1 · Web viewOnly indigenous plant species to be introduced and planted. Consult with the appointed botanical specialist for suitable plant species. All infrastructure must be set

Visual Impact AssessmentProposed additional Vlakfontein Reservoir, Mapleton System, EMM

July 2015

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF REPORT

Rand Water has had to increase the capacity of its Mapleton Pump Station to supply in the rapidly increasing water demand of the east of Pretoria and the Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality. Due to this augmentation of the system, it has become increasingly inevitable to have sufficient reservoirs with adequate balancing storage at strategic areas, to store pumped water for 24 hours before dispersing it.

Rand Water subsequently initiated an investigation to determine which sub-system within the Mapleton System requires the storage reservoir and of what size. The Vlakfontein storage reservoir, which is directly supplied by the Mapleton Pump Station, was found to be partial inadequate because of its continuous leakages and the sub-system future projected Annual Average Daily Demand analysis.

Based on the future projected Annual Average Daily Demand, an additional reservoir is required to meet the required demand until the year 2055. The proposed Vlakfontein reservoir will be constructed adjacent to the existing Vlakfontein reservoir.

This Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) is undertaken as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process being facilitated by Sazi Environmental Consulting, in terms of the National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998 (NEMA) for the proposed additional reservoir as part of the Mapleton System. As such, the purpose of this report is to assess the proposed activity in terms of the Guidelines for Involving Visual and Aesthetic Specialists in the EIA Process and the NEMA EIA Regulations of 2010.

1.2 COMPONENTS OF THE REPORT

The aspects addressed in this report are as follows:a) Description of the methodology adopted in preparing the report.b) Description of the receiving environment.c) Description of the view catchment area, view corridors, viewpoints and receptors.d) Identification and evaluation of potential visual impacts associated with the proposed

activity and the alternatives identified, by using the established criteria, including potential lighting impacts at night.

1 © Zone Land Solutions


July 2015

e) Identification in terms of best practical environmental option in terms of visual impact.f) Addressing of additional issues such as:

Impact on skyline. Negative visual impact. Impact on aesthetic quality and character of place.

g) Assumptions made and uncertainties or gaps in knowledge.h) Recommendations in respect of mitigation measures that should be considered by the

applicant and competent authority.

1.3 STUDY METHODOLOGY

As stated previously, this VIA was undertaken in accordance with the Guideline for Involving Visual and Aesthetic Specialists in EIA Processes, as issued by the Western Cape Government’s Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning during 20051.

The VIA was undertaken in distinct steps, each of which informed the subsequent steps. The figure below summarises the methodology adopted for undertaking the assessment.

1.4 SUPPLEMENTARY DOCUMENTATION

This report is to be read together with Annexure 2 (Selected observation point viewsheds and assessments), which provides an identification of selected observation points and visual assessment of the proposed activity from each of these points.

1 No similar policy exists for the Gauteng Province. However, the Guidelines are based upon universally

accepted principles and are therefore applicable to the said project.


Figure 1: Methodology adopted for the VIA.


July 2015

1.5 GAPS IN KNOWLEDGE, ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS

This assessment was undertaken during the Pre-Project Investigation Process (PPIP) of the project and is based on the information and Terms of Reference provided by Sazi Environmental Consulting on 25 May 2015, for the mentioned project.

Assessments of this nature generally suffer from a number of defects that must be acknowledged: Limited time: A comprehensive assessment requires a systematic assessment of the

environment at different times of the day. Such luxury is not always possible and therefore most assessments are based on observations made at a specific time of day. Educated estimates are made, where applicable, based on the knowledge of the area.

Availability of literature: A thorough assessment requires that all relevant literature on the subject matter is studied, acknowledged and incorporated in the report. Due to a range of factors, forward planning documents are not always available for all spheres of government.

In particular, it was submitted that no detailed plans with regard to the design of the proposed reservoir was provided. It was, however, communicated that the reservoir would be similar in form and design to the existing Vlakfontein reservoir. All heights and design forms were therefore based on the latter.

2 THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

2.1 LOCALITY

The project site is located in the Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality, as part of the Gauteng Province. The Municipality borders onto the Mpumalanga Province. According to Census 2011, the municipality has a population of more than 3 million. The population density is approximately 1600 people per km², making it one of the most densely populated areas in the country and province.

The municipality is an important manufacturing centre in South Africa, and has been described as ‘Africa’s Workshop’. According to the Ekurhuleni Growth and Development Strategy 2025, manufacturing accounts for some 28% of total production.



July 2015

The project site is, furthermore, located in Region C – one of six Urban Planning and Urban Management Regions/Zones established in order to more effectively provide for the various functional areas of Ekurhuleni.

Region C encompasses the north-eastern parts of the Municipality and comprises most of the area north of the N12, and east of the OR Tambo International Airport. The regional includes areas such as Bapsfontein, Boksburg North, Northmead, Rynfield, Morehill, Chief Luthuli, Crystal Park, Mayfield, Etwatwa and Daveyton. The strength of the area lies in the desirability to link the low income areas of Daveyton and Etwatwa to the OR Tambo International Airport through the newly proposed growth area in Benoni North. Residential growth is planned to the west of Daveyton –Etwatwa linking directly to the OR Tambo International Airport (EMM SDF, 2011).

Figure 2: Regional context of the project site.

The project site is situated in a semi-rural area characterised by smallholdings of approximately 2ha in size. Due to its location between the residential areas of Ebotse Golf and Country Estate to the west, Chief A Luthuli Park to the south and Crystal Park to the north, the area is under pressure to allow denser residential developments. This is particularly evident in the number of



July 2015

subdivisions permitted and group housing developments occurring, particularly on the outskirts of this neighbourhood.

The project site is located almost in the centre of the smallholding area between 6 th and 7th Road. The feeder roads of Putfontein and the M44 pass to the east and west of the smallholding area while the N12 is situated to the south. The latter connects directly to the OR Thambo International Airport in the west and Johannesburg further afield.

