annex 5e visual ia report 20161111 - erm.comvisual impact assessment report version 1.0 – final...

Annex 5F

Visual Impact Assessment Report compiled by Newtown Landscape Architects cc, March 2015

Visual Impact Assessment Report

Version 1.0 – Final Report

March 2015

Document Ref. Prepared By Reviewed By Date Submitted to Kangra Coal for Review

0276091 Yonanda Martin – Newtown Landscape Architects cc

Alan Cochran March 2015

This report has been prepared by Environmental Resources Management the trading name of Environmental Resources Management Southern Africa (Pty) Limited, with all reasonable skill, care and diligence within the terms of the Contract with the client, incorporating our General Terms and Conditions of Business and taking account of the resources devoted to it by agreement with the client. We disclaim any responsibility to the client and others in respect of any matters outside the scope of the above. This report is confidential to the client and we accept no responsibility of whatsoever nature to third parties to whom this report, or any part thereof, is made known. Any such party relies on the report at their own risk.

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT KANGRA COAL (PTY) LTD.

I

CONTENTS

LIST OF ACRONYMS III

GLOSSARY OF TERMS IV

1 INTRODUCTION 1-1

1.1 TERMS OF REFERENCE 1-1

1.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND 1-1

1.3 SCOPE OF WORK 1-5

2 LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND GOOD PRACTICE STANDARDS 2-1

2.1 NATIONAL REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 2-1

2.2 INTERNATIONAL GUIDELINES 2-2

2.3 KANGRA COAL POLICIES 2-3

3 STUDY APPROACH AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY 3-1

3.1 STUDY APPROACH 3-1

3.2 IMPACT ASSESSMENT 3-5

4 RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT 4-1

4.1 THE STUDY AREA 4-1

4.2 SURROUNDING LAND USE 4-1

4.3 LANDSCAPE CHARACTER 4-3

5 VISUAL RESOURCE 5-1

5.1 VISUAL RESOURCE / SCENIC QUALITY 5-1

5.2 SENSITIVITY OF VISUAL RESOURCES 5-2

5.3 SENSE OF PLACE 5-2

6 VISUAL RECEPTORS 6-1

6.1 VIEWS 6-1

6.2 SENSITIVE VIEWER LOCATIONS 6-1

7 QUALIFICATION OF LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT 7-1

7.1 SEVERITY OF VISUAL IMPACT 7-1

8 IMPACT ASSESSMENT 8-1

8.1 IMPACTS TO THE LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL ENVIRONMENT DURING THE CONSTRUCTION

PHASE OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT 8-1

8.2 IMPACT TO THE LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL ENVIRONMENT DURING THE OPERATIONAL PHASE

OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT 8-4

8.3 IMPACTS TO THE LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL ENVIRONMENT DURING THE DECOMMISSIONING

PHASE OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT 8-7


II

9 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION 9-1

9.1 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS TO THE LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL ENVIRONMENT 9-1

10 CONCLUSION 10-1

10.1 VISUAL INTRUSION AND VISIBILITY 10-1

10.2 SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS RELATED TO LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL ENVIRONMENT 10-2

11 REFERENCES 11-1


III

LIST OF ACRONYMS

Abbreviation Full Definition

BAR Basic Assessment Report

CSIR Council for Scientific and Industrial Research

DMR Department of Minerals and Resources

DTM Digital Terrain Model

EAP Environmental Assessment Practitioner

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

ERM Environmental Resource Management (Pty) Ltd

ESIA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment

IFC International Financing Corporation

MRA Mineral Rights Application

SEMPR Social and Environmental Management Programme

IFC International Finance Corporation

NEMA National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998)

NLA Newtown Landscape Architects cc

VIA Visual Impact Assessment


IV

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Aesthetic Value

Aesthetic value is the emotional response derived from the experience of the

environment with its particular natural and cultural attributes. The response

can be either to visual or non-visual elements and can embrace sound, smell

and any other factor having a strong impact on human thoughts, feelings and

attitudes (Ramsay, 1993). Thus aesthetic value encompasses more than the

seen view, visual quality or scenery, and includes atmosphere, landscape

character and sense of place (Schapper, 1993).

Aesthetically Significant Place

A formally designated place visited by recreationists and others for the

express purpose of enjoying its beauty. For example, tens of thousands of

people visit Table Mountain on an annual basis. They come from around the

country and even from around the world. By these measurements, one can

make the case that Table Mountain (a designated National Park) is an

aesthetic resource of national significance. Similarly, a resource that is visited

by large numbers who come from across the region probably has regional

significance. A place visited primarily by people whose place of origin is local

is generally of local significance. Unvisited places either have no significance

or are "no trespass" places. (after New York, Department of Environment

2000).

Aesthetic Impact

Aesthetic impact occurs when there is a detrimental effect on the perceived

beauty of a place or structure. Mere visibility, even startling visibility of a

project proposal, should not be a threshold for decision making. Instead a

project, by virtue of its visibility, must clearly interfere with or reduce (i.e.

visual impact) the public's enjoyment and/or appreciation of the appearance

of a valued resource e.g. cooling tower blocks a view from a National Park

overlook (after New York, Department of Environment 2000).

