Visual Impact Assessment

Report

Kuruman Power Line,

Northern Cape Province

Mitha Cilliers (Pr LArch) Newtown Landscape Architects

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: Rev 04 Date Issued: 1 September 2015 Prepared By: Mitha Cilliers (Pr LArch) Reviewed By: Yonanda Martin NLA Reference: Kuruman Power Line

i Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 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

South African Council for the Landscape Architectural Profession Professional Registration (SACLAP)

Experience in Years 10 years

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 Experience 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.

ii Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Acronyms, Abbreviations and Glossary

ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS & GLOSSARY

Acronyms & Abbreviations

CAD Computer-aided design

DTM Digital Terrain Model

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EMP Environmental Management Programme

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

iii Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Acronyms, Abbreviations and Glossary

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 A formally designated place visited by recreationists and others for the place 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).

iv Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Acronyms, Abbreviations and Glossary

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 Sense of place is the unique value that is allocated to a specific place or loci) 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 By determining the zone of potential visual influence it is possible to Influence 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.

v Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Executive Summary

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 sub-region around the Hotazel, Kuruman 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 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 Kalahari 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 a 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 visual analysis and comparative study the following conclusions were made with regards the two new substations, Gamohaan and Sekgame:

vi Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Executive Summary

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 Gamohaan 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 Gamohaan 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 / construction 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 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.  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 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.  Moffat Substation: The pre-construction significance ratings are ‘moderate’ for the existing, cumulative and residual impacts. In terms of Construction, the significance for the existing

vii Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Executive Summary

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.  Valley 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.

The findings of the comparative visual analysis for the upgrade of the power line between Hotazel, 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.

viii Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Executive Summary

 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.

ix Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Executive Summary

x Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Executive Summary

xi Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Table of Content

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 26 7.1 Visual Receptors 26 7.2 Potential Sensitivity of the Visual Receptors 26 8. VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE PROPOSED NEW GAMOHAAN AND SEKGAME SUBSTATIONS 27 8.1 Visual Intrusion 27 8.2 Visibility and Visual Exposure 28 xii Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Table of Content

8.3 Severity of the Visual Impact and Impact on the Sense of Place 30 8.4 Significance of the Visual Impacts form the Gamohaan and Sekgame Substations 31 8.5 Mitigation Measures for the Gamohaan and Sekgame Substations 36 8.5.1 Pre-Construction Phase 36 8.5.2 Construction Phase 36 8.5.3 Operational Phase 37 8.5.4 Decommissioning Phase 37 9. VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE PROPOSED SUBSTATION AND SWITCHING STATION UPGRADES 38 9.1 Eldoret Substation 38 9.2 Riries Substation 38 9.3 Mothibistat Substation 39 9.4 Moffat Substation 39 9.5 Valley Substation 39 9.6 Mitigation Measures for the Substation Upgrades 40 10. VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE PROPOSED POWER LINE ALTERNATIVES 52 10.1 Hotazel – Eldoret Power Line 52 10.2 Eldoret – Riries Power Line 53 10.3 Riries – Gamohaan Power Line 53 10.4 Gamohaan – Mothibistat Power Line 53 10.5 Mothibistat – Moffat Power Line 54 10.6 Moffat – Valley Power Line 54 10.7 Valley – Sekgame Power Line 55 10.8 Mitigation Measures for the Power Line Upgrades 86 11. CONCLUSION 87 12. REFERENCES 92

APPENDIX A: DETERMINING A LANDSCAPE AND THE VALUE OF THE VISUAL RESOURCE 93 APPENDIX B: METHOD FOR DETERMINING THE INTENSITY OF LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT 98 APPENDIX C: SIGNIFICANCE RATING METHODOLOGY 105 1. Nature of the impact 105 2. Extent of the impact 105 3. Duration of the impact 105 4. Potential intensity of the impact 106 5. Likelihood of the impact 107 6. Cumulative Impacts 108 7. Significance Assessment 108 xiii Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Table of Content

8. Notation of Impacts 111 APPENDIX D: DECLERATION OF INDEPENDENCE 112 APPENDIX E: CURRICULUM VITAE 113

xiv Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 List of Figures

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

xv Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 List of Tables

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Value of the Visual Resource

Table 2 Potential Sensitivity of Visual Receptors

Table 3 Visual Intrusion of Gamohaan and Sekgame Substations

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

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

Table 6 Severity of Impact of the Gamohaan and Sekgame Substations

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

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

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

Table 7.4 Significance of Visual Impact from the Gamohaan and Sekgame Substations – 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 - Riries Power Line Alternatives 1 to 3

Table 9.3 Riries - 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 xvi Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 List of Tables

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

xvii Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Introduction 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 sub-region around the Hotazel, Kuruman 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 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.

1 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment July 2015 Introduction 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

2 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Introduction

3 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment July 2015 Legal Requirements & Guidelines 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 Programme (EMPr) 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

4 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment July 2015 Legal Requirements & Guidelines 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.

5 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 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).

6 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment July 2015 Approach and Methodology 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 7 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Approach and Methodology 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 8 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Approach and Methodology 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;

9 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Approach and Methodology  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.

10 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 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 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.

11 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment July 2015 Description of the Project

12 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment July 2015 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 Kalahari 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.

13 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment July 2015 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 Hotazel. It runs into the Gamogara River south-west of Hotazel. The Vlermuisleegte dry-run, runs parallel to the south of the Witleegte dry-run and originates north- east of Kathu. It runs into the Gamogara River south-west of Hotazel. The Gamogara 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 a 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.

14 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Environmental Setting & Sensitivity

15 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment July 2015 The Environmental Setting

16 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 The Environmental Setting

17 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 The Environmental Setting

18 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 The Environmental Setting

19 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 The Environmental Setting

20 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 The Environmental Setting

21 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 The Environmental Setting

22 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 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) Moderate (Pleasing) Low (Mundane) mountain range and associated towns and communities Mines, roads, railways and power ridge lines / clusters of koppies as lines well as the dry and wet / semi-wet waterways

This landscape type is considered This landscape type is considered This landscape type is considered to have a high value because it is to have a moderate value because to have a low value because it is a: it is a: a: Distinct landscape that exhibits a Common landscape that exhibits Minimal landscape generally very positive character with valued some positive character but which negative in character with few, if features that combine to give the has evidence of alteration any, valued features. experience of unity, richness and /degradation/erosion of features harmony. It is a landscape that resulting in areas of more mixed may be considered to be of character. particular importance to conserve and which has a strong sense of place.

Sensitivity: Sensitivity: It is sensitive to change in general It is potentially sensitive to change and will be detrimentally affected if in general and change may be change is inappropriately dealt detrimental if inappropriately dealt with. with.

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. 23 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Visual Resource

24 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Visual Resource

25 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 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 travelers 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 Moderate Low residents of the towns, local and tourist travelers mines, related industries and communities and on farms businesses as well as recreation facilities and tourist destinations Communities where the People travelling through or past Visitors and people working within development results in changes in the affected landscape on the local the study area and travelling along the landscape setting or valued roads. local roads whose attention may views enjoyed by the community; be focused on their work or activity and who therefore may be Occupiers of residential properties potentially less susceptible to with views affected by the changes in the view. development.

26 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Visual Impact Assessment - Substations 8. VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE PROPOSED NEW GAMOHAAN AND SEKGAME SUBSTATIONS

The following section will discuss and rate the visual impact from the two proposed substations, Gamohaan (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 Gamohaan 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.

27 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Visual Impact Assessment - Substations Table 3: Visual Intrusion of Gamohaan and Sekgame Substations High Moderate Low Positive Gamohaan Substation Sekgame Substation

If the proposed project: If the proposed project: If the proposed project: If the proposed project:

- Has a substantial - Has a moderate negative - Has minimal effect on - Has a beneficial effect negative effect on the effect on the visual quality the visual quality (sense of on the visual quality visual quality (sense of (sense of place) of the place) of the landscape; (sense of place) of the place) of the landscape; landscape; landscape;

- Contrasts dramatically - Contrasts with the - Contrasts minimally with - Enhances the patterns or with the patterns or patterns or elements that the patterns or elements elements that define the elements that define the define the structure of the that define the structure of structure of the landscape; structure of the immediate landscape; the landscape; landscape;

- Contrasts with land - Is partially compatible - Is mostly compatible - Is compatible with land use, settlement or with land use (utilities) with land use, (utility) use, settlement or enclosure patterns of the patterns of the general patterns; enclosure patterns. immediate environment; area;

- Cannot be ‘absorbed’ into the landscape from - Is partially ‘absorbed’ - is ‘absorbed’ into the key viewing areas. into the landscape from landscape from key key viewing areas. viewing areas.

Result: Notable change in Result: Result Result landscape characteristics Moderate change in Moderate change in Positive change in key over an extensive area landscape characteristics landscape characteristics views. and/or intensive change over localized area, over localized area over a localized area resulting in a moderate resulting in a minor resulting in major changes change to key views change to a few key to key views 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.

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

28 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Visual Impact Assessment - Substations 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 Gamohaan 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. Travelers 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 Gamohaan Substation.

29 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Visual Impact Assessment - Substations Table 4: Visual Exposure of the Sensitive Viewer Locations to the Gamohaan Substation Foreground Middle-ground Far Middle-ground Background (High Exposure - (Moderate Exposure - (Low Exposure - (Insignificant significant moderate contribution minimal influence on Exposure - contribution to visual to visual impact) visual impact) negligible influence impact) 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 0 – 0.8 .km 0.8 – 5.0 km 5.0 – 10.0 km Over 10.0 km communities

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. Travelers 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 Middle-ground Far Middle-ground Background (High Exposure - (Moderate Exposure - (Low Exposure - (Insignificant significant moderate contribution minimal influence on Exposure - contribution to visual to visual impact) visual impact) negligible influence impact) 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.

30 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Visual Impact Assessment - Substations 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 Gamohaan and Sekgame Substations High Moderate Low Negligible Gamohaan Substation Sekgame Substation Total loss of or major Partial loss of or Minor loss of or Very minor loss or alteration to key elements alteration to key alteration to key alteration to key / features / characteristics elements / features / elements / features / elements/features/charact of the baseline. characteristics of the characteristics of the eristics of the baseline. baseline. baseline. i.e. Pre-development i.e. Pre-development i.e. Pre-development i.e. Pre-development landscape or view and / or landscape or view and / or landscape or view and / or landscape or view and / or introduction of elements introduction of elements introduction of elements introduction of elements considered to be totally that may be prominent but that may not be that is not uncharacteristic uncharacteristic when set may not necessarily be uncharacteristic when set with the surrounding within the attributes of the considered to be within the attributes of the landscape – receiving landscape. substantially receiving landscape. approximating the ‘no uncharacteristic when set change’ situation. within the attributes of the receiving landscape.

High scenic quality Moderate scenic quality Low scenic quality Negligible scenic quality impacts would result. impacts would result impacts would result. impacts would result.

Due to the Gamohaan 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 Gamohaan 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 Gamohaan 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.

