APPENDIX O Visual Impact Assessment...February 2019 18101804-322982-14 i Distribution List 1 x electronic copy Seriti Coal (Pty) Limited 1 x electronic copy e-projects library [email protected]

May 2019 18101804-324364-3 / FS 30/5/1/2/3/2/1 (10050) EM

APPENDIX O

Visual Impact Assessment

REPORT

Visual Impact Assessment for the Proposed Metsimaholo Underground Coal Mine Seriti Coal (Pty) Ltd

Submitted to:

Seriti Coal (Pty) Ltd 3 On Glenhove c/o Glenhove and Tottenham Ave Melrose Estate Johannesburg

Submitted by:

Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd. Building 1, Maxwell Office Park, Magwa Crescent West, Waterfall City, Midrand, 1685, South Africa

P.O. Box 6001, Halfway House, 1685

+27 11 254 4800

18101804-322982-14

February 2019

February 2019 18101804-322982-14

i

Distribution List 1 x electronic copy Seriti Coal (Pty) Limited

1 x electronic copy e-projects library [email protected]

1 x electronic copy Golder project folder

February 2019 18101804-322982-14

ii

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Location of Project Site ................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Project Description .......................................................................................................................... 2

2.0 DELINEATION OF THE VISUAL STUDY AREA ..................................................................................... 3

3.0 STUDY METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................ 3

3.1 Establishing the Visual Baseline ..................................................................................................... 3

4.0 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS ....................................................................................................... 4

5.0 BASELINE VISUAL ENVIRONMENT ...................................................................................................... 4

5.1 General Landscape Characteristics ................................................................................................ 5

5.2 Topography .................................................................................................................................... 5

5.3 Atmospheric Conditions .................................................................................................................. 5

5.4 Hydrology (Drainage Features) ....................................................................................................... 6

5.5 Vegetation Characteristics .............................................................................................................. 7

5.6 General Land Cover and Land Use ................................................................................................ 8

6.0 VISUAL RESOURCE VALUE OF THE STUDY AREA .......................................................................... 11

7.0 VISUAL ABSORPTION CAPACITY ....................................................................................................... 13

7.1 Visual Absorption Capacity Weighting Factor ............................................................................... 13

7.2 Visual Receptor Sensitivity ........................................................................................................... 13

7.2.1 Receptor Groups ...................................................................................................................... 13

7.2.2 Receptor Sensitivity and Incidences ......................................................................................... 16

7.2.3 Receptor Sensitivity Weighing Factor ....................................................................................... 16

8.0 IMPACT ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................................................ 17

8.1 Impact Identification ...................................................................................................................... 17

8.1.1 Construction and Operational Phase ........................................................................................ 17

8.1.2 Decommissioning and Closure Phase ...................................................................................... 17

8.2 Impact Magnitude Criteria ............................................................................................................. 17

8.2.1 Theoretical Visibility .................................................................................................................. 17

8.2.1.1 Construction and Operational Phase Impacts ........................................................................... 20

8.2.1.2 Decommissioning and Closure Phase Impacts ......................................................................... 20

February 2019 18101804-322982-14

iii

8.2.2 Visual Intrusion ......................................................................................................................... 20



8.2.3 Visual Exposure ........................................................................................................................ 21



8.3 Impact Magnitude Methodology .................................................................................................... 22

8.4 Impact Magnitude Determination .................................................................................................. 23

9.0 IMPACT ASSESSMENT RATING METHODOLOGY ............................................................................. 26

9.1 Determination of Impact Significance ............................................................................................ 27

10.0 MITIGATION AND MONITORING MEASURES ..................................................................................... 29

11.0 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................................ 31

12.0 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................... 32

TABLES

Table 1: Visual resource value criteria ............................................................................................................. 11

Table 2: Visual resource value determination .................................................................................................. 12

Table 3: Visual absorption capacity weighting factor table ............................................................................... 13

Table 4: Visual receptor and sensitivity criteria. ............................................................................................... 16

Table 5: Weighting factor for receptor sensitivity criteria .................................................................................. 17

Table 6: Estimated heights of proposed site infrastructure............................................................................... 18

Table 7: Rating of level of visibility ................................................................................................................... 18

Table 8: Impact magnitude point score range .................................................................................................. 23

Table 9: Construction and Operational Phase – Impact Magnitude ................................................................. 24

Table 10: Decommissioning and Closure Phase – Impact Magnitude ............................................................. 25

Table 11: Ranking scales for assessment of occurrence and severity of factors ............................................. 26

Table 12: Impact assessment before and after mitigation. ............................................................................... 28

Table 13: Recommended mitigation measures ................................................................................................ 29

FIGURES

Figure 1: Location of the proposed shaft complex site within the larger Metsimaholo mining right application area ................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Figure 2: View across the project site. Note the generally flat to slightly undulating topography ........................ 5

Figure 3: Low hill approximately 3.5 km to the north-east of the project site ...................................................... 5

February 2019 18101804-322982-14

iv

Figure 4: Grassland fires commonly burn toward the end of the dry season ...................................................... 6

Figure 5: The Taaibosspruit River in the study area ........................................................................................... 7

Figure 6: Ephemeral drainage line running through the south-east corner of the project site ............................. 7

Figure 7: Small artificial farm dam located immediately south of the project site ................................................ 7

Figure 8: Short, open grassland typically dominates uncultivated land in the study area ................................... 8

Figure 9: Eucalyptus woodlots/windrow in the south-east corner of the project site ........................................... 8

Figure 10: Indigenous trees (Vachellia karroo) in the study area ....................................................................... 8

Figure 11: Agriculture, including commercial crop cultivation and livestock grazing, is the dominant land use in the study area .................................................................................................................................................... 9

Figure 12: Eskom’s Lethabo Power Plant is located 14 km north of the project site.......................................... 9

Figure 13: Zamdela suburb of Sasolburg ........................................................................................................... 9

Figure 14: Landcover map of the study area (GeoTerra Imagery) ................................................................... 10

Figure 15: Location of prominent visual receptors in the study area ................................................................ 15

Figure 16: Viewshed from proposed mine infrastructure .................................................................................. 19

Figure 17: Visual exposure graph .................................................................................................................... 22

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A Document Limitations

APPENDIX B Specialist Declaration and CV

February 2019 18101804-322982-14

1

1.0 INTRODUCTION Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd (Golder) was appointed by Seriti Coal (Pty) Limited (“Seriti”) to conduct a

visual impact assessment of the proposed Metsimaholo underground coal mine, near Sasolburg in the Free

State Province.

The proposed project centres on the exploitation of a board and pillar mining resource. From a visual perspective, the proposed construction and operation of the shaft complex (including buildings and silo) and

overburden dump are the main project components that are expected to result in a visual impact.

The visual impact assessment (VIA) forms part of the larger Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) process, which is aimed at obtaining the necessary rights and authorisations to undertake the

proposed mining project.

1.1 Location of Project Site The proposed shaft complex footprint is 243 ha in extent and located within the larger Metsimaholo mining

rights application area (16 000 ha). The project site is bounded to the south by the R549 provincial road; and is located midway between the towns of Sasolburg and Deneysville, in the Free State Province, South Africa

(see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Location of the proposed shaft complex site within the larger Metsimaholo mining right application area

February 2019 18101804-322982-14

2

1.2 Project Description The proposed Metsimaholo mine is envisaged to be an independent mine producing thermal coal from one

operational decline shaft. The run of mine production profile is approximately 3 million tonnes per annum (Mtpa), depleting in 2054. The project is planned to commence in 2023 with the pre-construction and construction phase. Mine establishment and access development are scheduled to commence in quarter 3 of

2023. The project is planned to commence initial production in 2025. The operational phase of the mine will run for 24-hours a day, seven days a week. Access to the orebody is planned through a box-cut development,

with a twin decline shaft system to intersect the top seam (“TMH”) floor and the middle seam (“MLMH”) floor

from which the shaft bottom development and main primary development would be initiated. MLMH will be accessed from underground via a developed decline. Main access development is planned from the decline shaft floor as a 7-road development providing access to men, material and services. The total depth of the

decline will reach approximately 240 m below ground. Bord and pillar mining using continuous miners (CM’s)

was selected as the primary coal extraction method.

