Final EIA Report.pdf - Zitholele.co.za
Final EIA Report.pdf - Zitholele.co.za
Final EIA Report.pdf - Zitholele.co.za
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Project Applicant:Project:Project Location:<strong>Report</strong> Name:<strong>Report</strong> Status:ANGLO AMERICAN INYOSI COAL (PTY) LIMITEDNew Largo CollieryNkangala District Municipality, MpumalangaENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENTREPORTVolume 1: Main <strong>Report</strong>, Appendix A and B(1 of 7 volumes)(<strong>Final</strong>)Revision No:01 <strong>Final</strong><strong>Report</strong> Date: July 2012<strong>Report</strong> Number:Prepared by:Contributions by:Issued by:For Submission to:Reference No:S0403/NL/<strong>EIA</strong>01Mari Wolmarans, Marline Medallie, Claire JarvisClifford HallattMari WolmaransMpumalanga Department of E<strong>co</strong>nomic Development, Environment and Tourism (MDEDET), as part ofthe <strong>EIA</strong> in terms of the National Environmental Management Act.Department of Mineral Resources, as part of the <strong>EIA</strong> and EMP in terms of the Mineral and PetroleumResources Development Act (No 28 of 2002)Department of Water Affairs (DWA), as part of the Water Use License Application in terms of Section 21of the National Water Act.National Department of Environmental Affairs (NDEA), as part of a waste management license in termsof the National Environmental Management: Waste Act (No. 59 of 2008).MDEDET: 17/2/3N-41DMR: 30/5/1/2/2/511MR F/2011/04/14/002DWA: 16/2/7/B200/C528NDEA: 12/9/11/L952/6Synergistics Environmental Services (Pty) LtdPO Box 1822, Rivonia, 2128Tel: 011 807 8225Fax: 011 807 8226Email: synergy@synergistics.<strong>co</strong>.<strong>za</strong>Environmental Services
Project Information SheetPROJECT:New Largo Colliery,Nkangala District Municipality, MpumalangaREPORT DETAILS:<strong>Report</strong> Name:New Largo Colliery – <strong>Final</strong> Environmental Impact Assessment <strong>Report</strong><strong>Report</strong> Number: S0403-NLC-<strong>EIA</strong>-01<strong>Report</strong> Status: <strong>Final</strong>Revision No: 01Date: July 2012PROJECT APPLICANT:Anglo American Inyosi Coal (Pty) Ltd (AAIC)Contact Person:Henri NieuwoudtDesignation: Head of Mining and Property Law: South AfricaTel: 011 6383781Fax: 011 6384608Email:hnieuwoudt@angloamerican.<strong>co</strong>.<strong>za</strong>Postal Address: PO Box 61587, Marshalltown, Johannesburg, 2017INDEPENDENT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT:Synergistics Environmental Services (Pty) Ltd (Synergistics)Contact Person:Designation:Marline MedallieDirectorTel: 011 807 8225Fax: 011 807 8226Email:marline@synergistics.<strong>co</strong>.<strong>za</strong>Postal Address: PO Box 1822, Rivonia, Johannesburg, 2128EAP:Designation:Mari WolmaransTel: 041 583 1156Email:Independent Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP)mari@synergistics.<strong>co</strong>.<strong>za</strong>EAP Expertise: BL Arch, UP, 1991.Environmental Assessment Practitioner Certified by the Interim Certification Board(EAPSA).Professional member South African Institute of E<strong>co</strong>logists & EnvironmentalScientists (SAIE&ES).20 years’ environmental management and assessment experience, specifically inthe mining and infrastructure development sectors.Environmental Impact Assessment: Project Management.
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesS0403/<strong>EIA</strong>01 July 2012ANGLO AMERICAN INYOSI COAL (PTY) LIMITEDNew Largo CollieryNkangala District Municipality, MpumalangaENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORTVolume 1: Main <strong>Report</strong>, Appendix A and B(1 of 7 volumes)(<strong>Final</strong>)Table of ContentsProject Information SheetTable of Content……………………..………………………………………….…………iExecutive Summary .................................................................................. xxvPreliminaries ................................................................................................. 11. Project Overview ................................................................................ 51.1 Project Motivation .............................................................................................................. 51.2 Project Location ................................................................................................................. 51.3 Background to Kusile Power Station .............................................................................. 71.4 Historical Mining within the Study Area and the New Largo CoalReserve ................................................................................................................................ 81.5 Need and Desirability of the Development ..................................................................... 81.5.1 Introduction and Impacts of the New Largo Colliery.....................................................81.5.2 Background to Electricity Generation in South Africa ...................................................91.5.3 Kusile Power Station Need and Desirability – A National Debate ................................91.5.4 National Government’s Integrated Resource Plan for Electricity 2010-2030(IRP2010)..................................................................................................................111.5.5 Kusile’s Role in the National Government’s Integrated Resource Plan(IRP2010) .................................................................................................................131.5.6 Coal Reserves and Mining in Mpumalanga ...............................................................141.5.7 New Largo Colliery Need and Desirability .................................................................151.5.8 No-Go Development – Alternative Coal Reserves Replace or SupplementNew Largo.................................................................................................................161.5.8.1 Coal from the Waterberg Coal Fields ...........................................................161.5.8.2 Central Coal Basin (<strong>co</strong>alfields around Witbank and Middelburg) ..................171.6 Previous <strong>EIA</strong> Process for the Same Project ................................................................. 18New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)i
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices1.7 Prospecting Rights and Proposed Mining Right Application .................................... 191.8 New Largo Coal Reserve ................................................................................................. 211.9 Eskom Coal Quality Requirements ................................................................................ 221.10 New Largo Coal Qualities ................................................................................................ 231.11 New Largo Mine Plan (Mining Footprint and Sequence) ............................................ 251.11.1 AAIC Base Case Mine Plan (Mine Plan Version 6) ....................................................251.12 Anglo American Inyosi Coal (Pty) Ltd Stages of Coal Supply to Kusile .................. 251.12.1 Stage 1 Coal Supply to Kusile via the Phola-Kusile Coal Conveyor ...........................251.12.2 Stage 2 and Stage 3 Coal Supply to Kusile from New Largo Colliery ........................251.12.3 Further Stages of Coal Supply to Kusile from other mining operations ......................261.13 New Largo Colliery Development Programme ............................................................. 261.13.1 New Largo Colliery Life of Mine .................................................................................261.13.2 Life of Coal Supply to Kusile ......................................................................................271.13.3 New Largo Colliery Mining Phases, Scheduling of Major ProjectComponents and Life of Mine....................................................................................271.13.4 <strong>EIA</strong> Programme and Opportunities for I&AP and Authority Involvement ....................281.13.4.1 <strong>EIA</strong> Process Timelines.................................................................................281.13.4.2 New Largo Colliery Project Implementation Programme ..............................292. Environmental Legal Requirements ............................................... 342.1 Previous <strong>EIA</strong> Process for the Same Project ................................................................. 342.2 Applicable Legislation and Approvals Required for New LargoColliery ............................................................................................................................... 342.2.1 National Environmental Management Act ..................................................................352.2.2 Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act.................................................392.2.3 National Water Act ....................................................................................................402.2.4 National Environmental Management: Waste Act ......................................................422.2.5 National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act ...............................................472.3 Applicable Legislation and Approvals Required for DraglineAssembly Pad Preparation ............................................................................................. 472.4 Structure and Content of the <strong>Final</strong> <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong> ............................................................ 482.4.1 National Environmental Management Act (No 107 of 1998) ......................................482.4.2 Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (No 28 of 2002) andrelevant Regulations .................................................................................................522.5 Responsible Authorities .................................................................................................. 593. Study Approach and Methodology ................................................. 593.1 Study Area ......................................................................................................................... 593.2 S<strong>co</strong>ping Phase .................................................................................................................. 593.2.1 S<strong>co</strong>ping Process and Study Out<strong>co</strong>mes .....................................................................593.3 Baseline Environmental Description ............................................................................. 603.4 <strong>EIA</strong> Phase .......................................................................................................................... 60New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)ii
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices3.4.1 <strong>EIA</strong> Process ..............................................................................................................603.4.2 <strong>EIA</strong> Programme and Opportunities for I&AP and Authority Involvement ....................613.5 Alternatives Investigated ................................................................................................ 613.6 Identification and Description of Impacts ..................................................................... 613.6.1 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................................633.6.2 Rating the Significance of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures..............643.6.3 Environmental Management Programme (EMP) .......................................................643.7 Public Participation and Authority Consultation to Date ........................................... 683.7.1 Identification of Interested and Affected Parties .........................................................683.7.2 Notifications to Interested and Affected Parties .........................................................683.7.3 Notifications to Relevant Authorities ..........................................................................693.7.4 Press Advertisements and Site Notices .....................................................................703.7.5 Registration of Interested and Affected Parties ..........................................................713.7.6 Background Information Document ...........................................................................713.7.7 General Public Meetings during S<strong>co</strong>ping ...................................................................713.7.8 Consultation with Landowners and Mining / Prospecting Right Holders.....................723.7.9 Community Meetings .................................................................................................723.7.10 Consultation about the first 4 Ml Mobile Water Treatment Plants and theWaste Management License Application Process .....................................................733.7.11 Review of the Draft and <strong>Final</strong> S<strong>co</strong>ping <strong>Report</strong> ...........................................................733.7.12 Review of the Draft and <strong>Final</strong> <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong> ..................................................................733.7.13 Review of the IWULA and IWWMP ...........................................................................743.7.14 DWA Review in terms of NEMWA .............................................................................743.7.15 Public Feedback Meetings and Open Day during the <strong>EIA</strong> Phase ..............................743.7.16 Consultation with Competent Authority, State Departments and Organs ofState .........................................................................................................................753.7.16.1 Authorities Meetings ....................................................................................753.7.16.2 Focused Authority Meetings ........................................................................753.8.14.3 Review of the S<strong>co</strong>ping and <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong> ........................................................763.8 Study Team ....................................................................................................................... 763.9 Review and Utilisation of the results of Specialist Studies undertakenprior to the acceptance of the S<strong>co</strong>ping <strong>Report</strong> and Plan of Study for<strong>EIA</strong> ...................................................................................................................................... 793.10 Specialist Studies ............................................................................................................. 813.11 Assumptions, Exclusions and Limitations ................................................................... 813.12 Uncertainties, Knowledge Gaps and Outstanding Issues .......................................... 913.13 Related Studies................................................................................................................. 914. Project Description........................................................................... 934.1 Key Project Design Criteria............................................................................................. 934.2 Mining Method and Operations ...................................................................................... 934.3 Major Project Activities and Components .................................................................... 954.4 Picture Gallery ................................................................................................................ 104New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)iii
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices4.5 Demolition and Replacement of a Section of the R545 Road .................................. 1094.6 Coal Processing Plant ................................................................................................... 1094.7 Water Treatment Plant (WTP) ....................................................................................... 1094.7.1 Capacity and Scheduling of Water Treatment ......................................................... 1094.7.2 Cost of Water Treatment ......................................................................................... 1104.8 Water Supply ................................................................................................................... 1124.8.1 Construction Phase ................................................................................................. 1124.8.2 Operational Phase .................................................................................................. 1134.9 Water Management Facilities ....................................................................................... 1134.9.1 Waste Water Management ...................................................................................... 1134.9.2 Storm Water Management ...................................................................................... 1144.9.2.1 Storm Water and Seepage Management in Dirty Areas ............................. 1144.9.2.2 Storm Water Management in Clean Areas................................................. 1144.9.3 Pollution Control Facilities ....................................................................................... 1154.9.4 Dust Suppression .................................................................................................... 1154.9.5 Water Discharges .................................................................................................... 1164.10 Waste Management Facilities ....................................................................................... 1164.10.1 Mineralogical Waste ................................................................................................ 1164.10.1.1 Spoils ........................................................................................................ 1164.10.1.2 Coal Discards ............................................................................................ 1174.10.2 Non Mineralogical Waste Incidental to Mining ......................................................... 1194.10.2.1 Waste Disposal Handling Area .................................................................. 1194.10.2.2 Sewage Treatment Plant ........................................................................... 1194.10.2.3 Waste Tyre Storage Area .......................................................................... 1194.10.2.4 Wash Bays ................................................................................................ 1204.10.2.5 Silt Traps ................................................................................................... 1204.10.2.6 Waste from WTP ....................................................................................... 1204.10.2.7 Demolition rubble, including road demolition rubble (from the demolitionof a section of the R545 ............................................................................. 1204.11 Soil Management and Rehabilitation ........................................................................... 1214.12 Post Mining Topography ............................................................................................... 1254.13 Water<strong>co</strong>urse Crossings ................................................................................................. 1284.14 Water Flow Diagrams ..................................................................................................... 1294.15 Water Balance ................................................................................................................. 1294.15.1 Water Make ............................................................................................................. 1304.15.1.1 Overall Water Make ................................................................................... 1304.15.1.2 Peak Abstraction Rates ............................................................................. 1394.15.2 Dewatering of Old Underground Mine Workings ...................................................... 1394.15.3 Water Use ............................................................................................................... 1404.15.4 Water Treatment ..................................................................................................... 1404.15.5 Water Storage Requirements .................................................................................. 1434.15.6 Salt Balance ............................................................................................................ 1534.16 Flood Lines...................................................................................................................... 1584.17 Communication Masts ................................................................................................... 158New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)iv
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices4.18 Power Supply .................................................................................................................. 1584.19 Fuel Storage .................................................................................................................... 1584.20 Employment .................................................................................................................... 1594.21 Project Phasing and Life of Mine ................................................................................. 1594.22 Project Cost .................................................................................................................... 1595. Development Alternatives ............................................................. 1605.1 No-Go Development – Alternative Coal Reserves to Replace NewLargo Colliery ................................................................................................................. 1605.2 Location of the Project .................................................................................................. 1605.3 Alternative Mine Plans ................................................................................................... 1605.3.1 AAIC Base Case Mine Plan (Mine Plan Version 6) .................................................. 1605.3.2 Alternative Mine Plan (Mine Plan Version 7)............................................................ 1615.3.3 AAIC’s Preferred Mine Plan –Mine Plan Version 6 .................................................. 1615.3.3.1 Technical Considerations .......................................................................... 1625.3.3.2 Financial Considerations ........................................................................... 1655.3.3.3 Environmental Considerations ................................................................... 1685.3.3.4 Synthesis ................................................................................................... 1725.4 Mining Method ................................................................................................................ 1735.5 Location of Surface Infrastructure ............................................................................... 1745.6 Alternative Options for Deviation of the R545............................................................ 1745.7 Soil Management and Rehabilitation ........................................................................... 1765.7.1 Current DMR guidelines and Anglo American guidelines on Land Capability .......... 1765.7.2 Initial Soil Management and Rehabilitation Options ................................................. 1775.7.2.1 Initial Re<strong>co</strong>mmendations by Environmental Specialists ............................. 1775.7.2.2 AAIC’s Initial Soil Management and Rehabilitation (as Presented in theDraft <strong>EIA</strong>)................................................................................................... 1795.7.3 AAIC Adopted Soil Management and Rehabilitation Strategy .................................. 1815.8 Clean Water Management ............................................................................................. 1825.9 Water Treatment ............................................................................................................. 1825.10 Use of Treated Water ..................................................................................................... 1835.11 Coal Transportation Alternatives ................................................................................. 1835.12 Wetland Mitigation and Offsets .................................................................................... 1835.12.1 Alternative Re<strong>co</strong>mmendations for Wetland Mitigation and Offsets ........................... 1835.12.1.1 Initial Re<strong>co</strong>mmendations by the Wetland Specialists ................................. 1835.12.1.2 Mine Plan Version 7 .................................................................................. 1865.12.1.3 Re<strong>co</strong>mmendations by I&APs ..................................................................... 1865.12.2 AAIC’s Strategy for Developing a Wetland Offset Plan ............................................ 1865.13 Closure Vision and Alternative End Land Uses ......................................................... 1876. Description of the Affected Environment .................................... 1886.1 Physical Environment .................................................................................................... 188New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)v
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices6.1.1 Climate .................................................................................................................... 1886.1.2 Topography ............................................................................................................. 1916.1.3 Soils ........................................................................................................................ 1916.1.4 Geology................................................................................................................... 1926.1.5 Air Quality ............................................................................................................... 1966.1.6 Surface Water ......................................................................................................... 1966.1.7 Groundwater ........................................................................................................... 2096.1.8 Noise ....................................................................................................................... 2126.2 Biological Environment ................................................................................................. 2166.2.1 Flora ........................................................................................................................ 2166.2.1.1 Eastern Highveld Grassland ...................................................................... 2166.2.1.2 Eastern Temperate Freshwater Wetlands.................................................. 2176.2.1.3 Rand Highveld Grassland .......................................................................... 2176.2.2 Fauna ...................................................................................................................... 2176.2.3 E<strong>co</strong>logical Sensitivity ............................................................................................... 2186.2.4 Wetlands ................................................................................................................. 2186.2.4.1 Valley Bottom Wetlands ............................................................................. 2216.2.4.2 Hill Slope Seepage Wetlands .................................................................... 2216.2.4.3 Pans .......................................................................................................... 2226.3 Social-E<strong>co</strong>nomic Environment ..................................................................................... 2316.3.1 E<strong>co</strong>nomic Features ................................................................................................. 2316.3.2 Population Structure ................................................................................................ 2316.3.3 Employment ............................................................................................................ 2346.3.4 Land Capability and Land Use ................................................................................ 2346.3.4.1 Arable Land ............................................................................................... 2346.3.4.2 Grazing Land ............................................................................................. 2356.3.4.3 Wilderness Land ........................................................................................ 2356.3.4.4 Wetlands ................................................................................................... 2356.3.5 Road Infrastructure.................................................................................................. 2376.4 Land Ownership and Sensitive Receptors ................................................................. 2406.5 Land Claims .................................................................................................................... 2696.6 Cultural and Heritage Resources ................................................................................. 2737. Results of Consultation with Interested and AffectedParties .............................................................................................. 2757.1 Issues Raised to Date .................................................................................................... 2757.1.1 Physical Environment .............................................................................................. 2757.1.1.1 Water Resources ....................................................................................... 2757.1.2 Air Quality ............................................................................................................... 2767.1.3 Noise, Blasting and Vibrations ................................................................................. 2767.1.3.1 Land and Agriculture ................................................................................. 2777.1.4 Biological Environment ............................................................................................ 2777.1.4.1 E<strong>co</strong>logy and Biodiversity ............................................................................ 2777.1.4.2 Wetland Impacts and Mitigation ................................................................. 277New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)vi
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices7.1.5 Technical and Design Considerations ..................................................................... 2787.1.6 Roads, Transport and Infrastructure ........................................................................ 2797.1.7 Demolition and Replacement of a Section of the R545 ............................................ 2797.1.8 Socio-E<strong>co</strong>nomic Issues ........................................................................................... 2797.1.9 Prospecting and Mining Rights ................................................................................ 2807.1.10 The <strong>EIA</strong> Process ..................................................................................................... 2807.1.11 Land Claims and Heritage Resources ..................................................................... 2817.1.12 Closure and Rehabilitation ...................................................................................... 2817.2 Response to Issues Raised to Date ............................................................................. 2818. Environmental Impact Assessment .............................................. 283Physical Environment .............................................................................. 2848.1 Climate and Greenhouse Gasses ................................................................................ 2848.1.1 Baseline / Existing Environment Conditions ............................................................ 2848.1.2 Impact Assessment ................................................................................................. 2848.1.2.1 Project Impacts .......................................................................................... 2848.2 Surface Water ................................................................................................................. 2858.2.1 Description of Baseline Environment Conditions ..................................................... 2858.2.1.1 Baseline Impact Sources ........................................................................... 2858.2.1.2 Synthesis of Baseline Impacts ................................................................... 2858.2.2 Impact Assessment ................................................................................................. 2858.2.2.1 Project Impact Sources.............................................................................. 2858.2.2.2 Project Impacts .......................................................................................... 2868.2.2.3 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 2918.2.2.4 Impacts of the No-Go / Alternative Development ....................................... 2928.2.3 Conclusions and Key Findings ................................................................................ 2928.3 Groundwater ................................................................................................................... 2938.3.1 Description of Baseline Environment Conditions ..................................................... 2938.3.1.1 Baseline Impact Sources ........................................................................... 2938.3.1.2 Synthesis of Baseline Impacts ................................................................... 2938.3.2 Impact Assessment ................................................................................................. 2958.3.2.1 Project Impact Sources.............................................................................. 2958.3.2.2 Project Impacts .......................................................................................... 2968.3.2.3 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 3018.3.2.4 Impacts of No-Go / Alternative Development ............................................. 3038.3.3 Conclusions and Key Findings ................................................................................ 3058.3.4 Specialist Re<strong>co</strong>mmendations .................................................................................. 3068.4 Air Quality........................................................................................................................ 3078.4.1 Description of Baseline Environment Conditions ..................................................... 3078.4.1.1 Wind-blow Dust from Eskom’s Ash Dams and Dumps ............................... 3078.4.1.2 Materials Handling ..................................................................................... 3078.4.1.3 Industrial Emissions ................................................................................... 3078.4.1.4 Household Fuel Burning ............................................................................ 3088.4.1.5 Vehicle Exhaust Emissions ........................................................................ 308New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)vii
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices8.4.1.6 Fugitive Dust Emissions from Open Cast Mining ....................................... 3088.4.1.7 Other Fugitive Dust Sources ...................................................................... 3098.4.2 Measured Baseline Ambient Air Quality .................................................................. 3098.4.2.1 Dust Fallout Network at Klipspruit .............................................................. 3098.4.2.2 Eskom Monitoring Stations ........................................................................ 3108.4.2.3 AAIC Air Quality Monitoring ....................................................................... 3108.4.3 Impact Assessment ................................................................................................. 3178.4.3.1 Project Impact Sources.............................................................................. 3178.4.3.2 Project Impacts .......................................................................................... 3188.4.3.3 Predicted Dustfall Rates ............................................................................ 3208.4.3.4 Inhalable Particulate Matter of less than 2.5 µm (PM 2.5 )............................. 3208.4.4 Conclusions and Key Findings ................................................................................ 3218.4.5 Specialist Re<strong>co</strong>mmendations .................................................................................. 3238.5 Soils ................................................................................................................................. 323Biological Environment ............................................................................ 3238.6 Terrestrial and Aquatic Habitats .................................................................................. 3238.6.1 Description of Baseline Environment Conditions ..................................................... 3238.6.1.1 Existing Impact Sources ............................................................................ 3238.6.1.2 Synthesis of Baseline / Existing Impacts .................................................... 3268.6.2 Impact Assessment ................................................................................................. 3268.6.2.1 Project Impacts Sources ............................................................................ 3268.6.2.2 Project Impacts .......................................................................................... 3278.6.2.3 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 3318.6.2.4 Impacts of the No-Go / Alternative Development ....................................... 3328.6.3 Conclusions and Key Findings ................................................................................ 3338.6.3.1 Terrestrial <strong>co</strong>mponent ................................................................................ 3338.6.3.2 Aquatic <strong>co</strong>mponent .................................................................................... 3348.6.4 Specialist Re<strong>co</strong>mmendations .................................................................................. 3348.6.4.1 Terrestrial <strong>co</strong>mponent ................................................................................ 3348.6.4.2 Aquatic <strong>co</strong>mponent .................................................................................... 3348.7 Wetland Habitats ............................................................................................................ 3358.7.1 Description of Baseline Environment Conditions ..................................................... 3358.7.1.1 Existing Impact Sources ............................................................................ 3358.7.1.2 Synthesis of Baseline / Existing Impacts .................................................... 3358.7.2 Impact Assessment ................................................................................................. 3438.7.2.1 Project Impacts Sources ............................................................................ 3438.7.2.2 Project Impacts .......................................................................................... 343Disruption of hydrology- alteration of wetlands ........................................................ 344Direct loss of wetland vegetation and associated fauna .......................................... 345Increased sediment movement off the site .............................................................. 345Soil Compaction ...................................................................................................... 345Increased sediment load in the valley bottoms ........................................................ 345Deterioration of Water Quality due to Release of Storm water ................................. 345New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)viii
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesIncreased sediment movement off the site and into the wetlands from bare soilareas. ........................................................................................................ 3468.7.2.3 Impacts of the No-Go / Alternative development ........................................ 3468.7.3 Conclusions and Key Findings ................................................................................ 3468.7.4 Wetland Specialist Re<strong>co</strong>mmendations .................................................................... 349Social and E<strong>co</strong>nomic Environment ......................................................... 3498.8 Social ............................................................................................................................... 3498.8.1 Description of Baseline Environment Conditions ..................................................... 3498.8.1.1 Baseline Impact Sources ........................................................................... 3498.8.1.2 Synthesis of Baseline Impacts ................................................................... 3498.8.2 Impact Assessment ................................................................................................. 3498.8.2.1 Project Impact Sources.............................................................................. 3498.8.2.2 Project Impacts .......................................................................................... 3508.8.2.3 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 3528.8.2.4 Impacts of the No-Go / Alternative development ........................................ 3528.8.3 Conclusions and Key Findings ................................................................................ 3538.8.4 Specialist Re<strong>co</strong>mmendations .................................................................................. 3538.9 E<strong>co</strong>nomic ......................................................................................................................... 3548.9.1 New Largo Colliery Specialist E<strong>co</strong>nomic Impact Assessment .................................. 3548.9.1.1 Impact on Mining Area ............................................................................... 3548.9.1.2 Impact on Regional E<strong>co</strong>nomy .................................................................... 3558.9.1.3 Impact on Property Values ........................................................................ 3578.9.2 Specialist E<strong>co</strong>nomic Assessment of the R545 Re-Alignment .................................. 3588.9.2.1 Impact on Local & Regional E<strong>co</strong>nomy ....................................................... 3588.9.2.2 Impact on Property Values ........................................................................ 3588.9.3 AAIC’s Assessment of the Value of the Coal associated with theHoningkrantz Pan and immediate surroundings and the Cost Implicationsof this Coal is not Mined (Cost of Mine Plan Version 6 <strong>co</strong>mpared to MinePlan Version 7)........................................................................................................ 3598.9.4 E<strong>co</strong>system Services Value ...................................................................................... 3608.9.4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 3608.9.4.2 Nature, distribution and value of aquatic e<strong>co</strong>system services of theCatchment ................................................................................................. 3618.10 Visual ............................................................................................................................... 3668.10.1 Description of Baseline Environment Conditions ..................................................... 3668.10.1.1 Baseline Impact Sources ........................................................................... 3668.10.1.2 Synthesis of Baseline / Existing Impacts .................................................... 3668.10.2 Impact Assessment ................................................................................................. 3678.10.2.1 Project Impacts Sources ............................................................................ 3678.10.2.2 Project Impacts .......................................................................................... 3688.10.2.3 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 3788.10.2.4 Impacts of the No-Go / Alternative Development ....................................... 3788.10.3 Conclusions and Key Findings ................................................................................ 3798.10.4 Specialist Re<strong>co</strong>mmendations .................................................................................. 379New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)ix
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices8.11 Traffic ............................................................................................................................... 3798.11.1 Description of Baseline Environment Conditions ..................................................... 3798.11.1.1 Trip Re-assignment ................................................................................... 3798.11.1.2 Additional Vehicle Kilometres Travelled ..................................................... 3818.11.1.3 Sensitivity Analysis Results ....................................................................... 3838.11.1.4 Cost Comparison ....................................................................................... 3838.11.2 Trip Generation, Distribution and Assignment ......................................................... 3858.11.2.1 Trip Generation.......................................................................................... 3868.11.2.2 Trip Distribution and Assignment ............................................................... 3888.11.2.3 Traffic Growth ............................................................................................ 3928.11.3 Operational Assessment ......................................................................................... 3928.11.3.1 Levels of Service ....................................................................................... 3928.11.3.2 Operational Assessment ............................................................................ 3938.11.3.3 SIDRA Analysis ......................................................................................... 3938.11.3.4 Scenario B1: New Largo Construction Traffic (2012) ................................. 3948.11.4 New Largo Colliery Access...................................................................................... 4058.11.4.1 Operational Assessment ............................................................................ 4058.11.4.2 SIDRA Analysis ......................................................................................... 4058.11.5 Road Safety Issues ................................................................................................. 4068.11.5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 4068.11.5.2 Shoulder Sight Distance ............................................................................ 4078.11.5.3 Dust ........................................................................................................... 4078.11.5.4 Road Surface Conditions ........................................................................... 4078.11.6 Conclusions and Key Findings ................................................................................ 4088.11.7 Specialist Re<strong>co</strong>mmendations .................................................................................. 4088.12 Noise ................................................................................................................................ 4098.12.1 Description of Baseline Environment Conditions ..................................................... 4098.12.1.1 Baseline Impact Sources ........................................................................... 4098.12.1.2 Synthesis of Baseline Impacts ................................................................... 4108.12.2 Impact Assessment ................................................................................................. 4118.12.2.1 Project Impact Sources.............................................................................. 4118.12.2.2 Project Impacts .......................................................................................... 4128.12.2.3 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 4168.12.2.4 Impacts of the No-Go / Alternative Development ....................................... 4188.12.3 Conclusions and Key Findings ................................................................................ 4198.12.4 Specialist Re<strong>co</strong>mmendations .................................................................................. 4198.13 Soils and Land Capability ............................................................................................. 4198.13.1 Description of Baseline Environment Conditions ..................................................... 4198.13.1.1 Baseline Impact Sources ........................................................................... 4198.13.1.2 Synthesis of Baseline Impacts ................................................................... 4208.13.2 Impact Assessment ................................................................................................. 4228.13.2.1 Project Impact Sources.............................................................................. 4238.13.2.2 Project Impacts .......................................................................................... 4238.13.2.3 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 4268.13.2.4 Impacts of No-Go / Alternative Development ............................................. 4278.13.3 Conclusions and Key Findings ................................................................................ 427New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)x
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices8.13.4 Specialist Re<strong>co</strong>mmendations .................................................................................. 4298.14 Vibrations and Blasting ................................................................................................. 4298.14.1 Description of Baseline Environment Conditions ..................................................... 4298.14.2 Impact Assessment ................................................................................................. 4308.14.2.1 Project Impact Sources.............................................................................. 4308.14.2.2 Project Impacts .......................................................................................... 4308.14.2.3 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 4358.14.2.4 Impacts of No-Go / Alternative Development ............................................. 4368.14.3 Conclusions and Key Findings ................................................................................ 4368.14.4 Specialist Re<strong>co</strong>mmendations .................................................................................. 4368.15 Cultural and Heritage Resources ................................................................................. 4368.15.1 Description of Baseline Environmental Conditions .................................................. 4368.15.2 Impact Assessment ................................................................................................. 4378.15.2.1 Project Impact Sources.............................................................................. 4378.15.2.2 Project Impacts .......................................................................................... 4388.15.2.3 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 4388.15.2.4 Impacts of the No-Go / Alternative Development ....................................... 4398.15.3 Conclusions, Key Findings and Re<strong>co</strong>mmendations ................................................. 4399. Summary of Environmental Impacts Associated withAAIC Base Case Mine Plan (Mine Plan Version 6) ...................... 4409.1 Construction Phase Impacts – Mine Plan Version 6 ................................................. 4419.2 Operational Phase Impacts – Mine Plan Version 6 .................................................... 4429.3 De<strong>co</strong>mmissioning and Closure Impacts – Mine Plan Version 6 .............................. 4439.4 Post Closure Impacts – Mine Plan Version 6 ............................................................. 4449.5 Comparison of Mine Plan Version 6 and Mine Plan Version 7 Impacts .................. 44510. Environmental Impact Statement ................................................. 45210.1 Project Motivation and Location .................................................................................. 45210.2 Project Need and Desirability ....................................................................................... 45210.3 No-Go Development ....................................................................................................... 45210.4 Comparative Assessment of the Proposed Activity and IdentifiedAlternatives ..................................................................................................................... 45310.5 Key Issues and Concerns Identified by Authorities and I&APs .............................. 45910.6 Uncertainties, Gaps and Outstanding Issues............................................................. 46410.7 Conclusions and Key Findings .................................................................................... 467New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)xi
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices11. Consultant Declaration .................................................................. 47012. Specialist Team Declarations of Independence .......................... 47113. Environmental Management Plan (EMP)...................................... 47213.1 EMP Structure ................................................................................................................. 47213.2 Appointments, Roles and Responsibilities ................................................................ 47313.3 Rehabilitation and Closure ........................................................................................... 47413.3.1 Closure Vision ......................................................................................................... 47513.3.2 Areas for Establishment of End Land Uses ............................................................. 47613.3.3 Identification of Potential End Land Uses ................................................................ 47613.3.4 Conceptual End Land Use Plan............................................................................... 47713.3.5 Rehabilitation and Closure Costs ............................................................................ 48213.3.5.1 Immediate Closure .................................................................................... 48213.3.5.2 Planned Closure ........................................................................................ 48413.3.5.3 Post Closure Management of Residual Environmental Impacts ................. 48513.3.6 Method of Financial Provision ................................................................................. 485List of Appendices .................................................................................... 486References ................................................................................................. 489LIST OF TABLESTable A: <strong>Report</strong> Distribution List .................................................................. Preliminaries (front of report)Table 1-1: <strong>Final</strong> Policy Adjusted IRP 2010 – technology mix for adding electricity generatingcapacity between 2010 and 2030 .....................................................................................................13Table 1-2: Summary of the ‘<strong>Final</strong> Policy Adjusted IRP 2010’ illustrating Medupi and Kusile PowerStations role in supplying electricity generation capacity in South ....................................................14Table 1-3: Prospecting rights <strong>co</strong>vering the New Largo Coal Reserves ..................................................19Table 1-4: Kusile Coal Quality Specifications........................................................................................22Table 1-5: New Largo Colliery Mining Phases and Stages of Coal Supply to Kusile .............................28Table 1-6: Simplified <strong>EIA</strong> Process with Explanation of Opportunities for Involvement ...........................29Table 1-7: Simplified Project Implementation Programme with Explanation of OpportunitiesContinued Consultation and Participation (Mine Plan Version 6 & Mine Plan Version 7) ..................30Table 2-1: Listed Activities Applicable to New Largo Colliery (GNR 544, GNR 545 and GNR 546) .......35Table 2-2: List of Section 21 Water Uses Applicable to the New Largo Colliery (<strong>co</strong>vering bothMine Plan Version 6 and Mine Plan Version 7A) ..............................................................................40Table 2-3: List of Waste Activities requiring a Waste Management License in terms of theNEMWA during the Construction Phase and First Two Years of Operation of the New LargoColliery .............................................................................................................................................42Table 2-4: Structuring of the S<strong>co</strong>ping <strong>Report</strong> in terms of GNR543 Requirements (NEMA) ...................48Table 2-5: Structuring of the EMP in terms of GNR 543 Section 33 (NEMA) ........................................50New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)xii
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesTable 2-6: Structuring of the Specialist Studies in terms of GNR 543 Section 32 (NEMA) ....................51Table 2-7: Structuring of the <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong> in terms of MPRDA and relevant Regulations ........................52Table 3-1: Impact Rating System ..........................................................................................................65Table 3-2: Study Team .........................................................................................................................77Table 3-3: Key Dates for Mining ..........................................................................................................85Table 4-1: Project Activities per Project Phase, with references to Maps and Drawings .......................95Table 4-2: Details for in-pit discarding <strong>co</strong>mpartments ......................................................................... 119Table 4-3: Expected Mine Water Make ............................................................................................... 130Table 4-4: Peak Summer Abstraction Rates From Each Pit ................................................................ 139Table 4-5: Water Use ......................................................................................................................... 140Table 4-6: Treatment rates used in the modelling ............................................................................... 142Table 4-7: Extreme rainfall depths ...................................................................................................... 146Table 4-8: Minimum volume required in 1200 Ml storage dams at start of the dry season .................. 152Table 4-9: Fuel Usage and Storage Capacity for New Largo Colliery ................................................. 158Table 5-1: Summarised Effect of Excluding the Honingkrantz Coal Reserves (~100 Mt of Coal) onCoal Qualities ................................................................................................................................ 162Table 5-2: Main Capex Events for Mine Plan Version 6 versus Mine Plan Version 7 .......................... 166Table 5-3: AAIC’s calculation of the Financial Impact of Mine Plan Version 6 <strong>co</strong>mpared to MinePlan Version 7 ............................................................................................................................... 167Table 5-4: AAIC’s Calculation of Financial Cost of Not Mining Honingkrantz Pan (Comparing theCosts of Mine Plan Version 6 Versus Mine Plan Version 7) ........................................................... 167Table 5-5: Best Practise Depths ......................................................................................................... 180Table 5-6: Depths restoring sub surface water flow ............................................................................ 180Table 6-1: Long-term monthly rainfall figures (mm) for various stations within the Witbank region ...... 188Table 6-2: Mean Annual Runoff (MAR) for the New Largo mining area .............................................. 197Table 6-3: Dry weather flows of the affected rivers at the New Largo mining area .............................. 197Table 6-4: Flood peaks and flood volumes for the New Largo mining area ......................................... 198Table 6-5: Interim RWQO for Management Units 21 and 22 of the Olifants River Catchment(DNWRP. 2009) ............................................................................................................................. 199Table 6-6: Surface Water Monitoring points relevant to the New Largo mining area ........................... 200Table 6-7: Typical background groundwater quality in the shallow weathered aquifer (2006) ............. 209Table 6-8: Equivalent Continuous Rating Levels for Outdoor Noise (SANS 10103) ............................ 212Table 6-9: Expected <strong>co</strong>mmunity response to an increase in ambient noise level (SANS 10103) ........ 212Table 6-10: Typical outdoor ambient noise levels in various districts (SANS 10103) .......................... 213Table 6-11: Area of wetlands within the study area............................................................................. 218Table 6-12: General characteristics of the wetlands re<strong>co</strong>rded in the study area ................................. 220Table 6-13: Population, growth and household estimates from 2001 .................................................. 232Table 6-14: Affected Properties within the Proposed New Largo Mining Right Area ........................... 241Table 6-15: Affected Properties along the R545 Route Option 1A ...................................................... 259Table 6-16: Affected Properties along the R545 Route Option 1B ...................................................... 262Table 6-17: Affected Properties along the R545 Route Option 2......................................................... 265Table 6-18: Summary of Land Claims Registered with the Regional Land Claims Commission(2007) ............................................................................................................................................ 269Table 8-1: Predicted PM 10 ground level <strong>co</strong>ncentrations at the nearest sensitive receptor due tothe operational phase at the New Largo Colliery ............................................................................ 318Table 8-2: Predicted dustfall rates during the operation phase at the closest sensitive receptor ......... 320New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)xiii
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesTable 8-3: Predicted ground level <strong>co</strong>ncentrations at the nearest sensitive receptor due to theoperation phase at the New Largo Colliery..................................................................................... 321Table 8-4: Summary of PES categories obtained for the sites assessed on the Wilge River,Saalboomspruit and tributaries after the high and low flow assessment in 2010. ........................... 325Table 8-5: Summary of the PES and EIS analysis of the wetlands on the New Largo site, as apercentage of the area of each wetland type .................................................................................. 335Table 8-6: Mining activity expansion and affected activity, Mine Plan Version 6 versus Mine Plan7 .................................................................................................................................................... 354Table 8-7: Cumulative Loss in Production Impact, Mine Plan Version 6 versus Mine Plan 7 .............. 355Table 8-8: E<strong>co</strong>nomic Value Gained with Mining Activity ..................................................................... 355Table 8-9: E<strong>co</strong>nomic Impacts of Capital Investment, NBS and GGP – Rand ...................................... 356Table 8-10: Agriculture GVA loss (including poultry) ........................................................................... 356Table 8-11: Employment in Agriculture Loss (including poultry) .......................................................... 357Table 8-12: AAIC’s calculation of the Financial impact of Mine Plan Version 6 <strong>co</strong>mpared to MinePlan Version 7 ............................................................................................................................... 359Table 8-13: AAIC’s Calculation of Financial Cost of Not Mining Honingkrantz Pan (Comparing theCosts of Mine Plan Version 6 Versus Mine Plan Version 7) ........................................................... 360Table 8-14: Summary of the Value of River E<strong>co</strong>system Services in the Upper Olifants Catchment .... 362Table 8-15: Summary of the Value of Wetland E<strong>co</strong>system Services in the Upper OlifantsCatchment ..................................................................................................................................... 364Table 8-16: Cordon 1 Light Vehicles ................................................................................................... 380Table 8-17: Cordon 1 Heavy Vehicles ................................................................................................ 380Table 8-18: Sensitivity Analysis Ranges ............................................................................................. 380Table 8-19: Sensitivity Analysis Results ............................................................................................. 383Table 8-20: Heavy Vehicle Running Costs ......................................................................................... 384Table 8-21: Vehicle Operating Cost Summary (NPV) ......................................................................... 384Table 8-22: Option 1 Construction Estimate ....................................................................................... 385Table 8-23: Option 2 Construction Estimate ....................................................................................... 385Table 8-24: Total Cost Summary ........................................................................................................ 385Table 8-25: Kusile Power Station Construction Phase Trip Generation .............................................. 386Table 8-26: New Largo Construction Trip Generation, Base Year (2012) ........................................... 387Table 8-27: New Largo Construction Trip Generation, Horizon Year (2014) ....................................... 387Table 8-28: Kusile Power Station Operating Phase Trip Generation ................................................... 387Table 8-29: New Largo Skilled Labour ................................................................................................ 387Table 8-30: Base Year (2015) Operation Stage Trip Generation ........................................................ 388Table 8-31: Horizon Year (2025) Operation Stage Trip Generation .................................................... 388Table 8-32: Kusile Power Station Construction Stage Traffic .............................................................. 388Table 8-33: New Largo Construction Stage Traffic (2012) .................................................................. 389Table 8-34: New Largo Construction Stage Traffic (2014) .................................................................. 390Table 8-35: Kusile Power Station Operation Stage Traffic .................................................................. 390Table 8-36: New Largo Colliery Base Year (2015) Operation Traffic................................................... 391Table 8-37: New Largo Colliery Horizon Year (2025) Operation Traffic .............................................. 392Table 8-38: SIDRA Results Summaries – Scenarios A, B1 and B2 .................................................... 396Table 8-39: SIDRA Results Summaries – Scenarios A, C1 and D1 .................................................... 400Table 8-40: SIDRA Results Summaries – Scenarios A, C2 and D2 .................................................... 404Table 8-41: SIDRA Results Summary................................................................................................. 405New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)xiv
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesTable 9-1: Comparison of Mine Plan Version 6 and Mine Plan Version 7 Impacts .............................. 445Table 10-1: Alternatives Assessed in the <strong>EIA</strong> and Comments on Preferred DevelopmentAlternatives .................................................................................................................................... 453Table 10-2: Key Issues and Concerns Identified by Authorities and I&APs and How They AreAddressed...................................................................................................................................... 459LIST OF FIGURESFigure 1-1: Locality of the proposed New Largo Colliery (Future Mining Right Area and MiningReserve Boundary) and R545 Replacement Options .........................................................................6Figure 1-2: Growth and mix of generation capacity in South Africa – 2010 to 2030: <strong>Final</strong> PolicyAdjusted IRP2010 (on right) <strong>co</strong>mpared to the 2010 status quo (on left) ...........................................12Figure 1-3: Historical Underground Mining within the New Largo Coal Reserve ...................................20Figure 1-4: Illustration of the Geological Profile the Coal Seams found in the New LargoCoal Reserve ...................................................................................................................................21Figure 1-5: Schematic Section through Geological Profile of the New Largo Coal Reserve.Showing Coal Seam No. 2 and 4 Targeted for Mining ......................................................................22Figure 1-6: New Largo Coal Qualities – Composite Ash Percentage (Air Dried) for Coal Resource ......24Figure 1-7: New Largo Coal Qualities – Composite Ash Percentage (Air Dried) with SelectiveMining of Coal ..................................................................................................................................24Figure 1-8: New Largo Coal Qualities – Composite Ash Percentage (Air Dried) After Beneficiation......24Figure 1-9: AAIC Optimised Base Case Mine Plan (Version 6) .............................................................31Figure 1-10: Alternative Mine Plan (Version 7D) ...................................................................................32Figure 1-11: Comparison of Alternative Mine Plan Version 6 and 7D Footprints ...................................33Figure 4-1: Illustration of Mining Method ...............................................................................................94Figure 4-2: Schematic of Proposed Mine Infrastructure (Additional Maps and Drawings Suppliedin Appendix T, <strong>EIA</strong> Volume 7) ........................................................................................................ 103Figure 4-3: In-Pit Discard Disposal and Decant Points ....................................................................... 118Figure 4-4: Example of A and B Soil Horizons (for Avalon Soil Form) ................................................. 122Figure 4-5: Soil Management and Rehabilitation Sequence (A: Pre Mining Conditions, B:Conventional Soil Management and Rehabilitation, C: Best Practice Soil Management andRehabilitation Adopted for New Largo Colliery) .............................................................................. 123Figure 4-6: Depth of Utilisable Soil (topsoil and upper portion of subsoil) (A and B horizons) ............. 124Figure 4-7: Depth to Bottom of Friable Weathering Horizon ................................................................ 124Figure 4-8: Estimated Total Soil Stripping Depth (Combined Depth of Utilisable Soil and Pre-Stripped Soft Overburden) ............................................................................................................. 125Figure 4-9: Estimated Total Reinstated Soil Depth (Combined Depth of Utilisable Soil and Pre-Stripped Soft Overburden) ............................................................................................................. 125Figure 4-10: Post Mining Topography (Mine Plan Version 6) .............................................................. 127Figure 4-11: Post Mining Topography – Northern Pit Ramps A5 - A2 (Mine Plan Version 6) .............. 128Figure 4-12: Post Mining Topography – Northern Pit Ramps A1, C2, C1 (Mine Plan Version 6) ......... 128Figure 4-13: Post Mining Topography – Central Pit Ramps E1 – E4 & D1 (Mine Plan Version 6) ....... 128Figure 4-14: Post Mining Topography – South Pit Ramps F1, F2, J1 (Mine Plan Version 6) ............... 128Figure 4-15: Schematic flow diagram – Mine Plan Version 6 – Sheet 1 of 3 (Appendix G, Figure5.6.1a) ........................................................................................................................................... 131New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)xv
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesFigure 4-16: Schematic flow diagram – Mine Plan Version 6 – Sheet 2 of 3 (Appendix G, Figure5.6.1b) ........................................................................................................................................... 132Figure 4-17: Schematic flow diagram – Mine Plan Version 6 – Sheet 3 of 3 (Appendix G, Figure5.6.1c) ............................................................................................................................................ 133Figure 4-18: Schematic flow diagram – Mine Plan Version 7D – Sheet 1 of 3 (Appendix G, Figure5.6.1d) ........................................................................................................................................... 134Figure 4-19: Schematic flow diagram – Mine Plan Version 7D – Sheet 2 of 3 (Surface WaterSpecialist <strong>Report</strong> Figure 5.6.1e) ..................................................................................................... 135Figure 4-20: Schematic flow diagram – Mine Plan Version 7D – Sheet 3 of 3 (Surface WaterSpecialist <strong>Report</strong> Figure 5.6.1f) ...................................................................................................... 136Figure 4-21: Graphical water balance for average water make during the operational and postclosure phases of mining showing seasonal variations – Mine Plan Version 6 (Surface WaterSpecialist <strong>Report</strong> Figure 5.6.1g) ..................................................................................................... 137Figure 4-22: Graphical water balance for average water make during the operational and postclosure phases of mining showing seasonal variations – Mine Plan Version 7D (Surface WaterSpecialist <strong>Report</strong> Figure 5.6.1h) ..................................................................................................... 137Figure 4-23: Mine water make for the individual opencast pits – Mine Plan Version 6 (SurfaceWater Specialist <strong>Report</strong> Figure 5.6.1i) ............................................................................................ 138Figure 4-24: Mine water make for the individual opencast pits – Mine Plan Version 7D (SurfaceWater Specialist <strong>Report</strong> Figure 5.6.1j) ............................................................................................ 138Figure 4-25: Surplus water and treatment rate – Mine Plan Version 6 (Appendix G, Figure 5.9a) ....... 141Figure 4-26: Surplus water and treatment rate – Mine Plan Version 7D (Appendix G, Figure 5.9b) .... 141Figure 4-27: Graph of water make versus usage – Mine Plan Version 6 (Appendix G, Figure 5.9c) ... 142Figure 4-28: Graph of water make versus usage – Mine Plan Version 7D (Appendix G, Figure5.9d) .............................................................................................................................................. 143Figure 4-29: Modelled performance of 1200 Ml dam over life of mine – Mine Plan Version 6(Appendix G, Figure 5.10.1a) ......................................................................................................... 144Figure 4-30: Modelled performance of 1200 Ml dam over life of mine – Mine Plan Version 7D(Appendix G, Figure 5.10.1b) ......................................................................................................... 145Figure 4-31: Graph of maximum storage required for extreme rainfall over the Life of Mine,together with available in-pit storage – Mine Plan Version 6 (Appendix G, Figure 5.10.2.2a) ......... 147Figure 4-32: Graph of maximum storage required for extreme rainfall over the life of mine,together with available in-pit storage – Mine Plan Version 7D (Figure 5.10.2.2b) ........................... 148Figure 4-33: Storage required in addition to in-pit storage for extreme rainfall – Mine Plan Version6 (Appendix G, Figure 5.10.2.2c) ................................................................................................... 148Figure 4-34: Storage required in addition to in-pit storage for extreme rainfall – Mine Plan Version7D (Appendix G, Figure 5.10.2.2d) ................................................................................................ 149Figure 4-35: Storage required versus available storage in the first 9 years of mining – Mine PlanVersion 6 (Appendix G, Figure 5.10.2.2e) ...................................................................................... 149Figure 4-36: Storage required versus available storage in the first 9 years of mining – Mine PlanVersion 7D (Appendix G, Figure 5.10.2.2f)..................................................................................... 150Figure 4-37: Storage required for wet rainfall sequences, last 5 years of mining – Mine PlanVersion 6 (Appendix G, Figure 5.10.2.3g) ...................................................................................... 151Figure 4-38: Schematic salt balance diagram – Mine Plan Version 6 – Sheet 1 of 2 (Appendix G,Figure 5.11a) ................................................................................................................................. 154New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)xvi
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesFigure 4-39: Schematic salt balance diagram – Mine Plan Version 6 – Sheet 2 of 2 (Appendix G,Figure 5.11b) ................................................................................................................................. 155Figure 4-40: Schematic Salt Balance Diagram – Mine Plan Version 7D – Sheet 1 of 2 (AppendixG, Figure 5.11c) ............................................................................................................................. 156Figure 4-41: Schematic Salt Balance Diagram – Mine Plan Version 7D – Sheet 2 of 2 (AppendixG, Figure 5.11d) ............................................................................................................................. 157Figure 5-1: Sequencing of Coal Supply to Kusile Based on AAIC Base Case Mine (Mine PlanVersion 6) ...................................................................................................................................... 165Figure 5-2: Sequencing of Coal Supply to Kusile Based on the Alternative Mine (Mine PlanVersion 7D), this mine plan was <strong>co</strong>nsidered to reduce the total impact of New Largo Collieryon Wetlands ................................................................................................................................... 165Figure 5-3: Plan of Sand Mining on farm Honingkrantz (1) ................................................................. 170Figure 5-4: Plan of Sand Mining on farm Honingkrantz (2) ................................................................. 171Figure 5-5: Combined soils for stripping ............................................................................................. 181Figure 5-6: Direct and indirect wetland loss as a result of the proposed mining as per WetlandOffset Strategy (Appendix U) ......................................................................................................... 187Figure 6-1: Daily temperature profile (Kendal weather station, January 2005 to April 2011) ............... 188Figure 6-2: Location of the Kendal 2 meteorological data set in relation to the proposed NewLargo Colliery ................................................................................................................................. 189Figure 6-3: Annual average and day/night time wind roses (Kendal 2 weather station) ...................... 190Figure 6-4: Seasonal average wind roses (Kendal 2 weather station)................................................. 190Figure 6-5: Topography ...................................................................................................................... 193Figure 6-6: Geology ............................................................................................................................ 194Figure 6-7: Surrounding Mining Areas ................................................................................................ 195Figure 6-8: Catchments and Rivers .................................................................................................... 210Figure 6-9: Surface Water Monitoring Points ...................................................................................... 211Figure 6-10: Baseline Average daytime (06:00 to 22:00) and night-time (22:00 to 06:00) AmbientLevels ............................................................................................................................................ 215Figure 6-11: Schematic illustration of the types of wetlands and the topographical settings oftypical wetlands found in and around the study area ...................................................................... 219Figure 6-12: Radial plots showing the dominant anions and cations ................................................... 224Figure 6-13: Regional Vegetation ....................................................................................................... 225Figure 6-14: E<strong>co</strong>logical Sensitivity ...................................................................................................... 226Figure 6-15: Terrestrial Biodiversity Assessment (Mpumalanga Conservation Plan) .......................... 227Figure 6-16: Wetlands ac<strong>co</strong>rding to WCS and SANBI 2010 ................................................................ 228Figure 6-17: Critical Biodiversity Areas (MDEDET) ............................................................................. 229Figure 6-18: Frithia Habitats (with 100 m buffer zone) ........................................................................ 230Figure 6-19: Age distribution (shown as percentage, source: Ptersa, 2011) ....................................... 232Figure 6-20: Gender distribution (shown as percentage, source: Ptersa, 2011). ................................. 233Figure 6-21: Highest education level – people 20 years or older (shown as percentage) .................... 233Figure 6-22: Road Infrastructure ......................................................................................................... 238Figure 6-23: Linear Infrastructure ....................................................................................................... 239Figure 6-24: Land Capability ............................................................................................................... 270Figure 6-25: Land Cover (SANBI 2008) .............................................................................................. 271Figure 6-26: Land Ownership (as at time of writing report) ................................................................. 272Figure 6-27: Known Heritage Sites and Artefacts ............................................................................... 274New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)xvii
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesFigure 8-1: AAIC New Largo Dust Monitoring Network ....................................................................... 311Figure 8-2: AAIC New Largo Monitoring Results – Non-Directional Dust Fallout (November 2011) .... 312Figure 8-3: AAIC New Largo Monitoring Results – Directional Dust Fallout (November 2011) ............ 313Figure 8-4: AAIC New Largo Monitoring Results – Non- Directional Dust Fallout (December 2011) ... 313Figure 8-5: AAIC New Largo Monitoring Results - Directional Dust Fallout (December 2011) ............ 314Figure 8-6: AAIC New Largo Monitoring Results – Non- Directional Dust Fallout (January 2012) ....... 314Figure 8-7: AAIC New Largo Monitoring Results – Directional Dust Fallout (January 2012) ............... 315Figure 8-8: AAIC New Largo Monitoring Results – Non-Directional Dust Fallout (February 2012) ...... 315Figure 8-9: AAIC New Largo Monitoring Results – Directional Dust Fallout (February 2012) .............. 316Figure 8-10: AAIC New Largo Monitoring Results – Non-Directional Dust Fallout (March 2012)......... 316Figure 8-11: AAIC New Largo Monitoring Results – Directional Dust Fallout (March 2012) ................ 317Figure 8-12: Wetland distribution within the proposed New Largo mining right area, reflecting theirPresent E<strong>co</strong>logical Status (in relation to Mine Plan Version 6) ....................................................... 337Figure 8-13: Wetland distribution within the proposed New Largo mining right area, reflecting theirPresent E<strong>co</strong>logical Status (in relation to Mine Plan Version 7) ....................................................... 338Figure 8-14: Wetland distribution within the proposed New Largo mining right area, reflecting theirE<strong>co</strong>logical Importance and Sensitivity Status (in relation to Mine Plan Version 6) .......................... 339Figure 8-15: Wetland distribution within the proposed New Largo mining right area, reflecting theirE<strong>co</strong>logical Importance and Sensitivity Status (in relation to Mine Plan Version 7) .......................... 340Figure 8-16: Freshwater E<strong>co</strong>logical Priority Areas .............................................................................. 341Figure 8-17: The proposed mining area showing the sub-catchments and sulphate <strong>co</strong>ncentrationsre<strong>co</strong>rded in April 2011. The area demarcated in black is the area that will not be mined as partof Mine Plan Version 7 ................................................................................................................... 348Figure 8-18: Total value of the e<strong>co</strong>system services supplied by rivers in the Olifants, Inkomati andUsutu to Mhlatuze Water Management Areas (New Largo approximate location indicated ingreen) ............................................................................................................................................ 363Figure 8-19: Total value of the e<strong>co</strong>system services supplied by wetlands in the Olifants, Inkomatiand Usutu to Mhlatuze Water Management Areas (New Largo approximate location indicatedin green) ........................................................................................................................................ 365Figure 8-20: Simulations of the New Largo Colliery and the R545 ...................................................... 371Figure 8-21: Route Nodes for the Traffic Impact Assessment ............................................................. 382Figure 13-1: Conceptual End Land Use Plan (Agriculture Optimised) ................................................. 479Figure 13-2: Pre-Mining Cultivation within the New Largo Coal Reserve and Wider Mining RightArea ............................................................................................................................................... 481Figure 13-3: Post Mining Topography Slope Classes (showing large Reasonably ‘Flat’ Areas,Sloped Areas and Drainage Paths ................................................................................................. 481Figure 13-4: Total Reinstated Soil Depth (Combined Depth of Utilisable Soil and Pre-StrippedSoft Overburden) ........................................................................................................................... 481Figure 13-5: View of a Portion of the Mine Plan showing how the Post Mining Topography is usedto Facilitate Agricultural End Land Uses: Cultivation Crops on Gentler Slopes (Arable), RampScars and Steeper Slopes used for Grazing or other Uses (maximum slopes is 1.7 in postmining landscape) .......................................................................................................................... 482New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)xviii
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesLIST OF PLATESPlate 4-1: Example of dragline operations (overburden handling) ....................................................... 104Plate 4-2: Example of shovel and truck operations (loading and hauling of <strong>co</strong>al) ................................ 104Plate 4-3: Example of opencast <strong>co</strong>al mine pits ................................................................................... 105Plate 4-4: Example of a <strong>co</strong>al seam in opencast <strong>co</strong>al mine pit ............................................................. 106Plate 4-5: Example of crushing operations ......................................................................................... 106Plate 4-6: Example of <strong>co</strong>al handling and stockpiling ........................................................................... 106Plate 4-7: Example of overland <strong>co</strong>al <strong>co</strong>nveyor systems ...................................................................... 107Plate 4-8: Example of <strong>co</strong>al processing plants ..................................................................................... 107Plate 4-9: Example of an opencast mining area where surface rehabilitation is in process (topsoilreplaced, prior to re-vegetation); with dragline in the background .................................................. 108Plate 4-10: Example of surface discard disposal facilities (with vegetation <strong>co</strong>ver) .............................. 108Plate 4-11: Example of pollution <strong>co</strong>ntrol / balancing dams .................................................................. 108Plate 4-12: Example of WTP for treatment of <strong>co</strong>ntaminated mine water ............................................. 108Plate 6-1: View of wetland (pan) found within mining area, with surrounding agricultural land use ..... 235Plate 6-2: View of Existing Sand Mining Operations along the R545 Road ......................................... 236Plate 6-3: View of old surface infrastructure associated with the old Wilge Power Station and oldNew Largo Underground Mine ....................................................................................................... 236Plate 6-4: View of Wilge Village .......................................................................................................... 236Plate 6-5: View of Phola Town ............................................................................................................ 236Plate 8-1: Example of Existing Impacts on Wetlands .......................................................................... 343Plate 8-2: Remaining Section of R545 (facing west) ........................................................................... 408New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)xix
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesLIST OF APPENDICESAppendix A: Detailed Environmental Impact Assessment and RatingAppendix B: Environmental Management ProgrammeAppendix C: Supplementary Reading on the Need and Desirability of the DevelopmentAppendix D: Public Consultation DocumentationAppendix E: E<strong>co</strong>logy and Biodiversity Specialist AssessmentAppendix F: Wetland Specialist Impact AssessmentAppendix G: Surface Water Specialist Impact AssessmentAppendix H: Groundwater Specialist Impact AssessmentAppendix I: Geology and Geochemical Specialist Impact AssessmentAppendix J: Soil Specialist Impact AssessmentAppendix K: Air Quality Specialist Impact Assessment and MonitoringAppendix L: Traffic Specialist Impact AssessmentAppendix M: Noise Specialist Impact AssessmentAppendix N: Heritage Resources Specialist Impact AssessmentAppendix O: Visual Specialist Impact AssessmentAppendix P: Social Specialist Impact AssessmentAppendix Q: E<strong>co</strong>nomic Specialist Impact AssessmentAppendix R: Agricultural and Land Use Potential Specialist AssessmentAppendix S: Blasting Impact AssessmentAppendix T: Project Design and Layout - Maps and DrawingsAppendix U: Wetland Offset Strategy prepared by Wetland Consulting ServicesTERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS~ ApproximatelyAAICAEMFCAOLDAFFDARDLAdBADMRDPWRTDRPWDWAEAP<strong>EIA</strong>EMPFGDGNAnglo American Inyosi Coal (Pty) LtdAfrican Exploration Mining and Finance CorporationAnglo Operations LimitedDepartment of Agriculture, Forestry and FisheriesMpumalanga Department of Agriculture, Rural Development and Land Administrationdecibels adjusted (measurement for determining the sound exposure of humans)Department of Mineral ResourcesMpumalanga Department of Public Works, Roads and TransportDepartment of Roads and Public WorksDepartment of Water AffairsEnvironmental Assessment PractitionerEnvironmental Impact AssessmentEnvironmental Management Programmeflue-gas desulphurisation (associated with Kusile)Government NoticeNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)xx
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesGJGiga JouleGNRGovernment Notice RegulationhahectareHGMHydro-geomorphological UnitI&APInterested and Affected PartyIRRInternal Rate of ReturnI&RRIssues and Response <strong>Report</strong>IRP2010 South African Integrated Resource Plan for Electricity 2010-2030IWULA Integrated Water Use License ApplicationkmkilometreKusile Eskom’s Kusile Power StationkVkilo Voltmmetre (or meter) (measurement for distance)m 2m 3MDEDETmgMl / MlMPRDAMtMWEANDEANEMANEMAQANEMWANPVsquare metre (measurement for surface area)cubic metre (measurement for volume)Department of E<strong>co</strong>nomic Development, Environment and Tourism (Mpumalanga)milligramMillion (Mega) litreMineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act No. 28 of 2002, as amendedMillion (Mega) tonneMinistry of Water and Environmental AffairsDepartment of Environmental Affairs (National)National Environmental Management Act No. 107 of 1998, as amendedNational Environmental Management Air Quality ActNational Environmental Management Waste ActNet Present ValueNWA National Water Act No. of 1998PM10 / PM10 Particular matter smaller than 10 microns (
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesGLOSSARY OF TERMSAquicludeSolid, impermeable area underlying or overlying an aquifer. If the impermeable area overlies the aquifer, pressure <strong>co</strong>uld cause itto be<strong>co</strong>me a <strong>co</strong>nfined aquifer.Baseline EnvironmentPre-development environmental <strong>co</strong>nditions. The prevailing environmental <strong>co</strong>nditions (or status quo) prior to the start of anactivity or project, including current / existing environmental damage / degradation.Baseline Impacts (Existing Impacts)The current level of environmental degradation associated with existing developments, including those currently under<strong>co</strong>nstruction. Determination of the current level of degradation associated with existing developments is essential to understandand enable the assessment of cumulative impacts.Cumulative ImpactsCombined impacts of two or more activities, or the <strong>co</strong>mbined impacts of an activity with that of current activities. For this report,cumulative impacts are described as:Existing Impacts + Incremental Impacts of the project = Cumulative ImpactsEnvironmentSurroundings in which organisms operate, including air, water, land, natural resources, flora, fauna, humans and their interrelations(includes bio-physical and socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic <strong>co</strong>mponents).Environmental Impact Assessment (<strong>EIA</strong>)An <strong>EIA</strong> is an assessment of the positive and negative environmental <strong>co</strong>nsequences of the proposed project. The primaryobjective of the <strong>EIA</strong> is to aid decision-making by providing factual information on the assessment of these impacts, anddetermining their significance, as well as making valued judgements in choosing one alternative over another. For this <strong>EIA</strong> a<strong>co</strong>mbination of checklists, overlays and mapping, s<strong>co</strong>ping and professional experience will be used to identify the possiblenegative and positive impacts on the environmental <strong>co</strong>mponents.EphemeralEphemeral water bodies (wetlands, springs, streams, rivers, ponds or lakes), are found in semi-arid to arid upland areas, thatonly flow (exists) for a brief period of time during and shortly after rain. The banks of these water bodies have scattered riparianvegetation including trees, shrubs, and grasses, but often with in<strong>co</strong>mplete or dis<strong>co</strong>ntinued tree canopy <strong>co</strong>ver.It is not the same as intermittent, seasonal or non-perennial water bodies, which exist for longer periods, but not all year round.Fatal FlawA factor or situation, which prevents the development of an environmentally acceptable project, except at prohibitive <strong>co</strong>st. Theseare critical issues with the ability to stop a project’s implementation.Existing ImpactsSee Baseline Impacts.Hard OverburdenModerately weathered material and <strong>co</strong>mpetent intact sediments.HighwallThe unexcavated face of exposed overburden and <strong>co</strong>al in an opencast mine.Honingkrantz reservesInformal reference to the northern section of the New Largo <strong>co</strong>al reserve, found on the farm Honingkrantz, characterized ashaving high quality <strong>co</strong>al with a low stripping ratio and virgin ground, which presents safe mining <strong>co</strong>nditions.Honingkrantz panLarge pan found on the farm Honingkrantz, in the northern portion of the New Largo <strong>co</strong>al reserve. The 2006 present e<strong>co</strong>logicalstate (PES) of the Honingkrantz pan is a category C, implying that a large change in the e<strong>co</strong>systems has occurred but thefunctioning of the system has not been severely <strong>co</strong>mpromised. Ac<strong>co</strong>rding to the 2006 e<strong>co</strong>logically importance and sensitivity(EIS) analysis the pan is categorised as a C, which represents moderate wetlands <strong>co</strong>nsidered to be e<strong>co</strong>logically important andsensitive on a provincial or local scale. The biodiversity of these wetlands is not usually sensitive to flow and habitatmodifications. They play a small role in moderating the quantity and quality of water of major rivers.Hydro-geomorphologyNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)xxii
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesHydro-geomorphological mapping in<strong>co</strong>rporates relationship of geomorphic units with their groundwater potential as interpretedfrom the landform characteristics (nature of landform occurrence, lithology, structure, inter-relationship with other units etc.) aswell as sub-surface geology.Incremental ImpactThis is the impact of an activity looked at in isolation (impact of an individual activity), thus not <strong>co</strong>nsidering the <strong>co</strong>mbined,cumulative or synergistic impacts of the activity, or the cumulative impacts of the activity with other activities or the current levelof degradation.Interested and Affected Parties (I&APs)These are individuals or groups <strong>co</strong>ncerned with or affected by the environmental impacts and performance of a project.Interested groups include those exercising statutory environmental <strong>co</strong>ntrol over the project, local residents/<strong>co</strong>mmunities (peopleliving and/or working close to the project), the project’s employees, customers, <strong>co</strong>nsumers, investors and insurers,environmental interest groups, the general public, etc.LocalGenerally within 50 km from project site.MicrogramOne millionth (1/1 000 000) of a gram, or equivalently one thousandth (1/1 000) of a milligram.Micrometre / MicronOne millionth (1/1 000 000) of a metre, or equivalently one thousandth (1/1 000) of a millimetre.Mineral (in terms of the Minerals and Petroleum Resources Development Act)Any substance, whether in solid, liquid or gaseous form, occurring naturally in or on the earth or in or under water and whichwas formed by or subjected to a geological process, and includes sand, stone, rock, gravel, clay, soil and any material occurringin residue stockpiles or in residue deposits, but excludes: Water, other than water taken from land or sea for the extraction ofany material from such water; Petroleum; or Peat.Mining (in terms of the Minerals and Petroleum Resources Development Act)Mining is the making of any excavation for the purpose of winning a mineral, and it includes any other associated activities andprocesses (MPRDA).Mining Area (in terms of the Minerals and Petroleum Resources Development Act)The area for which a mining authorisation/permission to mine has been granted. It includes: Any adjacent surface of land; any non-adjacent surface of land, if it is <strong>co</strong>nnected to such an area by means of any road, railway line, power line,pipeline, cableway or <strong>co</strong>nveyer belt; and any surface of land on which such road, railway line, power line, pipeline, cableway or <strong>co</strong>nveyer belt is located, underthe <strong>co</strong>ntrol of the holder of such permit or authorisation and which the holder is entitled to use in <strong>co</strong>nnection with theoperations performed or to be performed under such permit or authori<strong>za</strong>tion (MPRDA).Mobile WTPA temporary water treatment plant (WTP) that <strong>co</strong>nsists of pre-manufactured, <strong>co</strong>ntainerized units delivered to site, andassociated site infrastructure.PedocreteAn infertile and <strong>co</strong>mpact soil structure which formed through the <strong>co</strong>ncentration of minerals due to terrestrial weathering whichenclosed, cemented or replaced the original soil.PM10 / PM 10Fine inhalable particles (smaller than 10 µm) found in the air. When inhaled, PM10s <strong>co</strong>uld cause damage to the lower airwaysand lungs.PM2.5 / PM 2.5Extra fine inhalable particles (smaller than 2.5 µm) found in the air.ReceptorA receptor is the target or object on which the impact, stressor or ha<strong>za</strong>rd is expected to have an effect.Remnant CoalCoal associated with old underground mine workings. There are significant safety risks associated with mining remnant <strong>co</strong>alreserves, including spontaneous <strong>co</strong>mbustion, flooding, sink holes, high risk blasting activities (hot hole blasting) etc.ReserveNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)xxiii
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesThe Reserve, means the quantity and quality of water required -(a) to satisfy basic human needs by securing a basic water supply, as prescribed under the Water ServicesAct, 1997 (Act No. 108 of 1997), for people who are now or who will, in the reasonably near future, be -(i) relying upon;(ii) taking water from; or(iii) being supplied from the relevant water resource; and(b) to protect aquatic e<strong>co</strong>systems in order to secure e<strong>co</strong>logically sustainable development and use of therelevant water resource (National Water Act, 1998).The Reserve, <strong>co</strong>mprising of the human reserve and the e<strong>co</strong>logical reserve, is an in-stream flow requirement, which ensuresprovision for basic human needs and maintenance of the system to a particular e<strong>co</strong>logical <strong>co</strong>ndition. The e<strong>co</strong>logical <strong>co</strong>mponentof the Reserve is defined as the quantity, quality and reliability of water required to “protect aquatic e<strong>co</strong>systems in order tosecure e<strong>co</strong>logically sustainable development and use of the relevant water resource”.Sensitive AreaA sensitive area or environment can be described as an area or environment where a unique e<strong>co</strong>system, habitat for plant andanimal life, wetlands or <strong>co</strong>nservation activity exists. Sensitive areas are often associated with e<strong>co</strong>-tourism activities or have ahigh potential for future e<strong>co</strong>-tourism.Significant ImpactAn impact can be deemed significant if scientific environmental studies, <strong>co</strong>nsultation with the relevant authorities and otherinterested and affected parties, on the <strong>co</strong>ntext and intensity of its effects, provide reasonable grounds for mitigating measures tobe included in the environmental management report and environmental management programme. The onus will be on theproponent to include the relevant authorities and other interested and affected parties in the <strong>co</strong>nsultation process. Present andpotential future, cumulative and synergistic effects should all be taken into ac<strong>co</strong>unt.Soft OverburdenIn mining terminology, ‘Softs’ represent material that can be ripped and removed by mining equipment without the need ofexplosives to firstly fracture the material. For the purposes of the New Largo Colliery <strong>EIA</strong> and EMP, Soft Overburden excludesthe Utilisable Soils (as defined above) and is defined as the layer below the utilisable soil extending down to the base horizon offriable weathering. The base horizon of friable weathering represents the <strong>co</strong>ntact horizon between the free ‘digable’ soils andthe more <strong>co</strong>mpetent intact sediments. At New Largo, the soft overburden is associated with extensive clay material. These claysare of specific interest in the soil management and rehabilitation strategy for New Largo Colliery, as explained below.Utili<strong>za</strong>ble Soil:Topsoil and upper portion of subsoil (A and B horizon). For the New Largo <strong>co</strong>al reserve, this layer is 0 to 1.6 metres deep, withan average of 0.95 metres.Virgin CoalCoal found in areas where there have been no previous mining activity.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)xxiv
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesS0403/<strong>EIA</strong>01 July 2012ANGLO AMERICAN INYOSI COAL (PTY) LIMITEDNew Largo CollieryNkangala District Municipality, MpumalangaENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORTVolume 1: Main <strong>Report</strong>, Appendix A and B(1 of 7 volumes)Executive Summary(<strong>Final</strong>)Project Motivation and LocationAnglo American Inyosi Coal (Pty) Limited (AAIC) is proposing to develop a new opencast <strong>co</strong>al mine tosupply <strong>co</strong>al to Eskom’s new Kusile Power Station (Kusile). The New Largo Colliery is proposed to meetthe future demand for <strong>co</strong>al at the power station. Kusile is currently under <strong>co</strong>nstruction, just south of theN4 highway between Bronkhorstspruit and Emalahleni (Witbank) in Nkangala District Municipality ofMpumalanga Province.At full production, Kusile will require approximately 17 million tonnes (Mt) of <strong>co</strong>al per year, depending onthe quality of the <strong>co</strong>al. AAIC intends to enter into a long-term agreement with Eskom to supply <strong>co</strong>al to thenew Kusile Power Station. AAIC has <strong>co</strong>mmitted, in a letter of intent, to supply the bulk of the 17 Mt of<strong>co</strong>al to Kusile over a period of 47 years. The intention is for this <strong>co</strong>al to be sourced from the New LargoColliery, with supporting production from AAIC’s Zibulu 2 seam and Zondagsfontein 4 seam operations.Project Need and DesirabilityKusile Power Station forms part of the South African National Government’s national electricitygeneration strategy (IRP2010) to supply much needed electricity to the South African national electricitygrid.The ultimate purpose of the New Largo Colliery will be to supply <strong>co</strong>al to Kusile Power Station. AAIC andEskom maintain that the proposed New Largo Colliery is needed to:Ensure the supply of a secure, long-term supply of <strong>co</strong>al to Kusile.Enable Kusile to provide power to the national electricity grid on schedule.Address power shortages in the national grid since there are no short to medium term options toreplace Kusile’s energy generation capacity at a national level.Avoid negative impacts of energy shortages on national e<strong>co</strong>nomic growth and development.Achieve the objectives and targets set out in IRP2010 and the National Government’s nationalelectricity generation strategy.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)xxv
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesNo-Go DevelopmentThe no-go development will have high negative impacts on the <strong>co</strong>st and timing of <strong>co</strong>al supply to KusilePower Station, timeous delivery of electricity to the national grid, and associated impacts on the nationale<strong>co</strong>nomy and it is therefore assumed that if the proposed New Largo Colliery is not allowed to bedeveloped, an alternative <strong>co</strong>al supply and transportation of that <strong>co</strong>al supply will have to be found tosupply Kusile.An alternative <strong>co</strong>al mine(s) will be associated with its own set of environmental impacts, likely to besimilar to that of New Largo Colliery.Comparative Assessment of the Proposed Activity and IdentifiedAlternativesThe following alternatives were assessed during the <strong>EIA</strong> process:<strong>Report</strong>SectionSection5.1DevelopmentAlternativeNo-GoDevelopment –Alternative CoalReserves toReplace NewLargo CollieryComment on Preferred Development AlternativeThe area affected by the New Largo Colliery <strong>co</strong>nsists of
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices<strong>Report</strong>SectionDevelopmentAlternativeComment on Preferred Development Alternativeimpacts affecting that region where the additional <strong>co</strong>al would have to besourced. It will also have impacts associated with <strong>co</strong>al transportation toKusile.On a local level, there are clear benefits to adopt Mine Plan Version 7,since those impacts from the mining of ~100 Mt of <strong>co</strong>al would not takeplace in the affected local area (except for a portion of thetransportation impacts) – these impacts will be transferred to anotherarea and Eskom will also have to find an alternative ~100 Mt <strong>co</strong>alsupply. However, uncertainties around the future of the Honingkrantzpan remains.In the absence of such a strategic plan for managing <strong>co</strong>al reserves andwetland protection, there appears to be no <strong>co</strong>mpelling reason for MinePlan Version 7 to be enforced, when viewed regionally and over the lifeof Kusile and when <strong>co</strong>nsidering: The uncertainties around the ability of Mine Plan Version 7 tosafeguard the Honingkrantz pan, and the failures that aresometimes associated with an ad-hoc approach to wetlandprotection on a project-to-project / mine-to-mine basis. Probable environmental impacts of the ~100 Mt replacement<strong>co</strong>al including the impacts it will pose due to the <strong>co</strong>altransportation to Kusile. AAIC’s <strong>co</strong>mmitment to an advanced soil management andrehabilitation plan, thus optimising end land use capability tosupport the eventual establishment of a variety of end landuses. AAIC’s <strong>co</strong>mmitment to long-term water management andtreatment. AAIC’s <strong>co</strong>mmitment to release treated water into surroundingstreams as per the re<strong>co</strong>mmendations of the hydrologicalspecialist (once these re<strong>co</strong>mmendations have been reviewedand verified as part of the Reserve Determination). AAIC’s <strong>co</strong>mmitment to put in place a wetland offset plan inac<strong>co</strong>rdance with the strategy as proposed by WetlandConsulting Services in Appendix U in order to offset the impactson wetlands that are impacted by AAIC’s preferred mine plan(Mine Plan Version 6).Taking a pre-cautionary approach based on biodiversity and e<strong>co</strong>systemservices issues, the EAP would be <strong>co</strong>mpelled to re<strong>co</strong>mmend that thealternative Mine Plan Version 7 be adopted.However, when <strong>co</strong>nsidering that the key biodiversity impacts are beingmitigated at New Largo (i.e. impacted mine water will be treated andreleased; the <strong>co</strong>nceptual end land use plan is based on a no net loss offood production and agricultural in<strong>co</strong>me; a strategy to develop awetland offset plan has been adopted), as well as all the other socialand environmental <strong>co</strong>nsiderations and mitigations discussed in the <strong>EIA</strong><strong>Report</strong>, the financial implications to Eskom and its <strong>co</strong>nsumers, and thetechnical risks highlighted by AAIC (with a knock-on effect on Eskomand its <strong>co</strong>nsumers), the EAP is re<strong>co</strong>mmending that the project beapproved based on Mine Plan Version 6 as the preferred mine plan.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)xxvii
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices<strong>Report</strong>SectionDevelopmentAlternativeComment on Preferred Development AlternativeThis re<strong>co</strong>mmendation is <strong>co</strong>nditional to the implementation of the EMPas <strong>co</strong>ntained in Appendix B, of which the key measures and<strong>co</strong>mmitments are: Implementation of AAIC’s adopted soil management andrehabilitation plan as detailed in the Section 4.11 of the <strong>EIA</strong> (thisplan has been written into the EMP <strong>co</strong>mmitments), Development and <strong>co</strong>ntinued operation of a water treatmentplant to treat water impacted by the mine and historical miningactivities within the mining area from day one, throughout thelife of the mine and post closure until such time that monitoringresults prove that treatment is no longer necessary, and releaseof only treated water into streams at various points insurrounding streams, proportionally to the requirements andflow in the different streams (based on the re<strong>co</strong>mmendations ofthe hydrological specialist, once the re<strong>co</strong>mmendations havebeen reviewed and verified as part of the ReserveDetermination), Development and implementation of a wetland offset plan forimpacts on wetlands affected by AAIC’s Mine Plan Version 6, inac<strong>co</strong>rdance to the strategy developed by Wetland ConsultingServices (see Appendix U).Section5.4Mining MethodNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)AAIC views opencast mining using draglines, supported by smallshovel and truck operations, as the only mining method due to: The Kusile Power Station requires the New Largo Colliery toform the base of their <strong>co</strong>al supply for about 50 years. This canonly be achieved if the reserve is mined using a high extractionmining method, implying that an opencast mining method isrequired. It is estimated that approximately 27% of the reserve plan area<strong>co</strong>ntains defunct <strong>co</strong>llieries with remnant reserves <strong>co</strong>ntained inpillars and roof and/or floor of the old underground workings.Opencast mining methods can enable one to effectively andsafely extract the remnant <strong>co</strong>al reserves as opposed tounderground mining methods. The overburden thicknesses and strip ratios of the New LargoColliery reserves are suitable for dragline opencast methods.The average strip ratio of the reserve is 2.76. The <strong>co</strong>al tonnage that Eskom requires (~14 Mt / annum)involves moving large volumes of overburden. Dragline mining is more <strong>co</strong>st effective <strong>co</strong>mpared to shovel andtruck mining. The 50 year life of mine supports the procuring of draglines. Draglines are better suited to expose <strong>co</strong>al remaining in areaspreviously mined by underground mining methods - withreference to safety and productivity. Draglines with shovel and truck support are not necessarybecause of the selected draglines having sufficient capacity tomove the required volumes. Shovel and truck only would require a large fleet of equipmentwith the equivalent workforce to meet the required volumes -less <strong>co</strong>st effective <strong>co</strong>mpared to draglines.xxviii
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices<strong>Report</strong>SectionDevelopmentAlternativeComment on Preferred Development AlternativeThe use of draglines simplifies mining in that the supervisory,operational and maintenance aspects can be focused on asingle mining method and a few units of ancillary equipment.Section5.5Section5.6Section5.7Location ofSurfaceInfrastructureAlternativeOptions forDeviation of theR545Soil Managementand RehabilitationUnderground mining is not being <strong>co</strong>nsidered as an alternative miningmethod (reasons highlighted above).The preferred mining method would thus be opencast dragline mining,supported by small shovel and truck operations.The location of any surface infrastructure such as tips, power lines,<strong>co</strong>mmunication masts, the <strong>co</strong>al processing plant, access, service andhaul roads and <strong>co</strong>nveyors to Kusile, had to take <strong>co</strong>gnisance of thelocation of Kusile, location of the minable <strong>co</strong>al reserve in relation toKusile, and the fact that <strong>co</strong>al needs to be hauled from the mine and<strong>co</strong>nveyed to Kusile. Distances and efficiency are of utmost <strong>co</strong>ncern, notonly from an e<strong>co</strong>nomic viewpoint, but also from an air quality andcarbon emissions viewpoint, since the haulage of <strong>co</strong>al is the singlemost significant source of dust at an opencast <strong>co</strong>al mine.The location of infrastructure also had to take <strong>co</strong>gnisance of existingpower lines, pipelines, roads and adjacent mining activities.The majority of the surface infrastructure is located between the NewLargo Colliery mining area and Kusile and is therefore some distanceaway from residential areas, as such, the need for investigatingalternatives to locations and routes proposed by AAIC was notrequired.The infrastructure <strong>co</strong>mponents are illustrated on the various figures inthis <strong>EIA</strong> main report, and Appendix T <strong>co</strong>nsists of drawings indicatingthe positions of surface infrastructure including roads,tele<strong>co</strong>mmunication masts and power lines.Although the positions of surface infrastructure are indicated asaccurately as possible on these figures and drawings, the positionsmay change and additional infrastructure may be required over time.This is inherent to an opencast mining operation where the open minepits move over time, especially for a mine with a long life such as thatanticipated for the New Largo Colliery.AAIC’s preferred route for the deviation of a section of the R545 is to<strong>co</strong>nstruct a new road from the R545, approximately 2 kilometres southof the Kendal-Balmoral intersection, to run south-eastwards and thensouthwards along the eastern border of the proposed New LargoColliery, tying in with the R545 (eastern split) near Voltargo Village.AAIC aimed to keep to route on their property as far as possible, inorder to minimise impacts on third parties. Various route alignmentswere <strong>co</strong>nsidered. The final route is Option 1A (new / updated) asindicated as the AAIC preferred route on Figure 1-1 and other maps.The merits of the specialist re<strong>co</strong>mmendations presented in Section5.7.2.1 and AAIC’s draft strategy in Section 5.7.2.2 were discussedNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)xxix
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices<strong>Report</strong>SectionSection5.8Section5.9Section5.10Section5.11Section5.12DevelopmentAlternativeClean WaterManagementWater TreatmentUse of TreatedWaterCoalTransportationAlternativesWetlandMitigation andOffsetsComment on Preferred Development Alternativebetween AAIC, the EAP and the various specialists. Commentsreceived from authorities and I&APs on the draft <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong> were also<strong>co</strong>nsidered. Based on the results of <strong>co</strong>mments received anddiscussions with the specialist team, AAIC adopted an amended soilmanagement and rehabilitation strategy for New Largo Colliery.The adopted strategy is the preferred alternative for soil managementand rehabilitation. As explained in 4.11, the adopted strategy is inac<strong>co</strong>rdance with best practice and allows for the reinstated soil depthsto be optimised. Implementation of the adopted soil management andrehabilitation strategy over the life of the mine will ensure that thepotential for the establishment of end land uses are optimised and willensure the need for post closure water treatment is managed.The design of the water management system for New Largo Collieryhas been refined by the engineering team, based on input from thehydrological specialist and the water balance results. The designs alsoform part of the IWULA application, as required, and the latest revisionof the water flow diagram is presented in Appendix T (<strong>EIA</strong> Volume 7).Various refinements and revisions have been undertaken to date and itis likely that further optimisation will be done during detailed design.A water treatment plant to treat water impacted by New Largo Collieryand previous mining activities within the mining area, from day one,throughout the life of the mine and post closure until such time thatmonitoring results prove that treatment is no longer necessary. Linkedto the water treatment plant, is the release of only treated water intostreams at various points in surrounding streams, proportionally to therequirements and flow of the different streams, based on there<strong>co</strong>mmendations of the hydrological specialist (once thesere<strong>co</strong>mmendations have been reviewed and verified as part of theReserve Determination).Water will be treated to catchment release qualities. The treatmenttechnology for the permanent WTP has not been defined. It is expectedthat water treatment technologies may progress and develop in theyears prior to the permanent WTP being developed.Until such time as the results of the Reserve Determination areavailable, the strategy proposed by the hydrological specialist, torelease water proportionally into the surrounding stream is thepreferred alternative.A <strong>co</strong>nveyor system is proposed to transport the <strong>co</strong>al to Kusile. Due tothe short distance required, no other transportation options were<strong>co</strong>nsidered.The Alternative Mine Plan (Mine Plan Version 7) was introducedsubsequent to the s<strong>co</strong>ping phase <strong>co</strong>nsultation process as <strong>co</strong>ncernswere raised by I&APs and authorities regarding the impact of mining onwetlands. Ac<strong>co</strong>rding to AAIC, this mine plan presents challenges interms of mine plan sequencing and blending of <strong>co</strong>al to provide Kusilewith an adequate supply of <strong>co</strong>al at the <strong>co</strong>rrect specification.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)xxx
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices<strong>Report</strong>SectionSection5.13DevelopmentAlternativeClosure Visionand AlternativeEnd Land UsesComment on Preferred Development AlternativeAlthough alternative mine plans were evaluated to minimise impacts onwetlands, AAIC maintains that there are serious risks associated withthe alternative mine plans and that their base case mine plan (MinePlan Version 6) should be adopted as the preferred mine plan.Subsequently, AAIC has appointed Wetland Consulting Services todevelop a wetland offset plan based on Mine Plan Version 6 beingimplemented. The plan will thus address offsets for wetlands affectedas part of Mine Plan Version 6.DWA, DMR and MDEDET have not given clear feedback on theirrequirements for wetland offsets / off-site mitigation and on-sitemitigation for affected wetlands. Offsets plans are not legislated and itis uncertain what potential future legislation on this topic would require.No National or Mpumalanga provincial guidelines currently exist forwetland offset projects despite numerous offset projects already beenundertaken within the Mpumalanga <strong>co</strong>alfields with varying degrees ofsuccess. Each has had its own approach which has been projectspecific depending on objectives, requirements of the authorities andthe willingness of different mining houses to pursue and / or embracethe approach. Re<strong>co</strong>gnizing the need for such guidelines, the SANBIGrasslands Programme recently funded a project entitled: Towards abest-practice guideline for wetland offsets in South Africa. A draftversion of these guidelines has been released. The technical guidelines<strong>co</strong>ntained in this report, which were developed specifically for <strong>co</strong>almining in the Mpumalanga Highveld, will be <strong>co</strong>nsidered in the strategyto develop a wetland offset plan for New Largo Colliery.It is clear that developing an offset plan for the New Largo Colliery<strong>co</strong>uld be a lengthy process of which the first step is to develop astrategy ac<strong>co</strong>rding to which the offset plan would be developed. Thestrategy as proposed by Wetland Consulting Services is presented inAppendix U. Part of the strategy would be to involve I&APs,stakeholders and authorities through the environmental monitoring<strong>co</strong>mmittee in the process, evaluate <strong>co</strong>mments and re<strong>co</strong>mmendationsmade by these parties, evaluate alternative offset options, and developa final offset plan on the selected offset options.Based on the adopted soil management and rehabilitation plan, a<strong>co</strong>nceptual end land use plan was developed which indicates that itwould be possible to achieve no net loss of food production and in<strong>co</strong>megeneration from agriculture (see Appendix R: Agricultural and Land UsePotential Specialist Assessment). At this stage, the <strong>co</strong>nceptual endland plan was developed to optimise the use of the land for agriculturebut obviously this plan will be revised and updated over the life of themine in <strong>co</strong>nsultation with the I&APs and the environmental monitoring<strong>co</strong>mmittee. From a biodiversity protection viewpoint, this plan supportsthe e<strong>co</strong>logical specialists’ re<strong>co</strong>mmendations to focus on the reestablishmentof agricultural land uses so that the need to transformother areas for agricultural food production is avoided.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)The <strong>co</strong>nceptual end land use plan in<strong>co</strong>rporates: pastures (livestockgrazing or stocked game), rehabilitated grasslands (livestock grazing,game stocking, re-population by certain wildlife species possible),xxxi
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices<strong>Report</strong>SectionDevelopmentAlternativeComment on Preferred Development Alternativerainfed grain, irrigated crops, fruit production, and feedlots and poultryunits.However, due to the availability of treated water from the watertreatment plant, there is also potential for the establishment ofadditional intensive agricultural practices such as hydroponics,occupying fairly small land footprints, to substantially increase foodproduction and in<strong>co</strong>me generation from agriculture. New LargoColliery’s location in relation to Gauteng lends itself to this intensiveagricultural practice.Key Issues and Concerns Identified by Authorities and I&APs andHow They Are AddressedAll issues identified by I&APs are listed and discussed in Appendix D1 and summarised list is provided inSection 7. The key issues and how they were addressed are listed below:Key IssueLoss of WetlandsActions / Mitigation to Address theIssueThe viability of an alternative mine plan,to reduce the impact on wetlands, wasinvestigated. A detailed assessment ofthe technical, e<strong>co</strong>nomic andenvironmental <strong>co</strong>nsiderations was<strong>co</strong>nducted and re<strong>co</strong>mmended thatAAIC’s preferred mine plan (Mine PlanVersion 6) be adopted.AAIC has adopted a strategy to put inplace a wetland offset plan to offset thewetlands affected by their preferredmine plan (Mine Plan Version 6).AAIC has appointed WetlandConsulting Services to develop theoffset plan as per the adopted strategy.The offset strategy will be developed in<strong>co</strong>nsultation with I&APs, stakeholdersand authorities through theenvironmental monitoring <strong>co</strong>mmittee(EMC).Reference to Further Reading in<strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong> where the Issue isDiscussed in Detail.Section 5.3 provides a detailedexplanation for the re<strong>co</strong>mmendationto adopt Mine Plan Version 6 as thepreferred mine plan.See Section 8 (Wetland section) forassessment of impacts (existing,project and cumulative).See EMP Section 31 on Wetlands,Water and Biodiversity (Appendix B).See EMP (Appendix B) for full list ofmitigation measures.Strategy for developing a wetlandoffset plan attached as Appendix U.See EMP Section 31 on Wetlands,Water and Biodiversity (Appendix B).See Appendix U.See EMP Section 31 on Wetlands,Water and Biodiversity (Appendix B).New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)xxxii
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesKey IssueWetland offset planhas not been<strong>co</strong>mpleted andcannot be<strong>co</strong>mpleted the bytime of <strong>co</strong>nstructionLate start to<strong>co</strong>nstruction of NewLargo Collierywould impact ondelivery of <strong>co</strong>al toKusile, thus<strong>co</strong>mpromisingnational electricitygeneration andsupplyE<strong>co</strong>nomic Benefitsof New Largo andKusileActions / Mitigation to Address theIssueNo National or Mpumalanga provincialguidelines currently exist for wetlandoffsets. Offsets plans are not legislatedand it is uncertain what potential futurelegislation on this topic would require.In light of this, AAIC cannot be heldac<strong>co</strong>untable to have a <strong>co</strong>mpleted offsetplan in place at the time of <strong>EIA</strong>submission and approval.The schedule as <strong>co</strong>ntained in the offsetstrategy (Appendix U) indicates that thewetland plan will be <strong>co</strong>mpleted in thelast quarter of 2014 – after the start of<strong>co</strong>nstruction and the initial box-cut butwell before mining of the prioritywetland (Honingkrantz pan).Phase 1 of wetland strategy will havebeen <strong>co</strong>mpleted prior to <strong>co</strong>nstruction.Phase 2 of wetland strategy will havebeen <strong>co</strong>mpleted in the last quarter of2014 – after the start of <strong>co</strong>nstructionand the initial box-cut but well beforemining of the priority wetland(Honingkrantz pan).The <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong> describes the need anddesirability of the project and explainsthe project implementation programmeand expected timeframes.Authorities to review and process the<strong>EIA</strong>, IWULA and WML applications intime for the scheduled start of<strong>co</strong>nstruction date.To assist government AAIC hasappointed Wetland Consulting Servicesto assist with the ReserveDetermination study for the affectedareas. The study approach andmethodology used had to be discussedwith the Department of Water Affairs. Itis estimated that the WetlandConsulting Services study will be<strong>co</strong>mpleted in May 2013.New Largo forms part of a much largervalue chain for electricity production inSouth Africa. The mining developmentReference to Further Reading in<strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong> where the Issue isDiscussed in Detail.See Section 10.6.See Appendix U and EMP Section 31on Wetlands, Water and Biodiversity(Appendix B).See Appendix U.See Appendix U.Section 1.5 explains the need anddesirability of Kusile and New LargoColliery, and the NationalGovernment’s Integrated ResourcePlan for Electricity.Section 1.13 explains the projectprogramme and expected timeframesfor authority review.See Preliminaries (front of <strong>EIA</strong><strong>Report</strong>).See Section 10.6.See Section 8.9 for summary ofE<strong>co</strong>nomic Assessment.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)xxxiii
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesKey IssueE<strong>co</strong>nomic feasibilityof the watertreatment plant totreat water for manyyears post closureImpact on theavailability of cleanwater and impactson downstreamenvironmentsLoss of arable landand foodproduction, landcapabilityActions / Mitigation to Address theIssueis an investment of R21.3 billion, andrepresents a part of the investmentincluding the Kusile Power Station and<strong>co</strong>nveyor belts that will invest over R90billion in the local and nationale<strong>co</strong>nomy. All these projects are neededto ensure that electricity supply isincreased to facilitate e<strong>co</strong>nomic growthfor the national e<strong>co</strong>nomy).Costs included in AAIC’s financialmodel for New Largo Colliery.Decant of acid mine water will beprevented through the installation of awater treatment plant (WTP) to treatwater impacted by New Largo Collieryand previous mining activities within themining area, from day one, throughoutthe life of the mine and post closureuntil such time that monitoring resultsprove that treatment is no longernecessary.Linked to the water treatment plant, isthe release of only treated water intostreams at various points insurrounding streams, proportionally tothe requirements and flow of thedifferent streams, based on there<strong>co</strong>mmendations of the hydrologicalspecialist (once thesere<strong>co</strong>mmendations have been reviewedand verified as part of the ReserveDetermination).The soil management and rehabilitationstrategy that AAIC adopted for NewLargo is in ac<strong>co</strong>rdance with bestpractice and allows for the reinstatedsoil depths to be optimised. In essence,the strategy involves sequential prestrippingof soft overburden claymaterial placed separately on top of thelevelled overburden, with utilisable soilsplaced on top of the clay material. Thestrategy has been developed within thelimitations presented by dragline miningoperations.Reference to Further Reading in<strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong> where the Issue isDiscussed in Detail.See Appendix D1 and Section 4.7.2.See Section 4.7 for description ofWTP.See Section 8 (Surface Water andGroundwater sections for assessmentof impacts (existing, project andcumulative).See EMP Section 28 on Active WaterManagement (Appendix B).See EMP (Appendix B) for full list ofmitigation measures.See Section 4.11 for AAIC’s adoptedsoil management and rehabilitationstrategy.AAIC’s reasons for using draglinesare explained in Section 5.4.See Section 13.3.4 for ConceptualEnd Land Use PlanSee Section 8 (Soils and LandCapability for assessment of impacts(existing, project and cumulative).New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)xxxiv