31 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Visual Impact Assessment - Substations Table 7.1: Significance of Visual Impact from the Gamohaan and Sekgame Substations – Pre-Construction Phase PRE-CONSTRUCTION PHASE Impact Potential Activity Nature of Impact Extent Duration Likelihood Rating Mitigation Interpretation type Intensity No visual impact No visual impact prior to Direct Impact: Existing 0 0 0 0 0 - LOW prior to construction. Visual Impact construction. - New Visual impact on No visual impact prior to Cumulative 0 0 0 0 0 - LOW Gamohaan visual resource construction. and visual Substation No visual impact prior to receptors. Residual 0 0 0 0 0 - LOW construction. No visual impact No visual impact prior to Direct Impact: Existing 0 0 0 0 0 - LOW prior to construction. Visual Impact construction. - New Visual impact on No visual impact prior to Cumulative 0 0 0 0 0 - LOW Sekgame visual resource construction. and visual Substation No visual impact prior to receptors. Residual 0 0 0 0 0 - LOW construction.

32 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Visual Impact Assessment - Substations Table 7.2: Significance of Visual Impact from the Gamohaan and Sekgame Substations – Construction Phase CONSTRUCTION PHASE Impact Potential Activity Nature of Impact Extent Duration Likelihood Rating Mitigation Interpretation type Intensity Dust There is currently no other structures Direct Impact: Existing 0 0 0 0 0 - LOW suppression on the proposed substation site, mitigation can therefore no visual impact. Visual impact on be implemented Visual impacts will arise from the visual resource to reduce the construction activities them self as and visual visual impact well as from the structures being Visual Impact receptors. Cumulative 2 1 4 1 7 - MOD during this erected. The substation is set within a - New phase. rural setting near a mountain and Gamohaan Construction river. Both of these are landscape Substation activities could types of high scenic value. be restricted to With the correct and effective business / application of mitigation measures the daylight hours Residual 2 1 4 1 7 - MOD visual impact might be reduced. to reduce the However, the visual impact from the light impact at structures would still remain. night time. Dust There is currently no other structures Direct Impact: Existing 0 0 0 0 0 - LOW suppression on the proposed substation site, mitigation can therefore no visual impact. Visual impact on be implemented Visual impacts will arise form the visual resource to reduce the construction activities them self as and visual visual impact well as from the structures being Visual Impact receptors. Cumulative 2 1 2 1 5 - MOD during this erected. The substation is set within a - New phase. rural setting near a mountain and Sekgame Construction river. Both of these are landscape Substation activities could types of high scenic value. be restricted to With the correct and effective business / application of mitigation measures the daylight hours Residual 2 1 2 1 5 - MOD visual impact might be reduced. to reduce the However, the visual impact from the light impact at structures would still remain. night time.

33 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Visual Impact Assessment - Substations Table 7.3: Significance of Visual Impact from the Gamohaan and Sekgame Substations – Operation Phase OPERATIONAL PHASE Impact Potential Activity Nature of Impact Extent Duration Likelihood Rating Mitigation Interpretation type Intensity Operational and security lighting There is currently no other structures Direct Impact: Existing 0 0 0 0 0 - LOW should be on the proposed substation site, contained to therefore no visual impact. Visual Impact minimise sky Visual impact on - New glow and light The substation is set within a rural visual resource Gamohaan 10 - spillage beyond setting near a mountain and river. and visual Cumulative 2 4 4 1 Substation HIGH the site Both of these are landscape types of receptors. boundaries. high scenic value. 10 - Residual 2 4 4 1 HIGH Operational and security lighting There is currently no other structures Direct Impact: Existing 0 0 0 0 0 - LOW should be on the proposed substation site, therefore no visual impact. Visual Impact contained to minimise sky - New Visual impact on glow and light The substation is set within a mixed Sekgame visual resource spillage beyond industrial / rural setting with mining Substation and visual Cumulative 2 4 2 1 8 - MOD the site activities and dumps having a low receptors. boundaries. scenic value. Residual 2 4 2 1 8 - MOD

34 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Visual Impact Assessment - Substations Table 7.4: Significance of Visual Impact from the Gamohaan and Sekgame Substations – Decommissioning Phase DECCOMMISSIONING PHASE Nature of Impact Potential Activity Extent Duration Likelihood Rating Mitigation Interpretation Impact type Intensity Dust suppression mitigation Visual impacts would arise Direct Impact: Existing 2 1 4 1 7 - MOD can be implemented to reduce from the decommissioning the visual impact during this activities. Visual impact phase. Visual impacts would arise on visual Cumulative 2 1 4 1 7 - MOD Decommissioning activities from the decommissioning Visual Impact resource and could be restricted to business activities. - New visual / daylight hours to reduce the Gamohaan receptors. light impact at night time. After decommissioning and Substation The scarred landscape should rehabilitation of the Residual 0 0 0 1 0 - LOW be rehabilitated and re- substation footprint, the vegetated with indigenous area could be restored to its plants once decommissioning initial land use status. has been completed. Dust suppression mitigation Visual impacts would arise Direct Impact: Existing 2 1 2 1 5 - MOD can be implemented to reduce from the decommissioning the visual impact during this activities. Visual impact phase. Visual impacts would arise on visual Cumulative 2 1 2 1 5 - MOD Decommissioning activities from the decommissioning resource and could be restricted to business activities. visual / daylight hours to reduce the Visual Impact receptors. light impact at night time. - New The scarred landscape should Sekgame be rehabilitated and re- After decommissioning and Substation vegetated with indigenous plants once decommissioning rehabilitation of the Residual 0 0 0 1 0 - LOW has been completed. substation footprint, the area could be restored to its initial land use status.

35 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Visual Impact Assessment - Substations 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 Gamohaan 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 Gamohaan 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.

36 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Visual Impact Assessment - Substations 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.

37 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Visual Impact Assessment – Substation & Switching Station Upgrades 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 Hotazel 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.

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 38 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Visual Impact Assessment – Substation & Switching Station Upgrades 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.

9.3 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.

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.

9.4 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.

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.

9.5 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 39 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Visual Impact Assessment – Substation & Switching Station Upgrades 1.5km to the southeast. 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.

9.6 Mitigation Measures for the Substation Upgrades Refer to Section 8.5 above.

40 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Visual Impact Assessment – Substation & Switching Station Upgrades Table 8.1: Significance of Visual Impact from the Substations to be Upgraded - Pre-Construction Phase PRE-CONSTRUCTION PHASE Impact Potential Activity Nature of Impact Extent Duration Likelihood Rating Mitigation Interpretation type Intensity No visual impacts The existing substation has a Direct Impact: Existing 2 4 2 1 8 - MOD from the proposed moderate negative visual impact. Visual substation to be Visual impact on No additional visual impact from Impact - mitigated prior to visual resource and Cumulative 2 4 2 1 8 - MOD the proposed substation prior to Eldoret construction. visual receptors. construction. Substation Upgrade The residual visual impact Residual 2 4 2 1 8 - MOD therefore remains the same as the existing condition. No visual impacts The existing substation has a Direct Impact: Existing 2 4 2 1 8 - MOD from the proposed moderate negative visual impact. Visual substation to be Visual impact on No additional visual impact from Impact - mitigated prior to visual resource and Cumulative 2 4 2 1 8 - MOD the proposed substation prior to Riries construction. visual receptors. construction. Substation Upgrade The residual visual impact Residual 2 4 2 1 8 - MOD therefore remains the same as the existing condition. No visual impacts The existing switch station has a Direct Impact: Existing 2 4 2 1 8 - MOD from the proposed moderate negative visual impact. Visual substation to be Impact - Visual impact on No additional visual impact from mitigated prior to Mothibistat visual resource and Cumulative 2 4 2 1 8 - MOD the proposed substation prior to construction. Switch visual receptors. construction. Station The residual visual impact Upgrade Residual 2 4 2 1 8 - MOD therefore remains the same as the existing condition.

41 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Visual Impact Assessment – Substation & Switching Station Upgrades PRE-CONSTRUCTION PHASE Impact Potential Activity Nature of Impact Extent Duration Likelihood Rating Mitigation Interpretation type Intensity No visual impacts The existing substation has a Direct Impact: Existing 2 4 2 1 8 - MOD from the proposed moderate negative visual impact. Visual substation to be Visual impact on No additional visual impact from Impact - mitigated prior to visual resource and Cumulative 2 4 2 1 8 - MOD the proposed substation prior to Moffat construction. visual receptors. construction. Substation Upgrade The residual visual impact Residual 2 4 2 1 8 - MOD therefore remains the same as the existing condition. No visual impacts The existing substation has a Direct Impact: Existing 2 4 2 1 8 - MOD from the proposed moderate negative visual impact. Visual substation to be Visual impact on No additional visual impact from Impact - mitigated prior to visual resource and Cumulative 2 4 2 1 8 - MOD the proposed substation prior to Valley construction. visual receptors. construction. Substation Upgrade The residual visual impact Residual 2 4 2 1 8 - MOD therefore remains the same as the existing condition.

42 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Visual Impact Assessment – Substation & Switching Station Upgrades Table 8.2: Significance of Visual Impact from the Substations to be Upgraded - Construction Phase CONSTRUCTION PHASE Impact Potential Activity Nature of Impact Extent Duration Likelihood Rating Mitigation Interpretation type Intensity Dust suppression There are currently no construction Direct Impact: Existing 2 0 0 0 0 - LOW mitigation can be activities at this site. Visual impact on implemented to Visual impacts will arise from the visual resource reduce the visual construction activities them self as well and visual impact during this as from the structures being erected. receptors. phase. The substation is set within a rural Visual Cumulative 2 1 2 1 5 - MOD Construction setting surrounded by relatively Impact - activities could be Eldoret undisturbed Kalahari Thornveld restricted to vegetation with a mine dump Substatio business / n Upgrade approximately 1.3km to the east. daylight hours to With the correct and effective reduce the light application of mitigation measures the impact at night visual impact from the construction Residual 2 1 2 1 5 - MOD time. activities can be reduced. However, the visual impact from the structures would still remain. Dust suppression There is currently no construction Direct Impact: Existing 2 0 0 0 0 - LOW mitigation can be activities at this site. Visual impact on implemented to Visual impacts will arise from the visual resource reduce the visual construction activities them self as well and visual impact during this as from the structures being erected. receptors. phase. The substation is set within a rural Construction setting surrounded by relatively Visual Cumulative 2 2 2 1 6 - MOD activities could be undisturbed Kalahari Thornveld Impact - restricted to Riries vegetation with some small scale mining business / activities located approximately 150m to Substatio daylight hours to n Upgrade the northeast, 600m to the south and reduce the light 850m to the southeast. impact at night With the correct and effective time. application of mitigation measures the visual impact from the construction Residual 2 2 2 1 6 - MOD activities can be reduced. However, the visual impact from the structures would still remain. 43 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Visual Impact Assessment – Substation & Switching Station Upgrades CONSTRUCTION PHASE Impact Potential Activity Nature of Impact Extent Duration Likelihood Rating Mitigation Interpretation type Intensity Dust suppression There is currently no construction Direct Impact: Existing 2 0 0 0 0 - LOW mitigation can be activities at this site. Visual impact on implemented to Visual impacts will arise from the visual resource reduce the visual construction activities them self as well and visual impact during this as from the structures being erected. Visual phase. Impact - receptors. Cumulative 2 2 2 1 6 - MOD The substation site is set within an urban Construction setting along site Buitekant street and Mothibist activities could be at Switch adjacent to the Mothibistat residential restricted to area. Station business / Upgrade With the correct and effective daylight hours to application of mitigation measures the reduce the light visual impact from the construction Residual 2 2 2 1 6 - MOD impact at night activities can be reduced. However, the time. visual impact from the structures would still remain. Dust suppression There is currently no construction Direct Impact: Existing 2 0 0 0 0 - LOW mitigation can be activities at this site. Visual impact on implemented to Visual impacts will arise from the visual resource reduce the visual construction activities them self as well and visual impact during this as from the structures being erected. Visual Cumulative 2 2 2 1 6 - MOD receptors. phase. The substation site is set within a light Impact - Construction Moffat industrial setting adjacent and to the activities could be west of the light industrial area. Substatio restricted to n Upgrade With the correct and effective business / application of mitigation measures the daylight hours to visual impact from the construction Residual 2 2 2 1 6 - MOD reduce the light activities can be reduced. However, the impact at night visual impact from the structures would time. still remain.

