BA and Empr for the Proposed Surface Pipeline and Associated Infrastructure Anglogold Ashanti (Pty) Ltd

Home , Krugersdorp, R500 (South Africa), R501 (South Africa), Randfontein, Westonaria, Wonderfonteinspruit

REPORT BA and EMPr for the Proposed Surface Pipeline and Associated Infrastructure AngloGold Ashanti (Pty) Ltd

Submitted to: Department of Mineral Resources

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

19121900-328397-9

March 2020

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

Distribution List 1 x copy Department of Mineral Resources

1 x copy AngloGold Ashanti (Pty) Ltd

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

1 x electronic copy Golder project folder

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

Table of Contents

1.0 DETAILS OF APPLICANT ...... 1

2.0 DETAILS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PRACTITIONER (EAP) ...... 1

2.1 Details of the EAP ...... 1

2.2 Expertise of the EAP ...... 1

2.2.1 Qualifications of the EAP ...... 1

2.2.2 Summary of the EAP’s past experience ...... 2

3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION AND DESCRIPTION ...... 3

3.1 Location of the activity ...... 3

3.2 Locality map ...... 3

3.3 Description of the scope of the proposed overall activity ...... 6

3.4 Listed and specified activities ...... 9

3.5 Description of the activities to be undertaken ...... 10

3.6 Policy and Legislative Context ...... 11

3.7 Need and desirability of the proposed activities ...... 14

3.8 Motivation for the overall preferred site, activities and technology alternative ...... 15

4 FULL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROCESS FOLLOWED TO REACH THE PROPOSED PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE WITHIN THE SITE ...... 15

4.1 Details of the development footprint alternatives considered ...... 15

4.1.1 Location of activity...... 15

4.1.2 Type of activity to be undertaken ...... 15

4.1.3 The design or layout of the activity ...... 15

4.1.4 The technology to be used in the activity ...... 16

4.1.5 The operational aspects of the activity...... 16

4.1.6 The option of not implementing the activity...... 16

5 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS ...... 16

5.1 Objectives of public participation...... 16

5.2 Identification of interested and affected parties (I&APs) ...... 17

5.3 Register of I&APs ...... 17

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

5.4 Public participation process undertaken to date ...... 18

5.4.1 Announcement of the Proposed Project ...... 18

5.4.2 Draft Basic Assessment and EMPr Report ...... 18

5.4.3 Final BA/EMPr Report ...... 19

5.4.4 Summary of Issues Raised by I&APs ...... 19

6 ENVIRONMENTAL ATTRIBUTES ASSOCIATED WITH THE ALTERNATIVES ...... 19

6.1 Baseline Environment ...... 19

6.1.1 Type of environment affected by the proposed activity ...... 19

6.1.1.1 Meteorological aspects ...... 19

6.1.1.1.1 Meteorology ...... 19

6.1.1.1.2 Temperature...... 21

6.1.1.1.3 Precipitation & Evaporation ...... 21

6.1.1.2 Topography ...... 22

6.1.1.3 Geology ...... 22

6.1.1.4 Groundwater ...... 24

6.1.1.5 Surface Water ...... 26

6.1.1.6 Floodlines ...... 27

6.1.1.7 Biodiversity ...... 27

6.1.1.7.1 Terrestrial Ecology ...... 27

6.1.1.7.2 Flora ...... 27

6.1.1.7.3 Fauna ...... 28

6.1.1.7.4 Wetland ...... 33

6.1.1.7.5 Aquatic ...... 37

6.1.1.8 Socio Economic ...... 40

6.1.1.9 Soil, Land Capability and Land Use ...... 41

6.1.1.10 Noise ...... 41

6.1.1.11 Visual ...... 41

6.1.1.12 Heritage ...... 41

6.1.1.13 Palaeontology ...... 42

6.1.2 Description of current land uses ...... 42

6.1.3 Environmental and current land use map ...... 42

iii

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

7 IMPACTS AND RISKS IDENTIFIED, INCLUDING THE NATURE, SIGNIFICANCE, CONSEQUENCE, EXTENT, DURATION AND PROBABILITY ...... 43

7.1 Methodology used in determining and ranking the nature, significance, consequences, extent, duration and probability of potential environmental impacts and risks ...... 43

7.2 The positive and negative impacts that the proposed activity (in terms of the initial site layout) and alternatives will have on the environment and the community that may be affected ...... 44

7.2.1 Layout and alternatives ...... 44

7.2.2 Environmental impacts ...... 45

7.2.3 Social impacts ...... 45

7.2.4 Significance rating summary ...... 45

7.3 The possible mitigation measures that could be applied and the level of risk ...... 45

7.5 Statement motivating the alternative development location within the overall site ...... 45

7.7 Assessment of each identified potentially significant impact and risk ...... 47

7.8 Summary of specialist reports...... 53

7.9 Environmental impact statement ...... 56

7.9.1 Summary of the key findings of the environmental impact assessment ...... 56

7.9.2 Final Site Map ...... 56

7.9.3 Summary of the positive and negative impacts and risks of the proposed activity and identified alternatives ...... 56

7.10 Proposed impact management objectives and the impact management outcomes for inclusion in the EMPr; ...... 56

7.11 Final proposed alternatives ...... 57

7.12 Aspects for inclusion as conditions of Authorisation...... 57

7.13 Description of any assumptions, uncertainties and gaps in knowledge...... 57

7.14 Reasoned opinion as to whether the proposed activity should or should not be authorised ...... 57

7.14.1 Reasons why the activity should be authorised or not ...... 57

7.14.2 Conditions that must be included in the authorisation ...... 57

7.15 Period for which the Environmental Authorisation is required ...... 59

7.16 Undertaking ...... 59

7.17 Financial Provision ...... 60

7.17.1 Explain how the aforesaid amount was derived ...... 60

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

7.17.2 Confirm that this amount can be provided for from operating expenditure ...... 61

7.18 Specific Information required by the competent Authority ...... 61

7.18.1 Impact on the socio-economic conditions of any directly affected person ...... 61

7.18.2 Impact on any national estate referred to in section 3(2) of the National Heritage Resources Act ...... 62

7.19 Other matters required in terms of Sections 24(4)(a) and (b) of the Act ...... 62

PART B ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME REPORT………………………………………………… 75

TABLES Table 1: Location details ...... 3 Table 2: Listed activities ...... 9 Table 3: Policy and Legislative Context ...... 11 Table 4: Public places ...... 18 Table 5: Average evaporation in the area ...... 22 Table 6: Water Quality data for the downstream site on the Wonderfonteinspruit (C2H013) ...... 26 Table 7: 50 year and 100-year 24-hour storm rainfall depths ...... 27 Table 8: Mammals of conservation concern potentially occurring in the study area...... 32 Table 9: Birds of conservation concern occurring in the study area ...... 33 Table 10: PES assessment results ...... 36 Table 11: EIS score and category for the HGM 1 and HGM 2 which will be crossed ...... 36 Table 12: Expected ichthyofaunal composition and frequency of occurrence within the AGA study area and current IUCN status ...... 38 Table 13: Diatom analysis results and ecological water quality for June 2019 ...... 39 Table 14: Summary of WET testing results ...... 40 Table 15: Hazard Classification of undiluted samples for June 2018 ...... 40 Table 16: Impact classification for impact assessment ...... 43 Table 17: Ranking scales ...... 43 Table 18: Categories describing environmental consequence...... 44 Table 19: Impact Assessment and Management Type for construction phase ...... 47 Table 20: Impact Assessment and Management Type for operation phase ...... 50 Table 21: Impact Assessment and Management Type for decommissioning phase ...... 52 Table 22: Cumulative Impact Assessment and Management Type ...... 53 Table 23: Specialist Studies ...... 54 Table 24: Closure costs for the proposed pipeline ...... 60

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

Table 25: List of appendices ...... 61 Table 26: Impacts to be mitigated during construction phase ...... 65 Table 27: Impacts to be mitigated during operational phase...... 68 Table 28: Impacts to be mitigated during decommissioning phase ...... 70 Table 29: Impact Management Actions ...... 72 Table 30: Closure measures ...... 73 Table 31: Closure cost ...... 74 Table 32: Monitoring ...... 76

FIGURES Figure 1: Regional location of the proposed AGA pipeline...... 4 Figure 2: Local location of the proposed AGA pipeline ...... 5 Figure 3: Planned pumping scenario with new pipeline to the NBD (AGA, 2020)...... 7 Figure 4: Current pumping scenario (Capacity) (AGA, 2020)...... 8 Figure 5: Blyvoor 5 shaft water pumping at Savuka shaft (AGA, 2020)...... 9 Figure 6: Period wind rose for the Blyvoor Gold Mining Project (Digby Wells, 2018) ...... 20 Figure 7: Diurnal wind roses for the Blyvoor Gold Mining Project (Digby Wells, 2018) ...... 20 Figure 8: Seasonal wind roses for the Blyvoor Gold Mining Project (Digby Wells, 2018) ...... 21 Figure 9: Monthly rainfall distribution for Welverdiend (Pol) 0474502_W ...... 22 Figure 10: Geology in project area ...... 23 Figure 11: Hydrogeology Map of Region ...... 25 Figure 12:Dominant land uses and land cover along the proposed pipeline route ...... 30 Figure 13: Habitats along the proposed pipeline corridor ...... 31 Figure 14: Preliminary desktop delineation of suspected wetlands within 500m of the proposed pipeline ...... 35 Figure 15: HGM1 Channelled valley bottom – level of ecosystem service provision ...... 37 Figure 16: HGM2 hillslope seep - level of ecosystem service provision ...... 37 Figure 17: Site sensitivity composite map ...... 63

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A I&AP Database

APPENDIX B Announcement Documents

APPENDIX C Advertisement and site notices

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

APPENDIX D Draft Minutes of the Wonderfontein Spruit Forum

APPENDIX E Noise Impact Assessment

APPENDIX F Geology and Hydrogeology

APPENDIX G Surface Water Impact Assessment and Floodline Delineation

APPENDIX H Biodiversity Impact Assessment

APPENDIX I Social Impact Assessment

APPENDIX J Visual Impact Assessment

APPENDIX K Heritage Impact Assessment

APPENDIX L Palaeontological Impact Assessment: Phase 1 Field Study

APPENDIX M Closure Cost Estimate and Report

APPENDIX N Comment & Responses Report (CRR)

APPENDIX O Document Limitations

APPENDIX P Proof of application fee payment

APPENDIX Q Document limitations

vii

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

1.0 DETAILS OF APPLICANT  Name of applicant: AngloGold Ashanti;  Telephone number: 0184786550;  Fax number: 0865641034;  Postal address: Carletonville – Fochville Road R500, Carletonville, Gauteng, 2501, South Africa;  Physical address: Carletonville – Fochville Road R500, Carletonville, Gauteng, 2501, South Africa; and  File reference number. 2.0 DETAILS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PRACTITIONER (EAP) AngloGold Ashanti (Pty) Ltd (AGA) appointed Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd (Golder) as the independent Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP) to undertake the Basic Assessment (BA) and Water Use Licensing (WUL) process.

Golder Associates Africa is a member of the world-wide Golder Associates group of companies, offering a variety of specialised engineering and environmental services. Employee owned since its formation in 1960, the Golder Associates group employs more than 6 000 people who operate from more than 160 offices located throughout Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America. Golder has offices in Midrand, Pretoria, Florida, Durban, Rustenburg, Cape Town, Maputo and Accra. Golder has more than 300 skilled employees and is able to source additional professional skills and inputs from other Golder offices around the world.

Golder has no vested interest in the proposed project and hereby declares its independence as required by the EIA Regulations. 2.1 Details of the EAP

Name of the Practitioner: Adam Bennett

Tel No.: +27 11 254 4800

Fax No.: +27 86 582 1561

e-mail address: [email protected]

2.2 Expertise of the EAP 2.2.1 Qualifications of the EAP  BSc (Hons) Environmental Sciences/Geography, University of the Witwatersrand, 2002;  BSc Environmental Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, 2000; and  Professional registered with SACNASP (# 400142/08) – Environmental Science.

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

2.2.2 Summary of the EAP’s past experience Adam Bennett is a senior environmental consultant with widespread environmental management experience (over 15 years consulting experience) in both the private and public sectors in South Africa, with in-depth knowledge of the regulatory requirements relating to integrated environmental management. Project experience includes:  Integrated environmental authorisation processes including: full EIAs, basic assessments, Water Use Licencing (WUL), DMR Section 53 surface rights applications etc. and the compilation of Environmental Management Plans (EMPs) and Environmental Management Programme Reports (EMPrs) in support of the respective environmental authorisation processes;  Environmental and social due diligence auditing against local and IFC performance standards;  General environmental compliance auditing and monitoring;  Pollution assessments and rehabilitation monitoring;  Chemical incident commanding and response (refer below);  Air quality management projects including: the establishment, operation, maintenance and calibration of numerous ambient, passive, dust fallout and meteorological monitoring networks for industries, the mines and various government departments; atmospheric emission licensing (AEL) and environmental performance auditing against licence conditions; specialist air quality impact assessments, air quality management planning;  Noise and vibration impact assessments and monitoring;  GHG assessments;  Stakeholder engagement processes and facilitation thereof; and  Authority liaison with the various government departments and regulators (i.e. national, provincial and local).

His project experience includes: South Africa, Zambia, Ghana, Mozambique, Ethiopia, Botswana, Congo, Malawi, Uganda, Senegal, Ivory Coast, Cameroon, Tanzania, Kenya, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda, Mongolia, United Kingdom and the United Aram Emirates. Additional skills – Chemical incident commanding and response: Adam has extensive experience regarding incident response and incident commanding, clean-up and rehabilitation at major chemical incidents and spillages involving organic chemicals, inorganic chemicals and hydrocarbons. Operations level trained in HAZMAT response from SASOL (Pty) Limited in association with the Southern African Emergency Services Institute, as well as chemical emergency preparedness planning training by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) and disaster management training by the Southern Business School. A flagship project involved the development of the Protocol on Management of Incidents on Major Transport Routes in the Kwa-Zulu Natal Province that may result in significant pollution or degradation of the environment for the Department of Agriculture and Environmental Affairs in 2004 and 2005. Market sector experience Air quality management, Environmental management, Project management, Industry (light and heavy), Energy and Power sectors, Transport, Waste management (i.e. general, hazardous and medical waste), Natural resources utilization and management (i.e. mining, ore processing and refining); Urban development,

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

Oil and gas, Petrochemical, Contaminated land and rehabilitation; HAZMAT including emergency incident response and incident commanding. 3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION AND DESCRIPTION 3.1 Location of the activity The proposed pipeline and associated infrastructure is located approximately 80 km west of Johannesburg and originates at Blyvooruitzicht 4 Shaft approximately 3.3 km south-east of Carletonville and ends at AngloGold Ashanti’s North Boundary Dam (NBD) approximately 6 km south-south-west of Carletonville in Blyvooruitzicht, Merafong City Local Municipality, West Rand District Municipality in the Gauteng Province of South Africa. Further details are provided in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Location details

Full Name: AngloGold Ashanti (AGA) operations in the West Wits mining lease areas on the farm Blyvooruitzicht 116, portions 10, 13, 15, 26, 51 & 89

Application area Linear pipeline development within an approximate length of 5 km within a servitude of (Ha): approximately 20 m wide. The approximate development footprint is thus ±10 ha

Magisterial West Rand District Municipality district:

Distance and Start: Approximately 3 km south-west of Carletonville direction from End: Approximately 6 km south-south-east of Carletonville nearest town:

21-digit Surveyor  T0IQ00000000011600089 General Code for  T0IQ00000000011600015 each farm portion:  T0IQ00000000011600026  T0IQ00000000011600051  T0IQ00000000011600010  T0IQ00000000011600013

3.2 Locality map Figure 1 provides the regional location of the proposed AGA pipeline and Figure 2 the local location.

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

Figure 1: Regional location of the proposed AGA pipeline

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

Figure 2: Local location of the proposed AGA pipeline

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

3.3 Description of the scope of the proposed overall activity The AGA operations in the West Wits mining lease areas are at risk of flooding due to ingress of fissure water from surrounding mining operations. Approximately 25 Mℓ/day of fissure water flows into the underground workings of the defunct Blyvooruitzicht Mine, which spans a strike of 6 km along the boundary with AGA.

If dewatering at the Old Blyvooruitzicht Shafts (#4, #5 & 6#) shafts were to cease, uncontrolled fissure water would report to the AGA operations, which would pose both a flood and safety risk of AGA personnel and the mining operations.

In summary, AGA propose to install underground infrastructure to route the BVL 5# AMD water to the BVL 4# to allow for the dewatering, neutralisation and pumping to surface. From the BVL 4# mine this impacted water will be routed on surface to the North Boundary Dam (NBD) and used as make-up water to the Savuka Gold Plant Reclamation Operations. Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5 provide additional clarity on the proposed pipeline and associated underground water abstraction infrastructure.

AGA appointed Golder as the Independent Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP) to conduct the Environmental Authorisation (EA) and Water Use Licensing (WUL) process for the proposed water pipeline and associated surface infrastructure.

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

Figure 3: Planned pumping scenario with new pipeline to the NBD (AGA, 2020)

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

Figure 4: Current pumping scenario (Capacity) (AGA, 2020)

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

Figure 5: Blyvoor 5 shaft water pumping at Savuka shaft (AGA, 2020) 3.4 Listed and specified activities The proposed activities that will require authorisation from the Department of Mineral Resources are listed in Table 2.

Table 2: Listed activities

NAME OF ACTIVITY EXTENT OF LISTED ACTIVITY APPLICABLE ACTIVITY (ha or LISTING m2) NOTICE

Development of a ±5 km pipeline ±10 ha (based on Activity 10: GN R.327 in excess of 1 000 m long with a 20 m servitude) The development and related (07 April 2017) diameter in excess or equal to operation of infrastructure 0.36 m, with a peak throughput exceeding 1 000 m in length for the of ±120 ℓ/sec or more. bulk transportation of sewage, Note: average throughput is effluent, process water, wastewater, expected to be ±7.52 ℓ/sec. return water industrial discharge or slime – i. with an internal diameter of 0,36 m or more; or ii. with a peak throughput of 120 ℓ/s or more.

Development will have a physical Activity 12: GN R.327 footprint of more than 100 The development of infrastructure or (07 April 2017) square metres. structures with a physical footprint

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

NAME OF ACTIVITY EXTENT OF LISTED ACTIVITY APPLICABLE ACTIVITY (ha or LISTING m2) NOTICE

The pipeline will be within 500 m of 100 square metres or more of wetland areas, and the site is where such development occurs not considered to be in an urban within a water course area.

The pipeline transportation of the Activity 34: GN R.327 AMD water constitutes an The expansion of existing facilities (07 April 2017) expansion of the existing water or infrastructure for any process or management system and activity where such expansion will requires a water use licence. result in the need of a permit or license or an amended permit or license in terms of the national or provincial legislation governing the release of emissions, effluent or pollution.

3.5 Description of the activities to be undertaken Having investigated several options over a period of two years, AGA proposes to:  Equip BLV #4 shaft with dedicated infrastructure to pump approximately 6.5 Mℓ/d of AMD water currently reporting at Savuka Mine via BLV #5 to surface thus;  Separate clean and dirty fissure water from BLV 4# and BLV 5# pumped to surface;  Separate the estimated 1.5 Mℓ/d of AMD water make currently reporting at higher levels of BLV #4 from an estimated 12.5 Mℓ/d of good quality fissure water reporting at BLV #4;  Continue pumping and discharging the good quality fissure water at BLV #4 to surface;  Construct an approximately 5 km long, 400 mm diameter flanged steel overland pipeline from BLV #4 to the North Boundary Dam (NBD) to allow for the transfer of the estimated 6.5 Mℓ/d of neutralised water from BVL #5 to the NBD from where it will be used as make-up water to the Savuka Gold Plant Reclamation Operations; and  Construction of a water transfer tank (<250 m3) at BLV #4 is required from where the water will be pumped towards the NBD.

Please note the following pipeline aspects:  The northern sections of the proposed pipeline (i.e. north of the road bisecting the site) will be installed by means of supporting the pipeline on top of the existing pipeline thus avoiding disturbance to soil or vegetation;  The southern section of the pipeline will be installed above ground on 600 mm by 300 mm pre-cast concrete plinths spaced approximately 9 m apart;  The pipeline will cross the roads onsite (possibly 2 - 3 road crossings) by overhead steel gantries;

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

 Pipeline will be composed of 9 m long sections of 400 mm diameter flanged steel. The pipe sections will be bolted through the flanges to form one continuous pipeline with an approximate 5 km length;  The maximum peak flow of the pipeline will be approximately of 200 ℓ/s, but the average throughput is expected to be ±7.52 ℓ/s;  There is an existing pipeline transporting clean stormwater from the road crossing north of the NBD towards a concrete channel (Welverdient Channel) that ultimately discharges into the Wonderfonteinspruit;  No construction camp will be required. Pipes and construction equipment will either be stored onsite at BLV #4 shaft or at the AGA Mine Service yard;  The preferred pipeline routing, the orange route (Figure 2), is outside the “wetland areas” and it is the intention of AGA to motivate to the Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS) to reduce the WUL from a full WUL process to a General Authorisation (GA) only; and  Two additional pipeline route options were considered: . Option 1: The “dog leg” itself (green route - Figure 2); and

. Option 2: The black dashed route connecting with the existing pipeline route north of the road bisecting the pipeline (Figure 2).

These two routings are likely to trigger a full Water Use Licencing (WUL) process as the activity would be within the a 1:100 floodline and were therefore not taken forward for environmental authorisation. 3.6 Policy and Legislative Context The policy and legislative context within which this authorisation process is being undertaken is briefly summarised in Table 3.

Table 3: Policy and Legislative Context

APPLICABLE LEGISLATION AND GUIDELINES USED TO REFERENCE WHERE APPLIED COMPILE THE REPORT

Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act, 1996 (Act No. Mitigation measures aim to ensure the 108 of 1996) project impacts are managed to Under Section 24 of the Constitution of the Republic of South acceptable levels to support the rights Africa, 1996 (the Constitution) it is clearly stated that: enshrined in the Constitution. Everyone has the right to: (a) an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being; and (b) to have the environment protected, for the benefit of present and future generations, through reasonable legislative and other measures that: (i) Prevent pollution and ecological degradation; (ii) Promote conservation; and (iii) Secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development.

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

APPLICABLE LEGISLATION AND GUIDELINES USED TO REFERENCE WHERE APPLIED COMPILE THE REPORT

National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of The proposed pipeline triggers listed 1998) (NEMA) activities as listed in NEMA. In terms of NEMA as amended was set in place in accordance with Section GN 983 the proposed development 24 of the Constitution. Certain environmental principles under exceeds 1 000 m in length and will be NEMA have to be adhered to, to inform decision making for issues for the transport of waste water, this affecting the environment. conforms with Activity 10, the Section 24 (1)(a) and (b) of NEMA state that: development footprint could exceed 100 m2 within the regulated area of a The potential impact on the environment and socio-economic water course conforming to Activity 12 conditions of activities that require authorisation or permission by and the facilities will be expanded with law and which may significantly affect the environment, must be the associated infrastructure and the considered, investigated and assessed prior to their pipeline itself conforming to Activity 34. implementation and reported to the organ of state charged by law These activities require authorisation with authorizing, permitting, or otherwise allowing the supported by a basic assessment implementation of an activity. process, which must be undertaken in The Minister published the EIA Government Notice Regulations accordance with the EIA Regulations (GNR on 4 December 2014, comprising of the EIA Regulations GN GN R.982 of 4 December 2014. R.982, and three Listing Notices: The appendices of GN R.982 (as  GN R.983 (Listing Notice 1); amended) stipulate the contents of a  GN R.984 (Listing Notice 2); and report for which the DMR prescribed  GN R.985 (Listing Notice 3). templates. Appendix 3 of GN R.982 (as in terms of Sections 24(2) and 24D of the NEMA, as amended. amended) prescribes the scope of assessment and content of EIA The EIA Regulations were amended in April 2017. The amended reports. Appendix 4 prescribes the Regulations are: content of the EMP report. The DMR EIA Regulations GN R.982 (as amended by GN R.326);  provided a template which combines  GN R.983 Listing Notice 1(as amended by GN R.327); the EIA and EMP into a single  GN R.984 Listing Notice 2 (as amended by GN R.325); and document.  GN R.985 Listing Notice 3 (as amended by GN R.324).

Mineral and Petroleum Resource Development Act. 2002 (Act AGA holds a Mining Right and No. 28 of 2002) (MPRDA) operates with an Environmental The MPRDA sets out the requirements relating to the development Management Programme Report of South Africa’s mineral and petroleum resources. It also aims to (EMPr) and is regulated by the ensure the promotion of economic and social development through Department of Mineral Resources exploration and mining related activities. In addition, the MPRDA (DMR). requires that mining companies assess the socio-economic impacts of their activities from start to closure and beyond. Companies must develop and implement a comprehensive Social and Labour Plan (SLP) to promote socio-economic development in their host communities and to prevent or lessen negative social impacts.

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

APPLICABLE LEGISLATION AND GUIDELINES USED TO REFERENCE WHERE APPLIED COMPILE THE REPORT

Mine Health and Safety Act, 1996 (Act No. 29 of 1996) AGA holds a Mining Right and The objects of the act are to: operates with an Environmental  Protect the health and safety of persons at mines; Management Programme Report (EMPr). The operations are thus Require employers and employees to identify hazards and  subject to the requirements of the Act. eliminate, control and minimise the risks relating to health and safety at mines;  Give effect to the public international law obligations of the Republic that concern health and safety at mines;  Provide for employee participation in matters of health and safety through health and safety;  Provide for effective monitoring of health and safety conditions at mines;  Provide for enforcement of health and safety measures at mines;  Provide for investigations and inquiries to improve health and safety at mines; and  Promote: . A culture of health and safety in the mining industry; . Training in health and safety in the mining industry; and . Co-operation and consultation on health and safety between the State, employers, employees and their representatives.

National Water Act (Act No. 36 of 1998) (NWA) The proposed project triggers Water The NWA provides for the sustainable and equitable use and Use Licence (WUL) activities and thus protection of water resources. It is founded on the principle that the the NWA is applicable. National Government has overall responsibility for and authority over water resource management, including the equitable allocation and beneficial use of water in the public interest, and that a person can only be entitled to use water if the use is permissible under the NWA.

National Heritage Resources Act, 1999 (Act No. 25 of 1999) Based on the proposed project (NHRA) description, the project exceeds some The NHRA is the overarching legislation that protects and of these minimum thresholds and thus regulates the management of heritage resources in South Africa. the NHRA is applicable. The Act requires that Heritage Resources Agency’s in this case In addition, the proposed project area the South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA) be has an extensive mining history, some notified as early as possible of any developments that may exceed of the mining infrastructure may be certain minimum thresholds. This act is enforced through the older than 60 years and as such are National Heritage Regulations GN R.548 of 2000. considered as heritage sites under the Subject to the provisions of subsections (7), (8) and (9), any act. person who intends to undertake a development categorised as:

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

APPLICABLE LEGISLATION AND GUIDELINES USED TO REFERENCE WHERE APPLIED COMPILE THE REPORT

(a) the construction of a road, wall, power line, pipeline, canal or other similar form of linear development or barrier exceeding 300 m in length; (b) the construction of a bridge or similar structure exceeding 50 m in length; (c) any development or other activity which will change the character of a site; (d) the re-zoning of a site exceeding 10 000 m² in extent; and (e) or any other category of development provided for in regulations by SAHRA or a PHRA authority.

National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 The proposed project may impact on (Act No. 10 of 2004) (NEM:BA) the local biodiversity and thus NEM:BA The NEM:BA regulates the management and conservation of the is applicable to amongst other things biodiversity of South Africa within the framework provided under protected and threatened flora & fauna NEMA. This Act also regulates the protection of species and and alien invasive species. ecosystems that require national protection and also takes into account the management of alien and invasive species.

Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act (Act No. 43 of Management of invasive species which 1983) (CARA) occur within the project footprint.

National Forests Act (Act No. 84 of 1998) (NFA) Management of protected trees which occur within the project footprint.

Gauteng Nature Conservation Ordinance (Ordinance 12 of The management of specially 1983) protected and protected flora and fauna which occur within the project footprint.

3.7 Need and desirability of the proposed activities AngloGold Ashanti Operations in the West Wits are at risk of flooding due to ingress of fissure water from surrounding mining operations. The aim of the project is to remove this fissure water posing a flood and safety risk, separate clean and dirty water and reuse the contaminated water as make-up for the Savuka Gold Plant Reclamation Operations. The project thus serves as a regional environmental improvement project that will prevent the discharge of AMD water to the environment and prevent the flooding of AGA West Wits Mining Operations.

In addition to the environmental benefits, the project also provided for social benefits to the local community by providing job security and financial stability to a number of previously disadvantaged individuals and thus by extension to their family members.

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

If the project is authorised, this would create and/or maintain continued employment for local community members and thus contribute to economic development in the area. Furthermore, the authorisation would ensure that operations can safely continue without added risk of flooding and to the health and safety of its employees and the operation. 3.8 Motivation for the overall preferred site, activities and technology alternative  Neutralization of AMD reporting to AGA’s operations: The project aims to dewater the mining area to allow for the separation of “clean water” from contaminated AMD. The pumped AMD will be neutralised and re-used as make-up water in the Savuka Gold Plant Reclamation Operations;  Capital expenditure: The cost saving would be realised through the closure of Savuka Shaft, that AGA currently need to maintain to continue pumping the water from BLV 5#;  Reduction of environmental footprint: The preferred pipeline routing allows for 50% of the pipeline to be laid (i.e. “piggy backed”) on top of the existing pipeline in the project area. The remaining 50% of the pipeline to be laid directly on the ground on plinths. The project footprint on the ground is thus reduced, which will result in lower environmental impacts compared to other routes where a free-standing pipeline would be required;  Environmental status: The project area is highly disturbed due to a long history of mining activities. The proposed activity is therefore anticipated to have less of an environmental impact in a disturbed environment compared to other areas where the environment is less disturbed; and  Safety and Security: Alternative locations were not deemed viable due to safety concerns associated with the illegal Zama Zama miners who pose a security risk to the project and AGA employees. The preferred route was selected to minimise these security risks. 4 FULL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROCESS FOLLOWED TO REACH THE PROPOSED PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE WITHIN THE SITE 4.1 Details of the development footprint alternatives considered 4.1.1 Location of activity The proposed activity is confined to the farm Blyvooruitzicht 116, portions 10, 13, 15, 26, 51 & 89 as the project aims to address the water (i.e. clean water and AMD) reporting to AGA’s operations. CWC 4# and the NBD serve as a fixed initiation and termination points for the project. Alternative pipeline routing locations were not deemed viable due to safety concerns associated with the illegal Zama Zama miners who pose a security risk to the project. 4.1.2 Type of activity to be undertaken Dewatering of AGA’s operations is not financially viable and/or practical by any other means than a pipeline. 4.1.3 The design or layout of the activity Two alternative pipeline routings were considered:  The black routing linking to the existing pipeline route north of the road bisecting the site (Figure 2); and  The green routing where the pipeline would follow the “dog leg” and pass through the road culvert and wetland area (Figure 2).

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

These routings were considered as unfavourable for the project as both routings include the pipeline being located within the wetland areas, which would trigger a full WUL and significantly delay AGA addressing the water issues onsite. 4.1.4 The technology to be used in the activity Dewatering of AGA’s operations is not financially viable and/or practical by any other means than a pipeline. 4.1.5 The operational aspects of the activity The concept of alternative operational aspects does not apply as dewatering of AGA’s operations is not financially viable and/or practical by other means other than a pipeline. 4.1.6 The option of not implementing the activity. Doing nothing (i.e. the “No Go”’ alternative) was not considered as a viable option as fissure water would report to the AGA operations in about 13 days, which would pose a serious risk to the health and safety of AGA personnel and the mining operations. 5 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS This section provides an overview of the public participation process undertaken to date in this BA and water use licence application process. 5.1 Objectives of public participation The principles that determine communication with interested and affected parties (I&APs) are included in the principles of the NEMA and are elaborated upon in the Department of Environmental Affairs (2017), Public Participation guideline in terms of NEMA EIA Regulations, Department of Environmental Affairs, Pretoria, South Africa, which states that: “Public participation process means a process in which potential interested and affected parties (I&APs) are given an opportunity to comment on, or raise issues relevant to, specific matters.”

Public participation is an essential and regulatory requirement for an environmental authorisation process and must be undertaken in terms of Regulations 39 to 44 of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations, 2014 (as amended). Public participation is a process that is intended to lead to a joint effort by stakeholders, technical specialists, authorities and the proponent/developer who work together to produce better decisions than if they had acted independently.

The public participation process is designed to provide enough and accessible information to I&APs in an objective manner and enable them to:  Raise issues of concern and make suggestions for enhanced benefits;  Verify that their issues have been recorded;  Assist in identifying reasonable alternatives;  Contribute relevant local information and traditional knowledge to the environmental assessment; and  Comment on the findings of the environmental impact assessment and the mitigation measures proposed.

Once the DMR has announced its decision, the registered I&APs will be notified of the outcome and the appeal procedure.

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

5.2 Identification of interested and affected parties (I&APs) I&APs were initially identified through a process of networking and referral, obtaining information from Golder’s existing stakeholder database, liaison with potentially affected parties in the study area, newspaper advertisements and a registration process involving completion of a registration and comment sheet. The registration sheet encouraged I&APs to indicate the names of their colleagues and friends who may also be interested in participating in the public participation process.

The initial stakeholder database used to announce proposed project for the construction of the pipeline comprised a total of 90 I&APs (See APPENDIX A) representing the various sectors of society listed below:  Government (national, provincial and local);  Environmental non-governmental organisations (NGOs);  Conservation agencies;  Agricultural bodies;  Community representatives and community-based organisations;  Business and commerce; and  Other. Further efforts to identify I&APs included the following:  Accessing records of landowners obtained from the Surveyor General’s office by Golder;  Verifying where possible, the contact information of landowners and obtaining information from CIPC on the farms that are registered as business entities;  Telephonically verifying contact information for various municipal officials and ward councillors;  Telephonically verifying contact information for relevant local, provincial and national organs of state;  Contacting chairpersons of local ratepayers or community-based organisations in the proposed application area with a request to distribute the project information to their members; and  Responding in writing to I&APs who contacted the Public Participation Office. 5.3 Register of I&APs The EIA Regulations, 2014 (as amended) distinguish between I&APs and registered I&APs. I&APs, as contemplated in Section 24(4)(d) of the NEMA include: “(a) any person, group of persons or organisation interested in or affected by an activity; and (b) any organ of state that may have jurisdiction over any aspect of the activity”.

In terms of the Regulations:

“An EAP managing an application must open and maintain a register which contains the names, contact details and addresses of: a) All persons who; have submitted written comments or attended meetings with the applicant or EAP; b) All persons who; have requested the applicant or EAP managing the application, in writing, for their names to be placed on the register; and c) All organs of state which have jurisdiction in respect of the activity to which the application relates.

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

Stakeholders were encouraged to register as I&APs and participate in the consultation processes by completing a registration and comment sheet and returning it to the Golder Public Participation Office. I&APs were also encouraged to register by sending an email request to the Public Participation Office email address at [email protected]; via ordinary post to Golder Public Participation Office, P O Box 6001, Halfway House, 1685; by calling the Golder Public Participation Office at 011 254 4800; or via fax at 086 582 1561

A Register for I&APs has been opened and currently comprises of 78 registered I&APs (See APPENDIX A).

As per the EIA Regulations, future consultation during the BA process will take place with registered I&APs. The I&AP register will be updated throughout the process. 5.4 Public participation process undertaken to date This section provides a summary of the public participation process followed to date. 5.4.1 Announcement of the Proposed Project The proposed project was announced on Thursday, 10 October 2019 and stakeholders were invited to participate in the public participation process.

The proposed project was announced as follows:  Distribution of a background information letter, locality map and registration and comment sheet to all identified I&APs with email and postal addresses. A bulk SMS was sent to identified I&APs with mobile phone numbers. The announcement documents provided information about the proposed project, how I&APs could register and how to access the Draft BA/EMPr Report should they wish to comment. Copies of the announcement documents as well as evidence of postal delivery and bulk SMSs are attached as APPENDIX B and APPENDIX C;  Printed copies of the Draft BA/EMPr Report were distributed to public places, the DMR, Department of Human Settlements, Water and Sanitation (DHSWS) and several other commenting authorities (Please refer to the stakeholder engagement report in the appendix of the Draft BA/EMPr;  An advertisement was published in the Carletonville Herald newspaper on Thursday, 10 October 2019 (see newspaper advert tearsheet in APPENDIX C);  Site notices were placed at the entrance to the proposed project site and at visible places at the boundary of the property. See APPENDIX C for photographic evidence indicating placement of the site notices); and  AGA presented the proposed project to the Wonderfonteinspruit forum on Tuesday 03 December 2019 the draft minutes of the meeting are attached as APPENDIX D. 5.4.2 Draft Basic Assessment and EMPr Report The Draft BA/EMPr Report was made available for public review for a 30-day comment period from Thursday, 10 October 2019 to Monday, 11 November 2019 (see Table 4).

Table 4: Public places

Public Place Contact Person Contact Number

Carletonville Library, corner of Celestine and Emerald Mr Lungile Letshekha 018 788 9541 Streets, Carletonville Library Manager

Wedela Library, 5378 Hawk Street, Wedela, Carletonville Mr Lungile Letshekha 018 788 9541 Library Manager

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

Public Place Contact Person Contact Number

Golder Associates Africa, Midrand, Building 1, Maxwell Mrs Antoinette Pietersen 011 254 4800 Office Park, Magwa Crescent West, Waterfall City, Midrand

Copies of the Draft BA/EMPr Report were submitted to the DMR, the DHSWS and several other commenting authorities (see APPENDIX C). 5.4.3 Final BA/EMPr Report The Draft BA/EMPr Report will be updated after the expiry of the public review period and submitted to the DMR. 5.4.4 Summary of Issues Raised by I&APs All issues raised by I&APs, together with responses provided by the proponent and the environmental assessment practitioner, will be recorded in the Comments and Responses Report (CRR) in APPENDIX N. 6 ENVIRONMENTAL ATTRIBUTES ASSOCIATED WITH THE ALTERNATIVES 6.1 Baseline Environment The current, pre-project environmental characteristics of the pipeline are described in this section, as required by the prescribed DMR format for a basic assessment report. 6.1.1 Type of environment affected by the proposed activity 6.1.1.1 Meteorological aspects Note: The meteorological overview presented below is based on the meteorological data provided in the Environmental Impact Assessment and Environmental Management Plan Report for the Environmental Authorisation for the Blyvoor Gold Mining Project near Carletonville, Gauteng, as compiled by Digby Wells in October 2018. The proposed CWC pipeline project falls within the Blyvoor Gold Mining Project mining rights area. The meteorological data is deemed as acceptable for the CWC pipeline as there are no significant topographical features which may create meteorological interference. The meteorological conditions described in the Digby Wells report are thus considered to be representative of those observed along the proposed CWC pipeline route. 6.1.1.1.1 Meteorology Wind roses summarise the occurrence of winds at a specified location by representing their strength, direction and frequency. Calm conditions are defined as wind speeds of less than 0.2 m/s which are represented as a percentage of the total winds in the centre circle. Each directional branch on a wind rose represents wind originating from that specific cardinal direction (16 cardinal directions). Each cardinal branch is divided into segments of different colours which represent different wind speed classes.

Winds are predominantly from the northerly sector during the monitoring period (Figure 6). A slight diurnal variation in wind was observed. During the night and morning, winds are predominantly from the north-north- easterly sector (Figure 7). During the afternoon, winds are predominantly from the north-north-westerly sector and to a lesser degree from the south-westerly sector (Figure 7). During the evening, winds are predominantly from the northerly sector and to a lesser degree from the southerly sector (Figure 7). An insignificant seasonal variation in wind was also observed during the monitoring period. Winds are predominantly from the northerly sector through all seasons (Figure 8).

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

Figure 6: Period wind rose for the Blyvoor Gold Mining Project (Digby Wells, 2018)

Figure 7: Diurnal wind roses for the Blyvoor Gold Mining Project (Digby Wells, 2018)

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

Figure 8: Seasonal wind roses for the Blyvoor Gold Mining Project (Digby Wells, 2018)

6.1.1.1.2 Temperature The annual average temperature was calculated as 27°C (Digby Wells, 2018). The monthly averaged temperatures ranged from 10°C during the winter months to 23°C during the summer months (Digby Wells, 2018). The maximum temperature reached was 33°C recorded in December (Digby Wells, 2018). 6.1.1.1.3 Precipitation & Evaporation The average mean annual precipitation is 727 mm based on the 92-year record from the Welverdiend (POL) 0474502_W meteorological station (Figure 9). The rainfall pattern is typical that of a summer rainfall region with most of the precipitation occurring between the months of October to March (Figure 9).

Average monthly evaporation statistics recorded at the South African Weather Service’s Krugersdorp Kroningspark Station are set out in Table 5. It is noted that the evaporation is considerably higher than the average monthly rainfall figures.

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

Figure 9: Monthly rainfall distribution for Welverdiend (Pol) 0474502_W

Table 5: Average evaporation in the area

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Total

S-pan 167 166 172 169 139 131 103 87 70 79 112 148 1 544 (mm)

6.1.1.2 Topography The natural topography of the landscape is flat to gently undulating, with a few elevated rises and hills. Elevations in the local area range from 1 515 mamsl in the north to 1 735 mamsl in the south of the area. 6.1.1.3 Geology Approximately the first half of the pipeline will be constructed on the Malmani dolomites as seen in Figure 10. The lithology for the Malmani dolomites is predominately calcareous rocks which consist of limestone, dolomite and calcarenite and forms part of the Chuniespoort Group and the Transvaal Supergroup.

The Malmani dolomites comprise a succession of stromatolitic carbonate rocks, with interbedded chert and subordinate shale and quartzite, occurring throughout the Transvaal basin.

The second half of the pipeline will run southeast, underlain by quartzite, shale, magnetic ironstone and diabase, which all form part of the Pretoria Group and the Transvaal Supergroup. The Timeball Hill formation forms part of the Pretoria Group and consists of one or more beds of shale at the base and at the top of the geological unit. The Rooihoogte Formation comprises mainly of shales and occurs in the Crocodile River fragment, where it is equivalent to the Timeball Hill formation.

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

Figure 10: Geology in project area

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

6.1.1.4 Groundwater According to 1:500 000 General Hydrogeological Map of Johannesburg 2526 by H.C Barnard (2000), the dolomites of the Chuniespoort Group represent the most important aquifer in South Africa. They have a high to very high storage capacity and often highly permeable characteristics. The groundwater occurrence for Malmani dolomites is Karst, with borehole yields which are often greater than 5 ℓ/s.

There is a potential risk for sinkholes in the Malmani dolomite formation due to the dewatering of groundwater from mining activities, but the area is believed to have stabilized.

The quartzite of the Timeball Hill formation has been identified as a fractured aquifer rather than an intergranular and fractured aquifer. Elsewhere this formation is grouped together with the Rooihoogte formation as an intergranular and fractured aquifer. Lesser and/or more isolated groundwater occurrences are associated with fault and associated shear zones and with contact zones between diabase sills, dykes, shale and quartzite. Water may also occur in occasional joints and fractures in fresh diabase. The expected yield in the formation is between 0.5 and 2 ℓ/s as seen in Figure 11.

The groundwater yield potential in the Timeball Hill and Rooihoogte formation is classed as low, and less than 2 ℓ/s has been recorded in 70% of boreholes observed.

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

Figure 11: Hydrogeology Map of Region

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

6.1.1.5 Surface Water The AGA operations in the West Wits lease area lie in the Wonderfonteinspruit catchment which falls in the C drainage region of the Vaal River Catchment. The Wonderfonteinspruit is a tributary of the Mooi River which joins the Vaal River below the Vaal Barrage (within the Upper Vaal Water Management Area (WMA)). The unnamed tributary to the Mooirivierloop flows from south to north along the eastern side of the mine boundary.

The source of the Upper Wonderfonteinspruit comprises a diffuse seepage 1 – 2 km upstream of Lancaster Dam. This dam is now largely filled with gold tailings eroded from the surrounding tailings dams. The Upper Wonderfonteinspruit catchment is severely impacted by mining and industrial activities as well as urbanisation. There are a number of tailings dams and waste rock dumps located in this area. There is virtually no flow emanating from the seepage source of the drainage upstream of Lancaster Dam, and most of the flow of the Upper Wonderfonteinspruit is sustained by discharges from the Flip Human sewage works and the industrial complexes as well as seepage from the tailings dams.

There is no recent water quality data for the stream. However, the water quality data for a Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS) point on the Wonderfonteinspruit downstream of the confluence of the unnamed tributary to the Mooirivierloop, was available. The data were sourced from the Water Management Systems (WMS). The data was sourced from the Water Management Systems (WMS) point 90652 – C2H069, on the Wonderfonteinspruit/Mooirivierloop (River) at Blaauwbank approximately 14 km downstream of the confluence. Data for a 10-year period: January 2009 to March 2019 was available and is captured in Table 6 to give some baseline for the current situation in the area. No monitoring data for metals was available, which is a water quality concern in this area.

The data indicate upstream impacts related to the wastewater treatment works discharges and run-off from industrial and mining activities, indicated by elevated TDS and sulphate. The pH values recorded are indicate a slightly alkaline water, showing an increasing trend over time, however recent data show a change to a more neutral pH, and slight decreases in TDS and sulphate.

The present ecological state of the spruit is a D category due to extensive modification as per the DWS Reserve Determination. The ecological importance and sensitivity are thus considered as low.

