Kuruman Power Line, Northern Cape Province - BA Kuruman... · study area falls within the western...

Mitha Cilliers (Pr LArch)

Newtown Landscape Architects

Kuruman Power Line, Northern Cape Province

Visual Impact Assessment Report

i Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment May 2015

PROPOSED KURUMAN POWER LINE UPGRADE PROJECT,

NORTHERN CAPE PROVINCE

Submitted to:

Zitholele Consulting (PTY) LTD

Building 1 Maxwell Office Park

Magwa Crescent West

Waterfall City, Midrand

Contact No.: +27 11 207 2060

Prepared by:

Newtown Landscape Architects cc

PO Box 36

Fourways

2055

[email protected]

www.newla.co.za

NLA Project No: 1918/V14NC

Report Revision No: Final

Date Issued: 19 May 2015

Prepared By: Mitha Cilliers (Pr LArch)

Reviewed By: Yonanda Martin

NLA Reference: Kuruman Power Line

http://www.newla.co.za/

ii Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment May 2015

EXPERTISE OF SPECIALISTS

Name: Graham A Young

Qualification: Pr LArch

Professional Registration: South African Council for the Landscape Architectural Profession

(SACLAP)

Institute of Landscape Architects of South Africa (ILASA)

Experience in Years: 30 years

Experience Graham is a landscape architect with thirty years’ experience. He has

worked in Southern Africa and Canada and has valuable expertise in the

practice of landscape architecture, urban design and environmental

planning. He is also a senior lecturer, teaching urban design and

landscape architecture at post and under graduate levels at the

University of Pretoria. He specializes in Visual Impact Assessments and

has won an Institute of Landscape Architects Merit Award for his VIA

work.

Name Mitha Cilliers

Qualification Pr LArch

Professional Registration South African Council for the Landscape Architectural Profession

(SACLAP)

Experience in Years 10 years

Experience

Mitha has worked as Landscape Architect in South Africa and Angola

and has valuable expertise in the practice of landscape architecture and

environmental planning. She has been working on visual impact

assessments for Newtown Landscape Architects since 2008. Her

experience comprises of a wide range of visual impact assessments

including game lodges, transmission lines, solar parks and mines.

Acronyms, Abbreviations and Glossary

iii Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment May 2015

ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS & GLOSSARY

Acronyms & Abbreviations

CAD Computer-aided design

DTM Digital Terrain Model

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EMP Environmental Management Plan

GIS Geographic Information System

IFC International Finance Corporation

ILASA Institute for Landscape Architecture in South Africa

NEMA National Environmental Management Act

NLA Newtown Landscape Architects

SACLAP South African Council for the Landscape Architectural Profession

VIA Visual Impact Assessment

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Geographic+Information+System


iv Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment May 2015

Glossary

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

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).


v Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment May 2015

Study area

For the purposes of this report the Kuruman Power Line Project Study

area refers to the proposed project footprint / project 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 15 km radius surrounding

the proposed project footprint / site.

Project Footprint / Site

For the purposes of this report the Kuruman Power Line Project site /

footprint refers to a 1km wide buffer along the length of the proposed

power line alternatives.

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 1,8 m 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 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.

Executive Summary

vi Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment May 2015

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background and Project Overview

Newtown Landscape Architects (NLA) was appointed by Zitholele Consulting (Pty) Ltd to conduct the visual

impact assessment for the proposed upgrade of the 66kV network in the Kuruman area, in Northern Cape

Province. The Kuruman Power Line upgrade project is located between the towns of Hotazel, Kuruman and

Kathu in the Northern Cape Province. The study area will include the subregion around the Hotazel,

Krurman and Kathu towns and the visual analysis will be done on an area up to a width of 1km, 500m on

either sides of the power line (as per the ‘Services Offered & Deliverables’ in the appointment letter). Refer

to Figure 1, in the main body of the report, for the Locality Map.

Aim of the Specialist Study

The main objective of the specialist study is to assess the visual impacts the that would arise from the

implementation of the Kuruman Power Line project on the visual environment and determine the preferred

alignment for the power line upgrade.

The Environmental Setting and Sensitivity

The study area lies at the edge of the Khalahari along the main route between Gauteng and Namibia / Cape

Town via Upington. Agricultural activities mainly comprise of livestock grazing (cattle, sheep and game) and

subsistence farming. The residential component of the study area comprise of the three towns: Hotazel (in

the north), Kuruman (in the central area) and Kathu (in the south) with their associated communities as well

as farmsteads and workers residences. The study area is also well known for its mining industry with

manganese mines in the Hotazel area in the north and iron mines in the south associated with the town of

Kathu. Other than all level of roads, transport infrastructure also includes a railway line, mostly linking the

mines and transporting mining produce from within the study area to the coast and refinery depots.

The landscape character of the study area is mostly defined by the topography and consists of moderately

undulating plains, criss-crossed by a network of, mostly dry, water ways. The larger water ways include the

Kuruman River, Mathlawaring River, Witleegte dry-run, Vlermuisleegte dry-run and Gamogara River. The

study area falls within the western and north-western subdivision of the Kalahari Thornveld, as classified by

Acocks. The typical form of this vegetation type is an wide open savanna with ‘white type’ mostly tufted

grasses.

The study area has a harsh desolate rural character, degraded by the mining industries around Hotazel and

Kathu. At night time, the rural sky will be light up by the mining industries around Hotazel and Kathu, the

lights associated with the three towns, the communities as well as those from farmsteads. The scenic value

had been rated as moderate due to it being common to the sub-region.

Conclusion

From the above visual analysis and comparative study the following conclusions can be made with regards

the two new substations, Gamohaan and Sekgame:

Executive Summary

vii Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment May 2015

The significance of the two new substations were rated as low for the pre-construction phase. For the

Construction phase, the existing condition were rated as low while the cumulative and residual condition was

rated as high for the Gamoane Substation and moderate for the Sekgame Substation. This was similar for

the Operational Phase. In terms of the Decommissioning phase, the existing condition and cumulative

impact were rated as moderate and residual impact as low. This is due to the Gamoane Substation being

located within a service corridor at the foot of a mountain and near a river its severity had been rated as

moderate. While the Sekgame Substation is located within a service corridor near mine dumps, its severity

has therefore been rated as low.

In terms of the substations and switch station upgrades the following can be concluded:

Eldoret Substation: The pre-construction significance ratings are ‘moderate’ for the existing,

cumulative and residual impacts. In terms of Construction the significance for the existing

condition was rated ‘low’ because there are currently no construction activities. The

cumulative and residual impacts, were rated ‘moderate’, as the construction activities will

add ‘nuisance’ to the existing visual impact. The significance of the existing, cumulative and

residual visual impact would be moderate for the Operational phase. The presence of the

132kV substation will continue to exert a ‘nuisance’ to the existing visual environment.

Decommissioning activities would result in a moderate significance for the visual impact on

the existing and cumulative conditions. However, the significance of the residual impact

would be low.

Riries Substation: The pre-construction significance ratings are ‘moderate’ for the existing,

cumulative and residual impacts. In terms of Construction, the significance for the existing








would be low.

Mothibistat Substation: The pre-construction significance ratings are ‘moderate’ for the

existing, cumulative and residual impacts. In terms of Construction, the significance for the

existing condition was rated ‘low’ because there are currently no construction activities. The







would be low.

Moffat Substation: The pre-construction significance ratings are ‘moderate’ for the existing,


Executive Summary

viii Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment May 2015








would be low.

Valley Substation: The pre-construction significance ratings are ‘moderate’ for the existing,









would be low.

The findings of the comparative visual analysis for the upgrade of the power line between Hotzael, Kuruman

and Kathu can be concluded as follows:

Hotazel – Eldoret: Alternative 2 is the preferred alternative for this segment as it has a

greater distance along service corridors, lesser distance through ‘virgin land’ and has no

residential unit incidence.

Eldoret – Riries: Alternative 2 runs for its entire length along an existing power line is

therefore the preferred alternative for this segment.

Riries – Gamohaan: Alternative 1 is the preferred alternative for this segment as it runs for

its entire length along a road and passes on the opposite side of the road along the

Maheana community.

Gamohaan – Mothibistat: Alternative 1 is the preferred alternative for this segment as it has

a shorter total distance, shorter distance through ‘virgin land’ and passes adjacent the

residential area of Kuruman.

Mothibistat – Moffat: Alternative 1 is the preferred alternative for this segment as it runs

along an existing power line for its entire length. Even though it passes 100m and 200m

from guest lodges, these are already exposed to the negative visual impact from the existing

power line.

Moffat – Valley: Even though Alternative 1 has more incidences with residential units and a

greater total distance it is the preferred alternative of the two. Most of the residential units

are already exposed to the negative visual impact of the existing power line. Alternative 1

has the greater distance along existing power lines and the lesser distance through ‘virgin

lands’ and sensitive landscapes.

Executive Summary

ix Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment May 2015

Valley – Sekgame: This segment has four alternatives. The preferred alternative is

Alternative 4. The second preferred alternative is Alternative 1. Alternative 2 is the second

least and Alternative 3 the least preferred alternative. Alternative 4 it the preferred

alternative even though it has the third longest total distance of the four alternatives. It was

the ‘preferred alternative’ in two sets of the criteria as well as the ‘second preferred’ in

another two sets of criteria.

Executive Summary

x Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment May 2015

Executive Summary

xi Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment May 2015

Table of Content

xii Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment May 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Background and Project Overview 1

1.2 Locality and Study Area 1

1.3 Objective of the Specialist Study 1

1.4 Terms and Reference 1

1.5 Assumption, Uncertainties and Limitations 2

2. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AND GUIDELINES 4

2.1 National Guidelines 4

2.2 International Guidelines 4

3. APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY 6

3.1 Approach 6

3.1.1 The Visual Resource 6

3.1.2 Sensitivity of Visual Resource 7

3.1.3 Sense of Place 7

3.1.4 Sensitive Landscape and Viewer Locations 8

3.1.5 Landscape Impact 8

3.1.6 Visual Impact (not applicable at this stage) 8

3.1.7 Severity of Visual Impact (not applicable at this stage) 9

3.1.8 Significance of Visual Impact (not applicable at this stage) 9

3.2 Methodology 9

4. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT 11

5. THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SENSITIVITY 13

5.1 The Study area 13

5.1.1 Residential 13

5.1.2 Agriculture 13

5.1.3 Tourism 13

5.1.4 Mining and Industrial 13

5.1.5 Transportation systems and infrastructure 13

5.2 Landscape Character 14

6. VISUAL RESOURCE 23

6.1 Sense of Place 23

6.2 Visual Resource Value / Scenic Quality / Landscape Sensitivity 23

7. VISUAL RECEPTORS 27

7.1 Visual Receptors 27

7.2 Potential Sensitivity of the Visual Receptors 27

8. VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE PROPOSED NEW GOMOANE AND

SEKGAME SUBSTATIONS 28

8.1 Visual Intrusion 28

8.2 Visibility and Visual Exposure 29

Table of Content

xiii Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment May 2015

8.3 Severity of the Visual Impact and Impact on the Sense of Place 31

8.4 Significance of the Visual Impacts form the Gamoane and Sekgame Substations 32

8.5 Mitigation Measures for the Gamoane and Sekgame Substations 35

8.5.1 Pre-Construction Phase 35

8.5.2 Construction Phase 35

8.5.3 Operational Phase 36

8.5.4 Decommissioning Phase 36

9. VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE PROPOSED SUBSTATION AND

SWITCHING STATION UPGRADES 37

9.1 Eldoret Substation 37

9.2 Riries Substation 37

9.3 Mothibistat Substation 38

9.4 Moffat Substation 38

9.5 Valley Substation 38

9.6 Mitigation Measures for the Substation Upgrades 39

10. VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE PROPOSED POWER LINE

ALTERNATIVES 48

10.1 Hotazel – Eldoret Power Line 48

10.2 Eldoret – Riries Power Line 49

10.3 Riries – Gamohaan Power Line 49

10.4 Gamohaan – Mothibistat Power Line 49

10.5 Mothibistat – Moffat Power Line 50

10.6 Moffat – Valley Power Line 51

10.7 Valley – Sekgame Power Line 51

10.8 Mitigation Measures for the Substation Upgrades 80

11. CONCLUSION 81

12. REFERENCES 86

APPENDIX A: DETERMINING A LANDSCAPE AND THE VALUE OF THE VISUAL

RESOURCE 87

APPENDIX B: METHOD FOR DETERMINING THE INTENSITY OF LANDSCAPE AND

VISUAL IMPACT 92

APPENDIX C: SIGNIFICANCE RATING METHODOLOGY 99

1. Nature of the impact 99

2. Extent of the impact 99

3. Duration of the impact 99

4. Potential intensity of the impact 100

5. Likelihood of the impact 101

6. Cumulative Impacts 102

7. Significance Assessment 102

8. Notation of Impacts 105

Table of Content

xiv Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment May 2015

APPENDIX D: DECLERATION OF INDEPENDENCE 106

APPENDIX E: CURRICULUM VITAE 107

List of Figures

xv Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment May 2015

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Locality

Figure 2 Project Components

Figure 3.1 to 3.8 Landscape Character

Figure 4.1 Landscape Sensitivity Northern Section (Hotazel – Kuruman)

Figure 4.2 Landscape Sensitivity Southern Section (Kuruman – Kathu)

Figure 5.1 Photo Simulation 1

Figure 5.2 Photo Simulation 2

List of Tables

xvi Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment May 2015

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Value of the Visual Resource

Table 2 Potential Sensitivity of Visual Receptors

Table 3 Visual Intrusion of Gomoane and Sekgame Substations

Table 4 Visual Exposure of the Sensitive Viewer Locations to the Gomoane Substation

Table 5 Visual Exposure of the Sensitive Viewer Locations to the Sekgame Substation

Table 6 Severity of Impact of the Gomoane and Sekgame Substations

Table 7.1 Significance of Visual Impact from the Gomoane and Sekgame Substations – Pre-

Construction Phase

Table 7.2 Significance of Visual Impact from the Gomoane and Sekgame Substations –

Construction Phase


Operation Phase


Decommissioning Phase

Table 8.1 Significance of Visual Impact from the Substations to be Upgraded - Pre-

Construction Phase

Table 8.2 Significance of Visual Impact from the Substations to be Upgraded - Construction

Phase

Table 8.3 Significance of Visual Impact from the Substations to be Upgraded - Operational

Phase

Table 8.4 Significance of Visual Impact from the Substations to be Upgraded -

Decommissioning Phase

Table 9.1 Hotzael – Eldoret Power Line Alternatives 1 and 2

Table 9.2 Eldoret - Rieries Power Line Alternatives 1 and 2

Table 9.3 Rieries - Gamohaan Power Line Alternatives 1 and 2

Table 9.4 Gamohaan – Mothibistat Power Line Alternatives 1 and 2

Table 9.5 Mothibistat – Moffat Power Line Alternatives 1 and 2

List of Tables

xvii Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment May 2015

Table 9.6 Moffat – Valley Power Line Alternatives 1 and 2

Table 9.7 Valley – Sekgame Power Line Alternatives 1 to 4

Table 10.1 Significance of Visual Impact from the Power Line Alternatives - Pre-Construction

Phase

Table 10.2 Significance of Visual Impact from the Power Line Alternatives - Construction Phase

Table 10.3 Significance of Visual Impact from the Power Line Alternatives - Operational Phase

Table 10.4 Significance of Visual Impact from the Power Line Alternatives - Decommissioning

Phase

Introduction

1 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment May 2015

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background and Project Overview

Newtown Landscape Architects (NLA) was appointed by Zitholele Consulting (Pty) Ltd to conduct the visual

impact assessment for the proposed upgrade of the 66kV network in the Kuruman area, in Northern Cape

Province.