Immediately adjacent to the project site is the existing 421.23 Mℓ Vlakfontein Reservoir. The rectangular reservoir, commissioned in 1977, consists of two compartments equal in size. The reservoir receives approximately 300 Mℓ of water per day through the existing 2100mm diameter S1 and the newly constructed 2100mm diameter S4 pumped main pipelines from Mapleton Pump Station (refer to Figure 3). The reservoir supplies potable water to Cristal Park, Daveyton and Hill Crest, as well as the eastern parts of Tshwane.

Figure 3: Aerial photograph of the existing Vlakfontein Reservoir adjacent to the project site.

Natural resources make a significant and direct contribution to the atmosphere and characteristics of an area. Unfortunately, the project site and its immediate surroundings are almost entirely devoid of ecologically-sustainable open spaces. However, due to the age of the smallholding area,



July 2015

several mature trees are present on the individual plots, thereby creating its own unique atmosphere and micro climate.

In the wider context, the landscape is dominated by a relatively flat to undulating terrain only to be interrupted by the occasional mine mound. There are therefore no prominent hills or ridges that would offer a potential vantage point over the project site.

The Provincial Growth and Development Strategy (PGDS) 2025 for the Ekurhuleni Municipality (2007) notes the challenges faced with regards to dating infrastructure. The document recognises that services infrastructure in the core areas of the municipality is old, inadequately maintained and subject to frequent breakdowns. As a result, the Municipality has identified Service Infrastructure as a Key Focus Area with the objective of creating high quality and well-maintained services, equitable services throughout the urban areas.

2.1.1 Intrinsic Values of the Region

It is a common principle of planning that each place has a specific intrinsic, instrumental and systemic value and that such values need to be carefully considered when contemplating the current and future use of any particular place.

Broadly -speaking, two different philosophical perspectives are possible when considering the value of any place or object, namely what is it good for? and what is its own good? The first question relates to its instrumental value, while the second deals with intrinsic value. Instrumental value uses something as a ‘means to an end’ while intrinsic value refers to being ‘worthwhile in itself’ (Rolston, 1994).

Systemic value relates to the fact that ‘things do not have their separate natures merely in, and for themselves, but they face outward and co-fit into broader natures. Value seeps out into the system and the individual lose its status as sole locus of value’ (Rolston, 1994:174). Systemic value refers to the relations that things have with other things, and to the role they play in larger wholes.

The value system of Region C was determined in the various collaborative, participative processes undertaken during the drafting of forward planning documentation, policy and guidelines. As such, the intrinsic value of the area is found in the support services associated with urban development.

2.2 PROJECT SITE DESCRIPTION



July 2015

The Vlakfontein project site consists of a portion of approximately 6.15ha of Farm No. 69/90 IR. The site is located on the block between 6th and 7th Road and borders on North Road in the Van Ryn smallholdings area.

Figure 4: Aerial perspective of a portion of the project site. Note the existing Vlakfontein Reservoir in the distance.

The site is currently being used to store pipes to be used in Rand Water’s reticulation network. Despite the relative passive use of the site it is being kept in a neat state. The site is also enclosed by a visually permeable concrete fence on all three sides bordering on the adjacent roads. On the boundary bordering on the smallholdings to the south, the property is separated from the neighbouring properties by means of a vibacrete wall. The photograph above, indicate the current extent and use of the project site.

As a result of the presence of the existing Vlakfontein Reservoir, the area is traversed by several pipeline servitudes and servitude areas. These servitudes roughly coincide with the alignment of the water pipelines as indicated on the Figure below.



July 2015

Figure 5: Extent of the project site and surroundings.

2.2.1 Landscape Character

The Van Ryn Smallholdings area has a very gentle downward slope in a north-south direction. Apart from this, no topographical manifestations or characteristics are present in the area. the height variation of the smallholdings area vary between 1620m and 1660m above mean sea level – 40m vertical height variation over more than 6km. As for the project site, the latter is virtually flat at 1662m above mean sea level.

Johannesburg experiences an annual rainfall of approximately 604mm with most rain occurring during summer. The average midday temperatures range from approximately 16.6°C in June to 26.2°C in January. The region is the coldest during July when the mercury drops to 0.8°C on average during the night. During the months of June and July veld fires are also very prevalent in the Gauteng area. Coupled with early morning mist, smoke from veld fires has the ability to cause poor visibility in the area.

As illustrated by Figure 5 above, apart from a couple of isolated trees along the periphery of the project site, the latter is devoid of any large trees.



July 2015

In terms of the underlying vegetation type, the project site is dominated by Eastern Highveld Grassland (Gm 12). According to Mucina and Rutherford (2009), this vegetation type is found on plains between Belfast in the east and the eastern side of Johannesburg in the west and extending southwards to Bethal, Ermelo and west of Piet Retief.

The vegetation is a short dense grassland dominated by a typical highveld grass composition with small, scattered rocky outcrops of wiry, sour grasses and some woody species, for example Acacia caffra, Celtis africana, Diospyros lycioides subsp lycioi-des, Parinari capensis, Protea caffra, P. welwitschii and Rhus magalismontanum.

Only a very small fraction of the ecosystem is protected in Nooitgedacht Dam Nature Reserve and Jericho Dam Nature Reserves and is therefore allocated a Vulnerable status.

3 PROJECT BACKGROUND

Rand Water) has had to increase the capacity of the Mapleton Pump Station to enable to supply the rapidly increasing water demand in the east of Pretoria and Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality. The existing 421.23 Mℓ Vlakfontein reservoir has to provide adequate balancing storage to the pumped water. However, it was noted that the reservoir is leaking excessively and as a result a submersible pump is continuously pumping water out of the submerged outlet chamber into the S3 pipeline gravitating to Rynfields.

Initially the Vlakfontein – Mamelodi system through the S3/R1/H26 pipelines did not have any storage reservoir. Few years later it was realized that water takes longer to reach the end users in the north of Bronberg from the Vlakfontein reservoir in Benoni. Subsequently the existing 100 Mℓ Bronberg reservoir was constructed. To reduce the risk of experiencing water supply interruptions through a single large diameter pipeline, S4 and R5 pipelines are being laid from the Mapleton Pump Station to Mamelodi.

