aar site Local airfield To be confirmed with agency. A civil airfield 5.2km from the site. A military airfield approx. 17km from the site. Both are to the northwest of the site. National Parks, Provincial Nature Reserves 2km Should be eliminated at regional level. n/a at De Aar site Private Nature Reserves 500m. Could be negotiated at local level. n/a at De Aar site Rivers 500m For perennial rivers at regional level. The Freshwater Ecological Specialist has proposed buffers for perennial and seasonal rivers and wetlands on the site, (see Freshwater Assessment). External farm boundaries No indication 30m visual buffer recommended, depending on Municipal by-laws and screening.

14 SECTION 6: SPECIFICATION OF RELEVANT VISUAL THRESHOLDS A visual assessment involves both qualitative, as well as quantitative criteria, to determine changes and possible adverse effects on the environment and the sense of place of the particular location. There are no prescribed thresholds for visual impacts relating to solar energy facilities at the present time. It is therefore suggested that the criteria for wind and solar energy farms given in Table 3 be used as a guide. 12 SECTION 7: IDENTIFICATION OF KEY VISUAL ISSUES Possible issues identified by the visual specialists are summarised in Table 4 below, as well as issues raised by various authorities and Interested an affected parties. These are not seen as impacts, but as concerns that may need to be addressed in the visual impact assessment. Table 4: Key Visual Issues Issues raised by visual specialist Potential visual intrusion on sense of place Potential effect on landscape features and scenic resources Potential effect on local inhabitants, visitors to the area and on tourism Potential effect of the scale of the project Potential effect of lights at night The rural character, typical of the Northern Cape Karoo landscape, could potentially be altered by industrial-type energy facilities, such as the solar arrays, power lines and maintenance buildings. However, the area has been previously disturbed by numerous power lines and the major Hydra Substation. There are few landscape features, except for the dolerite koppies which are worth conserving. Cultural and heritage features in the area are being reported on separately. The koppies have generally been excluded from the proposed development. There are a number of scattered farmsteads in the surroundings that could be visually affected, which are 1.6km or more away from the proposed project, while De Aar is some 5.5km away. There are no known tourist facilities or nature reserves in the immediate area. The low height of the solar arrays means that these are not noticeably visible beyond 2km. Existing power lines and the Hydra Substation have visually altered the area to some degree already. The scale of the proposed energy facilities, covering 75 to 80ha, along with the power line, substation and maintenance buildings, could have some visual implications for the immediate area and the N10 National Road. There would be an increase in the amount of lights in the area required by the project for safety and security. These would, however be localised.

15 Potential effect of construction and decommissioning Need for visual screening (SANRAL) The scale of the proposed project could result in visual effects relating to the construction of the solar facilities, buildings and access roads. At the end of the life of the project, many of the foundations and roads may remain visible in the relatively open landscape. Issues raised by Interested and Affected Parties The proposed plant must be located a minimum of 30m from the road reserve fence along the N10. A 3m high berm at a distance of between 20 and 30m must be considered to reduce the visual impact from the N10. Note: A berm has been incorporated into the project design based on the findings of the Visual Baseline Assessment. The design of the berm is considered further in the visual mitigation measures outlined in Section 10 below. 13 SECTION 8: ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Alternative site layouts have been previously developed, and a preferred site layout prepared based on the results of the specialist baseline studies, including the visual study. These are further discussed in the Final Scoping Report (CCA March 2012). The final selection and design of the solar arrays, as well as related infrastructure, will be informed by technical considerations and the mitigation measures recommended in the specialist studies. SECTION 9: VISUAL ASSESSMENT CRITERIA A series of both quantitative and qualitative criteria are used to determine potential visual impacts. These are rated to determine both the expected level and significance of the visual impacts. Panoramas indicating the proposed solar facilities from selected viewpoints are given in Figures 8, 9 and 10. (1) Viewpoints (Figures 6 and 7, Table 5) Viewpoints were selected based on potentially prominent or sensitive viewing positions in the area, where views of the proposed energy facilities may be obtained. The proposed facilities would be potentially visible from a number of surrounding farmsteads and the N10, although the farmsteads would be 1.6km or more from the project, (see Table 5 below). (2) Visibility Visibility tends to be determined by distance between the proposed energy facilities and the viewer, as well as by the topography. Given the height and footprint of the proposed solar arrays and related infrastructure, and the hilly terrain, visibility tends to be significant up to distances of about 2km. Distance radii shown in Fig. 4 assist in quantifying visibility of the proposed facilities. Except for the N10, most important viewpoints are beyond 2km in distance.