In bord and pillar mining, parallel road ways are developed in the mining direction. Perpendicular roads, called splits, are developed at predetermined intervals to the parallel roads. These roads interlink, creating pillars. The roads that are mined concurrently are determined by the size of the pillars required to support the

overburden above the coal seam and the length of the production equipment’s trailing cables. The road widths

were designed at 7.2 m wide with an average mining height of 3 m. The pillar strength divided by the pillar load is the safety factor which determines the pillar size. The main development and production sections

consist of either seven or nine roadways which constitutes a mining panel.

The following main mining activities are part of the bord and pillar mining method:

Coal cutting and loading - the CM uses the cutting head which is a rotating drum with cutting picks attached to cut the coal face. A loading mechanism picks up cut coal and delivers it into the central part

of the machine. A conveying system, usually a chain conveyor, is used to run the coal in a steel trough from front to rear of the miner. A rear jib section capable of vertical and horizontal movement is used to

enable the coal to be delivered into a shuttle car;

Coal hauling and tipping – the loaded shuttle car is used to haul the coal to the section feeder breaker

which crushes and feeds the coal on the conveyor belt system;

Roof support – a roof bolt machine is used for making safe the roadways by installing roof bolts

according to a systematic support procedure; and

Coal transportation – a conveyor belt system is used to transport the coal from the mining section to

surface silos, ready for distribution to the market.

The mining method chosen is believed to have less adverse impacts on the environment and the society. Furthermore, underground mining will still give allowance to agricultural activities. The potential life of mine is

anticipated to be 30 years delivering an average of 2.8 to 3.0 million tonnes per annum of coal to steady state production. The total saleable product is estimated at approximately 80 million tons over the life of mine with

an average calorific value of 19 megajoules per kilogram.

Based on the above tonnages, the mine will start producing approximately 900 000 tonnes a year in 2025 and

slowly ramp up to full production of 3.0 million tonnes per annum in 2031. This implies the following in terms of

haulage trucks:

At the start of mine 4 trucks an hour will be transporting coal from the mine;

The number will increase to 12 trucks an hour once the mine reaches full production;

February 2019 18101804-322982-14

3

Coal will be transported on a 7-days a week, 24 hours cycle; and

The market at this stage is inland with possible clients based east and west of the mine (Grootvlei Power

Station and Sasolburg).

Prominent aboveground infrastructure/facilities that are anticipated to impact the visual resource include:

Mine buildings;

Silo; and

Overburden dump.

2.0 DELINEATION OF THE VISUAL STUDY AREA The study area for the VIA comprises the spatial extent of the project footprint and related activities, as well as

an associated buffer area. A visual impact will be caused by all visible infrastructural components and activities that will take place as part of the project, as well as all areas where the physical appearance of the

landscape will be altered by earthworks and construction activities. In these areas, the existing land cover will be replaced, or the environment will be physically altered; and will therefore be visually directly impacted upon. The areas from which these proposed landscape alterations are expected to be visible are therefore

defined as the study area.

For the purposes of this VIA, the study area was defined as a 10 km radius around the physical footprint of all

surface components of the project. The distance of 10 km was selected based on the fact that the human eye cannot distinguish significant detail beyond this range. Although it may be possible to see over greater

distances from certain elevated locations such as hilltops, visual impacts such as man-made structures or

artificial landforms that are this far away from the viewer are no longer clearly discernible or are at most

inconspicuous. For this reason, the visual impact beyond this range is considered to be negligible:

For the purposes of this VIA, the term ‘project site’ or ‘site’ refers to the areas that will be physically

affected by the mine infrastructure and activities – refer to section 1.1 for the delimits of the site; and

Similarly, the term “study area” refers to the area that will potentially be visually affected by the project

and represents the 10 km radius buffer around the visible components of the mine infrastructure.

3.0 STUDY METHODOLOGY

3.1 Establishing the Visual Baseline The VIA specialist study conducted for the purposes of this Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was

conducted following the methodology:

Describing the landscape character or visual baseline based on:

Photographs of the project site and larger study area were taken during a field visit conducted on the

27th August 2018; and

A review of available aerial photography and topographical maps, in relation to:

o Natural elements; and

o Human-made elements.

Determining the visual resource value of the landscape in terms of:

The topographical character of the site and its surroundings and potential occurrence of landform

features of interest;

February 2019 18101804-322982-14

4

The presence of water bodies within the study area;

The general nature and level of disturbance of existing vegetation cover within the study area; and

The nature and level of human disturbance and transformation evident.

Determine the visual absorption capacity of the receiving visual landscape;

Determining the receptor sensitivity to the proposed project;

Determine the magnitude of the impact, by considering the proposed project in terms of aspects of VIA,

namely:

Visibility;

Visual intrusion; and

Visual exposure.

Assessing the impact significance by relating the magnitude of the visual impact to its:

Duration;

Severity; and

Geographical extent.

To recommend mitigation measures to reduce the potential visual impacts of the project.

4.0 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS The following qualification is relevant to the field of VIA and the findings of this study:

Determining the value, quality and significance of a visual resource or the significance of the visual impact that any activity may have on it, in absolute terms, is not achievable. The value of a visual resource is partly

determined by the viewer and is influenced by that person’s socio-economic, cultural and specific family

background, and is even subject to fluctuating factors, such as emotional mood. This situation is compounded by the fact that the conditions under which the visual resource is viewed can change dramatically due to

natural phenomena, such as weather, climatic conditions and seasonal change.

Visual impact cannot therefore be measured simply and reliably, as is for instance the case with water, noise or air pollution. It is therefore impossible to conduct a visual assessment without relying to some extent on the

expert professional opinion of a qualified consultant, which is inherently subjective. The subjective opinion of the visual consultant is however unlikely to materially influence the findings and recommendations of this

study, as a wide body of scientific knowledge exists in the industry of VIA, on which findings are based.

5.0 BASELINE VISUAL ENVIRONMENT The visual baseline assessment was informed by a field visit, and assessment of on-site photographs and Google Earth imagery. To determine the visual resource value of the study area, specific attention was given

to the following aspects:

The nature of existing vegetation cover, in terms of its overall appearance, density and height, and level

of disturbance;

The general topographical character of the study area, including prominent or appealing landforms, and

their spatial orientation in terms of the project sites;

February 2019 18101804-322982-14

5

The nature and level of human transformation or disturbance of the study area;

The location, physical extent and appearance of water bodies within the study area, if present; and

The perceived level of compatibility of existing land uses in terms of the study area and each other.

This section provides a brief overview of the visual baseline environment and context in which the proposed

project will take place.

5.1 General Landscape Characteristics The project site and surrounding landscape are dominated by mosaic of cultivated fields and open grasslands,

that are under privately owned farms. Scattered homesteads are located throughout the study area, while

prominent towns include Sasolburg and Deneysville – located to the west and east of the study area, respectively. The study area itself is thus an agricultural landscape, typical of the southern Gauteng / northern

Free State region.

5.2 Topography The topography is generally flat to slightly undulating (Figure 2), with elevation ranging from 1 423 to 1 566 m

above sea level. A low hill located 3.5 km to the north-east of the project site is a prominent point of elevation

‘peaking’ at 1 566 m (shown Figure 3). Low-lying areas are associated with drainage features.

Figure 2: View across the project site. Note the generally flat to slightly undulating topography

Figure 3: Low hill approximately 3.5 km to the north-east of the project site

5.3 Atmospheric Conditions A further aspect of the visual baseline that needs to be considered is that of atmospheric conditions, as this

factor can greatly influence how a landscape is perceived by viewers, as well as the range over which views

are possible.

Humidity is generally low and there is often a small percentage of cloud-cover over the region. The level of airborne pollution is expected to be high on account of the proximity of local heavy industries in Sasolburg,

Vereeniging and Vanderbijlpark. Wild fires are also expected to be a fairly common occurrence in the area,

but probably mostly confined to the late dry season (see Figure 4). At this time the availability of dry grass biomass is highest. Visibility can thus range from being clear to hazy, depending on the prevailing

atmospheric conditions.

February 2019 18101804-322982-14

6

Figure 4: Grassland fires commonly burn toward the end of the dry season

5.4 Hydrology (Drainage Features) The study area is located in a summer rainfall region, with rain falling mostly from October through to February. The Vaal River is located about 8 km to the north of the site and flows in a south-easterly direction through the study area and into the Vaal Dam adjacent to Deneysville. Both the Vaal River and the Dam are

nationally important drainage and water impoundment features.