1.2 Locality and Study Area

The Kuruman Power Line upgrade project is located between the towns of Hotazel, Kuruman and Kathu in

the Northern Cape Province. The study area will include the subregion around the Hotazel, Krurman and

Kathu towns and the visual analysis will be done on an area up to a width of 1km, 500m on either sides of

the power line (as per the ‘Services Offered & Deliverables’ in the appointment letter). Refer to Figure 1 for

the Locality Map.

1.3 Objective of the Specialist Study

The main aim of this visual impact study is to assess the impacts of the proposed power line on the receiving

environment by:

Defining the and rating the visual resource and sense of place and

Identifying the potential sensitive visual receptor locations and determining their sensitivity

towards the proposed project.

After the visual resource had been discussed the visual impact of the two substations will be discussed and

their significance rated based on the method provided by the environmental consultant. There after the three

alternatives will be compared to determine the preferred alternative from a visual impact perspective. This

will be done by discussing visual impact of each alternative and rating the significance of each alternative.

Section 2 ‘Approach & Methodology’ gives a detailed description of this process.

1.4 Terms and Reference

In order to define the visual resource and sense of place, the following scope of work has been established:

Describe the visual resource (i.e. receiving environment) and its sensitivity to and the sense

of place of the proposed site for the project.

Describe and map the landscape character of the study area. The description of the

landscape will focus on the nature and character of the landscape rather than the response

of a viewer.

Describe the quality of the landscape. Aesthetic appeal is described using recognized

contemporary research in perceptual psychology as its basis.

Describe the sense of place of the study area as to the uniqueness and distinctiveness of the

landscape. The primary informant of these qualities is the spatial form and character of the

natural landscape together with the cultural transformations associated with the historic /

current use of the land.

Legal Requirements & Guidelines


1.5 Assumption, Uncertainties and Limitations

Digital terrain modeling makes use of the current publically available topographical data as supplied by the

Land Surveyor General.

For the visual analysis modeling the following specifications for the 50kN Mono Pole Double Circuit

Intermediate Suspension Regular Dodecagon (twelve sided) Shaped Shaft structure had been used:

a generic spacing of 300m

the worst case scenario height of 30m

Introduction




2. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AND GUIDELINES

This report adheres to the following legal requirements and guideline documents.

2.1 National Guidelines

National Environmental Management Act, 107 (NEMA, No. 107 of 1998) and EIA Regulations (2010)

The specialist report is in accordance to the specification on conducting specialist studies as per

Government Notice (GN) Regulation (R) 543 of the NEMA. The mitigation measures as stipulated in the

specialist report can be used as part of the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) and will be in support of

the EIA.

The NEMA Protected Areas Act, 57 (NEMPAA, No. 57 of 2003)

The main aim of the Act is to identify and protect natural landscapes. According to the 2010 regulations

there are specific regulations for compilation of a specialist report. This VIA report adheres to these

specifications.

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

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

cultural landscapes, nature reserves, proclaimed scenic routes and urban conservation areas.

Western Cape Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning: Guideline for Involving Visual

and Aesthetic Specialists in EIA Processes Edition 1 (CSIR, 2005)

Although the guidelines were specifically compiled for the Province of the Western Cape it provides guidance

that will be appropriate for any EIA process. The Guideline document also seeks to clarify instances when a

visual specialist should get involved in the EIA process.

2.2 International Guidelines

World Bank’s IFC Standards

The World Bank’s International Finance Corporation (IFC) Standards: Environmental, Health and Safety

Guidelines for Mining, refers to VIA’s 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 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 specialist study is in accordance to the IFC Performance Standards (Performance Standard 1: Social

and Environmental Assessment and Management Systems) for the undertaking of Environmental

Assessments and contributes to the EIA for the proposed Project.

Approach and Methodology


3. APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

The following section describes the approach and methodology that will be followed during the full impact

assessment investigation.

3.1 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 impact the

worst-case scenario is taken into account. Landscape and visual assessments are separate, although linked,

procedures.

The landscape, its analysis and the assessment of impacts on the landscape all contribute to the baseline for

visual impact assessment studies. The assessment of the potential impact 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 The 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 environment. A qualitative evaluation of the

landscape is essentially a subjective matter. 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.

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). Thus 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 also to

Appendix B for further elaboration.

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;

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;

Landmark quality: a particular feature that stands out and is recognized by the broader

community.

And conversely, it would be low where:

Limited patterns of grasslands and trees occur;

Natural landscape decreases and man-made landscape increases;

And where land use compatibility decreases (after Crawford, 1994).

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 ultimately 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).

3.1.3 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 Landscape and 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;

Occupiers of residential properties with views affected by the development.

Other receptors include:

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;

People at their place of work.

Views from residences and tourist facilities / routes are typically more sensitive, since views from 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 (severity) of change in the landscape brought about by the proposed new

project 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 (not applicable at this stage)

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).

3.1.7 Severity of Visual Impact (not applicable at this stage)

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;

The reactions of viewers who may be affected.

For a detailed description of the methodology used in this study, refer to Appendix B, C and D.

3.1.8 Significance of Visual Impact (not applicable at this stage)

A combined quantitative and qualitative methodology, as supplied by the Environmental Practitioner, was

used to describe the impacts for: significance, spatial scale, temporal scale, probability and degree of

certainty. A summary of each of the qualitative descriptions along with the equivalent quantitative rating

scale is given in Annexure D.

3.2 Methodology

The following method was used in performing the baseline and mapping study :

Site visit: A field survey was undertaken in December 2014 and the study area scrutinized to

the extent that the receiving environment could be documented and adequately described;

Project components: The physical characteristics of the project components were described

and illustrated;

General landscape characterization: The visual resource (i.e. receiving environment) was

mapped using field survey and GIS mapping technology. The description of the landscape

focused on the nature of the land rather than the response of a viewer (refer to Appendix B);

The landscape character of the study area was described. The description of the landscape

focused on the nature and character of the landscape rather than the response of a viewer;

The quality of the landscape was described. Aesthetic appeal was described using

recognized contemporary research in perceptual psychology as the basis;



The sense of place of the study area was described as to the uniqueness and

distinctiveness of the landscape. The primary informant of these qualities was the spatial

form and character of the natural landscape together with the cultural transformations

associated with the historic / current use of the land;

The following methodology will further be used to complete the impact assessment phase:

Illustrations, in very basic simulations, of the proposed project will be overlaid onto

panoramas of the landscape, as seen from nearby sensitive viewing points to give the

reviewer an idea of the scale and location of the proposed project within their landscape

context;

Visual intrusion (contrast) of the proposed project will be determined by simulating its

physical appearance from sensitive viewing areas;

The visual exposure of the sensitive viewers as a result from the implementation of the

proposed project will be determined;

The significance of the impact of the proposed project on the visual environment and

sense of place will be rated; and

Measures that could mitigate the negative impacts of the proposed project will be

recommended.

Description of the Project


4. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT

The proposed upgrade of the 66kV power line to a 132kV power line over the distance of approximately

155km in the Kuruman area will include the following activities:

Decommission the existing 66kV network and upgrade it to a 132kV network between the

Hotazel Substation and Valley Substation. This will supply the following en route

substations: Gamohaan, Eldoret, Riries, Valley, Mothibistat and Moffat.

Extend the 132kV network from Valley Substation to the new Sekgame Substation

Decommission old 66kV substation infrastructure at Eldoret, Riries, Valley and Moffat and

extend it to 132kV substations.

Decommission existing Mothibistat Switching Station and Asbes Substation to build a new

Mothibistat 132 / 22kV Substation.

Build two new 132 / 22kV Substations, Gamohaan and Sekgame.

Refer to Figure 2 for images of the proposed monopole structures as well as a typical substation.

Description of the Project


Environmental Setting & Sensitivity


5. THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SENSITIVITY

The description of the receiving environment for the proposed Kuruman Power Line Project was sourced

from desktop studies, aerial photographs, 1:50 000 Topographical maps and the observations of the

specialist during the site visit conducted from 5 to 8 December 2014. Refer to Figures 3.1 to 3.8 at the end

of this section for graphics and images pertaining to this section.

5.1 The Study area

5.1.1 Residential

The residential component of the study area comprise of the three towns: Hotazel (in the north), Kuruman (in

the central area) and Kathu (in the south) with their associated communities as well as farmsteads and

workers residences.

5.1.2 Agriculture

Agricultural activities mainly comprise of livestock grazing (cattle, sheep and game) and subsistence farming.

Subsistence farming is more associated with the townships and the residences on the farms.

5.1.3 Tourism

The study area lies at the edge of the Khalahari along the main route between Gauteng and Namibia / Cape

Town via Upington. It hosts a number of game farms, lodges and a small nature reserve. The Billy

Duvenhage Nature Reserve is located just outside, to the west, of Kuruman and is home to several bird and

game species. Other tourist attractions include the ‘Eye of Kuruman’, a natural spring that produces 20 to 30

million liter water per day. The study area falls within a sub-region well known for its rugged scenic beauty.

5.1.4 Mining and Industrial

The study area is also well known for its mining industry with manganese mines in the Hotazel area in the

north and iron mines in the south associated with the town of Kathu.

5.1.5 Transportation systems and infrastructure

Roads within the study area include from national to local dirt road level. The N14, between Kuruman and

Kathu, forms the main route between Gauteng and Namibia / Cape Town via Upington and thus serves both

local and tourist travellers. The R31, between Hotazel and Kuruman, is one of the main routes to the

Kgalagadi and Botswana. The railway line mostly links the mines and transports mining produce from within

the study area to the coast and refinery depots. Each one of the towns has its own associated airstrip,

mostly utilised by the mining industry.

Other infrastructure includes telecoms, cell phone and electrical structures dispersed throughout the study

area.

The Environmental Setting


5.2 Landscape Character

Landscape character types are landscape units refined from the regional physiographic and cultural data

derived from 1:50 000 topographical maps, aerial photographs and information gathered during the site visit.

Dominant landform and land use features (e.g., hills, rolling plains, valleys and urban areas) of similar

physiographic and visual characteristics, typically define landscape character types.

The landscape character of the study area is mostly defined by the topography and consists of moderately

undulating plains, criss-crossed by a network of, mostly dry, water ways. The larger water ways include the

Kuruman River, Mathlawaring River, Witleegte dry-run, Vlermuisleegte dry-run and Gamogara River. The

Kuruman River runs more or less parallel and to the north of the R31 between Kuruman and Hotazel

meeting up with the Mathlawaring River in the north. From there, the Kuruman River runs in a westerly

direction. The Witleegte dry-run runs more or less parallel and to the south of the R31, originating

approximately halfway between Kuruman and Hotzael. It runs into the Gamoraga River south-west of

Hotzael. The Vlermuisleegte dry-run, runs parallel to the south of the Witleegte dry-run and originates north-

east of Kathu. It runs into the Gamoraga Riversouth-west of Hotazel. The Gamoraga River originates

further south-west from Kathu. From Kathu it runs north and bends east just before the Vlermuisleegte and

Witleegte dry-runs meets up with it south-west of Hotazel. From there it runs north again to meet up with the

Kuruman River north-west of Hotazel. A mountain range, running more or less north-south through the study

area, just east of the centre, separates Hotazel and Kathu from Kuruman.

In terms of vegetation, the study area falls within the western and north-western subdivision of the Kalahari

Thornveld, as classified by Acocks. The typical form of this vegetation type is an wide open savanna of

Acacia erioloba and A. haematoxylon with exceptions along rivers as well as near hills and mountains where

Boschia albitrunca, Grewia flava, Lycium hirsutum and Rhigozum trichotomum are also more prominent.

The grasses are of the ‘white type’ mostly tufted and include species such as Aristida spp., Eragrostis spp.

and Stipagrostis uniplumis. In valley and on dunes Stipagrostis namaquensis, Centropodia glauca,

Monechma incanum and Crotalaria virgulatalis become more dominant. The sparseness and tufted nature

of the grass in combination with the looseness of the sandy soil type make this veld type very vulnerable to

grazing pressure. The low inhabitation level, due to the low levels of surface water, has protected the

vegetation type in this regard.