Due to the above-mentioned ongoing augmentation projects, additional reservoir with adequate balancing storage is required, to increase the storage capacity of the Mapleton System, thus lessening pumping costs. The recommended reservoir is preferred to be constructed adjacent to the existing Vlakfontein reservoir. Rand Water strives to have a minimum of 24 hours strategic storage in terms of the Annual Average Daily Demand (AADD) for any of its systems (Rand Water, June 2015).



July 2015

3.1 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED INFRASTRUCTURE

Based on the future projected water demand, it is recommended that an additional 210 Mℓ balancing storage reservoir be established adjacent to the existing Vlakfontein reservoir. The Vlakfontein additional reservoir will suffice until the year 2055 up to a compound growth rate for the area of 2%.

The reservoir capacity has been sized based on projected future water demands. The reservoir dimensions and placing, as well as that of the inlet and outlet pipes were determined by the preliminary site levels from desktop topographic survey. Hence the actual placing of the reservoir on site would be determined by the detailed cadastral and topographic survey. Drainage and overflow pipes will have to be investigated by the designer. The designer should also ensure that the proposed reservoir floor and roof levels are at the same elevations as the existing reservoir (Rand Water, June 2015).

The proposed schematic layout of the additional Vlakfontein reservoir is illustrated by Figure 5 above.

4 POTENTIAL ‘TRIGGERS’ OR KEY ISSUES

A ‘trigger’ is a characteristic of either the receiving environment or the proposed project which indicates that visibility and aesthetics are likely to be key issues and may require further specialist involvement (DEA&DP, 2005).

The ‘triggers’, as it relates to the proposed project refer to the following:

Table 1: Potential triggers.

KEY ISSUE FOCAL POINTS DESCRIPTIONa) Nature of the

receiving environment:

Areas with a recognized special character or sense of place.

The landscape character of the area will be assessed in determining the expected visual impact.

b) Nature of the project:

Possible visual intrusion in the landscape.

The proposed activity is particularly visually prominent from defined observation points, the impact of which will be assessed through



July 2015

this VIA.

4.1 DEVELOPMENT CATEGORY

Based upon the ‘triggers’ and key issues and the environmental context summarised above, the proposed activity is categorised as a Category 3 Development.

This categorisation is based upon the Guidelines for Involving Visual and Aesthetic Specialists in EIA Processes, which lists the following categories of development:

Box 3: KEY TO CATEGORIES OF DEVELOPMENT

Category 1 Development: e.g. nature reserves, nature-related recreation, camping, picnicking, trails and minimal visitor facilities.

Category 2 Development: e.g. low-key recreation/resort/residential type development, small-scale agriculture/nurseries/narrow roads and small-scale infrastructure.

Category 3 Development: e.g. low density residential/resort type development, golf or polo estates, low to medium-scale infrastructure.

Category 4 Development: e.g. medium density residential development, sport facilities, small-scale commercial facilities/office parks, one-stop petrol stations, light industry, medium-scale infrastructure.

Category 5 Development: e.g. high density township/residential development, retail and office complexes, industrial facilities, refineries, treatment plants, power stations, wind energy farms, power lines, freeways, toll roads, large-scale infrastructure generally. Large-scale development of agriculture land and commercial tree plantations. Quarrying and mining activities with related processing plants.

Based upon the above categorization and the assessment criteria provided in the Guidelines for Involving Visual and Aesthetic Specialists in EIA Processes it is expected that a ‘minimal visual impact’ could be expected as a result of the proposed activity (refer to the table below).



July 2015

The objectives of the VIA described in this report is to:a) determine whether such broad impact categorisation is appropriate and if not, to

determine an appropriate category of impact;b) formulate and implement measures or interventions that would mitigate any detrimental

impacts to the extent that the activity will be acceptable.

Table 2: Categorization of expected visual impact (DEA&DP, 2005).

Type of environmentType of development

Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4 Category 5Protected/wild areas of

international or regional significance

Moderate

visual impact expected

High visual

impact expected

High visual

impact expected

Very high


Very high


Areas or routes of high scenic, cultural,

historical significance

Minimal visual impact

expected

Moderate visual impact

expected

High visual impact

expected

High visual impact

expected

Very high visual impact

expectedAreas or routes of

medium scenic, cultural or historical

significance

Little or no


Minimal


Moderate


High visual

impact expected

High visual

impact expected

Areas or routes of low

scenic, cultural or historical

significance/disturbed

Little or no

visual impact expected.

Possible benefits

Little or no


Minimal visual impact expected

Moderate


High visual

impact expected

Disturbed or degraded sites / run-down urban

areas / wasteland

Little or no visual impact

expected. Possible

benefits


expected. Possible

benefits


expected

Minimal visual impact

expected

Moderate visual impact

expected



July 2015

5 VIEWSHED ANALYSIS

5.1 DOMINANT VIEW CORRIDORS

As a first step of this VIA, a survey was undertaken to determine the existence of significant view corridors associated with the project site. A view corridor is defined as ‘a linear geographic area, usually along movement routes, that is visible to users of the route’ (DEA&DP, 2005). Accordingly, only three dominant view corridors were identified in the region, namely:a) N12- The national route connecting Emalahleni with Johannesburgb) M44- The old Pretoria Road connecting all the way to

Bronkhorstspruit in the north.c) Putfontein Road- The road to the south of the project site connecting between

the N12 and the R51.

On a much smaller scale, the roads bordering on the project site could also be regarded as view corridors.

When determining dominant view corridors, one has to take into consideration the class of the road, the dominance and nature of the town/settlement/neighbourhood/district in which direction it travels and the distance from the proposed activity. In this regard, the identified corridors does not directly relate to the project site. It is only when one enters the smallholdings area and its network of streets that some of the roads bears a direct relation to the project site.

5.2 RELEVANT TOPOGRAPHIC AND PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS

A further key aspect affecting the potential visual impact of any proposed activity is the topography of the project site and the surrounding environment and the existence of prominent biophysical features from where the project site is visible. The topography and the major ridgelines of the area were subsequently determined and mapped by using a Digital Elevation Model2.

As illustrated by the DEM below, the project site is located at a mean elevation of approximately 1662m above sea level. The DEM shows that the area is relative flat and undulating and does not

2 A Digital Elevation Model (DEM) is a geographic information system-based outcome generated from contours for a specific area. In this instance, 20m contour intervals for reference sheet no. 2628ad were used to

calculate the DEM for the region.