Cumulative Effects

The summation of effects that result from changes caused by a development in

conjunction with the other past, present or reasonably foreseeable actions.

Landscape Character

The individual elements that make up the landscape, including prominent or

eye-catching features such as hills, valleys, woods, trees, water bodies,

buildings and roads. They are generally quantifiable and can be easily

described.

Landscape Impact


V

Landscape effects derive from changes in the physical landscape, which may

give rise to changes in its character and how this is experienced (Institute of

Environmental Assessment & The Landscape Institute, 1996).

Project Site

The proposed project site refers to the actual area where the Project

infrastructure is proposed – the Project footprint of the new Adit and the

associated conveyor system.

Study Area

It is the actual areas where the Project infrastructure is proposed and the

surrounding (receiving) social, physical and biophysical environment. For the

purposes of this report the study area refers to the proposed site as well as the

‘zone of potential influence’ (the area defined as the radius about the centre point of the project beyond which the visual impact of the most visible

features will be insignificant) which is a 5km radius surrounding the proposed

new Adit.

Sense of Place (genius loci)

Sense of place is the unique value that is allocated to a specific place or area

through the cognitive experience of the user or viewer. Genius loci literally

means ‘spirit of the place’.

Sensitive Receptors

Sensitivity of visual receptors (viewers) to a proposed development.

Viewshed Analysis

The two dimensional spatial pattern created by an analysis that defines areas,

which contain all possible observation sites from which an object would be

visible. The basic assumption for preparing a viewshed analysis is that the

observer eye height is 1,8m above ground level.

Visibility

The area from which project components would potentially be visible.

Visibility depends upon general topography, aspect, tree cover or other visual

obstruction, elevation and distance.

Visual Exposure

Visibility and visual intrusion qualified with a distance rating to indicate the

degree of intrusion and visual acuity, which is also influenced by weather and

light conditions.

Visual Impact

Visual effects relate to the changes that arise in the composition of available


VI

views as a result of changes to the landscape, to people’s responses to the changes, and to the overall effects with respect to visual amenity.

Visual Intrusion

The nature of intrusion of an object on the visual quality of the environment

resulting in its compatibility (absorbed into the landscape elements) or discord

(contrasts with the landscape elements) with the landscape and surrounding

land uses.

Worst-case Scenario

Principle applied where the environmental effects may vary, for example,

seasonally to ensure the most severe potential effect is assessed.

Zone of Potential Visual Influence

By determining the zone of potential visual influence it is possible to identify

the extent of potential visibility and views which could be affected by the

proposed development. Its maximum extent is the radius around an object

beyond which the visual impact of its most visible features will be

insignificant primarily due to distance.


VII

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Newtown Landscape Architects cc (NLA) was appointed by ERM to assess and evaluate the significance of potential visual impacts of the proposed Kangra Coal Maquasa West Project, specifically referring to the Main Adit and the conveyor system, on the visual environment. The proposed Project is located east of the Kangra Coal Maquasa Mine and the Driefontein residential area.

The proposed Project is located in an areas which has landscape types /

features with high aesthetic value (Mantshangwe Mountains, Heyshope Dam

and Ohlelo River) and features with low aesthetic value (mining, informal

residential). It can therefore be said that the visual resource (aesthetic value)

has an overall moderate value.

Potential sensitive viewers identified include the rural villages / rural residential dwellings located within the Project. During the construction period the proposed Project will have a minor negative impact which can be reduced to negligible should the mitigation measures be implemented successfully. During this period the visual impact will mainly be due to dust and the visibility of the construction activities. The operational phase will result in dust and visibility of the structures and will contribute to a minor negative impact pre-mitigation and a negligible negative impact after mitigation measures have been implemented successfully. During the decommissioning and closure phase the structures will be removed which will result in a low negative impact that can be reduced to a negligible impact should mitigation be implemented successfully. The biggest concern during this period is dust. Mitigation measures which will contribute to a lower visual impact, if implemented successfully include the following:

Dust suppression

Correct lighting

Good housekeeping during construction


1-1

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 TERMS OF REFERENCE

Environmental Resources Management Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd. (ERM) were

appointed by Kangra Coal (Pty) Ltd. (Kangra Coal) to undertake the function

of independent Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP) and undertake

the relevant Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Processes for the

proposed new Adit and conveyor system for the Kangra Coal Kusipongo

Expansion Project (the Project). A Basic Assessment processes will be

undertaken as the proposed Project requires the following environmental

authorisations/licenses:

Mining Rights from the Regional (Mpumalanga) Department of Minerals

and Resources (DMR) in terms of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources

Development Act (No. 28 of 2002) (MPRDA).

Environmental Authorisation from the Regional (Mpumalanga)

Department of Economic Development, Environment and Tourism

(DEDET) in terms of the National Environmental Management Act (No.