Table 6: Water Quality data for the downstream site on the Wonderfonteinspruit/Mooirivierloop at Blaauwbank (C2H069)

Variable (mg/ℓ unless stated) Min Max Med 95

Calcium 36.14 169.36 85.15 99.26

Chloride 7.00 163.13 65.18 93.35

Total Dissolved Solids 245 1169 750 901

Electrical Conductivity (mS/m) 35 167 104.85 124.90

Fluoride 0.03 1.11 0.35 0.59

Potassium 2.77 10.61 7.33 9.03

Total Kjedahl Nitrogen 0.05 4.16 0.72 1.46

Magnesium 11.42 131.25 42.44 64.49

Sodium 49.84 121.50 79.44 99.49

Ammonium 0.03 13.70 0.05 0.60

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

Variable (mg/ℓ unless stated) Min Max Med 95

Nitrate 0.03 9.50 0.45 2.10

Total Phosphorus 0.01 9.89 0.24 0.70

pH 5.80 8.90 8.20 8.60

Orthophosphate (as P) 0.01 24.90 0.22 0.90

Silica 0.06 9.66 3.54 5.21

Sulphate 5.00 883.32 269.25 384.38

Total Alkalinity 66.71 451.41 166.19 207.33

6.1.1.6 Floodlines The 24-hour storm rainfall depths for both the 1 in 50 and 1 in 100-year recurrence intervals were calculated by statistical means. Using the program UPFlood (UPFlood, 2003), the maximum daily rainfall in each water year was plotted and analysed.

The probability distribution with the best fit was found to be the Log Pearson type III (LP3) distribution. This was used to estimate the 1 in 50-year (98th percentile) and the 1 in 100-year (99th percentile) rainfall depths that are presented in Table 7.

Table 7: 50 year and 100-year 24-hour storm rainfall depths

Return Period (years) 1 in 50 1 in 100

Rainfall Depth (mm) 136 155

6.1.1.7 Biodiversity 6.1.1.7.1 Terrestrial Ecology The project site is located on Gauteng Shale Mountain Bushveld (which occurs in a narrow band along a series of ridges from Carletonville-Westonaria-Lenasia and is characterised by short, semi-open thickets consisting of a variety of fine- and broad-leaf woody species) and Carletonville Dolomite Grasslands (which are predominantly found in the North West Province, in the regions around Potchefstroom, Ventersdorp and Carletonville and these are dominated by many plant species) (Mucina & Rutherford, 2006).

Land cover imagery classifies most land along the proposed pipeline route as ‘natural’, with the remaining small parcels of land classified as ‘mines’, ‘plantations’ and ‘waterbodies’ (Figure 12). 6.1.1.7.2 Flora Habitat types along the proposed pipeline corridor include both grassland and woodland. These display varying degrees of anthropogenic disturbance, from relatively undisturbed to highly modified. A notable feature is a small rocky outcrop. This runs perpendicular to the pipeline corridor and unnamed tributary to the Mooirivierloop and bisects these immediately north of the unnamed tar road, at the midpoint of the proposed pipeline route. The rocky outcrop is grass dominated, with small pockets of woody vegetation (Figure 13).

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

Grassland Habitats Terrestrial grasslands range from relatively undisturbed grassland (typically associated with rocky habitats), to areas of secondary grassland. The latter have been subject to historic overgrazing, alien species encroachment, and other forms of physical disturbances (e.g. historic earthworks and agriculture).

The unnamed tributary to the Mooirivierloop is characterised by a fairly broad river corridor/floodplain. Portions of the river corridor are infested by the alien invasive Populus x canescens and scattered Salix babylonica trees. Remaining areas are characterised by fairly open, wetland habitat dominated by various Cyperaceae species (sedges), grasses/reeds like Paspalum urvillei, Eragrostis gummiflua and Phragmites australis and the rush Typha capensis. Woodland Habitats Woodlands comprise small pockets of indigenous trees and larger, more abundant stands of alien invasive trees (designated as ‘plantations’ in land cover imagery).

In terms of indigenous woody species, small pockets of Vachellia karroo trees were noted along the southern portion of the pipeline corridor, while scattered individual Vachellia karroo and Rhus pyroides trees are fairly common throughout the corridor and surrounding land. On the rocky outcrop, multiple woody species are present including inter alia, Buddleja saligna, Diospyros lycioides, Lantana camara*, Rhus pyroides, Senegalia caffra and Solanum mauritianum* (*denotes alien taxa).

Alien trees are abundant along the pipeline corridor and surrounding land. These grow in dense to lose aggregations with heights ranging from approximately 3 to 6 m. Eucalyptus sp., Acacia dealbata and Acacia mearnsii are the most common taxa, and typically dominate in areas displaying drier soils. Populus x canescens – a species with a proclivity to establish in wet soils – has established dense, monospecific colonies along the unnamed tributary to the Mooirivierloop floodplain and adjacent seeps.

Although far less abundant than Populus x canescens, Salix babylonica is also a common species along the unnamed tributary to the Mooirivierloop and grows mostly as scattered individuals. Threatened and Protected Plant Species A search of the (BODATSA, 2016) indicates that 540 plant species have been recorded in the broader Carletonville region. Of these, 23 are listed as protected under the Gauteng Nature Conservation Ordinance, (1983), while three are on the national Red List, namely Habenaria mossii (Endangered), Khadia beswickii (Vulnerable), and the Data Deficient Aloe bergeriana. 6.1.1.7.3 Fauna Considering the security constraints governing the field visit, it was not possible to collect any faunal data. Therefore this section presents a synthesis of relevant information obtained from existing data sources, (mostly the FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology's (2019) Virtual Museum1 and SABAP2) focussing specifically on the probability of occurrence of fauna of conservation concern.

It is noted that various past and current anthropogenic activities have caused significant habitat disturbance and fragmentation across the landscape surrounding the proposed pipeline corridor. This, coupled with direct persecution (e.g. hunting), is likely to have significantly impacted local fauna, particularly large mammals. In this context, it is considered probable that faunal abundance and diversity in the area is low, and that land along and adjacent to the pipeline corridor is unlikely to form important life-cycle habitats for fauna.

1 MammalMAP, ReptileMAP, FrogMAP, LepiMAP, ScorpionMAP and SpiderMAP.

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

Mammals According to the MammalMap database, 58 mammal species have been recorded in the 2627AD QDS in which the study area is located. Several of these, including most of the listed antelope, are highly unlikely to be free- roaming and are probably associated with game ranching operations in the area.

Of species likely to be free-roaming, ten taxa are of conservation concern. These are listed in Table 8.

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

Note: This map is based on available existing Geographic Information System (GIS) data sets of the area, some variability on the ground may be expected.

Figure 12: Dominant land uses and land cover along the proposed pipeline route

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

Figure 13: Habitats along the proposed pipeline corridor

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

Table 8: Mammals of conservation concern potentially occurring in the study area.

Family Scientific Name Common Conservation Status Probability Name of Red List Draft Gauteng Nat. Occurrence (2016) NEMA Cons. Ordinance ToPS List (1984) (2013)

Bovidae Pelea capreolus Grey Rhebok Near Protected Protected Unlikely Threatened

Bovidae Raphicerus Steenbok - - Protected Possible campestris

Bovidae Redunca Mountain - - Protected Unlikely fulvorufula Reedbuck

Felidae Felis nigripes Black-footed Vulnerable Protected - Possible Cat

Hyaenidae Hyaena brunnea Brown Hyaena Near Protected Protected Possible Threatened

Protelidae Proteles cristatus Aardwolf - - Protected Possible

Muridae Otomys auratus South African Near - - Possible Vlei Rat Threatened

Mustelidae Aonyx capensis Cape Clawless Near Protected - Possible Otter Threatened

Nesomyidae Mystromys African White- Vulnerable - - Possible albicaudatus tailed Rat

Soricidae Corcidura Swamp Musk Near - - Probable mariquensis Shrew Threatened

Birds The SABAP2 database lists 164 bird species for the relevant pentad, comprising a range of both terrestrial and aquatic species. Three bird species recorded in the pentad are of conservation concern. These, along with their conservation status and probability of occurrence, are detailed in Table 9.

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

Table 9: Birds of conservation concern occurring in the study area

Family Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status# Probability of Occurrence Red List (2016) Draft NEMA ToPS List (2013)

Anatidae Oxyura maccoa Maccoa Duck Near - Possible Threatened

Laridae Sterna caspia Caspian Tern Vulnerable Protected Possible

Phoenicopteridae Phoenicopterus Greater Near - Unlikely ruber Flamingo Threatened

# All bird species, except those listed under Schedule 2 and 3 of the Gauteng Nature Conservation Ordinance (No. 12 of 1983) are protected in Gauteng Province.

Herpetofauna (Reptiles and Amphibians) Fifteen reptile and 11 amphibian species have been recorded in the 2627AD QDS according to ReptileMAP and FrogMAP, respectively. Of these, only the Cape Gecko (Pachydactylus capensis), which is listed as nationally protected on the Draft NEMBA ToPS List (2013), is of conservation concern. Given the habitats and disturbed nature of the site, the occurrence of these species is considered possible. Arthropods There is limited arthropod data available on the Virtual Museum database of the FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology (2019) for the 2627AD QDS. No records exist on spider and scorpion diversity; however, ButterflyMAP indicates that 62 butterfly species have been recorded, including the Lepidochrysops praeterita (Highveld Blue) which is listed as Endangered. This species favours rocky ridges and it is possible that it is present along the rocky outcrop. The Carletonville area is known as a butterfly hotspot2 (Henning et al., 2009) and other important species known to occur in the region include Aloeides dentastis dentatis and Platylesches dolomitica. It is possible that these two taxa may occur in the area.

Baboon spiders (Family Theraphosidae) are considered of conservation value and a review of baboon spider distribution maps in Dippenaar-Schoeman (2014) suggests that three species occur in western Gauteng, namely Augacephalus breyeri, Brachionopus pretoriae and Harpactira hamiltoni. Little information exists on the habitat requirements of these taxa. Following the precautionary principle, we thus consider it possible that they could occur in the area. 6.1.1.7.4 Wetland A desktop description of the wetlands within the study area in terms of their classification, and the assessment of their health (PES), level of ecosystem services provision, and ecological importance and sensitivity (EIS), is provided in the sections that follow.

2 Hot spots are areas that contain more than one threatened butterfly taxon.

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

Wetland Delineation and Classification The wetlands delineated within a 500 m radius of the proposed pipeline are shown in Figure 14. Six wetlands were identified, namely Hillslope Seepage (HGM 2, HGM 3, HGM 4, HGM 5 and HGM 6) and Channelled Valley Bottom (HGM 1). Present Ecological State In terms of hydrological integrity, all hillslope seepage wetlands, with the exception of HGM 2 (moderately modified) and HGM 5 (moderately modified) are classified as largely natural with a few modifications, while the channelled valley bottom wetland is classified as extensively modified due to various factors such as the dam upstream, the tree plantations etc. (Table 10). One of the main factors negatively affecting the hydrological integrity of the wetlands is the presence of alien invasive Populus x canescens and scattered Salix babylonica trees, which occur primarily along the corridor of the proposed pipeline, as well as within the wetland downstream of the dam. These alien invasive trees affect the wetland by reducing the water flow. Other factors affecting wetland hydrological integrity include the weirs present along the channelled valley bottom and the trenches or artificial drainage channels observed within the HGM 2 unit. The weirs and trenches affect the wetland through permanent flooding of areas that would otherwise be seasonally or temporarily wet, while the trenches cause minor desiccation in HGM 2. Ecological Importance and Sensitivity The Ecological Importance and Sensitivity (EIS) scores and categories for the Channelled Valley Bottom wetland (HGM1) and the hillslope seep (HGM 2) that will be affected by the pipeline are presented in Table 11. The above-mentioned wetlands were found to be of Low/Marginal EIS.

The low/marginal ecological importance and sensitivity component score is due to the absence of Red Data species or unique species. The low score for hydro-functional importance reflects the limited role of the wetland in moderating flooding, stream flow and controlling erosion. The importance in terms of direct human benefits is limited as there is little evidence to suggest any reliance on this wetland for water supply, crop production or spiritual services; furthermore the fraught security situation also makes it less likely that local people would depend on the wetlands for resources.

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

Figure 14: Preliminary desktop delineation of suspected wetlands within 500 m of the proposed pipeline

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

Table 10: PES assessment results

HGM Unit Hydrology Geomorphology Vegetation Overall Overall PES PES Impact Category Impact Category Impact Category Score category Score Score Score

1: Valley-bottom 6.5 E 3.5 C 0.1 A 3.81 C with a channel

2: Hillslope 3.0 C 0.1 A 0.1 A 1.34 B seepage linked to a stream

3: Hillslope 1.0 B 0.1 A 0.1 A 0.49 A seepage linked to a stream

4: Hillslope 1.0 B 0.1 A 0.1 A 0.49 A seepage linked to a stream

5: Hillslope 3.0 C 0.0 A 0.1 A 1.31 B seepage linked to a stream

6: Hillslope 1.0 B 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.53 A seepage linked to a stream

Table 11: EIS score and category for the HGM 1 and HGM 2 which will be crossed

Component Channelled valley Hillslope seep bottom (HGM1) (HGM 2)

Ecological Importance and Sensitivity 1.0 1.0

Hydro-Functional Importance 1.0 0.9

Direct Human Benefits 0.6 0.4

Overall EIS Score 1.0 1.0

Overall EIS Category Low/Marginal Low/Marginal

Wetland Ecosystem Services Numerous functions are typically attributed to wetlands, which include nutrient removal, sediment trapping, flood attenuation and erosion control.

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

Many of these functions attributed to wetlands are wetland type specific and can be linked to the locations of wetlands in the landscape as well as to the way in which water enters and flows through the wetland. Thus, not all wetlands can be expected to perform all functions, or to perform these functions with the same efficiency.

Figure 15 and Figure 16 below show the results of the Wetland Ecosystem Services assessment conducted for the Channelled Valley Bottom wetland and the hillslope seepage that will be crossed by the pipeline. The level of ecosystem services provision was generally assessed as low. Erosion control scored the highest (intermediate to moderately high), mostly due to the moderate abundance of vegetation cover buffering the wetland and the expected moderate surface roughness of the wetlands. Carbon storage and streamflow regulation also obtained intermediate scores.

The hillslope seepage HGM2 provides ecosystem services including streamflow regulation, nitrate removal and erosion control, and, to a lesser extent, carbon storage and maintenance of biodiversity (given its likely temporary nature).

Figure 15: HGM1 Channelled valley bottom – level of Figure 16: HGM2 hillslope seep - level of ecosystem ecosystem service provision service provision

6.1.1.7.5 Aquatic Regional aquatic setting The study area is located within the Vaal Water Management Area (WMA5) and falls within the Highveld (11)– Lower Level 1 Ecoregion (Mucina & Rutherford, 2006), quaternary catchment C23E. One of the options for the proposed pipeline route crosses the unnamed tributary to the Mooirivierloop. This stream has been classified as largely modified Present Ecological State - D (Department of Water and Sanitation, 2014).

Based on a preliminary visual assessment of this river system using Google Earth Street View (2019), coupled with observations and photographs taken during the in-field survey, the following key points were observed:  Very low water levels within the unnamed tributary to the Mooirivierloop, as well as limited-no flow conditions;  Sections of the unnamed tributary to the Mooirivierloop display wetland conditions;  The habitat is completely modified along this river reach, particularly at the upstream site (WON_US). Consequently, as aquatic macroinvertebrates and fish are entirely dependent on habitat availability within the system, it is probable that the diversity and abundances of the aquatic macroinvertebrate assemblages and fish populations would be considerably low, resulting in poor biotic integrity within this system.

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

Consequently, limited useful in-field aquatic macroinvertebrate and fish data could be gathered to inform an assessment of the health of the aquatic ecosystem; and  The lower reaches of the unnamed tributary to the Mooirivierloop have been artificially altered with cement to function as a drainage channel. Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Communities Based on the results from (Clean Stream, 2013a) and (Clean Stream , 2013b), a low diversity of aquatic macroinvertebrates has been recorded in the study area, with 20 taxa recorded in 2007, and 18 taxa recorded in 2013. The aquatic macroinvertebrate community identified was indicative of tolerant taxa, most suited to polluted and/or impaired water quality conditions, coupled with modified and poor habitat availability. Fish Communities Based on available distribution records and the habitats observed/photographed during the in-field survey, eight indigenous fish species have a high probability of occurrence within the study area (Table 12). None of the expected species are endemic or Red Data listed (Skelton, 2001).

Table 12: Expected ichthyofaunal composition and frequency of occurrence within the AGA study area and current IUCN status

Scientific Name Common Name IUCN Status Intolerance FROC* Rating

Austroglanis sclateri Rock-Catfish Least Concern 2.7 1

Enteromius anoplus Chubbyhead Barb Least Concern 2.6 1

Enteromius trimaculatus Threespot Barb Least Concern 2.2 1

Enteromius paludinosus Straightfin Barb Least Concern 1.8 1

Enteromius pallidus Goldie Barb Least Concern 3.1 1

Cyprinus carpio Carp Exotic 1.4 1

Clarias gariepinus Sharptooth Catfish Least Concern 1.2 1

Labeo umbratus Moggel Least Concern 2.3 1

Micropterus salmoides Largemouth Bass Exotic 2.2 1

Pseudocrenilabrus philander Southern Mouthbrooder Least Concern 1.3 3

Tilapia sparrmanii Banded Tilapia Least Concern 1.3 3 Red text indicates exotic species and do not qualify for a FROC score *FROC – Frequency of occurrence where 1 = Present at very few sites (<10% of sites) and 3 = Present at about >25 - 50% of sites (Kleynhans CJ, Louw MD, Moolman J. 2007)

During previous assessments conducted by Clean Stream (2013b) and (2013a), four of the 11 fish species expected to occur in the study area were recorded. These were Enteromius anoplus, Clarias gariepinus, Tilapia sparrmanii and Pseudocrenilabrus philander. These fish species are mostly tolerant species.

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

The exotic fish species Micropterus salmoides has been recorded in the study area, while the exotic species Cyprinus carpio has the potential to migrate into the unnamed tributary to the Mooirivierloop from the man-made dams in the study area. These exotic fish species both have the potenital to impact on the natural biodiversity of the river systems. Diatoms A total of 43 diatom species were recorded from the samples taken during the June 2019 survey, with the following dominant species recorded: Nitzschia sp., Gomphonema sp. Encyonopsis sp. and Navicula sp.

The diatom assemblages at the upstream site (WON-US) were indicative of moderately acidic waters, as well as untreated wastewater and habitats strongly impacted by industrial sewage. These impacts may be associated with upstream point or non-point source pollution or runoff from the surrounding land-use. Furthermore, there is a dam with an inlet just upstream of this monitoring point. This is further supported by the high %PTV score for this site. Consequently, the overall ecological water quality was considered poor (Table 13).

Although the diatom assemblages recorded at the downstream site (WON_DS) were dominated by taxa indicative of organic wastewater, nutrient enriched and calcium-bicarbonate-rich conditions; the %PTV score was relatively low suggesting that there was a relatively low impact associated with organic enrichment at the time of the survey. Consequently, the overall ecological water quality was considered moderate, a slight recovery compared to the upstream site (Table 13).

Table 13: Diatom analysis results and ecological water quality for June 2019

Site No. Species % PTV SPI Ecological Water Quality

WON-US 35 35.2 7.1 Poor

WON-DS 18 3.5 12.5 Moderate

Whole Effluent Toxicity Screening tests conducted on the water samples collected at the upstream and downstream site indicated that there was limited to no acute toxicity (<1 TUa) to any of the trophic levels subjected to the exposures during either seasonal survey, and as a result no definitive testing was required.

At the upstream site (WON_US), Vibrio fischeri, (representing the bacteria) that were exposed to the water samples, expressed 31% stimulation. However, as it did not reach or exceed 50%, it indicated that it was not acutely toxic towards bacteria (Table 14). The Selenastrum capricornutum (representing algae) indicated 27% inhibition which is an indication of a potential long-term change in the sensitive algae species composition found at this site. However, as this sample did not exceed a 50% acute inhibition effect, it was identified not to be acutely toxic towards sensitive algae. The Daphnia pulex and Poecilia reticulate tests expressed zero levels of mortality when exposed to the water samples, which were thus not considered acutely toxic (Table 14).

The downstream site (WON_DS), although it had a lower conductivity, had a much higher expressed toxicity across all the trophic level tests (Table 14). The high inhibition levels with V. fischeri and S. capricornutum indicated acute toxicity towards both sensitive bacteria and algae species respectively. Furthermore, all if not most of the D. pulex and P. reticulate died when exposed to the water samples, consequently resulting in the samples being acutely toxic towards these bioassays (Table 14).

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

The samples were further classified using the toxicity data of the non-diluted samples as per (Persoone, et al., 2003). Refer to Table 15 for the hazard classification of each site as per the methodology described above. The upstream site showed a slight acute hazard (Class II), demonstrating that intolerant and sensitive aquatic macroinvertebrate taxa would still be able to tolerate the conditions at these sites. However, the downstream site showed a high acute hazard (Class IV), indicating an impact in a downstream direction.

Table 14: Summary of WET testing results

Site Vibrio fischeri Selenastrum Daphnia pulex Poecilia reticulata capricornutum

WON_US Stimulation Inhibition None None

(+31) (-27) 0 0

WON_DS Inhibition Inhibition High High

(-97) (-99) 100 70 Red writing under V. fisheri and S. capricornutum indicates inhibition levels which exceed the threshold for natural variation (20%) and which poses a concern % Mortality: Low (D. pulex and P. reticulata 0 - 9%, V. fischeri and S. capricornutum 0 - 19%), Moderate (D. pulex and P. reticulata 10 - 50%, V. fischeri and S. capricornutum 20 - 50%), High (>50%) %Stimulation >20% potential for algal blooms

Table 15: Hazard Classification of undiluted samples for June 2018

Site Hazard Classification

WON_US II

WON_DS IV

6.1.1.8 Socio Economic A desktop study was conducted to understand and document the prevailing socio-economic conditions within the proposed study area. The key demographic aspects within the municipality are provided below:  The Merafong population has dropped from 197 520 to 188 843 between the 2011 and 2016, with a negative population growth rate of 1.02;  The dominant population within the municipality group is black African and the dominant language is IsiXhosa;  Approximately 84% of the working persons in Merafong have jobs in the formal sector, nearly 60% of the formally employed persons are semi-skilled. Unemployment rate varies between 17% and 20%; and  The economy of Merafong City is still dominated by the mining sector, which contributed 54.9% to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2011 and 29.1% in 2016.

The provision of social infrastructure and services is relatively good within the municipality, with a majority of the people using electricity for cooking and lighting, 74,7% households living in formal dwellings and the availability of adequate sanitation and waste disposal in formal dwellings. Unfortunately, there is a backlog of water and sanitation in informal settlements, road infrastructure is in poor to fair condition within the MCLM and the crime rate is high. Additionally, Merafong is not a traditional tourism destination with many of its neighbours outperforming the municipality.

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

6.1.1.9 Soil, Land Capability and Land Use The project site is highly modified by a long history of mining and related activities (Figure 12). Soils are shallow to deep Mispah resting on top of hard rock strata. Mispah soils are typically not conducive to agriculture but rather natural grazing.

Golder’s ecologist did not observe any farming practices on site, however according to a local farmer, cattle can graze within the area. Golder flagged that the presence of illegal Zama-Zama miners could lead to stock theft, however the local farmer stated that he has not experienced any stock theft in all the years he has farmed in the area.

AGA do not allow any grazing of animals on their property. Landowners are responsible for the maintenance of their property boundary fences to restrict access. 6.1.1.10 Noise The assessment of ambient noise levels in the near vicinity of the proposed mine included:  A review of applicable legislation, policy and standards;  Review and analysis of available historical noise monitoring data from historical noise monitoring reports;  The identification of local noise emission sources; and  The identification and discussion of the potential health effects associated with noise emissions from the proposed mining operations. 6.1.1.11 Visual The local visual resource is characterised by largely flat and gently undulating topography with few elevated rises and hills. The vegetation cover comprises of large tracts of grassland/wetland, with small pockets of woodland/plantations and numerous scattered trees. The unnamed tributary to the Mooirivierloop, which is a small drainage line, is the prominent hydrological feature in the study area and runs parallel to the proposed pipeline route. Mine tailings facilities are common in the landscape and their tall, geometric shapes significantly alter the natural landscape profile. Localised areas of built infrastructure, disturbances and transformation are common in the landscape, and these are typically associated with mining activities. Several residential areas are also present. 6.1.1.12 Heritage The project area is part of a mining landscape which is the result of gold mining activities over a long period of time. Consequently, the area cannot be described as pristine any longer. However, heritage resources still do occur in the area and these include primarily:  Mine landscapes where mine infrastructure older than sixty years still occurs;  Townscapes which comprise whole suburbs of Randfontein and other towns on the West Rand which are older than sixty years; and  Graveyards and graves dating from the nineteenth century to the recent past. The baseline heritage survey undertaken along the pipeline corridor did not reveal the presence of any of the types and ranges of heritage resources as outlined in Section 3 of the National Heritage Resources Act (Act No. 25 of 1999).

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

Notes:  Due to security risks posed by illegal mine workers (Zama Zamas), the heritage specialist was required to undertake the baseline survey from a Caspir armoured vehicle along the pipeline corridor;  The survey was limited to the southern part of the pipeline as the northern part of the pipeline will be mounted on top of the existing pipeline and thus no further disturbances will be caused along this part of the pipeline; and  It is possible that the baseline survey may have missed heritage resources: . Covered with dense vegetation and/or could not be surveyed due to the security risks;

. Which are buried underground and may only be exposed once development commences; and

. By failure to recognise them. 6.1.1.13 Palaeontology Fossils in South Africa mainly occur in rocks of sedimentary nature and not in rocks from igneous or metamorphic nature. Therefore, if sedimentary rocks are present, the palaeontological sensitivity can range from low to very high.

The proposed pipeline is located on the dolomites of the Malmani Subgroup, Chuniespoort Group of the Transvaal Supergroup which have a high paleontological sensitivity, the Rooihoogte Formation with a low paleontological sensitivity and the Time Ball Hill Formation with a high paleontological sensitivity (SG 2.2 SAHRA APMHOB Guidelines, 2012).

Notes:  Due to security risks onsite posed by illegal mine workers (Zama Zamas), the paleontological specialist was not allowed onsite and thus the baseline assessment of the paleontological resources was undertaken at a desktop level based on available literature; and  The sensitivity level (i.e. Low, Medium, Hight etc.) indicates the possible occurrence of palaeontology resources onsite. 6.1.2 Description of current land uses The dominant land uses directly affected by the proposed pipeline and surface infrastructure include the following:  The CWC surface infrastructure is situated within the existing footprint of historic brownfields mining land; and  The proposed pipeline route is situated on a mixture of open vacant land and historic brownfields mining land. In addition, the pipeline corridor will cross a few roads via steel gantries. 6.1.3 Environmental and current land use map The dominant land uses surrounding the proposed pipeline route (i.e. within 5 km) as seen in Figure 12 include the following:  Mining operations, including active mines and defunct mines in the process of being decommissioned;  Formal and informal residential areas;  Regional and national road infrastructure;

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

 Commercial and industrial activities;  Landing strip;  Open vacant land (possibly used for grazing of cattle); and  An extensive network of gravel roads and tracks. 7 IMPACTS AND RISKS IDENTIFIED, INCLUDING THE NATURE, SIGNIFICANCE, CONSEQUENCE, EXTENT, DURATION AND PROBABILITY 7.1 Methodology used in determining and ranking the nature, significance, consequences, extent, duration and probability of potential environmental impacts and risks The significance of identified impacts was 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 (Table 16):

Table 16: Impact classification for impact assessment

Occurrence Severity

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

To assess each of these factors for each impact, the following ranking scales are used (Table 17).

Table 17: Ranking scales

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

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

Probability Duration

2 - Local 4 – Low

1 - Site only 2 – Minor

0 - None

After ranking these factors for each impact, the significance of the two aspects, occurrence and severity, was assessed using the following formula:

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

The maximum value is 100 significance points (SP). The impact significance was then rated as per Table 18.

Table 18: Categories describing environmental consequence SP >75 Indicates high environmental An impact which could influence the decision about whether or not to significance proceed with the project regardless of any possible mitigation. SP 30 – 75 Indicates moderate An impact or benefit which is sufficiently important to require environmental significance management, and which could have an influence on the decision unless it is mitigated. SP <30 Indicates low environmental Impacts with little real effect and which should not have an influence significance on or require modification of the project design. + Positive impact An impact that constitutes an improvement over pre-project conditions.

Although not explicitly included in the criteria tables, there is uncertainty associated with the information and methods used in an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) because of its predictive nature. The certainty with which an impact analysis can be completed depends on a number of factors, including:  Understanding of natural/ecological and socio-economic processes at work now and in the future, and  Understanding of present and future properties of the affected resource. The level of prediction confidence for an impact analysis will be discussed when there are questions about the factors reviewed above. Where the level of prediction confidence makes a prediction of the impact problematic, a subjective assessment is made based on the available information, the applicability of information on surrogates, and on professional opinion.

The level of prediction confidence is sufficiently low in some cases that an estimate of environmental consequence cannot be made with a sufficient degree of confidence. Undetermined ratings are accompanied by recommendations for research or monitoring to provide more data in the future. 7.2 The positive and negative impacts that the proposed activity (in terms of the initial site layout) and alternatives will have on the environment and the community that may be affected 7.2.1 Layout and alternatives The preferred (i.e. initial) pipeline route (i.e. site layout) will have significantly less environmental impacts compared to the two alternative routes, as the preferred route is further away from the regulated area of a watercourse that runs parallel to the pipeline route (Figure 2). With regard to the community, there will be very

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

little difference in the impacts of the preferred pipeline route versus the alternative pipeline routes, as all pipeline routes traverse the same farm and portions for all options (i.e. farm Blyvooruitzicht 116, portions 10, 13, 15, 26, 51 & 89. 7.2.2 Environmental impacts This dewatering project would allow for the continuation of AGA’s operations and reduce the health and safety risks brought on by fissure water reporting at the #4 and #6 shafts of the defunct Blyvooruitzicht Mine and it would enable the separation of “clean water” from contaminated AMD. The pumped and neutralised AMD will be re-used as make-up water in the Savuka Gold Plant Reclamation Operations, which will benefit the Savuka operations and address AMD reporting to AGA’s operations.

Cumulatively, the positive environmental impacts outweigh the negative environmental impacts which will be further mitigated by the implementation of the project’s environmental management programme (see section B of this BA report). 7.2.3 Social impacts Social impacts associated with the project are anticipated to be both positive and negative. Positive impacts are anticipated to include:  Lower health and safety risks for the AGA employees at the AGA operations;  Reduction in unemployment within the local community; and  Contributions to the local economy. Negative impacts may include social ills associated with the influx of new persons to the local area. Cumulatively, the positive social impacts outweigh the negative social impacts which can be further mitigated by the implementation of the project’s environmental management programme (Please refer to section B for the management and mitigation measures). 7.2.4 Significance rating summary Please refer to Table 19, Table 20, Table 21 and Table 22 which provide the significance rating for each project activity, a description of the impact, the environmental aspect affected, the project phase the impact relates to, the pre-mitigation significance rating, the type of mitigation applied, and the post-mitigation significance rate. 7.3 The possible mitigation measures that could be applied and the level of risk Please refer to section B for the management and mitigation measures. 7.4 Motivation where no alternative sites were considered Alternatives regarding pipeline routing were considered – see section 4. 7.5 Statement motivating the alternative development location within the overall site The final pipeline routing will be determined by the findings and recommendations of the EAP, specialists and project engineers. The location of infrastructure will be such that sensitive areas are avoided. In addition, an environmental management programme will be implemented to mitigate the identified environmental impacts.

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

7.6 Full description of the process undertaken to identify, assess and rank the impacts and risks the activity will impose on the preferred site (In respect of the final site layout plan) through the life of the activity The following steps were taken to identify the potential impacts associated with the proposed pipeline and associated surface infrastructure:  A detailed literature review was undertaken to identify and collate available information relevant to the proposed project and its environmental and social;  Specialist studies were undertaken to verify the baseline environmental and social conditions;  The literature review and specialist studies were used to compile the Draft Basic Assessment Report (DBAR) in the DMR standardised format;  The stakeholder engagement process is currently being undertaken in a manner designed to be interactive, providing the landowners and identified stakeholders with an opportunity to provide input into the project. This is considered a key focus as the local residents have capabilities of providing site-specific information, which may not be available in desktop research material. Stakeholders were requested to provide their views on the project, and to state any potential concerns they may have. All comments and responses provided will be collated into the Comments and Responses Report, which will be attached to the Final Basic Assessment Report (FBAR) and will also be considered during the final impact assessment process; and  The rating of the identified impacts was undertaken in a quantitative manner as described in section 7.1 (impact rating). The identification of management and mitigation measures was done based on the significance of the impacts and the measures included are considered to be sufficient, appropriate and practical to prevent unacceptable environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project.

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

7.7 Assessment of each identified potentially significant impact and risk Table 19, Table 20, Table 21 and Table 22 provides the significance rating for each project activity, a description of the impact, the environmental aspect affected, the project phase the impact relates to, the pre-mitigation significance rating, the type of mitigation applied, and the post-mitigation significance rate.

Table 19: Impact Assessment and Management Type for construction phase

Environmental Potential Impact Aspects Affected Significance if Mitigation Type Significance Aspect Not Mitigated if Mitigated

Heritage Damage/disturb heritage Heritage resources Low  Should any heritage resources be found onsite, the best option between relocating or avoiding the Low resources site will be followed in alignment with a chance find procedure.

Biodiversity Loss and disturbance of Natural habitat Moderate Minimisation Low natural habitat  As far as practical, vehicle access tracks and lay-down areas should be located in already disturbed areas. Where this is not possible, the disturbance footprints should be kept to a minimum;  The preliminarily-defined wetland boundaries should be confirmed in the field prior to construction;  All wetlands located within the study area, but not directly crossed by the pipeline should be carefully demarcated and no construction machinery or any other vehicles should be allowed access to these areas other than along existing roads;  Construction activities should be undertaken during the dry season (if possible); and  An Environmental Control Officer (ECO) should manage the vegetation clearing process. Rehabilitation  Any areas cleared of vegetation during construction should be stabilised and revegetated using indigenous grass species.

Loss of plant species of Plant species of conservation concern Low Avoidance Low conservation concern  Conduct a walk-down of the pipeline route and identify and locate plant species of conservation concern;  Placement of plinths should be undertaken to avoid plant species of conservation concern, as located during the survey; and  Access tracks and laydown areas for construction should be positioned to avoid plant species of conservation concern.

Soil erosion and Soil erosion and sedimentation Moderate Avoidance and Minimisation Low sedimentation of the  Limit vegetation clearing to the footprint areas to be disturbed by the concrete plinths only. unnamed tributary to the Rehabilitation Mooirivierloop  If incidences of erosion are noticed during or after construction, these should be attended to immediately using appropriate interventions, such as inter alia physical stabilisation, brush-packing and the placement of berms. In severe cases of erosion, active revegetation using indigenous grass species should be considered.

Alien invasive species Alien invasive species Moderate Minimisation Low establishment  Actively control all alien invasive species (AIS) that colonise areas that have been disturbed during the construction phase. Control should include:  Annual treatments along the entire length of the pipeline and all sites disturbed during construction (e.g. vehicle access tracks and lay-down areas);  A combined approach using both chemical and mechanical control methods; and  Periodic follow-up treatments, with a regularity informed by annual monitoring.  AIS control should continue through all phases of the proposed project until such a time as monitoring indicates AIS are no longer actively establishing.

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

Environmental Potential Impact Aspects Affected Significance if Mitigation Type Significance Aspect Not Mitigated if Mitigated

Interruption of wetland Wetland hydrology Low Minimisation Low hydrology  The preliminarily defined wetland boundaries should be confirmed in the field prior to construction;  Vegetation clearing should be restricted to the footprint area to be disturbed by the concrete plinths; and  Driving within the wetland areas should be kept to an absolute minimum. Only clearly defined access routes should be used.

Deterioration in wetland Water quality Moderate Minimisation Low water quality  Any waste from the construction process should be removed from the construction site;  Keep sufficient quantities of spill clean-up materials on site and/or on the construction vehicles to manage any incidental spills; and  Maintenance of construction vehicles is to be undertaken offsite and all vehicles used on site are to be in good working order without leakage of any oils, greases etc.

Surface water Erosion and Sedimentation Water quality of the stream Low Minimisation Low  Limit area cleared and appropriate disposal of construction material. Rehabilitation  Vegetate areas where no concrete structures are built to allow stormwater infiltration. Ground Water Contamination Ground water quality Low  As the pipeline is not expected to have any direct impacts on the groundwater levels or quality, Low mitigation measures are limited to taking care during construction to avoid unnecessary spillages of fuel, lubricants, cement, and paint or any other potentially harmful contaminants which over time could migrate into the underlying groundwater zone. During operation, regular monitoring of the pipeline should be maintained to avoid leakages from the pipeline, whereas at the end of the life of the pipeline, during decommissioning similar mitigative measures as during construction should be applied to ensure environmentally responsible behaviour.

Visual Aesthetics Visual Low  Pipeline expected to not have a significant visual impact and no mitigations recommended. Low Palaeontology Damage/disturb Fossil heritage High  If any palaeontological materials are exposed during construction, operations and/or Low Palaeontology resources decommissioning of the pipeline, SAHRA must be notified. All activities must be stopped immediately, and a palaeontologist should be called in to determine proper mitigation measures.

Social & Economic Employment opportunities The construction of the pipeline will create Positive - Low  Recruitment practises should favour local people with the required skills and qualifications (where Positive - new employment for locals feasible); and Moderate  The recruitment of labourers should be well advertised and documented to ensure a transparent process.

Small, medium and micro- The construction of the pipeline may lead Positive - Low  Procurement policies should favour local suppliers from the community (where feasible). Positive - enterprises (SMME) to the growth of SMMEs, due to: Moderate development  Minor land clearing for the preparation and laying of the pipeline support plinths;  General manual labour related to construction activities; and  The supply of materials.

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

Environmental Potential Impact Aspects Affected Significance if Mitigation Type Significance Aspect Not Mitigated if Mitigated

Population influx Influx of job seekers would have a Moderate  Recruitment practises should favour local people with the required skills and qualifications (where Low negative social impact on the landowners feasible); and and land occupiers.  The recruitment of labourers should be well advertised and documented to ensure a transparent process.

Disruption of movement Disruption of movement patterns within Moderate  Provision of notice boards in the vicinity of where movement pattern disruptions will occur to notify Low patterns the project areas. I&APs ahead of time;  Provision of alternative routes information to bypass any disruptions; and  Communication with local communities prior to any disruptions. Health, safety and security  Increased dust levels which may Moderate  Restrict presence of heavy vehicles on the roads to reduce traffic load (where feasible). Low risk result in respiratory problems for the locals and construction workers;  Increased traffic volumes;  Presence of heavy goods vehicles;  Road accidents, mainly impacting the locals who are not accustomed to heavy traffic and heavy vehicles; and  Deterioration of roads, which will pose a safety risk to motorists.

Noise Noise nuisance at nearby Noise levels Low  Materials handling activities: Low sensitive receptors . A drop height policy should be implemented onsite to reduce the level of noise generation when handling materials; and . All equipment operators should be trained in the policy such that drop height reduction is implemented onsite.  Heavy vehicle/machinery noise: . Using the smallest/quietest equipment for the particular purpose; . Ensuring that equipment is well maintained and fitted with the correct and appropriate noise abatement measures; . All vehicles and other equipment should be maintained and serviced regularly to ensure that the noise levels are controlled; and . Vehicles should not be allowed to idle for more than 5 minutes when not in use.  Monitoring requirements: . If noise complaints are registered regarding construction activities, noise monitoring should be undertaken to identify the sources and mitigation measures should be implemented to reduce the nuisance impacts; . Any noise complaints should be directed to the site management. Complaints and any actions arising from a complaint must be recorded in a complaint register to be maintained by site management. An investigation should be undertaken to determine the specific activities and or equipment/ machinery which is generating the nuisance noise resulting in the noise complaints.

Please refer to the supporting impact assessments conducted by the specialist EAP’s in APPENDIX E to APPENDIX L.

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

Table 20: Impact Assessment and Management Type for operation phase

Name of Activity Potential Impact Aspects Affected Significance if Mitigation Type Significance Not Mitigated if Mitigated

Biodiversity Establishment of alien Alien invasive species Moderate Minimisation Low invasive species  Actively control all alien invasive species (AIS) that colonise areas that have been disturbed during the construction phase. Control should include: . Annual treatments along the entire length of the pipeline and all sites disturbed during construction (e.g. vehicle access tracks and lay-down areas); . A combined approach using both chemical and mechanical control methods; . Periodic follow-up treatments, with a regularity informed by annual monitoring; and . AIS control should continue through all phases of the proposed project until such a time as monitoring indicates AIS are no longer actively establishing.

Leaks/spills of Unnamed tributary to the Mooirivierloop Moderate Minimisation Low contaminated water into the  Conduct regular (daily) visual inspections to monitor the integrity of the pipeline and ensure that no unnamed tributary to the vandalism is occurring; Mooirivierloop  In the event of a leak, pumping will be stopped, and pipeline repairs should be conducted immediately; and  Should a leak/spill event occur, a water quality and Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) sample should be retrieved immediately upstream and downstream of the spill. This exercise should be repeated one month after the spill to compare to the initial results to ensure maintenance.

Changed flows in wetland Flows in wetland Low Avoidance and Minimisation Low due to leaks or pipe failure  Regular maintenance of the pipeline must be undertaken during the operational phase. Any identified leaks should be repaired immediately; and  Any damage/erosion caused by pipe failure must be repaired immediately following the incident.

Surface water Leaks from pipeline could Water quality of the stream and potentially Moderate Avoid Low lead to pollution of stream the Mooi River  By monitoring for leaks. (increased metals, low pH) Minimisation  Fix leaks timeously.

Overflow from North Water quality of the stream and potentially Moderate Avoid Low Boundary Dam (NBD) to the unnamed tributary to the  Manage the NBD as per the prescribed operations manual including maintaining a 0.8 m freeboard in Mooirivierloop the NBD. Minimisation  Monitoring of the NBD level by CWC to manage pumping rates. Ground Water Contamination Ground Water Low  As the pipeline is not expected to have any direct impacts on the groundwater levels or quality, Low mitigation measures are limited to taking care during construction to avoid unnecessary spillages of fuel, lubricants, cement, and paint or any other potentially harmful contaminants which over time could over migrate into the underlying groundwater zone. During operation, regular monitoring of the pipelines should be maintained to avoid leakages from the pipeline, whereas at the end of the life of the pipeline, during decommissioning similar mitigative measures as during construction should be maintained to ensure environmentally responsible behaviour.

Treatment of Acid Mine Contamination of the groundwater reserve Positive  Dewatering of the shafts and reuse of the water in the Savuka Gold Plant Reclamation Operations Positive Drainage (AMD) serves as a significant positive benefit of the project as it allows for the use of the AMD.

Visual Aesthetics Visual Low  Pipeline not expected to have a significant visual impact and no mitigations required. Low

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

Name of Activity Potential Impact Aspects Affected Significance if Mitigation Type Significance Not Mitigated if Mitigated

Social and Health and safety of AGA Reduced risk of flooding Moderate - Moderate - Economic personnel and operations Positive Positive Employment opportunities Locals employment Positive - Low  Recruitment practises should favour local people with the required skills and qualifications (where Positive - feasible). Moderate

Loss of employment during Social and Economic Moderate  Invest in available community development initiatives (where possible) to lessen negative socio- Moderate transition from construction economic impacts associated with poverty in line with the operations SLP during transition from to operational phase construction to operational phase.

Noise Noise Noise Low  Materials handling activities: Low . A drop height policy should be implemented onsite to reduce the level of noise generation when handling materials; and . All equipment operators should be trained in the policy such that drop height reduction is implemented onsite.  Heavy vehicle/machinery noise: . Using the smallest/quietest equipment for the particular purpose; . Ensuring that equipment is well maintained and fitted with the correct and appropriate noise abatement measures; . All vehicles and other equipment should be maintained and serviced regularly to ensure that the noise levels are reduced; and . Vehicles should not be allowed to idle for more than 5 minutes when not in use.  Monitoring requirements: . If noise complaints are registered regarding construction activities, noise monitoring should be undertaken to identify the source and mitigation measures should be implemented to reduce the nuisance impacts; . During the operational phase, a once off noise monitoring campaign should be undertaken to establish the possible noise nuisance impacts from the operation of the CWC plant on the sensitive receptors. A suitable noise monitoring frequency should be established thereafter (i.e. not required, annually, quarterly etc.); and . Any noise complaints should be directed to the site management. Complaints and any actions arising from a complaint must be recorded in a complaint’s register to be maintained by site management. An investigation should be undertaken to determine the specific activities and or equipment/machinery which is generating the nuisance noise resulting in the noise complaints.

Please refer to the supporting impact assessments conducted by the specialist EAP’s in APPENDIX E to APPENDIX L.

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

Table 21: Impact Assessment and Management Type for decommissioning phase

Name of Activity Potential Impact Aspects Affected Significance if Mitigation Type Significance Not Mitigated if Mitigated

Biodiversity Alien invasive species Alien invasive species Low Minimisation Low establishment  Actively control all alien invasive species (AIS) that colonise areas that have been disturbed during the decommissioning phase. Control should include: . Annual treatments along the entire length of the pipeline and all decommissioning areas (access tracks and lay-down areas); and . A combined approach using both chemical and mechanical control methods.  Periodic follow-up treatments, informed by the findings of regular monitoring should be conducted for at least the first three years following decommissioning, or until such a time as monitoring indicates AIS are no longer actively establishing.

