VIA Report Final - NRApart_1).pdf · REPORT STATUS : Draft CKA ... Oribi Toll Plaza is an existing...

APPENDIX 10

VISUAL

Specialist

Menno Klapwijk Cave Klapwijk and Associates

Peer Reviewer

Jon Marshall Environmental Planning and Design

SPECIALIST STUDY ON THE POTENTIAL IMPACT

OF THE PROPOSED N2 WILD COAST TOLL HIGHWAY

ON THE VISUAL ENVIRONMENT

Prepared by:

Menno Klapwijk Cave Klapwijk and Associates

P O Box 11651 Hatfield Pretoria

0028

Submitted to:

CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd on behalf of

The South African National Roads Agency Limited

November 2007

REPORT TITLE : Specialist study on the potential impact of the proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway

CLIENT : CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd on behalf of the

South African National Roads Agency Ltd PROJECT NAME : N2 Wild Coast Visual Impact Assessment REPORT STATUS : Draft CKA PROJECT NUMBER : 07020 PLACE AND DATE : Pretoria, November 2007 Keywords and Phrases : Visual Impact Assessment, N2 Wild Coast, Toll

Highway, KwaZulu-Natal, Eastern Cape, SANRAL

APPROVED

________________ M KLAPWIJK

SANRAL VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT N2 WILD COAST TOLL HIGHWAY

CAVE KLAPWIJK AND ASSOCIATES I

SPECIALIST STUDY ON THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED N2 WILD COAST TOLL HIGHWAY


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION A new toll highway is currently being investigated by the South African National Roads Agency Limited (SANRAL) from Durban in KwaZulu-Natal to East London in the Eastern Cape. CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd have been commissioned to undertake the environmental assessment process. One of the issues that were identified was that the development could have a negative impact on the aesthetic environment. Cave Klapwijk and Associates were requested by CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd, on behalf of SANRAL to undertake the visual impact specialist study. In order to address the objectives of the study a site visit was undertaken during June 2007 to determine the setting, visual character and land uses of the areas. Analytical maps to determine the extent of the potential impact were developed using Geographic Information System (GIS) algorithms, available in the Arcview Software Suite 1:50 000 maps and route alignment maps supplied by the Client were used together with information gathered in the field to determine the setting, visual character and land use of the area surrounding the route, the Genius Loci (sense of place), the extent of the affected visual environment, the viewing distance and the critical views. The project consists of the construction of a 560 km two-lane single carriageway connecting East London (Eastern Cape) and Durban (KwaZulu-Natal). Approximately 80 % (470 km) of this route will involve the rehabilitation and upgrading of the existing N2 and R61. The remainder of the project (90 km) will consist of new road construction (SANRAL Preferred Route). The Toll Road Section (study area) under this investigation is limited to the “Greenfields” section of the project and the new mainline toll plazas outside the study area. An alternative route (the Coastal Mzamba Route) has also been investigated. LIMITATIONS, CONSTRAINTS AND ASSUMPTIONS Determining a visual resource and the impact thereon in absolute terms is not achievable. Subjectivity cannot be excluded in the assessment procedure. The assessment is based on assumed demographic data. No detailed study was done to determine accurate data on potential viewers of the project components. The position of toll plazas has been located for assessment purposes according to Google Earth positioning by SANRAL.


CAVE KLAPWIJK AND ASSOCIATES II

Localized visual perceptions of the economically depressed communities have not been tested as these may be influenced rather by the economic and job opportunities that would exist rather than the direct visual perception of the project;

The assessment does not consider the ancillary project infrastructure and components such as borrow pits, spoil dumps, construction camp sites, interchanges, ramp plazas, etc. These components will be assessed in detail during the design phase should the project be implemented;

Oribi Toll Plaza is an existing plaza and has not been assessed; Several bridges and mainline plazas were assessed generically due to their

similarity of scale and landscape setting; FINDINGS The study area traverses four distinct broad topographical regions. Each has its own visual or Genius Loci (sense of place) characteristics and these have an influence of the impact the development will have on the affected landscape. The implementation of the mitigation measures that have been recommended will go a long way towards reducing the significance of the impact. It will be necessary that a landscape architect will need to be appointed to integrate the physical and aesthetical design of the project components with the surrounding landscape during the detailed design phase of the project. The study was assesses according to the following project component groupings: Routes Bridges Mainline toll plazas

Routes

SANRAL Preferred Route

The SANRAL Preferred Route will exert a negative influence on the visual environment. This is largely due to the: - high visibility of the route, especially to the north-west; - impact on the high visual quality in the vicinity of the Mateku Waterfall and

escarpment; - the high visibility of construction and operation activity within the uniform open

grassland areas of uniform visual pattern; - the low VAC through these areas of uniform visual pattern; - the scale of the road within a generally rural setting; - the introduction of a continuous corridor within a rural setting that will be brightly lit

by vehicles throughout the night;


CAVE KLAPWIJK AND ASSOCIATES III

- the need to cut into the existing landform to accommodate the vertical alignment and the width of the servitude.