44 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Visual Impact Assessment – Substation & Switching Station Upgrades CONSTRUCTION PHASE Impact Potential Activity Nature of Impact Extent Duration Likelihood Rating Mitigation Interpretation type Intensity Dust suppression There is currently no construction Direct Impact: Existing 2 0 0 0 0 - LOW mitigation can be activities at this site. Visual impact on implemented to visual resource reduce the visual Visual impacts will arise from the and visual impact during this construction activities them self as well receptors. phase. as from the structures being erected. Cumulative 2 2 2 1 6 - MOD Construction Visual The substation site is set within a valley activities could be Impact - bottom within the mountainous area restricted to Valley between Kuruman and Kathu. business / Substatio daylight hours to n Upgrade reduce the light With the correct and effective impact at night application of mitigation measures the time. visual impact from the construction Residual 2 2 2 1 6 - MOD activities can be reduced. However, the visual impact from the structures would still remain.

45 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Visual Impact Assessment – Substation & Switching Station Upgrades Table 8.3: Significance of Visual Impact from the Substations to be Upgraded - Operational Phase OPERATIONAL PHASE Nature of Impact Potential Activity Extent Duration Likelihood Rating Mitigation Interpretation Impact type Intensity Operational Due to remoteness and minimal other and security negative visual elements (other than the Direct Impact: Existing 2 4 2 1 8 - MOD lighting mine dump), the existing substation exerts a should be moderate negative visual impact on the contained to receiving environment and visual receptors. Visual impact minimise sky Due to remoteness and minimal other Visual on visual glow and negative visual elements (other than the Impact - resource and light spillage mine dump), the cumulative impact would Eldoret Cumulative 2 4 2 1 8 - MOD visual beyond the exert a moderate negative visual impact on Substation receptors. site the receiving environment and visual Upgrade boundaries. receptors. Due to remoteness and minimal other negative visual elements (other than the Residual 2 4 2 1 8 - MOD mine dump), the residual impact would exert a moderate negative visual impact on the receiving environment and visual receptors. Operational Due to remoteness and minimal other and security negative visual elements (other than the lighting small scale mining activities), the existing Direct Impact: Existing 2 4 2 1 8 - MOD should be substation exerts a moderate negative visual contained to impact on the receiving environment and minimise sky visual receptors. Visual impact glow and Due to remoteness and minimal other Visual on visual light spillage negative visual elements (other than the Impact - resource and beyond the small scale mining activities), the existing Riries Cumulative 2 4 2 1 8 - MOD visual site substation exerts a moderate negative visual Substation receptors. boundaries. impact on the receiving environment and Upgrade visual receptors. Due to remoteness and minimal other negative visual elements (other than the small scale mining activities), the existing Residual 2 4 2 1 8 - MOD substation exerts a moderate negative visual impact on the receiving environment and visual receptors.

46 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Visual Impact Assessment – Substation & Switching Station Upgrades OPERATIONAL PHASE Nature of Impact Potential Activity Extent Duration Likelihood Rating Mitigation Interpretation Impact type Intensity Operational Due to its location within an existing and security infrastructure area, the existing substation Direct Impact: Existing 2 4 2 1 8 - MOD lighting exerts a moderate negative visual impact on should be the receiving environment and visual contained to receptors. Visual Visual impact minimise sky Due to its location within an existing Impact - on visual glow and infrastructure area, the existing substation Mothibistat resource and Cumulative 2 4 2 1 8 - MOD light spillage exerts a moderate negative visual impact on Switch visual beyond the the receiving environment and visual Station receptors. site receptors. Upgrade boundaries. Due to its location within an existing infrastructure area, the existing substation Residual 2 4 2 1 8 - MOD exerts a moderate negative visual impact on the receiving environment and visual receptors. Operational Due to its location within an existing and security infrastructure area, the existing substation Direct Impact: Existing 2 4 2 1 8 - MOD lighting exerts a moderate negative visual impact on should be the receiving environment and visual contained to receptors. Visual Visual impact minimise sky Due to its location within an existing Impact - on visual glow and infrastructure area, the existing substation Moffat resource and Cumulative 2 4 2 1 8 - MOD light spillage exerts a moderate negative visual impact on Substation visual beyond the the receiving environment and visual Upgrade receptors. site receptors. boundaries. Due to its location within an existing infrastructure area, the existing substation Residual 2 4 2 1 8 - MOD exerts a moderate negative visual impact on the receiving environment and visual receptors.

47 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Visual Impact Assessment – Substation & Switching Station Upgrades OPERATIONAL PHASE Nature of Impact Potential Activity Extent Duration Likelihood Rating Mitigation Interpretation Impact type Intensity Operational Due to its location within an existing and security infrastructure area, the existing substation Direct Impact: Existing 2 4 2 1 8 - MOD lighting exerts a moderate negative visual impact on should be the receiving environment and visual contained to receptors. Visual Visual impact minimise sky Due to its location within an existing Impact - on visual glow and infrastructure area, the existing substation Valley resource and Cumulative 2 4 2 1 8 - MOD light spillage exerts a moderate negative visual impact on Substation visual beyond the the receiving environment and visual Upgrade receptors. site receptors. boundaries. Due to its location within an existing infrastructure area, the existing substation Residual 2 4 2 1 8 - MOD exerts a moderate negative visual impact on the receiving environment and visual receptors.

48 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Visual Impact Assessment – Substation & Switching Station Upgrades Table 8.4: Significance of Visual Impact from the Substations to be Upgraded - Decommissioning Phase DECCOMMISSIONING PHASE Nature of Potential Activity Impact type Extent Duration Likelihood Rating Mitigation Interpretation Impact Intensity Dust suppression mitigation can There is currently no Direct Impact: Existing 0 0 0 0 0 - LOW be implemented to reduce the decommissioning visual impact during this phase. activities at this site. Decommissioning activities could Visual impact Visual impacts would be restricted to business / Visual on visual arise from the Cumulative 2 2 2 1 6 - MOD daylight hours to reduce the light Impact - resource and decommissioning impact at night time. Eldoret visual activities. The scarred landscape should be Substation receptors. Upgrade rehabilitated and revegetated After decommissioning with indigenous plants once and rehabilitation of the Residual 0 0 0 1 0 - LOW decommissioning has been substation footprint, the completed. area could be restored to its initial land use status.

Dust suppression mitigation can There is currently no Direct Impact: Existing 0 0 0 0 0 - LOW be implemented to reduce the decommissioning visual impact during this phase. activities at this site. Decommissioning activities could Visual impact Visual impacts would be restricted to business / on visual arise from the Cumulative 2 2 2 1 6 - MOD daylight hours to reduce the light resource and decommissioning impact at night time. visual activities. Visual The scarred landscape should be receptors. Impact - rehabilitated and re-vegetated Riries with indigenous plants once Substation decommissioning has been Upgrade completed. After decommissioning and rehabilitation of the Residual 0 0 0 1 0 - LOW substation footprint, the area could be restored to its initial land use status.

49 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Visual Impact Assessment – Substation & Switching Station Upgrades DECCOMMISSIONING PHASE Nature of Potential Activity Impact type Extent Duration Likelihood Rating Mitigation Interpretation Impact Intensity Dust suppression mitigation can There is currently no Direct Impact: Existing 0 0 0 0 0 - LOW be implemented to reduce the decommissioning visual impact during this phase. activities at this site. Visual Visual impact Decommissioning activities could Visual impacts would Impact - on visual be restricted to business / arise from the Cumulative 2 2 2 1 6 - MOD Mothibistat resource and daylight hours to reduce the light decommissioning Switch visual impact at night time. activities. Station receptors. The scarred landscape should be After decommissioning Upgrade rehabilitated and re-vegetated and rehabilitation of the Residual 0 0 0 1 0 - LOW with indigenous plants once substation footprint, the decommissioning has been area could be restored to completed. its initial land use status. Dust suppression mitigation can There is currently no Direct Impact: Existing 0 0 0 0 0 - LOW be implemented to reduce the decommissioning visual impact during this phase. activities at this site. Visual impact Decommissioning activities could Visual impacts would Visual on visual be restricted to business / arise from the Impact - Cumulative 2 2 2 1 6 - MOD resource and daylight hours to reduce the light decommissioning Moffat visual impact at night time. activities. Substation receptors. The scarred landscape should be After decommissioning Upgrade rehabilitated and re-vegetated and rehabilitation of the Residual 0 0 0 1 0 - LOW with indigenous plants once substation footprint, the decommissioning has been area could be restored to completed. its initial land use status.

50 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Visual Impact Assessment – Substation & Switching Station Upgrades DECCOMMISSIONING PHASE Nature of Potential Activity Impact type Extent Duration Likelihood Rating Mitigation Interpretation Impact Intensity Dust suppression mitigation can There is currently no Direct Impact: Existing 0 0 0 0 0 - LOW be implemented to reduce the decommissioning visual impact during this phase. activities at this site. Visual impact Decommissioning activities could Visual impacts would on visual be restricted to business / arise from the Cumulative 2 2 2 1 6 - MOD resource and daylight hours to reduce the light decommissioning visual impact at night time. activities. Visual receptors. The scarred landscape should be Impact - rehabilitated and re-vegetated Valley with indigenous plants once Substation decommissioning has been After decommissioning Upgrade completed. and rehabilitation of the Residual 0 0 0 1 0 - LOW substation footprint, the area could be restored to its initial land use status.

51 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Visual Impact Assessment – Power Lines 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 Alternative 2)  Eldoret - Riries (Alternative 1, Alternative 2 and Alternative 3)  Riries - Gamohaan (Alternative 1 and Alternative 2)  Gamohaan - Mothibistat (Alternative 1 and Alternative 2)  Mothibistat - Moffat (Alternative 1 and Alternative 2)  Moffat - Valley (Alternative 1 and Alternative 2)  Valley - Sekgame (Alternative 1, Alternative 2, Alternative 3 and Alternative 4)

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 Alternative 2 16.6km 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.