16 Degrees of visibility in relation to distance tend to be as follows for the solar arrays, based on field observations and previous studies (see Table 5): Highly visible: Clearly noticeable within the observer s viewframe 0 to 1km Moderately visible: Recognisable feature within observer s viewframe 1 to 2km Marginally visible: Not particularly noticeable within observer s viewframe 2 to 4km Hardly visible: Practically not visible unless pointed out to observer 4km+ 14 (3) Visual Exposure (Figures 6, 7 and 11) Visual exposure is determined by the viewshed or view catchment, being the geographic area within which the proposed project would be visible. The viewshed boundary tends to follow ridgelines and high points in the landscape. Some areas within the view catchment area fall within a view shadow, and would therefore not be affected by the proposed energy facilities. The zone of visual influence of the solar arrays at De Aar tends to fall mainly within a 2km radius. The proposed berm would create a view shadow along a portion of the N10 adjacent to the site, (see Fig. 11). (4) Visual Sensitivity Visual sensitivity is determined by topographic features, steep slopes, protected areas, rivers or scenic routes. At De Aar there are few landscape features of importance, except for the dolerite outcrops and koppies. The proposed development has been largely excluded from the koppies. (5) Landscape Integrity Visual quality is enhanced by intactness of the landscape, and lack of other visual intrusions. The area has a number of existing visual intrusions in the rural landscape, particularly power lines and the Hydra Substation. (6) Visual Absorption Capacity This is the potential to screen the proposed project. Given the modest height of the solar arrays (±3m), some screening by the topography and trees would occur. The existing visual clutter of power lines and the Hydra Substation would tend to increase the visual absorption capacity of the area. (7) Potential Visual Impact The criteria above are considered in combination to provide an indication of the potential visual impacts in Table 6 below, as well as mitigation measures in Section 10.

17 Table 5 : Potential Visibility (see Figures 6 and 7) 15 View Pt Location VP1 N10 near Hartebeeshoek VP2 N10 opposite the site VP3 N10 NW boundary of site VP4 N10 opposite airstrip VP5 R348 opposite Nonzwakazi VP6 Railway Level crossing at Badenhorstdam VP7 Bletterman near rail line and Hydra VP8 District Road at Wag- n-bietjie VP9 Crest of koppie on the site Distan ce Comments 3.8km Arrays would be partly obscured by foreground ridges. Power lines visible on skyline. <50m Arrays and power lines would be clearly visible. Mitigated by the proposed berm. <50m Arrays and power lines would be clearly visible. Mitigated by the proposed berm. 3.7km In a view shadow. Power lines would be visible on skyline. 5.9km Viewpoint is within the viewshed but distance is a mitigating factor. 2.7km Viewpoint is within the viewshed. Arrays would be partly obscured by foreground ridges. Power lines would be visible on the ridge skyline. 1.6km Viewpoint is just within the viewshed. Arrays partly visible and power lines clearly visible on skyline. 4.8km Viewpoint is within the viewshed. Farmstead is in a view shadow and surrounded by trees. 200m Arrays and power lines would be clearly visible. However, the koppie and Kampfontein guesthouse belong to the Landowner, who has bought into the project and would benefit financially.

