ch9 visual impacts - csirfred.csir.co.za/project/smelter/report/ch9_visualimpacts.pdf · landscape...

EIA FOR THE PROPOSED COEGA ALUMINIUM SMELTER WITHIN THE COEGA INDUSTRIAL

DEVELOPMENT ZONE, PORT ELIZABETH, SA

FINAL TECHNOLOGY REVIEW REPORT – JULY 2005

CHAPTER 9:

Visual Impacts

9. VISUAL IMPACTS ______________________________________ 9-1

9.1 Introduction and Methodology _________________________________________ 9-1 9.1.1 Scope and Objectives of the Visual Study ___________________________________ 9-1 9.1.2 New Information on the Project__________________________________________ 9-1 9.1.3 Methodology used in the Re-assessment _____________________________________ 9-1 9.1.4 Assumptions and Limitations __________________________________________ 9-2

9.2 Updated Project Description___________________________________________ 9-2 9.2.1 Description of New Project Components ____________________________________ 9-2 9.2.2 Comparison with Previous Proposal _______________________________________ 9-3

9.3 Key Issues Potentially Affected by Changes in the Project Proposal____________ 9-3 9.4 Updated Visual Impact Assessment and Mitigation _________________________ 9-7

9.4.1 Changes in the Visibility of the Project _____________________________________ 9-7 9.4.2 Re-assessment of Visual Impact _________________________________________ 9-7 9.4.3 Re-assessment of Mitigation ____________________________________________ 9-9

9.5 Review of Implications for the Record of Decision_________________________ 9-10




List of Figures FIGURE 9.1a: Previous AP50 – closeup viewpoints__________________________________ 9-11 FIGURE 9.1b: Proposed AP35 – closeup viewpoints _________________________________ 9-12 FIGURE 9.1c: Proposed AP35 – (with mitigation) closeup viewpoints ____________________ 9-13 FIGURE 9.2a: Previous AP50 ___________________________________________________ 9-14 FIGURE 9.2b: Proposed AP35 __________________________________________________ 9-15 FIGURE 9.2c: Proposed AP35 – with mitigation _____________________________________ 9-16

List of Tables Table 9.1 Revised Schedule of Proposed Facilities________________________________ 9-4 Table 9.2 Revised Visibility of Proposed Facilities_________________________________ 9-6 Table 9.3a Summary Assessment of Visual Impacts predicted during the Construction

Phase ___________________________________________________________ 9-8 Table 9.3b Summary Assessment of Visual Impacts predicted during the Operational Phase 9-8




Page 9-1

9. VISUAL IMPACTS This section is based on the specialist study prepared by Bernie Oberholzer (Bernard Oberholzer Landscape Architects) and Quinton Lawson (MLB Architects).

9.1 Introduction and Methodology 9.1.1 Scope and Objectives of the Visual Study

The purpose of the updated visual specialist study is to identify where the change from an AP50 to an AP35 smelter leads to a change in the predicted visual impact assessment ratings, as set out in the previous Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) prepared as part of the EIA in 2002. The visual specialists have therefore been requested to perform the following tasks:

Review the information provided by Alcan and ascertain if the information is adequate to prepare a re-assessment of the potential visual impacts;

Conduct a re-evaluation of the proposed smelter in order to make comparisons with the previous design;

Re-assess the potential visual impacts and mitigation measures, and make input into the Technology Review.

9.1.2 New Information on the Project

Information has been provided by Alcan (2004a) on changes to the aluminium smelter at Coega. The most significant changes, with implications for the visual assessment, include the following:

A shift in the alignment of the plant on the site;

A change in the plan configuration, or footprint, of the plant;

The possible change from the previous dome silos to cylindrical silos.