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesKey IssueAir Quality(New Largo willoperate in an areawith elevatedbaseline emissionlevels)Actions / Mitigation to Address theIssueBased on the adopted soil managementand rehabilitation plan, a <strong>co</strong>nceptualend land use plan was developed whichindicates that it would be possible toachieve no net loss of food productionand in<strong>co</strong>me generation from agriculture.The availability of water from the watertreatment, allows for the introduction ofirrigation and intensive farmingpractices not only in the <strong>co</strong>re miningareas as indicated on the <strong>co</strong>nceptualland use plan but also in the widermining right area (total of 12 773hectares) to mitigate the impact onarable land and potential loss in cropyields.Implementation of an operational airquality monitoring and managementplan.AAIC has implemented baseline airquality monitoring, undertakenindependently by GondwanaEnvironmental Solutions (Pty) Ltd.In addition to dust buckets, monitoringincludes the recent installation of anadvanced stationary monitoring stationto monitor particulate (PM 10 ), H 2 S / SO 2and BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes) andmeteorological data including relativehumidity, solar radiation, wind speed,wind direction and ambienttemperature.A mobile monitoring station for PM10monitoring and meteorologicalmonitoring including relative humidity,solar radiation, wind speed, winddirection and ambient temperature isplanned for the project implementationphase.Location of main haul roads, plant andtips away from sensitive receptors(between mine pit and Kusile).Reference to Further Reading in<strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong> where the Issue isDiscussed in Detail.See EMP Section 33 onRehabilitation Plan. (Appendix B).See EMP (Appendix B) for full list ofmitigation measures.See EMP Section 17 on Air Quality(Appendix B).See EMP (Appendix B) for full list ofmitigation measures.See Section 8 (Air Quality Section forassessment of impacts (existing,project and cumulative) and keyre<strong>co</strong>mmendations.See EMP Section 17 on Air Quality(Appendix B).See EMP (Appendix B) for full list ofmitigation measures.See drawings in Appendix T.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)xxxv
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesKey IssueImpacts onNeighbours (Most ofthe negative socialimpacts of a projectsuch as New LargoColliery are oftenexperienced locallyby the people livingin close proximity tothe project)Relocation of asection of aProvincial Road (theR545 north-southkink between the N4and N12)Impact on grasslandremnants currentlyremaining withinmining footprintImpact on localizedFrithia humilisfound on rocky areain northern portionActions / Mitigation to Address theIssueImpacts on the lives and livelihood ofthe project’s future neighbours willrequire pro-active mitigation (i.e.measures to avoid, reduce, manageand / or <strong>co</strong>mpensate for impacts). TheEMP includes clear measures toaddress the need for <strong>co</strong>ntinuedstakeholder engagement, and deal with<strong>co</strong>mplaints, claims and potentialdisputes. It also allows for theestablishment of an environmentalmonitoring <strong>co</strong>mmittee.Various route alternatives wereinvestigated.AAIC will develop a new road linkbetween the N4 and N12 around theeastern boundary of the opencastmining area, as close as possible to theold route (within limitations of miningand road engineering criteria).Eskom developed a separate northsouthlink around the west of Kusilepower station.Best practice rehabilitation strategy asdiscussed above.Optimise food production as per<strong>co</strong>nceptual land use plan in order toreduce the need to transform ordegrade other intact areas. The ‘no netloss in agricultural production’ istherefore not only critical for foodsecurity reasons but also importantfrom a biodiversity viewpoint.Protection of intact grasslands in areasoutside mining footprint but withinmining right area on AAIC owned land.100 m buffer zone around <strong>co</strong>nfirmedFrithia habitats (Frithia humilis) in thenorthern portion of the mining area.Reference to Further Reading in<strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong> where the Issue isDiscussed in Detail.Impacts discusses in various sectionsin the <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong>.See EMP Section 9 on SocialDisplacement and Direct Impacts onNeighbours (Appendix B).See EMP Section 10 on Complaintsregister and management. (AppendixB).See EMP Section 11 on StakeholderEngagement Plan (Appendix B).See EMP (Appendix B) for full list ofmitigation measures.See Section 5.6 for discussion onalternative routes.See Figure 1-1 for route alternatives.See Section 13.3 on end land use.Section 8.6.1 for current impacts ongrasslands.See EMP Section 34 on Closure Plan(Appendix B).See EMP (Appendix B) for full list ofmitigation measures.See Figure 6-18 for <strong>co</strong>nfirmedhabitats and 100 m buffer.Buffer zone included in EMP. SeeNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)xxxvi
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesKey Issueon mining area.Please note: AAICnot responsible forcurrent treats toFrithia humilisstandsConcerns that AAICwill not deliver onthe <strong>co</strong>mmitments inthe EMPImpact onproperties directlyaffected by mining(landowners, farmworkers, peopleliving on the land,tenants)Job losses andsocial impacts atclosureActions / Mitigation to Address theIssueAppointments, Roles andResponsibilities discussed in detail inEMP.An environmental monitoring <strong>co</strong>mmittee(EMC) will be established before<strong>co</strong>nstruction <strong>co</strong>mmences. The EMC willmeet on a quarterly basis for the firsttwo years and bi-annually thereafter,and will be chaired by a neutralindependent facilitator. The purpose ofthis EMC will be multi-facetted but it isenvisaged that this body will be themain driving force ensuring the effectiveimplementation of all <strong>co</strong>mmitments<strong>co</strong>ntained within the EMP andassociated permitting documents.AAIC owns most of the propertieswhere mining will take place.AAIC in process of negotiation withthird party owners regarding purchaseagreements.AAIC <strong>co</strong>ntractual arrangement withaffected third parties.Relocation, where required, inac<strong>co</strong>rdance to best practice guidelines.Complaints register and management.Stakeholder engagement plan.AAIC Social and Labour Plan (updatedand revised throughout life of mine asper the requirements of the MPRDA).Reference to Further Reading in<strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong> where the Issue isDiscussed in Detail.EMP Section 31 on Wetland, Waterand Biodiversity Management(Appendix B).See Section 13.2.See EMP Section 1 on Appointments,Roles and Responsibilities (AppendixB).See Section 13.2.See EMP Section 1 on Appointments,Roles and Responsibilities (AppendixB).See EMP Section 9 on SocialDisplacement and Direct Impacts onNeighbours (Appendix B).See EMP Section 10 on Complaintsregister and management. (AppendixB).See EMP Section 11 on StakeholderEngagement Plan (Appendix B).Submitted separately to the DMR.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)xxxvii
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesUncertainties, Gaps and Outstanding IssuesWetland Offset PlanThe draft <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong> listed potential alternative wetland offset options (see Section 5). Thesewere regarded as preliminary since the preferred mine plan was not defined at that stage. Thepurpose of listing potential wetland offset options at that stage was to stimulate debate and obtain<strong>co</strong>mments from I&APs and authorities during the review of the draft <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong>.Although alternative mine plans were evaluated to minimise impacts on wetlands, AAICmaintains that there are serious risks associated with the alternative mine plans and that theirbase case mine plan (Mine Plan Version 6) should be adopted as the preferred mine plan.Subsequently, AAIC has appointed Wetland Consulting Services to develop a wetland offset planbased on Mine Plan Version 6 being implemented. The plan will thus address offsets for wetlandsaffected as part of Mine Plan Version 6.No National or Mpumalanga provincial guidelines currently exist for wetland offset projectsdespite numerous offset projects already being undertaken within the Mpumalanga <strong>co</strong>alfields withvarying degrees of success. Re<strong>co</strong>gnizing the need for such guidelines, the SANBI GrasslandsProgramme recently funded a project entitled: Towards a best-practice guideline for wetlandoffsets in South Africa. A draft version of these guidelines has been released. The technicalguidelines <strong>co</strong>ntained in this report, which were developed specifically for <strong>co</strong>al mining in theMpumalanga Highveld, will be <strong>co</strong>nsidered as part to the strategy to develop a wetland offset planfor New Largo Colliery.Developing an offset plan for New Largo <strong>co</strong>uld be a lengthy process of which the first step is todevelop a strategy ac<strong>co</strong>rding to which the offset plan would be developed. The strategy asproposed by Wetland Consulting Services is presented in Appendix U. Part of the strategy wouldbe to involve I&APs, stakeholders and authorities through the environmental monitoring<strong>co</strong>mmittee in the process, evaluate <strong>co</strong>mments and re<strong>co</strong>mmendations made by these parties,evaluate alternative offset options, and develop a final offset plan on the selected offset options.DWA, DMR and MDEDET have not given clear feedback on their requirements for wetlandoffsets / off-site mitigation and on-site mitigation for affected wetlands. Offsets plans are notlegislated and it is uncertain what potential future legislation on this topic would require. In light ofthis AAIC cannot be held ac<strong>co</strong>untable to have a <strong>co</strong>mpleted offset plan in place at the time of <strong>EIA</strong>submission and approval.Due to the urgent nature of the project to supply <strong>co</strong>al to Kusile and thus electricity to South Africa,it is proposed that the <strong>EIA</strong> be accepted and reviewed by the authorities based on the fact thatAAIC has <strong>co</strong>mmitted to the offset strategy as proposed in Appendix U.The schedule as <strong>co</strong>ntained in the offset strategy (Appendix U indicates that the strategy will be<strong>co</strong>mpleted in the last quarter of 2014 – after the start of <strong>co</strong>nstruction and the initial box-cut butwell before mining of the priority wetland (Honingkrantz pan).New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)xxxviii
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesSource of ~100 Mt <strong>co</strong>al to replace <strong>co</strong>al not mined as part of Mine Plan Version 7The draft <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong> stated that feedback from Eskom is required on where the ~100 Mt of <strong>co</strong>alwill be sourced to replace the <strong>co</strong>al excluded from the alternative mine plan as this is needed fordecision-making regarding the mine plan to be adopted for the New Largo Colliery. One needs tobear in mind that <strong>co</strong>al mining in other areas will be associated with their own set of environmentalimpacts. However, based on the dates when the <strong>co</strong>al would be needed, AAIC <strong>co</strong>ncluded that atthe stage when Kusile would need to source the ~100 Mt shortfall of <strong>co</strong>al, most of the <strong>co</strong>alreserves in the Witbank <strong>co</strong>alfields would be depleted. This shortfall in <strong>co</strong>al will then need to beimported from another <strong>co</strong>alfield (e.g. the Waterberg, which is more than 500 km away) at anincreased <strong>co</strong>st and environmental impacts associated with <strong>co</strong>al mining in the Waterberg andtransport of <strong>co</strong>al via road. This issue should not impact on authority review and approval of the<strong>EIA</strong> and IWULA.Government Action to Protect the Honingkrantz PanMDEDET, DWA and DMR has not provided feedback on their plans to protect the Honingkrantzpan area if this area is not mined by AAIC. This issue should not impact on authority review andapproval of the <strong>EIA</strong> and IWULA.Reserve DeterminationUnder the protection of water resources, the National Water Act (Act No. 36, 1998) (NWA)stipulates the determination of the Reserve. The e<strong>co</strong>logical Reserve maintains aquatice<strong>co</strong>systems in such a way that they can <strong>co</strong>ntinue to provide goods and services to society. TheReserve forms the only right to water, with all other water uses subject to authorisations.In terms of the NWA, before the required authorisation to utilise a particular water resource canbe granted, it is necessary to determine the Reserve for the relevant e<strong>co</strong>logical <strong>co</strong>mponent of theresource that will be impacted by the proposed water use.In terms of Section 15 and 16 of the NWA, it is a government responsibility to determine the classof a water resource and the resource quality objectives. Government is also required todetermine the Reserve for all or part of any significant water resource. If a resource has not yetbeen classified, a preliminary determination of the Reserve may be made and later supersededby a new one. Once the Reserve is determined for a water resource it is binding in the same wayas the class and the resource quality objectives.Further research will be needed if the significance of the Honingkrantz pan is to be understood –this will be addressed in the Reserve Determination study that is currently underway.AAIC has appointed Wetland Consulting Services to assist with the Reserve Determination studyfor the affected areas, to assist government with the determination of the Reserve. The studyapproach and methodology used had to be discussed with the Department of Water Affairs. It isestimated that the Wetland Consulting Services study will be <strong>co</strong>mpleted in May 2013.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)xxxix
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesAAIC Stakeholder Engagement PlanFurther <strong>co</strong>nsultation with affected parties took place during the review period of the draft <strong>EIA</strong>report. AAIC has developed a stakeholder engagement plan, summary <strong>co</strong>ntained in the EMP(Section 13 and Appendix B), which will form the framework for further <strong>co</strong>nsultation with directlyaffected parties / neighbours once (if) the project has been approved. This <strong>co</strong>nsultation will be todiscuss specific impacts that affect them / <strong>co</strong>uld potentially affect them.Costs of Long-Term Water Management and TreatmentAAIC has indicated that the financial model <strong>co</strong>ntains sensitive and <strong>co</strong>nfidential <strong>co</strong>mmercial informationbut, in order to address the I&AP request, stated that they will issue the financial model to anindependent, credible financial audit <strong>co</strong>mpany, as third party reviewer and that the results of the reviewwill be released to the FSE and other I&APs who request insight into this information. AAIC also statedthat they are willing to meet with the FSE, other I&APs representatives and the third party reviewer, todiscuss specific issues, but request that sensitive <strong>co</strong>mmercial information remain <strong>co</strong>nfidential.AAIC is adamant that the process for the third party review must be agreed between AAIC and theI&APs who requested access to the financials and thus requested the FSE to agree to the third partyreview, upon which the third party reviewer would be agreed and appointed. This approach is deemedessential to avoid future disputes about the credibility and independence of the reviewer. AAIC indicatedthat they are prepared to <strong>co</strong>ver the <strong>co</strong>st of the third party review.The FSE then indicated that AAIC should motivate why they see the information as <strong>co</strong>nfidential. AAICresponded by stating that they cannot disclose information such as operational and maintenance <strong>co</strong>sts,which include, amongst other elements, staff and <strong>co</strong>ntractor remuneration and overheads and chemicalsand <strong>co</strong>nsumable <strong>co</strong>sts, all of which are <strong>co</strong>ntractually negotiated and remain <strong>co</strong>nfidential between AAICand the individual or supplier. Based on this, the FSE was requested to re-<strong>co</strong>nsider AAIC’s proposal fora third party review and to indicate if they are willing to discuss and agree on an independent, credibleaudit <strong>co</strong>mpany to undertake the review.The FSE maintained that they wanted to see more detail on what is and what is not <strong>co</strong>nfidential inAAIC’s financial model, while AAIC maintained that the motivation they provided adequately explainstheir reasons for keeping the financial model <strong>co</strong>nfidential but that they agree to release it to a third partyreviewer.AAIC has indicated that they will proceed with the third party review as soon as the FSE (or any otherI&AP) has <strong>co</strong>nfirmed, in writing, that they are amenable to this option and there is agreement on theaudit <strong>co</strong>mpany to act as the third party reviewer.The EAP is of the opinion that using a credible independent audit <strong>co</strong>mpany to review the financial datapertaining to water treatment <strong>co</strong>sts for the New Largo Colliery, and to provide the results of theindependent review to FSE and other I&APS, remains an option to address the FSE’s request to haveaccess to financial data regarding water treatment <strong>co</strong>sts for the New Largo Colliery.The third party audit can only proceed if the FSE accepts the third party review in principle.AAIC has also revised their soil and rehabilitation strategy in <strong>co</strong>nsultation with the environmentalspecialist team and their re<strong>co</strong>mmendations. Their revised soil and rehabilitation strategy allows fordeeper soil layers which would allow better potential for establishing a variety of agricultural or other endland uses, reduced water ingress and thus a reduced need for post closure water. The current waterbalance is based on the less stringent soil striping and replacement regime (thinner reinstated soillayers) as was presented in the draft <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong> and thus represents a case that is expected to be worsein terms of water treatment requirements. Although current information indicates that the deeperreinstated soil layers would reduce water ingress and the need for water treatment, AAIC hasNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)xl
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices<strong>co</strong>mmissioned Jones & Wagener to investigate the potential reduction of water infiltration based on thedepth of the reinstated soil layer and the benefits of the improved soil management and rehabilitation interms of post closure water treatment.Conclusions and Key FindingsThe New Largo Colliery is proposed to meet the future demand for <strong>co</strong>al at the Kusile power station.Kusile will require a <strong>co</strong>nstant supply of ~17 Mt per year over a life span of 55+ years. This requires amassive <strong>co</strong>al reserve. The New Largo Colliery <strong>co</strong>al reserve is located directly to the east of Kusile,between the N4 highway in the north and the N12 highway in the south, with a small portion of the <strong>co</strong>alreserve found to the south of the N12 highway (Figure 1-1).With the design and location of Kusile, it was always intended that the New Largo <strong>co</strong>al reserve wouldsupply the base load <strong>co</strong>al to Kusile. The boilers of Kusile were planned based on the <strong>co</strong>al qualityaverage obtained from the whole of the New Largo <strong>co</strong>al reserve including the Honingkrantz reserves. Inessence – Kusile was designed in ac<strong>co</strong>rdance with Mine Plan Version 6 <strong>co</strong>al quality average.The larger part of the <strong>co</strong>al reserve is re<strong>co</strong>gnised to be of poorer quality which requires some form ofbeneficiation in order to improve the <strong>co</strong>al quality to the requirements stipulated in the preliminary <strong>co</strong>alsale agreement between AAIC and Eskom. The <strong>co</strong>al sale agreement stipulations are based on thedesign of Kusile.New Largo Colliery will be an extensive opencast <strong>co</strong>al mine and, as for any <strong>co</strong>al mine of this scale, itwould be associated with impacts of a very high significance that will require careful management andspecialised long-term mitigation at <strong>co</strong>nsiderable <strong>co</strong>st. Some of the impacts and mitigation will remain arisk and a <strong>co</strong>st for many years after mining has ceased.The project will impact on a number of wetlands within in the mining area. Although alternative mineplans were evaluated to minimise impacts on wetlands, AAIC maintains that there are serious risksassociated with the alternative mine plans and that their base case mine plan (Mine Plan Version 6)should be adopted as the preferred mine plan. AAIC has appointed Wetland Consulting Services todevelop a wetland offset plan for wetlands affected by Mine Plan Version 6. The strategy as proposed byWetland Consulting Services and adopted by AAIC is presented in Appendix U. Part of the strategywould be to involve I&APs, stakeholders and authorities through an environmental monitoring <strong>co</strong>mmitteein the development of an offset plan.Coal mines are often associated with significant long-term impacts on water quality. AAIC has <strong>co</strong>mmittedto develop a water treatment plant to treat water impacted by the mine and past mining activities withinthe mining area from day one, throughout the life of the mine and post closure, until such time thatmonitoring results prove that treatment is no longer necessary. Although the active treatment of waterwill assist with reducing this impact by returning clean water to the streams and total stream flow ispredicted to increase, the seasonality of the streams will be affected, which will impact on downstreamwetlands and aquatic habitats.Large parts of the mining area has been cultivated in recent years. AAIC has adopted a soilmanagement and rehabilitation plan that are more advanced that for most other <strong>co</strong>al mines, especiallythose using draglines. The soil management and rehabilitation that was developed based onre<strong>co</strong>mmendations from various specialists on the <strong>EIA</strong> study team and <strong>co</strong>mments received fromauthorities and I&APs (details of the plan presented in Section 4.11). The plan optimises the potential forthe establishment of agricultural land uses post mining and should also reduce the need for post closurewater treatment. Based on the adopted soil management and rehabilitation plan, a <strong>co</strong>nceptual end landuse plan was developed which indicates that it would be possible to achieve no net loss of foodproduction and in<strong>co</strong>me generation from agriculture. At this stage, the <strong>co</strong>nceptual end land plan (Figure13-1) is optimising the use of the land for agriculture but obviously this plan will be revised and updatedover the life of the mine in <strong>co</strong>nsultation with the I&APs and the environmental monitoring <strong>co</strong>mmittee.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)xli
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesFrom a biodiversity protection viewpoint, this plan supports the e<strong>co</strong>logical specialists re<strong>co</strong>mmendationsto focus on the re-establishment of agricultural land uses so that the need to transform other areas foragricultural food production is avoided.The various impacts of the New Largo Colliery are discussed in detail in Section 8 and have been rated,for all project activities and project phases, in Section 9, these sections clearly indicate that there aresubstantial negative impacts as well as substantial positive impacts.Most of the negative social impacts of a project such as New Largo Colliery are often experienced locallyby the people living in close proximity to the project. Impacts on the lives and livelihood of the project’sfuture neighbours will require pro-active mitigation (i.e. measures to avoid, reduce, manage and /or<strong>co</strong>mpensate for impacts). The EMP includes clear measures to address the need for <strong>co</strong>ntinuedstakeholder engagement, and deal with <strong>co</strong>mplaints, claims and potential disputes. It also allows for theestablishment of an environmental monitoring <strong>co</strong>mmittee.When <strong>co</strong>nsidering the impacts of the proposed New Largo Colliery, the importance of the project in thenational (South African) interest must be <strong>co</strong>nsidered. New Largo Colliery forms part of a much largervalue chain for electricity production in South Africa. The mining development is an investment of R21.3billion, and represent a part of the investment including the Kusile Power Station and <strong>co</strong>nveyor belts thatwill invest over R90 billion in the local and national e<strong>co</strong>nomy. All these projects are needed to ensurethat electricity supply is increased to facilitate e<strong>co</strong>nomic growth for the national e<strong>co</strong>nomy.The New Largo <strong>co</strong>al reserve <strong>co</strong>nsists of areas with high quality <strong>co</strong>al and areas with lower quality <strong>co</strong>al,which will have to be blended in order to ensure a <strong>co</strong>nsistent supply of <strong>co</strong>al that meets Eskom’s qualityrequirements for <strong>co</strong>al supply to Kusile, which uses pulverised <strong>co</strong>al <strong>co</strong>mbustion technology. There areseveral portions of the New Largo <strong>co</strong>al reserve where mining by underground methods has taken placein the past, the largest and most extensive being the now defunct underground New Largo Coal Mine. Itis estimated that approximately 20% of the reserve area <strong>co</strong>mprises of defunct <strong>co</strong>llieries with reserves<strong>co</strong>ntained both in pillars and roof and/or floor of the workings. About ~45 Mt of <strong>co</strong>al over an area of 1500hectares have been extracted by previous mining activities.Collapse of old underground workings and spontaneous <strong>co</strong>mbustion poses a ha<strong>za</strong>rd to both theworkforce and equipment if not adequately managed. AAIC has extensive experience in opencast miningof previously mined underground workings and safe work practices employed at these <strong>co</strong>llieries will beimplemented. However, the presence of the old underground workings do pose significant limitations onthe mining methods chosen as well as on mine scheduling / sequencing to achieve safe mining<strong>co</strong>nditions and achieve the required <strong>co</strong>al qualities for Kusile. AAIC views opencast mining usingdraglines, supported by small shovel and truck operations, as the only viable mining method to re<strong>co</strong>ver<strong>co</strong>al reserves remaining in areas previously mined by underground methods and to produce the vastquantities of <strong>co</strong>al required by Kusile.In terms of scale and tonnages required, it is the opinion of the Environmental Assessment Practitionerthat there is no alternative <strong>co</strong>al mine, or <strong>co</strong>mbination of smaller <strong>co</strong>al mines, that <strong>co</strong>uld supply this <strong>co</strong>al onschedule and at the <strong>co</strong>rrect grade, quality and quantities – with less environmental impacts thanthose associated with the New Largo Colliery. In the light of the discussions in Section 1(Development Need and Desirability), Section 5 (Development Alternatives, and Section 8(Environmental Impact Assessment) of the report, it is clear that New Largo Colliery is the best suited<strong>co</strong>al reserve to supply <strong>co</strong>al to Kusile. This <strong>co</strong>nclusion was reached based on the EnvironmentalAssessment Practitioner’s professional experience working with <strong>co</strong>al mines throughout all the major <strong>co</strong>alfields in Mpumalanga, Kwa-Zulu Natal and Limpopo provinces of South Africa.The Environmental Assessment Practitioner for this project is of the opinion that there are no notableuncertainties and knowledge gaps that should affect the approval of the New Largo Colliery project.Regardless of the obvious need for the project to be approved timeously to supply <strong>co</strong>al to Kusile, and to<strong>co</strong>ntinue to provide a <strong>co</strong>nstant supply of <strong>co</strong>al to Kusile, AAIC needs to keep to the strategy forNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)xlii
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesdeveloping a wetland mitigation and offset plan as attached in Appendix U (and summarised in theEMP).The EAP is re<strong>co</strong>mmending that the project be approved by government subject to the implementation ofthe EMP as <strong>co</strong>ntained in Appendix B. The approval should be for the preferred development alternativesas described above and in more detail in Section 5.Consultant DeclarationSynergistics Environmental Services is an independent environmental <strong>co</strong>nsultancy that was establishedin South Africa in 2004.Mari Wolmarans, the project leader for the New Largo Colliery <strong>EIA</strong>, is an independent <strong>co</strong>nsultant andcertified as an Environmental Assessment Practitioner by the Interim Certification Board in South Africa.She has 20 years’ experience in the field of environmental <strong>co</strong>nsulting, particularly in the mining andinfrastructure development sectors.The undersigned <strong>co</strong>nsultants herewith declare that this <strong>EIA</strong> report represents an objective and <strong>co</strong>mpleteassessment of the environmental impacts associated with the proposed New Largo Colliery. Issues andimpact were identified and assessed through professional judgement and <strong>co</strong>nsultation with interestedand affected parties and authorities.The <strong>EIA</strong> process followed for the project is deemed to <strong>co</strong>mply with relevant legislation, best practicesand principles of integrated environmental management.The Environmental Assessment Practitioner has also signed the <strong>co</strong>nsultant’s declaration on theMDEDET standard form (Appendix 4).__________________________________Mari WolmaransBL Arch, MSAIE&ES, EAPSA CertifiedEnvironmental AdvisorProject Leader and Independent Environmental Assessment Practitioner__________________________________Marline MedallieM.Sc Botany (Molecular Systematics)Environmental AdvisorSynergistics Environmental ServicesNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)xliii
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesPreliminariesS0403/<strong>EIA</strong>01 July 2012ANGLO AMERICAN INYOSI COAL (PTY) LIMITEDNew Largo CollieryNkangala District Municipality, MpumalangaENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORTVolume 1: Main <strong>Report</strong>, Appendix A and B(1 of 7 volumes)Purpose of the <strong>Report</strong>(<strong>Final</strong>)The report provides a description of the proposed New Largo Colliery, its associated activities andvarious development alternatives that were evaluated, and the environmental impact assessment (<strong>EIA</strong>)undertaken for proposed project.The purpose of this final <strong>EIA</strong> report for the New Largo Colliery is to present the final results of theenvironmental impact assessment process undertaken for the project, including an evaluation of thedevelopment alternatives. The report will be made available for public review and will be submitted to therelevant authorities in terms of the following environmental legal processes:Environmental authorisation in terms of the National Environmental Management Act (No 107 of1998) (NEMA).Approval of an environmental management programme, in terms of the Mineral and PetroleumResources Development Act (No 28 of 2002) (MPRDA). Approval of an integrated water use license, in terms of the National Water Act (No 36 of 1998)(DWA).Approval of a waste management license, in terms of the National Environmental Management:Waste Act (No. 59 of 2008) (NEMWA).Changes made to <strong>Final</strong> <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong>This final <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong> presents an update and amendment of the draft <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong> that was <strong>co</strong>mpleted atthe end of January 2012. Factual changes that were made in the text of this final <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong> arehighlighted with a dotted line in the right margin and/or in grey text such as this example. Please notethat minor <strong>co</strong>smetic changes and <strong>co</strong>rrections have not been highlighted.Maps have been updated with the mine plan and infrastructure layouts at the time of writing. Newdrawings have been provided in Appendix T. For a <strong>co</strong>mparison of changes, please refer to the maps anddrawings in the draft <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong>.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)1
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices<strong>Report</strong> VolumesThe final <strong>EIA</strong> report is in five volumes: Volume 1: Main <strong>Report</strong>, Appendix A and BVolume 2: Appendix C and Appendix D1 to D9 (Public Participation Documentation)Volume 3: Appendix D10 to D14 (Public Participation Documentation Continued)Volume 4: Appendix D15 (Public Participation Documentation Continued) and Appendix E to F(Specialist Studies 1) <strong>EIA</strong> Volume 5 (Appendix G and H: Specialist Studies 2) <strong>EIA</strong> Volume 6 (Appendix I to L: Specialist Studies 3)<strong>EIA</strong> Volume 7 (Appendix M to S and U: Specialist Studies 4, and Appendix T: Project Layout andDesign - Maps and Drawings)<strong>Report</strong>s Completed for the Project to DateThe following reports have been <strong>co</strong>mpleted to date, and were issued for public and authority review:1. New Largo Colliery: Background Information Document (Oct 2010).2. New Largo Colliery: Draft Environmental S<strong>co</strong>ping <strong>Report</strong> (Dec 2010).3. New Largo Colliery: <strong>Final</strong> Environmental S<strong>co</strong>ping <strong>Report</strong> (Jun 2011).4. Various specialist assessment reports, as appended to this report (refer List of Appendices).5. New Largo Colliery: Draft <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong> (February 2012).6. New Largo Colliery: Draft Integrated Water Use Licence Application <strong>Report</strong> (March 2012).7. New Largo Colliery: Draft Integrated Water and Waste Management Plan October (March2012).8. New Largo Colliery: <strong>Final</strong> <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong> (July 2012, THIS REPORT).9. New Largo Colliery: Integrated Water Use Licence Application <strong>Report</strong> (July 2012).10. New Largo Colliery: Integrated Water and Waste Management Plan October (July 2012).Related StudiesReserve DeterminationUnder the protection of water resources, the National Water Act (Act No. 36, 1998) (NWA) stipulates thedetermination of the Reserve. The e<strong>co</strong>logical Reserve maintains aquatic e<strong>co</strong>systems in such a way thatNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)2
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesthey can <strong>co</strong>ntinue to provide goods and services to society. The Reserve forms the only right to water,with all other water uses subject to authorisations.In terms of the NWA, before the required authorisation to utilise a particular water resource can begranted, it is necessary to determine the Reserve for the relevant e<strong>co</strong>logical <strong>co</strong>mponent of the resourcethat will be impacted by the proposed water use.In terms of Section 15 and 16 of the NWA, it is a government responsibility to determine the class of awater resource and the resource quality objectives. Government is also required to determine theReserve for all or part of any significant water resource. If a resource has not yet been classified, apreliminary determination of the Reserve may be made and later superseded by a new one. Once theReserve is determined for a water resource it is binding in the same way as the class and the resourcequality objectives.AAIC has appointed Wetland Consulting Services to assist with the Reserve Determination study for theaffected areas, to assist government with the determination of the Reserve. The study approach andmethodology used had to be discussed with the Department of Water Affairs. It is estimated that theWetland Consulting Services study will be <strong>co</strong>mpleted in May 2013.Wetland Offset PlanNo National or Mpumalanga provincial guidelines currently exist for wetland offset projects despitenumerous offset projects already been undertaken within the Mpumalanga <strong>co</strong>alfields with varyingdegrees of success. Re<strong>co</strong>gnizing the need for such guidelines, the SANBI Grasslands Programmerecently funded a project entitled: Towards a best-practice guideline for wetland offsets in South Africa. Adraft version of these guidelines has been released. The technical guidelines <strong>co</strong>ntained in this report,which were developed specifically for <strong>co</strong>al mining in the Mpumalanga Highveld, will be <strong>co</strong>nsidered aspart to the strategy to develop a wetland offset plan for New Largo Colliery.Developing an offset plan for New Largo <strong>co</strong>uld be a lengthy process of which the first step is to developa strategy ac<strong>co</strong>rding to which the offset plan would be developed. The strategy as proposed by WetlandConsulting Services is presented in Appendix U. Part of the strategy would be to involve I&APs,stakeholders and authorities through the environmental monitoring <strong>co</strong>mmittee in the process ofevaluating <strong>co</strong>mments and re<strong>co</strong>mmendations made by these parties, evaluating alternative offset options,and the development of a final offset plan on the selected offset options.DWA, DMR and MDEDET have not given clear feedback on their requirements for wetland offsets / offsitemitigation and on-site mitigation for affected wetlands. Offsets plans are not legislated and it isuncertain what potential future legislation on this topic would require. In light of this AAIC cannot be heldac<strong>co</strong>untable to have a <strong>co</strong>mpleted offset plan in place at the time of <strong>EIA</strong> submission and approval.<strong>Report</strong> Distribution ListThe final <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong> will be available on the websites and at the places listed in the table below. You aremost wel<strong>co</strong>me to request us to send you a CD of the report.Table A: <strong>Report</strong> Distribution ListContact Location ContactPrinted CopiesMs Ntombi JelaOgies Public Library, 61 Main Street, OgiesTel: 013 643 1150 or 013 643 1027 (if thisperson cannot be reached, please <strong>co</strong>ntact<strong>Zitholele</strong> on the numbers below)Engela El Toro Restaurant on the R545 near the Kendal Power Station Tel: 082 854 8594 (if this person cannot bereached, please <strong>co</strong>ntact <strong>Zitholele</strong> on thenumbers below to make alternativearrangements)New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)3
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesContact Location ContactCindy SmithAnglo American Inyosi Coal (Pty) LtdEnvironmental Services Offices, WitbankTel: 013 691 5117Lierieka CuylerSynergistics Environmental Services64 Wessels Road, Rivonia, JohannesburgTel: 011 807 8225Electronic CopiesLierieka Cuylerwww.synergistcs.<strong>co</strong>.<strong>za</strong> orTel: 011 807 8225, or send email request tointernet-based file download site (information available on requestmarline@synergistics.<strong>co</strong>.<strong>za</strong>via email from Synergistics)Andre Joubert www.zitholele.<strong>co</strong>.<strong>za</strong> Tel: 011 207 2077Andre JoubertOn request via email from <strong>Zitholele</strong> ConsultingPhone 011 207 2077, or send email requestto andrej@zitholele.<strong>co</strong>.<strong>za</strong>All I&APs were notified about the availability of the review period of the draft <strong>EIA</strong> report and were invitedto a public feedback meeting to discuss and <strong>co</strong>mment on the results of the <strong>EIA</strong> process, the specialiststudies and the <strong>co</strong>ntent of the EMP. The list in Appendix D presents I&APs that have been identified todate. The identification of I&APs is a <strong>co</strong>ntinuous and iterative process. As the EnvironmentalAssessment Practitioner or Public Consultation Specialist be<strong>co</strong>me aware of people with a potentialinterest in the project, notifications were forwarded to these parties.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)4
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices1. Project Overview1.1 Project MotivationAnglo American Inyosi Coal (Pty) Limited (AAIC) is proposing to develop a new opencast <strong>co</strong>al mine tosupply <strong>co</strong>al to Eskom’s new Kusile Power Station (Kusile). The New Largo Colliery is proposed to meetthe future demand for <strong>co</strong>al at the power station. Kusile is currently under <strong>co</strong>nstruction, just south of theN4 highway between Bronkhorstspruit and Emalahleni (Witbank) in Nkangala District Municipality ofMpumalanga Province.At full production, Kusile will require approximately 17 million tonnes (Mt) of <strong>co</strong>al per year, depending onthe quality of the <strong>co</strong>al. AAIC intends to enter into a long-term <strong>co</strong>al sale agreement with Eskom to supply<strong>co</strong>al to the new Kusile Power Station. AAIC has <strong>co</strong>mmitted, in a letter of intent, to supply the bulk of the17 Mt of <strong>co</strong>al to Kusile over a period of 47 years. The intention is for this <strong>co</strong>al to be sourced from theNew Largo Colliery, with supporting production from AAIC’s Zibulu 2 seam and Zondagsfontein 4 seamoperations.1.2 Project LocationThe New Largo Colliery <strong>co</strong>al reserve is located directly to the east of the new Kusile Power Station,between the N4 highway in the north and the N12 highway in the south, with a small portion of the <strong>co</strong>alreserve found to the south of the N12 highway (Figure 1-1).The intention is not to mine through the N12 highway but to leave a buffer zone for the highway andother linear infrastructure running parallel to the N12 such as the Transnet petroleum pipeline.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)5
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesFigure 1-1: Locality of the proposed New Largo Colliery (Future Mining Right Area and Mining Reserve Boundary) and R545 Replacement Options 33All figures updated based on project details available at the time of writing of the final <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong>.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)6
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices1.3 Background to Kusile Power StationThe Kusile Power Station (Kusile) is a <strong>co</strong>al-fired, dry-<strong>co</strong>oled, flue-gas desulphurisation (FGD) powerstation. Coal burned at Kusile will be used to produce steam that drives the steam turbines and the<strong>co</strong>nnected electricity generators.Once fully operational, Kusile will <strong>co</strong>nsist of six units of ~800 megawatts (MW) each and a total capacityof 4800 MW. Construction of Kusile entered its fifth year in the first quarter of 2012. Based on official<strong>co</strong>mmunication AAIC has received from Eskom, the first <strong>co</strong>al at Kusile is required in October 2013 inorder to lay down stockpile beds and <strong>co</strong>mmission the <strong>co</strong>al stockyard equipment and the first unit isscheduled to start <strong>co</strong>mmercial operations in 2014 while the last unit is expected to <strong>co</strong>me online in 2018.Eleven of the currently operational <strong>co</strong>al‐fired power stations in the <strong>co</strong>untry are situated in Mpumalangaand <strong>co</strong>ntribute roughly 76% of the total electricity generated in South Africa. In addition, the three Eskomreturn‐to‐service <strong>co</strong>al‐fired power stations, which were mothballed in the 1980s when there was asurplus of electricity generation in South Africa, are also situated in Mpumalanga. Given that Kusile isbeing developed in an area where there is already a high level of air pollution due to power generation,flue-gas desulphurisation (FGD) has being in<strong>co</strong>rporated into the design of Kusile as a more effective airemission reduction than the existing older power stations. Kusile is the first South African power facilityto in<strong>co</strong>rporate wet FGD, an air-filtration technology option in line with current international air qualitymitigation practices.The FGD technology is used to remove sulphur dioxide (SO 2 ) from the exhaust flue gases. <strong>Report</strong>edly,~90% of the sulphur dioxide will be removed by the FGD technology. Sulphur dioxide (SO 2 ) is one of theelements <strong>co</strong>ntributing to the formation of acid rain. Tall flue-gas stacks disperse emissions by diluting thepollutants in ambient air and transporting them to other regions. FGD utilises limestone as the rawmaterial for desulphurisation and produces gypsum as a by-product, for uses such as the manufacture ofdry walls and ceilings.In addition to the FGD, there will be a fabric filter plant at Kusile to prevent <strong>co</strong>al ash <strong>co</strong>ntamination. Thisprocess is much more efficient than <strong>co</strong>nventional electrostatic precipitators and will play an importantpart in limiting the plant’s environmental impact.” The boiler furnaces will be fitted with low nitrous oxide(NO X ) <strong>co</strong>al burners to eliminate these gases from the flue gases.The installation of FGD was a <strong>co</strong>ndition imposed on the development when the environmental re<strong>co</strong>rd ofdecision was approved by the National Department of Environmental Affairs (NDEA) 4 .Kusile will utilise a dry-<strong>co</strong>oling system. Since <strong>co</strong>oling is done using air, large amounts of water are notlost due to the evaporation of water used in the <strong>co</strong>oling process. However, there is a trade-off betweenair quality emission <strong>co</strong>ntrol and water <strong>co</strong>nsumption. FGD is a wet process, which significantly increasesKusile’s water <strong>co</strong>nsumption 5 .Although the <strong>co</strong>mmercialisation of carbon capture and storage (CSC) technology is in its infancy andSouth Africa's geological make-up is not ideal for the storage of carbon, Eskom has <strong>co</strong>nfirmed thatKusile is ‘CSC-ready’ as the plant's layout <strong>co</strong>uld allow the in<strong>co</strong>rporation of carbon capture and storagetechnology if such a technology were to emerge and if suitable storage areas <strong>co</strong>uld be dis<strong>co</strong>vered.The location of Kusile was dictated by the presence of <strong>co</strong>al reserves in close proximity to the powerstation in order to minimise <strong>co</strong>al transport and the impacts associated with transport of <strong>co</strong>al (for detailson the impact of <strong>co</strong>al transport refer to the Section 8 and Section 9).45At the time of approval, NDEA was still the National Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT).http://www.engineeringnews.<strong>co</strong>.<strong>za</strong>/article/kusiles-airquality-push-has-water<strong>co</strong>nsumption-downside-2008-08-15New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)7
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices1.4 Historical Mining within the Study Area and the New Largo Coal ReserveThe New Largo <strong>co</strong>al reserve is located within the north-western region of the Witbank Coal Fields, whichhas historically (and is currently) being mined extensively for <strong>co</strong>al, by both underground and opencastmining operations. Other large-scale open cast mining operations are currently in operation to the south,south-east and east of New Largo Colliery.There are several portions of the New Largo <strong>co</strong>al reserve where mining by underground methods hastaken place in the past, the largest and most extensive being the now defunct underground New LargoCoal Mine. It is estimated that ~ 27 % of the reserve area <strong>co</strong>mprises defunct <strong>co</strong>llieries with reserves<strong>co</strong>ntained in the pillars, roof and/or floor of the workings. About ~52 Mt of <strong>co</strong>al over an area of 1500hectares has been extracted by previous mining activities.These known underground workings are shown in Figure 1-3. It is suspected that unmapped areas ofunderground workings exist, which is indicated by the presence of old adits (entrances to undergroundmining areas) and discard dumps on surface. All known areas where plans were available have beenscanned and mapped.Extensive sand mining operations are taking place within the New Largo <strong>co</strong>al reserve. An exercise toestimate the <strong>co</strong>al remaining in the defunct <strong>co</strong>llieries was <strong>co</strong>nducted as part of the report “Geology andReserves of the New Largo Coalfield” (A. Christie March, 1991). In summary, it has been estimated thatin the area of the old underground workings, 59% and 61% of the in situ <strong>co</strong>al remains in the No. 4 andNo. 2 seams respectively. The proposed New Largo Colliery is thus not a Greenfields mining project.Dewatering of the old underground workings and treatment of the water will be required prior to mining ofthe areas affected. It is estimated that the workings will take 4 years to dewater. The water will be treatedprior to release in nearby streams. Collapse of old underground workings and spontaneous <strong>co</strong>mbustionposes a ha<strong>za</strong>rd to both the workforce and equipment if not adequately managed. AAIC has extensiveexperience in opencast mining of previously mined underground workings and safe work practicesemployed at these <strong>co</strong>llieries will be implemented. However, the presence of the old undergroundworkings do pose significant limitations on the mining methods chosen as well as on mine scheduling /sequencing to achieve safe mining <strong>co</strong>nditions and achieve the required <strong>co</strong>al qualities for Kusile.1.5 Need and Desirability of the Development1.5.1 Introduction and Impacts of the New Largo CollieryNew Largo Colliery will be an extensive opencast <strong>co</strong>al mine and, as for any <strong>co</strong>al mine of this scale, itwould be associated with impacts of a very high significance that will require careful management andspecialised long-term mitigation at <strong>co</strong>nsiderable <strong>co</strong>st. Some of the impacts and mitigation will remain arisk and <strong>co</strong>st for many years after mining has ceased.The project will impact on a number of wetlands within in the mining area. Although the water treatmentplant (WTP) will assist with the release of clean water into the streams and there will be a positiveimpacts on water quality, the seasonality of flow downstream will still be affected, which will impact ondownstream wetlands and aquatic habitats. Impacts on wetlands can be regarded as residual. Based onthe re<strong>co</strong>mmendations of the Hydrological Specialist Assessment (see Appendix G), AAIC is proposing asystem where water will be released at various points and in different streams in order to mitigate theimpact of changes to flow and to minimise impacts such as erosion risks.Most of the negative social impacts of a project such as New Largo Colliery are often experienced locallyby the people living in close proximity to the project. The various impacts of the New Largo Colliery arediscussed in detail in Section 8 and are rated, for all project activities and project phases, in Section 9 –these sections clearly show the negative and positive impacts of the project and clearly indicate thatthere are substantial negative impacts as well as substantial positive impacts.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)8
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesWhen <strong>co</strong>nsidering the impacts of the proposed New Largo Colliery, the importance of the project on anational scale must be <strong>co</strong>nsidered. The following section is an attempt to portray the need anddesirability of New Largo Colliery within a national <strong>co</strong>ntext.1.5.2 Background to Electricity Generation in South AfricaUntil the late 1980s, South Africa enjoyed a surplus of some of the cheapest electricity in the world.However, in 2008, after almost no investment in the <strong>co</strong>untry’s power infrastructure for 20 years, andfacing escalating electricity demand, South Africa found itself in the middle of an electricity crisis.The result was persistent power cuts through programmed load-shedding in periods where short supplythreatened the integrity of the national grid system, thereby impacting the <strong>co</strong>untry’s mainstay industries.Since 2008, Eskom has been under significant pressure to boost generation capacity and provide astable supply of power. Ac<strong>co</strong>rding to Eskom’s Thava Govender, divisional executive of generation 6 :“In 2008–2009, as a result of the recession, we saw a dip in demand, which allowedus to push forward maintenance on existing plants…But in 2010–2011, the demand isreaching the levels that we saw before the recession, and now the system is runningvery tightly…Our biggest challenge at the moment is to meet our demand and<strong>co</strong>ntinue our maintenance schedule. Our fleet is middle-aged, which means theyneed extensive maintenance (shutting down for 60 to 120 days), and ideally, wewould like 10% planned maintenance of our fleet per year, but we are not in a positionto do this, and last year we succeeded in only 8%. We have a plan to shut downsome of our units over the next five years to make them <strong>co</strong>mpliant with environmentalrequirements. We also need to reduce forced outages, but with a middle-aged fleet,this is a challenge. On average we have 3,600 MW of unplanned maintenance.”1.5.3 Kusile Power Station Need and Desirability – A National DebateIt is not the role of the New Largo Colliery <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong> to investigate and <strong>co</strong>mment on the need anddesirability of the Kusile Power Station. As pointed out by Eskom’s spokesperson Hillary Duffy when<strong>co</strong>mmenting on protest action by Greenpeace activists at Kusile in November 2011:“This is a <strong>co</strong>untry debate in which we all need to participate.”The documents included in Appendix C provides supplementary background reading material to illustratesome of the diverse views held by the different stakeholders – government, business, <strong>co</strong>nsumers, civilsociety and environmental groups. It reflects recent debates on the future role of <strong>co</strong>al in electricitygeneration in South Africa. The following represents abstracts from the documents <strong>co</strong>ntained inAppendix C and clearly illustrates the trade-offs between security of electivity supply to supporte<strong>co</strong>nomic growth and global environmental <strong>co</strong>ncerns such as climate change that are being widelydebated:1: ‘As Eskom’s multibillion-rand expansion project to meet South Africa’s rising electricity demandssteadily forges ahead, the project – and particularly its new Medupi and Kusile <strong>co</strong>al-fired powerstations – has run into a barrage of criticism and opposition over power-generation type choices,delays, escalating <strong>co</strong>sts, planning, funding issues, environmental <strong>co</strong>ncerns and more. In short, itsoverall feasibility, viability and future sustainability is being questioned.’(Article in the Project Manager, 28 March 2011, abstract from Appendix C7 7 ).67http://gbreports.<strong>co</strong>m/admin/reports/SouthAfrica_Power-2011.<strong>pdf</strong>http://www.theprojectmanager.<strong>co</strong>.<strong>za</strong>/index.php/Other/power-<strong>co</strong>mplex.htmlNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)9
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices2: “For most South Africans, the idea of where their electricity <strong>co</strong>mes from doesn’t even occur tothem. They switch on a light and don’t realise that <strong>co</strong>al is burning at that moment.”(Greenpeace climate campaigner, Michael Baillie, quoted from Appendix C8 8 ).3: “We would like to see both South Africa and Eskom taking up renewable energy,”(Greenpeace climate campaigner Melita Steele, from Appendix C8 5 ).4: “There is no quick-fix…It took us 200 years to build an e<strong>co</strong>nomy dependent on fossil fuels.Transition doesn’t happen overnight. Our stance is we want 100 percent renewable energy by2050. There is no debate; transition is going to have to take place.” “We can’t just pull the plugnow – too many jobs will be lost and e<strong>co</strong>nomies will <strong>co</strong>llapse.”(WWF’s Saliem Fakir, adapted from Appendix C1 9 ).5: ‘We have managed a delicate electricity supply and demand balance post the events of early 2008and we have been able to avert the need for power supply interruptions, generally called loadshedding, through increased vigilance and a heightened level of operational scrutiny and focus.However, we are not out of the woods yet and we will be faced with an increasingly tight systemuntil Medupi and Kusile, our two major base-load stations start feeding electricity into the nationalgrid. It will require a <strong>co</strong>ncerted effort from all South Africans over the next few years to useelectricity efficiently and effectively to ensure we are able to maintain a secure supply.We have persisted with the <strong>co</strong>nviction that we cannot do this alone; we need the <strong>co</strong>ntribution andeffort of every single South African, together <strong>co</strong>nserving energy, using it sparingly, efficiently andeffectively……It is crucial that we ensure that South Africa’s e<strong>co</strong>nomic growth is not <strong>co</strong>nstrained due to ashortage of available electricity supply as the provision of sufficient electricity is essential tosupport e<strong>co</strong>nomic growth as well as the developmental imperatives of the <strong>co</strong>untry.Government’s Integrated Resource Plan for Electricity, approved earlier this year [in 2011]forecasts that electricity demand will in fact double from current levels by 2030……We have also, as a <strong>co</strong>untry had to accept a number of steep annual increases in our electricityprices in order to ensure that what we pay for our electricity properly reflects the <strong>co</strong>st of providingthat service.89http://www.iol.<strong>co</strong>.<strong>za</strong>/news/south-africa/gauteng/activists-fired-up-against-<strong>co</strong>al-plants-1.1173624?ot=inmsa.ArticlePrintPageLayout.othttp://eepublishers.<strong>co</strong>.<strong>za</strong>/article/massive-new-renewable-and-nuclear-build-ahead-but-<strong>co</strong>al-is-here-to-stay.html)New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)10
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesWithout the recent price increases, it would not have been possible for Eskom to raise therequired debt nor service its debt obligations and the entire build programme would have beenplaced in jeopardy and in turn, our <strong>co</strong>untry’s security of electricity supply.We must not lose sight as well of the additional socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic benefits of such a largeinfrastructure expansion programme……The need to diversify our electricity generating mix away from fossil fuels has been acceptedand is well re<strong>co</strong>gnised by Government and is evidenced by the IRP2010 which advocates areduction in the <strong>co</strong>ntribution to our electricity generating portfolio by <strong>co</strong>al-fired generation fromover 90% today to around 60% in 2030.Whilst <strong>co</strong>mmitted to the energy mix diversification and the development of a green e<strong>co</strong>nomy asindicated in various government policies, we need to be mindful that we have a large <strong>co</strong>al-firedgeneration fleet that will be around for many years to <strong>co</strong>me……As we diversify away from <strong>co</strong>al as our primary source of electricity generation, we need toensure that we do it responsibly and that we maintain an adequate and reliable supply of baseloadelectricity to power our growing e<strong>co</strong>nomy and create jobs in our <strong>co</strong>untry and in the SouthernAfrican region.While we are <strong>co</strong>mmitted to increasing the share of Renewable Energy sources and theintroduction of a nuclear energy fleet as directed by IRP2010, the delivery as planned of our twonew state-of-the art, <strong>co</strong>al-fired power stations, Medupi and Kusile, the largest and mosttechnologically advanced of their kind globally, is an integral part of our long term <strong>co</strong>untry plan forelectricity provision and will be essential in our effort to secure our <strong>co</strong>untry’s electricity supply nowand to provide for future growth in our e<strong>co</strong>nomy…’(Minister Gigaba, Department of Public Enterprises, 19 Nov 2011, abstracts from Appendix C6 10 ).1.5.4 National Government’s Integrated Resource Plan for Electricity 2010-2030 (IRP2010)The South African Integrated Resource Plan for Electricity 2010-2030 (IRP2010) was recently approvedby Cabinet. Among other things, IRP2010 aims to: Forecast South Africa’s electricity demand for the next 20 years up to 2030,Define how this demand is to be met by setting out the generation technologies to be used andthe planned mix of primary energy options over this period, such as the mix betweenhydrocarbon (<strong>co</strong>al, gas, diesel), renewable (hydro, wind, solar), nuclear, pumped storage andother power generation technologies,Enable the necessary short, medium and long term investment, funding and business plans to bedeveloped to give effect to IRP2010, and thus toEnable the setting of electricity price trajectory for years to <strong>co</strong>me.10Speaking notes for Minister Gigaba: Kusile Boiler Construction Commencement Function, Issued by: Department of Public Enterprises, 19 Nov 2011.http://www.info.gov.<strong>za</strong>/speech/DynamicAction?pageid=461&sid=23422&tid=49707New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)11
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesThe IRP2010 quotes South Africa’s current generation capacity as 43 895 MW but forecasts thatelectricity demand will double from current levels by 2030. Energy Efficient Demand Side Management(interventions to reduce energy <strong>co</strong>nsumption) was <strong>co</strong>nsidered in the calculations. Ac<strong>co</strong>rding to finalIRP2010 report, ‘the multi-criteria decision-making process <strong>co</strong>nfirmed that the [chosen developmentscenario] represents an appropriate balance between the expectations of the different stakeholders<strong>co</strong>nsidering a number of key <strong>co</strong>nstraints and risks, for example:a. Reducing carbon emissions,b. New technology uncertainties such as <strong>co</strong>sts, operability, lead time to build etc.,c. Water usage,d. Localisation and job creation,e . Southern African regional development and integration, andf. Security of supply.’The IRP2010 claims to provide an appropriate balance between the need to significantly reduceCO 2 emissions and enable a viable renewable energy sector in South Africa, while endeavouring to<strong>co</strong>ntain electricity prices to avoid damage to the e<strong>co</strong>nomy, loss of jobs and undue social hardship. Thechosen development scenario, termed the ‘<strong>Final</strong> Policy Adjusted IRP 2010’ proposes the followingtechnology mix for electricity generation from 2010 to 2030, and the proposed 52 248 MW of newgeneration capacity by 2030.Figure 1-2: Growth and mix of generation capacity in South Africa – 2010 to 2030: <strong>Final</strong> PolicyAdjusted IRP2010 (on right) <strong>co</strong>mpared to the 2010 status quo (on left)Source: “Massive renewable and nuclear build ahead - but <strong>co</strong>al is here to stay”. Understanding IRP 2010 – the nationalIntegrated Resource Plan for Electricity, article by Chris Yelland, Managing Director, EE Publishers, December 2011.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)12
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesTable 1-1: <strong>Final</strong> Policy Adjusted IRP 2010 – technology mix for adding electricity generatingcapacity between 2010 and 2030Electricity Generation TypeAdded Capacity2010 – 2030Hydrocarbon 23 683 MW 41,89%Coal 16 383 MW 29,98%Closed Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT), diesel 4 930 MW 8,72%Closed Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT), gas 2 370 MW 4,19%Renewables 21 534 MW 38,09%Wind 9 200 MW 16,27%Solar Photo-Voltaic (PV) 8 400 MW 14,86%Solar Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) 1 200 MW 2,12%Imported hydro 2 609 MW 4,61%Landfill, small hydro 125 MW 0,22%Nuclear 9 600 MW 16,98%Pumped storage 1 332 MW 2,36%Co-generation, own build 390 MW 0,69%(a) Added New Capacity Developed 2010 – 2030 56 539 MW 100%(b) De<strong>co</strong>mmissioned 2010 – 2030 (mainly <strong>co</strong>al)-10 903 MW(a – b) Effective Added Capacity 45 636 MWSource: “Massive renewable and nuclear build ahead - but <strong>co</strong>al is here to stay”. Understanding IRP 2010 – the nationalIntegrated Resource Plan for Electricity, article by Chris Yelland, Managing Director, EE Publishers, December 2011.1.5.5 Kusile’s Role in the National Government’s Integrated Resource Plan (IRP2010)During the IRP2010 evaluation of alternative electricity generation scenarios, the future of Kusile wasspecifically deliberated. The following options were <strong>co</strong>nsidered:Continue with Kusile as planned.Cancelation of Kusile power station.Delay in the <strong>co</strong>nstruction of Medupi and Kusile power station.The <strong>Final</strong> Policy Adjusted IRP2010 that was approved by cabinet includes Kusile in the technology mixfor adding electricity generating capacity between 2010 and 2030.Although implementation of the plan will result in the diversification of South Africa’s electricitygeneration away from fossil fuels, and a drop in the percentage of electricity generated from <strong>co</strong>al (from90% today to around 60% in 2030), the total quantity of electricity generated from <strong>co</strong>al will still increasewith 5 481 MW up to 2030.The IRP2010 reflects the added <strong>co</strong>al generation until 2030 to be 16 383 MW, of which Medupi ac<strong>co</strong>untsfor 4332 MW, Kusile 4337 MW and ‘new’ <strong>co</strong>al (Pulverised Fuel (PF), Fluidised Bed Combustion (FBC)and Imports) ac<strong>co</strong>unts for the remaining 6 250 MW. De<strong>co</strong>mmissioning of old technology infrastructure,mainly <strong>co</strong>al, will ac<strong>co</strong>unt for the removal of 10 902 MW from the system – more than the <strong>co</strong>mbinedgeneration capacity of Medupi and Kusile.Over the long-term, Medupi and Kusile, can thus be regarded as needed merely to replace the currentcapacity generated by aging, old technology power plants. In terms of the IRP2010, Kusile will have to<strong>co</strong>me on line between 2017 and 2020. This is clearly illustrated in Table 1-2 below:New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)13
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesTable 1-2: Summary of the ‘<strong>Final</strong> Policy Adjusted IRP 2010’ illustrating Medupi and Kusile PowerStations role in supplying electricity generation capacity in SouthSource: Page 14 Integrated Resource Plan <strong>Final</strong> <strong>Report</strong>, March 2011 (IRP2010).Abbreviations used in table: CCGT: Closed Cycle Gas Turbine. CSP: Concentrating Solar Power. DOE: Department of Energy.FBC: Fluidised Bed Combustion. IPP: Independent Power Producer. OCGT: Open Cycle Gas Turbine. PV: Pulverised Fuel.RTS: Return to Service.1.5.6 Coal Reserves and Mining in MpumalangaThe <strong>co</strong>al deposits in the Mpumalanga Highveld are steadily being mined out. An article published onmoneyweb.<strong>co</strong>.<strong>za</strong> 11 on 24 March 2011, stated:‘the Mpumalanga resource base is running low and there are quality problems as wellleading to very <strong>co</strong>stly load losses. Significant investments of some R110 billion isneeded for new <strong>co</strong>al-mines and <strong>co</strong>nveyor systems to ensure that SA’s fleet of <strong>co</strong>alpower stations are adequately supplied.’Eskom maintains that they are having difficulty securing all the <strong>co</strong>al they need since <strong>co</strong>al mining<strong>co</strong>mpanies have increasingly been focusing on exports due to the promise of higher returns on exported<strong>co</strong>al. Eskom claims that:‘South Africa <strong>co</strong>uld face power shortages if domestic <strong>co</strong>al supplies are not guaranteed,as they have been in other major <strong>co</strong>al producers such as Indonesia. It also <strong>co</strong>mplainsabout having to pay for domestic <strong>co</strong>al at international prices. "Eskom faces seriouschallenges in securing long-term <strong>co</strong>al supplies. Unless an alternative is found, Eskomwill have to pay prices linked to global markets for South African <strong>co</strong>al, which is going to11http://www.moneyweb.<strong>co</strong>.<strong>za</strong>/mw/view/mw/en/page295023?oid=533998&sn=2009%20DetailNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)14
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesimpact the <strong>co</strong>nsumer," Eskom chief <strong>co</strong>mmercial officer Dan Marokane told Reuters.’(Mail & Guardian Online Article, 02 February 2011 12 )In an article entitled “Solving Eskom's Coal Conundrum” published on miningmx.<strong>co</strong>m 13 it was stated that:‘Ac<strong>co</strong>rding to Eskom’s previous long-term plans, existing <strong>co</strong>al mines in Mpumalangawould have been adequate to provide for the remaining lifetimes of the existing fleet ofpower stations...But the electricity shortage has obliged some of the power stations'normal 50-year life spans to be extended to 60 years. That, and delays in building new<strong>co</strong>al mines, point to a shortfall of 1,500 million tonnes of <strong>co</strong>al over the next 28 years.Expected exports of Eskom-grade <strong>co</strong>al will over this period add a deficit of another 520million tonnes. These <strong>co</strong>al exports are anticipated because new power stations in India- to be <strong>co</strong>mmissioned over the next five years - require <strong>co</strong>al that is "right in the middle"of the quality category Eskom’s power stations use. Previously only higher-grade <strong>co</strong>alwas exported. Over the past two years a new <strong>co</strong>al category, RB3, has been developedthat <strong>co</strong>mplies with Indian quality requirements – and which is exported through theRichards Bay Coal Terminal.Pricewise, South Africa is now <strong>co</strong>mpeting directly with global markets, said a seniorofficial at Eskom's <strong>co</strong>al division.This creates expectations on the part of <strong>co</strong>al producers that they will in time be able toexport <strong>co</strong>al at prices many times higher than that at which they deliver to Eskom.Eskom has seen postponement of various projects that should have been startedalready because the owners of those resources are uncertain about the future market,said the official.The following is an abstract from an article ‘Weighing the merits of Medupi and Kusile is a ticklishbusiness’ published in The Project Manager 14 , 28 March 2011:‘Recently, Eskom’s chief <strong>co</strong>mmercial officer, Dan Marokane announced that security ofthe <strong>co</strong>al supplies [Eskom] requires for its existing and new power stations over the longterm would be a problem, and that an “optimal balance between <strong>co</strong>al exports anddomestic energy security” had to be found. Eskom sources most of its <strong>co</strong>al for itsexisting power stations from Mpumalanga <strong>co</strong>al mines, but says there is not enough<strong>co</strong>al to supply it under a 60-year life-of-station scenario.Marokane said risks to <strong>co</strong>al supply have increased because of delays in developingmajor new long-term sources.Anglo’s chief executive officer Cynthia Carroll said her <strong>co</strong>mpany would be the first toassist Eskom with its <strong>co</strong>al needs, adding that more than 70% of the thermal <strong>co</strong>al itmined in South Africa was already being sold into the domestic market.’1.5.7 New Largo Colliery Need and DesirabilityAs discussed in Section 1.5.5 above, Kusile forms part of the South African National Government’snational electricity generation strategy (IRP2010) to supply much needed electricity to the South Africannational electricity grid.The ultimate purpose of the New Largo Colliery will be to supply <strong>co</strong>al to Kusile Power Station. AAIC andEskom maintain that the proposed New Largo Colliery is needed to:121314http://mg.<strong>co</strong>.<strong>za</strong>/article/2011-02-02-govt-will-ensure-enough-<strong>co</strong>al-for-eskomhttp://www.miningmx.<strong>co</strong>m/opinion/<strong>co</strong>lumnists/Solving-Eskom-<strong>co</strong>al-<strong>co</strong>nundrum.htmhttp://www.theprojectmanager.<strong>co</strong>.<strong>za</strong>/index.php/Other/power-<strong>co</strong>mplex.html#)New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)15
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesEnsure the supply of a secure, long-term (~ 50 years) supply of <strong>co</strong>al to Kusile. The location ofKusile was based on the availability of <strong>co</strong>al resources in close proximity to Kusile.Enable Kusile to provide power to the national electricity grid on schedule.Address power shortages in the national grid since there are no short to medium term options toreplace Kusile’s energy generation capacity at a national level.Avoid negative impacts of energy shortages on national e<strong>co</strong>nomic growth and development.Achieve the objectives and targets set out in IRP2010 and the National Government’s nationalelectricity generation strategy.1.5.8 No-Go Development – Alternative Coal Reserves Replace or Supplement New LargoFrom the discussions in Sections 1.5.1 to 1.5.5; it can be assumed that Kusile is key in achievingNational Government’s national electricity generation strategy. Should New Largo Colliery not bedeveloped (no-go development option), <strong>co</strong>al will be required from elsewhere to supply Kusile.There are uncertainties regarding where Eskom would source such <strong>co</strong>al from, but the followingdiscussion provides some alternatives based on recent debates on the topic, as presented in the media.1.5.8.1 Coal from the Waterberg Coal FieldsAc<strong>co</strong>rding to Eskom’s chief <strong>co</strong>mmercial officer, Dan Marokane, quoted in the mining weekly inJune 2011 15 :…<strong>co</strong>al mine developments should be accelerated in the Waterberg, which is known forits large <strong>co</strong>al reserves and that Eskom is currently working with State-owned logistics<strong>co</strong>mpany Transnet Freight Rail on the <strong>co</strong>nstruction of a heavy haul rail link between theWaterberg and power stations in Mpumalanga.This last statement by Dan Marokane <strong>co</strong>uld be interpreted that Eskom is looking at the Waterberg topotentially supplement <strong>co</strong>al supplies from Mpumalanga, for long-term supply to Kusile and other powerstations in Mpumalanga.However, there are significant <strong>co</strong>ncerns regarding the future of <strong>co</strong>al mining in the Waterberg. Planning ofthe stated Waterberg freight rail is in its infancy and there are uncertainties if such a rail line would everbe built.This is illustrated in the following abstract from miningmx.<strong>co</strong>m 16 in June 2011:‘…The other significant piece of bad news [for investors in Waterberg <strong>co</strong>aldevelopments] <strong>co</strong>ncerned uncertainty about expanding rail access to the Waterberg…The long-term future of SA’s <strong>co</strong>al industry rests on the Waterberg, which is slated tobe<strong>co</strong>me the dominant producing <strong>co</strong>alfield once the existing main resources aroundWitbank and Middelburg are mined out. But achieving that will require <strong>co</strong>nstruction of aheavy-haul railway line linking the Waterberg to Witbank. And it became clear at the<strong>co</strong>nference that Eskom, for one, doesn’t seem so sure that’s going to happen……Construction of that line is deemed vital to bring Waterberg <strong>co</strong>al to supply variousEskom power stations in Mpumalanga and so keep them running after <strong>co</strong>al currentlyavailable around Witbank/Middelburg runs out. The line would also link into the existing1516http://www.miningweekly.<strong>co</strong>m/article/eskom-says-15-new-mpumalanga-<strong>co</strong>al-mines-needed-by-2015-2011-06-21http://www.miningmx.<strong>co</strong>m/news/energy/Tough-times-at-the-face.htmNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)16
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesWitbank/Richards Bay line, allowing Waterberg <strong>co</strong>al to be exported through theRichards Bay Coal Terminal (RBCT).So [Ian Hall, chair of the South African Coal Road Map Steering Committee]’ gloomyassessment of the state of SA’s <strong>co</strong>al sector under the Integrated Resource Plan 2010[IRP2010] – which has been accepted by Government as a blueprint for meeting the<strong>co</strong>untry’s energy requirements through to 2030 – has to be viewed as a “wake-up call”for investors [in Waterberg <strong>co</strong>al developments].Hall described the [IRP2010] plan as “a pretty grim scenario if you’re a <strong>co</strong>al producer”.It calls for huge investments in nuclear and renewable sources of energy anddownplays the role of <strong>co</strong>al. Hall reckons if the [IRP2010] is implemented as plannedthen <strong>co</strong>al reserves in the Waterberg, Soutpansberg and Limpopo fields will remainlargely undeveloped because there will be no further significant investment in SA’s <strong>co</strong>alindustry.Hall also says there will be no need for any major expansion of SA’s railinfrastructure… [<strong>co</strong>ntinues below in Section 1.5.8.2].Coal mining in the Waterberg is associated with its own set of environmental issues unique to the region.Some of the key issues include:The Waterberg is located in a water scarce region of South Africa. This poses issues in terms ofwater requirements for <strong>co</strong>al mining and processing, supporting growing <strong>co</strong>mmunities associatedwith new <strong>co</strong>al mines, and limitations for rehabilitation and vegetation re-growth.Issues associated with transportation. A new freight railway line would be <strong>co</strong>stly and would take anumber of years to develop. The quantities of <strong>co</strong>al and long transport distances imply severeimpact on the entire road network linking the Waterberg <strong>co</strong>alfields with Mpumalanga basedpower stations should a new freight railway line not be developed. The long transportation routeswill also be associated with high levels of air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.1.5.8.2 Central Coal Basin (<strong>co</strong>alfields around Witbank and Middelburg)Should <strong>co</strong>al not be brought from the Waterberg <strong>co</strong>al fields, Eskom would have to secure <strong>co</strong>al from the<strong>co</strong>alfields around Witbank and Middleburg (the Central Coal Basin).Continuing the article from miningmx.<strong>co</strong>m 17 quoted above in Section 1.5.8.1:‘…“Eskom would secure its <strong>co</strong>al requirements from the Central Basin (the <strong>co</strong>alfieldsaround Witbank and Middelburg) through having restrictions imposed on <strong>co</strong>al exports.”Answering a question from the floor about the reason for Eskom’s lobbying for <strong>co</strong>ntrolson <strong>co</strong>al exports, Hall replied the State utility [Eskom] was working on the assumption its[power] stations would only be able to source <strong>co</strong>al from the Central Basin. He added: “Ifyou assume there’s going to be no further infrastructural development – in that therailway lines required to bring <strong>co</strong>al to the power stations in Mpumalanga from theWaterberg will not be built – then Eskom is <strong>co</strong>rrect. They probably will run out of thelow-grade <strong>co</strong>al they need, which is why they want to limit exports.”Speaking after Hall at the <strong>co</strong>nference was Eskom chief <strong>co</strong>mmercial officer DanMarokane. Asked for his reaction to Hall’s gloomy scenario, Marokane listed a string ofrisk factors that <strong>co</strong>uld affect future <strong>co</strong>al supply from the new regions. These included1,2bn t of <strong>co</strong>al that Eskom viewed as being “at risk to project delays between now and2039”. He also cited infrastructural challenges, such as the supply of sufficient water to17http://www.miningmx.<strong>co</strong>m/news/energy/Tough-times-at-the-face.htmNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)17
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesthe planned new <strong>co</strong>al mines in the Waterberg and the need for a heavy haul <strong>co</strong>al linefrom the Waterberg to Witbank. Marokane estimated that line would <strong>co</strong>st betweenR10bn and R40bn to build, depending on railage volume requirements.He repeated Eskom’s stance that the utility didn’t want to block <strong>co</strong>al exports but feltthere had to be a balance between the supply requirements of the domestic and exportmarkets.Coal sourced from other mines in Mpumalanga will be associated with similar environmental impacts tothat of New Largo. By way of example but without limitation, Eskom is in discussion with another smallermining <strong>co</strong>mpany regarding a potential off-take agreement to supply <strong>co</strong>al to Kusile from an opencastmining development located ~50 km from Kusile. An analysis of this proposed mining operation, throughdocumentation in the public domain, indicated that this mining operation had been approved by the DMRand that an IWULA has been submitted and that approval from the DWA is awaited. Opencast miningmethods will be used and <strong>co</strong>al discard will be generated since the <strong>co</strong>al will have to be washed. Satelliteimages revealed that:The affected properties <strong>co</strong>nsist of agricultural productive cropland, of which a large percentage isirrigated.Land not used for agricultural purposes, <strong>co</strong>nsist of streams, farm dams, some small pans, onemedium sized pan (250 m in diameter) and extensive valley bottom wetlands. One property islocated directly adjacent to a large pan (similar in size to the large pan found in the northernportion of the New Largo <strong>co</strong>al reserve).Mining will be located close to built-up areas.Coal will have to be transported by road (~50 km).It is estimated that ~25% of the affected properties in this example <strong>co</strong>nsist of wetlands and streams, butit should be noted that the extent of the actual opencast mining footprint is not known. As such, theactual extent of wetlands affected by the mining operations is not known.This example serves to illustrate the ‘dilemma’ associated with <strong>co</strong>al mining in the Witbank andMiddelburg area <strong>co</strong>ncerning impacts on wetlands and agricultural productive land. Some of the otherproposed <strong>co</strong>al mining projects in Mpumalanga is marred due to impacts on sensitive grasslands(generally areas that are not used extensively for agricultural purposes) and often the sensitivegrasslands are associated with sensitive wetland habitats.1.6 Previous <strong>EIA</strong> Process for the Same ProjectAn <strong>EIA</strong> process for opencast mining of the New Largo <strong>co</strong>al reserve, similar to the currently proposedNew Largo Colliery, was initiated in 2006. The process included participation by stakeholders and thedevelopment of a stakeholder issues and response report (see Appendix D1). The project was delayedin 2007 and then postponed due to AAIC internal planning requirements.Since the <strong>EIA</strong> regulations changed in 2010, a new application for environmental authorisation has beenlodged in 2010 when AAIC re-initiated the project planning process. This means that stakeholders againhave the opportunity to participate during a full <strong>EIA</strong> process. The information gathered during 2006/07was used in the draft <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong> to supplement new data <strong>co</strong>llected after the environmental studies werere-initiated in 2010.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)18
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices1.7 Prospecting Rights and Proposed Mining Right ApplicationAAIC currently holds the prospecting rights over an area of 12 773 hectares and has submitted a miningright application to the Department of Mineral Resources (DMR) over this area (see Figure 1-1) in April2011 (DMR reference number: MP 30/5/1/2/2/511 MR).The application was accepted by the DMR in a letter issued to AAIC on 22 July 2011 that stated that thes<strong>co</strong>ping report had to be submitted to the DMR on 22 August 2011 (this was done) and that an <strong>EIA</strong><strong>Report</strong> must be submitted to the DMR before or on 23 January 2012 (this was done). There are threeprospecting rights, which were granted to Anglo Operations Limited for a 5 year period each, but<strong>co</strong>nditional that the rights be transferred to AAIC.Prospecting Right(license number)Table 1-3: Prospecting rights <strong>co</strong>vering the New Largo Coal ReservesDate SubmittedDate Granted(Commencement date)License durationArea (ha)New Largo 1(47/2007PR)New Largo 2(36/2007PR)New Largo 3(41/2007PR)30 April 2004 18 November 2006 5 Years 706601 Feb 2002 18 November 2006 5 Years 556817 Aug 2004 18 November 2006 5 Years 139New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)19
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesFigure 1-3: Historical Underground Mining within the New Largo Coal ReserveNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)20
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices1.8 New Largo Coal ReserveThe New Largo <strong>co</strong>al reserve lies within the AAIC current prospecting right area / proposed mining rightarea (see Figure 1-1) and <strong>co</strong>vers an area of 12 773 hectares.The majority of the <strong>co</strong>al reserve lies between the N4 highway in the north and the N12 highway in thesouth, with a small portion found to the south of the N12 highway.The geological sequence occurring at New Largo is typical of that of the Witbank Coalfield. This hasbeen <strong>co</strong>nfirmed by the drilling of a series of geological exploration boreholes providing information on theseams and general strata sequences present. Of the five <strong>co</strong>al seams in the sequence, the No.2 andNo.4 seams are <strong>co</strong>nsidered e<strong>co</strong>nomically mineable and included in the estimate of mineable reserves.Coal seam No. 4 is found 8 to 47 metres below natural ground level and is ~4.5 metres thick. Coal seamNo. 2 is located ~13 metres below seam No. 4 and varies in thickness, from ~4.6 to ~8.2 metres. Thegeological profile and illustration of the <strong>co</strong>al seams are depicted in Figure 1-4 below. Coal seams No. 1,3 and 5 is generally too thin and intermittent to be e<strong>co</strong>nomically mined.Overburden refers to the rock and soil found above a <strong>co</strong>al seam and inter-burden refers to rock and soilfound between two <strong>co</strong>al layers.Figure 1-4: Illustration of the Geological Profile the Coal Seams found in the New LargoCoal ReserveNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)21
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesFigure 1-5: Schematic Section through Geological Profile of the New Largo Coal Reserve.Showing Coal Seam No. 2 and 4 Targeted for Mining1.9 Eskom Coal Quality RequirementsEskom’s power stations typically use <strong>co</strong>al with a calorific value of between 19.5 and 23. Export <strong>co</strong>al has,on average, a calorific value above 23. Low <strong>co</strong>al quality reduces the efficiency of a power plant as more<strong>co</strong>al is needed. This reduces the efficiency of boilers and increases <strong>co</strong>sts. Eskom claims that poorquality <strong>co</strong>al can reduce Eskom’s daily national electricity generation capacity by between 500 MW and1000 MW 18 .More stringent <strong>co</strong>al quality requirements apply to Kusile than to the majority of existing power stations.Eskom’s <strong>co</strong>al quality requirements for Kusile are tabled below:ComponentTable 1-4: Kusile Coal Quality SpecificationsEskom Coal Quality Requirements for KusileDesign Minimum MaximumCalorific Value (CV) (MJ/kg) 18.8 16.7 22.0Ash (%) 35.8 29.2 39Volatile Matter (%) 18.4 16.5 22.0Sulphur (%) 0.9 0.46 1.3Fixed Carbon 40.2 35.4 46.918Source: Business Day (online), http://www.iol.<strong>co</strong>.<strong>za</strong>/business/business-news/eskom-<strong>co</strong>mplaints-about-inferior-<strong>co</strong>al-1.1010462New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)22
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices1.10 New Largo Coal QualitiesThe New Largo <strong>co</strong>al reserve <strong>co</strong>nsist of areas with high quality <strong>co</strong>al and areas with lower quality <strong>co</strong>al,which will have to be blended in order to ensure a <strong>co</strong>nsistent supply of <strong>co</strong>al that meets Eskom’s qualityrequirements for <strong>co</strong>al supply to Kusile, which uses pulverised <strong>co</strong>al <strong>co</strong>mbustion technology. The quality of<strong>co</strong>al found in the New Largo <strong>co</strong>al reserve, as indicated by the ash <strong>co</strong>ntent, is illustrated below. Figure 1-6(on the left) illustrates the ash <strong>co</strong>ntent percentage of the run of mine (ROM) <strong>co</strong>al, while Figure 1-7 andFigure 1-8 (on the right) illustrates the percentage ash <strong>co</strong>ntent of the <strong>co</strong>al after selective mining andbeneficiation.Areas on Figure 1-6 and Figure 1-7 where <strong>co</strong>al has more than 36.5% Ash (Air Dried), indicate <strong>co</strong>al of alower quality that will require beneficiation (washing) in a <strong>co</strong>al processing plant (i.e. the area in the centreof the <strong>co</strong>al reserve, Pit area E). Areas where the <strong>co</strong>al reserve or selectively mine ROM <strong>co</strong>al has lessthan 36.5% Ash (Air Dried), indicates higher quality <strong>co</strong>al, which can be sent directly to Kusile withoutbeneficiation (i.e. large areas in the north, Pit area A and C.Figure 1-8 indicates <strong>co</strong>al qualities after beneficiation. In order to meet Eskom’s <strong>co</strong>al quality requirementsfor Kusile, higher quality <strong>co</strong>al (i.e. from mine pit area A and C) will have to be blended with lower quality<strong>co</strong>al (i.e. from mine pit area E) to ensure a <strong>co</strong>nstant supply, at the <strong>co</strong>rrect specifications, to Eskom. Asupply of <strong>co</strong>al that does not meet the Eskom specifications would reduce Kusile’s electricity generationefficiency and capacity. This will result in more <strong>co</strong>al being burned, more air emissions, more water useand higher <strong>co</strong>sts, which <strong>co</strong>uld, in the long-term, affect the price of electricity in South Africa.With the design and location of Kusile, it was intended that the New Largo <strong>co</strong>al reserve should supplythe base load <strong>co</strong>al to Kusile. The boilers of Kusile were planned based on the <strong>co</strong>al quality averageobtained from the whole of the New Largo <strong>co</strong>al reserve including the Honingkrantz reserves. In essence,Kusile was designed in ac<strong>co</strong>rdance with the New Largo Colliery Mine Plan Version 6 <strong>co</strong>al qualityaverages.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)23
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesG A G A GACCCDEED DEFFFJJJFigure 1-6: New Largo Coal Qualities –Composite Ash Percentage (Air Dried) for CoalResourceNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)Figure 1-7: New Largo Coal Qualities –Composite Ash Percentage (Air Dried) withSelective Mining of CoalFigure 1-8: New Largo Coal Qualities – CompositeAsh Percentage (Air Dried) After Beneficiation24
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices1.11 New Largo Mine Plan (Mining Footprint and Sequence)1.11.1 AAIC Base Case Mine Plan (Mine Plan Version 6)AAIC Base Case Mine Plan (Mine Plan Version 6) <strong>co</strong>vers a total area of 5600 hectares and presentsAAIC’s optimised mine plan as presented to the public and authorities during the s<strong>co</strong>ping phase of the<strong>EIA</strong> process (see Figure 1-9).During the <strong>EIA</strong> Phase, AAIC <strong>co</strong>mpleted a <strong>co</strong>mparative evaluation of Mine Plan Version 6 and Mine PlanVersion 7 19 . The results of this <strong>co</strong>mparison were presented to the public at the public feedback meetingheld in March 2012 as well as to the DWA and MDEDET during April 2012 (Appendix D14 and D15).AAIC maintains that Mine Plan Version 6 remains their preferred and thus base case mine plan. AAIC’smotivation for maintaining Mine Plan Version 6 as their preferred mine plan is provided in Section 5.3.The Environmental Assessment Practitioner’s findings regarding Mine Plan Version 6 are also <strong>co</strong>ntainedin this section of the report.1.12 Anglo American Inyosi Coal (Pty) Ltd Stages of Coal Supply to KusileAAIC intends to supply <strong>co</strong>al to Kusile in the following stages:1.12.1 Stage 1 Coal Supply to Kusile via the Phola-Kusile Coal ConveyorDuring the first years of operation, Kusile will utilise <strong>co</strong>al supplied via the proposed Phola-Kusile CoalConveyor from the existing Phola Coal Processing Plant as well as <strong>co</strong>al from other parties.Approximately 5 million tonnes (Mt) of <strong>co</strong>al per year will be <strong>co</strong>nveyed by this <strong>co</strong>nveyor, based on the<strong>co</strong>nveyor design capacity to a maximum of approximately 11 Mt per year. The Phola-Kusile CoalConveyor will thus be Stage 1 of AAIC’s <strong>co</strong>al supply to Kusile.The Phola-Kusile Coal Conveyor is a standalone project to the New Largo Colliery. It brings <strong>co</strong>al fromother mining operations to Kusile. As such, a separate <strong>EIA</strong> is being undertaken for this project and therewill be a separate integrated water use license application (IWULA).The s<strong>co</strong>pe of the Phola-Kusile Coal Conveyor includes a 4 Mega litre (Ml) water treatment plant (WTP)to treat water that currently decants from the old underground mine workings in the area. The Phola-Kusile Coal Conveyor will use the treated mine water for dust suppression and fire protection. This 4 MlWTP will form part of the Phola-Kusile Coal Conveyor IWULA and will also have a waste managementlicense (WML) under the National Environmental Management: Waste Act (No. 59 of 2008). The Phola-Kusile Coal Conveyor will only use a portion of the treated water. Once the New Largo Colliery isdeveloped, this 4 Ml WTP will also provide water to the New Largo Colliery.1.12.2 Stage 2 and Stage 3 Coal Supply to Kusile from New Largo CollieryAdditional <strong>co</strong>al supplies will be required when Kusile Power Station is at full production. The intention isto source these additional reserves, between 10 to 12 Mt per year, from the New Largo Colliery. TheNew Largo Colliery will be developed in two mining phases.Mining Phase 1 <strong>co</strong>nsists of the first box-cut and dragline operation (Stage 2 of AAIC’s <strong>co</strong>al supplyto Kusile).19Mine Plan Version 7 A, B, C and D.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)25
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesMining Phase 2 involves the introduction of a se<strong>co</strong>nd dragline operation and the development ofa <strong>co</strong>al processing plant (Stage 3 of AAIC’s <strong>co</strong>al supply to Kusile).New Largo Colliery thus represents Stages 2 and 3 of the AAIC’s <strong>co</strong>al supply to Kusile.1.12.3 Further Stages of Coal Supply to Kusile from other mining operationsAAIC intends to supplement the <strong>co</strong>al supply to Kusile with 4.1 Mt of <strong>co</strong>al from Zondagsfontein East <strong>co</strong>alseam 4 operations. Zondagsfontein is located some 25 km to the south of the New Largo Colliery and islinked via existing <strong>co</strong>nveyor systems to the Phola Coal Processing Plant. Once the Phola-Kusile CoalConveyor has been developed, Zondagsfontein will be linked to Kusile via overland <strong>co</strong>nveyor system.The only new <strong>co</strong>nveyor infrastructure required will be a short <strong>co</strong>nveyor to bypass the Phola CoalProcessing Plant.1.13 New Largo Colliery Development Programme1.13.1 New Largo Colliery Life of MineSince the <strong>co</strong>al mined at New Largo Colliery is earmarked for supplying Kusile Power Station, the life ofthe mine is highly dependent on: The design of Kusile and Kusile’s <strong>co</strong>al quality requirements (see Section 1.9).The size of the New Largo Colliery mineable <strong>co</strong>al reserve and the qualities of the <strong>co</strong>al within themineable <strong>co</strong>al reserve (see Section 1.8).The size of the mineable <strong>co</strong>al reserve excluded from the mining footprint due to buffer zonesaround:o Residential areas.o Linear infrastructure such as N12 highway and the Transnet petroleum pipeline.o Potential ha<strong>za</strong>rdous areas.o Sensitive vegetation zones.o Priority wetland areas.The mining sequence and potential for blending lower quality <strong>co</strong>al with higher quality <strong>co</strong>al to meetEskom’s <strong>co</strong>al quality requirements.The relocation of a section of the R545 road, which cuts through the centre of the New Largo <strong>co</strong>alreserve.The number of years that the New Largo Colliery can supply <strong>co</strong>al to Kusile differs for the AlternativeMine Plans presented in this final <strong>EIA</strong>:AAIC Base Case Mine Plan (Mine Plan Version 6) can provide 550 Mt of <strong>co</strong>al to Kusile and canthus supply Kusile for 47 years at full production. This mine plan involves relocation of a sectionof the R545. It does not allow for the exclusion of any of the wetlands found within the miningfootprint area, but as illustrated on Figure 1-9, Mine Plan Version 6 allows for:1. 500 m buffer zones around residential areas such as Kendal Forest Holdings andVoltargo.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)26
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices2. 100 m buffer zone around the sensitive Frithia habitats (Frithia humilis) in the northernportion of the mining area.3. Appropriate buffer zones along linear infrastructure such as the N12 highway, theTransnet petroleum pipeline and power lines. These buffer zones were designed basedon <strong>co</strong>nsultation with the various infrastructure owners and legislation and standardsapplicable to blasting operations.The Alternative Mine Plan (Mine Plan Version 7) can provide 450 Mt of <strong>co</strong>al to Kusile and canthus supply Kusile for 38 years. Mine Plan Version 7A is illustrated on Figure 1-10, and Mine PlanVersion 7A and Mine Plan Version7D is <strong>co</strong>mpared and illustrated on Figure 1-11. These mineplans also involves relocation of a section of the R545.4. In addition to the buffer zones included in Mine Plan Version 6 (listed as 1 to 3 above),both Mine Plan Version 7A and Mine Plan Version 7D provide for a buffer zone aroundthe large pan located on the Farm Honingkrantz 536 JR.1.13.2 Life of Coal Supply to KusileThe operational life of Kusile is estimated to be 55+ years.Mine Plan Version 7 represents an Alternative Mine Plan that was introduced to minimise impacts on thepriority wetland area in the northern portion of the <strong>co</strong>al reserve and thus reduce the total impacts of theNew Largo Colliery on wetlands. This mine plan cuts out ~100 Mt of <strong>co</strong>al and reduces the number ofyears of <strong>co</strong>al supply to Kusile from 47 years to 38 years. As a result, ~7 years of blending good quality<strong>co</strong>al is lost.There is an obvious trade-off between wetland mitigation and the life of <strong>co</strong>al supply to Kusile, whichneeds to be <strong>co</strong>nsidered by the <strong>co</strong>mpetent authorities in their decision-making process.Should Mine Plan Version 7 be adopted, it will mean that Eskom will have to source the ~100 Mt of <strong>co</strong>alfrom elsewhere to replace the <strong>co</strong>al not mined as part of New Largo Colliery Mine Plan Version 7.Currently it is not clear where Eskom will source this ~100 Mt of <strong>co</strong>al to replace the <strong>co</strong>al not mined aspart of New Largo Colliery Alternative Mine Version 7. Decision-making regarding the mine plan to beadopted for the New Largo Colliery needs to bear in mind that <strong>co</strong>al mining in other areas would also beassociated with environmental impacts.1.13.3 New Largo Colliery Mining Phases, Scheduling of Major Project Components and Lifeof MineThe New Largo Colliery will be an extensive opencast mine and will be developed in two mining phases.Mining Phase 1 <strong>co</strong>nsists of the first box-cut and dragline operation (Stage 2 of AAIC’s <strong>co</strong>al supplyto Kusile).Mining Phase 2 involves the introduction of a se<strong>co</strong>nd dragline operation and the development ofa <strong>co</strong>al processing plant (Stage 3 of AAIC’s <strong>co</strong>al supply to Kusile).Timing of the mining phases and the development of key project <strong>co</strong>mponents will vary depending on thefinal mine plan selected, as indicated in Table 1-5 below:New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)27
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesTable 1-5: New Largo Colliery Mining Phases and Stages of Coal Supply to KusileNew Largo Colliery Mining Phase / AAIC Base Case MineAlternative Mine PlanCoal Supply Stage to KusilePlan(Mine Plan Version 6) (Mine Plan Version 7D)VarianceFirst <strong>co</strong>al supply to Kusile from Phola-Kusile Coal Conveyor (4Mtpa), third parties(2 Mtpa - Total of 36 Mt), Zibulo Middlings(2Mtpa), BECSA (Total of 27Mt) andFrom 31 Oct 2014n/aVlakfontein (Total of 9 Mt) for <strong>co</strong>al supplyto Kusile during early years(Stage 1 Coal Supply to Kusile)New Largo Mining Phase 1(Stage 2 Coal Supply to Kusile)Dragline 1 Assembly Aug 2012 to June 2015Aug 2012 toSeptember 2015n/aConstruction and Ramp-Up 2013 – 2017 2013 – 2017 n/aShovel and truck Mining Operations 2017 to 2023 2017 to 2023 n/aDragline 1 Operational Quarter 1 2016 to 2063 November 2015 to 20577 years earlier for MinePlan Version 7New Largo Mining Phase 2(Stage 3 Coal Supply to Kusile)Dragline 2 Assembly Aug 2020 to June 2023 Aug 2020 to June 2023 n/aConstruction of Coal Processing Plant 2020 to 2022 2016 to 20184 years earlier for MinePlan Version 7Coal Processing Plant Operational 2023 – 2063 2019 to 20573 years earlierfor Mine Plan Version 7Dragline 2 Operational 2023 to 2063 2023 to 20574 years less for Mine PlanVersion 7Truck and Shovel Operations 2039 to 2045 n/a2 years additionally forMine Plan Version 7Life of Mine at Full Production2017 – 20522017 – 20546 years lessLife in Total Life of MineTotal New Largo Colliery Supply(46 years)2013 – 2063(51 years)(38 years)2013 – 2057(45 years)Total Mining Tonnes (ROM) 642 Mt 540 MtTotal Sales 550 Mt 452 MtTotal Energy Supply from Coal MinedFurther Stages Coal Supply to KusileCoal from AAIC Zondagsfontein East 4seam Mine to KusileCoal required from 3 rd Parties (other <strong>co</strong>almines)10 325 919 TJ2027 to 2062(138 Mt)2013 to 2027(36 Mt)8 416 726 TJ(82.50 % of Version 6)2027 to 2057(138 Mt)2013 to 2027(36 Mt)for Mine Plan Version 76 years less for Mine PlanVersion 7~100 Mt less for Mine PlanVersion 7~100 Mt lessfor Mine Plan Version 7New calculation for MinePlan Version 7(17.50 %)5 years less for Mine PlanVersion 7n/a1.13.4 <strong>EIA</strong> Programme and Opportunities for I&AP and Authority Involvement1.13.4.1 <strong>EIA</strong> Process TimelinesThe <strong>EIA</strong> process, and opportunities for I&AP and authority involvement, is illustrated below, with specificreference to the opportunities for <strong>co</strong>nsultation and participation for I&APs, Competent Authorities, andrelevant State Departments and Organs of State (see Table 1-6).Completed activities are indicated in light yellow (), current activities in bright yellow () and futureactivities in blue ().New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)28
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesCompletedPreviousEnvironmentalStudiesCompletedCurrentFutureTable 1-6: Simplified <strong>EIA</strong> Process with Explanation of Opportunities for InvolvementOpportunities for Consultation and Participation<strong>EIA</strong> Phase Competent Authorities (MDEDET andDWA and DMR and NDEA)I&APs, State Departments and Organs ofStateScheduleDraft S<strong>co</strong>ping Draft stakeholder issues and response report. Draft s<strong>co</strong>ping report.PhasePublic Participation Process (first and se<strong>co</strong>nd round of meetings).Specialist2006 to 2007Comprehensive environmental specialist studies.BaselinePublic Participation Process (first and se<strong>co</strong>nd round of meetings).StudiesProject Announcementand Application PhaseS<strong>co</strong>ping Phase<strong>EIA</strong> PhaseEMP DevelopmentSpecialistsurveys andmonitoringAuthority review andAuthorisation PhaseSpecialistBaseline StudiesSpecialistAssessmentsAppeal Phase / Pre-Construction Period<strong>Report</strong>s on the seasonal e<strong>co</strong>logical surveys and the water quality monitoring (surfacewater and groundwater), will be available during <strong>EIA</strong> review phase.Initial tele<strong>co</strong>mmunication.NEMA application form to MDEDET.MPRDA mining right application to DMR.MDEDET and DMR acceptance ofapplication.Focused <strong>co</strong>nsultation with MDEDET,DMR, and DWA.Draft s<strong>co</strong>ping report to MDEDET, DMRand DWA.Meetings with MDEDET, DMR and DWAduring s<strong>co</strong>ping. Consult with NDEA to<strong>co</strong>nfirm administrative process for theWML in terms of the NEMWA.Submission and review of S<strong>co</strong>ping <strong>Report</strong>Submit WML Application to NDEAMeetings with MDEDET, DMR, DWA andNDEA to discuss specialist studies.Submit draft <strong>EIA</strong> report to MDEDET, DMR,DWA and NDEA.Submit draft IWWMP to DWA.Meetings with MDEDET, DMR, DWA andNDEA during <strong>EIA</strong>.<strong>Final</strong> <strong>EIA</strong> report to MDEDET, DMR, DWAand NDEA.SUBMIT IWWMP with IWULA to DWA.Acceptance of <strong>EIA</strong> report (60 days)Environmental Authorisation Granted /Refused (45 days)Mining Right Approved / RefusedIWULA approved / rejected by DWA.WML Granted / RefusedConsultation during processing of appeal.Project notification to affected landowners.Advertisements and project notifications topotential interested and affected parties.Initial <strong>co</strong>nsultation with authorities.Initial public meetings.Focused <strong>co</strong>nsultation with SANBI.Review of draft s<strong>co</strong>ping report(40 days, ±6 weeks).Public meeting and authority meeting durings<strong>co</strong>ping (14 days’ notice).Review of final s<strong>co</strong>ping report(21 days, ±3 weeks).Results of specialist assessments andre<strong>co</strong>mmendations made available for reviewReview of draft <strong>EIA</strong> report (40 days, ±6weeks)Review of draft IWWMP (40 days, ±6weeks)Public and authority meeting during <strong>EIA</strong>phase (14 days’ notice)Review of final <strong>EIA</strong> report (21 days, ±3weeks)Review of <strong>Final</strong> IWWMP (21 days, ±3weeks)Notifications to I&APs regardingenvironmental authorisation (granted orrefused).Consultants to provide guidance regardingthe appeal process as and when required.2010 to early 2011Feb-11 to July-11March-11 toJun-11Nov-10 to Dec-10Nov-10 to Dec-10Feb-11 to Oct-11Nov-11 to May-12July-12 to Jun-13variable201120122012 - 20131.13.4.2 New Largo Colliery Project Implementation ProgrammeSimplified project implementation programmes are supplied in Table 1-7 for Mine Plan Version 6 andMine Plan Version 7, below.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)29
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesTable 1-7: Simplified Project Implementation Programme with Explanation of OpportunitiesContinued Consultation and Participation (Mine Plan Version 6 & Mine Plan Version 7)Project PhaseOpportunities for Participation byCompetent Authorities, I&APs, StateDepartments and Organs of StateMine PlanVersion 6ScheduleMine PlanVersion 7SchedulePre-Mining PhaseEnvironmental approvals and licensing.Public Participation Process andAuthority Consultation Process.2005 to Dec 2014 2005 to Dec 2014First <strong>co</strong>al supply to Kusile during early years: 4Mtpa - Phola-Kusile Coal Conveyor; Total of 36Mt / 2 Mtpa - Third parties; 2Mtpa - Zibulo Middlings;EMP Implementation Monitoring. Oct 2014 Oct 2014 Total of 27Mt - BECSA; Total of 9Mt – Vlakfontein.Dragline 1 AssemblyEMP Implementation Monitoring.Aug 2012 - Aug 2012 –September 2015 September 2015Construction and Ramp-Up of New Largo Colliery EMP Implementation Monitoring. 2014 to 2017 2014 to 2017Pit G - Northern Mining Area EMP Implementation Monitoring. 2017 to 2020 2017 to 2020Pit D & Pit E - Central Mining Area EMP Implementation Monitoring. 2020 to 2023 -1 st Shovel andtruckOperationPit F - Southern Mining Area EMP Implementation Monitoring. - 2020 to 2023Implementation PhaseDragline 1OperationPit A & Pit C - Northern Mining Area EMP Implementation Monitoring. Q1 2015 to 2038Q1 2015 to Dec2018Pit D & Pit E - Central Mining Area EMP Implementation Monitoring. 2039 to 2044 2019 to 2039Pit F, H & J - Southern Mining Area EMP Implementation Monitoring. 2045 to 2063 2040 to 2057Construction of Coal Processing Plant (Assume 24months <strong>co</strong>nstruction for plant)EMP Implementation Monitoring. 2020 to 2022 2016 to 2018Coal Processing Plant Operational EMP Implementation Monitoring. 2023 to 2063 2019 to 2057Dragline 2 AssemblyEMP Implementation Monitoring.Aug 2020 to June Aug 2020 to June20232023Pit A & Pit C - Northern Mining Area EMP Implementation Monitoring. - 2023 to 2029Dragline2OperationPit D & Pit E - Central Mining AreaEMP Implementation Monitoring.2023 to 2063(Pit E only)2030 to 20572 nd Shoveland truckOperationPit A - Northern Mining Area EMP Implementation Monitoring. 2039 to 2042 -Life of Mine at Full Production EMP Implementation Monitoring. 2017 to 2063 2017 to 2053Total Life of Mine EMP Implementation Monitoring. 2013 to 2063 2013 to 2057Closure Phase EMP Implementation Monitoring. From 2063 From 205336 Mt (3 Mtpa) <strong>co</strong>al required from Third Parties to Kusile 2014 to 2027 2014 to 2027138 Mt (4.2 Mt pa) <strong>co</strong>al required from AAIC Zondagsfontein Mine to Kusile 2027 to 2062 2027 to 2057100 Mt (Sales) deficit between Mine Plan Version 6 and Version 7 2057 to 2063Source: AAIC Technical TeamNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)30
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesFigure 1-9: AAIC Optimised Base Case Mine Plan (Version 6)New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)31
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesFigure 1-10: Alternative Mine Plan (Version 7D)New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)32
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesMine Plan Version 6 (preferred mine plan, updated sequencing)Mine Plan Version 7D (alternative mine plan, not preferred by AAIC)Figure 1-11: Comparison of Alternative Mine Plan Version 6 and 7D FootprintsNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)33
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices2. Environmental Legal Requirements2.1 Previous <strong>EIA</strong> Process for the Same ProjectAn <strong>EIA</strong> process for opencast mining of the New Largo <strong>co</strong>al reserve, similar to the currently proposedNew Largo Colliery, was initiated in 2006. The process included participation by stakeholders and thedevelopment of a stakeholder issues and response report. The project was delayed in 2007 and thenpostponed.Since the <strong>EIA</strong> regulations changed in 2010, a new application for environmental authorisation has beenlodged, which means that stakeholders again have the opportunity to participate during a full <strong>EIA</strong>process. The information gathered during 2006/07 was used to inform the draft s<strong>co</strong>ping report, finals<strong>co</strong>ping report, draft <strong>EIA</strong> report as well as the <strong>Final</strong> <strong>EIA</strong> report (this report). Any new information wasalso used to inform the s<strong>co</strong>ping and <strong>EIA</strong> reports.2.2 Applicable Legislation and Approvals Required for New Largo CollieryThe proposed New Largo Colliery requires the following main approvals before the project may<strong>co</strong>mmence:Environmental authorisation from the Mpumalanga Department of E<strong>co</strong>nomic Development,Environment and Tourism in terms of the National Environmental Management Act (No 107 of1998) (NEMA) and the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2010 (GovernmentNotice 543 to 546, 18 June 2010).Approval of an environmental management programme, in terms of the Mineral and PetroleumResources Development Act (No 28 of 2002) (MPRDA), by the Department of MineralResources. Approval of an integrated water use license, in terms of the National Water Act (No 36 of 1998)(DWA), by the Department of Water Affairs.Approval of a waste management license, in terms of the National Environmental Management:Waste Act (No. 59 of 2008) NEMWA, by the National Department of Environmental Affairs and/orMDEDET. The draft s<strong>co</strong>ping report stated that <strong>co</strong>nfirmation is required if a waste managementlicense is needed for this mining project. Subsequent to the submission of the draft s<strong>co</strong>pingreport, it was <strong>co</strong>nfirmed that AAIC will apply for a waste management license for all nonmineralogicalwaste.These four processes are being undertaken <strong>co</strong>ncurrently as far as reasonably possible within the varyinglegal timeframes as stipulated in the different legislation.In addition to the four main legal approvals, the following approvals may be required:The South African Heritage Resources Agency needs to approve a heritage assessment, to be<strong>co</strong>nducted as part of the overall <strong>EIA</strong> process, in terms of the National Heritage Resources Act(No 25 of 1999). Permits will be required for the destruction or removal of any heritage resourcesaffected by the development.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)34
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesShould protected species be affected, permits will have to be obtained for their removal,relocation or destruction. This is in terms of the Mpumalanga Province: Mpumalanga NatureConservation Act (No 10 of 1998) and National Environmental Management: BiodiversityAct (No 10 of 2004).Other applicable legislation includes:o Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act (No 43 of 1983).o Environment Conservation Act (No 73 of 1989).o National Forests Act (No 84 of 1998).o National Veld and Forest Fire Act (No 10 1998).2.2.1 National Environmental Management ActThe New Largo Colliery is associated with various infrastructure <strong>co</strong>mponents that require an <strong>EIA</strong> andultimately an environmental authorisation in terms of the National Environmental Management Act (No107 of 1998) (NEMA) and the new <strong>EIA</strong> regulations (Government Notice Regulation (GNR) 543 to 546,published 18 June 2010). The Mpumalanga Department of E<strong>co</strong>nomic Development and Tourism(MDEDET) is the <strong>co</strong>mpetent authority responsible for administration, review and authorisation (grantingor refusal) of this <strong>EIA</strong>.Activities listed in GNR 544, 545 and 546 apply to the proposed New Largo Colliery and thus a fulls<strong>co</strong>ping and environmental impact assessment will be <strong>co</strong>nducted. An application form was submitted toMDEDET on 1 March 2011 and has been accepted by the department with 17/2/3N-41 as the referencenumber. The following listed activities formed part of the application:Table 2-1: Listed Activities Applicable to New Largo Colliery (GNR 544, GNR 545 and GNR 546)GNR 544 List 1 Activity 1 to 25 - NEW ACTIVITIESGNR 544 List 1 Activity 1.GNR 544 List 1 Activity 9:The <strong>co</strong>nstruction of facilities or infrastructure for the generation of electricity where:i. the electricity output is more than 10 megawatts but less than 20 megawatts; orii. the output is 10 megawatts or less but the total extent of the facility <strong>co</strong>vers an area inexcess of 1 hectare.The <strong>co</strong>nstruction of facilities or infrastructure exceeding 1 000 meters in length for the bulktransportation of water, sewage or storm water –(i) with an internal diameter of 0.36 meters or more; or(ii) with a peak throughput of 120 litres per se<strong>co</strong>nd or more, excluding where:a. such facilities or infrastructure are for bulk transportation of water, sewage or stormwater or storm water drainage inside a road reserve; orb. where such <strong>co</strong>nstruction will occur within urban areas but further than 32 meters froma water<strong>co</strong>urse, measured from the edge of the water<strong>co</strong>urse.GNR 544 List 1 Activity 10: The <strong>co</strong>nstruction of facilities or infrastructure for the transmission and distribution of electricity –(i) outside urban areas or industrial <strong>co</strong>mplexes with a capacity of more than 33 but less than275 kilovolts; or(ii) inside urban areas or industrial <strong>co</strong>mplexes with a capacity of 275 kilovolts or more.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)35
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesGNR 544 List 1 Activity 1 to 25 - NEW ACTIVITIESGNR 544 List 1 Activity 11:GNR 544 List 1 Activity 12:GNR 544 List 1 Activity 13:GNR 544 List 1 Activity 18:GNR 544 List 1 Activity 22:GNR 544 List 1 Activity 26:The <strong>co</strong>nstruction of:(i) canals;(ii) channels;(iii) bridges;(iv) dams;(v) weirs;(vi) bulk storm water outlet structures;(vii) marinas;(viii) jetties exceeding 50 square meters in size;(ix) slipways exceeding 50 square meters in size;(x) buildings exceeding 50 square meters in size; or(xi) infrastructure or structures <strong>co</strong>vering 50 square meters or morewhere such <strong>co</strong>nstruction occurs within a water<strong>co</strong>urse or within 32 meters of a water<strong>co</strong>urse,measured from the edge of a water<strong>co</strong>urse, excluding where such <strong>co</strong>nstruction will occur behindthe development setback line.The <strong>co</strong>nstruction of facilities or infrastructure for the off-stream storage of water, including damsand reservoirs, with a <strong>co</strong>mbined capacity of 50000 cubic meters or more, unless such storagefalls within the ambit of activity 19 of Notice 545 of 2010;The <strong>co</strong>nstruction of facilities or infrastructure for the storage, or for the storage and handling, ofa dangerous good, where such storage occurs in <strong>co</strong>ntainers with a <strong>co</strong>mbined capacity of 80 butnot exceeding 500 cubic meters [80000 to 500000 litres];The infilling or depositing of any material of more than 5 cubic meters into, or the dredging,excavation, removal or moving of soil, sand, shells, shell grit, pebbles or rock[of more than 5cubic meters] from:(i) a water<strong>co</strong>urse;(ii) the sea;(iii) the seashore;(iv) the littoral active zone, an estuary or a distance of 100 meters inland of the high-watermark of the sea or an estuary, whichever distance is the greaterbutexcluding where such infilling, depositing, dredging, excavation, removal or moving(a) is for maintenance purposes undertaken in ac<strong>co</strong>rdance with a management plan agreedto by the relevant environmental authority; or(b) occurs behind the development setback line.The <strong>co</strong>nstruction of a road, outside urban areas,(i) with a reserve wider than 13,5 meters or,(ii) where no reserve exists where the road is wider than 8 meters, or(iii) for which an environmental authori<strong>za</strong>tion was obtained for the route determination interms of activity 5 in Government Notice 387 of 2006 or activity 18 in Notice 545 of 2010.(Applicable to deviation of R545)Any process or activity identified in terms of section 53(2) of the National EnvironmentalManagement: Biodiversity at, 2004 (Act No. 10 of 2004) (NEMBA).GNR 544 List Activity 27 to 56 - DECOMMISSIONING OF EXISTING FACILITIES, EXPANSION OF EXISTING ACTIVITIES,AND PHASED ACTIVITIESGNR 544 List 1 Activity 27:The de<strong>co</strong>mmissioning of existing facilities or infrastructure, for-(i) electricity generation with a threshold of more than 10MW;(ii) electricity transmission and distribution with a threshold of more than 132kV;(iii) nuclear reactors and storage of nuclear fuel;(iv) activities, where the facility or the land on which it is located is <strong>co</strong>ntaminated;(v) storage, or storage and handling, of dangerous goods of more than 80 cubic meters;but excluding any facilities or infrastructure that <strong>co</strong>mmenced under an environmentalauthori<strong>za</strong>tion issued in terms of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2006made under section 24(5) of the Act and published in Government Notice No. R. 385 of 2006,or Notice No. 543 of 2010.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)36
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesGNR 544 List 1 Activity 1 to 25 - NEW ACTIVITIESGNR 544 List 1 Activity 28:GNR 544 List 1 Activity 39:GNR 544 List 1 Activity 40:GNR 544 List 1 Activity 41:The expansion of [or changes to] existing facilities any process or activity where suchexpansion [or changes to] will result in the need for a new, or amendment of, and existingpermit or license in terms of national or provincial legislation governing the release of emissionsor pollution, excluding where the facility, process or activity is included in the list of wastemanagement activities published in terms of section 19 of the National EnvironmentalManagement: Waste Act, 2008 (Act No. 59 of 2008) in which case that Act will apply.The expansion of(i) canals;(ii) channels;(iii) bridges;(iv) weirs;(v) bulk storm water outlet structures;(vi) marinas;within a water<strong>co</strong>urse or within 32 meters of a water<strong>co</strong>urse, measured from the edge of awater<strong>co</strong>urse, where such expansion will result in an increased development setback line.The expansion of(i) jetties by more than 50 square meters;(ii) slipways by more than 50 square meters; or(iii) buildings by more than 50 square meters(iv) infrastructure by more than 50 square metreswithin a water<strong>co</strong>urse or within 32 meters of a water<strong>co</strong>urse, measured from the edge of awater<strong>co</strong>urse, but excluding where such expansion will occur behind the development setbackline.The expansion of facilities or infrastructure for the off-stream storage of water, including damsand reservoirs, where the <strong>co</strong>mbined capacity will be increased by 50000 cubic meters or more.GNR 544 List 1 Activity 47: The widening of a road by more than 6 meters, or the lengthening of a road by more than 1kilometre-(i) where the existing reserve is wider than 13,5 meters; or(ii) where no reserve exists, where the existing road is wider than 8 meters –excluding widening or lengthening occurring inside urban areas.GNR 544 List 1 Activity 49:GNR 544 List 1 Activity 55:The expansion of facilities or infrastructure for the bulk transportation of dangerous goods:(i) in gas form, outside an industrial <strong>co</strong>mplex, by an increased throughput capacity of 700tons or more per day;(ii) in liquid form, outside an industrial <strong>co</strong>mplex or zone, by an increased throughput capacityof 50 cubic meters or more per day; of(iii) in solid form, outside an industrial <strong>co</strong>mplex or zone, by an increased throughput capacityof 50 tons or more per day.The expansion of a dam where:(i) the highest part of the dam wall, as measured from the outside toe of the wall to thehighest part of the wall, was originally 5 meters or higher and where the height of the wallis increased by 2,5 meters or more; or(ii) where the high-water mark of the dam will be increased with 10 hectares or more.GNR 545 Listing Notice 2:Activities requiring an environmental authorisation subject to a S<strong>co</strong>ping and Environmental Impact AssessmentGNR 545 List 2 Activity 2: The <strong>co</strong>nstruction of facilities or infrastructure for nuclear reaction including energy generation,the production, enrichment, processing, reprocessing, storage or disposal of nuclear fuels,radioactive products and nuclear and radioactive waste.GNR 545 List 2 Activity 3:GNR 545 List 2 Activity 4:The <strong>co</strong>nstruction of facilities or infrastructure for the storage, or storage and handling of adangerous good, where such storage occurs in <strong>co</strong>ntainers with a <strong>co</strong>mbined capacity of morethan 500 cubic meters.The <strong>co</strong>nstruction of facilities or infrastructure for the refining, extraction or processing of gas, oilor petroleum products with an installed capacity of 50 cubic meters or more, excluding facilitiesfor the refining, extraction or processing of gas from landfill sites.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)37
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesGNR 544 List 1 Activity 1 to 25 - NEW ACTIVITIESGNR 545 List 2 Activity 5: The <strong>co</strong>nstruction of facilities or infrastructure for any process or activity which requires a permitor license in terms of national or provincial legislation governing the generation or release ofemissions, pollution or effluent and which is not identified in Notice No: 544 of 2010 or includedin the list of waste management activities published in terms of section 19 of the NationalEnvironmental Management: Waste Act, 2008 *Act No: 59 of 2008) in which case that Act willapply:GNR 545 List 2 Activity 6: The Construction of facilities or infrastructure for the bulk transportation of dangerous goods –(i) in gas form, outside an industrial <strong>co</strong>mplex, using pipelines, exceeding 1000 meters inlength, with a throughput capacity of more than 700 tons per day;(ii) in liquid form, outside an industrial <strong>co</strong>mplex, using pipelines , exceeding 1000 meters inlength, with a throughput capacity more than 50 cubic meters per day; or(iii) in solid form, outside an industrial <strong>co</strong>mplex, using funiculars or <strong>co</strong>nveyors with athroughput capacity of more than 50 tons day:GNR 545 List 2 Activity 10: The <strong>co</strong>nstruction of facilities or infrastructure for the transfer of 50 000 cubic meters or morewater per day, from and to or between any <strong>co</strong>mbination of the following:(i) water catchments,(ii) water treatment works, or(iii) impoundments,excluding treatment works where water is to be treated for drinking purposes:GNR 545 List 2 Activity 15: Physical alteration of undeveloped, vacant or derelict land for residential retail, <strong>co</strong>mmercial,recreational, industrial or institutional use where the total area to be transformed is 20 hectaresor more:Except where such physical alteration takes place for:(i) linear development activities; or(ii) agriculture or afforestation where activity 16 in this Schedule will apply:GNR 545 List 2 Activity 18: The route determination of roads and design of associated physical infrastructure, includingroads that have not yet been built for which routes have been determined before 03 July 2006and which have not been authorized by a <strong>co</strong>mpetent authority in terms of the EnvironmentalImpact Assessment Regulations, 2006 or 2009, made under section 24(5) of the Act andpublished in Government Notice No: R 385 of 2006, -GNR 545 List 2 Activity 19:GNR 546 List 3 Activity 1 to 16 NEW ACTIVITIES(i)it is a national road as defined in section 40 of the South African National Roads AgencyLimited and National Roads Act, 1998 (Act No: & of 1998);(ii) it is a road administered by a provincial authority;(iii) the road reserve is wider than 30 meters; or(iv) the road will cater for more than one lane of traffic in both directions:The <strong>co</strong>nstruction of a dam, where the highest part of the dam wall, as measured from theoutside toe of the wall to the highest part of the wall, is 5 meters or higher or where the highwatermark of the dam <strong>co</strong>vers an area of 10 hectares or more:GNR 546 List 3 Activity 3 20 :The <strong>co</strong>nstruction of masts or towers of any material or type used for tele<strong>co</strong>mmunicationbroadcasting or radio transmission purposes where the mast:(a) is to be placed on a site not previously used for this purpose; and(b) will exceed 15 metres in height.In Mpumalanga province(ii) Outside urban areas, in:(ee) Critical biodiversity areas as identified in systematic biodiversity plans adopted by the<strong>co</strong>mpetent authority or in bioregional plans.PENDING FORMALISATION OF CRITICAL BIODIVERSITY AREAS IN MPUMALANGA20New activity added subsequent to draft <strong>EIA</strong>.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)38
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesGNR 544 List 1 Activity 1 to 25 - NEW ACTIVITIESGNR 546 List 3 Activity 4:The <strong>co</strong>nstruction of a road wider than 4 meters with a reserve less than 13,5 meters.(a) In Mpumalanga province(ii) Outside urban areas, in:(ee) Critical biodiversity areas as identified in systematic biodiversity plans adopted by the<strong>co</strong>mpetent authority or in bioregional plans.PENDING FORMALISATION OF CRITICAL BIODIVERSITY AREAS IN MPUMALANGAGNR 546 List 3 Activity 16:The <strong>co</strong>nstruction of:(a) jetties exceeding 10 square meters in size;(b) slipways exceeding 10 square meters in size;(c) buildings with a footprint exceeding 10 square meters in size; or(d) infrastructure <strong>co</strong>vering 10 square meters or moreWhere such <strong>co</strong>nstruction occurs within a water<strong>co</strong>urse or within 32 meters of a water<strong>co</strong>urse,measured from the edge of a water<strong>co</strong>urse, excluding where such <strong>co</strong>nstruction will occur behindthe development setback line.(a) In Mpumalanga province(ii) Outside urban areas, in:(ff) Critical biodiversity areas as identified in systematic biodiversity plans adopted by the<strong>co</strong>mpetent authority or in bioregional plans.PENDING FORMALISATION OF CRITICAL BIODIVERSITY AREAS IN MPUMALANGAGNR 546 List 3 Activity 17 to 26 - EXPANSION OF EXISTING ACTIVITIES, AND PHASED ACTIVITIESGNR 546 List 3 Activity 19The widening of a road by more than 4 meters, or the lengthening of a road by more than 1kilometre.PENDING FORMALISATION OF CRITICAL BIODIVERSITY AREAS IN MPUMALANGA2.2.2 Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development ActThe Minerals and Petroleum Resources Development Act (No 28 of 2002) (MPRDA) governs all miningactivities in South Africa and replaced the Minerals Act (No 50 of 1991). In terms of the MPRDA, amining right is required prior to the <strong>co</strong>mmencement of any mining activity. An applicant may only begranted a mining right, in terms of the MPRDA, if:The mineral can be mined optimally and in ac<strong>co</strong>rdance with a mining work programme;The applicant has access to financial resources and technical ability;The financing plan is <strong>co</strong>mpatible with the intended operations;The mining will not result in unacceptable pollution, e<strong>co</strong>logical degradation or damage tothe environment;The applicant has provided financially and otherwise for a social and labour plan;The applicant can <strong>co</strong>mply with the provisions of the Mine Health and Safety Act;The applicant is not in <strong>co</strong>ntravention with provisions of this Act; andThe granting of the right will further the objects of the MPRDA.AAIC submitted a mining right application to the Department of Mineral Resources (DMR) in April 2011(DMR reference number: MP 30/5/1/2/2/511 MR).New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)39