The Taaibosspruit is also an important local drainage feature. It is located to the south of the project site

(Figure 5) and flows in a westerly to north-westerly direction through the study area, before draining into the

Vaal River on the outskirts of Vanderbijlpark.

Several other smaller streams and ephemeral drainage lines associated with the Vaal and Taaibosspruit are also present in the study area, as are numerous wetlands, pans and ox-bow lakes. A number of artificial

earthen farm dams occurring along many drainage lines were also noted. These have been built to store

water for agricultural purposes (Figure 7).

February 2019 18101804-322982-14

7

Figure 5: The Taaibosspruit River in the study area

Figure 6: Ephemeral drainage line running through the south-east corner of the project site

Figure 7: Small artificial farm dam located immediately south of the project site

5.5 Vegetation Characteristics The study area is characterised by three regional vegetation types; namely Central Free State Grassland, Frankfort Highveld Grassland and Andesite Mountain Bushveld (Mucina and Rutherford, 2006). The grassland

vegetation types are the most widespread in the study area, and in theory, dominate most of the land that has

not been transformed by cultivation (Figure 8). According to Mucina and Rutherford (2006), they are characterised by dry or mesic short grasslands that are typical of the Highveld region. Conversely, areas of

Andesite Mountain Bushveld are characterised by medium-thorny bushveld and generally confined to rocky

hill slopes and valleys (Mucina and Rutherford, 2006).

Woody vegetation in the study area is mostly confined to small stands of exotic species (mostly Eucalyptus

species) (Figure 9) either growing in windrows/woodlots or around homesteads; or scattered individual trees (e.g. Weeping Willow Salix babylonica). Small pockets of indigenous trees (e.g. Vachellia karroo) growing

along drainage features were also noted during the site visit (shown in Figure 10). Exotic trees are generally

tall (>4 m), while the observed indigenous trees were mostly shorter (<4 m).

February 2019 18101804-322982-14

8

Figure 8: Short, open grassland typically dominates uncultivated land in the study area

Figure 9: Eucalyptus woodlots/windrow in the south-east corner of the project site

Figure 10: Indigenous trees (Vachellia karroo) in the study area

5.6 General Land Cover and Land Use A study of aerial imagery indicates that cultivated fields and open grasslands are the dominant land cover across the study area and indeed, much of the surrounding landscape. Agriculture is thus the prevailing land

use, with land partitioned into large commercial farms, as well as small holding properties - such as those of Lake Deneys Small Holdings and Vaal Power Small Holdings. Maize appears to be the most common crop

type. Open grasslands are used for domestic livestock grazing (Figure 11).

Other prominent landscape features or land uses include, inter alia:

Residential areas, including Zamdela (Figure 13) and Refenkgotso (associated with Sasolburg and Deneysville, respectively), Holly County, Middelbult, Kragbron and country residences along the Vaal

River;

Eskom’s Lethabo Power Station (Figure 12), and the adjacent New Vaal Colliery; and

Other smaller mining operations, such as Skysands.

It is furthermore noted that the Vaal River and Dam are important local tourism and recreational attractions.

February 2019 18101804-322982-14

9

Figure 11: Agriculture, including commercial crop cultivation and livestock grazing, is the dominant land use in the study area

Figure 12: Eskom’s Lethabo Power Plant is located 14 km north of the project site

Figure 13: Zamdela suburb of Sasolburg

Figure 14 provides a land cover map of the study area, based on GeoTerra spatial data. Note the extent of

‘cultivation’ across the entire area, and the close association of ‘natural’ land with waterbodies and wetlands. Land designated as ‘urban built-up’ (coloured grey) are conspicuous in Figure 14, however other land cover

units such as ‘mines’ and ‘plantations’ are much less ubiquitous.

February 2019 18101804-322982-14

10

Figure 14: Landcover map of the study area (GeoTerra Imagery)

February 2019 18101804-322982-14

11

6.0 VISUAL RESOURCE VALUE OF THE STUDY AREA Visual resource value refers to the visual quality of elements of an environment, as well as the way in which

combinations of elements in an environment appeal to our senses. Studies in perceptual psychology have shown an affinity for landscapes with a higher visual complexity, rather than homogeneous ones (Young, 2004). Furthermore, based on research of human visual preference (Crawford, 1994), landscape quality

increases when:

Prominent topographical features and rugged horizon lines exist;

Water bodies such as streams or dams are present;

Untransformed indigenous vegetation cover dominates; and

Limited presence of human activity, or land uses that are not visually intrusive or dominant prevail.

Further to these factors, Table 1 indicates criteria used for visual resource assessment. The assessment combines visual quality attributes (views, sense of place and aesthetic appeal) with landscape character and

gives the landscape a high, moderate or low visual resource value.

Table 1: Visual resource value criteria

Visual Resource Value

Criteria

High (3) Pristine or near-pristine condition/little to no visible human intervention visible/ characterised by highly scenic or attractive natural features, or cultural heritage sites

with high historical or social value and visual appeal/characterised by highly scenic or attractive features/areas that exhibit a strong positive character with valued features that combine to give the experience of unity, richness and harmony. These are

landscapes that may be considered to be of particular importance to conserve and

which may be sensitive to change.

Moderate (2) Partially transformed or disturbed landscape/human intervention visible but does not dominate view, or that is characterised by elements that have some socio-cultural or

historic interest but that is not considered visually unique/scenic appeal of landscape

partially compromised/noticeable presence of incongruous elements/areas that exhibit positive character, but which may have evidence of degradation/erosion of some

features resulting in areas of more mixed character. These landscapes are less important to conserve but may include certain areas or features worthy of

conservation.

Low (1) Extensively transformed or disturbed landscape/human intervention is of visually

intrusive nature and dominates available views/scenic appeal of landscape greatly compromised/visual prominence of widely disparate or incongruous land uses and activities/areas generally negative in character with few, if any, valued features. Scope

for positive enhancement frequently occurs.

An analysis of the visual resource value of the study area vis-á-vis the tabulated factors is discussed below:

February 2019 18101804-322982-14

12

Topography - The landscape is flat to undulating, with one low hill prominent in the north-east of the

study area. The flat, rolling plains are expected to be of moderate visual resource value:

The topographic value of the study area therefore has a moderate value.

Hydrology – There are no visually prominent surface water drainage courses in the project site. However, both the Vaal River (and Dam) and the Taaibosspruit, as well as a number of smaller rivers

and streams are located within the study area. Several wetlands, pans, ox-bow lakes and small earthen

dams are also present. These features contribute positively to the overall visual aesthetic:

The visual resource value of the study area’s hydrology is therefore considered to be high.

Vegetation cover - The majority of the project site and a large portion of the study area have been

cleared of natural vegetation and converted to cropland. Natural habitat thus occurs in irregular, and

sometimes discontinuous patches, and comprises primarily open, short grassland and wetland habitats. Visual complexity is added by the presence of woody vegetation – both exotic species

woodlots/windrows and scattered trees, and localised patches of indigenous trees;

The visual resource value of the study area’s vegetation cover is rated moderate; and

Land use – Commercial crop growing, and livestock farming are the prevailing land uses across the majority of the study area. Urban areas, scattered rural residences, and other land uses, including mining

are also present in the study area. We further note the tourism and recreation uses associated with the

Vaal River and Vaal Dam:

The visual resource value of the study area’s land use is considered to be moderate.

Summary

The visual resource value of the study area is expected to range from moderate to high in isolated locations.

The area has a prominent agricultural aesthetic, with broad vistas of flat to slightly undulating grassland and crop fields. Higher value areas are likely to occur along the Vaal River and Vaal Dam, and in more natural

grassland/wetland areas.

Table 2: Visual resource value determination

Visual baseline

attributes

Topography Hydrology

(Waterbodies)

Vegetation Land uses

Visual resource

value score

2 (moderate) 3 (high) 2 (moderate) 2 (moderate)

Total 9 (moderate)

Where:

4 – 6 = Low;

7 – 9 = Moderate; and

10 – 12 = High.

Based on the above score ranges, the overall visual resource value of the study area is rated as MODERATE

(9).