Environmental Setting & Sensitivity
















Visual Resource


6. VISUAL RESOURCE

6.1 Sense of Place

According to Lynch (1992) sense of place "is the extent to which a person can recognize or recall a place as

being distinct from other places - as having a vivid, or unique, or at least particular, character of its own".

The combination of the topographical elements - mountain range and associated ridge lines / clusters of

koppies, the dry and wet / semi-wet waterways - as well as vegetation and land use patterns create a harsh

desolate rural landscape degraded by the mining industries around Hotazel and Kathu. At night time, the

rural sky will be lit up by the mining industries around Hotazel and Kathu, the lights associated with the three

towns, the communities as well as those from farmsteads.

6.2 Visual Resource Value / Scenic Quality / Landscape Sensitivity

Figure 8 indicates the sensitivity of the landscape types discussed in Section 5. The figure also rates the

relative scenic quality of each type and its landscape sensitivity. Scenic quality ratings (using the scenic

quality rating criteria described in Appendix C) were assigned to each of the landscape types. The highest

value is assigned to the mountain range and associated ridge lines / clusters of koppies as well as the dry

and wet / semi-wet waterways. The residential areas including the towns with associated communities were

assigned with a moderate rating. Industrial / mining and infrastructural (roads, railways and power lines)

types received the lowest rating.

Table 1: Value of the Visual Resource

(After The Landscape Institute with the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (2002))

High (Scenic)

mountain range and associated

ridge lines / clusters of koppies as

well as the dry and wet / semi-wet

waterways

Moderate (Pleasing)

towns and communities

Low (Mundane)

Mines, roads, railways and power

lines

This landscape type is considered

to have a high value because it is

a:

Distinct landscape that exhibits a

very positive character with valued

features that combine to give the

experience of unity, richness and

harmony. It is a landscape that

may be considered to be of

particular importance to conserve

and which has a strong sense of

place.

Sensitivity:

It is sensitive to change in general

and will be detrimentally affected if

change is inappropriately dealt

with.


to have a moderate value because

it is a:

Common landscape that exhibits

some positive character but which

has evidence of alteration

/degradation/erosion of features

resulting in areas of more mixed

character.

Sensitivity:

It is potentially sensitive to change

in general and change may be

detrimental if inappropriately dealt

with.


to have a low value because it is

a:

Minimal landscape generally

negative in character with few, if

any, valued features.

From the table above it can be concluded that the study area has a moderate value because it is common to

the sub-region and although it exhibits a positive character, has been degraded by industrial and

infrastructural features. Refer to Figures 4.1 and 4.2 below for the location of these landscape types.

Visual Resource


Visual Resource


Visual Resource


Visual Receptors


7. VISUAL RECEPTORS

7.1 Visual Receptors

Visual receptors within the study area will include:

residents of the towns, communities and farmsteads with associated workers housing;

recreation facilities and tourist destinations;

local and tourist travellers within and through the study area, as well as

mines, industries and businesses.

7.2 Potential Sensitivity of the Visual Receptors

With reference to Table 2 below, viewers with a potentially high sensitivity would include people living in the

towns (Hotazel, Kuruman and Kathu), various communities (refer to the landscape character map on Figure

8 for the locations of the various communities), farmsteads with associated workers housing within the study

area as well as the recreational facilities and tourist destinations. Visual receptors with a moderate

sensitivity would be travellers moving through the study area. Visual receptors with a low sensitivity, would

include employees in the mining and related industries. Refer to Table 2 and Figures 4.1 and 4.2 above.

Table 2: Potential Sensitivity of Visual Receptors

High

residents of the towns,

communities and on farms

as well as recreation facilities and

tourist destinations

Moderate

local and tourist travelers

Low

mines, related industries and

businesses

Communities where the

development results in changes in

the landscape setting or valued


Occupiers of residential properties

with views affected by the

development.

People travelling through or past

the affected landscape on the local

roads.

Visitors and people working within

the study area and travelling along

local roads whose attention may

be focused on their work or activity

and who therefore may be

potentially less susceptible to

changes in the view.

Conclusion


8. VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE PROPOSED NEW GOMOANE AND SEKGAME

SUBSTATIONS

The following section will discuss and rate the visual impact from the two proposed substations, Gomoane

(located approximately 10.5km north-west of Kuruman) and Sekgame (located approximately 6.2km south of

Kathu). Visual impact derives from the changes that arise in the composition of available views as a result of

changes to the landscape, to people’s responses to the changes, and to the overall effects with respect to

visual amenity.

8.1 Visual Intrusion

Visual intrusion deals with the notion of contextualism or the impact of the proposed substations on the

landscape i.e. how well does a project component fit with or disrupt / enhance the ecological and cultural

aesthetic of the landscape as a whole? To evaluate landscape impact it is assumed that the landscape has

some inherent scenic value. The existing aesthetic value of the landscape that could be affected negatively

by the proposed substation had been described in the preceding sections. The next step is to assess the

contrast created by proposed activities against this landscape background – i.e. visual intrusion of project

activities.

With reference to Table 3 below, the visual intrusion of the proposed Gomoane Substation, located along

and to the south of the R31, approximately 10.5km south-west of Kuruman, was rated as moderate. This is

due to the substation being located along a main road but within a service corridor and being seen against

the back drop of the mountain when travelling both north- and southbound along the R31 and being seen

from residences and roads from the nearby Maruping and Mamoratwe communities.

The Sekgame Substation, located along the N14 approximately 6.2km south of the town of Kathu was rated

with a low visual intrusion. The substation is situated within a service corridor. An existing substation is

located on the same side of the road approximately 4.5km to the north. For both north- and south bound

travellers along the N14, the substation would be seen against the backdrop of the Kathu mine dumps. This

would be the same for the two farmsteads located approximately 1.4km and 6.2km to the east of the

proposed substation.

Conclusion


Table 3: Visual Intrusion of Gomoane and Sekgame Substations

High Moderate

Gomoane Substation

Low

Sekgame Substation

Positive

If the proposed project:

- Has a substantial

negative effect on the

visual quality (sense of

place) of the landscape;

- Contrasts dramatically

with the patterns or

elements that define the

structure of the immediate

landscape;

- Contrasts with land

use, settlement or

enclosure patterns of the

immediate environment;

- Cannot be ‘absorbed’

into the landscape from

key viewing areas.

Result:

Notable change in

landscape characteristics

over an extensive area

and/or intensive change

over a localized area

resulting in major changes

to key views


- Has a moderate negative

effect on the visual quality

(sense of place) of the

landscape;

- Contrasts with the

patterns or elements that

define the structure of the

landscape;

- Is partially compatible

with land use (utilities)

patterns of the general

area;

- Is partially ‘absorbed’

into the landscape from

key viewing areas.

Result:

Moderate change in


over localized area,

resulting in a moderate

change to key views


- Has minimal effect on

the visual quality (sense of

place) of the landscape;

- Contrasts minimally with

the patterns or elements

that define the structure of

the landscape;

- Is mostly compatible

with land use, (utility)

patterns;

- is ‘absorbed’ into the

landscape from key

viewing areas.

Result

Moderate change in


over localized area

resulting in a minor

change to a few key

views.


- Has a beneficial effect

on the visual quality

(sense of place) of the

landscape;

- Enhances the patterns or


structure of the landscape;

- Is compatible with land

use, settlement or

enclosure patterns.

Result

Positive change in key

views.

Highlighted sections are applicable to the Project.

8.2 Visibility and Visual Exposure

In determining the visibility of the project the ‘zone of potential influence’ was established as 10km. Beyond

10km the impact of Project activities would have diminished due to the diminishing effect of distance (the

project recedes into the background) and atmospheric conditions (haze) on visibility. Also, at this distance

the features would appear in the far-background of a view and thus begin to be ‘absorbed’ into the landscape

setting.

Visual exposure of Project components is determined by the proximity of the viewer to the various activities.

The impact of an object in the foreground of a view (0 – 0.8km) is greater than the impact of that same object

in the middle ground (0.8km – 5km), which in turn is greater than the impact of the object in the background

(greater than 5km) of a particular scene. Therefore the visibility and visual exposure for viewers within 0.8km

of Project components will be high, for viewers between 0.8km and 5km it will be moderate and beyond 5km

it will be low.

Conclusion


The potential for visual impact has been established by assessing the intrusive nature of the substation

structures on the landscape, the next step is to ascertain the potential impact this would have on key views

i.e. sensitive viewing areas up to a radius of 5km (fore - and middle ground) around the project footprint.

The sensitivity of visual receptors and views is dependent on:

location and context of the viewpoint;

expectations and occupation or activity of the receptor; and

importance of the view (which 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 for the study area will therefore include:

users of all public rights of way;

communities (villages) where the 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.

The least sensitive receptors are likely to be people at their place of work, or engaged in similar activities,

whose attention may be focused on their work or activity and who therefore may be potentially less

susceptible to changes in the view i.e. mine workers and employees. In this process more weight is usually

given to changes in the view or visual amenity which are greater in scale and visible over a wide area

(Institute of Environmental Assessment and the Landscape Institute (1996)).

Within the context of the study area the most sensitive receptors are therefore people living in, travelling

through and visiting the study area. Figure 5 indicates the receptor / village / community locations relative to

the Project site and also indicates the extent of the foreground (up to 800m) and middle-ground (up to

5.0km) views from the receptor / village / community edges. Where the development occurs within these

viewing arcs, the impact is likely to be high assuming that the project could be seen.

Sensitive viewing areas identified within a 5km (up to middle-ground) radius of the Gomoane Substation

site, are:

R31, main road and tourist route

Maruping and Mamoratwe communities

The mountainous area to the west of the substation site, screens views from the west. Travellers along the

R31 would have a range of exposure rated from insignificant to high as they approach the substation site.

Both the communities, Maruping and Mamoratwe, would have a moderate exposure. Table 4 below

summarises the visual exposure of the above identified sensitive viewers in relation to the Gomoane

Substation.

Conclusion


Table 4: Visual Exposure of the Sensitive Viewer Locations to the Gomoane Substation

Foreground

(High Exposure -

significant

contribution to visual

impact)

Middle-ground

(Moderate Exposure -

moderate contribution

to visual impact)

Far Middle-ground

(Low Exposure -

minimal influence on

visual impact)

Background

(Insignificant

Exposure -

negligible influence

on visual impact)

R31 road

0 – 0.8 .km

0.8 – 5.0 km

5.0 – 10.0 km

Over 10.0 km

Maruping and

Mamoratwe

communities

0 – 0.8 .km

0.8 – 5.0 km

5.0 – 10.0 km

Over 10.0 km

Highlighted sections are applicable to the proposed Project.

Sensitive viewing areas identified within a 5km (up to middle-ground) radius of the Sekgame Substation

site, are:

N14, national road and tourist route

farmsteads

The mining dumps to the west of the site, screens views from the west. Travellers along the N14 would have

a range of exposure rated from insignificant to high as they approach the substation site. Both the

farmsteads would have a moderate exposure. Table 5 below summarises the visual exposure of the above

identified sensitive viewers in relation to the Sekgame Substation.

Table 5: Visual Exposure of the Sensitive Viewer Locations to the Sekgame Substation

Foreground

(High Exposure -

significant

contribution to visual

impact)

Middle-ground

(Moderate Exposure -

moderate contribution

to visual impact)

Far Middle-ground

(Low Exposure -

minimal influence on

visual impact)

Background

(Insignificant

Exposure -

negligible influence

on visual impact)

N14 road

0 – 0.8 .km

0.8 – 5.0 km

5.0 – 10.0 km

Over 10.0 km

farmsteads

0 – 0.8 .km

0.8 – 5.0 km

5.0 – 10.0 km

Over 10.0 km

Highlighted sections are applicable to the proposed Project.

8.3 Severity of the Visual Impact and Impact on the Sense of Place

To assess the severity of visual impact the following four main factors as discussed above, are considered:

Visual Intrusion: the nature of intrusion or contrast (physical characteristics) of a project

component on the visual quality of the surrounding environment and its compatibility/discord

with the landscape and surrounding land use.

Visibility: the area / points from which project components will be visible.

Exposure: the distance of the viewer from the project.

Sensitivity: sensitivity of visual receptors to the proposed development.

Conclusion


In synthesising these criteria a numerical or weighting system is avoided. Attempting to attach a precise

numerical value to qualitative resources is rarely successful, and should not be used as a substitute for

reasoned professional judgment (Institute of Environmental Assessment and the Landscape Institute

(1996)). Using these criteria and those in Table 6 below, the severity of the visual impact (worst case

scenario – i.e. unmitigated and not rehabilitated) can be determined.

Table 6: Severity of Impact of the Gomoane and Sekgame Substations

High Moderate

Gomoane Substation

Low

Sekgame Substation

Negligible

Total loss of or major

alteration to key elements

/ features / characteristics

of the baseline.

i.e. Pre-development

landscape or view and / or

introduction of elements

considered to be totally

uncharacteristic when set

within the attributes of the

receiving landscape.

High scenic quality

impacts would result.

Partial loss of or

alteration to key

elements / features /

characteristics of the

baseline.




that may be prominent but

may not necessarily be

considered to be

substantially




Moderate scenic quality

impacts would result

Minor loss of or

alteration to key

elements / features /


baseline.




that may not be




Low scenic quality


Very minor loss or

alteration to key

elements/features/charact

eristics of the baseline.




that is not uncharacteristic

with the surrounding

landscape –

approximating the ‘no

change’ situation.

Negligible scenic quality


Due to the Gamoane Substation being located within a service corridor at the foot of a mountain and near a

river its severity had been rated as moderate. While the Sekgame Substation is located within a service

corridor near mine dumps, its severity has therefore been rated as low.

8.4 Significance of the Visual Impacts form the Gamoane and Sekgame Substations

The significance of the visual Impacts that would arise from the installation of the two substations had been

rated using the methodology as supplied by the environmental consultant (Refer to Appendix B). Refer to

tables 7.1 to 7.4 below for the significance ratings of substations Gamoane and Sekgame.