Soil erosion and Unnamed tributary to the Mooirivierloop Low Rehabilitation Low sedimentation of  Any areas cleared of vegetation during decommissioning should be stabilised and revegetated using unnamed tributary to the indigenous grass species. Mooirivierloop

Visual Aesthetics Visual Low  Pipeline expected to not have a significant visual impact and no mitigations recommended. Low Social and Loss of employment during Social and Economic Moderate  Invest in available community development initiatives (where possible) to lessen negative socio- Moderate Economic transition from operational economic impacts associated with poverty in line with the operations SLP during transition from to decommissioning phase operational to decommissioning phase.

Please refer to the supporting impact assessments conducted by the specialist EAP’s in APPENDIX E to APPENDIX L.

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

Table 22: Cumulative Impact Assessment and Management Type

Name of Activity Potential Impact Aspects Affected Significance if Mitigation Type Significance Not Mitigated if Mitigated Heritage Damage/disturb heritage Heritage resources Low  Chance find procedures to be followed. Low resources from the construction phase of the project

Biodiversity Establishment of alien Alien invasive species Low  Actively control all alien invasive species (AIS) that colonise areas that have been disturbed. Control Low invasive species should include: . Annual treatments along the entire length of the pipeline; and . A combined approach using both chemical and mechanical control methods.  Periodic follow-up treatments, informed by the findings of regular monitoring should be conducted for at least the first three years following decommissioning, or until such a time as monitoring indicates AIS are no longer actively establishing.

Ground Water Contamination Ground Water Low  As the pipeline is not expected to have any direct impacts on the groundwater levels or quality, Low cumulative impacts are anticipated to be minimal as long as the recommended mitigation measures (as above) are implemented through all project phases.

Social and Employment opportunities Locals employment Positive  Employment creation through all phases of the project. Positive Economic

Health and safety of AGA Reduced risk of flooding Positive Positive personnel and operations

Visual Aesthetics Visual Low  Pipeline expected to not have a significant visual impact and no mitigations recommended. Low

Noise Noise Noise Low  The pipeline is not expected to have any significant noise impacts. Any impacts can be suitably Low mitigated as long as the recommended mitigation measures (as above) are implemented through all project phases.

Surface water Pollution of the surface Water quality of the unnamed tributary to Moderate  The pipeline could pose a moderate risk to the surface water resource however with appropriate Low water resource the Mooirivierloop and potentially the Mooi monitoring for leaks, maintain 0.8 m freeboard in the NBD, adjust pumping rates; and fix leaks River timeously, these risks can be suitably mitigated.

Palaeontology Damage/disturb Fossil heritage High  If any palaeontological materials are exposed during construction, operations and/or Low Palaeontology resources decommissioning of the pipeline, SAHRA must be notified. All activities must be stopped immediately, and a palaeontologist should be called in to determine proper mitigation measures.

Please refer to the supporting impact assessments conducted by the specialist EAP’s in APPENDIX E to APPENDIX L. 7.8 Summary of specialist reports. Table 23 provides a summary of the specialist reports which informed the baseline and impact assessment, and includes recommendations made which must be considered by the DMR for authorisation.

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

Table 23: Specialist Studies

List of Studies Undertaken Recommendations of Specialist Reports Mark if Cross-reference included in EIA relevant section in EIA report (X) report Phase I Heritage Impact Assessment  If any heritage resources of significance is exposed during the Project the South African Heritage Resources Authority (SAHRA) should be X Part A Section 6.1.1.12 notified immediately, all activities must be stopped and an archaeologist accredited with the Association for Southern African Professional APPENDIX K Archaeologist (ASAPA) should be notify in order to determine appropriate mitigation measures for the discovered finds.

Biodiversity Impact Assessment  All recommended mitigation measures by the specialist should be implemented. X Part A Section 7.7 APPENDIX H

Surface Water Impact Assessment and Floodline  Rather than the implementation of an instream water quality sampling programme, for the surface water component, monitoring of the X APPENDIX G Delineation operation of the pipeline and dam levels should be routinely undertaken. Should a leak or spill occur, a water quality sample should be taken at upstream and downstream points downstream, and one month after the incident.

Palaeontology Assessment  There is no objection to the development, and it is not necessary to request a Phase 2 Palaeontological Impact Assessment: Mitigation to X APPENDIX L determine whether the development will affect fossiliferous outcrops. The palaeontological sensitivity is HIGH, so caution is recommended. A Phase 2 Palaeontological Mitigation will be required if a fossil is found during construction (for example a stromatolite);  This project may benefit the economy, the growth of the community, and social development in general;  Preferred choice: The potential for impact on the palaeontological heritage is HIGH. Care must be taken during grading, digging, and removing topsoil, subsoil and overburden; and  The following should be conserved: if any palaeontological material is exposed during digging, excavating, drilling or blasting SAHRA must be notified. All construction activities must be stopped, and a palaeontologist should be called in to determine proper mitigation measures.

Geology and Hydrogeology  During operation, regular monitoring of the pipelines should be maintained to avoid leakages from the pipeline, whereas at the end of the X Part A Section 7.7 life of the pipeline, during decommissioning similar mitigative measures as during construction should be maintained to ensure APPENDIX F environmentally responsible behaviour.

Visual impact assessment  The visual impacts of the proposed pipeline are not expected to be significant thus no mitigation measures are recommended. X APPENDIX J Groundwater  Pipeline not expected to have a significant impact on groundwater thus no mitigations are recommended. X APPENDIX F Noise Impact assessment The following recommended mitigation measures and considered best practice and should be implemented during the construction phase X APPENDIX E and/or operational phase:  Materials handling activities: . A drop height policy should be implemented onsite to reduce the level of noise generation when handling materials; and . All equipment operators should be trained in the policy such that drop height reduction is implemented onsite.  Heavy vehicle/machinery noise: . Using the smallest/quietest equipment for the particular purpose; . Ensuring that equipment is well maintained and fitted with the correct and appropriate noise abatement measures; . All vehicles and other equipment should be maintained and serviced regularly to ensure that the noise levels are reduced; and . Vehicles should not be allowed to idle for more than 5 minutes when not in use.  Monitoring requirements: . If noise complaints are registered regarding construction activities, noise monitoring should be undertaken to identify the source and mitigation measures should be implemented to reduce the nuisance impacts; . During the operational phase, a once off noise monitoring campaign should be undertaken to establish the possible noise nuisance impacts from the operation of the CWC plant on the sensitive receptors. A suitable noise monitoring frequency should be established thereafter (i.e. not required, annually, quarterly etc.); and

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

List of Studies Undertaken Recommendations of Specialist Reports Mark if Cross-reference included in EIA relevant section in EIA report (X) report

. Any noise complaints should be directed to the site management. Complaints and any actions arising from a complaint must be recorded in a complaint’s register to be maintained by site management. An investigation should be undertaken to determine the specific activities and or equipment/ machinery which is generating the nuisance noise resulting in the noise complaints.

Social Impact Assessment  Employment opportunities: X APPENDIX I . Communities within the vicinity of the mine should be given special consideration in terms of the benefits arising from the project because they will be the most affected by the project. It is recommended that the following mitigation measures be implemented: • If not currently in place, a local skills database must be developed and updated regularly. The skills database should be used for recruitment purposes (where practical) to minimise the probability of nepotism or corruption during the recruitment process; and • A monitoring system should be put in place to ensure that AGA's recruitment policy is adhered to during the recruitment process.  SMME development: . Where possible, goods and services should be sourced from local SMMEs, this will contribute positively to the development and growth of local SMMEs.  Population influx: . Regarding recruitment, priority will be given to locals, thus reducing the required need for outsiders; . If not available, AGA should consider the development of an influx management plan for the whole AGA operation. The plan should be aimed at identifying areas of potential influx and appropriate influx management measures. The plan should emphasise the need for local recruitment policy, workforce management, promotion of regional diversified growth strategies, implementation of health and safety education programmes and spatial planning, administration, and resource allocation; and . Additionally, relevant stakeholders should be engaged and consulted during the development of the detailed influx management plan.  Disruption of movement patterns: . Traffic during construction must always be regulated.  Health safety and security risk: . Dust suppression measures should be in place in areas where vehicles will use unsealed roads; . Traffic must always be controlled; and . During the stakeholder engagement process, community members should be sensitised to traffic safety risks and to the need to prevent children from wandering along the pipeline route.

Please refer to the supporting specialist reports in APPENDIX E to APPENDIX M for further details .

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

7.9 Environmental impact statement The sections below provide a summary and consolidated view of the impact assessment process appropriate to this particular project scope. 7.9.1 Summary of the key findings of the environmental impact assessment Potential impacts which cannot be adequately mitigated (i.e. those with a significance rating of Medium/High post mitigation) are considered key findings of the environmental impact assessment. All post mitigation impacts from the proposed pipeline are assessed to have a Low significance level of impact. In addition, there are several positive environmental and social impacts resulting from the project including:  Employment creation through all phases of the project;  Addressing AMD by reuse of the contaminated water in the Savuka Gold Plant Reclamation Operations; and  Reduced health and safety risks for AGA personnel and operations with a reduced risk of flooding. Based on the impact assessment, no key findings were identified, and no fatal flaws were observed which would preclude the development of the project. 7.9.2 Final Site Map Please refer to Figure 2 which provides the location of the proposed pipeline which serves as the final site map. 7.9.3 Summary of the positive and negative impacts and risks of the proposed activity and identified alternatives The proposed project is an environmental improvement project and the only relevant risk of an alternative will be if the No-Go alternative is applied. This would have the following consequences:  The continued reporting of fissure water at the BVG 5# shafts fissure water, which poses significant health, safety and flood risks for AGA’s operations;  The Savuka Gold Plant Reclamation operations will be required to source make-up water from an alternative source and probably at higher operational costs; and  The benefits of employment creation and stimulation of the local economy will not materialise. 7.10 Proposed impact management objectives and the impact management outcomes for inclusion in the EMPr; An EMPr seeks to achieve a required end state and describes how activities that have, or could have, an adverse impact on the environment and surrounding communities will be mitigated, controlled and monitored. The EMPr must address the environmental impacts and possible unplanned events during each phase of the Project (Construction, Operational, and Decommissioning). Due regard must be given to environmental protection during the entire project life cycle. Environmental recommendations are made to achieve environmental protection. These recommendations are aimed at ensuring that there is adequate control over the project to:  Minimise the extent of an impact during the life of the project;  Ensure appropriate restoration of areas affected by the project; and  Prevent long term environmental degradation.

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

7.11 Final proposed alternatives The proposed pipeline route as per Figure 2 is the only viable alternative for the project. 7.12 Aspects for inclusion as conditions of Authorisation This is provided in detail in section 7.14.2 below. 7.13 Description of any assumptions, uncertainties and gaps in knowledge Due to the presence of illegal Zama-Zamas in the vicinity of the site and the associated safety concerns, ground truthing of the specialist studies was either limited and/or not possible. As a result, several of the specialist studies were conducted at a desktop level with reliance on past reports of the area and national information databases. 7.14 Reasoned opinion as to whether the proposed activity should or should not be authorised This section details the EAP’s opinion regarding the authorisation of this application. 7.14.1 Reasons why the activity should be authorised or not The EAP is of the opinion that the application should be authorised as this project serves as an environmental improvement project. The associated negative environmental and social impacts of the project are limited and can be easily mitigated to an acceptable level. In addition, there are significant positive benefits associated with the project which will serve to improve the environmental and social conditions in the area. The authorisation should be granted subject to the inclusion of the conditions of authorisation listed in section 7.14.2 below. 7.14.2 Conditions that must be included in the authorisation The following conditions are recommended in support of Environmental Authorisation being granted:  Heritage: . If any heritage resources are exposed during the Project the South African Heritage Resources Authority (SAHRA) should be notified immediately, all activities must be stopped and an archaeologist accredited with the Association for Southern African Professional Archaeologists (ASAPA) should be notified in order to determine appropriate mitigation measures for the discovered finds. The chance finds procedures as outlined in the report (APPENDIX K) should be followed. This may include obtaining the necessary authorisation (permits) from SAHRA to implement the mitigation measures.  Palaeontological: . If any palaeontological material is exposed during the project, SAHRA must be notified. All activities must be stopped, and a palaeontologist should be called in to determine proper mitigation measures. (APPENDIX L); and

. The topsoil and subsoil must always be examined for fossils during construction. Special care must be taken during construction to avoid intruding on fossiliferous layers. This can be done by the Environmental Control Officer.

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

 Surface Water: . Rather than the implementation of an instream water quality sampling programme for the surface water component, monitoring of the operational pipeline and NBD free board levels should be routinely undertaken. Should a leak or spill occur, a water quality sample should be taken at various points downstream, weekly until an improvement is noted. (APPENDIX G).  Biodiversity: . Recommended mitigation and management measures (as mentioned in Table 19, Table 20, Table 21 and Table 22) should be included in the overall Environmental Management Plan (EMP) for this project (APPENDIX H).  Noise: The following recommended mitigation measures are considered best practice and should be implemented during the construction phase and/or operational phase:

. Materials handling activities:

− A drop height policy should be implemented onsite to reduce the level of noise generation when handling materials; and

− All equipment operators should be trained in the policy such that drop height reduction is implemented onsite.

. Heavy vehicle/machinery noise:

− Using the smallest/quietest equipment for the particular purpose;

− Ensuring that equipment is well maintained and fitted with the correct and appropriate noise abatement measures;

− All vehicles and other equipment should be maintained and serviced regularly to ensure that the noise levels are controlled; and

− Vehicles should not be allowed to idle for more than 5 minutes when not in use.

. Monitoring requirements:

− If noise complaints are registered regarding construction activities, noise monitoring should be undertaken to identify the source and mitigation measures should be implemented to reduce the nuisance impacts;

− During the operational phase, a once off noise monitoring campaign should be undertaken to establish the possible nuisance noise impacts from the operation of the CWC plant on the sensitive receptors. A suitable noise monitoring frequency should be established thereafter (i.e. not required, annually, quarterly etc.); and

− Any noise complaints should be directed to the site management. Complaints and any actions arising from a complaint must be recorded in a complaint’s register to be maintained by site management. An investigation should be undertaken to determine the specific activities and/or equipment/machinery which is generating the nuisance noise resulting in the noise complaints (APPENDIX E).

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

 Social & Economic: . Employment opportunities:

Communities within the vicinity of the mine should be given special consideration in terms of the benefits arising from the project because they will be the most affected by the project. It is recommended that the following mitigation measures be implemented:

− If not currently in place, a local skills database must be developed and updated regularly. The skills database should be used for recruitment purposes (where practical) to minimise the probability of nepotism or corruption during the recruitment process; and

− A monitoring system should be put in place to ensure that AGA's recruitment policy is adhered to during the recruitment process.

. SMME development:  Where possible, goods and services should be sourced from local SMMEs, this will contribute positively to the development and growth of local SMMEs.  Population influx: . Regarding recruitment, priority will be given to locals, thus reducing the required need for outsiders; and

. Traffic during construction must always be regulated.  Health safety and security risk: . Traffic must always be controlled; and

. During the stakeholder engagement process, community members should be sensitised to traffic safety risks and to the need to prevent children from wandering along the pipeline route.

Note: Recommended mitigation and management measures regarding employment, population influx, disruption of movement patterns, and health, safety and security risk should be included in the overall Environmental Management Plan (EMP) for this project (APPENDIX I).  EMPr: . The EMPr is to be implemented and adhered to throughout the project lifecycle. 7.15 Period for which the Environmental Authorisation is required The scope of this application is focused on improving the local environmental conditions.

The proposed project is an environmental improvement project which needs to be operational for the life of the AGA operations and therefore the applicant requires environmental authorisation until the end of 2040 (i.e. 20 years). 7.16 Undertaking It is confirmed that the undertaking required to meet the requirements of this section is provided at the end of the EMPr and is applicable to both the Basic assessment report and the Environmental Management Programme report.

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

7.17 Financial Provision The total estimated scheduled closure costs for AGA’s proposed pipeline, as at June 2019, amounts to R1 438 949,32 (including Ps&Gs and contingencies and excluding VAT), as summarised in Table 24.

Table 24: Closure costs for the proposed pipeline

Closure Costs, as at June 2019

Closure components Scheduled Closure (2040)

1 Infrastructural aspects R 787 608,30

2 Mining aspects R -

3 General surface rehabilitation R 375 156,05

Sub-Total 1 R 1 162 764,35

5 Post-Closure Aspects

5,1 Rehabilitation monitoring R 3 042,50

5,2 Care and maintenance R 17 334,31

Sub-Total 2 R 20 376,81

6 Additional Allowances

6,1 Preliminary and general (12%) R 139 531,72

6,2 Contingencies (10%) R 116 276,44

Sub-Total 3 R 255 808,16

Grand Total Excl. VAT. (Sub-total 1 +2 +3) R 1 438 949,32

Note: For further detail, please refer to the Closure cost assessment in APPENDIX M. 7.17.1 Explain how the aforesaid amount was derived The unit rates for general rehabilitation and closure measures/activities were obtained from Golder’s existing closure costing database, which is regularly updated in consultation with demolition and earthworks contractors, as well as with rehabilitation practitioners. Golder undertakes a thorough review of its unit rate database, as follows:  Minor unit rates are adjusted with standard inflation at least once a year;  Key rates for the dismantling of infrastructure are benchmarked at least annually by a specialised demolition contractor, to ensure that they remain market-related and take account of the latest dismantling and demolition techniques. It is noted that as these technologies improve, these rates are trending downwards in real terms;  Earthworks rates are benchmarked against recent tenders available to Golder as well as benchmarking by discussion with contractors; and

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

 Aggregated rates dependent on base infrastructure or earthworks-related rates are recalculated given the latest base rates. 7.17.2 Confirm that this amount can be provided for from operating expenditure The total estimated closure cost for the pipeline is R1 438 949,32 (including rehabilitation and closure). The applicant hereby confirms that the total mentioned will be an operational cost. 7.18 Specific Information required by the competent Authority To comply with the provisions of Sections 24(4)(a) and (b) read with Section 24 (3) (a) and (7) of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998) the EIA report must include the relevant plans providing details of the environment to be impacted by the proposed, project, ensure that relevant organs of state are informed of the project, and all relevant information pertaining to the project activities, associated impacts, and environmental management plan. All report plans are attached in APPENDIX A to APPENDIX M as shown in Table 25.

Table 25: List of appendices

Appendix Report

APPENDIX A I&AP Database

APPENDIX B Announcement Letter

APPENDIX C Advertisement and site notices

APPENDIX D Registered I&APs

APPENDIX E Noise Impact Assessment

APPENDIX F Geology and Geohydrology

APPENDIX G Surface Water and Floodline Delineation

APPENDIX H Biodiversity

APPENDIX I Social Impact Assessment

APPENDIX J Visual Impact Assessment

APPENDIX K Heritage Impact Assessment

APPENDIX L Palaeontological Assessment

APPENDIX M Closure Cost Estimation and Report

APPENDIX N Comment & Responses Report (CRR)

7.18.1 Impact on the socio-economic conditions of any directly affected person The direct impacts of the proposed project are generally positive for the directly affected individuals. Benefits include the creation of employment opportunities, SMME development, and reduced health and safety risks to AGA personnel and operations as an operational pipeline will protect against flooding.

Where negative impacts may occur, they can be easily mitigated. The impacts and associated issues have been investigated and discussed throughout the report.

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

The socio-economic baseline is contained in section 6.1.1.8, the impact assessment in section 7.2.3 and the full report is available in APPENDIX I. 7.18.2 Impact on any national estate referred to in section 3(2) of the National Heritage Resources Act The scope of the heritage assessment included a desktop investigation and a site visit to determine whether any heritage sites are present along the pipeline route. The baseline heritage survey undertaken along the pipeline corridor did not reveal the presence of any of the types and ranges of heritage resources as outlined in Section 3 of the National Heritage Resources Act (Act No. 25 of 1999).

The paleontological assessment was based on a desktop investigation due to the security risks onsite. The proposed pipeline is located on the dolomites of the Malmani Subgroup, Chuniespoort Group of the Transvaal Supergroup which have a High paleontological sensitivity, the Rooihoogte Formation with a Low paleontological sensitivity and the Time Ball Hill Formation with a High paleontological sensitivity (SG 2.2 SAHRA APMHOB Guidelines, 2012). However, with the implementation of suitable mitigation measures the significance of the impact will be reduced to Low.

A Notice of Intent to Develop was compiled and will be submitted on SAHRIS when the Draft EIA/EMP is submitted for public comment.

Heritage and palaeontology reports were compiled and are attached in APPENDIX K and APPENDIX L. 7.19 Other matters required in terms of Sections 24(4)(a) and (b) of the Act The only feasible alternative investigated is the No-Go alternative and the impacts associated with the project not proceeding section 4.1).Other discussions, pertaining to the potential alternatives shown in Figure 2, considered the location, type of activity to be undertaken, design or layout of the activity, technology to be used, and operational aspects. This has been discussed at length throughout the report in terms of socio-economic impacts and environmental impacts. Refer to section 7.14 for the discussion regarding the reasoned opinion whether the proposed activities should be authorised. PART B ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME REPORT a) Details of the EAP (Confirm that the requirement for the provision of the details and expertise of the EAP are already included in PART A, section 1(a) herein as required);

Refer to Part A, Section 1(a) of this document; d) Description of the Aspects of the Activity (Confirm that the requirement to describe the aspects of the activity that are covered by the draft environmental management programme is already included in PART A, section (1)(h) herein as required). The EAP confirms that the requirement to describe the aspects of the activity that are covered by the draft environmental management programme is already included in PART A, section (1)(h) herein as required; and e) Composite Map: (Provide a map (Attached as an Appendix) at an appropriate scale which superimposes the proposed activity, its associated structures, and infrastructure on the environmental sensitivities of the preferred site, indicating any areas that any areas that should be avoided, including buffers).

Figure 17 below provides the site sensitivity composite map.

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

Figure 17: Site sensitivity composite map

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

f) Description of Impact management objectives including management statements:

i) Determination of closure objectives (ensure that the closure objectives are informed by the type of environment described).

The closure objective of the proposed project is to rehabilitate the site and reinstate it to the land use determined for the overall AGA operations in the mining lease areas as per the Closure Cost Estimate Report attached as APPENDIX M;

ii) Volumes and rate of water use required for the operation:

Apart from the small amounts required for concrete mixing and dust suppression, no water will be necessary for the construction, operation and/or decommissioning of the proposed pipeline. The pipeline will allow for dewatering, transfer of the water to the North Boundary dam, and reuse as make-up water to the Savuka Gold Plant circuit. The proposed pipeline will be surface mounted, above a hill slope seep wetland area; and

iii) Has a water use licence been applied for?

A General Authorisation application will be submitted to the Department of Water and Sanitation during quarter 1 of 2020.

Impacts to be mitigated in their respective phases:  Measures to rehabilitate the environment affected by the construction phase are listed in Table 26;  Measures to rehabilitate the environment affected by the operational phase are listed in Table 27; and  Measures to rehabilitate the environment affected by the decommissioning phase are listed in Table 28.

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

Table 26: Impacts to be mitigated during construction phase

ACTIVITIES PHASE SIZE AND SCALE OF MITIGATION MEASURES COMPLIANCE WITH TIME PERIOD FOR STANDARDS TO BE DISTURBANCE STANDARDS IMPLEMENTATION ACHIEVED

Vegetation clearing, Construction Pipeline corridor and Minimisation Compliance with SAHRA and On commencement of the Handling of chance finds in and earth works during access tracks to the  Limit area cleared; and National Heritage Resources activity and throughout the life accordance with the construction could pipeline corridor  Should any heritage resources be found onsite, the best option Act, Act 25 of 1999 cycle of the construction phase requirements of the National damage/disturb between relocating or avoiding the site will be followed in Heritage Resources Act, Act heritage resources alignment with a chance find procedure. 25 of 1999

Loss and disturbance of Construction Limited to the plinth Minimisation All recommendations within On commencement of the No/little habitat loss and natural habitat footprints, pipeline corridor  As far as practical, vehicle access tracks and lay-down areas this document will comply with activity and throughout the life disturbance within project area and access tracks to the should be located in already disturbed areas. Where this is not applicable NEMA and DMR cycle of the construction phase pipeline possible, the disturbance footprints should also be kept to a regulations. minimum; AGA environmental policies  The preliminarily defined wetland boundaries should be will be applicable to this confirmed in the field prior to construction; project.  All wetlands located within the study area, but not directly crossed by the pipeline should be carefully demarcated and no construction machinery or any other vehicles should be allowed access to these areas other than along existing roads;  Construction activities should be undertaken during the dry season; and  An Environmental Control Officer (ECO) should manage the vegetation clearing process. Rehabilitation  Any areas cleared of vegetation during construction should be stabilised and revegetated using indigenous grass species.

Loss of plant species of Construction Limited to the plinth Avoidance All recommendations within On commencement of the No loss or disturbance of plant conservation concern footprints, pipeline corridor  Conduct a walk-down of the pipeline route and identify and this document will comply with activity and throughout the life species of conservation and access tracks to the locate plant species of conservation concern; applicable NEMA and DMR cycle of the construction phase concern within project area pipeline  Placement of plinths should be undertaken to avoid plant regulations. species of conservation concern, as located during the survey; AGA environmental policies and will be applicable to this  Access tracks and laydown areas for construction should be project. positioned to avoid all plant species of conservation concern.

Soil erosion and Construction Limited to the plinth Avoidance and Minimisation All recommendations within On commencement of the Minimal soil erosion and sedimentation of the footprints, pipeline corridor  Minimise vegetation clearing to the footprint areas to be this document will comply with activity and throughout the life sedimentation along the unnamed tributary to and access tracks to the disturbed by the concrete plinths only. applicable NEMA and DMR cycle of the construction phase unnamed tributary to the the Mooirivierloop pipeline Rehabilitation regulations. Mooirivierloop  If incidences of erosion are noticed during or after construction, AGA environmental policies these should be attended to immediately using appropriate will be applicable to this interventions, such as inter alia physical stabilisation, brush- project. packing and the placement of berms. In severe cases of erosion, active revegetation using indigenous grass species should be considered.

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

ACTIVITIES PHASE SIZE AND SCALE OF MITIGATION MEASURES COMPLIANCE WITH TIME PERIOD FOR STANDARDS TO BE DISTURBANCE STANDARDS IMPLEMENTATION ACHIEVED

Establishment and Construction Pipeline corridor and Minimisation All recommendations within On commencement of the Minimal spread of alien spread of alien invasive access tracks to the  Actively control all alien invasive species (AIS) that colonise this document will comply with activity and throughout the life invasive species; species pipeline areas that have been disturbed during the construction phase. applicable NEMA and DMR cycle of the construction phase No ecological impact from Control should include: regulations. alien invasive within the project  Annual treatments along the entire length of the pipeline AGA environmental policies area and all sites disturbed during construction (e.g. vehicle will be applicable to this access tracks and lay-down areas); project.  A combined approach using both chemical and mechanical control methods;  Periodic follow-up treatments, with a regularity informed by annual monitoring; and  AIS control should continue through all phases of the proposed project until such a time as monitoring indicates AIS are no longer actively establishing.

Interruption of wetland Construction Limited to the wetlands Minimisation All recommendations within On commencement of the No change inf wetland hydrology found on and near the site  The preliminarily defined wetland boundaries should be this document will comply with activity and throughout the life hydrology from baseline confirmed in the field prior to construction; applicable NEMA and DMR cycle of the construction phase conditions  Vegetation clearing should be restricted to the footprint area to regulations. be disturbed by the concrete plinths; AGA environmental policies  Driving within the wetland areas should be kept to an absolute will be applicable to this minimum; and project.  Clearly defined access routes should be used only.

Deterioration in wetland Construction Limited to the wetlands Minimisation All recommendations within On commencement of the No change from baseline water quality found on and near the site  Any waste from the construction process should be removed this document will comply with activity and throughout the life conditions in wetland water from the construction site; applicable NEMA and DMR cycle of the construction phase quality  Keep sufficient quantities of spill clean-up materials on site regulations. and/or on the construction vehicles to manage any incidental AGA environmental policies spills; and will be applicable to this  Maintenance of construction vehicles is to be undertaken offsite project. and all vehicles used on site are to be in good working order without leakage of any oils, greases etc.

Erosion and Construction Limited to the streams Minimisation All recommendations within On commencement of the Minimal soil erosion and Sedimentation found on and near the site  Limit area cleared and appropriate disposal of construction this document will comply with activity and throughout the life sedimentation into surface material. applicable NEMA and DMR cycle of the construction phase water streams Rehabilitation regulations.  Vegetate areas where no concrete structures are built to allow AGA environmental policies stormwater infiltration. will be applicable to this project.

Damage/disturb Construction Limited to the plinth  If any palaeontological materials are exposed during Compliance with SAHRA and On commencement of the National Heritage Resources Palaeontology footprints, pipeline corridor construction of the pipeline, SAHRA must be notified. All National Heritage Resources activity and throughout the life Act, Act 25 of 1999 resources and access tracks to the activities must be stopped immediately, and a palaeontologist Act, Act 25 of 1999 cycle of the construction phase pipeline should be called in to determine proper mitigation measures.

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

ACTIVITIES PHASE SIZE AND SCALE OF MITIGATION MEASURES COMPLIANCE WITH TIME PERIOD FOR STANDARDS TO BE DISTURBANCE STANDARDS IMPLEMENTATION ACHIEVED Employment creation Construction N/A  Recruitment practises should favour local people with the All recommendations within On commencement of the Unskilled labour force to required skills and qualifications (where feasible); and this document will comply with activity and throughout the life comprise of a high percentage  The recruitment of labourers should be well advertised and applicable NEMA and DMR cycle of the construction phase (i.e. >60%) from the local documented to ensure a transparent process. regulations. community AGA employment policies will be applicable to this project.

Procurement of Construction N/A  Procurement policies should favour local suppliers from the All recommendations within On commencement of the Procurement policies should services community (where feasible). this document will comply with activity and throughout the life favour local suppliers from the applicable NEMA and DMR cycle of the construction phase community (where feasible). regulations. AGA procurement policies will be applicable to this project.

Population influx Construction Influx of job seekers will  Recruitment practises should favour local people with the All recommendations within On commencement of the No incidences of project have a negative social required skills and qualifications (where feasible); and this document will comply with activity and throughout the life induced social conflict due to impact on the landowners  The recruitment of labourers should be well advertised and applicable NEMA and DMR cycle of the construction phase population influx recorded and land occupiers documented to ensure a transparent process. regulations. AGA employment policies will be applicable to this project.

Disruption of movement Construction Disruption of movement  Provision of notice boards in the vicinity of where movement All recommendations within On commencement of the No incidences or complaints of patterns patterns within the project pattern disruptions will occur to notice I&APs ahead of time; this document will comply with activity and throughout the life project induced disruption of areas  Provision of alternative routes information to bypass any applicable NEMA and DMR cycle of the construction phase movement patterns recorded disruptions; and regulations.  Communication with local communities prior to any disruptions. Health, safety and Construction Increased dust levels and Restrict presence of heavy vehicles on the roads to reduce traffic All recommendations within On commencement of the No incidences of project security risk health related complaints load (where feasible). this document will comply with activity and throughout the life induced health, safety and from construction workers applicable NEMA and DMR cycle of the construction phase security risks recorded and nearby sensitive regulations receptors Increased traffic volumes near the pipeline route; Increased presence of heavy goods vehicles in the vicinity of the project site; Increased frequency of road traffic accidents on roads surrounding the project site; and Deterioration of roads, which will pose a safety risk to motorists.

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

ACTIVITIES PHASE SIZE AND SCALE OF MITIGATION MEASURES COMPLIANCE WITH TIME PERIOD FOR STANDARDS TO BE DISTURBANCE STANDARDS IMPLEMENTATION ACHIEVED Noise Construction Noise nuisance at nearby  Materials handling activities: The International Finance On commencement of the No exceedances of IFC, WHO sensitive receptors  A drop height policy should be implemented onsite to Corporation (IFC) activity and throughout the life and SANS standards for noise reduce the level of noise generation when handling Environmental, Health, and cycle of the construction phase materials; and Safety (EHS) Guidelines for  All equipment operators should be trained in the policy noise management (IFC, such that drop height reduction is implemented onsite. 2007)  Heavy vehicle/machinery noise: WHO Guidelines for  Using the smallest/quietest equipment for the particular Community Noise (WHO, purpose; 1999)  Ensuring that equipment is well maintained and fitted with SANS 10103 (2008) the correct and appropriate noise abatement measures;  All vehicles and other equipment should be maintained and serviced regularly to ensure that the noise levels are reduced; and  Vehicles should not be allowed to idle for more than 5 minutes when not in use.  Monitoring requirements:  If noise complaints are registered regarding construction activities, noise monitoring should be undertaken to identify the source and mitigation measures should be implemented to reduce the nuisance impacts; and  Any noise complaints should be directed to the site management. Complaints and any actions arising from a complaint must be recorded in a complaint’s register to be maintained by site management. An investigation should be undertaken to determine the specific activities and or equipment/ machinery which is generating the nuisance noise resulting in the noise complaint

Table 27: Impacts to be mitigated during operational phase

ACTIVITIES PHASE SIZE AND SCALE OF MITIGATION MEASURES COMPLIANCE WITH TIME PERIOD FOR STANDARDS TO BE DISTURBANCE STANDARDS IMPLEMENTATION ACHIEVED

Establishment and Operation Pipeline corridor and Minimisation All recommendations within On commencement of the Minimal spread of alien spread of alien invasive access tracks to the  Actively control all alien invasive species (AIS) that colonise this document will comply with activity and throughout the life invasive species; species pipeline areas that have been disturbed during the construction phase. applicable NEMA and DMR cycle of the operational phase No ecological impact from Control should include: regulations. alien invasive within the  Annual treatments along the entire length of the pipeline AGA environmental policies project area. and all sites disturbed during construction (e.g. vehicle will be applicable to this access tracks and lay-down areas); project.  A combined approach using both chemical and mechanical control methods; and  Periodic follow-up treatments, with a regularity informed by annual monitoring.

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

ACTIVITIES PHASE SIZE AND SCALE OF MITIGATION MEASURES COMPLIANCE WITH TIME PERIOD FOR STANDARDS TO BE DISTURBANCE STANDARDS IMPLEMENTATION ACHIEVED  AIS control should continue through all phases of the proposed project until such a time as monitoring indicates AIS are no longer actively establishing.

Leaks/spills of Operation The site footprint, the Minimisation All recommendations within On commencement of the No leaks/spills of contaminated water into channelled valley bottom  Conduct regular (daily) visual inspections to monitor the this document will comply with activity and throughout the life contaminated water into the the unnamed tributary and hill slope seeps on integrity of the pipeline and ensure that no vandalism is applicable NEMA and DMR cycle of the operational phase unnamed tributary to the to the Mooirivierloop and close to site occurring; regulations. Mooirivierloop.  In the event of a leak, pipeline repairs should be conducted with AGA environmental policies alacrity; and will be applicable to this  Should a leak/spill event occur, a water quality and WET project. sample should be retrieved immediately upstream and downstream of the spill. This exercise should be repeated one month following the spill to compare to the initial results to ensure maintenance.

Increased flows in Operation The site footprint, the Avoidance and Minimisation All recommendations within On commencement of the No increases in wetland flows wetlands due to leaks channelled valley bottom  Regular maintenance of the pipeline must be undertaken during this document will comply with activity and throughout the life due to pipe leaks or pipe failure and hill slope seeps on the operational phase. Any identified leaks should be repaired applicable NEMA and DMR cycle of the operational phase and close to site immediately; and regulations.  Any damage/erosion caused by pipe failure must be repaired AGA environmental policies immediately following the incident. will be applicable to this project.

Loss of employment Operational Retrenchment of most  Invest in community development initiatives to lessen negative AGA human resources policies On commencement of the Minimal negative socio- during transition from labour and/or termination socio-economic impacts associated with poverty in line with will be applicable to this activity and throughout the life economic impacts associated construction to of their fixed term contracts their SLP. project. cycle of the operational phase with employment loss operational phase

Employment creation Operational N/A  Recruitment practises should favour local people with the All recommendations within On commencement of the Unskilled operational required skills and qualifications (where feasible); and this document will comply with activity and throughout the life workforce to comprise of a  The recruitment should be well advertised and documented to applicable NEMA and DMR cycle of the operational phase high percentage (i.e. >60%) ensure a transparent process. regulations. from the local community AGA employment policies will be applicable to this project.

Pumping of acid mine Operation The site footprint, the Avoid All recommendations within On commencement of the  No pipeline leaks; and drainage to North channelled valley bottom  By monitoring for leaks along the pipeline weekly; and this document will comply with activity and throughout the life Leaks to be repaired Boundary Dam (NBD) and hill slope seeps on  Maintain 0.8 m freeboard on the NBD. applicable NEMA and DMR cycle of the operational phase  within two days of Leaks from pipeline and close to site Minimisation regulations. detection. could lead to surface Water quality of the stream  Fix leaks timeously; and water pollution and and potentially the Mooi  Adjust pumping rates. pollution of the stream River (increased pH & metals)

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

ACTIVITIES PHASE SIZE AND SCALE OF MITIGATION MEASURES COMPLIANCE WITH TIME PERIOD FOR STANDARDS TO BE DISTURBANCE STANDARDS IMPLEMENTATION ACHIEVED Overflow from the NBD Operational Water quality of the  Maintain NBD below the prescribed operating level. All recommendations within On commencement of the Maintain NBD below unnamed tributary to the this document will comply with activity and throughout the life prescribed operating water Mooirivierloop applicable NEMA and DMR cycle of the operational phase levels. regulations.

Health, safety and Operational Flooding of shafts  Ensure pumping infrastructure is well maintained to ensure All recommendations within On commencement of the Shafts should not be flooded. security risk ARD levels in the shafts are maintained to allow for “safe” this document will comply with activity and throughout the life underground working. applicable NEMA and DMR cycle of the operational phase regulations.

Noise from pumping Operational Nearby noise sensitive  Heavy vehicle/machinery noise: The International Finance On commencement of the No noise complaints and/or operations and general receptors  Using the smallest/quietest equipment for the particular Corporation (IFC) activity and throughout the life exceedances of IFC, WHO maintenance activities purpose; Environmental, Health, and cycle of the operational phase and SANS standards for noise  Ensuring that equipment is well maintained and fitted with Safety (EHS) Guidelines for the correct and appropriate noise abatement measures; noise management (IFC, 2007)  All vehicles and other equipment should be maintained WHO Guidelines for and serviced regularly to ensure that the noise levels are Community Noise (WHO, reduced; and 1999)  Vehicles should not be allowed to idle for more than 5 SANS 10103 (2008) minutes when not in use.  Monitoring requirements:  If noise complaints are registered regarding operational activities, noise monitoring should be undertaken to identify the source and mitigation measures should be implemented to reduce the nuisance impacts; and  Any noise complaints should be directed to the site management. Complaints and any actions arising from a complaint must be recorded in a complaint’s register to be maintained by site management. An investigation should be undertaken to determine the specific activities and or equipment/ machinery which is generating the nuisance noise resulting in the noise complaint.

Table 28: Impacts to be mitigated during decommissioning phase

ACTIVITIES PHASE SIZE AND SCALE OF MITIGATION MEASURES COMPLIANCE WITH TIME PERIOD FOR STANDARDS TO BE DISTURBANCE STANDARDS IMPLEMENTATION ACHIEVED

Pipeline Decommissioning Pipeline plinths, pipeline Minimisation All recommendations within On commencement of the Decommissioning to be done decommissioning and access tracks to the  Limit decommissioning lay down areas to a minimum; this document will comply with activity and throughout the life in accordance with a pipeline corridor  All decommissioning wastes are to be disposed of at permitted applicable NEMA and DMR cycle of the operational phase decommissioning and waste disposal facilities; and regulations. rehabilitation plans. Such  Records of all disposal of waste are to be maintained by AGA. AGA environmental policies plans may be within the wider Rehabilitate/Repair will be applicable to this closure plan for the operation  Scarify compacted areas and revegetate the disturbed areas project. with local indigenous grass species; and

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

ACTIVITIES PHASE SIZE AND SCALE OF MITIGATION MEASURES COMPLIANCE WITH TIME PERIOD FOR STANDARDS TO BE DISTURBANCE STANDARDS IMPLEMENTATION ACHIEVED  Monitoring of the rehabilitation success must be undertaken to ensure the rehabilitation is successful.

Soil erosion and Decommissioning Pipeline plinths, pipeline Rehabilitation All recommendations within On commencement of the Minimal soil erosion and sedimentation of the and access tracks to the  Any areas cleared of vegetation during decommissioning this document will comply with activity and throughout the life sedimentation along the unnamed tributary to pipeline corridor should be stabilised and revegetated using indigenous grass applicable NEMA and DMR cycle of the operational phase unnamed tributary to the the Mooirivierloop species. regulations. Mooirivierloop AGA environmental policies will be applicable to this project.

Establishment and Decommissioning Pipeline corridor and Minimisation All recommendations within On commencement of the Minimal spread of alien spread of alien invasive access tracks to the  Actively control all alien invasive species (AIS) that colonise this document will comply with activity and throughout the life invasive species. species pipeline areas that have been disturbed during the decommissioning applicable NEMA and DMR cycle of the decommissioning No ecological impact from phase. Control should include: regulations. phase alien invasive within the  Annual treatments along the entire length of the pipeline; AGA environmental policies project area  A combined approach using both chemical and will be applicable to this mechanical control methods; and project.  Periodic follow-up treatments, with a regularity informed by annual monitoring.  AIS control should continue through the decommissioning phase and post decommissioning until such a time as monitoring indicates AIS are no longer actively establishing. Employment creation Decommissioning N/A  Recruitment practises should favour local people with the All recommendations within On commencement of the Unskilled labour force to for pipeline required skills and qualifications (where feasible); and this document will comply with activity and throughout the life comprise of a high percentage disassembly and  The recruitment of labourers should be well advertised and applicable NEMA and DMR cycle of the decommissioning (i.e. >60%) from the local rehabilitation documented to ensure a transparent process. regulations. phase community AGA employment policies will be applicable to this project.

Loss of employment Decommissioning Retrenchment of most Invest in community development initiatives to lessen negative socio- AGA human resources On commencement of the Minimal negative socio- during transition from labour and/or termination economic impacts associated with poverty in line with their SLP policies will be applicable to activity and throughout the life economic impacts associated operational to of their fixed term this project. cycle of the decommissioning with employment loss decommissioning contracts phase phase

Noise Decommissioning Noise nuisance at nearby  Materials handling activities: The International Finance On commencement of the No exceedances of IFC, WHO sensitive receptors . A drop height policy should be implemented onsite to Corporation (IFC) activity and throughout the life and SANS standards for noise reduce the level of noise generation when handling Environmental, Health, and cycle of the decommissioning materials; during decommissioning and Safety (EHS) Guidelines for phase . All equipment operators should be trained in the policy. noise management (IFC,  Heavy vehicle/machinery noise: 2007) . Using the smallest/quietest equipment for the particular WHO Guidelines for purpose; Community Noise (WHO, . Ensuring that equipment is well maintained and fitted with 1999) the correct and appropriate noise abatement measures; SANS 10103 (2008)

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

ACTIVITIES PHASE SIZE AND SCALE OF MITIGATION MEASURES COMPLIANCE WITH TIME PERIOD FOR STANDARDS TO BE DISTURBANCE STANDARDS IMPLEMENTATION ACHIEVED

. All vehicles and other equipment should be maintained and serviced regularly to ensure that the noise levels are reduced; and . Vehicles should not be allowed to idle for more than 5 minutes when not in use.

Procurement of Decommissioning N/A  Procurement policies should favour local suppliers from the All recommendations within On commencement of the Procurement policies should services community (where feasible). this document will comply with activity and throughout the life favour local suppliers from the applicable NEMA and DMR cycle of the decommissioning community (where feasible). regulations. phase AGA procurement policies will be applicable to this project.

Disruption of Decommissioning Disruption of movement  Provision of notice boards in the vicinity of where movement All recommendations within On commencement of the No incidences or complaints of movement patterns patterns within the project pattern disruptions will occur to notice I&APs ahead of time; this document will comply with activity and throughout the life project induced disruption of areas  Provision of alternative routes information to bypass any applicable NEMA and DMR cycle of the decommissioning movement patterns recorded disruptions; and regulations. phase  Communication with local communities prior to any disruptions. Health, safety and Decommissioning Increased traffic volumes  Restrict presence of heavy vehicles on the roads to reduce All recommendations within On commencement of the No incidences of project security risk near the pipeline route; traffic load (where feasible). this document will comply with activity and throughout the life induced health, safety and Increased presence of applicable NEMA and DMR cycle of the decommissioning security risks recorded heavy goods vehicles in regulations. phase the vicinity of the project site; and Increased deterioration of roads, which will pose a safety risk to motorists.

g) Impact Management Outcomes.

(A description of impact management outcomes, identifying the standard of impact management required for the aspects contemplated in Tables).

Table 29: Impact Management Actions

ACTIVITY POTENTIAL IMPACT MITIGATION TYPE TIME PERIOD FOR IMPLEMENTATION . COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS

Please refer to Section D above, Table 26, Table 27, and Table 28.

