proposed project blue wind energy and pv facility in …

PROPOSED PROJECT BLUE WIND ENERGY AND PV FACILITY IN THE NORTHERN CAPE PROVICE

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AS PART OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT PROCESS

Produced for: WWK Development (Pty) Ltd

Produced by:

MetroGIS (Pty) Ltd. PO Box 384, La Montagne, 0184

Tel: (012) 349 2884/5 Fax: (012) 349 2880 E-mail: [email protected] Web: www.metrogis.co.za

On behalf of: Savannah Environmental (Pty) Ltd.

PO Box 148, Sunninghill, 2157 Tel: (011) 234 6621 Fax: 086 684 0547

E-mail: [email protected] Web: www.savannahSA.com

- June 2012 -

1

CONTENTS 1. STUDY APPROACH 3 1.1. Qualification and Experience of the Practitioner 3 1.2. Assumptions and Limitations 3 1.3. Level of Confidence 3 1.4. Methodology 4 2. BACKGROUND 2.1 Wind Energy Facility 6 2.2 Solar Energy Facility 7 3. SCOPE OF WORK 9 4. LEGISLATION AND GUIDELINES CONSIDERED IN THE PREPARATION

OF THE BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT 9 5. THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 9 6. RESULTS 15 6.1 Potential visual exposure 15 6.2 Visual distance / observer proximity to the facility 18 6.3. Viewer incidence / viewer perception 19 6.4. Visual absorption capacity 22 6.5. Visual impact index 22 6.6 Visual impact assessment: methodology 28 6.7 Visual impact assessment: primary impacts 29 6.8. Visual impact assessment: secondary impacts 38 6.9. The potential to mitigate visual impacts 39 7. PHOTOGRAPHIC SIMULATIONS 40 8. CONCLUSION / RECOMMENDATIONS 49 9. IMPACT STATEMENT 49 10. MANAGEMENT PLAN 50 11. REFERENCES / DATA SOURCES 54 MAPS Map 1: Shaded relief map (indicating the location of the proposed facility and the

topography and elevation above sea level) of the study area. Map 2: Land cover and broad land use patterns within the study area. Map 3: Potential visual exposure of the proposed WEF. Map 4: Potential visual exposure of the proposed PV plant. Map 5: Observer proximity to the proposed PV plant and areas of viewer

incidence. Map 6: Observer proximity to the proposed WEF and areas of high viewer

incidence. Map 7: Visual impact index of the proposed WEF. Map 8: Visual impact index of the proposed PV Plant.

2

FIGURES

Figure 1: Image of a wind turbine being considered for this project.

Figure 2: The R355 approaching Kleinzee with 220kV power lines crossing the road (in the vicinity of the Gromis Substation).

Figure 3: Typical visual quality of vegetation and topography within the study area (north of Kelinzee).

Figure 4: Visual quality of the receiving environment east of Kleinzee (overlooking the Buffels River valley in the middle distance).

Figure 5: Outskirts of the town of Kleinzee (from the R355). Figure 6: Typical visual quality of the mining areas (to the south of Kleinzee).

Figure 7: Typical scene near Kleinzee illustrating low visual absorption capacity (VAC) of the landscape.

Figure 2: Visual experience of a wind turbine structure at a distance of 1km, 2km, 5km and 10km.

TABLES

Table 1: Level of confidence.

Table 2: Impact table summarising the significance of visual impacts on users of arterial and secondary roads in close proximity to the proposed facility.

Table 3: Impact table summarising the significance of visual impacts on residents in Kleinzee.

Table 4: Impact table summarising the significance of visual impacts on the sense of place around Grootmis.

Table 5: Impact table summarising the significance of visual impact of ancillary infrastructure on observers in close proximity to the facility.

Table 6: Impact table summarising the significance of visual impact of shadow flicker on observers in close proximity thereto.

Table 7: Impact table summarising the significance of visual impact of lighting on visual receptors in close proximity of the proposed facility.

Table 8: Impact table summarising the significance of visual impact of construction on visual receptors in close proximity to the proposed facility.

Table 9: Impact table summarising the significance of visual impacts on the visual character and sense of place of the region.

Table 10: Management Programme – Planning. Table 11: Management Programme – Construction. Table 12: Management Programme – Operation. Table 13: Management Programme – Decommissioning.

3

1. STUDY APPROACH 1.1. Qualification and Experience of the Practitioner MetroGIS (Pty) Ltd, specialising in visual assessment and Geographic Information Systems, undertook this visual assessment. Lourens du Plessis and Dawie van Vuuren, the practitioners undertaking the assessment, have been involved in the application of Geographical Information Systems (GIS) in Environmental Management and Development Management since 1989. The team undertaking the visual assessment has extensive practical knowledge in spatial analysis, environmental modelling and digital mapping, and applies this knowledge in various scientific fields and disciplines. The expertise of these practitioners is often utilised in Environmental Impact Assessments, State of the Environment Reports and Environmental Management Plans. The visual assessment team is familiar with the "Guidelines for Involving Visual and Aesthetic Specialists in EIA Processes" (Provincial Government of the Western Cape: Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning) and utilises the principles and recommendations stated therein to successfully undertake visual impact assessments. Although the guidelines have been developed with specific reference to the Western Cape province of South Africa, the core elements are more widely applicable. Savannah Environmental (Pty) Ltd appointed MetroGIS (Pty) Ltd as an independent specialist consultant to undertake the visual impact assessment for the Proposed Project Blue Renewable Energy Facility in the Northern Cape Province. Neither the author or MetroGIS will benefit from the outcome of the project decision-making. 1.2. Assumptions and Limitations This assessment was undertaken during the planning stage of the project and is based on information available at that time. 1.3. Level of Confidence Level of confidence1 is determined as a function of:

The information available, and understanding of the study area by the practitioner:

3: A high level of information is available of the study area and a

thorough knowledge base could be established during site visits, surveys etc. The study area was readily accessible.

2: A moderate level of information is available of the study area and a moderate knowledge base could be established during site visits, surveys etc. Accessibility to the study area was acceptable for the level of assessment.

1: Limited information is available of the study area and a poor knowledge base could be established during site visits and/or surveys, or no site visit and/or surveys were carried out.

1 Adapted from Oberholzer (2005).

4

The information available, understanding of the study area and experience of this type of project by the practitioner:

3: A high level of information and knowledge is available of the project and the visual impact assessor is well experienced in this type of project and level of assessment.

2: A moderate level of information and knowledge is available of the project and/or the visual impact assessor is moderately experienced in this type of project and level of assessment.

1: Limited information and knowledge is available of the project and/or the visual impact assessor has a low experience level in this type of project and level of assessment.

These values are applied as follows:

Table 1: Level of confidence.

Information on the project & experience of the practitioner

Information on the study

area

3 2 1 3 9 6 3 2 6 4 2 1 3 2 1

The level of confidence for this assessment is determined to be 9 and indicates that the author’s confidence in the accuracy of the findings is high:

The information available, and understanding of the study area by the practitioner is rated as 3 and

The information available, understanding and experience of this type of project by the practitioner is rated as 3.

1.4. Methodology The study was undertaken using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) technology as a tool to generate viewshed analyses and to apply relevant spatial criteria to the proposed facility. A detailed Digital Terrain Model (DTM) for the study area was created from 20m interval contours supplied by the Chief Directorate National Geo-Spatial Information. The approach utilised to identify issues related to the visual impact included the following activities:

The creation of a detailed digital terrain model (DTM) of the potentially affected environment;

The sourcing of relevant spatial data. This included cadastral features, vegetation types, land use activities, topographical features, site placement, etc;

The identification of sensitive environments upon which the proposed facility could have a potential impact;

The creation of viewshed analyses from the proposed development area in order to determine the visual exposure and the topography's potential to absorb the potential visual impact. The viewshed analyses take into account the dimensions of the proposed structures.

5

This report (visual impact assessment) sets out to identify and quantify the possible visual impacts related to the proposed facility, including related infrastructure, as well as offer potential mitigation measures, where required. The following methodology has been followed for the assessment of visual impact:

Determine Potential visual exposure The visibility or visual exposure of any structure or activity is the point of departure for the visual impact assessment. It stands to reason that if the proposed facility and associated infrastructure were not visible, no impact would occur. Viewshed analyses of the proposed facility and related infrastructure indicate the potential visibility.