52 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Visual Impact Assessment – Power Lines 10.2 Eldoret – Riries Power Line This is the second power line segment from Hotazel and lies between Hotazel and Kuruman. Three alternatives are being proposed. Table 9.2: Eldoret - Riries Power Line Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 Criteria Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 18.5km 16.6km 27.5km

Distance along an existing power line 0 16.6km 1.0km Distance along roads 11.5km 0 19.2km Distance through ‘virgin land’ 7.0km 0 7.3km Distance through or along sensitive landscape types 0 0 0 Presence of residential units 1 (330m away) 1 (370m away) 1 (300m 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 Alternative 2 18.6km 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.

53 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Visual Impact Assessment – Power Lines Table 9.4: Gamohaan – Mothibistat Power Line Alternatives 1 and 2 Criteria Alternative 1 Alternative 2 13.5km 13.5km Distance along an existing power line 0 0 Distance along roads 10.2km 8.7km Distance through ‘virgin land’ 2.7km 3.2km Distance through or along sensitive landscape types river crossing river crossing Presence of residential units passes adjacent to passes adjacent to the Kuruman the Kuruman residential area as residential area well as the informal area of Mothibistad

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 Alternative 2 10.9km 13.0km Distance along an existing power line 10.9km 3.1km 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 passes 600m from a Kuruman residential golf course areas as well as 100m and 200m from guest lodges

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.

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.

54 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Visual Impact Assessment – Power Lines Table 9.6: Moffat – Valley Power Line Alternatives 1 and 2 Criteria Alternative 1 Alternative 2 36.2km 28.6km Distance along an existing power line 28.0km 5.8km Distance along roads 4.0km 20.1km Distance through ‘virgin land’ 4.2km 2.3km Distance through or along sensitive landscape types through approx. through approx. 12.2km of 16.0km of mountainous area mountainous area Presence of residential units 8 incidences ranging 2 incidences ranging between 50m and between 220m and 480m 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 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 39.6km 40.6km 42.1km 41.0km Distance along an existing power line 0 7.0km 0 0 Distance along roads & (12.6km (11.7km (0km (12.3km the LMA boundary fence +10.0km) +0km) +17.5km) +10.0km) Total distance along service corridor 22.6km 11.7km 17.5km 22.3km Distance through ‘virgin land’ 11.0km 10.7km 11.3km 5.1km Distance through or along sensitive through through through through landscape types approx. approx. approx. approx. 11.2km of 11.0km of 12.7km of 11.0km of mountainous mountainous mountainous mountainous area area area area Presence of residential units 7 incidences 10 incidences 1 (100m away) 3 incidences ranging ranging ranging from between 50m between 50m 50m and 170m and 480m and 470m

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 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

55 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Visual Impact Assessment – Power Lines 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.

56 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Visual Impact Assessment – Power Lines Table 10.1: Significance of Visual Impact from the Power Line Alternatives - Pre-Construction Phase PRE-CONSTRUCTION PHASE Impact Potential Activity Nature of Impact Extent Duration Likelihood Rating Mitigation Interpretation type Intensity No visual impacts The existing power lines have a Direct Impact: Existing 2 1 2 1 5 - MOD from the proposed moderate negative visual impact. power line to be Visual impact on visual No additional visual impact from the mitigated prior to Hot-Eldo resource and visual Cumulative 2 1 1 1 4 - MOD proposed power line prior to construction. Alt 1 receptors. construction. The residual visual impact therefore Residual 2 1 2 1 5 - MOD remains the same as the existing condition. No visual impacts The existing power lines have a Direct Impact: Existing 2 1 2 1 5 - MOD from the proposed moderate negative visual impact. power line to be Visual impact on visual No additional visual impact from the mitigated prior to Hot-Eldo resource and visual Cumulative 2 1 1 1 4 - MOD proposed power line prior to construction. Alt 2 receptors. construction. The residual visual impact therefore Residual 2 1 2 1 5 - MOD remains the same as the existing condition. No visual impacts The existing power lines have a Direct Impact: Existing 2 1 2 1 5 - MOD from the proposed moderate negative visual impact. power line to be Visual impact on visual No additional visual impact from the mitigated prior to Eldo-Rir resource and visual Cumulative 2 1 1 1 4 - MOD proposed power line prior to construction. Alt 1 receptors. construction. The residual visual impact therefore Residual 2 1 2 1 5 - MOD remains the same as the existing condition.

57 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Visual Impact Assessment – Power Lines PRE-CONSTRUCTION PHASE Impact Potential Activity Nature of Impact Extent Duration Likelihood Rating Mitigation Interpretation type Intensity No visual impacts The existing power lines have a Direct Impact: Existing 2 1 2 1 5 - MOD from the proposed moderate negative visual impact. Visual impact on visual power line to be No additional visual impact from the mitigated prior to Eldo-Rir resource and visual Cumulative 2 1 1 1 4 - MOD proposed power line prior to construction. Alt 2 receptors. construction. The residual visual impact therefore Residual 2 1 2 1 5 - MOD remains the same as the existing condition. No visual impacts The existing power lines have a Direct Impact: Existing 2 1 2 1 5 - MOD from the proposed moderate negative visual impact. power line to be Visual impact on visual No additional visual impact from the mitigated prior to Eldo-Rir resource and visual Cumulative 2 1 1 1 4 - MOD proposed power line prior to construction. Alt 3 receptors. construction. The residual visual impact therefore Residual 2 1 2 1 5 - MOD remains the same as the existing condition. No visual impacts The existing power lines have a Direct Impact: Existing 2 1 2 1 5 - MOD from the proposed moderate negative visual impact. Visual impact on visual power line to be No additional visual impact from the mitigated prior to Rir-Gamo resource and visual Cumulative 2 1 1 1 4 - MOD proposed power line prior to construction. Alt 1 receptors. construction. The residual visual impact therefore Residual 2 1 2 1 5 - MOD remains the same as the existing condition. No visual impacts The existing power lines have a Direct Impact: Existing 2 1 2 1 5 - MOD from the proposed moderate negative visual impact. Visual impact on visual power line to be No additional visual impact from the mitigated prior to Rir-Gamo resource and visual Cumulative 2 1 1 1 4 - MOD proposed power line prior to construction. Alt 2 receptors. construction. The residual visual impact therefore Residual 2 1 2 1 5 - MOD remains the same as the existing condition. 58 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Visual Impact Assessment – Power Lines PRE-CONSTRUCTION PHASE Impact Potential Activity Nature of Impact Extent Duration Likelihood Rating Mitigation Interpretation type Intensity No visual impacts The existing power lines have a Direct Impact: Existing 2 1 2 1 5 - MOD from the proposed moderate negative visual impact. Visual impact on visual power line to be No additional visual impact from the mitigated prior to Gamo- resource and visual Cumulative 2 1 1 1 4 - MOD proposed power line prior to construction. Mothi Alt 1 receptors. construction. The residual visual impact therefore Residual 2 1 2 1 5 - MOD remains the same as the existing condition. No visual impacts The existing power lines have a Direct Impact: Existing 2 1 2 1 5 - MOD from the proposed moderate negative visual impact. Visual impact on visual power line to be No additional visual impact from the mitigated prior to Gamo- resource and visual Cumulative 2 1 1 1 4 - MOD proposed power line prior to construction. Mothi Alt 2 receptors. construction. The residual visual impact therefore Residual 2 1 2 1 5 - MOD remains the same as the existing condition. No visual impacts The existing power lines have a Direct Impact: Existing 2 1 2 1 5 - MOD from the proposed moderate negative visual impact. Visual impact on visual power line to be No additional visual impact from the mitigated prior to Mothi- resource and visual Cumulative 2 1 1 1 4 - MOD proposed power line prior to construction. Moffat Alt 1 receptors. construction. The residual visual impact therefore Residual 2 1 2 1 5 - MOD remains the same as the existing condition. No visual impacts The existing power lines have a Direct Impact: Existing 2 1 2 1 5 - MOD from the proposed moderate negative visual impact. Visual impact on visual power line to be No additional visual impact from the mitigated prior to Mothi- resource and visual Cumulative 2 1 1 1 4 - MOD proposed power line prior to construction. Moffat Alt 2 receptors. construction. The residual visual impact therefore Residual 2 1 2 1 5 - MOD remains the same as the existing condition. 59 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Visual Impact Assessment – Power Lines PRE-CONSTRUCTION PHASE Impact Potential Activity Nature of Impact Extent Duration Likelihood Rating Mitigation Interpretation type Intensity No visual impacts The existing power lines have a Direct Impact: Existing 2 1 2 1 5 - MOD from the proposed moderate negative visual impact. power line to be Visual impact on visual mitigated prior to No additional visual impact from the resource and visual Moffat- Cumulative 2 1 1 1 4 - MOD construction. proposed power line prior to Valley Alt 1 receptors. construction. The residual visual impact therefore Residual 2 1 2 1 5 - MOD remains the same as the existing condition. No visual impacts The existing power lines have a Direct Impact: Existing 2 1 2 1 5 - MOD from the proposed moderate negative visual impact. power line to be Visual impact on visual No additional visual impact from the mitigated prior to Moffat- resource and visual Cumulative 2 1 1 1 4 - MOD proposed power line prior to construction. Valley Alt 2 receptors. construction. The residual visual impact therefore Residual 2 1 2 1 5 - MOD remains the same as the existing condition. No visual impacts The existing power lines have a Direct Impact: Existing 2 1 2 1 5 - MOD from the proposed moderate negative visual impact. power line to be Visual impact on visual No additional visual impact from the mitigated prior to Valley-Sekg resource and visual Cumulative 2 1 1 1 4 - MOD proposed power line prior to construction. Alt 1 receptors. construction. The residual visual impact therefore Residual 2 1 2 1 5 - MOD remains the same as the existing condition.

60 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Visual Impact Assessment – Power Lines PRE-CONSTRUCTION PHASE Impact Potential Activity Nature of Impact Extent Duration Likelihood Rating Mitigation Interpretation type Intensity No visual impacts The existing power lines have a Direct Impact: Existing 2 1 2 1 5 - MOD from the proposed moderate negative visual impact. power line to be Visual impact on visual No additional visual impact from the mitigated prior to Valley-Sekg resource and visual Cumulative 2 1 1 1 4 - MOD proposed power line prior to construction. Alt 2 receptors. construction. The residual visual impact therefore Residual 2 1 2 1 5 - MOD remains the same as the existing condition. No visual impacts The existing power lines have a Direct Impact: Existing 2 1 2 1 5 - MOD from the proposed moderate negative visual impact. power line to be Visual impact on visual No additional visual impact from the mitigated prior to Valley-Sekg resource and visual Cumulative 2 1 1 1 4 - MOD proposed power line prior to construction. Alt 3 receptors. construction. The residual visual impact therefore Residual 2 1 2 1 5 - MOD remains the same as the existing condition. No visual impacts The existing power lines have a Direct Impact: Existing 2 1 2 1 5 - MOD from the proposed moderate negative visual impact. power line to be Visual impact on visual No additional visual impact from the mitigated prior to Valley-Sekg resource and visual Cumulative 2 1 1 1 4 - MOD proposed power line prior to construction. Alt 4 receptors. construction. The residual visual impact therefore Residual 2 1 2 1 5 - MOD remains the same as the existing condition.