107 of 1998) (NEMA).

Newtown Landscape Architects cc (NLA) was contracted by ERM to assess

and evaluate the significance of potential visual impacts of the proposed

Kangra Coal Kusipongo Expansion Project on the visual environment, and to

develop a Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) Report (this report). The VIA is

specifically for the construction of a new Adit as well as the conveyor system

(the Project) and will form part of the Basic Assessment Report (BAR).

1.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND

Kangra Coal’s original mining right application for the Kusipongo Coal Reserve was rejected by the DMR. Kangra has subsequently revised their

layout to remove the surface infrastructure from within the MRA area to an

area within the Maquasa West Extension (which has existing rights). This

process will require the EIA for the Mining Right Application (MRA) for the

revised layout as well as the Section 102 Amendment related to establishing

the surface infrastructure within this existing right on Maquasa West

Extension (see attached map).

The proposed project is located within the Mkhondo and Dr. Pixley Kalsaka

Seme Local Municipalities (which form part of the Gert Sibane District

Municipality) in Mpumalanga, which is approximately 51km west-south-west

from Piet Retief and 64km south east from Ermelo (refer to Figure 1.1).


1-2

The whole proposed mining operation will be underground and the coal will

be taken out via a new adit connected to the existing underground operations.

The new access adit and conveyor will be developed within the existing

Maquasa West Expansion.

Figure 1.1 Project Locality

Figure 1.2 Location of Mine Site Infrastructure


1-5

1.3 SCOPE OF WORK

A specialist study is required to investigate the visual impact of the proposed

Project. Based on the general requirements for a Visual Impact Assessment

(VIA), this report sets out the following Scope of Work:

1.3.1 Part 1: Baseline Study

Site Visit: A field survey was undertaken (16 March 2015) and the Study

Area scrutinized to the extent that the receiving environment could be

documented and adequately described;

Landscape Character: The landscape character was determined by aerial

photographic interpretation as well as the aforementioned field survey;

Scenic Value of the Landscape: The scenic value (beauty) of the landscape

was determined as a measurement of the union of ecological integrity

(overall health of the landscape) and aesthetic appeal. Aesthetic appeal is

described using contemporary research in perceptual psychology and the

opinion of the specialist is used for determining the scenic value of the

landscape;

Sense of Place: The sense of place of the Study Area will be evaluated as to

the uniqueness and distinctiveness of the landscape. The primary

informants of these qualities are the spatial form, character and the natural

landscape together with the cultural transformations and tradition

associated with the historic and current use of the land of the Study Area,

and

Sensitive Viewers: Sensitive viewers were determined by aerial

photographic interpretation as well as the field survey.

1.3.2 Part 2: Visual Impact Assessment

The objectives of the VIA includes determination of the following:

Visual Intrusion: Photographs taken from key viewing areas (adjacent

landowner properties) were digitally manipulated to simulate the physical

presence and nature of the visual intrusion of the proposed Project

components;

Visibility and Visual Exposure: Visibility of the proposed Project was

determined by conducting a viewshed analysis. A Semi-quantitative digital

terrain model (DTM) which consists of features that normally occur on 1 :

50 000 maps, such as roads and settlements, were “draped” over contours (derived from 1 : 50 000 maps) to generate an analysis that determines all

potential observation sites (the viewshed) from which the proposed Project

would be visible. Visual exposure is determined by the relative distance of

the viewer from the proposed Project;


1-6

Impact on the Visual Environment and the Sense of Place of the Study

Area: Using visual intrusion, visibility and visual exposure criteria, along

with criteria that determine the sense of place, the magnitude of the impact

on the visual environment and sense of place were predicted. The

significance of the impact was then qualified in terms of sensitivity

(landscape and visual receptors), extent, duration and probability of the

impact. The cumulative impact of visual impacts of the operational

activities was also identified and rated; and

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures to reduce the visual impact and

the impact on the sense of place are proposed for all three phases of the

Project. A simulation of the proposed measures was produced to determine

the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation action.

1.3.3 Author of the Visual Impact Assessment

Yonanda Martin has a B.Sc Degree in Environmental Science from the

University of North West, Potchefstroom Campus (2003). M.Sc Degree in

Ecological Remediation and Sustainable Utilization from the University of

North West, Potchefstroom Campus (2007). She has 6 years’ experience in Visual Impact Assessments and is currently employed by Newtown

Landscape Architects. Her work experience includes the following projects:

Dorsfontein West Expansion, Kriel

Mine Waste Solutions, Stilfontein

Ferreira Coal Mining, Ermelo

De Wittekrans Mining, Hendrina

Grootvlei PV Development, Grootvlei

Swakop Uranium Husab Project, Namibia

Omitiomire Mine Project, Namibia


2-1

2 LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND GOOD PRACTICE STANDARDS

This Section details the legal requirements that are relevant to the VIA.