These changes are reflected in Table 9.1, and in the attached Figures 9.1a,b and 9.2a,b. 9.1.3 Methodology used in the Re-assessment

Information, including selected viewpoints and view corridors, as well as 3D models, generated in the previous VIA (Oberholzer and Lawson, 2002), formed the basis for the present assessment. A comparison was made of factors, such as viewing distances, siting and plan layout, between the previous proposal and the current proposal. The visual criteria were then carefully examined




Page 9-2

to determine whether there would be any change in the significance of the visual impact ratings from those determined in the previous study. Finally, the appropriateness of the mitigation measures for the previous proposal were re-examined and, where necessary, changes recommended for the new proposals. 9.1.4 Assumptions and Limitations

The visual re-assessment has been based on information provided in the document by Alcan (2004a) on the differences between the AP50 and the AP35 technologies, and on a plan of the proposed plant, dated 03 December 2004. No indication has been given of future expansion of the plant, and it was therefore assumed that the proposals, as presented, represent the final layout of the smelter being assessed in this study. No elevations or 3-D models of the new proposal were available at the time of preparing this report, and the visual re-assessment was based therefore on the above information. It was assumed that the form and finishes of the structures would be similar to those of the previous proposal. It was assumed that the conveyor belt and related port facilities would be the same or similar to the previous proposal, and these were therefore not re-assessed. (The conveyor belt route will change slightly between the culverts under the N2, and would increase in height to reach the top of the higher cylindrical silos). It has also been indicated that the conveyor design may change to a pipe conveyor, which will eliminate the need for a covered (cladded) support structure, since the pipe conveyor is self enclosed. This alternative has not been modelled, but would probably not have a significant influence on the overall visual impact. As in the previous VIA of 2002, it was assumed that the visual assessment of the powerlines that will supply the plant (and the port), will form part of a separate assessment commissioned by ESKOM. It is, however, important that the visual impact of these powerlines is taken into account in terms of the overall, cumulative impact relating to the proposed plant.

9.2 Updated Project Description 9.2.1 Description of New Project Components

The new proposal for the AP35 smelter plant will consist of 2 potlines, instead of the 1 potline envisaged in the previous proposal. According to the Alcan document (2004a), the design and layout will be similar to existing smelters with similar technology. The layout is illustrated in Figures 9.1b and 9.2b, and a schedule of proposed facilities is given in Table 9.1.




Page 9-3

9.2.2 Comparison with Previous Proposal

The overall layout and footprint of the proposed AP35 plant (Figures 9.1b and 9.2b), will be roughly similar to that of the previous AP50 (Figures 9.1a and 9.2a). The construction laydown areas would in each case be roughly the same, and would be rehabilitated after use (Information provided by email from Alcan). According to Alcan (2004a), the visual aspects of the proposed AP35 smelter could change, as a more reflective cladding is being envisaged. In an email communication dated 12 January 2005, the finish is described as 'a uniform very pale pearl grey for all the buildings'. It has also been proposed that cylindrical silos would replace the dome silos of the previous proposal. It appears that the cylindrical silos will be some 10 metres higher than the previously proposed dome silos (i.e. approximately 50m high as opposed to approximately 40 high for the AP50 proposal). The conveyor tower between the silos would therefore also be higher than previously modelled. A comparison of the footprints and heights of the various components of the smelter is given in Table 9.1. The implications, in terms of 'visibility' of the structures, remains largely unchanged, as reflected in Table 9.2.

9.3 Key Issues Potentially Affected by Changes in the Project Proposal

Various issues and concerns relating to the AP50 smelter plant were identified in the earlier Scoping Report for the proposed AP50 smelter (CSIR, 2002a). Issues relating to visibility of the proposed smelter from the Greater Addo National Park are unlikely to be affected by the new proposal, because of the considerable distance of some 15 to 16km (see Table 9.2). Based on visual simulations in the previous VIA, the plant was considered to be hardly distinguishable on the horizon at this distance, and the proposed changes to the design of the plant would therefore not be an issue. In terms of visibility from the N2 National Road, the new proposal is presently sited slightly closer to the N2. The difference, however, is marginal in terms of the overall view catchment area, and does not increase the 'visibility' category in Table 9.2 for the relevant viewpoints. The siting of the plant is discussed in the updated mitigation measures. The significance of lighting from the plant would not increase, provided that the same assumptions and mitigations as those used in the previous VIA are adhered to.




Page 9-4

The issue of cylindrical silos being used, instead of the domes, as modelled in the previous VIA, could affect the visual impact of the plant, because of the outline form and additional height of the cylinders, particularly when seen in silhouette against the skyline.