July 2015

comprise of relatively steep hills or ridges. As a result, there are no prominent topographical manifestations in close proximity to the project site, from which the project site and proposed activity is particularly visually exposed.

Figure 6: Digital Elevation Model illustrating the undulating nature of the area and the dominant view corridors in the sub-region.

5.3 PHOTOGRAPHIC STUDY AS SUPPLEMENTARY COMPONENT

In order to quantify and assess the visibility and potential impact of the proposed activity and to provide a basis for selecting appropriate observation points outside of the project site, a photographic study and analysis was undertaken in the vicinity of the project site. The analysis and ground-truthing identified several observation points with similar characteristics and assessments outcomes. A selection of Key Observation Points is therefore included under Annexure 2.



July 2015

6 DIGITAL VIEWSHED ANALYSIS

The photographic study summarised above was supplemented with a digital viewshed analysis based upon the Digital Elevation Model (refer to Figure 7). As stated previously, the purpose of these two steps was to provide a basis for the identification and selection of appropriate observation points outside the project site for the VIA.

The viewshed3 analysis was undertaken in accordance with the Guideline Document for involving Visual Specialists in EIA Processes. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) technology was used to analyse and map information in order to understand the relationships that exist between the observer and the observed view. Key aspects of the viewshed are as follows: It is based on a single viewpoint from the highest point of the project site. It is calculated at an estimated 6m above the existing natural ground level to reflect the

highest point of the proposed activity. It represents a ‘broad-brush’ designation, which implies that the zone of visual influence

may include portions that are located in a view of shadow and it is therefore not visible from the project site and vice versa. This may be as a result of landscape features such as vegetation, buildings and infrastructure not taken into consideration by the DEM.

The viewshed generated from each of the selected observation points referred to in Annexure 2 is calculated at 1.7m above the natural ground level to reflect the average height of person either walking or sitting in a vehicle.

As illustrated by the generated viewsheds (refer to Figure 8 below), the zone of visual influence4 is located in defined clusters around the project site. Due to the flat terrain, the viewshed appears almost uniform across the landscape with a few areas obscured from the site. The latter generally coincide with the lower-laying natural drainage areas, dams and lakes. The viewshed is predominantly located within 10km from the project site while the majority of the viewshed is found within 5km from the site. The viewshed coincide with the mentioned dominant view corridors, residential neighbourhoods, institutional facilities, recreational areas and industrial areas.

3 A viewshed is defined as ‘the outer boundary defining a view catchment area, usually along crests and ridgelines. Similar to a watershed’. A Viewshed Analysis is therefore the study into the extent to which a defined area is visible to its surroundings.

4 Zone of visual influence is defined as ‘An area subject to the direct visual influence of a particular project’.



July 2015

The GIS-generated viewshed illustrates a theoretical zone of visual influence. This does not mean that the proposed activity would be visible from all observation points in this area.

The distance radii indicating the various viewing distances from the project site are illustrated by Figure 8. Also illustrated by the figure are the view corridors in the middle ground, namely the N12, M44 and Putfontein Road.

Figure 7: Viewshed generated from the highest point of the project site.

6.1 KEY ASPECTS OF THE VIEWSHED

The distance between the observer and the observed activity is an important determinant of the magnitude of the visual impact. This is due to the visual impact of an activity diminishing as the distance between the viewer and the activity increases. Viewsheds are categorised into three broad categories of significance, namely:a) Foreground: The foreground is defined as the area within 1km from the observer within

which details such as colour, texture, styles, forms and structure can be recognised. Objects in this zone are highly visible unless obscured by other landscape features, existing structures or vegetation.



July 2015

b) Middle ground: The middle ground is the area between 1km and 3km from the observer where the type of detail which is clearly visible in the foreground becomes indistinguishable. Objects in the middle ground can be classified as visible to moderately visible, unless obscured by other elements within the landscape.

c) Background: the background stretches from approximately 3km onwards. Background views are only distinguishable by colour and lines, while structures, textures, styles and forms are often not visible (SRK Consulting, 2007).

7 VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

7.1 SELECTION OF OBSERVATION POINTS

A total of 20 Key Observation Points (KOPs) were provisionally identified and selected within the defined viewshed for the visual assessment in accordance with the selection criteria stipulated in the Visual Guidelines. These KOPs correspond with movement routes, residential areas and general populated areas, commercial and institutional areas in the region. As a result of the similarity in the assessment results of the KOPs, the description and assessment of only a selected few KOPs are included in Annexure 2.

KOPs selected for the assessment are generally located at the intersection between the zone of visual influence and the defined view corridors (refer to Section 5.1 above). The view corridors are those areas that are accessible to the general observer.

7.2 ASSESSMENT PROCESS

The identified observation points were categorised and assessed as summarised in the table below.

Table 3: VIA methodology and process.KEY DESCRIPTIONNUMBER Each observation point was allocated a reference number.CO-ORDINATES The co-ordinates of each of the observation points are provided.ALTITUDE The altitude of the observation point was provided in meters above sea level.DESCRIPTION A brief description where the observation point is located is provided.TYPE Each observation point is categorised according to its location and significance

rating. These criteria include the following:

Tourist-related corridors, including linear geographical areas visible to



July 2015

users of a route or vantage points.

Residential areas. Institutional areas.

Commercial areas. Recreational area.

PHOTOGRAPH A photograph was taken from each observation point in the direction of the project site to verify the digitally-generated viewshed.

PROPERTY LOCATION The location of the property was described a foreground, middle ground or background.

PROXIMITY The distance between the observation point and the project site was provided in kilometres.

VISUAL SENSITIVITY OF RECEPTORS

The visual impact considered acceptable is dependent on the type of receptors. A high (i.e. residential areas, nature reserves and scenic routes or

trails), moderate (e.g. sporting or recreational areas, or places or work), or low sensitivity (e.g. industrial, mining or degraded areas) was awarded to each

observation point.VISUAL EXPOSURE Exposure or visual impact tends to diminish exponentially with distance. A

high (dominant or clearly visible), moderate (recognisable to the viewer) or low exposure (not particularly visible to the viewer) rating was allocated to each

observation point.VISUAL ABSORPTION CAPACITY (VAC)

The potential of the landscape to conceal the proposed activity was assessed.