From Table 7.1 it is clear that the existing, cumulative and residual visual impact from both the substations

would be low for the Pre-Construction phase.

From Table 7.2, Construction Phase, the visual impact can be summarized as low for the existing condition

and as moderate for the cumulative and residual conditions for both substations.

Conclusion


Table 7.1: Significance of Visual Impact from the Gomoane and Sekgame Substations – Pre-Construction Phase

Table 7.2: Significance of Visual Impact from the Gomoane and Sekgame Substations – Construction Phase

Conclusion


Table 7.3: Significance of Visual Impact from the Gomoane and Sekgame Substations – Operation Phase

Table 7.4: Significance of Visual Impact from the Gomoane and Sekgame Substations – Decommissioning Phase

Conclusion


In terms of the Operational Phase, with reference to Table 7.3, the existing condition for both the substations

was rated as low while the cumulative and residual condition was rated as high for the Gamoane Substation

and moderate for the Sekgame Substation.

Decommissioning, refer to Table 7.4, was rated as moderate for both existing and cumulative conditions for

both the substations and as low for the residual condition.

8.5 Mitigation Measures for the Gamoane and Sekgame Substations

In considering mitigating measures there are three rules that were considered - the measures should be

feasible (economically), effective (how long will it take to implement and what provision is made for

management / maintenance) and acceptable (within the framework of the existing landscape and land use

policies for the area). To address these, the following principles have been considered:

Mitigation measures should be designed to suit the existing landscape character and needs

of the locality. They should respect and build upon landscape distinctiveness.

It should be recognized that many mitigation measures, especially the establishment of

planted screens and rehabilitation, are not immediately effective.

The following mitigation measures are suggested.

8.5.1 Pre-Construction Phase

There are no visual impacts during this phase and therefore no mitigation measures are proposed.

8.5.2 Construction Phase

It is proposed that areas of disturbance be minimized as far as possible during the

construction phase.

Retain as much as possible of the existing vegetation along the substation footprint as

possible.

Implement dust suppression techniques at all times.

Rehabilitate / restore exposed areas as soon as possible after construction activities are

complete.

Only indigenous vegetation should be used for rehabilitation / landscaping purposes.

Security lighting should only be used where absolutely necessary and carefully directed.

The negative impact of night lighting, glare and spotlight effects, can be mitigated using the following

methods:

Install light fixtures that provide precisely directed illumination to reduce light “spillage”

beyond the immediate surrounds of the project.

Avoid using bright, white colour lights where possible. Preferably use lights emitting a yellow

light which travels less that white coloured lights.

If possible, light public movement areas (pathways and roads) with low level ‘bollard’ type

lights and avoid post top lighting. Should vandalism be a problem in the area other lighting

alternatives should be considered.

Avoid high pole top security lighting where possible.

Conclusion


8.5.3 Operational Phase

Operational and security lighting should only be used where absolutely necessary and

carefully directed. Also refer to Item 8.5.2 above.

8.5.4 Decommissioning Phase

It is proposed that areas of disturbance be minimized as far as possible during the

Decommissioning phase.

Retain as much as possible of the existing vegetation around the footprint of the

decommissioning activities as possible.

Implement dust suppression techniques at all times.

Rehabilitate / restore exposed areas as soon as possible after decommissioning activities

are complete.

Only indigenous vegetation should be used for rehabilitation / landscaping purposes.

Security lighting should only be used where absolutely necessary and carefully directed.

Also refer to Item 8.5.2 above.

Conclusion


9. VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE PROPOSED SUBSTATION AND SWITCHING STATION

UPGRADES

The following section will discuss and rate the visual impact of the proposed decommissioning and upgrades

of Eldoret, Riries, Moffat, Valley 66kV substations to 132kV substations as well as the decommissioning and

upgrade of the Mothibistat and Asbes Switching Stations to a 132kV Substation.

For this section the setting of each substation and switch station will be discussed in terms of visibility, visual

exposure, visual intrusion as well as the impact on sensitive viewers (refer to section 8 for elaborate

discussions on visibility, visual exposure, visual intrusion as well as sensitive viewers) where after the

significance of the visual impact will be rated according to the significance table as provided by the

environmental consultant.

9.1 Eldoret Substation

The Eldoret Substation is located between Hotazel and Kuruman, approximately 3km east of the Magobing

community, approximately 1.3km west of an existing mine dump and approximately 1.2km north of a

farmstead surrounded only by a good stance of Kalahari Thornveld vegetation. As there is an existing

substation, the substation upgrade will have a minimal cumulative negative visual effect.

With reference to Table 8.1 below, the pre-construction significance ratings are ‘moderate’ for the existing,

cumulative and residual impacts. In terms of construction, refer to Table 8.2 below, the significance for the

existing condition was rated ‘low’ because there are currently no construction activities. The cumulative and

residual impact, were rated ‘moderate’, as the construction activities will add ‘nuisance’ to the existing visual

impact. Table 8.3, below, indicates that the significance of the existing, cumulative and residual visual

impact would be moderate for the Operational phase. The presence of the 132kV substation will continue to

exert a ‘nuisance’ to the existing visual environment. In terms of Decommissioning, Table 8.4 below, the

Decommissioning activities would result in a moderate significance for the visual impact on the existing and

cumulative conditions. However, the significance of the residual impact would be low.

9.2 Riries Substation

The Riries Substation is located between Hotzael and Kuruman, approximately 110m north of the R31 within

a good stance of Kalahari Thornveld. Some small scale historic mining activities are located approximately

150m to the northeast, 600m to the south and 850m to the southwest. As there is an existing substation, the

substation upgrade will have a minimal cumulative negative visual effect.


cumulative and residual impacts. In terms of Construction, refer to Table 8.2 below, the significance for the





Conclusion





9.3 Mothibistat Substation

The Mothibistat Substation is located within Kuruman, approximately 500m south of Buitekant Street

adjacent to the Mothibistat residential area. The site is currently occupied by an existing Switching Station.

As there is an existing switching station, the substation upgrade will have a minimal cumulative negative

visual effect.










9.4 Moffat Substation

The Moffat Substation is located within Kuruman, adjacent and to the west of the light industrial area in the

southern section of Kuruman. As there is an existing substation, the substation upgrade will have a minimal

cumulative negative visual effect.










9.5 Valley Substation

The Valley Substation is located within the mountainous area between Kuruman and Kathu, approximately

19.6km southwest of Kuruman and approximately 29.6km northeast of Kathu. It is situated within a remote

valley near a local farm road and approximately 4.1km north of the Mansfield / Holhoek local dirt road. A

farmstead is located approximately 1km to the east and some small scale mining activities approximately

Conclusion


1.5km to the southeast. As there is an existing substation, the substation upgrade will have a minimal

cumulative negative visual effect.










9.6 Mitigation Measures for the Substation Upgrades

Refer to Section 8.5 above.

Conclusion


Table 8.1: Significance of Visual Impact from the Substations to be Upgraded - Pre-Construction Phase

Conclusion


Table 8.2: Significance of Visual Impact from the Substations to be Upgraded - Construction Phase

Conclusion


Conclusion


Table 8.3: Significance of Visual Impact from the Substations to be Upgraded - Operational Phase

Conclusion


Conclusion


Conclusion


Table 8.4: Significance of Visual Impact from the Substations to be Upgraded - Decommissioning Phase

Conclusion


Conclusion


10. VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE PROPOSED POWER LINE ALTERNATIVES

The following section will discuss and rate the visual impact of the proposed power line upgrade alternatives.

The alternatives are as follows:

Hotazel – Eldoret (alternative 1 and 2)

Eldoret - Riries (alternative 1 and 2)

Riries - Gamoaan (alternative 1 and 2)

Gamohaan - Mothibistat (alternative 1 and 2)

Mothibistat - Moffat (alternative 1 and 2)

Moffat - Valley (alternative 1 and 2)

Valley - Sekgame (4 alternatives)

The alternatives will be compared in table format in terms of the following criteria:

Distance* along an existing power line (service corridor)

Distance* along roads (e.g. road or railway line – service corridor)

Distance* through ‘virgin land’ (i.e. not along an existing service corridor)

Distance* through or along sensitive landscape types (i.e. mountains and rivers)

Presence of residential units (farmsteads / residential areas) within a 500m (foreground)

zone

* Note: all measured distances are approximate

This process will identify a preferred alternative. Because the ‘extent’, ‘duration’ and ‘likelihood’ of the power

line alternatives would be the same ‘potential intensity’ will be used as the indicating significance factor. The

preferred alternative will be allocated with a ‘potential intensity’ rating of ‘2’ where as the lesser preferred

alternative will be allocated with a rating of ‘4’ in the significance tables 10.1 to 10.4 at the end of this

discussion.

10.1 Hotazel – Eldoret Power Line

This power line segment is the northern most section and lies between Hotazel and Kuruman. Two

alternatives are being proposed.

Table 9.1: Hotazel – Eldoret Power Line Alternatives 1 and 2 Criteria Alternative 1

16.6km

Alternative 2

15.7km

Distance along an existing power line 5.6km 3.4km

Distance along roads 0 5.7km

Distance through ‘virgin land’ 10.6km 6.6km

Distance through or along sensitive landscape types 0 0

Presence of residential units 1 (300m away) 0

Alternative 2 has a greater distance along service corridors, lesser distance through ‘virgin land’ and has no

residential unit incidence. Alternative 2 is the preferred alternative for this segment.

Conclusion


10.2 Eldoret – Riries Power Line

This is the second power line segment from Hotazel and lies between Hotazel and Kuruman. Two

alternatives are being proposed.

Table 9.2: Eldoret - Riries Power Line Alternatives 1 and 2 Criteria Alternative 1

18.5km

Alternative 2

16.6km

Distance along an existing power line 0 16.6km

Distance along roads 11.5km 0

Distance through ‘virgin land’ 7.0km 0

Distance through or along sensitive landscape types 0 0

Presence of residential units 1 (330m away) 1 (370m away)

Alternative 2 runs for its entire length along an existing power line is therefore the preferred alternative for

this segment. Refer to Table 10.1 to 10.4 below for the significance ratings.

10.3 Riries – Gamohaan Power Line

This is the middle power line segment between Hotazel and Kuruman. Two alternatives are being proposed.

Table 9.3: Riries - Gamohaan Power Line Alternatives 1 and 2 Criteria Alternative 1

18.6km

Alternative 2

21.1km

Distance along an existing power line 0 11.8km

Distance along roads 18.6km 0

Distance through ‘virgin land’ 0 9.8km

Distance through or along sensitive landscape types 0 6.5km

Presence of residential units Maheane community 0

Alternative 1 runs for its entire length along a road and passes on the opposite side of the road along the

Maheana community. Alternative 2 runs through the mountainous area and some ‘virgin land’ for a distance

of 9.8km. Alternative 1 is therefore the preferred alternative for this segment. Refer to Table 10.1 to 10.4

below for the significance ratings.

10.4 Gamohaan – Mothibistat Power Line

This power line segment is the last one between Hotazel and Kuruman. Two alternatives are being

proposed.

Conclusion


Table 9.4: Gamohaan – Mothibistat Power Line Alternatives 1 and 2 Criteria Alternative 1

13.5km

Alternative 2

13.5km

Distance along an existing power line 0 0

Distance along roads 10.2km 8.7km


Distance through or along sensitive landscape types river crossing river crossing

Presence of residential units passes adjacent to

the Kuruman

residential area as

well as the informal

area of Mothibistad

passes adjacent to

the Kuruman

residential area

Alternative 2 has a shorter total distance along the roads, longer distance through ‘virgin land’ and passes

adjacent to the residential area of Kuruman. Alternative 1 has a longer distance along the roads and runs

adjacent to the residential area of Kuruman. Alternative 1 is therefore the preferred alternative for this

segment. Refer to Table 10.1 to 10.4 below for the significance ratings.

10.5 Mothibistat – Moffat Power Line

This power line segment wraps around Kuruman on its eastern side. Two alternatives are being proposed.

Table 9.5: Mothibistat – Moffat Power Line Alternatives 1 and 2 Criteria Alternative 1

10.9km

Alternative 2

13.0km


Distance along roads 0 0

Distance through ‘virgin land’ 0 9.9km

Distance through or along sensitive landscape types river crossing river crossing

Presence of residential units passes adjacent

Kuruman residential

areas as well as

100m and 200m

from guest lodges

passes 600m from a

golf course

Alternative 1 runs along an existing power line for its entire length. Even though it passes 100m and 200m

from guest lodges, these are already exposed to the negative visual impact from the existing power line.

Alternative 2 runs for 3/4s of its length through ‘virgin land’. Alternative 1 is therefore the preferred

alternative for this segment. Refer to Table 10.1 to 10.4 below for the significance ratings.

Conclusion


10.6 Moffat – Valley Power Line

Moffat – Valley is the northern of the two power lines between Kuruman and Kathu. It runs mostly through a

mountainous section of the study area. Two alternatives are being proposed.

Table 9.6: Moffat – Valley Power Line Alternatives 1 and 2

Criteria Alternative 1

36.2km

Alternative 2

28.6km


Distance along roads 4.0km 20.1km


Distance through or along sensitive landscape types through approx.

12.2km of

mountainous area

through approx.

16.0km of

mountainous area

Presence of residential units 8 incidences ranging

between 50m and

480m

2 incidences ranging

between 220m and

430m

Even though Alternative 1 has more incidences with residential units and a greater total distance it is the

preferred alternative of the two. Most of the residential units are already exposed to the negative visual

impact of the existing power line. Alternative 1 has the greater distance along existing power lines and the

lesser distance through sensitive landscapes. Refer to Table 10.1 to 10.4 below for the significance ratings.

10.7 Valley – Sekgame Power Line

Valley – Sekgame is the southern segment of the power line between Kuruman and Kathu. Four alternatives

are being proposed. For the purpose of this comparison, the Luhathla Military Area (LMA) boundary fence

has been brought in as another criteria falling under ‘service corridors’ along with ‘roads’ due to its

prominence as a feature in the landscape.