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

i) Financial Provision

1) Determination of the amount of Financial Provision

The closure costs presented in this report have been determined according to the requirements of the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA, Act No. 107 of 1998) Financial Provisioning Regulations (GN R.1147, Regulations Pertaining to the Financial Provision for Prospecting, Exploration, Mining or Production Operations– as amended), promulgated on 20 November 2015.

a) Describe the closure objectives and the extent to which they have been aligned to the baseline environment described under the Regulation:

Based on the current state of the environment within the project area, the proposed project will not have significant impacts on the condition of the environment. Therefore, the closure objective of the proposed project will tie into the AngloGold Ashanti operations closure objectives. It is, however, an aim of AGA to rehabilitate the proposed area to its current state or as close as practicable to this.

b) Confirm specifically that the environmental objectives in relation to closure have been consulted with landowner and interested and affected parties:

The Closure report is attached in APPENDIX M and is subject to public comment. Any comments received during the public review period will be included in the comments and responses report.

c) Provide a rehabilitation plan that describes and shows the scale and aerial extent of the main mining activities, including the anticipated mining area at the time of closure:

Refer to APPENDIX M for the complete Rehabilitation and Closure Report. Table 30 provides a summary of the closure measures.

Table 30: Closure measures

Aspect Closure measures

Infrastructure areas Pipeline  Dismantle pipeline;  Remove concrete plinths; and  Remove contaminated soil associated with any leaks from the pipeline (if applicable) up to 1 m below natural ground level.

Demolition waste  Crush concrete demolition waste to suitable size and dispose of within BLV #4 Shaft prior to sealing. *Ensure the necessary waste licence (as/if required) for the above disposal is acquired prior to disposal. It is assumed that the costs for this aspect will be included in the relevant AGA operation’s mine closure costs.

General surface rehabilitation Shaping, ripping and  Shape and level overall disturbed area resulting from the removal of concrete vegetation plinths; establishment  Rip footprint area to be free draining;  Load and haul topsoil from nearby stockpile(s) for placement at 350 mm depth; and  Establish vegetation using a suitable indigenous seed mix.

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

Aspect Closure measures

Post-closure aspects Rehabilitation  Conduct rehabilitation monitoring over the rehabilitated area for a period of 5 monitoring years post-closure.

Care and maintenance  Undertake care and maintenance over the rehabilitated area for a period of 5 years post-closure.

d) Explain why it can be confirmed that the rehabilitation plan is compatible with the closure objectives: The closure costs reflected in this report were based on information provided by AngloGold Ashanti. In those cases where the required information was not available, estimates were made based on Golder’s experience in closure cost estimations. Unit rates for the costing were obtained from Golder’s database.

The reflected costs provide a good indication of the closure costs as at June 2019, providing a sound basis for making the required financial provision.

e) Calculate and state the quantum of the financial provision required to manage and rehabilitate the environment in accordance with the applicable guideline: Table 31 provides the financial quantum of the closure estimate for which a provision must be made by AGA.

Table 31: Closure cost

Closure Costs, as at June 2019

Closure components Scheduled Closure (2040

1 Infrastructural aspects R 787 608,30

2 Mining aspects R -

3 General surface rehabilitation R 375 156,05

Sub-Total 1 R 1 162 764,35

5 Post-Closure Aspects

5,1 Rehabilitation monitoring R 3 042,50

5,2 Care and maintenance R 17 334,31

Sub-Total 2 R 20 376,81

6 Additional Allowances

6,1 Preliminary and general (12%) R 139 531,72

6,2 Contingencies (10%) R 116 276,44

Sub-Total 3 R 255 808,16

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

Closure Costs, as at June 2019

Grand Total Excl. VAT. (Sub-total 1 +2 +3) R 1 438 949,32

f) Confirm that the financial provision will be provided as determined: AngloGold Ashanti holds the mining right and is liable for the financial provisioning.

Mechanisms for monitoring compliance with and performance assessment against the environmental management programme and reporting thereon, including:

g) Monitoring of Impact Management Actions: Refer to Part B Environmental Management Programme Report (EMPr), Table 26, Table 27, Table 28, Table 29 and Table 32.

h) Monitoring and reporting frequency Refer to Part B Environmental Management Programme Report (EMPr), Table 26, Table 27, Table 28, Table 29 and Table 32.

i) Responsible persons: Refer to Part B Environmental Management Programme Report (EMPr), Table 32.

j) Time period for implementing impact management actions: Refer to Part B Environmental Management Programme Report (EMPr), Table 32.

k) Mechanism for monitoring compliance: Refer to Part B Environmental Management Programme Report (EMPr), Table 26, Table 27, Table 28, Table 29 and Table 32.

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

Table 32: Monitoring

Biodiversity Vegetation clearing, and earth  Monitor the extent of vegetation loss due to ECO Continuously during the works during the construction clearing and earth works; and construction phase phase  Implement plans to reduce the amounts of vegetation cleaning.

Loss and disturbance of  Monitor the levels of disturbance ECO Quarterly natural habitat experienced by the natural habitat; and  Implement plans to reduce the amounts of habitat loss.

Loss of plant species of  Conduct a visual monitoring programme to ECO Quarterly conservation concern document the species and locations of flora; and  Delineate protected areas where plant species of conservation concern are found or likely to be found.

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

Soil erosion and sedimentation Monitor the levels of soil erosion and ECO Quarterly of the unnamed tributary to the sedimentation along the unnamed tributary to Mooirivierloop the Mooirivierloop.

Alien invasive species  Monitor the extent of alien vegetation ECO Quarterly establishment encroachment; and  Implement plans for alien invasive species eradication.

Interruption of wetland Monitor wetland water levels and flow rates for ECO Quarterly hydrology changes as project progresses

Deterioration in wetland water  Monitor the quality of wetland water; ECO Quarterly quality  Inspect vehicles and equipment for possible leakages; and Daily  Ensure proper rehabilitation measures are adhered to in order to return the water Continuously quality to its previous state.

Leaks/spills of contaminated  Monitor and inspect spills/leak ECO Continuously water into the unnamed contamination; tributary to the Mooirivierloop  Inspect vehicles and equipment for Daily possible leakages; and

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

Changed flows in wetland due Monitor and inspect pipes for leaks or failure ECO Daily to leaks or pipe failure and repair if required.

Surface water Erosion and Sedimentation Monitor the levels of soil erosion and ECO Quarterly sedimentation along the nearby streams.

Leaks from pipeline could lead  Monitor and inspect spill contamination; ECO Daily to pollution of stream  Inspect vehicles and equipment for (increased metals, low pH) possible leakages; and Quarterly  Ensure proper rehabilitation measures are adhered to in order to return the water Continuously quality to its previous state.

Overflow from North Boundary Monitor and inspect the North Boundary Dam for ECO Continuously Dam (NBD) overflow

Palaeontology Damage/disturb Palaeontology  Frequent inspection of activities taking ECO Continuously resources place in areas of Paleontological importance; and  Should any chance finds be unearthed, the ECO must be notified.

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

SOURCE ACTIVITY IMPACTS REQUIRING FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ROLES AND MONITORING AND MONITORING MONITORING RESPONSIBILITIES REPORTING FREQUENCY PROGRAMMES (FOR THE and TIME PERIODS FOR EXECUTION OF THE IMPLEMENTING IMPACT MONITORING MANAGEMENT ACTIONS PROGRAMMES) Noise Noise  If noise complaints are registered regarding ECO If noise complaints are construction activities, noise monitoring received, then immediately to should be undertaken to identify the source determine a suitable and mitigation measures should be frequency of noise monitoring implemented to reduce the nuisance thereafter upon receipt of impacts; complaints  Any noise complaints should be directed to the site management; and  Complaints and any actions arising from a complaint must be recorded in a complaint’s register to be maintained by site management. An investigation should be undertaken to determine the specific activities and or equipment/machinery which is generating the nuisance noise resulting in the noise complaints.

Social & Economic Recruitment A monitoring system should be put in place to ECO Continuously ensure that AGA's recruitment policy is adhered to during the recruitment process.

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

l) Indicate the frequency of the submission of the performance assessment/environmental audit report

Annual environmental performance audits are to be undertaken.

m) Environmental Awareness Plan:

1) Manner in which the applicant intends to inform his or her employees of any environmental risk which may result from their work

Employees on site will be notified of environmental risks through the following processes:

• Induction – staff will be inducted prior to commencement of any work. Visitors will also be inducted upon arrival to site. Induction procedures already implemented within the AGA mines will be utilised;

• Environmental awareness training of staff as and when required, based on the environmental risks and incidents identified within the site and surrounds; and

• Daily toolbox talks at the start of a shift.

2) Manner in which risks will be dealt with in order to avoid pollution or the degradation of the environment:

As discussed above, employees will be informed of the possible risks which may result from their work, and employees will be informed of best possible ways to avoid environmental risks from occurring.

Induction and environmental awareness undertaken will address all possible consequences of the environmental risk and mitigation measures to be implemented in order to address the risks. This EMPr will be used as a guide on site to avoid or reduce the impacts that may result from possible risks.

n) Specific information required by the Competent Authority:

It is confirmed that the financial provision will be reviewed annually. See also section 7.18.

2) Undertaking

The EAP herewith confirms: X a) the correctness of the information provided in the reports ______X b) the inclusion of comments and inputs from stakeholders and I&APs______X c) the inclusion of inputs and recommendations from the specialist reports where relevant______

d) that the information provided by the EAP to interested and affected parties and any responses by the EAP to comments or inputs made by interested and affected. parties are correctly reflected herein__ X

Signature of the environmental assessment practitioner:

Name of company: Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Limited

Date: 22/01/2020

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

Signature Page

Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd.

Adam Bennett Etienne Roux Environmental Consultant Senior Review

AB/ER/jep

Reg. No. 2002/007104/07 Directors: RGM Heath, MQ Mokulubete, MC Mazibuko (Mondli Colbert), GYW Ngoma

Golder and the G logo are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation

https://golderassociates.sharepoint.com/sites/108123/project files/6 deliverables/final client deliverables/fbar/19121900-328397-9_rep_aga_nema_dmr_fbar_final_9mar2020.docx

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

APPENDIX A I&AP Database

BASIC ASSESSMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME REPORT AND WATER USE APPLICATION FOR THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF A PIPELINE BETWEEN THE COVALENT WATER COMPANY (OLD BLYVOORUITZICHT MINE WORKINGS) AND NORTH BOUNDARY DAM, ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI LIMITED, CARLETONVILLE, GAUTENG PROVINCE Full Stakeholder Database Title First Name Surname Stakeholder Category Job Title Organisation Postal Address 1 City Postcode Phone Mobile E‐mail Phone Mr Tom Visser Landowner P O Box 6207 OBERHOLZER 2500 0825703369 [email protected] Mr Johannes Mahne Landowner BLYVOORUITZICHT 116; Portion 89 P O Box 6662 CARLETONVILLE 2592 0825703369 [email protected] Mr E van Niekerk Agriculture Personal Assistant Agri Gauteng Private Bag X180 CENTURION 0046 0126433400 [email protected] Ms Sheila Mani Union Administrator Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union Montalto Building, 4 Palladium Street CARLETONVILLE 2500 0180111804 [email protected]

Ms Elise Tempelhoff Environmental Environmental specialist journalist Beeld Newspaper 0833091192 [email protected] Dr Hanneline Smit‐Robinson Non Governmental Organisation Manager: Terrestrial Bird Conservation BirdLife South Africa Private Bag X5000 PARKLANDS 2121 0117891122 hanneline.smit‐[email protected] Programme Mr Pule Molefe Community Based Organisation Blyvoor Committee 0711817798 [email protected] Mr Paulo De Gouveia Community Based Organisation Blyvoor Community Forum 2 Annan Rd CARLETONVILLE 2500 0187872347 0824589776 [email protected] Mr George Kgoroyabolo Community Based Organisation Blyvoor Community Forum 0832451544 [email protected] Mr Joseph Rammusa Community Based Organisation Blyvoor Community Forum 27 6th Avenue BLYVOOR 2499 0836841323 Mr Richard Floyd Landowner Director Blyvoor Gold [email protected] Mr Dave Whittaker Interested and Affected Party Blyvoor Gold 0114862842/18 0795405888 [email protected] Mr Louis Lamsley Landowner General Manager Blyvoor Gold [email protected] Mr Alan Smith Landowner director Blyvoor Gold [email protected] Mr Leigh Roering Landowner Blyvooruitzicht Gold Mining Co Ltd, BLYVOORUITZICHT P O Box 1671 HOUGHTON 2041 0117181800 [email protected] 116, Portions 15, 26, 51 Dr Melissa Wallace Academia and research institutions Head of Research Cancer Association of South Africa 0216895381 [email protected]

Ms Alice Victor Academia and research institutions Science & Resource Centre Manager Cancer Association of South Africa 0216895381 [email protected]

Ms Carin Bosman Non Governmental Organisation Chief Executive Officer Carin Bosman Sustainable Solutions P O Box 26442 GEZINA 0031 0129402071 [email protected]

Dr Henk Coetzee Academia and research institutions Specialist Scientist Council for Geoscience 280 Pretoria Street PRETORIA 0184 0128411911 [email protected]

Mr Nhlakanipho Nkontwana Interested and Affected Party Head of Department Department of Agriculture and Rural Development P O Box 8769 JOHANNESBURG 2000 0112402576 [email protected]

Ms Mary Jean Gabriel Interested and Affected Party Director: Water Use and Irrigation Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries 0128468569 [email protected] Development Mr Mandla Mona Interested and Affected Party Environmental Management Inspector Department of Environmental Affairs Private Bag X447 PRETORIA 0001 0123999435 0823890635 [email protected]

Ms Masina Litsoane Interested and Affected Party Environmental Case Officer: Hendrina Ash Department of Environmental Affairs 0123999375 0739327843 [email protected] Dam Mr Lucas Mahlangu Interested and Affected Party Deputy Director: Chemical & Waste Department of Environmental Affairs Private bag X447 PRETORIA 0001 0123103536 [email protected] Management Mr Albert Marumo Interested and Affected Party Environmental Health Manager Department of Health 0113553479 0824483151 [email protected] Mr Sunday Mabaso Interested and Affected Party Gauteng: Chief Directorate and Regional Department of Mineral Resources and Energy Mineralia Building, Cnr De Korte and De BRAAMFONTEIN 2017 0113589700 [email protected] Manager Beer Street Ms Mmadikeledi Malebe Interested and Affected Party Department of Mineral Resources and Energy c/o Meintjes and Francis Baard Street SUNNYSIDE 0007 0124443977 [email protected] Mr Jimmy Sefale Interested and Affected Party Case Officer: West Rand District Department of Mineral Resources and Energy Mineralia Building, Cnr De Korte and De BRAAMFONTEIN 2019 0113589700 0833009814 [email protected] Beer Street Ms Cindy Benyane Interested and Affected Party Chief Director: Office of the Regional Land Department of Rural Development and Land Reform Private Bag X03 ARCADIA 0007 0123106500 [email protected] claims Commission Mr Lebjane Maphutha Interested and Affected Party Regional Land Claims Commissioner Department of Rural Development and Land Reform Private Bag X03 ARCADIA 0007 0124074400 [email protected]

Mr B Govender Interested and Affected Party Chief Directorate: Mine Water Department of Water and Sanitation 185 Francis Baard Street, Sedibeng PRETORIA 0001 [email protected] Building Mr Ephraim Matseba Interested and Affected Party Department of Water and Sanitation Private Bag X313 PRETORIA 0001 0123921307 0828095727 [email protected] Mr Sibusiso Mthembu Interested and Affected Party Gauteng Provincial Head Department of Water and Sanitation 285 Francis Baard Street PRETORIA 0001 0123921300 0826154730 [email protected] Mr Lawrence Mulangaphuma Interested and Affected Party Directorate: Water Resource Classification Department of Water and Sanitation Private Bag X313 PRETORIA 0001 0123368956 0735284047 [email protected]

Mr Khathutshelo Mudau Interested and Affected Party Department of Water and Sanitation [email protected] Mr Victor Nkuna Interested and Affected Party Department of Water and Sanitation Private Bag X 995 PRETORIA 0001 0123921300/1484 0829236976 [email protected] Mr Mpho Nevondo Interested and Affected Party Water Quality Management ‐ Waste Department of Water and Sanitation 0823202919 [email protected] Regulation Ms Makoma Lekalakala Non Government Organisation Senior Project Officer Earthlife Africa 0113393662 0826829177 [email protected] Dr Ian Little Non Government Organisation Senior Manager: Habitats Endangered Wildlife Trust 0217998460 [email protected] Dr Harriet Davies‐Mostert Non Government Organisation Head of Conservation Endangered Wildlife Trust Private Bag X11 MODDERFONTEIN 1909 0113723600 [email protected] Mr Grant Stuart Interested and Affected Party Senior Vice President Environment ‐ Far West Rand Dolomitic Water Association 0112789600 0826025992 [email protected] Southern Africa Region Mr Phillip Jacobs Community Based Organisation Chairman Far West Rand Dolomitic Water Association Private Bag X5 WESTONARIA 1780 0112789600 [email protected] Dr Koos Pretorius Non Governmental Organisation Director Federation for a Sustainable Environment P O Box 201 BELFAST 1100 0132530051 0839864400 [email protected] Title First Name Surname Stakeholder Category Job Title Organisation Postal Address 1 City Postcode Phone Mobile E‐mail Phone Mrs Mariette Liefferink Interested and Affected Party Chief Executive Officer Federation for a Sustainable Environment Postnet Suite 87, Private Bag X033 RIVONIA 2128 0114656910 0732314893 [email protected] Ms Zingisa Smale Interested and Affected Party Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural 73 Market Street, 15th Floor JOHANNESBURG 2000 0113551927 0834409080 [email protected] Development Ms Kgari Manotwana Interested and Affected Party Chief Director: Rural Development Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural 56 Eloff Street, Umnotho House JOHANNESBURG 2000 0112402500/2544 [email protected] Development Ms Matilda Gasela Interested and Affected Party Head of Department Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural No 56 Eloff Street, Umnotho House JOHANNESBURG 2000 0112402576 [email protected] Development Mr Motlatjo Moholwa Interested and Affected Party Deputy Director General: Economic Gauteng Department of Economic Development 56 Eloff Street, Umnotho House, JOHANNESBURG 2107 0113558352/8039 [email protected] Planning and Development Marshalltown Ms Pumla Ncapayi Interested and Affected Party Head of Department Gauteng Department of Economic Development 0113558111 [email protected] Mr Andre Venter Business and Commerce Goldfields West Golf Club P O Box 111 CARLETONVILLE 2500 0187811570 [email protected] Mr Bobby Peek Non Governmental Organisation Environmental Director GroundWork South Africa [email protected]

Mr Rico Euripidou Non Governmental Organisation Environmental Health Campaign Manager GroundWork South Africa P O Box 2375 PIETERMARITZBURG 3200 0333425662 [email protected]

Mr Leigh Roering Business and Commerce Harvard Corporate Recovery Services P O Box 1671 HOUGHTON 2041 0117181800 [email protected] Mr Izak Berg Ratepayers Association National Chairperson Independent Ratepayers Association of South Africa 0716021027 [email protected] Carletonville Mr Eugene Potgieter Business and Commerce Johannesburg Skydiving Club 0836314747 [email protected] Ms Samantha Chapman Business and Commerce Johannesburg Skydiving Club Carletonville Airfield, Corner Geldenhuys CARLETONVILLE 2500 0720473828 [email protected] and Wolmarans Streets Ms Mandi Busakwe Library Khutsong South Library Dan Ndzeku Street KHUTSONG SOUTH 2499 0835705824 [email protected] Prof Gaigher Ian Non Governmental Organisation Research Manager: Water Resource Lajuma Environmental Research Centre P O Box 522 MAKHADO 0920 0214020259 0833087027 [email protected] Assessment and Planning Ms Jessica Lawrence Non Governmental Organisation Attorney Lawyers for Human Rights 88 De Korte Street corner Melle Street BRAAMFONTEIN 2001 0113391960 [email protected]

Mr Michael Clements Non Governmental Organisation Head: Environmental Rights Programme Lawyers for Human Rights 87 De Korte Street corner Melle Street BRAAMFONTEIN 2001 0113391960 [email protected]

Ms Naseema Fakir Non Governmental Organisation Attorney Legal Resource Centre P O Box 9495 JOHANNESBURG 2000 0118369831 [email protected]

Mr Lucien Limacher Human Rights Organisation Environmental Law Attorney Legal Resources Centre 0118369831 [email protected] Ms J Smith Interested and Affected Party Manager: Spatial Planning and Merafong City Local Municipality P O Box 3 CARLETONVILLE 2500 0187889688 [email protected] Environmental Management Mr Elvis Mphithikezi Interested and Affected Party Speaker Merafong City Local Municipality P O Box 3 CARLETONVILLE 2500 0187889521 [email protected] Ms Morakane Mokoena Interested and Affected Party Municipal Manager Merafong City Local Municipality P O Box 3 CARLETONVILLE 2500 0187889519 [email protected] Ms Tshidi Ramodupi Interested and Affected Party Ward 5 and 27 Councillor Merafong City Local Municipality 0727868789 [email protected] Ms Stephinah Mudau Mining and Industry Head: Environment Minerals Council South Africa P O Box 61809 MARSHALLTOWN 2107 0114987274 [email protected] Ms Babalwa Matiwane Mining and Industry Secretary: Environment Minerals Council South Africa P O Box 61809 MARSHALLTOWN 2107 0114987660 [email protected] Mr Orion Phillips Conservation Agencies Regulatory Executive Nuclear Power Plants National Nuclear Regulator P O Box 7106 CENTURION 0046 0126747100 [email protected]

Mr Gino Moonsamy Conservation Agencies National Nuclear Regulator P O Box 7106 CENTURION 0046 0126747100 [email protected] Mr Adriaan Joubert Conservation Agencies Principal Specialist: Design Safety, National National Nuclear Regulator P O Box 7106 CENTURION 0046 0126747100 [email protected] Nuclear Regulator Ms Anna Rabotapi Labour Union National Union of Mineworkers 5&6 Ada Street, Corner Gold Street CARLETONVILLE 2500 0187875886 [email protected] Prof Elize Van Eeden Academia and research institutions Acting Deputy Director: School of Social North West University Building 11B, Office 029 VANDERBIJLPARK 0169103469 [email protected] Sciences Mr Molefi Rajele Water Utility Water Quality Advisor Rand Water P O Box 1127 JOHANNESBURG 2000 0760489676 [email protected] Mr Reveck Hariram Water Utility Senior Water Quality Advisor Rand Water 0116820735 0828881469 [email protected] Mr Petro Watson Union Administrative Officer Solidarity 74 Van Zyl Smit Street, Oberholzer CARLETONVILLE 2500 0187884861/018786278 [email protected] 5 Ms A Matabane Heritage Agency Permit Officer South African Heritage Resources Agency 0123208490 [email protected] Mr Matthew Plessis Non Government Organisation Senior Legal Officer South African Human Rights Commission Private Bag 2700 HOUGHTON 2041 0118773600 [email protected] Ms Ria Barkhuizen Parastatal Secretary Typist South African National Roads Agency Limited 0124266201 [email protected] Ms Victoria Botha Parastatal Environmental Specialist South African National Roads Agency Limited Private Bag X17 LYNNWOOD RIDGE 0040 0124266200 [email protected] Mr Bennie van Zyl Agriculture General Manager Transvaal Agricultural Union P O Box 912‐51 SILVERTON 0127 0128048031 [email protected] Mr Stanford Mazhindu Union Public Relation Officer United Association of South Africa P O box 565 FLORIDA 1710 0114723600 0749783415 [email protected] Mr John Eayres Business and Commerce Waenhuis Guest House 0182851064 0825664447 [email protected] Mr Nomquphu Wandile Parastatal Water Research Commission Private Bag X03 GEZINA 0031 0123309069 0832907243 [email protected] Ms Susan Sotffberg Interested and Affected Party Environmental Manager West Rand District Municipality Private Bag X033 RANDFONTEIN 1760 0114115131 0834093150 [email protected] Mr Leonard Seabi Interested and Affected Party Regional Planning and Performance West Rand District Municipality Private Bag X033 RANDFONTEIN 1760 0114115242 [email protected] Management M Morongwe Mazibuko Interested and Affected Party Head of Department: Health and Social West Rand District Municipality Private Bag X033 RANDFONTEIN 1760 0114115257/5269 [email protected] Development Mr David Mokoena Interested and Affected Party Municipal Manager West Rand District Municipality Private Bag X033 RANDFONTEIN 1760 0114115000 [email protected] Cllr Nonkoliso Tundzi‐Hawu Interested and Affected Party Speaker West Rand District Municipality 0114115004 [email protected] Mr Morgan Griffiths Conservation Agencies Environmental Governance Programme Wildlife and Environment Society of South Africa P O Box 435 FERNDALE 2160 0415859606 0724175793 [email protected] Manager March 2020 19121900-328397-9

APPENDIX B Announcement Letter

10 October 2019 19121900_Let001_BIL

Golder Public Participation Office Tel: 011 254 4800 P.O. Box 6001, Halfway House, 1685 Fax: 086 582 1561 Email: [email protected]

Dear Stakeholder

This letter serves to notify interested and affected parties (I&APs) that AngloGold Ashanti Limited (AGA) is proposing to install an approximately 5km long pipeline and associated surface infrastructure between the Covalent Water Company (old Blyvooruitzicht Mine workings) and the North Boundary Dam. The construction of the proposed pipeline and surface infrastructure is intended to allow for dewatering, treatment and reuse of treated acid mine drainage water as make-up water in the AGA Savuka Gold plant. Background The AGA operations in the West Wits mining lease areas are at risk of flooding due to ingress of fissure water from surrounding mining operations. About 24 Mℓ/day of fissure water flows into the underground workings of the defunct Blyvooruitzicht (BLV) Mine, which spans a strike of 6km along the boundary with AGA. If dewatering at the BLV Four and Six Shafts were to cease, fissure water would report to the AGA operations in about 13 days, which would pose a serious risk to the health and safety of AGA personnel and the mining operations.

After the liquidation of the BLV Mine in 2013, AGA established a wholly owned subsidiary, the Covalent Water Company to manage the BLV Mine water and the impacts thereof on the West Wits operations. Covalent Water Company has a 25-year lease to maintain water management infrastructure at the BLV Four and Six Shafts.

Prior to September 2016, Covalent Water Company abstracted 20 Mℓ/d of relatively good quality water from BLV Four and Six Shafts and discharged it into the Wonderfontein Spruit under a directive. About 5 Mℓ/d of acid mine drainage water containing elevated levels of heavy metals and salts has been accumulating in the lower, mined out areas of BLV Shaft Five. Pumping was initiated at the AGA Savuka plant when this water reached a critical level. Savuka plant pumps the BLV Shaft Five water from 81 level to surface, where it is used as make- up water in the Savuka plant circuit. In terms of the current life of mine for the Savuka plant, this source of make- up water will be required for the next 10 years.

19121900_Let001_BIL 10 October 2019

AGA thus proposes to install a pipeline from the BLV Mine to the North Boundary Dam to allow for dewatering, treatment and reuse of the treated acid mine drainage water as make-up water for the Savuka plant circuit.

In order to proceed with the planned construction of the pipeline and infrastructure, AGA is required to obtain Environmental Authorisation (EA) under the National Environmental Management Act No. 107 of 1998. The application for EA must be supported by a Basic Assessment (BA) process as outlined in the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2014 (as amended). A BA and Environmental Management Programme (EMPr) Report will be submitted to the Gauteng Department of Mineral Resources and Energy.

AGA furthermore intends to submit an application for water use under the General Authorisation in terms of section 39 of the National Water Act 36 of 1998 (NWA) for water uses defined in section 21(c) and section 21(i), GN 509 of 26 August 2016. An application will be submitted to the Department of Human Settlements, Water and Sanitation.

AGA has appointed Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd (Golder) to undertake all the necessary technical investigations and the required EA and water use application processes for the proposed pipeline and surface infrastructure construction. Draft BA/EMPr Report available for public review The Draft BA/EMPr is available for public review and comment for a period of 30 days, from Thursday, 10 October 2019 to Monday, 11 November 2019. The report is also available on the following website: https://www.golder.com/global-locations/africa/south-africa-public-documents/ and at the public places listed in Table 1.

Table 1: Public places

Public Place Contact Person Contact Number

Carletonville Library, corner of Celestine and Emerald Mr Lungile Letshekha 018 788 9541 Streets, Carletonville Library Manager

Wedela Library, 5378 Hawk Street, Wedela, Carletonville Mr Lungile Letshekha 018 788 9541 Library Manager

Golder Associates Africa, Midrand, Building 1, Maxwell Ms Mabel Qinisile 011 254 4800 Office Park, Magwa Crescent West, Waterfall City, Midrand

Your comment is important We invite you to formally register as an I&AP and to participate in the EA process and/or to comment on the Draft BA/EMPr Report in any of the following ways:  Completing the enclosed Registration and Comment Sheet and submitting it to Antoinette Pietersen or Mabel Qinisile at the Public Participation Office by the due date of Monday, 11 November 2019. Also, please use the Registration and Comment Sheet to indicate your preferred method of notification and any direct business or other interest you may have in the approval or refusal of the application; or  Providing your comments in writing or verbally by phone to Golder Associates.

19121900_Let001_BIL 10 October 2019

Way forward After closure of the public review period, the Draft BA/EMPr Report will be updated with all comments received and will be submitted to the Gauteng Department of Mineral Resources and Energy for consideration. The authorities will have 107 days to review the reports and decide whether to authorise the proposed project. Upon receipt of the authority’s decision, stakeholders will be notified of the decision and the appeal process.

Please contact the Public Participation Office if you have any questions, would like more information, to obtain a copy of the draft report, or would like to contribute any comments. You can reach us at the Public Participation Office on the following contact number and/or email addresses: Tel: (011) 254 4800 or email: [email protected].

We look forward to your participation in the project and receiving your comments!

Sincerely,

Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd.

Antoinette Pietersen Adam Bennett Stakeholder Engagement Lead Project Manager

Attachments: Registration and Comment Sheet Locality Map

19121900_Let001_BIL 10 October 2019

Figure 1: Locality map

Your comments are an important contribution into this permitting process. We would like to interact directly with you and encourage you to register as a stakeholder so that we can keep you updated as this project moves forward and respond to any questions or concerns that you may wish to raise. PERSONAL DETAILS Organisation / Department Name Surname Title (If applicable)

CONTACT INFORMATION

Mobile Number Land Line Contact Number Fax Number

Office

Home

Email Postal Address Postal code

LANDOWNERS If your property is adjacent to the proposed pipeline route,

please tell us your farm name and erf/portion number WOULD YOU LIKE TO REGISTER AS AN INTERESTED AND AFFECTED PARTY? Please register me as an interested and affected party (I&AP) for this project so that I YES NO may receive further information and notifications as the project develops

Preferred Method of Communication Post Email Fax (Mark with an X)

Date In terms of the EIA Regulations, 2014 (as amended), I disclose below any direct business, financial, personal or other interest that I may have in the approval or Signature refusal of the application:

For internal use to confirm capture of stakeholder details into the stakeholder database

Stakeholder database reference number Signature of data capturer

Project No 19121900 COMMENT(S)

You are welcome to use different pages should you so wish.

I have the following comments to make regarding this project and/or the public consultation process:

Please ask the following of my colleagues / friends to register as Interested and Affected Persons for this environmental authorisation process:

NAME CONTACT DETAILS

PLEASE RETURN THE REGISTRATION AND COMMENT SHEET TO:

Golder Associates Africa PUBLIC PARTICIPATION OFFICE

Antoinette Pietersen / Mabel Qinisile

P.O. Box 6001, Halfway House, 1685 Tel: +27(11) 254 4800 Fax: (086) 582 1561 E-mail: [email protected] THANK YOU

Project No 19121900 Golder Consultation History Associates 19121900_AGA_BA_EMPr_WULA

Ms Barkhuizen Ria South African National Roads Agency Limited

Contact Details: [email protected]

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

Date Time Regarding 2019/10/14 Email response from Ria Barkhuizen:

Good day This email is an acknowledgement of receipt for your enquiry. Please note that your enquiry will be evaluated and a response provided within 60 days, in line with requirements of Section 29 of the Spatial Planning and Land Use management Act (Act No.16 of 2013) read with Section 3 of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (Act No.3 of 2000). Should you not receive any response within 60 days, kindly follow up on the enquiry by responding to Jan Oliver who will be dealing with it and will convert back to you. He can be contacted on (012) 426-6200 / 6242.

Tx and Regards

Ms Benyane Cindy Department of Rural Development and Land Reform

Contact Details: [email protected] Private Bag X03 ARCADIA 0007

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 12:24:00 E-mail Read

Created 2020/01/30 at 08:45:56 Page 1 of 50 Golder Consultation History Associates 19121900_AGA_BA_EMPr_WULA

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 09:47:00 Letter Sent

Mr Berg Izak Independent Ratepayers Association of South Africa Carletonville

Contact Details: [email protected] 0716021027

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

AngloGold Ashanti Ltd application for Environmental Authorisation and WULA for proposed pipeline near Carletonville, 2019/10/10 11:56:00 SMS - Sent Gauteng. Draft basic assessment report available for comment.

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:16:00 E-mail Read

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

Ms Bosman Carin Carin Bosman Sustainable Solutions

Contact Details: [email protected] P O Box 26442 GEZINA 0031

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Created 2020/01/30 at 08:45:56 Page 2 of 50 Golder Consultation History Associates 19121900_AGA_BA_EMPr_WULA

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 09:47:00 Letter Sent

Ms Botha Victoria South African National Roads Agency Limited

Contact Details: [email protected] Private Bag X17 LYNNWOOD RIDGE 0040

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 13:28:00 E-mail Read

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 09:47:00 Letter Sent

Ms Busakwe Mandi Khutsong South Library

Contact Details: [email protected] 0835705824 Dan Ndzeku Street KHUTSONG SOUTH 2499

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Created 2020/01/30 at 08:45:56 Page 3 of 50 Golder Consultation History Associates 19121900_AGA_BA_EMPr_WULA

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

Ms Chapman Samantha Johannesburg Skydiving Club

Contact Details: [email protected] 0720473828 Carletonville Airfield, Corner Geldenhuys and CARLETONVILLE 2500 Wolmarans Streets

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 09:47:00 Letter Sent

Mr Clements Michael Lawyers for Human Rights

Contact Details: [email protected] 87 De Korte Street corner Melle Street BRAAMFONTEIN 2001

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Created 2020/01/30 at 08:45:56 Page 4 of 50 Golder Consultation History Associates 19121900_AGA_BA_EMPr_WULA

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 12:28:00 E-mail Read

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 09:47:00 Letter Sent

Dr Coetzee Henk Council for Geoscience

Contact Details: [email protected] 280 Pretoria Street PRETORIA 0184

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 12:06:00 E-mail Read

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 09:47:00 Letter Sent

Created 2020/01/30 at 08:45:56 Page 5 of 50 Golder Consultation History Associates 19121900_AGA_BA_EMPr_WULA

Dr Davies-Mostert Harriet Endangered Wildlife Trust

Contact Details: [email protected] Private Bag X11 MODDERFONTEIN 1909

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 14:38:00 E-mail Read

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 09:47:00 Letter Sent

Mr De Fontaine Marc Rand Water

Contact Details: [email protected] 0828824254 P O Box 1127 JOHANNESBURG 2000

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

Created 2020/01/30 at 08:45:56 Page 6 of 50 Golder Consultation History Associates 19121900_AGA_BA_EMPr_WULA

AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 09:47:00 Letter Sent

Date Time Regarding 2019/10/10 Email response from Marc de Fontaine

Good Day Mabel,

Please remove this email address from this distribution list as this EMPr does not fall within Rand Water’s catchments of interest.

Marc

Mr De Gouveia Paulo Blyvoor Community Forum

Contact Details: [email protected] 0824589776 2 Annan Rd CARLETONVILLE 2500

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 09:47:00 Letter Sent

Created 2020/01/30 at 08:45:56 Page 7 of 50 Golder Consultation History Associates 19121900_AGA_BA_EMPr_WULA

Mr Eayres John Waenhuis Guest House

Contact Details: [email protected] 0825664447

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:43:00 E-mail Read

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

Mr Euripidou Rico GroundWork South Africa

Contact Details: [email protected] P O Box 2375 PIETERMARITZBURG 3200

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 09:47:00 Letter Sent

Created 2020/01/30 at 08:45:56 Page 8 of 50 Golder Consultation History Associates 19121900_AGA_BA_EMPr_WULA

Ms Fakir Naseema Legal Resource Centre

Contact Details: [email protected] P O Box 9495 JOHANNESBURG 2000

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 09:47:00 Letter Sent

Mr Floyd Richard Blyvoor Gold

Contact Details: [email protected]

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/16 09:19:00 E-mail Sent

Ms Gabriel Mary Jean Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries

Contact Details: [email protected]

Created 2020/01/30 at 08:45:56 Page 9 of 50 Golder Consultation History Associates 19121900_AGA_BA_EMPr_WULA

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

Ms Gasela Matilda Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development

Contact Details: [email protected] No 56 Eloff Street, Umnotho House JOHANNESBURG 2000

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/11 02:54:00 E-mail Read

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 09:47:00 Letter Sent

Mr Govender B Department of Water and Sanitation

Contact Details: [email protected] 185 Francis Baard Street, Sedibeng Building PRETORIA 0001

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Created 2020/01/30 at 08:45:57 Page 10 of 50 Golder Consultation History Associates 19121900_AGA_BA_EMPr_WULA

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 09:47:00 Letter Sent

Mr Griffiths Morgan Wildlife and Environment Society of South Africa

Contact Details: [email protected] 0724175793 P O Box 435 FERNDALE 2160

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 09:47:00 Letter Sent

Mr Hariram Reveck Rand Water

Contact Details: [email protected] 0828881469

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Created 2020/01/30 at 08:45:57 Page 11 of 50 Golder Consultation History Associates 19121900_AGA_BA_EMPr_WULA

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 15:15:00 E-mail Read

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

Prof Ian Gaigher Lajuma Environmental Research Centre

Contact Details: [email protected] 0833087027 P O Box 522 MAKHADO 0920

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 09:47:00 Letter Sent

Created 2020/01/30 at 08:45:57 Page 12 of 50 Golder Consultation History Associates 19121900_AGA_BA_EMPr_WULA

Mr Jacobs Phillip Far West Rand Dolomitic Water Association

Contact Details: [email protected] Private Bag X5 WESTONARIA 1780

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 09:47:00 Letter Sent

Mr Joubert Adriaan National Nuclear Regulator

Contact Details: [email protected] P O Box 7106 CENTURION 0046

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 09:47:00 Letter Sent

Created 2020/01/30 at 08:45:57 Page 13 of 50 Golder Consultation History Associates 19121900_AGA_BA_EMPr_WULA

Mr Kgoroyabolo George Blyvoor Community Forum

Contact Details: [email protected] 0832451544

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

Mr Lamsley Louis Blyvoor Gold

Contact Details: [email protected]

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/16 09:19:00 E-mail Sent

Ms Lawrence Jessica Lawyers for Human Rights

Contact Details: [email protected] 88 De Korte Street corner Melle Street BRAAMFONTEIN 2001

Created 2020/01/30 at 08:45:57 Page 14 of 50 Golder Consultation History Associates 19121900_AGA_BA_EMPr_WULA

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/11 13:09:00 E-mail Read

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 09:47:00 Letter Sent

Ms Lekalakala Makoma Earthlife Africa

Contact Details: [email protected] 0826829177

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

Created 2020/01/30 at 08:45:57 Page 15 of 50 Golder Consultation History Associates 19121900_AGA_BA_EMPr_WULA

Mrs Liefferink Mariette Federation for a Sustainable Environment

Contact Details: [email protected] 0732314893 Postnet Suite 87, Private Bag X033 RIVONIA 2128

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 09:47:00 Letter Sent

Date Time Regarding 2019/10/17 Email response from Mabel Sesi Qinisile (Golder Associates)

Dear Ms Liefferink

Thank you for your email and comments. We have registered you as an interested and affected party on the project stakeholder database and will keep you posted regarding the project. We have also captured your comments in the Comment and Response Report.

With regards to your comments, the following:

AngloGold Ashanti do not envisage that this application will affect Blyvoor Gold’s future planned mining operations. The water that will be pumped from underground is located on the Blyvooruitzight 5# / AGA West Wits Savuka Mine boundary.

This is AMD water generated at the Blyvooruitzight 5#, that currently reports via the boundary pillar to the AngloGold Ashanti Savuka Mine. AngloGold Ashanti Savuka Mine is currently pumping this water at cost to sustain its current mining operations and to prevent flooding from neighbouring mines.

Please feel free to contact me should you have further comments or questions.

Kind regards

Mabel Sesi Qinisile

Created 2020/01/30 at 08:45:57 Page 16 of 50 Golder Consultation History Associates 19121900_AGA_BA_EMPr_WULA

2019/10/12 Email response from Mariette Liefferink:

Dear Mabel

Prefatory to our comments, kindly advise how this application will / is affecting the Blyvoor Gold Mine. We were under the impression - in fact, this was confirmed by the representatives of Blyvoor Gold at the last Wonderfonteinspruit Water Management Forum - that Blyvoor Gold has been authorised to use this water for their processes.

Please clarify.

Best Regards Mariette Liefferink

2019/10/12 Email response from Mariette Liefferink:

Dear Mabel

I thank you for the notification.

Please register the FSE an an interested and affected party.

We shall comment on the application shortly.

Best regards Mariette Liefferink

Mr Limacher Lucien Legal Resources Centre

Contact Details: [email protected]

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 14:54:00 E-mail Sent

Created 2020/01/30 at 08:45:57 Page 17 of 50 Golder Consultation History Associates 19121900_AGA_BA_EMPr_WULA

Ms Litsoane Masina Department of Environmental Affairs

Contact Details: [email protected] 0739327843

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/14 08:42:00 E-mail Read

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

Dr Little Ian Endangered Wildlife Trust

Contact Details: [email protected]

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

Created 2020/01/30 at 08:45:57 Page 18 of 50 Golder Consultation History Associates 19121900_AGA_BA_EMPr_WULA

Mr Mabaso Sunday Department of Mineral Resources and Energy

Contact Details: [email protected] Mineralia Building, Cnr De Korte and De Beer BRAAMFONTEIN 2017 Street

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 09:47:00 Letter Sent

Mr Mahlangu Lucas Department of Environmental Affairs

Contact Details: [email protected] Private bag X447 PRETORIA 0001

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 09:47:00 Letter Sent

Date Time Regarding

Created 2020/01/30 at 08:45:57 Page 19 of 50 Golder Consultation History Associates 19121900_AGA_BA_EMPr_WULA

2020/01/30 Email from Nare Mothata ([email protected]) on behalf Mr Lucas Mahlangu

Good day

Kindly receive the attached acknowledgement for your attention

Kind regards Nare Mothata

Mr Mahne Johannes

Contact Details: [email protected] 0825703369 P O Box 6662 CARLETONVILLE 2592

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 09:47:00 Letter Sent

Ms Malebe Mmadikeledi Department of Mineral Resources and Energy

Contact Details: [email protected] c/o Meintjes and Francis Baard Street SUNNYSIDE 0007

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

Created 2020/01/30 at 08:45:57 Page 20 of 50 Golder Consultation History Associates 19121900_AGA_BA_EMPr_WULA

AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 09:47:00 Letter Sent

Ms Mani Sheila Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union

Contact Details: [email protected] Montalto Building, 4 Palladium Street CARLETONVILLE 2500

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/11 13:14:00 E-mail Read

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 09:47:00 Letter Sent

Ms Manotwana Kgari Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development

Contact Details: [email protected] 56 Eloff Street, Umnotho House JOHANNESBURG 2000

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

Created 2020/01/30 at 08:45:57 Page 21 of 50 Golder Consultation History Associates 19121900_AGA_BA_EMPr_WULA

AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 09:47:00 Letter Sent

Mr Maphutha Lebjane Department of Rural Development and Land Reform

Contact Details: [email protected] Private Bag X03 ARCADIA 0007

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 09:47:00 Letter Sent

Mr Marumo Albert Department of Health

Contact Details: [email protected] 0824483151

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

Created 2020/01/30 at 08:45:57 Page 22 of 50 Golder Consultation History Associates 19121900_AGA_BA_EMPr_WULA

Ms Matabane A South African Heritage Resources Agency

Contact Details: [email protected]

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 13:54:00 E-mail Read

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

Ms Matiwane Babalwa Minerals Council South Africa

Contact Details: [email protected] P O Box 61809 MARSHALLTOWN 2107

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 09:47:00 Letter Sent

Created 2020/01/30 at 08:45:57 Page 23 of 50 Golder Consultation History Associates 19121900_AGA_BA_EMPr_WULA

Mr Matseba Ephraim Department of Water and Sanitation

Contact Details: [email protected] 0828095727 Private Bag X313 PRETORIA 0001

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 09:47:00 Letter Sent

Mr Mazhindu Stanford United Association of South Africa

Contact Details: [email protected] 0749783415 P O box 565 FLORIDA 1710

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:57:00 E-mail Read

Created 2020/01/30 at 08:45:57 Page 24 of 50 Golder Consultation History Associates 19121900_AGA_BA_EMPr_WULA

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 09:47:00 Letter Sent

M Mazibuko Morongwe West Rand District Municipality

Contact Details: [email protected] Private Bag X033 RANDFONTEIN 1760

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 14:03:00 E-mail Read

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 09:47:00 Letter Sent

Mr Moholwa Motlatjo Gauteng Department of Economic Development

Contact Details: [email protected] 56 Eloff Street, Umnotho House, JOHANNESBURG 2107 Marshalltown

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Created 2020/01/30 at 08:45:57 Page 25 of 50 Golder Consultation History Associates 19121900_AGA_BA_EMPr_WULA

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 12:22:00 E-mail Read

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 09:47:00 Letter Sent

Mr Mokoena David West Rand District Municipality

Contact Details: [email protected] Private Bag X033 RANDFONTEIN 1760

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 09:47:00 Letter Sent

Ms Mokoena Morakane Merafong City Local Municipality

Contact Details: [email protected] P O Box 3 CARLETONVILLE 2500

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Created 2020/01/30 at 08:45:57 Page 26 of 50 Golder Consultation History Associates 19121900_AGA_BA_EMPr_WULA

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 09:47:00 Letter Sent

Mr Molefe Pule Blyvoor Committee

Contact Details: [email protected] 0711817798

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

Mr Mona Mandla Department of Environmental Affairs

Contact Details: [email protected] 0823890635 Private Bag X447 PRETORIA 0001

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 13:56:00 E-mail Read

Created 2020/01/30 at 08:45:57 Page 27 of 50 Golder Consultation History Associates 19121900_AGA_BA_EMPr_WULA

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 09:47:00 Letter Sent

Date Time Regarding 2019/10/10 Email response from Mandla Mona:

Dear Mabel

Thank you for the notification.