The overall significance of the visual impact is regarded as low (a rating of 2 on a scale of 1-5) for most of the route with the exception of the Mateku Waterfall area where the significance of the visual impact is regarded as high (a rating of 4). The low significance is due to the fact that most of the route traverses an area of a relatively medium to low visual sensitivity, that the visibility diminishes over distance and that the mitigation measures, as recommended, are implemented. It is recommended that the route alignment be adjusted out of the Mateku Waterfall viewshed and moved further east beyond the low ridge east of the road thereby reducing the impact significance to a rating of 3 Coastal Mzamba Route

The Coastal Mzamba Route will exert a negative influence on the visual environment for the same reasons as those for the SANRAL Preferred Route. However, this route lies further north-west and traverses an area that has a lower visual sensitivity. This route avoids the more scenic coastal areas and most of the deep river valleys between the Mzamba and the Mtentu Rivers. The overall significance of the visual impact is regarded as a low negative impact (a rating of 1 on a scale of 1-5). It is concluded that, on balance, the Coastal Mzamba Route is preferred from a visual point of view to the SANRAL Preferred Route. The Impact Assessment Tables of 5.1 and 5.2 indicates that the SANRAL Preferred Route has 3 high, 5 medium and 2 low impact ratings. The Coastal Mzamba Route has 1 high, 4 medium and 5 low impact ratings.

Bridges Mzamba, Mpahlane, Mnyameni, Kulumbe, Kwadlambula, Ntafufu and Mzimvubu

Bridges These bridges were assessed as a group as they are all similar in scale and landscape setting. The visual impact of these bridges is generally confined to the river valley with views extending up and down the valley. The visual quality of these valleys is high with a medium to high VAC. As the impact extent is limited, it is considered that, although the intensity of the impact is high, the significance of the impact is medium with a rating of 3 on a scale of 1-5. In order to contain the extent of the impact, it is imperative that the disturbance footprint is limited to the absolute minimum across the valley bottom and that the disturbed areas be rehabilitated immediately.


CAVE KLAPWIJK AND ASSOCIATES IV

Mtentu Bridge The visual impact of the Mtentu Bridge is highly intense as it dominates the valley due to its great height and length (over a kilometre long). It is considered that the visual impact is negative and having, after mitigation, a medium high significance (a rating of 3.5) on the sense of place. The intrusion of the bridge could negatively impact on the high visual quality of the scenic valley and retard future wilderness experience-based tourism within the valley. The massive scale of the bridge does not allow the medium VAC of the landscape to assist in blending it with the landscape. However, it can also be argued that the impact can also be interpreted as being positive as, with sensitive and elegant design, the massive bridge structure could become a tourism feature or focus point much as the large bridges of the world do. Mitigation is limited to appropriate high aesthetical design of the structures and minimum disturbance to the valley bottom with immediate and comprehensive rehabilitation of the disturbed areas. Msikaba Bridge

The Msikaba Bridge is located within an area of high visual sensitivity. The visual impact extends up to 15 km and is close to the very scenic Mateku Waterfall and escarpment. The significance of the impact, after mitigation, is considered medium high (a rating of 3.5) due to the impact on the high scenic environment. As with the Mtentu Bridge, the high intensity and high significance of the negative impact could compromise and retard future wilderness experience-based tourism through the area and the Msikaba Valley. However, with sensitive and elegant design, the massive suspension bridge structure could in itself become a tourism feature or focus point. It is recommended that a tourist viewing point be incorporated into the road design where visitors can stop and view from strategic points the bridge and the setting for both the Mtentu and Msikaba Bridge.

Mainline Toll Plazas Two alternative positions have been determined for the Mthentu and the Ndwalane Toll Plazas. Each position has been described and assessed separately. Mthentu Mainline Toll Plaza

The Mthentu Toll Plaza is located on a midslope within a broad valley with a north-west aspect. Most of the structure is visually contained within the viewshed of the valley, but with the tall light masts extending above the ridge line spilling light to the south across to the Mkambati Nature Reserve.