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesA mining right application is a structured process through which a mining <strong>co</strong>mpany must demonstrate tothe Department of Mineral Resources and other relevant authorities such as the Department of WaterAffairs, that it adequately understands all aspects of the proposed mining project, that it has the financialresources and technical expertise to successfully develop and operate the proposed mine, and that it isable to implement the necessary measures to successfully rehabilitate and close the mine and preventlong term impacts to the environment. The mining <strong>co</strong>mpany must also describe how the project will<strong>co</strong>ntribute towards sustainable development in the region.In support of the mining right application, AAIC will need to submit three principal documents:Mine works programme, which describes the technical and financial aspects of the miningoperation;Social and labour plan, which describes how the mine will manage social and labour issues; andEnvironmental management programme (EMP), which in<strong>co</strong>rporates the findings of the <strong>EIA</strong> andsets out practical measures for managing or mitigating the identified environmental impacts of theproposed project. It must also indicate how environmental performance will be measured oncethe project <strong>co</strong>mmences, during operation and after closure of the proposed mine.A key <strong>co</strong>mponent of a mining right application is the assessment of potential environmental impacts. Amining right only <strong>co</strong>mes into effect on the date on which the environmental management programme isapproved.Section 22 of the MPRDA defines the requirements of an application for a mining right. Upon acceptanceof a mining right application by the DME (typically 14 days after submission of the application) theapplicant must:Conduct an environmental impact assessment (<strong>EIA</strong>) and submit an environmental managementprogramme (EMP) in terms of section 39 of the Act, andNotify and <strong>co</strong>nsult with interested and affected parties within 180 days from the date of the notice.2.2.3 National Water ActThere are a number of pans, drainage lines and hill slope seeps (wetlands) located within the proposedopencast mining footprint area. Of the total mining area investigated, approximately 9.7% is classified aswetlands and will therefore require an integrated water use license application (IWULA) in terms ofSection 21 of the National Water Act (No 36 of 1998) (NWA). Various other water uses during<strong>co</strong>nstruction and operation of the mine will require licensing.The project is currently in the feasibility design stage and two Alternative Mine Plans are still beinginvestigated. A list of potential water uses to be licensed have been identified based on both AlternativeMine Plans. The list will be updated once a preferred mine plan alternative has been determined.Potential water uses requiring licensing are illustrated in Table 2-2.Table 2-2: List of Section 21 Water Uses Applicable to the New Largo Colliery (<strong>co</strong>vering bothMine Plan Version 6 and Mine Plan Version 7A)Water Use Description Potential Section 21 Water Uses (examples only)Section 21(a)Taking of water from a water resource.Pumping of water from opencast mine pit.Borehole water abstraction.Pumping of water from the old underground workings.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)40
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesWater Use Description Potential Section 21 Water Uses (examples only)Section 21 (b)Section 21 (c)Section 21 (d)Section 21 (e)Section 21 (f)Section 21 (g)Section 21 (h)Section 21 (i)Section 21 (j)Storing of water.Impeding or diverting the flow of water in awater <strong>co</strong>urse.Engaging in a stream flow reduction activity<strong>co</strong>ntemplated in Section 36 of the Act.Engaging in a <strong>co</strong>ntrolled activity: S37 (1)(a) irrigation off any land with waste, orwater <strong>co</strong>ntaining waste generated throughany industrial activity or by a water work.Discharging waste or water <strong>co</strong>ntainingwaste into a water resource.Disposing of waste in a manner which mayimpact on a water resource.Disposing in any manner of water which<strong>co</strong>ntains waste from, or which has beenheated in, any industrial or powergeneration process.Altering the bed, banks, <strong>co</strong>urse, orcharacteristics of a water<strong>co</strong>urse. Thisincludes altering the <strong>co</strong>urse of awater<strong>co</strong>urse (previously referred to as ariver diversion).Removing, discharging or disposing ofwater found underground if it is necessaryfor the efficient <strong>co</strong>ntinuation of an activity,or for the safety of people.Potable water storage / reservoirs.Raw water storage (clean, untreated water) / reservoirs.Storing of <strong>co</strong>ntaminated water in pollution <strong>co</strong>ntrol dams.Activities within or near wetlands, or activities affectingwetlands.Linear infrastructure (roads, pipelines, power lines, andpower lines) crossing streams and streams associatedwith wetlands (culverts, causeways, bridges).Not applicable.Not applicable.Discharge of treated water into a water<strong>co</strong>urse.Disposal of waste produced at WTP (i.e. brine andgypsum)Disposal of waste produced at sewerage treatment plant(slurry).Storage of process water (<strong>co</strong>ntaminated water) in apollution <strong>co</strong>ntrol dam / balancing dam / evaporation dam.Overburden dumps.Disposal of <strong>co</strong>al processing waste (discard) – water uselicense only required from either 2019 or 2023, dependingon mine plan.Process water tanks / reservoirs associated with <strong>co</strong>alprocessing plant – water use license from either 2019 or2023, depending on mine plan.Not applicable.Section 21 (k) Using water for recreational purposes. Not applicable.Activities within or near wetlands, or activities affectingwetlands.Linear infrastructure (roads, pipelines, power lines, andpower lines) crossing streams and streams associatedwith wetlands.Dewatering of old underground workings / groundwaterabstraction before and during mining to lower water levelsand to ensure safe working <strong>co</strong>nditions in the opencastmine pit.This <strong>EIA</strong> addresses the environmental impacts and management measures needed for the differentwater uses and the EMP will deal with the management of the water uses to avoid or minimise impacts.The <strong>EIA</strong> and EMP reports will be appended to the integrated water use license application to besubmitted to the Department of Water Affairs.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)41
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices2.2.4 National Environmental Management: Waste ActMining wastes and wastes incidental to mining, as defined in the National Environmental Management:Waste Act (No 59 of 2008) (NEMWA), do not require a waste management license (WML). The drafts<strong>co</strong>ping report stated that <strong>co</strong>nsultation with the relevant authorities will be undertaken to <strong>co</strong>nfirm theapplicability of NEMWA and whether or not a waste management license will be needed for this miningproject. Subsequent to the submission of the draft s<strong>co</strong>ping report, it has been <strong>co</strong>nfirmed that AAIC willapply for a waste management license for non-mineralogical waste associated with the New LargoColliery and associated activities. NEMWA requires an <strong>EIA</strong> process and reports structured in terms ofthe requirements of GNR 543 (<strong>EIA</strong> regulations) in terms of the NEMA.The <strong>EIA</strong> specifically addresses the environmental impacts of the different wastes and the EMP dealswith the management of the wastes to avoid or minimise impacts. A list of NEMWA waste activities aretabled below. This list was discussed with the NDEA during the authority <strong>co</strong>nsultation process. The list ofwaste activities will be updated as the design of the project progresses during the <strong>EIA</strong> process.A first 4 Ml mobile WTP will be developed on portion 1 of the farm Klipfontein 566 JR to supply water tothe Phola-Kusile Coal Conveyor. A separate WML application has been submitted for this mobile WTPand the wastes produced at this WTP (brine and gypsum). This first 4 Ml mobile WTP will later also beused during the <strong>co</strong>nstruction and the first few years of operation of the New Largo Colliery. A se<strong>co</strong>nd 4Ml mobile WTP will be developed next to the first 4 Ml mobile WTP as part of the New Largo Colliery.This se<strong>co</strong>nd 4Ml mobile WTP will utilise the same gypsum and brine waste facilities as developed for thefirst 4 Ml mobile WTP. Later in the life of New Largo Colliery, a permanent WTP will be developed toprovide additional water treatment capacity and to eventually replace the mobile WTPs.The lists of activities requiring a waste management license in Table 2-3 <strong>co</strong>vers the initial years of theNew Largo Colliery to ensure that the New Largo Colliery is legally <strong>co</strong>mpliant with the NEMWA during<strong>co</strong>nstruction and at least during the first two years of operation. However, the New Largo Colliery iscurrently (at the time of writing this report) at its feasibility planning stage. Certain details about wastequantities and design of waste management facilities will only be<strong>co</strong>me available during the detaileddesign phase and during the first few years of operation; i.e. the final design, capacity and exact locationand layout of the permanent WTP will only be finalised over the next few years; and details of therecycling facilities and procedures will be developed during the first few years of operation and willdepend on the technologies available at that time.The WML may have to be amended to ac<strong>co</strong>mmodate new waste management technologies andprocedures at New Largo Colliery.Table 2-3: List of Waste Activities requiring a Waste Management License in terms of the NEMWAduring the Construction Phase and First Two Years of Operation of the New Largo CollieryActivity Activity descriptionInclude in NEMWA Applicability to the New Largo Colliery and R545Application for NewNumberLargo CollieryRelocationCategory A: Activities requiring a Basic Assessment as per the National Environmental Management Act (No 107 of 1998)process and Approval in terms of NEMWAA3 A person who wishes to <strong>co</strong>mmence, undertake or <strong>co</strong>nduct an activity listed under this Category, must <strong>co</strong>nduct abasic assessment process, as stipulated in the environmental impact assessment regulations made under section24(5) of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998) as part of a waste managementlicense application.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)42
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesActivityNumberActivity descriptionStorage of WasteA3(1) The storage, including thetemporary storage, of generalwaste at a facility that has thecapacity to store in excess of100m³ of general waste at any onetime, excluding the storage ofwaste in lagoons.Include in NEMWAApplication for NewLargo CollieryYesApplicability to the New Largo Colliery and R545RelocationTotal capacity of facilities for temporary storage ofgeneral waste on and around the mine site <strong>co</strong>uldexceed 100 m 3 (workshops, canteen, offices, changerooms, scrap yards, etc.)A3(2)The storage including thetemporary storage of ha<strong>za</strong>rdouswaste at a facility that has thecapacity to store in excess of 35m³of ha<strong>za</strong>rdous waste at any onetime, excluding the storage ofha<strong>za</strong>rdous waste in lagoons.YesTotal capacity of facilities for temporary storage ofha<strong>za</strong>rdous waste on and around the mine site willexceed 35 m 3 (ha<strong>za</strong>rdous waste storage area,workshops, canteen, wash bays, used oils andlubricants, etc.).NoAs explained below, under activity B4(7), a first 4 Mlmobile WTP will be developed in the area to treat waterfrom old underground mine workings and supplytreated water to the Phola-Kusile Coal Conveyor. Thisfirst 4 Ml mobile WTP and associated gypsum wastestorage area (gypsum pad) will be licensed separately.The se<strong>co</strong>nd 4 Ml mobile WTP developed as part of theNew Largo Colliery, will utilise the same gypsumstorage area developed as part of the first 4 Ml mobileWTP as this gypsum storage pad was designed withsufficient capacity to serve both the first and se<strong>co</strong>nd4 Ml mobile WTPs.A3(4)The storage of waste tyres in astorage area exceeding 500 m 2 .Reuse, recycling and re<strong>co</strong>veryA3(5) The sorting, shredding, grinding orbailing of general waste at afacility that has the capacity toprocess in excess of one ton ofgeneral waste per day.There is thus no need for a new license for the gypsumstorage area (gypsum pad)Yes. Waste tyres will be stored on site until removed /reused (i.e. reused for in-pit road demarcation).Depending on frequency of removal from site, thestorage area may exceed the threshold area of 500 m 2 .Yes.Various waste streams will be sorted before beingremoved by a <strong>co</strong>ntractor to a licensed waste site orrecycling facility. These may include metals, paper,wood, plastic, and glass. The quantities of waste to besorted during <strong>co</strong>nstruction are uncertain but are likely tobe more than one tonne of waste per day. During theoperational phase, the quantities will change with theramping up of mining activities and is assumed to bemore than one tonne per day.The recycling and reuse technologies may change overthe life of the New Largo Colliery.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)43
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesActivityNumberActivity descriptionDisposal of WasteA3(14) The disposal of inert waste inexcess of 25 tons and with a totalcapacity of 25 000 tons, excludingthe disposal of such waste for thepurposes of levelling and buildingwhich has been authorised by orunder other legislation.Include in NEMWAApplication for NewLargo CollieryYesApplicability to the New Largo Colliery and R545RelocationConstruction rubble will be produced during the<strong>co</strong>nstruction phase. Inert <strong>co</strong>nstruction rubble will beused on site for fill and levelling and may be backfilledinto the mine pit.There are various buildings, roads and structureslocated throughout the mining area and those fallingwithin the footprint of the opencast pit or infrastructurewill have to be demolished. Demolition rubble not<strong>co</strong>ntaining ha<strong>za</strong>rdous waste (from various structuresthat currently exist throughout the mining area) mayremain on site and/or may be backfilled into the minepit.Road demolition rubble may remain on site and/or maybe backfilled into the mine pit or may be reused onroads in and around the mine or for the <strong>co</strong>nstruction /upgrading of roads in the surrounding areas. Thematerial will be stored until a final disposal in the minepit or until it is reused.Construction, expansion or de<strong>co</strong>mmissioning of facilities and associated structures and infrastructureA3(18) The <strong>co</strong>nstruction of facilities foractivities listed in Category A ofthis Schedule (not in isolation toassociated activity).YesCategory A activities apply.Category B: Activities requiring S<strong>co</strong>ping and Full Environmental Impact Assessment as per the National EnvironmentalManagement Act (No 107 of 1998) process and Approval in terms of NEMWAB4 A person who wishes to <strong>co</strong>mmence, undertake or <strong>co</strong>nduct an activity listed under this Category, must <strong>co</strong>nduct anenvironmental impact assessment process, as stipulated in the environmental impact assessment regulations madeunder section 24(5) of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998) as part of a wastemanagement licence application.Storage of ha<strong>za</strong>rdous wasteB4(1) The storage including thetemporary storage of ha<strong>za</strong>rdouswaste in lagoons.NoAs explained below, under activity B4(7), a first 4 Mlmobile WTP will be developed in the area to treat waterfrom old underground mine workings and supplytreated water to the Phola-Kusile Coal Conveyor. Thisfirst 4 Ml mobile WTP and associated brine storagearea (brine pond) will be licensed separately.The se<strong>co</strong>nd 4 Ml mobile WTP developed as part of theNew Largo Colliery, will utilise the brine storage areadeveloped as part of the first 4 Ml mobile WTP as thisbrine storage pad was designed with sufficient capacityto serve both the first and se<strong>co</strong>nd 4 Ml mobile WTPs.There is thus no need for a new license for the brinestorage area (brine pond).New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)44
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesActivityNumberActivity descriptionTreatment of WasteB4(7)The treatment of effluent,wastewater or sewage with anannual throughput capacity of15 000 cubic metres or more.Disposal of waste on landB4(9) The disposal of any quantity ofha<strong>za</strong>rdous waste to land.Include in NEMWAApplication for NewLargo CollieryNo(licensedseparately)YesNo(to be licensed infuture)YesApplicability to the New Largo Colliery and R545RelocationThe first 4 Ml /day mobile WTP developed on the farmHoningkrantz 536 JR will be licensed separately as itwill be installed to treat water from old undergroundmine workings. A portion of the treated water will beused by the Phola-Kusile Coal Conveyor, a project thatis separate to the New Largo Colliery and that will bedeveloped at an earlier date.Treated water from this first 4 Ml mobile WTP will alsobe used by the New Largo Colliery during <strong>co</strong>nstructionand the early years of operation of the mine.A se<strong>co</strong>nd 4 Ml /day mobile WTP will be developed onthe farm Honingkrantz 536 JR to treat water from oldunderground mine workings and dirty water producedby the New Largo Colliery.This se<strong>co</strong>nd 4 Ml mobile WTP will increase thetreatment capacity in the area from 4 Ml /day to 8 Mlper day.A permanent WTP will eventually be developed toincrease the treatment capacity in the area to~24 Ml / day and to replace the mobile WTPs.However, this permanent WTP will only be developedafter the New Largo Colliery has been in operation for anumber of years. The treatment technology, design andlayout location are not currently known.As such, it will have to form part of a future WMLapplication / amendment.Possible brine disposal at se<strong>co</strong>nd 4 Ml mobile WTP(depending on treatment technology).Gypsum disposal at se<strong>co</strong>nd 4 Ml mobile WTP.Gypsum may be stored and removed by a <strong>co</strong>ntractor orit may be disposed of in a lined section of the mine pit.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)45
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesActivityNumberActivity descriptionInclude in NEMWAApplication for NewLargo CollieryNo(to be licensed infuture)Applicability to the New Largo Colliery and R545RelocationAs explained under activity B4(7), the intention is toeventually develop a permanent WTP to increase thetreatment capacity in the area to ~24 Ml / day and toreplace the mobile WTPs. However, this permanentWTP will only be developed after the New LargoColliery has been in operation for a number of years.The treatment technology, design and layout locationare not currently known. As such, it will form part of afuture WML application. The qualities and quantities ofbrine and gypsum produced at the proposedpermanent WTP is not currently known and cantherefore not be licensed at this stage.As such, it will have to form part of a future WMLapplication / amendment.YesThere are various buildings, roads and structureslocated throughout the mining area and those fallingwithin the footprint of the opencast pit or infrastructurewill have to be demolished. Demolition rubble may<strong>co</strong>ntain ha<strong>za</strong>rdous waste (from various structures thatcurrently exist throughout the mining area) may remainon site and/or may be backfilled into the mine pit.Road demolition rubble, including the old bitumen / tarlayers, may remain on site and/or may be backfilledinto the mine pit or may be reused on roads in andaround the mine or for the <strong>co</strong>nstruction / upgrading ofroads in the surrounding areas. The material will bestored until a final disposal in the mine pit or until it isreused.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)46
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesActivityNumberB4(10)Activity descriptionThe disposal of general waste toland <strong>co</strong>vering an area in excess of200 m 2 .Include in NEMWAApplication for NewLargo CollieryYesApplicability to the New Largo Colliery and R545RelocationConstruction rubble will be produced during the<strong>co</strong>nstruction phase. Inert <strong>co</strong>nstruction rubble will beused on site for fill and levelling and may be backfilledinto the mine pit.There are various buildings, roads and structureslocated throughout the mining area and those fallingwithin the footprint of the opencast pit or infrastructurewill have to be demolished. Demolition rubble not<strong>co</strong>ntaining ha<strong>za</strong>rdous waste (from various structuresthat currently exist throughout the mining area) mayremain on site and/or may be backfilled into the minepit.Road demolition rubble may remain on site and/or maybe backfilled into the mine pit or may be reused onroads in and around the mine or for the <strong>co</strong>nstruction /upgrading of roads in the surrounding areas. Thematerial will be stored until a final disposal in the minepit or until it is reused.The quantity of waste produced and area of land wherethe waste is disposed is likely to be in excess of 200 m 2Construction of facilities and associated structures and infrastructureB4(11) The <strong>co</strong>nstruction of facilities foractivities listed in Category B ofthis Schedule (not in isolation toassociated activity).YesCategory B activities apply.2.2.5 National Environmental Management: Air Quality ActAAIC will submit an application for an air emissions license (AEL) for the storage of fuel in terms of theNational Environmental Management: Air Quality Act, No 39 of 2004 (NEMAQA). The application will befor: NEMAQA Category 2, Subcategory 2.2: Storage and Handling of Petroleum Products, for permanentimmobile storage tanks where the cumulative tankage capacity is larger than 500 cubic metres.2.3 Applicable Legislation and Approvals Required for Dragline Assembly PadPreparationThe assembly of the dragline is a critical <strong>co</strong>mponent to the New Largo Colliery. It is a highly specialisedand time <strong>co</strong>nsuming process to assemble a dragline. AAIC is estimating that preparation of the site forthe dragline assembly (dragline pad) will have to start before the anticipated date of the NEMAenvironmental authori<strong>za</strong>tion being issued in order to avoid delays with <strong>co</strong>al supply to Kusile.The dragline pad has a fairly small impact. It is about 1.0 ha in size and located on land owned by AAIC.There are no wetlands or streams within 500 m from the site. The natural vegetation of the site has been<strong>co</strong>mpletely removed by previous maize farming. Access to the site will be via an existing farm road,which has to be widened by 4.0 m and extended with less than 800 m.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)47
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesWhen verified that on its own, the dragline pad does not require an environmental authori<strong>za</strong>tion in termsof the NEMA. However, it is an integral <strong>co</strong>mponent of the New Largo Colliery and the mining rightapplication. The location is illustrated on the drawings provided in Appendix T (<strong>EIA</strong> Volume 7).In order to avoid delays with <strong>co</strong>al supply to Kusile, AAIC approached the DMR to request approval tostart early with the site preparation for the dragline pad. DMR indicated that AAIC should not start withthe dragline prior to the mining right being issued.2.4 Structure and Content of the <strong>Final</strong> <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong>The final <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong> is structured in ac<strong>co</strong>rdance with GNR 543 (<strong>EIA</strong> regulations) in terms of the NEMA,as well as the MPRDA and associated Regulations. The tables below provide a summary of therequirements of these regulations, with cross references to the report sections where these requirementshave been addressed.2.4.1 National Environmental Management Act (No 107 of 1998)Table 2-4: Structuring of the S<strong>co</strong>ping <strong>Report</strong> in terms of GNR543 Requirements (NEMA)Legal and Regulatory RequirementCross Reference to <strong>Report</strong> SectionGNR 543 Section 31Environmental impact assessment reports1. If a <strong>co</strong>mpetent authority accepts a s<strong>co</strong>ping report and advises the EAPin terms of regulation 30 (1) (a) to proceed with the tasks <strong>co</strong>ntemplatedin the plan of study for environmental impact assessment, the EAP mustproceed with those tasks, including the public participation process forThis report.environmental impact assessment referred to in regulation 28 (1) (h) (i)-(iv) and prepare an environmental impact assessment report in respectof the proposed activity. [Subreg. (1) amended by GN R1159/201]2. An environmental impact assessment report must <strong>co</strong>ntain allinformation that is necessary for the <strong>co</strong>mpetent authority to <strong>co</strong>nsider theAll sections of this report.application and to reach a decision <strong>co</strong>ntemplated in regulation 35, andmust include-(a) Details of-(i) the EAP who <strong>co</strong>mpiled the report; andSection 3.8.(ii) the expertise of the EAP to carry out an environmental impactassessment;(b) A detailed description of the proposed activity;Section 1 and Section 4, various figures inthe <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong> and drawings in AppendixT.(c) A description of the property on which the activity is to beundertaken and the location of the activity on the property, or if it is-(i) a linear activity, a description of the route of the activity; or Section 6.4 and Table 6-14 to Table 6-17.(ii) an ocean-based activity, the <strong>co</strong>ordinates where the activity is tobe undertaken;(d) A description of the environment that may be affected by theSection 6, and “Baseline / Existing Impacts”activity and the manner in which the physical, biological, social,described un subsections of Section 8.e<strong>co</strong>nomic and cultural aspects of the environment may be affectedExisting impacts rated in Appendix A.by the proposed activity;New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)48
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesLegal and Regulatory Requirement(e) Details of the public participation process <strong>co</strong>nducted in terms ofsub-regulation (1), including-(i) steps undertaken in ac<strong>co</strong>rdance with the plan of study;(ii) a list of persons, organisations and organs of state that wereregistered as interested and affected parties(iii) a summary of <strong>co</strong>mments received from, and a summary ofissues raised by registered interested and affected parties, the dateof receipt of these <strong>co</strong>mments and the response of the EAP to those<strong>co</strong>mments; and(iv) <strong>co</strong>pies of any representations and <strong>co</strong>mments received fromregistered interested and affected parties;Cross Reference to <strong>Report</strong> SectionSection 3.7.Included as part of Appendix D.Section 7 and Appendix D1.Appendix D.(f) A description of the need and desirability of the proposed activity; Section 1.(g) A description of identified potential alternatives to the proposedactivity, including advantages and disadvantages that the proposedSection 5.activity or alternatives may have on the environment and the<strong>co</strong>mmunity that may be affected by the activity;(h) An indication of the methodology used in determining theAppendix A, and included in Section 3.6.significance of potential environmental impacts;(i) A description and <strong>co</strong>mparative assessment of all alternativesidentified during the environmental impact assessment process;(j) A summary of the findings and re<strong>co</strong>mmendations of any specialistreport or report on a specialized process;(k) A description of all environmental issues that were identified duringthe environmental impact assessment process, an assessment ofthe significance of each issue and an indication of the extent towhich the issue <strong>co</strong>uld be addressed by the adoption of mitigationmeasures;(l) An assessment of each identified potentially significant impact,including-(i) cumulative impacts;(ii) the nature of the impact;(iii) the extent and duration of the impact;(iv) the probability of the impact occurring;(v) the degree to which the impact can be reversed;(vi) the degree to which the impact may cause irreplaceable loss ofresources; and(vii) the degree to which the impact can be mitigated;(m) A description of any assumptions, uncertainties and gaps inknowledge;Section 5, as well as <strong>co</strong>mparativeassessment of two different mine plans inSection 8 and Section 9.5.Section 8 (<strong>EIA</strong>) and Section 13 (EMP)represents summaries of the specialiststudies, supported by and the executivesummaries of Appendix E to Appendix U.Presentations with summarised results alsopresented in Appendix D14.Section 7 (short summary) and AppendixD1 (<strong>co</strong>mprehensive list with responses).In<strong>co</strong>rporated into Section 8 and Appendix A(Detailed Impact Assessment)Section 10.6New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)49
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesLegal and Regulatory Requirement(n) A reasoned opinion as to whether the activity should or should notbe authorized, and if the opinion is that it should be authorized, any<strong>co</strong>nditions that should be made in respect of that authori<strong>za</strong>tion;(o) An environmental impact statement which <strong>co</strong>ntains-(i) a summary of the key findings of the environmental impactassessment; and(ii) a <strong>co</strong>mparative assessment of the positive and negativeimplications of the proposed activity and identified alternatives;(p) A draft environmental management programme <strong>co</strong>ntaining theaspects <strong>co</strong>ntemplated in regulation 33;(q) Copies of any specialist reports and reports on specializedprocesses <strong>co</strong>mplying with regulation 32;(r) Any specific information that may be required by the <strong>co</strong>mpetentauthority; and(s) Any other matters required in terms of sections 24 (4) (a) and (b) ofthe Act.3. The EAP managing the application must provide the <strong>co</strong>mpetentauthority with detailed, written proof of an investigation as required bysection 24 (4) (b) (i) of the Act and motivation if no reasonable orfeasible alternatives, as <strong>co</strong>ntemplated in sub-regulation 31 (2) (g), exist.Cross Reference to <strong>Report</strong> SectionSection 10.7Section 10.7Section 10.4Section 13, Appendix B.Appendices to this report.None identified by authorities.Not applicable.Not applicable. Alternatives discussed andassessed in Section 5.Table 2-5: Structuring of the EMP in terms of GNR 543 Section 33 (NEMA)Legal and Regulatory RequirementCross Reference to <strong>Report</strong> SectionGNR 543 Section 33Content of draft environmental management programmeA draft environmental management programme must <strong>co</strong>mply with section 24N of the ActSection 13, Appendix B.and include-(a) Details of-Preliminaries and Section 3.8.(i) the person who prepared the environmental management programme,andDetails included in EMP (Appendix B).(ii) the expertise of that person to prepare anenvironmental management programme;(b) Information on any proposed management or mitigation measures that willEMP Table Column B.be taken to address the environmental impacts that have been identifiedin a report <strong>co</strong>ntemplated by these Regulations, including environmentalimpacts or objectives in respect of-(i) planning and design;EMP Table Column D(ii) pre-<strong>co</strong>nstruction and(<strong>co</strong>mbined under “Construction”)<strong>co</strong>nstruction activities;(iii) operation or undertaking of the activity;Column E(iv) rehabilitation of the environment; andColumn F andSeparate EMP Section: Rehabilitation Plan(v) closure, where relevant.Column E (closure)Column F (post closure)(a) A detailed description of the aspects of the activity that are <strong>co</strong>vered by the Provided under each main headings of the EMPdraft environmental management programme;table(b) An identification of the persons who will be responsible for theEMP Section on Roles and Responsibilitiesimplementation of the measures <strong>co</strong>ntemplated in paragraph (b);New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)50
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesLegal and Regulatory Requirement(c) Proposed mechanisms for monitoring <strong>co</strong>mpliance with and performanceassessment against the environmental management programme andreporting thereon;(d) As far as is reasonably practicable, measures to rehabilitate theenvironment affected by the undertaking of any listed activity or specifiedactivity to its natural or predetermined state or to a land use which<strong>co</strong>nforms to the generally accepted principle of sustainable development,including, where appropriate, <strong>co</strong>ncurrent or progressive rehabilitationmeasures;(e) A description of the manner in which it intends to(i) modify, remedy, <strong>co</strong>ntrol or stop any action, activity or process whichcauses pollution or environmental degradation;(ii) remedy the cause of pollution or degradation and migration ofpollutants;(iii) <strong>co</strong>mply with any prescribed environmental management standards orpractices;(iv) <strong>co</strong>mply with any applicable provisions of the Act regarding closure,where applicable;(v) <strong>co</strong>mply with any provisions of the Act regarding financial provisions forrehabilitation, where applicable;Cross Reference to <strong>Report</strong> SectionEMP Column R and separate EMP Section onMonitoring and AuditingEMP Section on Rehabilitation PlanVarious Sections of the EMP under Column BVarious Sections of the EMP under Column BNot applicableClosure <strong>co</strong>sts provided in Appendix B.Closure <strong>co</strong>sts provided in Appendix B.(f) Time periods within which the measures <strong>co</strong>ntemplated in theenvironmental management programme must be implemented;EMP timeframes in Column C (Scheduling)(g) The process for managing any environmental damage, pollution, pumpingand treatment of extraneous water or e<strong>co</strong>logical degradation as a result of Various Sections of the EMP under Column Bundertaking a listed activity;(h) An environmental awareness plan describing the manner in which-(i) The applicant intends to inform his or her employees of anyEMP Table Section 2 (Training, Awareness andenvironmental risk which may result from their work; andCompetence)(ii) Risks must be dealt with in order to avoid pollution or thedegradation of the environment;(i) Where appropriate, closure plans, including closure objectives. EMP Section: Rehabilitation Plan, and ClosureObjectivesTable 2-6: Structuring of the Specialist Studies in terms of GNR 543 Section 32 (NEMA)Legal and Regulatory RequirementCross Reference to <strong>Report</strong> SectionGNR 543 Section 32Specialist reports and reports on specialized processes1. An applicant or the EAP managing an application may appoint a person tocarry out a specialist study or specialized process.Appendices to the <strong>EIA</strong> report2. The person referred to in sub-regulation (1) must <strong>co</strong>mply with the requirementsof regulation 17 [declaration of independence]Declaration of independence signed byspecialists provided at back of each specialistreport3. A specialist report or a report on a specialized process prepared in terms ofthese Regulations must <strong>co</strong>ntain-(a) Details of-(i) the person who prepared the report; and(ii) the expertise of that person to carry out thespecialist study or specialized process;See <strong>co</strong>py of this table attached to eachspecialist report (Appendix E to Appendix S).New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)51
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesLegal and Regulatory Requirement(b) A declaration that the person is independent in a form as may be specifiedby the <strong>co</strong>mpetent authority;(c) An indication of the s<strong>co</strong>pe of, and the purpose for which, the report wasprepared;(d) A description of the methodology adopted in preparing the report orcarrying out the specialized process;(e) A description of any assumptions made and any uncertainties or gaps inknowledge;(f) A description of the findings and potential implications of such findings onthe impact of the proposed activity, including identified alternatives, on theenvironment;(g) Re<strong>co</strong>mmendations in respect of any mitigation measures that should be<strong>co</strong>nsidered by the applicant and the <strong>co</strong>mpetent authority;(h) A description of any <strong>co</strong>nsultation process that was undertaken during the<strong>co</strong>urse of carrying out the study;(i) A summary and <strong>co</strong>pies of any <strong>co</strong>mments that were received during any<strong>co</strong>nsultation process; andCross Reference to <strong>Report</strong> SectionAll issues received to date included in Issuesand Response <strong>Report</strong> attached as Appendix D1to the <strong>EIA</strong> main report(j) Any other information requested by the <strong>co</strong>mpetent authority. Not applicable2.4.2 Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (No 28 of 2002) and relevantRegulationsTable 2-7: Structuring of the <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong> in terms of MPRDA and relevant RegulationsLegal and Regulatory RequirementSection 39 (3) (a) of the Act, read together with Regulation 50 (a) and51 (a), requires the establishment of baseline information <strong>co</strong>ncerning theaffected environment, to determine protection, remedial measures, andenvironmental management objectives. You are herewith required to Include an assessment of the environment likely to be affected inrespect of the specific area applied for (which the assessment shouldbe done with the impacts/involvement of the interested and affectedparties), and the surrounding environment, which assessment requiresthe provision of a duplicate of the Regulation 2 (2) plan, and adescription of the current environmental state of the area applied for. Identify specific environmental features on the site applied for whichmay require protection remediation, management or avoidance.Identify closure or end use objectives for the site applied for as guidedby the baseline study.Section 39 (3) (b) (i), read together with section 39 (3) (d) (1) of theAct, requires the identification of all actions, activities or processes whichmay cause pollution or environmental degradation. You are herewithrequired to provide: A list of all the main mining activities, such as access roads, shafts,pits, workshops and stores, processing plant, residue deposition site,topsoil storage sites, stockpiles, waste dumps, access roads, dams,and any other basic mine design features.Cross Reference to <strong>Report</strong> Section Baseline: Section 6. Remedial measures and environmentalmanagement objectives in EMP, Section 13. Assessment of environment: Section 8. I&AP involvement: Section 3.7, Section 7 andAppendix D. Description of current environmental state:Section 6. Addressed in baseline: Section 6. Provided as part of EMP: Section 13. Baseline: Section 6. Described under Project Description: Section4. Impact sources identified in Section 8. Described under Project Description:Section 4.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)52
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesLegal and Regulatory RequirementA plan showing the location and aerial extent of the aforesaid mainactivities, as required to calculate the financial provision in ac<strong>co</strong>rdancewith the Department’s guideline published in terms of Regulation 54(1). This description and plan of the mining operation is required to be<strong>co</strong>mpatible with that provided in terms of regulation 11 (1) (g) (1) in themining work programme and must also show the intended mine pathover the period for which the right is required.A categori<strong>za</strong>tion, relative to the list of main mining activities, showingwhich of these activities will be affected by each of the <strong>co</strong>nstruction,operational, closure and post closure phases of the operation.Timeframes relative to each phase of the operation must beestimated.Section 39 (3) (b) (i) of the Act, read together with Regulation 50 (c),requires an assessment of the nature, extent, duration, probability andsignificance of the identified potential environmental impacts of theproposed mining operation, including the cumulative environmentalimpacts. You are herewith required to provide:Details of the engagement process with interested and affectedparties.Details of the potential physical impacts that were identified byinterested and affected parties.A list of the potential impacts of each of the aforesaid main miningactivities.All the potential physical impacts identified by interested and affectedparties relative to the respective main mining activities whichrepresent their sources.A classification of all the potential impacts that are identified in termsof the respective phases of <strong>co</strong>nstruction, operational, closure, andpost closure phases of the mining operation.An assessment of all the potential impacts:o In terms of their nature,o In terms of their extent,o In terms of their probability,o In terms of their significance.A separate list of the aforesaid potential impacts which are identifiedas potentially cumulative.Cross Reference to <strong>Report</strong> Section Section 4 and additional maps and drawingsin Appendix T (<strong>EIA</strong> Volume 7). Various tables in Section 1.13. Appendix B (<strong>co</strong>lumns indicating applicabilityof project phases and project main activities). Section 8 and (detailed assessment) Appendix A (<strong>co</strong>mprehensive rating ofimpacts). Sections 9.1 to 9.4 (summary rated impactsfor all project phases. Section 9.5 (summary of <strong>co</strong>mparative impactsfor Mine Plan Version 6 versus Version 7. Section 3.7 and Appendix D. Section 7 and Appendix D. Addressed in Section 8 and in impact tablesin Appendix A. Section 7 and Appendix D. Impacts of all phases assessed as part ofdetailed impact assessment in Section 8 andAppendix A. Summarised results presented in Section 9. All impacts are rated in Appendix A. Cumulative impacts assessed for eachenvironmental <strong>co</strong>mponent under Section 8. Cumulative impacts also rated in detailedimpact tables in Appendix A, and insummarised tables in Section 9.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)53
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesLegal and Regulatory Requirement An assessment of the identified cumulative impacts in their cumulative<strong>co</strong>ntext:o In terms of their nature,o In terms of their extent,o In terms of their probability,o In terms of their significance.Please ensure that the identified potential impacts are suitably crossreferenced to their relevant source activities in order to <strong>co</strong>mply with theirprovisions of section 39 (3) (d) (i) of the Act, rather than grouping them intoaspects.Section 39 (3) (b) (i) of the Act, read together with Regulation 50 (g),requires that you identify knowledge gaps <strong>co</strong>ncerning the foregoing impactassessment, and report on the adequacy of predictive methods, underlyingassumptions and uncertainties en<strong>co</strong>untered in <strong>co</strong>mpiling the requiredinformation.Section 39 (3) (b) (ii) of the Act, read together with Regulation 50 (c),requires an assessment of the nature, extent, duration, probability andsignificance of the identified potential impact on the social-e<strong>co</strong>nomic<strong>co</strong>nditions of any person who might be directly affected by the miningoperation. You are herewith required to provide:Details of the engagement process with interested and affectedparties.Details of the potential socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic impacts identified by StateDepartments charged with the administration of any law which relatesto matters affecting the environment.Cross Reference to <strong>Report</strong> Section Cumulative impacts assessed for eachenvironmental <strong>co</strong>mponent under Section 8. Cumulative impacts also rated in detailedimpact tables in Appendix A, and insummarised tables in Section 9. Key impact sources (activities) listed for eachimpact assessed in detailed impactassessment in Section 8 and the and ratingsin Appendix A. Section 3.11: Assumptions, Exclusions andLimitations. Section 10.6.and Section 3.12: Uncertainties,Knowledge Gaps Adequacy of predictive methods specificallyaddressed in impact tables, detailed impactassessment and rating, Appendix A. Each specialist study lists Assumptions,Exclusions, Limitations, Uncertainties andKnowledge Gaps. I&AP involvement: Section 3.7, Section 7 andAppendix D. List of affected properties, with landownershipand progress with <strong>co</strong>nsultation listed in:o Table 6-14: Affected Properties within AAICProposed Mining Right Area (ExistingProspecting Right Area),o Table 6-15: Affected Properties and LandOwnership along the Alternative Option 1Afor Replacement of the R545 road section tobe demolishedo Table 6-16: Affected Properties and LandOwnership along the Alternative Option 1Bfor Replacement of the R545 road section tobe demolishedo Table 6-17: Affected Properties and LandOwnership along the Alternative Option 2for Replacement of the R545 road section tobe demolished Appendix D1 <strong>co</strong>nsists of a <strong>co</strong>mplete Issuesand Response <strong>Report</strong>. All issues are listed bycategory, the person/party who raised theissue, who the person represents (i.e. StateDepartment Name), date issue was raised,with a response and how the issue was / willbe addressed. Issues raised by State Departments are listedin Appendix D1, including socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomicissues.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)54
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesLegal and Regulatory RequirementAn assessment of all the potential impacts thus identified:o In terms of their nature,o In terms of their extent,o In terms of their probability,o In terms of their significance.A <strong>co</strong>mparative assessment of the identified land use and developmentalternatives and their potential social impacts.Section 39 (3) (b) (ii) of the Act, read together with Regulation 50 (g),requires that you identify knowledge gaps <strong>co</strong>ncerning the foregoing impactassessment, and report on the adequacy of predictive methods, underlyingassumptions and uncertainties en<strong>co</strong>untered in <strong>co</strong>mpiling the requiredinformation.Section 39 (3) (b) (iii) of the Act, read together with Regulation 50 (c)requires an assessment of the nature, extent, duration, probability andsignificance of the identified potential impacts on any national estatereferred to in section 3 (2) of the National Heritage Resources Act, with theexception of the national estate <strong>co</strong>ntemplated in section 3 (2) (i) (vi) and(vii) of that Act. You are herewith required to provide: Details of the engagement process with interested and affectedparties.Details of the potential impacts on national heritage sites that wereidentified by interested and affected parties.All the potential impacts on national heritage sites identified by StateDepartments charged with the administration of any law which relatesto matters affecting the environment.Cross Reference to <strong>Report</strong> Section All impacts are rated in Appendix A. Development Alternatives discussed and<strong>co</strong>mpared in Section 5. Mine Plan Version 6 and Mine Plan Version 7<strong>co</strong>mpared in Section 9.5, and in Appendix A. Section 5. Alternative land uses <strong>co</strong>nsidered andpresented in Section 13.3 (Rehabilitation andClosure, Closure Vision). Section 3.11: Assumptions, Exclusions andLimitations. Section 10.6 and Section 3.12: Uncertainties,Knowledge Gaps. Adequacy of predictive methods - specificallyaddressed in impact tables, detailed impactassessment and rating, Appendix A. Each specialist study lists Assumptions,Exclusions, Limitations, Uncertainties andKnowledge Gaps. Appendix N: Heritage Resources SpecialistImpact Assessment. I&AP involvement: Section 3.7, Section 7,and Appendix D. Appendix N: Heritage Resources SpecialistImpact Assessment. Dedicated chapter in Section 8 (8.15) andimpact rating tables in Appendix A. Appendix D1 <strong>co</strong>nsists of a <strong>co</strong>mplete Issuesand Response <strong>Report</strong>. All issues are listed bycategory; the person/party who raised theissue; who the person represents (i.e. StateDepartment Name); date issue was raised;with a response and how the issue was / willbe addressed. Issues raised by State Departments are listedin Appendix D1, including impacts on heritageresources.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)55
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesLegal and Regulatory Requirement An assessment of all the potential impacts thus identified:o In terms of their nature,o In terms of their extent,o In terms of their probability,o In terms of their significance.Section 39 (3) (b) (iii) of the Act, read together with Regulation 50 (g)requires that you identify knowledge gaps <strong>co</strong>ncerning the foregoingnational heritage impact assessment, and report on the adequacy ofpredictive methods, underlying assumptions and uncertainties en<strong>co</strong>unteredin <strong>co</strong>mpiling the required information.Section 39 (3) (c) of the Act, read together with Regulation 51 (b) (vi)requires that you provide detail on the manner in which you intend toinform your employees of any environmental risks that may result fromtheir work and the manner in which the risks must be dealt with to avoidpollution or degradation of the environment.Section 39 (3) (d) of the Act, read together with Regulation 50 (e), (f)and (i), and Regulation 51 (b) (i) (ii) and (iii), requires a description of themanner in which it is intended to modify, remedy, <strong>co</strong>ntrol or stop anyaction, activity, or process which causes pollution or environmentaldegradation, and <strong>co</strong>ntain or remedy the cause of pollution or degradationand migration of pollutant, taking into <strong>co</strong>gni<strong>za</strong>nce any prescribed wastestandard, management standards, or practices. You are herewith requiredto provide - A list of measures to either, modify, remedy, <strong>co</strong>ntrol or stop anyactions, activities, processes leading to, or causes of, pollution ordegradation, cross referenced to the <strong>co</strong>rresponding list of theidentified impacts of each of the aforesaid main mining activities, andto verify the <strong>co</strong>mpleteness thereof.A list of measures for all the physical impacts identified by interestedand affected parties, cross referenced to a <strong>co</strong>rresponding list of theidentified impacts of each of the aforesaid main mining activities inorder to verify <strong>co</strong>mpleteness.Cross Reference to <strong>Report</strong> Section All impacts are rated in Appendix A. Section 3.11: Assumptions, Exclusions andLimitations. Section 10.6 and Section 3.12: Uncertainties,Knowledge Gaps. Adequacy of predictive methods - specificallyaddressed in impact tables, detailed impactassessment and rating, Appendix A. Each specialist study lists Assumptions,Exclusions, Limitations, Uncertainties andKnowledge Gaps. Training and awareness aspects addressed inEMP, Section 13, and Appendix B. Management measures in EMP (Section 13and Appendix B). Addressed in tables in Appendix A and theEMP (Appendix B), as well as in the individualspecialist studies. Addressed in tables in Section 8. Appendix D1 <strong>co</strong>nsists of a <strong>co</strong>mplete Issuesand Response <strong>Report</strong>. All issues are listed bycategory; the person/party who raised theissue; who the person represents (i.e. StateDepartment Name); date issue was raised;with a response and how the issue was / willbe addressed.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)56
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesLegal and Regulatory RequirementA list of measures for all the physical impacts identified by StateDepartments, cross referenced to a <strong>co</strong>rresponding list of the identifiedimpacts of each of the aforesaid main mining activities and to verifythe <strong>co</strong>mpleteness thereof.A list of measures for all cumulative impacts, cross referenced to a<strong>co</strong>rresponding list of the identified impacts of each of the aforesaidmain mining activities and to verify the <strong>co</strong>mpleteness thereof. A list of measures to address the identified potential impact on thesocio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic <strong>co</strong>nditions of any person who might be directlyaffected by the mining operation, cross referenced to a <strong>co</strong>rrespondinglist of the identified impacts of each of the aforesaid main miningactivities sand to verify the <strong>co</strong>mpleteness thereof. A classification of measures relative to the respective phases of<strong>co</strong>nstruction, operational, closure, and post closure phases of themining operation. Information on the extent to which the proposed measures arere<strong>co</strong>ncilable with the technical and supporting information attached asappendices. Information on the extent to which the proposed measures will <strong>co</strong>ntainor remedy the cause of pollution or degradation and migration ofpollutants regarding cumulative impacts. Information on the extent to which the proposed measures arere<strong>co</strong>ncilable with the prescribed waste standards or practices of theState Departments <strong>co</strong>ncerned.Section 39 (3) (d) of the Act, read together with Regulation 50 (h) and51 (b), requires a description of the arrangements for monitoring andmanagement of environmental impacts. You are herewith required toprovide - A list of those management activities which, where applicable, will be<strong>co</strong>nducted daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, annually or periodically asthe case may be in order to manage the aforesaid impacts effectively. A categori<strong>za</strong>tion of action plans and a time schedule of actions to beundertaken to implement mitigation measures for each phase of themining operation. Detail of procedures for environmental related emergencies andremediation. Detail of the planned monitoring and environmental managementprogramme performance assessment, (Reg. 51 (b) (iv))Section 39 (4) (a) (ii) of the Act, read together with Section 41 (1)requires that you must make the prescribed financial provision for therehabilitation or management of negative environmental impacts. In<strong>co</strong>mpiling the EMP, you are herewith required to -Cross Reference to <strong>Report</strong> Section Addressed in tables in Section 8. Appendix D1 <strong>co</strong>nsists of a <strong>co</strong>mplete Issuesand Response <strong>Report</strong>. All issues are listed bycategory; the person/party who raised theissue; who the person represents (i.e. StateDepartment Name); date issue was raised;with a response and how the issue was / willbe addressed. Addressed in tables in Section 8, readtogether with Appendix A and Appendix B,and the Issues and Response report inAppendix D1. Addressed in tables in Section 8, readtogether with Appendix A and Appendix B,and the Issues and Response report inAppendix D1. Contained in EMP (Section 13 and AppendixB). Addressed in EMP, Section 13 and impactrating tables in Appendix A. Addressed in EMP, Section 13 and impactrating tables in Appendix A. No state department has provided wastestandards or practices. Waste managementlicense application submitted to the NDEA. Addressed in EMP, Section 13 and AppendixB. Addressed in EMP, Section 13 and AppendixB. Addressed in EMP, Section 13 and AppendixB. Addressed in EMP, Section 13 and AppendixB. Addressed in EMP, Section 13 and AppendixB. AAIC is submitting immediate closure <strong>co</strong>stsas per DMR requirements (see Section 13.3.5and Appendix B).New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)57
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesLegal and Regulatory RequirementInclude a rehabilitation plan showing the areas and aerial extent of themain mining activities, including the anticipated mined out area at thetime of closure, from which the quantum of financial provision can becalculated in ac<strong>co</strong>rdance with the published guideline.Ensure that the rehabilitation plan is <strong>co</strong>mpatible with the closureobjectives determined in ac<strong>co</strong>rdance with the baseline study asprescribed.Ensure that the quantum calculation distinguishes between thoseareas that can be rehabilitated <strong>co</strong>ncurrently and those that can only berehabilitated upon closure.Indicate that the required amount will be provided should the right begranted.Section 39 (4) (a) (iii) of the Act, read together with section 37 (2) ofthe Act, and Regulation 11 (1) (g) (iv) requires that you will have thecapacity, or have provided for the capacity, to rehabilitate and managenegative impacts on the environment. In order to determine the saidcapacity requirements, you are herewith required to provide - A determination of the <strong>co</strong>st of each of the measures to either, modify,remedy, <strong>co</strong>ntrol or stop any actions, activities, processes leading to, orcauses of, pollution or degradation, cross referenced to the list of themeasures identified in terms of section 39 (3) (d) of the Act, and toverify the <strong>co</strong>mpleteness thereof. A classification of the <strong>co</strong>st of each of the measures to either, modify,remedy, <strong>co</strong>ntrol or stop any actions, activities, processes leading to, orcauses of pollution or degradation, in terms of the phases of<strong>co</strong>nstruction, operational closure and post closure as prescribed. A summary of the <strong>co</strong>st of each of the measures to either, modify,remedy, <strong>co</strong>ntrol or stop any actions, activities, processes leading to, orcauses of, pollution or degradation, into an annual cash flow format asdirected in terms of section 39 (5) of the Act.In terms of the provisions of section 29 of the Act, you are herewithdirected to -Provide a tabulation in the EMP of the activities with their impacts,management measures and associated <strong>co</strong>sts.Calculate your environmental liability on an annual basis, and increasethe financial provision ac<strong>co</strong>rdingly.Cross Reference to <strong>Report</strong> Section Rehabilitation objectives provided in the EMP,Section 13. Drawings provided in Appendix T. Addressed in EMP, Section 13 and EMP inAppendix B. Separate submission to the DMR by AAIC.AAIC is submitting immediate closure <strong>co</strong>stsas per DMR requirements (see Section 13and Appendix B). Separate submission to the DMR by AAIC.AAIC is submitting immediate closure <strong>co</strong>stsas per DMR requirements (see Section 13and Appendix B). Separate submission to the DMR by AAIC.AAIC is submitting immediate closure <strong>co</strong>stsas per DMR requirements (see Section 13and Appendix B). Separate submission to the DMR by AAIC.AAIC is submitting immediate closure <strong>co</strong>stsas per DMR requirements (see Section 13and Appendix B). Separate submission to the DMR by AAIC.AAIC is submitting immediate closure <strong>co</strong>stsas per DMR requirements (see Section 13and Appendix B). Separate submission to the DMR by AAIC.AAIC is submitting immediate closure <strong>co</strong>stsas per DMR requirements (see Section 13and Appendix B). Separate submission to the DMR by AAIC.AAIC is submitting immediate closure <strong>co</strong>stsas per DMR requirements (see Section 13and Appendix B). See Appendix B part 2 (figures from draft <strong>EIA</strong><strong>Report</strong> have been refined for this final <strong>EIA</strong><strong>Report</strong>). Closure <strong>co</strong>sts to be revised annually andsubmitted to the DMR.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)58
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices2.5 Responsible AuthoritiesThe following authorities are responsible for administrating the major legislative processes:The <strong>co</strong>mpetent authority, responsible for administrating the application for environmentalauthorisation, is the Mpumalanga Department of E<strong>co</strong>nomic Development, Environment andTourism (MDEDET).The Department of Water Affairs (DWA) will review and administer the application for the WaterUse License.The Department of Mineral Resources will administer the mining right application process,including the review and approval of the <strong>EIA</strong> and EMP submitted to the department in support ofthe mining right application. The s<strong>co</strong>ping report will be submitted to the DWA as the first phase inthe water use license application process.The waste management license process, which includes ha<strong>za</strong>rdous wastes, will be administeredby the National Department of Environmental Affairs (NDEA), unless otherwise advised by theNDEA.3. Study Approach and Methodology3.1 Study AreaThe <strong>co</strong>re study area can be defined as the current AAIC prospecting right area, the same area overwhich AAIC submitted a mining right application to the DMR, as illustrated on Figure 1-1, and areasaffected by associated activities and infrastructure.The various specialist studies have been used to define a project zone of influence, which defines thebroader study area. Maps are provided in the various specialist studies.3.2 S<strong>co</strong>ping Phase3.2.1 S<strong>co</strong>ping Process and Study Out<strong>co</strong>mesA s<strong>co</strong>ping study was <strong>co</strong>nducted as the first phase in the <strong>EIA</strong> process. During the s<strong>co</strong>ping phase:Project and baseline environmental information were <strong>co</strong>llated. Baseline information for thiss<strong>co</strong>ping report was gathered through visual inspections of the project area and surroundings,desktop studies and review of existing reports.Landowners, adjacent landowners, local authorities, environmental authorities, as well as otherstakeholders which may be affected by the project, or that may have an interest in theenvironmental impacts of the project were identified.Interested and affected parties (I&APs) were informed about the proposed project.Public meetings were arranged and I&AP issues and <strong>co</strong>ncerns were identified and documentedfor <strong>co</strong>nsideration in the <strong>EIA</strong> phase.Environmental authorities were <strong>co</strong>nsulted to <strong>co</strong>nfirm legal and administrative requirements.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)59
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesEnvironmental issues and impacts were identified and described.Development alternatives were identified and evaluated, and non-feasible developmentalternatives were eliminated.The nature and extent for further investigations and specialist input required in the <strong>EIA</strong> phasewas identified.The draft and final s<strong>co</strong>ping reports were submitted for review by authorities, relevant organs ofstate and I&APs.Key I&AP issues and <strong>co</strong>ncerns were <strong>co</strong>llated into an issues and response report for<strong>co</strong>nsideration in the <strong>EIA</strong> phase.The draft s<strong>co</strong>ping report was submitted in April 2011 and the final s<strong>co</strong>ping report was submitted in August 2011.3.3 Baseline Environmental DescriptionThe baseline environment represents the current prevailing environmental <strong>co</strong>nditions prior to the<strong>co</strong>nstruction of the proposed New Largo Colliery. It is indicative of the level of environmental degradationdue to naturally occurring phenomena and existing human activities such as mining, power generation,residential development, agriculture, traffic on existing roads, and existing infrastructure such as railwaylines, power lines and pipelines.Baseline information for this <strong>EIA</strong> report was gathered through visual inspections of the project area andsurroundings, desktop studies and review of existing reports.3.4 <strong>EIA</strong> Phase3.4.1 <strong>EIA</strong> ProcessThe <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>co</strong>mponent of the study includes:Specialist investigations (see Section 3.9 and 3.10) were undertaken in ac<strong>co</strong>rdance with theterms of reference established in the s<strong>co</strong>ping assessment (plan of study for <strong>EIA</strong> appended to thes<strong>co</strong>ping report).An evaluation of development alternatives and identification of a proposed option.Integrate specialist studies into an assessment of existing impacts (no-go development option),environmental impacts that may be associated with the proposed project and its developmentalternatives, and cumulative impacts using the impact assessment methodology as described inSection 3.6.Identification of mitigation measures to address these environmental impacts and development ofactions required to achieve the mitigation measures defined.Continued engagement with I&APs.Continued engagement with environmental authorities on legal and administrative processes.In<strong>co</strong>rporation of public <strong>co</strong>mment received during s<strong>co</strong>ping into the draft <strong>EIA</strong> report. Addressrelevant key I&AP issues and <strong>co</strong>ncerns.Produce an environmental impact statement.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)60
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesIssuing of the draft <strong>EIA</strong> report for review.In<strong>co</strong>rporation of <strong>co</strong>mments received on the draft <strong>EIA</strong> into the final <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong> and EMP.The <strong>EIA</strong> assessment process has been developed to ensure that it <strong>co</strong>mplies with the GNR 527 in termsof the MPRDA and the DMR directive in terms of Sections 29 and 39 of the MPRDA as well as GNR 543Sections 26 to 33 and the associated guidelines (NEMA) (see Section 3). The draft <strong>EIA</strong> was submitted inFebruary 2012 and the final <strong>EIA</strong> (this report) will be submitted in July 2012.3.4.2 <strong>EIA</strong> Programme and Opportunities for I&AP and Authority InvolvementThe <strong>EIA</strong> process and opportunities for I&AP and authority involvement are illustrated in Table 1-6.Simplified project implementation programmes with explanation of opportunities for <strong>co</strong>ntinued<strong>co</strong>nsultation and participation are supplied in Table 1-7 for Mine Plan Version 6 and Mine Plan Version 7,refer Section 1.13.3.5 Alternatives InvestigatedDevelopment alternatives identified and evaluated during the <strong>EIA</strong> phase are discussed in Section 5, witha motivation as to why the proposed development is regarded as the preferred development alternative.3.6 Identification and Description of ImpactsThe identification and assessment of environmental impacts is a multi-faceted process, using a<strong>co</strong>mbination of quantitative and qualitative descriptions and evaluations. It involves applying scientificmeasurements and professional judgement to determine the significance of environmental impactsassociated with the proposed project. The process involves <strong>co</strong>nsideration of, inter alia: the purpose andneed for the project; views and <strong>co</strong>ncerns of interested and affected parties; social and political norms,and general public interest.The methodology used for assessing impacts associated with the proposed project follows thephilosophy of environmental impact assessments, as described in the booklet Impact Significance,Integrated Environmental Management Information Series 5 (DEAT, 2002b). The philosophy issummarised by the following extracts:“The impact magnitude [or intensity] and significance should as far as possible be determined byreference to legal requirements, accepted scientific standards or social acceptability. If nolegislation or scientific standards are available, the <strong>EIA</strong> practitioner can evaluate impactmagnitude based on clearly described criteria. Except for the exceeding of standards set by lawor scientific knowledge, the description of significance is largely judgemental, subjective andvariable. However, generic criteria can be used systematically to identify, predict, evaluate anddetermine the significance of impacts.” (DEAT, 2002b).“Determining significance [of impacts] is ultimately a judgement call. Judgemental factors can beapplied rigorously and <strong>co</strong>nsistently by displaying information related to an issue in a standardworksheet format.” (Haug et al., 1984 taken from DEAT, 2002b).The purpose of undertaking an impact assessment is to ensure that the project proactively <strong>co</strong>nsidersenvironmental issues as part of the project planning and decision-making processes throughout theproject life cycle.For each environmental <strong>co</strong>mponent (i.e. visual, air quality, health), impacts will be identified anddescribed in terms of: detectability / visibility of the impact, exposure of receptors to the impact,New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)61
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices<strong>co</strong>mpliance with legislation and standards, other applicable targets, limits or thresholds of <strong>co</strong>ncern, thelevel of change / intrusion imposed, and receptor sensitivity.The impact assessment <strong>co</strong>nsidered:Physical, biological, social and e<strong>co</strong>nomic <strong>co</strong>mponents of the environment and theirinterrelationships.The ability of receptors and affected parties to adapt to changes and thus maintain livelihoodsafter the operation has closed.The effects of all stages of the project life cycle, including planning <strong>co</strong>nstruction, operation,de<strong>co</strong>mmissioning and post closure must be <strong>co</strong>nsidered.Positive and negative environmental and social impacts.Direct, indirect, induced and cumulative impacts.Short- and long-duration impacts within the zone(s) of influence, and extreme events.Potential trans-boundary effects and global impacts (e.g. air pollution, withdrawal of water froman inter-provincial waterway and emission of greenhouse gasses).Potential impacts on local <strong>co</strong>mmunities and/or other vulnerable individuals or groups.Socio-political risks (e.g. political instability).Impacts associated with supply chains where the resource(s) utilised by the project are sensitive.The perceived sensitivity of receptors (people and/or receiving environment) will be professionally judgedbased on available scientific data (fact) and feedback from public participation processes (views,opinions, attitudes, and <strong>co</strong>ncerns) as documented in the Public Consultation Documentation(Appendix D) and the Impact Rating criteria described in Section 3.6. The following impacts will bedescribed:Existing Impacts (Impacts of Existing Developments within Project Impact Area)The proposed <strong>co</strong>al mine is located in an area affected by various historical and existing activitiesincluding mining, processing, agriculture, residential, major roads and highways and other linearinfrastructure as well as the Kusile Power Station which is currently under <strong>co</strong>nstruction.The assessment of existing impacts will <strong>co</strong>nsider the current level of environmental degradationassociated with existing developments, as well as developments under <strong>co</strong>nstruction and new or planneddevelopments that will be operational at implementation of New Largo Colliery and for which the impactshave been defined – these new developments will include the Kusile Power Station, the R545 roadrelocation and the Phola-Kusile Coal Conveyor.Defining the current level of degradation associated with existing developments is essential tounderstand and enable the assessment of cumulative impacts (see below). The assessment of existingimpacts is qualitative and limited to the area of impact for the individual environmental <strong>co</strong>mponents.Incremental ImpactsIncremental impacts refers to the impacts of an activity looked at in isolation (impacts of an individualactivity), thus not <strong>co</strong>nsidering the <strong>co</strong>mbined, cumulative or synergistic impacts of the activity, or thecumulative impacts of the activity with other activities or the existing impacts. The environmental impactreport will describe the incremental impacts of the development alternatives.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)62
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesNo-go Development ImpactsThe no-go development is <strong>co</strong>nsidered as an alternative in the evaluation of development alternatives. Inthe environmental impact assessment the no-go development impacts would be similar to the existingimpacts.The no-go development will have high negative impacts on the <strong>co</strong>st and timing of <strong>co</strong>al supply to KusilePower Station, delivery of electricity to the national grid, and associated impacts on the nationale<strong>co</strong>nomy. Therefore it is assumed that if the proposed New Largo Colliery is not allowed to bedeveloped, an alternative <strong>co</strong>al supply and transportation of that <strong>co</strong>al supply will have to be found tosupply Kusile.Cumulative ImpactsFor this project, cumulative impacts will be determined as:Existing Impacts + Incremental Impacts = Cumulative ImpactsExisting impacts within the projectarea of impact for individual project<strong>co</strong>mponents (current level ofdegradation) associated withexisting developments.Impacts of theproposed New LargoColliery andassociated activitiesand infrastructureExisting impacts(current level of degradation)associated with existingdevelopments and developmentsunder <strong>co</strong>nstruction <strong>co</strong>mbined withthe impacts of the proposed NewLargo Colliery and associatedactivities and infrastructureIn the assessment above, existing impacts often also represent the impacts of the no-go developmentoption.The impacts of the following new projects and projects under <strong>co</strong>nstruction in the vicinity of the NewLargo Colliery will form part of the cumulative assessment of impacts in the New Largo Colliery <strong>EIA</strong>. Theimpacts of these projects have been or are currently being assessed in separate <strong>EIA</strong> processes.Eskom Kusile Power StationSeparate <strong>EIA</strong> processes have been undertaken for Kusile Power Station and its associated activitiessuch as the rail link, 400 kV power line and ash disposal facilities. The operational impacts of Kusile, aspredicted in the <strong>EIA</strong> for the power station, will be <strong>co</strong>nsidered in assessment of cumulative impacts.Phola-Kusile Coal ConveyorDuring the first years of operation, Kusile will utilize <strong>co</strong>al supplied via the proposed Phola-Kusile CoalConveyor from the Phola Coal Processing Plant as well as <strong>co</strong>al from other parties. The overland<strong>co</strong>nveyor is a standalone project with a separate environmental impact assessment (<strong>EIA</strong>) process whichis currently under way.Potential future projects such as the Eskom Ash Disposal Facility, for which the environmental impactsare currently undefined, cannot be included in the cumulative impact assessment and will have to beassessed in separate environmental impact assessment processes for these projects.3.6.1 Mitigation MeasuresThe significance of environmental impacts is rated before and after the implementation of mitigationmeasures. The impact rating system <strong>co</strong>nsiders the <strong>co</strong>nfidence level that can be placed on the successfulimplementation of the mitigation.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)63
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices3.6.2 Rating the Significance of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation MeasuresThe system used for evaluating impact significance and mitigation failure risks is explained below inTable 3-1 and in Appendix A.3.6.3 Environmental Management Programme (EMP)The environmental assessment practitioner developed the EMP based on the input from all theenvironmental specialists (see Appendices for list of specialist studies), as well as AAIC current<strong>co</strong>rporate management standards, best practice in the industry, and professional judgement regardingthe specific environmental impacts and risks associated with the New Largo Colliery.The various specialists have made suggestions and re<strong>co</strong>mmendations for mitigating impacts asapplicable to their various fields of expertise. However, some of the suggestions were not alwaysappropriate and feasible when viewed in an integrated way. The mitigation measures adopted in theEMP (Section 13 and Appendix B) reflects an integration of mitigation measures appropriate to theproject, based on the professional judgement of the EAP, the <strong>co</strong>nstraints associated with the specificproject and the environment in which the project is situated. The EMP, as it appeared in the draft <strong>EIA</strong><strong>Report</strong>, was sent to all the specialists for their <strong>co</strong>mment. They were specifically asked to review the EMPto ensure that the mitigation measures written into the EMP were aligned to their re<strong>co</strong>mmendations andappropriate for the New Largo Colliery and that none of their key re<strong>co</strong>mmendations were left out /excluded. All of the <strong>co</strong>mments received back from the specialists were in<strong>co</strong>rporated into the EMPversion as it appears in Appendix B of this final <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong>.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)64
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesConsequence(Severity + Scale)Severity(Intensity + Duration + frequency)Impact Rating Criteria(Symbol / Short Description)Intensity(Negative Impacts)Intensity(Positive Impacts)DurationFrequencyTable 3-1: Impact Rating SystemExplanation of Rating CriteriaNature of the ImpactDescription of the direct and indirect effect of human actions and activities on theenvironment, and impacts of the environment on development.Environmental Management Programme Framework.Measures designed to avoid, reduce or remedy adverse potential negative impacts,Mitigationincluding <strong>co</strong>mpensation for residual impacts and measures designed to expand andaugment the effect of potential positive impacts for <strong>co</strong>nsideration during development ofthe final environmental management programme.Negative Impacts with a potential negative / adverse effect.Impact StatusNeutral Neutral, no impact.Positive Impacts with a potential positive / beneficial effect.Slight change, disturbance or nuisance. Targets, limits and thresholds of <strong>co</strong>ncern never1 low exceeded. Impacts are rapidly and easily reversible. Require no or only minorinterventions or clean-up actions. No <strong>co</strong>mplaints expected when the impact takes place.Moderate change, disturbance or dis<strong>co</strong>mfort. Real but not substantial. Targets, limits2 moderateand thresholds of <strong>co</strong>ncern may occasionally be exceeded. Impacts are reversible butmay require some effort, <strong>co</strong>st and time. Sporadic <strong>co</strong>mplaints can be expected when theimpact takes place.Prominent change, disturbance or degradation. Real and substantial. May result in3 high illness or injury. Targets, limits and thresholds of <strong>co</strong>ncern regularly exceeded. Regular<strong>co</strong>mplaints can be expected when the impact takes place.Severe change, disturbance or degradation. May result in illness, injury or death.4 very highTargets, limits and thresholds of <strong>co</strong>ncern <strong>co</strong>ntinually exceeded. Interest group /<strong>co</strong>mmunity mobilisation against project can be expected when the impact takes place.May result in legal action if impact occurs.1 low Slight change or improvement. Minor benefits.2 moderate Moderate change or improvement. Real but not substantial benefits.3 highProminent change or improvement. Real and substantial benefits. General <strong>co</strong>mmunitysupport.4 very highConsiderable and large-scale change or improvement. Real and <strong>co</strong>nsiderable benefit.Widespread support.Refers to the total length of time (i.e. number of years) that the impact source or risk will be present.1 low Short-term. May occur for weeks or a few months and are rapidly reversible.2 moderateMedium-term. May occur for the first few years of the project, during <strong>co</strong>nstruction, up tothree years. Impacts reversible within a three year period.3 highLong-term. May occur throughout the life of the mine, but will cease after operationsceases either because of natural processes or human intervention.4 very highPermanent and irreversible. Residual impacts will remain after de<strong>co</strong>mmissioning andclosure.Refers to the time intervals and how often (i.e. number of days per year) the impact would manifest over the entireduration of the impact.1 low Seldom. Impact would be intermitted, limited to a few days a year (0-10 % of the time).ProbabilityScale / Extent2 moderateOccasional. Impact would occur now and again, not more than seven days a month(occurs 10-25% of the time).3 highOften. Impact would be present more than fourteen days a month (occurs >50% of thetime).4 very high Continuous. Impact would occur all the time (occurs 100% of the time).0 none None. Impact will not occur anywhere.1 low Site impact. Small area. No sensitive receptors outside property affected.2 moderateLocal. May affect immediate neighbours, never nearby townships. Small area or smallnumber of sensitive receptors affected. Generally within 50 km from project site.3 highWidespread impact. Affects nearby townships. Large area or large numbers of sensitivereceptors affected.4 very highNational or international impact. Impacts over a vast area or over vast numbers ofsensitive receptors.0 none Never (0 % likelihood).1 low Conceivable. Will only happen in exceptional circumstances (40-80 % likelihood).New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)65
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesSignificance(Consequence + Probability)Impact Rating Criteria(Symbol / Short Description)Explanation of Rating Criteria4 very high Expected. Highly likely to happen (>80 % likelihood).Neg Very HighWidespread negative effect. Negative impact that is of the highest order. Potential fatalflaw.Neg High Substantial negative impact.Neg Moderate Negative impact that is real but not substantial.Neg LowLow to negligible negative impact with little real effect.NonNo discernible impact.Pos LowLow to insignificant positive impact.Pos Moderate Positive impact that is real but not substantial.Pos High Substantial positive impact.Pos Very HighWidespread / substantial beneficial effect. An alternative means to achieve the samebenefits not possible.Impact Status Negative Impacts with a potential negative / adverse effect.NeutralNeutral, no impact.PositiveImpacts with a potential positive / beneficial effect.PlanningActivities, impacts and mitigation measures applicable to the planning (or preimplementation)phase.ConstructionActivities, impacts and mitigation measures applicable to the <strong>co</strong>nstruction phase,including de<strong>co</strong>mmissioning of existing infrastructure.Project PhaseOperational Activities, impacts and mitigation measures applicable to the operational phase.Activities, impacts and mitigation measures applicable to de<strong>co</strong>mmissioning (closure,removal, rehabilitation).De<strong>co</strong>mmissioning / Closure For this project, the impacts associated with the de<strong>co</strong>mmissioning very similar to that ofthe <strong>co</strong>nstruction phase. Due to the long project life (60+ years), the impacts are notdiscussed separately.Precautionary Weighting(Value Judgement)(Negative Impacts)(PositiveImpacts)Degree to whichimpacts can bemitigatedUsed when there is a potential understatement of the significance of a negative impact to increase the significancerating.0 noneNo weighting required. Significance rating is a true reflection of the potential effect of theimpact.1 lowThere may be a slight understatement of the significance of the impact. Impactsignificance adapted to be slightly higher.2 moderateThere may be a moderate understatement of the significance of the impact. Impactsignificance adapted to be higher.3 highThe impact significance rating is highly understated. Impact significance adapted to behigher.4 very highThe impact significance rating is severely understated. Impact significance adapted tobe higher.Used when there is a potential overstatement of the significance of a positive impact to reduce the significance rating.0 noneNo weighting required. Significance rating is a true reflection of the potential effect of theimpact.1 lowThere may be a slight understatement of the significance of the impact. Impactsignificance adapted to be lower.2 moderateThere may be a moderate understatement of the significance of the impact. Impactsignificance adapted to be lower.3 highThe impact significance rating is highly understated. Impact significance adapted to belower.4 very highThe impact significance rating is severely understated. Impact significance adapted tobe lower.Calculated as the difference between the rating of Unmitigated Impacts and Mitigated Impacts, assuming mitigation willbe implemented successfully and in full.Not applicable - no impacts to be mitigated.None / Not applicable None - impacts cannot be mitigated (no difference between the rating of 'UnmitigatedImpacts' and 'Mitigated Impacts'.LowModerateThe difference between the impact rating of 'Unmitigated Impacts' and 'MitigatedImpacts' is Low. Low potential to mitigate impacts even if mitigation is implementedsuccessfully and in full.The difference between the impact rating of 'Unmitigated Impacts' and 'MitigatedImpacts' is Moderate. Moderate potential to mitigate impacts if mitigation is implementedsuccessfully and in full.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)66
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesRisk of MitigationFailureImpactReversibilityImpact onIrreplaceableResourcesImpact RatingMethodologyOverall Risk /BenefitImpact Rating(and Risk / BenefitRating)Impact Rating Criteria(Symbol / Short Description)HighVery HighExplanation of Rating CriteriaThe difference between the impact rating of 'Unmitigated Impacts' and 'MitigatedImpacts' is High. High potential to mitigate impacts if mitigation is implementedsuccessfully and in full.The difference between the impact rating of 'Unmitigated Impacts' and 'MitigatedImpacts' is Very High. Very High potential to mitigate impacts, assuming mitigation isimplemented successfully and in full.The likelihood of mitigation failure rated based on:- research and technology,- timing, and thus se<strong>co</strong>ndary potential of outside influences occurring over time (i.e. climate change, political instability,inter/national e<strong>co</strong>nomic instability),- financial <strong>co</strong>nsiderations,- skills and labour availability and potential for human error.0 No / Very Low RiskLess than 10% likelihood that mitigation measures <strong>co</strong>uld fail. Mitigation implementedquickly and easily to implement, proven technology used, no special labour skillsrequired. More than 90% likelihood that impacts will be reversed.1 Low Risk 10-30% likelihood that mitigation measures <strong>co</strong>uld fail.2 Moderate Risk 30 to 60% likelihood that mitigation measures <strong>co</strong>uld fail.3 High Risk 60 to 80% likelihood that mitigation measures <strong>co</strong>uld fail.4 Very High Risk>80% likelihood that mitigation measures <strong>co</strong>uld fail. May need research and newtechnologies to be developed, and/or may have to take place over many years afterclosure, and/or may involve exorbitant/prohibitive expenses to implement successfully,and/or may require highly skilled personnel with special training, and/or have a high riskof human error during the execution of the mitigation.The degree to which an impact can be reversed when impact source is removed.Permanent Impact Impact less than 10% reversible even if source of impact is removed.Low Reversibility Impact 10-30% reversible. Difficult to reverse impact once source of impact is removed.Moderate ReversibilityImpact 30 to 60% reversible. Impact can be partially reversed once source of impact isremoved.High ReversibilityImpact 60 to 80% reversible. Easy and possible to reserve most of the impacts oncesource of impact is removed.Impact ReversibleImpact more than 90% reversible, in essence the impact is reversible once source ofimpact is removed.Positive / Reduction Positive impact or reduction in the impact on irreplaceable resources.NoneNo impact on irreplaceable resources.Neg LowNegative low impact on irreplaceable resources.Neg Moderate Negative moderate impact on irreplaceable resources.Neg High Negative high impact on irreplaceable resources.Neg Very High Negative very high impact on irreplaceable resources.Formula Example Rating CriteriaI 2.0 Intensity (I)D 2.0 Duration (D)F 2.0 Frequency (F)S=(I+D+F)/3 2.0 Severity (S) = (Intensity + Duration + Frequency) / 3E 2.0 Scale (Extent) (E)C=(S+E)/2 2.0 Consequence (C) = (Severity + Extent) / 2P 3.0 Probability (P)S1=(C+P)/2 2.3 Significance (S1) = (Consequence + Probability) / 2W 1.0 Precautionary Weighting (W)S2=(S+W/2) 2.8 Significance with Precautionary Weighting (S2) = (S1 + W)Calculated based on the rating for Unmitigated Impacts and Mitigated Impacts, the degree to which the impacts can bemitigated and the likelihood for the mitigation measures failing.Formula Level Level
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesImpact Rating Criteria(Symbol / Short Description)Explanation of Rating Criteria>= 2.9 Pos High>= 3.3 Pos Very HighCompleteNo information gaps exist. Decision-making can go ahead.Minor information deficiencies exist but this does not affect decision-making. Decisionmakingcan still go ahead.Assessment AdequateConfidenceNot enough information for decision-making. Current data to be supplemented withIn<strong>co</strong>mpletefurther monitoring or research.Widespread <strong>co</strong>ncern and/or <strong>co</strong>ncerns of very high importance. Concerns difficult to beNeg Very High addressed to satisfaction of authorities or <strong>co</strong>ncerned parties. Appeals against projectanticipated if not addressed.Neg High Several <strong>co</strong>ncerns and/or <strong>co</strong>ncerns of high importance. Real and substantial.Neg Moderate Limited <strong>co</strong>ncerns. All <strong>co</strong>ncerns addressed. Real but not substantial.Neg LowVery minor or minor <strong>co</strong>ncerns.Neutral / None No interest.IAP InterestNot defined Level of interest has not been tested.Pos LowVery little support for project.Pos Moderate Limited support for project.Pos High General support. May be associated with high <strong>co</strong>mmunity expectations.Pos Very High Widespread support. May be associated with extremely high <strong>co</strong>mmunity expectations.Diverse Low Minor interest. Some support. Some <strong>co</strong>ncerns.Diverse Moderate Limited interest. Some support. Some <strong>co</strong>ncerns.Diverse High General interest. Some support. Some <strong>co</strong>ncerns.Diverse Very High Widespread interest. Some support. Some <strong>co</strong>ncerns.3.7 Public Participation and Authority Consultation to Date3.7.1 Identification of Interested and Affected PartiesPotential Interested and affected parties (I&APs) were identified through networking and the use of theexisting AAIC and Eskom I&AP databases that have been developed since 2006. The existingdatabases included landowners, neighbouring landowners and people who participated in previous <strong>EIA</strong>processes in the area. Press advertisements and site posters were used to identify new I&APs (Section3.7.4).A list of all parties that were <strong>co</strong>nsulted during the public participation and authority <strong>co</strong>nsultation processis provided in Appendix D2 as well as in the front of this report.3.7.2 Notifications to Interested and Affected PartiesPotential I&APs were notified about the project and the public participation process by means of:Direct letters to affected landowners within the AAIC prospecting right area (potential futuremining right area (parties listed in Appendix D3).Press advertisements and site notices (Section 3.7.4) during both the project announcement, thes<strong>co</strong>ping and impact assessment phases.Individual notifications to people who may be affected by the proposed development on theexisting New Largo and Kusile Power Station I&AP databases (via telephone, email and/or fax(Appendix D7) during both the project announcement phase and the s<strong>co</strong>ping phase.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)68
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesIndividual meetings with holders of mining or prospecting rights within the AAIC prospecting rightarea (potential future mining right area), during both the project announcement phase and thes<strong>co</strong>ping phase.Meetings with owners of land within the AAIC prospecting right area (potential future mining rightarea).Individual written notifications to all registered I&APs (by registered mail), in ac<strong>co</strong>rdance with subregulation54 2(b) of GNR 543.Individual written notifications to Victor Khanye Local Municipality, previously Delmas (Mayor andCouncillor), Emalahleni Local Municipality, previously Witbank (Municipal Manager), andNkangala District Municipality (Mayor and Municipal Manager).Notifications were sent to all registered I&APs about the review of the draft <strong>EIA</strong> report, the publicfeedback meetings, as well as the review of the final <strong>EIA</strong> report.Notifications will be sent to all registered I&APs once the <strong>co</strong>mpetent authority has reached adecision to inform them of the decision and subsequent appeal process.3.7.3 Notifications to Relevant AuthoritiesThe following government departments were notified about the project, invited to a generalannouncement meeting and additional meetings during the review periods of the draft and final s<strong>co</strong>pingreports:The Mpumalanga Department of E<strong>co</strong>nomic Development, Environment and Tourism (MDEDET).The Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA), under the Ministry of Water and EnvironmentalAffairs (MWEA).The Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF).The Mpumalanga Department of Agriculture, Rural Development and Land Administration.The Mpumalanga Department of Public Works, Roads and Transport (DPWRT).The Department of Public Works.The Department of Mineral Resources.The Department of Water Affairs (DWA), under the MWEA.The South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA).Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency.The Mpumalanga Department of Labour.South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI).The National Department of Environmental Affairs (Authorisation and Waste DisposalManagement) was added to the list of relevant authorities due to the introduction of the proposedmobile WTP (WTP) and thus the need for a waste management license application.All of these authorities were notified and will be notified of and given the opportunity to review the draftand final <strong>EIA</strong> reports as well as the authority decisions on the NEMA <strong>EIA</strong> process, the mining rightNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)69
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesapplication process, the water use license application process and waste management licenseapplication process.3.7.4 Press Advertisements and Site NoticesPress advertisements to announce the project and to invite stakeholders to public meetings to discussthe Draft S<strong>co</strong>ping <strong>Report</strong> on 11 and 12 May 2011 were placed in the following newspapers between 22March and 25 March 2011:Streeknuus.Corridor Gazette.Ekasi News.Witbank News.Mpumalanga News.Middelburg Herald.Middelburg Observer.Ridge Times.The Echo.Springs Advertiser.Press advertisements focusing on the proposed R545 road deviation were also placed in the followingnewspapers between 13 and 15 July 2011 (please note that these adverts also highlighted the proposedNew Largo Colliery project and invited participants to participate in the <strong>EIA</strong> process):Streeknuus.Ekasi News.Witbank News.Mpumalanga News.Beeld.Site notices (posters) were placed at various locations between 18 March and 25 March 2011. Sitenotices focusing mainly on the R545 road deviation were also placed at various locations on 14 July2011. Please note that the site notices placed on 14 July 2011 also highlighted the proposed New LargoColliery project and invited participants to participate in the <strong>EIA</strong> process.Approximately 10 000 flyers focussing mainly on the R545 road deviation were handed out on 12 August2011 at the following locations:R545 (Kendal/ Balmoral) off-ramps from the N12 highway;R545 (Kendal/ Balmoral) off-ramps from the N4 highway;Intersection of the R545 and R104 provincial roads; R545 (Phola/ Ogies) on and off-ramps to and from the N12;Intersection of the R555 and R545 (Phola/ Ogies) provincial roads.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)70
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesThe flyers also highlighted the proposed New Largo Colliery project and invited participants to participatein the <strong>EIA</strong> process.Press advertisements to announce the public review period of the Draft Environmental Impact <strong>Report</strong>and to invite stakeholders to public meetings on 6 March 2012 were placed in the following newspapersbetween 22 and 24 February 2012:StreeknuusCorridor GazetteEkasi NewsWitbank NewsMpumalanga NewsMiddelburg HeraldMiddelburg ObserverCopies of the advertisements, site notices and flyers are included in Appendix D6 and D8. Proof ofplacement of adverts and notices is also provided.3.7.5 Registration of Interested and Affected PartiesPeople and/or organisations were registered as I&APs for the project if they: Attended one of the public <strong>co</strong>nsultation meetings.Responded to notification letters and documentation, press advertisements, site posters or flyers.Own land within or adjacent to the proposed development footprint area.Hold mining or prospecting rights within the development footprint area.Own, operate or administrate infrastructure affected by the project.Contacted <strong>Zitholele</strong> and/or Synergistics telephonically, or via fax, e-mail or post.3.7.6 Background Information DocumentA background information document (BID) (Appendix D8) was circulated in March 2011 to all landownerseither personally or via registered mail, while all the identified I&APs received an electronic <strong>co</strong>py via e-mail.Another BID focusing on the proposed R545 road deviation was distributed in July 2011 to alllandowners either personally or via registered mail, while all the identified I&APs received an electronic<strong>co</strong>py via e-mail. Both these documents included a response sheet and a request for written <strong>co</strong>mments.The BID distributed in July 2011 also highlighted the proposed New Largo Colliery project and invitedparticipants to participate in the <strong>EIA</strong> process.3.7.7 General Public Meetings during S<strong>co</strong>pingGeneral public meetings were held on 12 and 13 May 2011 at the ‘Ons Huisie’ guesthouse situated nextto the Kendal/Balmoral road. Minutes of the meeting are included as Appendix D9.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)71
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesA meeting was also held on 20 May 2011 with Dr Koos Pretorius of the Federation for a SustainableEnvironment, Ms Carol Wentzel and Ms Annamie Duvenhage from the Bronkhorstspruit and Wilge RiverConservation Association in Witbank to discuss the proposed project with them.A water focus group meeting was held on 26 July 2011 that was attended by almost 80 people.Concerns regarding water resources were discussed. This meeting came about through a specialrequest by stakeholders during the public meetings which were held on 12 and 13 May 2011.3.7.8 Consultation with Landowners and Mining / Prospecting Right HoldersProperties affected within the proposed development footprint area are listed in Table 6-14 to Table6-17. Details of the progress of those discussions are presented in the above mentioned tables.Two meetings were held with Malachite Mining regarding access to their property should the proposeddevelopments be implemented. Discussions of the meetings were noted in the issues and responsereport (Appendix D1).AAIC is in ongoing discussions with Mr Truter (from Truter Boerdery Trust), Mr Cherry, SANRAL, IngweCoal Corporation and Eskom, all directly affected landowners.<strong>Final</strong> purchase negotiations are currently underway between AAIC and Mr Byrne (from Kendal PoultryFarm) and Ms Penny Mahon (from Fairacres Products) respectively. Both these are directly affectedlandowners.The properties of Ms H. Roos, JE Strick and Simon Maruti (from Waterfontein Boerdery) have beenpurchased and are now owned by AAIC.AAIC indicated that they will not purchase the properties owned by Witbank Brickworks and MacphailDistributors at this stage. AAIC indicated that they are planning to purchase numerous more propertieswithin and adjacent to their mining right area.Estate Officers form AAIC are in regular <strong>co</strong>ntact with tenants and occupiers of land owned by them.AAIC and Synergistics endeavoured to <strong>co</strong>ntact all affected landowners (based on the project zone ofinfluence (see maps in Appendix D14)) on an individual basis to discuss the specific impacts on theirproperties. This process is on-going and will <strong>co</strong>ntinue as part of the AAIC Stakeholder Engagement Plan(see Appendix B) should project approval has been granted and in preparation of <strong>co</strong>nstruction andoperations of the New Largo Colliery.3.7.9 Community MeetingsThe Emalahleni Local Municipality was briefed on 11 August 2011 and the idea of having <strong>co</strong>mmunitymeetings were discussed as well. This meeting was attended by the Speaker, Ms Augustine Mkhwanaz,and <strong>co</strong>uncillors, Messrs Thabiso Gwambe and Freddy Mkhabela as well as Ms Mbali Mavimbela of themunicipality. These <strong>co</strong>uncillors represented the specific wards (Phola Location, Wilge Village and KendalSmallholdings) in which the proposed developments are taking place. The municipality agreed that theproject <strong>co</strong>uld be<strong>co</strong>me an agenda point on its regular public information meetings planned for October2011. However, during October 2011 public unrest broke out in these towns as well as surroundingtowns due to a problems with water service delivery and irregular electricity supply. The <strong>co</strong>uncillors aswell as the municipality said it would not be possible to have normal public meetings.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)72
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices3.7.10 Consultation about the first 4 Ml Mobile Water Treatment Plants and the WasteManagement License Application ProcessThe need for a waste management license was <strong>co</strong>nveyed to I&APs and authorities at all of the publicand authority meetings. During the initial meetings, the development of mobile WTPs and developmentof a permanent WTP later in the life of New Largo Colliery were presented as an integral part of the NewLargo Colliery.During July 2011, I&APs were informed of AAIC’s intention to develop the first 4 Ml mobile WTP at anearlier date to treat water currently found in the old mine workings and to supply a portion of the water tothe Phola-Kusile Coal Conveyor for dust suppression and fire protection. Since this first 4Ml mobile WTPwill be <strong>co</strong>mmissioned before the New Largo Colliery, it will form part of a separate WML application. These<strong>co</strong>nd mobile WTP and waste activities associated with the mine form part of the WML application forNew Largo Colliery.A notification letter distributed to I&APs on 30 September 2011 included the announcement of theseparate WML application for the first 4 Ml mobile WTP and its associated wastes. Site notices wereplaced on 27 October 2011 and an advertisement was published on 20 November 2011 to notifystakeholders of the proposed treatment plant and to invite <strong>co</strong>mments from I&APs.An <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong> for the first 4 Ml mobile water treatment plant was submitted to the NDEA in June 2012.Only Eskom registered as I&AP for this <strong>EIA</strong>. Should there be no material <strong>co</strong>mments (<strong>co</strong>mments thatrequire that amendment to the report), the report as submitted will be<strong>co</strong>me the final report.3.7.11 Review of the Draft and <strong>Final</strong> S<strong>co</strong>ping <strong>Report</strong>The draft s<strong>co</strong>ping report was available for public and authority review in April 2011 for 6 weeks (40calendar days). All registered I&APs were notified in writing of the availability of the document for reviewand were requested to submit <strong>co</strong>mments (Appendix D7).Following the closure of the draft s<strong>co</strong>ping report review period, modifications were made to the s<strong>co</strong>pingreport. Comments submitted by registered I&APs on the draft s<strong>co</strong>ping report were included in the finals<strong>co</strong>ping report. Three weeks (21 calendar days) were provided for review of the final report. Any newissues raised during review of the s<strong>co</strong>ping report were addressed in the draft <strong>EIA</strong> report. All registeredI&APs were notified in writing of the availability of the document for review and were requested to submit<strong>co</strong>mments (Appendix D7).Electronic versions of the reports were published on www.synergistics.<strong>co</strong>.<strong>za</strong> and www.zitholele.<strong>co</strong>.<strong>za</strong>and they were circulated to all landowners and registered I&APs who provided an e-mail address. Hard<strong>co</strong>pies were made available at AAIC offices near Witbank, at the venue of the public meetings for theproject, and at the Synergistics offices in Johannesburg. Additional <strong>co</strong>pies can be made available onrequest.3.7.12 Review of the Draft and <strong>Final</strong> <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong>The draft <strong>EIA</strong> report was made available for public and authority review in January and February 2012for 6 weeks (40 calendar days). All registered I&APs were notified in writing of the availability of thedocument for review and will be requested to submit <strong>co</strong>mments.The draft <strong>EIA</strong> report has been with the DWA since January 2012 to June 2012, and thus longer therequired 8 weeks (60 calendar days) required in terms of NEMWA.Electronic versions of the reports were published on www.synergistics.<strong>co</strong>.<strong>za</strong> and www.zitholele.<strong>co</strong>.<strong>za</strong>and they were circulated to all landowners and registered I&APs who provided an e-mail address. Hard<strong>co</strong>pies were made available at AAIC offices near Witbank, at the venue of the public meetings for theNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)73
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesproject, and at the Synergistics offices in Johannesburg. Additional <strong>co</strong>pies were made available onrequest.The final <strong>EIA</strong> report (this report) will be made available for review for 3 weeks (21 calendar days).The locations of the reports were made available / will be available for review are listed in the front of thisreport (see Preliminaries).3.7.13 Review of the IWULA and IWWMPThe IWULA and IWWMP were made available for public and authority review from 12 March to 13 April2012 for 6 weeks (40 calendar days). All registered I&APs were notified in writing of the availability of thedocument for review, and they were requested to submit <strong>co</strong>mments.Electronic versions of the reports were published on www.synergistics.<strong>co</strong>.<strong>za</strong> and www.zitholele.<strong>co</strong>.<strong>za</strong>and they were circulated to all landowners and registered I&APs who provided an e-mail address. Hard<strong>co</strong>pies were available at AAIC offices near Witbank, at the venue of the public meetings for the project,and at the Synergistics offices in Johannesburg. Additional <strong>co</strong>pies were made available on request.The locations where the reports will be available for review is listed in front of the report (seePreliminaries).3.7.14 DWA Review in terms of NEMWAThe same draft <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong> as produced for MDEDET (in terms of NEMA) was submitted to the NDEA inFebruary 2012. This draft <strong>EIA</strong> report has been with the DWA since January 2012 to June 2012, and thusthe DWA has had longer than the required 8 weeks (60 calendar days) review period in terms ofNEMWA to review and <strong>co</strong>mment on design.Also, the designs to be reviewed by the DWA, for the NEMWA review and approval process, wassubmitted to the DWA as part of the draft IWULA and IWWMP in March 2012 and thus the DWA wasalso afforded more than the required 8 weeks (60 calendar days) required in terms of NEMWA.The final <strong>EIA</strong>, EMP, IWULA and IWWMP will again be submitted to the DWA for review. All the designsthat DWA would have to review in terms of NEMWA forms part of the IWULA. There is thus no additionalreview <strong>co</strong>mponents required for the WML in terms of NEMWA.3.7.15 Public Feedback Meetings and Open Day during the <strong>EIA</strong> PhaseDuring the <strong>EIA</strong> phase of the study, an open day and two public meetings were held on 6 March 2012 atthe El Toro Conference Facility near Kendal Power Station where the results of the specialist studies andthe evaluation of development alternatives, the EMP and the integrated water and waste managementplan were presented. Registered I&APs were directly invited to attend the meetings and the open housesessions on that day. An open day and two meetings were held on this day to cater for those I&APs who<strong>co</strong>uld attend during the day and for those who <strong>co</strong>uld attend in the evening.Issues raised at the meetings and open day are included as Appendix D9. At these meetings, theEnvironmental Assessment Practitioner presented a <strong>co</strong>mparative assessment of Mine Plan Version 6and Version 7 and AAIC presented their motivation for maintaining Mine Plan Version 6 as theirpreferred mine plan. The team of environmental specialists were available with summarisedpresentations on their study results and large maps on the project zone of influence were also availableto facilitate discussion.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)74
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices3.7.16 Consultation with Competent Authority, State Departments and Organs of State3.7.16.1 Authorities MeetingsIndividual meetings were held with MDEDET, DMR, DWA and NDEA (refer to section on FocusAuthorities Meetings below) to discuss the proposed project. The authorities were again <strong>co</strong>ntacted afterdistribution of the draft s<strong>co</strong>ping report to arrange additional meeting. The authorities indicated that theywill <strong>co</strong>ntact the EAP’s office if they have any information requirements or further questions. A <strong>co</strong>mbinedmeeting with the <strong>co</strong>mpetent authority and <strong>co</strong>mmenting authorities was held on 26 July 2011 in Witbankand further meetings will be arranged during the <strong>EIA</strong> phase of the project. Focused <strong>co</strong>nsultationmeetings will be held with MDEDET, DMR, DWA and SANBI. The aim of the meetings will be to discussthe environmental assessment process and the project design and alternatives, as well as to definemitigation measures to be employed.The Emalahleni Local Municipality was briefed on 11 August 2011. This meeting took place in Witbankand was attended by the Speaker, Ms Augustine Mkhwanaz, and <strong>co</strong>uncillors, Messrs Thabiso Gwambeand Freddy Mkhabela as well as Ms Mbali Mavimbela of the municipality. These <strong>co</strong>uncillors representedthe specific wards in which the proposed developments are taking place.3.7.16.2 Focused Authority MeetingsA meeting was held with Mr Stanford Macevele and his <strong>co</strong>lleagues from the provincial office of the DWAin Bronkhorstspruit on 9 May 2011. The purpose of the meeting was to:Inform the department about the proposed New Largo Colliery.Obtain clarification on applicable water uses, legal requirements for the development, mining ofwetlands and pans, reserve determination, the WUL process to be followed and the review anddecision making panel.A meeting was held with Dr Garth Batchelor of the MDEDET in Witbank on 19 May 2011. The purpose ofthe meeting was to:Inform MDEDET about the proposed New Largo Colliery.Obtain clarification on the environmental legal requirements for the development and theenvironmental authorisation, and the <strong>EIA</strong> process to be followed.A meeting was held with Dr Paul Meulenbeld and Mr Pieter Ackerman of the DWA in Pretoria on 17 June2011. The purpose of the meeting was to:Inform DWA about the proposed New Largo CollieryIntroduce the water and wetland environment.Obtain clarification on applicable water uses, legal requirements for the development, mining ofwetlands and pans, reserve determination, the WUL process to be followed and the review anddecision making panel.A meeting was held with Mr Mpho Tshitangoni of the DEA in Pretoria on 30 September 2011. Thepurpose of the meeting was to clarify the structure and way forward for the Waste Management LicenseApplication process.A meeting was held with Mr Samuel Mathavhela of the DMR in Witbank on 10 October 2011. Thepurpose of the meeting was to:Inform DMR about the proposed New Largo Colliery.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)75
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesObtain clarification on the legal requirements for the development and the mining right approval,and the EMP process to be followed.A meeting was held with Mr Stanford Macevele and Ms Madi Moloto from the provincial office of theDWA in Bronkhorstspruit on 11 October 2011. The purpose of the meeting was to:Inform DWA about the proposed New Largo CollieryIntroduce the water and wetland environment.Obtain clarification on applicable water uses, legal requirements for the development, mining ofwetlands and pans, reserve determination, the WUL process to be followed and the review anddecision making panel.A meeting was held with Mr Frans Druyts and Mr Keith Mnisi of the DWA in Pretoria on 28 October2011. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the civil engineering designs and requirements.A meeting was held with Dr Paul Meulenbeld, Mr Pieter Ackerman of the DWA in Pretoria and Ms MadiMoloto, from the DWA Mpumalanga office in Bronkhorstspruit on 19 April 2012. The purpose of themeeting was to: Discuss the IWULA;Discuss the draft EIR;Present AAIC case for adopting Mine Plan Version 6 as their preferred mine plan.A meeting was held with Ms Dineo Tswai of MDEDET in Witbank on 20 April 2012. The purpose of themeeting was to: Discuss the draft EIR; Discuss time frames; Present AAIC case for adopting Mine Plan Version 6 as their preferred mine plan.Discussions of all these meetings were noted in the issues and response report and are provided inAppendix D1.3.8.14.3 Review of the S<strong>co</strong>ping and <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong>In terms of the requirements of regulation GNR 543, organs of state and state departments were allowedsix weeks (forty calendar days) for the review of the draft s<strong>co</strong>ping report and will be given the sameamount of time for the review of the draft <strong>EIA</strong> report. The review period for the final <strong>EIA</strong> report (thisreport) will be three weeks (21 calendar days), the same amount of time given for the review of the finals<strong>co</strong>ping. Review periods for the <strong>co</strong>mpetent authority are in ac<strong>co</strong>rdance with GNR 543 for the s<strong>co</strong>pingand <strong>EIA</strong> reports.Where the DWA must approve designs of waste management facilities, 60 calendar days will beprovided for review as per GNR 543 clause 56(8). However, it should be noted that the DWA will bereviewing the design and management measures for all NEMWA waste activities as part of their reviewof the water use license application process.3.8 Study TeamSynergistics Environmental Services (Pty) Ltd (Synergistics) has been appointed by AAIC as theindependent environmental <strong>co</strong>nsultant to undertake the <strong>EIA</strong> for the New Largo Colliery.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)76
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesMari Wolmarans, the project leader, is an Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP) certified by theinterim certification board of South Africa and was responsible for the environmental impact assessmentand development of the environmental management programme. Her qualifications and experienceinclude: BL Arch, UP, 1991.Environmental Assessment Practitioner (EAP) Certified by the Interim Certification Board(EAPSA).Professional member South African Institute of E<strong>co</strong>logists & Environmental Scientists(SAIE&ES).20 years’ environmental management and assessment experience, specifically in the mining,processing and infrastructure development sectors.Environmental Impact Assessment: Project Management.The environmental study team members and specialists that will be involved in the environmental impactassessment are listed in Table 3-2. Their roles and responsibilities on the project and their qualificationsare provided.Table 3-2: Study TeamName and Affiliation Qualification RoleMari WolmaransEnvironmental Study TeamIndependent EnvironmentalAssessment PractitionerConsultant to SynergisticsEnvironmental ServicesMarline MedallieSynergistics Environmental ServicesBheki KhumaloSynergistics Environmental ServicesClaire JarvisConsultant to SynergisticsEnvironmental ServicesBL Arch, MSAIEEEAPSAB.Sc Biological SciencesB.Sc (Hons) BotanyM.Sc Botany (Molecular Systematics)B.Sc Geology and Applied GeologyB.Sc (Hons) Environmental Modelling andMonitoringB.Sc (Hons) Environmental Monitoring andModelling Project Leader <strong>EIA</strong> report and EMP Project Coordinator <strong>EIA</strong> report and EMP GIS and Mapping <strong>EIA</strong> report and EMPAnelle Lötter<strong>Zitholele</strong> ConsultingAndre Joubert<strong>Zitholele</strong> ConsultingNational Diploma in JournalismM.Sc Environmental ScienceBA Hons Journalism Public Consultation Public ConsultationNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)77
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesName and Affiliation Qualification RoleMarius van ZylJones and WagenerJa<strong>co</strong> van den BergJMAIan JonesEarth Science SolutionsTony RorkeBME Blasting TechnologyRenee von GruenewaldtAirshed Planning ProfessionalsWillem de FreyEkoInfoDewald KamfferE<strong>co</strong>checkSamuel LaurenceLuke VerburgtEnviro-InsightGina WalshMichiel JonkerE<strong>co</strong>toneAllan BatchelorWetland Consulting ServicesGary MarneweckWetland Consulting ServicesJohnny van SchalkwykHeritage ConsultantB.Sc Environment Analysis andManagementB.Sc (Hons) BiochemistryB.Sc(Hons) Biochemistry and EnvironmentalManagementPr.Sci.NatB.Sc Geology/GeochemistryB.Sc (Hons) GeochemistryM.Sc GeohydrologyB.Sc GeologyPr.Sci.NatEAPSAB.Sc Engineering (Mining Geology)M.Sc Geology (Seismology)B.Sc Atmospheric Sciences: MeteorologyB.Sc (Hons) Environmental Managementand Impact AssessmentMSc MeteorologyPr.Sci.NatM.Sc Wildlife ManagementPr.Sci.Nat (Botanical & E<strong>co</strong>logical Science)M.Sc Grassland Conservation BiologyM.Sc ZoologyM.Sc ZoologyM.Sc ZoologyM.Sc Aquatic HealthM.Sc ZoologyPr.Sci.Nat (Botanical and E<strong>co</strong>logicalScience)BSc Hons. Botany (Aquatic E<strong>co</strong>logy)Pr.Sci.Nat (Botanical and E<strong>co</strong>logicalScience)B.A. (Hons) ArchaeologyB.A. (Hons) AnthropologyPost Graduate Diploma in Museum ScienceM.A. AnthropologyD Litt et Phil (Anthropology) Hydrological Baseline and ImpactsAssessment Integrated Water Use LicenseApplication Integrated Water and WasteManagement Plan Hydrogeological ImpactAssessment Soil Impact Assessment Vibrations and Blasting SpecialistInput Air Quality Impact Assessment Terrestrial Vegetation Survey E<strong>co</strong>logical Impact Assessment End Land Use Potential Faunal Survey E<strong>co</strong>logical Impact Assessment Nocturnal Mammals Herpetofauna Aquatic Survey E<strong>co</strong>logical Impact Assessment Wetland Survey Wetland Impact Assessment<strong>EIA</strong> Related studies: Reserve Determination Wetland offset plan Heritage SurveyNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)78
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesName and Affiliation Qualification RoleGraham YoungNewtown Landscape ArchitectsBen van ZylFreelance ConsultantRod StrongWSP SA Civil and StructuralEngineersHein du ToitDema<strong>co</strong>nIlse AucampPtersaTeresa SteeleAAICCindy SmithAAICPrLArchPhD (PrEng)M.Sc (Transportation Planning andEngineering)B.Eng (Civil)Senior EngineerBTRPM.Sc Real EstateCertificate in Shopping Centre ManagementB.A. Social WorkM.Sc Environmental ManagementB.Sc (Hons) GeologyB.Tech Environmental Management Visual Impact Assessment Noise Survey Noise Impact Assessment Traffic Impact Assessment E<strong>co</strong>nomic Impact Assessment Social Impact Assessment Sustainable Development Manager– Projects Applicant EnvironmentalRepresentative Applicant Environmental SpecialistTechnical Study Team (Key Members Only)Stefan Jansen van Vuuren B.Eng Mining Project Technical ServicesManagerLampies LamprechtAAICPr.Cert. EngPr. CPM Project Manager Technical Design and Layout Applicant Technical Representative3.9 Review and Utilisation of the results of Specialist Studies undertaken prior tothe acceptance of the S<strong>co</strong>ping <strong>Report</strong> and Plan of Study for <strong>EIA</strong>It is <strong>co</strong>mmon practice for proposed development projects to initiate the <strong>co</strong>llection of baselineenvironmental information well before the official start date of the legal environmental authori<strong>za</strong>tionprocesses, in order to ensure a rigorous assessment of seasonal baseline <strong>co</strong>nditions over more thanone year, and, to define definitive environmental trends applicable to the study area.AAIC has <strong>co</strong>mmissioned various specialist baseline studies and public <strong>co</strong>nsultation meetings in thebroader study area since 2006, as part of the environmental studies for the proposed New LargoColliery, and, has proceeded with additional surface and groundwater sampling and analysis as well asseasonal e<strong>co</strong>logical surveys in 2010 and early 2011.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)79
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesGeneralAnglo Coal South Africa. 2007. Baseline <strong>Report</strong> for the Proposed New Largo Colliery,Mpumalanga Province. Oryx Environmental.Anglo Coal South Africa. 2007. Public Consultation <strong>Report</strong>: S<strong>co</strong>ping Phase for the New LargoColliery between Kendal and Balmoral, Mpumalanga Province. Golder Associates.Surface Water and Groundwater Surface water sampling and analysis by Jones and Wagener undertaken during 2010 to 2011. Groundwater baseline studies (hydro-census, borehole testing, and water quality analysis) byJMA during 2010 to 2011. Groundwater sampling and analysis undertaken by JMA during the period 2006 to 2011. Jones and Wagener. 2007. Surface Water Inputs to the EMPR For New Largo Opencast Mine.E<strong>co</strong>logy and BiodiversityDe Frey, W.H. 2010. Specialist <strong>Report</strong>: E<strong>co</strong>logical Assessment (Flora, Fauna, Aquatic) for theNew Largo Coal Development - Mpumalanga EkoInfo.De Frey, W.H. 2008. Flora Specialist <strong>Report</strong>: Vegetation Assessment on New Largo Update AreaNorthwest of Ogies, Mpumalanga. EkoInfo CC Environmental & Wildlife ManagementConsultancy.Kamffer, D. T. Mostert. 2007. New Largo Faunal Study. Faunal Species In<strong>co</strong>rporated.Batchelor, A. 2007. Wetland Baseline and Impact Assessment: New Largo. Wetland ConsultingServices (Pty) Ltd.Palmer, R. 2006. New Largo Project – Baseline Assessment – Aquatic E<strong>co</strong>logy, NepidConsultants.SoilsVermaak, P.S; Jones, I.P.C. 2006. New Largo Project Baseline Soils and Land Capability Survey.Earth Science Solutions.Air QualityAnnegarn, H.J. 2007. New Largo Annual Air Quality Monitoring <strong>Report</strong> for the Period November2006 to October 2007.Von Gruenewaldt, R.G.; Liebenberg-Enslin, H. 2010. Air Quality Baseline Assessment For TheProposed New Largo Opencast Coal Mine In The Kendal Area. Airshed Planning Professionals.Thomas, R.G.; Liebenberg-Enslin, H. 2006. Air Quality Baseline Assessment For The ProposedNew Largo Opencast Coal Mine In The Kendal Area. Airshed Planning Professionals.Heritage ResourcesVan Schalkwyk, J., 2006. Heritage Impact S<strong>co</strong>ping Assessment for the Proposed New LargoMining Development, Witbank Area, Mpumalanga. National Cultural History Museum.Visual ResourcesYoung, G. 2007. Visual Assessment for New Largo Colliery in the Kendal/Balmoral Area.Newtown Landscape Architects.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)80
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices3.10 Specialist StudiesThe various specialist studies <strong>co</strong>nducted as part of the New Largo Colliery <strong>EIA</strong> process are listed below,and are appended to the final <strong>EIA</strong> report (Appendix E to Appendix U). The s<strong>co</strong>pe of work of the individualstudies is explained in each specialist report as well as in the plan of study for the <strong>EIA</strong> which formed partof the s<strong>co</strong>ping report that was accepted by MDEDET. Where relevant, specialist reports were structuredin terms of GNR 543 Section 32 and the specialists have signed a declaration of independence.E<strong>co</strong>logy and Biodiversity (including Natural Vegetation and Animal Life)Wetland Delineation and Impact AssessmentSoilsAir QualityTraffic Impact AssessmentNoiseVibrations and BlastingHeritage ResourcesSurface Water and Water Use LicenseGroundwaterVisual AspectsSocial and E<strong>co</strong>nomicAgricultural and Land Use PotentialLand CapabilityEnd Land Use PotentialStrategy for Development of a Wetland Offset PlanThe results of the specialist studies are summarised in Section 8.3.11 Assumptions, Exclusions and LimitationsKusile Power Station Design and LifeWith the design and location of Kusile, it was intended that the New Largo <strong>co</strong>al reserve wouldsupply the base load <strong>co</strong>al to Kusile. The boilers of Kusile were planned based on the <strong>co</strong>al qualityaverage obtained from the whole of the New Largo <strong>co</strong>al reserve including the Honingkrantzreserves. In essence – Kusile was designed in ac<strong>co</strong>rdance with Mine Plan Version 6 <strong>co</strong>al qualityaverage.In the assessment of impacts and the <strong>co</strong>mparison of Mine Plan Version 6 versus Mine PlanVersion 7, it was assumed that Kusile would stay in operation for the full duration of its plannedlife, as per National Government strategy (see Section 1 on the Need and Desirability of Kusile).New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)81
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesGeneralThe various specialists (Appendix E to Appendix S) have made suggestions andre<strong>co</strong>mmendations for mitigating impacts as applicable to their various fields of expertise.However, some of the suggestions were not always appropriate and feasible when viewed in anintegrated way. The mitigation measures adopted in the EMP (Section 13 and Appendix B)reflects an integration of mitigation measures appropriate to the project, based on theprofessional judgement of the EAP, the <strong>co</strong>nstraints associated with the specific project and theenvironment in which the project is situated. The EMP, as it appeared in the draft <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong>,was sent to all the specialists for their <strong>co</strong>mment. They were specifically asked to review the EMPto ensure that the mitigation measures written into the EMP were aligned to theirre<strong>co</strong>mmendations and appropriate for the New Largo Colliery and that none of their keyre<strong>co</strong>mmendations were left out / excluded. All of the <strong>co</strong>mments received back from thespecialists were in<strong>co</strong>rporated into the EMP version as it appears in Appendix B of this final <strong>EIA</strong><strong>Report</strong>.In the draft <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong>, the EAP stated that further <strong>co</strong>nsultation with authorities and stakeholderswill be undertaken in order to reach <strong>co</strong>nsensus on a final mine plan to be adopted. Further<strong>co</strong>nsultation was undertaken with key authorities and I&APs and AAIC presented their motivationfor adopting Mine Plan Version 6 (technical and financial) and the EAP presented the<strong>co</strong>mparative assessment of environmental <strong>co</strong>nsideration, but it cannot be said that ‘<strong>co</strong>nsensus’were reached. The EAP is of the opinion that the DMR, DWA and MDEDET will have to liaisewith each other in order to reach <strong>co</strong>nsensus as part of their review of the <strong>EIA</strong> and IWULA assubmitted to them.Impacts on EskomThe draft <strong>EIA</strong> stated that feedback from Eskom is required on the risks as highlighted by AAICand they need to provide feedback if these risk would have a knock-on effect on powergeneration and the South African electricity <strong>co</strong>nsumers. However, based on the preliminary <strong>co</strong>alsale agreement and the understanding between Eskom and Anglo regarding a capital sharingarrangement for the proposed New Largo Colliery, AAIC has <strong>co</strong>mpleted a <strong>co</strong>mprehensiveassessment (see Section 5.3.3) and as such, this feedback from Eskom is no longer required.Mine Plan Reiterations and UpdatesThe <strong>EIA</strong> and associated specialist studies were carried out based on mine layout andinfrastructure plans and designs provided by Semane Consulting Engineers on behalf of AAIC.Mine planning is an ongoing and iterative process with the layouts and designs being updated asmore detail be<strong>co</strong>mes available as the results of the <strong>EIA</strong> specialist studies and water balance areused to refine the layout and designs. It is therefore typical for various revisions of the plans anddrawings to be done from the start to the end of the <strong>EIA</strong> and even afterwards during detaileddesign and the implementation phase of the project. It is <strong>co</strong>mmon practice for mine plans to berevised on an ongoing basis over the life of the mine until closure. It is therefore expected that thelayouts and designs as presented in this final <strong>EIA</strong> will still be refined and optimised after<strong>co</strong>mpletion of the <strong>EIA</strong> process.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)82
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesAppendix T provides the latest revisions of the layout maps and drawings at the time of writingthe final <strong>EIA</strong> report (July 2012), while the draft <strong>EIA</strong> provided the layout maps and drawings thatwere available when the draft <strong>EIA</strong> report was written (January 2012). The specialist studies andthe assessment of impacts were undertaken based on the maps and drawings that wereavailable at the time the specialist studies were undertaken. No material / significant changeshave been introduced since the <strong>co</strong>mpletion of the various specialist studies. For <strong>co</strong>mpletenesssake, the latest maps and drawings were distributed to all the specialists, who <strong>co</strong>nfirmed that thechanges to the maps and drawings would not have a material / significant impact on their studyresults and re<strong>co</strong>mmendations. In order to ac<strong>co</strong>mmodate changes to the mine plan that haveoccurred and that are anticipated as part of any mining development, the EMP includes a clausethat the water balance be updated on a regular basis (timeframes as specified in the EMP, seeSection 13 and Appendix B).Financial Provisions for Rehabilitation and ClosureThe financial closure and rehabilitation <strong>co</strong>sts were calculated by Venn & Milford QuantitySurveyors and are inserted in Appendix B2. These <strong>co</strong>sts have been updated based on theout<strong>co</strong>me of the AAIC feasibility study at the end of February 2012.Landownership and TenureAAIC’s discussions with affected landowners and servitude owners within the proposed miningright area are in process. Landowner <strong>co</strong>nsent for all properties to be put in place before miningoperations can start in a particular area.Air QualityThe quantification of sources of emission was restricted to the proposed New Largo operationsonly. Although other background sources were identified, such sources were not quantified.The information required to calculate emissions from fugitive dust sources for the proposed NewLargo operations were provided by AAIC. The assumption was made that this information wasaccurate and <strong>co</strong>rrect.Routine emissions from the proposed operations were estimated and modelled. Atmosphericreleases occurring as a result of accidents were not ac<strong>co</strong>unted for.A minimum of 1 year, and typically 3 to 5 years of meteorological data are generallyre<strong>co</strong>mmended for use in atmospheric dispersion modelling for air quality impact assessmentpurposes. Three years of meteorological data were used in the atmospheric dispersionmodelling.The impact assessment was limited to airborne particulates (including total suspendedparticulates (TSP), particulate matter of less than 10 µm in diameter (PM 10 ) and particulate matterof less than 2.5 µm in diameter (PM 2.5 )). Although the proposed activities would also emit othergaseous pollutants, primarily by haul trucks and mining vehicles, the impact of these <strong>co</strong>mpoundswas regarded to be low and was omitted from this study.The <strong>co</strong>nstruction and closure phases were assessed qualitatively due to the temporary nature ofthese operations.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)83
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesMining operations were assumed to be twenty-four hours over a 365 day year as a <strong>co</strong>nservativeapproach.The air quality specialist impact assessment predicted unmitigated and mitigated impacts.Mitigated impacts assumed 90% <strong>co</strong>ntrol efficiency on haul roads, 75% <strong>co</strong>ntrol efficiency onunpaved roads, 70% <strong>co</strong>ntrol efficiency at main tip areas, 50% <strong>co</strong>ntrol efficiency on <strong>co</strong>nveyortransfer points and 50% <strong>co</strong>ntrol efficiency on primary crushing.Surface WaterThe surface water assessment was carried out on Mine Plan Rev 6 as the base case, with a<strong>co</strong>mparison of an alternative mine plan (Mine Plan Version 7).Water flow diagrams and block plans used in this study are from Semane Consulting Engineers.The revisions used are as follows and are assumed to be the latest:Water Supply Flow Diagram for stage 2 and 3 - Rev BStage 2 and 3 Block Plan - Rev C‘Stage 1’ Infrastructure on the Block Plan and Water Supply Flow Diagram refers to the Phola-Kusile Coal Conveyor (not part of the New Largo Colliery).‘Stage 2’ Infrastructure on the Block Plan and Water Supply Flow Diagram refers to New LargoColliery Mining Phase 1.‘Stage 3’ Infrastructure on the Block Plan and Water Supply Flow Diagram refers to New LargoColliery Mining Phase 2 as described in the <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong>.Water management at water<strong>co</strong>urse crossings along the R545 realignment had not been definedby the design engineers at the time of writing. Therefore it has been assumed that the design willfollow the South African National Roads Agency Limited (SANRAL) standards regarding thedesign and sizing of culverts and bridges.Similarly, clean water management measures upslope of the workings in the form of clean watercut-off canals and berms have not been defined. Therefore these measures are re<strong>co</strong>mmendedas indicated in this surface water specialist report.The design of the on-surface discard disposal facility (discard dump) and associatedinfrastructure (including its holding dam) was not available at the time of writing. It has beenassumed that there will be one holding dam at the discard dump to <strong>co</strong>llect polluted water whichwill be directed to one of five <strong>co</strong>mpartments of the 1200 Ml storage dam prior to treatment.For the water balance:o Surface water inflows are based on surface runoff models.o The mining areas used for the modelling are based on the life of mine (LOM) plansprovided (“Rev. 6 Period Plan.dxf” and “NLG_Dec11_FS_Rev_7d.dxf”, distributed to theproject team by Venn & Milford (V&M), the project administrators acting on behalf ofAAIC).o Runoff from clean catchment draining towards the mining areas will be diverted aroundthe mining area, minimising clean runoff into the opencast.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)84