2.1 NATIONAL REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

2.1.1 Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (No. 108 of 1996)

Summary of Constitution

The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa is the legal source for all law,

including environmental law, in South Africa. The Bill of Rights is

fundamental to the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa and in Section

24 states that:

Everyone has the right (a) to an environment that is not harmful to their health or

well-being; and (b) to have the environment protected, for the benefit of present and

future generations through reasonable legislative and other measures that (i) prevent

pollution and ecological degradation; (ii) promote conservation; and (iii) secure

ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting

justifiable economic and social development.

Applicability to Project

The residents of the immediate and surrounding area have the basic

constitutional right to a protected environment that is not unnecessarily

and/or irreparably damaged by any industrial or related development.

2.1.2 National Environmental Management Act (Act No. 107 of 1998)

Summary of Act

The National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) is a framework which

provides guidance on environmental management in South Africa.


This VIA report is in accordance to the specification on conducting specialist

studies and the mitigation measures as stipulated in the specialist report can

be used as part of the Social and Environmental Management Programme

(SEMPR).

2.1.3 The National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act (Act No. 57 of 2003)

Summary of Act

The main aim of the Act is to identify and protect natural landscapes.


2-2


The proposed Project will need to ensure that the visual/landscape value of

protected areas is protected.

2.1.4 The National Heritage Resources Act (Act No. 25 of 1999)

Summary of Act

The main aim of the Act is to protect the heritage resources of South Africa.


The Act is applicable to the protection of heritage resources and includes

visual resources such as cultural landscapes, nature reserves, proclaimed

scenic routes and urban conservation areas.

2.1.5 Western Cape Department of Environmental Affairs & Development

Planning: Guideline for Involving Visual and Aesthetic Specialists in EIA Processes Edition 1 (CSIR, 2005)

Summary of Guidelines

Although the guidelines were specifically compiled for the Province of the

Western Cape it provides guidance that will be appropriate for any VIA

process. The Guideline document also seeks to clarify instances when a visual

specialist should get involved in the EIA process.


The Guidelines provide guidance on how Visual Impact Assessments need to

be conducted.

2.2 INTERNATIONAL GUIDELINES

2.2.1 World Bank IFC Standards

Summary of Standards

The World Bank International Financing Corporation (IFC) Standards provide

a guideline for environmental management and impact assessments,

specifically referring to the mining industry.


The World Bank’s IFC Standards: Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines for Mining refers to VIAs by stating that:

“Mining operations, and in particular surface mining activities, may result in

negative visual impacts to resources associated with other landscape uses such as

recreation or tourism. Potential contributors to visual impacts include high walls,

erosion, discoloured water, haul roads, waste dumps, slurry ponds, abandoned mining


2-3

equipment and structures, garbage and refuse dumps, open pits, and deforestation.

Mining operations should prevent and minimize negative visual impacts through

consultation with local communities about potential post-closure land use,

incorporating visual impact assessment into the mine reclamation process. Reclaimed

lands should, to the extent feasible, conform to the visual aspects of the surrounding

landscape. The reclamation design and procedures should take into consideration the

proximity to public viewpoints and the visual impact within the context of the

viewing distance. Mitigation measures may include strategic placement of screening

materials including trees and use of appropriate plant species in the reclamation phase

as well as modification in the placement of ancillary facilities and access roads.”

This VIA is in accordance with the IFC Performance Standards (Performance

Standard 1: Social and Environmental Assessment and Management Systems)

for the undertaking of Environmental Assessments and contributes to the

ESIA for the proposed Project. These standards together with the National

Regulations and Guidelines have been used to inform the standard of the

Visual Impact Report as structured by Newtown Landscape Architects.

Kangra Coal will not seek international funding and therefore the Visual

Impact Assessment does not have to be in conformance with the IFC

Standards.

2.3 KANGRA COAL POLICIES

Kangra Coal is committed to responsible environmental stewardship and

sustainable business practices; Kangra Coal pledges to improve their overall

environmental performance across all their business activities. Kangra Coal

encourages their business partners and members of the entire Kangra group to

participate in this endeavour.

In accordance with this Environmental Policy, Kangra Coal strives for

compliance with all environmental laws and commits to manage all of its

activities in the environment. Of applicability to this study, Kangra Coal

pledges to:

Adopt the highest environmental standards in all areas of its operations,

meeting and exceeding all relevant legislative requirements to which

Kangra subscribes to;

Regularly evaluating the existing and potential impact of its operations

(including those relating to work undertaken by all staff) on the

environment;

Continuously improving on the overall company’s environmental performance; and

Continuously conducting research to increase the knowledge on the

environmental effects of Kangra Coal’s relative activities and development


2-4

or adoption of appropriate processes, technologies and equipment to meet

anticipated environmental needs.


3-1

3 STUDY APPROACH AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

3.1 STUDY APPROACH

The assessment of likely effects on a landscape resource and on visual amenity

is complex, since it is determined through a combination of quantitative and

qualitative evaluations (The Landscape Institute with the Institute of

Environmental Management and Assessment, 2002). When assessing visual

impacts the worst-case scenario is taken into account.