A rating of high (effective screening by topography and vegetation), moderate (partial screening) and low (little screening) was allocated to each observation

point.VISUAL INTRUSION The potential of the activity to fit into the surrounding environment was

determined. The visual intrusion relates to the context of the proposed activity while maintaining the integrity of the landscape. A rating of high (noticeable change), moderate (partially fits into the surroundings) or low (blends in well with the surroundings) was allocated.

DURATION With regard to roads, the distance (in kilometres) and duration (in seconds) for which the property will be visible to the road user, were calculated for each

observation point.



July 2015

7.3 SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT

Based on the viewshed analysis and the preceding sections, the envisaged visual impact of the proposed activity was assessed in accordance with the criteria for visual impact assessments (DEA&DP, 2005). The findings of the assessment from selected observation points are included under Annexure 2.

7.3.1 Assessment Criteria

It is stated in the DEA&DP’s Visual Guidelines that to aid decision-making, the assessment and reporting of possible impacts requires consistency in the interpretation of impact assessment criteria. The criteria that specifically relate to VIAs were therefore described in Table 3 and Annexure 2.

The potential visual impact of the proposed activity was assessed against these criteria, with reference to the summary of criteria in Box 12 of the Visual Guidelines. Table 4 provides a description of the summary criteria used to determine the impact significance.

Table 4: Summary of criteria used to assess the potential impacts of the proposed activity.CRITERIA DESCRIPTIONNATURE OF THE IMPACT

The nature of the impact refers to the visual effect the proposed activity would have on the receiving environment. The nature of the development proposals

are described in the preceding sections.EXTENT (Scale) This category deals with the spatial or geographic area of influence and refers

to the following levels: Site-related (extending only as far as the activity),

Local (limited to the immediate surroundings), Regional (affecting a larger metropolitan or regional area),

National (affecting large parts of the country), International (affecting areas across international boundaries).

A value between 1 and 5 is assigned as appropriate (with 1 being low and 5 being high).

DURATION Duration refers to the expected life-span of the visual impact. A rating of immediate (assigned score of 1), short term (0-5 years) (assigned score of 2),

medium term (5-15 years) (assigned score of 3), long term (ceases at the end of operation) (assigned score of 4), or permanent (where time will not mitigate

the visual impact) (assigned score of 5) were applied.



July 2015

MAGNITUDE Magnitude refers to the magnitude of the impact on views, scenic or cultural

resources. The following ratings were allocated to determine the intensity of the impact:

No effect (assigned score of 0), Low (visual and scenic resources not affected) (score of 2),

Minor (will not result in impact on processes) (score of 4), Medium (affected to a limited scale) (assigned score of 6),

High (scenic and cultural resources are significantly affected) (assigned score of 8),

Very high (result in complete destruction of patterns) (score of 10).PROBABILITY This category refers to the degree of possibility of the visual impact occurring.

A rating of none (probably will not happen) (assigned score of 0), improbable (very low possibility of the impact occurring) (assigned score of 1), low probability (assigned score of 2), medium probability (distinct possibility that the impact will occur) (assigned score of 3), highly probability (most likely)

(assigned score of 4), or definite (impact will occur regardless of any preventative measures) (assigned score of 5) were applied.

STATUS Status will be described as positive, negative or neutral.REVERSIBILITY Degree to which the activity can be reversed. The following rating were

allocated: Reversible (assigned score of 1),

Recoverable (assigned score of 3), or Irreversible (assigned score of 5).

SIGNIFICANCE The significance is calculated by combining the criteria in the following formula:

S = (E+D+M)P

S = Significance

E = ExtentD = Duration

M = MagnitudeP = Probability

The significance ratings for each potential impact are as follows:

Low (where it will not have an influence on the decision) (<30 points), Medium (where it should have an influence on the decision unless it is

mitigated) (30-60 points), or High (where it would influence the decision regardless of any possible

mitigation) (>60 points).



July 2015

7.4 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS

7.4.1 Assessment of Impact on the Landscape Character

Sense of place and landscape character is closely related to one another. Sense of place refers to a unique experience of an environment by a user, based on his or her cognitive experience of the place. Visual criteria and specifically the landscape character of an area (informed by a combination of aspects, such as topography, level of development, vegetation, noteworthy features, cultural/historical features, etc.) play a significant role (MetroGIS, 2012).

A visual impact on the sense of place is one that alters the visual landscape to such an extent that the user experiences the environment differently, and more specifically, in a less appealing or less positive light (MetroGIS, 2012).

The sensitivity of the landscape character is an indication of ‘the degree to which a particular landscape can accommodate change from a particular development, without detrimental effects on its character’ (GLVIA, 2002). A landscape with a high sensitivity would be one that is greatly valued for its aesthetic attractiveness and/or have ecological, cultural or social importance through which it contributes to the inherent character of the visual resource (Axis Landscape Architect, 2014).

A landscape sensitivity rating was adapted from GOSW (2006) and applied in the classification of the study area into different sensitivity zones.

Table 5: Landscape character sensitivity rating (adapted from GOSW, 2006).DESCRIPTION

Low Sensitivity

These landscapes are likely to:

Have distinct landforms; Have a strong sense of enclosure that reduces visual sensitivity;

Have been affected by man-made features; Have reduced tranquillity;

Have little inter-visibility with adjacent landscapes; and Exhibit a low density of sensitive landscape features.

Moderate sensitivity These landscapes are likely to: Have moderately prominent landforms that provide some form of

enclosure;



July 2015

Have been affected by some man-made features;

Have little inter-visibility with adjacent landscapes; and Exhibit a moderate density of sensitive landscape features.

High sensitivity

These landscapes are likely to: Have poorly defined landforms;

Be open or exposed with a remote character and an absence of man-made features;

Be highly visible from adjacent landscapes; and Exhibit a high density of sensitive landscape features.