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser viceso It has been assumed that rehabilitation will take place <strong>co</strong>ncurrently, with a minimal lagon rehabilitation (maximum 200 m width of spoil heaps and a further 200 m width oflevelled spoils between the advancing opencast pit and the rehabilitated area).o Post closure, all rehabilitation will be free draining.o All rehabilitation will be made free draining, even during operations.o The ground water inflows to the opencast, as well as storage capacity in the opencastspoils, were provided by JMA Consulting.o All infrastructure areas (dirty catchment to be <strong>co</strong>llected in the pollution <strong>co</strong>ntrol dams)have been measured from the most recent block plan, received from Semane ConsultingEngineers on 2 November 2011 (Drawing No. 0000-0138-CED-0001-Rev C). This isrelevant to both Mine Plan Version 6 and Version 7.o The capacities of the pollution <strong>co</strong>ntrol dams are as indicated on the flow diagram(Semane Consulting Engineers drawing No. 0000-0130-CED-0061-Rev B). This is alsorelevant to both the Mine Plan Version 6 and Version 7D.o Approximate dates used in the model, in terms of scheduling of processes andinfrastructure, are given in Table 3-3(B), for both Mine Plan Version 6 and Version 7D.Table 3-3(A) presents AAIC’s latest updated dates at the time of writing the final <strong>EIA</strong><strong>Report</strong>. The changes have no material effect on the water balance or the assessment ofimpacts.DescriptionTable 3-3: Key Dates for Mining 21A: AAIC’s Updated Key Dates (as per Mine Schedule – June 2012)Mine Plan Version 6DateMine Plan Version 7DLife of mine 2015 to 2063 2015 to 2057Mining at North Pit (A, C, G) 2015 to 2039 2015 to 2029Mining at South Pit (D, E) 2020 to 2063 2019 to 2057Mining at Pit F 2045 to 2053 2040 to 2046Mining at Pit H 2054 to 2059 2047 to 2053Mining at Pit J 2060 to 2063 2054 to 2057Coal processing plant startup 2023 2019Discard dump <strong>co</strong>mmissioning 2023 2019Dewatering of old underground 2019 to 2022 2015 to 2018B: AAIC’s Key Dates (as per Mine Schedule – January 2102) used in the development of the Water BalanceDescriptionMine Plan Version 6DateMine Plan Version 7DLife of mine 2015 to 2064 2015 to 2057Mining at North Pit (A, C, G) 2015 to 2039 2015 to 202921Some of the years indicated in “A” (top of table) in grey underlined text, have been changed by AAIC after the water balance was <strong>co</strong>mpleted.However, the water specialist <strong>co</strong>ncluded that the changes had no material impact on the water balance and the impacts on water as assessed in the<strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong>. Dates used in the development of the water balance are tabled in “B” (bottom of table) and years that have been changed are underlinedto highlight changes.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)85
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesMining at South Pit (D, E) 2021 to 2064 2019 to 2057Mining at Pit F 2040 to 2054 2033 to 2046Mining at Pit H 2050 to 2059 2047 to 2051Mining at Pit J 2055 to 2064 2052 to 2054Coal processing plant startup 2023 2019Discard dump <strong>co</strong>mmissioning 2023 2019Dewatering of old underground 2018 to 2021 2015 to 2018Important limitations to the modelling include the following:o By their very nature, models are theoretical estimates of natural phenomena that are too<strong>co</strong>mplex to be derived exactly. It is inevitable that there will be variations in the actualflows <strong>co</strong>mpared to the predicted flows, which can only be addressed by re-calibration ofmodelled data with measured data, from which more reliable estimates of extreme andaverage water make can be developed.o The overall mining plan is likely to change as the mine develops and more informationbe<strong>co</strong>mes available on the actual geology, as opposed to that predicted at the planningstage.o The water use and water losses are assumed based on information obtained from theclient.o It is important to note that the timing of rehabilitation can have a significant impact on theoverall water balance. It is therefore important that the water balance be revisited duringthe mining operation.Limitationso The hydrological specialist did a preliminary assessment of the discharge points fortreated water based on surface water run-off <strong>co</strong>nsiderations and assuming proportionaldischarge amongst the affected streams (see Appendix G2). During this assessment,the proportional loss of catchment was determined at key stages in the life of mine. Theproportional flow reduction was based entirely on the affected catchment areas (i.e. theassumption that the flow reduction will be directly proportional to the catchment area lostas a result of mining and mining related activities). A total of 16 discharge points wereidentified on this basis.This strategy for discharge of the treated water as proposed by the hydrologicalspecialist, and the risks associated with it, has been discussed with the wetland andaquatic specialists and the engineers responsible for design of the system of pipes anddischarge points that would be required. The specialists <strong>co</strong>ncurred that the proposedstrategy is aimed at minimizing erosion risks and, while natural stream flow seasonalitywould not be restored, this strategy would reduce the impacts.The final discharge volumes and positions are subject to the out<strong>co</strong>me of the ReserveDetermination that is currently being <strong>co</strong>nducted by Wetland Consulting Services. Theexpected date of <strong>co</strong>mpletion of the Reserve Determination is May 2013 and in light ofthe timeframes of the project and the issuing of the water use license, the preliminarydischarge points are included in the IWWMP and IWULA. The Reserve DeterminationNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)86
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser viceswill run parallel with the development of the wetland offset plan. The ReserveDetermination, in <strong>co</strong>nsultation with DWA during its development, will serve as a reviewof the proposed discharge strategy.o Clean and dirty water separation as shown in the water balance is schematic. At the timeof <strong>co</strong>mpletion of the water balance, detailed drawings of the clean and dirty water canalswere not available. This is not a limitation to the project, or a material limitation to thewater balance or impact assessment. More drawings were made available at a laterstage for submission to DWA as part of the IWULA.o For the Water Balance modelling:- The selection of a technology at the water treatment plant has not been made andtherefore the expected waste streams are not known. However, water in thetreatment plant will be treated to catchment quality standards before being released.- By their very nature, models are theoretical estimates of natural phenomena that aretoo <strong>co</strong>mplex to be derived exactly. It is inevitable that there will be variations in theactual flows <strong>co</strong>mpared to the predicted flows, which can only be addressed by recalibrationof modelled data with measured data, from which more reliable estimatesof extreme and average water make can be developed.- The overall mining plan is likely to change as the mine develops and moreinformation be<strong>co</strong>mes available on the actual geology, as opposed to that predictedat the planning stage.- The water use and water losses are assumed based on information obtained fromthe client.o It is important to note that the timing of rehabilitation can have a significant impact on theoverall water balance. It is therefore important that the water balance be revisited duringthe mining operation.GroundwaterBoreholes drilled and sampled by JMA Consulting were designed and drilled ac<strong>co</strong>rding to DWAspecifications. The geological profile of the boreholes were logged and ac<strong>co</strong>rdingly cased asrequired. The same cannot be said for external user’s boreholes. In many cases these boreholeswere drilled and equipped decades ago. All attempts are made to sample external user’sboreholes as accurately as possible (<strong>co</strong>rrect depth, etc.).Boreholes that have not been in use for some time, or that are obviously damaged, were notsampled. In many cases these boreholes have <strong>co</strong>llapsed and are of no use in the overallmonitoring systems.Sometimes boreholes are present in “clusters”. This is normally the case where an external userneeds a larger supply of water and drill 3 to 6 boreholes in close proximity. In those events it isunnecessary to sample all the boreholes, since 1 or 2 will be representative of the water levelsand qualities of that area.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)87
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesThe results generated for water level- and water quality distribution over an area as big as NewLargo Colliery, depends mainly on the integrity of data, as generated during the hydro census.About 90% of the boreholes identified are that of external users. The <strong>co</strong>nceptual geohydrologicalmodel depends on the integrity of data from the hydro census (specifically water level yields).JMA included all yields that were re<strong>co</strong>rded during the hydro census, with the exclusions of 2yields that looked abnormally high. In the event that these boreholes <strong>co</strong>me close to miningactivities, the yields of these two boreholes will be <strong>co</strong>nfirmed by pump testing.It is also assumed that external users provided all data on boreholes present. If not reported, itwas obviously excluded from the study.The ground water balance was <strong>co</strong>mpiled based on a life of mine plan with a sequentialrehabilitation plan. It is assumed that this life of mine plan and rehabilitation plan will be followed(for ground water balance calculations).The long-term geochemical model assumed the disposal of 100 Mt discard in-pit over the life ofmine. This figure will not increase, but can decrease over time. This will obviously lead to achange in the end-quality to be treated. Provision has been made for a 10 Mt temporary discarddisposal facility on surface within the mining footprint area. This specialist assessmentinvestigated both the impacts of the in-pit discard disposal and the surface discard facility, in totalthus 100 Mt of discard. This does not affect the adequacy of the study results.E<strong>co</strong>logy and BiodiversityFlora <strong>co</strong>mponento The Braun-Blanquet approach was developed to <strong>co</strong>llect 95% of the species presentwithin a plot, therefore the more plots surveyed the more <strong>co</strong>mprehensive the specieslists will be and the more detailed vegetation description and mapping will be.o The following <strong>co</strong>nfidence levels are attributed to the species re<strong>co</strong>rded: Families – 95%,Genera – 85% and Species – 75%Fauna <strong>co</strong>mponento Faunal assessment studies of this nature are always limited in s<strong>co</strong>pe, time and budget.Discussions and proposed mitigation measures were made on assumptions, estimationsand subjective reasoning. It should therefore be viewed and acted upon with theselimitations in mind.o Conclusions in this document were reached by assessing current knowledge of eachspecies from the literature and personal experience. It is however unlikely that this wouldalways be supported 100% by reality.o Information for most terrestrial species whether flora or fauna is only available per1:50 000 grid, which only indicates that a species had been re<strong>co</strong>rded in a grid, but doesnot indicate that all species possibly present had been re<strong>co</strong>rded. Therefore it is difficultto assess with certainty that the relevant species of <strong>co</strong>ncern are present in the areaunless intensive research is done over time. The current results only represent momentsin time, and do not reflect all the species which <strong>co</strong>uld utilise the area as the seasonschange and the pressure increase on the remaining vegetation within the landscape.Aquatic <strong>co</strong>mponentNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)88
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser viceso The spatial and temporal extent of E<strong>co</strong>tone’s services is described in the proposal, andis subject to restrictions and limitations. A total assessment of all probable scenarios orcircumstances that may exist on the study site was not undertaken. No assumptionsshould be made unless opinions are specifically indicated and provided. Data presentedin this document may not elucidate all possible <strong>co</strong>nditions that may exist given thelimited nature of the enquiry.o The expected list of occurrence for the FRAI model was limited to the fish listed in theFrequency of Occurrence (FROC). This allows for objective and <strong>co</strong>nsistent population ofthe FRAI model.o A modified version of % EPT was used in this study as quantitative macro-invertebratedata was not available. The M%EPT was based on the percentage of EPT familiespresent at each site in relation to the total number of families, instead of the percentageof individuals.o The reliance of e<strong>co</strong>logical integrity models fundamentally requires a sound knowledge ofreference <strong>co</strong>nditions. The general lack in <strong>co</strong>mplex facets such spatial and temporalvariation in <strong>co</strong>mmunity <strong>co</strong>mposition of aquatic biota leaves some uncertainty and gaps inknowledge, but this does not affect the adequacy of the study results.WetlandsThis assessment was based on information <strong>co</strong>llected during field visits undertaken duringNovember 2006 and February 2007 with portions of the site revisited in September and October2011.Every attempt was made to <strong>co</strong>llect the types of information necessary to assist in the assessmentof the status of the wetlands on site.The baseline information on the wetlands was <strong>co</strong>llected using a rapid assessment technique andthe wetland boundaries were delineated at a scale of 1:10 000 and field verified, giving aboundary accuracy of approximately 50 m.An assessment of key determinants of the wetlands was made using soil augering, anecdotalevidence and indicators of hydric <strong>co</strong>nditions.SocialNot every individual in the <strong>co</strong>mmunity <strong>co</strong>uld be interviewed, therefore only key people in the<strong>co</strong>mmunity were approached for discussion. Additional information was obtained using existingdata, re<strong>co</strong>rds of public meetings and via telephonic and personal interviews.The social environment <strong>co</strong>nstantly changes and adapts to change, and external factors outsidethe s<strong>co</strong>pe of the project can offset social changes, for example changes in local politicalleadership. It is therefore difficult to predict all impacts to a high level of accuracy, although carehas been taken to identify and address the most likely impacts in the most appropriate way forthe current local <strong>co</strong>ntext within the limitations.Social impacts can be felt on an actual or perceptual level, and therefore it is not alwaysstraightforward to measure the impacts in a quantitative manner.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)89
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesSocial impacts <strong>co</strong>mmence when the project enters the public domain. Some of these impactsare thus already taking place, irrespective of whether the project <strong>co</strong>ntinues or not. These impactsare difficult to mitigate and some would require immediate action to minimise the risk.There are different groups with different interests in the <strong>co</strong>mmunity, and what one group mayexperience as a positive social impact, might be experienced as a negative impact by anothergroup. This duality will be pointed out in the impact assessment phase of the report.The social environment <strong>co</strong>nstantly changes and adapts to change, and external factors outsidethe s<strong>co</strong>pe of the project can offset social changes, for example changes in local politicalleadership or e<strong>co</strong>nomic changes such as a recession. It is therefore difficult to predict all impactsto a high level of accuracy, although care has been taken to identify and address the most likelyimpacts in the most appropriate way for the current local <strong>co</strong>ntext within the limitations.Ex-ante information is lacking in the SIA field, and therefore it is difficult to <strong>co</strong>mpare predictedimpacts with actual impacts in similar projects. In addition, there is a long period of time betweenthe impact assessment and implementation of the project and anything can change during thattime – people can move away from the area, stop farming, alternative methods of powergeneration can be implemented or power <strong>co</strong>uld be generated elsewhere.VisualThe zone of potential impact (the area defined as the radius about the centre point of the projectbeyond which the visual impact of the most visible features will be insignificant) for this projectwas established at 3.0 km. Over 3.0 km the impact of the proposed <strong>co</strong>nveyor would havediminished <strong>co</strong>nsiderably due to the diminishing effect of distance and atmospheric <strong>co</strong>nditions(haze) on visibility. A ‘Greenfield’ site will, for the purpose of this exercise, be regarded as a dam, wetland, river /stream and agricultural field.A ‘Brownfield’ site will, for the purpose of this exercise, be regarded as a utility <strong>co</strong>rridor or areawith mining activities.It is more desirable to run a route alignment adjacent to an existing utility <strong>co</strong>rridor, as thecumulative impact of this approach would be less than a new route alignment going through a‘Greenfield’ site.Farmsteads and residences were all regarded as having the same level of sensitivity.NoiseThe assessment and findings of this report assume that the development will be implemented inac<strong>co</strong>rdance with the proposed locations, operating parameters and alternatives defined in theS<strong>co</strong>ping and <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong> <strong>co</strong>mpiled by Synergistics Environmental Services (Pty) Ltd, the principal<strong>EIA</strong> agent, as well as specific design data provided by AAIC.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)90
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesNoise predictions are not absolute. The validity of predictions is subject to natural variances inatmospheric <strong>co</strong>nditions. It should be noted that even for a <strong>co</strong>nstant source of noise, the noisefootprint and levels produced at large distances by any large source such as the proposed NewLargo mining operation are variable and highly dependent on atmospheric <strong>co</strong>nditions. Predictionsof noise impacts and findings made in this report are based on modelling and assumptions thatwill result in worst-case noise impacts. Although the occurrence of such worst-case <strong>co</strong>nditions isinevitable, it will not prevail at all times. In practice, actual noise levels and impacts will often belower.It is assumed and motivated that worst-case noise impact will occur at night. This will be valid ifthe mine operates 24 hours per day.Blasting and VibrationsNone.Soils and Land CapabilityThe basis for these studies was the 2007 baseline information, with limitations to the accuracy ofthe field mapping based on the re<strong>co</strong>nnaissance nature of the scale of mapping undertaken.Limitations in terms of the changes that might have occurred since 2007 are regarded as slight,with the exception of the sand mining that has occurred in the northern portions of the site. Theseactivities will have had an impact on the cumulative impacts, but will have had little effect on thebaseline soil forms present or the inherent capability of the land. These changes were notmapped or investigated in any detail.The alternatives assessment findings tabled by the client (Mining Plan Version 6 and 7) wereused as the basis for the impact assessment.The wetland delineation as presented by the wetlands specialist was used as the basis for theidentification of the highly sensitive and potential No Go areas, albeit that the soils mapping wereused in the wetland delineation exercise.Cultural and Heritage ResourcesIn some sections of the surveyed areas, the grass <strong>co</strong>ver is very tall and dense, making thedetection of sites, features and objects of cultural significance very difficult. However, AAIC hasbeen actively searching and marking potential graves within the mining area. This process will<strong>co</strong>ntinue, and measures to relocate graves will be initiated timeously as to ensure that theappropriate measures can be put in place for the relocation process.3.12 Uncertainties, Knowledge Gaps and Outstanding IssuesPlease refer to Section 10.6.3.13 Related StudiesUnder the protection of water resources, the National Water Act (Act No. 36, 1998) (NWA) stipulates thedetermination of the Reserve. The e<strong>co</strong>logical Reserve maintains aquatic e<strong>co</strong>systems in such a way thatNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)91
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesthey can <strong>co</strong>ntinue to provide goods and services to society. The Reserve forms the only right to water,with all other water uses subject to authorisations.In terms of the NWA, before the required authorisation to utilise a particular water resource can begranted, it is necessary to determine the Reserve for the relevant e<strong>co</strong>logical <strong>co</strong>mponent of the resourcethat will be impacted by the proposed water use.In terms of Section 15 and 16 of the NWA, it is a government responsibility to determine the class of awater resource and the resource quality objectives. Government is also required to determine theReserve for all or part of any significant water resource. If a resource has not yet been classified, apreliminary determination of the Reserve may be made and later superseded by a new one. Once theReserve is determined for a water resource, it is binding in the same way as the class and the resourcequality objectives.AAIC has appointed Wetland Consulting Services to assist with the Reserve Determination study for theaffected areas and therefore to assist government with the determination of the Reserve. The studyapproach and methodology used had to be discussed with the Department of Water Affairs. It isestimated that the Wetland Consulting Services study will be <strong>co</strong>mpleted in May 2013.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)92
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices4. Project Description4.1 Key Project Design CriteriaThe New Largo Colliery will be designed to process from 10 to 15 million tonnes of raw <strong>co</strong>al per annumfor supply to Kusile Power Station.4.2 Mining Method and OperationsThe proposed New Largo Colliery will be an opencast <strong>co</strong>al mine where mining will take place in<strong>co</strong>nsecutive long cuts or strips. Opencast mining methods were selected because:The <strong>co</strong>al seams are shallow with a low stripping ratio (volumes of overburden / tonnes of <strong>co</strong>al),generally too shallow for underground mining with too little hard overburden.Opencast mining maximises <strong>co</strong>al extraction and use of the <strong>co</strong>al resource, thus maximising <strong>co</strong>alsupply to Kusile in order to sustain Kusile for 50+ years.Opencast mining enables AAIC to re<strong>co</strong>ver <strong>co</strong>al reserves remaining in areas previously mined byunderground methods which <strong>co</strong>vers an extensive 27% of the reserve.The first strip to be mined is called a box-cut. The top layers of the soil from the box-cut footprint area willbe stripped and stockpiled as part of the rehabilitation process in an area located outside the plannedmining footprint area. Then drilling and blasting will be undertaken to break the overburden. Overburdenfrom the box-cut will be removed to an area outside the planned mining footprint area for future use inthe rehabilitation process. Once the <strong>co</strong>al layer (<strong>co</strong>al seam) has been exposed, it will be drilled andfractured. Using shovels, the fractured <strong>co</strong>al will be loaded onto trucks and taken to a crushing plant. Afterthe <strong>co</strong>al has been crushed, it can either be sent to a run of mine stockpile, directly to the Kusile or a <strong>co</strong>alprocessing plant for beneficiation, depending on the quality of the <strong>co</strong>al.Once all the <strong>co</strong>al has been removed from box-cut areas (first strip), the process will be repeated tocreate a series of <strong>co</strong>nsecutive strips. Once sufficient space has been created behind the strip beingmined, live placement of topsoil will take place and each <strong>co</strong>nsecutive strip will be dealt with in a<strong>co</strong>ntinuous roll-over mining method involving the following main steps:Step 1: The top layer of the soil (utilisable soil) will be stripped and will be placed directly (liveplacing) in a mined out strip that has been prepared as per Step 6, or on top of soft material asper Step 2.Step 2: In certain areas the removal of clay material within the soft overburden using shovel andtruck mining methods will be required. This will be done with a pre-strip fleet and the softoverburden clay material will be placed live on top of levelled overburden.Step 3: Drilling and blasting of the overburden.Step 4: Overburden is removed and deposited as fill in the previous strip after the <strong>co</strong>al has beenremoved. Overburden can be either moved using shovel and truck or using large movableexcavators, called draglines.Step 5: Coal seam drilling, blasting, loading and hauling. Placing of <strong>co</strong>al discard in bottom of pit.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)93
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesStep 6: Reshaping, flattening and <strong>co</strong>mpaction and grading of overburden and interburdendeposited in mined out strips as per Step 4, shaping area to facilitate storm water drainage andprevent erosion and ponding of water.Step 7: Placement of the top layers of soil, removed as part of Step 1 and 2 to areas prepared asper Step 6, to act as a reinstated soil layer as growth medium for vegetation to be re-establishedand to manage water ingress into the mine pit.Step 8: <strong>Final</strong> tilling and soil preparation.Step 9: Seeding and fertilising.Step 10: Monitoring, maintenance and <strong>co</strong>rrective action.Step 11: Introduction and monitoring of end land uses.Figure 4-1: Illustration of Mining MethodIn areas where there are two <strong>co</strong>al seams to be mined, seam No. 2 and 4, the interburden (soil / rocklayer between <strong>co</strong>al seams) will be also be drilled, blasted and removed to expose the lower <strong>co</strong>al seam.Coal seam No. 1, 3 and 5 are generally too thin and intermittent to be mined e<strong>co</strong>nomically (see Figure1-5, Section 1.8).At the end of the life of each mine pit, the material removed from the initial box-cut and stored, will beused in the rehabilitation of the final mining area.It is anticipated that two draglines will be used to strip the required volumes of overburden. In addition tothe draglines, the box cut and certain smaller areas of the mining pit will be mined using <strong>co</strong>nventionalshovel and truck operations.There are several areas within the New Largo resource indicating zones of deep weathering within theoverburden material. The average depth of soils to be stripped across the reserve was estimated at3.8 m. Two possible alternatives were investigated in dealing with the unwanted soft material within theoverburden, which was either to be chopped down using the dragline, or to be stripped and removedahead of the dragline using shovel and truck methods. Due to the <strong>co</strong>nsolidated nature of the claymaterial and the inefficiencies and long term potential damage due to the dragline chop-down of suchmaterial, the decision was made to allow for the material to be pre-stripped. This decision was alsobased on the experiences at Kriel and Isibonelo Collieries where unsuccessful attempts were madeusing the dragline to handle soft clay material.The provision of a pre-strip fleet not only solves the problem around softs and highwall stability, but italso provides significant flexibility to the mining operation and will enhance the rehabilitation quality.Typical dragline mining sequence in a single seam area (each row/activity presents a 60m wide miningcut).New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)94
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesThere are old underground <strong>co</strong>al mine workings situated in the centre of the <strong>co</strong>al reserve area, implyingthat the proposed New Largo operations will involve mining through previously undermined areas as wellas virgin <strong>co</strong>al in areas unaffected by previous mining. The safest method of mining through these oldunderground mine workings is using draglines. The use of draglines has been proven to minimiseha<strong>za</strong>rds to workers associated with mining also through problems in these areas.In addition to homesteads, other surface infrastructure located within the proposed mining footprint areaincludes the R545 provincial road, which links the N12 and N4 highways, an ESKOM 400kVtransmission line, which runs from east to west across the resource area and numerous rural power lines<strong>co</strong>vering the whole area. Relocating this surface infrastructure will be phased in with the mine plan overthe life of the mine.4.3 Major Project Activities and ComponentsThe main project activities, for assessment in the <strong>EIA</strong> and management in the EMP, can be categorisedas follow:1. Earthworks and Soil Management.2. Mining Activities (as per AAIC’s Base Case Mine Plan – Mine Plan Version 6, illustrated onFigure 1-9).3. Coal Processing and Coal Discard (Mineralogical Waste) Management.4. Materials Handling and Transport.5. Supporting Infrastructure, as illustrated on drawings in Appendix T.6. Water Management.7. Waste Management (Non-Mineralogical).8. Rehabilitation.9. R545 Road Deviation (along Alternative Route Option 1 A (new / preferred) as illustrated onFigure 1-1).Table 4-1: Project Activities per Project Phase, with references to Maps and DrawingsComment / Reference to DrawingsMain Project Activities / Description and Phasing of ProjectAll maps are for AAIC’s Base Case MineComponentsActivities / ComponentsPlan (Version 6)Construction Phase 1Pre-ConstructionMining Activities.Supporting Infrastructure.Project optimisation and detaileddesign.All infrastructure areas and mining areas.Drawings in Appendix T, <strong>EIA</strong> Volume 7.Mining Activities.Agreements and <strong>co</strong>ntracts.Land / servitudes owned by third parties.Supporting Infrastructure.All activities.<strong>Final</strong> layout and positioning of project<strong>co</strong>mponents.Drawings to be issued upon <strong>co</strong>mpletion ofdetailed design.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)95
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesMain Project Activities /ComponentsEarthworks and Soil Management.Rehabilitation.All activities.Description and Phasing of ProjectActivities / ComponentsPreparation of dragline assembly site(access road and earthworks for theassembly pad).The assembly of the dragline is acritical <strong>co</strong>mponent to the New LargoColliery. It is a highly specialised andtime <strong>co</strong>nsuming process to assemblea dragline. AAIC is estimating thatpreparation of the site for the draglineassembly (dragline pad) will have tostart before the anticipated date of theNEMA environmental authori<strong>za</strong>tionbeing issued in order to avoid delayswith <strong>co</strong>al supply to Kusile.Alien vegetation eradication and<strong>co</strong>ntrol.Development of <strong>co</strong>nstructionenvironmental managementprocedures.Comment / Reference to DrawingsAll maps are for AAIC’s Base Case MinePlan (Version 6)Dragline assembly pad as indicated ondrawings in Appendix T, <strong>EIA</strong> Volume 7.As required, based on EMP requirements.As per EMP requirements.ConstructionEarthworks and Soil Management. Vegetation removal. Infrastructure footprint areas where thereare large trees, mostly alien species thatcannot be stripped with the top soil layer.Earthworks and Soil Management. Alien vegetation eradication and As required.<strong>co</strong>ntrol.Earthworks and Soil Management. Stripping of top soil layer. Drawings in Appendix T, <strong>EIA</strong> Volume 7.Earthworks and Soil Management. Soil storage and stockpiling (for futureuse in rehabilitation of final miningareas).Soil stockpiles as indicated on drawings inAppendix T, <strong>EIA</strong> Volume 7.Earthworks and Soil Management. Grading and earthworks. Infrastructure footprint areas requiring cutand-fill,reshaping or levelling.Earthworks and Soil Management. Sourcing of <strong>co</strong>nstruction materials. Borrow pits as indicated on drawings inAppendix T, <strong>EIA</strong> Volume 7.Supporting Infrastructure. Temporary fuel storage. Indicated on drawings in Appendix T, <strong>EIA</strong>Volume 7.Supporting Infrastructure.Supporting Infrastructure.Mining ActivitiesMaterials Handling and Transport.Materials Handling and Transport.Rehabilitation.Mining Activities.Materials Handling and Transport.Laydown areas and <strong>co</strong>nstructionadministration areas.Storm water management (clean anddirty water separation).Box-cut drilling and blasting ofoverburden (after stripping of top soillayer).Box-cut overburden loading andhauling.Box-cut overburden stockpiling (forfuture use in rehabilitation of finalmining area).Drilling and blasting of <strong>co</strong>al seam inbox-cut.Coal loading and hauling from boxcut.Indicated on drawings in Appendix T, <strong>EIA</strong>Volume 7.Indicated on drawings in Appendix T, <strong>EIA</strong>Volume 7.Initial mining area as indicated on drawingsin Appendix T, <strong>EIA</strong> Volume 7.Haul road between box-cut and overburdenstockpile as indicated on drawings inAppendix T, <strong>EIA</strong> Volume 7.Overburden stockpiles as indicated ondrawings in Appendix T, <strong>EIA</strong> Volume 7.Blasting will take place in opencast miningareas as indicated in drawings in AppendixT, <strong>EIA</strong> Volume 7.Indicated on drawings in Appendix T, <strong>EIA</strong>Volume 7.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)96
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesComment / Reference to DrawingsMain Project Activities / Description and Phasing of ProjectAll maps are for AAIC’s Base Case MineComponentsActivities / ComponentsPlan (Version 6)Materials Handling and Transport. Initial <strong>co</strong>al stockpiling from box-cut. Coal stockpiles as indicated on drawings inAppendix T, <strong>EIA</strong> Volume 7.Materials Handling and Transport. Movement of equipment, material and Indicated on drawings in Appendix T, <strong>EIA</strong>Materials Handling and Transport.Materials Handling and Transport.Materials Handling and Transport.people.On-site transportation.Haul roads and services roads arerequired between the various project<strong>co</strong>mponents, borrow pits, offices,laydown areas, along linearinfrastructure and between the minepits, tips, plant, admin areas,workshops, etc.Off-site transportation and use ofpublic roads.Loading, hauling of materials andequipment.Volume 7.Haul road as indicated on drawings inAppendix T, <strong>EIA</strong> Volume 7.n/aAll areas affected by <strong>co</strong>nstruction.Supporting Infrastructure. Temporary fuel storage. Indicated on drawings in Appendix T, <strong>EIA</strong>Volume 7.Supporting Infrastructure.Laydown areas and <strong>co</strong>nstructionadministration areas.Indicated on drawings in Appendix T, <strong>EIA</strong>Volume 7.Supporting Infrastructure.Storm water management (clean anddirty water separation).Indicated on drawings in Appendix T, <strong>EIA</strong>Volume 7.Materials Handling and Transport Eskom has indicated a productstockpile is not required at New LargoColliery since adequate stockpilingcapacity is provided at Kusile.However, AAIC’s designac<strong>co</strong>mmodates the location of theproduct stockpile should this berequired in future.Indicated on drawings in Appendix T, <strong>EIA</strong>Volume 7.All activities.Earthworks and Soil Management.Mining Activities.Mining Activities.Operational Phase 1Development of operational phaseenvironmental managementprocedures.Step 1: The top layer of the soil(topsoil) will be stripped and will beplaced directly in a mined out stripthat has been prepared as per Step 6,or on top of soft material as per Step2.Step 2: In certain areas the removalof sub-soils within the overburdenusing shovel and truck miningmethods will be required. This will bedone with a pre-strip fleet and thesub-soils will be placed live on top oflevelled spoils.Step 3: Drilling and blasting of theoverburden.As per EMP requirements.Indicated on drawings in Appendix T, <strong>EIA</strong>Volume 7.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)97
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesMain Project Activities /ComponentsMining Activities.Mining Activities.Rehabilitation.Rehabilitation.Rehabilitation.Rehabilitation.Rehabilitation.Materials Handling and Transport.Materials Handling and Transport.Description and Phasing of ProjectActivities / ComponentsStep 4: Overburden is removed anddeposited as fill in the previous stripafter the <strong>co</strong>al has been removed fromthis previous strip. Overburden canbe either moved using shovel andtruck or using large movableexcavators, called draglines.Step 5: Coal seam drilling, blasting,loading and hauling.Step 6: Reshaping, flattening and<strong>co</strong>mpaction and grading of spoils(overburden and Interburden)deposited in mined out strips as perStep 3, shaping area to facilitatestorm water drainage and preventerosion and ponding of water.Step 7: Placement of the top layers ofsoil, removed as part of Step 1 and 2to areas prepared as per Step 6, toact as a growth medium forvegetation to be re-established.Step 8: <strong>Final</strong> tilling and soilpreparation.Step 10: Monitoring, maintenanceand <strong>co</strong>rrective action.Step 11: Introduction and monitoringof end land uses.Loading, hauling and live placementof top soil layer using shovel andtruck.Overburden removal and placementusing small shovel and truck fleet andComment / Reference to DrawingsAll maps are for AAIC’s Base Case MinePlan (Version 6)As per mining sequencing indicated ondrawings in Appendix T, <strong>EIA</strong> Volume 7.As per mining sequencing indicated ondrawings in Appendix T, <strong>EIA</strong> Volume 7.As per mining sequencing indicated ondrawings in Appendix T, <strong>EIA</strong> Volume 7.the first dragline.Materials Handling and Transport. Loading and hauling of <strong>co</strong>al. As per mining sequencing indicated ondrawings in Appendix T, <strong>EIA</strong> Volume 7.Materials Handling and Transport. Run of mine stockpiles. Indicated on drawings in Appendix T, <strong>EIA</strong>Volume 7.Materials Handling and Transport. Emergency run of mine stockpiles. Indicated on drawings in Appendix T, <strong>EIA</strong>Volume 7.Materials Handling and Transport. Crushing and screening of <strong>co</strong>al(Tip 1).Tip 1 and stockpiles as indicated ondrawings in Appendix T, <strong>EIA</strong> Volume 7.Materials Handling and Transport. Product stockpiles. Indicated on drawings in Appendix T, <strong>EIA</strong>Volume 7.Materials Handling and Transport. Coal transport to Kusile on <strong>co</strong>nveyorsystem.Conveyor system between New LargoColliery and Kusile as indicated on drawingsin Appendix T, <strong>EIA</strong> Volume 7.Surface Infrastructure Phase 1Supporting Infrastructure. Assembly of first dragline. Dragline assembly pad as Indicated ondrawings in Appendix T, <strong>EIA</strong> Volume 7.Supporting Infrastructure.Ablutions and sewerage treatmentplant.Indicated on drawings in Appendix T, <strong>EIA</strong>Volume 7.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)98
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesMain Project Activities /ComponentsDescription and Phasing of ProjectActivities / ComponentsComment / Reference to DrawingsAll maps are for AAIC’s Base Case MinePlan (Version 6)Water Management. Silt traps and evaporation dams. As indicated on Figure 4.3.2.1 (b) of theSurface Water Specialist ImpactAssessment <strong>Report</strong> (Appendix G).Water Management.Water Management.Water Management.Storm water management system,including clean and dirty waterseparation.Pollution <strong>co</strong>ntrol dams (phasedimplementation).Erosion <strong>co</strong>ntrol, pollution <strong>co</strong>ntrol andstorm water managementinfrastructure.Figures 4.3.2.2(a) and (b) for Mine PlanVersion 6 and Mine Plan Version 7 of theSurface Water Specialist ImpactAssessment <strong>Report</strong> (Appendix G).As indicated in Appendix T and Figure4.3.2.1 (a) of the Hydrological SpecialistImpact Assessment <strong>Report</strong> (Appendix G).Indicated on drawings in Appendix T, <strong>EIA</strong>Volume 7.Water Management. Fire protection. Indicated on drawings in Appendix T, <strong>EIA</strong>Volume 7.Supporting Infrastructure.Change houses, canteens, andlaundry services.Indicated on drawings in Appendix T, <strong>EIA</strong>Volume 7.Supporting Infrastructure. Fuel storage facilities (phased). Indicated on drawings in Appendix T, <strong>EIA</strong>Volume 7.Materials Handling and Transport. Haul roads, access roads and serviceroads.Indicated on drawings in Appendix T, <strong>EIA</strong>Volume 7.Due to the fact that New Largo is anopencast mine with a very long life, newhaul roads may be required over time or theposition of haul roads may have to changeto facilitate future mining activities.Supporting Infrastructure. Offices and administration. Indicated on drawings in Appendix T, <strong>EIA</strong>Supporting Infrastructure.Supporting Infrastructure.Waste Management (Non-Mineralogical).Power lines and substations,including 132 kV power line andassociated substation.Ablution facilities.Volume 7.Indicated on drawings in Appendix T, <strong>EIA</strong>Volume 7.Due to the fact that New Largo is anopencast mine with a very long life, newpower lines may be required over time or theposition of power lines may have to changeto facilitate future mining activities.Indicated on drawings in Appendix T, <strong>EIA</strong>Volume 7.Supporting Infrastructure. Stores. Indicated on drawings in Appendix T, <strong>EIA</strong>Volume 7.Supporting Infrastructure. Communication masts. Indicated on drawings in Appendix T, <strong>EIA</strong>Volume 7.Supporting Infrastructure. Generators. Indicated on drawings in Appendix T, <strong>EIA</strong>Volume 7.Supporting Infrastructure. Explosives magazine. Indicated on drawings in Appendix T, <strong>EIA</strong>Volume 7.Supporting Infrastructure.Waste Management (Non-Mineralogical).Sewerage treatment plant.Indicated on drawings in Appendix T, <strong>EIA</strong>Volume 7.Supporting Infrastructure. Security and fences. Indicated on drawings in Appendix T, <strong>EIA</strong>Volume 7.Materials Handling and Transport. Storage and laydown areas. Indicated on drawings in Appendix T, <strong>EIA</strong>Volume 7.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)99
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesComment / Reference to DrawingsMain Project Activities / Description and Phasing of ProjectAll maps are for AAIC’s Base Case MineComponentsActivities / ComponentsPlan (Version 6)Materials Handling and Transport. Tip 1 (crushing and screening). Indicated on drawings in Appendix T, <strong>EIA</strong>Volume 7.Indicated on drawings in Appendix T, <strong>EIA</strong>Volume 7.Waste Management (Non-Mineralogical).Waste management and disposalfacilities.Water Management. Water management facilities. Indicated on drawings in Appendix T, <strong>EIA</strong>Volume 7.Water Management. WTP (phased, initially a mobile plant) Indicated on drawings in Appendix T, <strong>EIA</strong>Volume 7.Waste Management (Non-Mineralogical).Water supply and reticulationinfrastructure.Indicated on drawings in Appendix T, <strong>EIA</strong>Volume 7.Supporting Infrastructure. Workshops. Indicated on drawings in Appendix T, <strong>EIA</strong>Volume 7.Water Management.Waste Management (Non-Mineralogical).WTP (phased installation of mobileplant).Indicated on drawings in Appendix T, <strong>EIA</strong>Volume 7.Water Management. Release of treated water to streams. To be finalised based on out<strong>co</strong>me ofReserve Determination.Water Management.Waste Management (Non-Mineralogical).Pumping of <strong>co</strong>ntaminated water,treatment of water in WTP andrelease of water.As per final closure plan, to be developedbased on out<strong>co</strong>me of updated ReserveDetermination at time of closure.Management of WTP waste.Construction Phase 2Earthworks and Soil Management. Site Preparation and General Indicated on drawings in Appendix T, <strong>EIA</strong>Earthworks as per Phase 1.Volume 7.Supporting Infrastructure. Assembly of se<strong>co</strong>nd dragline. Indicated on drawings in Appendix T, <strong>EIA</strong>Volume 7.Coal Processing and DiscardConstruction of <strong>co</strong>al processing plant. Indicated on drawings in Appendix T, <strong>EIA</strong>Management.Volume 7.Water Management.Waste Management (Non-Mineralogical).Installation of permanent WTP(phased as required by mine waterbalance).Indicated on drawings in Appendix T, <strong>EIA</strong>Volume 7.Water Management. Release of treated water to streams. To be finalised based on out<strong>co</strong>me ofReserve Determination.Supporting Infrastructure. Fuel storage facilities (phased). Indicated on drawings in Appendix T, <strong>EIA</strong>Volume 7.Supporting Infrastructure.Mining Activities.Water Management.Coal Processing and DiscardManagement.All other phased infrastructure,changes to haul roads, internal powerlines, <strong>co</strong>mmunication / radio masts,access roads, etc.Box-cut 2 (initial mining strip), similarto first box-cut for Phase 1.Continuation of phased <strong>co</strong>nstructionof pollution <strong>co</strong>ntrol dams andfacilities.Preparation of surface <strong>co</strong>al discarddisposal facility.Operational Phase 2Future. Ongoing operational changes overthe life of the mine.Due to the fact that New Largo is anopencast mine with a very long life, newinfrastructure may be required over time orthe position of infrastructure may have tochange to facilitate future mining activities.Indicated on drawings in Appendix T, <strong>EIA</strong>Volume 7.Indicated on drawings in Appendix T, <strong>EIA</strong>Volume 7.Indicated on drawings in Appendix T, <strong>EIA</strong>Volume 7.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)100
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesMain Project Activities /ComponentsMining Activities.Materials Handling and Transport.Coal Processing and DiscardManagement.Materials Handling and Transport.Coal Processing and DiscardManagement.Coal Processing and DiscardManagement.Description and Phasing of ProjectActivities / ComponentsContinuous roll-over mining andrehabilitation process as per Phase 1,se<strong>co</strong>nd dragline operation added.Transportation and materials handlingas per Phase 1, with Tip 2 added.Washing of <strong>co</strong>al (at <strong>co</strong>al processingplant).Transportation of <strong>co</strong>al discard from<strong>co</strong>al processing plant to in-pitdisposal areas and to on-surface <strong>co</strong>aldiscard facility.In-pit disposal of <strong>co</strong>al discard.On-surface disposal of <strong>co</strong>al discard.Comment / Reference to DrawingsAll maps are for AAIC’s Base Case MinePlan (Version 6)Indicated on drawings in Appendix T, <strong>EIA</strong>Volume 7.Indicated on drawings in Appendix T, <strong>EIA</strong>Volume 7.Indicated on drawings in Appendix T, <strong>EIA</strong>Volume 7.Indicated on drawings in Appendix T, <strong>EIA</strong>Volume 7.Indicated on drawings in Appendix T, <strong>EIA</strong>Volume 7.Indicated on drawings in Appendix T, <strong>EIA</strong>Volume 7.Supporting Infrastructure.Materials Handling and Transport.Supporting Infrastructure.Water Management.Waste Management (Non-Mineralogical).Life of Mine Construction and Operation (Southern Pits)Draglines moved (walked) to southern Indicated on drawings in Appendix T, <strong>EIA</strong>mining pits.Volume 7.Transportation and materials handling Only preliminary information available asas per Phase 1, with new Tips and these activities will only take place in lasthaul roads added in the south. years of the life of mine.Other phased infrastructure, changesto haul roads, internal power lines,tele<strong>co</strong>mmunication / radio masts,access roads, etc.De<strong>co</strong>mmissioning and ClosurePumping of <strong>co</strong>ntaminated water,treatment of water in WTP andrelease of water.Management of WTP waste.Future. Ongoing operational changes overthe life of the mine.As per final closure plan, to be developedbased on out<strong>co</strong>me of updated ReserveDetermination at time of closure.Rehabilitation. Activities as detailed in EMP. As per EMP requirements.Rehabilitation. <strong>Final</strong> closure plan implementation. Based on end land use and rehabilitationand closure objectives <strong>co</strong>ntained in EMP.Rehabilitation. Introduction of end land uses. As per final closure plan to be developed atfuture date.Rehabilitation. Monitoring and maintenance. As per final closure plan to be developed atfuture date.Post ClosureRehabilitation Monitoring and maintenance. As per final closure plan to be developed atfuture date.RehabilitationControl of end land uses until suchtime as land uses have proven not toimpact on rehabilitation efforts, thestability of the site and watermanagement (pump and treat).As per final closure plan to be developed atfuture date.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)101
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesMain Project Activities /ComponentsWater Management.Waste Management (Non-Mineralogical).Description and Phasing of ProjectActivities / ComponentsLong-term pumping of <strong>co</strong>ntaminatedwater, treatment of water in WTP andrelease of water (will <strong>co</strong>ntinue untilsuch time as monitoring data proves<strong>co</strong>nclusively that treatment is nolonger needed). The timeframes areuncertain but may be 200+ years.Management of WTP waste.Comment / Reference to DrawingsAll maps are for AAIC’s Base Case MinePlan (Version 6)As per final closure plan, to be developedbased on out<strong>co</strong>me of updated ReserveDetermination at time of closure.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)102
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesFigure 4-2: Schematic of Proposed Mine Infrastructure (Additional Maps and Drawings Supplied in Appendix T, <strong>EIA</strong> Volume 7)New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)103
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices4.4 Picture GalleryThe following photographs provide an overview of opencast <strong>co</strong>al mining and associated activities, for informationpurposes only – the design and operation of the New Largo Colliery may vary to some extent.Plate 4-1: Example of dragline operations (overburden handling)Plate 4-2: Example of shovel and truck operations (loading and hauling of <strong>co</strong>al)New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)104
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesPlate 4-3: Example of opencast <strong>co</strong>al mine pitsNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)105
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesPlate 4-4: Example of a <strong>co</strong>al seam in opencast <strong>co</strong>al mine pitPlate 4-5: Example of crushing operationsPlate 4-6: Example of <strong>co</strong>al handling and stockpilingNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)106
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesPlate 4-7: Example of overland <strong>co</strong>al <strong>co</strong>nveyor systemsPlate 4-8: Example of <strong>co</strong>al processing plantsNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)107
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesPlate 4-9: Example of an opencast mining area where surface rehabilitation is in process (topsoilreplaced, prior to re-vegetation); with dragline in the backgroundPlate 4-10: Example of surface discard disposal facilities (with vegetation <strong>co</strong>ver)Plate 4-11: Example of pollution <strong>co</strong>ntrol / balancing damsPlate 4-12: Example of WTP for treatment of <strong>co</strong>ntaminated mine waterNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)108
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices4.5 Demolition and Replacement of a Section of the R545 RoadA section of the R545 provincial tar road between Kendal and Balmoral that provides a north-south linkbetween the N4 and N12 highways runs through the centre of the proposed New Largo Colliery. Asection of approximately 17 km of the R545 will have to be removed.The affected section of the R545 is from approximately 2 kilometres south of the Kendal-Balmoral roadintersection on the N4 up to the intersection of the Kendal-Balmoral Road with the N12.A small section of the R545 splits and runs east towards Voltargo Village and will also have to bedemolished where it is affected by the mining area. The life of mine is anticipated to be in excess of 50years and the demolition is therefore regarded as permanent.A replacement road will be <strong>co</strong>nstructed. The new road, around the east of Kusile, will provide anotherlink between the N4 and N12, which partly mitigates the impacts of the demolition of the R545 section.The replacement road will be a tarred road, 7.4 metres wide and the road servitude will be 40 metreswide.The R545 falls under the jurisdiction of the Mpumalanga Department of Public Works, Roads andTransport. The replacement road will be a tarred provincial road and will also fall under their jurisdiction.Alternative routes are discussed in Section 5. AAIC’s preferred route is Route 1 A (new) as indicated onFigure 1-1 and on the more detailed drawings in Appendix T.4.6 Coal Processing PlantCoal mined during the initial years of the New Largo Colliery (Mining Phase 1), will not requirebeneficiation. After crushing, <strong>co</strong>al will be dispatched directly to the Kusile.However, the high <strong>co</strong>ntamination levels in the areas of previously mined underground workings and thelower <strong>co</strong>al qualities to the central portion of the mine area, necessitates a <strong>co</strong>al processing plant to be<strong>co</strong>mmissioned by 2023 (Mine Plan Version 6) and 2019 (Mine Plan Version 7) to beneficiate <strong>co</strong>al minedafter 2023 / 2019 in order to meet the required Kusile (Eskom) <strong>co</strong>al quality specifications.Coal beneficiation (also known as <strong>co</strong>al washing) involves crushing the <strong>co</strong>al into smaller pieces andpassing it through a process called dense medium separation (DMS). This process utilises thedifferences in mass density (mass per unit volume) between the <strong>co</strong>al and the impurities such as sulphur,ash, rock and soil particles to separate the <strong>co</strong>al from the impurities. The impurities that are removedduring the <strong>co</strong>al washing process, known as <strong>co</strong>al discard, is a <strong>co</strong>mbustible, physically and chemicallyunstable waste that requires special handling and long-term disposal and management.4.7 Water Treatment Plant (WTP)4.7.1 Capacity and Scheduling of Water TreatmentWater treatment, as an integral part of the overall water management system, will be required at a rate of4 Ml/day from the start of mining in 2015. The first 4 Ml/day mobile WTP will be <strong>co</strong>mmissioned as part ofthe Phola-Kusile Coal Conveyor (2013) for the treatment of water abstracted from both old undergroundmine workings and new opencast workings. Treated water will be supplied to the Phola-Kusile CoalConveyor and New Largo Colliery for the <strong>co</strong>nstruction and early operational phase of the mine. This willbe prior to the implementation of the New Largo Colliery. The WTP will require waste managementfacilities for the disposal of wastes generated in the treatment.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)109
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesThe treatment rate will need to be increased over the life of the mine as the water make exceeds waterusage. A se<strong>co</strong>nd 4 Ml/day mobile WTP will be <strong>co</strong>mmissioned during the early years of the New LargoColliery and will use the same waste management facilities as developed with the first mobile WTP.The base case is for excess treated water to be released to nearby streams. AAIC may, over time,investigate potential other uses for the water, i.e. to supply to nearby residential areas. Any change willhave to be aligned with the Reserve Determination and approval from the DWA.Based on current information, it is expected that a first 4 Ml/day plant will be adequate for the first one totwo years of mining. Thereafter the treatment capacity will need to be upgraded regularly toac<strong>co</strong>mmodate the increasing water make as mining progresses. The expected water treatment rates arepresented in Table 4-6.It is estimated that a maximum treatment capacity of 24 Ml/day will be required at the end of life of mine,for both Mine Plan Version 6 and Version 7 (see Section 4.15, Water Balance).The mobile WTPs will eventually be replaced by a permanent WTP and additional waste managementfacilities. The balance of water, not used by the Phola-Kusile Coal Conveyor and New Largo Colliery, willbe discharged to the Saalklapspruit and/or the Wilge River systems. The final release points will bedetermined based on the out<strong>co</strong>me of a reserve determination study that is currently underway. Thewater will be treated to catchment release quality.The intention is to start with water treatment prior to the implementation of the New Largo Colliery (waterfrom old underground mine workings will be treated). Water treatment will <strong>co</strong>ntinue throughout the life ofthe New Largo Colliery. Treatment will include water from the old underground mine workings (tofacilitate mining through these workings), water pumped from the New Largo Colliery mine opencastmine pits and dirty water produced on and around the various infrastructure <strong>co</strong>mponents.The WTP is planned as an integral part of the project and as a key environmental mitigation measure. Itis assumed that the permanent WTP will operate until such time as the water monitoring results proves<strong>co</strong>nclusively that treatment is no longer needed after de<strong>co</strong>mmissioning and closure. This is a long-termstrategy for management of decant. Successful long-term water treatment is key to the management ofpotentially severe impacts on sensitive downstream environments and water users, which will remain athreat for many years after de<strong>co</strong>mmissioning of Kusile and New Largo Colliery.4.7.2 Cost of Water TreatmentAc<strong>co</strong>rding to AAIC, the capital <strong>co</strong>st 22 may vary between R20 and R25 million/Ml/day and operational<strong>co</strong>sts between R4.50 and R7.00/m 3 treated at current values. For the base case Mine plan Version 6, theNew Largo Colliery permanent water treatment plant will eventually treat 24 Ml/day for many years aftermine closure until water monitoring results prove that treatment is no longer necessary.The <strong>co</strong>st of a WTP is highly dependent on the treatment technology, which is again dependent on thequality of the raw water being treated as well as the quality standard to which the water is treated (i.e. iftreated to potable standards, catchment release quality, or to a less stringent standard). The treatmenttechnology for the permanent WTP has not yet been defined. It is expected that water treatmenttechnologies may progress and develop in the years prior to the permanent WTP being developed. Thewater will be released to nearby streams.22November 2011 figures were presented in the draft <strong>EIA</strong> report, these were updated in June 2012 for inclusion in the final <strong>EIA</strong> report. The final figuresare based on the out<strong>co</strong>me of the AAIC feasibility study.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)110
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesThe following <strong>co</strong>ncerns have been raised by I&APs about the <strong>co</strong>st of the water treatment plant:E<strong>co</strong>nomic Feasibility of Long-Term Water Treatmento Cost of long-term, post closure water treatment as well as the energy use, energy <strong>co</strong>stand offsetting of associated greenhouse gas emissions associated with the long-termtreatment of <strong>co</strong>ntaminated water.o The long-term e<strong>co</strong>nomic feasibility to treat the <strong>co</strong>ntaminated water produced by NewLargo Colliery was questioned. They highlighted current examples in South Africa wherelong-term water management of mine water has failed and the mining <strong>co</strong>mpaniesresponsible for the original mining and thus the creation of the problem are not assumingresponsibility for the problems 40+ years after mining ceased.o E<strong>co</strong>nomic feasibility of the water treatment plant to treat water for many years postclosure. I&APs, such as the Federation for a Sustainable Environment (FSE), requestedspecific financial information about water treatment <strong>co</strong>sts <strong>co</strong>ntained in the New LargoColliery financial model. They queried if the long-term feasibility of the water treatmentworks is demonstrated in the financial model for the New Largo Colliery, especially sincethe base case for operation of the plant is that treated water will be released to nearbystreams, and thus there will be no obvious in<strong>co</strong>me generated from water being sold tore<strong>co</strong>ver treatment <strong>co</strong>sts.AAIC Long-Term Responsibility and Ac<strong>co</strong>untability for Long-Term Water Treatmento That AAIC is making promises that may not be upheld if New Largo Colliery is sold toanother mining house and that, based on Anglo American and AAIC’s track re<strong>co</strong>rd, it islikely that New Largo Colliery will be sold at some point in time before closure.E<strong>co</strong>nomic Feasibility of Long-Term Water TreatmentAAIC has indicated that the financial model <strong>co</strong>ntains sensitive and <strong>co</strong>nfidential <strong>co</strong>mmercial informationbut, in order to address the I&AP request, stated that they will issue the financial model to anindependent, credible financial audit <strong>co</strong>mpany, as third party reviewer and that the results of the reviewwill be released to the FSE and other I&APs who request insight into this information. AAIC also statedthat they are willing to meet with the FSE, other I&APs representatives and the third party reviewer, todiscuss specific issues, but request that sensitive <strong>co</strong>mmercial information remain <strong>co</strong>nfidential.AAIC is adamant that the process for the third party review must be agreed between AAIC and theI&APs who requested access to the financials and thus requested the FSE to agree to the third partyreview, upon which the third party reviewer would be agreed and appointed. This approach is deemedessential to avoid future disputes about the credibility and independence of the reviewer. AAIC indicatedthat they are prepared to <strong>co</strong>ver the <strong>co</strong>st of the third party review.The FSE then indicated that AAIC should motivate why they see the information as <strong>co</strong>nfidential. AAICresponded by stating that they cannot disclose information such as operational and maintenance <strong>co</strong>sts,which include, amongst other elements, staff and <strong>co</strong>ntractor remuneration and overheads and chemicalsand <strong>co</strong>nsumable <strong>co</strong>sts, all of which are <strong>co</strong>ntractually negotiated and remain <strong>co</strong>nfidential between AAICand the individual or supplier. Based on this, the FSE was requested to re-<strong>co</strong>nsider AAIC’s proposal fora third party review and to indicate if they are willing to discuss and agree on an independent, credibleaudit <strong>co</strong>mpany to undertake the review.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)111
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesThe FSE maintained that they wanted to see more detail on what is and what is not <strong>co</strong>nfidential inAAIC’s financial model, while AAIC maintained that the motivation they provided adequately explainstheir reasons for keeping the financial model <strong>co</strong>nfidential but that they agree to release it to a third partyreviewer.AAIC has indicated that they will proceed with the third party review as soon as the FSE (or any otherI&AP) has <strong>co</strong>nfirmed, in writing, that they are amenable to this option and there is agreement on theaudit <strong>co</strong>mpany to act as the third party reviewer.The EAP is of the opinion that using a credible independent audit <strong>co</strong>mpany to review the financial datapertaining to water treatment <strong>co</strong>sts for the New Largo Colliery, and to provide the results of theindependent review to FSE and other I&APS, remains an option to address the FSE’s request to haveaccess to financial data regarding water treatment <strong>co</strong>sts for the New Largo Colliery.The third party audit can only proceed if the FSE accepts the third party review in principle.AAIC has also revised 23 their soil and rehabilitation strategy in <strong>co</strong>nsultation with the environmentalspecialist team and their re<strong>co</strong>mmendations are <strong>co</strong>ntained in Section 5.7.2.1. Their revised soil andrehabilitation strategy as outlined in Section 4.11 allows for deeper soil layers which would allow betterpotential for establishing a variety of agricultural or other end land uses, reduced water ingress and thusa reduced need for post closure water. The current water balance is based on the less stringent soilstriping and replacement regime (thinner reinstated soil layers) as was presented in the draft <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong>and thus represents a case that is expected to be worse in terms of water treatment requirements.Although current information indicates that the deeper reinstated soil layers would reduce water ingressand the need for water treatment, AAIC has <strong>co</strong>mmissioned Jones & Wagener to investigate the potentialreduction of water infiltration based on the depth of the reinstated soil layer and the benefits of theimproved soil management and rehabilitation in terms of post closure water treatment.AAIC Long-Term Responsibility and Ac<strong>co</strong>untability for Long-Term Water TreatmentSection 38 of the MPRDA states that the directors of a <strong>co</strong>mpany are jointly and severally liable for anyunacceptable negative impact on the environment, including damage, degradation or pollutionadvertently or inadvertently caused by the <strong>co</strong>mpany which they represent or represented. Legally it canalso be argued that the net effect of the NEMA (Section 28), the NWA (Section 19), the MPRDA andcurrent DMR practice is that <strong>co</strong>mpanies can be held liable for environmental damage or <strong>co</strong>sts long afterthey cease operations. So it is highly unlikely that AAIC will evade liability for environmental damage or<strong>co</strong>sts associated with the New Largo Colliery.4.8 Water Supply4.8.1 Construction PhasePotable water for <strong>co</strong>nstruction will be obtained from the first 4Ml/day mobile WTP that will be establishedas part of the Phola-Kusile Coal Conveyor project (Stage 1 of AAIC’s <strong>co</strong>al supply to Kusile). Potablewater during <strong>co</strong>nstruction phase of the New Largo Colliery will also be sourced from this first mobileWTP. The source of water for the <strong>co</strong>nstruction phase will therefore mostly be from the underground mineworkings.23The revised soil management and rehabilitation strategy adopted by AAIC is presented in Section 4.11 (under the heading Project Description) whilethe earlier, less stringent strategy is presented in Section 5.7.2.2 as a now outdated development alternative (under the heading DevelopmentAlternatives).New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)112
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices4.8.2 Operational PhaseAs for the <strong>co</strong>nstruction phase, all water will be sourced from the underground workings and from in-pit and onsitewater make. Contaminated mine water will be treated at the WTP.A portion of the treated water will be used as potable water and stored in a water reservoir (1Ml), fromwhere water will be pumped to an elevated water tank (250Kl) and gravitated via a pipeline to areticulation system to provide potable water at buildings, offices, workshops, operations at Tips 1 and 2,green rooms, and the explosives magazine, while the remainder will be released into the environment asper the re<strong>co</strong>mmendations of the hydrological specialist study.Potable water from the WTP will be used to supply the potable water requirements for the mine,including dust and fire suppression on the <strong>co</strong>nveyor systems. Treated water, not chlorinated, will be usedfor wash-down water in the plant.Water for dust suppression on the haul roads will be sourced from a bulk water storage dam, which willbe supplied from a balancing dam at the WTP.The expected water use quantities are supplied in the Water Balance, Section 4.15.4.9 Water Management FacilitiesThe planned water management facilities are detailed below. All structures discussed below areillustrated on the maps and drawings provided in Appendix T, <strong>EIA</strong> Volume 7.4.9.1 Waste Water ManagementDomestic and sewage waste water will be <strong>co</strong>mbined and treated together. Domestic waste water will<strong>co</strong>nsist of grey water, which is defined as waste water generated from domestic activities such aswashing. Sewage waste water will <strong>co</strong>nsist of black water, which is defined as water that <strong>co</strong>ntains faecalmatter and urine.The sewage system to be implemented will <strong>co</strong>nsist of a low maintenance bio filter sewage treatmentplant, Model 300, supplied by Be<strong>co</strong>n Watertech. The system will <strong>co</strong>nsist of two modules; the first will bedesigned to handle 60kl/day for the first three years of operations, with a se<strong>co</strong>nd identical module tohandle the demand for the next seven years (i.e. the expected volume of sewage up to year 10).Thereafter, a se<strong>co</strong>nd rotor will be required for increased sewage volumes.This system will treat sewage from the offices, workshops, stores, greenrooms and other adminbuildings. The treated effluent will be pumped to the 36 Ml plant pollution <strong>co</strong>ntrol dam with sludge beingremoved off-site for disposal at a licensed facility, by <strong>co</strong>ntractors.During <strong>co</strong>nstruction, temporary sewage facilities will be required. These will <strong>co</strong>nsist of 8m 3 <strong>co</strong>nservancytanks at the <strong>co</strong>ntractor’s camp and offices, which will be emptied once a week and taken to a Municipaltreatment plant by a <strong>co</strong>ntractor.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)113
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices4.9.2 Storm Water ManagementStorm water that is generated around the mining area <strong>co</strong>nsists of clean and dirty runoff. These include:Clean runoff from clean catchments draining towards the mining activities and infrastructure.Measures will be implemented to ensure that significant clean water catchments are divertedaway from the workings. Clean water diversions and flood protection measures will be designedto ac<strong>co</strong>mmodate at least the 1:100 year event.Dirty runoff will be generated in the opencast and mine infrastructure areas. Measures will beimplemented to <strong>co</strong>ntain this runoff by directing it to the closest suitably lined pollution <strong>co</strong>ntroldam. Pollution <strong>co</strong>ntrol dams to be designed in ac<strong>co</strong>rdance to GN704/ GN77 to ac<strong>co</strong>mmodate the1:50 year event as a minimum (i.e. 2% risk of spillage) with 800 mm freeboard.Storm water management measures are discussed in more detail below.4.9.2.1 Storm Water and Seepage Management in Dirty AreasStorm water and dirty runoff from within the workshop <strong>co</strong>mplex, tip areas, crusher area, haul roads,ramps and discard dump will be <strong>co</strong>llected in a series of <strong>co</strong>ncrete lined canals and will be directed toeither the admin area pollution <strong>co</strong>ntrol dam (~15 Ml), plant area pollution <strong>co</strong>ntrol dam (~36 Ml) or the tip2 transfer dam (~10Ml) (Phase 2 Mining) or the discard dump pollution <strong>co</strong>ntrol dam (5 Ml) (Phase 2Mining), whichever is the closest dirty water <strong>co</strong>ntainment facility.These facilities are to be designed in ac<strong>co</strong>rdance to GN 704/ GN77, to ac<strong>co</strong>mmodate the 1:50 yearevent as a minimum (i.e. 2% risk of spillage) with 800 mm freeboard. The dams will be lined with a 2 mmthick HDPE liner and all inlet and outlet structures will <strong>co</strong>nsist of reinforced <strong>co</strong>ncrete.A silt trap will be provided upstream of each of the dams, to minimise the silting of the dams, in particularat the workshop, wash bay and stockpile areas. Oil traps will also be provided at the workshops.The ROM stockpile area and emergency ROM stockpile area will have a herringbone drainage system,where sub surface drainage will be <strong>co</strong>llected in a sump, with a manhole provided for monitoring andsampling. This water will be gravitated to the pollution <strong>co</strong>ntrol dams.There will be three borrow pits from which material will be used during the <strong>co</strong>nstruction phase. These areindicated on the drawings in Appendix T (<strong>EIA</strong> Volume 7).4.9.2.2 Storm Water Management in Clean AreasRunoff from clean catchments draining towards the mining areas will be diverted around the mining area,minimising clean runoff into the opencast and onto the mine infrastructure areas. These will be in theform of clean water cut-off canals and berms. Clean water diversions and flood protection measures willbe designed to ac<strong>co</strong>mmodate at least the 1:50 year event.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)114
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices4.9.3 Pollution Control FacilitiesPollution <strong>co</strong>ntrol facilities will include storm water drainage and pumping facilities to direct dirty water tothe pollution <strong>co</strong>ntrol dams. The following pollution <strong>co</strong>ntrol dams are planned:Eight pit transfer (five for Phase 1 Mining and three for Phase 2 Mining) dams (~5 Ml each) for pitdewatering. These will be located at the tops of the opencast pit ramps. Water will be pumpedfrom the pit to the pit transfer dams and from there via a silt trap to one of the five <strong>co</strong>mpartmentsof the 1200Ml storage dam prior to treatment.There will be three main pollution <strong>co</strong>ntrol dams with silt traps, namely the admin area pollution<strong>co</strong>ntrol dam (~15 Ml), Plant Area Pollution Control Dam (36 Ml) and the tip 2 transfer dam(Phase 2 Mining, ~10 Ml) , towards which polluted water will be direct via <strong>co</strong>ncrete lined canals.During the Phase 2 Mining, the discard dump will drain into the discard dump pollution <strong>co</strong>ntroldam (~5 Ml) and water will gravitate to the silt trap upstream of the ~1200 Ml storage dam.A holding dam at the discard dump will also <strong>co</strong>llect polluted water (runoff and seepage from thediscard dump) which will be directed to one of the five <strong>co</strong>mpartments of the1200Ml storage damprior to treatment.A 100 Ml balancing dam, downstream of the 1200 Ml dam, from where water gravitate to theWTP. The 1200 Ml dams are integrated with and upstream of the balancing dam.A ‘final void dam’, located in the north western portion of the northern opencast pit, foremergency storage during extreme rainfall periods. This dam will only be utilised when there isinsufficient capacity in the 1200 Ml dam. In this event water will be pumped from the balancingdam to the final void dam. The final void dam and will be rehabilitated during de<strong>co</strong>mmissioning ofthe mine.All pollution <strong>co</strong>ntrol dams to be designed to cater for the expected run-off from the dirty waterfootprints as well as mine water make for at least the 1:50 year rainfall events in ac<strong>co</strong>rdance withGN704/GN 77, with 800mm freeboard.WTP, treating impacted mine water from the old underground workings as well as new workings.The pollution <strong>co</strong>ntrol dams, silt traps and a brine pond should be fenced off and equipped with therelevant safety aspects such as lifebuoys and flotation devices.4.9.4 Dust SuppressionPotable water from the WTP will be used for dust suppression, i.e. at bulk material handling systems, aswell as for fire water. Treated water, not chlorinated, will be used as wash down water on the <strong>co</strong>nveyorsand at the tips.Dirty water will be pumped from the 100 Ml balancing dam to a 10 Ml bulk water storage system at the<strong>co</strong>al processing plant for processing purposes.Dust suppression water for the haul roads and stockpiles will also be drawn from this dam (dirty water).New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)115
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices4.9.5 Water DischargesA preliminary assessment was done of the discharge points by the Hydrological Specialist based onsurface water run-off <strong>co</strong>nsiderations only and assuming proportional discharge amongst the affectedstreams (see Appendix G). During this assessment, the proportional loss of catchment was determinedat key stages in the life of mine. The proportional flow reduction was based entirely on the affectedcatchment areas (i.e. the assumption that the flow reduction will be directly proportional to the catchmentarea lost as a result of mining and mining related activities). A total of 16 discharge points were identifiedon this basis.The final discharge volume and positions are, however, subject to the out<strong>co</strong>me of the ReserveDetermination that is being <strong>co</strong>nducted by Wetland Consulting Services (WCS). The expected date of<strong>co</strong>mpletion is May 2013 and in light of the timeframes of the project and the issuing of the water uselicense, the preliminary discharge points are included in the IWWMP and IWULA.The Reserve Determination study will <strong>co</strong>nsider the E<strong>co</strong>logical Water Requirement at key sites along thestreams, close to the outlet of each of the preliminary identified Resource Units (RU’s), and will notprovide details for each affected stream. The approach will therefore more likely focus on the <strong>co</strong>mbineddischarge flows that will affect a particular E<strong>co</strong>logical Water Requirement site downstream.Wetland Consulting Services has, however, indicated that the distribution of discharge volume amongstthe preliminary positions referred to above seems to make sense from a mitigation perspective and thecurrent understanding of the potential impacts on the water resources. The proposed approach is likelyto reduce the flow volumes into each of the affected systems, thereby reducing the risks of erosion atany particular site. Furthermore, it serves as an attempt to restore some flow in those systems impactedby mining and dewatering in their watersheds. It may also have the added benefit of buffering waterquality impacts across a wider front along the Wilge River and Saalklapspruit (reference: e-mail<strong>co</strong>mmunication dated 30 May 2012).Should the out<strong>co</strong>me of the Reserve Determination study result in changes to the preliminary list ofdischarge points, such changes will be addressed in an application for a water use licence amendment.4.10 Waste Management FacilitiesThe New Largo Colliery will produce overburden, waste rock and <strong>co</strong>al discards, as well as variousgeneral and ha<strong>za</strong>rdous wastes associated with and incidental to mining including demolition waste,<strong>co</strong>nstruction waste, scrap steel, office and kitchen waste, sewerage, WTP waste, and ha<strong>za</strong>rdous wastesfrom workshops and other areas where ha<strong>za</strong>rdous substances will be used.4.10.1 Mineralogical Waste4.10.1.1 SpoilsSpoils (overburden and interburden) from the box-cuts will be placed on an overburden stockpile to thewest of the mining operation. Once sufficient space has been created behind the strip being mined, liveplacement of topsoil and overburden will take place and each <strong>co</strong>nsecutive strip will be dealt with in a<strong>co</strong>ntinuous roll-over mining methodNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)116
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesAt the end of the life of the mine, the initial stockpiled material removed from the initial box-cut will beused in the rehabilitation of the final mining areas.4.10.1.2 Coal DiscardsCoal mined during the initial years of the New Largo Colliery (Mining Phase 1), will not requirebeneficiation and no <strong>co</strong>al discard (<strong>co</strong>al processing plant waste) will be generated.With Mining Phase 2, when mining operations move to poorer quality <strong>co</strong>al in the central and southern pitareas, a <strong>co</strong>al processing plant will be required. The overall yield per saleable tonne after thebeneficiation plant is installed in 2023 / 2019 (Mining Phase 2) is estimated to be in the region of 85%.This implies that 15% of the raw material feed to the processing plant will be removed as <strong>co</strong>al discard.The total estimated discards generated over the life of New Largo will be in the region of ~94 milliontonnes (Mt). Following a <strong>co</strong>nservative approach, disposal facilities for 100 Mt of <strong>co</strong>al discard is beingplanned.Two methods of disposing of the <strong>co</strong>al discards will be used:A temporary on-surface <strong>co</strong>al discard disposal facility (discard dump), to ac<strong>co</strong>mmodate ~10 Mt of<strong>co</strong>al discard, will be developed on a mined out section of the opencast mine pit whereoverburden has been replaced. This facility will be used during circumstances when in-pit discarddisposal is not possible. It will be located in the southern portion of the northern mining area (asindicated on drawings in Appendix T). The material will eventually be backfilled into the pit.All <strong>co</strong>al discards will be backfilled into the mine pit. Discard will be disposed of in three<strong>co</strong>mpartments as indicated in Figure 4-3 below. The discard will be backfilled to the pit by evenlyspreading it on the No. 2 <strong>co</strong>al seam floor (bottom <strong>co</strong>al seam). Details for each <strong>co</strong>mpartment areprovided in Table 4-2. Provision is made for 100 Mt of discard into the pit.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)117
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesSource: AAIC, 2011New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)Figure 4-3: In-Pit Discard Disposal and Decant Points118
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesTable 4-2: Details for in-pit discarding <strong>co</strong>mpartmentsCompartment number Location Period in use Amount of discard Thickness of discardCompartment 1 North pit 2023 – 2039 6.3 million tonnes 0.45 mCompartment 2 Central pit 2023 – 2063 82.7 million tonnes 2.2 mCompartment 3 South pit 2043 – 2058 4.8 million tonnes 0.5 m4.10.2 Non Mineralogical Waste Incidental to MiningA list of wastes requiring a waste management license is provided in Section 2.2.4. The EMP deals withthe management of all the different waste streams. The following general waste streams have beenidentified.4.10.2.1 Waste Disposal Handling AreaA large, centrally situated waste disposal handling area will be located within the New Largo plant area.The floor will be <strong>co</strong>ncreted and the sides bunded to prevent any polluted substances leaving the site. Allwaste, both domestic and ha<strong>za</strong>rdous will be taken from where it is generated and stored within the wastedisposal handling area. The domestic waste will be separated and sorted into <strong>co</strong>lour <strong>co</strong>ded bins, fromwhere it will be removed by a <strong>co</strong>ntractor. Ha<strong>za</strong>rdous waste, (such as used oils, lubricants and grease)will be transported from where it is generated in areas such as the workshops and wash bays to thewaste disposal handling area. The waste will be stored in drums or other suitable <strong>co</strong>ntainers andremoved by a <strong>co</strong>ntractor to a licensed ha<strong>za</strong>rdous waste disposal facility. New Largo Colliery will developa waste management strategy which will address all aspects of waste storage, handling, recycling andreuse.General waste will include general office waste such as paper and other degradable materials, which willbe disposed of off-site at a licensed facility.Ha<strong>za</strong>rdous waste to be managed includes oily wastes from the servicing areas, plant and workshops,petroleum products, used cleaning materials and other materials used in the plant and workshops areas,light bulbs (including fluorescent tubes which are regarded as ha<strong>za</strong>rdous) and electronic waste. Thiswaste will be removed by an appropriate licensed waste <strong>co</strong>mpany for disposal off site.4.10.2.2 Sewage Treatment PlantA sewage treatment plant will be required to treat sewage from the office and change house. Thesewage plant (Model 300) will be located on the western side of the New Largo plant area. The plant willbe a biological filter treatment plant and will adequately cater for the approximately 1235 employeesduring the mine’s operational phase. The effluent water will be treated at the WTP, while sewage sludgewill be removed at intervals by a <strong>co</strong>ntractor and disposed of at a licensed waste disposal facility.4.10.2.3 Waste Tyre Storage AreaUsed tyres will be stored in a waste tyre storage area located towards the eastern side of the New Largoplant area. Where required, se<strong>co</strong>nd-hand tyres will be used in road demarcation. The used tyres will beremoved from site by a <strong>co</strong>ntractor and disposed of at a licensed facility.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)119
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices4.10.2.4 Wash BaysThere will be three wash bays on site, for the cleaning of vehicles, equipment and machinery. They arelocated adjacent to each other on the eastern side of the New Largo plant area. Dirty water from thewater bays will be <strong>co</strong>llected in silt traps and transported to a pollution <strong>co</strong>ntrol dam. Oil traps will beprovided to capture hydrocarbons.4.10.2.5 Silt TrapsIt is currently estimated that ~27 silt traps will be required. They will be located throughout the plant areawhere ever dirty and/or polluted water may be generated. These areas include <strong>co</strong>al stockpiles, washbays, the waste disposal handling area and internal <strong>co</strong>al <strong>co</strong>nveyors. The silt traps will <strong>co</strong>llect all dirtywater from an area, from where it will be piped via an underground pipe system to the closest pollution<strong>co</strong>ntrol dam. Silt traps will be cleaned when required and as per a specific procedures that will bedeveloped as one of a number detailed EMP procedures.4.10.2.6 Waste from WTPA se<strong>co</strong>nd 4 Ml mobile WTP will be located adjacent to the first 4 Ml mobile WTP. The WTPs treat waterfrom old underground mine workings in the area and dirty water generated at the New Largo Colliery.The unused portion of the water will be discharged to streams. The water that is to be treated will beabstracted from three boreholes in the vicinity of the site. The technology that will be implemented at theWTP has not been selected and therefore the waste streams that will be generated are not known at thisstage.The WTP may produce brine, depending on the type of treatment technology used. Provision has beenmade to dispose of the brine in an engineered facility, suitably lined ac<strong>co</strong>rding to the standards fordisposal of ha<strong>za</strong>rdous waste in a lagoon(for more detail, please refer to the DWA Se<strong>co</strong>nd EditionMinimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill, 1998).The plant will also produce gypsum waste, which requires storage prior to final off-site disposal at alicensed waste disposal/management facility. A suitably lined and engineered gypsum storage facility willbe provided for the temporary storage of gypsum.Note that the impacts associated with the waste generated from the two mobile treatment plants (i.e.brine and gypsum storage and transportation are detailed in a separate Surface Water Specialist ImpactAssessment <strong>Report</strong> (Jones & Wagener <strong>Report</strong> No. JW119/11/C184), <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong>, IWULA and IWWMPfor the Phola-Kusile Coal Conveyor (a separate project for Stage 1 of AAIC’s <strong>co</strong>al supply to Kusile).Although gypsum will be removed from site during the initial years of operation, alternative measures willbe used once the permanent water treatment plant has been developed. AAIC intends to backfill thegypsum into the mine pit during the operation of the mine. There is also potential for gypsum to be usedas part of the rehabilitation process to reduce water infiltration.Gypsum will still be produced post closure and at this stage the gypsum will again be removed from siteunless approvals for other management measures have been obtained.4.10.2.7 Demolition rubble, including road demolition rubble (from the demolition of a section ofthe R545Various buildings and structures currently exist throughout the proposed mining area. These structures will need to bedemolished before mining can take place. Inert rubble and building waste will be stockpiled and will either be re-used, forNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)120
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesexample as fill material or as road building material, or it will be disposed of into the mine pit. Ha<strong>za</strong>rdous materials will bedisposed of in terms of AAIC’s waste management strategy (see EMP, Section 13).A section of the existing R545 road will also be demolished and the road demolition rubble will be stockpiled on site beforebeing re-used, for example as road building material on site, or for the building of roads in the surrounding areas. If no futureuse for the material can be found, it may have to be disposed of into the mine pit. General and ha<strong>za</strong>rdous waste will beseparated into different stockpiles and will be disposed of in terms of AAIC’s waste management strategy (see EMP, Section13). There are currently no fixed locations for the positions of the stockpiles since the locations of the stockpiles will depend onwhere the material will be re-used or disposed of. This will only be known at the time of demolition of the road. Suitablepositions for the stockpiles will be sought, which are outside of the 1:100 year flood line, more than 500 m away from anywetland and outside of any critical biodiversity areas. These stockpiles will be temporary of nature as the material will be reusedand/or backfilled into the mine pits.4.11 Soil Management and RehabilitationSoil management and rehabilitation efforts during operation of the mine dictates, to a large degree, theend land use capability and potential for establishing sustainable agricultural end land uses (within the<strong>co</strong>ntext of the baseline soil types, climatic <strong>co</strong>nditions and land capability).I&APs were <strong>co</strong>ncerned that <strong>co</strong>nventional soil management and rehabilitation measures currently used atopencast most <strong>co</strong>al mines (as depicted in Figure 4-5), are not achieving the desired post mining landcapability and the EMP <strong>co</strong>mmitments of these mines. Since New Largo Colliery occupies an extensivearea – the opencast mining area (mine pits) will occupy 5600 hectares for Mine Plan Version 6, it wouldhave a notable <strong>co</strong>ntribution to the cumulative impact of <strong>co</strong>al mining on food production on the Highveld.The opencast mining area falls within the total mining right area that is 12 773 hectares in size.The merits of the specialist re<strong>co</strong>mmendations presented in Section 5.7.2.1 and AAIC’s draft strategy inSection 5.7.2.2 were discussed between AAIC, the EAP and the various specialists. Comments receivedfrom authorities and I&APs on the draft <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong> were also <strong>co</strong>nsidered. Based on the results of<strong>co</strong>mments received and discussions with the specialist team, AAIC adopted an amended soilmanagement and rehabilitation strategy for New Largo Colliery as presented below:The soil management and rehabilitation strategy that AAIC adopted for New Largo is in ac<strong>co</strong>rdance withbest practice and allows for the reinstated soil depths to be optimised. In essence, the strategy involvessequential pre-stripping of soft overburden clay material placed separately on top of the levelledoverburden, with utilisable soils placed on top of the clay material. The strategy has been developedwithin the limitations presented by dragline mining operations (AAIC’s reasons for using draglines areexplained in Section 5.4). The key steps to this sequence are:1. All Utilisable soils are pre-stripped using shovels and trucks, replaced on top of levelledoverburden (in some cases this will be on the pre-stripped soft overburden clay materials).2. Soft overburden clay material are pre-stripped using shovels and trucks, and replaced on topof levelled overburden.3. Remainder of overburden moved by dragline. Reshaping and levelling, <strong>co</strong>mpaction andgrading to facilitate storm water drainage and prevent erosion and ponding of water.Additional rehabilitation steps as per EMP (Appendix B).Figure 4-5 graphically explains the AAIC adopted soil management and rehabilitation strategy (C) with<strong>co</strong>nventional soil management (B) and pre mining <strong>co</strong>nditions (A).For the purposes of the New Largo soil management and rehabilitation strategy, the following definitionsare loosely applied:New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)121
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesUtili<strong>za</strong>ble Soil:Topsoil and upper portion of subsoil (A and B horizon). For the New Largo <strong>co</strong>al reserve, thislayer is 0 to 1.6 metres deep, with an average of 0.95 metres.Soft Overburden:In mining terminology, ‘Softs’ represent material that can be ripped and removed by miningequipment without the need of explosives to firstly fracture the material. For the purposes of theNew Largo Colliery <strong>EIA</strong> and EMP, Soft Overburden excludes the Utilisable Soils (as definedabove) and is defined as the layer below the utilisable soil extending down to the base horizonof friable weathering. The base horizon of friable weathering represents the <strong>co</strong>ntact horizonbetween the free ‘digable’ soils and the more <strong>co</strong>mpetent intact sediments. At New Largo, thesoft overburden is associated with extensive clay material. These clays are of specific interest inthe soil management and rehabilitation strategy for New Largo Colliery, as explained below.Hard Overburden:Moderately weathered material and <strong>co</strong>mpetent intact sediments.Reinstated soil depthPost mining depth of the utilisable soil and soft overburden placed over the hard overburden /<strong>co</strong>al discard / carbonaceous materials. Where soft overburden has been mixed with hardoverburden, <strong>co</strong>al discards or carbonaceous materials, it is not regarded as part of the reinstatedsoil layer.Figure 4-4: Example of A and B Soil Horizons (for Avalon Soil Form)Figure 4-5 graphically explains the AAIC adopted soil management and rehabilitation strategy (C) with<strong>co</strong>nventional soil management (B) and current baseline <strong>co</strong>nditions (A):New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)122
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesA: Pre Mining ConditionsUtilisable SoilSoft Overburden MaterialHard Overburden MaterialB: Conventional / Current Soil Management andRehabilitationSoil management and rehabilitation Process:1. Utilisable soils stripped using shovels and trucks,then replaced over mixed overburden.2. Soft and hard overburden moved by dragline(mixed).21Post Mining Conditions:1. Utilisable soil layer.2. Mixed soft and hard overburden layer.12C: Best Practice SoilManagement and RehabilitationSoil management and rehabilitation Process:1. All Utilisable soils are pre-stripped using shovels andtrucks, replaced on top of leveled overburden (insome cases this will be on the pre-stripped softoverburden clay materials).2. Soft overburden clay material are pre-stripped usingshovels and trucks, and replaced on top of leveledoverburden.3. Remainder of overburden moved by dragline.Reshaping and leveling, <strong>co</strong>mpaction and grading tofacilitate storm water drainage and prevent erosionand ponding of water.321Post Mining Conditions:1. Top utilisable soil layer.2. Soft overburden layer.3. Hard overburden layer.123Figure 4-5: Soil Management and Rehabilitation Sequence (A: Pre Mining Conditions, B:Conventional Soil Management and Rehabilitation, C: Best Practice Soil Management andRehabilitation Adopted for New Largo Colliery)Based on available soil data, the thickness of the Utili<strong>za</strong>ble Soil portion are illustrated in Figure 4-6below. The average thickness of this utilisable soil layer across the New Largo <strong>co</strong>al reserve is estimatedto be ~0.95 metres.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)123
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesFigure 4-6: Depth of Utilisable Soil (topsoil and upper portion of subsoil) (A and B horizons)There are several areas within the New Largo <strong>co</strong>al reserve indicating zones of deep weatheringassociated with unstable and extremely weathered clay material. While presenting safety risks andoperational difficulties, these materials present major opportunities for rehabilitation. Sequential prestrippingof these clay materials was introduced not only to address the safety risks and operationaldifficulties but to improve the capacity of the soils to retain water, improve rehabilitation and optimise endland use potential, without <strong>co</strong>mpromising post mining water quality.Figure 4-7: Depth to Bottom of Friable Weathering HorizonNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)124
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesBased on available geotechnical information 24 , depths to the bottom of the soft overburden <strong>co</strong>uld becalculated based on the geologically defined depth of friable overburden as depicted in Figure 4-6. Theaverage <strong>co</strong>mbined stripping depth of the utilisable soils and soft overburden across the <strong>co</strong>al reserve isestimated to be ~3.8 metres, as indicated in Figure 4-8.The estimated reinstated post mining soil depth is depicted in Figure 4-9. In most instances, it willexceed 2.0 metres. These deeper soil layers will improve water retention capability, and will reduce thewater that will permeate through the spoils into the pit, thus less water will need to be pumped to theWTP and treated.In order to restore soil functionality, planning for subsurface water movement is vital as most of thelateral water movement takes place in the first 2.0 metres of the soil. With the AAIC adopted strategy,there is a good chance that subsurface water movement might be achievable.Combined stripping of different soil types will be in ac<strong>co</strong>rdance with guidance by the soil and agriculturalspecialist, with reference to their re<strong>co</strong>mmendations in Section 5.7. The <strong>co</strong>mbination of soil types will bereviewed and revised over the life of the mine, as required by the occurrence of different soil types foundwithin the <strong>co</strong>al reserve.Figure 4-8: Estimated Total Soil StrippingDepth (Combined Depth of Utilisable Soiland Pre-Stripped Soft Overburden)Figure 4-9: Estimated Total Reinstated SoilDepth (Combined Depth of Utilisable Soil andPre-Stripped Soft Overburden)4.12 Post Mining TopographyDuring the operational phase, the infrastructure and overburden dumps will be visible on surface. Postclosure, it is planned to use the overburden dump material to backfill the final pits and voids. The <strong>co</strong>al24The extent and nature of the soft material was documented through 16 geotechnical boreholes drilled within the northern portion of the <strong>co</strong>al reserve.Based on the interpretation of these boreholes, a weathering pattern and the depth of the clay material was established. The boreholes were <strong>co</strong>nfinedto the northern portion of the <strong>co</strong>al reserve where initial mining will be <strong>co</strong>nducted. Further drilling will be required at a later stage to validate the currentinformation for the remainder of the <strong>co</strong>al reserve.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)125
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesprocessing infrastructure will be removed if it cannot be re-utilised for agriculture or some suitablepurpose in line with the final land use. The topography around the opencast area will be rehabilitated andmade free draining. The post mining topography will be, significantly altered from the pre-miningtopography. Figure 4-10 illustrates the principles for the post mining topography.AAIC’s proposed post mining topography is presented below. Figure 4-10 presents a <strong>co</strong>mposite map ofthe entire mining area and Figure 4-11 to Figure 4-14 shows details of the various individual mine pits.The figures are for Mine Plan Version 6, as this is AAIC’s base case mine plan.The landforms are depicted are based on the following: Overburden swell = 1.2. Inter-burden swell = 1.25. Steepest slope = 1:7. Drainage path slope = 1: 300.Any ponding in spoils will be re-directed to a drainage path.Post mining topography will be undulating with free draining ramp and final void scars.All high walls, low walls and end cuts to be sloped to reduce differential settlement betweenblasted and un-blasted material.~100 Mt of discard will be backfilled into the mine pit.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)126
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesFigure 4-10: Post Mining Topography (Mine Plan Version 6)New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)127
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesFigure 4-11: Post Mining Topography – NorthernPit Ramps A5 - A2 (Mine Plan Version 6)Figure 4-12: Post Mining Topography – NorthernPit Ramps A1, C2, C1 (Mine Plan Version 6)`Figure 4-13: Post Mining Topography – CentralPit Ramps E1 – E4 & D1 (Mine Plan Version 6)Figure 4-14: Post Mining Topography – South PitRamps F1, F2, J1 (Mine Plan Version 6)4.13 Water<strong>co</strong>urse CrossingsThe mining area is located on the watershed. Various drainage lines are proposed to be mined through,and in such cases no upstream catchment will remain post mining. As such, there will be no water<strong>co</strong>ursealterations during mining or post mining. The impact of mining the drainage lines is discussed in theimpact assessment (Section 8).New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)128
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesWater<strong>co</strong>urse crossings therefore include alterations due to the R545 provincial road re-alignment andany haul road crossings.More detail on water<strong>co</strong>urse crossings can be found in the IWULA documentation.AAIC’s strategy for mitigation of wetland impacts are discussed in Section 5.12 and Appendix U.4.14 Water Flow DiagramsThe water flow diagram for the New Largo Colliery was developed by Semane Consulting Engineers andcan be seen in in the drawings in Appendix T (<strong>EIA</strong> Volume 7). The flow diagram shows the plannedreticulation of polluted and treated water at New Largo.4.15 Water BalanceThe draft <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong> presented a <strong>co</strong>mparison of the water balance for Mine Plan Version 6 and MinePlan Version 7A. In this final <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong>, Mine Plan Version 7A has been replaced with Mine PlanVersion 7D.Information in this section has been extracted from the Specialist Groundwater Impact Assessment(Appendix H) by JMA Groundwater and, the Surface Water Impact Assessment (Appendix G) by Jones& Wagener.The mine water balance is a key <strong>co</strong>mponent of the Specialist Groundwater Surface Water ImpactAssessment, as well as in mine planning. This is particularly true for New Largo Colliery as mining will beundertaken through old underground mine workings that are currently flooded and decanting at a rate of~1.5 Ml/day or more (Ja<strong>co</strong> Van Den Berg, JMA Groundwater Specialist).The water balance was developed by Jones & Wagener in <strong>co</strong>njunction with JMA who provided inputs ongroundwater. The water balance has been <strong>co</strong>mpiled using mapping, the life of mine plans (Version 6 andVersion 7D), as well as water flow data provided by AAIC and Semane Consulting Engineers.Water balances for both Mine Plan Version 6 and Version 7D are provided for <strong>co</strong>mparative purposes toinform the final decision on which mine plan to adopt. The water balance is used is by AAIC for planningpurposes, in terms of sizing and phasing of water management facilities, as well as scheduling of WTP.It also provides input to the Surface Water Specialist Impact Assessment <strong>Report</strong>, the <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong>(MPRDA, NEMA and NDEA) and the IWULA and IWWMP (NWA) in support of the environmentalapplications for the mine.The water balance study <strong>co</strong>mputational methodology, input data sources and calculation of rainfallextremes are listed in the Specialist Groundwater Surface Water Impact Assessment (Appendix H).Key assumptions and limitations for developing the water balance are listed in Section 3.11.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)129
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices4.15.1 Water Make4.15.1.1 Overall Water MakeThe water balance is shown in the form of a schematic flow diagram in Figure 4-15 to Figure 4-17 forMine Plan Version 6, and Figure 4-18 to Figure 4-20 for Mine Plan Version 7D.These figures show the average water make over the entire life of mine. The third sheet for each MinePlan Version (Figure 4-17 for Mine Plan Version 6 and Figure 4-20 for Mine Plan Version 7) shows theaverage water make for each mining area during its individual mining period.The <strong>co</strong>mbined average water make due to the mining activities is given in Figure 4-21 and Figure 4-22over the life of the mine, showing the predicted seasonal variation for Mine Plan Version 6 and Version 7respectively. As with previous estimates, the net water make was adjusted to be in line with theexperience of net water make on other AAIC / Version 7 opencast mines in the general area with a finalwater make in the order of 20% of rainfall (post closure).The expected maximum and post closure water makes are presented in the table below.The individual water makes for each opencast pit are shown in Figure 4-23 and Figure 4-24.Table 4-3: Expected Mine Water Make 25Mine Plan Version 6Mine Plan Version 7DMaximum water make (Ml/day) 23.7 21.0Post closure water make (Ml/day) 22.1 19.225Draft <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong> figures were for Mine Plan Version 6 and 7A. Figures in this final <strong>EIA</strong> have been updated for Mine Plan Version 6 and 7D as MinePlan Version 7D replaced Version 7A.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)130
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesJones & W agenerC o n s u l t i n g C i v i l E n g i n e e r s59 Bevan Road PO Box 1434 Rivonia 2128 South AfricaTel: (011) 519-0200 Fax: (011) 803-1456 email: post@jaws.<strong>co</strong>.<strong>za</strong>WATER BALANCE (Sheet 1 of 3)Runoff603Client: Anglo <strong>co</strong>alOur Ref: C184Rainfall Used: AverageJob: LOM Version 6: Nov 2011 Set no.: 1Analysis period: 2014 to 2065New LargoMade by:EMP Analysis Date:01 December 2011Run time:01/12/2011 09:26RainfallEvaporation14 Storage-123Pump593Pump5844MPRainfallEvaporation4058All flows in m3/dayVolume pumpedfrom the pit5862Clean Catchmentrunoff42LEGENDRainfall on pits and ramps492Dirty WaterClean WaterSpoils runoff190Rehab runoff0Freedraining runoff2468Peak rateWorkshop - Admin Area (Offices,Workshops, Hard Park)BTreated sewage effluent118Dam 1 - Admin Area PCD (15Ml)RainfallEvaporation30North Pit RampTransfer Dams(4 No, 5 Ml each)16742Peak monthly volumepumped1419Groundwaterseepage3460260Opencast Pit 1 - North - A, C, GRehab infiltrationSpoils seepagePlant area 1 - Coal ProcessingPlantDiscard Dump 1 - EmergencyDiscard DumpRunoffRunoff & Seepage48386 Storage482Runoff & Seepage-4Dam 2 - Plant Area PCD (36Ml)RainfallEvaporation4061Emergency Discard DumpHolding Dam (##Ml)Pump182 Storage160-1OverflowPump5763Pump1036RainfallEvaporation4058North Pit RampTransfer Dams(4 No, 5 Ml each)RainfallEvaporation2029Volume pumpedfrom the pit578124869Peak monthly volumepumpedVolume pumpedfrom the pit1045Clean Catchmentrunoff381299GroundwaterseepageClean Catchmentrunoff9Rainfall on pits and ramps1061Spoils runoff144Opencast Pit 2 - South - D, ERainfall on pits and ramps91Spoils runoff39Rehab runoff03041198Freedraining runoff2000Rehab runoff0Rehab infiltrationSpoils seepageFreedraining runoff402Coal stockpiles - 1 - MainStockpile111North Pit RampTransfer Dams(2 No, 5 Ml each)6738Peak monthly volumepumped250GroundwaterseepageOpencast Pit 3 - South - F60253Rehab infiltrationSpoils seepageRunoffTip 1331356Pump335RainfallEvaporation2029Volume pumpedfrom the pit344Clean Catchmentrunoff5Rainfall on pits and ramps50Spoils runoff30Rehab runoff0Freedraining runoff96Coal stockpiles - 2 - Tip 1Emergency Stockpile25Runoff & SeepageA14680Collection to Page 20RoundingadjustmentNorth Pit RampTransfer Dams(2 No, 5 Ml each)4366Peak monthly volumepumped74GroundwaterseepageOpencast Pit 4 - South - H14441Rehab infiltrationSpoils seepageFigure 4-15: Schematic flow diagram – Mine Plan Version 6 – Sheet 1 of 3 (Appendix G, Figure 5.6.1a)New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)131
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesJones & W agenerC o n s u l t i n g C i v i l E n g i n e e r s59 Bevan Road PO Box 1434 Rivonia 2128 South AfricaTel: (011) 519-0200 Fax: (011) 803-1456 email: post@jaws.<strong>co</strong>.<strong>za</strong>WATER BALANCE (Sheet 2 of 3)Client: Anglo <strong>co</strong>alOur Ref: C184Rainfall Used: AverageJob: LOM Version 6: Nov 2011 Set no.: 1Analysis period: 2014 to 2065New LargoEMP AnalysisMade by:Date:MP02 December 2011All flows in m3/dayRun time:02/12/2011 16:18LEGENDDirty WaterClean WaterPeak rateTip 2Coal stockpiles - 3 - Tip 2Emergency Stockpile21Runoff & SeepageRunoff321Evaporation60Rainfall36 Storage2Dam 3 - Tip 2 Transfer Dam (10Ml)PumpAccumulated inflowto 1200 Ml Dam15901320Collection from Page 114680APump160Pump from UG741Evaporation Rainfall2920North Pit RampTransfer Dams(2 No, 5 Ml each)Volume pumpedfrom the pit1691769Peak monthly volumepumpedClean Catchmentrunoff533GroundwaterseepageDewateringRainfall on pits and ramps36Spoils runoff16Opencast Pit 5 - South - JRehab runoff57220Freedraining runoff38Rehab infiltrationSpoils seepage407RainfallEvaporation301Water make373334Pump back fortreatment as capacitybe<strong>co</strong>mes available Storage015829Underground Mine 1 -Old workingsDam 5 - 1200 Ml Storage Dams(1200Ml)RainfallEvaporation 119Runoff15RainfallEvaporation651558New Largo Bulk WaterStorage (10 Ml)988Net use at <strong>co</strong>alprocessing plantCoal ProcessingPlant2051070Overflow tostorage in minespoils Storage71Dam 6 - <strong>Final</strong> Void Dam (1000Ml)0Overflow Storage1Dam 4 - Balancing Dam (100Ml)Dirty water fortreatment14294569Dust suppressionon haul roads715Water in gypsum /brine64Runoff from treatmentplant areaPlant area 2 - WaterTreatment Plant421Dust suppressionand washdownwater in plantB118Treated effluentdiescharge to PlantArea PCDNew Largo SewageTreatment Plant118SewagePotable use atNew Largo240122Consumption12918Distributeddischarge towater<strong>co</strong>ursesFigure 4-16: Schematic flow diagram – Mine Plan Version 6 – Sheet 2 of 3 (Appendix G, Figure 5.6.1b)New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)132
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesJones & W agenerC o n s u l t i n g C i v i l E n g i n e e r s59 Bevan Road PO Box 1434 Rivonia 2128 South AfricaTel: (011) 519-0200 Fax: (011) 803-1456 email: post@jaws.<strong>co</strong>.<strong>za</strong>WATER BALANCE (Sheet 3 of 3)Client: Anglo <strong>co</strong>alOur Ref: C184Rainfall Used: AverageJob: LOM Version 6: Nov 2011 Set no.: 1Analysis period: 2021 to 2065New LargoEMP AnalysisMade by:Date:MP01 December 2011All flows in m3/dayRun time:01/12/2011 09:50LEGENDDirty WaterClean WaterPeak rateOperational water balances for each pit:Water balance for each pit during its operational lifeVolume pumpedfrom the pit4958Clean Catchmentrunoff86Rainfall on pits and ramps987Spoils runoff368Rehab runoff0Freedraining runoff1188Volume pumpedfrom the pit988Clean Catchmentrunoff23Rainfall on pits and ramps254Spoils runoff122Rehab runoff0Freedraining runoff12816742Peak monthly volumepumped1018Groundwaterseepage1996504Rehab infiltrationSpoils seepage4366Peak monthly volumepumped176Groundwaterseepage245168Rehab infiltrationSpoils seepageNorth Pit - A, C, G - Operational period 2015 to 2039 Pit - H - Operational period 2050 to 2059Volume pumpedfrom the pit669524869Peak monthly volumepumpedClean Catchmentrunoff441505GroundwaterseepageRainfall on pits and ramps1228Spoils runoff166Rehab runoff03525228Freedraining runoff2318Rehab infiltrationSpoils seepageVolume pumpedfrom the pit6801769Peak monthly volumepumpedClean Catchmentrunoff10144GroundwaterseepageRainfall on pits and ramps105Spoils runoff59Rehab runoff280810Freedraining runoff186Rehab infiltrationSpoils seepageSouth Pit - D, E - Operational period 2021 to 2064 Pit - J - Operational period 2055 to 2064Volume pumpedfrom the pit17396738Peak monthly volumepumpedClean Catchmentrunoff31364GroundwaterseepageRainfall on pits and ramps311Spoils runoff117Rehab runoff0756160Freedraining runoff398Rehab infiltrationSpoils seepageDewatering407Water make334South Pit - F - Operational period 2040 to 2054 Old underground - 2015 to 2064 (Mined through from 2021 to 2064)Figure 4-17: Schematic flow diagram – Mine Plan Version 6 – Sheet 3 of 3 (Appendix G, Figure 5.6.1c)New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)133
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesJones & WagenerC o n s u l t i n g C i v i l E n g i n e e r s59 Bevan Road PO Box 1434 Rivonia 2128 South AfricaTel: (011) 519-0200 Fax: (011) 803-1456 email: post@jaws.<strong>co</strong>.<strong>za</strong>WATER BALANCE (Sheet 1 of 3)Runoff603Client: Anglo <strong>co</strong>alOur Ref: C184Rainfall Used: AverageJob: LOM Version 7d: Dec 2011 Set no.: 1Analysis period: 2014 to 2058 Storage-1New LargoMade by:EMP Analysis Date:30 January 2012Run time:30/01/2012 11:01Evaporation Rainfall2314Pump593Pump3602MPEvaporation Rainfall5840All flows in m3/dayVolume pumpedfrom the pit3620Clean Catchmentrunoff36LEGENDRainfall on pits and ramps344Dirty WaterClean WaterSpoils runoff155Rehab runoff0Freedraining runoff1444Peak rateWorkshop - Admin Area (Offices,Workshops, Hard Park)BTreated sewage effluent117Dam 1 - Admin Area PCD (15Ml)Evaporation Rainfall29North Pit RampTransfer Dams(4 No, 5 Ml each)10526Peak monthly volumepumped891Groundwaterseepage1982212Opencast Pit 1 - North - A, C, GRehab infiltrationSpoils seepagePlant area 1 - Coal ProcessingPlantDiscard Dump 1 - EmergencyDiscard DumpRunoffRunoff & Seepage48415 Storage511Runoff & Seepage-2Dam 2 - Plant Area PCD (36Ml)Evaporation Rainfall6240Emergency Discard DumpHolding Dam (##Ml)Pump195 Storage172-1OverflowPump6525Pump1730Evaporation Rainfall5840North Pit RampTransfer Dams(4 No, 5 Ml each)Evaporation Rainfall2920Volume pumpedfrom the pit654425673Peak monthly volumepumpedVolume pumpedfrom the pit1738Clean Catchmentrunoff951493GroundwaterseepageClean Catchmentrunoff36Rainfall on pits and ramps1081Spoils runoff338Opencast Pit 2 - South - D, ERainfall on pits and ramps268Spoils runoff145Rehab runoff03074462Freedraining runoff2015Rehab runoff0Rehab infiltrationSpoils seepageFreedraining runoff474Coal stockpiles - 1 - MainStockpile113North Pit RampTransfer Dams(2 No, 5 Ml each)7467Peak monthly volumepumped391GroundwaterseepageOpencast Pit 3 - South - F701198Rehab infiltrationSpoils seepageRunoffTip 1330355Pump359Evaporation Rainfall2920Volume pumpedfrom the pit368Clean Catchmentrunoff3Rainfall on pits and ramps41Spoils runoff28Rehab runoff0Freedraining runoff120Coal stockpiles - 2 - Tip 1Emergency Stockpile25Runoff & SeepageA13960Collection to Page 2-1RoundingerrorNorth Pit RampTransfer Dams(2 No, 5 Ml each)4460Peak monthly volumepumped87GroundwaterseepageOpencast Pit 4 - South - H17039Rehab infiltrationSpoils seepageFigure 4-18: Schematic flow diagram – Mine Plan Version 7D – Sheet 1 of 3 (Appendix G, Figure 5.6.1d)New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)134
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesJones & WagenerC o n s u l t i n g C i v i l E n g i n e e r s59 Bevan Road PO Box 1434 Rivonia 2128 Sout h AfricaTel: (011) 519-0200 Fax: (011) 803-1456 email: post@jaws.<strong>co</strong>.<strong>za</strong>WATER BALANCE (Sheet 2 of 3)Client: Anglo <strong>co</strong>alOur Ref: C184Rainfall Used: AverageJob: LOM Version 7d: Dec 2011 Set no.: 1Analysis period: 2014 to 2058New LargoEMP AnalysisMade by:Date:MP30 January 2012All flows in m3/dayRun time:30/01/2012 11:01LEGENDDirty WaterClean WaterPeak rateTip 2Coal stockpiles - 3 - Tip 2Emergency Stockpile23Runoff & SeepageRunoff345Evaporation62Rainfall37 Storage2Dam 3 - Tip 2 Transfer Dam (10Ml)PumpAccumulated inflowto 1200 Ml Dam15180345Collection from Page 113960APump88Pump from UG786Evaporation Rainfall2920North Pit RampTransfer Dams(2 No, 5 Ml each)Volume pumpedfrom the pit962263Peak monthly volumepumpedClean Catchmentrunoff120GroundwaterseepageDewateringRainfall on pits and ramps16Spoils runoff14Opencast Pit 5 - South - JRehab runoff26190Freedraining runoff19Rehab infiltrationSpoils seepage464RainfallEvaporation279Water make327322Pump back fortreatment as capacitybe<strong>co</strong>mes available Storage-115132Underground Mine 1 -Old workingsDam 5 - 1200 Ml Storage Dams(1200Ml)RainfallEvaporation 119Runoff15RainfallEvaporation651639New Largo Bulk WaterStorage (10 Ml)1064Net use at <strong>co</strong>alprocessing plantCoal ProcessingPlant0Overflow tostorage in minespoils205 Storage71Dam 6 - <strong>Final</strong> Void Dam (1000Ml)0Overflow107 Storage-6Dam 4 - Balancing Dam (100Ml)Dirty water fortreatment13509575Dust suppressionon haul roads675Water in gypsum /brine64Runoff from treatmentplant areaPlant area 2 - WaterTreatment Plant421Dust suppressionand washdownwater in plantB117Treated effluentdiescharge to PlantArea PCDNew Largo SewageTreatment Plant117SewagePotable use atNew Largo240123Consumption12173Distributeddischarge towater<strong>co</strong>ursesFigure 4-19: Schematic flow diagram – Mine Plan Version 7D – Sheet 2 of 3 (Surface Water Specialist <strong>Report</strong> Figure 5.6.1e)New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)135
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesJones & W agenerC o n s u l t i n g C i v i l E n g i n e e r s59 Bevan Road PO Box 1434 Rivonia 2128 South AfricaTel: (011) 519-0200 Fax: (011) 803-1456 email: post@jaws.<strong>co</strong>.<strong>za</strong>WATER BALANCE (Sheet 3 of 3)Client: Anglo <strong>co</strong>alOur Ref: C184Rainfall Used: AverageJob: LOM Version 7d: Dec 2011 Set no.: 1Analysis period: 2014 to 2058New LargoEMP AnalysisMade by:Date:MP30 January 2012All flows in m3/dayRun time:30/01/2012 11:19LEGENDDirty WaterClean WaterPeak rateOperational water balances for each pit:Water balance for each pit during its operational lifeVolume pumpedfrom the pit3468Clean Catchmentrunoff105Rainfall on pits and ramps969Spoils runoff415Rehab runoff0Freedraining runoff421Volume pumpedfrom the pit1380Clean Catchmentrunoff29Rainfall on pits and ramps363Spoils runoff182Rehab runoff0Freedraining runoff15510526Peak monthly volumepumped610Groundwaterseepage802567Rehab infiltrationSpoils seepage4460Peak monthly volumepumped258Groundwaterseepage301248Rehab infiltrationSpoils seepageNorth Pit - A, C, G - Operational period 2015 to 2029 Pit - H - Operational period 2047 to 2051Volume pumpedfrom the pit7383Clean Catchmentrunoff107Rainfall on pits and ramps1220Spoils runoff381Rehab runoff0Freedraining runoff2273Volume pumpedfrom the pit716Clean Catchmentrunoff16Rainfall on pits and ramps235Spoils runoff126Rehab runoff0Freedraining runoff2725673Peak monthly volumepumped1684Groundwaterseepage3468521Rehab infiltrationSpoils seepage2263Peak monthly volumepumped116Groundwaterseepage51172Rehab infiltrationSpoils seepageSouth Pit - D, E - Operational period 2019 to 2057 Pit - J - Operational period 2052 to 2054Volume pumpedfrom the pit17527467Peak monthly volumepumpedClean Catchmentrunoff61328GroundwaterseepageRainfall on pits and ramps453Spoils runoff229Rehab runoff0367313Freedraining runoff187Rehab infiltrationSpoils seepageDewatering464Water make322South Pit - F - Operational period 2021 to 2046 Old underground - 2015 to 2057 (Mined through from 2019 to 2057)Figure 4-20: Schematic flow diagram – Mine Plan Version 7D – Sheet 3 of 3 (Surface Water Specialist <strong>Report</strong> Figure 5.6.1f)New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)136
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesEMP Analysis LOM Version 6: Nov 2011 - New Largo - Rainfall re<strong>co</strong>rd used - Average400003500030000Average daily volume (m 3 /day)25000200001500010000Summer periodWinter periodAnnual average50000Year analysedFigure 4-21: Graphical water balance for average water make during the operational and postclosure phases of mining showing seasonal variations – Mine Plan Version 6 (Surface WaterSpecialist <strong>Report</strong> Figure 5.6.1g)EMP Analysis LOM Version 7d: Dec 2011 - New Largo - Rainfall re<strong>co</strong>rd used - Average350003000025000Average daily volume (m 3 /day)2000015000100005000Summer periodWinter periodAnnual average0Year analysedFigure 4-22: Graphical water balance for average water make during the operational and postclosure phases of mining showing seasonal variations – Mine Plan Version 7D (Surface WaterSpecialist <strong>Report</strong> Figure 5.6.1h)New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)137
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesGraph of mine water make per section (moving average) - LOM Version 6: Nov 2011 ;Analysis period from 2014 ;EMP Analysis14000Average daily volume (m3/day)12000100008000600040002000Opencast Pit 1 -North - A, C, GOpencast Pit 2 -South - D, EOpencast Pit 3 -South - FOpencast Pit 4 -South - HOpencast Pit 5 -South - JUndergroundMine 1 - Oldworkings0Year analysedFigure 4-23: Mine water make for the individual opencast pits – Mine Plan Version 6 (SurfaceWater Specialist <strong>Report</strong> Figure 5.6.1i)Graph of mine water make per section (moving average) - LOM Version 7d: Dec 2011 ;Analysis period from 2014 ;EMP Analysis14000Average daily volume (m3/day)12000100008000600040002000Opencast Pit 1 -North - A, C, GOpencast Pit 2 -South - D, EOpencast Pit 3 -South - FOpencast Pit 4 -South - HOpencast Pit 5 -South - JUndergroundMine 1 - Oldworkings0Year analysedFigure 4-24: Mine water make for the individual opencast pits – Mine Plan Version 7D (SurfaceWater Specialist <strong>Report</strong> Figure 5.6.1j)New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)138
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesThe actual water make during the operational phase will be significantly impacted by the timing ofrehabilitation. Should rehabilitation lag significantly, the water make will be greater than that indicated.The rehabilitated land form during the operational phase will require careful <strong>co</strong>nsideration in order toavoid large rehabilitated areas between ramps that cannot drain freely to the catchment. Should suchareas exist; the water make will be greater than that indicated here.4.15.1.2 Peak Abstraction RatesThe peak summer abstraction rates for each pit at mid and end of life are given in the table below. Notethat the values given in the table are based on modelling with a monthly time step and these rates reflectthe average abstraction rate required during the wettest month of the year. These values are based onaverage rainfall.PitTable 4-4: Peak Summer Abstraction Rates From Each Pit 26YearLOM Version 6Peak abstraction rate(m3/day)YearLOM Version 7DPeak abstraction rate(m3/day)North (Areas A, C, G):Mid life 2027 12 850 2022 8 545End of life 2039 19 055 2029 11 325South (Area D, E):Mid life 2042 16 540 2038 17 800End of life 2064 27 925 2057 24 825South F:Mid life 2047 4 415 2033 3 370End of life 2054 7 555 2046 7 555South H:Mid life 2055 2 505 2049 3 365End of life 2059 4 435 2051 4 435South J:Mid life 2060 1 080 2053 1 605End of life 2064 2 285 2054 2 2854.15.2 Dewatering of Old Underground Mine WorkingsThe South Pit opencast (Pit D, E) will mine through the old New Largo underground workings. Theseworkings have filled with water and are currently decanting at an estimated average rate of 1500 m 3 /day(estimated by JMA). It has been estimated by Prof. Frank Hodgson that 4.16 million m 3 needs to bedewatered from the underground workings before mining can <strong>co</strong>mmence.It has been assumed that this dewatering will take place over a four year period, at a rate of 86 870m 3 /month (2896 m 3 /day), as follows: LOM Version 6: Access required by 2022 – Dewatering from 2018 to 202126Draft <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong> figures were for Mine Plan Version 6 and 7A. Figures in this final <strong>EIA</strong> have been updated for Mine Plan Version 6 and 7D as MinePlan Version 7D replaced Version 7A.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)139
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices LOM Version 7D: Access required by 2019 – Dewatering from 2015 to 2018Note that the full volume to be dewatered is estimated at some 7.27 million m 3 . Following the initialdewatering period, ongoing dewatering will be required for the remainder of the life of mine, at anaverage rate of 6 900 m 3 /month (230 m 3 /day). The actual dewatering rate will vary with time as miningprogresses up- and downhill on the <strong>co</strong>al seam floor.4.15.3 Water UseThe estimated water usage for the life of mine for both dust suppression and the <strong>co</strong>al processing planthas been summarised in Table 4-5 below, for both Mine Plan Version 6 and Mine Plan Version 7D.DescriptionTable 4-5: Water Use 27m 3 /yRatem 3 /dayMine PlanVersion 6From yearMine PlanVersion 7DDust suppression 175 200 480 2015 2015Dust suppression 219 000 600 2023 2019Make-up water to Coal ProcessingPlant432 000 1200 2023 20194.15.4 Water TreatmentSurplus water and the associated treatment rates required for the WTP are indicated in Figure 4-25 andFigure 4-26 for Mine Plan Version 6 and Mine Plan Version 7 respectively. These graphs show thattreatment will be required over the entire life of mine starting at 4 Ml/day, reaching 24 Ml/day before theend of the life of mine. This includes dewatering of the old underground workings, required to gainaccess to the southern area.27Draft <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong> figures were for Mine Plan Version 6 and 7A. Figures in this final <strong>EIA</strong> have been updated for Mine Plan Version 6 and 7D as MinePlan Version 7D replaced Version 7A.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)140
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesSurplus vs treatment rate proposed300002500020000Volume (m 3 /day)1500010000500002014201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030203120322033203420352036203720382039204020412042204320442045204620472048204920502051205220532054205520562057205820592060206120622063206420662068207020722074Mine water make Treatment rate - 1Ml/day increment Treatment rate - 4Ml/day incrementFigure 4-25: Surplus water and treatment rate – Mine Plan Version 6 (Appendix G, Figure 5.9a)30000Surplus vs treatment rate proposed2500020000Volume (m 3 /day)1500010000500002014201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030203120322033203420352036203720382039204020412042204320442045204620472048204920502051205220532054205520562057205820592060206120622063206420662068207020722074Mine water make Treatment rate - 1Ml/day increment Treatment rate - 4Ml/day incrementFigure 4-26: Surplus water and treatment rate – Mine Plan Version 7D (Appendix G, Figure 5.9b)In the water balance model, a summer peaking factor of 50% has been used, assuming that the summertreatment rates will be 1.5 times greater than the design treatment rate. The values given in the graphsand tables represent the average water make to be managed.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)141
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesNote that this peaking factor was determined by Golder Associates following an assessment of treatmentrates versus storage requirements, carried out by J&W in January 2011.Figure 4-27 and Figure 4-28 illustrate the expected water usage (treatment and plant usage) in relationto the water make for the two life of mine options. The treatment rates used in the modelling are tabledbelow.Required treatmentrate(Ml/day)4Table 4-6: Treatment rates used in the modelling 28Mine Plan Version 6YearPhola-Kusile Coal Conveyor, and New Largo Colliery<strong>co</strong>nstruction and early operations (Stage 1) : 2013Mine Plan Version 7DPhola-Kusile Coal Conveyor, and New LargoColliery <strong>co</strong>nstruction and early operations(Stage 1): 20138 2017 201512 2026 202316 2033 202820 2043 204124 2051 2052Graph of water make versus usage - New Largo ;Analysis period from 2014 ;EMP AnalysisAverage volume (m 3 /day)35000300002500020000150001000050000Total minewater makewithdewateringand otherinflowsTargettedusageUsageobtainedNetsurplus/deficit-50002014201620182020202220242026202820302032203420362038204020422044204620482050205220542056205820602062206420662068207020722074Year analysedFigure 4-27: Graph of water make versus usage – Mine Plan Version 6 (Appendix G, Figure 5.9c)28Draft <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong> figures were for Mine Plan Version 6 and 7A. Figures in this final <strong>EIA</strong> have been updated for Mine Plan Version 6 and 7D as MinePlan Version 7D replaced Version 7A.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)142
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesGraph of water make versus usage - New Largo ;Analysis period from 2014 ;EMP AnalysisAverage volume (m 3 /day)35000300002500020000150001000050000Total minewater makewithdewateringand otherinflowsTargettedusageUsageobtainedNetsurplus/deficit-50002014201620182020202220242026202820302032203420362038204020422044204620482050205220542056205820602062206420662068207020722074Year analysedFigure 4-28: Graph of water make versus usage – Mine Plan Version 7D (Appendix G, Figure 5.9d)4.15.5 Water Storage RequirementsStorage required for average rainfallCurrent planning is to provide pollution <strong>co</strong>ntrol dams for the plant, admin and stockpile areas, from whichdirty water will be pumped to the main pollution <strong>co</strong>ntrol dam, located adjacent to the permanent WTP.This dam will be used as the main supply to the WTP.It is currently proposed to provide a total storage capacity of 1200 Ml in the main pollution <strong>co</strong>ntrol damsat the WTP. These will be <strong>co</strong>nstructed as five separate facilities, each with differing capacity, but with atotal of 1200 Ml. Figure 4-29 and Figure 4-30 show the expected performance of these dams over thelife of mine for average rainfall, using the targeted treatment rates as given above.The graph indicates that for both the mine plan scenarios, only nominal storage is required up to around2019, when the <strong>co</strong>mbined effect of dewatering the old underground workings and an expandingopencast pit will result in an increased net water make.Under Mine Plan Version 6, the full 1200 Ml of storage will be required to manage the average watermake by the end of life of mine. Under Mine Plan Version 7, approximately 950 Ml of storage will berequired to manage the average water make towards the end of the life of mine.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)143
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesIt is apparent that the dam will be largely empty over the first 4 to 5 years of mining, at the targettedtreatment rates. This indicates that it may be feasible to phase the <strong>co</strong>nstruction of the dam, with theprovision of a lower storage capacity until around 2019, or to initially provide a smaller treatment plant.However, the above assessment is for average rainfall only and it is important to note that the intentionof both the treatment plant and the surface water dam is to prevent spillage for rainfall events up to atleast 1:50 years, to ensure legal <strong>co</strong>mpliance.1400000Graph of Dam 5 : 1200 Ml Storage Dams (1200Ml) - LOM Version 6: Nov 2011 ; Analysisperiod from 20141200000Max VolVolume (m 3 )100000080000060000040000020000002014 201520162017201820192020202120222023202420252026202720282029203020312032203320342035203620372038203920402041204220432044204520462047204820492050205120522053205420552056205720582059206020612062206320642065206620672068206920702071207220732074MonthAverageRain starting in1992Rain starting in1951Rain starting in2004Rain starting in1961Rain starting in1992Full rainfallanalysisActual volumesFigure 4-29: Modelled performance of 1200 Ml dam over life of mine – Mine Plan Version 6(Appendix G, Figure 5.10.1a)New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)144