Kind regards Mandla Mona

Mr Moonsamy Gino National Nuclear Regulator

Contact Details: [email protected] P O Box 7106 CENTURION 0046

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 12:58:00 E-mail Read

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

Created 2020/01/30 at 08:45:57 Page 28 of 50 Golder Consultation History Associates 19121900_AGA_BA_EMPr_WULA

AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 09:47:00 Letter Sent

Date Time Regarding 2019/10/10 Email response from Gino Moonsamy:

Received and Thank you Mabel.

Regards Gino Moonsamy

Mr Mphithikezi Elvis Merafong City Local Municipality

Contact Details: [email protected] P O Box 3 CARLETONVILLE 2500

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 09:47:00 Letter Sent

Mr Mthembu Sibusiso Department of Water and Sanitation

Contact Details: [email protected] 0826154730 285 Francis Baard Street PRETORIA 0001

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Created 2020/01/30 at 08:45:57 Page 29 of 50 Golder Consultation History Associates 19121900_AGA_BA_EMPr_WULA

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 09:47:00 Letter Sent

Mr Mudau Khathutshelo Department of Water and Sanitation

Contact Details: [email protected]

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

Ms Mudau Stephinah Minerals Council South Africa

Contact Details: [email protected] P O Box 61809 MARSHALLTOWN 2107

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

Created 2020/01/30 at 08:45:57 Page 30 of 50 Golder Consultation History Associates 19121900_AGA_BA_EMPr_WULA

AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 09:47:00 Letter Sent

Mr Mulangaphuma Lawrence Department of Water and Sanitation

Contact Details: [email protected] 0735284047 Private Bag X313 PRETORIA 0001

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 13:01:00 E-mail Read

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 09:47:00 Letter Sent

Ms Ncapayi Pumla Gauteng Department of Economic Development

Contact Details: [email protected]

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Created 2020/01/30 at 08:45:58 Page 31 of 50 Golder Consultation History Associates 19121900_AGA_BA_EMPr_WULA

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 13:21:00 E-mail Read

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

Mr Nevondo Mpho Department of Water and Sanitation

Contact Details: [email protected] 0823202919

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

Mr Nkontwana Nhlakanipho Department of Agriculture and Rural Development

Contact Details: [email protected] P O Box 8769 JOHANNESBURG 2000

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

Created 2020/01/30 at 08:45:58 Page 32 of 50 Golder Consultation History Associates 19121900_AGA_BA_EMPr_WULA

AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 09:47:00 Letter Sent

Mr Nkuna Victor Department of Water and Sanitation

Contact Details: [email protected] 0829236976 Private Bag X 995 PRETORIA 0001

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Field changed 2020/01/30 08:43:00 Field Changed Field ID/Status changed from "" to "Interested and affected party"

Date Time Regarding 2019/11/11 Email from Victor Nkuna:

Good day.

Please find inputs from DWS - Gauteng Provincial operations regarding Basic Assessment, Environmental Management Programme Report and Water Use Application for proposed construction of a pipeline between the covalent water company (old Blyvooruitzicht mine workings) and north boundary dam, AngloGold Ashanti limited Carletonville, Gauteng Province.

Regards

Nkuna Victor

Created 2020/01/30 at 08:45:58 Page 33 of 50 Golder Consultation History Associates 19121900_AGA_BA_EMPr_WULA

2019/10/21 Email response from Mabel Sesi Qinisile (Golder Associates)

Dear Mr. Nkuna

Thank you for your email and comments.

With regards to your comment and explanation with the statement from the Background Information Letter: It is as following:

The proposed pipeline and surface pumping infrastructure will allow for the removal of the contaminated groundwater in the shaft . This water will be treated due to its acidity and then pumped to the north boundary dam. This water will then be used as a supplementary (i.e. additional) water source for the AGA Savuka Gold plant.

Please feel free to contact me should you have further comments or questions.

Kind regards Mabel Sesi Qinisile

2019/10/21 Email response from Mabel Sesi Qinisile (Golder Associates)

Dear Mr Nkuna

Thank you for your email. We have registered you as an interested and affected party on the project stakeholder database and will keep you posted regarding the project. We have posted a CD copy containing the Basic Assessment Report on Friday.

Kind regards Mabel Sesi Qinisile

2019/10/17 Email from Victor Nkuna:

Dear Antoinette Pietersen.

The AGA basic assessment bares reference. Please note that our website system is block from downloading website based documents. A Compact Disc with the Basic Assessment will work well for our office.

Regards

Nkuna Victor

Created 2020/01/30 at 08:45:58 Page 34 of 50 Golder Consultation History Associates 19121900_AGA_BA_EMPr_WULA

2019/10/16 Email from Victor Nkuna:

Dear Antoinette Pietersen

The below statement is an extract from your BID document. Please help me to understand the meaning of the statement.

“The construction of the proposed pipeline and surface infrastructure is intended to allow for dewatering, treatment and reuse of treated acid mine drainage water as make-up water in the AGA Savuka Gold plant”

Regards

Nkuna Victor

Mr Peek Bobby GroundWork South Africa

Contact Details: [email protected]

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

Mr Phillips Orion National Nuclear Regulator

Contact Details: [email protected] P O Box 7106 CENTURION 0046

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

Created 2020/01/30 at 08:45:58 Page 35 of 50 Golder Consultation History Associates 19121900_AGA_BA_EMPr_WULA

AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 09:47:00 Letter Sent

Mr Plessis Matthew South African Human Rights Commission

Contact Details: [email protected] Private Bag 2700 HOUGHTON 2041

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 12:19:00 E-mail Read

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 09:47:00 Letter Sent

Mr Potgieter Eugene Johannesburg Skydiving Club

Contact Details: [email protected] 0836314747

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Created 2020/01/30 at 08:45:58 Page 36 of 50 Golder Consultation History Associates 19121900_AGA_BA_EMPr_WULA

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

Dr Pretorius Koos Federation for a Sustainable Environment

Contact Details: [email protected] 0839864400 P O Box 201 BELFAST 1100

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 09:47:00 Letter Sent

Ms Rabotapi Anna National Union of Mineworkers

Contact Details: [email protected] 5&6 Ada Street, Corner Gold Street CARLETONVILLE 2500

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

Created 2020/01/30 at 08:45:58 Page 37 of 50 Golder Consultation History Associates 19121900_AGA_BA_EMPr_WULA

AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 09:47:00 Letter Sent

Mr Rajele Molefi Rand Water

Contact Details: [email protected] 0760489676 P O Box 1127 JOHANNESBURG 2000

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 09:47:00 Letter Sent

Mr Rammusa Joseph Blyvoor Community Forum

Contact Details: 0836841323 27 6th Avenue BLYVOOR 2499

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Created 2020/01/30 at 08:45:58 Page 38 of 50 Golder Consultation History Associates 19121900_AGA_BA_EMPr_WULA

AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 09:47:00 Letter Sent

Ms Ramodupi Tshidi Merafong City Local Municipality

Contact Details: [email protected] 0727868789

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

Mr Roering Leigh Harvard Corporate Recovery Services

Contact Details: [email protected] P O Box 1671 HOUGHTON 2041

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 12:35:00 E-mail Read

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

Created 2020/01/30 at 08:45:58 Page 39 of 50 Golder Consultation History Associates 19121900_AGA_BA_EMPr_WULA

AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 09:47:00 Letter Sent

Mr Roering Leigh Blyvooruitzicht Gold Mining Co Ltd

Contact Details: [email protected] P O Box 1671 HOUGHTON 2041

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 12:35:00 E-mail Read

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 09:47:00 Letter Sent

Mr Seabi Leonard West Rand District Municipality

Contact Details: [email protected] Private Bag X033 RANDFONTEIN 1760

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

Created 2020/01/30 at 08:45:58 Page 40 of 50 Golder Consultation History Associates 19121900_AGA_BA_EMPr_WULA

AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 09:47:00 Letter Sent

Mr Sefale Jimmy Department of Mineral Resources and Energy

Contact Details: [email protected] 0833009814 Mineralia Building, Cnr De Korte and De Beer BRAAMFONTEIN 2019 Street

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 09:47:00 Letter Sent

Ms Smale Zingisa Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development

Contact Details: [email protected] 0834409080 73 Market Street, 15th Floor JOHANNESBURG 2000

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Created 2020/01/30 at 08:45:58 Page 41 of 50 Golder Consultation History Associates 19121900_AGA_BA_EMPr_WULA

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 09:47:00 Letter Sent

Mr Smith Alan Blyvoor Gold

Contact Details: [email protected]

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/16 09:19:00 E-mail Sent

Ms Smith J Merafong City Local Municipality

Contact Details: [email protected] P O Box 3 CARLETONVILLE 2500

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 14:52:00 E-mail Read

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

Created 2020/01/30 at 08:45:58 Page 42 of 50 Golder Consultation History Associates 19121900_AGA_BA_EMPr_WULA

AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 09:47:00 Letter Sent

Dr Smit-Robinson Hanneline BirdLife South Africa

Contact Details: [email protected] Private Bag X5000 PARKLANDS 2121

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 09:47:00 Letter Sent

Ms Sotffberg Susan West Rand District Municipality

Contact Details: [email protected] 0834093150 Private Bag X033 RANDFONTEIN 1760

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

Created 2020/01/30 at 08:45:58 Page 43 of 50 Golder Consultation History Associates 19121900_AGA_BA_EMPr_WULA

AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 09:47:00 Letter Sent

Mr Stuart Grant Far West Rand Dolomitic Water Association

Contact Details: [email protected] 0826025992

Date Time Regarding 2019/11/01 Email response from Mabel Sesi Qinisile

Dear Mr Stuart

Thank you for your email and request. I have pleasure in appending the Draft Basic Assessment Report. We will forward your request to Anglo Ashanti and respond to you as soon as possible.

We look forward to receiving your comments.

Kind regards Mabel Sesi Qinisile

Attachment: Draft Basic Assessment Report for Pipeline Carletonville 2019/10/30 Email from Grant Stuart

Please find the attached and register me as an I&AP. Please may I request details of the water quality to be transported in the line as well as a clear indication of the pipeline route if not contained in the draft BA/ EMPr

Thanks Grant

Ms Tempelhoff Elise Beeld Newspaper

Contact Details: [email protected] 0833091192

Created 2020/01/30 at 08:45:58 Page 44 of 50 Golder Consultation History Associates 19121900_AGA_BA_EMPr_WULA

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

Cllr Tundzi-Hawu Nonkoliso West Rand District Municipality

Contact Details: [email protected]

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

Prof Van Eeden Elize North West University

Contact Details: [email protected] Building 11B, Office 029 VANDERBIJLPARK

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

Created 2020/01/30 at 08:45:58 Page 45 of 50 Golder Consultation History Associates 19121900_AGA_BA_EMPr_WULA

AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 09:47:00 Letter Sent

Mr van Niekerk E Agri Gauteng

Contact Details: [email protected] Private Bag X180 CENTURION 0046

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 09:47:00 Letter Sent

Mr van Zyl Bennie Transvaal Agricultural Union

Contact Details: [email protected] P O Box 912-51 SILVERTON 0127

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 09:47:00 Letter Sent

Created 2020/01/30 at 08:45:58 Page 46 of 50 Golder Consultation History Associates 19121900_AGA_BA_EMPr_WULA

Mr Venter Andre Goldfields West Golf Club

Contact Details: [email protected] P O Box 111 CARLETONVILLE 2500

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 09:47:00 Letter Sent

Ms Victor Alice Cancer Association of South Africa

Contact Details: [email protected]

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

Dr Wallace Melissa Cancer Association of South Africa

Contact Details: [email protected]

Created 2020/01/30 at 08:45:58 Page 47 of 50 Golder Consultation History Associates 19121900_AGA_BA_EMPr_WULA

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 14:32:00 E-mail Read

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

Mr Wandile Nomquphu Water Research Commission

Contact Details: [email protected] 0832907243 Private Bag X03 GEZINA 0031

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 09:47:00 Letter Sent

Created 2020/01/30 at 08:45:58 Page 48 of 50 Golder Consultation History Associates 19121900_AGA_BA_EMPr_WULA

Mr Watson Petro Solidarity

Contact Details: [email protected] 74 Van Zyl Smit Street, Oberholzer CARLETONVILLE 2500

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 12:46:00 E-mail Read

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 11:10:00 E-mail Sent

AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/10 09:47:00 Letter Sent

Mr Whittaker Dave Blyvoor Gold

Contact Details: [email protected] 0795405888

Date/Time Result Regarding & Details

Notification: AngloGold Ashanti BA, EMPr and WULA: Proposed Pipeline, Carletonville 2019/10/31 09:09:00 E-mail Sent Email sent through Mabel Qinisile

Date Time Regarding

Created 2020/01/30 at 08:45:58 Page 49 of 50 Golder Consultation History Associates 19121900_AGA_BA_EMPr_WULA

2019/10/31 Email response from Mabel Sesi Qinisile

Dear Dave

Thank you for your email and request. I have pleasure in appending the registration and comment sheet in Word-format. Please advise should you encounter any challenges filling it out.

We look forward to receiving your comments.

Kind regards Mabel Sesi Qinisile

Attachment: Comment and Registration Sheet 2019/10/30 Email from Dave Whittaker

Dear Antoinette / Mabel

As an interested and affected party, I wish to register and comment on the proposed construction of a pipeline between the Covalent Water Company and North boundary Dam AGA Carletonville Project No 19121900

Please can you forward me the registration and comment sheet in Word format or similar to enable me to electronically insert my comments, rather than hand written insertions.

Kind Regards

Dave Whittaker

Created 2020/01/30 at 08:45:58 Page 50 of 50 March 2020 19121900-328397-9

APPENDIX C Advertisement and Site Notices

NOTICE BASIC ASSESSMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME REPORT AND WATER USE APPLICATION FOR THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF A PIPELINE BETWEEN THE COVALENT WATER COMPANY (OLD BLYVOORUITZICHT MINE WORKINGS) AND NORTH BOUNDARY DAM, ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI LIMITED, CARLETONVILLE, GAUTENG PROVINCE INVITATION TO REGISTER AS INTERESTED AND AFFECTED PARTY AND TO COMMENT

AngloGold Ashanti Limited (AGA) is proposing to install an approximately 5km long pipeline and associated surface infrastructure from the old Blyvooruitzicht Mine to the North Boundary Dam. The proposed project will be undertaken by Covalent Water Company, a wholly owned subsidiary of AGA established to manage the Blyvooruitzicht Mine water and impacts thereof on the West Wits operations. The construction of the proposed pipeline and surface infrastructure is intended to allow for dewatering, treatment and reuse of treated acid mine drainage water as make-up water in the AGA Savuka Gold plant. In order to proceed with the planned construction of the pipeline and infrastructure, AGA is required to obtain Environmental Authorisation (EA) under the National Environmental Management Act No. 107 of 1998. The application for EA must be supported by a Basic Assessment (BA) process as outlined in the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2014 (as amended). A BA and Environmental Management Programme (EMPr) Report will be submitted to the Gauteng Department of Mineral Resources. AGA furthermore intends to submit an application for water use under the General Authorisation in terms of section 39 of the National Water Act 36 of 1998 (NWA) for water uses defined in section 21(c) and section 21(i), GN 509 of 26 August 2016. An application will be submitted to the Department of Human Settlements, Water and Sanitation. AGA has appointed Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd (Golder) to undertake all the necessary technical investigations and the required EA and water use application processes for the proposed pipeline and surface infrastructure construction. DRAFT BA/EMPr REPORT AVAILABLE FOR COMMENT The Draft BA/EMPr is available for public review and comment for a period of 30 days, from Thursday, 10 October 2019 to Monday, 11 November 2019. The report is also available on the following website: https://www.golder.com/global-locations/africa/south-africa-public-documents/ and at the following public places:

Public Place Contact Person Contact Number

Carletonville Library, corner of Celestine and Mr Lungile Letshekha 018 788 9541 Emerald Streets, Carletonville Library Manager

Wedela Library, 5378 Hawk Street, Wedela, Mr Lungile Letshekha 018 788 9541 Carletonville Library Manager

Golder Associates Africa, Midrand, Building Ms Mabel Qinisile 011 254 4800 1, Maxwell Office Park, Magwa Crescent West, Waterfall City, Midrand

For more information and to register as an I&AP, please contact: Mabel Qinisile / Ursula Papé Public Participation Office: Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd; P O Box 6001, Halfway House, 1685 Tel: (011) 254 4800; Fax (086) 582 1561; Email: [email protected]

Date of advert: 10 October 2019

INVITATION TO REGISTER AS INTERESTED AND AFFECTED PARTY AND TO COMMENT AngloGold Ashanti Limited (AGA) is proposing to install an approximately 5km long pipeline and associated surface infrastructure from the old Blyvooruitzicht Mine to the North Boundary Dam. The proposed project will be undertaken by Covalent Water Company, a wholly owned subsidiary of AGA established to manage the Blyvooruitzicht Mine water and impacts thereof on the West Wits operations. The construction of the proposed pipeline and surface infrastructure is intended to allow for dewatering, treatment and reuse of treated acid mine drainage water as make-up water in the AGA Savuka Gold plant. In order to proceed with the planned construction of the pipeline and infrastructure, AGA is required to obtain Environmental Authorisation (EA) under the National Environmental Management Act No. 107 of 1998. The application for EA must be supported by a Basic Assessment (BA) process as outlined in the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2014 (as amended). A BA and Environmental Management Programme (EMPr) Report will be submitted to the Gauteng Department of Mineral Resources. AGA furthermore intends to submit an application for water use under the General Authorisation in terms of section 39 of the National Water Act 36 of 1998 (NWA) for water uses defined in section 21(c) and section 21(i), GN 509 of 26 August 2016. An application will be submitted to the Department of Human Settlements, Water and Sanitation. AGA has appointed Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd (Golder) to undertake all the necessary technical investigations and the required EA and water use application processes for the proposed pipeline and surface infrastructure construction. .

DRAFT BA/EMPr REPORT AVAILABLE FOR COMMENT The Draft BA/EMPr is available for public review and comment for a period of 30 days, from Thursday, 10 October 2019 to Monday, 11 November 2019. The report is also available on the following website https://www.golder.com/global- locations/africa/south-africa- public-documents/ and at the public places listed in the table.

INVITATION TO REGISTER AS INTERESTED AND AFFECTED PARTY AND TO COMMENT: Stakeholders are invited to register as Interested and Affected Parties (I&APs) and to comment on the Draft Basic Assessment (BA) and consolidated EMPr Reports. More Information To register as an I&AP and /or obtain more information please contact Antoinette Pietersen / Ursula Papé Public Participation Office: Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd. PO Box 6001, Halfway House, 1685, Tel: (011) 254 4800, Fax: 086 582 1561 E-mail: [email protected]

Public Place Contact Person Contact Number Carletonville Library, corner of Celestine and Emerald Streets, Carletonville Mr Lungile Letshekha, Library Manager 018 788 9541 Wedela Library, 5378 Hawk Street, Wedela, Carletonville Mr Lungile Letshekha, Library Manager 018 788 9541 Golder Associates Africa, Midrand, Building 1, Maxwell Office Park, Mrs Antoinette Pietersen 011 254 4800 Magwa Crescent West, Waterfall City, Midrand Name Description Longitude Latitude

Intersection between R501 and unnamed road, north of Site notice 2 Blyvooruitzicht Gold Mine, where the Blyvooruitzicht gold 27° 23' 36.47" E 26° 22' 37.34" S mine sign is

Site notice 3 Intersection between R501 and Annan road 27° 24' 24.82" E 26° 22' 27.39" S

Site notice 4 Split on R500, where the Blyvooruitzicht gold mine sign is 27° 25' 3.59" E 26° 23' 30.87" S Name Description Longitude Latitude

Intersection Between 7th Avenue and unnamed road, North Site notice 5 27° 25' 3.59" E 26° 25' 8" S of Blyvoor Supermarket, where AngloGold Ashanti sign is

First circle on unnamed road (road is marked by AngloGold Site notice 7 27° 25' 3.41" E 26° 24' 58.67" S West Wits Entrance sign) off the R500

Site Notice 8 Laerskool Blyvooruitsicht 27° 22' 51.3" E 26° 23' 56.49" S March 2020 19121900-328397-9

APPENDIX D Draft Minutes of the Wonderfonteinspruit Forum

KROMDRAAI CATCHMENT

Minutes of the Wonderfontein-/Loopspruit Forum Meeting

Date: 03 December 2019 Time: 10:00 Venue: AngloGold Ashanti Limited-West Wits Village Club Auditorium

MINUTES OF THE MEETING

Chairperson: Ephraim Matseba (EM)

Present Surname and Affiliation Contact Email Address Initials Number Chawane P (PC) DWS 082 324 5144 [email protected] Makhari TG (TM) DWS 012 392 1505 [email protected] Gebhardt Z (ZG) DWS 012 392 1353 [email protected] Nqelenga L (LN) DWS 012 392 1505 [email protected] Grond E (EG) AGA 018 700 2002 [email protected] Van Wyngaarden Z Afarak Mogale 082 573 9141 [email protected] (ZV) Mannya ML (MM1) Lafarge 067 132 3124 [email protected] Ndzilane PM (PN) Merafong City LM 078 544 5844 [email protected] Penyenye HP (PP) Merafong City LM 073 360 9953 [email protected] Sondela D (DS) Merafong City LM 083 283 7733 [email protected] Zwart J (JZ) Merafong City LM 082 552 4710 [email protected] Loots A (AL) Merafong City LM 018 788 9082 [email protected] Khoza ML (LK) Merafong City LM 0719613009 [email protected] Mathedimosa H DWS 012 392 1350 [email protected] (HM) Matseba EM (EM) DWS 012 392 1374 [email protected] Mulaudzi AC (CM) DWS 012 392 1350 [email protected] Liefferink M (ML) FSE 073 231 4893 [email protected] Sidogi M (MS) DWS 012 392 1371 [email protected] Makwela M (MM2) Minerals council 011 498 7100 [email protected] Marie E (EM) Mogale City LM 083 767 1902 [email protected] Esterhuizen J (JE) Mogale City LM 083 280 2432 [email protected] Sibanye Gold Gewers N (NG) 011 278 9749 [email protected] Limited Nealer E (EN) UNISA 082 876 7397 [email protected] Maluleke J (JM) Corobrick 073 324 5565 [email protected] Mabe N (NM) DWS 082 721 1653 [email protected] Mnyaka A (AS) DWS 082 722 4834 [email protected] Sithole S (SS) DWS 012 392 1473 [email protected] Sekgale JP (JS) DMR 011 358 9770 [email protected] Shibambo A (AS) DWS 012 392 1349 [email protected]

Surname and Affiliation Contact Email Address Initials Number Makgoba KP (PM) DWS 066 377 5791 [email protected] Zwart AR (RZ) WRDM 082 425 3478 [email protected] Nyama LJ (LN) DWS 012 392 1369 [email protected] Maphosa CP (CM) DWS 012 392 1388 [email protected] Jenner D (DJ) Blyvoor Gold 082 875 9430 [email protected] Blyvoor Gold Lamsley L (LL) 082 550 3484 [email protected] Mine Blyvoor Gold Wels S (SW) 079 841 8490 [email protected] Mine Representative Fourie J (JF) Blyvoor 082 280 7944 [email protected] Liquidator Horak D (DH) 083 267 1350 [email protected] Harmse J (JH) CWC 018 700 3400 [email protected] His Will Mangena SW (WM) 073 686 2034 [email protected] Innovations Van wyk J (JV) AGA 083 682 4089 [email protected] Human C (CH) AGA 082 828 1518 [email protected] Tshamano M (MT) Harmony Gold 018 782 9276 [email protected] Makhuvha L (LM) Harmony Gold 018 782 9543 [email protected] Harsco Barnand R (RB) 071 670 7244 [email protected] Environmental Harsco Geyer G (GG) 082 741 3086 [email protected] Environmental Nonjola V (VN) NNR 012 001 8437 [email protected] Mogoru J (JM) NNR 076 712 8099 [email protected] Tlale S (ST) TCTA 012 683 1200 [email protected] Luthuli M (ML) TCTA 012 638 1226 [email protected]

1. Opening and Welcome

EM welcomed all attendees and thanked them for coming to the last Wonderfonteinspruit Forum meeting of 2019. EM then declared the meeting open.

2. Attendance and Apologies

EM requested all attendees to introduce themselves and complete the attendance register, which was being circulated. EM added that the documents that all attendees should have was a copy of the agenda, the DWS water quality report and the previous meeting minutes.

Apologies:

 Lee Davis Ellis - Harsco  Karlien de Villiers - DWS  Willem De Lange - GDARD  Stephan Veldsman - GDARD  Eric Stoch - Community representative

 Prof Shepherd Molefane - UNISA  Jurgo van Wyk - DWS  Mashudu Mukwevho - DAFF  David - Blyvoor  Simone Liefferink - SGL  Elise - Harsco

3. Approval of the Proposed Agenda

The agenda was accepted with the following additions:

9.1 Minutes of the previous meeting 9.2 Video from Eric Stoch (ES) 9.3 Terms of Reference for Wonderfonteinspruit Forum Meeting 9.4 Local Map 9.5 Lounge of the Minister of DWS master plan 9.6 Sustainable development goal six

4. Minutes of the Previous Meeting

EM proceeded page by page through the minutes in order to note any suggested corrections.

Agenda item under 6.2: Water quality to be presented by Mr H Pretorius. It was corrected to water quality to be presented by Simone Liefferink(SM).

Page 11: ML was concerned about the pollution incidents listed on Page 11 that were still on-going; particularly incident number 4, the Mintails-Lancaster Dam Wall. ML asked why there was no enforcement action being taken to resolve this incident. EM said that pollution incidents would be reported under agenda item 7.2. ML noted that on page 11 the first paragraph, PC had said that 1-4 in the table of pollution incidents on the minutes of 02 September 2019 had been long standing items and was on-gong: Wedela WWTW, Blyvoor Village Sewer spillage, Khutsong WWTW and Mintails-Lancaster dam wall. ML asked who was responsible for resolving these incidents at the DWS. EM responded and said that there was a court case regarding the Mintails case and that he would respond on the issue before the end of the meeting.

Page 12: paragraph number 4, ML said that she wanted to return to item 4 which was still on-going. ML said that the Mintails Directors were now overseas, and ML asked how the DWS intended to enforce the pre-directive when the directors were overseas. EM said that DWS Provincial Office had requested advice from DWS Legal Services regarding the Mintails regulatory process; since Mintails had gone into liquidation, to whom should the Directive be issued. ML noted that Mogale Gold had not been liquidated. It should read as follows: ML said that although some of Mintails Directives were overseas, DWS intended to enforce the Pre-Directive as Mogale Gold (a subsidiary of Mintails) was still operating under mining 206 and had not been liquidated. ML said she would send the correction information to the DWS.

Page 13: 7.4 paragraph 2, ML apologised that she had not been able to attend the Mooi River Forum. ML added that there was dilution coming from Bovenste Oog. Should read

as follows: ML said that Bovenste Oog provides dilution to the Wonderfonteinspruit, as the eye flows into the Wonderfonteinspruit.

Page 14: Point number 9 paragraph 1, EM said that an advisory committee had been appointed under the previous administration, but as there was a new administration DWS: Gauteng Province had sent a submission requesting that the new administration continue with the previous appointees, appointed under the previous administration. EM corrected this and said that DWS Gauteng Region referred to Head Office colleagues that had done the submission, the submission did not come directly from the Province.

With the above corrections the minutes of the meeting held on 03 September 2019 were adopted as a true reflection of the meeting.

5. Matters Arising from the Minutes of the Previous Meeting

Addressed and New Actions

No Action Progress Responsible Person 1 DWS to report on the status of the State Feedback will be EM Co-ordinating Technical Committee given in the next (SCTC) submission to the Director meeting. General (DG).

EM said that the relevant invitation letters had been sent to the following five entities: Council for Geo-science (CGC), Sibanye Stillwater, Department of Mineral Resources and Energy (DMRE), Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) and Mineral Council South Africa. EM said that the DWS had not received any responses as of yet, other than Sibanye Stillwater. The invitation would be resent and therefore the action was still on- going.

No Action Progress Responsible Person 2. All water users to send their Water Feedback will be All Water Quality (WQ) reports to the DWS for given in the next Users circulation to the Forum members. meeting

PC said that not all water users had submitted their WQ reports to DWS. The following companies submitted their WQ reports to DWS:  Blyvoor Gold Capital  Harmony Gold Mine  Harsco Ilanga Metals  Sibanye Gold Limited: Kloof, Driefontein and Cook Mines  Covalent Water Company  AngloGold Ashanti (AGA) Limited  Flip Human Waste Water Treatment Works (WWTW)

Further to this, PC said that the following companies had not submitted their WQ reports to the DWS:  Lancaster Gold Mine  Mogale Afarak  Lafarge Company  Rand West City Local Municipality (Hannes Van Niekerk WWTW)  Merafong City Local Municipality (Wedela, Welverdiend, Khutsong and Oberholzer WWTWs).  Morgan Greek Properties (Cooke and Deelkraal WWTWs)  Corobrik  Middelvlei Mine

MM1 said that they had submitted their water quality results but that the results were for September 2019. EM said that every Forum meeting, water users should send the previous quarter’s water quality reports, which meant that there should be four water quality reports every year. Further to this, EM said that all water users were required to comply by sending their water quality reports to DWS. PC said that Harsco Ilanga should summarise and compare their water quality results in terms of their Water Use Licence (WUL) limits to measure compliance and then send the results to the DWS.

No Action Progress Responsible Person 4. MCLM to provide an update on their Action addressed Merafong action plan in terms of repairing the Municipality vandalised Waste Water Treatment Works (WWTWs).

EM asked AL if there was any action plan regarding Merafong City Local Municipality (MCLM). AL said that the action plan was available and that he had reported the action plan to many people, however he noted that as there were no funds available the action plan could not be implemented. AL said that Rand Water had offered to assist the Municipality by funding some of the projects. Rand Water had requested the municipality to provide them with a list of all the WWTWs that were not functional, including a list of the repairs required at each plant.

AL said that the WWTWs that needed to be repaired were: Wedela, Oberholzer, Khutsong, and Welverdiend. AL said that he had provided Rand Water with a schedule of the equipment that was broken or no longer functional. AL said that he had had to source quotations for new equipment from companies willing to work at all the WWTWs. Those companies should first look at exactly what needed to be repaired and provide accurate quotations based on their site assessment. AL said that Rand Water had been receiving quotations piece by piece but was waiting to take a decision because the process of obtaining quotations had taken so long. AL said that it took approximately three months to get one quotation. AL said that Oberholzer WWTWs repair costs were ~R3 million, according to the quotation he had received, excluding the fencing which was an

additional R1 million. AL added that it was pointless to repair the equipment or the Plants when the WWTW sites were not secured.

AL said that there was a new residential development called Elijah Bagai that was currently being developed in Welverdiend. The Elijah Bagai residential development was developed by Department of Human Settlement and they had certain social responsibilities. AL said that the developer had a service level agreement in place which had committed over R3.5-5 million for the repair of Khutsong and Welverdiend WWTWs. AL said that he was not sure about the time frame in terms of the delivery of services to the WWTWs. AL said that Welverdiend WWTWs would receive a portion of domestic waste water generated from the Elija Bagai residential development. AL said that Elija Bagai development was currently on Phase 1 and this phase would discharge waste water to Welverdiend WWTWs. Elija Bagai development was currently upgrading the Welverdiend WWTW so that it could accommodate the waste water from the residential development.

AL said that Wedela WWTW would receive R15 million from DWS: Water Service Infrastructure Grant (WSIG) funding, however R25 million was needed to refurbish the whole plant. AL said that they weren’t sure how they would obtain the remaining R10 million required for the repair. AL said that a tender briefing would take place on Friday the 06th December 2019. AL said that they planned to request the extra R10 million from the DWS at the briefing. AL said that he had requested assistance from Rand Water and other companies for fencing at Wedela WWTWs. EM said to AL that an action plan should have due dates and a budget. EM said that when the Municipality get funding from the DWS, the DWS expected them to top-up by sourcing from other organisations. LN said that the DWS should congratulate MCLM because they managed to source additional funding, after a long time of struggling to find funding.

EM advised organisations that were willing to assist MCLM that they should not transfer funds to MCLM but rather they should visit the WWTWs, access the plant and then fix what need to be fixed. AL said that they had experienced theft over the past 6-7 years and that their biggest fear was theft of the new equipment because their fences always got stolen. AL said that even if there was security in place, their fences got stolen and when they tried to make insurance claims, meeting all the requirements, their claims were still rejected. AL said that theft was a concern and if they did not produce enough proof the insurance would not pay out. AL reported that there was a certain period where there was a change-over of security company’s and MCLM had not been protected and therefore theft had taken place. AL said that there had also been a few months when the Municipality had not paid the insurance premiums, so when theft had taken place, they were not able to claim, which resulted in an additional repair expense that the Municipality had not always budgeted for. AL said that at his office he made sure that they adequately budgeted for operational and maintenance costs. AL said that the rule of thumb was that “you should budget 5-7% of value of the equipment for maintenance purposes”.

No Action Progress Responsible Person 5 DWS to provide an update on their action Action Addressed EM regarding the funding programme in order to assist MCLM.

EM said that the DWS was currently funding two projects under Accelerated Committees Integrated Programme (ACIP) funding, the first one was the construction of portable water reservoir at MCLM and the second one was the Wedela WWTW refurbishment.

No Action Progress Responsible Person 6 ST to provide an update on the Action Addressed ST appointment of the engineers for the Acid Mine Drainage (AMD) long term strategy

DV from DWS was not present but sent an apology. ZG said that Ayanda Mtwetwa (AM) from DWS had reported at the Klipspruit Forum Meeting that the long term solution of EIA process had been put on hold and that they were investigating other more affordable treatment technologies/ options for the long term solution.

ML said that she had a presentation in which the AMD long term solution was discussed/ presented. The master plan included the augmentation of desalination of AMD. It was indicated that there needed to be a recalibration of the salinity and hydrology model and an investigation of the Vaal River System high salinity before the long term solution could be implemented. However, short term treatment would continue. ML further said that there was 362 tonnes of Total Dissolved Solids entering the Vaal River System because of the short term solution. ML said that she would forward the presentation of the AMD long term solution to the DWS for circulation to stakeholders.

No Action Progress Responsible Person 7 ML to send the presentation of the AMD Feedback would be ML long term solution to the DWS for given in the next circulation to stakeholders. meeting

No Action Progress Responsible Person 8 DWS to consult DWS legal service for Action Addressed PC guidance regarding the next step in the enforcement process since Mintails had been placed under provincial liquidation.

EM said that they had a discussion with DWS Legal Services and a legal opinion had been received that the culprits should be pursued and it would be guided by lawyers that

would be appointed by the state attorney. EM said that he would have liked to circulate the information that had been received from the DWS Legal Services but would not be possible, as the communication had been directed to the Minister. VN said that the information sent was classified or confidential and it therefore could not be circulated. ML said that the court case was set for August 2020. ML said that illegal miners were scavenging all remaining infrastructure from the mine, and that there was nothing left. ML added that illegal miners were now scavenging the support structures of the main reef bridge, which was likely to collapse.

No Action Progress Responsible Person 9 LN to present enforcement action taken Action Addressed LN within the WFS.

LN said that the action would be addressed under the agenda item 7.5.

ML said that she had a discussion as it was indicated in the paragraph of the action that reads as follows, “If DWS took a mine to court then they need proof beyond reasonable doubt that there was a pollution of water resources occurring”

EM said that he was not a Lawyer but a person can consult to five different lawyers and still get five different opinions.

6. Presentations 6.1. Water Quality-Anglo Gold Ashanti Limited-West Wits Mine

CH presented the water quality report for Anglo Gold Ashanti (AGA) – West Wits, Savuka, CWC and pipeline authorisation process. AGA was currently operating Mponeng shaft and Savuka and Tau Tona were under orderly closure. At Covalent Water Company (CWC) they were pumping ground water from the liquidated Blyvooruitzicht shafts 4 and 6, which was being discharged into the Wonderfonteinspruit (see presentation attached).

CH said that AGA had submitted an amendment in 2012 which included a new Pollution Control Dam (PCD) at Mponeng. CH said that they also wanted a cost effective way to pump the CWC water. ML asked what the possibilities were of “zama zamas” targeting the proposed CWC pipeline to AGA. CH replied and said it would be quite unlikely; however they would have the necessary security. ML asked what impact the water would have on the environment if the pipeline was damaged. CH said that the mine needed that water in their process and so the pipeline would be fixed as fast as possible. CH said that the water was partially treated underground, so as long as there was a short spillage the impact would be minimal.

ML asked what “orderly closure” meant. CH confirmed that all the mines were under one mining right and so they couldn’t apply for formal closure until Mponeng shaft was ready

to close. CH said that they called orderly closure because the shafts were under care and maintenance.

ML asked what the gooseneck at Elandspruit discharge point was. CH said that in the spruit there was a clean water dam, which was used by the farmers but had nothing to do with the mine.

ML asked what would happen after the 25 years lease period at CWC ended. CH said that the mine had not accepted any liabilities for the Blyvooruitzicht mining compartment; they were only required to pump to keep AGA dry. CWC had the option to extend the contract for the first 25 years and after that CWC had the first option to continue for another 25 years, should they want to. He further said that after 50 years the owner of that land could choose another contractor should they wish to.

PC requested AGA to use their WUL conditions or limits when presenting their WQ results. PC stated that CH should amend the presentation and send to the DWS for circulation. LL asked how they kept the clean and dirty water separate. CH and JH explained that they would use boreholes and separate pumps to keep the clean and dirty water separate.

7. Catchment Issues 7.1 Licence Status

HM presented the licence status as follows: No Application Application Water Uses Status date

1. Lancaster Gold 2019/05/27 Section 21 (g)& (a) Closed Mining Company 2. Middelvlei Minerals 2019/06/19 21(c ),(i),(a),(j)&(g) Withdrawn (Pty)Ltd: Middelvlei mine 3. Sibanye Gold 2019/08/26 21 (c)& (i) Finalised Limited Driefontein 4. Divine Inspiration 2019/09/18 Section 21 (a) Finalised Trading 783 5. Quantum Foods 2019/11/27 21(a); (e); (g) & (i) Initial Assessment (Pty ) Ltd 6. African Spartan 2019/11/07 21(c) & (i) Initial Assessment (Pty ) Ltd 7. Rand Uranium (Pty) 2018/01/09 21(i) Finalising Ltd: Cooke Assessment Operation 8. Ariobex (Pty) Ltd 2019/01/30 21(c) &(i) Finalising Assessment 9. Anglo Gold Ashanti 2018/08/12 21(a) (e);(f);(g ); (j); (c ) Awaiting WUAAAC & (I ) presentation 10. Randfontein Estate 2018/07/09 21(f) ( a ) Finalising Limited: Harmony Assessment

Mine, Kusasalethu Operation

HM said that she had sent the WUL status spreadsheet to the Wonderfonteinspruit Forum with a small update. CH asked what the status of the AGA amendment application was. EM said that if amending a licence became difficult, he always advised that people should apply for an integrated licence so that the new water uses would be incorporated into the existing licence. EM further said that if water users had a new water use, they should only update a report and then apply for a new licence, which made the process much easier. HM said that the WUL amendment was the issue. EM asked CH when the expiry date of their old licence was.

ML asked what the turnaround time for an amendment of a WUL was, or even a standard Water Use Licence Application (WULA), because according to her own understanding it was 300 days, but according to the law that has been lodged by the Minister it says 49 days. EM said that it was possible to meet the legislated 300 day timeframe as long as all the correct technical documentation was submitted. EM advised that before preparing technical documents, stakeholders should first consult with the DWS.

LN said that if stakeholders were doing one (1) licence they should focus on it alone in order to meet those 49 days.

ML asked if it would be possible to process a WUL within 49 days because the documents still needed to be assessed by DWS.

MM said that the time frame of 49 days was recommended by the task team that was constituted by the Minister herself.

HM said that she was aware of a proposed 100 day timeframe but she wasn’t sure how the 49 day timeframe would work. HM said that during a meeting with the Deputy Director General (DDG) Road show, it was mentioned that the days would no longer be calculated including site inspections; the timeframe would start once an applicant submitted all required technical information. HM said that previously the timeframe started when an applicant submitted an application to the Department, following which the site visits, technical information and assessments would be included into the timeframe. It was indicated that, going forward, only once an applicant submitted all technical documentation would the system start counting the 100 days. Further to this HM explained that if the information was insufficient it would be rejected automatically.

ZG said that during the meeting with the DDG Road show, they said that the 100 days was not yet gazetted, only proposed.

EM said that they would wait for the gazette and public comments.

7.2 Pollution incidents

PC presented the following pollution incidents that had occurred in September 2019 to November 2019. No Name of Date of Nature of incident Action Taken Activity Incident

1. Merafong City On-going WWTW vandalized Directive issued Local Municipality - Wedela WWTW 2. Blyvoor Village On-going No functional WWTW Pre-directive issued sewer spillage 3. Merafong City On-going Electric panel On-going Local vandalized and during Municipality - May 2019 April 2019 there was Khutsong further vandalism of the WWTW power transformer. 4. Mintails - On going Dam wall leakage Pre-directive issued Lancaster dam wall 5. Harmony Mine 15 November Blockage of sewer Manhole was 2019 manhole unblocked

6. Merafong City 07 November Disposal of effluent from The sluice valve Local 2019 Oberholzer WWTW into was closed on 12 – Municipality dams next to Living November-2019 Gold 7. Anglo Gold 02 September Release of slurry and Plant was stopped Ashanti - Slurry 2019 process water into the and cleaning of environment. slurry was on going

VN presented Pollution incidents of Wonderfonteinspruit Catchment from Sep-Nov 2019 incidents. He said that there were four pollution incidents namely: Khutsong WWTW, Wedela WWTW, Blyvoor village and Mintails: Lancaster Dam wall, which would be on- going for some time going forward.

VN reported that there were new pollution incidents; he said that at Harmony Gold Mine on 15 November 2019, the DWS identified a manhole spillage which was flowing into the environment towards the water resource. The spillage had been going on for some time but they had managed to find out where the source of the pollution was coming from. VN said that they followed the pollution incident to the source and after reporting the issue to the mine, the mine had managed to resolve the issue.

VN reported that Living Gold Rose Farm, which was using MCLM: Oberholzer WWTW effluent to irrigate their roses, had been liquidated in April 2019. The Municipality had not shut down the water supply and they continued supplying waste water to the farm even though the rose farm was not operational. The effluent was being diverted into historic dams near to Living Gold. VN said that the MCLM had subsequently closed the pipes

that were providing the supply but unfortunately the dams were already filled with waste water. VN said that the MCLM incident report indicated that they did not have funds to pump out the effluent from those dams. The dams were historic and were located on properties which fell under the ownership of the Far West Rand Dolomitic Association.

VN said that a pollution incident occurred at AGA on 02 September 2019, where there was a slurry spillage from their PCD. The DWS had a meeting with the mine on 15 November 2019 and the mine was still in the process of cleaning the affected area.

VN said that a pollution incident had occurred at Sibanye Gold Limited: Kloof Operation on 16 October 2019, where there was a slurry spillage from a pipeline which transported slurry from Kloof Plant No 1 to Tailing Storage Facility No 2. The DWS conducted an inspection on 17 October 2019 of the affected areas and noted that the mine was in the process of removing the surface pipeline and burying it underground, as the pipeline had been known to experience problems resulting in slurry spillages.

VN said that at the Welverdiend area there were regular manhole blockages and the MCLM had indicated that “zama zamas” were known to be vandalising the pump station. The Welverdiend pump station was not pumping raw sewage into the Welverdiend WWTW due to vandalism and this has resulted in raw sewage overflowing into the manholes towards the water resource.

VN said that ES had raised a complaint regarding the water quality at the end of the one meter pipeline, as there was a smell of sewage and sludge. VN said that the one metre pipeline was a closed system but that there were WWTWs upstream that were allowed to discharge into the one meter pipeline. The WWTW at the end of the one meter pipeline was Hannes Van Niekerk. VN said that Hannes Van Niekerk WWTW had been vandalised in April-May 2019 and the WWTW was therefore only partial treating the waste water, as most of the units at the WWTW were not operating due to stolen electrical cables at the plant. The WWTW has since been repaired but in terms of recovery of the processes at the WWTW, there were certain unit systems that were still not operational, which may have resulted in sewage pollution occurring within the one meter pipeline. VN said that the DWS monitored the end of the one metre pipeline on a monthly basis and the results would be presented under agenda item 7.4.