As a result of existing semi-rural nature of the smallholdings area and the passive land uses on site, the sense of place of the project site has to a large degree remained intact. As a result, the sense of place of the area is commonly associated with semi-rural residential as well as infrastructure development strongly associated with the adjacent existing Vlakfontein reservoir. The landscape character of the project site is therefore considered to be of moderate to low sensitivity.

The table below attempts to summarise the significance of the activities in relation to the landscape character.

Table 6: Impact table summarising the significance of visual impact on the landscape character.NATURE: Potential visual impact on the landscape character and sense of place.

Without Mitigation Score With Mitigation ScoreEXTENT Site-related 1 Site-related 1DURATION Long term 4 Medium term 2MAGNITUDE Low 1 Low 1PROBABILITY Improbable 2 Improbable 2SIGNIFICANCE Low 12 Low 8STATUS Neutral Neutral

IRREPLACEABLE LOSS OF RESOURCE?

No No

CAN IMPACTS BE MITIGATED?

Partially

MITIGATION: Keep disturbed areas to a minimum. Determine the extent of the construction site in collaboration with the

appointed specialists. No clearing of land to take place outside the demarcated footprint.

Institute low-scale landscaping along the perimeter of the project site to soften the visually prominent concrete fence and to minimise direct

views onto the proposed activity.



July 2015

Also consider planting shrubs and plant species with a shallow root

system on the banks of the reservoir. Only indigenous plant species to be introduced and planted. Consult

with the appointed botanical specialist for suitable plant species. All infrastructure must be set as low down as possible on their respective

footprints to reduce impacts on skylines.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS: It is expected that the cumulative effect of the proposed activity would be

indirect as the property would no longer be used for the storage of large pipes and associated infrastructure. The cumulative effect would also be

synergistic (e.g. the incremental increase in size of the proposed activity).RESIDUAL IMPACTS: It is argued that the proposed activity would have a neutral effect in terms of

the status quo as one passive activity is replaced by another, with possibly positive effects.

7.4.2 Assessment of Impact of Construction Activities

As a result of the nature of the proposed activity, very little impacts could be attributed to activities taking place during the operational phase. Hence, most impacts will occur during the construction phase.

The primary impact of the construction phase would be associated with dust that may be generated from turned-up soils. Other impacts may include noise caused by heavy vehicles, littering by labourers and increased levels of crime. Just to name a few.

Dust, however, has a visual impact, especially where dust clouds extend above tree canopies and landscaping features. The causes of such dust plumes are commonly associated with construction vehicles being driven on unsealed roads, rock crushing operations, drilling operations and wind blowing over disturbed areas.

It is difficult to model the visual impact since the degree of visibility will differ depending on climatic conditions (especially wind and temperature conditions), the nature of operations, and proximity to the activity.



July 2015

Table 7: Impact table summarising the significance of visual impact of construction activities.NATURE: Potential visual impact of construction activities.

Without Mitigation Score With Mitigation ScoreEXTENT Regional 3 Site-related 1DURATION Short term 1 Short term 1MAGNITUDE Medium 6 Minor 4PROBABILITY Probable 3 Probable 3SIGNIFICANCE Medium 30 Low 18STATUS Negative Negative


No No


Yes

MITIGATION: Reduce and control dust through the use of approved dust suspension

techniques as and when required. Rehabilitate any exposed soils as soon as construction has been

completed to stabilise loose soils. Institute low-scale landscaping along the perimeter of the property to

act as bio-filters.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed activity and the introduction of construction vehicles will

contribute to the cumulative effect of dust in the area.

It is expected that the cumulative effect of dust caused by the proposed activity would be direct and additive.

RESIDUAL IMPACTS: It is argued that the proposed activity would have a neutral effect in terms of the status quo as one passive activity is replaced by another, with possibly

positive effects.

7.4.3 Assessment of Impact on Sensitive Receptors

Specific viewers (visual receptors) experience different views of the visual resource and value it differently. They will be affected because of alterations to their views due to the proposed activity. The visual receptors are grouped according to their location and significance. Differentiation is made between:a) Tourist-related and areas of cultural significance.b) Motorists along roads.c) Residential Areas and Farmstead.



July 2015

d) Recreational areas.

Tourists are regarded as visual receptors of exceptional high sensitivity. Their attention is focused towards the landscape which they essentially utilise for enjoyment purposes and appreciation of the quality of the landscape.

Residents of the affected environment are classified as visual receptors of high sensitivity owing to their sustained visual exposure to the proposed development as well as their attentive interest towards their living environment.

Motorists are generally classified as visual receptors of low sensitivity due to their momentary view and experience of the proposed development. As a motorist’s speed increases, the sharpness of lateral vision declines and the motorist tends to focus on the line of travel (USDOT, 1981). This adds weight to the assumption that under normal conditions, motorists will show low levels of sensitivity as their attention is focused on the road and their exposure to roadside objects is brief.

Motorists on scenic routes will present a higher sensitivity. Their reason for being in the landscape is similar to that of the tourists and they will therefore be categorised as part of the tourist viewer group (Axis Landscape Architects, 2014).

Table 8: Impact table summarising the significance of visual impact on sensitive receptors.NATURE: Potential visual impact on sensitive receptors.

Without Mitigation Score With Mitigation ScoreEXTENT Regional 3 Local 2DURATION Permanent 5 Permanent 5MAGNITUDE Low 2 No 0PROBABILITY Probable 3 Probable 3SIGNIFICANCE Medium 30 Low 21STATUS Negative Negative


No No


Partially

MITIGATION: Keep disturbed areas to a minimum.

Determine the extent of the construction site in collaboration with the appointed specialists.

No clearing of land to take place outside the demarcated footprint.



July 2015

Institute low-scale landscaping along the perimeter of the project site to

soften the visually prominent concrete fence and to minimise direct views onto the proposed activity.

Also consider planting shrubs and plant species with a shallow root system on the banks of the reservoir.

Only indigenous plant species to be introduced and planted. Consult with the appointed botanical specialist for suitable plant species.

All infrastructure must be set as low down as possible on their respective footprints to reduce impacts on skylines.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS: It is expected that the cumulative impact of the proposed activity would be indirect as the project site would no longer be used for storage purposes.

The cumulative effect would also be synergistic (e.g. the incremental increase in size of the proposed activity).