Table 9.7: Valley – Sekgame Power Line Alternatives 1 to 4 Criteria Alternative 1

39.6km

Alternative 2

40.6km

Alternative 3

42.1km

Alternative 4

41.0km

Distance along an existing power line 0 7.0km 0 0

Distance along roads &

the LMA boundary fence

Total distance along service corridor

(12.6km

+10.0km)

22.6km

(11.7km

+0km)

11.7km

(0km

+17.5km)

17.5km

(12.3km

+10.0km)

22.3km

Distance through ‘virgin land’ 11.0km 10.7km 11.3km 5.1km

Distance through or along sensitive

landscape types

through

approx.

11.2km of

mountainous

area

through

approx.

11.0km of

mountainous

area

through

approx.

12.7km of

mountainous

area

through

approx.

11.0km of

mountainous

area

Presence of residential units 7 incidences

ranging

between 50m

and 480m

10 incidences

ranging

between 50m

and 470m

1 (100m away) 3 incidences

ranging from

50m and 170m

The distance values had been translated as a percentage of the total distance of the power line where after

the alternatives had been scored in each criteria ranging from ‘most preferred’ (dark green), ‘second most

Conclusion


preferred’ (light green), ‘second least preferred’ (yellow) to ‘least preferred’ (orange). In terms of “distance

along a power line” the greater distance would be the preferred alternative. In terms of “distance along roads

the LMA boundary fence” the greater distance would be preferred. In terms of “distance through virgin land”

the shortest distance would be preferred. In terms of “distance through or along sensitive landscapes” the

shorter distance would be preferred. And lastly, in terms of “presence of residential units”, the least

incidences would be preferred.

From Table 9.7 and the discussion above it is clear that Alternative 4 it the preferred alternative as it has two

‘preferred alternative’ scores as well as two ‘second preferred’ scores even though it has the third longest

total distance. According to the scores on the table, Alternative 2 would be the second preferred alternative

as it has the longest “distance along an existing power line” as well as the shortest “distance through or

along sensitive landscapes”. On the negative side Alternative 2 had the shortest “distance along roads or

the LMA boundary” as well as the highest number of incidences with residential units. Therefore Alternative

1, which has the longest “distance along roads and the LMA boundary fence” and the second shortest

“distance through or along sensitive landscapes” as well as the second highest number of incidences with

residential units, would in actual fact be the second preferred alternative. Even though Alternative 3 had the

least number of incidences with residential units, it has scored second worst and worst in all the other

criteria. It can thus be concluded that:

The preferred alternative is Alternative 4

The second preferred alternative is Alternative 1

The second least alternative is Alternative 2

The least preferred alternative is Alternative 3

For the purpose of significance rating, because the extent, duration and likelihood of the visual impact would

be the same for each of the alternatives, the definition would be created in terms of the potential intensity of

the visual impact. A Moderate-Low (2) score will be allocated to the preferred alternative, Moderate (4) to

the second preferred, Moderate-High (8) to the second least preferred and Moderate-High (12) to the least

preferred alternative. Refer to Table 10.1 to 10.4 below for the significance ratings. In summary all ratings

were moderate with the exception of the Cumulative and Residual impacts for Alternatives 2 and 3 during

Construction phase, Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 during Operational phase as well as Alternatives 2 and 3

Decommissioning phase being high.

Conclusion


Table 10.1: Significance of Visual Impact from the Power Line Alternatives - Pre-Construction Phase

PRE-CONSTRUCTION PHASE

Activity Nature of Impact Impact

type Extent Duration

Potential Intensity

Likelihood Rating Mitigation Interpretation

Hotazel - Eldoret Alternative 1

Direct Impact: Existing 2 1 2 1 5 - MOD No visual impacts from the proposed power line to be mitigated prior to construction.

The existing power lines have a moderate negative visual impact.

Visual impact on visual resource and visual receptors.

Cumulative 2 1 1 1 4 - MOD

No additional visual impact from the proposed power line prior to construction.

Residual 2 1 2 1 5 - MOD

The residual visual impact therefore remains the same as the existing condition.









Eldoret - Riries Alternative 1








Conclusion










Riries - Gamohaan Alternative 1
















Gamohaan - Mothibistat Alternative 1

Direct Impact: Existing 2 1 2 1 5 - MOD No visual impacts from the proposed power line to be


Conclusion




mitigated prior to construction.












Mothibistat - Moffat Alternative 1














Conclusion




Moffat - Valley Alternative 1
















Valley - Sekgame Alternative 1








Conclusion


























Conclusion


Table 10.2: Significance of Visual Impact from the Power Line Alternatives - Construction Phase

CONSTRUCTION PHASE

Activity Nature of Impact Impact type Extent Duration Potential Intensity



Direct Impact: Existing 2 1 4 1 7 - MOD

Dust suppression mitigation can be implemented to reduce the visual impact during this phase. Construction activities could be restricted to business / daylight hours to reduce the light impact at night time.

There is currently no other construction activities along the proposed power line alignment, therefore no visual impact.



Visual impacts will arise from the construction activities them self as well as from the structures being erected. The power line runs through 'virgin land' for approximately 2/3rds of its length.


With the correct and effective application of mitigation measures the visual impact might be reduced. However, the visual impact from the structures would still remain.







Visual impacts will arise from the construction activities them self as well as from the structures being erected. The power line follows service corridors for approximately 2/3rds of its length.

Conclusion










Visual impacts will arise from the construction activities them self as well as from the structures being erected. The power line runs through 'virgin land' for approximately 1/3rd of its length.









Visual impacts will arise from the construction activities them self as well as from the structures being erected. The power line follows an existing power line for its entire length.

Conclusion










Visual impacts will arise from the construction activities them self as well as from the structures being erected. The power line follows a road for its entire length.





Dust suppression mitigation can be implemented to reduce the visual impact during this phase.


Conclusion




Construction activities could be restricted to business / daylight hours to reduce the light impact at night time.

Visual impacts will arise from the construction activities them self as well as from the structures being erected. The power line follows an existing power line for about half its length. However, it runs through 'virgin land' and sensitive landscapes for almost half its length.









Visual impacts will arise from the construction activities them self as well as from the structures being erected. The power line follows a road for approximately 3/4s of its length.



Conclusion








Visual impacts will arise from the construction activities them self as well as from the structures being erected. The power line follows a road for approximately 3/4s of its length.









Visual impacts will arise from the construction activities them self as well as from the structures being erected. The power line follows an existing power line for its entire length.



Conclusion








Visual impacts will arise from the construction activities them self as well as from the structures being erected. The power line follows an existing power line for 3/4s of its length.









Visual impacts will arise from the construction activities them self as well as from the structures being erected. The power line follows an existing power line for 3/4s of its length.



Conclusion








Visual impacts will arise from the construction activities them self as well as from the structures being erected. The power line follows an existing power line for 2/3rds of its length.









Visual impacts will arise from the construction activities them self as well as from the structures being erected. Refer to the discussion under Section 10 of the Visual Impact Assessment Report.



Conclusion







Cumulative 2 1 8 1 11 - HIGH


Residual 2 1 8 1 11 - HIGH









Conclusion













Conclusion


Table 10.3: Significance of Visual Impact from the Power Line Alternatives - Operational Phase

OPERATIONAL PHASE



Potential Intensity



Direct Impact: Existing 2 4 4 1 10 - HIGH



Visual impacts will arise from the presence of the power line towers. The power line runs through 'virgin land' for approximately 2/3rds of its length.






Visual impacts will arise from the presence of the power line towers. The power line follows service corridors for approximately 2/3rds of its length.






Visual impacts will arise from the presence of the power line towers. The power line runs through 'virgin land' for approximately 1/3rd of its length.




Visual impact on visual resource and visual receptors. Cumulative 2 4 2 1 8 - MOD

Visual impacts will arise from the presence of the power line towers. The power line follows an existing power line for its entire length.


Conclusion





Visual impacts will arise from the presence of the power line towers. The power line follows a road for its entire length.






Visual impacts will arise from the presence of the power line towers. The power line follows an existing power line for about half its length. However, it runs through 'virgin land' and sensitive landscapes for almost half its length.






Visual impacts will arise from the presence of the power line towers. The power line follows a road for approximately 3/4s of its length.






Visual impacts will arise from the presence of the power line towers. The power line follows a road for approximately 3/4s of its length.


Mothibistat - Moffat Direct Impact: Existing 2 4 2 1 8 - MOD

Conclusion


Alternative 1 Visual impact on visual resource and visual receptors. Cumulative 2 4 2 1 8 - MOD

Visual impacts will arise from the presence of the power line towers. The power line follows an existing power line for its entire length.




Visual impact on visual resource and visual receptors. Cumulative 2 4 4 1 10 - HIGH

Visual impacts will arise from the presence of the power line towers. The power line follows an existing power line for 3/4s of its length.





Visual impacts will arise from the presence of the power line towers. The power line follows an existing power line for 3/4s of its length.




Visual impact on visual resource and visual receptors. Cumulative 2 4 4 1 10 - HIGH

Visual impacts will arise from the presence of the power line towers. The power line follows an existing power line for 2/3rds of its length.






Visual impacts will arise from the presence of the power line towers. Refer to the discussion under Section 10 of the Visual Impact Assessment Report.


Valley - Sekgame Direct Impact: Existing 2 4 2 1 8 - MOD

Conclusion


Alternative 2 Visual impact on visual resource and visual receptors.
















Conclusion


Table 10.4: Significance of Visual Impact from the Power Line Alternatives - Decommissioning Phase

DECOMMISSIONING PHASE



Potential Intensity




Dust suppression mitigation can be implemented to reduce the visual impact during this phase. Decommissioning activities could be restricted to business / daylight hours to reduce the light impact at night time. The disturbed landscape should be rehabilitated and vegetated with indigenous plants once decommissioning has been completed.

Visual impacts would arise from the decommissioning activities.





After decommissioning and rehabilitation of the power line footprints, the area could be restored to its initial land use status.



Dust suppression mitigation can be implemented to reduce the visual impact during this phase. Decommissioning activities could be





Conclusion



restricted to business / daylight hours to reduce the light impact at night time. The disturbed landscape should be rehabilitated and vegetated with indigenous plants once decommissioning has been completed.













Dust suppression mitigation can be implemented to reduce the visual impact during this phase. Decommissioning



Cumulative 2 1 2 1 5 - MOD Visual impacts would arise from the decommissioning

Conclusion


activities could be restricted to business / daylight hours to reduce the light impact at night time. The disturbed landscape should be rehabilitated and vegetated with indigenous plants once decommissioning has been completed.

activities.














Dust suppression mitigation can be implemented to reduce the visual


Conclusion




impact during this phase. Decommissioning activities could be restricted to business / daylight hours to reduce the light impact at night time. The disturbed landscape should be rehabilitated and vegetated with indigenous plants once decommissioning has been completed.













Gamohaan - Mothibistat

Direct Impact: Existing 2 1 4 1 7 - MOD Dust suppression mitigation can be

Visual impacts would arise from the

Conclusion


Alternative 2 implemented to reduce the visual impact during this phase. Decommissioning activities could be restricted to business / daylight hours to reduce the light impact at night time. The disturbed landscape should be rehabilitated and vegetated with indigenous plants once decommissioning has been completed.

decommissioning activities.















Conclusion













Dust suppression mitigation can be implemented to reduce the visual impact during this phase. Decommissioning activities could be





Conclusion



restricted to business / daylight hours to reduce the light impact at night time. The disturbed landscape should be rehabilitated and vegetated with indigenous plants once decommissioning has been completed.













Dust suppression mitigation can be implemented to reduce the visual impact during this phase.


Visual impact on visual resource and visual Cumulative 2 1 4 1 7 - MOD

Visual impacts would arise from the

Conclusion


receptors. Decommissioning activities could be restricted to business / daylight hours to reduce the light impact at night time. The disturbed landscape should be rehabilitated and vegetated with indigenous plants once decommissioning has been completed.

decommissioning activities.














Dust suppression mitigation can be implemented to reduce the visual


Conclusion




impact during this phase. Decommissioning activities could be restricted to business / daylight hours to reduce the light impact at night time. The disturbed landscape should be rehabilitated and vegetated with indigenous plants once decommissioning has been completed.













Conclusion


10.8 Mitigation Measures for the Substation Upgrades

Refer to Section 8.5 above. Mitigation measures would be mostly applicable to the Construction and

Decommissioning phases. Very little can be done to screen a linear impact of this scale. The most effective

would be to implement a visual screen, e.g. a vegetation buffer, at the sensitive visual receptor location.

Conclusion


11. CONCLUSION

From the above visual analysis and comparative study the following conclusions can be made with regards

the two new substations, Gamohaan and Sekgame:

The significance of the two new substations was rated as low for the Pre-construction phase. For the

Construction phase, the existing condition were rated as low while the cumulative and residual condition was

rated as high for the Gamoane Substation and moderate for the Sekgame Substation. This was similar for

the Operational Phase. In terms of the Decommissioning phase, the existing condition and cumulative

impact were rated as moderate and residual impact as low. This is due to the Gamoane Substation being

located within a service corridor at the foot of a mountain and near a river its severity had been rated as

moderate. While the Sekgame Substation is located within a service corridor near mine dumps, its severity

has therefore been rated as low.

In terms of the substations and switch station upgrades the following can be concluded:

Eldoret Substation: The pre-construction significance ratings are ‘moderate’ for the existing,

cumulative and residual impacts. In terms of Construction the significance for the existing


cumulative and residual impact, were rated ‘moderate’, as the construction activities will add

‘nuisance’ to the existing visual impact. The significance of the existing, cumulative and





would be low.

Riries Substation: The pre-construction significance ratings are ‘moderate’ for the existing,









would be low.

Mothibistat Substation: The pre-construction significance ratings are ‘moderate’ for the

existing, cumulative and residual impacts. In terms of Construction, the significance for the

existing condition was rated ‘low’ because there are currently no construction activities. The






Conclusion



would be low.