CAVE KLAPWIJK AND ASSOCIATES V

It is considered that the impact of the toll plaza is considered as having a low significance during the day. The night impact, however, is considered as high due to the potential impact on the nature reserve at night where the plaza will be an intrusive light beacon in a relatively unlit surrounding landscape. The significance of this may reduce in the future as electricity is rolled out to the adjacent settlements which will gradually add to the night lighting. The high intensity and significance (rating of 4) will have a negative impact on the landscape, especially at night. Implementation of the recommended mitigation measures could reduce the significance of the impact to medium (rating of 3). Alternative Mthentu Mainline Plaza

The alternative position of the Mthentu Toll Plaza screens the plaza from the east and the west thereby having no impact on the Mkambati Nature Reserve. It does affect the northern edge of the Mtentu River Valley. This has resulted in the significance of the visual impact as being regarded as medium (a rating of 3). With the implementation of mitigation measures recommended, the significance of the visual impact could reduce to medium low (a rating of 2.5). Ndwalane Toll Plaza

The Ndwalane Toll Plaza is located within a narrow and fairly scenic valley with a high VAC that during the day can greatly assist in blending the structure with the landscape. At night the structure will be highly visible due to the intensive and intrusive night lighting which remains contained within this valley. The significance of the impact is regarded as medium (a rating of 3) and with mitigation could reduce to medium to low (a rating of 2.5). Alternative Ndwalane Toll Plaza

This plaza is located on the R61 in an area of relatively low visual quality. The significance of the visual impact is regarded as medium (a rating of 3) due to the low visual quality, the lack of affected critical viewpoints – other than the road users, and the already visually modified landscape. The high night impact does not affect the surrounding settlements much as most are outside the viewshed. It is considered that the significance of the visual impact will reduce to low (a rating of 2) with the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. Isipingo, Park Rynie, Candu and Ngobozi Toll Plazas

These proposed plazas are all similar in nature and impact and have thus been generically assessed. The plazas are all considered to exhibit a highly intense visual impact while the significance thereof is regarded as medium (a rating of 3). As with the


CAVE KLAPWIJK AND ASSOCIATES VI

other toll plazas the night scene will have a higher impact than during the day due to the highly visible and intrusive beacon effect of the brightly lit plaza. It is considered that with the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures the significance of the impact could be regarded as low (a rating of 2).


CAVE KLAPWIJK AND ASSOCIATES VII

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACRONYMS.......................................................................................................................................... XI

PROPONENT........................................................................................................................................ XI

LEAD ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT ........................................................................................... XI

INDEPENDENT VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT CONSULTANTS .................................................. XI

1. INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................................13

2. BACKGROUND AND BRIEF.......................................................................................................13

3. STUDY APPROACH .....................................................................................................................4 3.1 Method ................................................................................................................................4 3.2 Limitations, Constraints and Assumptions..........................................................................5

4. DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT................................................................6 4.1 Description of the Works.....................................................................................................6 4.2 Description of the Natural Physical Elements.....................................................................7

4.2.1 Landform...................................................................................................................9 4.2.2 Vegetation...............................................................................................................10 4.2.3 Critical Views and Visibility .....................................................................................10 4.2.4 Genius Loci.............................................................................................................33 4.2.5 Visual Quality and Character..................................................................................34 4.2.6 Land Use ................................................................................................................36 4.2.7 The Scale of the Landscape...................................................................................36

5. IDENTIFICATION OF RISK SOURCES......................................................................................37 5.1 Risk Sources.....................................................................................................................37

5.1.1 Construction Phase ................................................................................................37 5.1.2 Operational Phase..................................................................................................37

6. THE VISUAL ASSESSMENT......................................................................................................38 6.1 The Visual Analysis...........................................................................................................38

6.1.1 The Viewshed.........................................................................................................39 6.1.2 The Viewing Distance.............................................................................................39 6.1.3 Critical Views ..........................................................................................................39 6.1.4 The Visual Absorption Capacity .............................................................................41 6.1.5 Evaluation Criteria ..................................................................................................42 6.1.6 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................................48

6.2 The Visual Impact .............................................................................................................49 6.2.1 The View Distance..................................................................................................49 6.2.2 Critical Viewpoints ..................................................................................................50 6.2.3 Extent......................................................................................................................50 6.2.4 Duration ..................................................................................................................51 6.2.5 Intensity or Severity ................................................................................................51 6.2.6 Frequency of Occurrence .......................................................................................52 6.2.7 The Probability of Occurrence................................................................................52 6.2.8 Significance ............................................................................................................52


CAVE KLAPWIJK AND ASSOCIATES VIII

6.2.9 Nature of the Impact ...............................................................................................53 6.2.10 Degree of Confidence in Predictions .....................................................................54 6.2.11 Legislation..............................................................................................................54 6.2.12 Ability to Adapt.......................................................................................................54

7. RECOMMENDED GENERAL MITIGATION / MANAGEMENT MEASURES.............................68 7.1 Road Alignment and Bridges ............................................................................................68

7.1.1 Earthworks and Landscaping .................................................................................68 7.2 Toll Plazas ........................................................................................................................69

7.2.1 Colour / Texture / Scale..........................................................................................69 7.2.2 Building Form..........................................................................................................70 7.2.3 Lighting ...................................................................................................................71 7.2.4 Dust Suppression ...................................................................................................73 7.2.5 Landscaping ...........................................................................................................73 7.2.6 Screening................................................................................................................73

7.3 Monitoring and Review Programme .................................................................................76 7.4 Environmental Management Actions................................................................................76

8. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ..........................................................................................78 8.1 Evaluation of the Project...................................................................................................78

8.1.1 Routes ....................................................................................................................78 8.1.2 Bridges....................................................................................................................79 8.1.3 Mainline Toll Plazas................................................................................................81

8.2 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................82

9. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................84 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Regional Locality Plan Figure 2: Locality Plan: Project Components Figure 3: Landscape Types Figure 4a: SANRAL Preferred Route Viewshed Analysis Figure 4b: Coastal Mzamba Route Viewshed Analysis Figure 5a: Mzamba Bridge Viewshed Analysis Figure 5b: Mpahlane Bridge Viewshed Analysis Figure 5c: Kulumbe Bridge Viewshed Analysis Figure 5d: Mnyameni Bridge Viewshed Analysis Figure 5e: Mtentu Bridge Viewshed Analysis Figure 5f: Kwadlambula Bridge Viewshed Analysis Figure 5g: Msikaba Bridge Viewshed Analysis Figure 5h: Ntafufu Bridge Viewshed Analysis Figure 5i: Mzimvubu Bridge Viewshed Analysis Figure 6a: Isipingo Mainline Toll Plaza Viewshed Analysis Figure 6b: Park Rynie Mainline Toll Plaza Viewshed Analysis Figure 6c: Mthentu Mainline Toll Plaza Viewshed Analysis Figure 6d: Mthentu (Alternative) Mainline Toll Plaza Viewshed Analysis


CAVE KLAPWIJK AND ASSOCIATES IX

Figure 6e: Ndwalane Mainline Toll Plaza Viewshed Analysis Figure 6f: Ndwalane (Plaza E) Mainline Toll Plaza Viewshed Analysis Figure 6g: Candu Mainline Toll Plaza Viewshed Analysis Figure 6h: Ngobozi Mainline Toll Plaza Viewshed Analysis Figure 7: Light Impact Figure 8: Relative Visual Sensitivity Figure 9: Exponential Reduction of Visibility over Distance Figure 10: Paint Patterns to Reduce Visual Scale of Building Figure 11: Variation of Building Form Figure 12: Reduced Height of Floodlights Figure 13: Focus of Lighting Figure 14: Lighting Blinkers Figure 15: Focus Lighting towards Buildings Figure 16: Screening Berms at least 15 m High Figure 17: Preferred Form of Screening Berms Figure 18: Topsoil Removal and Stockpile

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Visual Absorption Factors and their Numerical Values Table 2.1: Visual Assessment Criteria – Intensity Rating Table 2.2: Visual Assessment Criteria – Significance Rating Table 3: Visual Impact Assessment Criteria Ratings Table 4.1: Assessment of potential visual impacts associated with the proposed

SANRAL Preferred Route Table 4.2: Assessment of potential visual impacts associated with the proposed

Coastal Mzamba Route Table 4.3: Assessment of potential visual impacts associated with the proposed

Mzamba, Mpahlane, Mnyameni, Kulumbe, Kwadlambula, Ntafufu and Mzimvubu Bridges

Table 4.4: Assessment of potential visual impacts associated with the proposed Mtentu Bridge

Table 4.5: Assessment of potential visual impacts associated with the proposed Msikaba Bridge

Table 4.6: Assessment of potential visual impacts associated with the proposed Mthentu Mainline Toll Plaza

Table 4.7: Assessment of potential visual impacts associated with the proposed Alternative Mthentu Mainline Toll Plaza

Table 4.8: Assessment of potential visual impacts associated with the proposed Ndwalane Mainline Toll Plaza

Table 4.9: Assessment of potential visual impacts associated with the proposed Alternative Ndwalane Mainline Toll Plaza

Table 4.10: Assessment of potential visual impacts associated with the proposed Isipingo, Park Rynie, Candu and Ngobozi Mainline Toll Plazas

Table 5.1: Site Evaluation: SANRAL Preferred Route Table 5.2: Site Evaluation: Coastal Mzamba Route


CAVE KLAPWIJK AND ASSOCIATES X

Table 5.3: Site Evaluation: Mzamba, Mpahlane, Mnyameni, Kulumbe, Kwadlambula, Ntafufu and Mzimvubu Bridges

Table 5.4: Site Evaluation: Mtentu Bridge Table 5.5: Site Evaluation: Msikaba Bridge Table 5.6: Site Evaluation: Mthentu Mainline Toll Plaza Table 5.7: Site Evaluation: Alternative Mthentu Mainline Toll Plaza Table 5.8: Site Evaluation: Ndwalane Mainline Toll Plaza Table 5.9: Site Evaluation: Alternative Ndwalane Mainline Toll Plaza Table 5.10: Site Evaluation: Isipingo, Park Rynie, Candu and Ngobozi Mainline Toll