ML asked why Living Gold Rose Farm had been liquidated since it was part of Sibanye Gold Limited (SGL). ML also asked what the impact to the ecosystem was, as a result of the pollution, since the pollution had been on-going for many years. ML asked what the quality of the associated water was.

VN said that DWS met with the liquidator representative on 07 November 2019, and he had reported that there had been a labour relation dispute at Living Gold Rose Farm after the SGL strike/protest had been resolved. The farm workers requested that they get the same increase that the miners had been offered, following the SGL settlement. VN said that when Living Gold Rose Farm responded to the workers that they could not afford the increase the workers had sabotaged the rose farm by poisoning the water that irrigated the roses and all the roses had died. Following that the Living Gold Rose Farm had not

operated and applied for court-mandated liquidation. VN said that the issue of the dams was that they were historical and were used for other purposes and did not belonging to Living Gold Rose Farm. During profitable operation at the rose farm there had been an option to bypass the farm and dispose the water into the dams. VN said that the dams did not having pre-exisiting aquatic ecosystems, and were only full due to the rose farm directing the effluent of Oberholzer WWTW to the dams.

ML asked which Catchment Management Agency (CMA) the Harmony Doornkop Mine operations fell within VN said that it fell within the Klipspruit.

ML said that in the Bekkersdal area there was formal and informal settlements downstream of Donaldson Dam and at the beginning of the one meter pipeline. ML noted ponding water at the beginning of one meter pipeline, which she said may accelerate sinkhole formation because the area was dolomitic. In that area the water was piped into the one meter pipeline to prevent the acceleration of sinkhole formation. However, even though it was the dry season there was ponding of water before the pipeline. ML asked what the source of water was. VN said that the DWS would have to investigate further. VN said that when there was flooding, the water flowing from Donaldson Dam could not be accommodated at the start of the pipeline and it would therefore overflow through the spill way of the dam, into a stormwater channel to the beginning of one meter pipeline, where it would pool.

7.3 Update Report from Stakeholders Nothing reported.

7.4 Water Quality Results Reporting

PC presented the water quality report for Wonderfonteinspruit for August-October 2019. The colour coding was explained as follows: blue was ideal, green was acceptable, yellow was tolerable and red was unacceptable. The monitoring points were sampled monthly and included water resources, mine discharges and municipality discharges. There were also two eyes (Upper Turffontein eye and Gerhard Minnebron) that were monitored/sampled every quarter. The limits used were WUL limits, general authorisation limits, and Instream Water Quality Objectives (WQO). Uranium sampling was conducted every quarter.

The first point was WFS downstream of Lancaster Dam. This was where historical mining operations were located and denoted the origin of the WFS. This point had a challenge with regard to manganese, and the source of the manganese was still unknown. Ammonia and Ecoli were also high due to sewage spillages in the area. PC said that ML had indicated in the previous Forum meeting that there had been a manganese company/dump that used to operate in that area. PC requested ML for the contact details of a person who could assist DWS in terms of identifying the manganese source. ML said that the Harsco Ilanga Company had sent their water quality report, which had indicated a decrease in Manganese, which was an improvement. PC requested Harsco Ilanga to present their water quality in the next Forum meeting of March 2020. PC reported that

the point at Wonderfonteinspruit Azaddville Bridge was impacted by the manganese at the first point.

The water quality of Flip Human WWTW was not compliant as ammonia (NH3) and faecal coliform count were elevated. The Flip Human WWTW was not chlorinating hence the faecal coliform count being elevated. Wonderfonteinspruit at Luipaardsvlei point was impacted by sewage as ammonia; orthophosphate (PO4) and faecal coliform count were elevated. The Flip Human WWTW was also impacting this point due to its sewage discharge.

PC said that Electrical Conductivity (EC), sulphate, uranium and manganese were elevated at Sibanye Gold Limited: Cooke shaft 1 discharge sampling point. PC said that Sibanye Gold Limited: Cooke Operation should provide a plan to DWS, which would address the variables of concern. PC said that the mine should also investigate the source of manganese as this was the first time it was found to be elevated at their sampling point.

PC said that Donaldson Dam and Gemspost sampling points were impacted by sewage spillages, mines and illegal mining. PC corrected the mistake of 0 faecal coliform count for August 2019 at Gemspost sampling point, which was highlighted in red (unacceptable), but should have been green (acceptable). The water quality of Hannes van Niekerk WWTW was not compliant as ammonia, faecal coliform count and Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) were elevated and the WWTW was not operational as a result of vandalism (cable theft). During September 2019 sampling, there was no access at the WWTW as they had installed electric fencing on the gate and it was locked. However, recently they have managed to open an alternative access road for sampling.

PC said that the water quality of Sibanye Gold Limited: Driefontein Mine points was of good quality except in September and October 2019 where EC at West Driefontein Gold Mine fissure water was elevated. PC further stated that at the end of the one meter pipeline sampling point the faecal coliform count, ammonia and orthophosphate were elevated due to Hannes van Niekerk WWTW, which was partial operational as a result of vandalism (cable theft).

PC said that most of the variables at Merafong City Local Municipality’s WWTW: Oberholzer, Khutsong, Welverdiend and Wedela were not complaint. PC said that most of the WWTWs were not fully operational. At Khutsong WWTW raw sewage was entering and exiting the plant without any treatment due to vandalism (cable theft). There was no flow at the Wedela WWTW at this point because a transformer had been vandalised and the WWTW was not operational. Raw sewage was no longer entering the Wedela WWTW as “zama-zamas” had vandalised the sewer line and currently raw sewage was flowing into the environment towards Wedela stream, which joined the Loopspruit.

Doorfontein Canal at Blaaubank point was compliant except for August 2019 where EC, sulphate and uranium were elevated. Mooi River Loop at Blauubank point was compliant except for uranium in August 2019 and faecal coliform count for September and October, which were elevated due to the impact from Doorfontein Canal at Blaaubank point and

the Welverdiend WWTW, respectively. PC said that the water quality from Mooi River at Klerkskraal Dam–Rysmiesbult road bridge U/S of Boskop Dam point was good.

EM asked PC if there was an improvement between the recent and previous water quality reports. PC replied and said that there was an improvement except for the WWTWs.

GG said that next to Lancaster Dam, there was an old manganese dump for MMC which had not been rehabilitated. EM said that the party who was contributing manganese pollution to the Wonderfonteinspruit should be investigated and should pay for this action. PN said that the EC at Khutsong WWTW was complaint as it was 120mS/m in terms of the WUL, not in the eighty’s. PC asked PN if they had amended their WUL as she had used the limits from Khutsong WUL. PC said that if they had not amended their WUL then there would be no changes.

AL asked if there was a reason for the DWS not monitoring the private WWTWs. VN said that the DWS was following a prescribed monitoring programme and private WWTW’s that AL asked about were not part of Departmental monitoring programme. VN said that perhaps on an adhoc basis DWS would need to monitor those WWTWs that were discharging into the water resource. EM asked if the WWTWs was privately owned and where it discharged. VN said that it was privately owned by Morgan Greek and the mines and that it discharged into the water resource. PC said that there was no access to those areas. EM said that the DWS needed to investigate those privately owned WWTWs and to try to obtain access. PC suggested that they first investigate the water resource that the WWTWs were discharging into, followed by trying to obtain access to the WWTWs. VN said that their focus was on Local Government WWTWs monitoring and monitoring of WWTWs was not conducted at the mines. EM requested the DWS official to sample the WWTWs that were discharging into the water resource. NG said that the mines were sampling for them. EM said to NG that their samples would need to be audited by DWS.

AL said that it was very embarrassing for MCLM to request the DWS to monitor the private WWTWs, when the municipality were not compliant themselves. AL said that industries within the municipality that were discharging to sewer were supposed to provide their discharge monitoring results to the municipality but the municipality was not receiving them. AL shared his concern and said that the municipality was flooded with polluted water. EM suggested that MCLM get funds to conduct monitoring from other industries through municipal by-laws. AL said that the DWS could assist but would not be able to implement monitoring on behalf of the municipality.

No Action Progress Responsible Person 7.4.1 DWS officials to investigate the private Feedback would DWS WWTWs that are discharging into the be given in the water resource and to try to obtain next meeting access to those WWTWs.

7.5 Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement (CME)

LN reported that CM had undertaken a compliance audit at Harsco on 05 September 2019, the report was sent to the facility and the facility had been asked to provide an action plan to address the audit findings. LN said that Harsco had sent an action plan on the 08 November 2019, which was still under review by DWS. Following which, a follow up inspection would be undertaken. LN said that another compliance audit was undertaken on 12-15 November 2019 at Anglo Gold Ashanti and that CM was in the process of compiling the report.

TM (Harmony Gold) asked why they had not received their feedback report from the CM team since the compliance audit was conducted at Harmony Gold on the 07 September 2019. LN asked who had conducting the audit. TM said that it was Ms Mokgadi Thema. LN said he would follow up with her regarding their report.

No Action Progress Responsible Person 7.5.1 LN to follow up on the compliance audit Feedback would LN report for Harmony Gold. be given in the next meeting

TM presented Enforcement (See presentation attached)

TM explained that at the last Forum meeting it had been requested that Enforcement provide a summary detailing what activities and responsibilities Enforcement undertaken within the catchment. TM said that Enforcement monitor 11 sub-catchments within the Upper Vaal Water Management Area (WMA). They use an Enforcement Management System (EMS) in the office to manage their cases that they carry out within the whole Upper Vaal WMA e.g. if a request about a certain case in the catchment was received Enforcement officials could abstract the information through the EMS. The EMS assists them to manage their cases, record keeping, data collating, identifying repeat offenders and identifying hot spots within the WMA.

ML said that there had been 6 pre-directives issued, 1 directive issued and 1 that had become a criminal case (SAPS). ML said that she was aware that 14% of cases had been registered with SAPS, but the presentation listed only one case that had been reported and she wanted to know who the offender was that was being criminally investigated.

LN says that DWS cannot release the case information, name of the offender etc. until the case has gone to court. Further to this, EM said that when the person was not yet taken to court their name was not allowed to be disclosed until they were charged and appeared in court.

7.6 Regulations

AM presented on the Water Services Regulations, which was supposed to be presented at the previous Wonderfonteinspruit Forum meeting dated 03 September 2019, (see the presentation attached).

AM explained that water service regulations enforced compliance with the Water Service Act 108 of 1997. They regulate provincial water services through programmes such as green and blue drop. The green drop regulation programme was an incentive based regulation that seeks to identify and develop the core competencies required for the sector that if strengthened would gradually and sustainably improve the level of waste water management in South Africa.

ML said that the DWS team was doing a wonderful job of inspecting the WWTWs, but she asked why there had been no green drop reports since 2014. NM replied and said that the DWS had not been publishing the national green drop assessments. Gauteng provincial office saw a need to continue do a green drop assessment within the Gauteng provincial office to try and assess the progress being made by Municipalities so that when a full green drop assessment was undertaken by Head Office the DWS would be able to determine compliance in terms of what would be required for the Key Results Area (KRA) assessment.

EM added and said that the National green drop was the competency of the Minister. In other words Gauteng Region was not able to share green drop information that they were doing with the public. EM said that in the recent past there had been a large housing development which put pressure on the existing infrastructure. EM said that when coming to the designed and operational capacity of WWTW’s, the operational capacity was always exceeded. Further to this, NM said that due to the spillages not all sewage was reaching the WWTWs and as a result, it appeared as though WWTWs were still operating within their designed capacity, even when that was not the case.

NM answered and said that when they do an assessment they communicate with the Municipality but when they do the report they write the report based on the information that was available on the IRIS system because the Municipality was expected to update the information on a regular basis. NM said that the IRIS system should be updated regularly and people with relevant skills should be employed at the Municipality to do this. PC asked why Hannes Van Niekerk WWTW’s was not part of the presentation, because it discharged to Wonderfonteinspruit. AM replied and said that it would be on the report in February 2020. EM advised AM to circulate the presentation to all Forum members.

7.7 Update from Non-Government Organisations

ML said that South Africa was facing a significance water crisis, 56% of waste water treatment and 40% of water treatment works were in the poor condition and 11% were

not functional. ML said that more that 50% of water was being lost and 33% of rivers were in a poor ecological condition. ML said that between 1999 and 2011 the 9 catchment rivers in South Africa were classified as being in a poor ecological condition, this had increased by 500% with some rivers being pushed beyond the point of recovery. Further to this, ML said that 35% of municipal water was lost through leakages.

ML said that the Municipalities were losing 1660 million cubic metres of water per year through non-revenue water. At the cost of R6.00 per cubic metre this amounted to R9.9 billion per annum. ML explained that R33 billion was needed each year for the next ten years to achieve water security. ML said that the reality was that water would become more expensive; ML said that everyone except those without access to water should be using less water for the day-to-day activities. ML said that everyone except for indigent peoples must pay for water and sanitation services. Lastly ML said that South Africa would 70% of available of service and ground water by 2030.

With regards to AMD, the treated AMD should be used to supplement water supply and must be extended considerably. The delay in the implementation of phase 2 of the Lesotho highlands water project has significantly impacted on water security resulting in social economic impact conditions in affected areas. ML said that by 2040, treated AMD and desalinated sea water would be added to South African water supply. Further to this, ML said that if targets were achieved in terms of reducing physical loses in municipal systems, as well as reduction in per capital consumption in the global average, in addition to inclusion of desalinated and treated AMD water there would be a surplus in 2030.

The CMAs should be put in place by 2023 and by 2020 identification and prosecution of big polluters across the country, including municipalities, should be undertaken, with a national communication campaign to accompany the action. ML explained that what she had presented has been taken from launch of the master plan. ML also noted that many of the DWS officials had stated that they had not seen the master plan, which ML thought was shameful. Further to this, ML said that she wasn’t able to speak on behalf of the DWS, but she said that she did not understand why DWS officials did not have access to the master plan, where civil society already did. LN asked where ML got all the information from. EM said that there should be further investigation as to why the information was not in possession of all DWS officials. ML replied and said that she was invited by the Minister to the budget speech that was how she had obtained the information. EM said that for effective planning a bottom up approach was always effective and not vice-versa. ML said that the plan was well put together, however there was no budget to implement the plan.

PC requested ML to summarise and circulate the information she presented. ML said that she would draft a summary and circulate it to the Forum stakeholders. ML requested to present on Sustainable Development Goal 6. FML said that the Sustainable Development Goal 6, “availability and sustainable water management for all” must be achieved by 2030. ML noted that there were different targets within Sustainable

Development Goal 6. She stated that 6.3 dealt with waste water, stating that waste water must be effectively treated and should be re-used by 2030. ML indicated that by 2032, all ecosystems and the ecosystem infrastructure must be maintained responsibly and sustainably. South Africa was a signatory of the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals; however none of them could be implemented effectively if there was no budget. ML said that this was part of the responsibility of the water and sanitation sector leadership group, which were the highest decision-making team in DWS. In terms of all the 17 Sustainable Development Goals, which should be achieved by 2050, water was key to all the other Sustainable Development Goals. ML then committed to email the presentation that was done by the Department Chief Engineer Mr Mark Banister to the Forum stakeholders. EM stated that he missed the presentation internally due to his tight schedule. No Action Progress Responsible Person 7.7.1 ML to send master plan presentation and Feedback would be ML summary of the United Nations given in the next Sustainable Development Goal 6 meeting presentation.

8. Acid Mine Drainage (AMD): Western Basin Area

DV was not present but sent an apology, PC reported on his behalf. PC said that TCTA was currently pumping 30ML/d, and that the plant had started to operate again on 20 August 2019 after vandalism forced operations to cease temporarily. The water quality was a follows: pH 8.6, SO4 2.9 mg, Iron <0.1, Manganese 1.3, EC 406 mS/m and water level was 5.83 meters below ground level (mbgl).

ST said that in terms of the long term solution, the process was no longer with TCTA but now with the DWS. Previously, the TCTA had reached the point of appointing Engineers but the DWS stopped the process and recommended that further research be done into alternative more affordable treatment options. ST said that the best sustainable method that should be used for long term treatment was under investigation, there was a suspicion that the proposed method of study and the investigation that followed had revealed that there might be other options that might be more affordable.

ML said that JVW has proposed that a salinity and hydrological model or study be undertaken with urgency prior to the investigation and implementation of a long term solution option. ST noted that there was a task team established to look at the long term solution.

9. General 9.1 Catchment Management Agency (CMA)

EM said that there were no changes in terms of CMA establishment, he reported that there was an advisory committee that has been appointed by the previous Minister, but before the advisory committee had a chance to conduct their work the administration has

changed. DWS had therefore made a submission to the current Minister requested that the existing advisory committee remain in place to commence with their work on moving the CMA forward. No response to the submission had yet been received.

9.2 Minutes

Prof EN stated that SL mentioned the issues regarding item 6.2 bottom of page 8 for Sibanye discharge. It reads as follows: “All Sibanye Stillwater mines have approved WULs which set out limits for discharges. SL said that they did not discharge directly into Mooi River but rather into tributaries of the Mooi River”. Prof EN said that since DWS had changed to the Department of Human Settlement and Water and Sanitation, and because the WFS Forum and the Mooi river Forum fell within separate Provinces, who was monitoring and coordinating a large scale assessment of the greater area to ensure that the pollution from the WFS catchment didn’t flow into the Mooi River and end up in the Boskop dam, which was the water reservoir for Potchefstroom. EM said that people in the upper WFS weren’t able to drink the water in the WFS due to pollution.

Prof EN asked who at DWS could provide UNISA-Department of Public Administration with an overall assessment of the greater WFS and Mooi River water management areas, especially since the WFS and Mooi River Forums were located in different provinces. Prof EN also noted that the Municipalities were not well represented in the Forums. Further to this, Prof EN noted that the stakeholders were not well informed about the different resource features within the catchment. In that regard UNISA was offering to do an informative introductory document for various Forum stakeholders to better understand these catchments.

EM said that there were different Government Departments, which all had different mandates. The mandate of the DWS was the protection of water resources. EM said that the DWS knows that there were various impacts on the water resources such as, human settlements, mining, local Government etc, EM indicated that DWS was not able to solve all the problems associated with those various entities, as they were the mandate of other Departments i.e. the DMRE. EM said the DWS could only make sure that the other Departments ensure that their mandated entities did not impact on the water resources.

9.3 Terms of Reference

Prof EN asked if the Forum had Terms of Reference and when they were drafted. Prof EN said that he only observed mine representatives attending the Forum meeting; why were other Departments (i.e. COGTA, Department of Housing etc.) not represented at the Forum meetings. EM said that they should be present at these meetings. Prof EN said that he also wanted to see local residents in the Forums raising their issues relating to sinkholes etc. Pro EN said that the residents would be interested to understand what Municipalities were doing to resolve issues relating to WWTWs.

9.4 Locality Map

Prof EN said that residents weren’t aware of what the Forum was all about; they also weren’t aware and/or didn’t understand where monitoring points were located, where Lancaster dam was, or where the one meter pipeline was and why it was there. Prof EN said the residents should know more of what the Municipality was doing in the area. The UNISA delegation wanted to offer their services to draw up introductory documents, including a location map to help people understand what the Forum was about. Prof EN suggested that at least 2 or 3 representatives from the Municipalities should attend and participate in the Forum, in order to assist the residents in understanding what the Forum was all about.

EM said that the reason they invited COGTA and various other government Departments to the Forum was so that these Departments would be able to respond to community questions, however it was often the case that only the DWS and DMRE were present at Forum meetings. In terms of the Water Resource Management in the country, it was strictly WMA based and not provincially bound. EM explained that the Upper Vaal Catchment extended from Ermelo to Kimberley. EM said that the Water Services units were provincially bound such as: water supply, sanitation etc. EM said that if there was sewage discharge that was not compliant in Mpumalanga (Ermelo), then his office was responsible in terms of water resource management (protection of water resources). However, EM said that he couldn’t resolve the discharge pollution from Pretoria DWS and that in that case Mpumalanga Provincial office should rather be approached. EM said that the DWS demarcated catchments through quaternaries. e.g C20, C22 etc.

AL asked that what would be done after the meeting and at the next coming Forum meeting because when they (Merafong) give an explanation of non-complaint reports, the incorrect levels of individuals are requested to give information. AL said that even if solutions were discussed at a Forum level, on a Municipality level they were inadequately represented (i.e. without Municipal decision-makers (managers) present at the Forum, decisions made at the Forum could not be implemented). AL appreciated all the representatives of Merafong for their presence, input and commitment. Further to this, AL said that all the representatives of Merafong who attended the Forums did not have all the answers that the Forum members or community expected/required. AL said that he would highly appreciate if CFO’s and the Municipality Managers would attend the Forum meetings. AL said that they were relying on higher level DWS officials to interact with higher level local Government officials. Al noted that the Merafong representatives that were present at the forum were lower level officials who were not able to make decisions.

EM replied and said that as officials of the DWS, when problems from Municipalities were encountered, they immediately informed their political principals. EM said that the principals then met with MENDMAC in order to determine a solution for the problem. EM said that in emergencies it was possible for some of the DWS budget to be used directly to implement solutions. e.g allowing Eskom to take allocations from National Treasury, if you owe the electricity they would take it directly from there.

DH stated that there were dangerous dolomitic and sinkholes areas in the West Rand and nothing had been done to remedy the situation. Developers were developing houses in areas where there were dangerous sinkhole formations. Further to this DH, shared his concern and said that there were large double-story houses in some of the settlements that were extremely dangerous considering the dolomitic area and nothing had been done to ensure that these types of structures were not built over dangerous dolomitic areas. EM said that Local Government needed to work with Provincial government and indicate to Provincial government where studies were required to map sensitive areas where building of large houses was not feasible.

10. Way Forward

All actions would be addressed in the next Forum Meeting.

11. Venue

Harmony Gold Mine

12. Acknowledgement and closure

EM thanked the attendees for a productive meeting. EM said that the next meeting would be held first Tuesday of March 2020. The meeting was adjourned at 13H10.

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

APPENDIX E Noise Impact Assessment

REPORT Specialist Assessment for the Proposed Surface Pipeline and Associated Infrastructure - Qualitative Noise Impact Assessment AngloGold Ashanti (Pty) Limited South African Operations

Submitted to: AngloGold Ashanti (Pty) Limited South African Operations Mr J van Wyk Carletonville - Fochville Road R500 Carletonville Gauteng 2501

Submitted by: Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd. Podium at Menlyn, Second Floor, 43 Ingersol Road, Menlyn, Pretoria, 0181, South Africa P O Box 6001, Halfway House, 1685

+27 11 254 4800

19121900-328074-7

February 2020

February 2020 19121900-328074-7

Distribution List 1 eCopy to AngloGold Ashanti (Pty) Limited South African Operations

1 eCopy to [email protected]

February 2020 19121900-328074-7

Executive Summary

Project overview The AGA operations in the West Wits mining lease areas are at risk of flooding due to ingress of fissure water from surrounding mining operations. Approximately 25 Mℓ/day of fissure water flows into the underground workings of the defunct Blyvooruitzicht Mine, which spans a strike of 6 km along the boundary with AGA. If dewatering at the Old Blyvooruitzicht Shafts (#4, #5 & 6#) shafts were to cease, uncontrolled fissure water would report to the AGA operations, which would pose both a flood and safety risk of AGA personnel and the mining operations.

This report provides a professional opinion regarding the anticipated noise impacts from this proposed project. Location The proposed water pipeline and associated infrastructure is approximately 80 km west of Johannesburg and originates in the greater West Wits mining lease areas approximately 3.3 km south east of Carletonville and ends at the North Boundary Dam approximately 6 km south-south-west of Carletonville in Blyvooruitzicht, Merafong City Local Municipality, West Rand District Municipality in the Gauteng Province of South Africa. Construction noise impacts Based on the typical noise levels associated with construction activities and the anticipated sources of noise and Golder’s experience, a one-hour equivalent noise level of between 75 dBA to 60 dBA may be anticipated at the Covalent Water Company (CWC) construction site and along the pipeline route during construction. Intermittent loud noises are likely to occur during specific construction activities and may be in the order of magnitude of 100 dBA to 80 dBA. Noise nuisance impacts during the day at all receptors are anticipated to be of a low to negligible environmental significance as the impacts from the project are anticipated to be absorbed and/or masked by the existing local noise levels and thus a community response is unlikely. No construction activities will be undertaken during the night-time the thus there will be no noise impacts (i.e. no environmental significance) during the night-time. Operational noise impacts No noise is anticipated to be generated along the pipeline route during the operational phase other than noise associate with general maintenance activities for the pipeline which are not anticipated to yield a nuisance impact (i.e. low to negligible environmental significance) at the sensitive receptors due to its transient nature.

Based on the typical noise levels associated with industrial scale pumping operations and Golder’s experience, a one-hour equivalent noise level of between 110 dBA to 90 dBA may be anticipated at the CWC plant and surface infrastructure due to the pumping operations (existing and new pumps, operating approximately 9 hours per day, mainly at night on a demand management cycle). Noise nuisance impacts during the day at the receptors are anticipated to be of a low to negligible environmental significance as the impacts from the project are anticipated to be absorbed and/or masked by the existing local noise levels and thus a community response is unlikely. Noise nuisance impacts during the night at most of the receptors are anticipated to be of a low to negligible environmental significance as the impacts from the project are

February 2020 19121900-328074-7

anticipated to be transient in nature (i.e. operating approximately 9 hours per day, mainly at night on a demand management cycle) and absorbed by the local elevated baseline night time noise levels and/or masked by the existing baseline noise levels and thus a community response is unlikely. Noise nuisance impacts during the night at receptor 10 are anticipated to be of a moderate environmental significance.

To reduce the impacts at receptor 10 to a low environmental significance, basic operational recommendations must be implemented. Decommissioning phase impacts Decommissioning and the anticipated noise impacts have not been specifically assessed as it is anticipated that the decommissioning process will be undertaken via a decommissioning environmental authorisation process which will specifically address these issues. Nevertheless, decommissioning impacts are anticipated to be similar to those experienced during the construction phase. Cumulative impacts Based on Golder’s professional experience and on the qualitative assessment of the construction and operational phases impacts, it is our opinion that the cumulative noise impacts, taking cognisance of the baseline day and night time noise levels and that most of the noise generated by the project is anticipated to be absorbed and/or masked by the local baseline noise levels, the impacts likely to have a low environmental significance and/or low impacts. To further reduce any possible cumulative impacts, basic operational recommendations should be implemented. Recommended mitigation and best practice measures The following recommended mitigation measures and considered best practice and should be implemented during the construction phase and/or operational phase:  Materials handling activities: ▪ A drop height policy should be implemented onsite to reduce the level of noise generation when handling materials; and

▪ All equipment operators should be trained in the policy such that drop height reduction is implemented onsite.  Heavy vehicle/machinery noise: ▪ Using the smallest/quietest equipment for the particular purpose;

▪ Ensuring that equipment is well maintained and fitted with the correct and appropriate noise abatement measures;

▪ All vehicles and other equipment should be maintained and serviced regularly to ensure that the noise levels are reduced; and

▪ Vehicles should not be allowed to idle for more than 5 minutes when not in use.  Monitoring requirements: ▪ If noise complaints are registered regarding construction activities, noise monitoring should be undertaken to identify the source and mitigation measures should be implemented to reduce the nuisance impacts;

iii

February 2020 19121900-328074-7

▪ During the operational phase, a once off noise monitoring campaign should be undertaken to establish the possible noise nuisance impacts from the operation of the CWC plant on the sensitive receptors. A suitable noise monitoring frequency should be established thereafter (i.e. not required, annually, quarterly etc.); and

▪ Any noise complaints should be directed to the site management. Complaints and any actions arising from a complaint must be recorded in a complaint’s register to be maintained by site management. An investigation should be undertaken to determine the specific activities and or equipment/ machinery which is generating the nuisance noise resulting in the noise complaints.

February 2020 19121900-328074-7

Acronym List

Acronyms

AGA AngloGold Ashanti

AMD Acid mine drainage

BLV Blyvooruitzicht Mine

dB Decibel

dB(A) Decibel average weighted

CWC Covalent Water Company

DMR Department of Minerals Resources

EIA Environmental impact assessment

EMP Environmental Management Programme

Ha Hectares

IFC International Finance Corporation

km Kilometre

km/h Kilometre per hour

LoM Life of Mine

m Meter

m/s Meters per second

m2 Meters square / square meters

m3/year Cubic meters per year

Mamsl Meters above mean sea level

NBD North Boundary Dam

OECD Organization for Economic Co-ordination and Development

% Percentage

SANS South African National Standard

WHO World health organisation

February 2020 19121900-328074-7

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1

2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND ...... 1

2.1 Location of the proposed project ...... 1

2.2 Land use cover ...... 1

3.0 STUDY APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY ...... 3

3.1 Background literature review ...... 3

3.2 Baseline assessment ...... 3

3.3 Impact Assessment ...... 3

3.4 Mitigation and monitoring ...... 5

4.0 NOISE TERMINOLOGY AND EFFECTS ...... 5

4.1 Noise terminology ...... 5

4.2 Effects of noise ...... 6

5.0 LEGISLATION, STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES ...... 6

5.1 International Standards and guidelines ...... 6

5.2 South African National Standard (SANS) ...... 7

5.3 Proposed standards for use in this survey ...... 9

6.0 BASELINE NOISE ASSESSMENT ...... 9

6.1 Existing noise sources ...... 9

6.1.1 Roads ...... 9

6.1.2 Mining activities ...... 10

6.1.3 Residential areas ...... 10

6.1.4 Landing strip ...... 10

6.1.5 Natural environmental noise ...... 10

6.1.6 Future land use sources ...... 10

6.2 Local aspects of acoustical significance ...... 10

6.2.1 Terrain ...... 10

6.2.2 Meteorological Aspects ...... 14

6.2.2.1 Meteorological overview ...... 14 6.2.2.2 Atmospheric temperature ...... 16

February 2020 19121900-328074-7

6.3 Sensitive receptors ...... 16

7.0 BASELINE NOISE MONITORING ...... 16

7.1 Site specific monitoring ...... 16

8.0 IMPACT ASSESSMENT – QUALITATIVE OPINION ...... 24

8.1 Construction noise sources ...... 24

8.2 Construction noise impacts ...... 25

8.2.1 Daytime noise nuisance impacts ...... 25

8.2.2 Night-time noise nuisance impacts ...... 25

8.3 Operational noise sources ...... 27

8.3.1 Operational noise impacts ...... 27

8.3.1.1 Daytime noise nuisance impacts ...... 27 8.3.1.2 Night-time noise nuisance impacts ...... 27

8.4 Decommissioning phase ...... 30

8.5 Cumulative impacts ...... 30

9.0 RECOMMENDED MITIGATION AND BEST PRACTICE MEASURES ...... 30

9.1 Construction phase ...... 30

9.2 Operational phase ...... 31

10.0 REFERENCES ...... 31

TABLES Table 1: Impact Classification for Impact Assessment ...... 4 Table 2: Categories describing Environmental Consequence ...... 5 Table 3: WHO Guidelines for ambient sound levels ...... 7 Table 4: IFC Ambient Noise Guidelines ...... 7 Table 5: Typical Rating Levels for Ambient Noise ...... 8 Table 6: SANS 10103 Categories of community or group response ...... 9 Table 7: Proposed allowable ambient noise levels (from SANS 10103) ...... 9 Table 8: Sensitive receptors (SR) around the pipeline (±3 km radius) ...... 16 Table 9: Historic baseline noise monitoring undertaken at Savuka Mine and Tau Tona mine in the vicinity of the pipeline ...... 19 Table 10: Construction machinery and associated typical noise levels ...... 24 Table 11: Assessment of construction nuisance level during the day ...... 26 Table 12: Impact assessment – Construction phase ...... 26

vii

February 2020 19121900-328074-7

Table 13: Assessment of operational nuisance level during the day and night ...... 28 Table 14: Impact assessment – Operational phase ...... 29

FIGURES Figure 1: Location of the proposed pipeline...... 2 Figure 2: Typical sound levels (source: https://sites.google.com/site/laurenmcnanyspln/sound?mobile=true, July 2016) ...... 6 Figure 3: Local roads in close proximity to the proposed pipeline ...... 11 Figure 4: Land use and local noise sources ...... 12 Figure 5: Local topography and sensitive receptors ...... 13 Figure 6: Wind rose for the Blyvoor Gold Mining Project (Digby Wells, 2018) ...... 14 Figure 7: Diurnal wind rose for the Blyvoor Gold Mining Project (Digby Wells, 2018) ...... 15 Figure 8: Seasonal wind rose for the Blyvoor Gold Mining Project (Digby Wells, 2018) ...... 15 Figure 9: Historic noise monitoring locations in relation to the pipeline ...... 18

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A Document Limitations

APPENDIX B Acknowledgements, Details of EAP, Declaration of Interest and Specialist EAP Experience

viii

February 2020 19121900-328074-7

1.0 INTRODUCTION The AGA operations in the West Wits mining lease areas are at risk of flooding due to ingress of fissure water from surrounding mining operations. Approximately 25 Mℓ/day of fissure water flows into the underground workings of the defunct Blyvooruitzicht Mine, which spans a strike of 6 km along the boundary with AGA. If dewatering at the Old Blyvooruitzicht Shafts (#4, #5 & 6#) shafts were to cease, uncontrolled fissure water would report to the AGA operations, which would pose both a flood and safety risk of AGA personnel and the mining operations.

After the liquidation of the Blyvooruitzicht Mine (BLV) in 2013, AGA established a wholly owned subsidiary, the Covalent Water Company (CWC), to manage the BLV Mine water at 4# and 6# to prevent flooding of the AGA West Wits Operations. CWC has a 25-year lease to maintain water management infrastructure at the BLV shafts #4 and #6. CWC currently abstracts approximately 20 Mℓ/d of good quality water from BLV #4 and #6 shafts and discharge this into the Wonderfonteinspruit under directive, 16/2/7/C231/C/116 dated 25 November 2014. Approximately 6.5 Mℓ/d of Acid Mine Drainage (AMD) water containing elevated levels of heavy metals and salts have been accumulating in the lower, mined out areas of BLV shaft #5 (BLV #5) bordering the Savuka Mine. The pumping and removal of this impacted water was initiated at the Savuka Mine when this water reached a critical level and started to decant to the AGA Operations, threatening AGA operational infrastructure and posing a safety risk. Currently Savuka Mine pumps the BLV #5 fissure water from 81 level to surface, where it is absorbed and used as make-up water in the Savuka Gold Plant Reclamation Operations.

In summary, AGA propose to install underground infrastructure to route the BVL 5# AMD water to the BVL 4# to allow for the dewatering, neutralisation and pumping to surface. From the BVL 4# mine this impacted water will be routed on surface to the North Boundary Dam (NBD) and used as make-up water to the Savuka Gold Plant Reclamation Operations. Figure 1 presents the proposed pipeline routing and two alternative routes considered. For further information on the project description, please refer to the Basic Assessment report for the project.

2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND 2.1 Location of the proposed project The proposed water pipeline and associated infrastructure is approximately 80 km west of Johannesburg and originates in the greater West Wits mining lease areas approximately 3.3 km south east of Carletonville and ends at the NBD approximately 6 km south-south-west of Carletonville in Blyvooruitzicht, Merafong City Local Municipality, West Rand District Municipality in the Gauteng Province of South Africa (Figure 1). 2.2 Land use cover The dominant land uses surrounding the proposed pipeline (i.e. within 5 km) include the following:  Mining operations including active and defunct mines in the process of being decommissioned;  Formal and informal residential areas;  Regional and national road infrastructure;  Commercial and industrial activities;  Landing strip;  Open vacant land; and  An extensive network of gravel roads and tracks.

February 2020 19121900-328074-7

Figure 1: Location of the proposed pipeline

February 2020 19121900-328074-7

3.0 STUDY APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY 3.1 Background literature review A background literature review was conducted to gain an overview of the proposed project, the typical ambient baseline noise levels experienced within the region, and anticipated noise emissions from the proposed project. Documentation reviewed included the following:  Environmental acoustic survey report: Savuka shaft and gold plant, December 2014, AngloGold Ashanti Limited, WSP, March 2015;  Environmental acoustic survey report: Tau Tona Mine, December 2014, AngloGold Ashanti Limited, WSP, March 2015;  Environmental noise survey report: Tau Tona Mine, October 2012, AngloGold Ashanti Limited, WSP, October 2012;  Environmental noise survey report: Savuka Mine, November 2012, AngloGold Ashanti Limited, WSP, November 2012;  BS 5228, Code of practice for noise and vibration Control on construction and open sites, Part 1: Noise, 2014;  International Finance Corporation (IFC), 2007: IFC Environmental, Health, and Safety (EHS) Guidelines for noise management;  SANS 10103, 2008: The measurement and rating of environmental noise with respect to annoyance and to speech communication;  SANS 10328, 2008: The SANS Method for environmental noise impact assessment;  Typical noise levels generated by construction equipment, www.fhwa.dot.gov; and  World Health Organization (WHO), 1999: Guidelines for Community Noise. 3.2 Baseline assessment The assessment of ambient noise levels in the near vicinity of the proposed mine included:  A review of applicable legislation, policy and standards;  Review and analysis of available historical noise monitoring data from historical noise monitoring reports;  The identification of local noise emission sources; and  The identification and discussion of the potential health effects associated with applicable noise emissions from the proposed mining operations. 3.3 Impact Assessment The impact assessment was undertaken based on the findings of the baseline assessment and on Golder’s professional opinion (qualitative opinion) of the anticipated noise impacts associated with the proposed pipeline. The significance of the identified impacts will be determined using the approach outlined in Table 1. This incorporates two aspects for assessing the potential significance i.e. occurrence and severity, which are further sub-divided as indicated. The impact ranking will be described for both pre and post implementation of mitigation/management measures conditions.

February 2020 19121900-328074-7

Table 1: Impact Classification for Impact Assessment Occurrence Severity

Environmental

Consequence Direction Probability Duration Magnitude Geographic Extent Reversibility Frequency

 Direction of an impact may be positive, neutral or negative with respect to the particular impact (e.g., an improvement in the ambient noise levels would be classed as positive, whereas a degeneration in the ambient noise levels would be considered negative);  Probability of occurrence is a description of the probability of the impact actually occurring as improbable (less than 5% chance), low probability (5% to 40% chance), medium probability (40% to 60% chance), highly probable (most likely, 60% to 90% chance) or definite (impact will definitely occur);  Duration refers to the length of time over which an environmental impact may occur: i.e. transient (less than 1 year), short-term (0 to 5 years [i.e. construction]), medium term (5 to 15 years [i.e. operational]), long-term (greater than 15 years with impact ceasing after closure of the project) or permanent;  Magnitude is a measure of the degree of change in a measurement or analysis and is classified as: negligible: predicted noise levels are below IFC ambient criteria and will not affect baseline noise levels at sensitive receptors; low: predicted noise levels are below IFC ambient criteria but will increase baseline levels (day or night) by 3 dBA, where baseline levels are below IFC criteria at sensitive receptors; moderate: predicted noise levels are above night-time IFC ambient criteria but below day-time criteria. Where baseline levels are above IFC ambient criteria, baseline noise levels increase by more than 3 dBA at sensitive receptors; and high: predicted noise levels are greater than night-time and daytime IFC ambient criteria Where baseline levels are above IFC ambient criteria, noise levels increase by more than 6 dBA at sensitive receptors;  Scale/Geographic extent refers to the area that could be affected by the impact and is classified as site: Effects within the site boundary; local: effect restricted to within 1 – 5 km of the site boundary; regional: Effect extends >5 km’s; and national: effect extend beyond provincial boundaries and/or the RSA border;  Reversibility allows for the impact to be described as reversible or irreversible;  Frequency may be low: occurs infrequently; medium: occurs intermittently; or high: occurs continuously; and  Environmental Consequence: The overall residual consequence for each effect will be classified as one of: Negligible, low, moderate or high by evaluation of the rankings for magnitude, geographic extent and duration Table 2.

February 2020 19121900-328074-7

Table 2: Categories describing Environmental Consequence

Category Description

High Of the highest order possible within the bounds of impacts that could occur. There is no possible mitigation that could offset the impact, or mitigation is difficult.

Moderate Impact is real, but not substantial in relation to other impacts that might take effect within the bounds of those that could occur. Mitigation is both feasible and fairly easily possible.

Low Impact is of a low order and therefore likely to have little real effect. Mitigation is either easily achieved or little mitigation is required, or both.

No Impact Zero Impact.

Although not explicitly included in the criteria tables, there is uncertainty associated with the information and methods used in an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) because of its predictive nature. The certainty with which an impact analysis can be completed depends on a number of factors including:  Understanding of natural/ecological and socio-economic processes at work now and in the future; and  Understanding of present and future properties of the affected resource. The level of prediction confidence for an impact analysis will be discussed when there are questions about the factors reviewed above. Where the level of prediction confidence makes a prediction of the impact problematic, a subjective assessment is made based on the available information, the applicability of information on surrogates and on professional opinion.

4.0 NOISE TERMINOLOGY AND EFFECTS 4.1 Noise terminology Noise is defined as unwanted sound. The range of sound audible to humans is from 0 dB to 140 dB, from the threshold of audibility to the threshold of pain, respectively. The frequency response of the human ear is usually taken to cover the range from 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz. The human ear’s response to sound is not equal across all frequencies; it is more sensitive in the mid-frequency range than in the low and high frequencies. In order to compensate for this in sound measurement equipment, a weighting (filter) is applied. The weighting, which is most widely used, and which correlates best with the human response to noise is the A weighting. This is an internationally accepted standard for noise measurements to represent the human subjective response to sound.

For steady-state noise levels an increase or decrease of 1 dB(A) is not perceptible to most people under normal conditions, although this may be perceptible under laboratory conditions. An increase of 3 dB(A) is normally just perceptible under normal conditions.

The ‘loudness’ of a noise is a purely subjective parameter, but it is generally accepted that an increase/ decrease of 10 dB(A) corresponds to a doubling or halving in the perceived loudness.

February 2020 19121900-328074-7

External noise levels are rarely steady but rise and fall according to surrounding activities. In an attempt to produce a figure that relates to this variable noise level to the subjective response a number of noise metrics may be used. The relevant noise parameter to this assessment is the LAeq level.

The LAeq level is the ‘equivalent continuous A-weighted sound pressure level, expressed in decibels. The LAeq is defined as:  “The value of the A-weighted sound pressure level of a continuous, steady sound that, within a specified time interval, T, has the same mean square sound pressure as a sound under consideration whose level varies with time”.

It is a unit commonly used to describe construction noise, noise from industrial premises and is the most suitable unit for the description of many other forms of environmental noise. 4.2 Effects of noise Noise generated as a result of project activities during the construction and operation stage of the development will result in an increase in ambient noise levels across the study area. The effects of this increase in noise will depend on the level of increase.

An increase in ambient noise levels of over 3 dB(A) will be noticeable to most people, although such an increase is unlikely to cause disturbance to leisure activities or sleep. An increase of 10 dB(A), however, is likely to cause disturbance or require people to modify their behaviour to avoid that disturbance, depending on the absolute level of noise.

Typical sound levels (dB(A)) are shown in Figure 2 for reference.

Figure 2: Typical sound levels (source: https://sites.google.com/site/laurenmcnanyspln/sound?mobile=true, July 2016)

5.0 LEGISLATION, STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES 5.1 International Standards and guidelines The World Health Organization (WHO) together with the Organization for Economic Co-ordination and Development (OECD) have developed guidelines based on the effects of the exposure to environmental noise.

February 2020 19121900-328074-7

The WHO recommends a standard guideline value for average outdoor noise levels of 55 dB(A) is applied during the daytime in order to prevent significant interference with the normal activities of local communities. The relevant night time noise level is 45 dB(A). The WHO further recommends that, during the night time, the maximum level of any single event should not exceed 60 dB(A) in order to avoid sleep disruption. Specific ambient guidelines are also set for dwellings, bedrooms and schools. These levels are presented in Table 3.

Table 3: WHO Guidelines for ambient sound levels

Environment Ambient sound level LAeq (dB(A))

Day time Night time

Indoor Outdoor Indoor Outdoor

Dwellings 50 50 - -

Bedrooms - - 30 45

Schools 35 55 - -

The WHO specifies that an environmental noise impact analysis is required before implementing any project that would significantly increase the level of environmental noise in a community (WHO, 1999). Significant increase is considered a noise level increase of greater than 5 dB(A).

The World Bank Group developed a program in pollution management so as to ensure that the projects they finance in developing countries are environmentally sound. Noise is one of the pollutants covered by their policy. It specifies that noise levels measured at noise receptors, located outside the project’s property boundary, should not be 3 dB(A) greater than the background noise levels, or exceed the noise levels depicted in Table 4.

The International Finance Corporation (IFC) Environmental, Health, and Safety (EHS) Guidelines for noise management (IFC, 2007) adopt the WHO Guidelines for Community Noise (WHO, 1999) presented in Table 4. Noise impacts should not exceed these levels or result in a maximum increase in background levels of 3 dB(A) at the nearest receptor location off-site.

Table 4: IFC Ambient Noise Guidelines

Receptor Maximum allowable ambient noise levels

1-hour LAeq (dB(A))

Day time Night time

07:00 – 22:00 22:00 – 07:00

Residential/institutional/educational 55 45

Industrial/commercial 70 70

Note: LAeq values are not specified for rural areas.

5.2 South African National Standard (SANS) The SANS Method for environmental noise impact assessment (SANS 10328:2008) provides a method for evaluating the noise impact of a proposed development. It is an umbrella document and makes many references to SANS 10103:2008 The measurement and rating of environmental noise with respect to annoyance and to speech communication (SANS 10103:2008).

February 2020 19121900-328074-7

The SANS 10103 Code of Practice provides typical ambient noise rating levels (LReq,T) in various districts. The outdoor ambient noise levels recommended for the districts are shown in Table 5 below.