Moffat Substation: The pre-construction significance ratings are ‘moderate’ for the existing,









would be low.

Valley Substation: The pre-construction significance ratings are ‘moderate’ for the existing,









would be low.

The findings of the comparative visual analysis for the upgrade of the power line between Hotzael, Kuruman

and Kathu can be concluded as follows:

Hotazel – Eldoret: Alternative 2 is the preferred alternative for this segment as it has a

greater distance along service corridors, lesser distance through ‘virgin land’ and has no

residential unit incidence.

Eldoret – Riries: Alternative 2 runs for its entire length along an existing power line is

therefore the preferred alternative for this segment.

Riries – Gamohaan: Alternative 1 is the preferred alternative for this segment as it runs for

its entire length along a road and passes on the opposite side of the road along the

Maheana community.

Gamohaan – Mothibistat: Alternative 1 is the preferred alternative for this segment as it has

a shorter total distance, shorter distance through ‘virgin land’ and passes adjacent the

residential area of Kuruman.

Mothibistat – Moffat: Alternative 1 is the preferred alternative for this segment as it runs

along an existing power line for its entire length. Even though it passes 100m and 200m

from guest lodges, these are already exposed to the negative visual impact from the existing

power line.

Moffat – Valley: Even though Alternative 1 has more incidences with residential units and a

greater total distance it is the preferred alternative of the two. Most of the residential units

Conclusion


are already exposed to the negative visual impact of the existing power line. Alternative 1

has the greater distance along existing power lines and the lesser distance through ‘virgin

lands’ and sensitive landscapes.

Valley – Sekgame: This segment has four alternatives. The preferred alternative is

Alternative 4. The second preferred alternative is Alternative 1. Alternative 2 is the second

least and Alternative 3 the least preferred alternative. Alternative 4 it the preferred

alternative even though it has the third longest total distance of the four alternatives. It was

the ‘preferred alternative’ in two sets of the criteria as well as the ‘second preferred’ in

another two sets of criteria.

The first photo simulation below portrays what the proposed new Sekgame substation with power line

alternative 2 could look like. Photo simulation 2 portrays what power line alternative 1 between Moffat and

Valley substations could look like.

Conclusion


Conclusion


References


12. REFERENCES

Crawford, D., 1994. Using remotely sensed data in landscape visual quality assessment. Landscape and

Urban Planning. 30: 71-81.

Hull, R.B. & Bishop, I.E., 1988. Scenic Impacts of Electricity Transmission Towers: The Influence of

Landscape Type and Observer Distance. Journal of Environmental Management. 27: 99-108.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotazel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathu

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuruman

Institute of Environmental Assessment & The Landscape Institute, 1996. Guidelines for Landscape and

Visual Impact Assessment, E & FN Spon, London (117)

Ittelson, W.H., Proshansky, H.M., Rivlin, L.g. and Winkel, G.H., 1974. An Introduction to Environmental

Psychology. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.

Lynch, K., 1992. Good City Form, The MIT Press, London. (131)

Mucina, L. & Rutherford, M.C. (eds) 2006. The vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Strelitzia

19. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.

Oberholzer, B., 2005. Guideline for involving visual & aesthetic specialists in EIA processes: Edition 1. CSIR

Report No ENV-S-C 2005 053 F. Republic of South Africa, Provincial Government of the Western Cape,

Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning, Cape Town.

Ramsay, J. (October 1993), Identification and assessment of aesthetic values in two Victorian forest regions.

More than meets the eye: identifying and assessing aesthetic value. Report of the Aesthetic Value Workshop

held at the University of Melbourne.

Schapper, J. (October 1993), The importance of aesthetic value in the assessment of landscape heritage.

More than meets the eye: identifying and assessing aesthetic value. Report of the Aesthetic Value Workshop

held at the University of Melbourne.

Walmsley, B., & Tshipala, K. E. (2007). Handbook on Environmental Assessment Legislation in the SADC

Region. Midrand: The Development Bank of South Africa in collaboration with the South African Institute for

Environmental Assessment.

Warnock, S. & Brown, N., 1998. Putting Landscape First. Landscape Design. 268: 44-46.

Appendix A


APPENDIX A: DETERMINING A LANDSCAPE AND THE VALUE OF THE VISUAL RESOURCE

In order to reach an understanding of the effect of development on a landscape resource, it is necessary to

consider the different aspects of the landscape as follows:

Landscape Elements and Character

The individual elements that make up the landscape, including prominent or eye-catching features such as

hills, valleys, savannah, trees, water bodies, buildings and roads are generally quantifiable and can be easily

described.

Landscape character is therefore the description of pattern, resulting from particular combinations of natural

(physical and biological) and cultural (land use) factors and how people perceive these. The visual

dimension of the landscape is a reflection of the way in which these factors create repetitive groupings and

interact to create areas that have a specific visual identity. The process of landscape character assessment

can increase appreciation of what makes the landscape distinctive and what is important about an area. The

description of landscape character thus focuses on the nature of the land, rather than the response of a

viewer.

Landscape Value – all encompassing (Aesthetic Value)

Aesthetic value is the emotional response derived from the experience of the environment with its particular

natural and cultural attributes. The response can be either to visual or non-visual elements and can embrace

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

(Ramsay 1993). Thus aesthetic value encompasses more than the seen view, visual quality or scenery, and

includes atmosphere, landscape character and sense of place (Schapper 1993).

Aesthetic appeal (value) is considered high when the following are present (Ramsay 1993):

Abstract qualities: such as the presence of vivid, distinguished, uncommon or rare features or abstract

attributes;

Evocative responses: the ability of the landscape to evoke particularly strong responses in community

members or visitors;

Meanings: the existence of a long-standing special meaning to a particular group of people or the ability

of the landscape to convey special meanings to viewers in general;

Landmark quality: a particular feature that stands out and is recognised by the broader community.

Sense of Place

Central to the concept of a sense of place is that the place requires uniqueness and distinctiveness. The

primary informant of these qualities is the spatial form and character of the natural landscape together with

the cultural transformations and traditions associated with historic use and habitation. According to Lynch

(1992) sense of place "is the extent to which a person can recognize or recall a place as being distinct from

other places - as having a vivid, or unique, or at least particular, character of its own". Sense of place is the

Appendix A


unique value that is allocated to a specific place or area through the cognitive experience of the user or

viewer. In some cases these values allocated to the place are similar for a wide spectrum of users or

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

Scenic Quality

Assigning values to visual resources is a subjective process. The phrase, “beauty is in the eye of the

beholder,” is often quoted to emphasize the subjectivity in determining scenic values. Yet, researchers have

found consistent levels of agreement among individuals asked to evaluate visual quality.

Studies for perceptual psychology have shown human preference for landscapes with a higher visual

complexity particularly in scenes with water, over homogeneous areas. On the basis of contemporary

research landscape quality increases when:

Topographic ruggedness and relative relief increase;

Where water forms are present;

Where diverse patterns of grasslands and trees occur;

Where natural landscape increases and man-made landscape decreases;

And where land use compatibility increases and land use edge diversity decreases (Crawford 1994).

Scenic Quality - Explanation of Rating Criteria:

(After The Visual Resource Management System, Department of the Interior of the USA Government,

Bureau of Land Management)

Landform: Topography becomes more interesting as it gets steeper or more massive, or more severely or

universally sculptured. Outstanding landforms may be monumental, as the Fish River or Blyde River Canyon,

the Drakensberg or other mountain ranges, or they may be exceedingly artistic and subtle as certain

badlands, pinnacles, arches, and other extraordinary formations.

Vegetation: (Plant communities) Give primary consideration to the variety of patterns, forms, and textures

created by plant life. Consider short-lived displays when they are known to be recurring or spectacular

(wildflower displays in the Karoo regions). Consider also smaller scale vegetational features, which add

striking and intriguing detail elements to the landscape (e.g., gnarled or wind beaten trees, and baobab

trees).

Water: That ingredient which adds movement or serenity to a scene. The degree to which water dominates

the scene is the primary consideration in selecting the rating score.

Colour: Consider the overall colour(s) of the basic components of the landscape (e.g., soil, rock, vegetation,

etc.) as they appear during seasons or periods of high use. Key factors to use when rating "colour" are

variety, contrast, and harmony.

Adjacent Scenery: Degree to which scenery outside the scenery unit being rated enhances the overall

impression of the scenery within the rating unit. The distance which adjacent scenery will influence scenery

Appendix A


within the rating unit will normally range from 0-8 kilometres, depending upon the characteristics of the

topography, the vegetative cover, and other such factors. This factor is generally applied to units which

would normally rate very low in score, but the influence of the adjacent unit would enhance the visual quality

and raise the score.

Scarcity: This factor provides an opportunity to give added importance to one or all of the scenic features

that appear to be relatively unique or rare within one physiographic region. There may also be cases where a

separate evaluation of each of the key factors does not give a true picture of the overall scenic quality of an

area. Often it is a number of not so spectacular elements in the proper combination that produces the most

pleasing and memorable scenery - the scarcity factor can be used to recognize this type of area and give it

the added emphasis it needs.

Cultural Modifications: Cultural modifications in the landform / water, vegetation, and addition of structures

should be considered and may detract from the scenery in the form of a negative intrusion or complement or

improve the scenic quality of a unit.

Scenic Quality Inventory and Evaluation Chart

(After The Visual Resource Management System, Department of the Interior of the USA Government,

Bureau of Land Management)

Key factors Rating Criteria and Score

Landform High vertical relief as

expressed in prominent

cliffs, spires, or massive

rock outcrops, or severe

surface variation or highly

eroded formations

including major badlands

or dune systems; or detail

features dominant and

exceptionally striking and

intriguing such as

glaciers.

5

Steep canyons, mesas,

buttes, cinder cones, and

drumlins; or interesting

erosional patterns or

variety in size and shape

of landforms; or detail

features which are

interesting though not

dominant or exceptional.

3

Low rolling hills, foothills,

or flat valley bottoms; or

few or no interesting

landscape features.

1

Vegetation and

landcover

A variety of vegetative

types as expressed in

interesting forms,

textures, and patterns.

5

Some variety of

vegetation, but only one

or two major types.

3

Little or no variety or

contrast in vegetation.

1

Water Clear and clean

appearing, still, or

cascading white water,

any of which are a

dominant factor in the

landscape.

5

Flowing, or still, but not

dominant in the

landscape.

3

Absent, or present, but

not noticeable.

0

Appendix A


Colour Rich colour combinations,

variety or vivid colour; or

pleasing contrasts in the

soil, rock, vegetation,

water or snow fields.

5

Some intensity or variety

in colours and contrast of

the soil, rock and

vegetation, but not a

dominant scenic element.

3

Subtle colour variations,

contrast, or interest;

generally mute tones.

1

Influence of

adjacent scenery

Adjacent scenery greatly

enhances visual quality.

5

Adjacent scenery

moderately enhances

overall visual quality.

3

Adjacent scenery has

little or no influence on

overall visual quality.

0

Scarcity One of a kind; or

unusually memorable, or

very rare within region.

Consistent chance for

exceptional wildlife or

wildflower viewing, etc.

National and provincial

parks and conservation

areas

* 5+

Distinctive, though

somewhat similar to

others within the region.

3

Interesting within its

setting, but fairly common

within the region.

1

Cultural

modifications

Modifications add

favourably to visual

variety while promoting

visual harmony.

2

Modifications add little or

no visual variety to the

area, and introduce no

discordant elements.

0

Modifications add variety

but are very discordant

and promote strong

disharmony.

4

Scenic Quality (i.e. value of the visual resource)

In determining the quality of the visual resource both the objective and the subjective or aesthetic factors

associated with the landscape are considered. Many landscapes can be said to have a strong sense of

place, regardless of whether they are considered to be scenically beautiful but where landscape quality,

aesthetic value and a strong sense of place coincide - the visual resource or perceived value of the

landscape is considered to be very high.

When considering both objective and subjective factors associated with the landscape there is a balance

between landscape character and individual landscape features and elements, which would result in the

values as follows:

Appendix A


Value of Visual Resource – expressed as Scenic Quality (After The Landscape Institute with the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (2002))

High

Moderate

Low

Areas that exhibit a very positive

character with valued features that

combine to give the experience of

unity, richness and harmony. These

are landscapes that may be

considered to be of particular

importance to conserve and which

may be sensitive to change in

general and which may be

detrimental if change is

inappropriately dealt with.

Areas that exhibit positive character

but which may have evidence of

alteration to /degradation/erosion of

features resulting in areas of more

mixed character. Potentially

sensitive to change in general;

again change may be detrimental if

inappropriately dealt with but it may

not require special or particular

attention to detail.

Areas generally negative in

character with few, if any, valued

features. Scope for positive

enhancement frequently occurs.

Appendix B


APPENDIX B: METHOD FOR DETERMINING THE INTENSITY OF LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT

A visual impact study analysis addresses the importance of the inherent aesthetics of the landscape, the

public value of viewing the natural landscape, and the contrast or change in the landscape from the project.

For some topics, such as water or air quality, it is possible to use measurable, technical international or

national guidelines or legislative standards, against which potential effects can be assessed. The

assessment of likely effects on a landscape resource and on visual amenity is more complex, since it is

determined through a combination of quantitative and qualitative evaluations. (The Landscape Institute with

the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (2002).

Landscape impact assessment includes a combination of objective and subjective judgements, and it is

therefore important that a structured and consistent approach is used. It is necessary to differentiate

between judgements that involve a degree of subjective opinion (as in the assessment of landscape value)

from those that are normally more objective and quantifiable (as in the determination of magnitude of

change). Judgement should always be based on training and experience and be supported by clear

evidence and reasoned argument. Accordingly, suitably qualified and experienced landscape professionals

carry out landscape and visual impact assessments (The Landscape Institute with the Institute of

Environmental Management and Assessment (2002),

Landscape and visual assessments are separate, although linked, procedures. The landscape baseline, its

analysis and the assessment of landscape effects all contribute to the baseline for visual assessment

studies. The assessment of the potential effect on the landscape is carried our as an effect on an

environmental resource, i.e. the landscape. Visual effects are assessed as one of the interrelated effects on

population.