Determine Visual Distance/Observer Proximity to the facility In order to refine the visual exposure of the facility on surrounding areas/receptors, the principle of reduced impact over distance is applied in order to determine the core area of visual influence for the turbines and soloar panels. Proximity radii for the proposed development site are created in order to indicate the scale and viewing distance of the facility and to determine the prominence of the structures in relation to their environment. The visual distance theory and the observer's proximity to the facility are closely related, and especially relevant, when considered from areas with a high viewer incidence and a predominantly negative visual perception of the proposed facility.

Determine Viewer Incidence/Viewer Perception The number of observers and their perception of a structure determine the concept of visual impact. If there are no observers, then there would be no visual impact. If the visual perception of the structure is favourable to all the observers, then the visual impact would be positive. It is therefore necessary to identify areas of high viewer incidence and to classify certain areas according to the observer's visual sensitivity towards the proposed facility and its related infrastructure. It would be impossible not to generalise the viewer incidence and sensitivity to some degree, as there are many variables when trying to determine the perception of the observer; regularity of sighting, cultural background, state of mind, and purpose of sighting which would create a myriad of options.

Determine the Visual Absorption Capacity of the natural vegetation This is the capacity of the receiving environment to absorb the potential visual impact of the proposed facility. The VAC is primarily a function of the vegetation, and will be high if the vegetation is tall, dense and continuous. Conversely, low growing sparse and patchy vegetation will have a low VAC. The VAC would also be high where the environment can readily absorb the structure in terms of texture, colour, form and light / shade characteristics of the structure. On the other hand, the VAC for a structure contrasting markedly with one or more of the characteristics of the environment would be low.

6

The VAC also generally increases with distance, where discernible detail in visual characteristics of both environment and structure decreases. The digital terrain model utilised in the calculation of the visual exposure of the facility does not incorporate the potential visual absorption capacity (VAC) of the natural vegetation of the region. It is therefore necessary to determine the VAC by means of the interpretation of the vegetation cover, supplemented with field observations.

Determine the Visual impact index The results of the above analyses are merged in order to determine where the areas of likely visual impact would occur. These areas are further analysed in terms of the previously mentioned issues (related to the visual impact) and in order to judge the magnitude of each impact.

Determine Impact significance The potential visual impacts identified and described are quantified in their respective geographical locations in order to determine the significance of the anticipated impact. Significance is determined as a function of extent, duration, magnitude and probability.

2. BACKGROUND The proposed Project Blue will comprise of a Wind Energy Facility (WEF) and a Solar Energy Facility (SEF). The WEF represents the largest component, with a possible power generating capacity of 150 MW, and will be developed over three phases. The SEF, that will be developed as a fourth phase, will contribute a further 65 MW, bringing the total capacity of the development to 215 MW. 2.1 Wind Energy Facility The proposed Wind Energy Facility and associated infrastructure (including proposed power line route) is to be established in three phases. These are proposed to be developed as follows:

Project Blue Phase 1 on the farms Dikgat 195 Portion 07; Dikgat 195 Portion 09; Dikgat 195 Portion 02; Dikgat 195 Portion 05; Dikgat 195 Portion 04; Kleinzee 193 remaining portion; Dreyers pan 192 remaining portion; Predikant Vlei 190 portion 01; Predikant Vlei 190 portion 04; Predikant Vlei 190 portion 03. This phase would comprise up to 10 turbines and would have a generating capacity of up to 20MW.

Project Blue Phase 2 on the farms Dikgat 195 Portion 07; Dikgat 195 Portion 09; Dikgat 195 Portion 02; Dikgat 195 Portion 05; Dreyers pan 192 remaining portion; Predikant Vlei 190 portion 01; Predikant Vlei 190 portion 04; Predikant Vlei 190 portion 03; Predikant Vlei 190 portion 05. This phase would comprise up to 28 turbines and would have a generating capacity of up to 56MW.

Project Blue Phase 3 on the farms Dikgat 195 Portion 07; Dikgat 195 Portion 09; Dikgat 195 Portion 02; Dikgat 195 Portion 05; Dikgat 195 Portion 04; Dikgat 195 remaining portion; Predikant Vlei 190 portion 01; Predikant Vlei 190 portion 04; Predikant Vlei; 190 portion 03; Predikant Vlei 190 portion 05.

7

This phase would comprise up to 37 turbines and would have a generating capacity of up to 74MW.

Figure 3: Image of a wind turbine being considered for this project.

The facility is proposed to be established within an area of approximately 3 330 ha in extent. The facility will comprise of up to 75 turbines with a generating capacity of up to 3MW each. The turbines will have a hub height of up to 120m and a rotor diameter of up to 125m (i.e. each blade will be approximately 60m in length). Other infrastructure associated with the Wind Energy Facility is proposed to include:

Foundations to support the wind turbines. Cabling between the turbines, to be lain underground where practical, which will

connect to an on-site substation. A 66 or up to 220 kV overhead power line, to connect the facilities to the Gromis

substation; Internal roads (approximately 6 m in width) linking the wind turbines and other

infrastructure on the site. Existing roads will be used as far as possible; A substation located within the WEF development area for phases 1 to 3. A high-

voltage (HV) yard footprint of approximately 80m x 90m is proposed; and A substation located within the SEF development area for phase 4. A high-

voltage (HV) yard footprint of approximately 80m x 90 m is proposed for phase 4.

A substation located within the SEF development area for phase 5. A high-voltage (HV) yard footprint of approximately 80x90 m is proposed. If phases 4 and 5 are built together just one substation for the full WEF will be required.

2.2 Solar Energy Facility The proposed Solar Energy Facility will be located on Portion 3 of the farm Roode Vlei 189, and Portion 3 of the farm Predikant Vlei 190. The primary infrastructure will include arrays of photovoltaic panels and their foundations.

8

Associated infrastructure will include an on-site substation, cabling between panels, and internal roads for maintenance. It is assumed that some of the WEF infrastructure components will be shared by the SEF. Map 1 overleaf presents the layout of the proposed WEF and the position of the SEF. The proposed three phases for the WEF, as described above, are clearly indicated on the map.

9

Map 1: Shaded relief map of the study area (indicating the location of the

proposed WEF and SEF, as well as the topography and elevation above sea level).

10

3. SCOPE OF WORK Visual and scenic components of a landscape can be regarded as a resource, which has a value to individuals, to society and to the economy of the region. The scope of work for the proposed WEF and PV plant includes a Visual Impact Assessment of the issues related to the visual impact, as identified in the scoping process, and the determination of the significance of the alteration of the visual resource brought about by this new development. The study area for the visual assessment encompasses a geographical area of approximately 39 x 50 km (the extent of the maps displayed below) and includes a minimum 20 km buffer zone from the proposed development area. The scope of work for this assessment includes the determination of the potential visual impacts in terms of nature, extent, duration, magnitude, probability and significance of the construction and operation of the proposed infrastructure and the recommendation of mitigation measures, where appropriate. Anticipated issues related to the proposed Renewable Energy Facility include:

The visibility of the facility to, and potential visual impact on, observers travelling along arterial (i.e. R355) and secondary roads in close proximity to the proposed facility within the region.

The visibility of the facility to, and potential visual impact on, the town of Kleinzee, which is in close proximity to the proposed facility.

The visibility of the facility to, and potential visual impact on the sense of place around Grootmis, a historical settlement which is in close proximity (approximately 700 m) from the south-western section of the WEF.

The potential visual impact of the facility on the visual character of the landscape and sense of place of the region and the scenic Northern Cape.

The potential visual impact of ancillary infrastructure (i.e. the substation, the overhead power line, the internal access roads and the office / workshop) on observers in close proximity to the facility.

Potential visual impact of shadow flicker, resulting from the rotating blades of the turbines, on observers in close proximity to the proposed facility.

The potential visual impact of operational, safety and security lighting of the facility at night on observers in close proximity to the facility.

Potential visual impacts associated with the construction phase on observers in close proximity to the facility.

Potential cumulative visual impacts of the WEF and PV plant. Potential residual visual impacts after the decommissioning of the facility. The potential to mitigate visual impacts and inform the design process.