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesGraph of Dam 5 : 1200 Ml Storage Dams (1200Ml) - LOM Version 7d: Dec 2011 ; Analysisperiod from 201414000001200000Max VolVolume (m 3 )100000080000060000040000020000002014 201520162017201820192020202120222023202420252026202720282029203020312032203320342035203620372038203920402041204220432044204520462047204820492050205120522053205420552056205720582059206020612062206320642065206620672068206920702071207220732074MonthAverageRain starting in1992Rain starting in1951Rain starting in2004Rain starting in1961Rain starting in1992Full rainfallanalysisActual volumesFigure 4-30: Modelled performance of 1200 Ml dam over life of mine – Mine Plan Version 7D(Appendix G, Figure 5.10.1b)Storage Required for Extreme EventsSouth African legislation, detailed in Government Notice 704 of 1999 (GN704), in terms of the NationalWater Act, Act 36 of 1998 (NWA), stipulates that dirty water on mining sites needs to be <strong>co</strong>ntained forevents up to the 1:50 year recurrence interval. The Department of Water Affairs (DWA) Best PracticeGuideline for water management defines a spill “event” as a series of spills occuring during a given 30day period.AAIC will formulate an internal flood standard document, aimed at setting a uniform standard in terms offlood protection and dirty water <strong>co</strong>ntainment. This document will be aligned to ensure legal <strong>co</strong>mplianceas a minimum.When determining storage requirements, it is important to understand that a particular recurrenceinterval does not refer to a single discrete event. For each recurrence interval there is an infinite numberof events, depending on the storm duration <strong>co</strong>nsidered, and it is important to determine the appropriatestorm duration to use, based on the assessment being carried out. Typically, for peak flow events,shorter duration events (< 24 hours) are <strong>co</strong>nsidered, as these are of higher intensity and generategreater flow rates. However, for volumetric assessments (sizing of dirty water <strong>co</strong>ntainment facilities), theduration used <strong>co</strong>uld be months, an entire season, or longer, as two or three months of high rainfall, forexample, <strong>co</strong>uld raise a dam’s water level to such an extent that a subsequent low recurrence intervalstorm <strong>co</strong>uld cause a spill event.For large areas, such as New Largo Colliery, it is necessary to <strong>co</strong>nsider at least an extreme season, or asequence of wet years. Given the above, two extreme event scenarios were modelled:New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)145
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesExtreme season (1:50 and 1:100 years)Extreme sequences of years (as detailed in Section 5.2 of Appendix G).A statistical analysis was carried out on the historical rainfall re<strong>co</strong>rd to determine the 1:50 and 1:100 yearannual, monthly and daily precipitation events. These values are tabled below.Table 4-7: Extreme rainfall depthsRecurrence Interval Magnitude (mm) Percentage of MAPMean Annual Precipitation (MAP) 715Annual event:1:50 year 1052 147%1:100 year 1111 155%1:250 year 1190 167%1 Month event:1:50 year 308 43%1:100 year 339 47%24 hour event:1:50 year 136 19%1:100 year 157 22%Extreme SeasonsA synthetic monthly rainfall re<strong>co</strong>rd was generated for each of the above events using the monthly rainfalldistribution of the year with the wettest summer on re<strong>co</strong>rd (2005/06).The storage required for each year of mining was then estimated for the 1:50 and 1:100 year events bymodelling each year individually, for each event. The results are shown in Figure 4-31 and Figure 4-32,for the two life of mine scenarios.These graphs show the required storage in addition to the 1200 Ml surface dams, assuming that thedams are empty at the start of each year (this assumption is valid, as this will be the case during averagerainfall <strong>co</strong>nditions).The first 1000 Ml of additional storage will be provided in an in-pit facility (the <strong>Final</strong> Void Dam) that willbe <strong>co</strong>nstructed in the final void of Pit G in the north. This storage will be<strong>co</strong>me available in 2022. Theremaining storage requirements will be ac<strong>co</strong>mmodated in the opencast spoils. The available storagevolumes have been determined by JMA Consulting and and are also indicated on the graphs.Note that it is assumed that the opencast will be operated as dry as is practically possible. The <strong>co</strong>alseam floor is not flat and there will be areas with localised low points that cannot practically bedewatered to create emergency storage. This was taken into ac<strong>co</strong>unt in the JMA assessment ofavailable storage and the capacities indicated represent the volume that can be practically used foremergency storage. The storage required in addition to that available in-pit is shown in Figure 4-33 andFigure 4-34, assuming that the full storage volume will be available at the onset of the wet season.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)146
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesAlso of interest is the time frame in which the 1200 Ml surface dam be<strong>co</strong>mes inadequate for <strong>co</strong>ntainmentof extreme events. It is at this stage that in-pit storage (in the form of either the <strong>Final</strong> Void Dam orstorage in the spoils) be<strong>co</strong>mes necessary.The storage requirements versus available storage for the first nine years of mining are shown in Figure4-35 and Figure 4-36 for Mine Plan Version 6 and Version 7 respectively.16 000In-pit storage required for extreme eventsAnnual event (available in-pit storage shown)Storage required (Ml)14 00012 00010 0008 0006 0004 0002 00002014 2024 2034 2044 2054 20641:50 yr 1:100 yr <strong>Final</strong> Void Dam In-pit storage Total in-pit storageFigure 4-31: Graph of maximum storage required for extreme rainfall over the Life of Mine,together with available in-pit storage – Mine Plan Version 6 (Appendix G, Figure 5.10.2.2a)New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)147
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices14 000In-pit storage required for extreme eventsAnnual event (available in-pit storage shown)12 000Storage required (Ml)10 0008 0006 0004 0002 00002014 2024 2034 2044 2054 20641:50 yr 1:100 yr <strong>Final</strong> Void Dam In-pit storage Total in-pit storageFigure 4-32: Graph of maximum storage required for extreme rainfall over the life of mine,together with available in-pit storage – Mine Plan Version 7D (Figure 5.10.2.2b)2 500Storage required in addition to in-pit storagefor extreme eventsAnnual event2 000Storage required (Ml)1 5001 00050002014 2024 2034 2044 2054 20641:50 yr 1:100 yrFigure 4-33: Storage required in addition to in-pit storage for extreme rainfall – Mine Plan Version6 (Appendix G, Figure 5.10.2.2c)New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)148
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices3 500Storage required in addition to in-pit storagefor extreme eventsAnnual event3 000Storage required (Ml)2 5002 0001 5001 00050002014 2024 2034 2044 2054 20641:50 yr 1:100 yrFigure 4-34: Storage required in addition to in-pit storage for extreme rainfall – Mine Plan Version7D (Appendix G, Figure 5.10.2.2d)6 000Storage required for extreme eventsAnnual event5 000Storage required (Ml)4 0003 0002 0001 00002014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 20241:50 yr 1:100 yr Surface Dam<strong>Final</strong> Void Dam In-pit storage Total storageFigure 4-35: Storage required versus available storage in the first 9 years of mining – Mine PlanVersion 6 (Appendix G, Figure 5.10.2.2e)New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)149
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices6 000Storage required for extreme eventsAnnual event5 000Storage required (Ml)4 0003 0002 0001 00002014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 20241:50 yr 1:100 yr Surface Dam<strong>Final</strong> Void Dam In-pit storage Total storageFigure 4-36: Storage required versus available storage in the first 9 years of mining – Mine PlanVersion 7D (Appendix G, Figure 5.10.2.2f)The above figures indicate the following: Mine Plan Version 6:o The 1200 Ml surface dam will be adequate to prevent spillage for extreme events up to2018 for both the 1:50 year and the 1:100 year events (Figure 4-35).o The <strong>co</strong>nstruction of the 1200 Ml surface dam <strong>co</strong>uld be phased by initially providing 600Ml. This would need to be upgraded to the full 1200 Ml by 2017 (Figure 4-35).o By the time the <strong>Final</strong> Void Dam be<strong>co</strong>mes available in 2022, it will already be necessaryto utilise storage in opencast spoils to ac<strong>co</strong>mmodate extreme rainfall.o Throughout the life of mine there will always be sufficient in-pit storage to ac<strong>co</strong>mmodatethe 1:50 year event, though be<strong>co</strong>ming marginal from around 2049 onwards (Figure 4-31and Figure 4-33).o From 2040, additional storage of some 2400 Ml will be required if the 1:100 year eventis to be <strong>co</strong>ntained without spillage onwards (Figure 4-31 and Figure 4-33). Mine Plan Version 7D:o The 1200 Ml surface dam will be adequate to prevent spillage for extreme events up to2018 for the 1:50 year event and up to 2017 for the 1:100 year event (Figure 4-36).o The <strong>co</strong>nstruction of the 1200 Ml surface dam <strong>co</strong>uld be phased by initially providing 600Ml. This would need to be upgraded to the full 1200 Ml by 2017 (Figure 4-36).New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)150
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser viceso By the time the <strong>Final</strong> Void Dam be<strong>co</strong>mes available in 2022, it will already be necessaryto utilise storage in the opencast spoils to ac<strong>co</strong>mmodate extreme rainfall.o There will be sufficient in-pit storage to ac<strong>co</strong>mmodate the 1:50 year event until around2035, where after additional storage capacity of 1000 Ml will be required (Figure 4-32and Figure 4-34). Note that the available storage be<strong>co</strong>mes very marginal in 2020.o From 2020, additional storage of some 1200 Ml will be required initially, increasing to3000 Ml by around 2050, will be required if the 1:100 year event is to be <strong>co</strong>ntainedwithout spillage (Figure 4-32 and Figure 4-34).Wet Rainfall SequencesThe above assessment is based on the assumption that the water make resulting from a season ofextreme rainfall can reasonably be drawn down during the following winter period. To test the validity ofthis assumption, wet sequences of five years (as described in Section 5.2 of Appendix G) weremodelled. This was carried out for Mine Plan Version 6, for the last five years of mining (2060 to 2064),when the mine water make will be at its maximum. The results are shown in Figure 4-37. Wet or extremeperiods used in the modelling include the rainfall experienced in:1992 and following years (wettest five years on re<strong>co</strong>rd)1951 and following years (se<strong>co</strong>nd wettest five years on re<strong>co</strong>rd)2004 and following years (short term peak – wettest two years on re<strong>co</strong>rd)1961 and following years (driest five years on re<strong>co</strong>rd)35,000,000Graph of Dam 6 : <strong>Final</strong> Void Dam (1000Ml) - LOM Version 6: Nov 2011 ;Analysis period from 2060Max Vol30,000,000AverageVolume (m 3 )25,000,00020,000,00015,000,00010,000,0005,000,0000Rain startingin 1992Rain startingin 1951Rain startingin 2004Rain startingin 1961Rain startingin 1992Full rainfallanalysisActualvolumes2060206120622063Month20642065Figure 4-37: Storage required for wet rainfall sequences, last 5 years of mining – Mine PlanVersion 6 (Appendix G, Figure 5.10.2.3g)New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)151
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesFrom 2060 to 2064 the available in-pit storage final void dam plus storage in the spoils will increase from11 800 to 13 100 Ml. It can be seen that for both the wettest and the se<strong>co</strong>nd wettest periods on re<strong>co</strong>rd,this storage would be adequate. It should be noted that the purple series represents rainfall from 2004 to2006, the wettest two years on re<strong>co</strong>rd. These years are also the third and fourth wettest individual yearson re<strong>co</strong>rd, at an annual rainfall of 988 (greater than 1:20 year – 970 mm) and 1029 mm (just short of1:50 year – 1052 mm) respectively, with the <strong>co</strong>mbined event greater than 1:50 years. The final void damwill be rehabilitated and made free draining during de<strong>co</strong>mmissioning of the mine.Management of Water BalanceUnder average rainfall <strong>co</strong>nditions the 1200 Ml surface storage dams will be drawn empty each winter, atthe treatment rates given above. However, water will be required throughout the winter period to supplythe <strong>co</strong>al processing plant, as well as for dust suppression. It will therefore be necessary to activelymanage the water level in the dams to ensure that sufficient water is available at the start of the winterperiod to supply the <strong>co</strong>al processing plant.It is re<strong>co</strong>mmended that at least six to seven months’ supply be provided at the start of the winter season.The required volume is calculated in the table below, which indicates that 330 to 380 Ml of water mustbe available in the dams at the start of the winter season.Table 4-8: Minimum volume required in 1200 Ml storage dams at start of the dry seasonRequired rate Required volume (mWater requirement3 )m 3 /y m 3 /month 6 months to 7 monthsDust suppression 219 000 18 250 109 500 to 127 750Make-up water to Coal Processing Plant 432 000 36 000 216 000 to 252 000Total 651 000 54 250 325 500 to 379 750SynthesisAAIC is planning to provide 1200 Ml of storage on surface. This will be adequate for management ofaverage rainfall. However, additional storage will be required to prevent spillage for extreme events from: 2019 for Mine Plan Version 6. 2018 for Mine Plan Version 7.It will be possible to phase the <strong>co</strong>nstruction of surface storage dam, by initially providing 600 Ml storagecapacity. This will be adequate up to: 2016 for Mine Plan Version 6. 2016 for Mine Plan Version 7.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)152
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesLimited storage capacity in the mined out areas (the opencast spoils) will be<strong>co</strong>me available as miningprogresses. This, <strong>co</strong>upled with an in-pit ‘<strong>Final</strong> Void Dam’, will be used as emergency storage for extremeevents. The water balance modelling indicates that this will be adequate to prevent spillage for the entirelife of mine for Mine Plan Version 6 (limiting the risk of spill to 1:50 years), however, this does be<strong>co</strong>memarginal in 2019 and again from around 2049 onwards. For Mine Plan Version 7 (again limiting the riskof spill to 1:50 years) the available storage will be adequate until around 2035. The options to achievethe additional capacity have still to be finalised.Under average rainfall <strong>co</strong>nditions the 1200 Ml surface storage dam will be drawn empty during winter ifthe WTP runs at full capacity. To ensure adequate supply to the <strong>co</strong>al processing plant and for dustsuppression during the dry winter months, it will be necessary to actively monitor and manage the waterlevel in the dam, to ensure that at least 330 to 380 Ml of water is available at the end of summer.4.15.6 Salt BalanceThe salt balance is given in Figure 4-38 and Figure 4-39 for the life of mine of Mine Plan Version 6 and inFigure 4-40 and Figure 4-41 for the life of mine of Version 7D. This should be <strong>co</strong>nsidered a provisionalsalt balance, using the water balance in the previous sections, average rainfall and predicted waterqualities for the mining area and surface infrastructure. The salt balance will need to be updated andrefined once actual water qualities and flows are measured.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)153
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesJones & WagenerC o n s u l t i n g C i v i l E n g i n e e r sLEGENDClient: Anglo <strong>co</strong>alOur Ref: C184Rainfall Used: AverageJob: LOM Version 6: Nov 2011 Set no.: 1 Analysis period: 2014 to 2065Dirty WaterNew LargoMade by:MPSalt balance for SULPHATE59 Bevan Road PO Box 1434 Rivonia 2128 South AfricaTel: (011) 519-0200 Fax: (011) 803-1456 email: post@jaws.<strong>co</strong>.<strong>za</strong>EMP Analysis Date:05 December 2011Values in kg/dayClean WaterRun time:05/12/2011 12:48SALT BALANCE (Sheet 1 of 2) - SULPHATERainfallEvaporation0Peak rateAccumulationRunoff 133310Pump319Salts in water pumed from pit3224Workshop - Admin Area (Offices,Workshops, Hard Park)Dam 1 - Admin Area PCD (15Ml)Opencast Pit 1 - North - A, C, G1Treated sewage effluentRainfallEvaporation0Runoff0Pump212Accumulation19320Dam 2 - Plant Area PCD (36Ml)Salts in water pumed from pit3179Plant area 1 - Coal ProcessingRunoff & SeepageEvaporation Rainfall00Opencast Pit 2 - South - D, E88Accumulation880OverflowDiscard Dump 1 - EmergencyDiscard DumpEmergency Discard DumpHolding Dam (##Ml)Salts in water pumed from pitRunoff & Seepage57575Coal stockpiles - 1 - MainStockpileOpencast Pit 3 - South - FCoal stockpiles - 2 - Tip 1Emergency Stockpile217Salts in water pumed from pit189Tip 1A8060Opencast Pit 4 - South - HCollection to Page 2Figure 4-38: Schematic salt balance diagram – Mine Plan Version 6 – Sheet 1 of 2 (Appendix G, Figure 5.11a)New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)154
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesJones & W agenerC o n s u l t i n g C i v i l E n g i n e e r sClient: Anglo <strong>co</strong>alOur Ref: C184Rainfall Used: AverageJob: LOM Version 6: Nov 2011 Set no.: 1Analysis period: 2014 to 2065New LargoMade by:MPSalt balance for SULPHATE59 Bevan Road PO Box 1434 Rivonia 2128 Sout h AfricaTel: (011) 519-0200 Fax: (011) 803-1456 email: post@jaws.<strong>co</strong>.<strong>za</strong>EMP Analysis Date:05 December 2011Values in kg/dayRun time:05/12/2011 12:48SALT BALANCE (Sheet 2 of 2) - SULPHATELEGENDDirty WaterClean WaterPeak rateRainfallEvaporation0Collection from Page 18060ATip 2Runoff0Pump177Accumulation16029Dam 3 - Tip 2 Transfer Dam (10Ml)Salts in water pumed from pit93Coal stockpiles - 3 - Tip 2Emergency Stockpile12Runoff & SeepageAccumulated inflowto 1200 Ml Dam8722Salts in water pumed from pit410DewateringOpencast Pit 5 - South - JRainfallEvaporation30Water makePump back fortreatment as capacitybe<strong>co</strong>mes availableRainfallEvaporation 1Accumulation239Dam 5 - 1200 Ml Storage Dams(1200Ml)Runoff08486RainfallEvaporation1844New Largo Bulk WaterStorage (10 Ml)Underground Mine 1 -Old workings535Net use at <strong>co</strong>alprocessing plantCoal Processing0Overflow tostorage in minespoils0Accumulation1Dam 6 - <strong>Final</strong> Void Dam (1000Ml)0Overflow0Accumulation20Dam 4 - Balancing Dam (100Ml)Dirty water fortreatment7623309Dust suppressionon haul roadsRunoff from treatment plantarea(included in values above)Plant area 2 - WaterTreatment PlantFigure 4-39: Schematic salt balance diagram – Mine Plan Version 6 – Sheet 2 of 2 (Appendix G, Figure 5.11b)New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)155
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesJones & W agenerC o n s u l t i n g C i v i l E n g i n e e r sLEGENDClient: Anglo <strong>co</strong>alOur Ref: C184Rainfall Used: AverageJob: LOM Version 7d: Dec 2011 Set no.: 1 Analysis period: 2014 to 2058Dirty WaterNew LargoMade by:MPSalt balance for SULPHATE59 Bevan Road PO Box 1434 Rivonia 2128 South AfricaTel: (011) 519-0200 Fax: (011) 803-1456 email: post@jaws.<strong>co</strong>.<strong>za</strong>EMP Analysis Date:30 January 2012Values in kg/dayClean WaterRun time:30/01/2012 11:19SALT BALANCE (Sheet 1 of 2) - SULPHATERainfallEvaporation0Accumulation0Runoff 13331Pump319Salts in water pumed from pit1991Peak rateWorkshop - Admin Area (Offices,Workshops, Hard Park)Dam 1 - Admin Area PCD (15Ml)Opencast Pit 1 - North - A, C, G1Treated sewage effluentRainfallEvaporation0Runoff0Pump228Accumulation20921Dam 2 - Plant Area PCD (36Ml)Salts in water pumed from pit3599Plant area 1 - Coal ProcessingRunoff & SeepageEvaporation Rainfall00Opencast Pit 2 - South - D, E95Accumulation950OverflowDiscard Dump 1 - EmergencyDiscard DumpEmergency Discard DumpHolding Dam (##Ml)Salts in water pumed from pitRunoff & Seepage95676Coal stockpiles - 1 - MainStockpileOpencast Pit 3 - South - FCoal stockpiles - 2 - Tip 1Emergency Stockpile217Salts in water pumed from pit203Tip 1A7664Opencast Pit 4 - South - HCollection to Page 2Figure 4-40: Schematic Salt Balance Diagram – Mine Plan Version 7D – Sheet 1 of 2 (Appendix G, Figure 5.11c)New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)156
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesJones & W agenerC o n s u l t i n g C i v i l E n g i n e e r sClient: Anglo <strong>co</strong>alOur Ref: C184Rainfall Used: AverageJob: LOM Version 7d: Dec 2011 Set no.: 1Analysis period: 2014 to 2058New LargoMade by:MPSalt balance for SULPHATE59 Bevan Road PO Box 1434 Rivonia 2128 Sout h A fricaTel: (011) 519-0200 Fax: (011) 803-1456 email: post@jaws.<strong>co</strong>.<strong>za</strong>EMP Analysis Date:30 January 2012Values in kg/dayRun time:30/01/2012 11:19SALT BALANCE (Sheet 2 of 2) - SULPHATELEGENDDirty WaterClean WaterPeak rateRainfallEvaporation0Collection from Page 17664ATip 2Runoff0Pump190Accumulation17230Dam 3 - Tip 2 Transfer Dam (10Ml)Salts in water pumed from pit53Coal stockpiles - 3 - Tip 2Emergency Stockpile12Runoff & SeepageAccumulated inflowto 1200 Ml Dam8322Salts in water pumed from pit433DewateringOpencast Pit 5 - South - JRainfallEvaporation30Water makePump back fortreatment as capacitybe<strong>co</strong>mes availableAccumulation217Dam 5 - 1200 Ml Storage Dams(1200Ml)8108Underground Mine 1 -Old workingsRainfallEvaporation 1Runoff0RainfallEvaporation1887New Largo Bulk WaterStorage (10 Ml)576Net use at <strong>co</strong>alprocessing plantCoal Processing0Overflow tostorage in minespoils0Accumulation1Dam 6 - <strong>Final</strong> Void Dam (1000Ml)0Overflow0Accumulation18Dam 4 - Balancing Dam (100Ml)Dirty water fortreatment7203312Dust suppressionon haul roadsRunoff from treatment plantarea(included in values above)Plant area 2 - WaterTreatment PlantFigure 4-41: Schematic Salt Balance Diagram – Mine Plan Version 7D – Sheet 2 of 2 (Appendix G, Figure 5.11d)New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)157
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices4.16 Flood LinesThe 1:100 and 1:250 year flood lines were calculated by Jones & Wagener (Surface Water SpecialistImpact Assessment <strong>Report</strong>, Appendix G). Flood lines are indicated on drawing: C184-00-00, 002, 003,included as part of Appendix T (<strong>EIA</strong> Volume 7).4.17 Communication MastsIt is envisaged that there will be about four main radio masts of ~50 metres high within the New Largomining areas to facilitate <strong>co</strong>mmunication between the main <strong>co</strong>mmunication <strong>co</strong>ntrol area, the projectoffice / <strong>co</strong>ntrol and the outlying operations. Smaller towers will be used to provide adequate<strong>co</strong>mmunication <strong>co</strong>verage across the project area. The location of the ~50 metres high masts areillustrated on drawings provided in Appendix T.4.18 Power SupplyThere will be a 132 kV line from Eskom to supply New Largo Colliery, with associated substations. Theproposed location of the line is indicated on Figure 1-1 and on the drawings in Appendix T. In addition tothe 132 kV line, there will be smaller power lines and substations to supply power to the variousoperational areas within the New Largo mining right area.4.19 Fuel StorageTotal fuel usage and storage requirements at New Largo are predicted to be as follows:Table 4-9: Fuel Usage and Storage Capacity for New Largo CollieryFuel Usage ProjectionStorage Requirements (Total)Projected(based on 14 day stock in storage)Usage / ThroughputOperational Year 1 to Year 30 1245 m³ 30.772Ml/ paLife of Mine (Beyond Year 30) 1370 m³ 33.849Ml/ paThe fuel storage facilities will be located within the mining right area and will have been designed toac<strong>co</strong>mmodate the maximum throughput volume of fuel required. A fourteen day stock holding capacityhas been used for calculating the required capacity.There will be a phased implementation based on the ramp up of mining activities and the introduction ofthe mining fleet and the required <strong>co</strong>nsumption.There will be a number of fuel storage facilities located throughout the mining area. Each of the facilitieswill <strong>co</strong>nsist of bulk diesel and bulk lubricants, piped to various dispensing points. Access to the facilitiesfor the bulk delivery vehicle is on internal roads within AAIC’s mining right area.The design of the proposed facilities is in ac<strong>co</strong>rdance with standard petroleum local Codes of Practice,namely South African National Standards (SANS 1200, SANS 10131 & SANS 10089 etc.). Localstandards and regulation requirements are included in design, such as Mine Health and Safety Act,Water Act, and Occupational Health and Safety Act.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)158
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices4.20 EmploymentIt is anticipated that New Largo will employ 1234 people during operation of the mine 29 .4.21 Project Phasing and Life of MineThe phasing of the project and the life of mine is discussed in Section 1.13.4.22 Project CostBased on AAIC’s feasibility study calculations, the estimated capital <strong>co</strong>st to develop the New LargoColliery is R 20 billion (accuracy +15 / -5%) 30 .Operational <strong>co</strong>sts cannot be given as this will depend on <strong>co</strong>ntracts between AAIC and Eskom, which iscurrently regarded as <strong>co</strong>mmercially sensitive and <strong>co</strong>nfidential.2930The estimated permanent jobs created by the New Largo Colliery during the peak operational phase.The draft <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong> provided the financial figures based on the AAIC pre-feasibility study. The figures in this final <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong> were updated based onthe out<strong>co</strong>me of the AAIC feasibility study, which is a more detailed and accurate assessment than the pre-feasibility study.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)159
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices5. Development Alternatives5.1 No-Go Development – Alternative Coal Reserves to Replace New Largo CollieryFrom the discussions in Sections 1.5.1 to 1.5.5, it is clear that Kusile is key in achieving NationalGovernment’s electricity generation strategy for South Africa. Should New Largo Colliery not bedeveloped (no-go development option), <strong>co</strong>al from elsewhere will be required to supply Kusile.Kusile will require a <strong>co</strong>nstant supply of ~17 Mt per year over a life span of 55+ years. This requires amassive <strong>co</strong>al reserve – in excess of ~935 Mt. The New Largo Colliery <strong>co</strong>al reserve is located directly tothe east of Kusile, ideally situated to meet this demand.The area affected by New Largo <strong>co</strong>nsist of
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices5.3.2 Alternative Mine Plan (Mine Plan Version 7)The Alternative Mine Plan (Mine Plan Version 7) <strong>co</strong>vers a total area of 4800 hectares. This is 800hectares less than Mine Plan Version 6 as it excludes mining of a ~100 Mt portion of the minable <strong>co</strong>alreserve in the north on Farm Honingkrantz 536 JR (mine pit area A). This mine plan was introducedsubsequent to the s<strong>co</strong>ping phase <strong>co</strong>nsultation process as <strong>co</strong>ncerns were raised by I&APs andauthorities regarding the impact of mining on wetlands. Most of the <strong>co</strong>al found in the northern part of the<strong>co</strong>al reserve is high quality <strong>co</strong>al (see Figure 1-6 to Figure 1-8). Ac<strong>co</strong>rding to AAIC, this mine plan presentschallenges in terms of mine plan sequencing and blending of <strong>co</strong>al to provide Kusile with an adequatesupply of <strong>co</strong>al at the <strong>co</strong>rrect specification.AAIC investigated a number of iterations of Mine Plan Version 7:Mine Plan Version 7A was issued by AAIC in November 2011 but was problematic as the mineplan sequencing (see Figure 1-10) resulted in certain periods where the <strong>co</strong>al quality requirementsof Kusile <strong>co</strong>uld not be met. AAIC regards this option as not feasible.Mine Plan iterations Version 7B and 7C were internally investigated by AAIC but were not issuedfor <strong>co</strong>nsideration in the <strong>EIA</strong> as AAIC found them to be not feasible.Mine Plan Version 7D (see Figure 1-10 and Figure 1-11) was issued at the end of December2011. It addressed the <strong>co</strong>al quality issues associated with Mine Plan Version 7A to C and istherefore viable but ac<strong>co</strong>rding to AAIC, it remains a sub-optimal mine plan.The <strong>EIA</strong> and associated specialist studies were initiated based on the Base Case Mine Plan (Mine PlanVersion 6), since this was the mine plan that was tabled as AAIC’s preferred mine plan at the time. TheAlternative Mine Plan (Mine Plan Version 7A) was issued to the specialists in November 2011 and,where required, the specialist studies were updated to include a <strong>co</strong>mparative assessment of Mine PlanVersion 6 and Mine Plan Version 7A. Where relevant, the specialist studies again updated to in<strong>co</strong>rporatethe impacts associated with Mine Plan Version 7D. Where relevant, these changes have beenin<strong>co</strong>rporated into the final <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong>.Some refinements and sequencing changes were made to the mine plans (applicable to Mine PlanVersion 6 and Mine Plan Version 7) subsequent to the <strong>co</strong>mpletion of the specialist studies, however,these changes were not material and do not affect the assessment of impacts and alternatives, andneither do the changes affect the re<strong>co</strong>mmendations made in this final <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong> (see furtherexplanation under Section 3.11). This was <strong>co</strong>nfirmed by all the specialists.5.3.3 AAIC’s Preferred Mine Plan –Mine Plan Version 6AAIC maintains that Mine Plan Version 6 remains their base case preferred mine plan, as motivatedbelow.During the <strong>EIA</strong> Phase, AAIC <strong>co</strong>mpleted a <strong>co</strong>mparative evaluation of Mine Plan Version 6 and Mine PlanVersion 7D. The initial results of this <strong>co</strong>mparison were presented to the public at the public feedbackmeeting in March 2012 as well as the DWA and MDEDET in April 2012, while the EnvironmentalAssessment Practitioner (EAP) presented a <strong>co</strong>mparative assessment of the environmental impacts ofMine Plan Version 6 and Mine Plan Version 7 (these presentations are attached as Appendix D14 andAppendix D15).AAIC’s assessment 34 of the technical and financial <strong>co</strong>nsiderations is presented below.34Updated from draft <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong>.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)161
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices5.3.3.1 Technical ConsiderationsBased on an integrated technical evaluation of Mine Plan Version 6 and Mine Plan Version 7, AAICmaintains that Mine Plan Version 6 remains the preferred mine plan. Their motivation for their preferredmine plan is as follows:The northern section of the New Largo <strong>co</strong>al reserve, found on the farm Honingkrantz(Honingkrantz reserves), around the large pan (Honingkrantz pan), is characterized as havinggood quality <strong>co</strong>al at a low stripping ratio under virgin ground <strong>co</strong>nditions, which presents safemining <strong>co</strong>nditions. From a mine engineering perspective the Honingkrantz portion of the <strong>co</strong>alreserve, forms an integral part of the mine plan to effectively balance volume, mining risk and<strong>co</strong>al quality over the life of the New Largo Colliery.The larger part of the <strong>co</strong>al reserve is re<strong>co</strong>gnised to be of poorer quality which requires some formof beneficiation in order to improve the <strong>co</strong>al quality to the requirements stipulated in thepreliminary <strong>co</strong>al sale agreement between AAIC and Eskom. The <strong>co</strong>al sale agreement stipulationsare based on the design of Kusile.With Mine Plan Version 7, ~100 Mt of high quality <strong>co</strong>al is sterilised to avoid mining of theHoningkrantz pan. The impact of excluding this ~100 Mt of <strong>co</strong>al from the mine plan is illustratedon the table below.Table 5-1: Summarised Effect of Excluding the Honingkrantz Coal Reserves (~100 Mt of Coal) onCoal QualitiesCoal Quality Consideration Mine Plan Version 6 Mine Plan Version 7(D)% Area <strong>co</strong>ntains UG Workings 25% 30%% ROM Coal out of Kusile Specification 60% 65%Ratio of Good Quality Coal to Poor Quality Coal 1 to 1.53 1 to 1.76The table above illustrates the fact that the New Largo <strong>co</strong>al reserve is ‘imbalanced’ as more than half(60 % in the case of Mine Plan Version 6) of the <strong>co</strong>al does not meet the Kusile Power Station <strong>co</strong>al qualityrequirements.In the case of Mine Plan Version 6, it is only through beneficiation and effective blending of high quality<strong>co</strong>al with poor quality <strong>co</strong>al, that New Largo Colliery will be able to supply <strong>co</strong>al within the requiredspecifications to Kusile. AAIC maintains that it will be a challenging task and that there will not be a bigmargin for error – even for their base case preferred mine plan (Mine Plan Version 6).With the exclusion of the Honingkrantz reserve portion, in the case of Mine Plan Version 7, the NewLargo <strong>co</strong>al reserve be<strong>co</strong>mes even more imbalanced and the risks to the supply of <strong>co</strong>al, in terms ofquality and volume, is increased over the life of Kusile. With the design and location of Kusile, it wasalways intended that the New Largo <strong>co</strong>al reserve would supply the base load <strong>co</strong>al to Kusile. The boilersof Kusile were planned based on the <strong>co</strong>al quality average obtained from the whole of the New Largo <strong>co</strong>alreserve including the Honingkrantz reserves. Ac<strong>co</strong>rding to AAIC, Kusile was designed in ac<strong>co</strong>rdancewith Mine Plan Version 6 <strong>co</strong>al quality average.In the case of Mine Plan Version 6, the first dragline will mine good quality <strong>co</strong>al in the Honingkrantzreserve, while the se<strong>co</strong>nd dragline will be mining poorer quality of <strong>co</strong>al in the southern portion of the <strong>co</strong>alreserve. The <strong>co</strong>al will be blended to meet the Kusile <strong>co</strong>al quality requirements. With Mine Plan Version 7and the exclusion of the Honingkrantz reserves, ~ 13 years of effective <strong>co</strong>al blending is lost which posesa significant risk to <strong>co</strong>al quality and the efficiency of the Kusile boilers.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)162
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesIf <strong>co</strong>al associated with the Honingkrantz pan is excluded from the mine plan, New Largo Colliery will loseapproximately 7 years of its total life of mine and Eskom will have to source the <strong>co</strong>al deficit from another<strong>co</strong>al reserve. The sourced <strong>co</strong>al will most probably need to be imported by road with the 30 tonne <strong>co</strong>altrucks as is <strong>co</strong>mmonly used today. The increased number of trucks on the road not only poses asignificant safety risk to the public but also has negative environmental impacts in terms of dust andcarbon emissions.In order to replace the ~100 Mt of lost <strong>co</strong>al supply to the Kusile, approximately 1,166 trucks per day willbe required for a period of 7 years, to transport 14 Mt of <strong>co</strong>al per year. Based on media reports on thefuture of mass <strong>co</strong>al transportation via rail (see Section 1.5.8), it would not be viable to install additionalrail infrastructure to transport this <strong>co</strong>al via rail.AAIC sees the key technical disadvantages of Mine Plan Version 7 to be:New Largo is dependent on blending of good and poor quality <strong>co</strong>al in order to achieve Kusile <strong>co</strong>alqualities. Successful blending is dependent on a balance of good and poor quality <strong>co</strong>al beingmined <strong>co</strong>ncurrently. In terms of balancing good quality versus poor quality <strong>co</strong>al, Mine PlanVersion 7 is an unbalanced mine plan that significantly reduces the potential for blending andincreases the need for beneficiation of the <strong>co</strong>al and thus the generation of <strong>co</strong>al discardassociated with beneficiation.New Largo is associated with large areas of remnant <strong>co</strong>al, associated with old underground mineworkings, which pose a risk to production and <strong>co</strong>al supply. These risks are reduced if remnantand virgin mining is balanced over the life of the mine. Mine Plan Version 7 is an unbalancedmine plan over the life of the mine in terms of balancing mining of the remnant <strong>co</strong>al reserves andvirgin <strong>co</strong>al reserves.The Honingkrantz reserve <strong>co</strong>ntains <strong>co</strong>al within both the No 2 and No 4 seams, which <strong>co</strong>ntributesto it being a low strip ratio <strong>co</strong>al reserve area (New Largo will get more <strong>co</strong>al for the same amountof overburden removed). Mine Plan Version 7 is an unbalanced mine plan over the life of themine in terms of high strip ratio versus low strip ratio <strong>co</strong>al reserves. By excluding the low stripratio Honingkrantz reserve portion, production risks are added to the operation and <strong>co</strong>sts willincrease. If the Honingkrantz reserve portion is excluded, New Largo is left with ~70% of theavailable mining area in the north only <strong>co</strong>ntaining <strong>co</strong>al in the No 2 seam (high strip ratio <strong>co</strong>alreserve).There are significant safety risks associated with mining remnant <strong>co</strong>al reserves, includingspontaneous <strong>co</strong>mbustion, flooding, sink holes, high risk blasting activities (hot hole blasting) etc.The best way of designing a high production mine like New Largo Colliery is to balance the <strong>co</strong>alqualities, strip ratio, remnant reserves and production rates over the life of the mine and thus toutilise one dragline in a virgin <strong>co</strong>al area (‘safe’ areas) while the other is utilised in a remnant <strong>co</strong>alarea (‘high risk’ areas). Mine Plan Version 7 reduces the flexibility of utilising the two draglines inthis way and production and safety risks increase due to both draglines mining in the remnant<strong>co</strong>al areas under high strip ratio <strong>co</strong>nditions simultaneously.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)163
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesMining of remnant <strong>co</strong>al requires the establishment of a buffer within the highwall so as to preventoxygen from ingressing into the old underground mine workings causing spontaneous<strong>co</strong>mbustion. This requirement limits the potential use of explosives to ‘throw’ or ‘cast’ theoverburden into position. Without the use of explosives, the dragline is basically the only way ofmoving the material. Using the dragline in this way, is a more inefficient mining method as thedragline rehandle percentage (additional volume of material handled) increases from 12% to28%. This significantly influences the efficiency (<strong>co</strong>al exposure rate) of the dragline. In the caseof Mine Plan Version 7, both draglines will be mining in remnant <strong>co</strong>al areas from 2030 to 2040.Due to the increased rehandle of material during this time, the production rate of the draglines willdrop to 10.5 million sales tonnes of <strong>co</strong>al per year as opposed to the 12 million tonnes required byKusile. Kusile will therefore need to source the shortfall from a third party. This externally sourced<strong>co</strong>al will most likely have to be imported by road.The use of draglines is essential to achieve the high extraction <strong>co</strong>al rates required to supplyKusile. With dragline mining, sufficient pit length is required in order to sequence and schedule allthe mining activities e.g. drilling, blasting, <strong>co</strong>al loading, etc. With Mine Plan Version 7 and theexclusion of the Honingkrantz <strong>co</strong>al reserve, the pit length is reduced from 6 km down to 1.8 km.This jeopardises the efficiency of the whole mining process, especially for the large size ofdraglines New Largo Colliery will be utilising to achieve the high <strong>co</strong>al extraction rates required tosupply Kusile.Mine Plan Version 7 is associated with a reduced ability to blend good quality with poor quality<strong>co</strong>al. Thus, the only way of getting the <strong>co</strong>al within specification will be to process all of the <strong>co</strong>al.This causes unnecessary <strong>co</strong>al yield losses, increased <strong>co</strong>al discard and further reduces the <strong>co</strong>altonnes to Kusile.If sufficient good quality <strong>co</strong>al is available to blend with poor quality <strong>co</strong>al, the need for beneficiationcan be reduced which in turn will reduce the volume of <strong>co</strong>al discards. Mine Plan Version 7increases the need for beneficiation.The overall production profile to Kusile for Mine Plan Version 6 and Mine Plan Version 7 are illustratedby Figure 5-1 and Figure 5-2. The individual supply sources from New Largo Colliery are also illustrated,and how these supplies are balanced over the life of the mine.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)164
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesFigure 5-1: Sequencing of Coal Supply to Kusile Based on AAIC Base Case Mine (Mine PlanVersion 6) 35Figure 5-2: Sequencing of Coal Supply to Kusile Based on the Alternative Mine (Mine PlanVersion 7D), this mine plan was <strong>co</strong>nsidered to reduce the total impact of New Largo Colliery onWetlands5.3.3.2 Financial ConsiderationsThe information provided in this section has been calculated by AAIC, and was presented to theMDEDET and DWA at meetings in April 2012 (the full presentation is provided in Appendix D15). Thesection presents AAIC’s views on the <strong>co</strong>st of the <strong>co</strong>al and the financial implications if the <strong>co</strong>al associatedwith the Honingkrantz pan and the immediate surroundings is not mined (<strong>co</strong>st of Mine Plan Version 6<strong>co</strong>mpared to Mine Plan Version 7).35Zfn = Zondagsfontein Mine. Zondagsfontein East 4 Seam and Zibulo Middlings represent <strong>co</strong>al sourced from outside the New Largo Colliery.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)165
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesAs described above, Mine Plan Version 6 is the technically preferred mine plan. It is optimised andpresents the lowest risk to the <strong>co</strong>al supply to Kusile in terms of <strong>co</strong>al quality and volume.From a financial perspective, Mine Plan Version 7 has major <strong>co</strong>st implications for Eskom, and potentiallytheir <strong>co</strong>nsumers, in that the establishment capital expenses (Capex) and operating expenses aresubstantially higher <strong>co</strong>mpared to that of Mine Plan Version 6.The washing plant, water treatment plant and other related infrastructure is required earlier in the life ofMine Plan Version 7 and therefore requires capital funding earlier in the life of the mine, therebyincreasing the <strong>co</strong>al price to Kusile. The key differences in capital expenditure are tabled below.Table 5-2: Main Capex Events for Mine Plan Version 6 versus Mine Plan Version 7CAPEX Events Mine Plan Version 6 Mine Plan Version 7DMS Plant 2023 20193rd and 4th Drewboy Module 2037 2024Water treatment plants (Mobile/Permanent)4Ml/Day 2013 20138Ml/day 2017 201512Ml/day 2023 202316Ml/day 2033 202820Ml/day 2043 204124Ml/day 2051 2052Bypass Conveyor at Phola Plant for Zondagsfontein Mine (Zfn) East 4seam <strong>co</strong>al2026 2026Tip 2 2023 2019Dragline 2 2023 20232017-2023 &2017-2022Shovel and Truck operation2037-2042Temporary Discard Dump 2023 2019Dragline Walk Pit A to E 2039 2025Dragline Walk Pit E to F 2044 2035Dragline Walk Pit F to H&J 2052 2046Pit F oil Pipeline relocation 2043 2034Wilge Sub-station relocation 2040 2034Pits F infrastructure (Mining North of N12 - crushing & screeningplant + silo, etc.)2043 2034Pits H&J (Infrastructure) (Mining South of N12) 2052 2046R545 Road Deviation Quarter 4, 2016 Quarter 4, 2016New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)166
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesAAIC’s financial evaluation of Mine Plan Version 6 versus Mine Plan Version 7 is summarised in thetables below.Table 5-3: AAIC’s calculation of the Financial Impact of Mine Plan Version 6 <strong>co</strong>mpared to MinePlan Version 7Mine Plan Version 7Financial Criteria Mine Plan Version 6(<strong>co</strong>st of not mining the Honingkrantz Panand surroundings)Establishment Capex Base (X) X + R 924, 5 millionAAIC Net Present Value (NPV) X X + R 3 millionAAIC Internal Rate of Return (IRR) X + 0.07 % XPayback X + 0.07 years XTotal <strong>co</strong>st of <strong>co</strong>al to Eskom (R/tonne) X X + R 22.65/tonneTotal <strong>co</strong>st of <strong>co</strong>al to Eskom (R/GJ) X X + R 1.38/GJTable 5-4: AAIC’s Calculation of Financial Cost of Not Mining Honingkrantz Pan (Comparing theCosts of Mine Plan Version 6 Versus Mine Plan Version 7)Financial Criteria Mine Plan Version 6Mine Plan Version 7 (<strong>co</strong>st of not miningthe Honingkrantz Pan and surroundings)Additional <strong>co</strong>st of <strong>co</strong>al to ESKOM for LOM@ R22.65/tonne (45 years)Base (X)X + R 14.3 billionEskom sourcing <strong>co</strong>al from 3rd party for 7 years @R320/tonne (including transport <strong>co</strong>sts)XX + R 31.4 billionAdditional Capex <strong>co</strong>ntribution for Eskom(two-thirds <strong>co</strong>ntribution by Eskom)XX + R 0.62 billionAAIC’s calculation of the “<strong>co</strong>st of the Honingkrantz Pan” X X + R 46.32 billionFrom the tables above, it can be seen that there is no real difference in net present value (NPV) from anAAIC perspective in adopting either Mine Plan Version 6 or Mine Plan Version 7.The biggest implication will be on Eskom to pay an additional two-thirds (66.6 %) of the increase inestablishment capital (R924.5 million x 0.667 = R616.3 million) and to pay an additional R22.65 pertonne of <strong>co</strong>al produced at New Largo Colliery over the mine’s life of approximately 45 years if Mine PlanVersion 7 was to be adopted.Another major financial impact of Mine Plan Version 7 on Eskom will occur when the <strong>co</strong>al at New LargoColliery is depleted. Mine Plan Version 7 has 100 Mt less <strong>co</strong>al <strong>co</strong>mpared to Mine Plan Version 6 which<strong>co</strong>uld have sustained the power station for an additional 7 years. At the stage when Kusile would need tosource the ~100 Mt shortfall of <strong>co</strong>al, most of the <strong>co</strong>al reserves in the Witbank <strong>co</strong>alfields would bedepleted. This shortfall in <strong>co</strong>al will then need to be imported from another <strong>co</strong>alfield (e.g. the Waterberg,which is more than 500 km away) at an increased <strong>co</strong>st.The <strong>co</strong>st implication of Mine Plan Version 7 in current ‘base’ money value for Eskom is approximatelyR46.32 billion. This significant <strong>co</strong>st will in all likelihood be transferred on to the electricity <strong>co</strong>nsumers ofSouth Africa. This will be an important fact to <strong>co</strong>nsider when the authorities decide which mine plan toauthorise.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)167
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesAAIC believes that by excluding the <strong>co</strong>al in the Honingkrantz pan area from the mine plan, the balance of<strong>co</strong>al supply to Kusile will be significantly disturbed in terms of qualities and volumes over the life of theproject. The Kusile boilers were designed on the <strong>co</strong>al quality averages obtained from the whole resourceincluding the reserves in the Honingkrantz pan area. With the exclusion, ~13 years of effective <strong>co</strong>alblending at New Largo Colliery is lost, which poses significant risks to <strong>co</strong>al quality and power stationefficiency.If <strong>co</strong>al associated with the pan of farm Honingkrantz is excluded from the mining plan, New LargoColliery will lose approximately 7 years off its total life of mine and Eskom will have to source the <strong>co</strong>aldeficit from somewhere else.5.3.3.3 Environmental ConsiderationsAAIC maintains that their Base Case Mine Plan (Mine Plan Version 6) is the optimal mine plan andpreferred from a mine engineering, risk of <strong>co</strong>al supply and financial perspective, as discussed above.Mine Plan Version 6 includes the mining of the Honingkrantz pan, while the Alternative Mine Plan (MinePlan Version 7) excludes the mining of this pan area as a mitigation measure for the overall impact thatthe New Largo Colliery would have on the other pans and wetlands within the rest of the mining area. Byexcluding the Honingkrantz pan from the mine plan, the total impact of the New Largo Colliery onwetlands, and on biodiversity, would be reduced. At workshops held with I&APs, stakeholders andauthorities in July 2011, the Honingkrantz pan was informally identified as a priority area 36 .Looking at the situation purely from a biodiversity and wetland protection perspective, it seems obviousthat an alternative mine plan must be adopted (i.e. Version 7D or similar) to exclude the Honingkrantzpan area, and that AAIC must adapt to the business case problems and risks such an alternative wouldpose.The ‘ideal scenario’ for South Africa would be to ‘avoid <strong>co</strong>al mining in sensitive areas’ and ‘not to mineany wetlands’, and if the ‘ideal scenario’ cannot be achieved to at least ‘avoid <strong>co</strong>al mining in prioritysensitive areas and to ‘not mine any priority wetlands’.However, integrating environmental, technical and e<strong>co</strong>nomic <strong>co</strong>nsiderations is no simple task, especiallywhere national electricity supply and thus South Africa’s e<strong>co</strong>nomic development at a national level is atstake. In addition, with the design and location of Kusile, it was intended that the New Largo <strong>co</strong>al reservewould supply the base load <strong>co</strong>al to Kusile. The boilers of Kusile were planned based on the <strong>co</strong>al qualityaverage obtained from the whole of the New Largo <strong>co</strong>al reserve including the Honingkrantz reserves. Inessence – Kusile was designed in ac<strong>co</strong>rdance with Mine Plan Version 6 <strong>co</strong>al quality average. Based onthis New Largo Colliery will be expected to produce at least that average qualities of <strong>co</strong>al, regardless ofthe mine plan adopted.AAIC has calculated the monetary value of the <strong>co</strong>al associated with the Honingkrantz pan and thefinancial implications, to Eskom and potentially the South African <strong>co</strong>nsumer, if this <strong>co</strong>al is not mined.These calculations did not include the long-term loss in the value of e<strong>co</strong>system services provided by thepan should the pan not be mined and remain intact and able to maintain its function in the environment.To effectively <strong>co</strong>mpare the value of mining <strong>co</strong>al to the value of aquatic e<strong>co</strong>system services would requirea strategic assessment of the <strong>co</strong>al resources and aquatic e<strong>co</strong>systems and wetlands in South Africa,including the need for <strong>co</strong>al in electricity generation and associated e<strong>co</strong>nomic development, and thefuture of e<strong>co</strong>nomic developments which are dependent on e<strong>co</strong>system services. What is required, is anational strategic approach to mining and the protection of e<strong>co</strong>systems, which will require close<strong>co</strong>operation between the DMR, DWA and DEA (representing mining, water and the environment). Thisneed to have an strategic approach is further illustrated by the fact that the “DWA must look after both36Please note the terms ‘priority area’, ‘priority wetland’, and ‘priority sensitive area’ are used loosely as a term used to illustrate a <strong>co</strong>ncept of assigninga higher value to certain areas or wetlands. Used in this <strong>co</strong>ntext, it is not linked to a specific scientific process or methodology.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)168
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesthe needs of the people of South Africa and the mining industry” (<strong>co</strong>mment by Dr Paul Meulenbeld,DWA, New Largo Colliery <strong>EIA</strong> authorities meeting, Witbank, 26 July 2011).In the absence of such a strategy, and with the uncertainties around future land uses such as agriculture,sand mining and <strong>co</strong>al mining in the area around Kusile and New Largo Colliery, it would be virtuallyimpossible to provide a realistic and credible <strong>co</strong>mparison of the monetary value of the <strong>co</strong>al mined at NewLargo versus the value of the e<strong>co</strong>system services. Rather than providing a monetary value of thee<strong>co</strong>system services, Wetland Consulting Services, has been appointed to develop wetland offset plan.As part of the strategy, they have analysed the e<strong>co</strong>system services value of the affected wetlands interms of ‘hectare equivalent’ based on the present e<strong>co</strong>logical state (PES) of the wetlands affected byMine Plan Version 6 (see Appendix U).Another problem with the lack of a national strategy, is that decisions and efforts to manage mining,water and the environment is are made on a mine-by-mine / project-by-project basis. This is a scenariothat is being repeated at various other <strong>co</strong>al mines in South Africa – where mines are trying to orexpected to, as part of the <strong>EIA</strong> and IWULA approval processes, adapt their mine plans in order to protecta portion of the wetlands within their mining right areas. In the absence of a strategic plan, this is an adhocattempt by mines and the authorities to protect wetlands and associated e<strong>co</strong>systems found withinindividual mining reserve areas. Unfortunately, this mine-by-mine / project-by-project approach remainsad-hoc and in some cases it results in fragmented wetland habitats surrounded by mining and otherin<strong>co</strong>mpatible land uses. What is currently being done cannot replace the need for a more strategicapproach to guiding and managing <strong>co</strong>al mining and the protection of wetlands and other sensitivehabitats in South Africa, while meeting National Government strategy for <strong>co</strong>al supply to Eskom and thuselectricity supply to South Africa.With the uncertainties around future land uses such as agriculture, sand mining and <strong>co</strong>al mining in thearea around Kusile and New Largo Colliery, the ability of the Honingkrantz pan to maintain its e<strong>co</strong>systemservices value in the long-term cannot be guaranteed if Mine Plan Version 7 was to be adopted. Forexample:1. If the Honingkrantz pan area is not mined by AAIC, AAIC will in effect give up (or lose) theirmining right over the area. This would give other mining <strong>co</strong>mpanies the opportunity to apply for amining right over this area in the future.2. Sand mining in the vicinity of the pan is <strong>co</strong>ntinuing to impact on the pan, as can be illustrated bythe following two maps of the sand mining operations that were obtained from AAIC (Figure 5-3and Figure 5-4).3. The future of <strong>co</strong>al mining and plans by other mining <strong>co</strong>mpanies to mine the <strong>co</strong>al reserves in closeproximity to New Largo is uncertain, but based on current information in the public domain, it islikely that other <strong>co</strong>al mines may be established in future, which would affect areas downstream ofthe Honingkrantz pan, further questioning the future value of the pan’s e<strong>co</strong>system services –again highlighting a strategic rather than a project-by project approach to wetland protection and<strong>co</strong>nservation.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)169
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesFigure 5-3: Plan of Sand Mining on farm Honingkrantz (1)Source: AAIC Technical TeamNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)170
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesFigure 5-4: Plan of Sand Mining on farm Honingkrantz (2)Source: AAIC Technical TeamIn addition to these questions regarding the sustainability of the pan and it’s e<strong>co</strong>system services, it hasto be <strong>co</strong>nsidered that the ~100 Mt of <strong>co</strong>al has to be found from elsewhere.AAIC has adopted and <strong>co</strong>mmitted to a number of key environmental management measures. The mostimportant ones include:A progressive soil management and rehabilitation plan (Section 4.11), more advanced than mostother <strong>co</strong>al mines, especially mines using draglines. This plan increases the potential for theestablishment of agricultural land uses post mining.A water treatment plant to treat water impacted by New Largo Collier and previous miningactivities within the mining area, from day one, throughout the life of the mine and post closureuntil such time that monitoring results prove that treatment is no longer necessary. Linked to thewater treatment plant, is the release of only treated water into streams at various points insurrounding streams, proportionally to the requirements and flow of the different streams, basedon the re<strong>co</strong>mmendations of the hydrological specialist (once these re<strong>co</strong>mmendations have beenreviewed and verified as part of the Reserve Determination).Development of a wetland offset plan for impacts on wetlands affected by AAIC’s Mine PlanVersion 6, in ac<strong>co</strong>rdance to the strategy developed by Wetland Consulting Services (seeAppendix U).New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)171
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesThe same cannot be guaranteed for the alternative mine(s) where the ~100 Mt of <strong>co</strong>al will have to besourced.5.3.3.4 SynthesisA <strong>co</strong>mprehensive description, assessment and rating of all the impacts associated with Mine PlanVersion 6 is provided in Section 8 and Appendix B, with a <strong>co</strong>mplete <strong>co</strong>mparison of the impacts for MinePlan Version 7 for each of the environmental <strong>co</strong>mponents discussed.Section 9.5 provides a summarised <strong>co</strong>mparison of the impacts of Mine Plan Version 6 versus Mine PlanVersion 7. In order to achieve an objective <strong>co</strong>mparison of the two mine plans, impacts for Mine Plan 7 ona regional / trans-boundary level includes the impacts of ~100 Mt of <strong>co</strong>al mined at theoretical mine(s)external to New Largo Colliery. This is deemed necessary for the assessment due to the fact that Kusilewill be required to source the ~100 Mt of <strong>co</strong>al that is not mined in Mine Plan Version 7 from elsewhere tosustain the power station’s demand for <strong>co</strong>al over its predicted life, and this would result in impactsaffecting the region where the <strong>co</strong>al is sourced. It will also have impacts associated with <strong>co</strong>altransportation.On a local level, there are clear benefits to adopt Mine Plan Version 7 since the impacts from mining of~100 Mt of <strong>co</strong>al would not take place in the affected local area (except for a portion of the transportationimpacts) – but they will be transferred to another area and onto Eskom to find an alternative ~100 Mt<strong>co</strong>al supply. However, the abovementioned uncertainties around the future of the Honingkrantz panremains.In the absence of such a strategic plan for managing <strong>co</strong>al reserves and wetland protection, thereappears to be no <strong>co</strong>mpelling reason for Mine Plan Version 7 to be enforced, when viewed regionally andover the life of Kusile and <strong>co</strong>nsidering:The uncertainties around the ability of Mine Plan Version 7 to safeguard the Honingkrantz pan,and the failures that are sometimes associated with an ad-hoc approach to wetland protection ona project-to-project / mine-to-mine basis (fragmented wetlands as discussed above),Probable environmental impacts of the ~100 Mt replacement <strong>co</strong>al. The area affected by NewLargo <strong>co</strong>nsist of
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesHowever, <strong>co</strong>nsidering that the key biodiversity impacts are being mitigated at New Largo (i.e. impactedmine water will be treated and released, the <strong>co</strong>nceptual end land use plan is based on a no net loss offood production and agricultural in<strong>co</strong>me, and a strategy to develop a wetland offset plan has beenadopted), as well as all the other social and environmental <strong>co</strong>nsiderations discussed elsewhere in the<strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong>, the financial <strong>co</strong>nsiderations to Eskom and its <strong>co</strong>nsumers, and importantly the technical riskshighlighted by AAIC (with a knock-on effect on Eskom and its <strong>co</strong>nsumers), the EAP is re<strong>co</strong>mmendingthat the project be approved based on Mine Plan Version 6 as the preferred mine plan. Thisre<strong>co</strong>mmendation is <strong>co</strong>nditional to the implementation of the EMP as <strong>co</strong>ntained in Appendix B, of whichthe key measures and <strong>co</strong>mmitments are:Implementation of AAIC’s adopted soil management and rehabilitation plan as detailed in theSection 4.11of the <strong>EIA</strong> (this plan was written into the EMP <strong>co</strong>mmitments),Development and <strong>co</strong>ntinued operation of a water treatment plant to treat water impacted by themine and past mining activities within the mining area from day one, throughout the life of themine and post closure until such time that monitoring results prove that treatment is no longernecessary, and release of only treated water into streams at various points in surroundingstreams, proportionally to the requirements and flow in the different streams (based on there<strong>co</strong>mmendations of the hydrological specialist, once the re<strong>co</strong>mmendations have been reviewedand verified as part of the Reserve Determination),Development and implementation of a wetland offset plan for impacts on wetlands affected byAAIC’s Mine Plan Version 6, in ac<strong>co</strong>rdance to the strategy developed by Wetland ConsultingServices (see Appendix U).5.4 Mining MethodThere are several portions of the New Largo <strong>co</strong>al reserve where mining by underground methods hastaken place in the past. Collapse of old underground workings and spontaneous <strong>co</strong>mbustion poses aha<strong>za</strong>rd to both the workforce and equipment if not adequately managed. AAIC has extensive experiencein opencast mining of previously mined underground workings and safe work practices employed atthese <strong>co</strong>llieries will be implemented. However, the presence of the old underground workings do posesignificant limitations on the mining methods chosen as well as on mine scheduling / sequencing toachieve safe mining <strong>co</strong>nditions and achieve the required <strong>co</strong>al qualities required for Kusile.AAIC views opencast mining using draglines, supported by small shovel and truck operations, as theonly mining method to:The Kusile Power Station requires the New Largo Colliery to form the base of their <strong>co</strong>al supply forabout 50 years. This can only be achieved if the reserve is mined using a high extraction miningmethod, implying that an opencast method is required.It is estimated that approximately 27% of the reserve plan area <strong>co</strong>ntains defunct <strong>co</strong>llieries withremnant reserves <strong>co</strong>ntained in pillars and roof and/or floor of the old underground workings.Opencast mining methods can enable one to effectively and safely extract the remnant <strong>co</strong>alreserves as opposed to underground mining methods.The overburden thicknesses and strip ratios of the New Largo reserves are suitable for draglineopencast methods. The average strip ratio of the reserve is 2.76.The <strong>co</strong>al tonnage that Eskom require (~14 Mt / annum) involves moving large volumes ofoverburden.Dragline mining is more <strong>co</strong>st effective <strong>co</strong>mpared to shovel and truck mining.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)173
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesThe 50 year life of mine supports the procuring of draglines.Draglines are better suited to expose <strong>co</strong>al remaining in areas previously mined by undergroundmining methods - with reference to safety and productivity.Draglines with shovel and truck support are not necessary because of the selected draglineshaving sufficient capacity to move the required volumes.Shovel and truck only would require a large fleet of equipment with the equivalent workforce tomeet the required volumes - less <strong>co</strong>st effective <strong>co</strong>mpared to draglines.The use of draglines simplifies mining in that the supervisory, operational and maintenanceaspects can be focused on a single mining method and a few units of ancillary equipment.Underground mining is not being <strong>co</strong>nsidered as an alternative mining method.The preferred mining method would thus be opencast dragline mining, supported by small shovel andtruck operations.5.5 Location of Surface InfrastructureThe location of any surface infrastructure such as tips, power lines, <strong>co</strong>mmunication masts, the <strong>co</strong>alprocessing plant, access, service and haul roads and <strong>co</strong>nveyors to Kusile, had to take <strong>co</strong>gnisance of thelocation of Kusile, location of the minable <strong>co</strong>al reserve in relation to Kusile, and the fact that <strong>co</strong>al needsto be hauled from the mine and <strong>co</strong>nveyed to Kusile. Distances and efficiency are of utmost <strong>co</strong>ncern, notonly from an e<strong>co</strong>nomic viewpoint but also from an air quality and carbon emissions point of view sincethe haulage of <strong>co</strong>al is the single most significant source of dust at an opencast <strong>co</strong>al mine.The location of infrastructure had to also take <strong>co</strong>gnisance of existing power lines, pipelines, roads andadjacent mining activities.The majority of the surface infrastructure is located between the New Largo mining area and Kusile andis therefore some distance away from residential areas as such, the need for investigating alternatives tolocations and routes proposed by AAIC was not required.The infrastructure <strong>co</strong>mponents are illustrated on the various figures in this <strong>EIA</strong> main report and on thedrawings in Appendix T for positions of surface infrastructure including roads, tele<strong>co</strong>mmunication mastsand power lines.Although the positions of surface infrastructure are indicated as accurately as possible on the figures anddrawings, the positions may change and additional infrastructure may be required over time. This isinherent to an opencast mining operation where the open mine pits move over time, especially for a minewith a long life such is anticipated for the New Largo Colliery.5.6 Alternative Options for Deviation of the R545The following possible alternatives for mitigating the impacts of demolishing the section of the R545Provincial Road between the N4 and N12 were <strong>co</strong>nsidered (see Figure 1-1):New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)174
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesOption 1: Construction of the new road from the R545 approximately 2 kilometres south of theKendal-Balmoral intersection, to run south-eastwards and then southwards along the easternborder of the proposed New Largo Colliery, tying in with the R545 (eastern split) near VoltargoVillage. AAIC aimed to keep to route on their property as far as possible, in order to minimiseimpacts on third parties. The following alignments were investigated.o Option 1A: New road around north-east of pan.- Option 1A (old). This was the route presented in the draft <strong>EIA</strong> report.- Option 1A (new / updated). Indicated as the AAIC preferred route on Figure 1-1 andother maps. It involved minor route alignments made since the draft <strong>EIA</strong> report.- Option 1A (variations, not AAIC preferred). The wetland specialist delineatedwetlands found along the AAIC preferred route and re<strong>co</strong>mmended certain variationsto reduce impacts on wetlands (see Appendix F2 for an illustration of thesevariations). However, AAIC indicated that these routes are not feasible due to thefact that:• Option 1A (western variation) falls within the 500 metres only 100 metre from theproposed mined area in places. The R545, a provincial road, would have to beclosed to vehicular traffic for safety reasons during open cast blasting operations.• Option 1A (eastern variation) falls on land that is not owned by AAIC and wouldthus affect the third party land owners 37 . In addition, this route involves steeperslopes (>7% on degrees slopes) that are not favoured in terms of roadengineering).o Option 1B: New road around south-west of pan (very similar in length to Option 1A).Only possible for Mine Plan Version 7. Option 1B is the better option from a biodiversityviewpoint but would sterilise a significant portion of the <strong>co</strong>al reserve and is not regardedas a feasible option for <strong>co</strong>nsideration in the <strong>EIA</strong>, and is only possible for Mine PlanVersion 7. AAIC adopted Mine Plan Version 6 as their preferred mine plan andOption 1B cannot be <strong>co</strong>nsidered as it would be aligned through centre of the mining areafor Mine Plan Version 6.Option 2: Upgrading of the road running southwards from the Rondebult intersection on the N4 tothe R104 and the R104 westwards to where it then joins road D432 southwards, until it crosseswith a bridge overpass. No interchange exists at his point and a new interchange would berequired. Not regarded as feasible by the DPWRT (the owner of the road) and various I&APs.The out<strong>co</strong>me of the Traffic Specialist Impact Assessment <strong>co</strong>nfirmed that this option is notpreferred.No-Go Development Option: The no-go development assumes that no road replacement getsapproved, but that the demolition of the section of the R545 Provincial Road between the N4 andthe N12 proceeds as a result of the New Largo Colliery development. Not regarded as feasible,thus not assessed.AAIC has indicated that they will keep to their proposed alignment of Option 1A and will engineer thenecessary mitigation measures to minimize the impact on wetlands along route Option 1A (new /updated) indicated as the AAIC preferred route option on Figure 1-1 and on the drawings in Appendix T.37Farm Portion 26 (A Harriet) and Portion 10 (J H Putter).New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)175
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices5.7 Soil Management and RehabilitationSoil management, mainly the live stripping and replacement as part of the overall rehabilitation plan,forms an integral part of an opencast mining operation. The way soils are managed during the miningoperations dictates, to a large extent, the post mining land capability and thus the end land use potential.It also has a significant impact on the groundwater infiltration and the overall water make of the entiremining area and will affect the quantity and quality of water make at the mine, not only during the life ofthe mine, but for many years post closure.There is direct trade-off between the <strong>co</strong>sts of soil management during the operating phase of the projecton the one hand, and the end land use potential and <strong>co</strong>st of post closure water treatment on the otherhand.Soil management is an extremely <strong>co</strong>stly process due to the sheer volumes of soil being handled and it iskey therefore key that the <strong>co</strong>st and benefits of any management measure be clearly understood.5.7.1 Current DMR guidelines and Anglo American guidelines on Land CapabilityCurrent guidelines dictates soil management and rehabilitation that would achieve wetland, arable,grazing or wilderness land capability ac<strong>co</strong>rding to the following criteria:Criteria for WetlandLand with organic soils or supporting hygrophilous vegetation where soil and vegetationprocesses are water determined.Criteria for Arable landLand, which does not qualify as a wetland.The soil is readily permeable to a depth of 750 mm.The soil has less than 10% (by volume) rocks or pedocrete fragments larger than 100 mm in theupper 750 mm. Has a slope (in %) and erodibility factor (K) such that their product is
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesCriteria for Wilderness landLand, which does not qualify as wetland, arable land or grazing land.5.7.2 Initial Soil Management and Rehabilitation Options5.7.2.1 Initial Re<strong>co</strong>mmendations by Environmental SpecialistsThe following soil management options were tabled by the Soils and Land Capability, Agriculture,Wetlands, E<strong>co</strong>logical, Agriculture, Groundwater and Geochemical Specialists at the time the draft <strong>EIA</strong>report was issued for review, discussion and <strong>co</strong>mment.Some of these re<strong>co</strong>mmendations are different from the soil management practices currently employedby AAIC on their other opencast <strong>co</strong>al mines. During the review of the draft <strong>EIA</strong> report, the merits of there<strong>co</strong>mmendations were discussed with AAIC and, where feasible, used in the development of AAIC’sadopted soil management and rehabilitation strategy as presented in Section 4.11.Soil Specialist Re<strong>co</strong>mmendations for Soil Management (Opencast Mining Areas Only) (January2012)Strip all ‘utilisable’ soil. The <strong>co</strong>ncept of “utilisable” soil has been introduced as a practical way ofdescribing the top layers of he soils that should be stripped and used for rehabilitation and thatare useful for the re-establishment of a vegetation. Depending on the soil forms, this <strong>co</strong>uld eitherbe (i) the A and B soil horizons, or (ii) the A and top of the B horizon. Use live placementwherever possible to minimise stockpiling.Protect stockpiled materials from <strong>co</strong>ntamination and erosion by rock cladding or vegetation <strong>co</strong>verand by ensuring there is adequate drainage of surface runoff.Alluvial soils from areas of deep excavation should be stockpiled separately from the <strong>co</strong>lluvial(shallower) soils and in-situ derived materials, which in turn should be stripped and storedseparately from any calcrete material, while the soft overburden is stored as a separate unit. Strip and place hydromorphic (wet) soils separately from the dry materials and keep the“calcrete” separately from all other materials.Agricultural Specialist Re<strong>co</strong>mmendations for Soil Management (January 2012)When stripping takes place it is re<strong>co</strong>mmended that the various soil types be stockpiled separatelyin broad categories for both the topsoil and the overburden. The likely groups should be asfollows:o Vertic soils (e.g., Arcadia and Rensburg);o Organic and hydromorphic soils (e.g., Longlands, Katspruit, Champagne);o Red <strong>co</strong>loured soils like Hutton;o Yellow <strong>co</strong>loured soils l(e.g., Avalon and Clovelly), ando Duplex soil forms (e.g., Es<strong>co</strong>urt and Kroonstad).New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)177
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesThe microbiologically active topsoil layer is much shallower than one metre. The topsoil shouldbe split into two fractions; the top 400 mm and then the next 700 mm and stored separately. Themain reason is that there is often aluminium toxicity in the soil layer just below the topsoil and ifthis and the layer below the topsoil is mixed, it may have a detrimental impact on the growingmedium, especially on the yellow acidic soils.If, the two layers have to mixed, due to practical mining <strong>co</strong>nstraints, treatment with fly-ash andgypsum is an option to <strong>co</strong>unter the aluminium toxicity (both <strong>co</strong>mponents potentially readilyavailable in the area – power station ash dumps and WTP by-product) (pers. <strong>co</strong>mm. EugeneGouws).The overburden and the topsoil used during rehabilitation must be from the same groups:o Vertic soils (e.g., Arcadia and Rensburg);o Organic and hydromorphic soils (e.g., Longlands, Katspruit, Champagne);o Red <strong>co</strong>loured soils like Hutton;o Yellow <strong>co</strong>loured soils l(e.g., Avalon and Clovelly), ando Duplex soil forms (e.g., Es<strong>co</strong>urt and Kroonstad).The overburden and topsoil must only be returned to areas with the same pre‐mining soil<strong>co</strong>nditions as that being rehabilitated.Two alternatives are re<strong>co</strong>mmended for backfill and overburden:o Alternative 1: Backfill in layers of 2 metres and apply a light <strong>co</strong>mpactor up to the finallayer, prior to applying the topsoil. Level the surface to the final profile. Rip at 1,5 metreintervals to a depth of 1 metre.o Alternative 2: Backfill in layers of 2 metres <strong>co</strong>mpacting with normal machine movement.Level the surface to the final profile. Allow the soil to settle for two rainy seasons. Levelthe soil profile to rectify differential settlement.Ripping takes place after applying the topsoil.The topsoil should be returned to the land as soon as possible and not stored for prolongedperiods. If possible, take the topsoil that is removed from the section that is opened for miningand place it directly on the one that is being rehabilitated. This will reduce the time of exposure.Again note that the topsoil and subsoil should be from the same soil groups:o Vertic soils (e.g., Arcadia and Rensburg);o Organic and hydromorphic soils (e.g., Longlands, Katspruit, Champagne);o Red <strong>co</strong>loured soils like Hutton;o Yellow <strong>co</strong>loured soils l(e.g., Avalon and Clovelly), ando Duplex soil forms (e.g., Es<strong>co</strong>urt and Kroonstad).To ensure there is a bond between topsoil and subsoil for infiltration of water to take place,topsoil should be placed in the two separate layers: the bottom 700 mm and the top 400 mm.Apply fertilizers and rip the soil to a depth of 1,6 metres and at 1,5 metre intervals along the<strong>co</strong>ntour.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)178
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesWetland Specialist Re<strong>co</strong>mmendations for Soil Management (January 2012)The use of a deeper soil layer for rehabilitation, is more likely to support processes that en<strong>co</strong>uragewetland development, as well as wetland associated functions. There is some evidence to suggest thatapplying a deeper soils layer reduces the quantity of water that makes to ingress (Vermaak et al, 2000),implying retention of water in the upper soil profile a pre requisite for wetland development. Whether thisis a feasible option will depend largely on the availability of soils to achieve this as well as the practicalityof implementing it.Geochemical and Groundwater Specialist Re<strong>co</strong>mmendations for Soil Management (January 2012)It is of utmost importance that the mined out voids be rehabilitated as soon as practically possible afterbeing mined and that the rehabilitated spoils be layered as far as possible.Spoil layering <strong>co</strong>nsists of hard overburden at the bottom of the spoils, <strong>co</strong>vered by soft overburden andsoil (<strong>co</strong>mbined). The reason for layering the reinstated soils is to mimic the natural soil and lithologicalprofile as far as possible. In order to do this effectively, it is vital that the soils/soft overburden and hardoverburden be individually and separately stripped ahead of the advancing box-but, to minimize themixing of the material. It should be noted that this is the standard operation procure at opencast pits.Partial spoiling of soft/hard overburden occurs due to the limitations of dragline activities, but the highlyweathered soft material is normally stored with the soil.The selective handling of different types of overburden will be over-shadowed by the inclusion ofdiscards in the pit. The overall water quality distribution in the pits over the study area and over the Lifeof Mine will be dominated by the presence of the discard. The management objectives suggested arestandard for opencast pits and should primarily focus on the rehabilitation schedule.5.7.2.2 AAIC’s Initial Soil Management and Rehabilitation (as Presented in the Draft <strong>EIA</strong>)The following soil management and rehabilitation strategy 38 was proposed by AAIC in the draft <strong>EIA</strong><strong>Report</strong>. The purpose of the draft strategy was to open the debate around rehabilitation and solicit<strong>co</strong>mments from authorities and I&APs. For <strong>co</strong>mpleteness sake and as part of reporting on developmentalternatives <strong>co</strong>nsidered, the draft strategy is presented below, but it has been replaced by the newlyadopted AAIC strategy for soil management and rehabilitation as presented in Section 4.11.The AAIC initial soil and rehabilitation strategy was as follows:Sequential stripping is to take place in such a manner that the following can be obtained:Arable: Total soil depth at least 1.5m before spoil material is reachedPasture: Total soil depth at least 1m before spoil material is reachedGrazing and Wilderness: 750mm before spoil material is reached.A clear understanding of the definitions of topsoil and subsoil is required in this regard. For the terms ofreference, the topsoil will be regarded as the total A / O horizon and the subsoil will refer to the otherhorizons for example B, G or E.The impact of mixing these horizons is extremely dramatic and irrespective of the depth at which the soilis placed the functionality in terms of land capability will be lost (major liability to the operation).In an effort to have an pragmatic approach to the pre strip, soil with an A horizon depth of 0.8 m to 1.5 mhave been grouped together, soils of 400 mm to 600 mm and soils of 0 mm to 200 mm have similarly38This section was taken from Section 4.11 of the draft <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong> and represents the soil management and rehabilitation strategy tabled by AAIC inJanuary 2012 during the write-up of the draft <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong>.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)179
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesbeen grouped, these groupings will then also form the basis after placement of the post mining landcapability.In an effort to restore functionality, planning for subsurface water movement is vital. Most of the lateralwater movement takes place in the first 2 m of the soil, thus the deeper soil can be replaced the largerthe opportunity to obtain a crop yield capacity post mining.Based on the specialist reports the following soil volumes were calculated; two scenarios wereac<strong>co</strong>unted for (i) the first scenario assumed best practise and (ii) the se<strong>co</strong>nd scenario aimed for adesired functionality output but the <strong>co</strong>st implications is large:Table 5-5: Best Practise DepthsSoil Volumes (m 3 )Capability A Horizon Other HorizonTotal Soil Depth PostMiningArable 47945580 13987960 1.5 mPasture 8587500 6969900 1 mGrazing / Wilderness 310720 854480 750 mmTable 5-6: Depths restoring sub surface water flowSoil Volumes (m 3 )Capability A Horizon Other HorizonTotal Soil Depth PostMiningArable 47945580 33365420 2 mPasture 8587500 22527300 2 mGrazing / Wilderness 310720 1242880 1 mAn important factor that also has to be ac<strong>co</strong>unted for is the mixing of the different soil types, New Largo,ac<strong>co</strong>rding to the specialist reports, lends itself to a soil mosaic that in most cases is <strong>co</strong>mpatible formixing, lessening the stripping and mixing <strong>co</strong>mplexity. Figure 5-5 illustrates soils that <strong>co</strong>uld be strippedtogether.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)180
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesFigure 5-5: Combined soils for strippingThe placement plan for the soils need to be in such a manner that the land is not fragmented and thus asoil stripping plan should be done in <strong>co</strong>njunction with a soil placement plan draped over the post miningtopography plan.5.7.3 AAIC Adopted Soil Management and Rehabilitation StrategyThe merits of the specialist re<strong>co</strong>mmendations presented in Section 5.7.2.1 and AAIC’s draft strategy inSection 5.7.2.2 were discussed between AAIC, the EAP and the various specialists. Comments receivedfrom authorities and I&APs on the draft <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong> were also <strong>co</strong>nsidered. Based on the results of<strong>co</strong>mments received and discussions with the specialist team, AAIC adopted an amended soilmanagement and rehabilitation strategy for New Largo Colliery as presented below:The adopted strategy is the preferred development alterative for soil management and rehabilitation. Asexplained in 4.11, the adopted strategy is in ac<strong>co</strong>rdance with best practice and allows for the reinstatedsoil depths to be optimised. Implementation of the adopted soil management and rehabilitation strategyover the life of the mine, will ensure that the potential for the establishment of end land use are optimisedand the need for post closure water treatment are managed.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)181
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices5.8 Clean Water ManagementThe water specialists have made inputs to the mine plan and water management alternatives in order tominimise the impacts on surface water. The following was <strong>co</strong>nsidered:The current mine plan and direction of mining was dictated largely by the location of the <strong>co</strong>alhandling and processing infrastructure, which in turn was influenced by the location of KusilePower Station, to which New Largo Colliery will supply <strong>co</strong>al.The infrastructure area is bound to the north and east by the opencast pit, which will cut off theclean catchment to these areas.The opencast will progress in an easterly and south easterly direction, mining first uphill on thetopography, later crossing the watershed and mining downhill thereafter.While mining uphill, clean water draining towards the mining area will be diverted around bymeans of clean water diversion canals and berms.All rehabilitation will be made free draining. During mining, this may involve <strong>co</strong>llection andpumping of clean runoff from rehabilitated areas that drain towards the pit.These measures are all found to be appropriate practices for New Largo. The design of the watermanagement system for New Largo has been refined by the engineering team, based on input from thehydrological specialist and the water balance results. The designs also form part of the IWULAapplication, as required, and the latest revision of the water flow diagram is presented in Appendix T(<strong>EIA</strong> Volume 7). Various refinements and revisions have been undertaken to date and it is likely thatfurther optimisation will be done during detailed design.5.9 Water TreatmentA first 4 Ml mobile WTP will be developed to supply water to the Phola-Kusile Coal Conveyor. Aseparate WML application has been submitted for this mobile WTP and the wastes produced at thisWTP (brine and gypsum). This first 4 Ml mobile WTP will later also be used during the <strong>co</strong>nstruction andthe first few years of operation of the New Largo Colliery.A se<strong>co</strong>nd 4 Ml mobile WTP will be developed next to the first 4 Ml mobile WTP as part of the New LargoColliery. This se<strong>co</strong>nd 4 Ml mobile WTP will utilise the same gypsum and brine waste facilities asdeveloped for the first 4 Ml mobile WTP. Later in the life of New Largo Colliery, a permanent WTP will bedeveloped to provide additional water treatment capacity and to eventually replace the mobile WTPs.A permanent WTP will later be developed to increase the treatment capacity in the area to ~24 Ml / dayand to replace the mobile WTPs. However, this permanent WTP will only be developed after the NewLargo Colliery has been in operation for a number of years. The treatment technology, design and layoutof the permanent WTP have not been finalised. The position of the WTP is indicated on the maps inAppendix T but is has to be taken as preliminary since the design has not been finalised.Water will be treated to catchment release qualities. The treatment technology for the permanent WTPhas not been defined. It is expected that water treatment technologies may progress and develop in theyears prior to the permanent WTP being developed.At the public meetings held during the s<strong>co</strong>ping phase, AAIC stated that the water will be treated topotable standards. However water for release to streams will not be chlorinated and will thus not beregarded as potable. Water released will have to <strong>co</strong>mply with catchment qualities.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)182
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices5.10 Use of Treated WaterThe current base case is to release water to river systems, but alternative options <strong>co</strong>uld be investigatedas part of the final closure planning.The hydrological specialist did a preliminary assessment of the discharge points for treated water basedon surface water run-off <strong>co</strong>nsiderations and assuming proportional discharge amongst the affectedstreams (see Appendix G2). During this assessment, the proportional loss of catchment was determinedat key stages in the life of mine. The proportional flow reduction was based entirely on the affectedcatchment areas (i.e. the assumption that the flow reduction will be directly proportional to the catchmentarea lost as a result of mining and mining related activities). A total of 16 discharge points were identifiedon this basis.This strategy for discharge of the treated water as proposed by the hydrological specialist, and the risksassociated with it, has been discussed with the wetland and aquatic specialists and the engineersresponsible for design of the system of pipes and discharge points that would be required. Thespecialists <strong>co</strong>ncurred that the proposed strategy is aimed at minimizing erosion risks and, while naturalstream flow seasonality would not be restored, this strategy would reduce the impacts.There is no need to investigate any further alternatives at this stage, but the final discharge volumes andpositions are subject to the out<strong>co</strong>me of the Reserve Determination that is currently being <strong>co</strong>nducted byWetland Consulting Services. The expected date of <strong>co</strong>mpletion of the Reserve Determination is May2013 and in light of the timeframes of the project and the issuing of the water use license, the preliminarydischarge points are included in the IWWMP and IWULA. The Reserve Determination will run parallelwith the development of the wetland offset plan. The Reserve Determination, in <strong>co</strong>nsultation with DWAduring its development, will serve as a review of the proposed discharge strategy.Until such time as the results of the Reserve Determination is available, the strategy proposed by thehydrological specialist, to release water proportionally into the surrounding stream is the preferreddevelopment alternative.5.11 Coal Transportation AlternativesA <strong>co</strong>nveyor system is proposed to transport the <strong>co</strong>al to Kusile. Due to the short distance required, noother transportation options were <strong>co</strong>nsidered.5.12 Wetland Mitigation and Offsets5.12.1 Alternative Re<strong>co</strong>mmendations for Wetland Mitigation and Offsets5.12.1.1 Initial Re<strong>co</strong>mmendations by the Wetland SpecialistsDuring the write up of the draft <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong>, the wetland specialist tabled initial re<strong>co</strong>mmendations forwetland mitigation and offsets. The aim of these initial re<strong>co</strong>mmendations was to open the debate aroundwetland mitigation and offsets and to obtain <strong>co</strong>mments and input from authorities and I&APs to feed intothe development of a adopted wetland mitigation and offset strategy for New largo Colliery.The initial re<strong>co</strong>mmendations were as follows:New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)183
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesIt is re<strong>co</strong>mmended by the wetland specialist that the size of the wetland offset should roughly betwice the size of the wetlands to be disturbed. Several wetlands were identified within the subjectproperty. The report indicated that either 608 ha (Mine Plan Version 6) or 468 ha (Mine PlanVersion 7) of wetlands will be directly affected, and that another potential 1000 ha of wetlandsmight be indirectly affected by mining in the vicinity of the wetlands. The National FreshwaterE<strong>co</strong>system Priority Areas (NFEPA) project responds to the reported degradation of freshwatere<strong>co</strong>system <strong>co</strong>ndition and associated biodiversity, both globally and in South Africa. It usessystematic <strong>co</strong>nservation planning to provide strategic spatial priorities for <strong>co</strong>nserving SouthAfrica’s freshwater biodiversity, within the <strong>co</strong>ntext of equitable social and e<strong>co</strong>nomic development.NFEPA is a multi-partner project between the CSIR, Water Research Commission, South AfricanNational Biodiversity Institute, Department of Water and Environmental Affairs, South AfricanInstitute of Aquatic Biodiversity and South African National Parks. The wetland e<strong>co</strong>system typefor the study area ac<strong>co</strong>rding to the NFEPA is Mesic Highveld Grasslands Group; it would beoptimal for the “like for like” scenario if the offset area falls within the same wetland e<strong>co</strong>systemtype.Due to the significant loss of wetlands within Mpumalanga, mainly as a result of mining andagriculture, with specific mention of the region within the province where the proposed mining willtake place, as well as, the relatively high diversity of wetland habitat within the province, it isre<strong>co</strong>mmended that the offset be located as close to the New Largo mining rights area as possibleto ensure the <strong>co</strong>nservation of site specific species that may be lost due to the proposed miningactivities. Ideally the offset should occur within the same major drainage features in the area, forexample the Wilge River.Some potential offset initiatives are presented below. It should be noted that none of theorganisations or individuals mentioned below were <strong>co</strong>ntacted, this is regarded as the next steptowards identification of a suitable offset initiative. It is highly re<strong>co</strong>mmended that Working forWetlands are involved with the selection process, mainly due to Working for Wetlands advocatingwetland offsets within Mpumalanga. Offset initiatives re<strong>co</strong>mmended for further investigation:oMpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency (MTPA) advocates that no additional wetlandsbe disturbed within the province and mining related <strong>co</strong>mpanies start rehabilitation anddevelopment of new wetlands. Therefore, a possibility for an offset is the developmentand rehabilitation of previously impacted wetlands. However, it is re<strong>co</strong>mmended that thelocality of wetlands chosen for offset be as close as possible to the proposed miningactivity and preferably in association with a formally protected reserve, to ensureongoing <strong>co</strong>nservation after mine closure. After mine closure wetlands can also bereinstated within the subject property, wherever practicable possible.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)184
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesoooFormally protected areas near the subject property include the BronkhorstspruitMunicipal Nature Reserve and Witbank Provincial Nature Reserve, both sites haveperennial rivers running through them namely the Bronkhorstspruit River and the OlifantsRiver. Both rivers are <strong>co</strong>nsidered NFEPA free flowing rivers. The possibility ofpurchasing land adjacent to one of these nature reserves exists, preferably land with ahigh abundance of wetlands, however purchasing of land without wetlands will alsoextend the nature reserve in turn increasing the size of buffer areas for wetlands locatedwithin the reserves. After purchasing the land the mine will hand over all responsibility tothe reserve management team, with the mine keeping the title deed. Both reserves areregistered as protected areas and will thus remain as <strong>co</strong>nservation areas in the future.Chrissiesmeer is regarded an important wetland e<strong>co</strong>system in Mpumalanga, withongoing research projects and <strong>co</strong>nservancies linked to the wetlands. The Chrissiesmeerpan system <strong>co</strong>mprises over 230 pans within a 20 km radius. The e<strong>co</strong>logical state of thepans is near pristine. The area has been declared an Important Bird Area by BirdLifeSouth Africa since it supports more than 20 000 water birds. There are over 20 Red Dataspecies of both water birds and grassland species occurring in the area. The wetlandsare under threat from surrounding mining activities and <strong>co</strong>nservation of this sensitivehabitat is of utmost importance. The Endangered Wildlife Trust (EWT) is involved in twobiodiversity <strong>co</strong>nservation projects for the area, both directed by the MTPA. These are theapplication for the Chrissiesmeer Lake District to be declared a Wetland of InternationalImportance through the Ramsar Convention and se<strong>co</strong>ndly to use biodiversitystewardship to legally protect land in the area. It is re<strong>co</strong>mmended that EWT be<strong>co</strong>ntacted with regards to the mine <strong>co</strong>ntributing towards any of these initiatives.However, it should be noted that Chrissiesmeer is located approximately 100 km fromthe proposed New Largo Mine and located within the Pongola and not the UpperOlifants River Catchment, therefore there may be some differences in wetland species<strong>co</strong>mposition.The National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment (NSBA, Driver et al., 2005) has effectivelydemonstrated that the current National Protected Area System (National PAS) does notadequately <strong>co</strong>nserve a representative sample of the <strong>co</strong>untry’s biodiversity. Likewise, theMpumalanga Biodiversity Conservation Plan (MBCP) (Mpumalanga ProvincialGovernment, 2006), recently endorsed by the provincial cabinet, highlights theinadequacy of the province’s protected area system to <strong>co</strong>nserve a representative sampleof the provinces biodiversity. Many of the areas needed to achieve biodiversity targets ofthe province are on privately and <strong>co</strong>mmunally owned land. The National BiodiversityStrategy and Action Plan (DEAT, 2005) has identified, as one of five objectives, theneed for the expansion of the Protected Area System (PAS) within the <strong>co</strong>untry. TheNational Biodiversity Framework (NBF) is an explicit requirement of the NationalEnvironmental Management: Biodiversity Act (Act 10 of 2004). It may be worth<strong>co</strong>ntacting the relevant authorities to determine the stage of the project and <strong>co</strong>ntributingpossibilities that the New Largo mining development can get involved in.Another option, which <strong>co</strong>uld be used as an ‘add-on’ mitigation for impacts on wetlands is torehabilitate the borrow pits (those located outside the mine pits) to be not free draining (as is<strong>co</strong>mmon practice with borrow pits) to act as a wet area in the landscape.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)185
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices5.12.1.2 Mine Plan Version 7The Alternative Mine Plan (Mine Plan Version 7) was introduced subsequent to the s<strong>co</strong>ping phase<strong>co</strong>nsultation process as <strong>co</strong>ncerns were raised by I&APs and authorities regarding the impact of miningon wetlands. Ac<strong>co</strong>rding to AAIC, this mine plan presents challenges in terms of mine plan sequencingand blending of <strong>co</strong>al to provide Kusile with an adequate supply of <strong>co</strong>al at the <strong>co</strong>rrect specification.5.12.1.3 Re<strong>co</strong>mmendations by I&APsDuring the development of the offset plan, Wetland Consulting Services will <strong>co</strong>nsult with I&APs and will<strong>co</strong>nsider re<strong>co</strong>mmendations made by I&APs.5.12.2 AAIC’s Strategy for Developing a Wetland Offset PlanThe draft <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong> listed potential alternative wetland offset options (see Section 5). These wereregarded as preliminary since the preferred mine plan was not defined at that stage. The purpose oflisting potential wetland offset options at that stage was to stimulate debate and obtain <strong>co</strong>mments fromI&APs and authorities during the review of the draft <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong>.Although alternative mine plans were evaluated to minimise impacts on wetlands, AAIC maintains thatthere are serious risks associated with the alternative mine plans and that their base case mine plan(Mine Plan Version 6) should be adopted as the preferred mine plan. Subsequently, AAIC has appointedWetland Consulting Services to develop a wetland offset plan based on Mine Plan Version 6 beingimplemented. The plan will thus address offsets for wetlands affected as part of Mine Plan Version 6.DWA, DMR and MDEDET have not given clear feedback on their requirements for wetland offsets / offsitemitigation and on-site mitigation for affected wetlands. Offsets plans are not legislated and it isuncertain what potential future legislation on this topic would require. No National or Mpumalangaprovincial guidelines currently exist for wetland offset projects despite numerous offset projects alreadybeen undertaken within the Mpumalanga <strong>co</strong>alfields with varying degrees of success. Each has had itsown approach which has been project specific depending on objectives, requirements of the authoritiesand the willingness of different mining houses to pursue and/or embrace the approach. Re<strong>co</strong>gnizing theneed for such guidelines, the SANBI Grasslands Programme recently funded a project entitled: Towardsa best-practice guideline for wetland offsets in South Africa. A draft version of these guidelines has beenreleased. The technical guidelines <strong>co</strong>ntained in this report, which were developed specifically for <strong>co</strong>almining in the Mpumalanga Highveld, will be <strong>co</strong>nsidered in as part to the strategy to develop a wetlandoffset plan for New Largo Colliery.It is clear that developing an offset plan for New Largo <strong>co</strong>uld be a lengthy process of which the first stepis to develop a strategy ac<strong>co</strong>rding to which the offset plan would be developed. The strategy asproposed by Wetland Consulting Services is presented in Appendix U. Part of the strategy would be toinvolve I&APs, stakeholders and authorities through the environmental monitoring <strong>co</strong>mmittee in theprocess, evaluate <strong>co</strong>mments and re<strong>co</strong>mmendations made by these parties, evaluate alternative offsetoptions, and develop a final offset plan on the selected offset options.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)186
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesFigure 5-6: Direct and indirect wetland loss as a result of the proposed mining as per WetlandOffset Strategy (Appendix U)5.13 Closure Vision and Alternative End Land UsesSee Section 13.3 – Rehabilitation and Closure.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)187
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices6. Description of the Affected Environment6.1 Physical Environment6.1.1 ClimateTemperaturesThe location of the Eskom monitoring station (Kendal 2) is shown in Figure 6-2. Minimum, mean andmaximum temperatures for Kendal 2 for the period January 2005 to April 2011 are illustrated in Figure6-2. Annual average maximum, minimum and mean temperatures for Kendal 2 are given as 27°C, 10°Cand 16°C, respectively, based on the 2005-2011 re<strong>co</strong>rds. Average daily maximum temperatures rangefrom 31°C in December to 20°C in June, with daily minima ranging from 15°C in January and Decemberto 3°C in July.Figure 6-1: Daily temperature profile (Kendal weather station, January 2005 to April 2011)PrecipitationLong-term monthly average rainfall figures for various stations within the Witbank region are given inTable 6-1. Long-term average total annual rainfall is in the range of 730 mm to 750 mm. Rain falls mainlyin summer from October to April, with the peak being in January for the region.Table 6-1: Long-term monthly rainfall figures (mm) for various stations within the Witbank regionStation Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec AnnMiddelburg (1904-1950) 132 103 88 42 19 7 9 8 22 63 124 118 735Bethal (1904-1984) 134 94 78 46 19 7 8 10 25 78 128 120 747Wind PatternsAs depicted on the wind roses below, the predominant wind direction within the New Largo region is fromthe west-northwest (Kendal 2). Less frequent winds are from the southern sector. During daytime thereis an increase in winds from the west-northwest (Kendal 2) while at night-time the frequency of windsincrease from the east-southeast. Night-time <strong>co</strong>nditions also reflect a decrease in wind speeds and anincrease in calm <strong>co</strong>nditions.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)188
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesFigure 6-2: Location of the Kendal 2 meteorological data set in relation to the proposed New Largo CollieryNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)189
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesFigure 6-3: Annual average and day/night time wind roses (Kendal 2 weather station)Figure 6-4: Seasonal average wind roses (Kendal 2 weather station)New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)190
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices6.1.2 TopographyThe study area <strong>co</strong>mprises of moderately flat to gently undulating plains. The proposed pit extents fallwithin higher lying areas and the topography gently drops to the east and west away from the proposedpits. Due to the generally flat topography, several isolated surface water pans are present within thestudy area. The area is bisected by moderately wide to wide open drainage ways and non-perennialstreams.6.1.3 SoilsThe majority of soil forms en<strong>co</strong>untered in the study area are of the orthic phase. These include Hutton,Clovelly, Griffin, Glen<strong>co</strong>e and Mispah. Some hydromorphic soil forms were also identified, including thePinedene, Avalon, Bloemdal, Longlands, Westleigh, Kroonstad, Rensburg, Bonheim and Katspruit.The materials present in the area vary in both physical and chemical <strong>co</strong>mposition. This is largely basedon the parent materials from which the soils are derived with additional alterations imprinted by thegeomorphology of the area including varying ground roughness, slope and attitude of topography, withthe climatic signature of the variable and seasonal changes. Due to the <strong>co</strong>mplexity of thegeomorphologic systems a wide range of soil forms and families are found in the area.Physical Characteristics:The physical characteristics of the orthic phase soils include: Topsoil clay percentages that range from as low as 12% to 18%, and as high as 18% to 25%depending on the host geology from which they are derived, Subsoil clays that range from 18% to greater than 45%,Moderate to good in-situ permeability rates (0.74 to 2.15m/day),Moderate to good intake (infiltration) rates, 5 to 12 mm/hr, andModerate (80 to 120 mm/m) water holding capacities.The major soil types that exhibit moderate structure and which were en<strong>co</strong>untered within the study areaare associated with the more highly hydromorphic soil forms and <strong>co</strong>lluvial soils associated with the morehighly hydromorphic soil forms and <strong>co</strong>lluvial soils associated with the low lying areas in and around thedrainage lines and wetland environments.Chemical CharacteristicsIn general, the chemical analysis returned results typical for soils derived from sedimentary parentmaterials. A sample was taken from the soils derived from the more basic parent materials, from the twomajor pans, and from the areas bordering the wetlands (Transition Zone). The results of the analysisindicate the following general trends:A pH range of between 3.70 and 6.55 (slightly acid) for the range of soils within the site;Calcium, Phosphorous and Potassium levels are average to slightly higher than average;Sodium, Zinc and Magnesium values are generally moderate to slightly low;An organic carbon matter <strong>co</strong>ntent varies from 0.19% to 4.23% C, but is generally low (
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesThe study area has been affected by the <strong>co</strong>mmercial farming that has been practiced for many years onsignificantly large portions of the study area. It is likely that these activities will have impacted on the soilchemistry and to a limited extent on the land forms that have developed. The sensitive nature of someof these soils will need to be <strong>co</strong>nsidered if they are to be disturbed or impacted by the proposedopencast <strong>co</strong>al mine.6.1.4 GeologyThe study area falls within the north-eastern part of the Witbank Coalfield. The Witbank Coalfield isunderlain by pre-Karoo rocks, mainly Bushveld Complex and Pretoria Group volcanics. Glaciation eventsresulted in the deposition of tillite (Dwyka Formation) on the basement rocks over most of the area.Within the Karoo Sedimentary Sequence, the Ecca Group rests on top of the Dwyka Formation. In theWitbank <strong>co</strong>alfield the <strong>co</strong>al-bearing Vryheid Formation occurs at the bottom of the Ecca Group<strong>co</strong>nformably to the underlying Dwyka Formation.The Dwyka Formation <strong>co</strong>nsists of tillite, siltstone and sometimes a thin shale development. The EccaGroup <strong>co</strong>nsists predominantly of sandstone, siltstone, shale and <strong>co</strong>al. The Vryheid Formation in theEcca Group <strong>co</strong>ntains five bituminous <strong>co</strong>al seams, numbered as No. 1 to No. 5 from bottom to top. TheNo. 2, No. 4 and No. 5 seams are the most e<strong>co</strong>nomical <strong>co</strong>al seams in the Witbank Coalfield.The regional geology is illustrated in Figure 6-6 and surrounding mining areas in Figure 6-7.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)192
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesFigure 6-5: TopographyNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)193
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesFigure 6-6: GeologyNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)194
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)Figure 6-7: Surrounding Mining Areas195
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices6.1.5 Air QualityExisting sources of air emissions include the nearby Eskom <strong>co</strong>al-fired power stations and associated ashdisposal facilities, <strong>co</strong>nstruction activities at Kusile Power Station, industrial developments, blasting andmaterials transport and handling operations at nearby mines, transportation of <strong>co</strong>al products,spontaneous <strong>co</strong>mbustion associated with old underground <strong>co</strong>al mining areas and discard (mining waste)disposal facilities, veld fires, vehicle exhaust emissions, household fuel burning and farming (i.e.ploughing) activities.A detailed assessment of baseline air quality and current impacts on air quality was <strong>co</strong>nducted and isincluded under the <strong>EIA</strong> Section on Air Quality - Section 8.4.6.1.6 Surface WaterDescription of Baseline / Existing ImpactsThe proposed New Largo mining area is located on two quaternary sub-catchments (B20F and B20G) ofthe Limpopo-Olifants primary drainage region. The western side of the mining area drains into the WilgeRiver and its tributaries. The eastern side of the mining area drains into the Saalklapspruit and itstributaries. The Saalklapspruit joins the Wilge River, which in turn drains into the Olifants River. TheOlifants River flows to Loskop dam and then through the central part of the Kruger National Park and intoMo<strong>za</strong>mbique. It eventually joins the Limpopo River and discharges to the Indian Ocean on the eastAfrican <strong>co</strong>astline.Surface water downstream of the New Largo Colliery is used primarily for agricultural and livestockwatering purposes. There is also a <strong>co</strong>mmercial chicken farm (Kendal Poultry), a brick making plant andseveral other mines around the site using surface water. Other users include mining, the aquatice<strong>co</strong>system, and informal users of the river (e.g. for washing or drinking purposes). Detailed informationon water uses per property is presented in Appendix G.The receiving water body for the assessment of potential surface water quality impacts of the <strong>co</strong>nveyorsystem is taken as the Loskop Dam. The use of this dam is motivated on the basis that:The proposed mining area lies across drainage boundaries and therefore the Loskop Dam hasbeen selected because it is downstream of both the Saalklapspruit and Wilge River catchmentareas.By implication, potential impacts on Loskop Dam will also be included in the impact assessment.Beyond Loskop Dam, the potential impact of the mine be<strong>co</strong>mes extremely small due to the watervolumes in the catchment and dilution effects.Furthermore, by the time the water reaches Loskop Dam, it is required to be suitable for use forall of the expected uses (drinking water, agricultural, industrial and aquatic e<strong>co</strong>systems). Thus,by achieving <strong>co</strong>mpliance in terms of these uses, no additional impacts are expected downstreamof Loskop Dam. The receiving water body is relevant only in so far as it defines the aerial extentof the catchment to be <strong>co</strong>nsidered in the impact assessment, and described in the baselinestudy.In terms of impact assessment, the total area affected by the proposed <strong>co</strong>nveyor system is small<strong>co</strong>mpared to the Loskop Dam catchment. The proposed <strong>co</strong>nveyor footprint is some 17 km 2 ,<strong>co</strong>mpared to a catchment of 12 285 km 2 for Loskop Dam (or some 0.14% of the area).New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)196
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesThe MAR for Loskop Dam is some 384 x 10 6 m³ (31 mm), while the MAR for the project area isestimated at 0.543 x 10 6 m³ (32 mm).Mean annual runoff per sub-catchment is tabled below.NodeTable 6-2: Mean Annual Runoff (MAR) for the New Largo mining areaCatchment Area(km 2 )MAR(x10 6 m 3 )% of MAR at Loskop DamNL1 2.6 0.09 0.02NL2 3.0 0.11 0.03NL3 3.9 0.14 0.04NL4 43 1.54 0.06NL5 6.1 0.22 0.32NL7 4.2 0.15 0.04NL8 27 0.97 0.25NL9 3.3 0.12 0.03NL10 23 0.81 0.21NL13 67 2.38 0.62NL16 40 1.44 0.38NL17 53 1.89 0.49NL18 31 1.11 0.29NL20 27.9 1.00 0.26NL23 15 0.53 0.14NL27 5.4 0.19 0.05NL32 5.4 0.19 0.05NL33 15.3 0.55 0.14Note: The MAR for Loskop Dam is estimated at 384 x 10 6 m³.Dry weather flows (DWF) for sub-catchments are shown below.Table 6-3: Dry weather flows of the affected rivers at the New Largo mining areaNodeCatchment AreaComputed DWFComputed DWF(km 2 )(x10 6 m 3 per month average) (l/s average over month)NL1 2.6 0.00 0.65NL2 3.0 0.00 0.76NL3 3.9 0.00 0.99NL4 43 0.03 10.92NL5 6.1 0.00 1.55NL7 4.2 0.00 1.07NL8 27 0.02 6.85NL9 3.3 0.00 0.84NL10 23 0.01 5.73NL13 67 0.04 16.81NL16 40 0.03 10.20NL17 53 0.03 13.37NL18 31 0.02 7.87NL20 27.9 0.02 7.10NL23 15 0.01 3.74NL27 5.4 0.00 1.38NL32 5.4 0.00 1.38NL33 15.3 0.01 3.90Note: A flow of less than 0,01 x 10 6 m 3 per month probably implies that the river in question dries out <strong>co</strong>mpletely during the wintermonths. This <strong>co</strong>rrelates to a flow of less than 10l/sNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)197
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesThe peak flows calculated using each method was evaluated for each node and a representative valueadopted. The 1:20, 1:50, 1:100 and Regional Maximum Flood (RMF) for each node, together withcatchment areas, are presented in Table 6-4.Table 6-4: Flood peaks and flood volumes for the New Largo mining areaNode Recurrence Interval Flood Peak (m³/s) Flood Volume (m 3 x10 6 )NL20NL21NL22NL32NL331:20 year 101 1.461:50 year 150 2.161:100 year 189 2.731:250 year 232 3.35RMF 354 5.111:20 year 61 0.541:50 year 95 0.851:100 year 120 1.071:250 year 144 1.28RMF 263 2.341:20 year 54 0.391:50 year 81 0.581:100 year 101 0.731:250 year 123 0.89RMF 231 1.671:20 year 87 0.861:50 year 126 1.251:100 year 158 1.571:250 year 188 1.87RMF 282 2.801:20 year 87 0.861:50 year 126 1.251:100 year 158 1.571:250 year 188 1.87RMF 282 2.80 Flood linesFlood lines were determined based on the calculated flood peaks at each node. A steady flow,backwater analysis was performed for each stream using the HEC-RAS river modelling system. HEC-RAS was developed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, and is <strong>co</strong>nsidered industry standardsoftware for flood line determination in many <strong>co</strong>untries, including the United States, the United Kingdom,Europe, Australia and South Africa.When determining flood lines, each stream is defined by inputting a number of cross sections along thelength of the stream. The mapping data used <strong>co</strong>nsisted of 1 m <strong>co</strong>ntour interval digital terrain model(dtm) received from the client in 2007.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)198
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesIt should be noted that the accuracy of the flood lines produced in this study is <strong>co</strong>mmensurate with theaccuracy of the dtm data provided. With a <strong>co</strong>ntour interval of 1 m, the accuracy of the flood lines can be<strong>co</strong>nsidered to be within 1 m vertically. The flood lines given here are <strong>co</strong>nsidered suitable for planningpurposes only. Where infrastructure is to be located adjacent to streams, the flood lines should bedetermined more accurately using a digital terrain model (dtm) developed from a field survey at the areaof <strong>co</strong>ncern.Flood lines are indicated in Appendix G (Drawing no. C184-00-001, C184-03-001, 002, 003 and 004 aswell as in Figure 6.2.3.4(a) of Surface Water Specialist <strong>Report</strong> by Jones and Wagener). Water QualityThe Directorate National Water Resource Planning (DNWRP) of the (then) Department of Water Affairsand Forestry (DWAF) developed a water quality management strategy for the Upper and Middle OlifantsRiver catchment, which was published in 2009 (DNWRP, 2009). One of the key elements of this strategyis Receiving Water Quality Objectives (RWQO).Interim RWQO were determined based on the current set of objectives in the Witbank, Klipspruit andMiddelburg Dam catchments, which was modified to ac<strong>co</strong>unt for the water quality <strong>co</strong>mponent of theE<strong>co</strong>logical Reserve. Where previous objectives were not available, the South African Water QualityGuidelines, together with the present water quality status, were used to determine RWQO. The set ofRWQO determined for the Upper Olifants catchment are interim objectives that will be reviewed once thewater quality <strong>co</strong>mponent of the E<strong>co</strong>logical Reserve has been updated (in five years’ time) (DNWRP,2009).The results of the water quality monitoring undertaken at the proposed development site were <strong>co</strong>mparedto the interim RWQO for the Wilge River Catchment developed by the DNWRP. The proposeddevelopment is located within Management Unit (MU) 20 and 21 for the Saalklapspruit and MU 22 forthe Wilge River catchment respectively. The Interim RWQO developed by the DNWRP for thesemanagement units are indicated in Table 6-5.The water quality monitoring in this section was based on the available monitoring results at the time ofwriting of the final <strong>EIA</strong> report. However, water quality monitoring is ongoing and will <strong>co</strong>ntinue unless theproject does not proceed. The analysis of the water samples were also expanded in June / July 2012based on <strong>co</strong>mments received by I&APs during the review of the draft <strong>EIA</strong> report. AAIC will issue annualwater quality reports in which all new results will be published.Table 6-5: Interim RWQO for Management Units 21 and 22 of the Olifants River Catchment(DNWRP. 2009)Constituent Unit MU 21 MU 22Electrical <strong>co</strong>nductivity (EC) mS/m 70 40Dissolved oxygen (DO) % Sat 70 70pH 6.5 – 8.4 6.5 – 8.4Alkalinity mg/l CaCO3 85 120Boron (B) mg/l 0.5 0.5Calcium (Ca) mg/l 80 25Chloride (Cl) mg/l 20 20Fluoride (F) mg/l 0.5 0.5New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)199
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesConstituent Unit MU 21 MU 22Magnesium (Mg) mg/l 20 20Potassium (K) mg/l 10 10Sodium (Na) mg/l 20 20Sodium Absorption Ration (SAR) Meql 0.5 1.0 1.0Sulphate (SO4) mg/l 120 60Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) mg/l 450 280Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) mg/l 10 10Iron (Fe) mg/l 1.0 1.0Manganese (Mn) mg/l 0.18 0.18Aluminium (Al) mg/l 0.02 0.02Chromium VI (Cr VI) mg/l 0.05 0.05Ammonia* (NH3) mg/l as N 0.007 0.007Nitrate (NO3) mg/l as N 6 6Phosphate (PO4) mg/l as P 0.05 0.05Total phosphorus mg/l as P 0.25 0.25Total Inorganic Nitrogen mg/l as N 2.5 2.5E. <strong>co</strong>li # per 100 ml 130 130Chlorophyll a mg/l 0.02 0.02Table 6-6: Surface Water Monitoring points relevant to the New Largo mining areaMonitoring pointDescriptionNL1NL2NL3NL4NL5NL6NL7NL8NL9NL21NL22On the Wilge River at a bridge crossing on the R555. This represents the upstream monitoring point for this subcatchment,as it will not be impacted by the proposed <strong>co</strong>nveyor system.On a tributary of the Wilge River.On a tributary of the Wilge River.On the Klipfonteinspruit (a tributary of the Wilge River).On the Klipfonteinspruit (a tributary of the Wilge River), downstream of NL4.On the Klipfonteinspruit (a tributary of the Wilge River), downstream of NL5 and upstream of the <strong>co</strong>nfluence of theKlipfonteinspruit with the Wilge River.On a tributary of the Wilge RiverOn tributary of the Wilge River, downstream of NL7 and upstream of its <strong>co</strong>nfluence with the Wilge River.On the Wilge River. This represents the downstream monitoring point for this sub-catchment, reflecting thecumulative impact of the proposed Phola- Kusile <strong>co</strong>nveyor system, the proposed New Largo Colliery, the KusilePower Station and other activities further upstream on the Wilge River.Monitors surface water discharge into the Holfonteinspruit, a tributary of the Klipfonteinspruit.On a tributary of the Wilge River, upstream of NL7.Figure 6-9.The location of these points is indicated onSampling of these points was done monthly from October 2010 to February 2011, and every se<strong>co</strong>ndmonth thereafter (hereafter referred to as “the monitoring period”). Monthly sampling will again beundertaken from October 2011 onwards on the same basis.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)200
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesSampling and analysis have however <strong>co</strong>ntinued ac<strong>co</strong>rding to the monitoring proto<strong>co</strong>l and an annualreport will be available in October 2012 in which the additional sampling undertaken since the surfacewater baseline report was <strong>co</strong>mpiled, will be discussed. AAIC has indicated that monthly monitoring willtake place from July 2012.In addition, water quality data was also obtained for DWA gauge B2H014 that is located on the WilgeRiver, downstream of monitoring point NL9 but upstream of the <strong>co</strong>nfluence of the Wilge and theBronkhorstspruit Rivers. Data for the period January 1991 to February 2011 was obtained from theDepartment’s website.For maps and graphics depicting water quality data in more detail, refer to Appendix G.Electrical <strong>co</strong>nductivity (EC) for Wilge River sub-catchmentElectrical <strong>co</strong>nductivity (EC) is a measure of the ability of water to <strong>co</strong>nduct an electrical current, which isas a result of the presence of charged ions such as carbonate, bicarbonate, chloride, sulphate, nitrate,sodium, potassium, calcium and magnesium (Appendix G)). It is therefore an indicator of the salinity, ortotal salt <strong>co</strong>ntent, of water. Accumulation of salts can influence the potential to use the waterdownstream by water users such as irrigation for agriculture.EC levels at the monitoring points on the Wilge River are generally below the interim RWQO for MU22 of40 mS/m and the target water quality limit (70 mS/m) for domestic use in the SA Water QualityGuidelines. NL1 and NL2 show <strong>co</strong>ncentrations above the interim RWQO, but below 70 mS/m. Theexception is NL4, which is located on the Klipfonteinspruit, which had elevated <strong>co</strong>ncentrations (maximumof 116.7 mS/m and an average of 78.9 mS/m), exceeding the interim RWQO from October 2010 toFebruary 2011. Concentrations have, however, decreased over time but <strong>co</strong>uld be seasonal. Mine waterfrom the underground workings of the dis<strong>co</strong>ntinued New Largo Colliery is pumped to a large pan to thesouth-east of NL4. The high levels of EC measured at NL4 are attributed to this aspect.In the Wilge River sub-catchment, NL9 is the most downstream point of the sampling programme, whichis downstream of the proposed New Largo Mine, as well as the Kusile Power Station. The EC values atNL9 are low, with an average of 35.4 mS/m, thus meeting the interim RWQO. The poor quality water inthe Klipfonteinspruit (as measured at NL4) is therefore diluted with good quality water from upstream. Atthe DWA monitoring point B2H14 (downstream of NL9), an average EC level of 23.3 mS/m wasmeasured for the period January 1991 to February 2011. The minimum for the period was 10.31 mS/mand the maximum 63.9 mS/m. As indicated by the trend line, the water quality has shown a steadydeterioration over time.The general good water quality of the Wilge River sub-catchment indicates that the impact in the subcatchmenthas been limited to date, but that additional salt increases cannot be afforded.pH for Wilge River sub-catchmentThe pH of natural water is a measurement of the acidity/alkalinity and is the result of <strong>co</strong>mplex acid-baseequilibriums of various dissolved <strong>co</strong>mpounds. The pH of most raw water sources is within the range of6.5 - 8.5 (DWAF, 1996).New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)201
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicespH levels in the Wilge River sub-catchments is largely within the interim RWQO objective for MU22 of6.5 - 8.4, with the exception of NL21 as can be seen from Figure 5.2.4 (c). Levels between 5.7 and 6.3have been measured at NL21 on the Holfonteinspruit and there seems to be a decreasing trend. This<strong>co</strong>uld be attributed to the decant of mine water on the farm Klipfontein 566 JR, that <strong>co</strong>uld occur as aresult of previous underground mining activities.The pH levels at DWA station B2H14 for the monitoring period is within the interim RWQO (the February2011 pH level was 8.43). An average pH level of 8.0 was measured for the period January 1991 toFebruary 2011. The minimum for the period was 6.43 and the maximum 9.23.Chloride for Wilge River sub-catchmentChloride (Cl) is a <strong>co</strong>mmon <strong>co</strong>nstituent in water, is highly soluble, and is typically found in <strong>co</strong>ncentrationsfrom a few to several hundred mg/l in fresh water (DWAF, 1996).Chloride levels in the Wilge River sub-catchments are generally below the interim RWQO of 20 mg/l. Atthe DWA monitoring point B2H14, an average Cl <strong>co</strong>ncentration of 8.49 mg/l was measured for the periodJanuary 1991 to February 2011. The minimum for the period was 3.2 mg/l and the maximum 48.97 mg/l.The Cl <strong>co</strong>ncentration has shown a steady increase since 1991 as indicated in the time-series graph forgauge B2H014.\Sulphate (SO 4 ) for Wilge River sub-catchmentThe <strong>co</strong>ncentration of sulphates in surface water is typically low (~5 mg/l), although <strong>co</strong>ncentrations ofseveral hundred mg/l may occur where dissolution of sulphate minerals or discharge of sulphate-richeffluents takes place (DWAF, 1996). Chemical fallout during rain events in areas where <strong>co</strong>al burningtakes place can result in an increase in the sulphate <strong>co</strong>ntent of surface water bodies.The sulphate levels at some of the monitoring points in the Wilge River sub-catchment are slightlyelevated above the interim RWQO of 60 mg/l for the MU. Levels at NL4 were significantly elevatedbetween October 2010 and February 2011, with <strong>co</strong>ncentrations ranging between 423 and 555 mg/l.Concentrations show a decreasing trend over time, with <strong>co</strong>ncentrations of 167.4 mg/l and 16.7 mg/lmeasured in April 2011 and June 2011 respectively. During the August and October 2011 samplingevent, the sulphate <strong>co</strong>ncentration was again elevated with a <strong>co</strong>ncentration of 427.5 and 372.3mg/lrespectively. Mine water from the underground workings of the old dis<strong>co</strong>ntinued New Largo Colliery ispumped to a large pan to the south-east of NL4. A sample of this pan was taken by J&W during May2007 and a sulphate <strong>co</strong>ncentration of 3139 mg/l was measured. During the wetland assessmentundertaken by Wetland Consulting Services (WCS) in 2007, a sulphate <strong>co</strong>ncentration of 2941 mg/l wasmeasured in the pan. Furthermore, the sulphate <strong>co</strong>ncentration at a sampling point on a seepage wetlanddraining into the Wilge River was high (874 mg/l) (this sampling point of WCS and NL4 are located in thesame vicinity and are close to the pan). Since the <strong>co</strong>mposition of the water samples taken at the twopoints was similar, WCS suggested that the water at the sampling point in the seepage wetlandrepresents decant from the underground workings at the old <strong>co</strong>lliery, which has been diluted andbuffered to some extent by interflow (WCS, 2007).At the downstream point, NL9, which is representative of the cumulative impact up to that point in thesub-catchment, the sulphate level is slightly elevated above the interim RWQO (minimum of 37.9 mg/l,maximum of 74.0 mg/l and mean of 59.5 mg/l). The high levels of sulphate measured on theKlipfonteinspruit at NL4 are therefore diluted by the good quality water from the upper reaches of theWilge River.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)202
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesAt the DWA monitoring point B2H14, downstream of NL9, an average sulphate <strong>co</strong>ncentration of 22.45mg/l was measured for the period January 1991 to February 2011. The minimum for the period was 4.4mg/l and the maximum 195 mg/l. As can be seen from the trend line, the sulphate levels has shown asteady increase since monitoring <strong>co</strong>mmenced in 1991.Ammonium (NH 4 ) for Wilge River sub-catchmentHigh levels of ammonium indicate pollution with organic waste such as untreated or partially treatedsewage, or run-off from agricultural areas due to excessive fertiliser use.An interim RWQO has not been set for ammonium (NH 4 ), but an objective of 0.007 mg/l has been set forammonia (NH 3 ) for MU22. Ammonia occurs in equilibrium with the ammonium ion in solution and theposition of equilibrium is determined by pH and temperature and to a lesser extent by the total dissolvedsalts. Ammonia (NH 3 ) is highly toxic to the aquatic environment, especially fish.Ammonium levels in the Wilge River and its tributaries are generally low, with occasional increasedlevels up to as high as 1.0 mg/l.At the DWA monitoring point B2H14, an average ammonium <strong>co</strong>ncentration of 0.02 mg/l was measuredfor the period January 1991 to February 2011. The minimum for the period was 0.015 mg/l and themaximum 0.59 mg/l. No specific trend has been observed over time.Nitrate for Wilge River sub-catchmentTypical <strong>co</strong>ncentrations of nitrate in un-polluted fresh water are below 5 mg/l. Sources of nitrogen insurface water include the oxidation of plant and animal debris, discharges from sewage treatment works,effluents from food-related industries, as well as runoff from agricultural activities (DWAF, 1996).The nitrate levels in the Wilge River sub-catchment is generally well below the interim RWQO of 6 mg/l.The exception is the February 2011 sampling results for monitoring points NL1 to NL4 and NL8. Noapparent reason for the sporadic increase at these points <strong>co</strong>uld be found and it is expected that it is as aresult of an analytical error.At the DWA monitoring point B2H14, an average nitrate <strong>co</strong>ncentration of 0.11 mg/l was measured for theperiod January 1991 to February 2011. The minimum for the period was 0.02 mg/l and the maximum0.99 mg/l. A slight increase in the nitrate <strong>co</strong>ncentration has been observed over time.Calcium for Wilge River sub-catchmentCalcium occurs naturally in varying <strong>co</strong>ncentrations and the <strong>co</strong>ncentration in fresh water bodies istypically 15 mg/l (DWAF, 1996).The measured calcium <strong>co</strong>ncentration in the Wilge River and its tributaries are generally either slightlyelevated above the interim RWQO of 25 mg/l, or below this level. The only exception is NL4, whichshowed <strong>co</strong>ncentrations between 136.4 mg/l and 204.9 mg/l for the period October 2010 to February2011, although at a decreasing trend over time. The <strong>co</strong>ncentration decreased further to 37.2 mg/l duringApril 2011 and to 3.2 mg/l during June 2011. The potential impact at NL4 was discussed above.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)203