61 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Visual Impact Assessment – Power Lines Table 10.2: Significance of Visual Impact from the Power Line Alternatives - Construction Phase CONSTRUCTION PHASE Impact Potential Activity Nature of Impact Extent Duration Likelihood Rating Mitigation Interpretation type Intensity Dust suppression There is currently no other 7 - mitigation can be construction activities along the Direct Impact: Existing 2 1 4 1 MOD implemented to proposed power line alignment, reduce the visual therefore no visual impact. Visual impact on visual impact during this Visual impacts will arise from the resource and visual phase. construction activities them self as receptors. 7 - Construction well as from the structures being Hot-Eldo Cumulative 2 1 4 1 MOD activities could be erected. The power line runs Alt 1 restricted to through 'virgin land' for business / daylight approximately 2/3rds of its length. hours to reduce the light impact at night With the correct and effective application of mitigation measures 7 - time. Residual 2 1 4 1 the visual impact might be reduced. MOD However, the visual impact from the structures would still remain. Dust suppression There is currently no other 5 - mitigation can be construction activities along the Direct Impact: Existing 2 1 2 1 MOD implemented to proposed power line alignment, reduce the visual therefore no visual impact. Visual impact on visual impact during this Visual impacts will arise from the resource and visual phase. construction activities them self as receptors. 5 - Construction well as from the structures being Hot-Eldo Cumulative 2 1 2 1 MOD activities could be erected. The power line follows Alt 2 restricted to service corridors for approximately business / daylight 2/3rds of its length. hours to reduce the With the correct and effective light impact at night application of mitigation measures 5 - Residual 2 1 2 1 time. the visual impact might be reduced. MOD However, the visual impact from the structures would still remain.

62 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Visual Impact Assessment – Power Lines CONSTRUCTION PHASE Impact Potential Activity Nature of Impact Extent Duration Likelihood Rating Mitigation Interpretation type Intensity Dust suppression There is currently no other 7 - mitigation can be construction activities along the Direct Impact: Existing 2 1 4 1 MOD implemented to proposed power line alignment, reduce the visual therefore no visual impact. Visual impact on visual impact during this Visual impacts will arise from the resource and visual phase. construction activities them self as receptors. 7 - Construction well as from the structures being Eldo-Rir Cumulative 2 1 4 1 MOD activities could be erected. The power line runs Alt 1 restricted to through 'virgin land' for business / daylight approximately 1/3rd of its length. hours to reduce the With the correct and effective light impact at night application of mitigation measures 7 - Residual 2 1 4 1 time. the visual impact might be reduced. MOD However, the visual impact from the structures would still remain. Dust suppression There is currently no other 5 - mitigation can be construction activities along the Direct Impact: Existing 2 1 2 1 MOD implemented to proposed power line alignment, reduce the visual therefore no visual impact. Visual impact on visual impact during this Visual impacts will arise from the resource and visual phase. construction activities them self as receptors. 5 - Construction well as from the structures being Eldo-Rir Cumulative 2 1 2 1 MOD activities could be erected. The power line follows an Alt 2 restricted to existing power line for its entire business / daylight length. hours to reduce the With the correct and effective light impact at night application of mitigation measures 5 - Residual 2 1 2 1 time. the visual impact might be reduced. MOD However, the visual impact from the structures would still remain.

63 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Visual Impact Assessment – Power Lines CONSTRUCTION PHASE Impact Potential Activity Nature of Impact Extent Duration Likelihood Rating Mitigation Interpretation type Intensity Dust suppression There is currently no other 5 - mitigation can be construction activities along the Direct Impact: Existing 2 1 2 1 MOD implemented to proposed power line alignment, reduce the visual therefore no visual impact. Visual impact on visual impact during this Visual impacts will arise from the resource and visual phase. construction activities them self as receptors. 5 - Construction well as from the structures being Eldo-Rir Cumulative 2 1 2 1 MOD activities could be erected. The power line runs Alt 3 restricted to through 'virgin land' for business / daylight approximately 1/3rd of its length. hours to reduce the With the correct and effective light impact at night application of mitigation measures 5 - Residual 2 1 2 1 time. the visual impact might be reduced. MOD However, the visual impact from the structures would still remain. Dust suppression There is currently no other 5 - mitigation can be construction activities along the Direct Impact: Existing 2 1 2 1 MOD implemented to proposed power line alignment, reduce the visual therefore no visual impact. Visual impact on visual impact during this Visual impacts will arise from the resource and visual phase. construction activities them self as 5 - Rir-Gamo receptors. Cumulative 2 1 2 1 Construction well as from the structures being MOD Alt 1 activities could be erected. The power line follows a restricted to road for its entire length. business / daylight With the correct and effective hours to reduce the application of mitigation measures 5 - Residual 2 1 2 1 light impact at night the visual impact might be reduced. MOD time. However, the visual impact from the structures would still remain.

64 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Visual Impact Assessment – Power Lines CONSTRUCTION PHASE Impact Potential Activity Nature of Impact Extent Duration Likelihood Rating Mitigation Interpretation type Intensity Dust suppression There is currently no other 7 - mitigation can be construction activities along the Direct Impact: Existing 2 1 4 1 MOD implemented to proposed power line alignment, reduce the visual therefore no visual impact. Visual impact on visual impact during this Visual impacts will arise from the resource and visual phase. construction activities them self as receptors. Construction well as from the structures being activities could be erected. The power line follows an 7 - Rir-Gamo Cumulative 2 1 4 1 restricted to existing power line for about half its MOD Alt 2 business / daylight length. However, it runs through hours to reduce the 'virgin land' and sensitive light impact at night landscapes for almost half its time. length. With the correct and effective application of mitigation measures 7 - Residual 2 1 4 1 the visual impact might be reduced. MOD However, the visual impact from the structures would still remain. Dust suppression There is currently no other 5 - mitigation can be construction activities along the Direct Impact: Existing 2 1 2 1 MOD implemented to proposed power line alignment, reduce the visual therefore no visual impact. Visual impact on visual impact during this Visual impacts will arise from the resource and visual phase. construction activities them self as receptors. 5 - Construction well as from the structures being Gamo- Cumulative 2 1 2 1 MOD activities could be erected. The power line follows a Mothi Alt 1 restricted to road for approximately 3/4s of its business / daylight length. hours to reduce the With the correct and effective light impact at night application of mitigation measures 5 - Residual 2 1 2 1 time. the visual impact might be reduced. MOD However, the visual impact from the structures would still remain.

65 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Visual Impact Assessment – Power Lines CONSTRUCTION PHASE Impact Potential Activity Nature of Impact Extent Duration Likelihood Rating Mitigation Interpretation type Intensity Dust suppression There is currently no other 7 - mitigation can be construction activities along the Direct Impact: Existing 2 1 4 1 MOD implemented to proposed power line alignment, reduce the visual therefore no visual impact. Visual impact on visual impact during this Visual impacts will arise from the resource and visual phase. construction activities them self as receptors. 7 - Construction well as from the structures being Gamo- Cumulative 2 1 4 1 MOD activities could be erected. The power line follows a Mothi Alt 2 restricted to road for approximately 3/4s of its business / daylight length. hours to reduce the With the correct and effective light impact at night application of mitigation measures 7 - Residual 2 1 4 1 time. the visual impact might be reduced. MOD However, the visual impact from the structures would still remain. Dust suppression There is currently no other 5 - mitigation can be construction activities along the Direct Impact: Existing 2 1 2 1 MOD implemented to proposed power line alignment, reduce the visual therefore no visual impact. Visual impact on visual impact during this Visual impacts will arise from the resource and visual phase. construction activities them self as receptors. 5 - Construction well as from the structures being Mothi- Cumulative 2 1 2 1 MOD activities could be erected. The power line follows an Moffat Alt 1 restricted to existing power line for its entire business / daylight length. hours to reduce the With the correct and effective light impact at night application of mitigation measures 5 - Residual 2 1 2 1 time. the visual impact might be reduced. MOD However, the visual impact from the structures would still remain.

66 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Visual Impact Assessment – Power Lines CONSTRUCTION PHASE Impact Potential Activity Nature of Impact Extent Duration Likelihood Rating Mitigation Interpretation type Intensity Dust suppression There is currently no other 7 - mitigation can be construction activities along the Direct Impact: Existing 2 1 4 1 MOD implemented to proposed power line alignment, reduce the visual therefore no visual impact. Visual impact on visual impact during this Visual impacts will arise from the resource and visual phase. construction activities them self as receptors. 7 - Construction well as from the structures being Mothi- Cumulative 2 1 4 1 MOD activities could be erected. The power line follows an Moffat Alt 2 restricted to existing power line for 3/4s of its business / daylight length. hours to reduce the With the correct and effective light impact at night application of mitigation measures 7 - Residual 2 1 4 1 time. the visual impact might be reduced. MOD However, the visual impact from the structures would still remain. Dust suppression There is currently no other 5 - mitigation can be construction activities along the Direct Impact: Existing 2 1 2 1 MOD implemented to proposed power line alignment, reduce the visual therefore no visual impact. Visual impact on visual impact during this Visual impacts will arise from the resource and visual phase. construction activities them self as receptors. 5 - Construction well as from the structures being Moffat- Cumulative 2 1 2 1 MOD activities could be erected. The power line follows an Valley Alt 1 restricted to existing power line for 3/4s of its business / daylight length. hours to reduce the With the correct and effective light impact at night application of mitigation measures 5 - Residual 2 1 2 1 time. the visual impact might be reduced. MOD However, the visual impact from the structures would still remain.

67 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Visual Impact Assessment – Power Lines CONSTRUCTION PHASE Impact Potential Activity Nature of Impact Extent Duration Likelihood Rating Mitigation Interpretation type Intensity Dust suppression There is currently no other 7 - mitigation can be construction activities along the Direct Impact: Existing 2 1 4 1 MOD implemented to proposed power line alignment, reduce the visual therefore no visual impact. Visual impact on visual impact during this Visual impacts will arise from the resource and visual phase. construction activities them self as receptors. 7 - Construction well as from the structures being Moffat- Cumulative 2 1 4 1 MOD activities could be erected. The power line follows an Valley Alt 2 restricted to existing power line for 2/3rds of its business / daylight length. hours to reduce the With the correct and effective light impact at night application of mitigation measures 7 - Residual 2 1 4 1 time. the visual impact might be reduced. MOD However, the visual impact from the structures would still remain. Dust suppression There is currently no other 5 - mitigation can be construction activities along the Direct Impact: Existing 2 1 2 1 MOD implemented to proposed power line alignment, reduce the visual therefore no visual impact. Visual impact on visual impact during this Visual impacts will arise from the resource and visual phase. construction activities them self as receptors. 7 - Construction well as from the structures being Valley-Sekg Cumulative 2 1 4 1 MOD activities could be erected. Refer to the discussion Alt 1 restricted to under Section 10 of the Visual business / daylight Impact Assessment Report. hours to reduce the With the correct and effective light impact at night application of mitigation measures 7 - Residual 2 1 4 1 time. the visual impact might be reduced. MOD However, the visual impact from the structures would still remain.