Plaza

APPENDICES Appendix 1: Photos Appendix 2: Final Peer Review


CAVE KLAPWIJK AND ASSOCIATES XI

ACRONYMS CCA CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd CKA Cave Klapwijk and Associates SANRAL South African National Roads Agency Limited VAC Visual Absorption Capacity

PROPONENT The South African National Roads Agency Limited (SANRAL) is the project proponent. Contact details are as follows: Proponent: SANRAL Contact person: Mr Ron Harmse Physical address: Ditsela Place, 1204 Park Street, Hatfield, Pretoria Postal address: P O Box 415, Pretoria, 0001 Telephone: 012-426 6022 Fax: 012-362 2117 Email [email protected]

LEAD ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT Consultant: CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd Contact person: Mr Fuad Fredericks Physical address: Unit 35, Roeland Square, 30 Drury Lane, Cape Town, 8001 Postal address: P O Box 10145, Caledon Square, 7905 Telephone: 021-461 1118 Fax: 021-461 1120 Email [email protected]

INDEPENDENT VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT CONSULTANTS Consultant: Cave Klapwijk and Associates Contact person: Mr Menno Klapwijk Physical address: 891 Duncan Street, Brooklyn, Pretoria Postal address: P O Box 11651, Hatfield, Pretoria, 0028 Telephone: 012-3624684 Fax: 012-3620394 Email: [email protected]


CAVE KLAPWIJK AND ASSOCIATES XII

Menno Klapwijk has specialised for 24 years in environmental planning, construction rehabilitation and control, visual impact assessment, and landscape site design. Significant visual impact projects include: Saldanha Steel, Mozal (Alusaf - Mozambique), Letsibogo Dam (Botswana), Blue Circle cement factory (East London), Phlogopite factory (Phalaborwa), Iscor Heavy Minerals Smelter (Empangeni), many VIA’s for Eskom transmission lines and substations, Mmamabula 400kV transmission line, mine and power plant (Botswana) and West Coast Combined Cycle Gas Turbine Power Plant (CCGT), De Hoop Dam and Pipeline Sekhukuneland, Tugela Water Project,Kwazulu Natal, Delportshoop Tower Mast, Delportshoop, Northern Cape, N-3 Toll Road, Cedara (Kwazulu Natal) to Heidelberg (Gauteng), Maputo Steel Project, Maputo, Mozambique, Ga-Pila Village, Potgietersrus, Limpopo Province and Pom Pom Camp, Okavango, Botswana. He has more than 200 publications and reports dealing mostly with environmental planning, environmental rehabilitations and control specification, environmental impact assessment and visual impact assessment. 1983 B.Sc (land arch). Texas A & M 1986 Environmental Impact Assessment, Graduate School of Business, UCT. Registered: South African Council for Landscape Architecture (SACLAP). Member: Institute of Landscape Architects of South Africa (ILASA). Member: American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA). Member: International Association of Impact Assessors (SA).


CAVE KLAPWIJK AND ASSOCIATES 1

SPECIALIST STUDY ON THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED N2 WILD COAST TOLL HIGHWAY


VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

1. INTRODUCTION CCA Environmental (Pty) Ltd, as the lead consultants for the Environmental Impact Assessment, have commissioned Cave Klapwijk and Associates to undertake the visual assessment investigation for the construction of the Greenfields Section of the proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway from Durban in KwaZulu-Natal to East London in the Eastern Cape and the associated major infrastructure such as toll plazas and bridges.

2. BACKGROUND AND BRIEF SANRAL, as the agency responsible for the management of the existing N2, intends to provide an improved, shorter and safer road link between the Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal. The project aims of providing improved access to the region, especially to the coastal zone area. The proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway extends over a distance of approximately 560 km between the N2 Gonube Interchange (East London) and the N2 Isipingo Interchange (South of Durban). The purpose of this specialist study is to determine the impact of the Greenfields sections of the proposed project on the visual and aesthetic character of the study area. The rationale for this study is that the road and the associated infrastructure may fundamentally alter the landscape character and sense of place of the local environment. The proposed route (See Figure 1: Regional Locality Plan) will connect East London, Butterworth, Dutywa, Mthatha, Ndwalane, Lusikisiki, Port Edward, Port Shepstone and Durban. Approximately 80 % (470 km) of the proposed project will involve the rehabilitation and upgrading of existing N2 and R61 road sections. The remainder of the project (90 km) will consist of new road construction (“Greenfields” sections) between the Ndwalane and the Ntafufu Rivers and between Lusikisiki and the Mthamvuna River (See Figure 2: Locality Plan – Project Components).