4. LEGISLATION AND GUIDELINES CONSIDERED IN THE PREPARATION OF

THE BASIC ASSESSMENT REPORT The following legislation and guidelines have been considered in the preparation of this report:

The Environmental Impact Assessment Amendment Regulations, 2010; Guideline on Generic Terms of Reference for EAPS and Project Schedules

(DEADP, Provincial Government of the Western Cape, 2011). 5. THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The proposed WEF is located less than 5km north of Kleinzee, with the PV plant approximately 14 km northeast of the town, as is indicated on Map 1. The properties to

11

be developed (farm portions) lie along the coastline with the proposed WEF located less than 5km from the shore. The study area occurs on land that ranges in elevation from 0 m.a.s.l. (along the coast) to about 575 m.a.s.l. (at the top of hills in the north). The non-perennial, westward flowing Buffels and Kwaganap Rivers (and their tributaries) are the main hydrological features within the study area. The Buffels River bypasses the site to the south and the Kwaganap to the north. The terrain surrounding the proposed site is generally flat, sloping gently westwards towards the shore. The terrain type of the region is described as slightly undulating plains. Hilly terrain is evident in the north of the study area. These mountains mark the beginning of the escarpment which rises to the east (Refer to Map 1). Land use is largely unspecified within the study area, and extensive surface based mining takes place along the coastline in the vicinity of, and north of Kleinzee. Large parts of the region are mine-owned, and as a result, significant mining activities are evident, especially within a 7km band along the coast. The region has a very low population density, with an average of 0,9 people per km². The highest concentration of people occurs in Kleinzee, a small town of 1.96 km² and a population of around 2000 people. A small settlement, Grootmis, with four residential buildings and a church building, is situated 2.5 km north of Kleinzee. This location is approximately 700 m from the closest wind turbine. Although only a couple of buildings occur, these are regarded as having some heritage value, specifically with a large stone house that is likely early 20th century and a church building that is known to have been built in 1936. It is still in use and being maintained. More information with regard to the cultural-historical value of Grootmis is given in the Heritage Impact Assessment report. Roads include the R355 arterial route (to Springbok) and a number of lower order secondary roads extending to the north and south from Kleinzee. Other than the mining activity, industrial infrastructure within the region includes a network of distribution power lines leading into and from Kleinzee and the Gromis Transmission Substation.

12

Figure 2: The R355 approaching Kleinzee with 220kV power lines crossing the road (in the vicinity of the Gromis Substation).

The desert climate of the study area is dry, receiving between 28mm and 123mm of rainfall per annum. Land cover is primarily shrubland with localised areas of natural exposed rock and sand and degraded land. The vegetation type is Strandveld of the West Coast. Figure 3: Typical visual quality of vegetation and topography within the study area

(north of Kleinzee).

13

Figure 4: Visual quality of the receiving environment east of Kleinzee (overlooking

the Buffels River valley in the middle distance). Figure 5: Outskirts of the town of Kleinzee (from the R355).

14

Figure 6: Typical visual quality of the mining areas (to the south of Kleinzee). The greater region beyond the study area is generally seen as having a high scenic value and high tourism value. It is well known for its scenic natural beauty and high quality sense of place. The West Coast of the Northern Cape attracts tourists to the Koingnaas – Kleinzee tourist route, also referred to as the “Diamond Route”. Specific tourist attractions and activities include the following2:

Shipwreck 4x4 Trail - guided, self-driven, 37km trail along the coast; Strandveld 4x4 Trail - guided, self-driven, 27km trail through dune systems in a

game park; Diamond Coast Hiking Trail from Koingnaas to Kleinzee - 3-day, guided and

portaged hike over 48km; Molyneux Nature Reserve & Trapsuutjies Hiking Trail; Birding; Surfing; A visit to the Kleinzee Museum, which was established in 1985, offers exhibits

depicting the history of Namaqualand Mines, shipwrecks, geological, paleontological and archaeological finds as well as a heritage display.

In addition to its function as a primary access route linking Kleinzee with the N7, the R355 is a scenic route, especially as it descends through the mountains of the escarpment (in the east, just beyond the study area). This road thus carries both commuters and tourists. During the flower season, the secondary roads in the region are also utilised by tourists as scenic drives. Large tracts of land within the study area remain in an undisturbed and natural state. This is due mainly to the low population density of the area and the relative remoteness and inaccessibility of the terrain. Within this scenic context, it is of relevance that the mining areas along the coastline are significantly disturbed and visually apparent due to the scale and nature of the surface based mining. Sources: DEAT (ENPAT Northern Cape), NBI (Vegetation Map of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland) and NLC2000 (ARC/CSIR).

2 Source: http://www.diamondroute.co.za/sites_namaqualand.htm

15

Map 2: Land cover and broad land use patterns within the study area.

16

6. RESULTS 6.1 Potential visual exposure The result of the viewshed analyses for the proposed WEF is shown on Map 3. The initial viewshed analysis was undertaken from 75 vantage points within the proposed development area (i.e. the positions of the proposed turbines) at offsets of 120m above average ground level (i.e. the approximate hub height of the proposed wind turbines). This was done to determine the general visual exposure of the area under investigation, simulating the proposed structures associated with the facility. It must be noted that the viewshed analysis does not include the effect of vegetation cover or existing structures on the exposure of the proposed wind turbines, therefore signifying a worst-case scenario. Map 3 indicates areas from which any number of turbines (with a minimum of one turbine) could potentially be visible as well as proximity offsets from the proposed development area. The following is evident from the viewshed analyses:

The proposed facility will have a core area of potential visual exposure on the WEF site itself, and within a 5km offset. Almost the entire area within 5km will be visually exposed to the WEF. This core area includes the entire town of Kleinzee, Grootmis settlement, the R355 and all the secondary roads leading north and south from Kleinzee.

Potential visual exposure remains high in the medium distance (i.e. between 5 and 10km). Some visually screened areas occuring as a result of local topography (i.e. local hills) to the east and north east of the site. Receptors likely to be visually exposed include the users of the R355 and secondary roads.

In the longer distance (i.e. between 10km and 20km), potential visual exposure is reduced, with significant visually protected areas evident in the north east, east and south east. The visually exposed areas include limited sections of the R355, and the secondary roads running to the north and south along the coast.

It is envisaged that the turbine structures would be highly visible to limited numbers of observers (i.e. people travelling along roads and residing in Kleinzee) and would constitute a high visual prominence, especially within a 10km radius, potentially resulting in visual impact.

17

Map 3: Potential visual exposure of the proposed WEF. (Note: the visible area indicates areas from which any number of wind turbines (with a minimum of one turbine) may be visible.

18

Map 4: Potential visual exposure of the proposed PV plant.

19

The result of the viewshed analyses for the proposed PV plant is shown on Map 4. The viewshed is based on a maximum offset of structures 4 m above ground. The following is evident from the viewshed analysis:

Visibility of the PV plant occurs in a dispersed pattern, with a low degree of visual exposure across the study area.

The R355, providing the closest access to the facility (<3 km), does not have any visual exposure of the facility, due to its lower elevation next to the Buffels river.

Potential visual exposure in the medium (i.e. between 3 and 6 km) distance is sporadic and does not affect any sensitive viewer areas.

In the longer distance (i.e. between 6 km and 12km), potential visual exposure is somewhat higher, affecting only short sections of roads. It is expected that the significance of visual impact from these distances will be low to insignificant.

The town of Kleinzee, which is more than 12 km from the PV site, is not expected to have any visibility of the PV plant.

6.2 Visual distance / observer proximity to the facility MetroGIS determined the proximity radii based on the anticipated visual experience of the observer over varying distances. The distances are adjusted upwards for larger facilities and downwards for smaller facilities (i.e. depending on the size and nature of the proposed infrastructure). Notably the proximity radii for the WEF will be larger than that for the PV plant. MetroGIS developed this methodology in the absence of any known and/or acceptable standards for South African wind energy facilities. These proximity radii (calculated from the proposed development area) for the PV plant and the WEF are shown on Map 5 and Map 6 respectively, and are described as follows: Wind Energy Facility:

0 – 5 km - Short distance view where the facility would dominate the frame of vision and constitute a very high visual prominence.

5 – 10 km - Medium distance views where the facility would be easily and comfortably visible and constitute a high visual prominence.

10 – 20 km - Medium to longer distance view where the facility would become part of the visual environment, but would still be visible and recognisable. This zone constitutes a medium visual prominence.

Greater than 20 km - Long distance view where the facility would still be visible though not as easily recognisable. This zone constitutes a low visual prominence for the facility.