68 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Visual Impact Assessment – Power Lines CONSTRUCTION PHASE Impact Potential Activity Nature of Impact Extent Duration Likelihood Rating Mitigation Interpretation type Intensity Dust suppression There is currently no other 5 - mitigation can be construction activities along the Direct Impact: Existing 2 1 2 1 MOD implemented to proposed power line alignment, reduce the visual therefore no visual impact. Visual impact on visual impact during this Visual impacts will arise from the resource and visual phase. construction activities them self as receptors. 11 - Construction well as from the structures being Valley-Sekg Cumulative 2 1 8 1 HIGH activities could be erected. Refer to the discussion Alt 2 restricted to under Section 10 of the Visual business / daylight Impact Assessment Report. hours to reduce the With the correct and effective light impact at night application of mitigation measures 11 - Residual 2 1 8 1 time. the visual impact might be reduced. HIGH However, the visual impact from the structures would still remain. Dust suppression There is currently no other 5 - mitigation can be construction activities along the Direct Impact: Existing 2 1 2 1 MOD implemented to proposed power line alignment, reduce the visual therefore no visual impact. Visual impact on visual impact during this Visual impacts will arise from the resource and visual phase. construction activities them self as receptors. 15 - Construction well as from the structures being Valley-Sekg Cumulative 2 1 12 1 HIGH activities could be erected. Refer to the discussion Alt 3 restricted to under Section 10 of the Visual business / daylight Impact Assessment Report. hours to reduce the With the correct and effective light impact at night application of mitigation measures 15 - Residual 2 1 12 1 time. the visual impact might be reduced. HIGH However, the visual impact from the structures would still remain.

69 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Visual Impact Assessment – Power Lines CONSTRUCTION PHASE Impact Potential Activity Nature of Impact Extent Duration Likelihood Rating Mitigation Interpretation type Intensity Dust suppression There is currently no other 5 - mitigation can be construction activities along the Direct Impact: Existing 2 1 2 1 MOD implemented to proposed power line alignment, reduce the visual therefore no visual impact. Visual impact on visual impact during this Visual impacts will arise from the resource and visual phase. construction activities them self as receptors. 5 - Construction well as from the structures being Valley-Sekg Cumulative 2 1 2 1 MOD activities could be erected. Refer to the discussion Alt 4 restricted to under Section 10 of the Visual business / daylight Impact Assessment Report. hours to reduce the With the correct and effective light impact at night application of mitigation measures 5 - Residual 2 1 2 1 time. the visual impact might be reduced. MOD However, the visual impact from the structures would still remain.

70 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Visual Impact Assessment – Power Lines Table 10.3: Significance of Visual Impact from the Power Line Alternatives - Operational Phase OPERATIONAL PHASE Impact Potential Activity Nature of Impact Extent Duration Likelihood Rating Mitigation Interpretation type Intensity 10 - Direct Impact: Existing 2 4 4 1 HIGH Visual impact on visual Visual impacts will arise from the resource and visual presence of the power line towers. Hot-Eldo 10 - receptors. Cumulative 2 4 4 1 The power line runs through 'virgin Alt 1 HIGH land' for approximately 2/3rds of its length. 10 - Residual 2 4 4 1 HIGH 8 - Direct Impact: Existing 2 4 2 1 MOD Visual impact on visual Visual impacts will arise from the resource and visual presence of the power line towers. Hot-Eldo receptors. 8 - Cumulative 2 4 2 1 The power line runs through 'virgin Alt 2 MOD land' for approximately 2/3rds of its length. 8 - Residual 2 4 2 1 MOD 10 - Direct Impact: Existing 2 4 4 1 HIGH Visual impact on visual Visual impacts will arise from the resource and visual presence of the power line towers. Eldo-Rir 10 - receptors. Cumulative 2 4 4 1 The power line runs through 'virgin Alt 1 HIGH land' for approximately 1/3rd of its length. 10 - Residual 2 4 4 1 HIGH

71 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Visual Impact Assessment – Power Lines OPERATIONAL PHASE Impact Potential Activity Nature of Impact Extent Duration Likelihood Rating Mitigation Interpretation type Intensity 8 - Direct Impact: Existing 2 4 2 1 MOD Visual impact on visual Visual impacts will arise from the Eldo-Rir Alt resource and visual 8 - presence of the power line towers. Cumulative 2 4 2 1 2 receptors. MOD The power line follows an existing power line for its entire length. 8 - Residual 2 4 2 1 MOD 10 - Direct Impact: Existing 2 4 4 1 HIGH Visual impact on visual Visual impacts will arise from the resource and visual presence of the power line towers. Eldo-Rir Alt receptors. 10 - Cumulative 2 4 4 1 The power line runs through 'virgin 3 HIGH land' for approximately 1/3rd of its length. 10 - Residual 2 4 4 1 HIGH 8 - Direct Impact: Existing 2 4 2 1 MOD Visual impact on visual Visual impacts will arise from the Rir-Gamo resource and visual 8 - presence of the power line towers. Cumulative 2 4 2 1 Alt 1 receptors. MOD The power line follows a road for its entire length. 8 - Residual 2 4 2 1 MOD

72 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Visual Impact Assessment – Power Lines OPERATIONAL PHASE Impact Potential Activity Nature of Impact Extent Duration Likelihood Rating Mitigation Interpretation type Intensity 10 - Direct Impact: Existing 2 4 4 1 HIGH Visual impact on visual Visual impacts will arise from the resource and visual presence of the power line towers. receptors. The power line follows an existing Rir-Gamo 10 - Cumulative 2 4 4 1 power line for about half its length. Alt 2 HIGH However, it runs through 'virgin land' and sensitive landscapes for almost half its length. 10 - Residual 2 4 4 1 HIGH 8 - Direct Impact: Existing 2 4 2 1 MOD Visual impact on visual Visual impacts will arise from the Gamo- resource and visual 8 - presence of the power line towers. Cumulative 2 4 2 1 Mothi Alt 1 receptors. MOD The power line follows a road for approximately 3/4s of its length. 8 - Residual 2 4 2 1 MOD 10 - Direct Impact: Existing 2 4 4 1 HIGH Visual impact on visual Visual impacts will arise from the Gamo- resource and visual 10 - presence of the power line towers. Cumulative 2 4 4 1 Mothi Alt 2 receptors. HIGH The power line follows a road for approximately 3/4s of its length. 10 - Residual 2 4 4 1 HIGH

73 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Visual Impact Assessment – Power Lines OPERATIONAL PHASE Impact Potential Activity Nature of Impact Extent Duration Likelihood Rating Mitigation Interpretation type Intensity 8 - Direct Impact: Existing 2 4 2 1 MOD Visual impact on visual Visual impacts will arise from the Mothi- resource and visual 8 - presence of the power line towers. Moffat Cumulative 2 4 2 1 receptors. MOD The power line follows an existing Alt 1 power line for its entire length. 8 - Residual 2 4 2 1 MOD 10 - Direct Impact: Existing 2 4 4 1 HIGH Visual impact on visual Visual impacts will arise from the Mothi- resource and visual 10 - presence of the power line towers. Moffat Alt Cumulative 2 4 4 1 receptors. HIGH The power line follows an existing 2 power line for 3/4s of its length. 10 - Residual 2 4 4 1 HIGH 8 - Direct Impact: Existing 2 4 2 1 MOD Visual impact on visual Visual impacts will arise from the Moffat- resource and visual 8 - presence of the power line towers. Cumulative 2 4 2 1 Valley Alt 1 receptors. MOD The power line follows an existing power line for 3/4s of its length. 8 - Residual 2 4 2 1 MOD 8 - Direct Impact: Existing 2 4 2 1 MOD Visual impact on visual Visual impacts will arise from the Moffat- resource and visual 10 - presence of the power line towers. Cumulative 2 4 4 1 Valley Alt 2 receptors. HIGH The power line follows an existing power line for 2/3rds of its length. 10 - Residual 2 4 4 1 HIGH

74 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Visual Impact Assessment – Power Lines OPERATIONAL PHASE Impact Potential Activity Nature of Impact Extent Duration Likelihood Rating Mitigation Interpretation type Intensity 8 - Direct Impact: Existing 2 4 2 1 MOD Visual impact on visual Visual impacts will arise from the resource and visual presence of the power line towers. Valley-Sekg 10 - receptors. Cumulative 2 4 4 1 Refer to the discussion under Alt 1 HIGH Section 10 of the Visual Impact Assessment Report. 10 - Residual 2 4 4 1 HIGH 8 - Direct Impact: Existing 2 4 2 1 MOD Visual impact on visual Visual impacts will arise from the resource and visual presence of the power line towers. Valley-Sekg 14 - receptors. Cumulative 2 4 8 1 Refer to the discussion under Alt 2 HIGH Section 10 of the Visual Impact Assessment Report. 14 - Residual 2 4 8 1 HIGH 8 - Direct Impact: Existing 2 4 2 1 MOD Visual impact on visual Visual impacts will arise from the resource and visual presence of the power line towers. Valley-Sekg 18 - receptors. Cumulative 2 4 12 1 Refer to the discussion under Alt 3 HIGH Section 10 of the Visual Impact Assessment Report. 18 - Residual 2 4 12 1 HIGH

75 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Visual Impact Assessment – Power Lines OPERATIONAL PHASE Impact Potential Activity Nature of Impact Extent Duration Likelihood Rating Mitigation Interpretation type Intensity 8 - Direct Impact: Existing 2 4 2 1 MOD Visual impact on visual Visual impacts will arise from the resource and visual presence of the power line towers. Valley-Sekg 8 - receptors. Cumulative 2 4 2 1 Refer to the discussion under Alt 4 MOD Section 10 of the Visual Impact Assessment Report. 8 - Residual 2 4 2 1 MOD

76 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Visual Impact Assessment – Power Lines Table 10.4: Significance of Visual Impact from the Power Line Alternatives - Decommissioning Phase DECCOMMISSIONING PHASE Impact Potential Activity Nature of Impact Extent Duration Likelihood Rating Mitigation Interpretation type Intensity Dust suppression mitigation Visual impacts would can be implemented to reduce arise from the Direct Impact: Existing 2 1 4 1 7 - MOD the visual impact during this decommissioning phase. activities. Visual impact on visual Decommissioning activities Visual impacts would resource and visual could be restricted to business arise from the Cumulative 2 1 4 1 7 - MOD Hot-Eldo receptors. / daylight hours to reduce the decommissioning Alt 1 light impact at night time. The activities. sacred landscape should be rehabilitated and re-vegetated After decommissioning with indigenous plants once and rehabilitation of the Residual 2 1 4 1 7 - MOD decommissioning has been power line footprints, the completed. area could be restored to its initial land use status. Dust suppression mitigation Visual impacts would can be implemented to reduce arise from the Direct Impact: Existing 2 1 2 1 5 - MOD the visual impact during this decommissioning phase. activities. Visual impact on visual Decommissioning activities Visual impacts would resource and visual could be restricted to business arise from the Cumulative 2 1 2 1 5 - MOD Hot-Eldo receptors. / daylight hours to reduce the decommissioning Alt 2 light impact at night time. activities. The sacred landscape should After decommissioning be rehabilitated and re- and rehabilitation of the Residual 2 1 2 1 5 - MOD vegetated with indigenous power line footprints, the plants once decommissioning area could be restored to has been completed. its initial land use status.