February 2019 18101804-322982-14

13

7.0 VISUAL ABSORPTION CAPACITY Visual Absorption Capacity (VAC) can be defined as an “estimation of the capacity of the landscape to absorb

development without creating a significant change in visual character or producing a reduction in scenic quality” (Oberholzer, 2008). The ability of a landscape to absorb development or additional human intervention is primarily determined by the nature and occurrence of vegetation cover, topographical character and human

structures.

A further major factor is the degree of visual contrast between the proposed new project and the existing

elements in the landscape. If, for example, a visually prominent industrial development already exists in an area, the capacity of that section of landscape to visually “absorb” additional industrial structures is higher than that of a similar section of landscape that is still in its natural state. VAC is therefore primarily a function

of the existing land use and cover, in combination with the topographical ruggedness of the study area and

immediate surroundings.

Based on the topography and low levels of significant development, the VAC of the study area is rated LOW.

7.1 Visual Absorption Capacity Weighting Factor In order to account for the fact that visual impacts are expected to be more intrusive in landscapes with a

lower VAC than in those with a higher VAC (regardless of the visual quality of the landscape), a weighting

factor is incorporated into the impact magnitude determination, as indicated in Table 3.

Table 3: Visual absorption capacity weighting factor table

Visual resource value

of receiving landscape

Low VAC Medium VAC High VAC

High resource value High (1.2) High (1.2) Moderate (1.0)

Medium resource value High (1.2) Moderate (1.0) Low (0.8)

Low visual resource value

Moderate (1.0) Low (0.8) Low (0.8)

The visual resource value of the study area has been determined to be MODERATE (refer to section 6.0),

while the VAC of the study area has been rated as LOW (see above). Hence, a HIGH (1.2) weighting factor in

terms of VAC is applied during the impact assessment.

7.2 Visual Receptor Sensitivity 7.2.1 Receptor Groups

Potential viewers, or visual receptors, are people that might see the proposed development, as visual impact

is primarily an impact concerned with human interest. Receptor sensitivity refers to the degree to which an

activity will actually impact on receptors and depends on how many persons see the project, how frequently they are exposed to it and their perceptions regarding aesthetics. Receptors of the proposed project can be

broadly categorised into two main groups, namely:

People who live or work in the area, and who will be frequently exposed to the project components

(resident receptors); and

People who travel through the area and are only temporarily exposed to the project components

(transient receptors).

February 2019 18101804-322982-14

14

Resident receptors located in the study area include the residents of Sasolburg and Deneysville - principally

the outlying suburbs Zamdela and Refenkgotso, as well as other smaller residential settlements (e.g. Holly

County, Middelbult, residences along Vaal River), and the homesteads of farmers, agricultural plot owners

and farm workers (Figure 15).

Ecotourism and recreational attractions along the Vaal River and Vaal Dam will attract many visitors (transient receptors) to the study area, particularly over weekends and holidays. There is thus a risk that views of mine

infrastructure may negatively affect the visitor experience of a locally important tourism destination.

February 2019 18101804-322982-14

15

Figure 15: Location of prominent visual receptors in the study area

February 2019 18101804-322982-14

16

7.2.2 Receptor Sensitivity and Incidences

The visual receptor sensitivity and incidence can be classified as high, moderate or low, as indicated in

Table 4.

Table 4: Visual receptor and sensitivity criteria.

Number of people that will see the project (incidence factor)

Large Towns and cities, along major national roads (e.g. thousands of people).

Moderate Villages, typically less than 1 000 people.

Small Less than 100 people (e.g. a few households).

Receptor perceived landscape value (sensitivity factor)

High People attach a high value to aesthetics, such as in or around a game reserve or conservation area, and the project is perceived to impact significantly on this value of the

landscape.

Moderate People attach a moderate value to aesthetics, such as smaller towns, where natural

character is still plentiful and in close range of residency.

Low People attach a low value to aesthetics, when compared to employment opportunities, for

instance. Environments have already been transformed, such as cities and towns.

The following ratings have therefore been applied to the identified visual receptor groups:

Resident Receptors: Resident receptors comprise a large number of people (incidence factor) living

around the project site and in the study area:

People living in urban areas, such as Zamdela and Refenkgotso, will probably attach a low to moderate value (sensitivity factor) to the project; and

People living in more rural settings (e.g. farmers, small holding owners and residences along the Vaal River) will attach a high value (sensitivity factor) to the project.

Transient Receptors: People travelling through the study area will include both local residents, as well as local tourists visiting attractions along the Vaal River and Vaal Dam. They will thus constitute a high number of people (incidence factor). It is expected that many travellers will attach a high degree of value to the current rural setting and visual character of the proposed project site (sensitivity factor). Hence, this receptor group has also been given a high sensitivity rating.

Based on the above, a high number of people (incidence factor) are expected to be visually affected by the

project and the overall perceived landscape value (sensitivity factor) will also be high.

7.2.3 Receptor Sensitivity Weighing Factor

To determine the magnitude of a visual impact, a weighting factor that accounts for receptor sensitivity is

determined (Table 5), based on the number of people that are likely to be exposed to a visual impact (incidence factor) and their expected perception of the value of the visual landscape and project impact

(sensitivity factor).

February 2019 18101804-322982-14

17

Table 5: Weighting factor for receptor sensitivity criteria

Number of people that will see the project (incidence factor)

Large Moderate Small

Receptor perceived

landscape value (sensitivity)

High High (1.2) High (1.2) Moderate (1.0)

Moderate High (1.2) Moderate (1.0) Low (0.8)

Low Moderate (1.0) Low (0.8) Low (0.8)

Based on the receptor sensitivity assessment and the above criteria, a HIGH weighting factor (1.2) in terms of

this aspect is applied during the impact magnitude determination.

8.0 IMPACT ASSESSMENT

8.1 Impact Identification The following potential visual impacts that may occur during the construction, operational and

decommissioning/closure phases of the mine have been identified. Note that for the purposes of this

assessment, the potential impacts of the construction and operational phases have been grouped together, as

they are expected to be largely similar in nature, although potentially of varying magnitude.

8.1.1 Construction and Operational Phase

Reduction in visual resource value due to presence of silo and mine buildings;

Reduction in visual resource value due to the overburden dump;

Formation of dust plumes as a result of construction activities; and

Light pollution at night.

8.1.2 Decommissioning and Closure Phase

Reinstatement of visual resource value due to dismantling of silo and mining buildings and subsequent

rehabilitation of footprint areas;

Permanent alteration of site topographical and visual character of due to presence of overburden dump;

and

Visible dust plumes during rehabilitation.

8.2 Impact Magnitude Criteria The magnitude of a visual impact is determined by considering the visual resource value and VAC of the

landscape within which the project will take place, the receptors potentially affected by it, together with the level of visibility of the project components, their degree of visual intrusion and the potential visual exposure of

receptors to the project, as further elaborated on below:

8.2.1 Theoretical Visibility

The level of theoretical visibility (LTV) is defined as the sections of the study area from which the proposed

project or its constituent elements may be visible.

February 2019 18101804-322982-14

18

This was determined by conducting a Viewshed analysis and using Geographic Information System software

with three-dimensional topographical modelling capabilities:

The basis of a Viewshed analysis is a good Digital Elevation Model (DEM). The DEM for this Viewshed

analysis was derived from 1 m contour lines, received from the client; and

A 10 km area surrounding the site was used.

A Viewshed was developed for the proposed project based on the indicated infrastructure locations and heights – refer to Table 6. The receptor height was set to 1.5 m. In this fashion, the LTV based on the results

of the Viewshed analysis was then rated as shown in Table 7.

The Viewshed was modelled on the above-mentioned DEM, adjusted to include the proposed site layout,

using Esri ArcGIS for Desktop software, 3D Analysist Extension. The results are presented in Figure 16.

