VISUALIMPACTASSESSMENT OCGTPOWERPLANT ADDITIONALUNITS MosselBayMunicipality February2007 Documentpreparedonbehalfof NinhamShand 65YorkStreet George VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT PROPOSED ESKOM OCGT POWER PLANT ADDITIONAL UNITS, MOSSEL BAY TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .....................................................................................................3 2 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................6 3 TERMS OF REFERENCE ...................................................................................................6 3.1 DEA&DP GUIDELINE INVOLVING VISUAL AND AESTHETIC SPECIALISTS IN EIA PROCESS ......7 4 METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................................8 4.1 PUBLIC COMMENT......................................................................................................8 4.1.1 Raising of Key Issues (public input).......................................................................8 4.2 VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (VRM)...............................................................8 4.2.1 Visual Inventory .....................................................................................................9 4.2.2 Contrast Rating......................................................................................................9 4.2.3 VRM Class Objectives .........................................................................................10 4.2.4 Impact assessment..............................................................................................11 4.2.5 Potential Management Actions ............................................................................11 4.3 PLANNING POLICY RESEARCH...............................................................................12 4.3.1 Factors from Mossel Bay Spatial Development Framework ................................12 4.3.2 Factors from Western Cape Provincial Spatial Development Framework ...........13 5 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE MOSSEL BAY AREA ..............................................14 5.1 LOCALITY ..................................................................................................................14 5.1.1 Sense of History ..................................................................................................15 5.1.2 Sense of Nature...................................................................................................16 5.1.3 Sense of Limits ....................................................................................................16 5.1.4 Sense of Place.....................................................................................................16 6 RESULTS ..........................................................................................................................18 6.1 VISUAL INVENTORY .................................................................................................18 6.1.1 Viewshed Analysis...............................................................................................18 6.1.2 Photographs from Site .........................................................................................19 6.1.3 Observation Points ..............................................................................................20 6.1.4 Property Character ..............................................................................................23 6.2 PHYSIOGRAPHIC RATING UNITS ............................................................................24 6.2.1 Assessment of Classes Table..............................................................................25 7 PROJECT DESCRIPTION.................................................................................................26 7.1 PROPOSED PROJECT ..............................................................................................26 7.2 ALTERNATIVES .........................................................................................................29 7.2.1 Alternative 1: Proposed three additional OCGT units ..........................................29 7.2.2 Alternative 2: No Go Option.................................................................................30 7.3 PHOTO MONTAGE ....................................................................................................30 7.4 CONTRAST RATING..................................................................................................33 7.4.1 Contrast Rating Summary Table..........................................................................33 7.4.2 Contrast Rating Discussion..................................................................................34 7.4.3 Impact Assessment .............................................................................................34 7.5 RECOMMENDATIONS AND MITIGATIONS ..............................................................36 7.5.1 The OCGT Plant and Associated Infrastructure...................................................36 7.5.2 Controlling Future Development ..........................................................................38 8 APPENDICES....................................................................................................................39 8.1 APPENDIX A...............................................................................................................39 8.2 APPENDIX B...............................................................................................................42 8.2.2 Contrast Rating Tables ........................................................................................46 VRM AFRICA Page 1 of 48 February 2007 VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT PROPOSED ESKOM OCGT POWER PLANT ADDITIONAL UNITS, MOSSEL BAY TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1. Topographical Landuse Map.....................................................................................14 Figure 2. Site Location Map .....................................................................................................15 Figure 3. Viewshed Map on 50 000 Topographic Map.............................................................18 Figure 4. Observation Points....................................................................................................20 Figure 5. Additional Units Layout Map......................................................................................26 Figure 6. 3D Model of existing Atlantis site development.........................................................28 Figure 7. Proposed Unit size and Generic Plan .......................................................................29 VRM AFRICA Page 2 of 48 February 2007 VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT PROPOSED ESKOM OCGT POWER PLANT ADDITIONAL UNITS, MOSSEL BAY 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY VRM AFRICA CC VRM Africa CC is a Visual Impact Study and Mapping organisation located in George, Western Cape. We make use of the well-documented visual impact analysis methodology developed by the Bureau of Land Management in the USA in order to accurately and objectively quantify visual impact. For this purpose we make extensive use of GIS and 3D modelling technology. Over the last 3 years VRM Africa CC has been involved with over 40 Visual Impact Assessments (VIA) throughout the country. The majority have been based in the Western Cape ensuring we have extensive practical experience assessing projects in terms of the planning policies stipulated by the DEA&DP Guidelines and the Western Cape PSDF. For this project input regarding the mitigations and recommendations was gained from Liesel Stokes of Brink, Stokes, Mhkize (BSM), registered Landscape Architects. Terms of Reference VRM Africa was tasked by Ninham Shand with assessing the significance of the Visual Impact of the proposed development of three additional units at the Mossel Bay OCGT power plant, Portion 1 of Farm Patrysfontein, Number 228, using the criteria stipulated in the terms of reference. (See full terms of reference on page 6). In order to comply with Visual Resource Management requirements it is necessary to take into account all the relevant planning documentation and guidelines pertaining to this area. The Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning’s (DEA&DP) “Guideline for involving Visual and Aesthetic Specialists in EIA processes” identifies visual triggers which are used to define the scope and extent of a Visual Impact Assessment. An initial visit to the property was undertaken and the following potential ‘triggers’ were identified which would require further investigation. o Areas of proclaimed heritage sites of scenic routes o Areas with intact wilderness qualities, or pristine ecosystems, o Areas with a recognised special character or sense of place, o Areas of important tourism or recreation value, o Areas with important vistas or scenic corridors, o Areas with visually prominent ridgelines or skylines, o A significant change to the fabric and character of the area, o Possible visual intrusion in the landscape1 Methodology The VRM methodology is a systematic process developed by the United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to measure contrast in order to analyse the potential visual impact of proposed projects and activities. The basic philosophy underlying the system is: The degree to which a management activity affects the visual quality of a landscape depends on the visual contrast created between a project and the existing landscape. The VRM