77 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Visual Impact Assessment – Power Lines DECCOMMISSIONING PHASE Impact Potential Activity Nature of Impact Extent Duration Likelihood Rating Mitigation Interpretation type Intensity Dust suppression mitigation Visual impacts would can be implemented to reduce arise from the Direct Impact: Existing 2 1 4 1 7 - MOD the visual impact during this decommissioning phase. activities. Visual impact on visual Decommissioning activities Visual impacts would resource and visual could be restricted to business arise from the Eldo-Rir Alt Cumulative 2 1 4 1 7 - MOD receptors. / daylight hours to reduce the decommissioning 1 light impact at night time. activities. The sacred landscape should After decommissioning be rehabilitated and re- and rehabilitation of the Residual 2 1 4 1 7 - MOD vegetated with indigenous power line footprints, the plants once decommissioning area could be restored to has been completed. its initial land use status. Dust suppression mitigation Visual impacts would can be implemented to reduce arise from the Direct Impact: Existing 2 1 2 1 5 - MOD the visual impact during this decommissioning phase. activities. Visual impact on visual Decommissioning activities Visual impacts would resource and visual could be restricted to business arise from the Cumulative 2 1 2 1 5 - MOD Eldo-Rir Alt receptors. / daylight hours to reduce the decommissioning 2 light impact at night time. activities. The sacred landscape should After decommissioning be rehabilitated and re- and rehabilitation of the vegetated with indigenous Residual 2 1 2 1 5 - MOD power line footprints, the plants once decommissioning area could be restored to has been completed. its initial land use status.

78 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Visual Impact Assessment – Power Lines DECCOMMISSIONING PHASE Impact Potential Activity Nature of Impact Extent Duration Likelihood Rating Mitigation Interpretation type Intensity Dust suppression mitigation Visual impacts would can be implemented to reduce arise from the Direct Impact: Existing 2 1 4 1 7 - MOD the visual impact during this decommissioning phase. activities. Visual impact on visual Decommissioning activities Visual impacts would resource and visual could be restricted to business arise from the Eldo-Rir Cumulative 2 1 4 1 7 - MOD receptors. / daylight hours to reduce the decommissioning Alt 3 light impact at night time. activities. The sacred landscape should After decommissioning be rehabilitated and re- and rehabilitation of the Residual 2 1 4 1 7 - MOD vegetated with indigenous power line footprints, the plants once decommissioning area could be restored to has been completed. its initial land use status. Dust suppression mitigation Visual impacts would can be implemented to reduce arise from the Direct Impact: Existing 2 1 2 1 5 - MOD the visual impact during this decommissioning phase. activities. Visual impact on visual Decommissioning activities Visual impacts would resource and visual could be restricted to business arise from the Rir-Gamo Cumulative 2 1 2 1 5 - MOD receptors. / daylight hours to reduce the decommissioning Alt 1 light impact at night time. activities. The sacred landscape should After decommissioning be rehabilitated and re- and rehabilitation of the Residual 2 1 2 1 5 - MOD vegetated with indigenous power line footprints, the plants once decommissioning area could be restored to has been completed. its initial land use status.

79 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Visual Impact Assessment – Power Lines DECCOMMISSIONING PHASE Impact Potential Activity Nature of Impact Extent Duration Likelihood Rating Mitigation Interpretation type Intensity Dust suppression mitigation Visual impacts would can be implemented to reduce arise from the Direct Impact: Existing 2 1 4 1 7 - MOD the visual impact during this decommissioning phase. activities. Visual impact on visual Decommissioning activities Visual impacts would resource and visual could be restricted to business arise from the Rir-Gamo Cumulative 2 1 4 1 7 - MOD receptors. / daylight hours to reduce the decommissioning Alt 2 light impact at night time. activities. The sacred landscape should After decommissioning be rehabilitated and re- and rehabilitation of the Residual 2 1 4 1 7 - MOD vegetated with indigenous power line footprints, the plants once decommissioning area could be restored to has been completed. its initial land use status. Dust suppression mitigation Visual impacts would can be implemented to reduce arise from the Direct Impact: Existing 2 1 2 1 5 - MOD the visual impact during this decommissioning phase. activities. Visual impact on visual Decommissioning activities Visual impacts would resource and visual could be restricted to business arise from the Gamo- Cumulative 2 1 2 1 5 - MOD receptors. / daylight hours to reduce the decommissioning Mothi Alt 1 light impact at night time. activities. The sacred landscape should After decommissioning be rehabilitated and re- and rehabilitation of the Residual 2 1 2 1 5 - MOD vegetated with indigenous power line footprints, the plants once decommissioning area could be restored to has been completed. its initial land use status.

80 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Visual Impact Assessment – Power Lines DECCOMMISSIONING PHASE Impact Potential Activity Nature of Impact Extent Duration Likelihood Rating Mitigation Interpretation type Intensity Dust suppression mitigation Visual impacts would can be implemented to reduce arise from the Direct Impact: Existing 2 1 4 1 7 - MOD the visual impact during this decommissioning phase. activities. Visual impact on visual Decommissioning activities Visual impacts would resource and visual could be restricted to business arise from the Gamo- Cumulative 2 1 4 1 7 - MOD receptors. / daylight hours to reduce the decommissioning Mothi Alt 2 light impact at night time. activities. The sacred landscape should After decommissioning be rehabilitated and re- and rehabilitation of the Residual 2 1 4 1 7 - MOD vegetated with indigenous power line footprints, the plants once decommissioning area could be restored to has been completed. its initial land use status. Dust suppression mitigation Visual impacts would can be implemented to reduce arise from the Direct Impact: Existing 2 1 2 1 5 - MOD the visual impact during this decommissioning phase. activities. Visual impact on visual Decommissioning activities Visual impacts would resource and visual could be restricted to business arise from the Mothi- Cumulative 2 1 2 1 5 - MOD receptors. / daylight hours to reduce the decommissioning Moffat Alt 1 light impact at night time. activities. The sacred landscape should After decommissioning be rehabilitated and re- and rehabilitation of the Residual 2 1 2 1 5 - MOD vegetated with indigenous power line footprints, the plants once decommissioning area could be restored to has been completed. its initial land use status.

81 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Visual Impact Assessment – Power Lines DECCOMMISSIONING PHASE Impact Potential Activity Nature of Impact Extent Duration Likelihood Rating Mitigation Interpretation type Intensity Dust suppression mitigation Visual impacts would can be implemented to reduce arise from the Direct Impact: Existing 2 1 4 1 7 - MOD the visual impact during this decommissioning phase. activities. Visual impact on visual Decommissioning activities Visual impacts would resource and visual could be restricted to business arise from the Mothi- Cumulative 2 1 4 1 7 - MOD receptors. / daylight hours to reduce the decommissioning Moffat Alt 2 light impact at night time. activities. The sacred landscape should After decommissioning be rehabilitated and re- and rehabilitation of the Residual 2 1 4 1 7 - MOD vegetated with indigenous power line footprints, the plants once decommissioning area could be restored to has been completed. its initial land use status. Dust suppression mitigation Visual impacts would can be implemented to reduce arise from the Direct Impact: Existing 2 1 2 1 5 - MOD the visual impact during this decommissioning phase. activities. Visual impact on visual Decommissioning activities Visual impacts would resource and visual could be restricted to business arise from the Moffat- Cumulative 2 1 2 1 5 - MOD receptors. / daylight hours to reduce the decommissioning Valley Alt 1 light impact at night time. activities. The sacred landscape should After decommissioning be rehabilitated and re- and rehabilitation of the Residual 2 1 2 1 5 - MOD vegetated with indigenous power line footprints, the plants once decommissioning area could be restored to has been completed. its initial land use status.

82 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Visual Impact Assessment – Power Lines DECOMMISSIONING PHASE Impact Potential Activity Nature of Impact Extent Duration Likelihood Rating Mitigation Interpretation type Intensity Dust suppression mitigation Visual impacts would can be implemented to reduce arise from the Direct Impact: Existing 2 1 2 1 5 - MOD the visual impact during this decommissioning phase. activities. Visual impact on visual Decommissioning activities Visual impacts would resource and visual could be restricted to business arise from the Moffat- Cumulative 2 1 4 1 7 - MOD receptors. / daylight hours to reduce the decommissioning Valley Alt 2 light impact at night time. activities. The sacred landscape should After decommissioning be rehabilitated and re- and rehabilitation of the Residual 2 1 4 1 7 - MOD vegetated with indigenous power line footprints, the plants once decommissioning area could be restored to has been completed. its initial land use status. Dust suppression mitigation Visual impacts would can be implemented to reduce arise from the Direct Impact: Existing 2 1 2 1 5 - MOD the visual impact during this decommissioning phase. activities. Visual impact on visual Decommissioning activities Visual impacts would resource and visual could be restricted to business arise from the Valley-Sekg Cumulative 2 1 4 1 7 - MOD receptors. / daylight hours to reduce the decommissioning Alt 1 light impact at night time. activities. The sacred landscape should After decommissioning be rehabilitated and re- and rehabilitation of the Residual 2 1 4 1 7 - MOD vegetated with indigenous power line footprints, the plants once decommissioning area could be restored to has been completed. its initial land use status.

83 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Visual Impact Assessment – Power Lines DECOMMISSIONING PHASE Impact Potential Activity Nature of Impact Extent Duration Likelihood Rating Mitigation Interpretation type Intensity Dust suppression mitigation Visual impacts would can be implemented to reduce arise from the Direct Impact: Existing 2 1 2 1 5 - MOD the visual impact during this decommissioning phase. activities. Visual impact on visual Decommissioning activities Visual impacts would resource and visual 11 - could be restricted to business arise from the Valley-Sekg Cumulative 2 1 8 1 receptors. HIGH / daylight hours to reduce the decommissioning Alt 2 light impact at night time. activities. The sacred landscape should After decommissioning be rehabilitated and re- and rehabilitation of the 11 - Residual 2 1 8 1 vegetated with indigenous power line footprints, the HIGH plants once decommissioning area could be restored to has been completed. its initial land use status. Dust suppression mitigation Visual impacts would can be implemented to reduce arise from the Direct Impact: Existing 2 1 2 1 5 - MOD the visual impact during this decommissioning phase. activities. Visual impact on visual Decommissioning activities Visual impacts would resource and visual 15 - could be restricted to business arise from the Valley-Sekg Cumulative 2 1 12 1 receptors. HIGH / daylight hours to reduce the decommissioning Alt 3 light impact at night time. activities. The sacred landscape should After decommissioning be rehabilitated and re- and rehabilitation of the 15 - Residual 2 1 12 1 vegetated with indigenous power line footprints, the HIGH plants once decommissioning area could be restored to has been completed. its initial land use status.