Table 6: Estimated heights of proposed site infrastructure

Facility Name Height (m above ground level)

Overburden dump 30 m

Silo 18 m

Buildings 5 m

Table 7: Rating of level of visibility

Level of Theoretical Visibility of Project

Elements

Visibility Rating

Between a quarter and half of the study area Moderate

More than half of the study area High

Less than a quarter of the total project study

area

Low

February 2019 18101804-322982-14

19

Figure 16: Viewshed from proposed mine infrastructure

February 2019 18101804-322982-14

20

8.2.1.1 Construction and Operational Phase Impacts

Reduction in visual resource value due to presence of silo and mine buildings: The height of proposed silo is 18 m. At this height, it will be readily visible throughout much of the study area, with only

low-lying areas along the Vaal and Taaibospruit Rivers not within line of sight. Critically, the silo will be visible from the high-density residential suburbs of Zamdela and Refenkgotso, as well as other smaller

villages, such as Holly County and Kragbron and many scattered farm residents. The LTV of the silo is

therefore rated high;

Reduction in visual resource value due to the overburden dump: At the commencement of

operations, the visual influence of the overburden dump will be negligible. However, as mining progresses the facility will increase substantially in height – reaching an estimated final height of 30 m.

The visual influence of the overburden dump will thus increase significantly over time. The Viewshed

indicates that the overburden dump will be visible throughout a large portion of the study area, including the major residential areas, smaller villages and scattered farmsteads described above. The LTV of the

overburden dump is therefore also rated high;

Formation of dust plumes as a result of construction activities: During the construction phase,

vegetation clearing and earth works will result in increased dust generation. This will be particularly acute

during the dry season and in windy conditions. After the construction phase, vegetation clearing will be negligible. However, the ongoing operation of the overburden dump is likely to result in dust generation. The LTV of dust plumes during the construction and operation phase is thus expected to be moderate;

and

Light pollution at night: Fixed/permanent lighting will occur in and around the main project

infrastructure. Light pollution is thus expected to correspond, in part, to the LTV of the silo and mine buildings discussed above. The level of visibility of light pollution is expected to be moderate during the

construction and operational phases.

8.2.1.2 Decommissioning and Closure Phase Impacts

Reinstatement of visual resource value due to dismantling of silo and mining buildings and subsequent rehabilitation of footprint areas: During decommissioning, built infrastructure will be

dismantled and removed from the project site. Affected footprint areas will then be rehabilitated. This is

rated as low;

Permanent alteration of site topographical and visual character of due to presence of overburden

dump: During decommissioning, the overburden dump will be shaped, contoured and revegetated. Despite this, considering the height of the facility it will retain a high LTV during the decommissioning and

eventual closure phases; and

Visible dust plumes during rehabilitation: Certain rehabilitation activities are expected to cause airborne dust. However, this is expected to occur at lower frequency, smaller scale and for much shorter

time periods. The visibility of this impact is expected to be low within the study area.

8.2.2 Visual Intrusion

Visual intrusion deals with how well the project components fit into the ecological and cultural aesthetic of the landscape as a whole. An object will have a greater negative impact on scenes considered to have a high

visual quality than on scenes of low quality because the most scenic areas have the "most to lose".

The visual impact of a proposed landscape alteration also decreases as the complexity of the context within

which it takes place, increases.

February 2019 18101804-322982-14

21

If the existing visual context of the site is relatively simple and uniform any alterations or the addition of

human-made elements tend to be very noticeable, whereas the same alterations in a visually complex and

varied context do not attract as much attention.

Especially as distance increases, the object becomes less of a focal point because there is more visual distraction, and the observer's attention is diverted by the complexity of the scene (Hull and Bishop, 1998).

The expected level of visual intrusion of each of the project components is assessed below.


Reduction in visual resource value due to presence of silo and mine buildings: The silo and mine buildings will be geometric in shape, and will contrast sharply with the existing visual context, both in

form and colour. Hence, the level of visual intrusion of these infrastructure components is expected to be

high;

Reduction in visual resource value due to the overburden dump: The expected height, large

footprint area and geometric shape of the overburden dump will render this facility both readily visible and intrusive within the visual landscape. The level of visual intrusion of the overburden dump is thus

rated high;

Formation of dust plumes as a result of construction activities: Dust plumes are often one of the more socially objectionable impacts associated mining, due to the associated potential health risks,

nuisance factor and degradation of the visual amenity value of the surrounding landscape. The latter visual impact is especially relevant in a greenfields setting, which characterises much of study area. For

this reason, this impact is expected to be highly intrusive from a visual perspective; and

Light pollution at night: As with dust pollution, light pollution can be a highly objectionable night-time impact in rural landscapes where large-scale development and mining activity do not occur yet. Hence,

this impact has been rated as being highly intrusive.


Reinstatement of visual resource value due to dismantling of silo and mining buildings and subsequent rehabilitation of footprint areas: The dismantling and removal of plant infrastructure and

rehabilitation of disturbance footprints will have a positive visual impact and will reinstate the original visual character of the area. Hence, the resultant level of visual intrusion of the end state of these areas

is expected to be negligible;

Permanent alteration of site topographical and visual character of due to presence of overburden dump: The overburden dump will be shaped and contoured, and actively revegetated. For a period after

closure, this facility will be discernible and clearly artificial in appearance. Over the long term, it is expected that revegetation will progress and flora communities will succeed beyond the pioneer stage, and this feature will thus start assuming a more natural appearance. This notwithstanding, considering

the nature of the surrounding landscape, the level of visual intrusion of the rehabilitated dump is

expected to be moderate; and

Visible dust plumes during rehabilitation: As is the case during operations, visible dust plumes during post-mining rehabilitation are expected to be intrusive, but they will likely occur less frequently and at

lower magnitude.

8.2.3 Visual Exposure

The visual impact of a development diminishes at an exponential rate as the distance between the observer

and the object increases – refer to Figure 17.

February 2019 18101804-322982-14

22

Relative humidity and fog in the area directly influence the effect. Increased humidity causes the air to appear

greyer, diminishing detail. Thus, the impact at 1 000 m would be 25% of the impact as viewed from 500 m. At 2 000 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 (Hull and Bishop, 1998) and was used as important criteria for this

study.

Thus, visual exposure is an expression of how close receptors are expected to get to the proposed

interventions on a regular basis. For the purposes of this assessment, close range views (equating to a high level of visual exposure) are views over a distance of 500 m or less, medium-range views (equating to a moderate/medium level of visual exposure) are views of 500 m to 2 km, and long range views are over

distances greater than 2 km (low levels of visual exposure).

Figure 17: Visual exposure graph


All Impacts: A number of farmsteads are located within a 2 km radius of the project site, while the densely

populated suburb of Refenkgotso is located within a 5 km radius. For the purposes of this assessment visual

exposure in terms of all identified impacts has therefore been rated as moderate.


All Impacts: As is the case with the construction and operations phase impacts, a significant number of visual

receptors are located within 2 km of the project site and visual exposure to the rehabilitation/closure related

impacts is therefore rated as moderate.

8.3 Impact Magnitude Methodology The expected impact magnitude of the proposed project was rated, based on the above assessment of the visual resource value of the site, as well as level of visibility, visual intrusion, visual exposure and receptor

sensitivity as visual impact criteria. The process is summarised below:

Magnitude = [(Visual quality of the site x VAC factor) x (Visibility + Visual Intrusion + Visual Exposure)] x

Receptor sensitivity factor.

Thus: [(1 x Factor 1.0) x (1 + 1 + 1)] x Factor 1 = 3.

From the above equation the maximum magnitude point (MP) score is 38.9 points. The possible range of MP

scores is then categorised as indicated in Table 8.

February 2019 18101804-322982-14

23

Table 8: Impact magnitude point score range

MP Score Magnitude rating

20.1≤ High

13.1 - 20.0 Moderate

6.1 - 13.0 Low

≤6.0 Negligible

8.4 Impact Magnitude Determination Based on the visual resource, VAC, receptor sensitivity and impact assessment criteria assessed in the preceding sections, the magnitude of the various impacts identified was determined for each phase of the project. Consequently, the impact magnitude determination for the construction and operational phases and

for the closure phase is presented Table 9 and Table 10.

February 2019 18101804-322982-14

24

Table 9: Construction and Operational Phase – Impact Magnitude

Visual Study area visual

resource

value

VAC weighting

factor

Level of

visibility

Visual

intrusion

Visual

exposure

Receptor sensitivity

factor

Impact magnitude

point score

Reduction in visual resource value due to presence of

silo and mine buildings.