18 Table 6 : Visual Assessment Criteria and Potential Visual Impacts / Benefits 16 Criteria Comments No-go Alternative Visibility of facilities Distance from selected viewpoints Visibility of lights at night Visual effect of glare from PV modules Visual exposure Zone of visual influence or view catchment Visual sensitivity Landscape features Landscape Integrity Effect on character of the area Proposed energy facilities would be visible from N10 National Road. Visibility from farmsteads varies according to distance, but most farmsteads are in a view shadow. Reflections from solar panels are not expected to be an issue at ground level, but may be visible from aircraft. Visibility, particularly at night, would relate to amount of safety and security lighting, but would be confined to the substation and maintenance buildings and would therefore not be significant. Neither glare nor glint would have a significant impact on the De Aar civil airfield, due to the short duration of glint and glare. (RVA 2011, Civil Aviation Study). Determined by topography. Most of the viewshed is within a 2km radius of the site. Surrounding farmsteads are beyond the 2km radius. Fairly open, hilly, visually exposed rural landscape. Steep lower slopes of the koppies are visually sensitive. Proposed energy facilities and power lines would contrast with the rural landscape, but would be similar in character to the existing power infrastructure of the area. None There would be no energy facilities Solar arrays Power lines Substation and maintenance buildings High (N10) Low (farmsteads) Medium Medium-low None Low Low Medium-low None Low n/a n/a None Medium Medium Low None Medium-high Medium-high Medium-low None Medium-high Medium-low Medium-low Visual absorption capacity (VAC) Lack of concealment Cumulative visual impact Moderate to low potential of the koppies, ridges and vegetation to visually screen structures. The proposed energy facilities and additional power lines would add to existing visual clutter in the landscape. Other solar energy projects are proposed in the vicinity at Bletterman, Hartbeeshoek and Rietfontein, Fig. 12. None Medium-high Medium-high Medium-low None Medium-high Medium-high Medium-low Overall impact rating without mitigation The solar arrays are fairly low with little impact beyond 2km. Connecting power lines could add to visual impact, if located on koppies or ridges. None Would remain a game farm Medium-high Medium Medium-low

19 SECTION 10: RECOMMENDED VISUAL MITIGATION MEASURES The purpose of this section is to recommend practical management actions for the proposed project design, which would help to avoid, minimise, mitigate or compensate for potential negative impacts and enhance benefits. These mitigation measures should be incorporated in the final design and layout of the solar energy facility GENERAL MITIGATION MEASURES The following are recommended mitigation measures to reduce the visual impact ratings, (see also criteria listed in Table 3): 1) Visual buffers of 30m from external farm boundaries and 50m from the N10 National Road are recommended. The setback from the N10 could be reduced to 30m if a berm with planting is implemented as currently proposed. Bylaws usually require all structures to be set back 30m from farm boundaries as shown on Figure 5. (If the bylaws do not apply then a setback of 10m is recommended to accommodate landscaping). 2) The berm proposed along the N10 boundary should have an sinuous, undulating shape with variable heights to look as natural as possible. Rocks from the construction areas could be placed on the berm to simulate the characteristic outcrops of the area and help to create habitats. Planting on the berm should only use locally occurring species to blend with the surrounding landscape. 3) Detailed plans and specifications for the berm and all screen planting should be prepared by a qualified landscape architect. 4) Landscape features, such as the koppie on the site, are excluded from development in the current proposal. The visual exclusion of the northern and eastern ridges of the site, and steep slopes, indicated on Figure 5, would further reduce the visibility of the proposed project. 5) Drainage courses, such as the one in the southern portion of the site, are seen as landscape features and should be avoided. An exclusion zone along this course is recommended as indicated in the freshwater assessment. 6) Cables should be located underground as far as possible, as proposed. 7) The substation, maintenance and storage buildings should be clustered as far as possible, as proposed in the layout. These should be located in low-lying areas and not on hill crests or ridges, if possible. (See also Fig. 5). 8) Although power lines should also avoid hill crests and ridges, the proposal is to locate these in the same corridor as existing power lines, which will help to reduce visual clutter in the landscape. 9) The design of the buildings should be compatible in scale and form with rural buildings, such as farm barns in the surrounding area. All yards and storage areas should be enclosed by masonry walls. 10) The colour of the solar array structures, such as the supports and the rear of the panels, should be carefully selected, and to be in the dark grey or green range, to minimise visibility and avoid reflectivity. 11) Signage related to the development should be discrete and confined to the entrance gates. No other corporate or advertising signage and billboards to be permitted, particularly along the N10.