PV Plant:

0 – 3 km - Short distance view where the facility would dominate the frame of vision and constitute a very high visual prominence.

3 – 6 km - Medium distance views where the facility would be easily and comfortably visible and constitute a high visual prominence.

6 – 12 km - Medium to longer distance view where the facility would become part of the visual environment, but would still be visible and recognisable. This zone constitutes a medium visual prominence.

Greater than 12 km - Long distance view where the facility would still be visible though not as easily recognisable. This zone constitutes a low visual prominence for the facility.

20

6.3. Viewer incidence / viewer perception Viewer incidence refers to the possible number of viewers who may be exposed to views of the proposed WEF. As indicated above, possible sensitive viewer locations are few and restricted to Kleinzee, Grootmis and the surrounding roads. Map 5 and Map 6 depict the areas of viewer incidence and potential sensitive visual receptors for the PV plant and WEF respectively. Apart from permanent residents, who live and work in the area, viewer incidence is expected to fluctuate in accordance with tourism activity. Typically, during peak holiday seasons, over weekends, and particularly the flowering season in early spring, viewer incidence is expected to be higher than normal. Viewer perception has not been tested formally, but from interaction with the De Beers company, who is the single largest affected party, it is deduced that they are in support of the project. No comments with regard to visual impact, either positive or negative, have been received from the general public. It is therefore assumed that viewer perception of the proposed WEF and PV plant would be neutral.

21

Map 5: Observer proximity to the proposed PV plant and areas of viewer incidence.

22

Map 6: Observer proximity to the proposed WEF and areas of viewer incidence.

23

6.4. Visual absorption capacity The region has a dry climate with hot summers and cold winters. Being close to the coast, fog is a frequent occurrence. Early-morning fog which rolls in from the ocean affects visibility of landscape features. As the temperature rises, the fog clouds dissipate, sometimes leading to dramatic scenery unfolding as the sun starts to break through and scenic panoramas unfold. The Visual Absorption Capacity (VAC) of the receiving environment in close proximity (within 6 km of the proposed WEF) is low by virtue of the low heights of vegetation, the relatively homogenous landform of the West Coast Plains and the overall low occurrence of buildings, structures and infrastructure outside of the built up areas. The extensive height of wind turbines adds to visual dominance of the WEF, with the tall towers and long blades of the turbines contrasted against the background of the horizon. Within the built-up area of Kleinzee, as well as some mining areas, VAC will be of relevance, due to the presence of buildings, structures and equipment, referred to as visual clutter. In this respect, the presence of the built-up environment will ‘absorb’ the visual impact to some extent. The rest of the landscape does not offer substantial VAC, due to the lack of vegetation, especially high trees. In these instances no VAC will be considered. Overall, VAC is determined by the immediate landscape surrounding the observer. This effect may vary from low to high, especially as the land cover changes across the study area from natural shrubs to transformed mining land.

Figure 7: Typical scene near Kleinzee illustrating low visual absorption capacity (VAC) of the landscape.

VAC will be taken into account within the built up area of Kleinzee only. In areas where no VAC is present, especially in close proximity of the site, no VAC will be considered. This would ultimately simulate a worst case scenario. 6.5. Visual impact index The combined results of the visual exposure, viewer incidence / perception and visual distance of the proposed WEF and PV plant are displayed on Map 7 and Map 8 respectively. Here the weighted impact and the likely areas of impact have been indicated as a visual impact index. Values have been assigned for each potential visual impact per data category and merged in order to calculate the visual impact index.

24

An area with short distance, high frequency of visual exposure to the proposed facility, a high viewer incidence and a predominantly negative perception would therefore have a higher value (greater impact) on the index. This helps in focussing the attention to the critical areas of potential impact when evaluating the issues related to the visual impact. The visual impact index for the WEF is further described as follows.

The visual impact index map indicates a core zone of moderate to high visual impact within a 5 km radius of the proposed facility. Affected areas include Kleinzee, Grootmis and long stretches of road, especially the R355 that passes the WEF development area at close proximity in places.

The extent of potential visual impact remains high between the 5 km and 10 km radii, becoming moderate towards the outer edge of this zone. Affected areas include only a few stretches of road. Visual impacts within this zone are likely to be low to moderate.

Between 10 km and 20 km, the extent of potential visual impact is reduced. Visual impacts within this zone are likely to be very low to low, with only stretches of road being affected.

Remaining impacts beyond the 20 km radius are expected to be negligible to very low.

In terms of viewer incidence, it is evident that visual impacts are likely to occur primarily on roads. It must be noted that all roads converge onto Kleinzee and that the duration of visual impact is likely to be high, particularly as one travels towards Kleinzee. The impact intensifies as the distance to the WEF and the SEF becomes closer. Figure 8 below helps to place the above explanations in context, illustrating what scale a turbine structure will be perceived at different viewing distances.

25

Figure 4: Visual experience of a wind turbine structure at a distance of 1km, 2km, 5km and 10km.

26

Map 7: Visual impact index of the proposed WEF.

27

Map 8: Visual impact index of the proposed PV plant.

28

The visual impact index for the PV plant is described as follows (refer to Map 8).

The visual impact index map indicates a core zone of moderate visual exposure within a 3 km radius of the proposed facility. Visual exposure within this zone is, however, fragmented with areas having no visual exposure of the PV plant development area. There are no permanent residents in this area. A section of the R355 falls within this zone, but has no visual exposure of the PV plant. Based on the absence of affected visual receptors within this zone, it is anticipated that there will be no visual impact occurring within this zone.

The extent of potential visual impact remains high between the 3 km and 6 km radii, becoming moderate towards the outer edge of this zone. Visual impacts within this zone are likely to be low, but as in the case of the above mentioned zone, there are no visual receptors that will be affected. It is therefore anticipated that there will be no visual impact occurring within this zone.

Between 6 km and 12 km, the extent of potential visual impact is reduced, with visual clutter in the foreground taking effect. Visual exposure of the PV plant within this zone is also fragmented, with only short sections of road at a two or three locations that could possibly be effected. Visual impacts within this zone are likely to be very low.

Remaining impacts beyond the 12 km radius are expected to be negligible. It must be noted that any visibility of the PV plant will include views of WEF turbines as well, which is expected to provide some visual absorption capacity, thereby reducing the visual impact of the PV plant.

29

6.6 Visual impact assessment: methodology The previous section of the report identified specific areas where likely visual impacts would occur. This section will attempt to quantify these potential visual impacts in their respective geographical locations and in terms of the identified issues (see Section 2: SCOPE OF WORK) related to the visual impact. The methodology for the assessment of potential visual impacts states the nature of the potential visual impact (e.g. the visual impact on users of major roads in the vicinity of the proposed WEF and PV failities) and includes a table quantifying the potential visual impact according to the following criteria:

Extent - site only (very high = 5), local (high = 4), regional (medium = 3), national (low = 2) or international (very low = 1).

Duration - very short (0-1 yrs = 1), short (2-5 yrs = 2), medium (5-15 yrs = 3), long (>15 yrs = 4), and permanent (= 5).

Magnitude - None (= 0), minor (= 2), low (= 4), medium/moderate (= 6), high (= 8) and very high (= 10). This value is informed by the Visual Impact Index Map. Where more than one value is applicable, then the higher of these will be used in order to simulate a worst case scenario.

Probability – very improbable (= 1), improbable (= 2), probable (= 3), highly probable (= 4) and definite (= 5).

Status (positive, negative or neutral). Reversibility - reversible (= 1), recoverable (= 3) and irreversible (= 5). Significance - low, medium or high.

The significance of the potential visual impact is equal to the consequence multiplied by the probability of the impact occurring, where the consequence is determined by the sum of the individual scores for magnitude, duration and extent (i.e. significance = consequence (magnitude + duration + extent) x probability). The significance weighting for each potential visual impact (as calculated above) is as follows:

<30 points: Low (where the impact would not have a direct influence on the decision to develop in the area)

31-60 points: Medium/moderate (where the impact could influence the decision to develop in the area)

>60: High (where the impact must have an influence on the decision to develop in the area)

Please note that due to the declining visual impact over distance, the extent (or spatial scale) rating is reversed (i.e. a localised visual impact has a higher value rating than a national or regional value rating). This implies that the visual impact is highly unlikely to have a national or international extent, but that the local or site-specific impact could be of high significance.