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesAt the DWA monitoring point B2H14, an average Ca <strong>co</strong>ncentration of 16.1 mg/l was measured for theperiod January 1991 to February 2011. The minimum for the period was 6.145 mg/l and the maximum48.59 mg/l. As with the other <strong>co</strong>nstituents, the water quality has deteriorated over time with respect tocalcium <strong>co</strong>ncentration.Aluminium for Wilge River sub-catchmentAluminium occurs in water either as suspended aluminium minerals or as dissolved aluminiumspecies. The <strong>co</strong>ncentration of dissolved aluminium in unpolluted water at neutral pH is 0.005 mg/l orless. In water with a low pH, or where soluble aluminium <strong>co</strong>mplexes are present, the dissolvedaluminium <strong>co</strong>ncentration can rise to high values (DWAF, 1996).The aluminium <strong>co</strong>ncentration in the Wilge River exceeded the interim RWQO of 0.02 mg/l at all themonitoring sites for most of the monitoring period. In particular, NL4 of the Klipfonteinspruit (atributary of the Wilge River) showed an average <strong>co</strong>ncentration of 0.76 mg/l during the 2010/11sampling period and a maximum <strong>co</strong>ncentration of 1.39 mg/l measured during February 2011. Theimpact at NL4 causing the poor water quality has been discussed previously.It should be noted that the interim RWQO for aluminium is based on the Aquatic E<strong>co</strong>logical Reservedetermined in 2001 (DNWRP, 2009). When the levels are <strong>co</strong>mpared to the SA Water QualityGuidelines for irrigation and stock watering, the measured quality is below the target guideline of 5mg/l. The levels at most of the monitoring points are above the ideal domestic guideline of 0.15mg/l, but below the acceptable guideline for domestic use of 0.5 mg/l (except NL4).Iron for Wilge River sub-catchmentIron (Fe) is the fourth most abundant element, <strong>co</strong>nstitutes 5% of the earth's crust and is found in manyminerals. Iron can be present in water as dissolved ferric iron (Fe III), as ferrous iron (Fe II) or assuspended iron hydroxides. The <strong>co</strong>ncentration of dissolved iron in unpolluted surface water is in therange of 0.001 - 0.5 mg/l (DWAF, 1996).The interim RWQO for iron was set as 1 mg/l by the DNWRP for MU22. In general, the iron<strong>co</strong>ncentration in the Wilge River sub-catchment is below or at this level, or slightly elevated (but below 2mg/l). NL7 and NL8 had elevated <strong>co</strong>ncentrations on several occasions. As with the other <strong>co</strong>nstituents,NL4 showed significantly elevated levels (12.15mg/l, 14.96mg/l and 11.37mg/l during the February, Apriland August 2011 sampling events respectively) and a mean <strong>co</strong>ncentration of 4.8 mg/l during the2010/11 sampling period. The impact at NL4 has been discussed previously.Magnesium for Wilge River sub-catchmentTypically, the <strong>co</strong>ncentration of magnesium (Mg) in fresh water is between 4 - 10 mg/l (DWAF, 1996).In general, the magnesium <strong>co</strong>ncentration in the Wilge River sub-catchment was below the interimRWQO of 20 mg/l, with the exception of NL4 which showed elevated levels from October 2010 toFebruary 2011, with a mean <strong>co</strong>ncentration of 23.3 mg/l during the 2010/11 sampling period and with adecreasing trend over time. Elevated levels were also measured at NL1 (57.7 mg/l) during theNovember 2010 sampling event.At the DWA monitoring point B2H14, an average Mg <strong>co</strong>ncentration of 10.9 mg/l was measured for theperiod January 1991 to February 2011. The minimum for the period was 3.531 mg/l and the maximum32.77 mg/l. The Mg levels at this point have also shown a steady increase since monitoring <strong>co</strong>mmencedin 1991.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)204
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesPotassium for Wilge River sub-catchmentPotassium is ubiquitous in the environment and always occurs in water in association with anions suchas chloride or sulphate. Typical <strong>co</strong>ncentration in fresh water is 2 - 5 mg/l (DWAF, 1996).An interim RWQO of 10 mg/l has been set for the Wilge River catchment (DNWRP, 2009). Levels ofpotassium in the Wilge River and its tributaries are below the objective.At the DWA monitoring point B2H14, an average K <strong>co</strong>ncentration of 2.84 mg/l was measured for theperiod January 1991 to February 2011. The minimum for the period was 1.17 mg/l and the maximum9.15 mg/l. The levels of potassium have remained fairly <strong>co</strong>nstant over time and no specific trend isobserved.Manganese for Wilge River sub-catchmentManganese (Mn) is a relatively abundant element which <strong>co</strong>nstitutes 0.1% of the earth’s crust. Themedian <strong>co</strong>ncentration in fresh water is 8µg/l, with a range of 0.02 – 130µg/l (DWAF, 1996).In general the Mn <strong>co</strong>ncentration in the Wilge River sub-catchment is above the interim RWQO of0.18mg/l at most of the sampling points for most of the 2010/11 monitoring period. Elevated levels wereobserved at NL1 and NL2, with an average <strong>co</strong>ncentration of 0.79mg/l and 0.53mg/l respectively. Thehighest <strong>co</strong>ncentrations in the Wilge River sub-catchment were observed at NL4 with a minimum<strong>co</strong>ncentration of 0.103mg/l, a maximum of 4.07mg/l and an average <strong>co</strong>ncentration of 1.34mg/l. Theimpact causing the poor water quality at NL4 has been discussed previously.Electrical <strong>co</strong>nductivity (EC) for Saalklapspruit sub-catchmentIn general, the EC levels for the main stem of the Saalklapspruit are worse than the Wilge River system.EC levels at NLS10, NLS11 and NLS19 exceeds the interim RWQO for MU21 (70mS/m) on mostoccasions for the monitoring period up to April 2011. This can be attributed to mining activities or otherland uses upstream of the monitoring points. At DWA monitoring point 189465 (upstream of the Pholasewage works), a minimum EC <strong>co</strong>ncentration of 32.14mS/m, maximum of 96.2mS/m and an average EClevel of 67.5mS/m was measured for the period March 2009 to May 2011.Tributaries of the Saalklapspruit show good quality, with levels generally below the objective, with theexception of NLS13 which exceed the objective on most occasions. High EC levels at NLS13 areattributed to upstream <strong>co</strong>al and industrial activities in the Grootspruit catchment.pH for Saalklapspruit sub-catchmentpH levels in the Saalklapspruit sub-catchment are largely within the interim RWQO of 6.5 - 8.4, with theexception of NLS13. Similar results were obtained between the 2006/7 monitoring period and the2010/11 monitoring period. A similar trend is observed for DWA monitoring points 189465 and 189464(upstream and downstream of the Phola sewage works respectively). pH levels at NLS13 have<strong>co</strong>nsistently been low, with pH levels ranging between 3.47 and 5.52. During only one sampling event(January 2011) has the pH level been within the objectives, when a pH of 7.02 was measured. Theupstream <strong>co</strong>al mining and industrial activities therefore have a noticeable impact on this water<strong>co</strong>urse.The interim RWQO was also exceeded at NLS16 during the October 2011 sampling event, with a pH of8.6 being measured.Chloride for Saalklapspruit sub-catchmentChloride levels in the Saalklapspruit sub-catchments are generally below the interim RWQO of 20mg/l.Similar results were obtained between the 2006/7 monitoring period and the 2010/11 monitoring period.The only exception is NLS11 and NLS13 which has exceeded the objective on a number of occasionsduring the 2010/11 monitoring period. The interim objective was also exceeded at NLS18 during theNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)205
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesAugust 2011 sampling event. The poor water quality at NLS13 is attributed to upstream <strong>co</strong>al mining andindustrial activities in the Grootspruit catchment.Sulphate (SO 4 ) for Saalklapspruit sub-catchmentOn the main stem of the Saalklapspruit, sulphate levels exceed the interim RWQO of 120mg/l for thisMU for the majority of the sampling events, with <strong>co</strong>ncentrations measured above 200mg/l.Concentrations showed an improvement during December 2010 and January 2011 and again from June2011. The high levels of sulphates are attributed to <strong>co</strong>al mining operations upstream of NLS10.The tributaries of the Saalklapspruit have sulphate levels below the interim RWQO, except for NLS13,which <strong>co</strong>nsistently has elevated sulphate levels (minimum of 281.08mg/l, maximum of1 178.74mg/l and mean of 531.5mg/l during the sampling period). The upstream activities which impacton this point have already been mentioned.Ammonium (NH 4 ) for Saalklapspruit sub-catchmentAmmonium levels in the tributaries of the Saalklapspruit are generally low with occasional increasedlevels up to as high as 5.4mg/l (NLS12), 12.37mg/l (NLS13) and 10.8mg/l (NLS14). The averageammonium <strong>co</strong>ncentrations for the 2010/11 sampling period at these points are 0.90mg/l, 1.51mg/l and1.21mg/l respectively.On the main stem of the Saalklapspruit, elevated <strong>co</strong>ncentrations have <strong>co</strong>nsistently been measured atNLS11, with a minimum of 0.11mg/l and maximum of 10.42mg/l since sampling <strong>co</strong>mmenced in 2010.The mean <strong>co</strong>ncentration for the 2010/2011 sampling period is 4.59mg/l. At a pH of 7.4 and assumedtemperature of 20 o Celsius, the average ammonia level at NLS11 was therefore 0.052mg/l. During the2006/7 sampling period, the ammonia <strong>co</strong>ncentrations were also elevated to levels of 0.2 mg/l and1.7mg/l, therefore exceeding the interim RWQO. The high levels of ammonium at this sampling point areattributed to the Phola sewage treatment plant (STP), which is located upstream of NLS11. Ac<strong>co</strong>rding towater users in the area, the works have historically been malfunctioning due to a lack of maintenanceand/or operational challenges, resulting in the discharge of raw or partially treated sewage in the waterresources. From the water quality analyses, ammonium levels above 5 mg/l were observed duringOctober to December 2010, with a marked decrease during January 2011. This <strong>co</strong>uld be attributed to thedilution effect during the rainfall season or potentially to an improvement in the management andoperation of the STP. A steady increase in ammonium <strong>co</strong>ncentration has, however, been observed sinceFebruary 2011.Nitrate for Saalklapspruit sub-catchmentThe nitrate (NO 3 ) levels in the Saalklapspruit sub-catchment are generally well below the interim RWQOof 6mg/l. The exception is the February 2011 sampling results for monitoring points NLS11. No apparentreason for the sporadic increase at this point <strong>co</strong>uld be found and it is expected that it is as a result of ananalytical error. This is supported when the nitrate levels measured at DWA gauges 189464(downstream of Phola STP) and 189465 (upstream of Phola STP) are <strong>co</strong>nsidered (nitrate levels forFebruary 2011 was measured at 3.3mg/l and 1.6mg/l respectively).Calcium for Saalklapspruit sub-catchmentThe main stem of the Saalklapspruit showed <strong>co</strong>ncentrations above the interim RWQO of 80mg/l fromFebruary to April 2011. The water quality in this sub-catchment has been impacted as a result ofupstream mining activities as discussed above.The tributaries of the Saalklapspruit showed <strong>co</strong>ncentrations below the interim RWQO, except for NLS13,which mostly exceeded the objective.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)206
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesAluminium for Saalklapspruit sub-catchmentThe aluminium <strong>co</strong>ncentration in the Saalklapspruit exceeded the interim RWQO of 0.02 mg/l at all themonitoring sites for most of the monitoring period. In particular, NLS13 on the Grootspruit (a tributary ofthe Saalklapspruit) exceeded the interim RWQO significantly, with a minimum <strong>co</strong>ncentration of 1.08mg/l,a maximum of 9.59mg/l and an average <strong>co</strong>ncentration of 3.18mg/l. The impact causing the poor waterquality at NLS13 has been discussed previously.As stated previously, the interim RWQO for aluminium is low since it is based on the Aquatic E<strong>co</strong>logicalReserve determined in 2001 (DNWRP, 2009). When the levels are <strong>co</strong>mpared to the SA Water QualityGuidelines for irrigation and stock watering, the measured quality is below the target guideline of 5mg/l(except NLS13 as mentioned above). The levels at most of the monitoring points are above the idealdomestic guideline of 0.15mg/l, but below the acceptable guideline for domestic use of 0.5mg/l.Iron for Saalklapspruit sub-catchmentThe iron <strong>co</strong>ncentration in the main stem of the Saalklapspruit fluctuates above and below the interimRWQO of 1mg/l at NLS10, NLS11 and NLS18 with average <strong>co</strong>ncentrations of 0.96mg/l, 0.99mg/l and0.54mg/l respectively for the 2010/11 sampling period. The <strong>co</strong>ncentration measured at NLS19 has beenbelow the objective, except during the August 2011 sampling event (1.87mg/l), and an average of0.59mg/l has been measured for the sampling period.NLS20 located on a tributary of the Saalklapspruit, showed significantly elevated levels (11.14mg/l and13.39mg/l during the January and February 2011 sampling events respectively) with a mean<strong>co</strong>ncentration of 5.54mg/l for the 2010/11 sampling period. On the other tributaries, elevated iron<strong>co</strong>ncentrations were measured at NLS13, NLS16 and NLS17 during some of the sampling occasions.Magnesium for Saalklapspruit sub-catchmentOn the main stem of the Saalklapspruit, the magnesium <strong>co</strong>ncentration exceeds the interim RWQO mostof the time at all of the monitoring points. Elevated levels (ranging from 21.2 to 112.39mg/l) weremeasured during February to June 2011. The average <strong>co</strong>ncentrations at the monitoring points for the2010/11 sampling period are 50.44mg/l at NLS10, 25.68mg/l at NLS11, 29.63mg/l at NLS18 and43.01mg/l at NLS19.On the tributaries of the Saalklapspruit, magnesium levels were generally below the objective, except forNLS13 which showed a minimum <strong>co</strong>ncentration of 26.08mg/l, maximum of 94.62mg/l and an average of45.72mg/l.Similar results were obtained between the 2006/7 monitoring period and the 2010/11 monitoring period.High magnesium levels are attributed to the existing mining impacts in the two sub-catchments asdescribed above.Potassium for Saalklapspruit sub-catchmentThe levels of potassium in the tributaries and the main stem of the Saalklapspruit are below theobjective, with the exception of NLS19 which showed levels above the objective during the February andApril 2011 sampling events, and NLS11 during the October 2011 sampling event.Manganese for Saalklapspruit sub-catchmentThe manganese <strong>co</strong>ncentration with the Saalklapspruit system is above the interim RWQO of 0.18mg/l atmost of the sampling points for most of the 2010/11 monitoring period. Elevated levels were observed atNLS12 and NLS 16, with average <strong>co</strong>ncentration of 0.6mg/l and 0.87mg/l for the sampling period. TheMn <strong>co</strong>ncentration at NLS13 is significantly elevated above the interim RWQO, with a minimumNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)207
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices<strong>co</strong>ncentration of 1.32mg/l, a maximum of 14.29mg/l and an average <strong>co</strong>ncentration of 6.15mg/l. Theimpact causing the poor water quality at NLS13 has been discussed previously.Synthesis of Baseline / Existing ImpactsThe affected surface water aspects are catchment yield and surface water quality and quantity. In termsof catchment yield, there are several opencast mines in the catchment which have large dirty areaswhich should be <strong>co</strong>ntained and therefore should not be <strong>co</strong>ntributing to the catchment. Therefore there isalready an impact on catchment yield in the catchment.In addition, dirty water <strong>co</strong>ntainment is not necessarily effective on all of these sites, resulting in impactson surface water quality. A further notable impact on water quality is the Phola sewage works.The current water quality in the Wilge River sub-catchment has not been impacted to a large extent andgenerally is within the interim RWQO’s for MU22, as developed by the DNWRP. The only exception isthe Klipfonteinspruit (at monitoring point NL4), where an impact associated with the decant of mine waterfrom underground workings has been observed. The impact is noticeable in the macro and micro<strong>co</strong>nstituents of the water in the Klipfonteinspruit. The high dissolved aluminium <strong>co</strong>ncentration observedat this point is of particular <strong>co</strong>ncern. The poor quality water in the Klipfonteinspruit is, however, dilutedwith good quality water from reaches further upstream, resulting in water quality at the furthestdownstream monitoring point (NL9) which generally is in the order of the interim RWQO for MU22, withthe exception of Al, which was exceeded on most occasions. Any further <strong>co</strong>ntribution of salt load into thesystem can therefore not be tolerated.Historical data for the DWA gauge B2H014 shows a steady deterioration in the water quality in the WilgeRiver downstream of the proposed New Largo Mine and the Kusile Power Station. The levels ofsulphate, chloride, calcium and magnesium are approaching the interim RWQO set for the MU. Anyfurther <strong>co</strong>ntribution of salt load into the system can therefore not be tolerated.The water in the Saalklapspruit sub-catchment is of poorer quality and does not <strong>co</strong>mply with the interimRWQO’s for MU21. The mining and industrial activities located upstream of NLS13 seem to have asignificant negative impact on the water quality of the Grootspruit, a tributary of the Saalklapspruit. ThePhola STP, located upstream of NLS11 and NLS12, also <strong>co</strong>ntributes to the poor water quality observedin the system. This <strong>co</strong>uld have implications for the downstream water users as the water may not be fitfor its intended use.The DNWRP indicated that the system does not have any remaining assimilative capacity for salinity andthat the salinity load will have to be removed from the catchment in order to meet the RWQO’s for theLoskop Dam. This will involve the management of pollution sources such as decants and seepages fromdefunct mines. In future, mines will have to treat water to acceptable levels (DNWRP, 2009).Individual land and water users within the catchment should therefore address point and non-pointsources to effect an improvement in the water quality. In addition, the New Largo mine will have tomaintain a very high standard of management to ensure that the water qualities of both the Wilge Riverand the Saalklapspruit are not further impacted upon.Monitoring should be done ac<strong>co</strong>rding to the monitoring proto<strong>co</strong>l, before and during the New LargoColliery operations. A monitoring point should be identified further downstream in the Saalklapspruitcatchment (NLS23) and included in the monitoring programme.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)208
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices6.1.7 GroundwaterAn assessment of background groundwater quality was <strong>co</strong>nducted in 2006 and was repeated in 2010and 2011. Typical groundwater qualities are presented below.Table 6-7: Typical background groundwater quality in the shallow weathered aquifer (2006)VariableAveragepH 6.79EC (mS/m) 14.55TDS (mg/l) 89.97Ca (mg/l) 12.38Mg (mg/l) 5.80Na (mg/l) 9.63K (mg/l) 2.47Si (mg/l) 7.61T-Alk(mg/l) 62.47Cl (mg/l) 4.91SO 4 (mg/l) 5.64NO 3 (mg/l) 0.95F (mg/l) 0.42Al (mg/l)* 0.186Fe (mg/l)* 2.934Mn (mg/l)* 0.074*Samples acidified before filtration.There are old underground mine workings in the centre of the proposed New Largo Colliery mining area.The workings are flooded and excess mine water currently decants to the surface and/or is pumped intothe nearby pan on portion 1 of the Farm Klipfontein 566 JR.Based on groundwater monitoring <strong>co</strong>nducted between 2006 and 2011, it is estimated that ~1.5 Ml/day ofwater generated in the old underground workings (pers. <strong>co</strong>mm. J. van den Berg, JMA groundwaterspecialist responsible for the ground water monitoring programme for AAIC, see Appendix H). Surfacewater monitoring results clearly indicated that the water quality of the pan and areas downstream of thedecant point are negatively affected (Section 6.1.6).Further baseline information is provided in the <strong>EIA</strong> Groundwater Section 8.3.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)209
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)Figure 6-8: Catchments and Rivers210
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesFigure 6-9: Surface Water Monitoring PointsNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)211
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices6.1.8 NoiseDescription of Baseline / Existing ImpactsThe proposed New Largo Colliery development will be located in a district where the character ofambient noise is to some extent determined by industrialisation and e<strong>co</strong>nomic activity which over timehas resulted in an increase in the background ambient level. It should be noted that from the perspectiveof noise-sensitive recipients in area, the character of the noise environment has not been affected onlyby external factors such as industrial and mining activity. The character is also affected and thebackground ambient level elevated by noises produced by farming activity, which is the principle landuseactivity affecting noise-sensitive recipients in the area. It would therefore be improper in a noiseimpact assessment to <strong>co</strong>nsider the baseline reference of the environment and the development target fornew development as Rural in terms of SANS 10103 guidelines.Although traffic volumes on the R545 are low, traffic on the total road infrastructure in <strong>co</strong>njunction withland-use activities <strong>co</strong>llectively elevate the ambient level over most of the project area to about 5 dBabove what is <strong>co</strong>nsidered typical for a Rural Area in terms of SANS 10103 guidelines.In terms of SANS 10103 guidelines (See Table 6-8) the area falls in the category between Rural andUrban, described as “Suburban – With little road traffic”. As such, for purposes of noise impactassessment in this study, typical ambient levels in the area are rated as 50 dBA (daytime) and 40 dBAnight-time, respectively.Table 6-8: Equivalent Continuous Rating Levels for Outdoor Noise (SANS 10103)Type of DistrictSANS 10103 Table 2: Equivalent Continuous Rating Levels forOutdoor Noise (dBA)Day/Night Day NightRural districts 45 45 35Suburban districts with little road traffic 50 50 40Urban districts 55 55 45Urban districts with one or more of the following:60 60 50workshops, business premises and main roads.Central business districts 65 65 55Industrial districts 70 70 60The periods in Table 6-8 into which a 24 hour cycle is divided, are defined as follows: Day-time (06:00 – 22:00) Night-time (22:00 – 06:00) Day-Night (24-hour day-night period)The day-night level Ldn represents a 24-hour average of the ambient noise level, with a weighting of +10dB applied to night-time levels, yielding numerically equal values for daytime and day-night levels. SANS10103 also gives guidelines in relation to expected <strong>co</strong>mmunity response to different levels of noiseimpact (increase in noise level), as summarized in Table 6-9.Table 6-9: Expected <strong>co</strong>mmunity response to an increase in ambient noise level (SANS 10103)Increase in ambient levelExpected <strong>co</strong>mmunity reaction[dB]0 – 10 Sporadic <strong>co</strong>mplaints5 – 15 Widespread <strong>co</strong>mplaints10 – 20 Threats of <strong>co</strong>mmunity actionMore than 15Vigorous <strong>co</strong>mmunity actionNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)212
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesTable 6-9 summarises SANS 10103 criteria for acceptable ambient levels in various districts. Note thatratings increase in steps of 5 dB from one to the next higher category and that, in general, regardless ofthe type of district, ambient noise levels tend to decline by typically 1 dB from daytime to night-time. Itfollows that, for the same level of intrusive noise, the noise impact would typically increase by 10 dB fromdaytime to night-time.Table 6-10: Typical outdoor ambient noise levels in various districts (SANS 10103)Noise levelType of districtEquivalent <strong>co</strong>ntinuous level L Aeq (dBA)Day-Night Day-time Night-timeL dn L d L n(a) Rural 45 45 35(b) Suburban – With little road traffic 50 50 40(c) Urban 55 55 45(d) Urban - With some workshops,business premises & main roads60 60 50(e) Central business districts 65 65 55(f) Industrial districts 70 70 60In terms of SANS 10103 guidelines (Table 6-10), the area falls in the category between Rural and Urban,described as “Suburban – With little road traffic”. As such, one would expect typical ambient levels in thearea to be in the order of 50 dBA (daytime) and 40 dBA (night-time), respectively. The results of thebaseline survey should serve to verify the current status and to establish the extent to which ambientlevels are currently affected by abovementioned activities.Ambient levels at M1 (Premises at Rockblend – Nelson family)Average daytime and night-time ambient levels re<strong>co</strong>rded at this location during the <strong>co</strong>urse of thisinvestigation, were 55 dBA (daytime) and 37 dBA (night-time), respectively. The daytime ambient levelwas determined by:Noise from the R545 main road;Noise from work activities on this property;Trucks and other vehicles arriving at and leaving from the premises.Audible sources of noise at night were road traffic from local roads, as well as insect and bird calls.Ambient levels at M2 (Residence Mac Donald)Average daytime and night-time ambient levels re<strong>co</strong>rded at this location were 52 dBA (daytime) and 40dBA (night-time). Audible sources of noise during daytime were found to be heavy mining vehicle traffi<strong>co</strong>n the local unpaved road approximately 500 m from the residence, farming activities, livestock noiseand distant traffic noise on the R545 main road. At night it was mainly road traffic in the distance,livestock noise, as well as insect and bird calls which <strong>co</strong>ntributed to audible noise.Ambient levels at M3 (Residence Engelbrecht)Average daytime and night-time ambient levels re<strong>co</strong>rded at this location were 50 dBA (daytime) and 37dBA (night-time). Audible sources of noise during daytime were found to be farming activity, livestockand barely audible levels of road traffic noise in the distance. At night it was mainly livestock, bird andinsect calls, and at a much lower level, noise from traffic on distant roads.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)213
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesAmbient levels at M4 (Residence Cloete)Average daytime and night-time ambient levels re<strong>co</strong>rded at this location were 52 dBA (daytime) and 43dBA (night-time). The level of activity and the ambient levels are higher but the types of noise sources<strong>co</strong>ntributing to audible ambient noise were found to be the same as those re<strong>co</strong>rded at M3.Ambient levels at M5 (Residence Truter)Average daytime and night-time ambient levels re<strong>co</strong>rded at this location were 54 dBA (daytime) and 48dBA (night-time). Daytime levels were determined by traffic on the R545 passing at a distance ofapproximately 250 m and by work activities and vehicle movement on the premises. Night-time levelsare determined predominantly by traffic on the R545.Ambient levels at M6 (Residence Van den Heever)Average daytime and night-time ambient levels re<strong>co</strong>rded at this location were 49 dBA (daytime) and 45dBA (night-time). The types of noise sources <strong>co</strong>ntributing to audible ambient noise are similar to thosere<strong>co</strong>rded at M3. Night-time levels were elevated by dogs barking. In the absence of barking, the leveldropped to 41 dBA.Ambient levels at M7 (Area south of N17 highway)Based on probing and short duration averaging, typical daytime and night-time ambient levels in thisarea are 54 dBA (daytime) and 46 dBA (night-time), respectively. Levels are elevated by traffic noise onthe N12 and by mining noise in the area.The results of the survey are summarised on the map in Figure 6-10. Daytime and night-time periods areas defined in SANS 10103.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)214
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesL1/L2Day/Night ambient levelsM155/3749/41M6M252/40M452/43M554/48M350/37M754/46Figure 6-10: Baseline Average daytime (06:00 to 22:00) and night-time (22:00 to 06:00) AmbientLevelsSynthesis of Baseline / Existing ImpactsSources currently <strong>co</strong>ntributing to the ambient noise level:General and small-scale mining activities scattered over the area which <strong>co</strong>ntribute to machinery,truck and road traffic noise;Agricultural activities where the main sources of audible noise are tractor diesel engines.Road traffic noise emanates from the N4 and N12 highways, the R545 provincial road, as well asfrom other se<strong>co</strong>ndary roads. The N4 and N12 highways have a significant effect on the ambientlevel within a zone of approximately 500 m from the road.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)215
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesTraffic on the total road infrastructure in <strong>co</strong>njunction with land-use activities <strong>co</strong>llectively <strong>co</strong>ntribute toelevate the ambient level over most of the project area to about 5 dB above what is <strong>co</strong>nsidered typicalfor a Rural Area in terms of SANS 10103 guidelines.Future sources of noise which will <strong>co</strong>ntribute to the background ambient level: Kusile Power Station <strong>co</strong>nstruction currently in progress and operations starting late 2014,ramping up over time to full production;Operation of the proposed Phola-Kusile Coal Conveyor (Conveyor <strong>co</strong>nstruction noise will benegligible);Proposed Phola-Kusile <strong>co</strong>al <strong>co</strong>nveyorAAIC is proposing to <strong>co</strong>nstruct an overland <strong>co</strong>nveyor system, the Phola-Kusile Overland Coal Conveyor,to transport <strong>co</strong>al from the Phola Coal Processing Plant to Eskom’s Kusile Power Station currently under<strong>co</strong>nstruction. A noise study <strong>co</strong>nducted by Acusolv found that along the proposed route, the <strong>co</strong>nveyor isexpected to have a significant noise impact footprint (45 dBA at night) extending to a distance of 450 mfrom the <strong>co</strong>nveyor. Conveyor noise can be mitigated to reduce the footprint to 250 m. Hence, with orwithout mitigation, the noise impact of the Phola-Kusile Conveyor is localised with a small footprint.Kusile Power StationKusile Power Station currently under <strong>co</strong>nstruction, is located approximately 2 km west of the proposedNew Largo plant. As such, it will occupy a large part of and will therefore reduce the size of the area tothe west of New Largo that would otherwise have <strong>co</strong>nstituted a noise-sensitive target area for theproposed New Largo project.A noise study for Kusile Power Station has been <strong>co</strong>nducted by Jongens Keet Associates. The reportfinds that the Kusile Power Station is expected to have a 45 dBA footprint within a radius ofapproximately 3 km.6.2 Biological Environment6.2.1 FloraThe study area is located within the grassland biome of South Africa. The grassland biome is one of themost threatened biomes in South Africa, due to agricultural and mining activities. Approximately 60% to80% of the grassland biome has been irreversibly transformed, while only 2% is formally <strong>co</strong>nserved. Interms of the latest regional vegetation classification, three vegetation units occur in the area: EasternHighveld Grassland, Eastern Temperate Freshwater Wetlands and Rand Highveld Grassland (Mucina &Rutherford 2006) (Figure 6-13).6.2.1.1 Eastern Highveld GrasslandThis vegetation unit is described as occurring on slightly to moderately undulating plains, including somelow hills and pan depressions. The vegetation is short dense grassland dominated by the usual Highveldgrass <strong>co</strong>mposition (Aristida, Digitaria, Eragrostis, Themeda, Tristachya etc.) with small, scattered rockyoutcrops with wiry, sour grasses and some woody species (Acacia caffra, Celtis africana,Diospyroslyciodes subsp. lycioides, Parinari capensis, Protea caffra, P. welwitschii and Rhusmagalismontanum). Abiotic attributes associated with this vegetation unit are red to yellow sandy soils ofthe Ba (30%) and Bb (65%) land types found on shale and sandstones on the Mad<strong>za</strong>ringwe Formation(Karoo Supergroup). Land types associated with the Ba and Bb soil patterns are associated withlandscapes in which a plinthic catena forms part of the landscape. In these landscapes, soft plinthic soilsassociated with fluctuating water tables within 1.5 m of the surface of the earth are <strong>co</strong>mmon.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)216
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesThis vegetation unit is <strong>co</strong>nsidered to be endangered; its <strong>co</strong>nservation target is 24%. Some 44% istransformed mainly by cultivation, plantations, mines and urbani<strong>za</strong>tion and by building of dams.Cultivation may have had a more extensive impact, indicated by land-<strong>co</strong>ver data. No serious alieninvasions are reported, but Acacia mearnsii can be<strong>co</strong>me dominant in disturbed sites. Erosion is very low.6.2.1.2 Eastern Temperate Freshwater WetlandsThis vegetation is described as occurring on flat landscape or shallow depressions filled with (temporary)water bodies, supporting zoned systems of aquatic and hygrophilous vegetation of temporarily floodedgrasslands and ephemeral herb-lands. Soils are peaty (Champagne form) to vertic (Rensburg form).Wetlands form where flow of water is impeded by impermeable soils and/or by erosion resistant features,such as dolerite intrusions. Surface water inundation may be present at any point while the wetland issaturated and some plant species will be present only under inundated <strong>co</strong>nditions or under permanentlysaturated <strong>co</strong>nditions. The presence of standing water should not be taken as a sign of permanent wet<strong>co</strong>nditions.6.2.1.3 Rand Highveld GrasslandThis unit is described as forming part of a highly variable landscape with extensive sloping plains and aseries of ridges slightly elevated over undulating surrounding plains. The vegetation is species-rich, wiry,sour grassland alternating with low, sour shrub-land on rocky outcrops and steeper slopes.Biogeographically important taxa occurring in the regional vegetation are Agapanthus inapertus P.Beauv. ssp. pendulus (L. Bolus) Leight., Eu<strong>co</strong>mis vandermerwei I. Verd., Huernia insigniflora C.A.Maassand Melhania randii Baker f. The following species are endemic to the regional vegetation unit:Anacampseros subnuda Poelln. ssp. lubbersii (Bleck) Gerbaulet, Crassula arborescens (Mill.) Willd. ssp.undulatifolia Toelken, Delosperma purpureum, Encephalartos eugene-maraisii I. Verd. ssp.middelburgensis Lavranos & D. L. Goode, Encephalartos lanatus Stapf & Burtt Davy, Frithia humilis,Melanospermum rudolfii Hilliard and Polygala spicata Chodat.This unit is also <strong>co</strong>nsidered endangered; its <strong>co</strong>nservation target is 24%. It is poorly <strong>co</strong>nserved. Almosthalf has been transformed mostly by cultivation, plantations, urbani<strong>za</strong>tion or dam-building. Cultivationmay also have had an impact on an additional portion of the surface area of the unit where old lands arecurrently classified as grasslands in the land-<strong>co</strong>ver classifications. Scattered aliens (most prominentlyAcacia mearnsii) occur in about 7% of this unit. Only about 7% has been subjected to moderate to higherosion levels.6.2.2 FaunaThe animals observed during previous field assessments are typical of the region in which the study areais located – a <strong>co</strong>mbination of e<strong>co</strong>logical characteristics associated with wetlands, grasslands, crop fieldsand outcrops found in the study area. No Red Data or sensitive animal species were found or anyindication of such species observed. Refer to Appendix E for the list of animal species.The red data species that are known from the regional databases are <strong>co</strong>nsidered to have a low ormoderate likelihood of occurrence in the study area, lacking some of their habitat requirements within thestudy area. These include characteristics such as woodland-associated <strong>co</strong>nditions, caves orsubterranean habitats. As a result, a large portion of the red data species <strong>co</strong>ntingent for the study area isnot <strong>co</strong>nsidered likely inhabitants (49% of species). However, the presence of wetlands anduntransformed grasslands has led to the estimations of high (11% of species) and moderate (40% ofspecies) probability of occurrences of red data species within the study area’s boundaries.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)217
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesThe proposed mining project will inevitably have a negative impact on the animal life within the studyarea.6.2.3 E<strong>co</strong>logical SensitivityHabitat classifications as defined in the Mpumalanga Conservation Plan (C Plan) are presented in Figure6-15. E<strong>co</strong>logical sensitivity, based on the results of e<strong>co</strong>logical surveys <strong>co</strong>nducted in 2006 and 2010 ispresented in Figure 6-14. Where required, the e<strong>co</strong>logical specialist will expand the data for anydevelopment <strong>co</strong>mponents and alternatives located outside the areas previously surveyed.Important habitats include wetlands and wetland-related habitats (high faunal sensitivity) anduntransformed grasslands (moderate sensitivity). These areas are also <strong>co</strong>nsidered to be important forthe <strong>co</strong>nservation of biodiversity in the study area. These areas include e<strong>co</strong>logical <strong>co</strong>nditions that arevaried, unique and likely host to restricted (geographically) animal assemblages and <strong>co</strong>mmunities. Thehigh-lying rocky shrub-land is one e<strong>co</strong>logical system that deserves higher status than based on red datahabitat alone. The presence of a much localized plant species, Frithia humilis, is an indication of thebiological importance of the habitat type in the study area and region. It is likely that the high lying rockyshrub-land will also be host to unique animal assemblages, especially where invertebrates are<strong>co</strong>ncerned (one might be a pollinator of F. humilis.).6.2.4 WetlandsThe presence of wetlands in the study area is linked to both perched groundwater and surface water.Three types of natural wetland systems (valley bottom, hill slope seepage and pan) and one type ofman-made wetland system (dam) occur within the study area (see Figure 6-11. The extent anddistribution of the different wetland types in the study with the areas occupied are tabled below.Table 6-11: Area of wetlands within the study areaProposed Mining Right Coal Reserve (MineNot Directly ImpactedAreaPlan Version 6)Coal Reserve (MinePlan Version 7)Wetland TypesArea (ha)% oftotalwetlandareaArea (ha)% oftotalwetlandareaArea (ha)% oftotalwetlandareaArea (ha)% oftotalwetlandareaValley bottom ~ 413 26 % ~ 31 5% ~ 381 38% ~ 31 7%Hill slopeseepage~ 978 61 % ~ 417 68% ~ 565 57% ~ 299 64%Pans ~ 164 10 % ~ 160 26% ~ 4 1% ~ 81 17%Dams ~ 45 3 % ~ 3 1% ~ 42 4% ~ 3 1%TOTAL 1600 608 992 468The wetlands represent 14% of the total prospecting right area (proposed mining right area) of ~11470,11% of the total <strong>co</strong>al reserve for Mine Plan Version 6, and 10% of the total <strong>co</strong>al reserve for Mine PlanVersion 7.Wetlands found in the study area are depicted in Figure 6-16. A schematic diagram of how the naturalwetland systems are positioned in the landscape and the general topography of the study sites is givenin Figure 6-11 with the generalised hydrological and other characteristics of the wetlands tabulated inTable 6-12.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)218
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesPanHillslopeseepage wetlandsValley bottom wetlandValleyheadMidslopeFootslopeFigure 6-11: Schematic illustration of the types of wetlands and the topographical settings oftypical wetlands found in and around the study areaBoth seepage and some sections of valley bottom wetlands have been modified to form impoundmentsto provide access to and to extend the period of availability of water that is moving through thelandscape.The study area straddles a catchment divide from where water flows off to emerge as seepage wetlandswhere the aquiclude (impermeable area) intercepts the side slopes and where flows <strong>co</strong>ncentrate in thevalley bottoms. The valley bottom wetlands on the tributaries of the Saalklapspruit are largely channelledimplying that the energy associated with the flows is high enough to cause sediment transport. The largePhragmites stands in the Saalklapspruit are undoubtedly a reflection of the deposition of sedimentsemerging from the upstream catchment. In <strong>co</strong>ntrast to this the valley bottom wetlands associated withwest draining tributaries of the Wilge River are, within the study site, largely naturally unchannelled.There is some evidence of channel development in the systems on the farm Klipfontein wherechannelling has developed in one of the reaches. The absence of any extensive reed beds in the WilgeRiver would suggest that the energy associated with flows out of this section of the catchment are highthus transporting sediments to beyond the study area.The relatively large surface area representing seeps suggests that a <strong>co</strong>nsiderable portion of the rainfallfalling in this area enters the valley bottom systems as diffuse flow, over an extended period of time.Although the soil forms associated with these wetlands vary, the wetlands can be distinguished based ontwo broad groups of soils, with valley bottom wetlands characterised by more clayey soils (includingKatspruit, Kroonstad and Rensburg) while hill slope seepage wetlands are generally associated withmore sandy soils (Avalon, Pinedene and Westleigh). Hill slope seepage wetlands are sometimes alsoassociated with the Glen<strong>co</strong>e soil form which allows water to <strong>co</strong>llect on top of the more impervioushardpan or plinthic horizon associated with this form.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)219
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesTable 6-12: General characteristics of the wetlands re<strong>co</strong>rded in the study areaWETLAND TYPETOPOGRAPHICSETTINGDESCRIPTIONHYDROLOGIC COMPONENTSInputs Throughputs OutputsRIPARIANValley bottomwetlandsGenerally in the steeperheadward parts of thestreams and in theshallow valleys that drainthe slopes.Relatively narrow grasslandareas (generally
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices6.2.4.1 Valley Bottom WetlandsThe valley bottom wetlands present on site are geographically separated and can be sub-classified intothe following: Seasonally / temporarily wet channelled systems;o occupying the north eastern section of the site (on the farms Honingkrantz 536JR in theSaalklapspruit catchment), ando what appears to be a disturbed system dominated by wattle trees, Acacia mearsniiimmediately north of the N12 (on the Farm Klipfontein 568 JH in the Wilge Rivercatchment); and Seasonally / permanently saturated channelled systems;o associated with the tributaries of the Wilge River, especially on the FarmsHartbeestfontein 537JR in the north west of the site, ando Klipfontein 568 JR and Heuvelfontein 215 IR on the west and south western section ofthe study site respectively show characteristics of extended seasonal to permanentwetness.o The soils in these systems are predominantly of the Katspruit soil form.o These systems support a number of dams, which in the case of those present on the farmHeuvelfontein support a number of centre pivot irrigation systems.The differences between the hydrological characteristics of these systems can probably be related to thesizes of the <strong>co</strong>ntributing catchments as well as soil depth and slope, with the latter providing the capacityto regulate release of water from the catchment into the valley bottom systems. There may well be otherinfluencing factors for example dolerite intrusions and general lithology that <strong>co</strong>ntribute to flow regulation.Return water flows from the irrigation systems may also <strong>co</strong>ntribute to the observed extended wetness.It is suspected that small mammals such as yellow mongoose, grey duiker and rodents naturally occur inthe area, a list of mammals, reptiles and amphibians re<strong>co</strong>rded, or likely to occur in, or utilise, thewetlands is given in Appendix F. The extensive well vegetated valley bottom wetlands and the variousfarm dams together with the pans that occur throughout the study site <strong>co</strong>ntribute to a mosaic of habitatsthat is likely to support a high avifaunal diversity.High plant species richness occurs in the wetlands of the study area with a total of 192 species re<strong>co</strong>rded,of which the highest number of 114 species were re<strong>co</strong>rded in the valley bottom wetlands. A list ofindigenous plant species re<strong>co</strong>rded per wetland type is given in Appendix F. These habitats which includemixed grass-sedge meadows; open water; tall emergent sedge meadows; short sedge meadows; grassmeadows; and mixed scrub areas along the riparian zone support this high plant species richness. NoRed Data Listed plant species were re<strong>co</strong>rded during the vegetation survey, <strong>co</strong>nducted in the area.However, a small population of the orchid, Disa woodii has been re<strong>co</strong>rded on the margins of the valleybottom system in the upper reaches of the Saalklapspruit on the farm Prinshof.6.2.4.2 Hill Slope Seepage WetlandsThe hill slope seepage wetlands that occur in the study area are associated with sandy soil forms andmaintained predominantly by perched sub-surface flow. The A horizon in these soils <strong>co</strong>mmonly remainssaturated for periods during the summer months, and in some areas these systems are extensivelysaturated during winter months as a result of delayed interflow in the deep sand profiles that feed thesesystems. The resulting vegetation in these areas <strong>co</strong>mprises a mixture of wetland and upland species.The boundaries of these systems often extend well away from the easily re<strong>co</strong>gni<strong>za</strong>ble saturated zonesthus forming a gradual e<strong>co</strong>tone that can extend tens of metres as the depth to the perched water tableincreases with distance away from the un<strong>co</strong>nfined seep front.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)221
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesAn exception to the temporality of seasonally wet areas is the seepage wetlands in the north westernsection of the study area immediately downslope of the proposed route option 1A for relocation of theR545 road. These wetlands show characteristics of an extended to permanently wet seep. The reasonfor its apparent permanently wet status was not determined but might be associated with for example adolerite intrusion or some other local geological artefact.It is suspected that small mammals such as yellow mongoose, grey duiker and rodents naturally occur inthe area, a list of mammals, reptiles and amphibians re<strong>co</strong>rded, or likely to occur in, or utilise, thewetlands is given in Appendix F.Although these types of wetlands have a relatively low number of habitats, they still support high plantspecies richness with the se<strong>co</strong>nd highest number of 96 species of the 192 total plant species re<strong>co</strong>rded inthe overall wetlands of the study area. These areas characteristically <strong>co</strong>mprise mixed grass-sedgemeadows with or without depressions which, when present are mostly dominated by sedge meadows. Alist of indigenous plant species re<strong>co</strong>rded per wetland type is given in Appendix F. Patches dominated bythe grass Imperata cylindrica are <strong>co</strong>mmon along the edges of most of the seepage wetlands. Wet grassmeadows are also <strong>co</strong>mmon, particularly on Avalon, Pinedene and Westleigh soil forms. The majority ofthe plant species occurring in the hill slope seepage wetlands are tolerant of seasonal root zonesaturation.6.2.4.3 PansThree large and three smaller pans, with a total surface area of 153 ha occur within the mining studyarea. All the pans have hill slope seepage wetlands on the slopes of the pan basins, reflecting the flow ofwater from the surrounding catchment into the pans.The pan in the south of the study area east of the existing R545 route on the Farm Vlakfontein, is one ofthe larger pans in the study site. This pan is permanently wet, maintained by water pumped out of theunderground workings of the old de<strong>co</strong>mmissioned New Largo underground workings. In addition togeneral seepage off the landscape, the pan also receives what appears to be a low pH sulphate richdecant in the vicinity of the old mine located immediately south of the pan. This seep influences anisolated patch of vegetation but at the time of the visit flows were not high enough to affect the entireextent of the pan.The remaining pans on the site have been affected by sand mining operations (large pan in the north) aswell as cultivation around the perimeters.It is suspected that small mammals such as yellow mongoose, grey duiker and rodents naturally occur inthe area, a list of mammals, reptiles and amphibians re<strong>co</strong>rded, or likely to occur in, or utilise, thewetlands is given in Appendix F. In terms of avifauna, pans generally are the most important habitat forbirds in the region (Marneweck et al., 2002). This is because, when inundated, they provide shallowwaterand shoreline habitats which are rare in the other types of wetlands in the region. Since all thepans are non-perennial, they will be temporarily abandoned by most water birds at least for some part ofthe year or during some years. There is therefore expected to be substantial seasonal variation in theuse of the pans by birds depending on the habitats present at the time. Even when dry, the pans willprovide habitat for some species, such as Kittlitz’s Plover. The extensive well vegetated valley bottomwetlands and the various farm dams together with the pans that occur throughout the study site<strong>co</strong>ntribute to a mosaic of habitats that is likely to support a high avifaunal diversity.Of the 192 total plant species re<strong>co</strong>rded in the overall wetlands of the study area, the lowest number of 37species were re<strong>co</strong>rded in the pans. While most of the pans in the region show a distinct zonation ofvegetation at any one time, these zones and the plant species that occupy them may vary in response tofluctuating water levels (Marneweck et al., 2002). These zones often relate to the topography of the panwhich in turn defines the extent of open water, the depth of water, and the steepness of transition andboundary gradients and so on. This all influences what plant species may be more <strong>co</strong>mmonly associatedwith for example, the floor, as opposed to the margins and even the hill slope seepage areas upslope ofthis. Even within these zones, there may be patch mosaics of plant <strong>co</strong>mmunities or stands of vegetationNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)222
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesthat too can vary with time. The dynamic nature of most of the pans also allows the <strong>co</strong>lonisation of areasby opportunistic plant species such as annual grasses and certain sedges which are able to takeadvantage of the favourable <strong>co</strong>nditions while they last. As a result, one can expect some variability in theplant species <strong>co</strong>mposition and richness within and between the pans in the study area. The indigenousplant species re<strong>co</strong>rded in the pan basins were dominated by the grasses Leersia heandra, Cynodonplevansii, Panicum repens, Paspalum dilitatum and Hemarthria altissima. A list of indigenous plantspecies re<strong>co</strong>rded per wetland type is given in Appendix F.Presence of Red Data SpeciesNo Red Data Listed plant species were re<strong>co</strong>rded on the study site. However the presence of red dataspecies cannot be dis<strong>co</strong>unted, as the level of sampling was restricted. It is likely that if further vegetationsurveys were <strong>co</strong>nducted at other times of the year the species list would be higher. However, a smallpopulation of the orchid, Disa woodii has been re<strong>co</strong>rded on the margins of the valley bottom system inthe upper reaches of the Saalklapspruit on the farm Prinshof. In terms of fauna, the Grass Owl Tytocapensis which is regarded as vulnerable (Barnes, 2000) may occur in the area.Water QualityThe results of the water quality analyses for each of the sites sampled are presented as radial plots (seeFigure 6-12). What is apparent from these results is that there are two distinctly different water types inthe streams and seeps in the mining area. The pan receiving mine water (Sites 424, 473,478) and Site533 are dominated by the sulphate ion, together with calcium, while the remaining samples aredominated by the bicarbonate ion. These differences can undoubtedly be attributed to the oxidation ofpyritic material associated with <strong>co</strong>al mining, resulting in the generation of acid rock drainage, itssubsequent buffering by calcium and magnesium carbonates and as a <strong>co</strong>nsequence of the formation ofcalcium/magnesium sulphate.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)223
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesN#473460#424#478#Water sampling sites.#Min er al rights bou ndaryCoal reserve bo undary.Legend#Water sampling sites.Mineral rights boundaryCoal reserve boundary.317#573 574# #533#6 0 6 12 KilometersFigure 6-12: Radial plots showing the dominant anions and cationsNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)224
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)Figure 6-13: Regional Vegetation225
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesFigure 6-14: E<strong>co</strong>logical SensitivityNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)226
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesFigure 6-15: Terrestrial Biodiversity Assessment (Mpumalanga Conservation Plan)New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)227
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)Figure 6-16: Wetlands ac<strong>co</strong>rding to WCS and SANBI 2010228
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesFigure 6-17: Critical Biodiversity Areas (MDEDET)New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)229
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesFigure 6-18: Frithia Habitats (with 100 m buffer zone)New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)230
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices6.3 Social-E<strong>co</strong>nomic EnvironmentThe formal settlements of Phola, Wilge, Alpha Colliery and Kendal Forest Holdings, and informalsettlements adjacent to Phola and on the old New Largo mine property are in close proximity to theproposed New Largo Colliery. Expansion of Phola is planned towards the south but is also occurring,informally, towards the north. High levels of unemployment are prevalent in local <strong>co</strong>mmunities and thereis a lack of housing development. The demand for new housing is high.An estimated 5600 ha of farmland will be affected by opencast mining of which about 70% is cultivated.Agriculture is an important source of in<strong>co</strong>me in Bronkhorstspruit and Delmas, whereas in Witbank thereare a higher number of people involved in mining and quarrying. The biggest employer in all the threetowns, although at different levels, was <strong>co</strong>mmunity and social services sector. However, the three townswere on par when it came to other sectors of employment such as wholesale and retail trade as well asmanufacturing.6.3.1 E<strong>co</strong>nomic FeaturesThe historical drivers of the local e<strong>co</strong>nomy are mining, agriculture and electricity generation.Mining occurs throughout the broader study area, with large sections of the area affected by underminedareas, rehabilitated mining land and areas <strong>co</strong>vered by mining and/or mining rights. Due to the rich <strong>co</strong>alreserves in local area, Eskom developed the Kendal, Kriel, Matla, Wilge and Duvha power stationsduring the 1970’s and 1980’s to provide for South Africa’s electricity needs. This has led to theestablishment of towns such as Kriel, Thubelihle and Wilge.The non-urban areas <strong>co</strong>nsist mainly of farms and agricultural holdings. The agricultural holdings arefound on the periphery of the urban settlements. In terms of agriculture, stock farming (sheep and cattle)and maize farming with some irrigated farming occur throughout the area and especially along the riverdrainage basins. Intensive and extensive agriculture activities are present.The e<strong>co</strong>nomic profile of the study area indicates the importance of mining as a driver in the locale<strong>co</strong>nomy. This is supported by manufacturing activities in the local e<strong>co</strong>nomy. Additionally theemployment figures indicate that the majority of people either work in the trade sector or the miningsector.6.3.2 Population StructurePopulationAc<strong>co</strong>rding to the Community Survey 2007, the population of South Africa is approximately 48.5 millionand has shown an increase of about 8.2% since 2001. The household density for the <strong>co</strong>untry isestimated at approximately 3.87 people per household. This indicates an average household size of 3-4people (leaning towards 4) for most households, which is slightly down from the 2001 averagehousehold size of 4 people per household.The growth rate in Mpumalanga was very similar to the national average, but Nkangala District andEmalahleni Local Municipalities experienced growth rates well above the national average with thepopulation within the Emalahleni Local Municipality more than doubling since 2001, as tabled below.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)231
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesTable 6-13: Population, growth and household estimates from 2001APPROXIMATEESTIMATED GROWTHAVERAGE HOUSEHOLDAREAPOPULATION SIZESINCE 2001SIZEMpumalanga 3,643,435 8.25% 3.87Nkangala District Municipality 1,226,500 20.38% 4.01Emalahleni Local Municipality 435,217 57.45% 4.12Victor Khanye Local Municipality 50,455 -10.24% 3.33AgeEmalahleni Local Municipality has the highest average population age (27.68 years) of the areasinvestigated. This can possibly be ascribed to the more urban nature of the Emalahleni LocalMunicipality and the extent of industrial activities in the area <strong>co</strong>mpared to the district. Although there arelarger urban areas in the Mpumalanga province than Emalahleni, there are also a number of tribal areasin the province which tend to have large proportions of young people that lowers the average age of thepopulation in the province.The age distribution as indicated in Figure 6-19 shows that the Emalahleni Local Municipality has asmaller proportion of children, youth and young adults (aged 24 years or younger) than the NkgangalaDistrict Municipality or the province and proportionately more people aged between 25 to 49 years,which are of e<strong>co</strong>nomically active aged.Figure 6-19: Age distribution (shown as percentage, source: Ptersa, 2011)GenderThe gender distribution is fairly equal, with a slightly higher percentage of males in the Emalahleni LocalMunicipality area as well as in the Victor Khanye local municipality area, which can be ascribed to theindustrial nature of these areas.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)232
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesFigure 6-20: Gender distribution (shown as percentage, source: Ptersa, 2011).EducationEducation deprivation is one of the domains of Multiple Deprivation that was used to calculate theProvincial Indices of Multiple Deprivation. There is a close link between educational attainment, the typeof work an individual is engaged in and the associated earnings potential. The level of educationachieved by an individual, determines current in<strong>co</strong>me and savings potential, as well as futureopportunities for individuals and their dependants.The Emalahleni Local Municipality has a higher proportion of people (23.7%) indicating that they haveobtained Grade 12 or a higher qualification than on district or provincial level (Figure 6-21). Even so, thisproportion is still relatively low and this is limiting the employment potential of the population of the area.The Victor Khanye municipality has the lowest proportion of people (11.7%) indicating that they haveobtained Grade 12 or a higher qualification. The high proportion of people who did not attend aneducational institution has led to a generation of illiterate young people with a future of unemployment.This also poses a huge problem within <strong>co</strong>mmunities as dependency as well as criminal activitiesincrease.Figure 6-21: Highest education level – people 20 years or older (shown as percentage)New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)233
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesThe Nkangala District Municipality identified some challenges with regard to education in the district asdecaying schools, lack of learner transport and lack of facilities, e.g. libraries, sport facilities and basicnecessities such as ablution facilities. Other important social issues affecting the school attendance rateinclude drug abuse, teenage pregnancy and violence at schools (Nkangala IDP 2008/2009).6.3.3 EmploymentThe majority of the market population (57.5%) is e<strong>co</strong>nomically active while <strong>co</strong>nversely 42.5% are note<strong>co</strong>nomically active. Of the 57.5% of the population that are e<strong>co</strong>nomically active 74.9% are employedwhile 25.1% of the e<strong>co</strong>nomically active population is unemployed. A large number of people which arenot e<strong>co</strong>nomically active, <strong>co</strong>upled with high rates of unemployment, have created scenarios where thedependency ratio is high. This means that people that are employed have to sustain friends and familymembers that cannot find work. This reduces the disposable in<strong>co</strong>me and in most cases people can onlybuy the most basic of products such as food. Very little savings and additional money are available for<strong>co</strong>nsumption.The centre of the project area is equidistant from three major centres of e<strong>co</strong>nomic activity, namelyWitbank in eMalahleni, Bronkhorstspruit and Delmas, all approximately 30 kilometres away from theproposed New Largo Colliery. It is estimated that these centres will be useful in supplying labour for theproject, but will also be areas that will benefit the most from any e<strong>co</strong>nomic activities that will spin off fromthe project.6.3.4 Land Capability and Land UseThe majority of the study area can be <strong>co</strong>nsidered to be arable land or grazing land. Only small areas canbe classified as wilderness (natural bush and grasslands) and wetlands, as illustrated in Figure 6-24.The regional land <strong>co</strong>ver is depicted in Figure 6-25.A large proportion of the land-use in and around the study area is rain-fed (dry land) cultivation. Tencentre pivot irrigation systems are located mainly to the south of the area. Within the New Largo miningrights boundary, most of the land that is not under cultivation is grazing land, some of which are naturalgrassland while some areas have been enhanced with improved pasture species.There are some structures remaining at the old Wilge Power Station (de<strong>co</strong>mmissioned) and old NewLargo Underground Coal Mine, which supplied <strong>co</strong>al to the old power station, although most of thestructures have been demolished and only the foundations and rubble remain. A number of householdsare still living in the remaining buildings at the old New Largo Underground Mine Village and the entireVoltargo (previously Wilge Village) has previously been declared a township and some of the housessold off to private owners.Kendal Poultry is a prominent chicken farm located within the mining right area. A large brickworks andsand quarry are located on the north-western side. Facilities such as these employ a great deal ofpeople. A number of small abandoned mining operations are also scattered over the area. In addition tothese facilities, various guest farms and lodges, such as Stille Eden, are located in the area.The township of Phola and Ogies town are present on the south-eastern side of the study area while thesmall holdings of Kendal Forest Holdings are located at the southern end.6.3.4.1 Arable LandLand capable of sustaining arable crop production is generally found on deeper (>750 mm) well drained,red (Hutton) and yellow-brown (Clovelly and Griffin) soils on the midslope and upper midslope positionsin the landscape. Areas where deeper hydromorphic soil forms (soil that developed in the presence ofexcess water) are found, are also capable of sustaining agricultural crop production (Glen<strong>co</strong>e, Katspruit,New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)234
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesKroonstad, Rensburg, Westleigh, Pinedene and Avalon) if good management practices are employed.The more structured and shallow hydromorphic soils are not <strong>co</strong>nsidered to be arable soils.6.3.4.2 Grazing LandGrazing land is generally <strong>co</strong>nfined to areas with shallower soils. These soils are generally darker in<strong>co</strong>lour and are hydromorphic. They can be moderately to well drained, but are not always free draining toa depth of 750 mm. These soils are capable of sustaining palatable plant species on a sustainable basis,especially since only the subsoils (at a depth of 500 mm) are periodically saturated. To be classified asgrazing land, there should be no rocks or pedocrete fragments (a type of infertile and <strong>co</strong>mpacted soilformed by the <strong>co</strong>ncentration of minerals due to terrestrial weathering in the upper soil layers). If present,these would limit the land capability to wilderness land.6.3.4.3 Wilderness LandThe areas that classify as wilderness land are found associated with the shallower and rockier soils andare not suitable for agriculture or grazing.6.3.4.4 WetlandsWetlands are generally delineated based on a <strong>co</strong>mbination of soil types and the presence ofhydromorphic vegetation. Wetland soils are defined using hydromorphic soil criteria. The soils aregenerally dark grey to black in the topsoil horizons with a high transported clay <strong>co</strong>mponent and showpronounced mottling in the subsoils layers. A general wetland map of the area is provided as Figure 6-16.Plate 6-1: View of wetland (pan) found within mining area, with surrounding agricultural land useNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)235
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesPlate 6-2: View of Existing Sand Mining Operations along the R545 RoadPlate 6-3: View of old surface infrastructure associated with the old Wilge Power Station and oldNew Largo Underground MinePlate 6-4: View of Wilge VillagePlate 6-5: View of Phola TownNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)236
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices6.3.5 Road InfrastructureExisting roads and other linear infrastructure on and around the New Largo Colliery are illustrated onFigure 6-22 and Figure 6-23. Please refer to Section 4.5 for detailed information on the demolition andreplacement of a section of the R545.The majority of the proposed New Largo mining right area is situated between the N4 and N12highways, with a portion of the mine located to the south of the N12.The R545 provincial tar road currently provides a north-south link between the N4 and the N12highways. Approximately 12 km to the south of the N4 interchange, the R545 diverts to the east towardsVoltargo Village. The D686 <strong>co</strong>ntinues to the south to form the north-south link between the R545 (fromthe point of diversion) to the N12 interchange, and Kendal further south (the D686 is often referred to asthe southern extension of the R545).A new road, known as the Kusile road, is currently under <strong>co</strong>nstruction to the west of the Kusile PowerStation. The road will provide future access to the Kusile Power Station.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)237
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)Figure 6-22: Road Infrastructure238
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)Figure 6-23: Linear Infrastructure239
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices6.4 Land Ownership and Sensitive ReceptorsLandownership information is depicted on Figure 6-26 and listed in Table 6-14 to Table 6-17.I&APs are en<strong>co</strong>uraged to notify Synergistics of any changes or updates required to the information aspresented.AAIC is in the process of negotiation with certain landowners regarding purchasing of land and for thisreason, landownership as indicated in this report, may therefore change at any time.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)240
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesTable 6-14: Affected Properties within the Proposed New Largo Mining Right AreaProperty descriptionFarm NamePortionBankfontein 216 6LandownerFerret Coal Kendal PtyLtdContact PersonBankfontein 216 7 Truter Boerdery Trust Christy TruterBankfontein 216 10 Truter Boerdery Trust Christy TruterBankfontein 216 11 Truter Boerdery TrustBankfontein 216 12 (12/10) SANRALExisting Land Uses within the AAICProspecting Right AreaMr Hentie Hoffmann - Mining activitiesTruter Boerdery / IngweSurface Holdings(to be verified - based oninformation received fromMr Truter, this portion isowned by TruterBoerdery)Mr Joe Frazer, Man<strong>co</strong>Aure<strong>co</strong>n JV (For SANRALProperties)- Dry land cultivation.- Grazing.- Boreholes (not in working<strong>co</strong>ndition).- Private gravel road- Natural grasslands.- Dry land cultivation.- Grazing.- Private gravel road.- Natural grasslands.- Dry land cultivation.- Grazing.- Private gravel roads.- Natural grasslands.- N4 Highway & ServitudeBankfontein 216 13 (13/11) SANRAL Same as above - N4 Highway & ServitudeSummary of ConsultationLandowner informed by <strong>Zitholele</strong> Consulting as part of the publicparticipation process.Ongoing process of providing landowner with relevant information.Landowner informed by <strong>Zitholele</strong> Consulting as part of the publicparticipation process.Ongoing process of providing landowner with relevant information.AAIC in <strong>co</strong>nsultation with landowner.As above (See Bankfontein 216 Portion 7)As above (See Bankfontein 216 Portion 7)Landowner informed by <strong>Zitholele</strong> Consulting as part of the publicparticipation process.Ongoing process of providing landowner with relevant information.AAIC in <strong>co</strong>nsultation with SANRAL.Landowner informed by <strong>Zitholele</strong> Consulting as part of the publicparticipation process.Ongoing process of providing landowner with relevant information.AAIC in <strong>co</strong>nsultation with SANRAL.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)241
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesProperty descriptionFarm NamePortionEen<strong>za</strong>amheid 534 3LandownerWitbank Brickworks1961 Pty LtdContact PersonMr Niel Ja<strong>co</strong>bs, ManagingDirectorEen<strong>za</strong>amheid 534 40 F. van Heerden F. van HeerdenEen<strong>za</strong>amheid 534 21 Witbank Brickworks Mr Niel Ja<strong>co</strong>bsEen<strong>za</strong>amheid 534 38 Witbank Brickworks Same as aboveEen<strong>za</strong>amheid 534 37 M.D. Prinsloo M.D. PrinslooEen<strong>za</strong>amheid 534 39 Mr Boshoff Mr BoshoffExisting Land Uses within the AAICProspecting Right Area- R545 public road- Dams (3)- Natural grasslands- Bush & Trees- Cultivated land- Main homestead- Other houses- R545 public road- Small Dams (ponds)- Natural grasslands- Bush & Trees- Main homestead- Other houses- Brickworks- Natural grasslands- Bush & Trees- Private gravel roads- Brickworks- Natural grasslands- Bush & Trees- Private gravel roads- Natural grasslands- Bush & Trees- Main homestead- Other houses- Natural grasslands- Bush & Trees- Other houses- Construction / laydown areaSummary of ConsultationLandowner informed by <strong>Zitholele</strong> Consulting as part of the publicparticipation process.Ongoing process of providing landowner with relevant information.Property will not be purchased by AAIC at this stage.Landowner informed by <strong>Zitholele</strong> Consulting as part of the publicparticipation process.Ongoing process of providing landowner with relevant information.AAIC indicated that they are planning to purchase this property in2014.Landowner informed by <strong>Zitholele</strong> Consulting as part of the publicparticipation process.Ongoing process of providing landowner with relevant information.AAIC indicated that they are planning to purchase this property in2014.Landowner informed by <strong>Zitholele</strong> Consulting as part of the publicparticipation process.Ongoing process of providing landowner with relevant information.AAIC indicated that they are planning to purchase this property in2014.Landowner informed by <strong>Zitholele</strong> Consulting as part of the publicparticipation process.Ongoing process of providing landowner with relevant information.AAIC indicated that they are planning to purchase this property in2014.Landowner informed by <strong>Zitholele</strong> Consulting as part of the publicparticipation process.Ongoing process of providing landowner with relevant information.AAIC indicated that they are planning to purchase this property in2014.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)242
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesProperty descriptionFarm NamePortionLandownerContact PersonHartbeestfontein 537 RE AAIC (Previously AOL) Henri NieuwoudtHeuvelfontein 215 11 Truter Boerdery Trust Christy TruterExisting Land Uses within the AAICProspecting Right Area- Dry land cultivation.- Private gravel road.- Natural grasslands.- Grazing.- Main homestead- Other houses (informal)- Three dams.- Archaeological site.- Dry land cultivation.- Boreholes (not in working<strong>co</strong>ndition)- Private gravel road.- Natural grasslands.- Other houses (informal)- Small reservoir.Land owned by AAIC.Summary of ConsultationAAIC in <strong>co</strong>nsultation with tenants and occupiers of the land.Landowner informed by <strong>Zitholele</strong> Consulting as part of the publicparticipation process.Ongoing process of providing landowner with relevant information.AAIC in <strong>co</strong>nsultation with landowner.Heuvelfontein 215 13 Truter Boerdery Trust Same as above - Dry land cultivation. As above (See Heuvelfontein 215 Portion 35)Heuvelfontein 215 35 Truter Boerdery Trust Same as above - Dry land cultivation. As above (See Heuvelfontein 215 Portion 35)- Dry land cultivation.- Private gravel road.- Natural grasslands.Heuvelfontein 215 37 Truter Boerdery Trust Same as aboveAs above (See Heuvelfontein 215 Portion 35)- Stream (wetland)- Single household- Irrigated land- Dry land cultivation.- Private gravel road.Heuvelfontein 215 52 Truter Boerdery Trust Same as aboveAs above (See Heuvelfontein 215 Portion 35)- Natural grasslands.- Irrigated land- Dry land cultivation.- Private gravel road.Heuvelfontein 215 75 Truter Boerdery Trust Same as aboveAs above (See Heuvelfontein 215 Portion 35)- Natural grasslands.- Irrigated landNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)243
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesProperty descriptionFarm NamePortionLandownerContact PersonExisting Land Uses within the AAICProspecting Right AreaSummary of ConsultationHeuvelfontein 215 85 Transnet Ltd Mr Willie de Beer - R545 roadLandowner informed by <strong>Zitholele</strong> Consulting as part of the publicparticipation process.Ongoing process of providing landowner with relevant information.Heuvelfontein 215 86 Transnet Ltd Same as above - R545 road As above (See Heuvelfontein 215 Portion 85)Heuvelfontein 215 88 Transnet Ltd Same as above - R545 road As above (See Heuvelfontein 215 Portion 85)- Dry land cultivation.Heuvelfontein 215- Private gravel road.36Truter Boerdery Trust Same as above- Natural grasslands.(RE/36/1)- Stream (wetland)- Irrigated landHoningkrantz 536 1 AAIC (Previously AOL) Henri NieuwoudtHoningkrantz 536 RE AAIC (Previously AOL) Same as aboveKlipfontein 566 4 AAIC (Previously AOL) Same as above- R545 public road- Gravel road.- Honingkrantz Sands- Natural grasslands- Bush & Trees- Wetland- Northern pan & others- R545 public road- Gravel roads.- Honingkrantz Sands- Natural grasslands- Bush & Trees- Wetland- Dry land cultivation.- Eastern section of the Southernpan- Gravel roads.- Natural grasslands- Bush & Trees- Single HouseholdLandowner informed by <strong>Zitholele</strong> Consulting as part of the publicparticipation process.Ongoing process of providing landowner with relevant information.AAIC in <strong>co</strong>nsultation with landowner.Land owned by AAIC.AAIC in <strong>co</strong>nsultation with tenants and occupiers of the land.As above (See Honingkrantz 536 Portion 1)As above (See Honingkrantz 536 Portion 1)New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)244
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesProperty descriptionFarm NamePortionLandownerContact PersonKlipfontein 566 5 AAIC (Previously AOL) Same as aboveKlipfontein 566 13Phereira AgostinhosCoalKlipfontein 566 17 AAIC (Previously AOL) Same as aboveKlipfontein 566 18 AAIC (Previously AOL) Same as aboveKlipfontein 566 20 AAIC (Previously AOL) Same as aboveKlipfontein 566 27Fairacres Products PtyLtdExisting Land Uses within the AAICProspecting Right Area- Gravel roads.- Natural grasslands- Bush & Trees- Main homestead- Farming infrastructure- ExcavationMr Michael Perreira - Mining activitiesMs Penny Mahon- Public gravel road- Natural grasslands- Dam- Keaton Mine- Stream (wetland)- Dry land cultivation.- Current R545- Natural grasslands- Bush & Trees- Current R545- Natural grasslands- Bush & Trees- Houses- Public gravel road- Other gravel roads- Natural grasslands- Main homestead- Other houses (informal)- Farming infrastructure.- Dry land cultivation.Summary of ConsultationAs above (See Honingkrantz 536 Portion 1)Landowner informed by <strong>Zitholele</strong> Consulting as part of the publicparticipation process.Ongoing process of providing landowner with relevant information.<strong>Final</strong> purchase negotiations underway between AAIC andlandowner.As above (See Honingkrantz 536 Portion 1)As above (See Honingkrantz 536 Portion 1)As above (See Honingkrantz 536 Portion 1)Landowner informed by <strong>Zitholele</strong> Consulting as part of the publicparticipation process.Ongoing process of providing landowner with relevant information.<strong>Final</strong> purchase negotiations underway between AAIC andlandowner.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)245
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesProperty descriptionFarm NamePortionLandownerContact PersonExisting Land Uses within the AAICProspecting Right AreaSummary of ConsultationKlipfontein 566 28Fairacres Products PtyLtdSame as aboveKlipfontein 566 55 AAIC (Previously AOL) Henri NieuwoudtKlipfontein 566 61 AAIC (Previously AOL) Same as aboveKlipfontein 566 62 GC Byrne (Pty) Ltd Penny MahonKlipfontein 566 63 AAIC (Previously AOL) Henri NieuwoudtKlipfontein 566 64 AAIC (Previously AOL) Same as above- Gravel roads- Natural grasslands- Bush & Trees- Main homestead- Other houses (informal)- Farming infrastructure.- Dry land cultivation.- Current R545- Natural grasslands- Bush & Trees- Gravel roads- Natural grasslands- Bush & Trees- Main homestead- Other houses (informal)- Dry land cultivation.- Gravel roads- Natural grasslands- Bush & Trees- Main homestead- Other houses (informal)- Farming infrastructure- Dry land cultivation.- Borehole.- R545 public road- Main homestead- Other houses (informal)- R545 public road- Dry land cultivation.- Gravel roads- Main homestead- Other houses (informal)Same as above.Land owned by AAIC.AAIC in <strong>co</strong>nsultation with tenants and occupiers of the land.As above (See Klipfontein 566 Portion 55)Landowner informed by <strong>Zitholele</strong> Consulting as part of the publicparticipation process.Ongoing process of providing landowner with relevant information.<strong>Final</strong> purchase negotiations underway between AAIC andlandowner.Land owned by AAIC.AAIC in <strong>co</strong>nsultation with tenants and occupiers of the land.As above (See Klipfontein 566 Portion 63)New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)246
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesProperty descriptionLandownerContact PersonFarm Name PortionKlipfontein 566 66 AAIC (Previously AOL) Same as aboveKlipfontein 566 1 (RE/1) AAIC (Previously AOL) Same as aboveKlipfontein 566 60 (RE/60) AAIC (Previously AOL) Same as aboveKlipfontein 568 4 AAIC (Previously AOL) Same as aboveKlipfontein 568 5 AAIC (Previously AOL) Same as aboveExisting Land Uses within the AAICProspecting Right Area- Dry land cultivation.- Private gravel road- Natural grasslands.- Grazing.- Small stream (not wetland)- Gravel roads- Natural grasslands- Bush & Trees- Dry land cultivation.- Small dams (2)- Stream- Dry land cultivation.- Irrigated land- Gravel roads- Dry land cultivation.- Private gravel road- Natural grasslands.- Grazing.- Bush and trees.- Main homestead- Graveyard- Dry land cultivation.- Private gravel road- Natural grasslands.- Grazing.- Bush and trees.- Main homestead- Farming infrastructure- Dams (2)- Stream (wetland)- Stille EdenSummary of ConsultationAs above (See Klipfontein 566 Portion 63)As above (See Klipfontein 566 Portion 63)As above (See Klipfontein 566 Portion 63)As above (See Klipfontein 566 Portion 63)As above (See Klipfontein 566 Portion 63)New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)247
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesProperty descriptionLandownerContact PersonFarm Name PortionKlipfontein 568 6 AAIC (Previously AOL) Same as aboveKlipfontein 568 7 AAIC (Previously AOL) Same as aboveKlipfontein 568 8 A Cherry A CherryKlipfontein 568 9 A. Cherry Same as aboveExisting Land Uses within the AAICProspecting Right Area- Dry land cultivation.- Public gravel road- Other gravel roads- Natural grasslands.- Grazing.- Bush and trees.- Dam- Main homestead- Other houses (informal)- Farming infrastructure- Dry land cultivation.- Public gravel road- Other gravel roads- Natural grasslands.- Grazing.- Bush and trees.- R545 public road- Graves- Dry land cultivation.- Gravel roads- Natural grasslands.- Grazing.- Stream- Main homestead- Other houses (informal)- Farming infrastructure- Graves- Dry land cultivation.- Gravel roads- Natural grasslands.- Grazing.- Stream (wetland)- Houses (informal)- Bush & TreesSummary of ConsultationAs above (See Klipfontein 566 Portion 63)As above (See Klipfontein 566 Portion 63)Landowner informed by <strong>Zitholele</strong> Consulting as part of the publicparticipation process.Ongoing process of providing landowner with relevant information.Property will not be purchased by AAIC.As above (See Klipfontein 568 Portion 8)New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)248
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesProperty descriptionLandownerContact PersonFarm Name PortionKlipfontein 568 10 A Cherry Same as aboveKlipfontein 568 12 AAIC (Previously AOL) Henri NieuwoudtKlipfontein 568 13 AAIC (Previously AOL) Same as aboveKlipfontein 568 14 AAIC (Previously AOL) Same as aboveKlipfontein 568 15 AAIC (Previously AOL) Same as aboveExisting Land Uses within the AAICProspecting Right Area- Dry land cultivation.- Gravel roads- Natural grasslands.- Grazing.- Stream (wetland)- Houses (informal)- Farming infrastructure- Bush & Trees- Dam- Dry land cultivation.- Private gravel roads- Natural grasslands.- Bush and trees.- Other houses (Informal)- Stream (wetland)- Dry land cultivation.- Public road- Natural grasslands.- Bush and trees.- Other houses (Informal)- Stream (wetland)- Dry land cultivation.- R545 public road- Private gravel roads- Natural grasslands.- Grazing.- Main homestead- Other houses- Dry land cultivation.- Private gravel roads- Natural grasslands.- Bush and trees.- Stream (wetland)Summary of ConsultationLandowner informed by <strong>Zitholele</strong> Consulting as part of the publicparticipation process.Ongoing process of providing landowner with relevant information.AAIC indicated that they are planning to purchase this property ata much later stage (2045).Land owned by AAIC.AAIC in <strong>co</strong>nsultation with tenants and occupiers of the land.As above (See Klipfontein 568 Portion 12)As above (See Klipfontein 568 Portion 12)As above (See Klipfontein 568 Portion 12)New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)249
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesProperty descriptionFarm NamePortionLandownerContact PersonKlipfontein 568 16 AAIC (Previously AOL) Same as aboveKlipfontein 568 18 A Cherry A CherryKlipfontein 568 19 A Cherry A CherryKlipfontein 568 21JJ Herbst KonstruksieCCJJ HerbstKlipfontein 568 22 D J Meyer D J MeyerKlipfontein 568 23 Bronlaw Prop Pty Ltd Pieter VenterExisting Land Uses within the AAICProspecting Right Area- Dry land cultivation.- Private gravel roads- Natural grasslands.- Bush and trees.- Stream (wetland).- Private gravel roads- Natural grasslands.- Bush and trees.- Private gravel roads- Natural grasslands.- Bush and trees.- Dry land cultivation.- Private gravel roads- Natural grasslands.- Bush and trees.- Homestead- Private gravel roads- Natural grasslands.- Bush and trees.- Household- African Exploration Mine- R545 public roadSummary of ConsultationAs above (See Klipfontein 568 Portion 12)Landowner informed by <strong>Zitholele</strong> Consulting as part of the publicparticipation process.Ongoing process of providing landowner with relevant information.AAIC indicated that they are planning to purchase this property ata much later stage (2045).Landowner informed by <strong>Zitholele</strong> Consulting as part of the publicparticipation process.Ongoing process of providing landowner with relevant information.AAIC indicated that they are not planning to purchase thisproperty.Landowner informed by <strong>Zitholele</strong> Consulting as part of the publicparticipation process.Ongoing process of providing landowner with relevant information.AAIC indicated that they are not planning to purchase thisproperty.Landowner informed by <strong>Zitholele</strong> Consulting as part of the publicparticipation process.Ongoing process of providing landowner with relevant information.AAIC indicated that they are planning to purchase this property ata much later stage (2045).Landowner informed by <strong>Zitholele</strong> Consulting as part of the publicparticipation process.Ongoing process of providing landowner with relevant information.AAIC indicated that they are planning to purchase this property ata much later stage (2045).New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)250
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesProperty descriptionFarm NamePortionLandownerKlipfontein 568 26 Truter Boerdery Trust Christi TruterKlipfontein 568 29Klipfontein 568 30Klipfontein 568 31AAIC (previouslyWaterfontein BoerderyCC)Kendal Poultry Farm PtyLtdKendal Poultry Farm PtyLtdContact PersonHenri Nieuwoudt(previously Simon Maruti)Mr John ByrneSame as aboveKlipfontein 568 32 Truter Boerdery Trust Christi TruterExisting Land Uses within the AAICProspecting Right Area- Private gravel roads- Dry land cultivation.- Natural grasslands.- Bush and trees.- Main homestead- Other houses (informal)- Private gravel roads- Natural grasslands.- Bush and trees.- Stream (wetland)- Graves.- Private gravel roads- Public gravel road- Dry land cultivation.- Natural grasslands.- Wetland- Dam- Kendal Poultry- Farming infrastructure- Private gravel roads- Public gravel road- Dry land cultivation.- Natural grasslands.- Wetland- Dam- Kendal Poultry- Farming infrastructure- Dry land cultivation.- Private gravel road.- Natural grasslands.Summary of ConsultationLandowner informed by <strong>Zitholele</strong> Consulting as part of the publicparticipation process.Ongoing process of providing landowner with relevant information.AAIC in <strong>co</strong>nsultation with landowner.This land has been purchased from the owner and is now theproperty of AAIC.Landowner informed by <strong>Zitholele</strong> Consulting as part of the publicparticipation process.Ongoing process of providing landowner with relevant information.AAIC in negotiations with the landowner.<strong>Final</strong> purchase negotiations underway between AAIC andlandowner.Same as above.Landowner informed by <strong>Zitholele</strong> Consulting as part of the publicparticipation process.Ongoing process of providing landowner with relevant information.AAIC in negotiations with the landowner.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)251
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesProperty descriptionFarm NamePortionNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)LandownerContact PersonKlipfontein 568 33 AAIC (Previously AOL) Henri NieuwoudtKlipfontein 568 34 AAIC (Previously AOL) Same as aboveKlipfontein 568 35 AAIC (Previously AOL) Same as aboveKlipfontein 568 36 AAIC (Previously AOL) Same as aboveKlipfontein 568 37(2) AAIC (Previously AOL) Same as aboveKlipfontein 568 43 SANRAL AgencyMr Joe Frazer, Man<strong>co</strong>Aure<strong>co</strong>n JV (For SANRALProperties)Klipfontein 568 44 SANRAL Agency Same as aboveKlipfontein 568 51 SANRAL Agency Same as aboveKlipfontein 568 52 SANRAL Agency Same as aboveKlipfontein 568 56 SANRAL Agency Same as aboveKlipfontein 568 58 SANRAL Agency Same as aboveExisting Land Uses within the AAICProspecting Right Area- Dry land cultivation.- Private gravel roads.- Natural grasslands.- Grazing.- Natural grasslands.- Grazing.- Private gravel roads.- Dry land cultivation.- Private gravel roads.- Natural grasslands.- Bush and trees.- Dry land cultivation.- Private gravel roads- Natural grasslands- Bush and trees.- Graveyard.- Public gravel road- Private gravel roads- Natural grasslands- Bush and trees.- Formal & informal houses- N4 highway- N4 servitude- N4 highway- N4 servitude- N4 highway- N4 servitude- N4 highway- N4 servitude- N4 highway- N4 servitude- N4 highway- N4 servitudeLand owned by AAIC.Summary of ConsultationAAIC in <strong>co</strong>nsultation with tenants and occupiers of the land.As above (See Klipfontein 568 Portion 33)As above (See Klipfontein 568 Portion 33)As above (See Klipfontein 568 Portion 33)As above (See Klipfontein 568 Portion 33)Landowner informed by <strong>Zitholele</strong> Consulting as part of the publicparticipation process.Ongoing process of providing landowner with relevant information.AAIC in <strong>co</strong>nsultation with SANRAL.As above (See Klipfontein 568 Portion 43)As above (See Klipfontein 568 Portion 43)As above (See Klipfontein 568 Portion 43)As above (See Klipfontein 568 Portion 43)As above (See Klipfontein 568 Portion 43)252
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesProperty descriptionFarm NamePortionLandownerContact PersonExisting Land Uses within the AAICProspecting Right AreaSummary of ConsultationKlipfontein 568 1 (1 RE/1) AAIC (Previously AOL) Henri NieuwoudtKlipfontein 568 11 (RE/11) AAIC (Previously AOL) Same as aboveKlipfontein 568 17 (RE/17) AAIC (Previously AOL) Same as aboveKlipfontein 568 18 (RE/18) A Cherry A CherryKlipfontein 568 2 (2 RE/2) AAIC (Previously AOL) Henri Nieuwoudt- Dry land cultivation.- Private gravel roads- Natural grasslands.- Bush and trees.- Stream (wetland)- Graves- Dry land cultivation.- Private & public gravel roads- Natural grasslands.- Bush and trees.- Stream (wetland)- Dam- Grazing- Houses- Farming infrastructure- Dry land cultivation.- Private & public gravel roads- Natural grasslands.- Stream (wetland)- Houses- Farming infrastructure- Dry land cultivation.- Bush and trees.- Private gravel roads- Private & public gravel roads- Natural grasslands.- Houses- Farming infrastructureLand owned by AAIC.AAIC in <strong>co</strong>nsultation with tenants and occupiers of the land.As above (See Klipfontein 568 Portion 11)As above (See Klipfontein 568 Portion 11)Landowner informed by <strong>Zitholele</strong> Consulting as part of the publicparticipation process.Ongoing process of providing landowner with relevant information.AAIC indicated that they are not planning to purchase thisproperty.Land owned by AAIC.AAIC in <strong>co</strong>nsultation with tenants and occupiers of the land.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)253
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesProperty descriptionFarm NamePortionLandownerContact PersonKlipfontein 568 53 (53/1) SANRAL Agency Same as aboveKlipfontein 568 54 (54/16) SANRAL Agency Same as aboveKlipfontein 568 55 (55/15) SANRAL Agency Same as aboveKlipfontein 568 57 (57/14) SANRAL Agency Same as aboveKlipfontein 568 59 (59/14) SANRAL Agency Same as aboveKlipfontein 568 9 (RE/9) A Cherry Same as aboveKlipfontein 568 R AAIC (Previously AOL) Henri NieuwoudtPrinshof 2 5 Truter Boerdery Trust Christy TruterPrinshof 2 6 Truter Boerdery Trust Christy TruterPrinshof 2 21Emalahleni Municipality(previously Municipalityof Phola)Mr D.R. MukongeleliExisting Land Uses within the AAICProspecting Right Area- N4 highway- N4 servitude- N4 highway- N4 servitude- N4 highway- N4 servitude- N4 highway- N4 servitude- N4 / R545 intersection- Road servitudes- N4 highway- N4 servitude- Private gravel roads- Bush & Trees- Natural grasslands.- Dry land cultivation.- Private gravel roads.- Natural grasslands.- R545 public road.- Dry land cultivation.- R545 public road- Public gravel road- Private gravel roads- Bush & Trees- Natural grasslands.- Phola Sewage plant- Natural grasslands.Summary of ConsultationLandowner informed by <strong>Zitholele</strong> Consulting as part of the publicparticipation process.Ongoing process of providing landowner with relevant information.AAIC in <strong>co</strong>nsultation with SANRAL.As above (See Klipfontein 568 Portion 53)As above (See Klipfontein 568 Portion 53)As above (See Klipfontein 568 Portion 53)As above (See Klipfontein 568 Portion 53)As above (See Klipfontein 568 Portion 53)Land owned by AAIC.AAIC in <strong>co</strong>nsultation with tenants and occupiers of the land.Landowner informed by <strong>Zitholele</strong> Consulting as part of the publicparticipation process.Ongoing process of providing landowner with relevant information.AAIC in <strong>co</strong>nsultation with landowner.As above (See Prinshof 2 Portion 5)Landowner informed by <strong>Zitholele</strong> Consulting as part of the publicparticipation process.Ongoing process of providing landowner with relevant information.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)254
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesProperty descriptionFarm NamePortionNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)LandownerContact PersonPrinshof 2 R (RE) Truter Boerdery Trust Christy TruterRoodepoortje 326 1 (RE 1)AAIC (previously Ms H.Roos)Henri Nieuwoudt(previously Ms H. Roos)Roodepoortje 326 12 AAIC (Previously AOL) Henri NieuwoudtRoodepoortje 326 24AAIC (previously JEStrick)Henri Nieuwoudt(previously JE Strick)Roodepoortje 326 23 AAIC (Previously AOL) Henri NieuwoudtExisting Land Uses within the AAICProspecting Right Area- Dry land cultivation.- R545 public road- Private gravel roads- Natural grasslands.- Stream (wetland)- Small pond- Archaeological site- Western portion of Phola township- Private gravel roads- Natural grasslands.- Bush & Trees- Main homestead- Other houses- Farming infrastructures- Dams- Gravel roads- Bush & Trees- Natural grasslands.- Residential infrastructure.- Dry land cultivation.- R545 public road- Private gravel roads- Natural grasslands.- Bush & Trees- Main homestead- Other houses- Farming infrastructures- Graves- Dams- Stream (wetland)- Dry land cultivation.- Private gravel roads- Natural grasslands.- Bush & Trees- DamSummary of ConsultationLandowner informed by <strong>Zitholele</strong> Consulting as part of the publicparticipation process.Ongoing process of providing landowner with relevant information.AAIC in negotiations with Mr Truter.This land has been purchased from the owner and is now theproperty of AAIC.Land owned by AAIC.AAIC in <strong>co</strong>nsultation with tenants and occupiers of the land.This land has been purchased from the owner and is now theproperty of AAIC.Land owned by AAIC.AAIC in <strong>co</strong>nsultation with tenants and occupiers of the land.255
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesProperty descriptionFarm NamePortionNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)LandownerContact PersonSmaldeel 1 2 Ingwe Vikesh DhanooklalSmaldeel 1 R (RE) Truter Boerdery Christy TruterVan Dyksput 214 4 Truter Boerdery Trust Christy TruterVlakfontein 569 1 Truter Boerdery Christy TruterVlakfontein 569 2 AAIC (Previously AOL) Henri NieuwoudtExisting Land Uses within the AAICProspecting Right Area- Mining activities- Natural grasslands.- Gravel roads- Natural grasslands.- Archaeological site- Stream (wetland)- R545 public road- Bush & Trees- Dry land cultivation.- Dry land cultivation.- R555 public road- Irrigated land.- Private gravel roads.- Natural grasslands.- Bush & Trees- Main homestead- Other houses- Farming infrastructures- Graves- Dams- Stream (wetland)- Dry land cultivation.- Irrigated land.- Private gravel roads.- Natural grasslands.- Bush & Trees- Dry land cultivation.- R545 public road- Private gravel roads.- Natural grasslands.- Bush & Trees- Numerous formal houses- Archaeological site- ReservoirSummary of ConsultationLandowner informed by <strong>Zitholele</strong> Consulting as part of the publicparticipation process.Ongoing process of providing landowner with relevant information.AAIC in <strong>co</strong>nsultation with Ingwe.Landowner informed by <strong>Zitholele</strong> Consulting as part of the publicparticipation process.Ongoing process of providing landowner with relevant information.AAIC in <strong>co</strong>nsultation with landowner.As above (See Smaldeel 1 RE)As above (See Smaldeel 1 RE)Land owned by AAIC.AAIC in <strong>co</strong>nsultation with tenants and occupiers of the land.256
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesProperty descriptionFarm NamePortionLandownerContact PersonVlakfontein 569 4 Truter Boerdery Trust Christy TruterVlakfontein 569 5 AAIC (Previously AOL) Henri NieuwoudtVlakfontein 569 9 AAIC (Previously AOL) Same as aboveVlakfontein 569 11 Truter Boerdery Trust Christy TruterVlakfontein 569 16Macphail Distributors PtyLtdMike BerryExisting Land Uses within the AAICProspecting Right Area- Dry land cultivation.- Irrigated land- R545- Dam- Bush & Trees- Formal & informal households- Farming infrastructure.- Private gravel roads.- Natural grasslands.- Dry land cultivation.- Private gravel roads.- Dry land cultivation.- Private gravel roads.- Natural grasslands.- Bush & Trees- Main homestead- Other houses- Farming infrastructure- Small pond/pan- Dry land cultivation.- Private gravel roads.- Wilge Power station & relatedfacilities- Bush & Trees- Natural grasslands.Summary of ConsultationLandowner informed by <strong>Zitholele</strong> Consulting as part of the publicparticipation process.Ongoing process of providing landowner with relevant information.AAIC in <strong>co</strong>nsultation with landowner.Land owned by AAIC.AAIC in <strong>co</strong>nsultation with tenants and occupiers of the land.As above (See Vlakfontein 569 Portion 5)Landowner informed by <strong>Zitholele</strong> Consulting as part of the publicparticipation process.Ongoing process of providing landowner with relevant information.AAIC in <strong>co</strong>nsultation with landowner.Landowner informed by <strong>Zitholele</strong> Consulting as part of the publicparticipation process.Ongoing process of providing landowner with relevant information.AAIC indicated that they are planning to purchase this property ata later stage (2020).New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)257
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesProperty descriptionFarm NamePortionVlakfontein 569 22Vlakfontein 569 23Vlakfontein 56926(Voltargo)LandownerTruter BoerderyTrust / SANRAL(to be verified -based on AAICre<strong>co</strong>rds thisproperty is ownedby SANRAL).SA National RoadsAgencyEskom Holdings LtdContact PersonMr Joe Frazer, Man<strong>co</strong>Aure<strong>co</strong>n JV (For SANRALProperties)Mr Joe Frazer, Man<strong>co</strong>Aure<strong>co</strong>n JV (For SANRALProperties)Jan de Klerk, ManagerGenerations PropertySectionVlakfontein 569 7 (7/4) Truter Boerdery Trust Christy TruterExisting Land Uses within the AAICProspecting Right Area- Dry land cultivation.- Private gravel roads.- Natural grasslands.- N4 highway- Road servitude- Voltargo (formal & informalhouses)- Town infrastructure.- R545 public road.- Private gravel roads.- Public tar roads- Natural grasslands.- Bush & Trees- Dam- Stream (Wetland)- Private gravel roads.- Natural grasslands.- Bush & TreesSummary of ConsultationLandowner informed by <strong>Zitholele</strong> Consulting as part of the publicparticipation process.Ongoing process of providing landowner with relevant information.AAIC in <strong>co</strong>nsultation with Mr Truter & SANRAL.Landowner informed by <strong>Zitholele</strong> Consulting as part of the publicparticipation process.Ongoing process of providing landowner with relevant information.AAIC in <strong>co</strong>nsultation with SANRAL.Landowner informed by <strong>Zitholele</strong> Consulting as part of the publicparticipation process.Ongoing process of providing landowner with relevant information.AAIC in <strong>co</strong>nsultation with Mr Jan de KlerkLandowner informed by <strong>Zitholele</strong> Consulting as part of the publicparticipation process.Ongoing process of providing landowner with relevant information.AAIC in <strong>co</strong>nsultation with landownerVlakfontein 569 8 (RE/8/2) AAIC (Previously AOL) Henri Nieuwoudt- Private gravel roads.- Public tar roads- Natural grasslands.- Bush & Trees- Small damsLand owned by AAIC.AAIC in <strong>co</strong>nsultation with tenants and occupiers of the land.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)258
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesProperty descriptionFarm Name PortionEen<strong>za</strong>amheid534 JREen<strong>za</strong>amheid534 JRHoningkrantz 536JR568Prinshof 2 IS 4LandownerVan Niekerk CornelusAlbertusAwaiting landowner<strong>co</strong>nfirmationTable 6-15: Affected Properties along the R545 Route Option 1AContact PersonExisting Land Uses along Option 1 A forthe relocation of the R545Summary of Consultation- Dry land cultivation.- Gravel roadCornelus Albertus Van - Natural grasslands.Niekerk- Main homestead- Other formal houses- Bush & treesAwaiting <strong>co</strong>ntactperson <strong>co</strong>nfirmationRE AAIC (Previously AOL) Henri NieuwoudtEmalahleni Municipality(previously Municipalityof Phola)Prinshof 2 IS 5 Truter Boerdery Trust Christie TruterPrinshof 2 IS 6 Truter Boerdery Trust Christie Truter- Dry land cultivation.- Gravel road- Natural grasslands.- Main homestead- Other formal houses- Informal houses- Bush & trees- Stream- Current R545 road- Northern pan & others- R545 public road- Gravel roads.- Honingkrantz Sands- Natural grasslands- Bush & Trees- Wetland- Dry land cultivation.Mr D.R. Mukongeleli - Informal houses (Phola Township)- Dry land cultivation.- Private gravel roads.- Natural grasslands.- R545 public road.- Dry land cultivation.- R545 public road- Public gravel road- Private gravel roads- Bush & Trees- Natural grasslands.Landowner informed by <strong>Zitholele</strong> Consulting as part of the publicparticipation process.Ongoing process of providing landowner with relevant information.Awaiting landowner <strong>co</strong>nfirmationLand owned by AAIC.AAIC in <strong>co</strong>nsultation with tenants and occupiers of the land.Landowner informed by <strong>Zitholele</strong> Consulting as part of the publicparticipation process.Landowner informed by <strong>Zitholele</strong> Consulting as part of the publicparticipation process.Ongoing process of providing landowner with relevant information.AAIC in <strong>co</strong>nsultation with landowner.As above (See Prinshof 2 Portion 5)New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)259
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesProperty descriptionFarm Name PortionPrinshof 2 IS 10Prinshof 2 IS 20LandownerIngwe SurfaceHoldings LTDLargo TechnicalEngineering CCNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)Contact PersonVikesh DhanooklalVikesh DhanooklalPrinshof 2 IS R Truter Boerdery Trust Christie TruterRoodepoortje 326JSRoodepoortje 326JSRoodepoortje 326JS23 AAIC (Previously AOL) Henri Nieuwoudt241 (RE)AAIC (previously JEStrick)AAIC (previously Ms H.Roos)Henri Nieuwoudt(previously JE Strick)Henri Nieuwoudt(previously Ms H. Roos)Existing Land Uses along Option 1 A forthe relocation of the R545- R545 public road- Gravel roads- Natural grasslands- Stream- Main homestead- R545 public road- Gravel roads- Natural grasslands.- Dry land cultivation.- R545 public road- Private gravel roads- Natural grasslands.- Stream (wetland)- Small pond- Archaeological site- Western portion of Phola township- Dry land cultivation.- Private gravel roads- Natural grasslands.- Bush & Trees- Dam- Dry land cultivation.- R545 public road- Private gravel roads- Natural grasslands.- Bush & Trees- Main homestead- Other houses- Farming infrastructures- Graves- Dams- Stream (wetland)- Private gravel roads- Natural grasslands.- Bush & Trees- Main homestead- Other houses- Farming infrastructures- DamsSummary of ConsultationLandowner informed by <strong>Zitholele</strong> Consulting as part of the publicparticipation process.Ongoing process of providing landowner with relevant information.AAIC in <strong>co</strong>nsultation with Ingwe.As above (See Prinshof 2 Portion 10)Landowner informed by <strong>Zitholele</strong> Consulting as part of the publicparticipation process.Ongoing process of providing landowner with relevant information.AAIC in negotiations with Mr Truter.Land owned by AAIC.AAIC in <strong>co</strong>nsultation with tenants and occupiers of the land.This land has been purchased from the owner and is now the propertyof AAIC.This land has been purchased from the owner and is now the propertyof AAIC.260
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesProperty descriptionFarm Name PortionRoodepoortje 326JSLandownerContact Person26 Truter Boerdery Trust Christie TruterSmaldeel 1 IS R Truter Boerdery Trust Christie TruterVlakfontein 569JRVlakfontein 569JRVlakfontein 569JRVlakfontein 569JR4 Truter Boerdery Trust Christie Truter151819Ja<strong>co</strong>bus ChristiaanVan den Heever jnrJa<strong>co</strong>bus ChristiaanVan den Heever jnrJa<strong>co</strong>bus ChristiaanVan den Heever jnrDirk Kitching (Forattention Mr J.C. Vanden Heever jnr)Dirk Kitching (Forattention Mr J.C. Vanden Heever jnr)Dirk Kitching (Forattention Mr J.C. Vanden Heever jnr)Existing Land Uses along Option 1 A forthe relocation of the R545- R545 public road- Private gravel roads- Natural grasslands.- Dry land cultivation.- Main homestead- Other houses- Gravel roads- Natural grasslands.- Archaeological site- Stream (wetland)- R545 public road- Bush & Trees- Dry land cultivation.- Dry land cultivation.- Irrigated land- R545 public road- Dam- Bush & Trees- Formal & informal households- Farming infrastructure.- Private gravel roads.- Natural grasslands.- Dry land cultivation.- R545 public road- Dam- Private gravel roads.- Natural grasslands.- Stream (wetland)- Dry land cultivation.- Dams- Private gravel roads.- Natural grasslands.- Stream (wetland)- Dry land cultivation.- Private gravel roads.- Natural grasslands.Summary of ConsultationLandowner informed by <strong>Zitholele</strong> Consulting as part of the publicparticipation process.Ongoing process of providing landowner with relevant information.AAIC in <strong>co</strong>nsultation with landowner.As above (See Roodepoortje 326 JS Portion 1)As above (See Smaldeel 1 IS R)Landowner informed by <strong>Zitholele</strong> Consulting as part of the publicparticipation process.Ongoing process of providing landowner with relevant information.AAIC instructed Mr Van den Heever to obtain a quotation to determinethe <strong>co</strong>st associated with moving his fuel station and shop to where theroad diversion will <strong>co</strong>me through on his property. AAIC awaits his quote.As above (See Vlakfontein 569 JR Portion 15)As above (See Vlakfontein 569 JR Portion 15)New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)261
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesTable 6-16: Affected Properties along the R545 Route Option 1BProperty descriptionLandowner Contact Person Existing Land Uses along Option 1 B forFarm Name Portionthe relocation of the R545- Northern pan & others- R545 public road- Gravel roads.Honingkrantz 536- Honingkrantz SandsRE AAIC (Previously AOL) Henri NieuwoudtJR- Natural grasslands- Bush & Trees- Wetland- Dry land cultivation.- R545 public road- Gravel road.Honingkrantz 536- Honingkrantz Sands1 AAIC (Previously AOL) Henri NieuwoudtJR- Natural grasslands- Bush & Trees- WetlandPrinshof 2 IS 4Emalahleni Municipality(previously Municipality ofPhola)Prinshof 2 IS 5 Truter Boerdery Trust Christie TruterPrinshof 2 IS 6 Truter Boerdery Trust Christie TruterPrinshof 2 IS 10Prinshof 2 IS 20Ingwe Surface HoldingsLTDLargo TechnicalEngineering CCNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)Mr D.R. Mukongeleli - Informal houses (Phola Township)Vikesh DhanooklalVikesh Dhanooklal- Dry land cultivation.- Private gravel roads.- Natural grasslands.- R545 public road.- Dry land cultivation.- R545 public road- Public gravel road- Private gravel roads- Bush & Trees- Natural grasslands.- R545 public road- Gravel roads- Natural grasslands- Stream- Main homestead- R545 public road- Gravel roads- Natural grasslands.Summary of ConsultationLand owned by AAIC.AAIC in <strong>co</strong>nsultation with tenants and occupiers of the land.Land owned by AAIC.AAIC in <strong>co</strong>nsultation with tenants and occupiers of the land.Landowner informed by <strong>Zitholele</strong> Consulting as part of the publicparticipation process.Landowner informed by <strong>Zitholele</strong> Consulting as part of the publicparticipation process.Ongoing process of providing landowner with relevant information.AAIC in <strong>co</strong>nsultation with landowner.As above (See Prinshof 2 Portion 5)Landowner informed by <strong>Zitholele</strong> Consulting as part of the publicparticipation process.Ongoing process of providing landowner with relevant information.AAIC in <strong>co</strong>nsultation with Ingwe.As above (See Prinshof 2 Portion 10)262
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesProperty descriptionLandowner Contact Person Existing Land Uses along Option 1 B forFarm Name Portionthe relocation of the R545- Dry land cultivation.- R545 public road- Private gravel roads- Natural grasslands.Prinshof 2 IS R Truter Boerdery Trust Christie Truter- Stream (wetland)- Small pond- Archaeological site- Western portion of Phola township- Dry land cultivation.- Private gravel roadsRoodepoortje 32623 AAIC (Previously AOL) Henri Nieuwoudt - Natural grasslands.JS- Bush & Trees- DamRoodepoortje 326JSRoodepoortje 326JS241 (RE)AAIC (previously JEStrick)AAIC (previously Ms H.Roos)Henri Nieuwoudt(previously JE Strick)Henri Nieuwoudt(previously Ms H.Roos)- Dry land cultivation.- R545 public road- Private gravel roads- Natural grasslands.- Bush & Trees- Main homestead- Other houses- Farming infrastructures- Graves- Dams- Stream (wetland)- Private gravel roads- Natural grasslands.- Bush & Trees- Main homestead- Other houses- Farming infrastructures- DamsSummary of ConsultationLandowner informed by <strong>Zitholele</strong> Consulting as part of the publicparticipation process.Ongoing process of providing landowner with relevant information.AAIC in negotiations with Mr Truter.Land owned by AAIC.AAIC in <strong>co</strong>nsultation with tenants and occupiers of the land.This land has been purchased from the owner and is now the propertyof AAIC.This land has been purchased from the owner and is now the propertyof AAIC.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)263
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesProperty descriptionLandowner Contact Person Existing Land Uses along Option 1 B forFarm Name Portionthe relocation of the R545- R545 public road- Private gravel roads- Natural grasslands.Roodepoortje 32626 Truter Boerdery Trust Christie Truter - Dry land cultivation.JS- Main homestead- Other houses- Gravel roads- Natural grasslands.- Archaeological site- Stream (wetland)Smaldeel 1 IS R Truter Boerdery Trust Christie Truter- R545 public road- Bush & Trees- Dry land cultivation.- Dry land cultivation.- Irrigated land- R545 public road- DamVlakfontein 5694 Truter Boerdery Trust Christie Truter - Bush & TreesJR- Formal & informal households- Farming infrastructure.- Private gravel roads.- Natural grasslands.Vlakfontein 569JRVlakfontein 569JRVlakfontein 569JR151819Ja<strong>co</strong>bus Christiaan Vanden Heever jnrJa<strong>co</strong>bus Christiaan Vanden Heever jnrJa<strong>co</strong>bus Christiaan Vanden Heever jnrDirk Kitching (Forattention Mr J.C. Vanden Heever jnr)Dirk Kitching (Forattention Mr J.C. Vanden Heever jnr)Dirk Kitching (Forattention Mr J.C. Vanden Heever jnr)- Dry land cultivation.- R545 public road- Dam- Private gravel roads.- Natural grasslands.- Stream (wetland)- Dry land cultivation.- Dams- Private gravel roads.- Natural grasslands.- Stream (wetland)- Dry land cultivation.- Private gravel roads.- Natural grasslands.Summary of ConsultationLandowner informed by <strong>Zitholele</strong> Consulting as part of the publicparticipation process.Ongoing process of providing landowner with relevant information.AAIC in <strong>co</strong>nsultation with landowner.As above (See Roodepoortje 326 JS Portion 1)As above (See Smaldeel 1 IS R)Landowner informed by <strong>Zitholele</strong> Consulting as part of the publicparticipation process.Ongoing process of providing landowner with relevant information.AAIC instructed Mr Van den Heever to obtain a quotation to determinethe <strong>co</strong>st associated with moving his fuel station and shop to where theroad diversion will <strong>co</strong>me through on his property. AAIC awaits his quote.As above (See Vlakfontein 569 JR Portion 15)As above (See Vlakfontein 569 JR Portion 15)New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)264
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesProperty descriptionFarm NamePortionDoornrug 302 JS 19LandownerMpumalangaDepartment ofPublic Works,Roads andTransport(DPWRT)Table 6-17: Affected Properties along the R545 Route Option 2 39Contact PersonBen ViljoenDoornrug 302 JS 20 DPWRT Same as aboveDoornrug 302 JS 42 DPWRT Same as aboveElandsfontein 309 JS 4 DPWRT Same as aboveHartebeestlaagte 325 JS 4 DPWRT Same as aboveExisting Land Uses within the AAICProspecting Right Area- Natural grasslands- Bush & Trees- Existing public road- Offices- Parking area- Natural grasslands- Bush & Trees- Existing public road- Main homestead- Informal houses- Dam- Stream (Wetland)- Natural grasslands- Stream (Wetland)- Existing public road- Dry land cultivation- Mining activities- Public tar road- Bush & Trees- Natural grasslands- Power station- Substation- Natural grasslands- Bush & Trees- Existing public road- Dry land cultivation- Other gravel roads- Main homestead- Informal houses- Farming infrastructureSummary of <strong>co</strong>nsultationDPWRT notified about project.Representatives attended public meetings.Direct discussions between AAIC and DPWRT.As aboveAs aboveAs aboveAs above39Option 2 was investigated during the early stages of the <strong>EIA</strong>, but is not regarded as a feasible option and has been discarded.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)265
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesProperty descriptionFarm NamePortionLandownerNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)Contact PersonHartebeestlaagte 325 JS 8 DPWRT Same as aboveHartebeestlaagte 325 JS 11 DPWRT Same as aboveHartebeestlaagte 325 JS 12 DPWRT Same as aboveHartebeestlaagte 325 JS 13 DPWRT Same as aboveHartebeestlaagte 325 JS 14 DPWRT Same as aboveHartebeestlaagte 325 JS 15 DPWRT Same as aboveHartebeestlaagte 325 JS 39 DPWRT Same as aboveRondebult 303 JS 5 DPWRT Same as aboveExisting Land Uses within the AAICProspecting Right Area- Natural grasslands- Bush & Trees- Existing public road- Dry land cultivation- Other gravel roads- Main homestead- Informal houses- Farming infrastructure- Natural grasslands- Bush & Trees- Existing public road- Main homestead- Informal houses- Dry land cultivation- Natural grasslands- Stream (Wetland)- Existing public road- Natural grasslands- Existing public road- Bush & Trees- Natural grasslands- Existing public road- Natural grasslands- Bush & Trees- Existing public road- Main homesteads- Informal houses- Gravel roads- Natural grasslands- Bush & Trees- Existing public road- Dry land cultivation- Stream (Wetland)- Dams- Gravel roads- Existing public road- Bush & Trees- Natural grasslandsAs aboveAs aboveAs aboveAs aboveAs aboveAs aboveAs aboveAs aboveSummary of <strong>co</strong>nsultation266
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesProperty descriptionFarm NamePortionLandownerNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)Contact PersonRondebult 303 JS 7 DPWRT Same as aboveRondebult 303 JS 8 DPWRT Same as aboveRondebult 303 JS RE DPWRT Same as aboveRoodepoortje 326 JS 8 DPWRT Same as aboveWildebeestfontein 327 JS 2 DPWRT Same as aboveWildebeestfontein 327 JS 9 DPWRT Same as aboveWildebeestfontein 327 JS 10 DPWRT Same as aboveWildebeestfontein 327 JS 13DPWRTSame as aboveExisting Land Uses within the AAICProspecting Right Area- Existing public road- Natural grasslands- Dump area- Railway line- N4 Highway- N4 / Existing public road intersection- Existing public road- Bush & Trees- Natural grasslands- Dams- Excavated area- Natural grasslands- Bush & Trees- Existing public road- Other gravel roads- Stream (Wetland)- Dam- Natural grasslands- Bush & Trees- Existing public road- Gravel roads- Dry land cultivation- Natural grasslands- Bush & Trees- Existing public road- Gravel roads- Dry land cultivation- Informal houses- Natural grasslands- Bush & Trees- Existing public road- Gravel roads- Dry land cultivation- Natural grasslands- Bush & Trees- Existing public road- Gravel roads- Dry land cultivationAs aboveAs aboveAs aboveAs aboveAs aboveAs aboveAs aboveAs aboveSummary of <strong>co</strong>nsultation267
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesProperty descriptionFarm NamePortionLandownerContact PersonExisting Land Uses within the AAICProspecting Right Area- Main homestead- Farming infrastructureSummary of <strong>co</strong>nsultationWildebeestfontein 327 JS 16DPWRTSame as aboveWildebeestfontein 327 JS 17DPWRTSame as aboveWildebeestfontein 327 JS 19DPWRTSame as aboveWildebeestfontein 327 JS 22DPWRTSame as aboveWildebeestfontein 327 JS R DPWRT Same as above- Natural grasslands- Bush & Trees- Existing public road- Gravel roads- Main homestead- Small pond- Natural grasslands- Bush & Trees- Existing public road- Gravel roads- Dry land cultivation- Main homesteads- Natural grasslands- Bush & Trees- Existing public road- Gravel roads- Informal houses- N4 Highway- N4 / Existing public road intersection- Natural grasslands- Bush & Trees- Existing public road- Gravel roads- Dry land cultivationAs aboveAs aboveAs aboveAs aboveAs aboveNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)268
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices6.5 Land ClaimsConsultation with the Mpumalanga Commission on Restitution of Land Rights in 2007 indicated landclaims on the affected farms, as tabled below.Table 6-18: Summary of Land Claims Registered with the Regional Land Claims Commission(2007)Property description Comments File NumberClaim Status (based on2007 information)Honingkrantz 536During the public participation process, the BathabileCPA indicated that they have ancestral graves on theFarm Honingkrantz that lies within the area to be minedand that they have a land claim on this farm.950, 956, 974 Investigation stageHartbeestfontein 537 IS 349 Negotiation stageKlipfontein 566 JR 1107 UndefinedKlipfontein 568 JR 1131 UndefinedVlakfontein 569 JR 1572 UndefinedBankfontein 216 IR 5893 Investigation stageVan Dykspruit 431 JR 1055, 1080 UndefinedRepresentatives from Anglo American Group Legal met with the Regional Land Claims Commission onthe 4 th of July 2012. At the meeting, it was agreed that Anglo American Group Legal will provide theRegional Land Claims Commission with an updated list of all the New Largo properties to enable them tore-<strong>co</strong>nfirm land claims on the properties on which the New Largo Colliery falls.Land claims are dealt with by a separate forum to the <strong>EIA</strong> process. The land claims will be investigatedby an independent specialist, funded by Anglo. It is generally a slow and ongoing process. Research ofthe farm Honingkrantz will form part of the pilot research list to be undertaken.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)269
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)Figure 6-24: Land Capability270
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)Figure 6-25: Land Cover (SANBI 2008)271
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesFigure 6-26: Land Ownership (as at time of writing report)New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)272
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices6.6 Cultural and Heritage ResourcesThe cultural landscape qualities of the larger region essentially <strong>co</strong>nsist of a two <strong>co</strong>mponents. The first isa rural area in which the human occupation is made up of a pre-<strong>co</strong>lonial (Stone Age and Iron Age)occupation and a much later <strong>co</strong>lonial (farmer) <strong>co</strong>mponent. The se<strong>co</strong>nd <strong>co</strong>mponent is an urban one<strong>co</strong>nsisting of a number of smaller towns, most of which developed during the last 150 years or less.Irrespective of this low density of habitation, a variety of heritage sites dating to all periods of the past areknown to exist in the larger region.A general survey of the area <strong>co</strong>nducted in 2006, found some interesting structures, including graves, astone age site as well as historical houses and outbuildings (see Figure 6-27). An old boer war<strong>co</strong>ncentration camp is located just north of the mining area which may be an indication that other suchimportant historical sites might exist in the area.It should be noted that graves are notoriously difficult to notice in tall grass which <strong>co</strong>ver a large portion ofthe mining right area that is not under cultivation. Large parts of the mining right area have been, and stillare, under cultivation, which would have destroyed any previously existing heritage resources.The graves found in the mining right area will have to be relocated to new cemeteries after the <strong>co</strong>rrectprocedure has been followed. This includes, inter alia, notification of intent to remove the graves,<strong>co</strong>nsultation with descendants, and permits from the police and provincial authorities.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)273
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesFigure 6-27: Known Heritage Sites and ArtefactsNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)274
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices7. Results of Consultation with Interested and AffectedParties7.1 Issues Raised to DateAn abridged list of issues raised, and questions asked during the 2006 and 2011 public participationprocesses are presented below (a <strong>co</strong>mprehensive list of issues raised in the <strong>co</strong>nsultation processes areattached as Appendix D1).7.1.1 Physical Environment7.1.1.1 Water ResourcesEffects on water regime due to impact on wetlands.Impacts on water quality in streams and boreholes and impacts on neighbours and downstreamusers.Acid mine drainage / <strong>co</strong>ntaminated mine water (decant) reaching downstream environments.Impacts on boreholes and springs and aquifers due to blasting and dewatering.Impacts due to the disposal of <strong>co</strong>al discard in mine pit and/or on surface.Impacts of old oil storage in nearby old underground mine workings.Water monitoring positions, timeframes and adequacy of monitoring network to assess impactson environment and neighbours.Compensation for impacts on neighbours.Re<strong>co</strong>urse if neighbours are impacted but have difficulty proving the impact.AAIC has <strong>co</strong>mmitted to the installation of a WTP (WTP) to treat all polluted water from start of project.The following <strong>co</strong>ncerns were raised regarding the treatment of water as mitigation measure for waterquality management:The WTP will have to stay in operation and be viable for many years (200+ years) after closure ofthe mine. Treatment will have to <strong>co</strong>ntinue until such time that monitoring results proves<strong>co</strong>nclusively that treatment is no longer necessary.Financial provisions for management of water impacts during life of the mine for many years afterclosure.o What would the real capital and operational <strong>co</strong>sts be?o Who will pay for it, especially many years after closure?o If the base case is to release water to streams, how will the operation of the WTP befinanced as water will not be sold?Future long-term energy source for WTP.Seasonality of flow would be lost if <strong>co</strong>nstant releases from WTP will be made.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)275
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesPositions of water released from the WTP should be chosen carefully to avoid erosion andimpacts on downstream environments of the various streams affected.The findings of the Reserve Determination should be used to determine points and quantities forrelease of treated water.Ability of treatment plant to treat water <strong>co</strong>ntaminated due to stored bunker oil (subsequent to theassessment, AAIC <strong>co</strong>nfirmed with Transnet and Oil Pollution Control SA 40 that the oil has beenremoved from the bunkers.The impacts on streams and wetlands due to the change to topography (lowering of the opencast mining area after mining) should be <strong>co</strong>nsidered.7.1.2 Air QualityImpact on people, structures, fauna, flora and biodiversity due to dust.Health impacts, nuisance impacts and odours.Wind direction and impacts on neighbouring properties.Dust impacts on existing land uses.Existing air quality impact sources and elevated baseline particulate levels.Kusile power station impacts and cumulative impacts to be <strong>co</strong>nsidered.Residual dust problem after mitigation.What would happen of the air quality standards are exceeded in areas around the mine?Compensation of affected parties in areas where air quality standards are exceeded?Will AAIC purchase properties and relocate affected people in areas where air quality standardsare exceeded?Impacts due to spontaneous <strong>co</strong>mbustion.Corrosion of fences and structures due to spontaneous <strong>co</strong>mbustion emissions.7.1.3 Noise, Blasting and VibrationsElevated baseline noise levels due to major roads and <strong>co</strong>al transport trucks.Expected increase in noise levels at adjacent households.Impacts on surrounding areas due to blasting and vibrations - boreholes, grave sites, farm dams,aquifers, buildings and structures (different types of structures such as mud, rock, brick houses).Need a detailed baseline of structures with risk analysis in relation to potential blasting damage.Compensation and potential <strong>co</strong>st of replacement of individual damaged structures.Impact of explosives magazine on nearby rivers and close to <strong>co</strong>al stockpiles and other areaswhere <strong>co</strong>al is transported and handled.40Personal <strong>co</strong>mments: Jeff Scrooby (Transnet) and Arthur Partridge (Oil Pollution Control SA).New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)276
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesTimeframes for blasting.Impact on property values due to noise and vibration impacts.7.1.3.1 Land and AgricultureLoss of high potential soils.Pre mining land capability cannot be replicated.Rehabilitation on mining areas in Mpumalanga not effective in re-establishing pre-miningagricultural potential.Risks to water quality management limit arable land as end land use on mined areas.Compensation for losses and calculation thereof.Pre-mining and post mining land capability and land use (and alternatives).Land capability and food production loss.End land use should be ensured that there is no net loss in food production.If current agricultural land uses cannot be replicated post mining, other forms of agricultureshould be established to ensure that there is no net loss of food production.Spread of diseases.7.1.4 Biological Environment7.1.4.1 E<strong>co</strong>logy and BiodiversityCumulative impacts in an area where natural habitats are already fragmented and disturbed.Impact on the habitat of scarce and endangered species, grasslands and wetlands.Important habitats and linkages in north eastern portion of mining area, linked to northern pan.Red data species habitats on northern boundary of mining area.Location of power lines and other infrastructure to <strong>co</strong>nsider these habitats.Impact of dust on vegetation.Alien and invasive species management (especially rehabilitated areas).Period and size for topsoil storage to be <strong>co</strong>nsidered.Rehabilitation practices should be aligned with objectives for biodiversity protection and the factthat sensitive wetland habitats occur in the area.7.1.4.2 Wetland Impacts and MitigationImpacts on biodiversity due to impacts on wetlands.Mitigation of impacts on wetlands.Recreation / replacement of wetlands that will be destroyed.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)277
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesThere is a negative track re<strong>co</strong>rd for recreation of wetlands in mined areas. Recreation asmitigation measure can therefore not be guaranteed.Wetland offsets, in form of wetland rehabilitation in same catchment, should be seen as a lastresort.Potential wetland offsets were proposed.Alternatives for mitigation of wetland impacts (not just offsets) should be <strong>co</strong>nsidered.Benefits of <strong>co</strong>al extracted from wetlands and surroundings to be assessed in light of permanentloss of wetlands from a water regime and biodiversity point of view.Function of wetlands, i.e. water regime and biodiversity role, to be <strong>co</strong>nsidered when mitigationoptions are <strong>co</strong>nsidered.E<strong>co</strong>nomics and sustainability of wetland mitigation to be <strong>co</strong>mpared to value of <strong>co</strong>al extractedfrom affected areas.Consideration should be given to the exclusion of wetlands and water<strong>co</strong>urses from the miningplan.Wetlands should be prioritised based on data bases developed by the DWA.Buffer zones around wetlands should be <strong>co</strong>nsidered. The northern section of the mining area appears to be the most sensitive (around northern pan) –this area should be mined last and not first as per the current mine plan (version 6).Mitigation measures for impact on the northern pan should be successfully implemented beforedisturbance of this area.Alternative Mine Plans should be tabled to demonstrate efforts to exclude the most sensitiveareas7.1.5 Technical and Design ConsiderationsQuantity and quality of <strong>co</strong>al available and reliability of <strong>co</strong>al reserve data.Market for the <strong>co</strong>al mined at New Largo Colliery.Project timeframes.Mine plan and layout.Impacts on employees of existing power stations.Spontaneous <strong>co</strong>mbustion and burning of <strong>co</strong>al discards.Scale of project.Impact on Kendal Forest Holdings.Alternative mining areas to supply Kusile.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)278
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices7.1.6 Roads, Transport and InfrastructureImpacts of <strong>co</strong>al trucks on local road network already high (dust entrainment and <strong>co</strong>al dust andnoise).Number of trucks on the road (currently and with the mine)Trucks in close vicinity to farms and smallholdings.Impacts on/from old oil storage in underground mining areas (AAIC <strong>co</strong>nfirmed that the oil hasbeen removed from the bunkers).Impact of trucks on road structure. The <strong>co</strong>ndition of roads should not deteriorate.Impacts on road safety due to dust. Impact on the N4 and N12.Impact on petroleum pipeline and other existing infrastructure.7.1.7 Demolition and Replacement of a Section of the R545Impact of increased travel time and fuel <strong>co</strong>sts.Route closest to existing should be chosen as replacement route. Impact on business and people affected by demolition of a section of the R545.There <strong>co</strong>uld be high impacts on people living in Kendal Forest Holdings and Voltargo Village.Loss of access to properties.Impacts on properties along the new road.The new route should avoid current and planned mining areas to avoid the sterilisation of the <strong>co</strong>alresources of other mining <strong>co</strong>mpanies.Re<strong>co</strong>urse if neighbours are impacted but have difficulty proving the impact.7.1.8 Socio-E<strong>co</strong>nomic IssuesEskom needs high quality <strong>co</strong>al. Providing Eskom with low quality <strong>co</strong>al <strong>co</strong>uld result in more airquality impacts are the power station and <strong>co</strong>uld increase the <strong>co</strong>st of electricity generation andprice of electricity.National importance of <strong>co</strong>al supply to Kusile.Who will pay for the long-term <strong>co</strong>st of post closure management of water (WTP)?Increase social and e<strong>co</strong>nomic impacts in an area already impacted by mining. Current issues of<strong>co</strong>al mining in area, mainly traffic, dust and noise impacts.Impact on the sense of place of nearby properties.Social and e<strong>co</strong>nomic impacts of acid mine drainage and spontaneous <strong>co</strong>mbustion.Compensation and relocation for people living on the land / owning property within areas affectedby noise, visual, traffic, air, changes to sense of place and other issues.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)279
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesAdvantages and disadvantages of mining versus other land uses to be <strong>co</strong>nsidered.Impacts on people in Voltargo Village. Impacts on people in Kendal Forest Holdings.Kendal Forest Holdings and Voltargo Village will be most impacted but all money spent onCommunity Development at Phola Town. Contribution to <strong>co</strong>mmunity facilities.Employment and training opportunities at the mine. Skills development for the surrounding poorareas.Work opportunities and education levels of households to be relocated.Displacement of people. Impacts on tenants and people living on the land. Impact on farmworkers.Influx of people.Crime levels. Public safety and security.Impact of mine employee ac<strong>co</strong>mmodation.Property values.Land owners that are in retirement would find it difficult to start somewhere else.Impact on businesses.Training, capacity building and <strong>co</strong>mmunity development.Local <strong>co</strong>mmunity and businesses benefit in terms of employment and sub-<strong>co</strong>ntracting.Assistance to farmers that can no longer farm due to impacts of the mine.Number of <strong>co</strong>nstruction and mining jobs versus jobs in agriculture.Labour recruitment criteria.Relocation of residents in affected areas.Compensation for affected parties.Re<strong>co</strong>urse if neighbours are impacted but have difficulty proving the impact.7.1.9 Prospecting and Mining RightsMining rights and prospecting rights.Impact on existing mining, including sand mining and small <strong>co</strong>al mining and <strong>co</strong>al processingoperations.7.1.10 The <strong>EIA</strong> ProcessCumulative and synergistic impacts should be assessed.There is a need for Environmental Control Officer.An environmental management system will need to be implemented.Need for an incidents and <strong>co</strong>mplaints procedure.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)280