20 12) External lighting should be confined to the maintenance and storage areas. Lights should be low-level and fitted with reflectors to avoid light spillage CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION MEASURES 1) The construction camp, material stores and lay-down area should be screened from farmsteads and settlements, and preferably located in the vicinity of the proposed maintenance buildings to minimise disturbance. 2) The extent of the construction camp and stores should be limited in area to only that which is essential. 3) Disturbed areas rather than pristine or intact landscape areas should preferably be used for the construction camp, e.g. the shooting range. 4) Measures to control wastes and litter should be included in the environmental management programme (EMP) and contract specification documents. 5) Provision should be made for rehabilitation/ re-vegetation of areas damaged by construction activities. 6) Borrow pits for the construction are assumed to be from local approved sites. New borrow pits would be subject to permits from the relevant authorities OPERATIONAL MITIGATION MEASURES 1) The footprint of the maintenance facilities, as well as parking and vehicular circulation, should be clearly defined, and not be allowed to spill over into other areas of the site. 2) Roads and drainage swales for runoff should be stabilised, and stormwater detention ponds provided, to prevent visual scars in the landscape caused by erosion. 3) The maintenance and storage areas should be screened by buildings, walls, hedges and/or tree planting, and should be kept in a tidy state to minimise further visual impact.

21 SECTION 11: SUMMARY OF VISUAL IMPACTS 19 A summary of the potential visual impacts, before and after mitigation, is given in Table 7 below. This is based on the visual criteria given in Table 6, as well as observations based on the field work and photomontages in Figures 8 to 10. Table 7 : Summary of Potential Visual Impacts Before and After Mitigation CRITERIA WITHOUT MITIGATION WITH MITIGATION Extent Geographic area, i.e. local, district or regional. Duration Expected lifespan of the proposed project. Intensity Expected degree of visual impact. (see ratings in Table 6). Probability Possibility of the impact occuring. Confidence Degree of confidence in the impact occuring. Significance Construction and operational phases. A synthesis of the above criteria. Cumulative impact Incremental impacts resulting from the project, and similar proposed projects in the vicinity. Local Little significance beyond 2km Long term Potentially longer than 15 years. Solar arrays: Medium-high Power lines: Medium Substation, buildings: Medium-low Highly probable Highly visible from the N10. High. Based on visual survey and photomontages Solar arrays: Medium-high Power lines: Medium Substation, buildings: Medium-low Medium-high Local Little significance beyond 2km Long term Potentially longer than 15 years. Solar arrays: Medium Power lines: Medium Substation, buildings: Medium-low Probable Little or no opportunity for screening powerl lines. Some opportunity for screening solar arrays with berms. High Solar arrays: Medium Power lines: Medium Substation, buildings: Medium-low Medium-high Nature of Cumulative impact Degree to which impact can be reversed Degree to which impact may cause irreplaceable loss of resources Degree to which impact can be mitigated Medium-low (Proposed power lines would add to the existing network of power lines visible from the N10 and surroundings). Low (Large project footprint and exposed nature of the study area). Low (Minimal loss of visual / scenic resources as the area has been previously modified by power lines and the large Hydra substation). Medium-low (Some screening along the N10 is possible. Limited opportunity for visual screening of power lines given the exposed nature of the area).

22 SECTION 11: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION The proposed solar energy facility is not located in an area of high aesthetic landscape value, and there are no national parks, nature reserves or other conservation sites in the immediate vicinity. The character of the area has already been visually altered by the existing Hydra Substation and a number of power lines in the vicinity of the site. Also, De Aar has been identified as a Renewable Energy Hub in the Municipality s Integrated Development Plan (IDP). 20 The findings of the visual impact assessment are that there would be some potential visual impacts associated with the proposed De Aar photovoltaic power plant and related power line. The visual impact of the solar arrays, which cover most of the farm, would be medium-high significance before mitigation for both the fixed and the tracker type array alternatives. The power line route alternatives would be medium and the substation and maintenance buildings would be medium-low. A number of recommended mitigations, such as the proposed berm along the N10, have been included in the design, which would reduce the visual impact significance of the solar arrays to medium for both alternatives. Little or no mitigation opportunities exist for the power line, and only minimal mitigation for the substation and buildings. The visual impact significance for these therefore remain the same. Additional mitigation measures have been recommended which could help to further reduce visibility of the project, although the significance of visual impacts would probably remain medium. Detailed landscape plans and specifications should be prepared by a qualified landscape architect for the berms and planting, in order to screen the proposed energy facility from the N10 National Road. These landscape plans and specifications should ideally form part of the project approval conditions.