Table 9.1 Revised Schedule of Proposed Facilities Proposed Facilities at the Plant

Previous Footprint

AP50

Proposed Footprint

AP35

Previous Height AP50

Proposed Height AP35

Total cleared area incl. construction laydown* (a) + (b) + (c)

135 ha Approx 120 ha

54m elevation above MSL

No change

(a) Building area 25 ha 32 ha Varies Varies

(b) Hardened area (e.g. parking, roads, storage), as well as

25 ha 13 ha N/A N/A

(c ) Unsealed area (mainly grassed or vegetated) and construction laydown / future expansion area

85 ha 75 ha N/A N/A

Potrooms 1200 x 30m (x2)

Approx 1070 x 25m (x4)

22,8m Assume no change

Bulk storage silos Dome 40m (Table 13.2,

CSIR, 2002b)

Cylinder 50m (Lesley Mpanza, Alcan,

email, 30/5/2005) Conveyor tower between silos

58m Assume ±60m

Paste plant 45m Assume no change

Gas /fume treatment stacks

3 stacks 6 stacks 50m No change in height

Casthouse stacks x 5 32m Assume no change

Proposed Alcan facilities at Port of Nqgura

Enclosed conveyor belt (or possible pipe conveyor)

3,8km length Similar, depending on

siting

Av. ht. 4-10m At silo 4-58m

No change Possibly higher with

cylindrical silos Ship unloaders x 2 170m2 Assume no

change 40m No change

Liquid pitch and metal storage

3 900m2 Assume no change

Height. unknown

Height unknown

* The site area for the AP50 smelter during operations was given as 120 ha (CSIR, 2002b and Alcan, 2004a).

The 135 ha includes the construction laydown area, which was estimated to be approx. 30 ha. The degree of visibility in a relatively flat landscape is determined largely by distance, although silhouette effects against the skyline tend to increase visibility. The following degrees of visibility were included in Table 9.2 :




Page 9-5

Highly visible Dominant within the observers view frame (0 to 2km); Visible Strongly noticeable within the observers view frame (2 to 4km) Moderately visible Recognisable feature within observers view frame (4 to 6km) Marginally visible Not particularly noticeable within observers view frame (6 to 8km) Hardly visible Practically not visible unless pointed out to observer (8km+) Note 1: The distances indicated from various viewpoints in Table 9.2 have been slightly changed from those in the previous VIA Report to now indicate the distance to the nearest structures of the proposed plant, for purposes of consistency. Note 2: The distances indicated in bold indicate that the proposed AP35 smelter, as presently sited, would be marginally closer to a number of viewpoints, including those on the N2.




Page 9-6

Table 9.2 Revised Visibility of Proposed Facilities

Affected Area View

point Distance from previous AP50

Distance from current AP35

Potential Visibility

Mountain pass through Zuurberg

VP 1 45km unchanged Lights of Port Elizabeth and Coega IDZ marginally visible in the distance at night. Proposed site not distinguishable.

Southern ext. of Addo National Park nr Ingleside

VP 2 15,4km unchanged Lights of Port Elizabeth and Coega IDZ marginally visible in the distance at night. Proposed plant hardly distinguishable behind ridge.

N2 National Rd looking south

VP3 7,6km 7,5km Plant marginally visible behind ridge to road-user. Lights of plant moderately visible directly ahead of road-user..


VP 4 3,1km unchanged Plant visible in the middle distance on the skyline. Silhouette effect. Conveyor belt moderately visible.


VP 5 2,5km 2,6km Visible on the skyline. Silhouette effect. Conveyor belt visible.

N2 and Coega Rd intersection

VP 6 1,6km 1,5km Visible on the skyline. Silhouette effect.

Coegakop VP 7 1,8km 2,2km Previously highly visible on the plain below. Becomes visible in the new proposal, being further from Coegakop.

R334 Uitenhage Rd

VP 8 3,6km unchanged Moderately visible in the middle distance on the skyline. Silhouette effect. Conveyor marginally visible. Moderated by foreground vegetation.

R334 Uitenhage Rd

VP 9 2,9km 2,8km Moderately visible in the middle distance on the skyline. Silhouette effect. Conveyor marginally visible. Moderated by foreground vegetation.