30

6.7 Visual impact assessment: primary impacts The primary visual impacts of the proposed WEF and PV plant are further being assessed as follows: 6.7.1 The WEF and PV facility 6.7.1.1 Potential visual impact on users of arterial and secondary roads in

close proximity to the proposed facility. Visual impacts on the R355 arterial road, being the major access route to Kleinzee, as well as the secondary road from the north, are expected to be of moderate significance within a radius of 5 km from the facility. The duration of visual impact within this zone, at an average speed of 90km/h, will be about 10 minutes. No mitigation of this impact is possible. The table below illustrates this impact assessment.

Table 2: Impact table summarising the significance of visual impacts on users of arterial and secondary roads in close proximity to the proposed facility.

Nature of Impact: Potential visual impact on users of arterial and secondary roads in close proximity to the proposed facility No mitigation Mitigation considered Extent Local (4) N/a Duration Long term (4) N/a Magnitude High (8) N/a Probability Probable (3) N/a Significance Moderate (48) N/a Status (positive, neutral or negative)

Negative N/a

Reversibility Recoverable (3) N/a Irreplaceable loss of resources?

No N/a

Can impacts be mitigated?

No

Mitigation / Management: Planning: Retain / re-establish and maintain natural vegetation in all areas outside of the

development footprint. Operations: Maintain the general appearance of the facility as a whole. Decommissioning: Remove infrastructure not required for the post-decommissioning use of the site. Rehabilitate all areas. Consult an ecologist regarding rehabilitation specifications. Monitor rehabilitated areas post-decommissioning and implement remedial actions. Cumulative impacts: The construction of wind turbines together with the associated infrastructure will increase the cumulative visual impact of industrial type infrastructure within the region. This is relevant in light of the power line infrastructure already present in the area. Residual impacts: The visual impact will be removed after decommissioning, provided the facility and ancillary infrastructure is removed. Failing this, the visual impact will remain.

31

6.7.1.2 Potential visual impact on Kleinzee. Kleinzee is situated less than 5 km from the nearest boundary of the proposed facility. The potential for visual exposure is high, but due to the existence of buildings and other structures, typically of a built up area, the visual absorption capacity is expected to be high, therefore limiting full exposure of the WEF. The significance of visual impact is therefore expected to be moderate. No mitigation of this impact is possible. The table below illustrates this impact assessment.

Table 3: Impact table summarising the significance of visual impacts on residents in Kleinzee.

Nature of Impact: Potential visual impact on residents of Kleinzee No mitigation Mitigation considered Extent Local (4) N/a Duration Long term (4) N/a Magnitude Moderate (6) N/a Probability Probable (3) N/a Significance Moderate (42) N/a Status (positive or negative)

Negative N/a


No N/a


No


development footprint. Operations: Maintain the general appearance of the facility as a whole. Decommissioning: Remove infrastructure not required for the post-decommissioning use of the site. Rehabilitate all areas. Consult an ecologist regarding rehabilitation specifications. Monitor rehabilitated areas post-decommissioning and implement remedial actions. Cumulative impacts: The construction of wind turbines together with the associated infrastructure will increase the cumulative visual impact of industrial type infrastructure within the region. This is relevant in light of the power line infrastructure already present in the area. Residual impacts: The visual impact will be removed after decommissioning, provided the facility and ancillary infrastructure is removed. Failing this, the visual impact will remain.

32

6.7.1.3 Potential visual impact on the sense of place around Grootmis. Grootmis is situated less than 800 m from the nearest wind turbine of the south western section of the proposed Phase 3. Due to the large vertical dimensions of the turbines, they will dominate northern views from this location. This will impact on the high quality of the sense of place around Grootmis, which is regarded as a place of historical importance, as described in the Heritage Impact Assessment report. The significance of visual impact is therefore expected to be high. The impact can be mitigated by omitting the south western cluster of turbines (Phase 3) from the proposed development, or repositioning the implicated turbines at another location, leaving a buffer of at least 3 km around Grootmis. This will reduce the significance of the impact to moderate, with the other sections of Phase 3 visible at farther distances. The table below illustrates this impact assessment.

Table 4: Impact table summarising the significance of visual impacts on the sense of place around Grootmis.

Nature of Impact: Potential visual impact on the sense of place around Grootmis No mitigation Mitigation considered Extent Local (4) Local (4) Duration Long term (4) Long term (4) Magnitude High (8) moderate (6) Probability Definite (5) Probable (3) Significance High (80) Moderate (36) Status (positive or negative)

Negative Negative

Reversibility Recoverable (3) Recoverable (3) Irreplaceable loss of resources?

No No


Yes

Mitigation / Management: Planning: Omit the south western cluster of turbines (Phase 3) from the proposed development,

or reposition the implicated turbines at another location, leaving a buffer of at least 3 km around Grootmis.

Retain / re-establish and maintain natural vegetation in all areas outside of the development footprint.

Operations: Maintain the general appearance of the facility as a whole. Decommissioning: Remove infrastructure not required for the post-decommissioning use of the site. Rehabilitate all areas. Consult an ecologist regarding rehabilitation specifications. Monitor rehabilitated areas post-decommissioning and implement remedial actions. Cumulative impacts: The construction of wind turbines together with the associated infrastructure will increase the cumulative visual impact of industrial type infrastructure within the region. This is relevant in light of the power line infrastructure already present in the area. Residual impacts: The visual impact will be removed after decommissioning, provided the facility and ancillary infrastructure is removed. Failing this, the visual impact will remain.

33

6.7.2 Ancillary infrastructure Ancillary infrastructure associated with the WEF and PV facilities includes the substations, the overhead power line, the internal access roads, administration buildings and workshop, which may be visible to observers in close proximity to the facility. These will be located within the facility footprint, as is indicated on the layout in Map1. The roads have the potential of manifesting as landscape scarring. Other infrastructure have the potential of creating visual clutter, contributing to cumulative impacts, therefore having the potential of visual impact within the viewshed areas. No dedicated viewsheds have been generated for the ancillary infrastructure, as the range of visual exposure will fall within that of the turbines, as indicated on Map 3. The anticipated visual impact resulting from this infrastructure is likely to be of low significance both before and after mitigation.

Table 5: Impact table summarising the significance of visual impact of ancillary infrastructure on observers in close proximity to the facility.

Nature of Impact: Potential visual impact of ancillary infrastructure (i.e. the substation, the overhead power line, the internal access roads and the office / workshop) on observers in close proximity to the facility. No mitigation Mitigation considered Extent Local (4) Local (4) Duration Long term (4) Long term (4) Magnitude Low (4) Low (4) Probability Improbable (2) V Improbable (1) Significance Low (24) Low (12) Status (positive or negative)

Negative Negative


No No


Yes

Mitigation / Management: Planning: Plan internal roads in such a way and in such a location that clearing of vegetation is

minimised. Consolidate existing infrastructure as much as possible, and make use of already disturbed areas rather than pristine sites wherever possible.

Retain / re-establish and maintain natural vegetation in all areas outside of the development footprint.

Construction: Rehabilitation of all construction areas. Ensure that vegetation is not cleared unnecessarily to make way for access roads and

ancillary buildings. Operation: Maintenance of roads to avoid erosion and suppress dust. Decommissioning: Removal of infrastructure and roads not required for post decommissioning use and

rehabilitation of the footprint areas. Monitor rehabilitated areas post-decommissioning and implement remedial actions. Cumulative impacts: The construction of the substation, overhead power line, internal roads and buildings, will increase the cumulative visual impact of industrial type infrastructure within the region. This is relevant in light of existing roads and power lines already present in the area. Residual impacts: The visual impact will be removed after decommissioning, provided the access roads are removed and rehabilitated. Failing this, the visual impact will remain.

34

6.7.3 Shadow flicker Potential visual impact of shadow flicker on observers in close proximity to the proposed facility. Shadow flicker (as a result of the turbines) only occurs when the sky is clear, and when the rotor blades are between the sun and the receptor (i.e. when the sun is low). De Gryse in Scenic Landscape Architecture (2006) found that “most shadow impact is associated with 3-4 times the height of the object”. Based on this research, a 320m buffer along the edge of the facility is submitted as the zone within which there is a risk of shadow flicker occurring. There are no roads or places of residence within the 320 m buffer. The significance of shadow flicker is therefore anticipated to be low. The table below illustrates the assessment of this anticipated impact. There is no mitigation recommended.