Figure 1: Regional Locality Plan



Figure 2: Locality Plan: Project Components



This visual assessment is a specialist study to determine the visual effects of the proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Highway Project on the surrounding environment. The primary objective of this specialist study is therefore to describe the potential impact of these structures on the visual character and sense of place of the area. This Specialist Study will have the following objectives: Determine the visual character of the areas along the proposed route by evaluating

environmental components such as topography, current land use activities, surrounding land use activities, etc.;

Identify elements of particular visual quality that could be affected by the proposed project;

Describe and evaluate the specific visual impacts of the preferred individual components of the highway and associated infrastructure from critical viewpoints and view fields;

Determine the extent of the visibility of the project from surrounding areas; Specific consideration should be given to the identification of requirements for

further investigation; Recommend mitigation measures to reduce the potential visual impacts generated

by the proposed project; The assessment should assess impacts according to the criteria and terminology

as indicated by CCA.

3. STUDY APPROACH

3.1 Method

In order to address the objectives of the study the following method has been used: Determine the setting, visual character and land use of the area surrounding the

area, and the Genius Loci (sense of place); Discussions and meetings with the specialist consultant team to identify specific

aspects of the construction and development which would affect the visual quality of a setting;

Define the extent of the affected visual environmental, the viewing distance and the critical views;

An evaluation was made of the landscape characteristics against which impact criteria ratings were applied;

The viewshed, the area within which the proposed project can be visible, was determined using digital 1:50 000 topographic maps with 20 m contour intervals



analyzed by the Geographic Information System (GIS), algorithms available in the ArcView Software Suite.

The assessment is based on the routes, ground-truthed during a field inspection in June 2007.

3.2 Limitations, Constraints and Assumptions

The following assumptions and limitations are applicable to this study:

The basis for this assessment is that scenic wilderness areas form the core of eco-

tourism due to the high positive aesthetic appeal; The assessment is based on assumed demographic data. No detailed study was

done to determine accurate data on potential viewers of the project components. If necessary these studies could be undertaken during the design phase of the project;

Determining a visual resource in absolute terms is not achievable. Evaluating a landscape’s visual quality is both complex and problematic. Various approaches have been developed but they all have one problem in common: unlike noise or air pollution, which can be measured in a relatively simple way, for the visual landscape mainly qualitative standards apply. Therefore subjectivity cannot be excluded in the assessment procedure (Lange 1994). Individually there is a great variation in the evaluation of the visual landscape based on different experiences, social level and cultural background. Exacerbating the situation is the inherent variability in natural features. Climate, season, atmospheric conditions, region, sub-region all affect the attributes that comprise the landscape. What is considered scenic to one person may not be to another (NLA, 1997);

Localized visual perceptions of the economically depressed communities have not been tested as these may be influenced rather by the economic and job opportunities that would exist rather than the direct visual perception of the project;

The assessment does not consider the ancillary project infrastructure and components such as borrow pits, spoil dumps, construction camp sites, interchanges, ramp plazas, etc. These components will be assessed in detail during the design phase should the project be implemented;

Oribi Toll Plaza is an existing plaza and has not been assessed; Several bridges and mainline plazas were assessed generically due to their

similarity of scale and landscape setting; Detailed site specific mitigation for each cut and fill slope is not provided. This will

be addressed by the landscape architect during the detailed design phase of the project should it go ahead;



The ‘Do Nothing’ alternative was not specifically addressed as it is likely that the existing landscape will remain in its existing condition;

The position of toll plazas has been located for assessment purposes according to Google Earth positioning by SANRAL.

If the study, however, determined that the negative visual impact is of such a magnitude and significance that it will seriously influence the decision on whether or not to build, it will then be necessary to test and determine the visual perceptions of neighbouring communities. Such a study is involved, costly and time consuming.

4. DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

4.1 Description of the Works

The proposed project comprises of the following: Construction of a two-lane single carriageway with wide shoulders, while dual carriageways and/or climbing lanes will be constructed where warranted by traffic volumes and safety requirements. The proposed route alignment (See Figure 2) would connect East London, Butterworth, Dutywa (formerly Idutywa) Mthatha (formerly Umtata), Ndwalane, Lusikisiki, Port Edward, Port Shepstone and Durban, and would be approximately 85 km shorter than the existing N2 route between East London and Durban via Mount Frere, Kokstad and Harding. Approximately 80 % of the proposed project involves rehabilitation and upgrading of existing road sections, as follows: Existing N2 between the Gonubie Interchange and Mthatha; Existing R61 between Mthatha and Ndwalane; Existing R61 between the Ntafufu River and Lusikisiki; and Existing R61 and N2 between the Mthamvuna River and the Isipingo Interchange.