From new haul road looking east

VP 10

<1km 1,1km Highly visible in the foreground. Conveyor not visible.

From new haul road at Markman Industria

VP 11

1km 0,6km Highly visible in the middle distance on the skyline. Silhouette effect. Moderated by foreground vegetation.

N2 / St Georges Strand intersection

VP 12

4,7km 4,3km Moderately visible in the middle distance on the skyline. Silhouette effect.

N2 / New Haul Road bridge

VP 13

2km 1,7km Highly visible in the distance. Silhouette effect.

N2 Coega River salt pans

VP 14

<1km 2,7km

unchanged Conveyor belt highly visible. Ship-unloaders marginally visible.

Bluewater Bay VP 15

7,8km 7,5km Complex hardly visible in the distance. Navigation lights on stacks may be visible at night. Moderated by Motherwell light masts in the middle distance.




-7

9.4 Updated Visual Impact Assessment and Mitigation 9.4.1 Changes in the Visibility of the Project

Potential visual impacts and benefits were outlined in Table 9.3 of the previous VIA Report (Oberholzer and Lawson, 2002). The rating of these remain unchanged, and are therefore not repeated here. The reason for this is that the overall scale and siting of the plant are such that the changes are not significant enough to affect the previous ratings. Marginal changes include:

A variation in the plan layout, and number of potlines, resulting in a slightly smaller footprint for the proposed plant (see Figures 9.1b and 9.2b).

A re-alignment of the siting and orientation of the plant, resulting in some variation to the distance between viewpoints and the proposed plant, but seldom more than 300m variation, (see Table 9.2, and Figures 9.1b and 9.2b).

The use of slightly higher cylindrical silos in place of the dome silos, resulting in these structures being about 10m higher.

These changes could not be accurately determined in the form of visual simulations of the plant, because of the lack of elevations or 3-D models of the new proposed plant. However, a cursory examination of the previous visual simulations revealed that the new proposals would not result in a significant change in visibility, because of the considerable distance of most of the viewpoints from the proposed plant. It is recommended, however, that these changes be addressed in the mitigation measures outlined in Section 9.4.3 in this report. 9.4.2 Re-assessment of Visual Impact

The nature of the predicted visual impacts will remain similar to those in the previous EIR (2002, Ch.13), namely:

Potential visual intrusion of the proposed smelter, conveyor belt and port facilities on the natural and amenity value of the existing coastal / rural landscape.

Potential increase of lighting at night, including navigation lights on the tall stacks, which may be visible to surrounding areas, shipping, and the islands in the bay.

The significance and rating of the visual impacts is unchanged from those in the previous EIR, (CSIR, 2002b, Chapter 13), for reasons given in 4.1 above. A summary of the visual impacts is given in Tables 9.3a and 9.3b, below.




Page 9-8

The cumulative effects and magnitude of the visual impacts remain unchanged from those identified in the previous EIR (CSIR, 2002b). Notwithstanding the unchanged visual impact ratings, the change in the design of the plant requires that the mitigation measures outlined in Section 9.4.3 be addressed.

Table 9.3a Summary Assessment of Visual Impacts predicted during the Construction Phase

Nature of the Impact

Status Extent Duration Intensity Probability of

occurrence

Significance without

mitigation

Significance assuming mitigation

Confidence

(a) Impact of structures on visual/scenic quality. (b) Impact of lighting on visual/ scenic quality.

Negative

N/A

Local to

subregion

N/A

Short-term

N/A

Med-high

N/A

High

N/A

High

N/A

Med-high

N/A

High

N/A

Table 9.3b Summary Assessment of Visual Impacts predicted during the Operational Phase

Nature of the Impact

Status Extent Duration Intensity Probability of

occurrence

Significance without

mitigation

Significance assuming mitigation

Confidence

(a) Impact of structures on visual/scenic quality.

(b) Impact of lighting on visual/ scenic quality.

Negative

Negative

Local to

subregion

Local to subregion

Long-term

Long-term

High

Medium

High

High

High

Medium

Med-high

Medium

High

Medium

Operational (10 –20 years time, with surrounding industry in the IDZ) (a) Impact of structures on visual/scenic quality.