Table 6: Impact table summarising the significance of visual impact of shadow flicker on observers in close proximity thereto.

Nature of Impact: Potential visual impact of shadow flicker on observers in close proximity thereto. No mitigation Mitigation considered Extent Local (4) N/a Duration Long term (4) N/a Magnitude Low (4) N/a Probability Very Improbable (1) N/a Significance Low (12) N/a Status (positive or negative)

Negative N/a


No N/a


No

Mitigation / Management: Decommissioning: Removal of infrastructure not required for post decommissioning use and rehabilitation of the footprint areas. Cumulative impacts: The construction of wind turbines together with the associated infrastructure will increase the cumulative visual impact of industrial type infrastructure within the region. Residual impacts: The visual impact will be removed after decommissioning, provided the facility and ancillary infrastructure is removed. Failing this, the visual impact will remain.

35

6.7.4 Lighting impacts Lighting impacts relate to the effects of glare and sky glow. The source of glare light, although not as intense as direct lighting, is the aircraft warning lights mounted on top of the hub of the wind turbines. These lights are less aggravating due to the toned-down red colour, but have the potential to be visible from a great distance. There is no mitigation for this impact. Sky glow is the condition where the night sky is illuminated when light reflects off particles in the atmosphere such as moisture, dust or smog. The sky glow intensifies with the increase in the amount of light sources. Each new light source, especially upwardly directed lighting, contribute to the increase in sky glow. The WEF and PV plant may contribute to the effect of sky glow within this environment. Mitigation of direct lighting impacts and sky glow entails the pro-active design, planning and specification of lighting for the facility. The correct specification and placement of lighting and light fixtures for both the turbines and the ancillary infrastructure will go far to contain rather than spread the light. The area surrounding the proposed WEF and PV plant is primarily demarcated as conservation areas, which are highly sensitive to lighting impacts. The table overleaf illustrates the assessment of this anticipated impact, which is likely to be of moderate significance, and may be mitigated to low.

Table 7: Impact table summarising the significance of visual impact of lighting on visual receptors in close proximity of the proposed facility.

Nature of Impact: Potential visual impact of lighting on visual receptors in close proximity of the proposed facility. No mitigation Mitigation considered Extent Local (4) Local (4) Duration Long term (4) Long term (4) Magnitude High (8) Moderate (6) Probability Probable (3) Improbable (2) Significance Moderate (48) Low (28) Status (positive or negative)

Negative Negative


No No


Yes

Mitigation: Planning & operation: Shielding the sources of light by physical barriers (walls, vegetation, or the structure

itself); Limiting mounting heights of lighting fixtures, or alternatively using foot-lights or

bollard level lights; Making use of minimum lumen or wattage in fixtures; Making use of down-lighters, or shielded fixtures; Making use of Low Pressure Sodium lighting or other types of low impact lighting. Making use of motion detectors on security lighting. This will allow the site to remain in

relative darkness, until lighting is required for security or maintenance purposes. Cumulative impacts: The existing town of Kleinzee already generates lighting impacts at night. The impact of the proposed WEF will contribute to a regional increase in lighting impact.

36

Residual impacts: The visual impact will be removed after decommissioning, provided the facility and ancillary infrastructure is removed. Failing this, the visual impact will remain. 6.7.5 Construction Impacts Potential visual impact of construction on visual receptors in close proximity to the proposed facility. During construction, there will be a noticeable increase in heavy vehicles utilising the roads to the development site that may cause, at the very least, a visual nuisance to other road users in the area. The clearing of vegetation during construction is unavoidable. Given the large footprint of WEF development, it is likely that large tracks of land will be affected. The rehabilitation of vegetation in this region is difficult, given the hot, dry climatic conditions of this region. Special programmes need to be followed to rehabilitate disturbed land after construction. It is therefore imperative that the unnecessary removal of vegetation during construction must be avoided at all cost. Appropriate measures to rehabilitate cleared areas after construction, must be carried out. The table below illustrates the assessment of this anticipated impact, which is likely to be of moderate significance, and may be mitigated to low.

Table 8: Impact table summarising the significance of visual impact of construction on visual receptors in close proximity to the proposed facility.

Nature of Impact: Potential visual impact of construction on visual receptors in close proximity to the proposed facility. No mitigation Mitigation considered Extent Local (4) Local (4) Duration Long term (4) Short term (2) Magnitude Moderate (6) Low (4) Probability Highly Probable (4) Probable (3) Significance Moderate (56) Low (30) Status (positive or negative)

Negative Negative


No No


Yes

37

Mitigation: Ensure that vegetation is not unnecessarily cleared or removed during the construction

period. Reduce the construction period through careful logistical planning and productive

implementation of resources. Plan the placement of lay-down areas and temporary construction equipment camps in

order to minimise vegetation clearing (i.e. in already disturbed areas) wherever possible.

Restrict the activities and movement of construction workers and vehicles to the immediate construction site and existing access roads.

Ensure that rubble, litter, and disused construction materials are appropriately stored (if not removed daily) and then disposed regularly at licensed waste facilities.

Reduce and control construction dust through the use of approved dust suppression techniques as and when required (i.e. whenever dust becomes apparent).

Restrict construction activities to daylight hours in order to negate or reduce the visual impacts associated with lighting.

Rehabilitate all disturbed areas, construction areas, roads, slopes etc immediately after the completion of construction works.

Cumulative impacts: In context of the existing rural character and relative low activity rate, the construction phase of the WEF will contribute to a regional increase in heavy vehicles on the roads in the region, with constructions activity distinctly noticeable. Residual impacts: None.

38

6.8 Visual impact assessment: secondary impacts 6.8.1 The WEF and PV plant and ancillary infrastructure Potential visual impact of the proposed facility on the visual character and sense of place of the region. Sense of place refers to a unique experience of an environment by a user, based on his or her cognitive experience of the place. Visual criteria, specifically the visual character of an area (informed by a combination of aspects such as topography, level of development, vegetation, noteworthy features, cultural / historical features, etc), play a significant role. An impact on the sense of place is one that alters the visual landscape to such an extent that the user experiences the environment differently, and more specifically, in a less appealing or less positive light. Specific aspects contributing to the sense of place of this region include the rural and undeveloped character of the area. A sense of remoteness is evident when travelling through the area. Approaching Kleinzee and the mined areas, this sense of place is altered. The location of the proposed WEF close to Kleinzee can be regarded as a transition zone between a built-up and rural area, within which changes to the sense of place may be more acceptable to sensitive viewers. Given the vastness of this region, where this particular sense of place is experienced widely, any change to it close to a disturbed area is likely to be of low significance. No mitigation is possible. The table below illustrates the assessment of this anticipated impact, which

Table 9: Impact table summarising the significance of visual impacts on the visual character and sense of place of the region.

Nature of Impact: Potential visual impact of the proposed facility on visual character and sense of place of the region No mitigation Mitigation considered Extent Regional (3) N/a Duration Long term (4) N/a Magnitude Low (4) N/a Probability Improbable (2) N/a Significance Low (22) N/a Status (positive or negative)

Negative N/a


No N/a


No


development footprint. Operations: Maintain the general appearance of the facility as a whole. Decommissioning: Remove infrastructure not required for the post-decommissioning use of the site. Rehabilitate all areas. Consult an ecologist regarding rehabilitation specifications. Monitor rehabilitated areas post-decommissioning and implement remedial actions.

39

Cumulative impacts: The construction of wind turbines together with the associated infrastructure will increase the cumulative visual impact of industrial type infrastructure within the region. This is relevant in light of the power line infrastructure already present in the area. Residual impacts: The visual impact will be removed after decommissioning, provided the facility and ancillary infrastructure is removed. Failing this, the visual impact will remain. 6.9 The potential to mitigate visual impacts The primary visual impact, namely the appearance of the wind turbines and of the PV structures, is not possible to mitigate. The functional design of the structures cannot be changed in order to reduce visual impacts. Alternative colour schemes (i.e. painting the turbines sky-blue, grey or darker shades of white) are not permissible as the CAA's Marking of Obstacles expressly states, "Wind turbines shall be painted bright white to provide the maximum daytime conspicuousness". Failure to adhere to the prescribed colour specifications will result in the fitting of supplementary daytime lighting to the wind turbines, once again aggravating the visual impact. The overall potential for mitigation is generally low or non-existent. Secondary impacts anticipated as a result of the proposed facility (i.e. visual character, sense of place, tourism value and tourism potential) are also not possible to mitigate. The following mitigation is, however possible:

Retain / re-establish and maintain natural vegetation in all areas outside of the

development footprint. This measure will help to soften the appearance of the facility within its context.