New road construction is proposed between Ndwalane and the Ntafufu River, and between Lusikisiki and the Mthamvuna River (“Greenfields” sections). The proposed project would include seven mainline toll plazas (Figure 2) and ten sets of ramp (interchange) toll plazas. Mainline plazas are proposed as follows: In the area of the Kei River crossing, just outside Ngobozi – the Ngobozi Plaza; In the Bashee Bridge region, close to the Candu River – the Candu Plaza;



In the vicinity of the Ntlaza Mission, near the Tudor Ndamase Pass – the Alternative Ndwalane Plaza;

In the vicinity of Ndwalane – the Ndwalane Plaza; In the vicinity of the proposed intersection with the Holy Cross / Mkambati district

road – the Alternative Mthentu Plaza; Immediately north of the Mtentu River – the Mthentu Plaza; The existing Oribi Plaza between Izotsha and Umtentweni; Just north of the Park Rynie Interchange – the Park Rynie Plaza; and Between the Moss Kolnick and Isipingo Interchanges – the Isipingo Plaza.

Ramp toll plazas are proposed as follows: Shelley Beach Interchange (existing Izotsha ramp plazas); Marburg Interchange (existing Oribi ramp plazas); Umtentweni Interchange (existing Umtentweni ramp plazas); Sezela Interchange (southern ramps); Park Rynie Interchange (southern ramps); Scottburgh Interchange ( northern ramps); Umkomaas Interchange (northern ramps); Adams Road Interchange (southern ramps); Moss Kolnick Interchange (southern ramps); and Joyner Road Interchange (southern ramps).

The basic mainline toll plaza design would be based on SANRAL’s standard requirements, namely the use of a 5 m-width lane comprising of a 3.2 m vehicle land and a 1.8 m toll island for the tollbooth. A typical mainline toll plaza canopy is 20 m long and as wide as the number of lanes determined. The number of toll lanes for the mainline plazas would vary from between 6 and 18. Support infrastructure would include a control building and store, maintenance and parking areas. The layout of the existing Oribi Toll Plaza is typical of what is planned for the proposed mainline plaza locations.

4.2 Description of the Natural Physical Elements

The natural physical elements are described according to broad topographical regions (Figure 3, Landscape Types). These landscape types correlate closely with the vegetation types as described by Low and Rebelo (1996) as these types take into accent the topographical makeup of the area. The proposed N2 Toll Highway and the alternative project components traverse four distinct landscape types and three biomes. These are:



Figure 3: Landscape Types



Coastal Grassland Moist Upland Grassland Coastal Bushveld / Grassland Valley Thicket

4.2.1 Landform

The study area lies on the common interface of two broad landforms (See Figure 3) that follow the general trend of the proposed route. The eastern section of the SANRAL Preferred Route (Photos 1-5) consists of flat to rolling topography (Coastal Grassland) incised by steep sided river valleys (Valley Thicket) cutting across it. The soils show signs of water persistence at the soil-rock interface and are dystrophic, sandy clay loam with dark topsoils (Low and Rebelo, 1996). The topography of the southern portion (Coastal Forest) of the eastern section from approximately Mbotyi to just south of Port St. Johns is rolling to hilly with deep and steep sided valleys. This area does not fall within the physical road alignment but is within the viewshed. The western section of the study area (Moist Upland Grassland) forms the foothills of the interior where the topography rises to the west in the form of undulating hills. The soils are less sandy and are often shallow, rocky and leached and are fairly erodible forming large danger in some parts. The southern section of the study areas, from Lusikisiki to Port St. Johns, traverses Coastal Bushveld / Grassland. The terrain is usually flat to gently undulating, but rises quite steeply towards the interior and is deeply dissected by the many rivers. The soils are generally sandy and are of marine origin. The Coastal Mzamba Route (Photos 6, 7, 9, 10 and 13) lies further north-east of the SANRAL Preferred Route between the Mzamba River and the Mtentu River on higher lying topography in the foothills of the interior. Implications for the Project Visibility will generally be higher along the flatter open eastern sections from approximately the Mtamvuna River near Port Edward to near Lusikisiki through the Moist Upland Grassland area where the lack of rising and diverse topography helps to screen and blend the project components with the landscape. The higher lying landforms in the west and south of Lusikisiki provide a more visually diverse landscape and will visually accommodate the road and the accompanying components more readily.



4.2.2 Vegetation

The vegetation of the eastern section consists of much of what Low and Rebelo (1996) describe as Coastal Grassland (Figure 3: Landscape Types) which is a complex mosaic of forest, thicket and grassland. The shrubby species in the grasslands show a successional trend towards forest where the soils are deeper. A diversity of species and a wide range of grassland communities occur along the coastline. The vegetation of the western section forms part of the eastern edge of the Moist Upland Grassland. This vegetation type is a dense, sour grassland. It is often evident on disturbed, ploughed or heavily overgrazed and degraded sites. The coastal vegetation from around Mbotyi to the south of Port St. Johns is described by Low and Rebelo as Coastal Forest with the more western sections displaying patches of Coastal Bushveld / Grassland. The flora has Tongoland-Pondoland affinities with a climate that allows for a richer forest than that of Afromontane Forest. Valley Thicket is found along the river valleys that cut across the landscape from west to east. The closed canopy is up to 6 m in height and woody evergreen species are dominant. Implications for the Project The areas where the vegetation is low (less than 1 m high) or where the vegetation is patchy is not sufficient, due to the lack of visual diversity and height, to provide a screening effect or to assist in blending the project components with the environment. The areas where the vegetation is more diverse such as the more southern sections from Lusikisiki to Port St. Johns, provide support for a moderate visual absorption capacity (VAC) of the landscape which will assist in blending the project with the landscape and allowing the landscape to accept visual change or intrusion.