RESIDUAL IMPACTS: It is argued that the proposed activity could possibly result in an improvement of the status quo and that any residual impacts would be that

of the current site, in which case, the proposed activity (with the suggested mitigation measures) could be an improvement on the status quo.

It is submitted that many sensitive receptors are located in the foreground of the project site. These sensitive receptors represent mostly residential properties and tourist-related areas within the Van Ryn Smallholdings area. As illustrated by Figure 8 above and the results of the assessment included under Annexure 2, only those receptors immediately adjacent to the project site will be visually impacted upon by the proposed activity. Receptors situated further away tend not to be impacted by the proposed activity due to the visual absorption capacity of the landscape within which the project site is located.

7.4.4 Assessment of Impact of Artificial Lighting

The occurrence of light sources in the vicinity of the project site is predominantly associated with the individual residential dwellings in the smallholdings area. The extent of these light sources is relatively minimal, however, the sky glow5 effect created by the more densely populated surrounding areas is clearly visible.

5 Sky glow refers to the illumination of the night sky or parts thereof. The most common cause of sky glow is artificial light that emits light pollution, which accumulates into a fast glow that can be seen from kilometers

away.



July 2015

Structures and ground surfaces that are highly illuminated can be clearly visible for long distances, especially on clear nights. A primary cause of light pollution is unshielded outdoor illumination fixtures. These fixtures produce large amounts of upward and horizontal spill. Light that shines upward is a direct waste and is the primary cause of light pollution. Horizontal light produces glare which might cause a degree of annoyance for viewers, especially at close proximity (MetroGIS, 2009).

Even though no specifications with regard to supporting infrastructure (such as plant buildings) were provided, it is expected that, should such facilities be present on site, these might include a range of light sources.

Table 9: Impact table summarising the visual impact of artificial lighting.NATURE: Potential visual impact of artificial lighting as a result of the activity.

Without Mitigation Score With Mitigation ScoreEXTENT Regional 3 Local 2DURATION Long term 4 Long term 4MAGNITUDE Medium 6 Minor 4PROBABILITY Improbable 1 Improbable 1SIGNIFICANCE Low 13 Low 10STATUS Negative Negative

IRRIPLACEABLE LOSS OF RESOURCE?

No No


Yes

MITIGATION: Outdoor lighting must be strictly controlled so as to prevent light

pollution. All lighting must be installed at downward angles.

Sources of light must as far as possible be shielded by physical barriers such as a planted trees and shrubs or built structures.

Consider the application of motion detectors to allow the application of lighting only where and when it is required.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed activity may contribute to the cumulative lighting effect of the area.

Should the activity be lit, it is expected that the cumulative impact of

artificial lighting caused by the proposed activity would be direct and additive.



July 2015

RESIDUAL IMPACTS: Sources of light could be controlled and, hence, removed once the activity is

decommissioned. As a result, the visual impact would also be removed.

8 POLICY CONTEXT

8.1 STRATEGIC PLANNING DOCUMENTS

The Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Spatial Development Framework (MSDF) is based on the National Spatial Development Perspective and is informed by its comparative economic advantages as well as its competitive advantages. The comparative advantage is the provision of efficient production and service delivery. In particular, the comparative advantage of the municipality is its industrial and manufacturing base. Several of the spatial objectives and strategies contained in the MSDF are therefore geared towards strengthening this comparative advantage.

In addition, the spatial objectives and concept is based on the Core Development Triangle, Activity Nodes, Development Corridors, Municipal Open Space and the Urban Edge. These elements aim to provide guidance to officials, consultants and the general public, alike, as to the future development concept and growth direction of the municipality.

As for the water infrastructure, the Provincial Growth and Development Strategy (PGDS) (EMM, 2007) recognises certain sections of the Municipality is characterised by old infrastructure, which needs continuous maintenance and upgrading.

The PGDS continue and states that well-maintained trading services will attract investment and development to the EMM, and the municipality will therefore ensure that it allocates adequate resources for maintenance and to prevent degradation of existing trading services.

As far as the upgrading of services is concerned, the PGDS states that the focus will be on ensuring equity – the township areas and informal settlements will receive the bulk of the capital budget until this goal has been achieved.

Access to engineering services for the high potential economic developmental zones, will also be promoted in a responsible and proactive manner to ensure that proper direction and support are provided for these high economic core zones.

9 IMPACT STATEMENT


Figure 9: Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Spatial Development Framework (Source: EMM, 2013). The project site is indicated by the black circle.


July 2015

The on-site verification from the selected Key Observation Points and the viewsheds generated from the latter points indicated that the proposed activity will only be visible from receptors situated in the foreground of the project site. To this end, the results of the viewshed analysis from defined Key Observation Points, together with photographs indicating the actual view has been included under Annexure 2.

The results of the Visual Impact Assessment for the proposed additional Vlakfontein Reservoir consequently found that the overall visual impact is summarised as being of a neutral significance. The primary informants of this assessment are as follows:a) The activity will take place within the boundaries of a site that is currently utilised for

passive storage of infrastructure relating to the primary activity. b) The proposed activity would result in a decrease of traffic (at least during operation). c) The proposed activity would take place on a site which is already cordoned-off by a

concrete fence.d) The height of the proposed activity would be no greater than the surrounding built forms.

In fact, many of the houses in the area are higher than the proposed activity.e) All that would be visible of the activity (through the fence) would effectively be a

landscaped berm, which, when mitigated as proposed, could add to the visual quality of the area.

f) All forwards planning documents reference the importance of services infrastructure to supply in the needs of the greater community.

g) Despite its size, the project site is only visible from observation points in the foreground. More than that, due to the complex urban pattern and mature vegetation of the sub-area, it has been verified that the project site is actually only visible from approximately 100m from the site itself.

It is therefore concluded that the sense of place, and most other expected impacts of the proposed activity, will not alter to such an extent where users might experience the visual landscape in a less appealing or less positive light. In it furthermore conceivable that user experiences of the visual landscape at the end of life of the activity might be preferred above the status quo, especially should the proposed mitigation measures be implemented.

10 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME



July 2015

The management plan tables aim to summarise the key findings of the visual impact report and to suggest possible management actions in order to mitigate the potential visual impacts.