Although landscape and visual assessments are linked they are treated

separately. The landscape, its analysis and the assessment of impacts on the

landscape all contribute to the baseline for VIA studies. The assessment of

potential impacts on the landscape is carried out as an impact on an

environmental resource, i.e. the physical landscape. Visual impacts, on the

other hand, are assessed as one of the interrelated effects on people (i.e. the

viewers and the impact of an introduced object into a particular view or

scene).

3.1.1 Visual Resource

Landscape character, landscape quality (Warnock, S. & Brown, N., 1998) and

sense of place (Lynch, K., 1992) are used to evaluate the visual resource i.e. the

receiving visual environment.

Aesthetic value is the emotional response derived from the experience of the

environment with its particular natural and cultural attributes. The response is

usually to both visual and non-visual elements and can embrace sound, smell

and any other factor having a strong impact on human thoughts, feelings and

attitudes (Ramsay, 1993). As a result, aesthetic value is more than the

combined factors of the seen view, visual quality or scenery. It includes

atmosphere, landscape character and sense of place (Schapper, 1993) (refer to

Appendix B for further information). In this study, the aesthetic evaluation of

the Study Area is determined by the professional opinion of the author (based

on site observations) and the results of contemporary research in perceptual

psychology.

Studies for perceptual psychology have shown human preference for

landscapes with higher visual complexity, for instance scenes with water or

topographic interest. On the basis of contemporary research, landscape quality

increases where:

Topographic ruggedness and relative relief increase;

Water forms are present;

Diverse patterns of grassland and trees occur;

Natural landscape increases and man-made landscape decreases; and


3-2

Where land use compatibility increases (Crawford, 1994).

Aesthetic appeal (value) is therefore considered high when the following are

present (Ramsay, 1993):

Abstract Qualities – such as the presence of vivid, distinguished,

uncommon or rare features or abstract attributes;

Evocative Responses – the ability of the landscape to evoke particularly

strong responses in community members or visitors;

Meanings – the existence of a long-standing special meaning to a particular

group of people or the ability of the landscape to convey special meanings

to viewers in general; and

Landmark Quality – a particular feature that stands out and is recognized

by the broader community.

And conversely, it would be low where (Crawford, 1994):

Limited patterns of grasslands and trees occur;

Natural landscape decreases and man-made landscape increases; and

And where land use compatibility decreases.

In determining the quality of the visual resource, both the objective and the

subjective (or aesthetic) factors associated with the landscape are considered.

Many landscapes can be said to have a strong sense of place, regardless of

whether they are considered to be scenically beautiful but where landscape

quality, aesthetic value and a strong sense of place coincide - the visual

resource or perceived value of the landscape is considered to be very high.

The criteria given in Appendix B are used to assess landscape quality, sense of

place and were used to determine the aesthetic value of the Study Area.

3.1.2 Sensitivity of Visual Resource

The sensitivity of a landscape or visual resource is the degree to which a

particular landscape type or area can accommodate change arising from a

particular development, without detrimental effects on its character. Its

determination is based upon an evaluation of each key element or

characteristic of the landscape likely to be affected. The evaluation will reflect

such factors such as its quality, value, contribution to landscape character, and

the degree to which the particular element or characteristic can be replaced or

substituted (Institute of Environmental Assessment & The Landscape

Institute, 1996:87).


3-3

3.1.3 Sense of Place

Central to the concept of sense of place is that the landscape requires

uniqueness and distinctiveness. The primary informant of these qualities is the

spatial form and character of the natural landscape taken together with the

cultural transformations and traditions associated with the historic use and

habitation of the area. According to Lynch (1992), sense of place is –

“the extent to which a person can recognize or recall a place as being distinct from

other places – as having a vivid, unique, or at least particular, character of its own”.

Sense of place is the unique value that is allocated to a specific place or area

through the cognitive experience of the user or viewer. In some cases these

values allocated to the place are similar for a wide spectrum of users or

viewers, giving the place a universally recognized and therefore, strong sense

of place.

Because the sense of place of the Study Area is derived from the emotional,

aesthetic and visual response to the environment, it cannot be experienced in

isolation. The landscape context must be considered. With this in mind, the

combination of the natural landscape (mountains, streams and the vegetation)

together with the manmade structures (residential areas, roads, mining

activities and power lines) contribute to the sense of place for the Study Area.

It is these land-uses, which define the area and establish its identity.

3.1.4 Sensitive Viewer Locations

The sensitivity of visual receptors and views are dependent on the location

and context of the viewpoint, the expectations and occupation or activity of

the receptor or the importance of the view. This may be determined with

respect to its popularity or numbers of people affected, its appearance in

guidebooks, on tourist maps, and in the facilities provided for its enjoyment

and references to it in literature or art.