4.2.3 Critical Views and Visibility

The viewshed analysis has been done for the major project components. These include the SANRAL Preferred Route, the Coastal Mzamba Route, eight toll plaza positions and nine major bridges (See Figures 4a and 4b, 5a-5i and 6a-6h). N2 Routes

The visibility of the SANRAL Preferred Route (Figure 4a) and the views onto it are mostly from the higher elevated hills to the west of the route. Visibility of the route is limited and



restricted to the east of the route due to the fact that the landform falls away down to the coast. Critical views are predominantly from the scattered settlements (Photos 6, 7 & 8) from the Mtamvuna River (Photo 28) (near Port Edward) to the Mtentu River. Critical areas of impact are the scenic crossings over deeply incised river valleys (Photos 11, 12 & 14), the Mkambati Reserve (Photos 36 & 37) (between the Mtentu River and the Msikaba River) (Photos 30 and 34) and the scenic area in the vicinity of the Mateku Waterfall (Photos 15 & 16), the Msikaba River Gorge and the Mnyameni Waterfall (Photo 29). Views extend for distances beyond 20 km to the west, especially north-west of Lusikisiki extending to Flagstaff and Holy Cross. High concentrations of settlements occur between Lusikisiki and Port St. Johns and north-west of Lusikisiki and Dumasi as well as the urban areas of these towns. The visibility of the Coastal Mzamba Route (Figure 4b) is restricted to generally the 5 km zone with little intrusion on the critical areas along the coastline and the Mkambati Nature Reserve (Photos 36 and 37). Bridges

The visibility of most of the bridges (Figure 5a-5i) is limited to within the 5 km radius but mostly to within 2.5 km. The Mthentu (Photos 31 & 32) and Msikaba Bridges (Photos 30, 32 & 33), being the tallest and the widest, exert a visual influence in places beyond 15 km. Generally, the views are limited to the length of the valleys. None of the bridges have any impact on the local towns and larger settlement areas. Mzimvubu Bridge crosses a broad, farmed valley flanked by rolling hills (Photo 35). Toll Plazas

The visibility of the toll plazas (Figures 6a-6h) vary with each locality. Isipingo Toll Plaza (Photo 17) is located within the Durban Metropolitan areas. The visibility extends to 5 km. Critical views are from the north and the surrounding urban areas. Park Rynie Toll Plaza (Photo 18) is located south of Scottburgh and has a limited exposure (2.5 km). Mthentu Toll Plaza (Photo 20) is visible for up to 20 km to the north and west with some views extending south into the Mkambati Nature Reserve. Mthentu Alternative Toll Plaza is visible in a north-south direction up to 20 km and will affect the scattered settlements without intruding on the Mkambati Nature Reserve. The Ndwalane Toll Plaza (Photos 21, 22 & 23) is limited to a visibility distance of 2 km. The Alternative Ndwalane Toll Plaza (Photos 24 & 25) is visible in patches to the north-west up to 15 km and will impact on the urban settlements. Candu Toll Plaza (Photo 26) is visible mainly to the north-west up to 20 km. The town of Idutywa and the surrounding communities and settlements within a 10 km radius will be affected.



Figure 4a: SANRAL Preferred Route Viewshed Analysis



Figure 4b: Coastal Mzamba Route Viewshed Analysis



Figure 5a: Mzamba Bridge



Figure 5b: Mpahlane Bridge Viewshed Analysis



Figure 5c: Kulumbe Bridge Viewshed Analysis



Figure 5d: Mnyameni Bridge Viewshed Analysis



Figure 5e: Mtentu Bridge Viewshed Analysis



Figure 5f: Kwadlambula Bridge Viewshed Analysis



Figure 5g: Msikaba Bridge Viewshed Analysis



Figure 5h: Ntafufu Bridge Viewshed Analysis



Figure 5i: Mzimvubu Bridge Viewshed Analysis



Figure 6a: Isipingo Mainline Toll Plaza Viewshed Analysis



Figure 6b: Park Rynie Mainline Toll Plaza Viewshed Analysis



Figure 6c: Mthentu Mainline Toll Plaza Viewshed Analysis



Figure 6d: Mthentu (Alternative) Mainline Toll Plaza Viewshed Analysis

Date post:	05-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	vuquynh
View:	216 times
Download:	1 times

VIA Report Final - NRApart_1).pdf · REPORT STATUS : Draft CKA ... Oribi Toll Plaza is an existing...

Documents