Landscape Impact

Landscape impacts derive from changes in the physical landscape, which may give rise to changes in its

character and from effects to the scenic values of the landscape. This may in turn affect the perceived value

ascribed to the landscape. The description and analysis of effects on a landscape resource relies on the

adoption of certain basic principles about the positive (or beneficial) and negative (or adverse) effects of

change in the landscape. Due to the inherently dynamic nature of the landscape, change arising from a

development may not necessarily be significant (Institute of Environmental Assessment & The Landscape

Institute (2002)).

Visual Impact

Visual impacts relate to the changes that arise in the composition of available views as a result of changes to

the landscape, to people’s responses to the changes, and to the overall effects with respect to visual

amenity. Visual impact is therefore measured as the change to the existing visual environment (caused by

Appendix B


the physical presence of a new development) and the extent to which that change compromises (negative

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

To assess the magnitude of visual impact four main factors are considered.

Visual Intrusion: The nature of intrusion or contrast (physical characteristics) of a project component

on the visual quality of the surrounding environment and its compatibility/discord with the landscape and

surrounding land use.

Visibility: The area/points from which project components will be visible.

Visual exposure: Visibility and visual intrusion qualified with a distance rating to indicate the degree of

intrusion.

Sensitivity: Sensitivity of visual receptors to the proposed development

Visual Intrusion/contrast

Visual intrusion deals with the notion of contextualism i.e. how well does a project component fit into the

ecological and cultural aesthetic of the landscape as a whole? Or conversely what is its contrast with the

receiving environment. Combining landform/vegetation contrast with structure contrast derives overall visual

intrusion/contrast levels of high, moderate, and low.

Landform/vegetation contrast is the change in vegetation cover and patterns that would result from

construction activities. Landform contrast is the change in landforms, exposure of soils, potential for erosion

scars, slumping, and other physical disturbances that would be noticed as uncharacteristic in the natural

landscape. Structure contrast examines the compatibility of the proposed development with other structures

in the landscape and the existing natural landscape. Structure contrast is typically strongest where there are

no other structures (e.g., buildings, existing utilities) in the landscape setting.

Photographic panoramas from key viewpoints before and after development are presented to illustrate the

nature and change (contrast) to the landscape created by the proposed development. A computer simulation

technique is employed to superimpose a graphic of the development onto the panorama. The extent to

which the component fits or contrasts with the landscape setting can then be assessed using the following

criteria.

Does the physical development concept have a negative, positive or neutral effect on the quality of the

landscape?

Does the development enhance or contrast with the patterns or elements that define the structure of the

landscape?

Does the design of the project enhance and promote cultural continuity or does it disrupt it?

The consequence of the intrusion/contrast can then be measured in terms of the sensitivity of the affected

landscape and visual resource given the criteria listed below. For instance, within an industrial area, a new

sewage treatment works may have an insignificant landscape and visual impact; whereas in a valued

Appendix B


landscape it might be considered to be an intrusive element. (Institute of Environmental Assessment & The

landscape Institute (1996)).

Visual Intrusion

High Moderate Low Positive

If the project:

- Has a substantial

negative effect on the visual

quality of the landscape;

- Contrasts dramatically

with the patterns or



- Contrasts dramatically with land use, settlement or enclosure patterns;

- Is unable to be ‘absorbed’ into the landscape.

If the project:

- Has a moderate negative

effect on the visual quality

of the landscape;

- Contrasts moderately with



the landscape;

- Is partially compatible

with land use, settlement or

enclosure patterns.

- Is partially ‘absorbed’ into

the landscape.

If the project:

- Has a minimal effect on

the visual quality of the

landscape;

- Contrasts minimally with



the landscape;

- Is mostly compatible with

land use, settlement or

enclosure patterns.

- Is ‘absorbed’ into the

landscape.

If the project:

- Has a beneficial effect on

the visual quality of the

landscape;

- Enhances the patterns or



- Is compatible with land

use, settlement or

enclosure patterns.

Result

Notable change in


over an extensive area and

/ or intensive change over a

localized area resulting in

major changes in key views.

Result

Moderate change in


over localized area resulting

in a moderate change to

key views.

Result

Imperceptible change

resulting in a minor change

to key views.

Result

Positive change in key

views.

Visual intrusion also diminishes with scenes of higher complexity, as distance increases, the object becomes

less of a focal point (more visual distraction), and the observer’s attention is diverted by the complexity of the

scene (Hull and Bishop (1988)).

Visibility

A viewshed analysis was carried out to define areas, which contain all possible observation sites from which

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

observer eye height is 1.8m above ground level. Topographic data was captured for the site and its environs

at 10 m contour intervals to create the Digital Terrain Model (DTM). The DTM includes features such as

vegetation, rivers, roads and nearby urban areas. These features were ‘draped’ over the topographic data to

complete the model used to generate the viewshed analysis. It should be noted that viewshed analyses are

not absolute indicators of the level of significance (magnitude) of the impact in the view, but merely a

statement of the fact of potential visibility. The visibility of a development and its contribution to visual impact

is predicted using the criteria listed below:

Appendix B


Visibility

High Moderate Low

Visual Receptors

If the development is visible from

over half the zone of potential

influence, and / or views are mostly

unobstructed and/or the majority of

viewers are affected.

Visual Receptors

If the development is visible from less

than half the zone of potential

influence, and / or views are partially

obstructed and or many viewers are

affected

Visual Receptors

If the development is visible from less

than a quarter of the zone of potential

influence, and / or views are mostly

obstructed and / or few viewers are

affected.

Visual Exposure

Visual exposure relates directly to the distance of the view. It is a criterion used to account for the limiting

effect of increased distance on visual impact. The impact of an object in the foreground (0 – 800m) is

greater than the impact of that same object in the middle ground (800m – 5.0 km) which, in turn is greater

than the impact of the object in the background (greater than 5.0 km) of a particular scene.

Distance from a viewer to a viewed object or area of the landscape influences how visual changes are

perceived in the landscape. Generally, changes in form, line, colour, and texture in the landscape become

less perceptible with increasing distance.

Areas seen from 0 to 800m are considered foreground; foliage and fine textural details of vegetation are

normally perceptible within this zone.

Areas seen from 800m to 5.0km are considered middle ground; vegetation appears as outlines or patterns.

Depending on topography and vegetation, middle ground is sometimes considered to be up to 8.0km.

Areas seen from 5.0km to 8.0km and sometimes up to 16km and beyond are considered background.

Landforms become the most dominant element at these distances.

Seldom seen areas are those portions of the landscape that, due to topographic relief or vegetation, are

screened from the viewpoint or are beyond 16km from the viewpoint. Landforms become the most dominant

element at these distances.

The impact of an object diminishes at an exponential rate as the distance between the observer and the

object increases. Thus, the visual impact at 1000 m would be 25% of the impact as viewed from 500 m. At

2000 m it would be 10% of the impact at 500 m. The inverse relationship of distance and visual impact is well

recognised in visual analysis literature (e.g.: Hull and Bishop (1988)) and is used as an important criteria for

the study. This principle is illustrated in the Figure below.

Appendix B


Effect of Distance on Visual Exposure

Sensitivity of Visual Receptors

When visual intrusion, visibility and visual exposure are incorporated, and qualified by sensitivity criteria

(visual receptors) the magnitude of the impact of the development can be determined.

The sensitivity of visual receptors and views will be depended on:

The location and context of the viewpoint;

The expectations and occupation or activity of the receptor;

The importance of the view (which may be determined with respect to is 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 the development results in changes in the landscape setting or valued views

enjoyed by the community;

Occupiers of residential properties with views affected by the development.

These would all be high

Other receptors include:

People engaged in outdoor sport or recreation (other than appreciation of the landscape, as in

landscapes of acknowledged importance or value);

People travelling through or past the affected landscape in cars, on trains or other transport routes;

People at their place of work.

The least sensitive receptors are likely to be people at their place of work, or engaged in similar activities,

whose attention may be focused on their work or activity and who therefore may be potentially less

susceptible to changes in the view.

Appendix B


In this process more weight is usually given to changes in the view or visual amenity which are greater in

scale, and visible over a wide area. In assessing the effect on views, consideration should be given to the

effectiveness of mitigation measures, particularly where planting is proposed for screening purposes

(Institute of Environmental Assessment & The Landscape Institute (1996).

Sensitivity of Visual Receptors

High (5) Moderate (3) Low (0)

Users of all outdoor recreational

facilities including public rights of

way, whose intention or interest

may be focused on the landscape;

Communities where the

development results in changes in

the landscape setting or valued


Occupiers of residential properties

with views affected by the

development.

People engaged in outdoor sport or

recreation (other than appreciation

of the landscape, as in landscapes

of acknowledged importance or

value);

People travelling through or past the

affected landscape in cars, on trains

or other transport routes.

The least sensitive receptors are

likely to be people at their place of

work, or engaged in similar

activities, whose attention may be

focused on their work or activity and

who therefore may be potentially

less susceptible to changes in the

view (i.e. office and industrial

areas).

Roads going through urban and

industrial areas

Magnitude (Intensity) of the Visual Impact

Potential visual impacts are determined by analysing how the physical change in the landscape, resulting

from the introduction of a project, are viewed and perceived from sensitive viewpoints. Impacts to views are

the highest when viewers are identified as being sensitive to change in the landscape, and their views are

focused on and dominated by the change. Visual impacts occur when changes in the landscape are

noticeable to viewers looking at the landscape from their homes or from parks, and conservation areas,

highways and travel routes, and important cultural features and historic sites, especially in foreground views.

The magnitude of impact is assessed through a synthesis of visual intrusion, visibility, visual exposure and

viewer sensitivity criteria. Once the magnitude of impact has been established this value is further qualified

with spatial, duration and probability criteria to determine the significance of the visual impact.

For instance, the fact that visual intrusion and exposure diminishes significantly with distance does not

necessarily imply that the relatively small impact that exists at greater distances is unimportant. The level of

impact that people consider acceptable may be dependent upon the purpose they have in viewing the

landscape. A particular development may be unacceptable to a hiker seeking a natural experience, or a

household whose view is impaired, but may be barely noticed by a golfer concentrating on his game or a

commuter trying to get to work on time (Ittleson et al., 1974).

In synthesising these criteria a numerical or weighting system is avoided. Attempting to attach a precise

numerical value to qualitative resources is rarely successful, and should not be used as a substitute for

reasoned professional judgement. (Institute of Environmental Assessment and The landscape Institute

(1996)).

Appendix B


Magnitude (Intensity) of Visual Impact

High Moderate Low Negligible

Total loss of or major

alteration to key elements /

features / characteristics of

the baseline.

I.e. Pre-development



considered to be totally




High scenic quality impacts

would result.

Partial loss of or alteration

to key elements / features /


baseline.




that may be prominent but

may not necessarily be

considered to be

substantially




Moderate scenic quality

impacts would result

Minor loss of or alteration to

key elements / features /


baseline.




that may not be




Low scenic quality impacts

would result.

Very minor loss or alteration

to key elements / features /


baseline.




that are not uncharacteristic

with the surrounding

landscape – approximating

the ‘no change’ situation.

Negligible scenic quality


Cumulative effects

Cumulative landscape and visual effects (impacts) result from additional changes to the landscape or visual

amenity caused by the proposed development in conjunction with other developments (associated with or

separate to it), or actions that occurred in the past, present or are likely to occur in the foreseeable future.

They may also affect the way in which the landscape is experienced. Cumulative effects may be positive or

negative. Where they comprise a range of benefits, they may be considered to form part of the mitigation

measures.

Cumulative effects can also arise from the intervisibility (visibility) of a range of developments and /or the

combined effects of individual components of the proposed development occurring in different locations or

over a period of time. The separate effects of such individual components or developments may not be

significant, but together they may create an unacceptable degree of adverse effect on visual receptors within

their combined visual envelopes. Intervisibility depends upon general topography, aspect, tree cover or

other visual obstruction, elevation and distance, as this affects visual acuity, which is also influenced by

weather and light conditions. (Institute of Environmental Assessment and The landscape Institute (1996)).

Appendix B


APPENDIX C: SIGNIFICANCE RATING METHODOLOGY

The impacts will be ranked according to the methodology described below. Where possible,

mitigation measures will be provided to manage impacts. In order to ensure uniformity, a standard

impact assessment methodology will be utilised so that a wide range of impacts can be compared

with each other. The impact assessment methodology makes provision for the assessment of

impacts against the following criteria, as discussed below.

1. Nature of the impact

Each impact should be described in terms of the features and qualities of the impact. A detailed

description of the impact will allow for contextualisation of the assessment.

2. Extent of the impact

Extent intends to assess the footprint of the impact. The larger the footprint, the higher the impact

rating will be. The table below provides the descriptors and criteria for assessment.

Table 1: Criteria for the assessment of the extent of the impact.

Extent Descriptor

Definition Rating

Site Impact footprint remains within the boundary of the site. 1

Local Impact footprint extends beyond the boundary of the site to

the adjacent surrounding areas.

2

Regional Impact footprint includes the greater surrounds and may

include an entire municipal or provincial jurisdiction.

3

National The scale of the impact is applicable to the Republic of

South Africa.

4

Global The impact has global implications 5

3. Duration of the impact

The duration of the impact is the period of time that the impact will manifest on the receiving

environment. Importantly, the concept of reversibility is reflected in the duration rating. The longer

the impact endures, the less likely it is to be reversible. See Table 2for the criteria for rating duration

of impacts.

Appendix B


Table 2: Criteria for the rating of the duration of an impact.

Duration

Descriptor

Definition Rating

Construction /

Decommissioning

phase only

The impact endures for only as long as the construction or

the decommissioning period of the project activity. This

implies that the impact is fully reversible.

1

Short term The impact continues to manifest for a period of between 3

and 5 years beyond construction or decommissioning. The

impact is still reversible.