The most sensitive receptors may include:

Users of all outdoor recreational facilities including public rights of way,

whose intention or interest may be focused on the landscape;

Communities where development results in changes in the landscape

setting or valued views enjoyed by the community; and

Occupiers of residential properties with views affected by the

development.

Other receptors include:


3-4

People engaged in outdoor sport or recreation (other than appreciation of

the landscape, as in landscapes of acknowledged importance or value);

People traveling through or past the affected landscape in cars or other

transport modes; and

People at their place of work.

Views from residences and tourist facilities / routes are typically more sensitive, since views these are considered to be frequent and of long duration.

3.1.5 Landscape Impact

The landscape impact of a proposed development is measured as the change

to the fabric, character and quality of the landscape caused by the physical

presence of the proposed development. Identifying and describing the nature

and intensity of change in the landscape brought about by the proposed new

mine is based on the professional opinion of the author supported by

photographic simulations. It is imperative to depict the change to the

landscape in as realistic a manner as possible (Van Dortmont in Lange, 1994).

In order to do this, photographic panoramas were taken from key viewpoints

and altered using computer simulation techniques to illustrate the physical

nature of the proposed Project in its final form within the context of the

landscape setting. The resultant change to the landscape is then observable

and an assessment of the anticipated visual intrusion can be made.

3.1.6 Visual Impact

Visual impacts are a subset of landscape impacts. Visual impacts relate to the

changes that arise in the composition of available views as a result of changes

to the landscape, to people’s responses to the changes, and to the overall effect with respect to visual amenity. Visual impact is therefore measured as the

change to the existing visual environment (i.e. views) caused by the

intervention and the extent to which that change compromises (negative

impact) or enhances (positive impact) or maintains the visual quality of the

scene as perceived by people visiting, working or living in the area. This

approach reflects the layman’s concerns, which normally are:

Will I be able to see the new development?

What will it look like?

Will the development affect views in the area and if so how?

Landscape and visual impacts do not necessarily coincide. Landscape impacts

can occur with the absence of visual impacts, for instance where a

development is wholly screened from available public views, but nonetheless

results in a loss of landscape elements and landscape character within a

localized area (the site and its immediate surrounds).


3-5

3.1.7 Severity of Visual Impact

The severity of visual impact is determined using visual intrusion, visibility

and visual exposure criteria (Hull, R.B. and Bishop, I.E., 1988), qualified by the

sensitivity of viewers (visual receptors) towards the proposed development.

The severity of visual impact is therefore concerned with:

The overall impact on the visual amenity, which can range from

degradation through to enhancement;

The direct impacts of the mine upon views of the landscape through

intrusion or obstruction; and

The reactions of viewers who may be affected.

Refer to Figure 3.1 below for the overview of the visual impact assessment

process.

Figure 3.1 Visual Impact Process

3.2 IMPACT ASSESSMENT

The impact assessment stage comprises a number of steps that collectively

assess the manner in which the Project will interact with elements of the

physical, biological, cultural or human environment to produce impacts to

resources/receptors. The steps involved in the impact assessment stage are

described in greater detail below.


3-6

The impact characteristic terminology to be used is summarised in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1 Impact Characteristic Terminology

Characteristic Definition Designations

Type A descriptor indicating the relationship of the impact to the Project (in terms of cause and effect).

Direct Indirect Induced

Extent The “reach” of the impact (e.g., confined to a small area around the Project Footprint, projected for several kilometres, etc.).

Local Regional International

Duration The time period over which a resource / receptor is affected.

Temporary Short-term Long-term Permanent

Scale The size of the impact (e.g., the size of the area damaged or impacted, the fraction of a resource that is lost or affected, etc.)

[no fixed designations; intended to be a numerical value]

Frequency A measure of the constancy or periodicity of the impact.

[no fixed designations; intended to be a numerical value]

In the case of type, the designations are defined universally (i.e., the same

definitions apply to all resources/receptors and associated impacts). For these

universally-defined designations, the definitions are provided in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2 Designation Definitions

Designation Definition

Type

Direct Impacts that result from a direct interaction between the Project and a resource/receptor (e.g., between occupation of a plot of land and the habitats which are affected).

Indirect Impacts that follow on from the direct interactions between the Project and its environment as a result of subsequent interactions within the environment (e.g., viability of a species population resulting from loss of part of a habitat as a result of the Project occupying a plot of land).

Induced Impacts that result from other activities (which are not part of the Project) that happen as a consequence of the Project (e.g., influx of camp followers resulting from the importation of a large Project workforce).

Extent

Local

Defined on a resource/receptor-specific basis. Regional

International

Duration

Temporary

Defined on a resource/receptor-specific basis. Short-term

Long-term

Permanent

In the case of extent and duration, the designations themselves (shown in

Table 3.1) are universally consistent, but the definitions for these designations

will vary on a resource/receptor basis (e.g., the definition of what constitutes


3-7

a “short term” duration for a noise-related impact may differ from that of a

“short term” duration for a habitat-related impact). This concept is discussed

further below.

