MCFMagaliesburg Community Forum TAU INDUSTRIES’ PROSPECTING Applications: 1. Koesterfontein - DMR GP10498PR 2. Kaalfontein - DMR GP10505PR 3. Zuickerbosch - DMR GP10504PR MAIN MCF COMMENTRARY DOCUMENT 06 Nov 2018 REV C001 Magaliesburg Community Forum [email protected] Draft EIA/EMP Complaints and Comments // Magaliesburg Community Forum Use of this Document This document has been prepared by the MCF for the exclusive information sharing between the DMR and other state organs and decision makers to voice the concerns of the MCF’s members who form part of the Interested and Affected Parties of the three Tau Industries prospecting applications in the Magaliesburg region, which forms part of the Mogale City Local Municipality (MCLM). If there is a need to present any of this information to any other public or third party person (including the general public), a written response and approval must be obtained from the MCF prior to publication of this information, content and data, either in whole or in part. The MCF reserves the right to amend, add additional comments, and raise additional concerns or provide updates where needed and / or not captured due to the time allowed to review all of the DRAFT EIA and EAP information. These documents should not be seen as complete and as either standalone comments or concerns of the MCF, their members and all the I&AP. TAU Industries’ Prospecting Applications - via Joan Projects 0 MCF Ref: C001 TAU Industries – Draft EAP and EMP reports Magaliesburg Community Forum TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... 3 2 Background on Gold Mining Impacts ............................................................................. 4 3 Who is MCF ...................................................................................................................... 12 3.1 Our Aim ............................................................................................................................. 12 3.2 At A Glance ....................................................................................................................... 12 3.3 Mission Statement ............................................................................................................. 12 3.4 Objective ........................................................................................................................... 13 3.5 Directive ............................................................................................................................ 13 3.6 History ............................................................................................................................... 13 3.7 Membership and meeting attendance ............................................................................... 13 4 Draft EIA/EMP Comments and complaints ................................................................... 16 4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 16 4.2 Timeline and 30-day Consultation Period ......................................................................... 16 4.3 Biased Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP) .................................................... 18 4.4 Local Employment Opportunities (SLP) – Expectation Created ....................................... 28 4.5 Logistics Study – Existing Infrastructure Impact ............................................................... 30 4.6 Ecologist / Biodiversity Assessment ................................................................................. 30 4.7 Wetland Specialist / Assessment ...................................................................................... 31 4.8 Hydrologist / Groundwater Level Assessment .................................................................. 32 4.9 Trenches and Mobilisation of Heavy Metals / Other Acid or AMD Forming Minerals ....... 33 4.10 Activity and Prospecting Works Plan ................................................................................ 35 4.11 Alternatives ........................................................................................................................ 35 4.12 Needs and Desirability ...................................................................................................... 36 4.13 Mitigations Proposed for LOW impacts ............................................................................. 37 4.14 High Level Comments on EIA Report(s) ........................................................................... 37 4.15 Policy and Legislative Framework..................................................................................... 38 4.16 Rehabilitation Costs .......................................................................................................... 40 4.17 Land Use – Discussions and Legal Arguments ................................................................ 41 4.18 PIOM – Prospecting not within 2km of Residential Area .................................................. 59 4.19 Mining and Biodiversity Guidelines ................................................................................... 59 4.20 National List of Threatened Species and Ecosystems ..................................................... 61 4.21 Full Description of the Process ......................................................................................... 61 4.22 TAU Industries Background and Experience .................................................................... 62 4.23 TAU Industries and Gold Founders Financial Capabilities ............................................... 63 TAU Industries’ Prospecting Applications - via Joan Projects MCF Ref: C001 TAU Industries – Draft EAP and EMP reports 1 5 ATTACHMENTs ............................................................................................................... 64 5.1 ATTACHMENT 1: Selected details of Tau Industries and Gold Founders: ..................... 64 5.2 ATTACHMENT 2: Details with regards to the Magaliesburg Precint Plan 2011 .............. 70 5.3 ATTACHMENT 3: Selected Photos of the Koesterfontein area after first 20 mm rain for the season on 14/10/2018: ................................................................................................ 74 5.4 ATTACHMENT 4: Boophane Disticha in bloom:.............................................................. 82 5.5 ATTACHMENT 5: Slow response of Dispute Resolution and DMR Governance: .......... 83 TAU Industries’ Prospecting Applications - via Joan Projects DRA Ref: C001 TAU Industries – Draft EAP and EMP reports 2 // Magaliesburg Community Forum 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A separate document with a bullet point summary has been compiled and should be read in conjunction with this full commentary report. The bullet point summary contains 12 pages labelled in Greek numerical numbers to Page xii. TAU Industries’ Prospecting Applications - via Joan Projects MCF Ref: C001 TAU Industries – Draft EAP and EMP reports 3 // Magaliesburg Community Forum 2 BACKGROUND ON GOLD MINING IMPACTS Impact Photos – Legacy of Gold Mining in RSA (Long MSc 2018) Gold mining in the Witwatersrand Goldfield started in 1886 and over the more than 130 years of mining history, in excess of 150 mining companies have mined gold from the Witwatersrand Goldfield (McCarthy and Rubidge, 2005; McCarthy, 2006, 2010). This has left many mine shafts and tunnels across the Witwatersrand exposed to air and water so that oxidation and secondary mineralisation along the wall rock developed. These mine shafts and tunnels do not have connectivity between the various Goldfields of the Witwatersrand, but connectivity within a single Witwatersrand Goldfield does exist. Therefore, when all mining and underground pumping within one Goldfield (e.g. the West Rand Goldfield) ceases, then the mine void floods (Department of Water Affairs, 2013). As groundwater levels rise, the water interacts with primary sulphides and secondary minerals in the presence of air to form acidic mine water. The ore deposits in the West Rand Goldfield were the first to become uneconomic to mine and the mining companies in this goldfield ceased underground mining operations and groundwater pumping (Hobbs and Cobbing, 2007). This study focuses on the West Rand Goldfield, where groundwater pumping ceased in 1998 and the mine void space was allowed to completely flood, permitting discharge of acidic mine water to reach the ground surface in 2002 (Hobbs and Cobbing, 2007). The first acidic mine water to reach surface in the West Rand was near 18 Winze (~7 to 12.5 ML/day) on the 27th August 2002 and later at 18 Winze (18 to 36 ML/day) in early 2005, (Coetzee, 2005; du Toit, 2006; Hobbs and Cobbing, 2007; Department of Water Affairs, 2013). The acidic mine water has continued to discharge into the Tweelopie Spruit at the boundary between the Randfontein Estates Mining Property (RE) with the Krugersdorp Game Reserve (KGR) (Hobbs and Cobbing, 2007). In 2007, it was reported that the Tweelopie Spruit had been transformed from a non-perennial to a perennial river (Hobbs and Cobbing, 2007). The acidic mine drainage has continued to discharge into the Tweelopie Spruit for a further five years as observed during this study in 2011-2012. Gold mining in the Witwatersrand has shaped the South African economy and allowed for the development of Gauteng and the South African economy (McCarthy,