2 1.2 3 3 2 1.2 23.04 (high)

Reduction in visual resource value due to the

overburden dump

2 1.2 3 3 2 1.2 23.04

(high)

Formation of dust plumes as a result of construction

activities

2 1.2 2 3 2 1.2 20.16 (high)

Light pollution at night. 2 1.2 2 3 2 1.2 20.16 (high)

Where for: visual resource value, visibility, visual intrusion and visual exposure: high=3; moderate=2; low=1; and receptor sensitivity: high = factor 1.2; moderate = factor 1; low = factor 0.8

February 2019 18101804-322982-14

25

Table 10: Decommissioning and Closure Phase – Impact Magnitude

Visual Study area visual

resource

value

VAC weighting

factor

Level of

visibility

Visual

intrusion

Visual

exposure

Receptor sensitivity

factor

Impact magnitude point

score

Reinstatement of visual resource value due to dismantling of silo and mining buildings and subsequent

rehabilitation of footprint areas.

2 1.2 1 0 2 1.2 8.64 (low)

Permanent alteration of site topographical and visual

character of due to presence of overburden dump.

2 1.2 3 2 2 1.2 20.16 (high)

Visible dust plumes during rehabilitation. 2 1.2 1 1 2 1.2 17.28 (moderate)

Where for: visual resource value, visibility, visual intrusion and visual exposure: high=3; moderate=2; low=1; and receptor sensitivity: high = factor 1.2; moderate = factor 1; low = factor 0.8

February 2019 18101804-322982-14

26

9.0 IMPACT ASSESSMENT RATING METHODOLOGY The significance of the identified impacts will be determined using the approach outlined below (terminology

from the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism Guideline document on EIA Regulations, April 1998). This approach incorporates two aspects for assessing the potential significance of impacts, namely

occurrence and severity, which are further sub-divided as follows:

Occurrence Severity

Probability of occurrence Duration of occurrence Scale/extent of impact Magnitude (severity) of

impact

To assess each of these factors for each impact, the following four ranking scales are used:

Table 11: Ranking scales for assessment of occurrence and severity of factors

Probability Duration

5 - Definite/don’t know 5 - Permanent

4 - Highly probable 4 - Long-term

3 - Medium probability 3 - Medium-term (8-15 years)

2 - Low probability 2 - Short-term (0-7 years) (impact ceases after the

operational life of the activity)

1 - Improbable 1 – Immediate

0 - None

Scale Magnitude

5 - International 10 - Very high/don’t know

4 - National 8 - High

3 - Regional 6 - Moderate

2 - Local 4 - Low

1 - Site only 2 - Minor

0 - None

February 2019 18101804-322982-14

27

Once these factors are ranked for each impact, the significance of the two aspects, occurrence and severity,

is assessed using the following formula:

SP (significance points) = (magnitude + duration + scale) x probability.

The maximum value is 100 significance points (SP). The impact significance will then be rated as follows:

SP >75 Indicates high

environmental significance

An impact which could influence the decision about whether or not to proceed with the project regardless of any possible

mitigation.

SP 30 – 75 Indicates moderate

environmental significance

An impact or benefit which is sufficiently important to require management and which could have an influence on the

decision unless it is mitigated.

SP <30 Indicates low environmental

significance

Impacts with little real effect and which should not have an

influence on or require modification of the project design.

+ Positive impact An impact that constitutes an improvement over pre-project

conditions.

9.1 Determination of Impact Significance Using the above criteria, the results of the impact significance assessment before and after mitigation, for the Construction and Operation Phase, as well as Decommissioning and Closure phase impacts, are presented in

Table 12.

Recommended mitigation measures are discussed in section 10.0.

February 2019 18101804-322982-14

28

Table 12: Impact assessment before and after mitigation.

PHASE POTENTIAL VISUAL IMPACTS VISUAL SIGNIFICANCE

Before mitigation After mitigation

M D S P SP Rating M D S P SP Rating

CONSTRUCTION AND

OPERATION PHASE

Reduction in visual resource value due to presence of silo and mine buildings. 8 4 2 5 70 Moderate 6 4 2 5 60 Moderate

Reduction in visual resource value due to the overburden dump. 8 5 2 5 75 High 8 5 2 5 75 High

Formation of dust plumes as a result of construction activities. 8 2 2 4 48 Moderate 4 2 2 2 16 Low

Light pollution at night. 8 2 2 4 48 Moderate 6 2 2 2 20 Low

DECOMMISSIONING AND

CLOSURE PHASE

Reinstatement of visual resource value due to dismantling of silo and mining buildings

and subsequent rehabilitation of footprint areas. 2 1 1 4 16 Low N.A. (decommissioning and

rehabilitation measures constitutes

visual mitigation)

Permanent alteration of site topographical and visual character of due to presence of

overburden dump. 8 5 2 5 75 High N.A. (decommissioning and

rehabilitation measures constitutes

visual mitigation)

Visible dust plumes during rehabilitation. 6 3 2 4 44 Moderate 4 3 2 2 18 Low

February 2019 18101804-322982-14

29

10.0 MITIGATION AND MONITORING MEASURES Visual mitigation of a mine can be approached in two ways, and usually a combination of the two

methodologies is most effective. The first option is to implement measures that attempt to reduce the visibility of the sources of a visual impact. Thus an attempt is made to "hide" the source of the visual impact from view,

by placing visually appealing elements between the viewer and the source of the visual impact.

The second option aims to minimise the degree or severity of the visual impact itself, and usually involves

altering the source of the impact in such a way that it is smaller in physical extent and/or less intrusive in

appearance. This can be done by decreasing the size of disturbances, such as stockpiles, dumps and buildings or by shaping, positioning, colouring and/or covering them in such a way that they blend in with the surrounding scenery to a certain degree. For instance, the visual impact of an artificial landform can be

reduced somewhat by shaping it in an appropriate fashion, covering it with topsoil, re-seeding it with

indigenous grasses, etc.

Construction and operational mitigation possibilities are very limited for the proposed project, as a result of the scale and location of the mine, as well as the functional/operational requirements of the infrastructure and mining areas. Visual mitigation efforts should therefore be focussed on reducing the long-term post-closure

impacts caused by the mine, through effective post-operational rehabilitation.

The proposed visual mitigation measures for the construction, operational and decommissioning and closure

phases are presented in Table 13.

Table 13: Recommended mitigation measures

Component Mitigation Measures

Construction Phase

Dust Control Water down haul roads and large bare areas as frequently as is required to

minimise airborne dust;

Place a sufficiently deep layer of crushed rock or gravel at vehicle and

machinery parking areas;

Apply chemical dust suppressants if deemed necessary;

Enforce a 50 km/h speed limit on-site for Light Duty Vehicles and a 40 km/h

speed limit for large construction vehicles and machinery; and

Implement a dust bucket fallout monitoring system.

General Site

Management Maintain the construction site in a neat and orderly condition at all times;

Create designated areas for material storage, waste sorting and temporary

storage, batching and other potentially intrusive activities;

Limit the physical extents of areas cleared for material laydown, vehicle parking and the like as much as possible and rehabilitate these as soon as is feasible;

and

Repair unsightly and ecologically detrimental erosion damage to steep or bare slopes as soon as possible and re-vegetate these areas using a suitable mix of

indigenous grass species.

February 2019 18101804-322982-14

30


Operational Phase

Management of Light Pollution

Utilise security lighting (if feasible) that is movement activated rather than

permanently switched on, to prevent unnecessary constant illumination;

Plan the lighting requirements of the facilities to ensure that lighting meets the need to keep the site secure and safe, without resulting in excessive

illumination;

Reduce the height and angle of illumination from which floodlights are fixed as

much as possible while still maintaining the required levels of illumination;

Identify zones of high and low lighting requirements, focusing on only

illuminating areas to the minimum extent possible to allow safe operations at

night and for security surveillance;

Avoid up-lighting of structures by rather directing lighting downwards and

focussed on the area to be illuminated; and

Fit all security lighting with ‘blinkers’ or specifically designed fixtures, to ensure

light is directed downwards while preventing side spill. Light fixtures of this description are commonly available for a variety of uses and should be used to

the greatest extent possible.

Dust Control See recommendations for Construction Phase.

Architectural

Measures To reduce the visual intrusion of the buildings, roofing and cladding material

should not be white or shiny (e.g. bare galvanised steel that causes glare);

Construct and/or paint offices and workshop buildings in colours that are

complementary to the surrounding landscape, such as olive green, light grey,

grey green, blue grey, dark buff, rust, ochre variations of tan; and

Utilise construction materials that have matt textures where possible.