In terms of ancillary infrastructure, it is recommended that the substations, access roads and ancillary buildings be planned so that clearing of vegetation is minimised. This implies consolidating infrastructure as much as possible and making use of already disturbed areas rather than pristine sites wherever possible.

The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) prescribes that the mounting of aircraft warning lights atop the turbines. Therefore, the potential to mitigate their visual impacts is low. The regulations for the CAA's Marking of Obstacles should be strictly adhered to (unless otherwise agreed with the CAA), as the failure to comply with these guidelines may result in the developer being required to fit additional light fixtures at closer intervals thereby aggravating the visual impact.

Possible mitigation of other lighting impacts includes the pro-active design, planning and specification lighting for the facility. The correct specification and placement of lighting and light fixtures for the Renewable Energy Facility and the ancillary infrastructure will go far to contain rather than spread the light. Mitigation measures include the following:

o Shielding the sources of light by physical barriers (walls, vegetation, or the structure itself);

o Shielding of open luminaries to direct light downward towards the ground;

o Limiting mounting heights of lighting fixtures, or alternatively using foot-lights or bollard level lights;

o Making use of minimum lumen or wattage in fixtures;

40

o Making use of down-lighters, or shielded fixtures; o Making use of Low Pressure Sodium lighting or other types of low impact

lighting. o Making use of motion detectors on security lighting. This will allow the

site to remain in relative darkness, until lighting is required for security or maintenance purposes.

Mitigation of visual impacts associated with the construction phase, albeit

temporary, would entail proper planning, management and rehabilitation of the construction site. Recommended mitigation measures include the following:

o Ensure that vegetation is not unnecessarily cleared or removed during the construction period.

o Reduce the construction period through careful logistical planning and productive implementation of resources.

o Plan the placement of lay-down areas and any potential temporary construction camps in order to minimise vegetation clearing (i.e. in already disturbed areas) wherever possible.

o Restrict the activities and movement of construction workers and vehicles to the immediate construction site and existing access roads.

o Ensure that rubble, litter, and disused construction materials are appropriately stored (if not removed daily) and then disposed regularly at licensed waste facilities.

o Reduce and control construction dust through the use of approved dust suppression techniques as and when required (i.e. whenever dust becomes apparent).

o Restrict construction activities to daylight hours in order to negate or reduce the visual impacts associated with lighting.

o Rehabilitate all disturbed areas, construction areas, roads, slopes etc immediately after the completion of construction works. If necessary, an ecologist should be consulted to assist or give input into rehabilitation specifications.

During operation, the maintenance of the turbines, the PV structures, the

internal roads, the power line servitude and other ancillary structures and infrastructure will ensure that the facility does not degrade, thus aggravating visual impact.

Roads must be maintained to forego erosion and to suppress dust, and rehabilitated areas must be monitored for rehabilitation failure. Remedial actions must be implemented as a when required.

Once the Wind Energy and PV plant has exhausted its life span, the main facility and all associated infrastructure not required for the post rehabilitation use of the site should be removed and all disturbed areas appropriately rehabilitated. An ecologist should be consulted to give input into rehabilitation specifications.

All rehabilitated areas should be monitored for at least a year following decommissioning, and remedial actions implemented as and when required.

Good practice requires that the mitigation of both primary and secondary visual impacts as listed above be implemented and maintained on an ongoing basis. 7. PHOTOGRAPHIC SIMULATOINS Photo simulations were undertaken (in addition to the above spatial analyses) in order to illustrate the potential visual impact of the proposed Wind Energy Facility within the receiving environment.

41

The purpose of the photo simulation exercise is to support the findings of the VIA, and is not an exercise to illustrate what the facility will look like from all directions. The photo simulations indicate the anticipated visual alteration of the landscape from locations at different distances from the facility. The simulations are based on the wind turbine dimensions and layout as indicated on Map 1. The photograph positions are indicated on Map 8 below and should be referenced with the photo simulation being viewed in order to place the observer in spatial context. The simulated views show the placement of the wind turbines during the longer-term operational phase of the facility's lifespan. It is assumed that the necessary post-construction phase rehabilitation and mitigation measures, as proposed by the various specialists in the environmental impact assessment report, have been undertaken. It is imperative that the natural vegetation be restored to its original (current) status for these simulated views to ultimately be realistic. These photographs can therefore be seen as an ideal operational scenario (from a visual impact point of view) that should be aspired to. The additional infrastructure (e.g. the proposed power lines, substation, access roads, etc.) associated with the facility is not included in the photo simulations. Each photographic simulation is preceded by a panoramic overview of the landscape from the specified viewpoint being discussed. The panoramic overview allows for a more realistic viewer scale that would be representative of the distance over which the turbines are viewed.

42

Map 8: Photograph positions for photo simulations.

43

7.1 Viewpoint 1 Viewpoint 1 is located just north of Kleinzee, approximately 2,5 km south of the closest turbine and is indicative of a close range view which will potentially be seen when travelling north from Kleinzee. The viewing direction is north and turbines are fully to partially visible in the landscape as successive rows of turbines disappear in the background. This illustrates the effect of distance on the exposure of wind turbines.

Figure 5: Pre construction panoramic overview from Viewpoint 1

44

Figure 6: Post construction panoramic overview from Viewpoint 1. This viewpoint is located 2,5km away from the closest turbine.

45

7.2 Viewpoint 2 Viewpoint 2 is located on the R355 and is indicative of a medium distance view that travellers to Kleinzee will potentially see while driving in a western direction. The viewing direction is south-westerly. Since the road follows the Buffels river most of the time, the elevated position of turbines on higher ground is noticeable, thereby increasing the visual prominence of the WEF.

Figure 7: Pre construction panoramic overview from Viewpoint 2

46

Figure 8: Post construction panoramic overview from Viewpoint 2. This viewpoint is located 6,8km away from the closest turbine.

47

7.3 Viewpoint 3

Viewpoint 3 is located on a secondary road from the north, linking with the R355. Turbines are exposed at distances from 2 – 5 km, illustrating the effect of distance on the exposure of wind turbines.

Figure 9: Pre construction panoramic overview from Viewpoint 3.

48

Figure 10: Post construction panoramic overview for Alternative 1 (4 turbines) from Viewpoint 3. This viewpoint is located 10,7 km away from the closest turbine.

49

8. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The construction and operation of the proposed Project Blue Renewable Energy Facility and Photovoltaic plant, and its associated infrastructure, will have a visual impact on the study area, specifically within 5km of the proposed facility. The visual impact will differ amongst places, depending on the distance from the facility and the visual character of the immediate surroundings from where this new development is observed. The geographic significance of this region is the unique West Coast coastline, and specifically the Koingnaas – Kleinzee tourist route, also referred to as the “Diamond Route”, offering tourist facilities such as the Kleinzee Diamond Museum, diamond mine tours, hiking trail, 4x4 routes and visiting the largest seal colony on the west coast. In light of the above, and considering all factors, it is concluded that the significance of anticipated visual impacts are of moderate to low levels, considering the large footprint of the proposed development (more than 10 km x 10 km). A number of mitigation measures have been proposed (Section 6.9). Mitigation will be effective in terms of lighting and construction. Other mitigation measures will not reduce the significance of the anticipated visual impacts, but they are considered to be good practice and should be implemented and maintained throughout the life span of the proposed facility. 9. IMPACT STATEMENT The finding of the Visual Impact Assessment undertaken for the proposed Project Blue Wind Energy and Photovoltaic Facility is that the visual environment surrounding the site will be visually impacted upon for the anticipated operational lifespan of the development (i.e. 20 - 30 years). The following is a summary of impacts remaining, assuming mitigation as recommended is exercised:

Visual impacts on the R355 arterial road, being the major access route to Kleinzee, as well as the secondary road from the north, are expected to be of moderate significance within a radius of 5 km from the facility.

The potential for visual impact on the town of Kleinzee is expected to be of

moderate significance.

The potential for visual impact on the sense of place at Grootmis is expected to be of high significance. This could be mitigated by omitting the south-western part of the proposed Phase 3 from the design, thereby reducing the overall impact of the WEF to moderate.