84 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Visual Impact Assessment – Power Lines DECOMMISSIONING PHASE Impact Potential Activity Nature of Impact Extent Duration Likelihood Rating Mitigation Interpretation type Intensity Dust suppression mitigation Visual impacts would can be implemented to reduce arise from the Direct Impact: Existing 2 1 2 1 5 - MOD the visual impact during this decommissioning phase. activities. Visual impact on visual Decommissioning activities Visual impacts would resource and visual could be restricted to business arise from the Valley-Sekg Cumulative 2 1 2 1 5 - MOD receptors. / daylight hours to reduce the decommissioning Alt 4 light impact at night time. activities. The sacred landscape should After decommissioning be rehabilitated and re- and rehabilitation of the Residual 2 1 2 1 5 - MOD vegetated with indigenous power line footprints, the plants once decommissioning area could be restored to has been completed. its initial land use status.

85 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Visual Impact Assessment – Power Lines 10.8 Mitigation Measures for the Power Line 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.

86 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 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 Gamohaan 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 Gamohaan 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 impact, 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 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. 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.  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 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 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 87 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Conclusion the existing and cumulative conditions. However, the significance of the residual impact would be low.  Moffat 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 impact, 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.  Valley 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 impact, 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.

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

88 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 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 Valley - Sekgame Alternative 2 could look like. Photo simulation 2 portrays what power line alternative 1 between Moffat and Valley substations could look like.

89 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Conclusion

90 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Conclusion

91 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 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.

92 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 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

93 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 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

94 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 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 Steep canyons, mesas, Low rolling hills, foothills, expressed in prominent buttes, cinder cones, and or flat valley bottoms; or cliffs, spires, or massive drumlins; or interesting few or no interesting rock outcrops, or severe erosional patterns or landscape features. surface variation or highly variety in size and shape eroded formations of landforms; or detail including major badlands features which are or dune systems; or detail interesting though not features dominant and dominant or exceptional. exceptionally striking and intriguing such as glaciers. 5 3 1

Vegetation and A variety of vegetative Some variety of Little or no variety or landcover types as expressed in vegetation, but only one contrast in vegetation. interesting forms, or two major types. textures, and patterns. 5 3 1

Water Clear and clean Flowing, or still, but not Absent, or present, but appearing, still, or dominant in the not noticeable. cascading white water, landscape. any of which are a dominant factor in the landscape. 5 3 0 95 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Appendix A

Colour Rich colour combinations, Some intensity or variety Subtle colour variations, variety or vivid colour; or in colours and contrast of contrast, or interest; pleasing contrasts in the the soil, rock and generally mute tones. soil, rock, vegetation, vegetation, but not a water or snow fields. dominant scenic element. 5 3 1

Influence of Adjacent scenery greatly Adjacent scenery Adjacent scenery has adjacent scenery enhances visual quality. moderately enhances little or no influence on overall visual quality. overall visual quality. 5 3 0

Scarcity One of a kind; or Distinctive, though Interesting within its unusually memorable, or somewhat similar to setting, but fairly common very rare within region. others within the region. within the region. Consistent chance for exceptional wildlife or wildflower viewing, etc.

National and provincial

parks and conservation areas * 5+ 3 1

Cultural Modifications add Modifications add little or Modifications add variety modifications favourably to visual no visual variety to the but are very discordant variety while promoting area, and introduce no and promote strong visual harmony. discordant elements. disharmony. 2 0 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:

96 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 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 Areas that exhibit positive character Areas generally negative in character with valued features that but which may have evidence of character with few, if any, valued combine to give the experience of alteration to /degradation/erosion of features. Scope for positive unity, richness and harmony. These features resulting in areas of more enhancement frequently occurs. are landscapes that may be mixed character. Potentially considered to be of particular sensitive to change in general; importance to conserve and which again change may be detrimental if may be sensitive to change in inappropriately dealt with but it may general and which may be not require special or particular detrimental if change is attention to detail. inappropriately dealt with.

97 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 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

98 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 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

99 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 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: If the project: If the project: If the project:

- Has a substantial - Has a moderate negative - Has a minimal effect on - Has a beneficial effect on negative effect on the visual effect on the visual quality the visual quality of the the visual quality of the quality of the landscape; of the landscape; landscape; landscape;

- Contrasts dramatically - Contrasts moderately with - Contrasts minimally with - Enhances the patterns or with the patterns or the patterns or elements the patterns or elements elements that define the elements that define the that define the structure of that define the structure of structure of the landscape; structure of the landscape; the landscape; the landscape; - Is compatible with land - Contrasts dramatically - Is partially compatible - Is mostly compatible with use, settlement or with land use, settlement or with land use, settlement or land use, settlement or enclosure patterns. enclosure patterns; enclosure patterns. enclosure patterns. - Is unable to be - Is ‘absorbed’ into the ‘absorbed’ into the - Is partially ‘absorbed’ into landscape. landscape. the landscape.

Result Result Result Result Notable change in Moderate change in Imperceptible change Positive change in key landscape characteristics landscape characteristics resulting in a minor change views. over an extensive area and over localized area resulting to key views. / or intensive change over a in a moderate change to localized area resulting in key views. major changes 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:

100 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Appendix B Visibility

High Moderate Low

Visual Receptors Visual Receptors Visual Receptors If the development is visible from over half the zone of potential If the development is visible from less If the development is visible from less influence, and / or views are mostly than half the zone of potential than a quarter of the zone of potential unobstructed and/or the majority of influence, and / or views are partially influence, and / or views are mostly viewers are affected. obstructed and or many viewers are obstructed and / or few viewers are affected 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.

101 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 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.

102 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 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 People engaged in outdoor sport or The least sensitive receptors are facilities including public rights of recreation (other than appreciation likely to be people at their place of way, whose intention or interest of the landscape, as in landscapes work, or engaged in similar may be focused on the landscape; of acknowledged importance or activities, whose attention may be value); focused on their work or activity and Communities where the who therefore may be potentially development results in changes in People travelling through or past the less susceptible to changes in the the landscape setting or valued affected landscape in cars, on trains view (i.e. office and industrial views enjoyed by the community; or other transport routes. areas).

Occupiers of residential properties Roads going through urban and with views affected by the industrial areas development.

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)).

103 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Appendix B Magnitude (Intensity) of Visual Impact

High Moderate Low Negligible

Total loss of or major Partial loss of or alteration Minor loss of or alteration to Very minor loss or alteration alteration to key elements / to key elements / features / key elements / features / to key elements / features / features / characteristics of characteristics of the characteristics of the characteristics of the the baseline. baseline. baseline. baseline.

I.e. Pre-development I.e. Pre-development I.e. Pre-development I.e. Pre-development landscape or view and / or landscape or view and / or landscape or view and / or landscape or view and / or introduction of elements introduction of elements introduction of elements introduction of elements considered to be totally that may be prominent but that may not be that are not uncharacteristic uncharacteristic when set may not necessarily be uncharacteristic when set with the surrounding within the attributes of the considered to be within the attributes of the landscape – approximating receiving landscape. substantially receiving landscape. the ‘no change’ situation. uncharacteristic when set within the attributes of the receiving landscape.

High scenic quality impacts Moderate scenic quality Low scenic quality impacts Negligible scenic quality would result. impacts would result would result. impacts would result.

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)).

104 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 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 Definition Rating Descriptor Site Impact footprint remains within the boundary of the site. 1

Local Impact footprint extends beyond the boundary of the site to 2 the adjacent surrounding areas.

Regional Impact footprint includes the greater surrounds and may 3 include an entire municipal or provincial jurisdiction.

National The scale of the impact is applicable to the Republic of 4 South Africa.

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.

105 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Appendix B

Table 2: Criteria for the rating of the duration of an impact.

Duration Definition Rating Descriptor Construction / The impact endures for only as long as the construction or 1 Decommissioning the decommissioning period of the project activity. This phase only implies that the impact is fully reversible.

Short term The impact continues to manifest for a period of between 3 2 and 5 years beyond construction or decommissioning. The impact is still reversible.

Medium term The impact continues between 6 and 15 years beyond the 3 construction or decommissioning phase. The impact is still reversible with relevant and applicable mitigation and management actions.

Long term The impact continues for a period in excess of 15 years 4 beyond construction or decommissioning. The impact is only reversible with considerable effort in implementation of rigorous mitigation actions.

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.

106 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Appendix B

Table 3: Criteria for impact rating of potential intensity of a negative impact.

Potential Definition of negative impact Rating Intensity Descriptor High Significant impact to human health linked to mortality/loss 16 of a species/endemic habitat.

Moderate-High Significant impact to faunal or floral populations/loss of 8 livelihoods/individual economic loss.

Moderate Reduction in environmental quality/loss of habitat/loss of 4 heritage/loss of welfare amenity

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 Definition of positive impact Rating Intensity Descriptor Moderate-High Net improvement in human welfare 8

Moderate Improved environmental quality/improved individual 4 livelihoods.

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.

107 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Appendix B

Table 5: Criteria for the rating of the likelihood of the impact occurring

Likelihood Definition Rating Descriptor Improbable The possibility of the impact occurring is negligible and 0.1 only under exceptional circumstances.

Unlikely The possibility of the impact occurring is low with a less 0.2 than 10% chance of occurring. The impact has not occurred before.

Probable The impact has a 10% to 40% chance of occurring. Only 0.5 likely to happen once in every 3 years or more.

Highly Probable It is most likely that the impact will occur and there is a 0.75 41% to 75% chance of occurrence.

Definite More than a 75% chance of occurrence. The impact will 1 occur regularly.

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.

108 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 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 Project cannot be authorised Flawed

An example of how this rating scale is applied is shown below in Table 15.

109 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 Appendix B

Table 7: Example of Rating Scale

Potential Activity Nature of Impact Impact type Extent Duration Likelihood Rating Mitigation Interpretation Intensity With mitigation Ambient air quality is Direct Impact: Existing 3 4 16 1 23 - FLAW (FGD) the high impact for the residual air area. SO2 emissions quality impact Air quality will remain on air quality will be reduced high impact with Cumulative 2 4 16 0,2 4 - MOD within an area of due to a lower Medupi coming on- high priority air probability of line SO2 pollution. SO2 emission With mitigation emissions from Medupi (FGD) the residual air Power Station. quality impact will be reduced due to a Residual 5 4 16 0,5 13 - HIGH lower probability of SO2 emission from Medupi Power Station.

110 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 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.

111 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 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: 31 August 2015

112 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 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.

113 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 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)

114 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 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.

115 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 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. Visual Impact Assessments Landscape Design

2008 to 2013 Consultant: NEWTOWN Landscape Architects cc. Visual Impact Assessments KWP Landscape Architects & Environmental Consultants Landscape Maintenance Auditing Landscape Design and draughting REAL Landscapes Landscape Design

2005 – 2007 Landscape Architect:

116 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015 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: NEWTOWN Landscape Architects cc. 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.

117 Kuruman Power Line Project Visual Impact Assessment September 2015