2

Medium term The impact continues between 6 and 15 years beyond the

construction or decommissioning phase. The impact is still

reversible with relevant and applicable mitigation and

management actions.

3

Long term The impact continues for a period in excess of 15 years

beyond construction or decommissioning. The impact is

only reversible with considerable effort in implementation

of rigorous mitigation actions.

4

Permanent The impact will continue indefinitely and is not reversible. 5

4. Potential intensity of the impact

The concept of the potential intensity of an impact is the acknowledgement at the outset of the

project of the potential significance of the impact on the receiving environment. For example, SO2

emissions have the potential to result in significant adverse human health effects, and this potential

intensity must be accommodated within the significance rating. The importance of the potential

intensity must be emphasised within the rating methodology to indicate that, for an adverse impact

to human health, even a limited extent and duration will still yield a significant impact.

Within potential intensity, the concept of irreplaceable loss is taken into account. Irreplaceable loss

may relate to losses of entire faunal or floral species at an extent greater than regional, or the

permanent loss of significant environmental resources. Potential intensity provides a measure for

comparing significance across different specialist assessments. This is possible by aligning specialist

ratings with the potential intensity rating provided here. This allows for better integration of

specialist studies into the environmental impact assessment. See Table 3 and Table 4 below.

Appendix B


Table 3: Criteria for impact rating of potential intensity of a negative impact.

Potential Intensity Descriptor

Definition of negative impact Rating

High Significant impact to human health linked to mortality/loss

of a species/endemic habitat.

16

Moderate-High Significant impact to faunal or floral populations/loss of

livelihoods/individual economic loss.

8

Moderate Reduction in environmental quality/loss of habitat/loss of

heritage/loss of welfare amenity

4

Moderate-Low Nuisance impact 2

Low Negative change with no associated consequences. 1

Table 4: Criteria for the impact rating of potential intensity of a positive impact.

Potential Intensity Descriptor

Definition of positive impact Rating

Moderate-High Net improvement in human welfare 8

Moderate Improved environmental quality/improved individual

livelihoods.

4

Moderate-Low Economic development 2

Low Positive change with no other consequences. 1

It must be noted that there is no HIGH rating for positive impacts under potential intensity, as it

must be understood that no positive spinoff of an activity can possibly raise a similar significance

rating to a negative impact that affects human health or causes the irreplaceable loss of a species.

5. Likelihood of the impact

This is the likelihood of the impact potential intensity manifesting. This is not the likelihood of the

activity occurring. If an impact is unlikely to manifest then the likelihood rating will reduce the

overall significance. Table 5 provides the rating methodology for likelihood.

The rating for likelihood is provided in fractions in order to provide an indication of percentage

probability, although it is noted that mathematical connotation cannot be implied to numbers

utilised for ratings.

Appendix B


Table 5: Criteria for the rating of the likelihood of the impact occurring

Likelihood Descriptor

Definition Rating

Improbable The possibility of the impact occurring is negligible and

only under exceptional circumstances.

0.1

Unlikely The possibility of the impact occurring is low with a less

than 10% chance of occurring. The impact has not occurred

before.

0.2

Probable The impact has a 10% to 40% chance of occurring. Only

likely to happen once in every 3 years or more.

0.5

Highly Probable It is most likely that the impact will occur and there is a

41% to 75% chance of occurrence.

0.75

Definite More than a 75% chance of occurrence. The impact will

occur regularly.

1

6. Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impact are reflected in the in the potential intensity of the rating system. In order to

assess any impact on the environment, cumulative impacts must be considered in order to

determine an accurate significance. Impacts cannot be assessed in isolation. An integrated

approach requires that cumulative impacts be included in the assessment of individual impacts.

The nature of the impact should be described in such a way as to detail the potential cumulative

impact of the activity.

7. Significance Assessment

The significance assessment assigns numbers to rate impacts in order to provide a more quantitative

description of impacts for purposes of decision making. Significance is an expression of the risk of

damage to the environment, should the proposed activity be authorised.

To allow for impacts to be described in a quantitative manner in addition to the qualitative

description given above, a rating scale of between 1 and 5 was used for each of the assessment

criteria. Thus the total value of the impact is described as the function of significance, which takes

cognisance of extent, duration, potential intensity and likelihood.

Impact Significance = (extent + duration + potential intensity) x likelihood

Table 6 provides the resulting significance rating of the impact as defined by the equation as above.

Appendix B


Table 6: Significance rating formulas.

Score Rating Implications for Decision-making

< 3 Low Project can be authorised with low risk of environmental

degradation

3 - 9 Moderate Project can be authorised but with conditions and routine

inspections. Mitigation measures must be implemented.

10 - 20 High Project can be authorised but with strict conditions and high

levels of compliance and enforcement. Monitoring and mitigation

are essential.

21 - 26 Fatally

Flawed

Project cannot be authorised

An example of how this rating scale is applied is shown below in Table 15.

Appendix B


Table 7: Example of Rating Scale

Activity Nature of Impact Impact type Extent Duration Potential Intensity


SO2 emissions

Direct Impact: Existing 3 4 16 1 23 - FLAW With mitigation

(FGD) the residual air

quality impact will be reduced due to a lower probability of SO2 emission from Medupi

Power Station.

Ambient air quality is high impact for the

area.

SO2 emissions on air quality within an area of high priority air pollution.

Cumulative 2 4 16 0,2 4 - MOD

Air quality will remain high impact with

Medupi coming on-line

Residual 5 4 16 0,5 13 - HIGH

With mitigation (FGD) the residual air quality impact will be

reduced due to a lower probability of SO2 emission from

Medupi Power Station.

Appendix C


8. Notation of Impacts

In order to make the report easier to read the following notation format is used to highlight the various

components of the assessment:

Extent- in italics

Duration – in underline

Potential intensity – IN CAPITALS

Likelihood - in bold

Please note that the impact rating system may change slightly to accommodate ease of use. However, the

basic principle of the rating system will remain the same.

Appendix D


APPENDIX D: DECLERATION OF INDEPENDENCE

Declaration of Independence I, Mitha C Cilliers hereby declare that Newtown Landscape Architects cc, an independent consulting

firm, has no interest or personal gains in this project whatsoever, except receiving fair payment for

rendering an independent professional service.

Consultant name: Graham A Young

Signature: Date: 24 March 2015

Appendix E


APPENDIX E: CURRICULUM VITAE

Since 1994

Graham Young PrLArch

PO Box 36, Fourways, 2055

Tel: 27 11 462 6967

Fax: 27 11 462-9284

www.newla.co.za [email protected]

Graham is a landscape architect with thirty years’ experience. He has worked in Southern Africa and

Canada and has valuable expertise in the practice of landscape architecture, urban design and

environmental planning. He is also a senior lecturer, teaching urban design and landscape architecture at

post and under graduate levels at the University of Pretoria. He also specializes in Visual Impact

Assessments.

EXPERIENCE: NEWTOWN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS cc. Member

Current Responsible for project management, landscape design, urban design, and visual impact

assessment.

Senior Lecturer: Department of Architecture, University of Pretoria.

1991 - 1994 GRAHAM A YOUNG LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT - Sole proprietor

1988 - 1989 Designed major transit and CBD based urban design schemes; designed commercial

and recreational landscapes and a regional urban park; participated in inter-disciplinary

consulting teams that produced master plans for various beachfront areas in KwaZulu

Natal and a mountain resort in the Drakensberg.

1989 - 1991 CANADA - Free Lance

Designed golf courses and carried out golf course feasibility studies (Robert Heaslip and

Associates); developed landscape site plans and an end-use plan for an abandoned

mine (du Toit, Allsopp and Hillier); conducted a visual analysis of a proposed landfill site.


mailto:[email protected]

Appendix E


1980 - 1988 KDM (FORMERLY DAMES AND MOORE) - Started as a Senior Landscape Architect

and was appointed Partner in charge of Landscape Architecture and Environmental

Planning in 1984. Designed commercial, corporate and urban landscapes; completed

landscape site plans; developed end-use master plans for urban parks, college and

technikon sites; carried out ecological planning studies for factories, motorways and a

railway line.

1978 - 1980 DAYSON & DE VILLIERS - Staff Landscape Architect

Designed various caravan parks; designed a recreation complex for a public resort;

conducted a visual analysis for the recreation planning of Pilgrims Rest; and designed

and supervised the installation of various private gardens.

EDUCATION:

Bachelor of Landscape Architecture, 1978, (BLArch), University of Toronto, Canada;

Completing a master’s degree in Landscape Architecture, University of Pretoria; Thesis:

Visual Impact Assessment;

Senior Lecturer - Department of Architecture, University of Pretoria.

PROFESSIONAL:

Registered Landscape Architect – South African Council for Landscape Architectural

Profession (2001);

Board of Control for Landscape Architects of South Africa (1987) – Vice Chairman 1988

to 1989;

Professional Member - Institute of Landscape Architects Southern Africa (1982) –

President 1986 - 1988;

Member Planning Professions Board 1987 to 1989;

Member International Association of Impact Assessment;

AWARDS:

Torsanlorenzo International Prize, Landscape design and protection 2nd Prize Section B:

Urban Green Spaces, for Intermediate Phase Freedom Park (2009)

Phase 1 and Intermediate Phase Freedom Park: Special Mention World Architecture

Festival, Nature Category (2008)

Moroka Park Precinct, Soweto: ILASA Merit Award for Design (2005) and Gold Medal

United Nations Liveable Communities (LivCom) Award (2007)

Isivivane, Freedom Park: ILASA Presidential Award of Excellence Design (2005)

Information Kiosk, Freedom Park: ILASA Merit Award for Design (2005)

Moroka – Mofola Open Space Framework, Soweto: ILASA Merit Award for Planning

(2005)

Mpumalanga Provincial Government Complex: ILASA Presidential Award of Excellence

(with KWP Landscape Architects for Design (2003)

Appendix E


Specialist Impact Report: Visual Environment, Sibaya Resort and Entertainment World:

ILASA Merit Award for Environmental Planning (1999);

Gillooly's Farm, Bedfordview (with Dayson and DeVilliers): ILASA Merit Award for

Design;

COMPETITIONS:

Pan African Parliament International Design competition – with MMA architects (2007)

Finalist

Leeuwpan Regional Wetland Park for the Ekurhuleni Metro Municipality (2004)

Landscape Architectural Consultant on Department of Trade and Industries Building

(2002) – Finalist

Landscape Architecture Consultant on Project Phoenix Architectural Competition,

Pretoria (1999): Winner;

Mpumalanga Legislature Buildings (1998): Commissioned;

Toyota Fountain (1985): First Prize - commissioned;

Bedfordview Bike/Walkway System - Van Buuren Road (1982): First Prize -

commissioned;

Portland Cement Institute Display Park (1982): Second Prize

CONTRIBUTOR:

Joubert, O, 10 Years + 100 Buildings – Architecture in a Democratic South Africa Bell-

Roberts Gallery and Publishing, South Africa (2009)

Freedom Park Phase 1 and Intermediate Phase (NBGM), Pretoria, Gauteng

Galindo, M, Collection Landscape Architecture, Braun, Switzerland (2009)

Freedom Park Phase Intermediate Phase (NBGM), Pretoria, Gauteng

In 1000 X Landscapes, Verlagshaus Braun, Germany (2008)

Freedom Park Phase 1 and Intermediate Phase (NBGM), Pretoria, Gauteng

Riverside Government Complex (NLAKWP), Nelspruit, Mpumalanga;

Moroka Dam Parks Precinct, Soweto, Gauteng.

In Johannesburg: Emerging/Diverging Metropolis, Mendrision Academy Press, Italy

(2007)

Moroka Dam Parks Precinct, Soweto, Gauteng.

Appendix E


Since 1994

Mitha Cilliers

PrLArch

PO Box 36, Fourways,

2055

Tel: +27 11 462 6967

Fax: +27 11 462-9284

www.newla.co.za [email protected]

Mitha is a landscape architect with ten years experience. She has worked as Landscape Architect in South

Africa and Angola and has valuable expertise in the practice of landscape architecture and environmental

planning. She is currently freelancing and enrolled at the University of Pretoria for a Masters in Landscape

Architecture.

EXPERIENCE:

2014 to present Freelance Landscape Architect:

Visual Impact Assessments

Landscape Design

Masters Student in Landscape Architecture at the University of Pretoria

2013 to 2014 Landscape Architect:

NEWTOWN Landscape Architects cc.


Landscape Design

2008 to 2013 Consultant:



KWP Landscape Architects & Environmental Consultants

Landscape Maintenance Auditing

Landscape Design and draughting

REAL Landscapes

Landscape Design

2005 – 2007 Landscape Architect:


Appendix E


KWP Landscape Architects & Environmental Consultants

Landscape design for various types of projects ranging from residential garden design to

industrial landscaping, including the landscape upgrade of the SASOL plant in Secunda.

General project administration and documentation including Bill of Quantities, Tender

Evaluation and site inspections.

Landscape Maintenance Auditing at the Nelspruit Riverside Government Offices

Preparation of Environmental Impact Assessment Reports for proposed housing

developments.

Environmental Control Officer on various residential housing developments.

2003 – 2004 Candidate Landscape Architect:

Sigma Gibb – part of the GIBB Africa Group

Co-Landscape Architect on a residential housing estate in Luanda, Angola.

Design and draughting for various projects in Angola.

2003 Candidate Landscape Architect:


Design and draughting various projects ranging from private residential gardens to public

parks.

Project administration including Bills of Quantities and Tender Evaluation and site

inspections

PROFESSIONAL:

Registered Landscape Architect – South African Council for Landscape Architectural

Profession (2007)

Committee Member – South African Council for Landscape Architectural Profession

(2009 & 2011- - 2012)

EDUCATION:

Bachelor of Landscape Architecture, 2001, (BLArch), University of Pretoria.

Date post:	05-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	3 times
Download:	0 times

Kuruman Power Line, Northern Cape Province - BA Kuruman... · study area falls within the western...

Documents