Site Management Shape any slopes and embankments to a maximum gradient of 1:4 and

vegetate, to prevent erosion and improve their appearance;

Avoid using berms as visual screening devices, except in instances where vegetative screens are not feasible, as they are usually as intrusive as the

elements that they are screening;

Shape and vegetate topsoil stockpiles to prevent erosion;

Retain existing trees wherever possible, as they already provide valuable

screening;

Plant indigenous trees in all landscaped areas, as well as around plant

infrastructure to break structural form and provide visual screens; and

February 2019 18101804-322982-14

31


Implement and maintain landscaping using indigenous plants and water-wise

methods wherever visitors are expected, to improve the overall appearance of

the mine.

Decommissioning and Closure

Overburden Dump Shape the overburden dump’s slopes and crest to pre-determined maximum gradient/s which will prevent erosion and allow for adequate vegetation growth

while taking the appearance of the natural topography into consideration;

Place top soil to a suitable depth on the overburden dump and re-vegetate using a suitable mix of indigenous grass species, and consider using locally occurring

tree species, such as Vachellia karroo, to break the profile of the facility;

Conduct on-going monitoring and maintenance of the rehabilitated dump to

ensure that vegetation establishes successfully and that erosion does not occur;

and

Employ control measures to eradicate weedy and alien invader plant species as

required.

General Site Management

Dismantle and remove all visible surface built infrastructure (e.g. buildings,

silo’s) during decommissioning;

Re-shape all footprint areas to be as natural in appearance as possible and

actively revegetate using locally occurring grass species;

Stabilise and backfill the decline shaft, and contour to ensure it is free draining;

Establish a vigorous and self-sustaining vegetation cover using locally occurring

grass species;

Conduct on-going monitoring and maintenance of all rehabilitated areas to ensure that vegetation establishes successfully and that erosion does not occur;

and

Employ control measures to eradicate weedy and alien invader plant species as

required.

11.0 CONCLUSION The project site and most of the surrounding land comprises a mosaic of cultivated fields, open grassland/wetlands, and isolated pockets of woody vegetation, on a generally flat to slightly undulating

landscape. Farming is the predominant land use. Residential areas associated with Sasolburg and Deneysville are present in the west and east of the study area, respectively, while numerous other homesteads and smaller residential areas are scattered throughout it. Prominent drainage features include

inter alia, the Vaal River, Taaibosspruit, and numerous ox-bow lakes, pans and farm dams. Overall, the study

area thus has a rural aesthetic and a moderate visual resource value.

February 2019 18101804-322982-14

32

Planned mine infrastructure, specifically the proposed silo and overburden dump, will have a direct negative

impact on the visual environment, while secondary impacts, such as dust emission and lighting at night, will

also manifest as visual disturbances from project initiation.

Several visual mitigation measures have been identified to address the anticipated visual impacts. We note that due to the open visual character of the landscape, coupled with the dimensions of proposed infrastructure, there is limited scope for potential mitigation during the construction and operational phases.

We therefore highlight the need to focus on reclaiming and rehabilitating the long-term visual quality of the

landscape during the decommissioning and closure phase.

All disturbed areas should be correctly shaped and contoured to facilitate free draining and, as far as possible, reflect the natural form and topography of the landscape. Where sufficient resources (e.g. topsoil) are available, disturbed areas should also be actively revegetated using locally occurring indigenous grasses. To

break the geometric profile of the overburden dump, it is also recommended that indigenous trees, such as

Vachellia Karroo, be considered for establishment during the rehabilitation of this facility.

12.0 REFERENCES Crawford, D. (1994) Using remotely sensed data in landscape visual quality assessment, Landscape and Urban Planning, 30, pp. 71–81.

Hull, R. and Bishop, I. (1998) Scenic Impacts of Electricity Transmission Towers: The influence of landscape type and observer distance, Journal of Environmental Management, pp. 99–108.

Mucina, L. and Rutherford, M. (2006) The Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Pretoria: Reprint 2011, Strelitzia 19, South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI).

Oberholzer, B. (2008) Guideline for involving visual and aesthetic specialists in EIA processes, DEA Visual Guideline, Edition 1.

Young, G. (2004) Visual impact assessment for proposed long-term coal supply to Eskom’s Majuba NLA. Johannesburg.

February 2019 18101804-322982-14

33

Signature Page

Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd.

Andrew Zinn Johan Bothma Terrestrial Ecologist Landscape Architect

AZ/JB/jep

Reg. No. 2002/007104/07 Directors: RGM Heath, MQ Mokulubete, SC Naidoo, GYW Ngoma

Golder and the G logo are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation

g:\projects\18101804 - seritinewvaal ncvmra\6. deliverables\drafts\specialists\visual\final for public comment\18101804-322982-14_via_draft report_v4_2019.03.28.docx

February 2019 18101804-322982-14

APPENDIX A

Document Limitations

DOCUMENT LIMITATIONS

GAA GAIMS Form 10, Version 4, August 2018 Golder and the G logo are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation

Document is uncontrolled if downloaded or printed Page 35 of 43

This document has been provided by Golder Associates Africa Pty Ltd (“Golder”) subject to the following

limitations:

i) This Document has been prepared for the particular purpose outlined in Golder’s proposal and no responsibility is accepted for the use of this Document, in whole or in part, in other contexts or for any other purpose.

ii) The scope and the period of Golder’s Services are as described in Golder’s proposal, and are subject to restrictions and limitations. Golder did not perform a complete assessment of all possible conditions or circumstances that may exist at the site referenced in the Document. If a service is not expressly indicated, do not assume it has been provided. If a matter is not addressed, do not assume that any determination has been made by Golder in regard to it.

iii) Conditions may exist which were undetectable given the limited nature of the enquiry Golder was retained to undertake with respect to the site. Variations in conditions may occur between investigatory locations, and there may be special conditions pertaining to the site which have not been revealed by the investigation and which have not therefore been taken into account in the Document. Accordingly, additional studies and actions may be required.

iv) In addition, it is recognised that the passage of time affects the information and assessment provided in this Document. Golder’s opinions are based upon information that existed at the time of the production of the Document. It is understood that the Services provided allowed Golder to form no more than an opinion of the actual conditions of the site at the time the site was visited and cannot be used to assess the effect of any subsequent changes in the quality of the site, or its surroundings, or any laws or regulations.

v) Any assessments made in this Document are based on the conditions indicated from published sources and the investigation described. No warranty is included, either express or implied, that the actual conditions will conform exactly to the assessments contained in this Document.

vi) Where data supplied by the client or other external sources, including previous site investigation data, have been used, it has been assumed that the information is correct unless otherwise stated. No responsibility is accepted by Golder for incomplete or inaccurate data supplied by others.

vii) The Client acknowledges that Golder may have retained sub-consultants affiliated with Golder to provide Services for the benefit of Golder. Golder will be fully responsible to the Client for the Services and work done by all its sub-consultants and subcontractors. The Client agrees that it will only assert claims against and seek to recover losses, damages or other liabilities from Golder and not Golder’s affiliated companies. To the maximum extent allowed by law, the Client acknowledges and agrees it will not have any legal recourse, and waives any expense, loss, claim, demand, or cause of action, against Golder’s affiliated companies, and their employees, officers and directors.

viii) This Document is provided for sole use by the Client and is confidential to it and its professional advisers. No responsibility whatsoever for the contents of this Document will be accepted to any person other than the Client. Any use which a third party makes of this Document, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, is the responsibility of such third parties. Golder accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party because of decisions made or actions based on this Document.

GOLDER ASSOCIATES AFRICA (PTY) LTD

APPENDIX B

Specialist Declaration and CV

SPECIALIST DECLARATION As required under Appendix 6 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2014 (as amended), I,

Andrew Zinn, declare that:

I act as an independent specialist in this application;

I will perform the work relating to the application in an objective manner, even if this results in views and

findings that are not favourable to the applicant;

I declare that there are no circumstances that may compromise my objectivity in performing such work;

I have expertise in conducting the specialist report relevant to this application, including knowledge of

Acts, Regulations and any guidelines that have relevance to the proposed activity;

I will comply with all applicable Acts and Regulations in compiling this report;

I have no, and will not engage in, conflicting interests in the undertaking of the activity;

I undertake to disclose to the applicant and the competent authority all material information in my

possession that reasonably has or may have the potential of influencing:

any decision to be taken with respect to the application by the competent authority; and

the objectivity of any report, plan or document to be prepared by myself for submission to the

competent authority;

All the particulars furnished by me in this declaration are true and correct.