23 References 21 CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd, March Environmental Impact Assessment for the Proposed De Aar Solar One Photovoltaic Power Project, Northern Cape: Final Scoping Report. Mucina L. and Rutherford MC, (eds), The Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Strelitzia 19. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria. Oberholzer, B Guideline for Involving Visual and Aesthetic Specialists in EIA Processes. Edition 1. CSIR Report No. ENV-S-C F. Provincial Government of the Western Cape, Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, Cape Town. Provincial Government of the Western Cape and CNdV Africa, Strategic Initiative to Introduce Commercial Land Based Wind Energy Development to the Western Cape. Issued by Provincial Government of the W. Cape. Retosolar, January De Aar Solar One Photovoltaic Power Plant: Summary Pre-feasibility Report. Draft 1.1. RVA (undated). Components of the Proposed De Aar Solar Energy facilities. RVA, September Civil Aviation Study. Draft 1.1 RVA Dec Hartbeesplaats 135P3 Preliminary Design.

24

25 N12 Britstown N10 N12 De Aar De Aar Solar Facility N10 N1 location circle indicates 5km radius from centre of site km Hanover N10 Base Map Source : Google Maps 2012 scale 1 : Figure 2 De Aar Solar Facility Locality Map

26 Operations and Maintenance : 150sqM main building 500sqM storage warehouse 500sqM parking (10 bays under shade) example of similar facilities elsewhere Connection Sub-station : 500sqM (notional only) 2.5 to 3m high 30º turbine transformer 50 x 50m hardstanding Solar Arrays dimensions and spacing of proposed solar pv arrays Based on information provided by CCA/RetoSolar, 3D models by mlb Figure 3 De Aar Solar Facility Illustration of Components example of similar facilities elsewhere no scale

27 De Aar vp5 R388 opposite Nonzwakazi Existing Transmission Lines converging on HYDRA distribution sub-station N10 Railway level crossing at Badenhorstdam vp6 vp4 N10 opposite airstrip R388 vp7 Bletterman near rail line and Hydra vp8 District road at Wag-'n-Bietjie N10 NW boundary of site vp3 internal transmission line connection options De Aar Solar Facility vp9 Crest of koppie on site 1km 2km 5km vp2 N10 opposite site N10 vp1 N10 near Hartebeeshoek Base Map Source : Google Earth 2012, overlays by CCA/RetoSolar, BOLA/mlb Figure 4 De Aar Solar Facility Viewpoints, Facilities layout 5km scale : custom

28 Recommended Mitigation Measures : 30m visual buffer to common boundaries pv arrays on ridge visible from north / north-western viewpoints 15m visual buffer to river line / water courses rock outcrops, slopes and ridge lines avoided Proposed N10 Boundary 30m Setback Options : 2m high boundary fence Option 1: 2m high earth berm with 1.5m of planting close to fence line pv arrays on ridge visible from eastern / south-eastern viewpoints ±23m service roadway space Option 2: 2m high earth berm with 1.5m of planting on internal edge of 30m boundary buffer zone Map Source : R Viljoen and Associates : March 2012 Figure 5 De Aar Solar Facility Proposed Layout and Recommended Mitigations not to scale

29 De Aar vp5 R388 opposite Nonzwakazi vp4 N10 opposite airstrip Railway level crossing at Badenhorstdam vp6 Bletterman near rail line and Hydra vp7 vp8 District road at Wag-'n-Bietjie HYDRA N10 NW boundary of site vp3 5km 2km 1km De Aar Solar Facility VISIBILITY GRADIENT LEGEND vp9 Crest of koppie on site red area of high visibility vp2 N10 opposite site orange area of medium visibility yellow area of low visibility N10 near Hartebeeshoek vp uncoloured area indicates view shadow area (no visibility) 5km Base Map Source : Chief Directorate : National Geo-Spatial Information 1: Topographic Series 3024CA De Aar (3) 2005, 3024CC Riet (3) 2005 Figure 6 De Aar Solar Facility Viewpoints and Viewshed of PV Arrays scale 1 :