In the case of scale and frequency, these characteristics are not assigned fixed

designations, as they are typically numerical measurements (e.g., number of

acres affected, number of times per day, etc.).

The terminology and designations are provided to ensure consistency when

these characteristics are described in an impact assessment deliverable.

However, it is not a requirement that each of these characteristics be discussed

for every impact identified.

An additional characteristic that pertains only to unplanned events (e.g.,

traffic accident, operational release of toxic gas, community riot, etc.) is

likelihood. The likelihood of an unplanned event occurring is designated using

a qualitative (or semi-quantitative, where appropriate data are available) scale,

as described in Table 3.3.

Table 3.3 Definitions for Likelihood Designations

Likelihood Definition

Unlikely The event is unlikely but may occur at some time during normal operating conditions.

Possible The event is likely to occur at some time during normal operating conditions.

Likely The event will occur during normal operating conditions (i.e., it is essentially inevitable).

Likelihood is estimated on the basis of experience and/or evidence that such

an outcome has previously occurred.

It is important to note that likelihood is a measure of the degree to which the

unplanned event is expected to occur, not the degree to which an impact or

effect is expected to occur as a result of the unplanned event. The latter

concept is referred to as uncertainty, and this is typically dealt with in a

contextual discussion in the impact assessment deliverable, rather than in the

impact significance assignment process.

In the case of impacts resulting from unplanned events, the same

resource/receptor-specific approach to concluding a magnitude designation is

utilised, but the ‘likelihood’ factor is considered, together with the other

impact characteristics, when assigning a magnitude designation. There is an

inherent challenge in discussing impacts resulting from (planned) Project

activities and those resulting from unplanned events. To avoid the need to

fully elaborate on an impact resulting from an unplanned event prior to

discussing what could be a very low likelihood of occurrence for the

unplanned event, this methodology incorporates likelihood into the

magnitude designation (i.e., in parallel with consideration of the other impact

characteristics), so that the “likelihood-factored” magnitude can then be


3-8

considered with the resource/receptor sensitivity/vulnerability/importance

in order to assign impact significance. Rather than taking a prescriptive (e.g.,

matrix) approach to factoring likelihood into the magnitude designation

process, it is recommended that this be done based on professional judgment,

possibly assisted by quantitative data (e.g., modelling, frequency charts)

where available.

Once the impact characteristics are understood, these characteristics are used

(in a manner specific to the resource/receptor in question) to assign each

impact a magnitude. In summary, magnitude is a function of the following

impact characteristics:

Extent;

Duration;

Scale;

Frequency; and

Likelihood.

Magnitude essentially describes the degree of change that the impact is likely

to impart upon the resource/receptor. As in the case of extent and duration,

the magnitude designations themselves (i.e., negligible, small, medium, large)

are universally used and across resources/receptors, but the definitions for

these designations will vary on a resource/receptor basis, as is discussed

further below. The universal magnitude designations are:

Positive;

Negligible;

Small;

Medium; and

Large.

The magnitude of impacts takes into account all the various dimensions of a

particular impact in order to make a determination as to where the impact

falls on the spectrum (in the case of adverse impacts) from negligible to large.

Some impacts will result in changes to the environment that may be

immeasurable, undetectable or within the range of normal natural variation.

Such changes can be regarded as essentially having no impact, and should be

characterised as having a negligible magnitude. In the case of positive impacts

no magnitude will be assigned.

In addition to characterising the magnitude of impact, the other principal step

necessary to assign significance for a given impact is to define the

sensitivity/vulnerability/importance of the impacted resource/receptor.

There are a range of factors to be taken into account when defining the

sensitivity/vulnerability/importance of the resource/receptor, which may be

physical, biological, cultural or human. Where the resource is physical (for

example, a water body) its quality, sensitivity to change and importance (on a

local, national and international scale) are considered. Where the

resource/receptor is biological or cultural (for example, the marine


3-9

environment or a coral reef), its importance (for example, its local, regional,

national or international importance) and its sensitivity to the specific type of

impact are considered. Where the receptor is human, the vulnerability of the

individual, community or wider societal group is considered.

Other factors may also be considered when characterising

sensitivity/vulnerability/importance, such as legal protection, government

policy, stakeholder views and economic value.

As in the case of magnitude, the sensitivity/vulnerability/importance

designations themselves are universally consistent, but the definitions for

these designations will vary on a resource/receptor basis. The universal

sensitivity/vulnerability/importance designations are:

Low;

Medium; and

High.

Once magnitude of impact and sensitivity/vulnerability/importance of

resource/receptor have been characterised, the significance can be assigned

for each impact.

Impact significance is designated using the matrix shown in Table 3.4.

Table 3.4 Impact Significances

Sensitivity/Vulnerability/Importance of Resource/Receptor

Low Medium High

Ma

gn

itu

de

of

Imp

act

Negligible Negligible

Negligible

Negligible

Small Negligible

Minor Moderate

Medium Minor

Moderate Major

Large Moderate

Major Major

The matrix applies universally to all resources/receptors, and all impacts to

these resources/receptors, as the resource/receptor- or impact-specific

considerations are factored into the assignment of magnitude and sensitivity

designations that enter into the matrix. Box 3.1 provides a context for what the

various impact significance ratings signify.