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesPre-<strong>co</strong>nstruction management guidelines needed.Expectations have been raised.On-going <strong>co</strong>mmunication.7.1.11 Land Claims and Heritage ResourcesApplicability and status of land claims on the site.Potential land claim on northern portion (farm Honingkrantz 536 JR).Family graves.Impact on historical buildings and graves.7.1.12 Closure and RehabilitationEnd land use options and timeframes for achieving rehabilitation objectives.Rehabilitation <strong>co</strong>sts, funding and timeframes.Rehabilitation options (re-vegetation and alternatives to re-vegetation).Subsidence and the limitations to achieving the desirable <strong>co</strong>mpaction required for rehabilitation.Ponding of <strong>co</strong>ntaminated water.Impact of sulphur and heavy metals.Topsoil management.General distrust of mining in area.AAIC Reputation (different views, both positive and negative).Will Anglo sell the mine, walk away and leave the responsibility to another mining <strong>co</strong>mpany?Once approved, all <strong>co</strong>mmitments in EMP remain regardless of the ownership of the mine.Commitments not always implemented over life of mine.Implementation of rehabilitation measures <strong>co</strong>mmitted to in EMP not always successful orsustainable over the long term.Post closure financial provision.Long-term sustainable operation of the WTP. If the WTP fails, there would be severe impacts ondownstream environments and people in the Olifants River catchment.Rectifying rehabilitation failures that only present years after closure.Re<strong>co</strong>urse if neighbours are impacted but have difficulty proving the impact.7.2 Response to Issues Raised to DateAppendix D1 provides responses to issues raised during the 2006 and 2011/2 <strong>co</strong>nsultative process. Theplan of study for <strong>EIA</strong> (as outlined in the final S<strong>co</strong>ping <strong>Report</strong>) was developed to address the issuesraised in Section 7.1. Various specialist studies were <strong>co</strong>nducted as part of the <strong>EIA</strong> to address theseNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)281
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesissues and questions. Questions relating to project details and design are clarified in the <strong>EIA</strong> report, andquestions related to the management of environmental impacts are <strong>co</strong>nsidered in the EMP. Responsesto all issues raised are provided as part of Appendix D1. In addition, the issues are marked ac<strong>co</strong>rding towhether they have been addressed or, if further work is required.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)282
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices8. Environmental Impact AssessmentThe following sections present the assessment of impacts of the New Largo Colliery during the<strong>co</strong>nstruction, operational, de<strong>co</strong>mmissioning and closure, and post closure phases of the projects. Theproject activities that were assessed are as per the project description in Section 4.Sections 8.1 to 8.15 present a detailed description of impacts on the various physical, biological, socialand e<strong>co</strong>nomic, and cultural and heritage resources. Each environmental <strong>co</strong>mponent is discussed asfollows:Baseline Impacts. This section described the pre-mining / existing environment. This section isparticularly important since New Largo Colliery is not a <strong>co</strong>mpletely Greenfields project. Existingimpacts is an important <strong>co</strong>mponent to the assessment of cumulative impacts.Project Impacts. Project impacts are described for <strong>co</strong>nstruction, operation, de<strong>co</strong>mmissioningand closure, and post closure phases.o Impacts of AAIC’s Base Case Mine Plan (Mine Plan Version 6) are first assessed; andthen they are <strong>co</strong>mpared with theo Impacts of the Alternative Mine Plan (Mine Plan Version 7) where applicable. Impacts ofMine Plan Version 7 are for Version 7D (see Section 5 for discussion on mine planalternatives).Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts are described for all the project phases.No-Go Development / Alternative Development. This section describes:o Impacts of the no-go development deals with impacts on the project study area if NewLargo Colliery is not developed.o Alternative Development. This section qualitatively describes what the impact of anothermine, or a number of smaller mines would be – based on the assumption that if NewLargo Colliery is not developed, the <strong>co</strong>al will have to be sourced elsewhere from another<strong>co</strong>al mine(s).Conclusions and Re<strong>co</strong>mmendations. A summary of the <strong>co</strong>nclusions reached by the variousspecialist areas of investigation.Although two alternative mine plans are evaluated for the Mining Right Application and therefore the <strong>EIA</strong>(this report), Mine Plan Version 6 remains the base case. AAIC’ <strong>co</strong>nducted a <strong>co</strong>mparative evaluation ofMine Plan Version 6 and Mine Plan Version 7D and <strong>co</strong>ncluded that they maintain Mine Plan Version 6 astheir preferred mine plan. Mine Plan Version 6 therefore remains as the Base Case Mine Plan (seeSection 5). In addition, for the <strong>EIA</strong> submitted to the DMR - AAIC’s legal advisors advised that AAICcannot change the mine plan in the <strong>EIA</strong> unless the Mining Right Application has been amended.Impacts for AAIC’s Base Case Mine Plan (Mine Plan Version 6) are rated in Section 9 (summary) and inAppendix A (detailed impacts tables). The detailed impact tables in Appendix A rate impacts for theproject as a whole as well as impacts for all the major project activities. It includes cumulative impacts,impacts of the no-go development option, and impacts of a theoretical alternative <strong>co</strong>al mine(s).A further <strong>co</strong>mparison of Mine Plan Version 6 and Mine Plan Version 7 is provided in Section 9.5.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)283
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices8.1 Climate and Greenhouse GassesPHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT8.1.1 Baseline / Existing Environment ConditionsThe key land uses in the project area are agricultural activities. Natural vegetation remains in thoseareas where it is unsuitable for cultivation (drainage lines, pans), however it is predicted that naturalgrassland would be lost within three years.The project area is surrounded by mines, roads, power stations and related <strong>co</strong>nstructions andoperations. These all have an existing negative impact on local, regional and national climatic <strong>co</strong>nditionsdue to release of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere and removal of the carbon sink.8.1.2 Impact Assessment8.1.2.1 Project ImpactsThe impact on climate due to greenhouse gas emissions from the proposed project will take place during<strong>co</strong>nstruction and operational phases of the project.Construction Phase:Project Activity / Impact SourceUse of fossil fuels (diesel and petrol)Grid electricity <strong>co</strong>nsumptionSewage treatment plantClearing of vegetationPotential Impact Increase in greenhousegases such as carbondioxide, methane and nitrousoxide and a decrease in thecarbon sinkOperational Phase:Use of fossil fuels (diesel and petrol)Grid electricity <strong>co</strong>nsumptionUse of limestone or lime for stone dustingFugitive methane emissions from exposed <strong>co</strong>alseams due to de-pressuri<strong>za</strong>tion and processingBlastingSewage treatment plantClearing of vegetation Increase in greenhousegases such as carbondioxide, methane and nitrousoxide and decrease in thecarbon sinkDe<strong>co</strong>mmission andClosure Phase:Greenhouse gas emissions as result of the projectwill decrease.Rehabilitation will increase the vegetation areawithin the project area. Increase in carbon sinkPost Closure:Post closure, the establishment of a vegetation<strong>co</strong>ver can have a positive impact <strong>co</strong>mpared to the Increase in carbon sinkNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)284
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicescurrent maize cultivation.8.2 Surface Water8.2.1 Description of Baseline Environment ConditionsThe area is characterised by several streams and wetlands, and there is potential for impacting on thesethrough mining. The proposed mining area is located within quaternary catchments B20F and B20G,within the Loskop Dam catchment.8.2.1.1 Baseline Impact SourcesThere are several opencast mines and power stations, Kendal and the new Kusile power station,located within the catchment. All of these have or will have an impact on catchment yield, as wellas water quality in the area.Operations at Kusile Power Station will <strong>co</strong>mmence in late 2013, before mining at New LargoColliery begins, and thereafter ramp up to full production over time. Proposed Phola-Kusile Coal Conveyor System, operational in late 2013.Agricultural activities (cattle, maize and others).Phola Sewage Works.Sand mining.Brick manufacturing.8.2.1.2 Synthesis of Baseline ImpactsThe proposed new mining is set to <strong>co</strong>mmence in 2015. At the onset of this new development, theexisting impacts will include the above-mentioned impacts, which need to be taken into ac<strong>co</strong>unt.The aspects affected are catchment yield and surface water quality and quantity. In terms of catchmentyield, there are several opencast mines in the catchment which have large dirty areas that should be<strong>co</strong>ntained to prevent it <strong>co</strong>ntributing to the catchment. Thus there is already an impact on catchment yieldin the catchment.In addition, dirty water <strong>co</strong>ntainment is not necessarily effective on all of these sites, resulting in impactson surface water quality. A further notable impact on water quality is the Phola sewage works, resultingin an increase of E. Coli in the affected river sections.8.2.2 Impact Assessment8.2.2.1 Project Impact SourcesConstruction Phase: General earthworks;Mining activities, including plant area, admin area, borrow pits etc.;R545 re-alignment.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)285
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesOperational Phase: Mining Activities, including opencast pit, plant area, admin area, borrowpits etc.;R545 re-alignment;Water treatment plant;Water and waste Management.De<strong>co</strong>mmission and Closure Demolition of plant, offices, water and waste management facilities etc.;Phase:Post Closure: Mining activities at mined out areas;R545 road alignment;Water treatment plant.8.2.2.2 Project ImpactsMine Plan Version 6Construction Phase:Stripping of topsoil and the civil works undertaken as part of preparation of thearea for the <strong>co</strong>nstruction of all infrastructures Increase in turbidity and suspended solids;Increased erosion.Movement of <strong>co</strong>nstruction vehicles through water<strong>co</strong>urses during the <strong>co</strong>nstructionof all infrastructures Increase in turbidity and suspended solids;Increased erosion.Servicing of <strong>co</strong>nstruction vehicles during the <strong>co</strong>nstruction of allinfrastructureIncrease in hydrocarbon <strong>co</strong>ncentrations;Removal of material from box-cut.Removal of material from box-cutIncrease in turbidity and suspended solids;Overburden dumps will potentially <strong>co</strong>ntain carbonaceous material, withthe potential to affect downstream water<strong>co</strong>urses by increasing sulphateand total dissolved solids (TDS) <strong>co</strong>ncentrations;Loss of yield: rainfall on the box cut itself will be <strong>co</strong>ntained and notNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)286
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesreleased to the catchment.Dewatering of water ingress to the box-cutSpillage of this potentially impacted water to the catchment will result inan increase in sulphate and TDS <strong>co</strong>ncentrations.Establishment of borrow pits within / in close proximity to water<strong>co</strong>ursesIncrease in turbidity and suspended solids;Increased erosion;Loss of yield.R545 Re-alignmentIncrease in turbidity and suspended solids;Increased erosion;Alteration of flood lines.Operational Phase:Mining of opencast pitsIncrease in turbidity, suspended solids, sulphate and TDS, change inwater qualities (metals, anions, cations);Loss of yield.Destruction of water <strong>co</strong>urses as mining progresses Increase in turbidity and suspended solids, change in water qualities(metals, anions, cations);Increased erosion;Loss of yield.Dirty water catchment area from workshops, offices, stockyards, admin area andplant area Increase in sulphates and TDS, change in water qualities (metals,anions, cations);Increased runoff.Loss of yield.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)287
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesSpillage of <strong>co</strong>al during transportationIncrease in turbidity and suspended solids.Increased sulphate and TDS.Dust and fire suppression with treated water Clean water sprayed onto the <strong>co</strong>al will be<strong>co</strong>me <strong>co</strong>ntaminated. If releasedto the river system, it will have the potential to impact on water quality,increasing sulphate and TDS.Dust suppression on haul roads with dirty water from Dirty Water Bulk StorageDam Increased sulphates and TDS.Cleaning, repair and maintenance activities along the R545 roadIncrease in hydrocarbon <strong>co</strong>ncentrations.Increase in suspended solids.Crossing of water<strong>co</strong>urses and therefore positioning of road in respect to floodlines Increase in risk of flooding or backing up of water during extremeweather events.Increase in flow velocities in certain areas, especially downstream of flowrestricting structures.Treatment of water in the water treatment plant Improvement in quality of water due to discharge of clean water anddilution effects.Net increase in yield within catchments B20F (Wilge River) and B20G(Saalklapspruit).Changes to seasonality of stream flow.Discharge of treated water into the Wilge River and Saalklapspruit and theirtributaries, depending on the out<strong>co</strong>mes of the reserve determination Improvement in quality of water due to discharge of clean water anddilution effects.Increase in yield within catchments B20F (Wilge River) and B20GNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)288
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices(Saalklapspruit).Changes to seasonality of stream flow.Discharge of treated effluent from the sewage treatment plant into pollution<strong>co</strong>ntrol dam (PCD) Possible spillage / discharge of affected / untreated water will deterioratethe water quality in downstream water<strong>co</strong>urses.Spillage from dirty water management measures due to lack of maintenance (i.e.Spillage from PCD, pit transfer dams etc.) Increase in sulphate and TDS.De<strong>co</strong>mmission and ClosurePhase:All materials and infrastructure (i.e. plant, offices, water and waste managementfacilities other than those mentioned below) will be removed from the site forreuse elsewhere, or for disposal at an appropriately licensed facility, and thefootprint will be rehabilitated Increase in turbidity and suspended solids.Increased erosion.Movement of <strong>co</strong>nstruction vehicles through water<strong>co</strong>urses during the demolitionof all infrastructures Increase in turbidity and suspended solids.Increased erosion.Servicing of <strong>co</strong>nstruction vehicles during the demolition phaseIncrease in hydrocarbon <strong>co</strong>ncentrations.Post Closure:Pits will be backfilled and rehabilitatedIncrease in sulphate and TDS due to decant of impacted water;Possible loss in yield if not rehabilitated and made free draining.<strong>Final</strong> Void DamIncrease in sulphate and TDS due to decant of impacted water;Possible loss in yield if not rehabilitated and made free draining.The R545 road will remain post closureAs per Operational Phase.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)289
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesThe WTP will remain post closureImprovement in quality of water due to removal of <strong>co</strong>ntaminants.Improvement of quality of water due to discharge of clean water anddilution effect.Net increase in yield.Mine Plan Version 7Construction Phase: Impacts for Mine Plan Version 7 will be similar to that of Mine PlanVersion 6 but Mine Plan Version 7 excludes a section of the <strong>co</strong>al reservein the north to exclude mining of a pan on the farm Honingkrantz 536 JR,and the area of impact will be reduced within the New Largo Collierystudy area.Operational Phase: Impacts for Mine Plan Version 7 will be similar to that of Mine PlanVersion 6 but Mine Plan Version 7 excludes a section of the <strong>co</strong>al reservein the north to exclude mining of a pan on the farm Honingkrantz 536 JR,and the area of impact will be reduced within the New Largo Collierystudy area.De<strong>co</strong>mmission and ClosurePhase:Impacts for Mine Plan Version 7 will be similar to that of Mine PlanVersion 6.Post Closure: Impacts for Mine Plan Version 7 will be similar to that of Mine PlanVersion 6.Comparison between Mine Plan Version 6 and Mine Plan Version 7Comparing the base case (Mine Plan Version 6) and the alternative (Mine Plan Version 7) it is evidentthat for the base case the impact on catchment yield is higher, <strong>co</strong>nsidering that mining will result in thedestruction of the large pan on the farm Honingkrantz 536 JR, whereas in the alternative the pan will bepreserved.Mine Plan Version 7 causes a reduction in catchment yield of 0.46% as <strong>co</strong>mpared to Version 6 whichcauses a reduction of 0.5% (an absolute difference of 8%). However, Mine Plan Version 7’s impact onwater quality would be less than that <strong>co</strong>mpared to Mine Plan Version 6 as the pan is not mined through.Based on the water balance, the post closure water make for Mine Plan Version 6 is 13% greater thanfor Version 7. (Mine Plan Version 6 water make post closure is some 22100 m 3 /day and Version 7 issome 19200 m 3 /day). This equates to the potential salt loading from the mine being 13% greater for MinePlan Version 6 than for Version 7.Within the New Largo Colliery study area, Mine Plan Version 7 will have fewer impacts than Mine PlanVersion 6. However, Mine Plan Version 7 implies that ~100 Mt of <strong>co</strong>al supply to Kusile will have to besupplemented from an alternative <strong>co</strong>al reserve, which will be associated with its own set ofenvironmental impacts.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)290
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices8.2.2.3 Cumulative ImpactsCatchment YieldTo adequately assess the cumulative impact of the New Largo Opencast Mine on catchment yield a highorder desktop assessment was carried out. New Largo is situated in the Wilge River catchment area.This catchment makes up part of the Loskop Dam catchment, and is within quaternary sub-catchmentsB20F and B20G of the Limpopo-Olifants primary drainage region. Therefore the area of the immediatecatchment that will be affected (i.e. B20F and B20G) totals to approximately 1026km 2 .The area <strong>co</strong>vered by existing activities (i.e. existing mining, Phola Sewage works, the Phola-KusileConveyor System, as well as Kendal power station and the new Kusile power stations, etc.) estimatedfrom Google earth, totals to some 114km 2 . The New Largo Colliery affected area is approximately 75 to80km 2 . Therefore New Largo adds some 70% to the total catchment area that is currently affected (i.e.114km 2 ) therefore is a potentially significant <strong>co</strong>ntributor to cumulative impacts.However the WTP at New Largo will treat the impacted mine water generated and discharge this treatedwater to the environment meaning that there will be no discharge of polluted water and therefore cleanwater is returned to the system. The amount of water treated as <strong>co</strong>mpared to the amount of water lostdue to mining results in a net positive increase in yield as shown in the Water Balance, Section 4.15.On average, over the life of mine, it is expected that clean water will be discharged to the system at anaverage rate of approximately 13 300 m 3 /day for Mine Plan Version 6 and 12100 m 3 /day for Mine PlanVersion 7. Compared with the expected loss of yield due to the mining activities (2600 m 3 /day), the netincrease is <strong>co</strong>nservatively estimated to be in the order of some 10 700 m 3 /day for Mine Plan Version 6and 9500m 3 /day for Mine Plan Version 7. This relates to an increase in mean annual runoff (MAR) (i.e.over the mining area affected by mining activities (2600m 3 /day) of some 412% for Mine Plan Version 6and 365% for Mine Plan Version 7. Therefore in terms of yield the treatment of water for release wouldhave a net positive impact on the yield. The Hydrological Specialist SSeasonality of Flow and Erosion RisksTreated water from the WTP will be re-used to meet the water demands of the mine (i.e. potable water,dust suppression and fire water) and the remainder will be discharged back into the receiving catchment.On average, over the life of mine, it is expected that clean water will be discharged to the system at anaverage rate of approximately 13 300 m 3 /day.A preliminary assessment was done of the discharge points by the Hydrological Specialist based onsurface water run-off <strong>co</strong>nsiderations only and assuming proportional discharge amongst the affectedstreams (see Appendix G). During this assessment, the proportional loss of catchment was determinedat key stages in the life of mine. The proportional flow reduction was based entirely on the affectedcatchment areas (i.e. the assumption that the flow reduction will be directly proportional to the catchmentarea lost as a result of mining and mining related activities). A total of 16 discharge points were identifiedon this basis.The final discharge volume and positions are, however, subject to the out<strong>co</strong>me of the ReserveDetermination that is being <strong>co</strong>nducted by Wetland Consulting Services (WCS). The expected date of<strong>co</strong>mpletion is May 2013 and in light of the timeframes of the project and the issuing of the water uselicense, the preliminary discharge points are included in the IWWMP and IWULA.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)291
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesThe Reserve Determination study will <strong>co</strong>nsider the E<strong>co</strong>logical Water Requirement at key sites along thestreams, close to the outlet of each of the preliminary identified Resource Units (RU’s), and will notprovide details for each affected stream. The approach will therefore more likely focus on the <strong>co</strong>mbineddischarge flows that will affect a particular E<strong>co</strong>logical Water Requirement site downstream.Wetland Consulting Services has, however, indicated that the distribution of discharge volume amongstthe preliminary positions referred to above seems to make sense from a mitigation perspective and thecurrent understanding of the potential impacts on the water resources. The proposed approach is likelyto reduce the flow volumes into each of the affected systems, thereby reducing the risks of erosion atany particular site. Furthermore, it serves as an attempt to restore some flow in those systems impactedby mining and dewatering in their watersheds. It may also have the added benefit of buffering waterquality impacts across a wider front along the Wilge River and Saalklapspruit (reference: e-mail<strong>co</strong>mmunication dated 30 May 2012).Should the out<strong>co</strong>me of the Reserve Determination study result in changes to the preliminary list ofdischarge points, such changes will be addressed in an application for a water use licence amendment.Water QualityDue to there being several opencast mines and other activities (including the Phola sewage treatmentplant) in the area, the water quality is already impacted on to a certain extent. However, clean waterdiversions and dirty water <strong>co</strong>ntainment measures will be put in place to ensure significant cleancatchments are protected from mining activities, as mentioned in the impact assessment. Therefore themitigated impacts on water quality will be very low.For the R545 re-alignment, environmental awareness needs to be created amongst road users asdetailed in the environmental management programme. The main impact on water quality will be during<strong>co</strong>nstruction phase, when vegetation will be stripped in areas of <strong>co</strong>nstruction. These <strong>co</strong>nstructionactivities <strong>co</strong>uld result in additional erosion by runoff, thereby increasing the suspended solids <strong>co</strong>ntent ofthe downstream water<strong>co</strong>urse. However, this impact will be temporary.8.2.2.4 Impacts of the No-Go / Alternative DevelopmentFor the New Largo Colliery study area, the no-go development would mean that impacts of the proposedopencast mine are avoided and existing impacts would remain. Impacts would remain be the same asthe existing impacts before mining.For the no-go development, it is assumed that <strong>co</strong>al supply to Kusile will be sourced from other <strong>co</strong>alreserves. An alternative <strong>co</strong>al mine(s) will be associated with its own set of environmental impacts.In essence, the no-go development implies that the impacts of New Largo Colliery will be replaced byimpacts of another mine (or a number of smaller mines) that will impact on environments in other areas.The actual impacts of alternative mine(s) are highly dependent on the sensitivity of the environment inwhich the alternative mine(s) is located and the environmental management practices applied.8.2.3 Conclusions and Key FindingsA number of measures will be implemented to protect the water resources during the <strong>co</strong>nstruction,operation and de<strong>co</strong>mmissioning phases as well as post closure of the mine.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)292
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesMitigation measures include silt traps and pollution <strong>co</strong>ntrol dams for the <strong>co</strong>ntainment of dirty runoff andmine water make, as well as clean water cut-off trenches above mining activities to divert significantclean catchments around workings and other dirty areas. The mine is expected to have a moderate tohigh impact on the surface water resources.During <strong>co</strong>nstruction, the main <strong>co</strong>ncern is the potential for increased suspended solids and increasedsedimentation. During the operation, de<strong>co</strong>mmissioning and post closure phases, the main <strong>co</strong>ncern is thechanges to the quantity and chemical quality of water (described in Section 4.5, Water Balance). Themost important mitigation measure is the installation of the WTP. Impacted water from old undergroundmine workings, as well as from the new opencast mining areas and infrastructure areas where<strong>co</strong>ntaminated water is produced, will be treated throughout the life of the mine. Treatment will have to<strong>co</strong>ntinue post closure until such time that monitoring results prove that treatment is no longer necessary.8.3 Groundwater8.3.1 Description of Baseline Environment ConditionsThe area has a largely pristine geohydrological regime with very little to no external impacts byagricultural and mining related activities with the exception of areas affected by old underground mineworkings.8.3.1.1 Baseline Impact SourcesGroundwater Quantity Borehole water abstraction by external users (e.g. irrigation,crop watering, domestic etc.);Water use and <strong>co</strong>nsumption in the area of influence (the area ofinfluence on borehole levels is expected to be less than 250 maround mine pit perimeter).Groundwater Quality Deterioration of clean water in old underground mining voidsassociated with historical mining in the area.8.3.1.2 Synthesis of Baseline ImpactsGroundwater Quantity Extensive groundwater use reported during hydro census runsof 2005, 2006, 2010 and 2011 (including mining activities fromother mining houses, existing agricultural activities, nearbysand mining and <strong>co</strong>al washing plant).Mining activities from other mining houses in place.Existing agricultural activities.Nearby sand mining and <strong>co</strong>al washing plant.Groundwater Quality Extensive groundwater use reported during hydro census runsof 2005, 2006, 2010 and 2011 (including mining activities fromother mining houses, existing agricultural activities, nearbysand mining and <strong>co</strong>al washing plant).Mining activities from other mining houses in place.Existing agricultural activities.<strong>Report</strong>s of sporadic groundwater quality deterioration insouthern portion of study area due to mining activities by othermining houses.Nearby sand mining and <strong>co</strong>al washing plant.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)293
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesIncreasedgroundwater rechargeOil bunkers (subsequent to the assessment, AAIC <strong>co</strong>nfirmedthat the oil has been removed from the bunkers).A number of mining houses are active in the area mining mostlyby opencast mining methods and se<strong>co</strong>ndary mining of oldunderground workings.Any opencast activity (<strong>co</strong>al, sand mining, etc.) will have animpact on the volumes of groundwater recharge that will reportto open voids/spoils.Inter-mine flow Existing old underground mine workings are flooded.External GroundwaterUsersLoss of stream baseflowDeterioration ingroundwater quality inthe opencast pit.Impact ongroundwater qualitydue to the<strong>co</strong>nstruction andoperation of a numberof surface facilitiesWater can flow from this section to adjacent sections and/ordecant on surface.Extensive groundwater use reported during hydro census runsof 2005, 2006, 2010 and 2011 (including mining activities fromother mining houses, existing agricultural activities, nearbysand mining and <strong>co</strong>al washing plant).Mining activities from other mining houses in place.Isolated <strong>co</strong>mplaints about groundwater depletion due tosurrounding mining activities.The opencast mining activities in the two catchments are limitedat this stage.The current impact on stream base flow is currently low. GN704 requires that mining activities take place outside of the 1:100year flood line or outside a horizontal distance of 100 metres from anywater<strong>co</strong>urse or estuary, borehole or well, excluding boreholes or wellsdrilled specifically to monitor the pollution of groundwater, or on waterloggedground, or on ground likely to be<strong>co</strong>me water-logged, undermined,unstable or cracked.Limited existing opencast mining in the catchments.Current groundwater quality ranging between pristine andmoderately impacted.Limited surface infrastructure is developed in the catchment atthe moment.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)294
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices8.3.2 Impact Assessment8.3.2.1 Project Impact SourcesConstruction Phase:Groundwater QuantityWater abstraction for New Largo Colliery <strong>co</strong>nstruction activities.Water use (mining activities from other mining houses, existingagricultural activities, nearby sand mining and <strong>co</strong>al washing plant) and<strong>co</strong>nsumption in the area of influence (area of influence is expected to beless than 250 m around mine pit perimeter).Groundwater QualityDeterioration of clean water in open void (box-cut).Operational Phase:Increased groundwater rechargeOpen pit, spoils and rehabilitated areas in mining footprint;Increased recharge from rainfall due to the disturbed nature of miningactivities;Management of excess water in voids and spoils.Impact on external groundwater users Borehole water use. Cone of depression with an expected maximumradius of 250 m beyond the mining extent.Loss of stream base flowCone of depression;Groundwater flow reversal.Deterioration in groundwater quality in the opencast pitAcidification of spoils;Coal discard disposal in-pit;Different waste streams;Deterioration in groundwater quality (different waste water streamsdescribed in Appendix H: Groundwater Specialist Impact Assessment);All water to be treated before release.Impact on groundwater quality due to the <strong>co</strong>nstruction and operation of a numberof surface facilities Different surface infrastructure with its associated liner systems.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)295
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesMigration of pollution to the underlying aquifers. Monitoring around allfacilities required.De<strong>co</strong>mmission andClosure Phase:Decant and Inter-mine flow from New Largo CollieryNo decant will be released from New Largo Colliery.Continuous dewatering of excess water (20-24 Ml/day). No inter-mine flow FROM New Largo Colliery to surrounding areas /mines.Deterioration of in-pit water and residual pollution from surface infrastructurePolluted water from different waste streams;No decant;All excess water treated at the WTP;Footprints of all surface infrastructures rehabilitated and closed.Impacts if rehabilitation is not done to standard.Post Closure:Decant and Inter-mine flow from New Largo CollieryNo decant from New Largo Colliery due to <strong>co</strong>ntinuous dewatering ofexcess water (20-24 Ml/day).No inter-mine flow FROM New Largo Colliery due to pumping andtreatment.All <strong>co</strong>ntaminated water to be pumped to the WTP and treated until suchtime that monitoring results prove that treatment is no longer necessary.Deterioration of in-pit water and residual pollution from surface infrastructurePolluted water from different waste water streams.No decant will take place as all water will be treated at the WTP.Impacts if rehabilitation during operational phase was not done tostandard.8.3.2.2 Project ImpactsMine Plan Version 6Construction Phase: Groundwater Quantity Opencast mining will start with the <strong>co</strong>nstruction of a box-cut (regarded aspart of <strong>co</strong>nstruction). Box-cut <strong>co</strong>nstruction activities will penetrate saturatedaquifers, causing a localised <strong>co</strong>ne of groundwater depression and depletionaround the mining activity. The area of impact is expected to be not moreNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)296
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesthan 250 m.Groundwater Quality Groundwater seeping into the open void will be in <strong>co</strong>ntact with carbonaceousmaterial;An increase in suspended solids will take place;Groundwater and rainwater falling into the pit will deteriorate if not pumpedfrom the pit;Contaminated water to be treated at WTP prior to release.Operational Phase:Increased groundwater recharge Opencast mining activities will create areas that are open; areas filled withspoils, and rehabilitated areas;Groundwater recharge from surface will increase from the normal 1 to 3% ofmean annual precipitation (MAP), to an increased percentage, depending onthe nature of the area. In the active void up to 100% of rainfall will accrue.The increase in recharge for spoils and rehabilitated areas will vary between14% and 30% of MAP (refer to Section 4.15, Water Balance for details oncalculations).Inter-mine flow Water accumulated in the old underground workings will be dewateredduring the operational phase. This will reduce the impact of current intermineflow to zero, since the source will be removed <strong>co</strong>mpletely.New mining activities will create increased water make. This water will bepumped to the WTP for treatment prior to release.All opencast sections (voids and spoils) will be managed as dry as practicallypossible.Stage curve investigations have indicated that very little storage is availablein-pit. For this reason the mine will be operated on a dry basis, meaning thatall excess water will be treated and released.No inter-mine flow is expected to take place.The release of treated water will be based on the out<strong>co</strong>me of the ReserveDetermination (study in progress).Impact on external groundwater usersOpencast pits will penetrate saturated aquifers, causing a localised <strong>co</strong>ne ofNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)297
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesgroundwater depression and depletion around the mining activity. The zoneof aquifer depletion will increase and move as mining progresses and moveac<strong>co</strong>rding to the mine plan sequencing.The maximum extent of depletion is expected to be 250 m around the pitperimeter.Loss of stream base flow The formation of a <strong>co</strong>ne of depression that increases over time will lead to areversal of groundwater base flow. Instead of discharging into river systems,groundwater flow will be partially reversed. Groundwater flow will take placetowards the open pits. The impacts and volumes are quantified throughgroundwater models and calculations in the Groundwater Specialist ImpactAssessment. This information was in<strong>co</strong>rporated into the Water Balance (seeSection 4.15).Deterioration in groundwater quality in the opencast pit Ingress of groundwater and rainwater into opencast voids, spoils andrehabilitated sections of New Largo Colliery.Acidification of sections of spoiled material will lead to deterioration ingroundwater quality over time. Continuous aeration of unsaturated spoils will<strong>co</strong>ntribute to salt loads.In addition to this approximately 100 Million tonnes (Mt) of <strong>co</strong>al discard willbe placed in parts of the pit. Although a direct groundwater related impact,this will mean that very little on-surface discard dumping will be required.Provision has been made for a temporary ~10 Mt on-surface storage facility.The on-surface discard facility will be located in a previously mined andbackfilled area where seepage will be captured as part of the overall systemto pump impacted water to the WTP for treatment before release to streams.Material stored on this facility will be backfilled into the mine pit.The expected groundwater quality at New Largo Colliery will <strong>co</strong>nsist of a mixof 5 different groundwater quality types as discussed in Appendix H:Groundwater Specialist Impact Assessment. The groundwater quantities andqualities have been in<strong>co</strong>rporated in the Water Balance and Salt Balance (seeSection 4.15).All impacted water to be pumped to the WTP for treatment prior to release.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)298
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesImpact on groundwater quality due to the operation of a number of surface facilities Potential deterioration of groundwater resources due to the followinginfrastructure: 1. The Northern Tip and associated infrastructure. 2. TheSouthern Tip and associated infrastructure. 3. Raw stockpiles at the Plantarea. 4. Product stockpiles at the Plant area. 5. A series of pollution <strong>co</strong>ntroldams at the tips, <strong>co</strong>al stock piles, main mine water <strong>co</strong>ntrol dams and thedecant point. 6. The temporary WTP. 7. The permanent WTP. 8. The 10 Mtdiscard dump on surface.All impacted water to be pumped to the WTP for treatment prior to release.De<strong>co</strong>mmission andClosure Phase:Decant and inter-mine flow from New Largo CollieryAll pits will be mined out and rehabilitated at this stage. All excess water (~24 Ml/day) will be pumped to the WTP (see Section 4.15for Water Balance).All rehabilitated opencast sections will be managed as dry as practicallypossible.Stage curve investigations have indicated that very little storage is availablein-pit. For this reason the mine will be operated on a dry basis even postclosure, meaning that all excess water will be treated to catchment qualities.The treated water will be released ac<strong>co</strong>rding to the Reserve Determinationre<strong>co</strong>mmendations. The current base case is to release water to riversystems. Any changes to the base case will require an amendment to theIWULA and formal approval by the DWA).No inter-mine flow will take place FROM New Largo Colliery to surroundingmining sections (current and future).Deterioration of in-pit water and residual pollution from surface infrastructure Continuous ingress of groundwater and rainwater into rehabilitated sectionsof New Largo Colliery.Acidification of sections of spoiled material will lead to the deterioration ofgroundwater quality over time.Continuous aeration of unsaturated spoils will <strong>co</strong>ntribute to salt loads.All <strong>co</strong>ntaminated water to be pumped to the WTP.The treated water will be released ac<strong>co</strong>rding to a Reserve Determinationupdate at the time of closure.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)299
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesPost Closure:Decant from New Largo Colliery Impacts as described for de<strong>co</strong>mmissioning and closure. These impacts areexpected to remain for many years after mining has ceased.All <strong>co</strong>ntaminated water to be pumped to the WTP until such time thatmonitoring results have proved <strong>co</strong>nclusively that treatment is no longernecessary.The treated water will be released ac<strong>co</strong>rding to the Reserve Determinationre<strong>co</strong>mmendations. The current base case is to release water to riversystems, but an alternative option should be investigated as part of the finalclosure planning. Any decision on water releases need to be based onupdated Reserve Determination information at the time of closure and withapproval of the DWA.Comparison between Mine Plan Version 6 and Mine Plan Version 7Construction Phase: Similar to that of Mine Plan Version 6.Operational Phase:Increased groundwater recharge The initial groundwater ingress for Mine Plan Version 7 is higher sincemining will take place faster; At the end of life of mine the impact for Mine Plan Version 6 will be 10%bigger due to a larger area mined.Inter-mine flow The decant prevention mechanism and excess water treatmentmethodology will be the same for both options.External groundwater users Less external users will be influenced by Version 7 with the exclusion ofthe mining block in the north.Loss of stream base flow Approximately 19% less groundwater base flow will be lost by applyingMine Plan Version 7.Deterioration in groundwater quality in the opencast pit The <strong>co</strong>al found in the northern parts of the mining area does not requirebeneficiation. As such, the amount of discard generated by Mine PlanVersion 7 will be very similar to that of Version 6. Given the scale of theNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)300
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesoperations and the inclusion of 90Mt of discard in the pit and 10 Mt onsurface, the impacts are basically the same.Impact on groundwater quality due to the <strong>co</strong>nstruction and operation of a numberof surface facilities The size and placing of all surface infrastructures will be the same forboth options.De<strong>co</strong>mmission and ClosurePhase:Decant and Inter-mine flow from New Largo Colliery The decant prevention mechanism and excess water treatmentmethodology will be the same for both Mine Plan Version 6 and Version7. Impacts will be similar.Deterioration of in-pit water and residual pollution from surface infrastructure Given the scale of the operations, and the fact that the discard producedfor both Mine Plans are very similar, the impact is basically the same.Post Closure: Similar to post closure impacts for Mine Plan Version 6.8.3.2.3 Cumulative ImpactsConstruction Phase:Groundwater Quantity A new water use will be added to current water uses. There will be alow additional impact on the availability of groundwater.Groundwater Quality The management of in-pit water is mining specific. It is industrystandard to handle all in-pit water as part of the operational phasewater balance. No additional cumulative impact is foreseen.Operational Phase:Increased groundwater recharge The New Largo Colliery operations will be significant. The mine will bethe largest opencast pit in the area, mining for a period in excess of 37or 45 years (depending on mine plan selected). Other opencastactivities will also <strong>co</strong>ntribute significantly in the same period.Inter-mine flow Inter-mine flow should be prevented during the operational phase sinceadjacent mining activities can have a detrimental impact on operationaland safety aspects. This will be achieved through pumping andNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)301
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicestreatment of impacted water;Mining near the old underground oil bunkers near Vlakfontein Mineshould be planned in ac<strong>co</strong>rdance to the out<strong>co</strong>me of geotechnicalspecialist advice. Subsequent to the specialist assessment, AAIC<strong>co</strong>nfirmed that the oil from the underground bunkers has beenremoved.External groundwater users A new water use will be added to current water uses. There will be alow additional impact on the availability of groundwater.Loss of stream base flow Improvement in water quantity due to the planned treatment of waterand release of a portion of the treated water. The impact can be furthermitigated when all role players <strong>co</strong>nform to a similar treat and releasescheme.Deterioration in groundwater quality in the opencast pit Treatment of impacted water (as a minimum to catchment releasequalities) is critical for the protection of groundwater and surface waterin the greater study area.Impact on groundwater quality due to the <strong>co</strong>nstruction and operation of anumber of surface facilities The New Largo Colliery will add to the current impacts.De<strong>co</strong>mmission and ClosurePhase:Decant and Inter-mine flow from New Largo Colliery Inter-mine flow should be prevented at closure since adjacent mininghouses can be influenced by excess water, if still operational;Pumping of water to WTP to <strong>co</strong>ntinue.Deterioration of in-pit water and residual pollution from surface infrastructure Treatment of impacted water (as a minimum to catchment releasequalities) is critical for the protection of groundwater and surface waterin the greater study area.Post Closure:Decant from New Largo Colliery Impacts as described for de<strong>co</strong>mmissioning and closure. These impactsare expected to remain for many years after mining has ceased;New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)302
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesAll <strong>co</strong>ntaminated water to be pumped to the WTP until such time thatmonitoring results have proved <strong>co</strong>nclusively that treatment is no longernecessary.The treated water will be released ac<strong>co</strong>rding to the ReserveDetermination re<strong>co</strong>mmendations. The current base case is to releasewater to river systems, but an alternative option should be investigatedas part of the final closure planning. Any decision on water releasesneed to be based on updated Reserve Determination information at thetime of closure.8.3.2.4 Impacts of No-Go / Alternative DevelopmentFor the New Largo Colliery study area, the no-go development would mean that impacts of the proposedopencast mine are avoided and existing impacts would remain the same as before mining at New Largo.For the no-go development, it is assumed that <strong>co</strong>al supply to Kusile will be sourced from other <strong>co</strong>alreserves. An alternative <strong>co</strong>al mine(s) will be associated with its own set of environmental impacts.In essence, the no-go development implies that the impacts of New Largo Colliery will be replaced byimpacts of another mine (or a number of smaller mines) that will impact on environments in other areas.The actual impact of an alternative mine is highly dependent on the sensitivity of the environment inwhich the alternative mine(s) is located and the environmental management practices applied.Construction Phase:Groundwater Quantity The no-go development would avoid new impacts in the New LargoColliery study area.An alternative mine will cause a <strong>co</strong>ne of dewatering around an opencastpit(s) in another area, assuming to be similar to that at New LargoColliery.Groundwater Quality Parts of the New Largo Colliery study area is affected by historicalmining. With the no-go development, there will be little improvement inthe area’s water quality as the WTP will not be installed for New LargoColliery (the mobile WTP associated with supplying the Phola-KusileCoal Conveyor can only treat a portion of the water from the oldunderground mining areas);The development of any alternative <strong>co</strong>al mine to supply <strong>co</strong>al to KusilePower Station, will pose its own risks to groundwater in another area(s).New Largo Colliery will occur in an area that is already impacted,whereas an alternative <strong>co</strong>al mine(s) in another area, may introduceNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)303
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesimpacts in an area(s) that are currently not impacted.Operational Phase:Increased groundwater rechargeWith the no-go development, existing impacts will remain;The development of any alternative <strong>co</strong>al source to supply <strong>co</strong>al to KusilePower Station will have its own set of impacts on groundwater recharge.Inter-mine flow Not applicable. If the resource is not mined, this will not influence thepotential for other inter-mine flow to take place from mines surroundingthe New Largo Colliery;The development of any alternative <strong>co</strong>al mine to supply <strong>co</strong>al to KusilePower Station, will pose its own impacts regarding inter-mine flow.External groundwater users Opencast mining will cause a <strong>co</strong>ne of dewatering around any opencastpit. The no-go option will prevent impacts around the New Largo Collierymine pit. The area of potential impact is up to 250 m from the boundaryof the pit;An alternative mine(s) to New Largo Colliery will have a similar impact atany other opencast pit in another area.Loss of stream base flow With the no-go development or the development of an alternative <strong>co</strong>alsource there will very little improvement in water quality (the mobile WTPassociated with supplying the Phola-Kusile Coal Conveyor can only treata portion of the water from the old underground mining areas and theimpacts of these old mine workings will remain).The development of any alternative <strong>co</strong>al source to supply <strong>co</strong>al to KusilePower Station, will pose its own risks to base flow.Deterioration in groundwater quality in the opencast pit With the no-go development or the development of an alternative <strong>co</strong>alsource there will very little improvement in water quality (the mobile WTPassociated with supplying the Phola-Kusile Coal Conveyor can only treata portion of the water from the old underground mining areas and theimpacts of these old mine workings will remain);New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)304
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesThe development of any alternative <strong>co</strong>al source to supply <strong>co</strong>al to KusilePower Station, will pose its own risks to opencast pit qualitydeterioration.Impact on groundwater quality due to the <strong>co</strong>nstruction and operation of a numberof surface facilities No potential groundwater deterioration around surface infrastructuredevelopment will take place. However, an alternative mine (or mines) tosupply the quantities of <strong>co</strong>al required that <strong>co</strong>uld be produced by NewLargo Colliery will result in similar infrastructure and associated impacts.De<strong>co</strong>mmission and ClosurePhase:Decant and Inter-mine flow from New Largo Colliery Not Applicable. If the resource is not mined, this will not influence thepotential for other inter-mine flow to take place.Deterioration of in-pit water and residual pollution from surface infrastructure With the no-go development or the development of an alternative <strong>co</strong>alsource there will very little improvement in water quality (the mobile WTPassociated with supplying the Phola-Kusile Coal Conveyor can only treata portion of the water from the old underground mining areas and theimpacts of these old mine workings will remain);The development of any alternative <strong>co</strong>al mine to supply <strong>co</strong>al to KusilePower Station, will pose its own risks to opencast pit qualitydeterioration.Post Closure: As for de<strong>co</strong>mmissioning and closure.8.3.3 Conclusions and Key FindingsGroundwater use is extensive over the study area. The density and volume of use is normal, butthe overall volume of groundwater use is high, given the fact that an area <strong>co</strong>vering some 15000ha was investigated.Aquifer yields show moderate potential for groundwater use. This is in line with the results ofsurrounding studies.Only isolated impacts on groundwater qualities were found. This is mainly due to the quality ofwater from the underground workings and isolated agricultural impacts.The remainder of the area show very good groundwater quality distribution.Active groundwater and surface water management will be required. This will be done bymanaging excess water make from the <strong>co</strong>nstruction phase of the project, firstly with the portableWTP and later on through the permanent WTP.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)305
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesThe groundwater monitoring system must be dynamic enough to ensure that all users that mightbe affected are identified soon enough. For this reason a “roll-over” monitoring system issuggested. Please refer to Section 11 of the specialist report.8.3.4 Specialist Re<strong>co</strong>mmendationsKusile will require a <strong>co</strong>nstant supply of ~17Mt per year over a life span of 55+ years. This requires amassive resource of <strong>co</strong>al. In terms of scale and tonnages required, it is the opinion of the GroundwaterSpecialists (JMA Consulting) that the New Largo Colliery will have the smallest possible impact, giventhe scale of the operations. Alternative <strong>co</strong>al mining projects will have a range of other impacts (traffic,noise, etc.), but purely from a geohydrological point-of-view, the following can be stated:17 Mt/a from an alternative source will have a similar impact on the geohydrological regime, if notgreater. If the <strong>co</strong>al is sourced from opencast pits the impact will be greater if sourced from anumber of smaller opencast units. Single underground mining activities can simply not <strong>co</strong>pe withthe vast volumes required.Sufficient mitigation measures are put in place to ensure that the environmental reserve isprotected – treatment and selective release of treated water.All excess water will be treated to catchment qualities. No decant of polluted water will takeplace.The proposed monitoring system is robust enough to identify groundwater impacts on externalusers soon enough.The following aspects are re<strong>co</strong>mmended:Perform monitoring, based on the principles proposed by the Surface Water and GroundwaterSpecialist Impact Assessments (Appendix G and Appendix H) and as synthesised in the IWULA.The monitoring will be adapted over time as the mining footprint expands.Commission new monitoring boreholes around surface infrastructure once all facilities are<strong>co</strong>mpleted.Calibrate the water and salt balance on an annual basis to make adjustments to the water andsalt balances as required.Annually <strong>co</strong>nfirm the volume and qualities of the identified waste water steams, as identified andquantified in the Groundwater Specialist Impact Assessment (Appendix H).Act on <strong>co</strong>mplaints from external users as soon as possible, to <strong>co</strong>nfirm baseline <strong>co</strong>nditions forwater levels and water qualities.Review and revise monitoring programme over the life of mine to ac<strong>co</strong>mmodate for theprogressive movement / growth over the pits and the closure / opening up of mine pits(pits A to G) and associated changes over the life of the mine.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)306
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices8.4 Air Quality8.4.1 Description of Baseline Environment ConditionsSources of SO 2 and NO x that occur in the region include Eskom power stations, industrial emissions,blasting operations at mines, spontaneous <strong>co</strong>mbustion of discard at <strong>co</strong>al mines, veld burning, vehicleexhaust emissions and household fuel burning.Various local and far-a-field sources are expected to <strong>co</strong>ntribute to the suspended fine particulate<strong>co</strong>ncentrations in the region. Local sources include wind erosion from exposed areas, fugitive dust fromagricultural and mining operations, particulate releases from industrial operations, vehicle entrainmentfrom roadways and veld burning. Household fuel burning also <strong>co</strong>nstitutes a significant local source oflow-level emissions. Long-range transport of particulates, emitted from remote tall stacks and from largescalebiomass burning in <strong>co</strong>untries to the north of South Africa, has been found to <strong>co</strong>ntribute significantlyto background fine particulate <strong>co</strong>ncentrations over the interior (Andrea et al., 1996; Garstang et al., 1996;Piketh, 1996).8.4.1.1 Wind-blow Dust from Eskom’s Ash Dams and DumpsParameters which have the potential to impact on the rate of emission from ash dam/dump facilitiesinclude the extent of surface <strong>co</strong>mpaction, moisture <strong>co</strong>ntent, ground <strong>co</strong>ver, the shape of the dam, particlesize distribution, wind speed and precipitation.Ash dumps in close proximity to the proposed activities are the existing Kendal dump and therehabilitated dump near the Old Wilge power station.8.4.1.2 Materials HandlingMaterials handling operations associated with mining and power station activities in the area include thetransfer of <strong>co</strong>al by means of tipping, loading and off-loading of trucks. The quantity of dust that will begenerated from such loading and off-loading operations will depend on various climatic parameters, suchas wind speed and precipitation, in addition to non-climatic parameters such as the nature (i.e. moisture<strong>co</strong>ntent) and volume of the material handled.8.4.1.3 Industrial EmissionsIndustrial sources within the Mpumalanga region include the following:Emissions from <strong>co</strong>al <strong>co</strong>mbustion by power generation, metallurgical and petrochemical industriesrepresents the greatest <strong>co</strong>ntributors to total emissions from the industrial / institutional /<strong>co</strong>mmercial fuel use sector within the Mpumalanga region.The metallurgical group is estimated to be responsible for at least ~50% of the particulateemissions from this sector. This group includes iron and steel, ferro-chrome, ferro-alloy andstainless steel manufacturers (includes Evraz Highveld Steel & Vanadium (~20km from theproposed New Largo Mine), Ferrometals, Columbus Stainless, Transalloys, MiddelburgFerrochrome).New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)307
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesPetrochemical and chemical industries are primarily situated in Secunda (viz. Sasol ChemicalIndustries). The use of <strong>co</strong>al for power generation and the <strong>co</strong>al gasification process representsignificant sources of sulphur dioxide emissions. (Particulate emissions are <strong>co</strong>ntrolled through theimplementation of stack gas cleaning equipment.)Other industrial sources include: brick manufacturers which use <strong>co</strong>al (e.g. Witbank Brickworks,Quality Bricks, Corobrik, Hoëveld Stene, Middelwit Stene), wood burning and wood drying byvarious sawmills (Bruply, Busby, M&N Sawmills) and other heavy industries (use <strong>co</strong>al and to alesser extent HFO for steam generation). The <strong>co</strong>ntribution of fuel <strong>co</strong>mbustion (primarily <strong>co</strong>al) byinstitutions such as schools and hospitals to total emissions is relatively low due to the extent ofemissions from other groups.In the immediate vicinity of the proposed New Largo mine, the industrial activities <strong>co</strong>nsist of the TORBrickworks and the Kendal Power Station.8.4.1.4 Household Fuel BurningDespite the intensive national electrification program, a large number of households <strong>co</strong>ntinue to burn fuelto meet, all or part of their energy requirements. The main fuels associated with air pollution potentialsused by households within the study region are <strong>co</strong>al, wood and paraffin.Coal burning emits a large amount of gaseous and particulate pollutants including sulphur dioxide, heavymetals, as well as total and respirable particulates. These include, heavy metals and inorganic ash,carbon monoxide, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and benzo(a)pyrene. Polyaromatic hydrocarbonsare re<strong>co</strong>gnized as carcinogens. Pollutants arising due to the <strong>co</strong>mbustion of wood include respirableparticulates, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, particulatebenzo(a)pyrene and formaldehyde. The main pollutants emitted from the <strong>co</strong>mbustion of paraffin are NO 2 ,particulates carbon monoxide and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.An area of notable domestic fuel burning in close proximity to New Largo is Phola. The largest part ofPhola falls within the 100 – 1000 households/km² burning <strong>co</strong>al and 30 – 100 households/km² burningwood with between 100 – 500 households/km² burning paraffin.8.4.1.5 Vehicle Exhaust EmissionsAir pollution from vehicle emissions may be grouped into primary and se<strong>co</strong>ndary pollutants. Primarypollutants are those emitted directly into the atmosphere, and se<strong>co</strong>ndary, those pollutants formed in theatmosphere as a result of chemical reactions, such as hydrolysis, oxidation, or photochemical reactions.The significant primary pollutants emitted by motor vehicles include carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), carbonmonoxide (CO), hydrocarbon <strong>co</strong>mpounds (HC), sulphur dioxide (SO 2 ), nitrogen oxides (NO x ) andparticulate matter (PM). Se<strong>co</strong>ndary pollutants include nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ), photochemical oxidants(e.g. ozone), hydrocarbon <strong>co</strong>mpounds (HC), sulphur acid, sulphates, nitric acid and nitrate aerosols. Themain roads in the study area are the N4 to the north of the New Largo <strong>co</strong>al reserve and the N12 to thesouth with the R545 transecting through the centre (north to south) of the New Largo <strong>co</strong>al reserve.8.4.1.6 Fugitive Dust Emissions from Open Cast MiningOpen cast mines are associated with significant dust emissions, sources of which include land clearing,blasting and drilling operations, materials handling, vehicle entrainment, crushing, screening (etc.).New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)308
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesSurface mines in the immediate vicinity of New Largo <strong>co</strong>nsist of the Honingkrans Sand Mine, KlipspruitMine, Beesting Mine, Zondagsfontein Mine and the proposed Vlakfontein Mine.8.4.1.7 Other Fugitive Dust SourcesFugitive dust emissions may occur as a result of vehicle entrained dust from local paved and unpavedroads, wind erosion from open areas, dust generated by agricultural activities (e.g. tilling) and mining.The extent of particulate emissions from the main roads will depend on the number of vehicles using theroads and on the silt loading on the roadways.8.4.2 Measured Baseline Ambient Air Quality8.4.2.1 Dust Fallout Network at KlipspruitSite A: WindmillAt Site A (Windmill) dust fallout levels (with the exception of May 2004) ranged between the SANSResidential dust fallout band (
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesAt Site F (SEF Dam) dust fallout levels ranged between the SANS Residential dust fallout band (
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesFigure 8-1: AAIC New Largo Dust Monitoring NetworkThe sites were based on the re<strong>co</strong>mmendations of Airshed in their Air Quality Impact Assessment <strong>Report</strong>(see Appendix K) and are:Site 01 – Stockpile: a non-directional sampler is placed close to the proposed New LargoColliery <strong>co</strong>al stockpiles to measure the impact from the windblown dust sources;Site 02 – Crusher: a non-directional sampler is placed in the vicinity of the proposed New LargoColliery crusher to measure dust fall resulting from these activities;Site 03 – Malachite Colliery: a non-directional sampler is placed along the mine haul road tomeasure dust fall resulting from these activities;Site 04 – Voltargo (Wilge) Post Office: a non-directional sampler is placed at the Voltargo(Wilge) residential area to measure dust fall resulting from proposed mining activities at thissensitive receptor;Site 05 – Stille Eden: a non-directional sampler is placed on the western boundary of theproposed mining activities to measure the impacts on potential sensitive receptors in this areadue to these proposed mining activities. A directional bucket is <strong>co</strong>-located at this position tounderstand the source <strong>co</strong>ntributions;Site 06 – Ons Huisie: a non-directional sampler is placed on the southern boundary of theproposed mining activities to measure the impacts on potential sensitive receptors in this arearesulting from the proposed mining activities. A directional bucket is <strong>co</strong>-located at this position tounderstand the source <strong>co</strong>ntributions;New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)311
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesSite 07 – Truter: a non-directional sampler is placed at the Phola residential area to measuredust fall due to proposed mining activities at this sensitive receptor. A directional is <strong>co</strong>-located atthis position to understand the source <strong>co</strong>ntributions;Site 08 – Honingkrans: a non-directional sampler is placed on the northern boundary of theproposed mining activities to measure the impacts on potential sensitive receptors in this areadue to mining activities. A directional bucket is <strong>co</strong>-located at this position to understand thesource <strong>co</strong>ntributions.The monitoring is undertaken by Gondwana Environmental Solutions (Pty) Ltd (Gondwana). Theirreports from November 2011 to March 2012 are attached as part of Appendix K.The results from the November 2011 monitoring period indicate that exceedances of the ResidentialGuideline of 600 mg/m 2 /day were re<strong>co</strong>rded from the non-directional sites 03 and 06 and from thedirectional sites 05 (North, East and West) and 06 (East). Monitoring results are shown in the figuresbelow.Figure 8-2: AAIC New Largo Monitoring Results – Non-Directional Dust Fallout (November 2011)Source: GondwanaNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)312
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesFigure 8-3: AAIC New Largo Monitoring Results – Directional Dust Fallout (November 2011)Source: GondwanaThe results from the December 2011 monitoring period indicate that the average dust <strong>co</strong>ncentration(non-directional) for each site remained below the Residential Guideline of of 600 mg/m 2 /day throughoutthe month (Figure 8-4). The average dust <strong>co</strong>ncentration (directional) indicated that none of the sitesexceeded the Residential Guideline of 600 mg/m 2 /day and the dust fallout was low for this monitoringperiod (Figure 8-5).Figure 8-4: AAIC New Largo Monitoring Results – Non- Directional Dust Fallout (December 2011)Source: GondwanaNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)313
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesFigure 8-5: AAIC New Largo Monitoring Results - Directional Dust Fallout (December 2011)Source: GondwanaDuring this monitoring period of January 2012, for non-directional dust fallout, sites 01, 05 and 06exceeded the Residential Guideline of 600 mg/m 2 /day and site 06 also exceeded the Action IndustrialGuideline of 1200 mg/m 2 /day (Figure 8-6). The average dust <strong>co</strong>ncentration (directional) indicated that thedust <strong>co</strong>ncentrations measured during the month originated from all four wind directions at site 05. At site06 the highest <strong>co</strong>ncentrations of dust originated from the north and east. At site 07 the highest dust<strong>co</strong>ncentrations were re<strong>co</strong>rded from the north and almost no dust were <strong>co</strong>llected from the south. At site08 the highest dust fallout originated from the west (Figure 8-7).Figure 8-6: AAIC New Largo Monitoring Results – Non- Directional Dust Fallout (January 2012)Source: GondwanaNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)314
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesFigure 8-7: AAIC New Largo Monitoring Results – Directional Dust Fallout (January 2012)Source: GondwanaDuring the monitoring period of February 2012 for non-directional dust fallout, no site exceeded theResidential Guideline of 600 mg/m 2 /day (Figure 8-8). The average dust <strong>co</strong>ncentration (directional)indicated that the dust <strong>co</strong>ncentrations measured during the month originated from all four wind directionsat site 05. At site 06 and site 07 the <strong>co</strong>ncentrations of dust also originated from all the wind directions. Atsite 08 the highest dust fallout originated from the west, south and east and almost no dust were<strong>co</strong>llected from the north.Figure 8-8: AAIC New Largo Monitoring Results – Non-Directional Dust Fallout (February 2012)Source: GondwanaNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)315
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesFigure 8-9: AAIC New Largo Monitoring Results – Directional Dust Fallout (February 2012)Source: GondwanaDuring the monitoring period of March 2012 for non-directional dust fallout, one site, 06, exceeded theResidential Guideline of 600 mg/m 2 /day (Figure 8-10). The average dust <strong>co</strong>ncentration (directional)indicated that the dust <strong>co</strong>ncentrations measured during the month originated from all four wind directionsat all of the sites. Site 06 exceeded the Residential Guideline of 600 mg/m 2 /day (Figure 8-11).Figure 8-10: AAIC New Largo Monitoring Results – Non-Directional Dust Fallout (March 2012)Source: GondwanaNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)316
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesFigure 8-11: AAIC New Largo Monitoring Results – Directional Dust Fallout (March 2012)Source: GondwanaIn summary, the monitoring data for non-directional dust fallout from the beginning of November 2011 tothe end of March 2012 shows that the dust fall at Site 06, Ons Huisie, is <strong>co</strong>nstantly high. Gondwanare<strong>co</strong>mmended that the reason for the high dust fall be investigated, but the impact is likely to be fromunpaved roads and <strong>co</strong>al transportation that occur in close vicinity of this site.In June 2012, Gondwana has, on behalf of AAIC, expanded the monitoring to include a stationarymonitoring station to monitor particulate (PM 10 ), H 2 S / SO 2 and BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene,and xylenes) and meteorological data including relative humidity, solar radiation, wind speed, winddirection and ambient temperature.A mobile monitoring station for PM 10 monitor and meteorological monitoring including relative humidity,solar radiation, wind speed, wind direction and ambient temperature is planned for the projectimplementation phase.8.4.3 Impact Assessment8.4.3.1 Project Impact SourcesConstruction Phase:TSP and PM10Plant / mine site;Unpaved roads; Realignment of the R545;Transport infrastructure.Operational Phase:Gaseous and particulate emissions; fugitive dustVehicle activity on paved and unpaved roads.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)317
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesFugitive dustMining operations within open pit;Materials handling operations;Crushing and screening activities;Wind erosion.De<strong>co</strong>mmission and ClosurePhase:Generation of TSP and PM 10Topsoil stockpiles;Plant site;Unpaved roads.Gas emissionsVehicles8.4.3.2 Project ImpactsInhalable Particulate Matter of less than 10 µm (PM 10 )Incremental Project ImpactsPredicted PM 10 ground level <strong>co</strong>ncentrations at sensitive receptors included in the study are tabled belowfor unmitigated and mitigated operation activities. The initial and final operational periods (selected forthe assessment) have shorter haul distances or movement of ROM on <strong>co</strong>nveyor systems and limitedmaterial movement. The PM 10 impacts for the selected monitoring periods are therefore within theNAAQS. As the material throughput increases and the haul road distances increase, the impact areaincreases significantly with the main unmitigated impact <strong>co</strong>ntribution from vehicle entrainment (as for theselected assessment period of 2041). When unpaved road surfaces are mitigated, the PM 10 impactreduces significantly to be within <strong>co</strong>mpliance with the NAAQS at the sensitive receptors of Phola,Voltargo (Wilge) and Kendal Forest Holding.Table 8-1: Predicted PM 10 ground level <strong>co</strong>ncentrations at the nearest sensitive receptor due to theoperational phase at the New Largo CollieryFrequency ofFrequency ofExceedance ofWithin PM10 Within PM10Exceedance of Annual AverageOperatingdaily PM10 NAAQNAAQS applicable NAAQS applicableSensitive Receptordaily PM10 NAAQ ConcentrationYearlimit applicableimmediately till 31 from 1 Januarylimit applicable 1 (µg/m³)immediately till 31December 2014 2015January 2015December 2014Unmitigated OperationsKendal Forest0 1 2 Y YHoldings2015Phola 0 1 3.8 Y YVoltargo (Wilge) 3 8 8 Y NKendal Forest18 35 35 N NHoldings2041Phola 15 32 30 N NVoltargo (Wilge) 73 100 90 N NKendal ForestLast Year of Holdings0 0 2 Y YMiningPhola 0 0 0.3 Y YVoltargo (Wilge) 0 0 0.8 Y YNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)318
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesOperatingYear20152041Last Year ofMining(a)Sensitive ReceptorFrequency ofExceedance ofdaily PM10 NAAQlimit applicableimmediately till 31December 2014Frequency ofExceedance ofdaily PM10 NAAQlimit applicable 1January 2015Annual AverageConcentration(µg/m³)Within PM10NAAQS applicableimmediately till 31December 2014Within PM10NAAQS applicablefrom 1 January2015Mitigated operations (a)Kendal ForestHoldings0 0 0.5 Y YPhola 0 0 0.6 Y YVoltargo (Wilge) 0 1 1.4 Y YKendal ForestHoldings0 0 4 Y YPhola 0 0 6 Y YVoltargo (Wilge) 0 1 11 Y YKendal ForestHoldings0 0 2 Y YPhola 0 0 0.2 Y YVoltargo (Wilge) 0 0 0.65 Y Y90% <strong>co</strong>ntrol efficiency on haul roads, 75% <strong>co</strong>ntrol efficiency on unpaved roads, 70% <strong>co</strong>ntrol efficiency at main tipareas, 50% <strong>co</strong>ntrol efficiency on <strong>co</strong>nveyor transfer points and 50% <strong>co</strong>ntrol efficiency on primary crushingCumulative ImpactsThe proposed mining operations are located within the Highveld Priority Area. The management planobjectives for this priority area are to <strong>co</strong>nsider the reduction of baseline <strong>co</strong>ncentrations in order to makeroom for new development.In assessing the cumulative PM 10 impacts, reference is made to the Eskom monitoring data for theperiod 2010. The modelled PM 10 predictions (which excluded the mining operations and domestic fuelburning operations) as provided in the Highveld Priority Area Management Plan <strong>co</strong>nsistently underpredictedmeasured PM 10 <strong>co</strong>ncentrations (DEA, 2011) and were thus not used for the estimation ofcumulative PM 10 impacts.There are currently two ambient monitoring stations in the vicinity of the proposed operations that areoperated by Eskom: (i) Kendal 2 and (ii) Phola. Kendal 2 and Phola monitoring stations have dataavailability of 72% and 46% for the period 2010 respectively. Reference is thus made to the Kendal 2ambient PM 10 measurements for the period 2010. The predicted annual PM 10 impacts due to theoperation of the Kusile are 4 µg/m³ at the sensitive receptors of Kendal Forest Holdings, Voltargo (Wilge)and Phola.Eskom is currently <strong>co</strong>nducting an <strong>EIA</strong> for an ash dump to cater for the life of Kusile. Cumulative impactsof this ash dump will have to form part of the Eskom <strong>EIA</strong> for this ash dump since the location, size andair quality impacts of this dump is not known at this stage.Literature states that by adding the peak model <strong>co</strong>ncentrations to the background <strong>co</strong>ncentrations canresult in severe overestimation of the source <strong>co</strong>ntribution and that a more realistic method is to add twicethe annual mean background <strong>co</strong>ncentrations to the peak (or 99.9 th percentile) (Ministry for theEnvironment, 2004).Based on these assumptions, the predicted PM 10 <strong>co</strong>ncentrations for cumulative impacts (taking into<strong>co</strong>nsideration the annual average PM 10 <strong>co</strong>ncentrations for Kendal 2 monitoring station are 67.7 µg/m³and the predicted annual average PM 10 <strong>co</strong>ncentrations for Kusile Power Station at Phola and Voltargo(Wilge) are 4 µg/m³) may be in non-<strong>co</strong>mpliance with NAAQS at the sensitive receptors of Phola andVoltargo (Wilge) due to elevated background PM 10 levels.The air quality specialist re<strong>co</strong>mmended that PM 10 <strong>co</strong>ncentrations be monitored at the closest sensitivereceptors of Phola (or information sharing on the Phola monitoring station be undertaken with Eskom)New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)319
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesand Voltargo (Wilge) in order to verify the predicted cumulative impacts and refine <strong>co</strong>ntrols ac<strong>co</strong>rdingly (ifnecessary) in order for PM 10 <strong>co</strong>ncentrations to be within NAAQS. To <strong>co</strong>mply with this re<strong>co</strong>mmendation,AAIC will install a PM10 monitoring station in Voltargo and will utilise the results from the Eskom PM10monitoring station in Phola.8.4.3.3 Predicted Dustfall RatesPredicted dustfall rates for the operation phase are summarised in Table 8-2. Predicted dustfall at allsensitive receptors were within the SANS 600 mg/m²/day limit <strong>co</strong>nsidered acceptable for residentialareas for the three operational periods selected for the assessment.Table 8-2: Predicted dustfall rates during the operation phase at the closest sensitive receptorUn<strong>co</strong>ntrolled operationsControlled operationsOperational PeriodSensitive ReceptorHighest Daily DustfallHighest Daily Dustfall(mg/m²-day)(mg/m²-day)201520412064Kendal ForestHoldings1.6 0.4Phola 10 8Voltargo (Wilge) 20 19Kendal ForestHoldings30 3Phola 30 14Voltargo (Wilge) 30 20Kendal ForestHoldings5 5Phola 8 8Voltargo (Wilge) 20 208.4.3.4 Inhalable Particulate Matter of less than 2.5 µm (PM 2.5 )As the standards for PM 2.5 have not been finalised yet, the <strong>co</strong>mpliance of the PM 2.5 impacts cannot beassessed. PM 2.5 can however be <strong>co</strong>mpared to draft NAAQS (Table 8-3). The initial and final operationalperiods (selected for the assessment) are within the draft PM 2.5 NAAQS at the sensitive receptors ofKendal Forest Holdings, Voltargo (Wilge) and Phola for unmitigated and mitigated operations as the hauldistances are shorter. As the material throughput increases and the haul road distances increase, theimpact area increases significantly with draft PM 2.5 NAAQS applicable in 2016 being exceeded at thesensitive receptors of Kendal Forest Holdings and Voltargo (Wilge) for unmitigated operations. The draftPM 2.5 NAAQS applicable in 2030 are predicted to be exceeded at Kendal Forest Holdings, Voltargo(Wilge) and Phola for unmitigated operations. When unpaved road surfaces are mitigated, the PM 2.5impacts reduce significantly to be within the draft PM 2.5 NAAQS at the sensitive receptors of KendalForest Holdings, Phola and Voltargo (Wilge).New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)320
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesTable 8-3: Predicted ground level <strong>co</strong>ncentrations at the nearest sensitive receptor due to theoperation phase at the New Largo CollieryOperating YearSensitiveReceptorDailyConcentration(µg/m³)Annual AverageConcentration(µg/m³)Within PROPOSEDPM2.5 NAAQSapplicableimmediately till 31December 2015Within PROPOSEDPM2.5 NAAQSapplicable 1 Jan2016 till 31December 2029Within PROPOSEDPM2.5 NAAQSapplicable from 1Jan 2030Unmitigated Operations20152041Last Yearof Mining20152041Last Yearof MiningKendal ForestHoldings7 0.25 Y Y YPhola 10 0.4 Y Y YVoltargo (Wilge) 22 0.8 Y Y YKendal ForestHoldings58 3 Y N NPhola 40 3 Y Y NVoltargo (Wilge) 65 9 Y N NKendal ForestHoldings3 0.2 Y Y YPhola 2 0.04 Y Y YVoltargo (Wilge) 10 0.1 Y Y YKendal ForestHoldingsMitigated Operations (a)1 0.07 Y Y YPhola 2 0.07 Y Y YVoltargo (Wilge) 10 0.2 Y Y YKendal ForestHoldings6 0.4 Y Y YPhola 6 0.5 Y Y YVoltargo (Wilge) 10 1 Y Y YKendal ForestHoldings2.8 0.16 Y Y YPhola 2 0.02 Y Y YVoltargo (Wilge) 10 0.1 Y Y Y(a) 90% <strong>co</strong>ntrol efficiency on haul roads, 75% <strong>co</strong>ntrol efficiency on unpaved roads, 70% <strong>co</strong>ntrol efficiency at main tipareas, 50% <strong>co</strong>ntrol efficiency on <strong>co</strong>nveyor transfer points and 50% <strong>co</strong>ntrol efficiency on primary crushing8.4.4 Conclusions and Key FindingsBaseline Assessment:The main sources likely to <strong>co</strong>ntribute to cumulative PM 10 impact are surrounding mining andagricultural activities as well as vehicle entrainment on unpaved road surfaces.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)321
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesThe predominant wind direction within the New Largo region is from the west-northwest (Kendal2). Less frequent winds are from the southern sector. During daytime there is an increase inwinds from the west-northwest (Kendal 2) while at night-time the frequency of winds increasefrom the east-southeast. Night-time <strong>co</strong>nditions also reflect a decrease in wind speeds and anincrease in calm <strong>co</strong>nditions.The nearest sensitive receptors (in terms of human settlements) to the proposed New Largo Mineand <strong>co</strong>nveyor operations are Voltargo and Phola.Modelled ambient PM 10 <strong>co</strong>ncentrations (as obtained from the NEDLAC study) were predicted tobe in line with the NAAQS (applicable immediately till 31 December 2014) but exceed the dailyNAAQ PM 10 limit applicable from 1 January 2015. The highest PM 10 <strong>co</strong>ncentrations werepredicted over household fuel burning areas due to low-level emissions from such areas duringperiods of poor atmospheric dispersion (night-time). Twenty seven exceedances of the daily PM 10NAAQS (applicable immediately till 31 December 2014) and ninety exceedances of the dailyPM 10 NAAQS (applicable 1 January 2015) were measured at the Kendal 2 station in 2010.However, the data availability at this monitoring station was only 72%, thus the frequencies ofexceedances may be higher for this period. The dust fallout re<strong>co</strong>rded at nine monitoring stations at Klipspruit over the period February 2002and September 2009 were generally within the SANS Residential band (
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices8.4.5 Specialist Re<strong>co</strong>mmendationsIn light of the findings, the air quality specialist re<strong>co</strong>mmended that if the project is implemented, airquality management measures be implemented to ensure the lowest possible impacts on thesurrounding environment from proposed operations. Strict dust <strong>co</strong>ntrol will be required.8.5 SoilsDiscussed as part of ‘Soils and Land Capability’ section.BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT8.6 Terrestrial and Aquatic Habitats8.6.1 Description of Baseline Environment ConditionsThe study area represents a semi-natural environment, utilised mainly for agricultural activities. Naturalvegetation remained in those areas where it is unsuitable for cultivation, due to shallow soils, rockyridges and wetlands (drainage lines, pans). These remaining natural areas are critical for maintaininge<strong>co</strong>logical services and function within the landscape. The biodiversity re<strong>co</strong>rded and the improvement ofthe quality in surface water towards the north where the largest portions of natural vegetation remainssupports this statement.The study area is located across two quaternary catchments; B20F and B20G of the northern Olifantsriver primary catchment. Quaternary catchment B20F is <strong>co</strong>nsidered to have rehabilitation potential, whilequaternary catchment B20G is <strong>co</strong>nsidered transformed in terms of the National Spatial BiodiversityAssessment’s river <strong>co</strong>mponent.In terms of the latest regional vegetation classification, three regional vegetation units occur in the area:Eastern Highveld Grassland, Eastern Temperate Freshwater Wetlands and Rand Highveld Grassland(Mucina & Rutherford 2006), of which the two terrestrial e<strong>co</strong>systems are <strong>co</strong>nsidered to be Endangered.Using Idrisi Andes’ land change modeller module (a raster based GIS system) it was possible todetermine which land <strong>co</strong>ver categories experienced more than 1% change from 1995 to 2000 and wheregrassland persisted, was lost or gained over the same period. This analysis indicated an overall increasein newly cultivated fields and increased abandoned cultivated fields in both quaternary catchments.Furthermore, based on transformation rates (loss of grassland) between 1995 and 2000, the remainingpersistent, natural grassland would be lost within three (3) years in both quaternary catchments.8.6.1.1 Existing Impact SourcesTerrestrial <strong>co</strong>mponentThe main impact on the study area and its surrounding landscape was agriculture, more specificallycultivation which resulted in the transformation of large areas. Grazing also <strong>co</strong>ntributed with regards tochange in species <strong>co</strong>mposition due to exploitation. Further impacts on the biodiversity, include the active<strong>co</strong>ntrol/ eradication of those species <strong>co</strong>nsidered to be a threat to agricultural activities, whethercultivation or livestock farming. Of late, mining activities increased, which resulted in the loss of bothgrazing and cultivated land, with the additional risk of pollution and the significant distribution of the soil<strong>co</strong>ntinuum due to open cast mining. Sand mining activities are currently taking place in close proximity tothe Honingkrantz pan and the sensitive habitats in the northern part of on the mining right area. Inaddition, Kusile will be operational in the near future.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)323
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesAquatic <strong>co</strong>mponentThe results of the aquatic assessment are summarised in Table 8-4. The major findings are summarisedas follows:Drainage lines located to the west (Wilge system) of the proposed development reflected bettersurface water quality in <strong>co</strong>mparison to sites located to the east (Saalboomspruit system) of theproposed development. However site NLS13 draining into the Saalboomspruit reflected impairedwater quality largely associated with mining activity.Historical water quality data highlighted that the Saalboomspruit has been chronically subjectedto water pollution associated with mining activities, whilst the Wilge River reflects historicalimpacts more likely linked to agricultural activity.With the exception of sites NLS12, 14, 15 and 17, all other sites located on the Saalboomspruitsystem reflected water quality <strong>co</strong>nsistent with that of mining pollution.Water quality of sites NL4 and 5 and NLS10 and 13 will impair biotic integrity with chronicexposure. A general decrease in water quality was noted at these sites during the winter survey.All sites, except for site NLS15, reflected modified in-stream and riparian habitat integrity. Low IHIs<strong>co</strong>res were largely due to flow, bed and channel modifications as well as poor water quality.The general nature of surface water systems in the study area <strong>co</strong>nsisted of low gradient, claydominated systems with incised active channels. This subsequently results in a decrease in thequantity and quality of available aquatic macro-invertebrate habitat.The macro-invertebrate assessment revealed that, except for site NL3 - during the high flowsurvey, and site NL5 - following the low flow survey, all the sites associated with the Wilge Riverwere either in a largely natural or unmodified state. Sites on the Saalboomspruit and itstributaries are in a more impacted state. Sites NLS11 and 13 were the most impacted in terms ofthe Average S<strong>co</strong>re per Taxa (ASPT), SASS5 s<strong>co</strong>re and total number of taxa.Diatom analyses verified the variation noted in the SASS5 assessment and indicated that siteson the Wilge River system were in a better state overall than sites on the Saalboomspruit systemfor both surveys.The Klipfonteinspruit on which sites NL4, 5 and 6 are located was identified as a problemtributary on the Wilge River system due to the poor s<strong>co</strong>res obtained from diatom <strong>co</strong>mmunityanalyses. Concurrently, diatom <strong>co</strong>mmunities indicated that problem sites on the Saalboomspruitwere NLS10, 11, 12, and 13, all of which reflected impaired water quality.Sites NL3, 4, 5, 9, as well as NLS10 and 11 exhibited Pollution Tolerant Valve (%PTV) valuesover 20% between seasons, indicating a high likelihood of organic pollution. At the same time,sites on the Wilge River system generally stayed the same or decreased by one class which isprobably linked to a dilution factor experienced during the high flow season.Pre-operational impacts appear to be affecting the diatom <strong>co</strong>mmunity and are mostly related tocurrent, poorly managed mining activities, input of sediment into systems from <strong>co</strong>nstructionactivities and untreated sewage effluent entering river systems.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)324
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesThe fish assessment measured a temporal and spatial variation in fish <strong>co</strong>mmunities. Problemsites that were identified include NL6, 8 and NLS10 during the high flow survey, which reflectedseriously, impaired fish <strong>co</strong>mmunities. Sites NLS11 (during the low flow survey) and NLS13(during both the high- and low flow period) reflected an extreme loss in fish <strong>co</strong>mmunity integrity.Sites highlighted as problem sites ac<strong>co</strong>rding to the fish assessment are <strong>co</strong>nsistent with thosehighlighted by the water quality, diatom and invertebrate assessments, subsequently suggestinga response to altered water quality.The Shannon Weiner diversity analysis of fish also showed that western draining tributaries areassociated with higher fish diversities. However, some eastern draining tributaries (i.e. NLS14,15, and 16) are expected to have naturally low fish diversities.Table 8-4: Summary of PES categories obtained for the sites assessed on the Wilge River,Saalboomspruit and tributaries after the high and low flow assessment in 2010.Site Season GCI IHI IHAS Diatoms SASS5 FRAINL1NL2NL3Wilge River SystemHigh flow A C POOR GOOD A CLow flow B C ADEQUATE GOOD A CHigh flow A C POOR GOOD B A/BLow flow B C POOR GOOD B B/CHigh flow A D ADEQUATE POOR E BLow flow A D ADEQUATE GOOD B B/CNL4 Low flow C C POOR POOR B A/BNL5 Low flow C C POOR POOR C CNL6High flow A D ADEQUATE HIGH A ELow flow B D ADEQUATE GOOD B/A CNL7 Low flow B C POOR HIGH B CNL8NL9High flow A D POOR HIGH A ELow flow A D POOR HIGH A CHigh flow A C N/A GOOD N/A N/ALow flow A C ADEQUATE GOOD A CNLS10NLS11NLS12NLS13Saalboomspruit SystemHigh flow C D POOR NO CELLS D ELow flow C D POOR POOR B C/DHigh flow B D POOR BAD E C/DLow flow B D POOR BAD F FHigh flow A C POOR GOOD B BLow flow B C POOR MODERATE B BHigh flow C C POOR HIGH C/D FLow flow E C POOR NO CELLS F FNLS14 Low flow A C POOR NO CELLS B A/BNLS15 Low flow A B POOR NO CELLS C A/BNLS16 Low flow B C POOR HIGH D FNLS17High flow A C POOR HIGH B BLow flow B C POOR HIGH B CNLS18High flow A D POOR GOOD B FLow flow B D POOR HIGH B FNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)325
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices8.6.1.2 Synthesis of Baseline / Existing ImpactsIt is evident that the study area as a whole does not represent a pristine unspoilt environment, but amosaic of transformed areas (cultivation, forestry, mining) and natural vegetation (grassland, shrub<strong>co</strong>vered outcrops and wetlands). Especially towards the south, human activities had a significant impacton the landscape, with agriculture in the forefront, followed by mining. These past and current humanactivities had, and still have, an influence on the biodiversity present within the study area and the qualityof the natural resources (grazing land, wildlife refugia, water) remaining. However, in spite of theirexploited status these remaining natural areas are still <strong>co</strong>ntributing to e<strong>co</strong>logical services and function. Iflost the remaining e<strong>co</strong>systems will degrade at an accelerated rate.8.6.2 Impact Assessment8.6.2.1 Project Impacts SourcesConstruction Phase:Impact on flora and faunaMining activities and related infrastructure.Noise and Lighting.Coal Dust.Blasting operations and operation of heavy mining machinery.Construction of Road InfrastructureOperational Phase:Impact on flora and faunaMining activities and related infrastructure.Noise and Lighting.Coal Dust.Blasting operations and operation of heavy mining machinery.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)326
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices8.6.2.2 Project ImpactsBase Case Mine Plan (Mine Plan Version 6)Construction Phase: Loss of Flora Loss of the remaining large areas (patches) of natural vegetation.Loss of habitat of threatened Red Data flora, whether <strong>co</strong>nfirmed orun<strong>co</strong>nfirmed.Loss of vegetation <strong>co</strong>mmunity (habitat/ e<strong>co</strong>system) diversity due to a lossin soil diversity.Increase in the spread of alien invasive species, especially if notmanaged effectively.Very low rehabilitation potential due to loss of soil and soil processes.Exploitation of nationally and provincially protected species and othermedicinal species.Decrease in available grazing land and quality of grazing land, either dueto over exploitation, dust <strong>co</strong>ver or animal behaviour.Changes in the fire regime which will result in changes in species<strong>co</strong>mpositionLoss of FaunaMining activities and related infrastructure. The loss and degradation of untransformed faunal habitat as a directresult of clearing of vegetation and habitat destructionThe disruption of e<strong>co</strong>logical <strong>co</strong>nnectivity and migration routes of larger,flightless animals as well as territorial infringement.An increase in poaching, snaring and trapping of wild animals.The attraction of faunal species to the surface water present in the miningareas as a result of the mining operation.The impacts associated with the potential leaching of chemicals into theground water and surface water in the region of the study area.The loss of natural animal individuals and/or populations as a result ofthe introduction of foreign/exotic animals such as pets.Construction of Road InfrastructureIndiscriminate <strong>co</strong>llisions with animals on roadsHabitat fragmentationNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)327
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesNoise and Lighting Disturbance of animal migration, occupation patterns and natural foragingactivitiesAquatic <strong>co</strong>mponent Construction related impacts associated with Mine Plan Version 6include an anticipated impact on surface water quality through aprobable increase in sediment loads, erosion and siltation. Thealignment of R545 to the north-east will transect systems associated withmonitoring sites NLS14, 15 and 16. Please refer to section 8.1.3.2 ofAppendix E for <strong>co</strong>mments on the sensitivity of these systems.Construction related impacts induced by the proposed Mine Plan Version6 and linked road alignment on aquatic health include erosion,sedimentation and a subsequent loss in downstream aquatic habitat anddiversity. Additional impacts anticipated during the <strong>co</strong>nstruction phase,include water pollution through <strong>co</strong>nstruction material, hydrocarbons,solvents and other pollutants/spill/leaks from <strong>co</strong>nstruction machinery andactivities. Terrain and slope instability will also be a <strong>co</strong>ncern during the<strong>co</strong>nstruction phase, particularly on the approaches ofstream/water<strong>co</strong>urse banks.Operational Phase:Loss of FloraLoss of the remaining large areas (patches) of natural vegetation.Loss of habitat of threatened Red Data flora, whether <strong>co</strong>nfirmed orun<strong>co</strong>nfirmed. Due to the long life of the mine, the occurrence of thesespecies <strong>co</strong>uld change over time. The surveys <strong>co</strong>nducted as part of the<strong>EIA</strong> process presents a ‘snapshot’ of the environment but theenvironment is not static.Loss of vegetation <strong>co</strong>mmunity (habitat/ e<strong>co</strong>system) diversity due to a lossin soil diversity.Increase in the spread of alien invasive species, especially if noteffectively managed.Very low rehabilitation potential due to loss of soil and soil processes.Exploitation of nationally and provincially protected species and othermedicinal species.Decrease in available grazing land and quality of grazing land, either dueto over exploitation, dust <strong>co</strong>ver or animal behaviour.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)328
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesChanges in the fire regime which will result in changes in species<strong>co</strong>mpositionLoss of FaunaMining activities and related infrastructure The loss and degradation of untransformed faunal habitat as a directresult of clearing of vegetation and habitat destructionThe disruption of e<strong>co</strong>logical <strong>co</strong>nnectivity and migration routes of larger,flightless animals as well as territorial infringement.An increase in poaching, snaring and trapping of wild animals.The attraction of faunal species to the surface water present in the miningareas as a result of the mining operation.The impacts associated with the potential leaching of chemicals into theground water and surface water in the region of the study area.The loss of natural animal individuals and/or populations as a result ofthe introduction of foreign/exotic animals such as pets.Blasting operations and operation of heavy mining machineryDirect mortality of ground-living animalsCoal DustContamination of areas of open surface waterNoise and Lighting Disturbance of animal migration, occupation patterns and natural foragingactivitiesAquatic <strong>co</strong>mponent Anticipated impacts on surface water systems during the operationalphase include:impacts on surface water quality, notably acid mine drainage andincrease salt loads;impact on aquatic species through loss of habitat and decreased waterquality;impact on riparian zones and habitat;New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)329
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesimpacts related to erosion and sediment; and,impacts associated with alteration in the distribution and quantity ofsurface water runoff.De<strong>co</strong>mmission and ClosurePhase:Aquatic <strong>co</strong>mponent Post closure impacts are particularly difficult to anticipate and quantifyand will predominantly be a function of how effective reinstatement andrehabilitation efforts are.Runoff patterns should re<strong>co</strong>ver, while general <strong>co</strong>ncerns regarding erosionand sedimentation will persist.Similarly, recruitment of vegetation in the riparian zone and normalisationof nutrient cycling rates is difficult to anticipate but will ultimately dependon environmental management and <strong>co</strong>mprehensive reinstatement. It isimprobable that surface water features that are sterilised (linked to thedirect foot print of Mine Plan Version 6) will be reinstated. The e<strong>co</strong>logicalservices and functions linked to these systems will probably not bere<strong>co</strong>vered.Comparison between Mine Plan Version 6 and Mine Plan Version 7Construction Phase: Similar to that of Mine Plan Version 6.The main difference between the Base Case Mine Plan (Mine PlanVersion 6) and the Alternative Mine Plan (Mine Plan Version 7) in termsof the terrestrial e<strong>co</strong>system is that the Alternative Mine Plan (Mine PlanVersion 7) will not result in the overall destruction of the remainingnatural areas over time. It has the potential to <strong>co</strong>nserve an area (thenorthern pan and its surrounding local catchment) which represents anarea of high species richness (high biodiversity) and e<strong>co</strong>logical integritylocalised habitat destruction and loss will occur, with the fauna movingeither into the remaining natural areas or being harvested whenobservedConstruction related impacts associated with Mine Plan Version 7 aresimilar to those noted for Mine Plan Version 6, with a decrease in extentand probability, particularly for systems linked with bio-monitoring sitesNLS14, 15 and 16. Concurrently, the proposed road alignment of theR545 will have <strong>co</strong>nstruction activity taking place within the directcatchment of the Northern pan and as such requires particular emphasison erosion and sediment <strong>co</strong>ntrol during the <strong>co</strong>nstruction phase.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)330
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesOperational Phase: Once the mine is in full operation (operational phase), the rate ofhabitat loss and destruction will increase significantly, while se<strong>co</strong>ndaryhabitat (low quality environment) will be created as rehabilitation<strong>co</strong>ntinues.De<strong>co</strong>mmission and ClosurePhase:The extent and severity of operational impacts perceived for Mine PlanVersion 7 is less than for Mine Plan Version 6. In general, similar aquaticimpacts are expected, but the aquatic footprint of Mine Plan Version 7 isless than that of Version 6.Once the end of life of mine (de<strong>co</strong>mmission and closure) is reached, thestudy area will <strong>co</strong>nsist of a <strong>co</strong>ntinuous area of se<strong>co</strong>ndary habitat withlimited diversity and potential. The periphery of this se<strong>co</strong>ndary habitatmight be utilised by the remaining fauna as refugia, unless provision ismade to:o Maintain or create wildlife <strong>co</strong>rridors along and between existingsurface water features (pans, drainage lines)o Improve the quality/ diversity of the habitat during the operationalphase as part of the rehabilitation plan.Post closure impacts are particularly difficult to anticipate and quantifyand will predominantly be a function of how effective reinstatement andrehabilitation efforts are. Runoff patterns should re<strong>co</strong>ver, while general<strong>co</strong>ncerns regarding erosion and sedimentation will persist. Similarly,recruitment of vegetation in the riparian zone and normalisation ofnutrient cycling rates is difficult to anticipate but will ultimately dependenvironmental management and <strong>co</strong>mprehensive reinstatement. Thee<strong>co</strong>logical services and functions linked to these systems will probablynot be re<strong>co</strong>vered.8.6.2.3 Cumulative ImpactsConstruction Phase:Terrestrial <strong>co</strong>mponentIt is evident from the results of this study that the terrestrial flora andfauna, whether domestic or game, are integrally linked and thedestruction or removal of the one will have a negative impact on theother. The vegetation provides food and protection to the fauna, whilethe fauna <strong>co</strong>ntributes to the pollination and dispersal of the vegetation.The loss of especially the large remaining patches of natural vegetationNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)331
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser viceswill have a domino/ knock on effect, with the fragmentation of otherlarger natural vegetation areas for cultivation and the increase in grazingpressure on those areas not suitable for cultivation. The genetic<strong>co</strong>mposition of the remaining species will also change due to the loss ofmeta-populations or the isolation of populations resulting in inbreeding.The risk of localised extension increases, with an increase in habitatfragmentation, and therefore maintaining <strong>co</strong>nnectivity within thelandscape should be priority. The emphasis placed on habitat loss andfragmentation on a global scale, highlights the importance to protect and<strong>co</strong>nserve large areas of natural vegetation to the benefit of current andfuture generations.On a regional scale changes to surface water quality, induced by <strong>co</strong>almine activity is a notable cumulative impact. Water quality issues in theMiddle Olifants sub-management area already include salinity,eutrophication, toxicity and increases in sediment due to existing landuse impacts. The high water demand from agriculture and mining in thearea is <strong>co</strong>nsidered to be an interactive and synergistic impact. The issueraised is whether the development can be sustained in the long-term,with no adverse effects on society, natural systems and agriculturalresources in the region. Aquatic systems in the study area already reflectvariation in e<strong>co</strong>logical health due to existing agricultural, mining andurban activities.8.6.2.4 Impacts of the No-Go / Alternative DevelopmentTerrestrial <strong>co</strong>mponentThe terrestrial e<strong>co</strong>logical specialist <strong>co</strong>ncluded that should open cast <strong>co</strong>al mining not be allowed, it is noguarantee that the remaining natural vegetation in the study area will not be destroyed and fragmentedthough other land uses, such as cultivation and urbanisation over time. The only difference is that thesoil <strong>co</strong>ntinuum (profile and layers) will not be impacted as significantly as with open cast mining, with asignificant increase in the potential for rehabilitation and restoration over time with notably less effort.Open cast mining is the least sustainable option based on the current status quo with regards to opencast mining; rehabilitation success and post open cast mining land potential. Although it cannot be statedthat agriculture, whether cultivation or livestock production has no impact on the landscape, the impactsof agriculture is less disruptive to e<strong>co</strong>system functioning and services related to soil and water than anopen cast mine.Aquatic <strong>co</strong>mponentUnder present <strong>co</strong>nditions a negative temporal trajectory was measured in e<strong>co</strong>logical integrity for theSaalboomspruit, while the Wilge River remained relatively <strong>co</strong>nsistent. The aquatic specialist is of theopinion that if the no-go development alternative applies the Saalboomspruit will still follow a negativetrajectory due to present land use impacts, while the Wilge will probably maintain its PES.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)332
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices8.6.3 Conclusions and Key Findings8.6.3.1 Terrestrial <strong>co</strong>mponentFlora RelatedThe mining area <strong>co</strong>vers approximately 5600 ha, and the intention is to mine it using an open castmethod <strong>co</strong>nsisting of draglines. Open cast mining disrupts the e<strong>co</strong>logical <strong>co</strong>ntinuum. The mine will havea very long life and therefore not all of the remaining natural features within the study area will bedestroyed at once. Contrary to linear structures, non-linear structures such as open cast mines results inthe transformation of large areas, with limited or no potential for natural species to re-<strong>co</strong>lonise the centralareas. Therefore open cast mines <strong>co</strong>ntributes significantly to habitat loss and fragmentation. Due to thedisruption of the soil and the geohydrological process within the landscape, rehabilitation is difficult, longtermand <strong>co</strong>stly.Based on the current study, it was determined that less than 40% of the study area represents moderateto very high total e<strong>co</strong>logical sensitive areas, thereby highlighting the significance of the remaining naturalvegetation. The pans and well defined / permanent low-lying drainage lines are the most sensitive, butcannot exist / function without the natural attributes (topography, soil characteristics, and vegetation<strong>co</strong>ver) of their surrounding catchments. Therefore the terrestrial and aquatic e<strong>co</strong>systems form anintegrated unit, with the degradation of the one resulting in the degradation of the other. This emphasisethe domino effect which a mine of this nature can have on the landscape, both directly on a local scale(habitat loss) and indirectly on regional scale (species <strong>co</strong>mposition change). Cultivated land lost to themine will have to be replaced, which will result in grazing land being lost to cultivation. This will result inmore livestock, whether domestic or game, on the remaining natural vegetation, which will undergospecies <strong>co</strong>mposition change due to the increased grazing pressure. This ripple effect is difficult toquantify, but is a logical <strong>co</strong>nsequence because natural land is a finite and a dwindling resource.Therefore the main biodiversity <strong>co</strong>ncerns from both a terrestrial and aquatic perspective is habitat lossand habitat degradation due to:Transformation of natural vegetation.Direct and indirect pollution of the wetland systems, whether endo (pans) – or exoheric (drainagelines) systems.Exploitation of the remaining natural resources, whether plant or animal.Changes in the species <strong>co</strong>mposition, whether plants or animals, due to physical (noise, light,dust) or chemical (pH, salts) changes in the landscape.Fauna RelatedThe grasslands of the region in which the study area is located, is under severe pressures from the <strong>co</strong>almining industry. The study area itself has been subjected to mining and agricultural impacts; large areashave been transformed and degraded and the e<strong>co</strong>logical characteristics of the study area have beenaltered significantly in recent times. Historically, the animal diversity of the region of the study area wastypical of the diverse grasslands of the Mpumalanga Highveld areas; no less than 528 species from 33orders and 122 families of butterflies, frogs, reptiles, birds and mammals are known to have occurred inthe study area region.Notwithstanding the severe pressures on the faunal habitats of the study area, the faunal <strong>co</strong>mmunities ofthe study area have shown incredible resilience – an incredible 123 butterflies, frogs, reptiles, birds andmammals were <strong>co</strong>nfirm to persist in the area investigated despite the <strong>co</strong>nstant encroachment on theirhabitat. The resilient nature of these <strong>co</strong>mmunities is further highlighted by the presence of medium andlarge carnivores such as Hyaena brunnea (Brown Hyaena, NT), Proteles cristatus (Aardwolf), Caracalcaracal (Caracal), Leptailurus serval (Serval) and Mellivora capensis (Honey Badger, NT).New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)333
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesThe most significant difference between the two mine plans in terms of faunal habitat <strong>co</strong>nservation is thatMine Plan Version 7 provides for the potential <strong>co</strong>nservation of the pan and surrounding untransformedgrassland habitat in the north (in Mine Plan Version 6 these habitats will be lost). It can be argued that,given the land uses of the surrounding areas in the region (dominated by opencast <strong>co</strong>al mining as wellas some significant areas of <strong>co</strong>mmercial crop agriculture), the <strong>co</strong>nservation of such a small area ofterrestrial grassland and wetland faunal habitat would be insignificant. Especially since it is most likely tobe totally isolated (at least for the smaller, lesser mobile species) and will be a small island of naturalfaunal habitat within a large matrix of mostly transformed areas. However, since the future is not set instone, and e<strong>co</strong>logical understanding on the effects of habitat fragmentation and habitat loss in Highveldgrasslands is not <strong>co</strong>mplete, the precautionary principle applies (at least in part). There can be no doubtthat the <strong>co</strong>nservation of the faunal habitat in the north of the study area (i.e. Mine Plan Version 7) wouldhave some e<strong>co</strong>logical benefit. Since it is unknown whether this would be significant at all, the<strong>co</strong>nservation potential of these faunal habitats should not be underestimated and Mine Plan Version 7should be seen as the preferred alternative (to Mine Plan Version 6) from a biodiversity perspective. Thisis highlighted in the fact that Mine Plan Version 7 results in a more than 50% reduction in thetransformation of very high e<strong>co</strong>logical sensitivity areas <strong>co</strong>mpared to Mine Plan Version 6.8.6.3.2 Aquatic <strong>co</strong>mponentThe study area <strong>co</strong>mprises of a number of surface water systems which vary in e<strong>co</strong>logical integrity andsubsequent functionality. The Wilge River and associated tributaries, in general, are in a better statethan the Saalboomspruit. However most east draining tributaries of the Saalboomspruit reflect moderateto high aquatic health and thus <strong>co</strong>ntribute positively to the receiving Saalboomspruit. Although most ofthe east draining systems will be affected by the proposed development, Alternative Mine Plan Version 7will have a smaller impact than Alternative Mine Plan Version 6.8.6.4 Specialist Re<strong>co</strong>mmendations8.6.4.1 Terrestrial <strong>co</strong>mponentNot mining certain areas due to their ability and potential to maintain e<strong>co</strong>logical functions and serviceswould reduce the impacts within the project study areas. Mine Plan Version 7 excludes mining of thelocal watershed (internal catchment) associated with the northern pan along the northern edge of thestudy area. Mine Plan Version 7 will have lower biodiversity impacts.Rehabilitation should be done in such a manner that it offsets the need to transform other areas. This<strong>co</strong>uld be achieved through a rehabilitation plan with specific post mining land uses in mind such as biofuels(forestry - low quality / high volume crops), meat production (feedlots, poultry production), greenenergy generation (solar panels, water turbines), water purification and distribution.This approach would result in a fully productive post mining landscape at the end of life of mine, which isgeared to providing services and products to future generations, while lowering the need to transformand fragment remaining areas of natural vegetation, elsewhere in the landscape, region, province or<strong>co</strong>untry.8.6.4.2 Aquatic <strong>co</strong>mponentCoal mining inherently carries environmental risk, particularly to surface and groundwater systems. Theextent of the proposed development in relation to the extent of similar land uses in the watermanagement area adds to cumulative impacts on the Olifants system. The Olifants system is<strong>co</strong>mpromised and any additional strain on surface water e<strong>co</strong>logy should be <strong>co</strong>nsidered in this light. Thus,the remaining e<strong>co</strong>logical integrity associated with the Wilge River is of particular importance on acatchment scale. Similarly, tributaries draining east (from the study area) into the Saalboomspruit alsoreflect moderately high to high e<strong>co</strong>logical intactness and the importance of the hydrological <strong>co</strong>ntributionof these systems to the Saalboomspruit are highlighted when <strong>co</strong>nsidering the poor state of theNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)334
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesSaalboomspruit. In light of the e<strong>co</strong>logical elements discussed in this report, <strong>co</strong>mbined with the highprobability of residual impacts and their cumulative <strong>co</strong>ntributions to degradation of aquatic e<strong>co</strong>logy it isthe opinion of the specialist that the proposed development is unlikely to sustain the maintenance ofaquatic e<strong>co</strong>system services in the direct catchment. Although water will be treated and released, theseasonality of the streams will be lost.8.7 Wetland Habitats8.7.1 Description of Baseline Environment Conditions8.7.1.1 Existing Impact SourcesSand mining operations;Agriculture including cultivated fields, planted pastures and livestock farming;Railway infrastructure;National, Provincial and farm road infrastructure;Kusile Operations (starting late 2014, ramping up over time to full production);Construction activities associated with stream crossings by the Phola-Kusile Coal Conveyor andservice road.8.7.1.2 Synthesis of Baseline / Existing ImpactsAs a <strong>co</strong>nsequence of the abovementioned impact sources, none of the wetlands can be regarded aspristine. Of the wetlands on site, those occurring in the north eastern section of the study area are theleast impacted due to cultivation mainly taking place outside of the boundaries of the valley bottomwetlands, and as such there has been little direct effect of cultivation on these wetland systems. In<strong>co</strong>ntrast, the hill slope seepage wetlands and smaller pans have been heavily impacted by agricultureand cropping respectively. In addition return flows from the centre pivot irrigation systems are also likelyto have influenced the wetlands.All the pans have been indirectly impacted by agricultural activities, ranging from cultivation anddamming to water abstraction. One pan has been used to store pumped underground water. Theseeffects are mostly restricted to the catchment areas of the pans. The precise effect of the basin-relatedimpacts on the hydrological regime of each of the pans is unclear.In order to establish a baseline for the status of the wetlands, a present e<strong>co</strong>logical status (PES) ande<strong>co</strong>logical importance and sensitivity (EIS) analysis was <strong>co</strong>nducted. The results of the assessment aresummarised below.Table 8-5: Summary of the PES and EIS analysis of the wetlands on the New Largo site, as apercentage of the area of each wetland typePES ASSESSMENTEIS ASSESSMENTWETLAND TYPESA B C D A B C DValley Bottom - 2.0% 71.1% 26.9% - 57.1% 36.0% 6.9%Hill slope Seepage - 4.5% 30.3% 65.2% - 28.6% 65.3% 6.1%Pan - 3.2% 40.4% 45.0% - 66.7% 4.3% 29.0%The majority of the wetlands fall in the C to D categories of the PES analysis, implying that a largechange in e<strong>co</strong>systems has occurred, but in the case of those in category C the functioning of thesystems has not been severely <strong>co</strong>mpromised. However, in terms of the EIS assessment, the majority ofwetlands fall in the B and C categories.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)335
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesThese discrepancies between the PES assessment and the EIS assessment can be explained by thefact that where water quality has been impacted, wetlands assume a more important role in that theysupport processes that improve water quality, and se<strong>co</strong>ndly as more and more wetlands are transformedor lost, the remaining wetlands are, from both a biodiversity perspective as well as what they reflect interms of landscape hydrological processes, of greater significance. The distribution of the wetlands in theclasses identified is presented in Figure 8-12 and Figure 8-14.Regional Conservation ImportanceNone of the wetlands at any of the sites have formal <strong>co</strong>nservation status. Freshwater e<strong>co</strong>logical priorityareas are indicated on Figure 8-16. Based on the current level of understanding and availableknowledge, the regional importance of wetlands are as follows.The hill slope seepage wetlands do not reflect reference <strong>co</strong>nditions. However, despite the extensivechanges in land use in the catchment, they <strong>co</strong>ntinue in most cases to support biota and the wateremerging from them is generally of high quality. There is however one system where this does not holdtrue - site 424, Figure 6-12, where low pH sulphate rich water is emerging. The long term effects of thislow pH water on plant species richness is not known, although there is evidence of <strong>co</strong>mplete die off ofplants where the emerging water has a pH of
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesFigure 8-12: Wetland distribution within the proposed New Largo mining right area, reflecting their Present E<strong>co</strong>logical Status (in relation to MinePlan Version 6)New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)337
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesFigure 8-13: Wetland distribution within the proposed New Largo mining right area, reflecting their Present E<strong>co</strong>logical Status (in relation to MinePlan Version 7)New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)338
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesFigure 8-14: Wetland distribution within the proposed New Largo mining right area, reflecting their E<strong>co</strong>logical Importance and Sensitivity Status(in relation to Mine Plan Version 6)New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)339
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesFigure 8-15: Wetland distribution within the proposed New Largo mining right area, reflecting their E<strong>co</strong>logical Importance and Sensitivity Status(in relation to Mine Plan Version 7)New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)340
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesFigure 8-16: Freshwater E<strong>co</strong>logical Priority AreasNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)341
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesThere is cause for <strong>co</strong>ncern over the state of the valley bottom systems, most of which are degraded oron a trajectory of change towards degradation. Impounding, channel incision, and bank <strong>co</strong>llapse isevident in the systems on site as is water quality deterioration and apparent desiccation. Whether this isa result of the lower than usual rainfall or as a result of land use changes in the catchment is uncertain.There is some evidence to suggest that mining has an impact on runoff characteristics similar to what isobserved in urban areas (Ferrari, et al 2009; C., McCormick and Eshleman, 2011).Highveld grassland pans in general are regarded as being of high <strong>co</strong>nservation value in South Africabecause of their limited distribution, unique features, and importance for birds. When <strong>co</strong>nsidering thecurrent status and the water quality of the pans investigated during this study, it is <strong>co</strong>ncluded that thepan on the old New Largo mine property has a <strong>co</strong>mparatively low <strong>co</strong>nservation value <strong>co</strong>mpared with theremaining pans on site. Although areas around the pan have been altered as a <strong>co</strong>nsequence of sandmining, the water in the pan is of high quality and is used in the sand mining process (washing). Thewater in the pan is thus an important resource. Furthermore it is suspected that the pan <strong>co</strong>ntributes towater supply to the downslope seepages.If this proves to be case then the value of the pan and its associated capacity to store water extends tobiodiversity support in the seepage wetlands as well as flow augmentation in the Saalklapspruit, as wellas water quality enhancement, primarily through dilution.Despite the large number of pans in the region, it is also the cumulative impact on these systems that issignificant. It is unclear as to how many pans have been lost in the region because loss is not simplymeasured in terms of surface area or biodiversity, but also includes loss of functionality. Many pans,while still present in the landscape, are being used for water storage and abstraction and thus theirnatural dynamic and functionality has been altered. The significance of these cumulative effects in termsof regional biodiversity is not known.SynthesisExisting 41 impacts can be summarised as: Alteration of vegetation in areas of hillslope seepage wetlands that have been cultivated, Alteration of vegetation roughness through grazing,Loss of vegetation in areas subjected to sand mining,Alteration of pan fauna and flora on the farm Klipfontein as a <strong>co</strong>nsequence of the storage ofpumped underground water,Invasion of portions of hillslope seepage wetlands by exotic trees, poplars and wattles,Localised impacts, predominantly erosion related, at road crossings.41Taken from wetland specialist public open day presentation, 6 March 2012.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)342
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesPlate 8-1: Example of Existing Impacts on Wetlands8.7.2 Impact Assessment8.7.2.1 Project Impacts Sources Clearing of vegetation associated with <strong>co</strong>nstructing the mine and R545; Opencast operation activities; Excavation of opencast pits;The <strong>co</strong>nstruction of haul roads;Topsoil stripping and stockpiling;Overburden stripping and stockpiling;The discharge of treated, pumped, underground water.8.7.2.2 Project ImpactsIt is widely re<strong>co</strong>gnised that changes in land <strong>co</strong>ver associated with changes in land use have an impacton the hydrology. This will undoubtedly have an impact on the wetlands, with the magnitude of theimpact being related to the extent to which the hydrology is modified. In addition, it is obvious thatwetlands may also be impacted directly by, for example, their infilling or removal. However it should alsobe re<strong>co</strong>gnised that a wetland may also be impacted by an activity that takes place well beyond theboundary of the wetland, for example, groundwater interception and diversion.Changes in hydrology may also benefit wetlands, for example an increase in flow velocities can causelocal soil erosion. Where these soils deposit, for example where there is a reduction in flow velocities,these sediments provide a new substrate for wetland plant establishment, and an expansion of wetlands.Wetlands may also develop downslope of irrigation projects, where as a <strong>co</strong>nsequence of the increasedNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)343
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesand in some cases permanent supply of water, <strong>co</strong>nditions develop that result in the formation of‘wetlands’.For this project the impacts have been separated into the area affected by the active mining area and theareas adjacent and downstream/ downslope of the mining footprint. The justification for this approach isthat the nature of opencast mining is such that current rehabilitation measures are designed to excludewetlands from the post mining environments. As a <strong>co</strong>nsequence many of the functions associated withwetlands are also <strong>co</strong>mpromised.Wetlands and their associated functions are permanently lostOwing to the nature of the impact of opencast mining where both the soil profile and the underlyingstratigraphy are for all intents and purposes permanently altered, the separation of the impacts onwetlands within the actual mining area into the operation and de<strong>co</strong>mmissioning phases is <strong>co</strong>nsidered notjustified as they will be permanently lost.Clearing of vegetation and the activities within the area to be occupied by the opencast operations willresult in the permanent loss of wetland vegetation and wetland habitat. Loss of the wetland habitat willalso result in permanent loss or displacement of the invertebrates, birds and small mammals dependanton the wetland vegetation for feeding, shelter and breeding purposes. All functions associated with thewetlands and the surrounding landscape will be <strong>co</strong>mpromised.The area of wetland loss within the footprint of the opencast area is approximately 608ha for Mine PlanVersion 6 and 468 for Mine Plan Version 7.Adjacent to and downstream of the opencast mining areaDisruption of hydrology- alteration of wetlandsThe area of wetlands that occur within the footprint of the opencast area and that will be lost isapproximately 600ha, but at least a further 1000ha of wetlands that occur outside of the immediateopencast area are likely to be affected as the opencast mining operations extend into their catchments.The interception and diversion of clean water and its subsequent introduction into the valley bottomsystems will change the hydrology of these systems. It is likely that velocities at points of discharge, timeto <strong>co</strong>ncentration and total volumes discharged will change (Ferrari et al 2009; McCormick& Eshleman,2010). This is likely to cause changes in the profiles and overall geomorphology of the valley bottomwetlands.We are unable to describe with any <strong>co</strong>nfidence how these wetlands will respond, in particular thehillslope seepage wetlands, to a reduction in flows as a <strong>co</strong>nsequence of the interception of rain water inthe voids and its subsequent use for dust suppression, process, treatment and after treatment discharge.The overall impact of the disruption on the wetlands downslope/downstream of the opencast miningareas is likely to result in changes to the wetlands which will probably reflect in changes in the vegetationas well as possibly geomorphology, either through gradual drying out of the wetlands, or where flows areincreased, erosion in the valley bottom systemsThis impact is expected to be difficult to define, Permanent, High intensity and because of the ongoingloss of wetlands as a <strong>co</strong>nsequence of open cast <strong>co</strong>al mining operations on the Highveld, the cumulativeimpact of these losses is <strong>co</strong>nsidered to be high at the local level. This results in a significance rating ofhigh negative.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)344
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesDirect loss of wetland vegetation and associated faunaThere is a possibility that wetlands not directly impacted by the actual opencast areas <strong>co</strong>uld be impactedby the placement of spoils and topsoil stock piles as well as other infrastructure required to support themining operations.This impact is expected to be permanent, high intensity and because of the on- going loss of wetlands asa <strong>co</strong>nsequence of open cast <strong>co</strong>al mining operations on the Highveld the cumulative impact of theselosses is <strong>co</strong>nsidered to be high at the local level.Increased sediment movement off the siteAny bare soil areas resulting from vegetation clearing or soil stockpiling will be susceptible to erosion,especially during the rainy season. This will further result in increased sediment loads in the valleybottom wetlands and subsequently the receiving streams.Soil CompactionThe use of heavy machinery during the <strong>co</strong>nstruction process will result in the <strong>co</strong>mpaction of soil,resulting in decreased infiltration of rain water and increased surface run-off volumes and velocitiesleading to a greater erosion risk. Soil <strong>co</strong>mpaction is likely to occur over much of the rehabilitatedopencast area as a <strong>co</strong>nsequence of the storage and placement of soil and the change in structurefollowing placement.Increased sediment load in the valley bottomsThe bare side slopes of the soil stockpiles as well as the steep slopes associated with soil stock piles willresult in erosion of the stockpiles and movement of the eroded sediment into the valley bottoms leadingto increased sedimentation within the wetlands and possible changes to flow and vegetation.Acid Mine Drainage (AMD)Oxidation and leaching of pyritic material in any stockpiles will result in the formation of low pH, highmetal and sulphate rich discharges into the surface waters and wetlands adjacent to the mining areas.Erosion at storm water discharge pointsImpermeable surfaces and <strong>co</strong>mpacted soils associated with the opencast operations and associatedinfrastructure (e.g. access road) will result in increased volumes and velocities of run-off. It is anticipatedthat this run-off will be <strong>co</strong>llected in the storm water system and <strong>co</strong>nveyed to the valley bottoms. Releaseof the storm water through point source discharges increases the risk of erosion within the valley bottomsat the discharge point.Deterioration of Water Quality due to Release of Storm waterStorm water typically <strong>co</strong>ntains various pollutants that <strong>co</strong>uld <strong>co</strong>ntribute to deteriorating the water quality inthe wetlands where storm water is released into the valley bottoms.De<strong>co</strong>mmissioning and ClosureDecanting of polluted water from the minesBoth during operation and after backfilling, the old opencast pits and underground mines will start fillingwith water and eventually start decanting water. Decanting water will probably have a low pH, high metal<strong>co</strong>ntent and be sulphate rich. It is likely to discharge into the surface waters and wetlands adjacent to themining area.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)345
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesIncreased sediment movement off the site and into the wetlands from bare soil areas.The poor soil <strong>co</strong>ver (ref) associated with rehabilitated opencast areas renders the site more susceptibleto erosion and soil loss. It is probable that these soils will be transferred through the rehabilitatedlandscape into the draining water <strong>co</strong>urses and receiving water bodies. The sediment is likely to depositout where gradients flatten, generally sites of wetlands. This is likely to result in an increase in, wherewetlands are present, or the development of wetlands if none existed before.In the case of deposition in existing wetlands the impact is <strong>co</strong>nsidered to be probable and of lowmoderate negative significance, for although the footprint of the wetlands receiving this sediment mightexpand it is likely to be at the expense of the existing vegetation.The development of new wetlands might be regarded as a positive impact, given the loss of wetlands asa <strong>co</strong>nsequence of the opencast mining operations. However it <strong>co</strong>mes, as does the possible expansion ofexisting wetlands, at the expense of accelerated flows, reduced water retention, and reduction in soil<strong>co</strong>ver.Comparison between Mine Plan Version 6 and Mine Plan Version 7Construction Phase: The area of wetland loss within the footprint of the opencast area isapproximately 608 ha for Mine Plan Version 6 and 468 ha for Mine PlanVersion 7.Operational Phase: The area of wetland loss within the footprint of the opencast area isapproximately 608 ha for Mine Plan Version 6 and 468 ha for Mine PlanVersion 7.De<strong>co</strong>mmission and ClosurePhase:The area of wetland loss within the footprint of the opencast area isapproximately 608 ha for Mine Plan Version 6 and 468 ha for Mine PlanVersion 7.8.7.2.3 Impacts of the No-Go / Alternative development 42For the no-go development, existing land <strong>co</strong>ver and land use patterns in the New Largo area will persist.Finding and mining alternative <strong>co</strong>al resources on the Highveld will have the same impacts on wetlandsas the proposed New Largo Colliery.As an alternative to establishment of a new <strong>co</strong>al mine, the wetland specialist listed the option of Eskomsouring <strong>co</strong>al from “export” <strong>co</strong>al stock piles / <strong>co</strong>al mines. This alternative to supply <strong>co</strong>al to Eskom requiresa national strategic debate on <strong>co</strong>al supply to Eskom and protection of wetlands (see Appendix D14,(presentation on wetlands).8.7.3 Conclusions and Key FindingsOpencast mining generally results in the <strong>co</strong>mplete loss of wetlands in the post mining environment. Theloss of wetlands results in the loss of the following benefits usually associated with the presence ofwetlands:42Taken from wetland specialist public open day presentation, 6 March 2012.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)346