The potential for visual impact of ancillary infrastructure (i.e. the

substation, the overhead power line, the internal access roads and the office / workshop) on observers in close proximity to the facility is expected to be of low significance, both before and after mitigation.

The potential visual impact of shadow flicker will be of low significance.

Visual impacts related to lighting will be of moderate significance, but it is

possible to mitigate this impact, resulting in a low significance.

50

Visual impacts related to construction will be of moderate significance, but it is possible to mitigate this impact, resulting in a low significance.

In terms of secondary visual impacts, the significance of the anticipated

impact on the visual character and sense of place of the region will be of low significance. In light of the tourism potential of the area, it is anticipated that the WEF might become a tourist attraction itself.

The anticipated visual impacts listed above (i.e. post mitigation impacts) range from moderate to low, and none are considered to be fatal flaws for the proposed wind energy and photovoltaic facility. It is therefore recommended that the development of the facility as proposed be supported, subject to the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures (Section 6.9) and management plan (Section 9). 10. MANAGEMENT PLAN The following management plan tables aim to summarise the key findings of the visual impact report and to suggest possible management actions in order to mitigate the potential visual impacts. (Refer to tables overleaf).

51

Table 10: Management Programme – Planning. OBJECTIVE: The mitigation and possible negation of visual impacts associated with the planning of the Proposed Project Blue Wind Energy and PV Facility. Project Component/s

Wind energy facility, PV facility and ancillary infrastructure (i.e. transformer, roads and ancillary buildings).

Potential Impact Primary visual impact of the facility due to the presence of ancillary infrastructure as well as the visual impact of lighting at night.

Activity/Risk Source

The viewing of the above mentioned by observers on or near the site (i.e. within 5 km of the site) as well as within the region.

Mitigation: Target/Objective

Optimal planning of infrastructure to minimise visual impact. Omit the south-western part of Phase 3.

Mitigation: Action/control Responsibility Timeframe Retain and maintain natural vegetation in all areas outside of the development footprint.

Developer / design consultant

Early in the planning phase.

Plan the transformer, access roads and ancillary buildings in such a way and in such a location that clearing of vegetation is minimised. Consolidate infrastructure and make use of already disturbed sites rather than pristine areas.



Consult a lighting engineer in the design and planning of lighting to ensure the correct specification and placement of lighting and light fixtures for the facility and the ancillary infrastructure. The following is recommended: o Shielding the sources of light by physical

barriers (walls, vegetation, or the structure itself);

o Limiting mounting heights of lighting fixtures, or alternatively using foot-lights or bollard level lights;

o Making use of minimum lumen or wattage in fixtures;

o Making use of down-lighters, or shielded fixtures;

o Making use of Low Pressure Sodium lighting or other types of low impact lighting.

o Making use of motion detectors on security lighting. This will allow the site to remain in relative darkness, until lighting is required for security or maintenance purposes.



Performance Indicator

No ancillary infrastructure is apparent from surrounding areas and lighting impact is minimal.

Monitoring Not applicable.

52

Table 11: Management Programme – Construction. OBJECTIVE: The mitigation and possible negation of visual impacts associated with the construction of the Proposed Project Blue Wind Energy and PV Facility. Project Component/s

Construction site

Potential Impact Visual impact of general construction activities, and the potential scarring of the landscape due to vegetation clearing and resulting erosion.


The viewing of the above mentioned by observers on or near the site (i.e. within 5 km of the site).


Minimal visual intrusion by construction activities and intact vegetation cover outside of immediate works areas.

Mitigation: Action/control Responsibility Timeframe Ensure that vegetation is not unnecessarily cleared or removed during the construction period.

Developer / contractor

Early in the construction phase.

Reduce the construction period through careful logistical planning and productive implementation of resources.


Early in the construction phase.

Plan the placement of lay-down areas and temporary construction equipment camps in order to minimise vegetation clearing (i.e. in already disturbed areas) wherever possible.


Early in and throughout the construction phase.

Restrict the activities and movement of construction workers and vehicles to the immediate construction site and existing access roads.


Throughout the construction phase.

Ensure that rubble, litter, and disused construction materials are appropriately stored (if not removed daily) and then disposed regularly at licensed waste facilities.



Reduce and control construction dust through the use of approved dust suppression techniques as and when required (i.e. whenever dust becomes apparent).



Restrict construction activities to daylight hours in order to negate or reduce the visual impacts associated with lighting.



Rehabilitate all disturbed areas, construction areas, servitudes etc immediately after the completion of construction works. Consult an ecologist to give input into rehabilitation specifications.


Throughout and at the end of the construction phase.


Vegetation cover on and in the vicinity of the site is intact (i.e. full cover as per natural vegetation within the environment) with no evidence of degradation or erosion.

Monitoring Monitoring of vegetation clearing during construction (by contractor as part of construction contract). Monitoring of rehabilitated areas quarterly for at least a year following the end of construction (by contractor as part of construction contract).

53

Table 12: Management Programme – Operation. OBJECTIVE: The mitigation and possible negation of visual impacts associated with the operation of the Proposed Project Blue Wind Energy and PV Facility. Project Component/s

Wind energy facility, PV facility and ancillary infrastructure (i.e. power lines, transformers, roads and ancillary buildings).

Potential Impact Visual impact of facility degradation and vegetation rehabilitation failure. Activity/Risk Source



Well maintained and neat facility.

Mitigation: Action/control Responsibility Timeframe Maintain the general appearance of the facility as a whole, including the turbines the internal roads, servitudes and the ancillary buildings.

Developer / operator Throughout the operational phase.

Maintain roads to forego erosion and to suppress dust.


Monitor rehabilitated areas, and implement remedial action as and when required.



Well maintained and neat facility with intact vegetation on and in the vicinity of the facility.

Monitoring Monitoring of the entire site on an ongoing basis (by operator). Table 13: Management Programme – Decommissioning. OBJECTIVE: The mitigation and possible negation of visual impacts associated with the decommissioning of the Proposed Project Blue Wind Energy and PV Facility. Project Component/s

Wind energy facility, PV facility and ancillary infrastructure (i.e. power lines, transformers, roads and ancillary buildings).

Potential Impact Visual impact of residual visual scarring and vegetation rehabilitation failure.




Only the infrastructure required for post decommissioning use of the site retained and rehabilitated vegetation in all disturbed areas.

Mitigation: Action/control Responsibility Timeframe Remove infrastructure not required for the post-decommissioning use of the site. This may include the internal roads, substation, power line, ancillary buildings etc.

Developer / operator During the decommissioning phase.

Rehabilitate access roads not required for the post-decommissioning use of the site. Consult an ecologist to give input into rehabilitation specifications.

Developer / operator During the decommissioning phase.

Monitor rehabilitated areas quarterly for at least a year following decommissioning, and implement remedial action as and when required.

Developer / operator Post decommissioning.


Vegetation cover on and in the vicinity of the site is intact (i.e. full cover as per natural vegetation within the environment) with no evidence of degradation or erosion.

Monitoring Monitoring of rehabilitated areas quarterly for at least a year following decommissioning.

54

11. REFERENCES/DATA SOURCES Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), 1997. SA-CATS AH 139.01.33: Obstacle Limitations and Markings Outside Aerodrome or Heliport (Marking of Obstacles) and Aviation Act, 1962 (Act No. 74 of 1962) Thirteenth Amendment of the Civil Aviations Regulations (CAR's). Chief Directorate National Geo-Spatial Information, varying dates. 1:50 000 Topo-cadastral Maps and Data. CSIR/ARC, 2000. National Land-cover Database 2000 (NLC 2000). DEADP, Provincial Government of the Western Cape, 2011. Guideline on Generic Terms of Reference for EAPS and Project Schedules Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEA&T), 2001. Environmental Potential Atlas (ENPAT) for the Northern Cape Province National Botanical Institute (NBI), 2004. Vegetation Map of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland (Unpublished Beta Version 3.0) Oberholzer, B. (2005). Guideline for involving visual and aesthetic specialists in EIA processes: Edition 1. Scenic Landscape Architecture (2006). Cullerin Range Wind Farm; Visual Impact Assessment. Unpublished Report. The Environmental Impact Assessment Amendment Regulations. In Government Gazette Nr 33306, 18 June 2010.

proposed project blue wind energy and pv facility in …

Documents