30 De Aar vp5 R388 opposite Nonzwakazi vp4 N10 opposite airstrip Railway level crossing at Badenhorstdam vp6 Bletterman near rail line and Hydra vp7 vp8 District road at Wag-'n-Bietjie HYDRA N10 NW boundary of site vp3 5km 2km 1km De Aar Solar Facility VISIBILITY GRADIENT LEGEND vp9 Crest of koppie on site red area of high visibility vp2 N10 opposite site orange area of medium visibility yellow area of low visibility N10 near Hartebeeshoek vp uncoloured area indicates view shadow area (no visibility) 5km Base Map Source : Chief Directorate : National Geo-Spatial Information 1: Topographic Series 3024CA De Aar (3) 2005, 3024CC Riet (3) 2005 Figure 7 De Aar Solar Facility Viewpoints and Viewshed of proposed powerlines scale 1 :

31 pv arrays just visible on ridge Viewpoint 1 looking north-west from N1 near Hartebeeshoek Distance to pv arrays : 3.8km S, E 19/01/ h50 earth berm and pv arrays visible in foreground across entire view telephone lines become redundant and would be removed Viewpoint 2 looking north from N10 opposite site Distance to pv arrays : < 50m S, E 19/01/ h03 telephone lines become redundant and would be removed earth berm, boundary fence and pv arrays visible in foreground Viewpoint 3 looking south-east from N10 at NW site boundary Distance to pv arrays : < 50m Photomontages by mlb/bola : April 2012 Figure 8 De Aar Solar Facility Viewpoint Panoramas S, E 19/01/ h10 no scale

32 pv arrays not visible Viewpoint 4 looking south-east from N10 at airstrip S, E 19/01/ h18 Distance to pv arrays : 3.7km pv arrays just visible in distance Viewpoint 5 looking south-east from R388 opposite Nonzwakazi S, E 19/01/ h49 Distance to pv arrays : 5.9km pv arrays just visible on ridge skyline Viewpoint 6 looking south-east from rail line level crossing at Badenhorstdam S, E 19/01/ h57 Distance to pv arrays : 2.7km Photomontages by mlb/bola : April 2012 Figure 9 De Aar Solar Facility Viewpoint Panoramas no scale

33 pv arrays just visible on ridge Viewpoint 7 looking south from rail line at Bletterman Distance to pv arrays : 1.6km S, /01/ h15 pv arrays just visible on ridge Viewpoint 8 looking west from district road at Wag-'n-Bietjie Distance to pv arrays : 4.85km S, E 19/01/ h27 pv arrays extending across entire view Viewpoint 9 looking south-west from Kampfontein koppie Distance to pv arrays : 200m Photomontages by mlb/bola : April 2012 Figure 10 De Aar Solar Facility Viewpoint Panoramas S, E 19/01/ h24 no scale

34 De Aar vp5 R388 opposite Nonzwakazi vp4 N10 opposite airstrip Railway level crossing at Badenhorstdam vp6 Bletterman near rail line and Hydra vp7 vp8 District road at Wag-'n-Bietjie HYDRA N10 NW boundary of site vp3 5km 2km 1km De Aar Solar Facility Area visually screened by berm and planting VISIBILITY GRADIENT LEGEND vp9 Crest of koppie on site red area of high visibility vp2 N10 opposite site orange area of medium visibility yellow area of low visibility N10 near Hartebeeshoek vp uncoloured area indicates view shadow area (no visibility) 5km Base Map Source : Chief Directorate : National Geo-Spatial Information 1: Topographic Series 3024CA De Aar (3) 2005, 3024CC Riet (3) 2005 Figure 11 De Aar Solar Facility Viewshed indicating screening effect of 2M high berm and 1.5M high planting (cf. Figure 6) scale 1 :

35 De Aar Bletterman 30MW 60ha (Savannah) 5km 2km HYDRA 1km De Aar Solar Facility Rietfontein 75MW 270ha (SEF) Hartbeeshoek 75MW 270ha (SEF) km Base Map Source : Chief Directorate : National Geo-Spatial Information 1: Topographic Series 3024CA De Aar (3) 2005, 3024CC Riet (3) 2005 Figure 12 De Aar Solar Facility: Cumulative Impacts : Other proposed solar power projects in the close vicinity scale 1 :