(b) Impact of lighting on visual/ scenic quality.

Negative

Negative

Local to

subregion

Local to subregion

Long-term

Long-term

High

Medium

High

High

Med-high

Low-med

Med-high

Low-med

High

Medium




Page 9-9

Conventions used in the Visual Impact Assessment: Significance of Potential Visual Impacts: Low: The visual impact would not have an influence on the decision or require significant accommodation

in the project design.

Medium: The visual impact could have an influence on the environment, requiring modification of the project design, or mitigation.

High: The visual impact could have a 'no-go' implication for the project regardless of any possible mitigation.

Assessment of Impact Significance: Nature of Impact: Visual effect that a project would have on the environment.

Extent: Whether the visual impact would be local, regional or national.

Duration: The lifetime of the visual impact i.e. short-term, medium-term, or long-term (>15 years), or permanent.

Intensity: Whether the visual impact is in destructive terms low, medium or high in relation to visual and scenic resources.

Probability: The likelihood of the visual impact occurring, i.e. improbable, probable, highly probable, or definite.

Status of Impact: Whether the visual impact would be positive (benefit), negative ( a cost), or neutral.

Degree of Confidence: Confidence in the prediction of visual impacts based on available information and specialist knowledge.

9.4.3 Re-assessment of Mitigation

Besides the mitigation measures outlined in the previous EIR Report (CSIR, 2002b, Section 13.5.5), the following additional mitigations are recommended:

The proposed AP35 plant could be re-sited to the north-west corner of the site. This would result in the plant being located further back on the plateau, and would increase the distance from certain viewpoints, including those along the N2, by 300m in some cases. The overall effect would be to marginally reduce the visibility of the plant from the surrounding area (see Figures 9.1c and 9.2c). The practicality of this re-siting would have to be determined1.

The previously proposed dome silos should preferably be used instead of the currently proposed cylindrical silos which are some 10m higher than the dome design and which would be more pronounced against the skyline. The dome silos have a more subtle profile.

1 Note from recent discussions with Alcan: The layout of the smelter on the site has been designed to minimise earth moving required to create the level terraces required for the long potrooms; as well as to allow space for the possibility of adding a third potline, should this option be investigated in the future. If a third potline is considered, it would be subject to a separate EIA process.




Page 9-10

The previous intention of using a pale grey colour for all building cladding should be adhered to. Use of a reflective cladding should be avoided.

9.5 Review of Implications for the Record of Decision The Record of Decision (Dec. 2002) includes a number conditions pertaining to visual aspects. These cover the mitigation recommendations contained in this report relating to the treatment and colour of structures and to site works. These conditions should be retained. The issues relating to the siting of the plant and the choice of silos need to be addressed as part of the review process of the final layout and architectural design of the plant. In the absence of 3D modelling and photo-montage simulations, it is difficult to predict precisely the significance of the latest proposals. However, using the simulations of the previous proposals as a guide, the following was concluded:

The siting of the smelter within the property, and the choice of cylindrical silos over the dome design would have marginal significance, when seen in terms of the larger view catchment area. These mitigations would therefore be 'desirable', but not 'essential'.

The use of a reflective cladding for the structures would probably increase the visibility of the proposed plant for receptors from all viewpoints, near and distant. The use of more muted colours, as prescribed above, is therefore seen as an 'essential' mitigation, without which the significance of the predicted visual impact of the structures on the visual/scenic quality (refer to Table 9.3b) would revert to 'high'.




Page 9-11

FIGURE 9.1a: Previous AP50 – closeup

viewpoints




Page 9-12

FIGURE 9.1b: Proposed

AP35 – closeup viewpoints




Page 9-13

FIGURE 9.1c: Proposed AP35 – (with mitigation)

closeup viewpoints




Page 9-14

FIGURE 9.2a: Previous AP50




Page 9-15

FIGURE 9.2b: Proposed AP35




Page 9-16

FIGURE 9.2c: Proposed AP35 – with mitigation

ch9 visual impacts - csirfred.csir.co.za/project/smelter/report/ch9_visualimpacts.pdf · landscape...

Documents