Signature of the specialist:

Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd

Name of company (if applicable):

28 February 2019

Date:

1

Resumé ANDREW ZINN (PR. SCI. NAT.)

Education

MSc. Resource Conservation Biology, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, 2013

BSc. Hons. Ecology and Conservation Biology, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, 2005

BSc. Zoology and Grassland Science, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, 2004

Certifications

Member of the South African Wildlife Management Association, 2013

Registered with the South African Council of Natural Scientific Professions as a Professional Natural Scientist , 2015

Languages

English – Fluent

Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd – Johannesburg

Terrestrial Ecologist Andrew Zinn is a terrestrial ecologist with Golder Associates Africa Pty Ltd. In this role he conducts terrestrial ecology studies, comprising flora and fauna surveys, for baseline ecological assessments and ecological impact assessments. He has worked on projects in several African countries including Botswana, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ghana, Mozambique, South Africa and Tanzania. Andrew is a qualified ecologist, holding a Master of Science degree in Resource Conservation Biology from the University of the Witwatersrand. Before joining Golder's Ecology Division, Andrew worked for WSP Environment and Energy. He has also worked on a range of conservation and ecology related projects, both locally in South Africa, including work in the Kruger National Park, as well as further afield in Northern Ireland and the United Arab Emirates. Andrew is registered with the South African Council for Natural Scientific Professions as a Professional Natural Scientist - Ecological Science.

Employment History

Sub-contracted to KPMG UAE – Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates Independent ecological consultant (2011 to 2011)

I was subcontracted to KPMG UAE as a subject matter expert on a team conducting an internal audit of the Conservation Department of Sir Bani Yas Desert Island, in the United Arab Emirates. The island is a conservation and tourism destination off the coast of Abu Dhabi, in the Arabian Gulf.

WSP Environment and Energy – Johannesburg Consultant (2008 to 2011)

As an environmental consultant I was involved in a wide range of environmental projects. These included managing environmental authorisation projects (EIA and BA studies), facilitating stakeholder engagement processes, conducting compliance audits and developing environmental management programmes (EMP). I was also involved in specialist ecological projects.

Yale University/Kansas State University – Satara, Kruger National Park Researcher (2007 to 2008)

I was employed as a research technician on the Savanna Convergence Project in the Kruger National Park, South Africa. The project is long-term, cross-continental study investigating the roles of fire and herbivory on savanna/prairie vegetation dynamics. I was responsible for the collection and analyses of vegetation and herbivore distribution data.

2


PROJECT EXPERIENCE – ECOLOGY

Bidvest Tank Terminals, Quarry 2

Tank Terminals KwaZulu-Natal, South

Africa

Developed a rehabilitation plan for the upgrading of the Quarry 2 Tank Terminals in the Durban Harbour complex.

Frontier Mine Katanga Province,

Democratic Republic of Congo

Conducted a biodiversity screening study for the Frontier Mine Concession in line with the requirements Performance Standard 6 of the International Finance Corporation (IFC), concerning Biodiversity Conservation and the Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources.

Metalkol Mine Katanga Province,


Conducted a terrestrial ecology assessment of the Metalkol Mine Concession in line with the requirements Performance Standard 6 of the International Finance Corporation (IFC), concerning Biodiversity Conservation and the Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources.

Boss and COMIDE Mines

Katanga Province, Democratic Republic of

Congo

Conducted a terrestrial ecology assessment of the Boss and COMIDE Mine Concessions in line with the requirements Performance Standard 6 of the International Finance Corporation (IFC), concerning Biodiversity Conservation and the Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources.

Kipoi Copper Mine Katanga Province,


Conducted a terrestrial ecology assessment of the Kipoi Mine Concession in line with the requirements Performance Standard 6 of the International Finance Corporation (IFC), concerning Biodiversity Conservation and the Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources.

Kipushi Mine Katanga Province,


Conducted a terrestrial ecology assessment, including flora and fauna sampling, of the Kipushi Mine lease area.

Arcelor Mittal Gauteng and Western

Cape, South Africa

Conducted exotic invasive plant species assessments at various Arcelor Mittal properties, including Vereeniging, Vanderbijlpark, Pretoria and Suldanha

Phalaborwa Mining Company

Limpopo Province, South Africa

Conduct annual VEGRAI monitoring assessments at select sampling points along the Olifants and Selati Rivers.

Kusile Power Station Mpumalanga Province,

South Africa

Completed a search and rescue operation of Red Data and Protected plants growing in the development footprint of the proposed Kusile Power Station 10 year ash stack.

Ndumo - Gezisa Power-line Project

Maputaland, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa

Conducted a terrestrial ecology assessment, including flora and fauna sampling, of the proposed route alternatives of the Ndumo-Gezisa Power-line.

3


Scaw Metals - Manufacturing

Facilities Gauteng & Free State,

South Africa

Conducted exotic invasive plant species assessment at various Scaw Metal properties to provide control and eradication recommendations.

Jwaneng Diamond Mine

Southern District, Botswana

Conducted a flora assessment of undisturbed and disturbed areas at Jwaneng Diamond Mine to inform the development of a re-vegetation protocol, as part of the mines rehabilitation programme.

Komoa Copper Project Katanga Province,


Participated on the terrestrial ecology assessment of the exploration area of the proposed Komoa Copper Mine.

Bulyanhulu Gold Mine Shinyana Region,

Tanzania

Conducted a terrestrial ecology assessment, including flora and fauna sampling, of the site of the proposed tailings facility No. 4 at Bulyanhulu Gold Mine.

Tshikondeni Coal Mine Limpopo Province,

South Africa

Conducted a terrestrial ecology assessment of theTshikondeni Coal Mine lease area, with the aim of providing a ecological baseline to inform the development of a mine rehabilitation plan.

Grootegeluk Coal Mine Limpopo Province,

South Africa

Conducted an ecological sensitivities assessment of the sites of the proposed entrance road and cyclic ponds at Exxaro Coal's Grootegeluk Mine.

Mafube Colliery - Nooitgedacht

Mpumalanga Province, South Africa

Conducted an ecological survey and impact assessment of the Nooitgedacht portion of the proposed Mafube Colliery.

Ruighoek Chrome Mine

North-West Province, South Africa

Conducted an ecological survey and impact assessment of areas of Ruighoek Mine in which open cast pit mining has been proposed.

TRAINING

Basic Principles of Ecological Rehabilitation and Mine Closure Centre for Environmental Management, North-West University, 2008

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS

South African Council for Natural Scientific Professions

Southern African Wildlife Management Association

PUBLICATIONS

Journal Articles Burkepile, D.E., C.E. Burns, E. Amendola, G.M. Buis, N. Govender, V. Nelson, C.J. Tambling, D.I. Thompson, A.D. Zinn and M.D. Smith. Habitat selection by large herbivores in a southern African savanna: the relative roles of bottom-up and top-down forces. Ecosphere, 4(11):139 (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/ES13-00078.7.

4


Knapp, A.K., D.L. Hoover, J.M. Blair, G. Buis, D.E. Burkepile, A. Chamberlain,

S.L. Collins, R.W.S Fynn, K.P. Kirkman, M.D. Smith, D. Blake, N. Govender, P. O'Neal, T. Schreck and A. Zinn. A test of two mechanisms proposed to optimize grassland aboveground primary productivity in response to grazing. Journal of Plant Ecology, 5 (2012), 357-365.

Zinn, A.D., D. Ward and K. Kirkman. Inducible defences in Acacia sieberiana in

response to giraffe browsing. African Journal of Range and Forage Science, 24 (2007), 123-129.

Zinn, A.D.. Exploitation vs. Conservation: A Burgeoning Fifth Column -. African

Wildlife, 61 (2007), 9-11.

golder.com

Documents

APPENDIX O Visual Impact Assessment...February 2019 18101804-322982-14 i Distribution List 1 x electronic copy Seriti Coal (Pty) Limited 1 x electronic copy e-projects library [email protected]