It is probable that the noise is annoying or otherwise intrusive to the community or to a group of persons if the rating level of the ambient noise under investigation exceeds the applicable rating level of the residual noise (determined in the absence of the specific noise under investigation), or the typical rating level for the ambient noise for the applicable environment given in Table 5 (i.e. Table 2 of SANS 10103).

Table 5: Typical Rating Levels for Ambient Noise

Type of district Equivalent continuous rating level (LReq.T) for noise (dB(A))

Outdoors Indoors, with open windows

Day Day Nigh Day Day Night night time time night time time

LR,dn LReq,d LReq,n LR,dn LReq,d LReq,n

a) Rural districts 45 45 35 35 35 25

b) Suburban districts with little road traffic 50 50 40 40 40 30

c) Urban districts 55 55 45 45 45 35

d) Urban districts with one or more of the 60 60 50 50 50 40 following: workshops; business premises; and main roads

e) Central business districts 65 65 55 55 55 45

f) Industrial districts 70 70 60 60 60 50

Notes:

1) If the measurement or calculation time interval is considerably shorter than the reference time intervals, significant deviations from the values given in the table might result;

2) If the spectrum of the sound contains significant low frequency components, or when an unbalanced spectrum towards the low frequencies is suspected, special precautions should be taken, and specialist advice should be obtained. In this case the indoor sound levels might significantly differ from the values given in Column 5 to 7;

3) In districts where outdoor LR,dn exceeds 55 dB, residential buildings (e.g. dormitories, hotel accommodation and residences) should preferably be treated acoustically to obtain indoor LReq,T values;

4) For industrial districts, the LR,dn concept does not necessarily hold. For industries legitimately operating in an industrial district during the entire 24 h day/night cycle, LReq,d =, LReq,n = 70 dB can be considered as typical and normal;

5) The values given in columns 2 and 5 in this table are equivalent continuous rating levels and include corrections for tonal character, impulsiveness of the noise and the time of day;

6) The values given in columns 3, 4, 6 and 7 in this table are equivalent continuous rating levels and include corrections for tonal character and impulsiveness of the noise; and

7) The noise from individual noise sources produced, or caused to be produced, by humans within natural quiet spaces such as national parks, wilderness areas and bird sanctuaries should not exceed a maximum A-weighted sound pressure level of 50 dBA at a distance of 15 m from each individual source.

SANS 10103 provides criteria, for evaluating the community or group response to a noise source, these are presented in Table 6.

February 2020 19121900-328074-7

Table 6: SANS 10103 Categories of community or group response

Excess, ΔLReq,T dB(A) Category Description 0 to 10 Little Sporadic complaints

5 to 15 Medium Widespread complaints

10 to 20 Strong Threats of community or group action

>15 Very Strong Vigorous community or group action

SANS 10103 provides three methods for determining the excess level (ΔLReq,T) of a proposed development:

 ΔLReq,T = LReq,T of ambient noise under investigation MINUS LReq,T of the Residual noise (determined in the absence of the Rated noise, i.e. the specific noise under investigation);

 ΔLReq,T = LReq,T of ambient noise under investigation MINUS the typical Rating level for the applicable district as determined from Table 5 of SANS 10103:2008; or

 ΔLReq,T = Expected increase in LReq,T of ambient noise in an area because of a proposed development under investigation. 5.3 Proposed standards for use in this survey The project could be benchmarked against either the IFC/WHO requirements and/or SANS. As the project is within South Africa and international benchmarking is not critical for this project, it is proposed that the SANS standards are selected for compliance evaluation (Table 7). Classification of the typical rating level under SANS 10103:2008 is however challenging as the pipeline route traverses several areas which may have varying classifications (i.e. urban, industrial, sub-urban etc.). Based on the mixed land use along the pipeline route and considering that the residential areas are interspersed between several mining operations/infrastructure the classification is deemed as an “Urban district”.

Table 7: Proposed allowable ambient noise levels (from SANS 10103)

Environment Day night Day time Night time

LR,dn LReq,d LReq,n

Urban districts 60 60 50

6.0 BASELINE NOISE ASSESSMENT Noise impacts are typically experienced at relatively close proximity to the emitting source. The noise sensitive receptors are considered by SANS 10328:2008 to include residential dwellings, institutional and culturally important sites, such as schools, hospitals and places of worship. 6.1 Existing noise sources 6.1.1 Roads The main roads influencing the local noise baseline in close proximity (i.e. within 10km) of the proposed discard dump expansion include (Figure 3):  Route R501: Aligned in an east-west direction approximately 450 m north of the Covalent Water Company (CWC) plant. The surfaced road links Potchefstroom, to the N12 near Weston area via Carletonville;

February 2020 19121900-328074-7

 Route R500: Aligned in a north-south direction running approximately parallel to the pipeline. The surfaced road links Carletonville, N12 and Fochville;  National route 12: Aligned in a south-west to north-east direction approximately 5 km south of the North Boundary Dam (NBD). The surfaced road links Potchefstroom to Johannesburg; and  An extensive network of secondary unnamed roads and/or gravel access roads. Vehicle noise on these roads is anticipated to contribute and will influence the local noise baseline in close proximity of the proposed pipeline. 6.1.2 Mining activities There are several mining operations within an approximate 5 km radius of the proposed pipeline. Some of these operations are active, others are being formally decommissioned by the respective mining houses, some are in the process of being stripped illegally by Zama Zama miners, and others are simply defunct historical mining brownfields land in varying states of rehabilitation (Figure 4). These operations and associated activities such as: materials handling and processing, blasting, heavy vehicle transport, decommissioning and recovery operations etc. will influence the local noise baseline in close proximity of the proposed pipeline. 6.1.3 Residential areas Residential areas are interspersed between the mining operations and are anticipated to contribute to residential generated noise. The largest residential area is that of Carletonville located approximately 1.1 km north-east of the CWC plant (Figure 4). 6.1.4 Landing strip The Carletonville landing strip located approximately 3 km north-west of the CWC will influence the local noise baseline in close proximity of the proposed pipeline. 6.1.5 Natural environmental noise Natural environmental noise is also identified as a contribution source to the baseline noise levels including the following:  Noise generated by local flora during the day and night time (i.e. bird calls and other animal communications); and  Wind whistling through the grass and/or rustling of tree and shrub leaves. 6.1.6 Future land use sources The proposed pipeline pumping infrastructure located at the CWC will itself become a contributing noise source in the area in the future (Figure 4). The actual pipeline itself during operation is unlikely to contribute any noise other than from ad-hoc maintenance activities which will be transient in nature and thus insignificant against the local baseline noise levels. 6.2 Local aspects of acoustical significance 6.2.1 Terrain The natural topography of the landscape is flat to gently undulating, with a few elevated rises and hills. Elevations in the local area range from 1 515 mamsl in the north to 1 735 mamsl in the south of the area (Figure 5).

February 2020 19121900-328074-7

Figure 3: Local roads in close proximity to the proposed pipeline

February 2020 19121900-328074-7

Note: This map is based on available existing Geographic Information System (GIS) data sets of the area, some variability on the ground may be expected.

Figure 4: Land use and local noise sources

February 2020 19121900-328074-7

Figure 5: Local topography and sensitive receptors

February 2020 19121900-328074-7

6.2.2 Meteorological Aspects The main meteorological aspect that will affect the transmission (propagation) of the noise is wind and atmospheric temperature. Wind can either result in the periodic enhancement of noise levels at downwind sensitive receptors or a reduction at upwind sensitive receptors in relation to the noise source locations.

Note: The meteorological overview presented below is based on the meteorological data provided in the Environmental Impact Assessment and Environmental Management Plan Report for the Environmental Authorisation for the Blyvoor Gold Mining Project near Carletonville, Gauteng, as compiled by Digby Wells in October 2018. The proposed CWC pipeline project falls within the Blyvoor Gold Mining Project mining rights area. The meteorological data is deemed as acceptable for the CWC pipeline as there are no significant topographical features which may create meteorological interference. The meteorological conditions are thus anticipated to be representative of those observed at the CWC pipeline. 6.2.2.1 Meteorological overview Wind roses summarise the occurrence of winds at a specified location by representing their strength, direction and frequency. Calm conditions are defined as wind speeds of less than 0.2 m/s which are represented as a percentage of the total winds in the centre circle. Each directional branch on a wind rose represents wind originating from that specific cardinal direction (16 cardinal directions). Each cardinal branch is divided into segments of different colours which represent different wind speed classes.

Figure 6: Wind rose for the Blyvoor Gold Mining Project (Digby Wells, 2018)

February 2020 19121900-328074-7

Figure 7: Diurnal wind rose for the Blyvoor Gold Mining Project (Digby Wells, 2018)

Figure 8: Seasonal wind rose for the Blyvoor Gold Mining Project (Digby Wells, 2018)

February 2020 19121900-328074-7

6.2.2.2 Atmospheric temperature Atmospheric temperature also has a significant effect on the transmission (propagation) character of an area. Atmospheric temperature inversions typically increase noise levels at some distance from a source as the noise bounces off the inversion layer and is directed back towards the ground. Inversion layers are commonly experienced during winter throughout the Highveld and are anticipated to occur in the vicinity of the project site frequently during winter.

The propagation of a sound wave is faster in hot air than in cold air thus when a sound wave propagates in air whose temperature changes with altitude, refraction occurs. Sound waves refract towards areas of lower temperature. During the daytime, the sun heats the earth’s surface which heats the air in contact with the surface. The air near the earth surface is heated more than the air above which results in the sound waves being refracted upwards along with the rising air mass. During the night time, the air near the surface is cooler and sound waves are refracted towards the ground with the sinking airmass. For this reason, colder atmospheric temperatures typically increase noise levels at some distance from a source hence why noise carries further at night than compared to the day.

The annual average temperature was calculated as 27°C (Digby Wells, 2018). The monthly averaged temperatures ranged from 10°C during the winter months to 23°C during the summer months (Digby Wells, 2018). The maximum temperature reached was 33°C recorded in December (Digby Wells, 2018). 6.3 Sensitive receptors The following sensitive receptors within an approximate 3 km radius of the pipeline were identified and are presented in Table 8 and Figure 5.

Table 8: Sensitive receptors (SR) around the pipeline (±3 km radius) OID Name Latitude Longitude OID * Name East South * 1 SR1 -26,394902 27,395563 8 SR8 -26,373186 27,379461 2 SR2 -26,411713 27,415233 9 SR9 -26,371175 27,367881 3 SR3 -26,411992 27,408442 10 SR10 -26,39028 27,378608 4 SR4 -26,399194 27,391554 11 SR11 -26,380555 27,408237 5 SR5 -26,402128 27,388414 12 SR12 -26,402384 27,42238 6 SR6 -26,375427 27,398731 13 SR13 -26,407255 27,424527 7 SR7 -26,373768 27,384835 14 SR14 -26,394956 27,384313

WGS_84 Datum co-ordinate system represented in decimal degrees

7.0 BASELINE NOISE MONITORING 7.1 Site specific monitoring Baseline noise monitoring has not been undertaken for the proposed pipeline project however several other baseline noise monitoring campaigns have been undertaken in the near vicinity of the project in the recent past. The available monitoring data has been extracted and summarised from several reports to yield the typical baseline noise levels anticipated in the vicinity of the project (Figure 9 and Table 9).

Based on Golder’s extensive project experience in the region and with the available historical baseline noise monitoring data, we anticipate that the baseline noise levels during the day will be approximately 61 dB(A) and 58 dB(A) during the night in the more “industrial” areas and approximately 56 dB(A) during the day and

February 2020 19121900-328074-7

55 dB(A) during the night in the more “urban/urban residential areas. These baseline noise levels are in alignment with the daytime levels for urban districts as per the SANS 10103 Code of Practice typical ambient noise rating levels (LReq,T) however the night time levels exceed the limits. The baseline noise levels in the vicinity of the proposed pipeline project are already elevated mainly due to road traffic, local mining activities, landing strip noise (intermittent), residential areas, and general natural environmental noise. The additional noise contributions from the proposed pipeline project and pumping infrastructure will further contribute to the elevated noise levels within the local area.

Note: These assumed baseline noise levels will be used for further assessment purposes.

February 2020 19121900-328074-7

Figure 9: Historic noise monitoring locations in relation to the pipeline

February 2020 19121900-328074-7

Table 9: Historic baseline noise monitoring undertaken at Savuka Mine and Tau Tona mine in the vicinity of the pipeline

(e) Period Monitoring Classification LAeq Main noise sources point dBA

Day SV01 (a) Industrial District 61.3 Trucks going in and out of the plant.

SV02 (a) 67.4 Noise predominantly originated from the CAN Engineering Company close to the plant

SV03 (a) 56.5 Siren noise, fan noise and vehicle activity around the plant.

SV04 (a) 63.4

MS01 (a) Urban District 63.9 Trucks and plant operations.

MS02 (a) 49.9 Truck traffic and payloader operations.

MS03 (a) 52 Vehicle activity along the main road

MS04 (a) 59 Traffic from the main road and plant operations

MS05 (a) 56.3 Vehicle and truck traffic entering the premises

MS06 (a) 57.1

SS01 (a) Industrial District 55.7 Truck and vehicle traffic as well as the plant operations

SS02 (a) 64.0 Extractor fans

SS03 (a) 64.2 Truck loading and passing trucks on the main road

SS04 (a) 78.1 Extractor fan noises from the shaft

SS05 (a) 59.4

SS06 (b) 62.2 Care and maintenance activities at the Savuka shaft SS07 (b) 58.7

SS08 (b) 58.8

SS09 (b) 60.9

SG01 (a) Industrial District 59.5

SG02 (a) 62.3 Truck and vehicle activities

SG03 (a) 76.2 Fan and conveyor noises

SG04 (a) 58.1 Operations from the gold plant.

February 2020 19121900-328074-7

(e) Period Monitoring Classification LAeq Main noise sources point dBA

SG05 (a) 51.8 Vehicle traffic and noise from the plant operations SG06 (a) 59

SG07 (a) 59.1 Fans and industrial noise.

SG08 (a) 62.7 Fan noise and the vehicles entering and exiting the gold plant

SG09 (b) Urban 46.4 Off-site traffic (hooting and idling vehicles), pedestrian activities at the Marriage Commune (b) SG10 48.6 and Batchelor communes and noise from plant operations SG11 (b) 53.4

SG12 (b) 54.2

SY01 (a) Industrial District 63 Trucks entering and exiting the plant as well as the noise associated with the dumping of the scrap metal

SY02 (a) 65.8 Offloading of scrap metal and waste material in bays and vehicle traffic along the main road

SY03 (a) 51.7 Salvage Yard (humming noise)

SY04 (a) 68.8 Vehicles traffic

SY05 (a) 62.2 Running water and truck activities

SY06 (a) 55.8 Truck and vehicle activities travelling towards the dam

SY07 (a) Urban 58.6 Offloading of waste material in bays

SY08 (a) 54.1 Vehicles travelling along the main road

SY09 (a) 57.5

SY10 (a) 54.2 Passing trucks

TT01 (c) Industrial District 53.1 TT shaft under care and maintenance activities and occasional fan noise TT02 (c) 53.5

TT03 (c) 54.7

TT04 (c) 72.4

TT05 (c) 61.1

February 2020 19121900-328074-7

(e) Period Monitoring Classification LAeq Main noise sources point dBA

TT06 (c) 75.5

TT07 (c) 64.6

TT08 (c) 61.6

TT09 (c) 62.9

TT10 (c) 68.4

TT11 (c) 68

TT12 (d) Urban 63.9 Off-site traffic; on-site cooling tower fans from Tau Tona; hooting from taxis and trucks; (d) TT13 62 pedestrians; and movement of passenger vehicles around the residence TT14 (d) 61.4

TT15 (d) 53.8

Night SV01 (a) Industrial District 50.1 Shaft evaporation fans

SV02 (a) 48.4

SV03 (a) 46.3

SV04 (a) 57.1

MS01 (a) Industrial District 46.1 Plant fan noise from the east

MS02 (a) 66.2

MS03 (a) 51.7

MS04 (a) 53.6

MS05 (a) 55.7

MS06 (a) 50.3

SS01 (a) Industrial District 50.5 Trucks and cars entering and existing the shaft area

SS02 (a) 57.9 Extractor fans

SS03 (a) 75.3 Truck loading activities

SS04 (a) 66.1 Extractor fan noises

SS05 (a) 56.2 Fan noise from the plant

February 2020 19121900-328074-7

(e) Period Monitoring Classification LAeq Main noise sources point dBA

SS06 (b) 54.2 Off-site traffic (taxis and passenger vehicles) as well as noise from pedestrian movement. Other noise sources included shaft movement on-site at Savuka mine

SS07 (b) 48.2 Off-site traffic, pedestrian movement and noise from shaft operations SS08 (b) 62.9

SS09 (b) 62.4

SG01 (a) Industrial District 52.6 Originates from plant operations (humming noise)

SG02 (a) 50.3 Vehicle movements

SG03 (a) 68.6 Conveyor

SG04 (a) 57.8 Water pump and the natural environment (frogs and insects).

SG05 (a) 52.5 Operational noise from the plant

SG06 (a) 60.8 Fans at the gold plant

SG07 (a) 58.7 Gold plant operations

SG08 (a) 63.9 Savuka Mine Shaft evaporation fan noises

SG09 (b) Urban 51.6 Off-site movement of vehicles, pedestrian activities and movement of vehicles at the (b) SG10 52 nearby residence

SG11 (b) 55.9

SG12 (b) 59

SY01 (a) Industrial District 53.4 Savuka mine services

SY02 (a) 51.5

SY03 (a) 48.3

SY04 (a) 46.6

SY05 (a) 47.6

SY06 (a) 50.8

SY07 (a) Urban 53.1 Savuka mine services

February 2020 19121900-328074-7

(e) Period Monitoring Classification LAeq Main noise sources point dBA

SY08 (a) 49.3

SY09 (a) 48.6

SY10 (a) 55.6

TT01 (c) Industrial District 55

TT02 (c) 60.2

TT03 (c) 59.5

TT04 (c) 78.3 Main road, plant operations and the noise from the fans

TT05 (c) 60.5 Extractor and the fans

TT06 (c) 73.6 Evaporator and the plant siren

TT07 (c) 67.9 Traffic noise as well as the plant operations

TT08 (c) 65.1 Vehicle traffic passing along the main road as well as the plant operations

TT09 (c) 63 Substation

TT10 (c) 70.2 Plant operations and the fans

TT11 (c) 59.6 Noise from the fans

TT12 (d) Urban 52.4 Off-site movement of vehicles; cooling tower fans at Tau Tona; pedestrian movement (talking (d) TT13 54.5 and shouting); and movement of vehicles inside the residence TT14 (d) 64.8

TT15 (d) 65.5

Notes: a) Environmental noise survey report: AngloGold Ashanti: Savuka Mine, WSP, November 2012 b) Environmental acoustic survey report: Savuka Shaft and Gold Plant, WSP, December, 2014 c) Environmental noise survey report, AngloGold Ashanti: Tau Tona Mine, WSP, October, 2012 d) Environmental acoustic survey report: Tau Tona mine, WSP, December, 2014

February 2020 19121900-328074-7

8.0 IMPACT ASSESSMENT – QUALITATIVE OPINION 8.1 Construction noise sources The full details of the construction phase for the project has yet to been finalised however the following are anticipated to be the key noise sources directly related to the construction activities for the pipeline and surface infrastructure which may impact on nearby sensitive receptors:  Trucking and hauling of construction materials to the CWC plant daily;  Basic construction materials handling activities at the CWC plant;  Construction site footprint preparations;  Construction activities relating to the surface infrastructure and pipeline;  Trucking and hauling of piping and plinths along the pipeline route;  Levelling of plinth footprints with heavy machinery (i.e. a TBL); and  Pipe laying activities. Note: The construction phase is anticipated to be completed within an approximate three-month period from breaking ground.

In order to provide a sound basis for the analysis of anticipated noise impacts, data related to and typical of construction sites has been sourced from available literature and the experience that Golder has had working on similar projects. Typical noise levels generated by various types of commonly used construction equipment, as may be used during the construction of the pipeline and surface infrastructure is provided in Table 10 for reference purposes.

Table 10: Construction machinery and associated typical noise levels

Equipment Typical Noise Level Equipment Typical Noise Level (dBA) 15 m) from (dBA) 15 m) from source* source*

Air Compressor 81 Pile Driver (Impact) 101

Backhoe 80 Pile Driver (Sonic) 96

Ballast Equalizer 82 Pneumatic Tool 85

Ballast Tamper 83 Pump 76

Compactor 82 Rail Saw 90

Concrete Mixer 85 Rock Drill 98

Concrete Pump 82 Roller 74

Concrete Vibrator 76 Saw 76

Crane Derrick 88 Scarifier 83

Crane Mobile 83 Scraper 89

Dozer 85 Shovel 82

Generator 81 Spike Driver 77

February 2020 19121900-328074-7

Equipment Typical Noise Level Equipment Typical Noise Level (dBA) 15 m) from (dBA) 15 m) from source* source*

Grader 85 Tie Cutter 84

Impact Wrench 85 Tie Handler 80

Jack Hammer 88 Tie Inserter 85

Loader 85 Truck 88

Paver 89 Average 84

Note *Table based on EPA Report, measured data from railroad construction equipment taken during Northeast Corridor improvement project and other measured data

8.2 Construction noise impacts Based on the typical noise levels associated with construction activities and the anticipated sources of noise (as listed in section 8.1 and Table 10) and Golder’s experience, a one-hour equivalent noise level of between 75 dBA to 60 dBA may be anticipated at the CWC construction site and along the pipeline route during construction. Intermittent loud noises are likely to occur during specific construction activities and may be in the order of magnitude of 80 dBA to 100 dBA.

By comparing an average of the construction equipment’s typical noise levels at a given offset with the expected baseline noise levels at the sensitive receptors, and against the SANS 10103 criteria, for evaluating the community or group response to a noise source, the noise impacts can be qualitatively assessed at a high level regarding nuisance effects and thus used to infer the anticipated level of impact at the sensitive receptors.

To refine the impact assessment further, one must consider the locations of the nearby sensitive receptors. Fourteen sensitive receptors were identified within an approximate 2 km radius of the project footprint (Table 8 and Figure 5) 8.2.1 Daytime noise nuisance impacts Noise nuisance impacts during the day at all receptors are anticipated to be of a low to negligible environmental significance as the impacts from the project are anticipated to be absorbed and/or masked by the existing local noise levels and thus a community response is unlikely (Table 11 and Table 12). 8.2.2 Night-time noise nuisance impacts No construction activities will be undertaken during the night-time the thus there will be no noise impacts (i.e. no environmental significance).

February 2020 19121900-328074-7

Table 11: Assessment of construction nuisance level during the day Construction Phase - Day LP(R1) (dB) 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 84 R1 (m) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 R2 - distance at SR (m) 1 25 100 250 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 LP(R2) - Anticipated noise at SR (dB) 84 56 44 36 30 24 20 18 16 14 Baseline noise levels (dB) 56 56 56 56 56 56 56 56 56 56 Standard value (dB) 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 Excess, ΔLReq,T dB(A) 24 -4 -16 -24 -30 -36 -40 -42 -44 -46 Community response Very strong Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely

Table 12: Impact assessment – Construction phase

Activity Impact summary Occurrence Severity Environmental Environmental

Consequence Consequence

(Before (After

Mitigation) Mitigation) Direction Probability Duration Magnitude Geographic Extent Reversibility Frequency

Receptors 1-14 Noise nuisance - Day Negative Low Transient Negligibl Local Reversibl Low Low No impact e e

Note: The majority of the noise to be generated during the day as a result of the construction of the CWC surface infrastructure and pipeline is anticipated to be absorbed by the local elevated baseline noise levels. The assessment rankings “after mitigation” have thus been reduced at several of the receptors to “no impact” as not impact is likely to be perceived at the sensitive receptors with the implementation of basic mitigation measures.

February 2020 19121900-328074-7

8.3 Operational noise sources The following are anticipated to be the key noise sources directly related to the operational activities of the pipeline and surface infrastructure which may impact on nearby sensitive receptors will include:  Pumping activities at the CWC shafts (Note: operating approximately 9 hours per day, mainly at night on a demand management cycle); and  General maintenance and repair activities of the pipeline. 8.3.1 Operational noise impacts Based on the typical noise levels associated with industrial scale pumping operations and Golder’s experience, a one-hour equivalent noise level of between 110 dBA to 90 dBA may be anticipated at the CWC plant and surface infrastructure due to the pumping operations (Note: existing and new pumps, operating approximately 9 hours per day, mainly at night on a demand management cycle).

By comparing an average of the pumping operations typical noise levels at a given offset with the expected baseline noise levels at the sensitive receptors, and against the SANS 10103 criteria, for evaluating the community or group response to a noise source, the noise impacts can be qualitatively assessed at a high level regarding nuisance effects and thus used to infer the anticipated level of impact at the sensitive receptors.

To refine the impact assessment further, one must consider the locations of the nearby sensitive receptors. Fourteen sensitive receptors were identified within an approximate 2 km radius of the project footprint however only nine receptors (Receptors 1, 4, 6 to 10, 11 and 14), are anticipated to be possibly affected by the CWC pumping activities (Table 8 and Figure 5). 8.3.1.1 Daytime noise nuisance impacts Noise nuisance impacts during the day at the receptors are anticipated to be of a low to negligible environmental significance as the impacts from the project are anticipated to be absorbed and/or masked by the existing local noise levels and thus a community response is unlikely (Table 13 and Table 14). 8.3.1.2 Night-time noise nuisance impacts Noise nuisance impacts during the night at receptors 1, 4, 6 to 9, 11 and 14 are anticipated to be of a low to negligible environmental significance as the impacts from the project are anticipated to be absorbed by the local elevated baseline night time noise levels and/or masked by the existing baseline noise levels and thus a community response is unlikely (Table 13 and Table 14). Noise nuisance impacts during the night at receptor 10 are anticipated to be of a moderate environmental significance, however it is understood that pumping will be approximately 9 hours per day and mainly at night as per a demand management cycle thus this impact may be relative transient in nature. To reduce the impacts at receptor 10 to a low environmental significance, basic operational recommendations must be implemented.

February 2020 19121900-328074-7

Table 13: Assessment of operational nuisance level during the day and night

Operational Phase - Day

LP(R1) (dB) 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110

R1 (m) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

R2 - distance at SR (m) 1 25 100 250 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

LP(R2) - Anticipated noise at SR (dB) 110 82 70 62 56 50 46 44 42 40

Baseline noise levels (dB) 56 56 56 56 56 56 56 56 56 56

Standard value (dB) 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60

Excess, ΔLReq,T dB(A) 50 22 10 2 -4 -10 -14 -16 -18 -20

Community response Very strong Very strong Strong Little Unlikely Unlikel Unlikel Unlikel Unlikel Unlikel y y y y y

Operational Phase - Night

LP(R1) (dB) 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110

R1 (m) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

R2 - distance at SR (m) 1 25 100 250 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

LP(R2) - Anticipated noise at SR (dB) 110 82 70 62 56 50 46 44 42 40

Baseline noise levels (dB) 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55

Standard value (dB) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

Excess, ΔLReq,T dB(A) 60 32 20 12 6 0 -4 -6 -8 -10

Community response Very strong Very strong Very strong Stron Mediu Low Unlikel Unlikel Unlikel Unlikel g m y y y y

February 2020 19121900-328074-7

Table 14: Impact assessment – Operational phase

Activity Impact summary Occurrence Severity Environmental Environmental Consequence Consequence

(Before (After

Mitigation) Mitigation)

Direction Probability Duration Magnitude Geographic Extent Reversibility Frequency

Receptors 1, 4, 6 – 11 Noise nuisance - Day Negative Low Long Negligibl Local Reversibl Low Low No impact & 14 -term e e

Receptors 1, 4, 6 – 9 & Noise nuisance - Night Negative Low Long Negligibl Local Reversibl Low Low No impact 14 -term e e

Receptor 10 Negative Medium Long Moderate Local Reversibl Med Moderate Low -term e ium

Note: The majority of the noise to be generated during the day and night time as a result of the pumping operations at the CWC surface infrastructure are anticipated to be absorbed by the local elevated baseline noise levels. The assessment rankings “after mitigation” have thus been reduced at several of the receptors to “no impact” as not impact is likely to be perceived at the sensitive receptors with the implementation of basic mitigation measures.

February 2020 19121900-328074-7

8.4 Decommissioning phase Decommissioning and the anticipated noise impacts have not been specifically assessed as it is anticipated that the decommissioning process will be undertaken via a decommissioning environmental authorisation process which will specifically address these issues. Nevertheless, decommissioning impacts are anticipated to be similar to those experienced during the construction phase. 8.5 Cumulative impacts Based on Golder’s professional experience and on the qualitative assessment of the construction and operational phases impacts, it is our opinion that the cumulative noise impacts, taking cognisance of the baseline day and night time noise levels and that most of the noise generated by the project is anticipated to be absorbed and/or masked by the local baseline noise levels, the impacts likely to have a low environmental significance and/or low impacts. To further reduce any possible cumulative impacts, basic operational recommendations should be implemented.

9.0 RECOMMENDED MITIGATION AND BEST PRACTICE MEASURES 9.1 Construction phase The following recommended mitigation measures should be implemented:  Materials handling activities: ▪ A drop height policy should be implemented onsite to reduce the level of noise generation when handling materials; and

▪ Ensuring that equipment is well maintained and fitted with the correct and appropriate noise abatement measures;

▪ All vehicles and other equipment should be maintained and serviced regularly to ensure that the noise levels are reduced; and

February 2020 19121900-328074-7

9.2 Operational phase The following recommended mitigation measures should be implemented:  Materials handling activities: ▪ A drop height policy should be maintained onsite to reduce the level of noise generation when handling materials; and

▪ Ensuring that equipment is well maintained and fitted with the correct and appropriate noise abatement measures;

▪ All vehicles and other equipment should be maintained and serviced regularly to ensure that the noise levels are reduced; and

▪ Vehicles should not be allowed to idle for more than 5 minutes when not in use.  Monitoring requirements: ▪ During the operational phase, a once off noise monitoring campaign should be undertaken to establish the possible noise nuisance impacts from the operation of the CWC plant on the sensitive receptors. A suitable noise monitoring frequency should be established thereafter (i.e. not required, annually, quarterly etc.); and

10.0 REFERENCES 1) British Standard Institute, 2014: BS 5228-1:2009+A1:2014, Code of practice for noise and vibration Control on construction and open sites, Part 1: Noise, 2014.

2) Environmental authorisation for the proposed active water treatment plant at the Klipspruit Colliery, Mpumalanga province, noise impact assessment report, Digby Wells Environmental, July 2018.

3) Environmental Impact Assessment and Environmental Management Programme (EIA/EMP) for the Klipspruit South Project, Environmental Noise Impact, Assessment Report, Digby Wells Environmental, October 2014.

4) Environmental noise monitoring programme: Phola Coal Processing Plant environmental noise monitoring report 2018, Digby Wells Environmental, June 2018.

5) International Finance Corporation (IFC), 2007: IFC Environmental, Health, and Safety (EHS) Guidelines for noise management, IFC, www.ifc.org/ehsguidelines, 2007.

6) Noise study for the proposed Klipfontein mining project, FM AG, May 2002.

February 2020 19121900-328074-7

7) SANS 10103, 2008: The measurement and rating of environmental noise with respect to annoyance and to speech communication, SANS 10103, 2008.

8) SANS 10328, 2008: The SANS Method for environmental noise impact assessment, SANS 10328; 2008.

9) Typical noise levels generated by construction equipment; www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/handbook/handbook09.cfm

10) World Health Organization (WHO), 1999: Guidelines for Community Noise, Birgitta Berglund, Thomas Lindvall & Dietrich H Schwela (Eds.), WHO, 1999.

Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd.

Adam Bennett Warren Aken Environmental Assessment Practitioner Associate

AB/WA/nbh

Reg. No. 2002/007104/07 Directors: RGM Heath, MQ Mokulubete, MC Mazibuko (Mondli Colbert), GYW Ngoma

Golder and the G logo are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation

https://golderassociates.sharepoint.com/sites/108123/project files/6 deliverables/final client deliverables/final specialist reports/19121900-328074-7_rep_nia_v4_final_19feb2020.docx

February 2020 19121900-328074-7

APPENDIX A Document Limitations

February 2020 19121900-328074-7

DOCUMENT LIMITATIONS 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 regards 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 of 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 as a result of decisions made or actions based on this Document.

GOLDER ASSOCIATES AFRICA (PTY) LTD

February 2020 19121900-328074-7

APPENDIX B Acknowledgements, Details of EAP, Declaration of Interest and Specialist EAP Experience

February 2020 19121900-328074-7

The following persons are acknowledged for their contribution to the report:

Table A: Acknowledgements

Name Organisation Contribution

AngloGold Ashanti Project Team AngloGold Ashanti Client

Olivia Allen Golder Co-ordination and liaison with client as project manager

Adam Bennett Golder Compilation of the noise impact assessment

Megan Welff Golder GIS and mapping

Warren Aken Golder Senior review

February 2020 19121900-328074-7

Details of EAP and Declaration of interest

(For official use only)

File Reference Number:

NEAS Reference Number:

Date Received:

Application for authorisation in terms of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998), as amended and the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2014

PROJECT TITLE

Environmental Authorisation for the proposed Surface Pipeline and Associated Infrastructure for AngloGold Ashanti (Pty) Ltd

Details of EAP

Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP) Adam Bennett (Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Limited)

Contact Person Adam Bennett

Postal address P.O. Box 6001, Halfway House

Post code 1685

Telephone +27 11 254 4989

Cell +27 0 83 538 9424

Fax

E-mail [email protected]

Professional affiliations  SACNASP (Member # 400142/08)  NACA member

February 2020 19121900-328074-7

4.2 The Environmental Assessment Practitioner

I, Adam Bennett declare that:

General declaration:  I act as the independent environmental practitioner 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 environmental impact assessments, including knowledge of the Act, regulations and any guidelines that have relevance to the proposed activity;  I will comply with the Act, Regulations and all other applicable legislation;  I will take into account, to the extent possible, the matters listed in regulation 8 of the Regulations when preparing the application and any report relating to the application;  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;  I will ensure that information containing all relevant facts in respect of the application is distributed or made available to interested and affected parties and the public and that participation by interested and affected parties is facilitated in such a manner that all interested and affected parties will be provided with a reasonable opportunity to participate and to provide comments on documents that are produced to support the application;  I will ensure that the comments of all interested and affected parties are considered and recorded in reports that are submitted to the competent authority in respect of the application, provided that comments that are made by interested and affected parties in respect of a final report that will be submitted to the competent authority may be attached to the report without further amendment to the report;  I will keep a register of all interested and affected parties that participated in a public participation process;  I will provide the competent authority with access to all information at my disposal regarding the application, whether such information is favourable to the applicant or not;  all the particulars furnished by me in this form are true and correct;  will perform all other obligations as expected from an environmental assessment practitioner in terms of the  Regulations; and  I realise that a false declaration is an offence in terms of regulation 71 and is punishable in terms of section 24F of the Act.

February 2020 19121900-328074-7

Disclosure of Vested Interest (delete whichever is not applicable)

I do not have and will not have any vested interest (either business, financial, personal or other) in the proposed activity proceeding other than remuneration for work performed in terms of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2014;

I do not have a vested interest in the proposed activity proceeding:

Signature of the environmental assessment practitioner:

Golder Associates Africa (Pty) limited

Name of company:

19 February 2019

Date:

February 2020 19121900-328074-7

Specialist EAP experience

February 2020 19121900-328074-7

 EAP Project Experience – Specialist Noise and Vibration assessments

 NIA for the Klipspruit Discard Dump Expansion Project, South32 SA Coal Holdings (Pty) Ltd, RSA, (2019 – current)  Baseline noise monitoring and reporting for the Seriti New Vaal Colliery, Seriti, RSA, (2019 – current)  Provision of qualitative Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) for the proposed Metsimaholo underground coal mine, Seriti Coal, RSA, 2019  Noise baseline monitoring for the gas well field development and central processing facility, CNOOC, Uganda, 2016  Assessment of noise and air quality impacts on the Mahlangu residence resulting from the MafubeLifeX Project, Anglo American, 2016  Maamba monthly noise and vibration monitoring and reporting, Maamba Coal, Zambia, 2016  NIA for Eikerboom, confidential client, 2016  NIA and baseline monitoring for the proposed Khongoni coal mine, Khongoni Haaskraal Coal, 2015  Noise and vibration assessment, Jindal Iron Ore Mine, 2015  NIA, Samancor Chrome Limited, Middelburg, RSA, 2015  Baseline noise monitoring and reporting, Two Rivers Platinum Mine, RSA, 2015  Noise impact opinion, Heidelberg South Rand, RSA, 2015  NIA, Kamoa Copper, DRC, 2014  NIA, Moatize Power Station, Mozambique, 2014  NIA, Nimba Iron Ore, Guinea, 2013

golder.com

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

APPENDIX F Geology and Hydrogeology

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM DATE 19 February 2020 Project No. 19121900-327694-5

TO John van Wyk, AngloGold Ashanti (Pty) Ltd South African Operations Carletonville - Fochville Road R500 Carletonville Gauteng 2501 CC

FROM Danie Brink EMAIL [email protected]

SPECIALIST ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED SURFACE PIPELINE AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE - GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY REPORT

1.0 LOCATION The proposed surface water pipeline and associated infrastructure is approximately 80 km west of Johannesburg and originates in the West Wits mining lease area approximately 3.3 km south east of Carletonville and ends at the North Boundary Dam approximately 6 km south-south-west of Carletonville in Blyvooruitzicht, Merafong City Local Municipality, West Rand District Municipality in the Gauteng Province of South Africa as shown in Figure 1. 2.0 GEOLOGY Approximately the first half of the pipeline will be constructed on the Malmani dolomites as seen in Figure 2 and Figure 3. The lithology for the Malmani dolomites is predominately calcareous rocks which consist of limestone, dolomite and calcarenite and forms part of the Chuniespoort Group and the Transvaal Supergroup.

The Malmani dolomites is a succession of stromatolitic carbonate rocks, with interbedded chert and subordinate shale and quartzite. It is developed throughout the Transvaal basin.

The second half of the pipeline will run southeast underlain by quartzite, shale, magnetic ironstone and diabase which all forms part of the Pretoria Group and the Transvaal Supergroup. The Timeball Hill formation (forms part of the Pretoria Group) and consists of one or more beds of shale at the base and at the top of the geological unit. The Rooihoogte Formation comprises mainly of shales and occurs in the Crocodile river fragment where it is equivalent to the Timeball Hill formation.

Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd. Podium at Menlyn, Second Floor, 43 Ingersol Road, Menlyn, Pretoria, 0181, South Africa T: +27 11 254 4800 F: +27 0 86 582 1561 P O Box 6001, Halfway House, 1685 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 golder.com

John van Wyk Project No. 19121900-327694-5 AngloGold Ashanti (Pty) Ltd South African Operations 19 February 2020

Figure 1: Location of pipeline

John van Wyk Project No. 19121900-327694-5 AngloGold Ashanti (Pty) Ltd South African Operations 19 February 2020

Figure 2: Regional geology

John van Wyk Project No. 19121900-327694-5 AngloGold Ashanti (Pty) Ltd South African Operations 19 February 2020

Figure 3: Geology

John van Wyk Project No. 19121900-327694-5 AngloGold Ashanti (Pty) Ltd South African Operations 19 February 2020

3.0 HYDROGEOLOGY According to 1:500 000 General Hydrogeological Map of Johannesburg 2526 by H.C Barnard (2000), the dolomites of the Chuniespoort Group represent the most important aquifer in South Africa. They have a high to very high storage capacity and often highly permeable characteristics. The groundwater occurrence for Malmani dolomites is Karst which is greater than 5 l/s.

There is a potential risk for sinkholes in the Malmani dolomite formation but due to the dewatering of groundwater from mining activities the area probably stabilized.

The groundwater yield potential in the Timeball Hill and Rooihoogte formation is classed as low, less than 2 l/s has been recorded in 70% of boreholes observed.

Figure 4: Hydrogeology Map of Region

John van Wyk Project No. 19121900-327694-5 AngloGold Ashanti (Pty) Ltd South African Operations 19 February 2020

3.1 Water levels Water level data obtained from the National Ground Water Database are located to the south of the Gatsrand Ridge. These boreholes are far removed from the project site and as such do not reflect the likely water levels at the site. However due to the extensive dewatering of the dolomite in the vicinity of the site and to the north, no boreholes are known to exist other than those drilled by AGA on the mine site. These are indicated in blue in Figure 5. Table 1 lists the boreholes found in the National Ground Water Database within a 20 km radius of the site. These boreholes are indicated in yellow in Figure 5.

Table 1: Water levels of existing boreholes found on the National Ground Water Database

BH Nr on Map Latitude Longitude Water Level Discharge rate (mbgl) (l/s)

31629 -26.41725 27.51631 7.62 3.02

92 -26.52642 27.53207 23 -

108 -26.48979 27.37753 15.7 -

110 -26.48896 27.30688 6.77 5.05

113 -26.45608 27.42216 21.05 -

114 -26.44011 27.47359 20.73 -

241 -26.49019 27.52670 5.41 0.5

242 -26.44289 27.53890 3.66 -

NOOIT1 -26.54054 27.48972 16 0.3

Restricted access to local borehole information is available. Borehole MBH08 is located close to the southern extent of the proposed pipeline. Water level data collected quarterly by the client since 2008 indicates a water level range varying between 0 mbgl and 5.71 mbgl. The average groundwater level over this period is 3.54 mbgl.

John van Wyk Project No. 19121900-327694-5 AngloGold Ashanti (Pty) Ltd South African Operations 19 February 2020

Figure 5: Boreholes with measured Water Levels

3.2 Groundwater Quality The groundwater quality observed in a population of 223 water samples in the Chuniespoort Group is shown in Table 2 (1:500 000 General Hydrogeological Map of Johannesburg 2526 by H.C Barnard (2000)). The average EC value of 63 mS/m and mean pH value of 7.6 indicate that the quality of the groundwater is generally acceptable for any use. Several parameters, including chloride, sulphate and nitrate show coefficients of variation greater than 200%. These circumstances suggest the presence of contamination in some of the groundwaters, indicating that caution should be exercised when considering it for human consumption.

John van Wyk Project No. 19121900-327694-5 AngloGold Ashanti (Pty) Ltd South African Operations 19 February 2020

Table 2: Statistics drawn from a population of 223 samples

Parameters Minimum Mean Value Max Value Standard Coefficient of Value Deviation Variation (%)

pH 5.8 7.6 9.5 0.4 5

Electrical Conductivity 4.4 62.9 397 56 89 (mS/m)

Total Dissolved Salts 43.1 443.6 3402 403 91 (mg/l)

Calcium (mg/l) 1 52.7 436 54 102

Magnesium (mg/l) 1 35.4 223 31 88

Sodium (mg/l) 1 24.1 299 39 162

Potassium (mg/l) 0.1 2.3 39 4.2 183

Chloride (mg/l) 1 37.7 900 83 220

Sulphate (mg/l) 1 70.5 2172 233 330

Total Alkalinity (mg/l) 8 177.3 664 94 53

Nitrate (mg/l) 0.1 5.6 122 12.1 216

Fluoride (mg/l) 0.1 0.3 2.8 0.4 133

Langelier Saturation Index -4.7 -0.4 3 1 -

Sodium Adsorption Ratio 0.03 0.5 2.9 0.5 -

The groundwater quality observed in a population of 81 water samples in the Timeball Hill/Rooihoogte Formation is shown in Table 3 (1:500 000 General Hydrogeological Map of Johannesburg 2526 by H.C Barnard (2000)). The average EC value is 34 mS/m and the mean pH value of 7.2 indicate that the quality is excellent and generally acceptable for any use. Elements that show a significant coefficient of variation are sodium, chloride, sulphate and nitrate. These circumstances supported in a smaller measure by the coefficient of variation associated with fluoride values, indicate that caution should be taken when considering this groundwater for domestic use.

John van Wyk Project No. 19121900-327694-5 AngloGold Ashanti (Pty) Ltd South African Operations 19 February 2020

Table 3: Statistics drawn from a population of 81 samples in the Timeball Hill/Rooihoogte Formation Parameters Minimum Mean Value Max Value Standard Coefficient of Value Deviation Variation (%) pH 4 7.2 8.7 0.8 11 Electrical Conductivity 1.6 34 283 39 115 (mS/m) Total Dissolved Salts 15.5 278 2224 368 132 (mg/l) Calcium (mg/l) 1 29 333 42.8 148 Magnesium (mg/l) 1 19 139 22 116 Sodium (mg/l) 1 15 186 29 193 Potassium (mg/l) 0.1 1.6 20.6 2.6 163 Chloride (mg/l) 1 15 190 33 220 Sulphate (mg/l) 1 26 1214 133 512 Total Alkalinity (mg/l) 1 125 390 106 85 Nitrate (mg/l) 0.1 2.9 39 6.7 231 Fluoride (mg/l) 0.1 0.3 3.1 0.4 133 Langelier Saturation Index -7.2 -1.5 1 1.8 - Sodium Adsorption Ratio 0.1 0.6 8.7 1.1 183

3.3 Local Groundwater Quality Groundwater quality data from one monitoring borehole located close to the outflow of the pipeline (MB08), shown on Figure 3 has been provided for comparison. This borehole has been monitored on a regular basis since 2000. Table 4 below tabulates the general quality of this borehole and can be used to compare against the more regional quality data tabulated above.