Table 10: Environmental Management Programme – Planning PhaseOBJECTIVE: To establish a facility that would have the least intrusive impact on the landscape and not

create a detrimental visual impact.Project component/s The creation of a low-scale water reservoir.Potential Impact Potential visual intrusion and impact on the skyline.Activity/risk source Potential impact on sensitive receptors within the foreground.Mitigation: Target/Objective

Diligent planning of the proposed facility to minimise the expected visual impact.

Mitigation: Action/control Responsibility TimeframePrepare an environmental constraints plan

for the wider area to establish the environmental sensitive areas and those

areas upon which the activity (pipelines) may impact.

Rand Water /

planners / landscape architect

In the planning phase

Plan vegetated and landscaped areas along adjoining roads to minimise visual impacts

onto the site.

Rand Water / planners / landscape

architect

In the planning phase

Performance Indicator Well maintained activity that has no larger impact that the status quo. All

actions to be measured against the Operational Phase Environmental Management Plan.

Monitoring N/A

Table 11: Environmental Management Programme – Construction PhaseOBJECTIVE: Mitigate the potential visual impact associated with the construction phase.Project component/s Construction sitePotential Impact Visual impact of general construction activities and associated impacts.Activity/risk source Potential impact on sensitive receptors within the foreground.Mitigation: Target/Objective

Minimal visual intrusion by construction activities and general acceptance and

compliance with Environmental Specifications.Mitigation: Action/control Responsibility TimeframeAn Environmental Control Officer (ECO) must be appointed to oversee the construction process and

ensure compliance with conditions of approval.

Rand Water Pre-construction

Contractor to sign and undertake to comply with

Environmental Specifications.

Contractor Pre-construction

Demarcate sensitive areas and no-go areas with Rand Water / contractor Pre-construction



July 2015

danger tape to prevent disturbance during

construction.Keep disturbed areas to a minimum. Rand Water / contractor Throughout

constructionIdentify suitable areas within the construction site for

administrative offices, storage, workshops, eating areas, ablution facilities and washing areas.

Rand Water / contractor Pre-construction

Institute a solid waste management programme to minimise waste generated on the construction site,

and recycle where possible.

Rand Water / contractor Throughout construction

Reduce and control dust through the use of approved

dust suspension techniques as and when required.

Rand Water / contractor Throughout

constructionInstitute a planting regime in collaboration with the

appointed botanical specialist.

Rand Water / contractor Construction

Performance Indicator

Construction site is confined to the demarcated areas identified on a Development

Plan. No transgression of the Environmental Specifications visible and natural processes occurring freely outside boundaries of the construction site.

Monitoring Monitoring to be undertaken by an appointed Environmental Control Officer who will enforce compliance with the Environmental Specifications.

Table 12: Environmental Management Programme – Operational PhaseOBJECTIVE: Mitigate the possible visual impact associated with the operational phase.Project component/s Low scale water reservoir.Potential Impact Potential visual intrusion and impact on the skyline.Activity/risk source Potential impact on sensitive receptors within the foreground.Mitigation: Target/Objective

An activity that results in the least visual impact on all receptors.

Mitigation: Action/control Responsibility TimeframeMaintain the general appearance of the

facility as a whole.

Rand Water /

contractor

Throughout operational phase

Monitor the area along the pipelines and

surrounding the project site for water leakage and disturbance of natural

processes.Maintain surrounding roads to prevent

scouring and erosion, especially after rains.Performance Indicator Well maintained activity that has little or no impact on the environment.

All actions to be measured against the Operational Phase Environmental Management Plan.

Monitoring ECO to undertake monitoring functions for a year after the activity has



July 2015

reached the end of life to ensure compliance with mitigation measures.

Management thereafter to be undertaken by the responsible entity.

11 REFERENCES

Axis Landscape Architects (CC). (2014). Proposed establishment of the Rustenburg strengthening phase 2, Marang B 400/132kV and ±2km, 400 kV power line from the existing Bighorn-Marang or Medupimarang or Midas-Marang or Marang-Midas 400kV power lines. Visual impact assessment

Chief Director of Surveys and Mapping, varying dates. 1:50 000 Topo-cadastral Maps and Data.

City of Ekurhuleni (2010). Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality. Development Guide. Directorate: Communications and Marketing.

City of Ekurhuleni (2011). Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Spatial Development Framework Review 2011. Report 2 – SDF Report. City Development Department, Spatial Planning Directorate.

City of Ekurhuleni (2013). Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality IDP, Budget and SDBIP. Integrated Development Plan 2013/2014.

Crystal Park. 26°08’35.05’’ S and 28°22’09.70’’E. Google Earth. 10 June 2015

Dennis Moss Partnership (2010). Visual Impact Assessment for portions of the Farm Hartenbosch No. 217.

Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality (2005). Ekurhuleni Growth and Development Strategy 2025. Directorate: Communications and Marketing.

Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality (2009). Waste Management Services: Landfill – Annual Report 2009/2010.

Environomics (2007). Environmental Management Framework for Ekurhuleni.

Government Office of the South West – England. (2006). Using landscape sensitivity for renewable energy. Revision 2010 – Empowering the region.



July 2015

Landscape Institute and the Institute of Environmental Assessment and Management. (2002). Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (GLVIA). Second Edition, E & FN Spon Press.

MetroGIS (Pty) Ltd. (2009). Visual Impact Assessment for the proposed VeleColiery.

Mucina and Rutherford (2009). The vegetation map of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. SANBI, Pretoria.

Oberholzer, B. (2005). Guideline for involving visual and aesthetic specialists in EIA processes: Edition 1.

Rolston, H. (1994). Conserving natural value: Perspectives in biological diversity series. New York: Columbia University Press.

Setplan (2008). Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality Densification Framework. Status Quo: Analysis and Findings Document.

SRK Consulting. (2007). Visual Impact Assessment Report for the Proposed Sibaya Precinct Development. Report Prepared for Moreland (Pty) Ltd.

ZONE LAND SOLUTIONS19 JUNE 2015


Documents

1 · Web viewOnly indigenous plant species to be introduced and planted. Consult with the appointed botanical specialist for suitable plant species. All infrastructure must be set