3-10

Box 3.1 Context of Impact Significances

3.2.1 Mitigation of Impacts

Once the significance of a given impact has been characterised using the above

matrix, the next step is to evaluate what mitigation measures are warranted.

In keeping with the Mitigation Hierarchy, the priority in mitigation is to first

apply mitigation measures to the source of the impact (i.e., to avoid or reduce

the magnitude of the impact from the associated Project activity), and then to

address the resultant effect to the resource/receptor via abatement or

compensatory measures or offsets (i.e., to reduce the significance of the effect

once all reasonably practicable mitigations have been applied to reduce the

impact magnitude).

It is important to have a solid basis for recommending mitigation measures.

The role of any impact assessment is to help our clients develop a consentable

Project, and to help them achieve their business objectives in a responsible

manner. Impact assessment is about identifying the aspects of a Project that

need to be managed, and demonstrating how these have been appropriately

dealt with and left a good quality and appropriate development. As key

influencers in the decision making process, the role of the impact assessment

is not to stop development or propose every possible mitigation or

compensatory measure imaginable, but rather to make balanced judgements

as to what is warranted, informed by a high quality evidence base.

Additional mitigation measures should not be declared for impacts rated as

not significant, unless the associated activity is related to conformance with an

‘end of pipe’ applicable requirement. Further, it is important to note that it is not an absolute necessity that all impacts be mitigated to a not significant

level; rather the objective is to mitigate impacts to an ALARP level.

Embedded controls (i.e., physical or procedural controls that are planned as

part of the Project design and are not added in response to an impact

significance assignment), are considered as part of the Project (prior to

entering the impact assessment stage of the impact assessment process).

An impact of negligible significance is one where a resource/receptor (including people) will essentially not be affected in any way by a particular activity or the predicted effect is deemed to be ‘imperceptible’ or is indistinguishable from natural background variations. An impact of minor significance is one where a resource/receptor will experience a noticeable effect, but the impact magnitude is sufficiently small (with or without mitigation) and/or the resource/receptor is of low sensitivity/ vulnerability/ importance. In either case, the magnitude should be well within applicable standards. An impact of moderate significance has an impact magnitude that is within applicable standards, but falls somewhere in the range from a threshold below which the impact is minor, up to a level that might be just short of breaching a legal limit. Clearly, to design an activity so that its effects only just avoid breaking a law and/or cause a major impact is not best practice. The emphasis for moderate impacts is therefore on demonstrating that the impact has been reduced to a level that is as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP). This does not necessarily mean that impacts of moderate significance have to be reduced to minor, but that moderate impacts are being managed effectively and efficiently.


3-11

3.2.2 Residual Impact

Once mitigation measures are declared, the next step in the impact assessment

process is to assign residual impact significance. This is essentially a repeat of

the impact assessment steps discussed above, considering the assumed

implementation of the additional declared mitigation measures.

3.2.3 Cumulative Impacts/Effects

Cumulative impacts and effects are those that arise as a result of an impact

and effect from the Project interacting with those from another activity to

create an additional impact and effect. These are termed cumulative impacts

and effects.

The impact assessment process should predict any cumulative impacts/effects

to which the Project may contribute. The approach for assessing cumulative

impacts and effects resulting from the Project and another activity affecting

the same resource/receptor is based on a consideration of the

approval/existence status of the ‘other’ activity and the nature of information available to aid in predicting the magnitude of impact from the other activity.


4-1

4 RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT

This description of the baseline environment is essential in that it represents

the conditions of the environment before the construction of the proposed

Adit and conveyor system on the Consolidated 133MR. The description of the

baseline environment therefore provides a description of the current

environment against which the impact of the proposed Project can be assessed

and future changes monitored.

The information presented in this Section has been collected from desktop

studies and supplemented with site visits to the Study Area.

4.1 THE STUDY AREA

The proposed Project is located to the south-west and west of the town of

Driefontein and the Heyshope dam respectively. The Study Area is currently

mainly used as grazing fields with some scattered small subsistence farming

areas. Intensive agricultural activities and plantations are located within the

greater area. The Study Area can be characterised as having a rolling

topography, which is mainly due to the Mantshangwe Mountain Range and

the rivers / streams that cross the area. The Mantshangwe Mountain Range is

currently utilised for underground mining activities. The existing Maquasa

East and West Plant and open cast mining activities are located within the

proposed Study Area. There are a couple of small villages / rural residential

dwellings scattered throughout the site (refer to Figure 1.2).

4.2 SURROUNDING LAND USE

This Section details the varying land uses located within and surrounding the

Study Area, and has reference to Figure 4.1 overleaf.

annex 5e visual ia report 20161111 - erm.comvisual impact assessment report version 1.0 – final...

Documents