Table 4: Quality parameters for monitoring borehole MB08

Parameters Minimum Mean Value Max Value Standard Coefficient of Value Deviation Variation (%)

pH 6.2 7.0 9.4 0.6 9.2

Electrical Conductivity 4.2 167 269 81 49 (mS/m)

Total Dissolved Salts 28 1263 2201 622 49 (mg/l)

Calcium (mg/l) * - - - - -

Magnesium (mg/l) 1 80 385 64 81

Sodium (mg/l) 3 119 271 81 68

Potassium (mg/l) 0 4.4 33 5.2 118

John van Wyk Project No. 19121900-327694-5 AngloGold Ashanti (Pty) Ltd South African Operations 19 February 2020

Parameters Minimum Mean Value Max Value Standard Coefficient of Value Deviation Variation (%)

Chloride (mg/l) 2.5 200 362 111 55

Sulphate (mg/l) 2.5 576 1006 283 49

Total Alkalinity (mg/l) 13 104 182 48 46

Nitrate (mg/l) 0.2 2.0 46.4 7.05 346

Fluoride (mg/l) 0 0.2 0.5 0.15 73

Note: It is understood that AGA monitors calcium levels however these values were not provided in the AGA data set for inclusion in this report (reasons unknown)

4.0 CONCLUSIONS  Approximately half of the pipeline will be constructed over the Malmani Dolomites;  The pipeline construction will continue south on quartzites, shales and diabase of the Transvaal Supergroup;  The dolomites have a very high storage capacity;  The groundwater occurrence in the dolomites is Karst and exceeds 5 l/s;  The Timeball Hill/Rooihoogte formation forms an intergranular and fractured aquifer;  Expected yields in the Timeball Hill/ Rooihoogte formation is 0.5 to 2 l/s;  Available water level data in the Timeball Hill and Rooihoogte formation indicates that water levels range from 3.66 to 23 mbgl;  There is a potential risk for sinkholes in the Malmani dolomites but if area is dewatered it have stabilized but a dolomite stability investigation may be warranted; and  General water quality is excellent, but caution should be taken for human consumption.

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT The proposed surface mounted pipeline and associated infrastructure to pump water from BLV#4 to the North Boundary Dam is not expected to have significant groundwater related impacts during construction, operational and/or during the closure phase. Similarly, no significant impacts are expected as a result of the cumulative impacts of the project (Table 5, Table 6, Table 7 and Table 8).

John van Wyk Project No. 19121900-327694-5 AngloGold Ashanti (Pty) Ltd South African Operations 19 February 2020

Table 5: Environmental Impact Assessment matrix for the construction phase of the proposed project POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE CONSTRUCTION PHASE Before mitigation After mitigation M D S P S Ratin M D S P S Ratin P g P g Groundwater Construction will not involve disturbance of 2 4 2 2 16 Low 2 4 2 2 16 Low groundwater regime with respect to water levels or quality. There will be a limited potential for groundwater pollution due to spillages of fuel, lubricants cement, paint and solvents

Table 6: Environmental Impact Assessment matrix for the operational phase of the proposed project POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE OPERATIONAL PHASE Before mitigation After mitigation M D S P S Ratin M D S P S Ratin P g P g Groundwater Operations will not involve disturbance of the 2 4 2 2 16 Low 2 4 2 2 16 Low groundwater regime with respect to water levels or quality. There will be a limited potential for groundwater pollution due to spillages of fuel, lubricants cement, paint and solvents

Table 7: Environmental Impact Assessment matrix for the decommissioning phase of the proposed project POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE DECOMMISSIONING PHASE Before mitigation After mitigation M D S P S Ratin M D S P S Ratin P g P g Groundwater The decommissioning of the pipeline will not 2 4 2 2 16 Low 2 4 2 2 16 Low involve disturbance of groundwater level or quality. There will be a limited potential for groundwater pollution due to spillages of fuel, lubricants cement, paint and solvents

John van Wyk Project No. 19121900-327694-5 AngloGold Ashanti (Pty) Ltd South African Operations 19 February 2020

Table 8: Environmental Impact Assessment matrix for the cumulative impacts of the proposed project POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Before mitigation After mitigation M D S P S Ratin M D S P S Ratin P g P g Groundwater The cumulative impacts of the pipeline will not 2 2 1 2 10 Low 2 2 1 2 10 Low involve disturbance of groundwater level or quality. There will be a limited potential for groundwater pollution due to spillages of fuel, lubricants cement, paint and solvents

5.1 Mitigation Measures As the pipeline is not expected to have any direct impacts on the groundwater levels or quality, mitigation measures are limited to taking care during construction to avoid unnecessary spillages of fuel, lubricants, cement, and paint or any other potentially harmful contaminants which over time could over migrate into the underlying groundwater zone. During operation, regular monitoring of the pipelines should be maintained to avoid leakages from the pipeline, whereas at the end of the life of the pipeline, during decommissioning similar mitigative measures as during construction should be maintained to ensure environmentally responsible behaviour.

Yours sincerely,

Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd

Danie Brink Gerhard van der Linde Groundwater Consultant Senior Groundwater Consultant

NE/TD/AB/nbh https://golderassociates.sharepoint.com/sites/108123/project files/6 deliverables/final client deliverables/final specialist reports/19121900-327694-5_rep_gw_final_19feb2020.docx

ATTACHMENTS: Appendix A: Document Limitations

Appendix B: Acknowledgements, Details of EAP, Declaration of Interest and Specialist Experience

John van Wyk Project No. 19121900-327694-5 AngloGold Ashanti (Pty) Ltd South African Operations 19 February 2020

APPENDIX A Document Limitations

John van Wyk Project No. 19121900-327694-5 AngloGold Ashanti (Pty) Ltd South African Operations 19 February 2020

GOLDER ASSOCIATES AFRICA (PTY) LTD

John van Wyk Project No. 19121900-327694-5 AngloGold Ashanti (Pty) Ltd South African Operations 19 February 2020

APPENDIX B Acknowledgements, Details of EAP, Declaration of Interest and Specialist Experience

John van Wyk Project No. 19121900-327694-5 AngloGold Ashanti (Pty) Ltd South African Operations 19 February 2020

Acknowledgements The following persons are acknowledged for their contribution to the report:

Table A: Acknowledgements

Name Organisation Contribution

AGA Project Team South32 Client

CWC Project Team CWC Developer

Adam Bennett Golder Project manager

Gerhard van der Linde Golder Senior groundwater consultant

Danie Brink Golder Groundwater consultant

John van Wyk Project No. 19121900-327694-5 AngloGold Ashanti (Pty) Ltd South African Operations 19 February 2020

Details of Specialist and Declaration of interest

(For official use only)

File Reference Number:

NEAS Reference Number:

Date Received:

Application for authorisation in terms of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998), as amended and the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2014

PROJECT TITLE

Environmental Authorisation for the proposed Surface Pipeline and Associated Infrastructure for AngloGold Ashanti (Pty) Ltd

Details of EAP

Environmental Specialist Gerhard van der Linde (Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Limited)

Contact Person Gerhard van der Linde

Postal address P.O. Box 6001, Halfway House

Post code 1685

Telephone 011-258 4800

Cell 0824164963

Fax -

E-mail [email protected]

Professional affiliations South African Council for Natural Scientific Professions (SACNASP)

John van Wyk Project No. 19121900-327694-5 AngloGold Ashanti (Pty) Ltd South African Operations 19 February 2020

4.2 The Specialist

I, Gerhard van der Linde declare that:

General declaration:  I act as the 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 environmental impact assessments, including knowledge of the Act, regulations and any guidelines that have relevance to the proposed activity;  I will comply with the Act, Regulations and all other applicable legislation;  I will take into account, to the extent possible, the matters listed in regulation 8 of the Regulations when preparing the application and any report relating to the application;  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;  I will ensure that information containing all relevant facts in respect of the application is distributed or made available to interested and affected parties and the public and that participation by interested and affected parties is facilitated in such a manner that all interested and affected parties will be provided with a reasonable opportunity to participate and to provide comments on documents that are produced to support the application;  I will ensure that the comments of all interested and affected parties are considered and recorded in reports that are submitted to the competent authority in respect of the application, provided that comments that are made by interested and affected parties in respect of a final report that will be submitted to the competent authority may be attached to the report without further amendment to the report;  I will keep a register of all interested and affected parties that participated in a public participation process;  I will provide the competent authority with access to all information at my disposal regarding the application, whether such information is favourable to the applicant or not;  all the particulars furnished by me in this form are true and correct;  will perform all other obligations as expected from an environmental assessment practitioner in terms of the  Regulations; and  I realise that a false declaration is an offence in terms of regulation 71 and is punishable in terms of section 24F of the Act.

John van Wyk Project No. 19121900-327694-5 AngloGold Ashanti (Pty) Ltd South African Operations 19 February 2020

Disclosure of Vested Interest (delete whichever is not applicable)

I do not have a vested interest in the proposed activity proceeding:

Signature of the environme ntal assessment practitioner:

Golder Associates Africa (Pty) limited

Name of company:

19 February 2020

Date:

John van Wyk Project No. 19121900-327694-5 AngloGold Ashanti (Pty) Ltd South African Operations 19 February 2020

Specialist experience

Gerhard van der Linde Group Lead: Mine Water Africa

Gerhard has more than 25 years’ experience in the hydrogeological characterization field in South Africa and has international experience in DRC, Botswana, Mozambique, Namibia, Central African Republic, Ghana and Tanzania. He has been managing numerous groundwater characterisation, modelling and contamination investigations, including remediation projects at mining and industrial sites.

Gerhard resides at our Midrand office and is currently the Group Lead for Mine Water Africa.

John van Wyk Project No. 19121900-327694-5 AngloGold Ashanti (Pty) Ltd South African Operations 19 February 2020

golder.com

March 2020 19121900-328397-9

APPENDIX G Surface Water Impact Assessment and Floodline Delineation

REPORT Specialist Assessment for the Proposed Surface Pipeline and Associated Infrastructure - Surface Water Impact Assessment and Floodline Delineation AngloGold Ashanti (Pty) Limited South African Operations

Submitted to: AngloGold Ashanti (Pty) Limited South African Operations Mr J van Wyk Carletonville - Fochville Road R500 Carletonville Gauteng 2501

Submitted by: Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd. Podium at Menlyn, Second Floor, 43 Ingersol Road, Menlyn, Pretoria, 0181, South Africa P O Box 6001, Halfway House, 1685

+27 11 254 4800

19121900-327288-2

February 2020

February 2020 19121900-327288-2

Distribution List 1 eCopy to AngloGold Ashanti (Pty) Limited South African Operations

1 eCopy to [email protected]

February 2020 19121900-327288-2

Table of Contents

1.0 PROJECT INTRODUCTION ...... 1

1.1 Project objective ...... 1

1.2 Methodology ...... 1

1.2.1 Limitations and assumptions ...... 2

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 2

2.1 Location ...... 2

2.2 Pipeline description ...... 4

3.0 BASELINE DATA FOR THE SITE ...... 6

3.1 Regional Setting ...... 6

3.2 Climate ...... 6

3.2.1 Temperature ...... 6

3.3 Rainfall ...... 7

3.3.1 Evaporation ...... 11

3.3.2 Topography ...... 11

3.4 Water Users ...... 11

3.5 Hydrological description ...... 11

3.5.1 Catchment Description ...... 11

3.5.2 Local hydrology ...... 12

3.5.3 Water Quality ...... 13

3.5.4 Ecological State ...... 15

4.0 FLOODLINES ...... 15

4.1 Design Rainfall ...... 15

4.2 Sub Catchments ...... 15

4.3 Flood Peak Calculation ...... 17

4.3.1 SWMM Model ...... 17

5.0 RESULTS ...... 17

6.0 FLOODLINE MODELLING ...... 17

7.0 SURFACE WATER IMPACT ASSESSMENT ...... 22

7.1 Methodology for Assessing Impact Significance...... 22

February 2020 19121900-327288-2

7.2 Project Phases ...... 23

7.3 Description of potential impacts during all phases of the proposed project ...... 23

7.3.1 Acid drainage leakage from pipeline ...... 24

7.3.2 Changes in topography and drainage ...... 24

7.3.3 Overflow from North Boundary Dam ...... 24

7.4 Impact Assessment Summary ...... 24

7.5 Summary of Mitigation measures for the Impacts ...... 26

7.6 Recommended monitoring ...... 26

8.0 CONCLUSION ...... 27

9.0 REFERENCES ...... 27

TABLES Table 1: Average temperatures for the area...... 7 Table 2: Mean annual precipitation and the relevant rainfall station ...... 7 Table 3: High Rainfall events ...... 7 Table 4: Average evaporation for the area ...... 11 Table 5: Water Quality data for the downstream site on the Wonderfonteinspruit / Mooirivierloop at Baaukbank (C2H069) ...... 14 Table 6: 50 year and 100-year 24-hour storm rainfall depths ...... 15 Table 7: Catchment parameters used in the PCSWMM modelling of overland flow ...... 17 Table 8: 50 and 100-year peak flows computed using the SWMM Model ...... 17 Table 9: Impact Assessment Factors ...... 22 Table 10: Impact assessment scoring methodology ...... 22 Table 11: Significance of impact based on point allocation ...... 23 Table 12: Rating of impacts before and after mitigation ...... 25 Table 13: Proposed mitigation for surface water impacts identified ...... 26

FIGURES Figure 1: Project location ...... 3 Figure 2: Portion of the unnamed tributary to the Mooirivierloop showing various crossings ...... 4 Figure 3: Proposed pipeline route ...... 5 Figure 4: Mooi River catchment within the Upper Vaal catchment ...... 6 Figure 5: Monthly rainfall distribution for Welverdiend (Pol) 0474502_W ...... 8 Figure 6: Cumulative rainfall for Welverdiend (Pol) 0474502_W ...... 8

iii

February 2020 19121900-327288-2

Figure 7: Daily rainfall recorded at the Welverdiend (Pol) 0474502_W station...... 9 Figure 8: Monthly box plot averages for the Welverdiend (Pol) 0474502_W station ...... 9 Figure 9: Annual rainfall for Welverdiend (Pol) 0474502_W station ...... 10 Figure 10: Average monthly rainfall and rain days ...... 10 Figure 11: The Wonderfonteinspruit catchment with quaternary catchments and the river diversion and highlighting the tributary of interest ...... 12 Figure 12: Road crossing...... 12 Figure 13: Old railway crossing ...... 13 Figure 14: Old road crossing ...... 13 Figure 15: Water quality trend data (TDS, sulphate and pH) for downstream site (2009 - 2019) ...... 15 Figure 16: Unnamed tributary to the Mooirivierloop sub-catchment ...... 16 Figure 17: Water surface level for 1 in 50 and 1 in 100-year recurrence flood event - Old road crossing ...... 18 Figure 18: Water surface level for 1 in 50 and 1 in 100-year recurrence flood event - Old railway crossing ..... 19 Figure 19: Water surface level for 1 in 50 and 1 in 100-year recurrence flood event - Road crossing ...... 19 Figure 20: The extent and location of the cross sections along the unnamed tributary to the Mooirivierloop reach ...... 20 Figure 21: 1 in 50-year and 1 in 100-year recurrence interval floodlines for the unnamed tributary to the Mooirivierloop reach ...... 21

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A Document Limitations

APPENDIX B Acknowledgements, Details of EAP, Declaration of Interest and Specialist Experience

February 2020 19121900-327288-2

1.0 PROJECT INTRODUCTION The AngloGold Ashanti (Pty) Limited (AGA) operations in the West Wits mining lease areas are at risk of flooding due to ingress of fissure water from surrounding mining operations. Approximately 25 Mℓ/day of fissure water flows into the underground workings of the defunct Blyvooruitzicht Mine, which spans a strike of 6 km along the boundary with AGA.

Approximately 6.5 Mℓ/d of Acid Mine Drainage (AMD) water containing elevated levels of heavy metals and salts have been accumulating in the lower, mined out areas of BLV shaft #5 (BLV #5) bordering the Savuka Mine. The pumping and removal of this impacted water was initiated at the Savuka Mine when this water reached a critical level and started to decant to the AGA Operations, threatening AGA operational infrastructure and posing a safety risk. Currently Savuka Mine pumps the BLV #5 fissure water from 81 level to surface, where it is absorbed and used as make-up water in the Savuka Gold Plant Reclamation Operations. 1.1 Project objective In summary, AGA propose to install underground infrastructure to route the BVL 5# AMD water to the BVL 4# to allow for the dewatering, neutralisation and pumping to surface. From the BVL 4# mine this impacted water will be routed on surface to the North Boundary Dam (NBD) and used as make-up water to the Savuka Gold Plant Reclamation Operations. This report provides the anticipated surface water impacts from this proposed project as well as the 1:50 and 1:100 flood line determination for the stretch of the unnamed tributary to the Mooirivierloop that may be impacted. 1.2 Methodology The following steps were undertaken to describe the unnamed tributary to the Mooirivierloop hydraulic conditions and calculate the water surface elevations:  Description of the study area and broader catchment;  Selection of rainfall station for analysis based on the length of the data record, extent of data patching and the distance from the site;  Determination of the 1 in 50 and 1 in 100 flood peaks using the flood estimation methods;  Preparation of cross sections for input to backwater river analysis model;  Set up backwater model for backwater analysis and determination of water surface elevations;  Preparation of floodlines map and supporting memorandum; and  Description of potential impacts.

February 2020 19121900-327288-2

1.2.1 Limitations and assumptions The following limitations and assumptions apply to this specialist study:  No available rainfall records from site were supplied at the current time for direct use in hydrological and hydraulic analyses; and  No flow data is available for the streams, for estimation of the roughness coefficients, therefore the Manning’s n roughness coefficients were estimated by comparing the vegetation and nature of the streams and catchment surfaces (desktop study of aerial imagery) to published estimates (Hicks and Mason, 1998). 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 Location The proposed water pipeline and associated infrastructure is located approximately 80 km west of Johannesburg and originates in the greater West Wits mining lease areas approximately 3.3 km south east of Carletonville, and ends at the NBD approximately 6 km south-south-west of Carletonville in Blyvooruitzicht, Merafong City Local Municipality, West Rand District Municipality in the Gauteng Province of South Africa (Figure 1).

February 2020 19121900-327288-2

Figure 1: Project location

February 2020 19121900-327288-2

2.2 Pipeline description The proposed pipeline is mostly routed across open natural and semi-natural land, and for most of its length runs parallel to a small unnamed tributary to the Mooirivierloop (Figure 2 & Figure 3).

Figure 2: Portion of the unnamed tributary to the Mooirivierloop showing various crossings

February 2020 19121900-327288-2

The pipeline will be above-ground and consists of two portions: the northern portion which will be placed on top of an existing pipeline (yellow in Figure 3) within a designated pipeline servitude and the southern portion which will be routed across greenfield land (orange in Figure 3). To avoid directly impacting the unnamed tributary to the Mooirivierloop, two alternative route detours are proposed for the point at which the pipeline will cross an unnamed road and small rocky ridge – Options 1 and 2 in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Proposed pipeline route

February 2020 19121900-327288-2

3.0 BASELINE DATA FOR THE SITE Note: The proposed pipeline corridor is located in an area dominated by mining and associated activities. Due to significant security risks concerning the presence and activities of armed illegal miners, the ability to collect data in-field, including water samples, was highly constrained. The baseline surface water description presented in the report is therefore based on available data, supported by photographs taken by the client. 3.1 Regional Setting The unnamed tributary to the Mooirivierloop along which the pipeline is proposed is located in the Mooi River sub-catchment of the Upper Vaal catchment (Figure 4) which forms part of the Vaal Water Management Area.

Figure 4: Mooi River catchment within the Upper Vaal catchment 3.2 Climate The site is situated on the interior high-plateau of South Africa known as the Highveld. Due to its height above sea-level (~1 580 m above sea level), the site experiences warm to hot sunny days in the Spring and Summer with temperatures often reaching 30ºC. From October to April the area experiences a wet season where thunderstorms, occasionally with hail, occur. The winter season tends to be dry with cold mornings (frost in June and July), although the days are warmer. 3.2.1 Temperature Temperature statistics (average monthly minimum and maximum values) recorded at the South African Weather Service’s Krugersdorp Kroningspark Station are set out in Table 1.

February 2020 19121900-327288-2

Table 1: Average temperatures for the area

Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

Ave 26.1 25.5 24.3 21.3 19.1 16.3 16.9 19.4 22.9 24 24.6 25.7 max (°C)

Ave min 14.6 14.2 12.9 9.4 5.6 2.4 2.4 4.7 8.7 10.9 12.5 13.7 (°C)

3.3 Rainfall Rainfall data were extracted from the closest weather station obtained from the Design Rainfall Estimation Program (details given in Table 1) (Smithers & Schulze, 2002). The selection of station 0474502_W (Welverdiend (Pol)) is based on the fact that this is the closest station to the study area with a reasonably reliable (89.2%) record. The rainfall distribution on site is classified as a type 3 design rainfall distribution (Weddepohl, 1988).

Table 3 provides a summary of the high rainfall events recorded for each rainfall station. Figure 5 shows the average monthly rainfall distribution for the 0474502_W rainfall station.

Table 2: Mean annual precipitation and the relevant rainfall station

Name of rainfall Rainfall station Distance Latitude (°)(‘) Longitude (°)(‘) Record station number (km) (Years)

Welverdiend 0474502_W 10 26° 22’48 27° 16’48 92 (Pol)

Table 3: High Rainfall events

Rainfall Station Maximum recorded Date of Maximum Number of days with Daily Rainfall (mm) Rainfall greater than 50 mm

0474502_W 160.8 1931/01/12 75

February 2020 19121900-327288-2

Figure 5: Monthly rainfall distribution for Welverdiend (Pol) 0474502_W

Figure 6 illustrates the cumulative plot of rainfall for the 0474502_W rainfall station. This is done to visually check the data for any irregularities and anomalies that may have occurred during the rainfall record. Changes in slope and long flat periods are indicative of irregularities and need to be investigated. The cumulative rainfall plot for 0474502_W shows a brief flat slope with a decline in slope from 1979 onwards, which is indicative of a period with incomplete rainfall data as well as the mean annual precipitation of the area decreasing slightly from 1979 onwards.

Figure 6: Cumulative rainfall for Welverdiend (Pol) 0474502_W

Figure 7 shows daily rainfall for the Welverdiend (Pol) station. The boxplot of the monthly rainfall of the combined daily rainfall is shown in Figure 8. A boxplot shows the variations of observed monthly rainfall totals in a five-number summary. This includes the 1st percentile, 25th percentile, 50th percentile, 75th percentile and

February 2020 19121900-327288-2

99th percentile, of the observed monthly rainfall records. The higher rainfall occurs between October and March while very little rain falls between May and September.

Figure 7: Daily rainfall recorded at the Welverdiend (Pol) 0474502_W station

Figure 8: Monthly box plot averages for the Welverdiend (Pol) 0474502_W station

The annual rainfall at Welverdiend (Pol) rainfall station is shown in Figure 9. The lowest rainfall year was 1981 with 53 mm, this is indicative of incomplete rainfall data as highlighted by the cumulative rainfall plot. The highest rainfall was in the in 1999 with 1 243 mm of rain that year. The average mean annual precipitation is 727 mm.

February 2020 19121900-327288-2

Figure 9: Annual rainfall for Welverdiend (Pol) 0474502_W station

The average monthly rainfalls based on the dataset and associated average number of rainfall days per month are shown in Figure 10. Figure 10 indicates that January has the highest average number of rain days (9 days) reflecting the peak of the wet season. The average number of rain days in June, July and August reduces considerably to 2 days reflecting the peak of the dry season.

Figure 10: Average monthly rainfall and rain days

February 2020 19121900-327288-2

3.3.1 Evaporation Average monthly evaporation statistics recorded at the South African Weather Service’s Krugersdorp Kroningspark Station are set out in Table 4. It is noted that the evaporation is considerably higher than the average monthly rainfall figures.

Table 4: Average evaporation for the area

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Total

S-pan 167 166 172 169 139 131 103 87 70 79 112 148 1 544 (mm)

3.3.2 Topography The site slopes gently from north to south with the lowest point being around 1 540 mamsl near the R501 road and 1 590 mamsl near North Dam. 3.4 Water Users Mining and related mine residential areas are located within a kilometre of the proposed pipeline, and the stream then flows through residential areas of town of Carletonville and agricultural holdings further downstream before joining the Mooirivierloop River. 3.5 Hydrological description 3.5.1 Catchment Description The AGA operations in the West Wits lease area lies in the Wonderfonteinspruit catchment which falls in the C drainage region of the Vaal River Catchment. The Wonderfonteinspruit catchment comprises quaternary catchments C23D, C23E and part of C23G (Figure 11). The unnamed tributary to the Mooirivierloop is a tributary of the Mooi River which joins the Vaal River below the Vaal Barrage (within the Upper Vaal Water Management Area (WMA) (Figure 15). The spruit flows from south to north along the eastern side of the mine boundary past the North Boundary Dam and the West Wits site.

February 2020 19121900-327288-2

Figure 11: The Wonderfonteinspruit catchment with quaternary catchments and the river diversion and highlighting the tributary of interest

3.5.2 Local hydrology The unnamed tributary to the Mooirivierloop reach under investigation contains 3 culverts or stream contractions downstream of the North Boundary Dam along the proposed pipeline route. Figure 12, Figure 13 and Figure 14 show photographs received from AGA of the said culverts. The effect of the culverts on the floodlines modelling is included in Section 4.0 of the report on flood modelling.

Figure 12: Road crossing

February 2020 19121900-327288-2

Figure 13: Old railway crossing

Figure 14: Old road crossing

3.5.3 Water Quality There is no recent water quality data for the stream. However, the water quality data for a Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS) point on the Wonderfonteinspruit downstream of the confluence of the unnamed tributary to the Mooirivierloop, was available. The data were sourced from the Water Management Systems (WMS).  Point 90652 – C2H069, on the Wonderfonteinspruit / Mooirivierloop (River) at Blaauwbank approximately 14 km downstream of the confluence. Data for a 10-year period: January 2009 to March 2019.

Data is captured in Table 5 and illustrated in Figure 15 to give some baseline for the current situation in the area. No monitoring data for metals was available, which is the water quality concern in this area.

February 2020 19121900-327288-2

The data indicate upstream impacts related to the wastewater treatment works discharges and run-off from industrial and mining activities, indicated by elevated TDS and sulphate.

The pH values recorded are indicate a slightly alkaline water, showing an increasing trend over time, however recent data show a change to a more neutral pH, and slight decreases in TDS and sulphate.

Table 5: Water Quality data for the downstream site on the Wonderfonteinspruit / Mooirivierloop at Baaukbank (C2H069)

Variable (mg/L unless stated) Min Max Med 95

Calcium 36.14 169.36 85.15 99.26

Chloride 7.00 163.13 65.18 93.35

Total Dissolved Solids 245 1169 750 901

Electrical Conductivity (mS/m) 35 167 104.85 124.90

Fluoride 0.03 1.11 0.35 0.59

Potassium 2.77 10.61 7.33 9.03

Total Kjedahl Nitrogen 0.05 4.16 0.72 1.46

Magnesium 11.42 131.25 42.44 64.49

Sodium 49.84 121.50 79.44 99.49

Ammonium 0.03 13.70 0.05 0.60

Nitrate 0.03 9.50 0.45 2.10

Total Phosphorus 0.01 9.89 0.24 0.70

pH 5.80 8.90 8.20 8.60

Orthophosphate (as P) 0.01 24.90 0.22 0.90

Silica 0.06 9.66 3.54 5.21

Sulphate 5.00 883.32 269.25 384.38

Total Alkalinity 66.71 451.41 166.19 207.33

February 2020 19121900-327288-2

Figure 15: Water quality trend data (TDS, sulphate and pH) for downstream site (2009 - 2019)

3.5.4 Ecological State The present ecological category of the spruit is a D category due to extensive modification as per the DWS Reserve Determination. The ecological importance and sensitivity is low.

4.0 FLOODLINES 4.1 Design Rainfall The 24-hour storm rainfall depths for both the 1 in 50 and 1 in 100-year recurrence intervals were calculated by statistical means. Using the program UPFlood (UPFlood, 2003), the maximum daily rainfall in each water year was plotted and analysed.

Table 6: 50 year and 100-year 24-hour storm rainfall depths

Return Period (years) 1 in 50 1 in 100

Rainfall Depth (mm) 136 155

4.2 Sub Catchments The sub catchment of the unnamed tributary to the Mooirivierloop reach under investigation was delineated based on the topography of the area for the section where floodlines were required. The sub-catchment boundary is shown in Figure 16. The delineated sub-catchment was used in the calculation of the flood peaks for the floodlines. The runoff from the sub catchment was conservatively modelled to report to the upstream cross-section of the reach under investigation.

February 2020 19121900-327288-2

Figure 16: Unnamed tributary to the Mooirivierloop sub-catchment

February 2020 19121900-327288-2

4.3 Flood Peak Calculation 4.3.1 SWMM Model PCSWMM® was used as an alternative flood analysis model. PCSWMM® is a dynamic rainfall-runoff simulation model used for single event or long-term simulation of runoff quantity.

This model was set up for the site and used to calculate the 1 in 50 and 1 in 100-year recurrence interval flood peaks for the selected unnamed tributary to the Mooirivierloop reach.

The parameters used to model the overland flow are shown in Table 7. Manning’s ‘n’ (roughness) coefficient used in the model for the impervious areas and pervious areas were 0.013 and 0.15 respectively. The Manning’s n roughness coefficient for the pervious areas is based on short grass land cover.

The soils were identified as being in the sandy clay loam group (WR 2012). The model uses this criterion to incorporate infiltration in the analysis using the Green-Ampt infiltration method, with the method’s associated parameters. This resulted in a suction head of 218.5 mm, a hydraulic conductivity of 3 mm/hr and an initial deficit of 0.25 being used in the rainfall-runoff model. Percent impervious is set at 25% for the sub catchments due to the compacted roads from mining activity, the mining operation and office complexes with the sub catchment. The infiltration parameters are listed in Table 7.

Table 7: Catchment parameters used in the PCSWMM modelling of overland flow

Stream Name Flow Slope Impervious Capillary Hydraulic Initial Length % % Suction Head Conductivity Moisture (m) (mm) (mm/hr) Deficit (fraction)

Wonderfonteinspruit 4805.9 7.4 25 218.5 3 0.25

5.0 RESULTS The results from the SWMM model are presented in Table 8. Table 8 gives the 1 in 50 and the 1 in 100-year recurrence interval flood peaks for the selected unnamed tributary to the Mooirivierloop.

Table 8: 50 and 100-year peak flows computed using the SWMM Model

Stream Name: Peak Flows (m3/s)

1 in 50-year 1 in 100-year

Unnamed tributary to the 350.8 418.6 Mooirivierloop

6.0 FLOODLINE MODELLING Cross-sectional data was obtained from the contour data generated during the topographic survey. Figure 20 shows the extent and locations of the cross-sections along the unnamed tributaries The Manning’s n roughness coefficients for the stream channel and the stream banks were estimated by comparing the vegetation and nature of the channel surface with published data (Hicks and Mason, 1998). Since no flow data was available for the stream for estimation of the roughness coefficients, slightly conservative estimations were adopted. The Manning’s n coefficient of 0.03 and 0.035 has been estimated for the riverbed and riverbanks respectively, for the watercourses within the proposed development region.

February 2020 19121900-327288-2

The three culverts shown in Figure 2 were included in the floodline assessment of the unnamed tributary to the Mooirivierloop. Geometrical data with regards to these culverts were received from AGA and included in the hydraulic model of the spruit. Figure 17 to Figure 19 show the overtopping of the culverts for the 1-50- and 1-100-year recurrence interval flood events.

19121900_WGS Plan: Plan 02 2019/07/24

Legend

WS 1 in 100 WS 1 in 50 1555 Ground

Bank Sta

1550 Elevation (m) Elevation

1545

1540

100 200 300 400 Station (m) Figure 17: Water surface level for 1 in 50 and 1 in 100-year recurrence flood event - Old road crossing

February 2020 19121900-327288-2

19121900_WGS Plan: Plan 02 2019/07/24 TRIPLE-CULVERT

Legend

WS 1 in 100 WS 1 in 50 Ground 1562 Bank Sta

1560 Elevation (m) Elevation

1558

1556 200 250 300 350 Station (m) Figure 18: Water surface level for 1 in 50 and 1 in 100-year recurrence flood event - Old railway crossing

19121900_WGS Plan: Plan 02 2019/07/24

Legend

1574 WS 1 in 100 WS 1 in 50 Ground

1573 Bank Sta

1572

1571 Elevation (m) Elevation

1570

1569

150 200 250 300 350 400 Station (m) Figure 19: Water surface level for 1 in 50 and 1 in 100-year recurrence flood event - Road crossing

February 2020 19121900-327288-2

The floodlines for the 1 in 50 and 1 in 100-year recurrence interval flood peaks for the unnamed tributary to the Mooirivierloop reach under investigation are plotted in Figure 20. The computed water surface elevations were calculated based on the current level of development. Figure 21 also indicates the proximity of the proposed pipeline layouts from the West Wits site to the North Boundary Dam.

Figure 20: The extent and location of the cross sections along the unnamed tributary to the Mooirivierloop reach

February 2020 19121900-327288-2

Figure 21: 1 in 50-year and 1 in 100-year recurrence interval floodlines for the unnamed tributary to the Mooirivierloop reach

February 2020 19121900-327288-2

7.0 SURFACE WATER IMPACT ASSESSMENT 7.1 Methodology for Assessing Impact Significance The significance of identified impacts was 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:

Table 9: Impact Assessment Factors

Occurrence Severity

Probability of occurrence Duration of occurrence Scale/extent of impact Magnitude of impact

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

Table 10: Impact assessment scoring methodology

Magnitude Duration

10- Very high/unknown 5- Permanent (>10 years)

8- High 4- Long term (7 - 10 years, impact ceases after site closure has been obtained)

6- Moderate 3- Medium-term (3 months - 7 years, impact ceases after the operational life of the activity)

4- Low 2- Short-term (0 - 3 months, impact ceases after the construction phase)

2- Minor 1- Immediate

Scale Probability

5- International 5- Definite/Unknown

4- National 4- Highly Probable

3- Regional 3- Medium Probability

2- Local 2- Low Probability

1- Site Only 1- Improbable

0- None 0- None

For the methodology outlined above, the following definitions were used:  Magnitude is a measure of the degree of change in a measurement or analysis (e.g., the area of pasture, or the concentration of a metal in water compared to the water quality guideline value for the metal), and is classified as none/negligible, low, moderate or high. The categorization of the impact magnitude may be based on a set of criteria (e.g. health risk levels, ecological concepts and/or professional judgment) pertinent to each of the discipline areas and key questions analysed.

February 2020 19121900-327288-2

The specialist study must attempt to quantify the magnitude and outline the rationale used. Appropriate, widely recognised standards are to be used as a measure of the level of impact;  Scale/Geographic extent refers to the area that could be affected by the impact and is classified as site, local, regional, national, or international;  Duration refers to the length of time over which an environmental impact may occur: i.e. immediate/transient, short-term (0 to 7 years), medium term (8 to 15 years), long-term (greater than 15 years with impact ceasing after closure of the project), or permanent; and  Probability of occurrence is a description of the probability of the impact actually occurring as improbable (less than 5% chance), low probability (5% to 40% chance), medium probability (40% to 60% chance), highly probable (most likely, 60% to 90% chance) or definite (impact will definitely occur).

The calculation used is:

Significance Points (SP) = (Magnitude + Duration + Scale) x Probability and the scoring is described in Table 11.

Table 11: Significance of impact based on point allocation

Points Significance Description

SP>60 High environmental An impact which could influence the decision about whether or not to significance proceed with the project regardless of any possible mitigation.

SP 30 - Moderate An impact or benefit which is sufficiently important to require 60 environmental management, and which could have an influence on the decision significance unless it is mitigated.

SP<30 Low environmental Impacts with little real effect and which will not have an influence on or significance require modification of the project design.

+ Positive impact An impact that is likely to result in positive consequences/effects.

7.2 Project Phases The environmental impacts of the project were assessed for the:  Construction phase;  Operational phase; and  Closure and rehabilitation phase. 7.3 Description of potential impacts during all phases of the proposed project The floodline determination detailed in Section 6.0, indicates that the proposed pipeline route with alternative pipeline route - option 2 will ensure that the pipeline will remains outside of the 1:50 and 1:100 year floodline. This will limit any impact.

Due to its proximity, the potential issues arising from the project site on the surface water systems are:

1) Acid drainage leakage from pipeline;

2) Changes in topography and drainage; and

February 2020 19121900-327288-2

3) Overflow from North Boundary Dam. 7.3.1 Acid drainage leakage from pipeline Impact Characterisation

Soil and water resources may be contaminated by acid mine drainage and subsequent metal contamination due to pipeline leakages. A moderate impact is predicted.

The contaminated run-off would directly impact the instream water quality and aquatic ecosystems in the unnamed tributary to the Mooirivierloop. It is unlikely that the contaminated water would impact any other water users as there is no direct abstraction from this stream in the vicinity of the pipeline.

Impact in Relation to Proposed Project Through the correct implementation of on-site operating procedures, including those related to pipeline construction and maintenance throughout all phases of the proposed project, and ensuring that leakages are timeously and appropriately addressed this impact can be effectively managed. It is therefore rated with a post mitigation impact significance of low. 7.3.2 Changes in topography and drainage Impact Characterisation

Changes in topography and drainage during construction may lead to erosion.

The impact would be some degree of sedimentation in the stream, which would be low.

Impact in Relation to Proposed Project This impact can be effectively managed by management of construction activities, such as limiting the area cleared, construction during the dry season and appropriately disposing of building materials and is therefore rated with a post mitigation impact significance of low. 7.3.3 Overflow from North Boundary Dam Impact Characterisation

Soil and water resources may be contaminated by acid mine drainage and subsequent metal contamination due to dam overflow. A moderate impact is predicted.

Impact in Relation to Proposed Project Through the correct implementation of on-site operating procedures and ensuring that the dam is operated and maintained at a 0.8 m freeboard this impact can be effectively managed. It is therefore rated with a post mitigation impact significance of low. 7.4 Impact Assessment Summary The predicted environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project activities are listed in Table 12 along with their significance ratings before and after mitigation.

February 2020 19121900-327288-2

Table 12: Rating of impacts before and after mitigation

Activity Potential Impact Aspects

Affected

nce

Magnitude Duration Scale Probability Significance Significa without Mitigation Magnitude Duration Scale Probability Significance Significance with Mitigation Construction Phase

Construction of Erosion and Water quality 4 2 1 3 21 Low 2 2 1 2 10 Low pipeline Sedimentation of the stream

Operational Phase

Leaks from pipeline Pollution of stream Water quality 8 2 2 3 36 Moderate 4 2 2 2 16 Low (increased metals, of the stream low pH) and potential the Mooi River Overflow from Pollution of stream Water quality 8 2 2 3 36 Moderate 4 2 2 2 16 Low North Boundary (increased metals, of the stream Dam low pH) potential the Mooi River Closure Phase Removal of Erosion and Water quality 4 2 1 3 21 Low 2 2 1 2 10 Low pipeline Sedimentation of the stream

February 2020 19121900-327288-2

7.5 Summary of Mitigation measures for the Impacts Table 13 summarizes the proposed mitigation for impacts to surface water.

Table 13: Proposed mitigation for surface water impacts identified

Activity Potential Negative impacts Positive Impact

Construction Phase Avoid Minimize Rehabilitate/ Compensate Enhance Repair

Vegetation Erosion and - Limit area Vegetate - - clearing, and increased cleared and areas where earth works sedimentatio appropriate no concrete during site n disposal of structures preparation construction are built to material. allow stormwater infiltration

Operational Phase Avoid Minimize Rehabilitate/ Compensate Enhance Repair

Pumping of acid Leaks from By Fix leaks - - mine drainage to pipeline monitoring timeously North Boundary for leaks Dam Overflow Maintain Adjust - - from North 0.8 m pumping Dam freeboard rates

Closure Phase Avoid Minimize Rehabilitate/ Compensate Enhance Repair

Pipeline Erosion and - Limit area Vegetate decommissioning increased cleared and areas sedimentatio appropriate n disposal of construction material.

7.6 Recommended monitoring Rather than the implementation of an instream water quality sampling programme, for the surface water component, monitoring of the operation of the pipeline and dam levels should be routinely undertaken. Should a leak or spill occur, a water quality sample should be taken at various points downstream, weekly until an improvement is noted.

February 2020 19121900-327288-2

8.0 CONCLUSION The catchment in which the site is located is highly developed with extensive impacts from the mining areas in the upper reaches and the Carletonville residential and agricultural areas in the lower reaches. The only significantly impacted ‘water user’ at this point would be the aquatic ecosystem.

The main impacts from the site would be acid mine drainage from spills and leaks, and sediments (mostly during construction and decommissioning). Mitigation would therefore need to include adequate design, operation and maintenance of the pipeline and dam and responsible construction and decommissioning.

The proposed pipeline route with alternative pipeline route - option 2 will ensure that the pipeline will remains outside of the 1:50-year and 1:100-year floodline.

Impacts to the already highly impacted surface water resource is likely to be low. 9.0 REFERENCES Alexander, W. R. J., van Aswegen, F. & Hansford, J. R., 2003. UPFlood - Flood Analysis Programs. Version 4.0.0. Pretoria: University of Pretoria.

Department of Water Affairs, 2008. Hydrological Services - Surface Water (Data, Dams, Floods and Flows). [Online]; Available at: http://www.dwaf.gov.za/hydrology/ [Accessed 18 December 2018].

Hicks, D. M., & Mason, P. D. (1998). Roughness characteristics of New Zealand Rivers. A handbook for assigning roughness coefficients to river reaches by the "visual comparison" approach. Englewood, USA: Water Resources Publications, LLC.

Smithers, J. C., & Schulze, R. E. (2002). Design Rainfall Estimation in South Africa Program. (Rainfall Statistics for Design Flood Estimation in South Africa. WRC Project K5/1060). Pretoria: WRC: Water Research Commission.

USACE. (2010). HEC-RAS River Analysis System's User's Manual. Version 4.1. California: USACE: US Army Corps of Engineers.

Weddepohl, J. (1988). Design Rainfall Distributions for Southern Africa. Pietermaritzburg: Unpublished M.Sc. Dissertation, Department of Agricultural Engineering, University of Natal.

Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd.

Gideon Bonthuys Lee Boyd Water Resource Engineer Water Resource Scientist

GB/LB/AB/nbh

Reg. No. 2002/007104/07 Directors: RGM Heath, MQ Mokulubete, MC Mazibuko (Mondli Colbert), GYW Ngoma

Golder and the G logo are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation

https://golderassociates.sharepoint.com/sites/108123/project files/6 deliverables/final client deliverables/final specialist reports/19121900-327288-2_rep_sw_floodline delineation_final_19feb2020.docx

February 2020 19121900-327288-2

APPENDIX A Document Limitations

February 2020 19121900-327288-2

GOLDER ASSOCIATES AFRICA (PTY) LTD

February 2020 19121900-327288-2

APPENDIX B Acknowledgements, Details of EAP, Declaration of Interest and Specialist Experience

February 2020 19121900-327288-2

Acknowledgements The following persons are acknowledged for their contribution to the report:

Table A: Acknowledgements

Name Organisation Contribution

AGA Project Team South32 Client

CWC Project Team CWC Developer

Adam Bennett Golder Project manager

Gideon Bonthuys Golder Water Resource Engineer

Lee Boyd Golder Water Resource Scientist

February 2020 19121900-327288-2

Details of Specialist and Declaration of interest

(For official use only)

File Reference Number:

NEAS Reference Number:

Date Received:

Application for authorisation in terms of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998), as amended and the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2014

PROJECT TITLE

Environmental Authorisation for the proposed Surface Pipeline and Associated Infrastructure for AngloGold Ashanti (Pty) Ltd

Details of EAP

Environmental Specialist Lee Boyd (Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Limited)

Contact Person Lee Boyd

Postal address P.O. Box 6001, Halfway House

Post code 1685

Telephone 011 254 4915

Cell 082 885 1799

Fax

E-mail [email protected]

Professional affiliations SF WISA

February 2020 19121900-327288-2

4.2 The Environmental Specialist

I, Lee A. Boyd declare that:

February 2020 19121900-327288-2

Disclosure of Vested Interest (delete whichever is not applicable)

I do not have a vested interest in the proposed activity proceeding:

Signature of the environmental assessment practitioner:

Golder Associates Africa (Pty) limited

Name of company:

19 February 2020

Date:

February 2020 19121900-327288-2

Specialist experience Lee Boyd has a master’s degree in Water Ultilsation from the University of Pretoria. Lee is currently a Water Resource Scientist in the Mine Water Division of Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd. Lee gained her professional experience in the field of water quality management has been involved in several surface water impact assessment studies to inform environmental impact assessments and water use licence applications. Lee has been the project manager on several catchment management projects including the development of an Integrated Water Quality Management Plan for the Olifants Water Management Area and the development of a Catchment Management Strategy for the Breede-Gouritz Water Management Area.

She is a Water Institute of Southern Africa (WISA) Senior fellow, was on the WISA Board and WISA Water Scientists Committee for several years.

 EAP Specialist Assessment Project Experience

 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the proposed Lanele Oil Terminal 1 (Lot 1) Project - Surface Water Impact Assessment, Lanele Group  Surface Water Study for the Proposed Metsimaholo Underground Coal Mine, Seriti Coal (Pty) Ltd  Kendal Ash Dump Extension: Surface Water Impact Assessment, GreenGold Company  Surface Water Impact Assessment for KInsevere Operational Upgrades, MMG Limited  Kipushi Environmental Impact Study Update, Surface Water Impact Assessment, Kipushi Corporation SPRL

golder.com