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesVariable moisture gradient across the landscape permitting multiple use, with use determined bythe moisture <strong>co</strong>ntent;The emergence of water with a low TDS <strong>co</strong>ncentration;Extended flows; andBiodiversity support.Instead the post mining landscape is generally characterized by a relatively uniform moisture gradientwhich is associated with a uniform soil <strong>co</strong>ver that offers little opportunity for biodiversity support, waterwhich if it emerges from the landscape has a high TDS and in some instance a low pH, and rapid flowsout of the landscape.Given these changes in pre and post mining landscapes, and with particular reference to the New Largosite, it was re<strong>co</strong>mmended that <strong>co</strong>nsideration should be given to avoid mining in the pans and thecatchment areas around the pans, and in particular the pans and their catchments that occupy the farmHoningkrantz and drains to the east. The reason for singling out this particular pan <strong>co</strong>mplex is that it issuspected that maintenance of this area will <strong>co</strong>ntribute to maintaining the e<strong>co</strong>systems associated withthe quartzite ridges, downstream seeps as well as the associated landscapes. These sub catchmentsE3, E4, E5, W3 (Figure 8-17: The proposed mining area showing the sub-catchments and sulphate<strong>co</strong>ncentrations re<strong>co</strong>rded in April 2011. The area demarcated in black is the area that will not be mined aspart of Mine Plan Version 7) <strong>co</strong>ntribute high quality water with current sulphate <strong>co</strong>ncentrations below10mg/l. The actual flow rates of these catchments are not known. By <strong>co</strong>mparison, the Saalklapspruit intowhich these tributaries drain, has high sulphate <strong>co</strong>ncentrations, >700mg/l in the upper catchment to 236mg/l at the <strong>co</strong>nfluence of the Saalklapspruit and Saalboomspruit (250mg/l to form the Klipfonteinspruit. By the time this tributary reaches theWilge River, the sulphate <strong>co</strong>ncentrations are in the region of 103mg/l probably due to dilution. Thesource of water responsible for this suspected decrease in <strong>co</strong>ncentration is derived from the farmHartbeestfontein and its associated catchments (W6, W7, W8, W9 and W20). However, the latter twocatchments have been significantly impacted by the Kusile Power Station, currently under <strong>co</strong>nstruction.The area affected by New Largo <strong>co</strong>nsist of
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesFigure 8-17: The proposed mining area showing the sub-catchments and sulphate <strong>co</strong>ncentrations re<strong>co</strong>rded in April 2011. The area demarcatedin black is the area that will not be mined as part of Mine Plan Version 7New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)348
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices8.7.4 Wetland Specialist Re<strong>co</strong>mmendationsThe use of a deeper soil layer as advocated in the alternative soil stripping and management (se<strong>co</strong>ndlayer of soil stripped) option, is more likely to support processes that en<strong>co</strong>urage wetland development,as well as wetland associated functions. There is some evidence to suggest that applying a deeper soilslayer reduces the quantity of water that makes to ingress (Vermaak et al, 2000), implying retention ofwater in the upper soil profile a pre requisite for wetland development. Whether this is a feasible optionwill depend largely on the availability of soils to achieve this as well as the practicality of implementing it.Wetland Consulting Services’ re<strong>co</strong>mmended strategy for developing a wetland mitigation and offsetstrategy is attached in Appendix U.SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT8.8 Social8.8.1 Description of Baseline Environment Conditions8.8.1.1 Baseline Impact SourcesAn increasing number of mining and quarrying activities in the areaKusile Operations (starting late 2014, ramping up over time to full production)Phola-Kusile Coal Conveyor8.8.1.2 Synthesis of Baseline ImpactsImpacts of Kusile operations (as predicted in Kusile <strong>EIA</strong>)Increase in crimeDecline in water qualityDeterioration of roadsThoroughfare of peopleIncrease in respiratory diseasesPressure on infrastructureInflux of people8.8.2 Impact Assessment8.8.2.1 Project Impact SourcesIn-migrationChange in land useE<strong>co</strong>nomic activitiesOut-migrationNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)349
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices8.8.2.2 Project ImpactsMine Plan Version 6Construction Phase:The impacts on the farming <strong>co</strong>mmunity have been group in three broad areas, as seenin the next paragraph.Impacts on livelihoods – this include loss of land, water issues, dust,transport <strong>co</strong>sts and loss of labour.Impacts on safety – this include road safety and personal safety.Impacts on quality of life – this includes impacts on the sense of place,dust, noise, vibrations and health.The impacts on the surrounding <strong>co</strong>mmunities have been grouped in five broad areas asmentioned in the paragraph below: E<strong>co</strong>nomic impacts (positive) – this includes job creation, skillsdevelopment and opportunities for small and medium sized enterprises.E<strong>co</strong>nomic impacts (negative) – this include <strong>co</strong>mpetition for jobs, possible<strong>co</strong>mmunity unrest related to labour issues and increase in transport<strong>co</strong>sts.Impacts related to an influx of people – this include impacts on physicaland social infrastructure, health impacts, crime, safety and security, theintegration of the workforce with existing <strong>co</strong>mmunities and access toresources.Impacts on quality of life – this include impacts of blasting, noise, dust,vibrations, sense of place, health impacts and movement patterns.Impacts related to displacement – these impacts will be relevant if theOld New Largo Village should be relocated or if any residents feel thatthey can no longer live in the area due to the presence of the mine.Impacts on businesses include transport <strong>co</strong>sts, accessibility, traffic, loss of naturalresources and loss of labour. The impacts on the service providers mainly relate to theprovision of social and physical infrastructure. Loss of natural resources, pollution andtransport <strong>co</strong>st will be the major impacts on stakeholders outside the direct area ofinfluence.In the different phases of the project, the following impacts can be anticipated:Loss of quality of lifeNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)350
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesDustNoiseBlasting and vibrationsTrafficSafetyIncrease in crimeOperational Phase: Potential impacts on surface waterDe<strong>co</strong>mmission and ClosurePhase:Loss of arable landLong-term impact of mine on farming businessesLoss of quality of lifeDustNoiseBlasting and vibrationsTrafficSafetyIncrease in crimeIncrease in transport <strong>co</strong>stsLoss of labour for farmersHealth impactsIncreased pressure on physical and social infrastructureJob creationSkills developmentOpportunities for small and medium enterprisesChange in sense of placeIn-migration of peopleImpacts relating to displacementLoss of natural resources for current and future generationsIncrease in unemploymentChange in e<strong>co</strong>nomy of areaLoss of livelihoodsNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)351
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesComparison between Mine Plan Version 6 and Mine Plan Version 7Construction Phase: There will not be a significant difference in impacts between the differentmine plans as social impacts are not site specific.The impacts in all the project phases and on the different stakeholdergroups are similar to those identified for the base mine plan. Thedifferences are not significant and would relate to intensity, mainlyregarding the road deviation options.Social impacts, unlike most environmental impacts, are not site specificand occur in the <strong>co</strong>mmunities surrounding the proposed mine. Thechanging of the mining plan will not significantly alter the potential socialimpacts that will result from mining. The most significant change will bethe changes in the road options.Road Option 2 for Mining Plan 7 is the most preferred of all the optionsas it is entirely on AAIC Property, it is shorter and less private people areimpacted on.Operational Phase: There will not be a significant difference in impacts between the differentmine plans as social impacts are not site specific.De<strong>co</strong>mmission and ClosurePhase:There will not be a significant difference in impacts between the differentmine plans as social impacts are not site specific.8.8.2.3 Cumulative ImpactsIncrease in crimeDecrease in water qualityIncreased nuisance – dust, noise, trafficInflux of peoplePotential increase in respiratory diseasesIncreased pressure on infrastructureSense of place8.8.2.4 Impacts of the No-Go / Alternative developmentIt is acknowledged that mining have a number of severe negative impacts, especially on the host<strong>co</strong>mmunities and the bio-physical environment. The other side of the <strong>co</strong>in is that South Africa’s e<strong>co</strong>nomyrelies heavily on the mining industry, there are high levels of poverty and unemployment and it is adeveloping <strong>co</strong>untry. Mining makes a positive e<strong>co</strong>nomic <strong>co</strong>ntribution to the host <strong>co</strong>mmunities, and if it ismanaged responsibly the benefits to <strong>co</strong>mmunities are significant. The potential impact of the energycrisis on poverty and employment rates needs to be <strong>co</strong>nsidered. In the light of these social issues, theimpact should the mine not <strong>co</strong>ntinue will be bigger than the impact of the mine going ahead.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)352
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices8.8.3 Conclusions and Key FindingsWhen <strong>co</strong>nsidering the social impacts of the proposed New Largo Colliery, the importance of the projecton a national scale must be <strong>co</strong>nsidered. Electricity supply is a critical issue in South Africa at the momentand the proposed project will add to the stability of the service. From a greater societal perspective theproject will thus have a positive impact. It is worth noting <strong>co</strong>ncerns about the long term impact on foodsecurity due to cumulative loss of high potential agricultural land. The proposed project will take place inan area surrounded by industrial development, and many of the impacts are already taking place.Stakeholders are also familiar with potential impacts. A small number of stakeholders will bear themajority of impacts of a project that is in the interest of the <strong>co</strong>untry at large. These impacts can bemitigated and managed – long term management is crucial to enhance AAIC’s social licence to operateand to minimise impacts on affected parties. The largest number of impacts will result from a change inland use and an influx of people.Many social impacts occur as a result of bad <strong>co</strong>mmunication processes, and positive relationships cango a long way in dealing with issues. The way in which issues are approached is a crucial aspects in thesuccess with which it can be dealt with. The following general re<strong>co</strong>mmendations are made:Compile and implement a <strong>co</strong>mmunity relations strategy;Appoint a stakeholder relationship manager to assist with management of social impacts anddealing with <strong>co</strong>mmunity issues;Create a <strong>co</strong>mmunity liaison forum;Consult with the directly affected businesses and note special <strong>co</strong>ncerns;Install proper grievance and <strong>co</strong>mmunication systems;Establish an environmental forum;Involve the <strong>co</strong>mmunity in the process as far as possible through the relevant forums – en<strong>co</strong>urage<strong>co</strong>-operative decision-making and management and partnerships with local entrepreneurs;Start discussions with <strong>co</strong>mmercial role players;Make monitoring activities part of the Safety, Health and Environmental systems;Provide advanced <strong>co</strong>mmunication (i.e. signage, advertisements in local papers) about changes tolocal access, potential road ha<strong>za</strong>rds and expected traffic volumes during <strong>co</strong>nstruction;Engage with relevant role players e.g. police and municipalities in pre-<strong>co</strong>nstruction phase to laythe foundation of future working-relationships;Engage and form partnerships with NGO’s to assist with the management of social impacts in<strong>co</strong>mmunities; andCompile a strategy to deal with labour issues such as recruitment, employment and procurement.This will need the buy-in of <strong>co</strong>ntractors and local <strong>co</strong>mmunities.8.8.4 Specialist Re<strong>co</strong>mmendationsThe need for the proposed project is undeniable in the current e<strong>co</strong>nomic <strong>co</strong>nditions. The socialspecialists therefore re<strong>co</strong>mmended that the project proceed. The management of social impacts is along-term process. It is re<strong>co</strong>mmended that the social assessment be updated throughout the life of themine to ac<strong>co</strong>mmodate the changing social environment and include new impacts that may occur.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)353
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices8.9 E<strong>co</strong>nomic8.9.1 New Largo Colliery Specialist E<strong>co</strong>nomic Impact AssessmentThe impact assessment <strong>co</strong>nsiders the current land use in the proposed mining area. There are two mineplans provided as alternatives. Both these alternatives (Mine Plan Version 6 and Mine Plan Version 7)were assessed in this section.The e<strong>co</strong>nomic impact can be divided into two main sections. The first impact is local i.e. the directlyaffected area of the mine and the se<strong>co</strong>nd impact is on the regional and national e<strong>co</strong>nomy due to the sizeof the project.The e<strong>co</strong>nomic impacts that were presented in the draft <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong> were based on the AAIC prefeasibilitystudy financial data. More accurate financial and employment data became available at theend of the AAIC feasibility study in March 2012. The specialist e<strong>co</strong>nomic impact assessment (AppendixQ) was updated to reflect the new data. All the values listed below have been updated ac<strong>co</strong>rdingly.8.9.1.1 Impact on Mining AreaThe land use or e<strong>co</strong>nomic activities located within the mining area will be lost as mining activity expandsover the long term. The following table shows the yearly mining expansion and the value of the loste<strong>co</strong>nomic activity (mostly agriculture).The table below shows the value of the lost activity per year for Mine Plan 6 and 7. The value of lostproduction refers to the value of the current e<strong>co</strong>nomic activity lost due to expanding mining activity forthe relevant year (i.e. revenue received from the activity).Table 8-6: Mining activity expansion and affected activity, Mine Plan Version 6 versus Mine Plan 7Year Mine Plan Version 6 Mine Plan Version 7Mining Area SizeValue of Lost Activity(current 2011 values -Rand)Mining Area SizeValue of Lost Activity(current 2011 values- Rand)2015 42 94 500 42 94 5002016 109 245 250 117 263 2502017 152 342 000 142 319 5002018 116 261 000 100 225 9002019 126 1 586 700 129 1 595 4752020 - 2024 548 3 723 750 721 4 212 9002025 - 2029 617 1 344 825 567 3 644 9752030 - 2034 620 3 775 250 538 3 800 0252035 - 2039 628 2 703 825 569 1 280 4752040 - 2044 631 4 018 500 440 8 841 3752045 - 2049 526 7 717 950 628 1 413 4502050 - 2054 560 1 260 000 597 1 343 4752055 - 2059 642 1 444 500 125 280 6882060 - 2064 212 477 000 - -New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)354
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesSource: Synergistics, Index & Dema<strong>co</strong>n Calculations.The following table shows the cumulative 43 impact of lost production from 2015 up to 2064.Table 8-7: Cumulative Loss in Production Impact, Mine Plan Version 6 versus Mine Plan 7Year Mine Plan Version 6 Mine Plan Version 7Value of Lost Activity (2011 values -Rand)Value of Lost Activity (2011 values -Rand)Up to 2019 R 113 825 250 R 99 945 000Up to 2029 R 309 844 125 R 356 745 750Up to 2039 R 490 697 250 R 477 355 875Up to 2049 R 686 836 500 R 624 111 000Up to 2059 R 706 659 000 R 631 109 063Up to 2064 R 707 136 000Source: Synergistics, Index & Dema<strong>co</strong>n Calculations. Updated for final <strong>EIA</strong> based on AAIC feasibility study out<strong>co</strong>me.The total value of lost e<strong>co</strong>nomic activity totals R707 million over 45 years as a result of the miningactivity expanding in the mining area for Mine Plan 6 and R631 million over 40 years or Mine Plan 7.The following table indicates the difference in value (revenue) of the mine against the agriculture activity.The estimated turnover value of <strong>co</strong>al mining operations over the 45 years is estimated at R48.9 billion(2011 values) and R 43.7 billion for Mine Plan 6 and 7 respectively.YearTable 8-8: E<strong>co</strong>nomic Value Gained with Mining ActivityMine Plan Version 6 Mine Plan Version 7Value of Lost Activity (2011 values -Rand)Value of Lost Activity (2011 values -Value of lost activity up to 2064 R 707 136 000 R 631 109 063Value of gained activity up to 2064 R 48 951 509 288 R 43 745 353 604Updated for final <strong>EIA</strong> based on AAIC feasibility study out<strong>co</strong>me.It is evident that the gained e<strong>co</strong>nomic activity in mining for the study area is much higher than the loste<strong>co</strong>nomic activity valued at between R630 million and R707 million respectively over the same timeperiod.Rand)8.9.1.2 Impact on Regional E<strong>co</strong>nomyConstruction PhaseThe anticipated e<strong>co</strong>nomic impacts (direct, indirect and induced) that will result from the <strong>co</strong>nstructionphase of the mining project are shown in the following tables. It is important to note that these impactsare once off and not sustained annual impacts.43Cumulative impact refers to the <strong>co</strong>mbined loss in value over a period of time. It will include the loss of 2015, 2016, 2017 etc. up to a certain point intime.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)355
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesTable 8-9: E<strong>co</strong>nomic Impacts of Capital Investment, NBS and GGP – Rand 44The impact in terms of the <strong>co</strong>nstruction phase is indicated in the table above and reflected in thesubsequent figures. It is also important to understand that this impact refers to the formal and informalsectors of the e<strong>co</strong>nomy.Operational PhaseAc<strong>co</strong>rding to the agriculture impact assessment (Index, 10 August 2011), the loss in gross farmingin<strong>co</strong>me (GFI) as a result of the mine development is estimated at R2 250 per ha. Ac<strong>co</strong>rding to thenational ac<strong>co</strong>unts the <strong>co</strong>efficient for gross farm in<strong>co</strong>me (GFI) to GVA is 0.46. Therefore a loss of R2 250GFI per hectare is estimated to be a R1 041 loss in gross value added (GVA) per hectare for theagriculture sector.The loss in agriculture GVA over the project lifetime is shown in the table below for Mine Plan Version 6and 7. The table shows the estimated GVA loss in value for the affected time frame.Table 8-10: Agriculture GVA loss (including poultry)Agriculture GVA (Rand)Mine Plan Version 6 Mine Plan Version 72015 – 2019 R 1 171 277 R 1 157 0042020 – 2024 R 1 724 305 R 1 950 8092025 – 2029 R 622 729 R 1 178 4662030 – 2034 R 1 238 791 R 1 759 6252035 – 2039 R 1 252 023 R 592 9322040 – 2044 R 1 860 791 R 4 094 0532045 – 2049 R 3 573 844 R 654 5072050 – 2054 R 583 451 R 622 1042055 – 2059 R 668 885 R 129 9742060 – 2064 R 220 878 R -44Updated for final <strong>EIA</strong> based on AAIC’s feasibility study out<strong>co</strong>me.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)356
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesThe GVA per worker for the regional e<strong>co</strong>nomy is estimated at R68 507 45 . Given this, the loss inemployment for the agriculture sector is shown in Table 8-11.Table 8-11: Employment in Agriculture Loss (including poultry)Mine Plan Version 6 Mine Plan Version 72015 - 2019 17 172020 - 2024 25 282025 - 2029 9 172030 - 2034 18 262035 - 2039 18 92040 - 2044 27 602045 - 2049 52 102050 - 2054 9 92055 - 2059 10 22060 - 2064 3 -Total Loss in Employment 189 177The loss in employment for the agriculture sector (poultry included) is estimated at 189 people for MinePlan Version 6 and 177 for Mine Plan Version 7. The estimated permanent jobs created by the NewLargo Colliery during the operational phase are 1235. The loss in employment is therefore lower when<strong>co</strong>mpared to the employment gained.The cumulative loss in GVA for Mine Plan Version 6 is R312 162 815 (year 2064) and for Mine planVersion 7 it is R276 958 074 (year 2059).A total of R21.3 billion will be spent on the <strong>co</strong>nstruction of the New Largo Colliery, representing new fixedcapital investment in the local e<strong>co</strong>nomy. The loss in fixed capital investment from the agriculture sector ishighlighted below for both mine plans.Ac<strong>co</strong>rding to the national ac<strong>co</strong>unts the <strong>co</strong>efficient for GVA to Fixed Capital Investment is 3.77. Thereforea loss of R312 million in GVA for Mine Plan Version 6 is estimated to be a R1.1 billion loss while theR276 million GVA for Mine Plan Version 7 is estimated to be a R1.04 billion loss in fixed capitalinvestment for the agriculture sector over a 45 and 40 year period respectively.This investment in the New Largo Colliery is 20 times more than the anticipated investment in theagriculture sector for the affected area over a 45 and 40 year period.This project forms part of a much larger value chain for electricity production in South Africa. The miningdevelopment is an investment of R21.3 billion, and represent a part of the investment including theKusile Power Station and <strong>co</strong>nveyor belts that will invest over R90 billion in the local and nationale<strong>co</strong>nomy. All these projects are needed to ensure that electricity supply is increased to facilitatee<strong>co</strong>nomic growth for the national e<strong>co</strong>nomy.8.9.1.3 Impact on Property ValuesThe potential impact of the proposed mine on surrounding property values were investigated byanalysing current property prices in respect of agricultural, residential and agricultural holding propertiesin relation to distance from existing opencast <strong>co</strong>al mines.In respect of agricultural property prices, the agricultural property market has already dis<strong>co</strong>unted pricesin the entire study area. The most likely explanation is that the presence of a large number of existingmines, power stations and other land uses that might be perceived as not being <strong>co</strong>mpatible with anagricultural land use. The impact of the proposed mine on agricultural property values will at most be451 person is employed for every R 68 507 GVA in this sector.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)357
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesmarginal as the property market has already dis<strong>co</strong>unted agricultural property prices by between 10% and20% to ac<strong>co</strong>unt for existing mining and other operations in the study area.With regard to the township known as Phola price analysis and experience have shown that affordablehousing markets are not sensitive to factors that affect residential price levels in middle and higherin<strong>co</strong>me group residential areas. In spite of very close proximity to the proposed mine, property prices willnot be negatively affected by the proposed mine. In fact, there is a strong possibility that employmentopportunities created by the mine might have a positive impact on property prices, especially on rentals.Even though residential property prices in Voltargo are substantially higher <strong>co</strong>mpared to Phola, Voltargoproperties are still at the bottom end of the market. It is not expected that the proposed mine willexacerbate the impact of these existing features and there is no evidence to support an additionalnegative impact.The proposed mine will almost enclose Kendal Forest Holdings on three sides. It can be expected thatrural residential uses will experience an added negative property value impact, which will not be offset byan increase in demand for the non-residential uses due to oversupply. In our view properties currentlyused for rural residential and / or small scale agricultural properties will we affected negatively and wequantify the potential impact purely subjectively at between 30% and 40% of current market value. Notethat this does not apply to properties used for non-residential purposes.8.9.2 Specialist E<strong>co</strong>nomic Assessment of the R545 Re-Alignment8.9.2.1 Impact on Local & Regional E<strong>co</strong>nomyAccess to the larger nodes will not be influenced as the major roads (N12 and N4) is still accessible tothe affected area, while the proposed new road i.e. either Option 1 or Option 2 (for both Mine Plans) willstill provide access to e<strong>co</strong>nomic nodes, albeit at an increased driving time.The re-alignment of the road R545 will not limit access to e<strong>co</strong>nomic nodes in the surrounding area.Access to these nodes is still possible through the national roads (N12 and N4), while access toBronkhorstspruit and Balmoral will be associated with an increase in driving time from Kendal AH andOgies. The directly affected activity is the two small retail shops located adjacent the R545.The e<strong>co</strong>nomic impact of provincial road re-alignment creates displacement effects. These displacementsaffect selected business enterprises and not the e<strong>co</strong>nomy at large. The e<strong>co</strong>nomic impact appears to beoffset by a displacement effect, following the creation of limited new business opportunities along thenew alignment. In short, the impact of route re-alignment does not affect negative long term structurale<strong>co</strong>nomic changes. A short term <strong>co</strong>nstruction benefit can typically be observed.The impact of the road re-alignment is not regarded as a negative impact but rather a displacement <strong>co</strong>stthat can be mitigated by offering the same type of activity along the new alignment. In order to mitigatethis impact the existing owners that will be affected <strong>co</strong>uld be offered first right to refuse to develop similaror improved facilities along the new alignment.The preferred alignment is based on the ease of access for the local employment of Phola to the Mineand Power Station developments. This is supported by the fact that existing infrastructure is in place andthat expropriation of private land be limited. As a result Option 1 for Mine Plan Version 6 & 7 is thepreferred route.8.9.2.2 Impact on Property ValuesThe impact of any one of the proposed re-alignments cannot be evaluated on a macro scale. On amacro scale individual properties may benefit due to improved access, <strong>co</strong>nversely individual propertiesmay be negatively affected due to severance or injurious affection.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)358
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesGenerally on a macro scale, re-alignment of the R545 should not have a negative impact on propertyvalues, except where distances to interchanges onto the N4 and N12 are significantly increased.Individual properties however may be <strong>co</strong>mpromised where there is severance of farming or propertyunits.Comparison between Mine Plan Version 6 and Mine Plan Version 7Construction Phase: Loss in cultivated landMining <strong>co</strong>nstructionIncreased employment and job opportunities from <strong>co</strong>nstruction of mineand roadLoss in Agriculture EmploymentDisplacement of property owners (mostly farmers and farm workers)Marginally reduced property value for affected properties (various landuses)Operational Phase: Job opportunities (permanent)De<strong>co</strong>mmission andClosure Phase:Indirectly increase electricity supply (e<strong>co</strong>nomic growth)Future development spin-offsAdjacent property values: Phola, Voltargo and Kendal AHAccess to job opportunitiesDecrease in <strong>co</strong>al provisionLoss in Employment8.9.3 AAIC’s Assessment of the Value of the Coal associated with the Honingkrantz Panand immediate surroundings and the Cost Implications of this Coal is not Mined(Cost of Mine Plan Version 6 <strong>co</strong>mpared to Mine Plan Version 7) 46The information provided in this section has been calculated by AAIC, and was presented to theMDEDET and DWA at meetings in April 2012 (the full presentation is provided in Appendix D15). Inessence, it represents AAIC’s views of the <strong>co</strong>st of the <strong>co</strong>al and the financial implications if the <strong>co</strong>alassociated with the Honingkrantz pan and the immediate surroundings is not mined (<strong>co</strong>st of Mine PlanVersion 6 <strong>co</strong>mpared to Mine Plan Version 7).Table 8-12: AAIC’s calculation of the Financial impact of Mine Plan Version 6 <strong>co</strong>mpared to MinePlan Version 7Mine Plan Version 7Financial Criteria Mine Plan Version 6(<strong>co</strong>st of not mining the Honingkrantz Panand surroundings)Establishment Capex Base (X) X + R 924, 5 million46New Section added to <strong>Final</strong> <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong> (was not included in draft <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong>).New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)359
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesAAIC Net Present Value (NPV) X X + R 3 millionAAIC Internal Rate of Return (IRR) X + 0.07 % XPayback X + 0.07 years XTotal <strong>co</strong>st of <strong>co</strong>al to Eskom (R/tonne) X X + R 22.65/tonneTotal <strong>co</strong>st of <strong>co</strong>al to Eskom (R/GJ) X X + R 1.38/GJTable 8-13: AAIC’s Calculation of Financial Cost of Not Mining Honingkrantz Pan (Comparing theCosts of Mine Plan Version 6 Versus Mine Plan Version 7)Mine Plan Version 7Financial Criteria Mine Plan Version 6(<strong>co</strong>st of not mining theHoningkrantz Pan andsurroundings)Additional <strong>co</strong>st of <strong>co</strong>al to ESKOM for LOM @R22.65/tonne (45 years)Base (X)X + R 14.3 billionEskom sourcing <strong>co</strong>al from 3rd party for 7 years @R320/tonne (incl transport <strong>co</strong>sts)XX + R 31.4 billionAdditional Capex <strong>co</strong>ntribution for Eskom(2/3 <strong>co</strong>ntribution)XX + R 0.62 billionAAIC’s calculation of the “<strong>co</strong>st of the Honingkrantz Pan” X X + R 46.32 billion8.9.4 E<strong>co</strong>system Services Value 478.9.4.1 IntroductionAAIC has calculated the monetary value of the <strong>co</strong>al associated with the Honingkrantz pan and thefinancial implications, to Eskom and potentially the South African <strong>co</strong>nsumer, if this <strong>co</strong>al is not mined.These calculations did not include the long-term value of e<strong>co</strong>system services provided by the pan shouldthe pan not be mined and remain intact and able maintain its function in the environment.To effectively <strong>co</strong>mpare the value of mining <strong>co</strong>al to the monetary value of e<strong>co</strong>system services wouldrequire a strategic assessment of the value of <strong>co</strong>al resources and aquatic e<strong>co</strong>systems and wetlands inSouth Africa, including the need for <strong>co</strong>al in electricity generation and associated e<strong>co</strong>nomic development,and the future of e<strong>co</strong>nomic developments which are dependent on e<strong>co</strong>system services. What is alsorequired, is a national strategic approach to mining and the protection of e<strong>co</strong>systems, which will requireclose <strong>co</strong>operation between the DMR, DWA and DEA (representing mining, water and the environment).This need to have an strategic approach is further illustrated by the fact that the “DWA must look afterboth the needs of the people of South Africa and the mining industry” (<strong>co</strong>mment by Dr Paul Meulenbeld,DWA, New Largo Colliery <strong>EIA</strong> authorities meeting, Witbank, 26 July 2011).In the absence of such a strategy, and with the uncertainties around future land uses such as agriculture,sand mining and <strong>co</strong>al mining in the area around Kusile and New Largo Colliery, it would be virtuallyimpossible to provide a realistic and credible <strong>co</strong>mparison of the monetary value of the <strong>co</strong>al mined at NewLargo versus the value of the e<strong>co</strong>system services. Rather than providing a monetary value of thee<strong>co</strong>system services, Wetland Consulting Services, has been appointed to develop wetland offset plan.As part of the strategy, they have analysed the e<strong>co</strong>system services value of the affected wetlands in47New Section added to <strong>Final</strong> <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong> (was not included in draft <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong>).New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)360
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesterms of ‘hectare equivalent’ based on the present e<strong>co</strong>logical state (PES) of the wetlands affected byMine Plan Version 6 (see Appendix U).Another problem with the lack of a national strategy, is that decisions and efforts to manage mining,water and the environment are being made on a mine-by-mine / project-by-project basis. This is ascenario that is being repeated at various other <strong>co</strong>al mines in South Africa – where mines are trying to orexpected to, as part of the <strong>EIA</strong> and IWULA approval processes, adapt their mine plans in order to protecta portion of the wetlands within their mining right areas. In the absence of a strategic plan, this is an adhoc attempt by mines and the authorities to protect wetlands and associated e<strong>co</strong>systems found withinindividual mining reserve areas. Unfortunately, this mine-by-mine / project-by-project approach remainsad hoc and in some cases it results in fragmented wetland habitats surrounded by mining and otherin<strong>co</strong>mpatible land uses. What is currently being done cannot replace the need for a more strategicapproach to guiding and managing <strong>co</strong>al mining and the protection of wetlands and other sensitivehabitats in South Africa, while meeting National Government strategy for <strong>co</strong>al supply to Eskom and thuselectricity supply to South Africa.8.9.4.2 Nature, distribution and value of aquatic e<strong>co</strong>system services of the CatchmentFor the reasons discussed above, the <strong>EIA</strong> will not present a <strong>co</strong>mparison of the value of <strong>co</strong>al versus thevalue of e<strong>co</strong>system services. However, available proxy data on the aquatic e<strong>co</strong>system services value inthe upper Olifants are being presented below. The Information was sourced from a Department of WaterAffairs study report entitled: Nature, distribution and value of aquatic e<strong>co</strong>system services of Olifants,Inkomati and Usutu to Mhlatuze Water Management Areas by Anchor Environmental, for the Departmentof Water Affairs, 2010.The study report states that: “The overall approach of the study was a simple modelling one, in which thevaluation of aquatic e<strong>co</strong>systems is based on estimates of their capacity to supply services on the onehand, and estimates of demand for those services, on the other. This approach provides a <strong>co</strong>mparablefirst estimate of the measurable values of all significant aquatic e<strong>co</strong>systems in the study area, rather thandetailed estimates of a few systems or values...Aquatic e<strong>co</strong>systems, like other e<strong>co</strong>systems, offer a rangeof goods, services and attributes (<strong>co</strong>llectively known as e<strong>co</strong>system services) that generate value and<strong>co</strong>ntribute to human welfare. The Millennium E<strong>co</strong>system Assessment (MEA) categorized the servicesobtained from e<strong>co</strong>systems as provisioning services such as food and water; regulating services such asflood and disease <strong>co</strong>ntrol; cultural services such as spiritual, recreational, and cultural benefits; andsupporting services, such as nutrient cycling, that maintain the <strong>co</strong>nditions for life on Earth. In order toavoid double‐<strong>co</strong>unting, only the first three are <strong>co</strong>nsidered for the e<strong>co</strong>nomic valuation study. The differenttypes of services falling within these categories were investigated in turn. E<strong>co</strong>system valuation hasgenerally been undertaken within the framework of Total E<strong>co</strong>nomic Value (TEV), which includes directuse, indirect use and non‐use values. Direct use values generated by aquatic e<strong>co</strong>systems through cropproduction, livestock grazing, fishing, wild plant use and hunting (based on provision of e<strong>co</strong>systemgoods). They are also generated through <strong>co</strong>nsumptive (hunting) and non‐<strong>co</strong>nsumptive (wildlife viewing)tourism (based on e<strong>co</strong>system attributes).”The last section of the study report provides an overview of the total values of different river, wetlandsand estuaries in terms of their provisioning, regulating and cultural services they provide. It should benoted that these services all pertain to different groups of beneficiaries.The study report calculated the cumulative value of aquatic e<strong>co</strong>system services, the following distinctvalues were used:Aquatic E<strong>co</strong>system Provisioning Serviceso river water for domestic useo livestock watering and grazingo sand and clay harvesting and useNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)361
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser viceso use of plant resourceso harvesting and use of wild food and medicinal productso hunting resourceso fishing resourcesAquatic E<strong>co</strong>system Regulating Serviceso value of flood attenuationo value of base flow maintenanceo value of water purificationo carbon sequestration valueso value of refugiaAquatic E<strong>co</strong>system Cultural Serviceso value of river based adventure tourismo value of recreational anglingo e<strong>co</strong>tourism valueo property valueso scientific and educational valueIn the report, the rivers in the Upper Olifants River were valued at being worth 69.5 million per year, with thevalue of different services as tabled below:Table 8-14: Summary of the Value of River E<strong>co</strong>system Services in the Upper Olifants CatchmentLength of all rivers in the Upper Olifants1 697 kilometresProvisioning E<strong>co</strong>system ServicesRegulating E<strong>co</strong>system ServicesCultural E<strong>co</strong>system ServicesTOTALAverage value per kilometreValue of specific river reachesRiver water for domestic use16.5 million / yearLivestock 0Harvested natural resourcesTotalWater TreatCarbon SequestrationTotalRecreation /TourismPropertyScientificTotal11 million / year27.5 million / year4.5 million / year0.1 million / year4.6 million / year37.4 million / year0 million / year0.1 million / year37.5 million / year69.5 million / year0.04 million / yearrefer figure belowSource: Nature, distribution and value of aquatic e<strong>co</strong>system services of Olifants, Inkomati and Usutu to Mhlatuze Water Management Areas by AnchorEnvironmental, for Department of Water Affairs, 2010 (Table 8.1).New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)362
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesSource: Nature, distribution and value of aquatic e<strong>co</strong>system services of Olifants, Inkomati and Usutu to Mhlatuze Water Management Areas by AnchorEnvironmental, for Department of Water Affairs, 2010 (Figure 8.1).Figure 8-18: Total value of the e<strong>co</strong>system services supplied by rivers in the Olifants, Inkomatiand Usutu to Mhlatuze Water Management Areas (New Largo approximate location indicated ingreen)New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)363
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesThe wetlands in the Upper Olifants River were valued at a total of 93.8 million per year, with the value ofdifferent e<strong>co</strong>system services as tabled below:Table 8-15: Summary of the Value of Wetland E<strong>co</strong>system Services in the Upper OlifantsCatchmentTotal Wetland Area55 095 hectaresLivestock39 million / yearProvisioning E<strong>co</strong>system Services Harvested natural resources16 million / yearTotal55 million / yearFlood attenuation9.2 million / yearGroundwater recharge7.4 million / yearRegulating E<strong>co</strong>system ServicesWQ Treatment11.8 million / yearCarbon Sequestration2.6 million / yearTotal30.9 million / yearAngling3.3 million / yearCultural E<strong>co</strong>system ServicesTourism4.3 million / yearTotal7.7 million / yearTOTAL93.8 million / yearAverage value per hectare~ 0.0017 million / yearValue of specific wetland areasrefer figure below(< R 80 000 / hectare / year)Source: Nature, distribution and value of aquatic e<strong>co</strong>system services of Olifants, Inkomati and Usutu to Mhlatuze Water Management Areas by AnchorEnvironmental, for Department of Water Affairs, 2010 (Table 8.2).New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)364
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesSource: Nature, distribution and value of aquatic e<strong>co</strong>system services of Olifants, Inkomati and Usutu to Mhlatuze Water Management Areas by AnchorEnvironmental, for Department of Water Affairs, 2010 (Figure 8.1).Figure 8-19: Total value of the e<strong>co</strong>system services supplied by wetlands in the Olifants, Inkomatiand Usutu to Mhlatuze Water Management Areas (New Largo approximate location indicated ingreen)New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)365
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices8.10 Visual8.10.1 Description of Baseline Environment Conditions8.10.1.1 Baseline Impact SourcesBuilt-up areas:o Kendal Forest Holdings;o Voltargo, formerly Wilge power station village with rehabilitated power station ash dumpand foundations of the demolished <strong>co</strong>oling towers;o Phola settlement;o Kendal town;o Old New Largo mining settlementAgricultural farmlands (cultivated land, grazing and/or poultry farms);Farmsteads, farm worker dwellings and associated infrastructure and buildingsRailway servitudesRoad servitudes (national, provincial and farm road systems)Sand quarries/ mineBrickworks/ industryPower linesKusile Operations (starting late 2014, ramping up over time to full production)Phola-Kusile Coal Conveyor8.10.1.2 Synthesis of Baseline / Existing ImpactsLandscape CharacterThe study area <strong>co</strong>nsists of three dominant natural landscape types: hills and koppies, flat rolling plainsand valleys, which form part of the Saalklapspruit sub-catchment. Two other types, mainly derived fromman-made intervention, also occur within the study area, they are the built up areas (towns) andcultivated farmland.The visual character of the study area is largely cultivated land, or natural grasslands with <strong>co</strong>ncentrationsof manmade features along the current alignment of the R545 and in the settlements of Voltargo, Pholaand Kendal Forest Holdings. Other manmade interventions include the existing railway and roadservitudes, as well as the infrastructure and buildings associated with the farmsteads. Furthermore, theentire study area is traversed by a number of power lines.Current Land UseMost of the land in the study area is privately owned and managed, but there are portions owned byAnglo Operations Ltd which are in process to be carried over to AAIC. A state-owned railway and roadNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)366
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesservitudes are crossed. The surface area that will be occupied by open cast pits and mine infrastructurewill be purchased from existing landowners.The primary land uses within the New Largo reserve, as well as land adjacent to the reserve, includefarmlands, sand mines, a brick industry, quarries, roads, agricultural holdings, poultry farms and thesettlements of Voltargo, Kendal Forest Holdings and Phola.Sense of Place and Aesthetic ValueLandscapes with greater diversity or <strong>co</strong>ntaining "distinctive" features are classified as having a higherscenic value than landscapes with low diversity, few distinctive features, or more “<strong>co</strong>mmon" elements.Generally, the greater the diversity of form, line, texture and <strong>co</strong>lour in a landscape unit or area, thegreater the potential for high scenic value. Scenic quality classifications are:High - distinctive landscape and strong sense of placeModerate - <strong>co</strong>mmon landscapeLow - minimal landscape and weak sense of place‘Land types’ each with its dominant landscape characteristic, sense of place and aesthetic value withinthe study area, and have been identified as follows: the highest value is assigned to the rivers andstreams. The <strong>co</strong>mbinations of natural features, characteristic of these areas, stand out within the <strong>co</strong>ntextof the region and evoke distinct and unique images to produce a strong sense of place. However, mostof these areas have already been <strong>co</strong>mpromised by the presence of farming infrastructure, industries andpower lines. Effectively, this results in this landscape type being awarded a moderate value. Thelandscape type with the lowest scenic quality rating is the built up area associated with the settlementPhola.The remainder of the study area, spatially the largest <strong>co</strong>mponent, <strong>co</strong>mprises disturbed grasslands andagricultural lands. This landscape type has a moderate to low aesthetic value.8.10.2 Impact Assessment8.10.2.1 Project Impacts SourcesConstruction Phase: Travel activities.Operational Phase: Normal opencast mining operational activities;Travel activities.De<strong>co</strong>mmission and Closure Travel activities.Phase:Post Closure: Replacing of topsoil and rehabilitating land to pre-mining potential;Travel activities.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)367
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices8.10.2.2 Project ImpactsMine Plan Version 6Views and Sensitive Viewer LocationsAs the mining activities generally progresses from north to south, so would views towards the activitiesbe affected to a lesser or greater extent.In terms of the New Largo Colliery, travellers along the N4 and N12 and other local roads would beregarded as being moderately sensitive because their exposure would be temporary as they travelthrough the study area. Views from farmsteads and residences within the study area would be regardedas having a high sensitivity because these views would be permanent. Farmsteads and residences that<strong>co</strong>uld possibly be affected by the visual impact from the proposed mining activities would be thoselocated on privately owned portion of the farms including Een<strong>za</strong>amheid 534 IR, to the north of the miningarea, Roodepoortje 326 JR, Vlakfontein 569 JR and Prinshof 2 IS, to the east, Bankfontein 216 IR andSmaldeel 1 IS to the south-east, Heuvelfontein 215 IR to the south, Klipfontein 568 JR, Van Dyksput 214IR as well as Dwaalfontein 565 JR to the west. The visual impact from residences would depend on thedistance from the residence to the mining activities at that specific point in time, as well as the absenceof visual obstructions between the mining activities and residence.Possible sensitive viewers had been identified as farmsteads and residents around the northern end ofthe proposed R545 alignment, residents of the Voltargo <strong>co</strong>mmunity as well as residents in the Phola<strong>co</strong>mmunity. In both instances for farmsteads and residents around the northern end of the proposedalignment as well as for residences of the Phola <strong>co</strong>mmunity, the viewers are already exposed to similarviews / activities from the current alignment of the R545.For viewers from the Voltargo <strong>co</strong>mmunity thealignment would be relocated from its current position west of the <strong>co</strong>mmunity to the proposed alignment,east of the <strong>co</strong>mmunity, which would result in similar types of views, just in the opposite direction.Visibility and Visual ExposureFor the proposed development, significance of impacts is as follows: Infrastructure within 800 m from receptor: High visual exposureInfrastructure within 800 m to 3000 m from receptor: Moderate visual exposureInfrastructure within 3000 m to 12,500 m from receptor: Low visual exposureInfrastructure more than 12,500 m from receptor: Insignificant visual exposureIn terms of the early stage of New Largo, mining activities would be <strong>co</strong>ncentrated in the northern sectionof the AAIC prospecting right area. The view shed analysis indicates that this stage of the mining projectwould be visible to an extent of less than half the zone off potential influence, resulting in moderatevisibility. Mining activities of the early stage would be in the high visual exposure zone for farmsteadsand residents north-west of the activity, in the moderate zone for farmsteads and residents in the southeastand in the low zone for other identified possible sensitive viewers to the west, south-west, south,south-east and east, including Kendal Agricultural Holdings to the south-east.In the middle stage of mining, mining activities would be <strong>co</strong>ncentrated in the northern and centralsections of the proposed New Largo mining right area. The view shed analysis indicates that this stageof the mining project would also be visible to an extent of less than half the zone off potential influence,resulting in moderate visibility. Mining activities of the middle stage would be in the moderate visualexposure zone for farmsteads and residents in the south-west and east and in the low zone for otheridentified possible sensitive viewers to the west, south-west, south, south-east and east, includingKendal Agricultural Holdings to the south-east.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)368
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesIn the late stage of mining, mining activities would be <strong>co</strong>ncentrated in the southern section of theproposed New Largo mining right area. The view shed analysis indicates that this stage of the miningproject would be visible to an extent of over half the zone off potential influence, resulting in highvisibility. Mining activities of the late stage would be in the high visual exposure zone for travellers alongthe N12 as well as to residents in the north-eastern <strong>co</strong>rner of the Kendal Agricultural Holdings. Theactivities would be moderate zone for the <strong>co</strong>mmunities of Kendal Agricultural Holdings, Voltargo andPhola as well as for farmsteads and residents in the west, south-west, south, south-east and east. Itwould be in the low zone for other identified possible sensitive viewers to the west and north-east.For the relocation of the R545 road the view shed analysis, illustrates that road option 1 would be visiblefor over half the zone of potential influence resulting in a high visibility. Sensitive Viewers that would beaffected had been described above. Views from the farmsteads and residences in the north would be inthe middle to background for viewers where views from residents in Phola would be in the fore- to middleground. Views from residents from the Voltargo <strong>co</strong>mmunity would be in the foreground.Visual IntrusionThe visual character of the New Largo study area largely <strong>co</strong>mprises of cultivated land, or naturalgrasslands degraded with <strong>co</strong>ncentrations of manmade features including, small businesses, smallindustries such as brickworks, utilities infrastructure as well as power stations and mining relatedindustries. The aesthetic value of the landscape had been rated as moderate to low. The proposedmining activities with associated infrastructure would add cumulatively negative to the existing mixedpastoral / industrial character.Visual intrusion would be rated as moderate since it <strong>co</strong>uld be regarded as being partially <strong>co</strong>mpatiblewith land use patterns within the study area <strong>co</strong>ntrasting moderately with the patterns or elements thatdefine the structure of the landscape thus causing a moderate change in landscape characteristics.In all three instances (farmsteads and residences in the north, Phola <strong>co</strong>mmunity as well as Voltargo<strong>co</strong>mmunity) the viewers are already exposed to similar activities associated with the current alignment ofthe R545.Other possible views from farms adjacent to the proposed alignment option would includeviews of the proposed mining activities resulting in a low visual intrusion for the project on the viewers.Severity of Visual ImpactAs can be <strong>co</strong>ncluded from the landscape character description, the New Largo Colliery project isexpected to have a cumulative negative impact on the sense of place of the study area. The presence ofmining and processing activities <strong>co</strong>ntributes to the current sense of place, albeit a negative <strong>co</strong>ntribution,and therefore helps establish the aesthetic characteristics for the study area. In the sections above, ithas been established that the proposed opencast mining activities with associated structures will have anegative impact on the visual quality of the study area (see Figure 8-8).The severity of the visual impact of the proposed opencast mine with associated structures would berated as moderate as it would result in a partial alteration to key characteristics of the baselineenvironment with the introduction of elements that may be prominent but may not necessarily be<strong>co</strong>nsidered to be substantially uncharacteristic when set within the attributes of the receiving landscape.The re-alignment of the R545 along Option 1 would have a minimal negative effect on the sense of placewhen viewed within <strong>co</strong>ntext of the proposed mining activities. Even though it would disturb the sense ofplace within the study area, it would be viewed in <strong>co</strong>ntext of the proposed mining activities resulting in itbeing absorbed within the ‘new’ landscape <strong>co</strong>ntext. The most disturbing impact would be where it wouldbe re-aligned to the east of the Voltargo <strong>co</strong>mmunity.The severity of the visual impact of the relocation of the R545 road with regards to the viewers from theVoltargo <strong>co</strong>mmunity has been rated as moderate due to a partial alteration to key features of theNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)369
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesbaseline environment. For the farmsteads and residents of the Phola <strong>co</strong>mmunity, the severity has beenrated as negligible due to a very minor alteration to the key element of the baseline environment.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)370
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesSource: Newtown Landscape ArchitectsFigure 8-20: Simulations of the New Largo Colliery and the R545New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)371
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesSource: Newtown Landscape ArchitectsFigure 8-20: Simulations of the New Largo Colliery and the R545 (Continues)New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)372
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesSource: Newtown Landscape ArchitectsFigure 8-20: Simulations of the New Largo Colliery and the R545 (Continues)New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)373
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesSource: Newtown Landscape ArchitectsFigure 8-20: Simulations of the New Largo Colliery and the R545 (Continues)New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)374
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesSource: Newtown Landscape ArchitectsFigure 8-20: Simulations of the New Largo Colliery and the R545 (Continues)New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)375
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesSource: Newtown Landscape ArchitectsFigure 8-20: Simulations of the New Largo Colliery and the R545 (Continues)New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)376
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesSource: Newtown Landscape ArchitectsFigure 8-20: Simulations of the New Largo Colliery and the R545 (Continues)New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)377
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesComparison between Mine Plan Version 6 and Mine Plan Version 7From a visual perspective a reduction in footprint, as proposed in the latest layout, would not necessaryresult in a reduced visual impact since visual impacts not only relate to physical elements but alsoincludes perceptual psychology. A summary of the impacts would thus be as follows:Visibility: might reduce for viewers in the north-east of the study area, since the foot print hasbeen reduced in that area.Visual exposure: again, visual exposure might reduce in that specific area due to a reduction in ameasureable unit namely footprint / size.Visual intrusion: relates to the nature of the intrusion when set within the receiving landscape, thiswould stay the same, even with the substantial reduction in footprint.Impact on sense of place: when set within the <strong>co</strong>ntext of the study area, the impact on the senseof place for both layout 6 and 7 would be the same.Severity: in the light of the discussion above, the resulting severity of the visual impact exertedfrom layout 6 and 7 would be the same.Thus, even though the footprint had been reduced, due to the scale of the project, and the nature of thereceiving environment, the anticipated visual impact from layout 7 <strong>co</strong>uld be expected to be very similar tothe visual impact brought about by layout 6.Route option 1 for the relocation of the R545 road has the longest distance through ‘Greenfields’ and theshortest ‘Brownfield’ distance. Option 2 has no distance through ‘Greenfields’, following an existing dirtroad thus having its entire length along ‘Brownfields’. An upgrade of the dirt road along Option 2 woulddefinitely result in less visual impact in terms of dust arising from vehicular movement along the road.However, should this option be regarded as the preferred option, it would not only have the positiveresult of an upgraded road surface with less visual disturbance in terms of dust, it would also result in ahigher traffic volume from the added load of the existing R545.Not only would it result in a higher‘quantifiable’ result in terms of traffic volume, the negative impact on sense of place, which is regardedas part of the visual impact, would be much more significant than the negative impact on sense of placeassociated with Option 1 which would wrap around the proposed opencast mining activities.In the light of the above, Option 1 would thus be the preferred option to be further discussed in terms ofseverity and significance of the visual impact of the proposed road re-alignment.8.10.2.3 Cumulative ImpactsThe project will <strong>co</strong>ntribute to the cumulative impacts on the sense of place of the study area. Thepresence of mining and processing activities, two power stations, villages, roads, agricultural activitiesand associated buildings and infrastructure, power lines and other linear infrastructure <strong>co</strong>ntributes to thecurrent sense of place and aesthetic characteristics for the study area. The proposed mine will thereforehave a negative impact on the visual quality of the study area but to a far lesser degree than would havebeen the case if the area had a more natural and less manmade aesthetic character.8.10.2.4 Impacts of the No-Go / Alternative DevelopmentWith the no-go development, impacts associated with the proposed mine will be avoided but there will beimpacts associated with alternative options to supply <strong>co</strong>al to Kusile.The no-go development will have high negative impacts on the <strong>co</strong>st and timing of <strong>co</strong>al supply to KusilePower Station, delivery of electricity to the national grid, and associated impacts on national e<strong>co</strong>nomy. ItNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)378
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesis therefore assumed that if the proposed New Largo Colliery is not allowed to be developed, analternative <strong>co</strong>al supply and transportation of that <strong>co</strong>al supply will have to be found. The use of analternative transport option will result in its own set of impacts. Road or rail transport will result in thepresence of trucks and dust that would impact on the landscape character and sense of place of affectedareas.8.10.3 Conclusions and Key FindingsIt can be <strong>co</strong>ncluded that negative visual impacts will arise from the implementation of the proposedopencast mine and associated structures. Due to the large time span and spatial scale of the operationthe visual impact would drift south as mining progresses southwards. The visual impact from the projectwould add negatively to the existing mixed agricultural / industrial / mining character of the visualresource and <strong>co</strong>ntribute to the negative elements already present and degrading the sense of place.The severity of the visual impact from the opencast mine and associated activities was rated asmoderate as it would result in a partial alteration to key characteristics of the baseline environment withthe introduction of elements that may be prominent but may not necessarily be <strong>co</strong>nsidered to besubstantially uncharacteristic when set within the attributes of the receiving landscape.The significance of the visual impact from the proposed opencast activities during operational phasebefore and after mitigation was rated as moderate. The impact from closure / rehabilitation was rated aslow.In <strong>co</strong>mparing Mine Plan 6 and 7 it was determined that even though the footprint had been reduced, dueto the scale of the project, and the nature of the receiving environment, the anticipated visual impactfrom layout 7 <strong>co</strong>uld be expected to be very similar to the visual impact brought about by layout 6.A method of elimination was followed in the <strong>co</strong>mparative analysis to determine the preferred road realignmentoption. Thereby it was established that Option 1 would be the preferred alternative and wasfurther discussed in terms of severity and significance of the visual impact of the proposed road realignment.Due to the re-alignment route’s close proximity to the mining activities as well as it following sections ofthe current alignment it resulted in a minimal negative impact on the sense of place within the studyarea. In terms of severity the impact was rated as moderate when viewed from the Voltargo <strong>co</strong>mmunityand negligible when viewed from farmsteads and residences and the Phola <strong>co</strong>mmunity. The significanceof the visual impact, both before and after mitigation measures were applied successfully, had beenrated as low.8.10.4 Specialist Re<strong>co</strong>mmendationsThe visual specialist <strong>co</strong>ncluded that the visual impacts that would arise from the proposed mining androad re-alignment activities would not result in any fatal flaws and would thus be acceptable when seenwithin the attributes and <strong>co</strong>ntext of the sub-region.8.11 Traffic8.11.1 Description of Baseline Environment Conditions8.11.1.1 Trip Re-assignmentThe current trip making patterns in the vicinity of the proposed mine were <strong>co</strong>nstrued from the numberplate survey data. The future trip distribution, after demolition of the R545 and implementation of areplacement road had to be predicted. The fact that the Kusile Power Station is currently underNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)379
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices<strong>co</strong>nstruction meant that the traffic surveys (June 2011) included the Kusile Power Station Constructiontrips, which had to be subtracted from the data in order to determine the background traffic that neededto be redistributed.An estimation of the percentage of <strong>co</strong>nstruction traffic included in the survey data had to be made. It wasestimated in the Kusile Specialist Transport Planning <strong>Report</strong> (Ninham Shand, 2006) that 1600 cars, 410minibus taxis, 80 buses and 130 trucks would be utilised per day during the Kusile <strong>co</strong>nstruction period,i.e. 2010 light vehicles and 210 heavy vehicles per day.These volumes were <strong>co</strong>mpared to the traffic volumes in Table 8-16 and Table 8-17 (obtained from thenumber plate survey sample) below. It is reasonable to assume that the traffic that enter and exit the<strong>co</strong>rdon (Cordon 1) at the same survey node has a destination inside the <strong>co</strong>rdon, and the <strong>co</strong>nstructiontrips would therefore be included in these volumes.INTable 8-16: Cordon 1 Light VehiclesSTATIONOUTR2 Southbound R3 Northbound R4 Southbound TotalR2 Northbound 142 421 40 603R3 Southbound 291 1052 112 1455R4 Northbound 27 67 541 635Total 460 1540 693 2693INTable 8-17: Cordon 1 Heavy VehiclesSTATIONOUTR2 Southbound R3 Northbound R4 Southbound TotalR2 Northbound 254 445 0 700R3 Southbound 73 306 44 422R4 Northbound 0 25 13 38Total 327 776 57 1160From Table 8-16 the number of light vehicles entering and exiting Cordon 1 at the same survey node is1735 vehicles per day. From Table 8-17 the number of heavy vehicles entering and exiting Cordon 1 atthe same survey node is 573 vehicles per day. Comparing these volumes with the estimated<strong>co</strong>nstruction trips from the Ninham Shand report (2006) resulted in the assumption that most lightvehicles having their destination inside Cordon 1 can be associated with the Kusile <strong>co</strong>nstruction,whereas 40 % of the heavy vehicles with a destination inside Cordon 1 might be generated by the Kusile<strong>co</strong>nstruction. It was decided to test the sensitivity of this assumption with all <strong>co</strong>mbinations of the rangesfor light and heavy vehicles shown in Table 8-18, i.e. 100% Light Vehicles (LV) or 30% Heavy Vehicles(HV); 100% LV or 40% HV etc. The findings of the sensitivity analysis are discussed in section 8.11.1.3.Table 8-18: Sensitivity Analysis RangesPercentage of vehicles with destination inside Cordon 1 associated with Kusile Power Station <strong>co</strong>nstructionLight Vehicles (LV)100 % 30 %90 % 40 %80 % 50 %Heavy Vehicles (HV)New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)380
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesDeducting the daily Kusile <strong>co</strong>nstruction trips from the daily 7-day average survey data, obtained from theelectronic survey, provides the public trips that have to be redistributed for Option 1. The generalassumption was that vehicles would follow the shortest route and traffic was re-assigned in this manner.8.11.1.2 Additional Vehicle Kilometres TravelledDetailed calculations and new routes to which traffic was assigned for both Scenario 1 (Kusile Road asprivate road) and Scenario 2 (Kusile Road as public road) are included in the traffic specialistassessment (Appendix L). The route nodes referred to are shown in Figure 8-21.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)381
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesFigure 8-21: Route Nodes for the Traffic Impact AssessmentNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)382
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesThe difference between the distance of the newly assigned route and the existing route gives theadditional kilometres travelled due to the demolition of the R545 and <strong>co</strong>nstruction of road Option 1(A andB) or Option 2 (see description of route options in Section 4.5).8.11.1.3 Sensitivity Analysis ResultsThe total additional kilometres travelled is a function of the number of vehicles that are affected.Changing the proportion of Kusile <strong>co</strong>nstruction trips assumed to be included in the surveyed traffic dataac<strong>co</strong>rding to Table 8-18 above, results in different numbers of public vehicles affected by the demolition ofthe R545 and having to find new travel routes. The summary of the sensitivity analysis is given below inTable 8-19. These results show that the percentage <strong>co</strong>mbinations highlighted in yellow results in no morethan a 10% deviation from the estimated values, i.e. LV 100% and HV 40%. It was decided to use theaverage additional vehicles per kilometre per day (veh.km/day) volumes obtained from the percentage<strong>co</strong>mbinations high-lighted in yellow to provide realistic analysis scenarios.Table 8-19: Sensitivity Analysis Results8.11.1.4 Cost ComparisonThe <strong>co</strong>st implications of Options 1 and 2 can be separated into additional vehicle running <strong>co</strong>st and<strong>co</strong>nstruction <strong>co</strong>st of the road infrastructure required for either road alternatives.Vehicle Running CostLight Vehicles:The running <strong>co</strong>st of petrol vehicles can be calculated with the following formula, obtained from the AA’swebsite (www.aa.<strong>co</strong>.<strong>za</strong>/<strong>co</strong>ntent/62/vehicle-operating-<strong>co</strong>sts/). This formula takes fuel, maintenance andtyre <strong>co</strong>sts into ac<strong>co</strong>unt.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)C = (8.26 ∗ P) + 19.23 + 16.32Where:P = Price of petrol per litre in Rands (R 9.75 was used for this study)C = Average vehicle running <strong>co</strong>st in cents per kilometreThe annual petrol price increase was based on historic petrol price data since January 2001, resulting in13 % per annum.383
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesHeavy Vehicles:The running <strong>co</strong>sts for heavy vehicles/trucks were obtained from a logistics <strong>co</strong>mpany and aresummarized in Table 8-20 below. The rates supplied assumed a diesel price of R 9.25 per litre, includesthe <strong>co</strong>st of a driver and assistant and has no mark-up, i.e. at <strong>co</strong>st price. The average value was used forthe purpose of this study.Type of TruckTable 8-20: Heavy Vehicle Running CostsRate (R/km)1 Ton R 7.694 Ton R 11.208 Ton R14.4310 Ton R 20.15Link R 26.02Average R 15.90The heavy vehicle running <strong>co</strong>st was escalated at 3 % per annum.The following assumptions were made during the <strong>co</strong>st assessment of Options 1 and 2: The design life of the replacement road is 20 years.The growth rate of public traffic is 2 % per annum.The CPI at the time of the study, i.e. 4.6 % was used as the annual dis<strong>co</strong>unt rate to determine theNet Present Value.The estimated additional vehicle operating <strong>co</strong>sts (net present values) in the event of replacing the R545with either Option 1 or 2, with Kusile Road being either private (Scenario 1) or public (Scenario 2) aresummarized in Table 8-21 below. The <strong>co</strong>mplete calculation sheets are included in Appendix L.Table 8-21: Vehicle Operating Cost Summary (NPV)Option Scenario Cost (R)Option 1 Scenario 1 R 1 670 659 451Option 1 Scenario 2 R 1 024 063 301Option 2 Scenario 1 R 3 964 820 311Option 2 Scenario 2 R 2 602 084 729Road Construction CostRoute Option 1The <strong>co</strong>nstruction of the Option 1 road includes the <strong>co</strong>nstruction of a brand new single carriageway roadfrom point E (Figure 8-21) to point D, which is approximately 14 km long. The remaining section of theR545, between point E and the N12/R545 interchange is approximately 7 km long and would requireroad pavement improvements.The estimated <strong>co</strong>nstruction <strong>co</strong>st of Option 1 is summarized below:New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)384
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesTable 8-22: Option 1 Construction EstimateRoad ConstructionRateLengthWidth(R/m²)(km)(m)Cost (R)New road (E to D) R 600 14 7.4 R 62 160 000Repairs to R545 (E to C) R 200 7 7.4 R 10 360 000Total Option 1 Construction Cost R 72 520 000Route Option 2The <strong>co</strong>nstruction of Option 2 includes the upgrading of a gravel road between point F and G (Figure8-21). The surface of the existing road between G and the N4 interchange would have to be upgraded.This option also requires the <strong>co</strong>nstruction of a new interchange with the N12.The estimated <strong>co</strong>nstruction <strong>co</strong>st of Option 2 is summarized below:Road ConstructionTable 8-23: Option 2 Construction EstimateRateWidthLength (km)(R/m²)(m)New road (F to G) R 450 16 7.4 R 53 280 000Road repairs (G to H) R 200 2.5 7.4 R 3 700 000New N12 interchange R 45 000 000*Total Option 1 Construction Cost R 101 980 000*Based on the engineers estimate for a similar interchange that is currently in design phase.Cost(R)Total Cost EstimateThe total <strong>co</strong>st estimates for Options 1 and 2, including additional vehicle running <strong>co</strong>sts and <strong>co</strong>nstruction<strong>co</strong>st are summarized in the table below:Table 8-24: Total Cost SummaryOption Scenario Total Cost (R mil.)Option 1 Scenario 1 R 1 742Option 1 Scenario 2 R 1 097Option 2 Scenario 1 R 4 067Option 2 Scenario 2 R 2 704ConclusionsFrom Table 8-24 it can be seen that the <strong>co</strong>nstruction of the Option 1 replacement road is the moste<strong>co</strong>nomically feasible solution for both Scenarios, i.e. irrespective of whether the new Kusile Road ispublic or private. For Scenario 1 (Kusile Road Private) the total <strong>co</strong>st of Option 1 is 41 % of the <strong>co</strong>st ofOption 2. For Scenario 2 (Kusile Road Public) the total <strong>co</strong>st of Option 1 is 43 % of the <strong>co</strong>st of Option 2.8.11.2 Trip Generation, Distribution and AssignmentThis section relates to the trip generation, distribution and assignment of traffic for the purpose ofintersection analysis based on am and pm peak hour volumes.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)385
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices8.11.2.1 Trip GenerationKusile Power Station Construction PhaseThe trip generation data for the Kusile Construction, which is currently in progress, was adopted from theSpecialist Transport Planning <strong>Report</strong>, dated September 2006, which was <strong>co</strong>mpiled by Ninham ShandConsulting Services. Ac<strong>co</strong>rding to the report Eskom predicted 2000 to 6000 employees during the<strong>co</strong>nstruction phase. The lower limit (2000 employees) was used for the purpose of this (New LargoColliery) traffic impact study for the following reason: Construction of Kusile Power Station is currentlyunderway, which means that the <strong>co</strong>nstruction traffic would be included in the traffic <strong>co</strong>unts which wereundertaken in June 2011 for the New Largo study. The Kusile <strong>co</strong>nstruction trips therefore need to besubtracted from the survey data to determine the normal background traffic. By overestimating the Kusile<strong>co</strong>nstruction trips the background traffic might therefore be unrealistically low. Using the lower estimationfor the number of <strong>co</strong>nstruction phase employees at Kusile Power Station is therefore <strong>co</strong>nsidered to be a<strong>co</strong>nservative approach.The assumption of the Ninham Shand report (September 2006), prior to <strong>co</strong>nstruction was a <strong>co</strong>nstructionphase labour force of 5 000 employees. This <strong>co</strong>mmuter trip generation data was therefore proportionallyadjusted to 2 000 employees (with the truck trips remaining the same), resulting in the trip generationvolumes in Table 8-25. The public transport vehicle capacity was based on the assumption made in theKusile Power Station’s Specialist Transport Planning <strong>Report</strong> (2006), i.e. 8 people per minibus taxi and 64people per bus.Table 8-25: Kusile Power Station Construction Phase Trip GenerationTravel Mode AM Peak(to site) PM Peak(from site)Minibus Taxi 81 81Bus 17 17Cars 320 320Trucks (1) 18 18The number of trucks/day was divided by 8 hours to determine an hourly volume which was added to the peak hours and is <strong>co</strong>nsidered to be a worst casescenario.New Largo Colliery Construction PhasesThe <strong>co</strong>nstruction of the New Largo Colliery will require approximately 1000 employees from August2012, which will increase to a maximum of 4000 in January 2014. 2012 was therefore used as the baseyear for the <strong>co</strong>nstruction phase, with 2014 being the horizon year for the <strong>co</strong>nstruction phase. Thefollowing assumption was made regarding the New Largo <strong>co</strong>nstruction phase trip generation:Only 5% of employees will be skilled;All skilled employees will use private vehicles;All unskilled employees will use public transport; The distribution between bus and minibus taxi will be 40:60.The impact of trucks during the <strong>co</strong>mmuter peak was <strong>co</strong>nsidered to be minimal and negligible. Table 8-26and Table 8-27 summarize the New Largo <strong>co</strong>nstruction phase trip generation for the base year (2012)and horizon year (2014):New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)386
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesTable 8-26: New Largo Construction Trip Generation, Base Year (2012)Travel Mode AM Peak(to site) PM Peak(from site)Minibus Taxi 72 72Bus 6 6Cars 50 50Table 8-27: New Largo Construction Trip Generation, Horizon Year (2014)Travel Mode AM Peak(to site) PM Peak(from site)Minibus Taxi 285 285Bus 24 24Cars 200 200Kusile Power Station Operating PhaseThe operating stage trip generation for Kusile Power Station was adopted from the Ninham Shand TrafficImpact Assessment (2006) and are summarized in Table 8-28 below:Table 8-28: Kusile Power Station Operating Phase Trip GenerationTravel Mode AM Peak(to site) PM Peak(from site)Minibus Taxi 50 50Bus 4 4Cars 200 200Trucks (1) 33 33(1) The number of trucks/day was divided by 8 hours to determine an hourly volume which was added to the peak hours and is<strong>co</strong>nsidered to be a worst case scenario.New Largo Colliery Operating PhasesThe following skilled labour <strong>co</strong>mplement numbers for New Largo Colliery, per 12-hour shift, wereprovided by AAIC and were used in the traffic assessment:LabourTable 8-29: New Largo Skilled LabourYear2015 2025Skilled (Operators/Helpers) 291 522Senior Skilled (Artisans/Miners) 90 134Officials 134 177Total 515 833The number of unskilled labourers was unknown at the time of this study. The assumption was madethat the unskilled labour would be similar to the number of unskilled labourers at Kusile Power Station(Operation Phase), i.e. 30% of the total labour force (Ninham Shand, 2006), resulting in 221 unskilledlabourers in 2015 and 357 in 2025. It was further expected that the distribution between private andNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)387
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicespublic transport would be similar to that of Kusile Power Station, resulting in the following assumptions,based on the operating stage trip generation information in the Ninham Shand <strong>Report</strong> (2006):All unskilled employees use public transport;Approximately 65% of skilled labour will use public transport; The distribution between bus and minibus taxi will be 40:60.Transport of run-of-mine <strong>co</strong>al from New Largo Colliery will only be by means of <strong>co</strong>nveyor to Kusile PowerStation and no trucks need therefore be taken into <strong>co</strong>nsideration during the operating phase.Table 8-30 and Table 8-31 summarize the New Largo operating phase trip generation for the base year(2015) and horizon year (2025):Table 8-30: Base Year (2015) Operation Stage Trip GenerationTravel Mode AM Peak(to site) PM Peak(from site)Minibus Taxi 42 42Bus 4 4Cars 184 184Table 8-31: Horizon Year (2025) Operation Stage Trip GenerationTravel Mode AM Peak(to site) PM Peak(from site)Minibus Taxi 67 67Bus 6 6Cars 297 2978.11.2.2 Trip Distribution and AssignmentKusile Power Station Construction PhaseThe distribution of the Kusile Construction trips were assigned and distributed ac<strong>co</strong>rding to the KusilePower Station Transport Planning <strong>Report</strong> by Ninham Shand (2006)and are shown in Table 8-32 below:Minibus TaxiTravel ModeTable 8-32: Kusile Power Station Construction Stage TrafficOrigin (AM Peak)/ Destination (PMNumber of trips per peakDistributionPeak)hourPhola/Ogies 15 % 12Witbank 40 % 33Bronkhorstspruit 20 % 16Johannesburg 15 % 12Pretoria 10 % 8Total Minibus Taxi Trips 100 % 81BusPhola 10 % 2Witbank 20 % 3Bronkhorstspruit 10 % 2New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)388
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesTravel ModeOrigin (AM Peak)/ Destination (PMNumber of trips per peakDistributionPeak)hourJohannesburg 35 % 6Pretoria 25 % 4Total Bus Trips 100 % 17Delmas 5 % 16Witbank 40 % 128CarsBronkhorstspruit 20 % 64Johannesburg 15 % 48Pretoria 20 % 64Total Car Trips 100 % 320TrucksWitbank 14Johannesburg 4Total Truck Trips 18New Largo Colliery Construction PhasesThe <strong>co</strong>nstruction trips generated by New Largo Colliery were assigned and distributed to the sameorigins/destinations and in the same proportions as the Kusile Power Station Construction trips. The tripassignment and distribution for both the base year (2012) and horizon year (2014) are presented inTable 8-33 and Table 8-34 below:Minibus TaxiTravel ModeTable 8-33: New Largo Construction Stage Traffic (2012)Origin (AM Peak)/ Destination (PMNumber of trips per peakDistributionPeak)hourPhola/Ogies 15 % 11Witbank 40 % 29Bronkhorstspruit 20 % 14Johannesburg 15 % 11Pretoria 10 % 7Total Minibus Taxi Trips 100 % 72BusPhola 10 % 1Witbank 20 % 1Bronkhorstspruit 10 % 1Johannesburg 35 % 2Pretoria 25 % 1Total Bus Trips 100 % 6CarsDelmas 5 % 3Witbank 40 % 20Bronkhorstspruit 20 % 10Johannesburg 15 % 7New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)389
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesOrigin (AM Peak)/ Destination (PMNumber of trips per peakTravel ModeDistributionPeak)hourPretoria 20 % 10Total Car Trips 100 % 50Table 8-34: New Largo Construction Stage Traffic (2014)Travel ModeOrigin (AM Peak)/ Destination (PMNumber of trips per peakDistributionPeak)hourPhola/Ogies 15 % 43Witbank 40 % 114Minibus TaxiBronkhorstspruit 20 % 57Johannesburg 15 % 43Pretoria 10 % 29Total Minibus Taxi Trips 100 % 285Phola 10 % 2Witbank 20 % 5BusBronkhorstspruit 10 % 2Johannesburg 35 % 8Pretoria 25 % 6Total Bus Trips 100 % 24Delmas 5 % 10Witbank 40 % 80CarsBronkhorstspruit 20 % 40Johannesburg 15 % 30Pretoria 20 % 40Total Car Trips 100 % 200Kusile Power Station Operating PhaseThe operating stage trip assignment and distribution for Kusile Power Station was adopted from theNinham Shand Transport Planning <strong>Report</strong> (September 2006) and are summarized in Table 8-35 below:Minibus TaxiTravel ModeTable 8-35: Kusile Power Station Operation Stage TrafficOrigin (AM Peak)/ Destination (PMNumber of trips per peakDistributionPeak)hourPhola/Ogies 20 % 10Witbank 50 % 25Bronkhorstspruit 15 % 8Delmas 15 % 8Total Minibus Taxi Trips 100 % 51Bus Phola 20 % 1New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)390
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesTravel ModeOrigin (AM Peak)/ Destination (PMNumber of trips per peakDistributionPeak)hourWitbank 50 % 2Bronkhorstspruit 15 % 1Delmas 15 % 1Total Bus Trips 100 % 5Cars Witbank 50 % 100Bronkhorstspruit 10 % 20Johannesburg/Delmas 20 % 40Pretoria 20 % 40Total Car Trips 100 % 320Witbank 14TrucksJohannesburg 14Pretoria 5Total Truck Trips 33New Largo Colliery Operating PhasesThe trips generated by the New Largo Colliery during operation were assigned to the sameorigins/destinations and in the same proportions as the Kusile Power Station operating trips (NinhamShand, 2006). This is summarized in Table 8-36 (base year, 2015) and Table 8-37 (horizon year, 2025)below:Minibus TaxiTable 8-36: New Largo Colliery Base Year (2015) Operation TrafficOrigin (AM Peak)/ Destination (PMNumber of trips per peakTravel ModeDistributionPeak)hourPhola/Ogies 20 % 9Witbank 50 % 21Bronkhorstspruit 15 % 6Delmas 15 % 6Total Minibus Taxi Trips 100 % 42BusPhola 20 % 1Witbank 50 % 2Bronkhorstspruit 15 % 1Delmas 15 % 1Total Bus Trips 100 % 5CarsWitbank 50 % 92Bronkhorstspruit 10 % 18Johannesburg/Delmas 20 % 37Pretoria 20 % 37Total Car Trips 100 % 184New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)391
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesTable 8-37: New Largo Colliery Horizon Year (2025) Operation TrafficOrigin (AM Peak)/ Destination (PMNumber of trips per peakTravel ModeDistributionPeak)hourPhola/Ogies 20 % 13Witbank 50 % 34Minibus TaxiBronkhorstspruit 15 % 10Delmas 15 % 10Total Minibus Taxi Trips 100 % 67Phola 20 % 1Witbank 50 % 3BusBronkhorstspruit 15 % 1Delmas 15 % 1Total Bus Trips 100 % 6Witbank 50 % 149Bronkhorstspruit 10 % 30CarsJohannesburg/Delmas 20 % 59Pretoria 20 % 59Total Car Trips 100 % 2978.11.2.3 Traffic GrowthAn annual growth rate of 2% was assumed for the background traffic.8.11.3 Operational Assessment8.11.3.1 Levels of ServiceOperating <strong>co</strong>nditions for peak hours are normally assessed in terms of Levels of Service (LOS), volumeto capacity ratios (v/c), and average delay.At this point it is worth <strong>co</strong>nsidering what is meant in terms of levels of service. In this regard the followingis an extract from the US Highway Capacity Manual:“The <strong>co</strong>ncept of level of service uses qualitative measures that characterize operational <strong>co</strong>nditions withina traffic stream and their perception by motorists and passengers. The descriptions of individual levels ofservice characterize these <strong>co</strong>nditions in terms of such factors as speed and travel time, freedom tomanoeuvre, traffic interruptions, and <strong>co</strong>mfort and <strong>co</strong>nvenience.Six levels of service are defined for each type of facility for which analysis procedures are available.They are given letter designations, from A to F, with level of service (LOS); A representing the bestoperating <strong>co</strong>nditions and LOS F the worst. Each level of service represents a range of operating<strong>co</strong>nditions.The volume of traffic that can be served under the stop-and-go <strong>co</strong>nditions of LOS F is generallyaccepted as being lower than possible at LOS E, <strong>co</strong>nsequently, service flow rate E is the value that<strong>co</strong>rresponds to the maximum flow rate, or capacity, on the facility. For most design or planning purposes,New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)392
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser viceshowever, service flow rates D or C are usually used because they ensure a more acceptable quality ofservice to facility users.”8.11.3.2 Operational AssessmentThe following analysis Scenarios were <strong>co</strong>nsidered for the New Largo Colliery with the new Kusile Roadas public road and either Option 1 or Option 2 replacement roads (see diagram included in Appendix L): Scenario A: Existing Traffic (2011); Scenario B1: New Largo Construction Traffic (2012); Scenario B2: New Largo Construction Traffic (2014); Scenario C1: Base Year Traffic (2015), Option 1; Scenario C2: Base Year Traffic (2015), Option 2; Scenario D1: Horizon Year Traffic (2025), Option 1; Scenario D2: Horizon Year Traffic (2025), Option 2.8.11.3.3 SIDRA AnalysisThe intersection analysis was done by means of SIDRA Version 5.1 <strong>co</strong>mputer software. The <strong>co</strong>mpletemovement summary output from SIDRA is included in Appendix L.Scenario A: Existing Traffic (2011)Diagram E1 (see Appendix L) shows the existing schematic layouts of the intersections and interchangeterminals that were analysed.N12/R960 Interchange (M1)The northern terminal (M1A) and southern terminal (M1B) of the N12/R960 interchange are currentlytwo-way stop <strong>co</strong>ntrolled, with the north-south movement along the R960 being the major movement. Thisinterchange will form the interchange between the N12 and the new Kusile Road, which is currentlyunder <strong>co</strong>nstruction. This intersection is presently operating at very good levels of service (LOS A and B)during both the am and pm peaks.N12/R545 Interchange (M2)The northern terminal (M2A) and southern terminal (M2B) of the N12/R545 interchange are currentlytwo-way stop <strong>co</strong>ntrolled, with the north-south movement along the R545 being the major movement. Thisinterchange will be the interchange between the N12 and the Option 1 replacement road for the R545.Northern Terminal (M2A)The northern terminal is currently operating at good levels of service during the AM peak. Thewestern, stop-<strong>co</strong>ntrolled approach from the N12 experiences the lowest level of service (LOS C).The terminal is well below saturation with v/c ratio 0.381 (< 0.950).During the PM peak the <strong>co</strong>nditions at the western terminal are worse than during AM peak, withLOS D. The v/c ratio is still well below 0.950, i.e. 0.560.Southern Terminal (M2B)New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)393
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesThe southern terminal is currently operating at good levels of service during the AM peak. Theeastern, stop-<strong>co</strong>ntrolled approach from the N12 experiences the lowest level of service (LOS C).The terminal is well below saturation with v/c ratio 0.353 (< 0.950).During the PM peak the <strong>co</strong>nditions at the western terminal are worse than during AM peak, withLOS D. The right-turn movement from the northern approach is operating at LOS C and mightbe<strong>co</strong>me critical once volumes increase significantly. The v/c ratio is still well below 0.950, i.e.0.572.R545/R104 Intersection (M3)This intersection is situated to the south of the N4/R545 interchange. It operates as a two-way stop<strong>co</strong>ntrolledintersection, with the north-south movement along the R545 being the major movement. Allmovements currently experience good levels of service (LOS A to C) during both the AM and PM peaks.The v/c ratios for the AM and PM peaks are 0.251 and 0.178 respectively.8.11.3.4 Scenario B1: New Largo Construction Traffic (2012)It is uncertain when the <strong>co</strong>nstruction of the selected replacement road for the R545 will be <strong>co</strong>mpleted inrelation to the New Largo Colliery. It was indicated by the Client that the area will be mined from thenorth to the south and that the southern section of the R545 and D686 (section A-K-E, Figure 8-21,) willstill remain intact for an extended period of time. Also the approval, design and <strong>co</strong>nstruction of the newreplacement road will take some time and is not expected to be <strong>co</strong>mpleted before 2014. It was thereforeassumed that the road infrastructure will remain as existing during the <strong>co</strong>nstruction period of the NewLargo Colliery.This scenario analyses the impact of adding the New Largo Construction Traffic as per Table 8-33(above).N12/R960 Interchange (M1)The impact of the New Largo <strong>co</strong>nstruction traffic on the N12/R960 interchange is minimal and allmovements are expected to <strong>co</strong>ntinue operating at very good levels of service (LOS A and B).N12/R545 Interchange (M2)Northern Terminal (M2A)The impact of the New Largo <strong>co</strong>nstruction traffic during the AM peak is not significant. The onlynotable change is that the stop-<strong>co</strong>ntrolled through-movement from the western approach (N12)has changed from LOS C to D.The impact of the <strong>co</strong>nstruction traffic during the PM peak is minimal.Southern Terminal (M2B)The impact of <strong>co</strong>nstruction during the AM and PM peak is minimal.R545/R104 Intersection (M3)The impact of the <strong>co</strong>nstruction traffic during the AM peak results in deterioration of the LOS of thestop-<strong>co</strong>ntrolled traffic on the eastern approach from B to C. The intersection is still operating atgood levels of service and well below saturation.The levels of service for all movements remain unchanged during the PM peak with minimalimpact on the v/c ratio.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)394
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesScenario B2: New Largo Construction Traffic (2014)Scenario B2 analyses the impact of adding the New Largo Construction Traffic as per Table 8-34 (above).N12/R960 Interchange (M1)The impact of the New Largo <strong>co</strong>nstruction traffic on the N12/R960 interchange is minimal and allmovements are expected to <strong>co</strong>ntinue operating at the same levels of service (LOS A and B).N12/R545 Interchange (M2)Northern Terminal (M2A)During the AM peak the level of service from the left-turning movement from the stop-<strong>co</strong>ntrolledwestern approach changes from C to D with the addition of the 2014 <strong>co</strong>nstruction traffic.The impact of the <strong>co</strong>nstruction traffic during the PM peak is significant for the stop-<strong>co</strong>ntrolledwestern approach from the N12. The levels of service for all movements on this approach changefrom LOS D to E in the final <strong>co</strong>nstruction year. The overall v/c ratio (0.704) indicates that theintersection is however still operating below saturation and because this scenario is onlytemporary and of relatively short duration mitigating measures should not be necessary.Southern Terminal (M2B)The impact of <strong>co</strong>nstruction during the AM peak is minimal.During the PM peak the level of service for the eastern approach (N12) changes from LOS D toE. The overall v/c ratio (0.700) indicates that the intersection is however still operating belowsaturation and because this scenario is only short-term, it is thought that mitigating measuresshould not be necessary.R545/R104 Intersection (M3)The impact of the ultimate <strong>co</strong>nstruction traffic during the AM peak results in deterioration of theLOS of right-turn movement from the southern approach (R545) from B to C, and the left-turnmovement from the eastern approach (R104) from C to D. These levels of service are still<strong>co</strong>nsidered to be acceptable.During the PM peak the LOS of the stop-<strong>co</strong>ntrolled movements on the eastern approach (R104)changes from LOS C to D, which is still acceptable.The SIDRA results for Scenario A, B1 and B2, as discussed above are summarized in the tables below.Changes in LOS from the previous scenario are indicated in yellow.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)395
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesTable 8-38: SIDRA Results Summaries – Scenarios A, B1 and B2New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)396
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesScenario C1: Base Year (2015), Option 1Scenario C1 analyses the impact of the proposed New Largo Colliery development in the base year(2015), when the mine is expected to produce its first <strong>co</strong>al. The analysis traffic was determined bygrowing and redistributing the background traffic onto the upgraded road network (including the newKusile Road and Option 1 replacement road), excluding the estimated Kusile Power Station <strong>co</strong>nstructiontraffic (Table 8-32), including the estimated Kusile Operation Traffic (Table 8-35) and including theestimated New Largo Operation Traffic (Table 8-36).N12/R960 Interchange (M1)Northern Terminal (M1A)The impact of the development (New Largo Colliery) on the N12/R960 interchange northernterminal during the AM peak is not severe. All movements experience a LOS ≥ C, which is good.The overall v/c ratio is well below 0.950 at 0.104.During the PM peak the northern terminal operates at an even better LOS than during themorning with all having a LOS ≥ B and the terminal operating at an overall v/c ratio of 0.068.Southern Terminal (M1B)The impact of the development (New Largo Colliery) on the N12/R960 interchange southernterminal during the AM peak is minor. All movements operate at good LOS (≥ C). The overall v/cratio is 0.115, indicating that the terminal is under-saturated.During the PM peak the stop-<strong>co</strong>ntrolled movements from the N12 experience a slightly lowerLOS than currently, i.e. from LOS B to C. The v/c ratio of the terminal is 0.090 (
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesSignalized: By changing the existing stop-<strong>co</strong>ntrol at the northern terminal to signalized <strong>co</strong>ntrolthe LOS of the movements from the N12 (west) are improved from LOS F to E and the overall v/cratio is improved <strong>co</strong>nsiderably to below 0.950 during the AM peak.Re-marked: By only signalizing the terminal the movements on the western approach, as well asthe right-turn from the south are critical, with LOS E during the AM peak. The LOS of thesemovements can be improved to LOS D or better by re-marking the intersection. The northernapproach is wide enough to include a short left-turning lane and the N12 off-ramp can beremarked to two lanes (one left-turn only and one shared through and right-turning). Thesechanges do not require major road <strong>co</strong>nstruction. These changes results in an overall v/c ratio of0.785 indicating under-saturated operating <strong>co</strong>nditions during the AM peak.Testing the signalized, re-marked layout during the PM peak results in the movements from thewestern approach (N12) being critical (LOS E and F).Upgraded: Upgrading the northern terminal by providing two through lanes on both the northernand southern approaches, as well as providing two short exit lanes on each of these approachesresults in levels of service D for the critical movements. The overall level of service is B and thev/c ratio is below 0.950 (0.886).Southern Terminal (M2B)The impact of the development (New Largo Colliery) on the N12/R545 southern terminal issignificant during the AM peak. The stop-<strong>co</strong>ntrolled movements from the N12 eastern approachare operating at a poor LOS F. The overall v/c ratio indicates high <strong>co</strong>ngestion levels at theintersection, caused by the stop-<strong>co</strong>ntrolled movements.The operational and layout changes as shown on Diagram E2.1 (see Appendix L), in order to improvethe operating <strong>co</strong>nditions at the southern terminal during the base year are discussed below:Signalized: Signalizing the southern terminal improves the LOS of all critical movements andonly one critical movement remain during the AM peak, i.e. left-turn from the east. Theintersection v/c ratio is 0.891, with an overall LOS C.Re-marked: The critical left-turn can be improved by changing the lane <strong>co</strong>nfiguration on the N12off-ramp and providing a separate right turning lane and a shared left/through lane. Thesechanges can be ac<strong>co</strong>mplished by re-marking the existing off-ramp which is 8 m wide. Thesechanges result in an overall v/c ratio of 0.816 indicating under-saturated operating <strong>co</strong>nditionsduring the AM peak.Testing the signalized, re-marked layout during the PM peak results in the following criticalmovements with LOS F: both movements from the south and the right-turns from the north andthe east.Upgraded: Upgrading the southern terminal by providing short left-turn lane on the southernapproach provides favourable LOS for all movements, i.e. removes all critical movements. Theoverall LOS is C with v/c ratio 0.831 (
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesThe proposed layouts for the new intersection between the R545, the new Kusile Road and theproposed Option 1 road are shown in Diagram E2.2 (see Appendix L). The R545 to the south of thisintersection will be demolished and the intersection will therefore operate as a T-junction.All-way stop-<strong>co</strong>ntrolled: During the AM peak the movements from the north, which carries themost traffic, will operate at unacceptable levels of service, i.e. LOS F.Roundabout: A roundabout improves the operating <strong>co</strong>nditions at this T-junction significantly withoverall LOS B and v/c ratio 0.305 during the AM peak.The roundabout also provides very favourable levels of service during the PM peak: LOS B andv/c ratio 0.312.Scenario D1: Horizon Year (2025), Option 1Scenario D1 analyses the impact of the proposed New Largo Colliery development in the horizon year(2025). The traffic impacts can only be predicted relatively accurately for a 10 year horizon period,although the life span of the man is expected to be 50 years.The analysis traffic was determined by growing and redistributing the background traffic onto theupgraded road network (including the new Kusile Road and Option 1 replacement road), excluding theestimated Kusile Power Station <strong>co</strong>nstruction traffic (Table 8-32), including the estimated KusileOperation Traffic (Table 8-35) and including the estimated New Largo Operation Traffic (Table 8-37).N12/R960 Interchange (M1)Northern Terminal (M1A)The traffic operations at this terminal do not change significantly from the base year to thehorizon year. All movements <strong>co</strong>ntinue operating at the same LOS. The v/c ratios increase veryslightly from 0.104 to 0.128 for the AM peak and from 0.068 to 0.083 during the PM peak.Southern Terminal (M1B)The traffic operations at this terminal do not change significantly from the base year to thehorizon year. All movements <strong>co</strong>ntinue operating at the same LOS. The v/c ratios increase veryslightly from 0.115 to 0.140 for the AM peak and from 0.090 to 0.126 during the PM peak.N12/R545 Interchange (M2)Northern Terminal (M2A)The upgraded terminal layout required for the base year, still operates at acceptable LOS duringthe horizon year AM peak, with v/c ratio 0.824.During the PM peak the through and right-turn from the western approach is critical with overallv/c ratio 1.000.Right-turn Phase: By introducing a protected right-turn signal phase for the right-turn from thesouthern approach, the critical movements are improved. The right-turn from the south is stilloperating at LOS E, but with v/c ratio 0.891, which cannot justify serious intersection upgrades,since the overall LOS is C, with v/c ratio 0.910 (
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesThe upgraded terminal layout required for the base year, does not provide favourable operating<strong>co</strong>nditions during the horizon year AM peak, and because the right-turn from the easternapproach is critical at LOS F and the overall LOS is also F, with v/c ratio 1.504, due to the criticalmovement.Further upgrade: Diagram E3 (see Appendix L), shows the further upgrade that is required tothe southern terminal to alleviate the critical movement during the horizon year AM peak, i.e.introducing a se<strong>co</strong>nd dedicated right-turn lane (short lane) on the N12 off-ramp. This results in anoverall LOS C, with v/c ratio 0.869.The upgraded layout as per Diagram E3 (see Appendix L) provides good levels of service duringthe horizon year PM peak, i.e. LOS B and v/c ratio 0.903.Kusile Road/R545/Option 1 Road IntersectionThe roundabout provides very good levels of service at this T-junction during both the AM andPM peaks in the horizon year. The intersection operates at LOS B with v/c ratio of 0.438 and0.508 during the AM and PM peak respectively.The SIDRA results for <strong>co</strong>mparing Scenario A, C1 and D1, as discussed above are summarized in thetables below.Table 8-39: SIDRA Results Summaries – Scenarios A, C1 and D1New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)400
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesScenario C2: Base Year (2015), Option 2Scenario C2 analyses the impact of the proposed New Largo Colliery development in the base year(2015). The analysis traffic was determined by growing and redistributing the background traffic onto theupgraded road network (including the new Kusile Road and Option 2 replacement road), excluding theestimated Kusile Power Station <strong>co</strong>nstruction traffic (Table 8-32), including the estimated KusileOperation Traffic (Table 8-35) and including the estimated New Largo Operation Traffic (Table 8-36).The analysis was carried out for the existing interchange/intersection layouts as shown in Diagram E2.1(see Appendix L)N12/R960 Interchange (M1)Northern Terminal (M1A)The impact of the development (New Largo Colliery) on the N12/R960 interchange northernterminal during the AM peak is minor. All movements experience good LOS ≥ C. The overall v/cratio is well below 0.950 at 0.138.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)401
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesDuring the PM peak the northern terminal operates at very good levels of service, all movementshave a LOS B or better. The overall v/c ratio is 0.090.Southern Terminal (M1B)The impact of the development (New Largo Colliery) on the N12/R960 interchange southernterminal during the AM peak is minor. All movements operate at good LOS (≥ C). The overall v/cratio is 0.153, indicating that the terminal is under-saturated.During the PM peak the stop-<strong>co</strong>ntrolled movements from the N12 experience a slightly lowerLOS than currently, i.e. from LOS B to C. The v/c ratio of the terminal is 0.113 (
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesSouthern Terminal (M1B)The traffic operations at this terminal do not change significantly from the base year to thehorizon year. All movements <strong>co</strong>ntinue operating at the same LOS. The v/c ratios increase veryslightly from 0.153 to 0.187 for the AM peak and from 0.113 to 0.154 during the PM peak.N12/R545 Interchange (M2)Northern Terminal (M2A)In the horizon year the impact of New Largo Colliery operation traffic will reduce the LOS on thewestern approach to LOS D. All movements still operate at acceptable LOS and the overall v/cratio is well below 0.950 (0.414).During the PM peak two critical movements will develop: left-turn and right-turn from the westernapproach (LOS E). The overall v/c ratio is still below 0.950, at 0.617 and the critical turningmovements do not warrant road upgrades by themselves. It is suggested that these movementsbe monitored leading up to the horizon year and after, to determine when road upgrades areneeded.Southern Terminal (M2B)The levels of service for all movements remain the same during the AM peak. The v/c ratio isslightly higher at 0.383, but still well below saturation levels.The levels of service for the stop-<strong>co</strong>ntrolled movements from the eastern approach (N12) changefrom C to D for the PM peak. The operating <strong>co</strong>nditions are still acceptable, with v/c ratio 0.526.The SIDRA results for <strong>co</strong>mparing Scenario A, C2 and D2, as discussed above are summarized in thetables below.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)403
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesTable 8-40: SIDRA Results Summaries – Scenarios A, C2 and D2New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)404
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices8.11.4 New Largo Colliery AccessThe access to the proposed New Largo Colliery will be on the new Kusile Road, at the location indicatedon Figure 8-21.8.11.4.1 Operational AssessmentThe proposed access to New Largo Colliery off the new Kusile Road was analysed for the followingscenarios: Scenario C1: Base Year Traffic (2015), Option 1; Scenario C2: Base Year Traffic (2015), Option 2; Scenario D1: Horizon Year Traffic (2025), Option 1; Scenario D2: Horizon Year Traffic (2025), Option 2.The following assumptions were made during the analyses:The mine’s AM and PM peak hours <strong>co</strong>incide with the peak hours of the background traffic andthat of Kusile Power Station, which presents a worst case scenario.Buses and taxis transporting employees to work during the AM peak hour will only depart fromthe mine after the AM peak hour. This assumption is based on the fact that taxis and buses willwait on site for the employees from the night shift to transport them from the mine.The same principle as above was applied during the PM peak, i.e. buses and taxis transportingnight shift workers to the mine prior to the start of the PM peak hour will wait to take day shiftworkers from the mine during the PM peak hour.8.11.4.2 SIDRA AnalysisThe intersection analysis was done by means of SIDRA Version 5.1 <strong>co</strong>mputer software. Diagram F1(see Appendix L) shows the proposed layout of the New Largo Access that was analysed. The <strong>co</strong>mpletemovement summary output from SIDRA is included in Appendix L. The results are summarized in Table8-41 below:Table 8-41: SIDRA Results SummaryNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)405
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesScenario C1: Base Year (2015), Option 1Very good levels of service will be experienced at the access intersection during the AM and PMpeak hours. The overall v/c ratio is 0.144 and 0.289 for the AM and PM peaks respectively, i.e.well below saturation levels.Scenario D1: Horizon Year (2025), Option 1The LOS of right-turning movement from the access has deteriorated from LOS B to C betweenthe base year and the horizon year for the AM peak hour. The right-turn from the Kusile Rdwestern approach has changed from LOS A to B. The operating <strong>co</strong>nditions are still very good,with overall v/c ratio 0.182.During the PM peak hour the right-turn from the access has also changed from LOS B to Cbetween the base and horizon years. Very good levels of service prevail and the overall v/c ratiois below 0.950 (0.551).Scenario C2: Base Year (2015), Option 2Very good levels of service will be experienced at the access intersection during the AM and PMpeak hours. The overall v/c ratio is 0.144 and 0.306 for the AM and PM peaks respectively, i.e.well below saturation levels.Scenario D2: Horizon Year (2025), Option 2The LOS of right-turning movement from the access changes has deteriorated from LOS B to Cbetween the base year and the horizon year for the AM peak hour. The right-turn from the KusileRd western approach has changed from LOS A to B. The operating <strong>co</strong>nditions are still very good,with overall v/c ratio 0.182.During the PM peak hour the right-turn from the access has also changed from LOS B to Cbetween the base and horizon years. Very good levels of service prevail and the overall v/c ratiois below 0.950 (0.550).8.11.5 Road Safety Issues8.11.5.1 IntroductionThe following issues are <strong>co</strong>nsidered to be relevant to road safety in the vicinity of the proposed NewLargo Colliery:Shoulder sight distance;Dust; andRoad surface <strong>co</strong>nditions.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)406
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices8.11.5.2 Shoulder Sight DistanceShoulder sight distance is the distance that the driver of a vehicle that is stationary at the stop line of aminor road can see along the major road, to be able to enter or cross the major road before anapproaching vehicle reaches the intersection.It is therefore a function of the speed of vehicles travelling on the major road, the width of the major roadand the type of vehicles that are trying to cross.In the case of the New Largo Colliery transport of the <strong>co</strong>al will only be via <strong>co</strong>nveyor belt and trucks sightdistance does therefore not have to be <strong>co</strong>nsidered. The design vehicle is assumed to be a single unitbus. The speed along the Kusile Road is assumed to be 100 km/h and the width of the new road isassumed to be 7m to 7.5m. The TRH 17, Geometric Design of Rural Roads (2) , Figure 2.5.5 (a) (seeAppendix L) does not provide minimum shoulder sight distances for single unit buses, but it is <strong>co</strong>nsideredthat the sight distance for a single unit and trailer should provide more than adequate sight distance for abus. The access to the mine should therefore be situated at a suitable location to provide a minimum of375 m sight distance.8.11.5.3 DustDust from the mining operations might be an issue on the Option 1 replacement road, which will traversethe north-eastern boundary of the proposed mine. Operations on site should implement mitigatingmeasures, such as dust suppression, to minimise the dust which can cause poor visibility and potentialroad safety ha<strong>za</strong>rds.No transport of <strong>co</strong>al will occur by means of truck on the public road and dust from trucks or at the accessdoes therefore not pose a ha<strong>za</strong>rd.8.11.5.4 Road Surface ConditionsKusile Road is currently under <strong>co</strong>nstruction and <strong>co</strong>uld not have been assessed as part of this study. It isassumed that this road has been designed to cater for the traffic from Kusile Power Station, and shouldtherefore be sufficient to carry the light vehicle and low volumes of heavy vehicles (buses) generated byNew Largo Colliery.A visual inspection of the existing road surface in the vicinity of the proposed mine was undertakenduring a site visit on Thursday, 19 May 2011.The existing <strong>co</strong>ndition of the section of the R545 that will be demolished due to the mine is irrelevant andwill be replaced by a new replacement road (Option 1 or 2 as discussed previously). The design of thereplacement road should take the traffic volumes mentioned in this report into ac<strong>co</strong>unt.The section of the R545 to the south-east, which will remain for some time, requires some maintenance.Photo 4 below shows the existing patched and broken road surface on this section of road and wouldrequire at least resurfacing. It is re<strong>co</strong>mmended that further investigation should be done as part of theroad design for the selected replacement road (Option 1 or 2).New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)407
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesPlate 8-2: Remaining Section of R545 (facing west)8.11.6 Conclusions and Key FindingsIn view of the findings of this assessment, the following <strong>co</strong>nclusions may be drawn:The Option 1 road alternative is the most e<strong>co</strong>nomically feasible replacement for the section of theR545 that will be demolished due to the development of New Largo Colliery.The impact of the <strong>co</strong>nstruction of New Largo Colliery on the existing road network is minimal anddoes not require any mitigating measures.All <strong>co</strong>al from New Largo to Kusile will be transported by means of a direct <strong>co</strong>nveyor belt and willtherefore not impact the public road network.The impacts of New Largo during operation stages will be limited to peak hour private and publicemployee transport to and from site.The upgrades to the surrounding public network as per Diagrams E2.1 (see Appendix L) arerequired before the base year (2015) if Option 1 is selected to replace the R545.A roundabout provides good levels of service at the new intersection between the R545, KusileRoad and Option 1 road, as per Diagram E2.2 (see Appendix L).Further upgrade of the southern terminal of the N12/R545, as shown in Diagram E3 (seeAppendix L), is required for the horizon year (2025) if Option 1 is selected.Option 2 does not require any upgrades to the analysed intersections/interchanges, but requiresthe <strong>co</strong>nstruction of a brand new interchange with the N12.The proposed access layout to New Largo Colliery as illustrated in Diagram F1 (see Appendix L),off Kusile Road provides very good levels of service in the base and horizon years.The following road safety issues needs to be taken into <strong>co</strong>nsideration: shoulder sight distance,dust and the road surface <strong>co</strong>nditions of the remaining section of the R545.8.11.7 Specialist Re<strong>co</strong>mmendationsFollowing the above-mentioned <strong>co</strong>nclusions it is re<strong>co</strong>mmended that:New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)408
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesOption 1 (A or B) should be <strong>co</strong>nstructed to replace the section of the R545 that will bedemolished due to the development of New Largo Colliery.The upgrades to the surrounding public network as per Diagrams E2.1 (see Appendix L) shouldbe implemented before the base year (2015). A roundabout should be implemented at the R545/Kusile Road/Option 1, as per Diagram E2.2(Appendix L).The upgrade of the southern terminal of the N12/R545, as shown in Diagram E3 (see AppendixL), should be implemented before 2025.The access to New Largo Colliery should be <strong>co</strong>nstructed ac<strong>co</strong>rding to the Diagram F1 (seeAppendix L) layout.8.12 Noise8.12.1 Description of Baseline Environment ConditionsThe proposed New Largo Colliery development will be located in a district where the character ofambient noise is to some extent determined by industrialisation and e<strong>co</strong>nomic activity which over timehas resulted in an increase in the background ambient level. It should be noted that from the perspectiveof noise-sensitive recipients in the area, the character of the noise environment has not been affectedonly by external factors such as industrial and mining activity. The character is also affected and thebackground ambient level elevated by noises produced by farming activity, which is the principle landuseactivity exercised by noise-sensitive recipients in the area. It would therefore be improper in a noiseimpact assessment to <strong>co</strong>nsider the baseline reference of the environment and the development target fornew development as Rural in terms of SANS 10103 guidelines.Although traffic volumes on the R545 are low, traffic on the total road infrastructure in <strong>co</strong>njunction withland-use activities <strong>co</strong>llectively elevate the ambient level over most of the project area to about 5 dBabove what is <strong>co</strong>nsidered typical for a Rural Area in terms of SANS 10103 guidelines.In terms of SANS 10103 guidelines (See Table 6-8) the area falls in the category between Rural andUrban, described as “Suburban – With little road traffic”. As such, for purposes of noise impactassessment in this study, typical ambient levels in the area are rated as 50 dBA (daytime) and 40 dBAnight-time, respectively.8.12.1.1 Baseline Impact SourcesPrior to <strong>co</strong>mmencement of the New Largo development, existing impact sources include the following: Scattered existing mining activities;Agricultural activities;Traffic noise from the general road network.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)409
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices8.12.1.2 Synthesis of Baseline ImpactsSources of noise currently <strong>co</strong>ntributing to the ambient levelGeneral and small-scale mining activities scattered over the area which <strong>co</strong>ntribute to machinery,truck and road traffic noise;Agricultural activities where the main sources of audible noise are tractor diesel engines.Road traffic noise emanates from the N4 and N12 highways, the R545 provincial road, as well asfrom other se<strong>co</strong>ndary roads. The N4 and N12 highways have a significant effect on the ambientlevel within a zone of approximately 500 m from the road.Traffic on the total road infrastructure in <strong>co</strong>njunction with land-use activities <strong>co</strong>llectively <strong>co</strong>ntributeto elevate the ambient level over most of the project area to about 5 dB above what is <strong>co</strong>nsideredtypical for a Rural Area in terms of SANS 10103 guidelines.Future sources of noise which will <strong>co</strong>ntribute to the background ambient level: Kusile Power Station <strong>co</strong>nstruction currently in progress and operations starting late 2014,ramping up over time to full production;Operation of the proposed Phola-Kusile Coal Conveyor (Conveyor <strong>co</strong>nstruction noise will benegligible);Proposed Phola-Kusile <strong>co</strong>al <strong>co</strong>nveyorAAIC is proposing to <strong>co</strong>nstruct an overland <strong>co</strong>nveyor system, the Phola-Kusile Overland Coal Conveyor,to transport <strong>co</strong>al from the Phola Coal Processing Plant to Eskom’s Kusile Power Station currently under<strong>co</strong>nstruction. A noise study <strong>co</strong>nducted by Acusolv found that along the proposed route, the <strong>co</strong>nveyor isexpected to have a significant noise impact footprint (45 dBA at night) extending to a distance of 450 mfrom the <strong>co</strong>nveyor. Conveyor noise can be mitigated by reducing the footprint to 250 m. Hence, with orwithout mitigation, the noise impact of the Phola-Kusile Conveyor is localised with a small footprint.Kusile Power StationKusile Power Station currently under <strong>co</strong>nstruction, is located approximately 2 km west of the proposedNew Largo plant. As such, it will occupy a large part of - and will therefore reduce the size of the area tothe west of New Largo that would otherwise have <strong>co</strong>nstituted a noise-sensitive target area for theproposed New Largo project.A noise study for Kusile Power Station has been <strong>co</strong>nducted by Jongens Keet Associates. The reportfinds that the Kusile Power Station is expected to have a 45 dBA footprint within a radius ofapproximately 3 km.The impacts of these <strong>co</strong>mponents are all localised to the respective project areas and cannot simply besummed for the entire study area. In other words, Kusile only significantly elevates the ambient level inits own surroundings (3 km radius), with only a small physical overlap with the Phola-Kusile CoalConveyor footprint and with the future New Largo project area. Phola-Kusile Conveyor only elevates theambient level along a small zone (450 m unmitigated, 250 m mitigated) along the <strong>co</strong>nveyor route. Overthe largest part of the New Largo study area the power station and the <strong>co</strong>nveyor will not overlap and willnot <strong>co</strong>ntribute to a cumulative elevation of the background ambient noise level in the New Largo projector noise study area.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)410
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices8.12.2 Impact Assessment8.12.2.1 Project Impact SourcesConstruction Phase: Power generation at <strong>co</strong>nstruction site;Site preparation: clearing, soil stripping;Blasting;Road works;Building <strong>co</strong>nstruction delivery;Equipment and materials;Generator set – diesel engine;Bulldozer, loading, truck movement;Air blast noise;Grader, <strong>co</strong>mpactor, trucks;Cutting, sawing, grinding, hammering;Trucks and other vehicles on access road;Reverse sirens / hooters.Operational Phase: The opencast mining activities; Draglines removing overburden (se<strong>co</strong>nd dragline introduced in Phase 2);Excavation by shovels;Loading onto trucks, haulage from pit to crushers and tipping of <strong>co</strong>al;Crushing;Conveyor noise;Coal stockpile, <strong>co</strong>al discharge and stockpile maintenance;Traffic noise - access roads;Truck noise on haul roads;Truck and dozer noise on overburden stockpiles;Operation of the <strong>co</strong>al processing plant.Reverse sirens / hooters.De<strong>co</strong>mmission and Closure Similar to <strong>co</strong>nstruction phase.Phase:Post Closure: Not applicable.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)411
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices8.12.2.2 Project ImpactsMine Plan Version 6Construction Phase:General Phase 1 <strong>co</strong>nstruction noiseConstruction of access road;Topsoil stripping prior to mining;Dragline removing overburden;The dominant and the only audible source of noise in each of the abovementionedactivities will be the diesel engines of trucks, dozers, loaders andother earth-moving equipment. Buffered by the Kusile Power Station on thewestern side, general <strong>co</strong>nstruction noise in Phase 1 will be insignificant and ofno <strong>co</strong>nsequence.General phase 2 <strong>co</strong>nstruction noisePower generation at <strong>co</strong>nstruction site;Site preparation: clearing and soil stripping;Blasting;Road works;Building <strong>co</strong>nstruction;Delivery of equipment and materials.Plant <strong>co</strong>nstruction noise will be buffered by the Kusile Power Station on thewestern side. Since the intensity of noise will be relatively low and assuming thatmost of the work will take place during daytime, plant <strong>co</strong>nstruction is notexpected to have significant noise implications in the external surroundings.Blasting Drilling and blasting of overburden will occur during development of thebox-cut and pit. Although it is likely to be clearly audible up to severalkilometres away, it will be of short duration and is not expected to be acause of regular or significant noise disturbance at residences onneighbouring farms and small-holdings.R545 road <strong>co</strong>nstruction Road <strong>co</strong>nstruction will involve the use of standard road building andearth-moving equipment, including dozers, loaders, trucks andNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)412
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices<strong>co</strong>mpactors where the primary sources of noise are the diesel engines,rather than the work activities performed by the equipment. Consideringthat road <strong>co</strong>nstruction by and large involves daytime operations only,noise from this activity, like tractor and vehicle noise in farming activities,is not expected to have a significant impact in the area.Operational Phase:General mining noiseFrom a noise perspective, mining operations may be divided into a slowly moving(roaming) and a fixed group of noise generating equipment and activities, as follows:Roaming operationWithin a short span of time (weeks or months) this group will be practically stationary,but will over the lifetime of the mine traverse at a very slow pace along strips inac<strong>co</strong>rdance with the mining plan. It <strong>co</strong>mprises of:Draglines removing overburden;Loading of overburden removed by draglines onto trucks;Operation of bulldozers and other dragline support vehicles;Opencast operations: drilling;Opencast operations: excavation and loading by shovels on to trucks;Tipping of backfill and movement of trucks on dumps located in the pitbehind the pit operations;Haulage from pit to crushers and tipping of <strong>co</strong>al.Stationary operationsCrushing;Coal stockpiling: <strong>co</strong>al discharge and stockpile maintenance;Local <strong>co</strong>nveyors;Traffic noise on access roads;Coal washing and water treatment;Various workshops.The significant noise impact footprint of the mine was investigated for various<strong>co</strong>nfigurations of the moving group. Noise <strong>co</strong>ntours were calculated for night-time<strong>co</strong>nditions and represent the total noise footprint of stationary and moving <strong>co</strong>mponents<strong>co</strong>mbined. The practical <strong>co</strong>nsequences of general mining noise in Phase 1 may besummarised as follows:New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)413
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesStationary operation noise The main sources of noise in the stationary operation will be thecrushers, local <strong>co</strong>nveyors, trucks on the haul road and tipping. Althoughstockpiling is also taken into ac<strong>co</strong>unt in the calculations, its <strong>co</strong>ntributionto the total is negligible. The same applies to night-time traffic on theaccess road.Within the 45 dBA <strong>co</strong>ntour where a significant impact is expected tooccur, the main <strong>co</strong>mponents of audible noise will be crushing, truckengines and tipping noises.The extent of the noise footprint is not a simple pattern and should beassessed by examination of the noise maps. The extent of the noisesensitivearea that stands to be affected by noise from New Largo isgreatly reduced by its location in proximity of Kusile Power Station. Aswell as reducing the extent of the noise-sensitive surroundings for NewLargo, it also serves as a spatial buffer (creating distance) and acts as aphysical barrier between New Largo operations and the nearest noisesensitivereceptors to the west.Moving operation noise When removal of overburden takes place near the perimeter of the totalmining area, noise from this group will have a significant night-timeimpact up to a distance of 1.5 km from the operation. This will be theextent of the footprint in a direction down-wind from the source of noise.Statistically, during the <strong>co</strong>urse of any year, such down-wind <strong>co</strong>nditionsare likely to occur for recipients on any side of the mined area, morefrequently so for recipients to the east, north and west of the mine.In the moving operation, the main <strong>co</strong>ntribution to the overall noisefootprint <strong>co</strong>mes from drilling, bulldozing, loading and from diesel enginenoise of all supporting equipment. The dragline, despite its extraordinarysize, produces less noise than the bulldozers, drills and other equipment.This is because the large electrical machines <strong>co</strong>nstituting the powerplant of a dragline are fully enclosed in a plant room which provides agood degree of a<strong>co</strong>ustic insulation. On the outside, noise emitted fromthe dragline <strong>co</strong>mprises primarily of fan and airflow noise emanating fromthe air intakes and outlets of the <strong>co</strong>oling and ventilation system. TheNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)414
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser viceslevel of this noise is <strong>co</strong>ntrolled by fan and outlet attenuators.The <strong>co</strong>ntribution to the total level by noise <strong>co</strong>ming from most of the pitoperations will be negligible. The reason is that, as the pit deepens;mining noise will be sharply attenuated by a<strong>co</strong>ustic screening affordedby the pit walls. One exception is noise from truck movements andtipping at a high level on top of the dumps located inside the pit. Formost of the time, however, such dumping activities will be locatedrelatively far away from the perimeter of the mining area.When overburden operations are close to (less than 250 m) or at themining boundary, residents located within the 45 dBA footprint (withinapproximately 1.5 km from the dragline) will under down-wind <strong>co</strong>nditionsat night be disturbed by noise from such operations. Most audible will bediesel engine, bulldozing and loading noises. Should drilling take placeat night, it will <strong>co</strong>ntribute significantly to the overall noise level and toaudible noise.There will be times when such residents will also hear bulldozing, truckmovements, diesel engine and tipping noises <strong>co</strong>ming from the top ofwaste dumps further away inside the pit. Another source of noise whichshould not be underestimated is reverse alarm and hooter noise. It is a<strong>co</strong>mmon cause of noise <strong>co</strong>mplaints from residents near mines. It isdifficult to quantify because it does not necessarily register as anincrease in the measured ambient level, but is particularly audible andannoying due to its pure tonne characteristics.Blast noise Blasting will have a significant impact in the surroundings of the NewLargo Project. A factor which has a strong influence on the level is thetime of day (AM or PM) during which blasting takes place. Blastingduring the afternoon will over large distances on average produce muchlower noise levels.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)Traffic noise from Relocated Section of R545The significant day-night impact footprint of the relocated section of the R545 isexpected to extend approximately 250 m on either side of the road. This small footprintis due to two factors:(a) The relatively low baseline traffic volumes on the R545;(b) The small rate of New Largo project trip generation due to the fact that <strong>co</strong>al will415
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesDe<strong>co</strong>mmission and ClosurePhase:be transported by <strong>co</strong>nveyor rather than road transport.Noise in the de<strong>co</strong>mmissioning phase will be of a similar nature, but at alower intensity and of shorter duration <strong>co</strong>mpared to noise in the<strong>co</strong>nstruction phase. De<strong>co</strong>mmissioning noise will be inaudible in noisesensitiveareas and the noise impact will be negligible.Post Closure: Not applicable.Comparison between Mine Plan Version and Mine Plan Version 7Except for a slightly smaller footprint in the north-eastern <strong>co</strong>rner of the mining area, the sourcesof noise as well as the noise impacts produced by implementation of Mine Plans 6 and 7 will bepractically identical in the <strong>co</strong>nstruction, operational and de<strong>co</strong>mmissioning phases.Mine Plan Version 7 would still have a significant impact at the Rockblend business, should theyremain at the current location. The only advantage that Mine Plan Version 7 would have overNoise Plan 6 is that the Nelson residence to the north-east of the mine will experience a muchsmaller impact.Since the descriptions of the impacts for all the phases would otherwise be identical, it is notrepeated here.8.12.2.3 Cumulative ImpactsConstruction Phase:Cumulative impact <strong>co</strong>ntribution of Kusile Power Station and Phola-KusileConveyorThe respective significant noise impact footprints of Kusile Power Stationand the Phola-Kusile Conveyor will only overlap inside the boundaries ofthe Kusile and the New Largo sites where no people will be living in thefuture. Kusile Power Station will create a significant noise footprint withan approximate radius of 3 km around the power station, while thePhola-Kusile <strong>co</strong>nveyor will affect a 250 m strip either side of the<strong>co</strong>nveyor route in a different area. In other words, each development willcreate its own sphere of influence adding to the size of the overallimpacted area in the district, yet without the two impacts overlappinganywhere on the same noise-sensitive terrain. Nowhere will the impactexperienced by any person living in the area be significantly elevated byboth developments simultaneously.Operational Phase:Cumulative impact <strong>co</strong>ntribution of New Largo – Stationary operations Interface of stationary New Largo operations with Kusile Power Station:As in the case of the Phola-Kusile Conveyor, the respective impacts ofNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)416
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesstationary operations in the proposed New Largo operation and that ofKusile Power Station will only overlap inside the boundaries of the Kusileand the New Largo sites. It will not overlap in areas where people will beliving in the future. The cumulative impact of the two developments atnoise-sensitive locations in the study area will be negligible.Interface of stationary New Largo operations with Phola-KusileConveyor: A measureable cumulative impact by New Largo opencastoperations and the Phola-Kusile Conveyor can be expected where themoving opencast operation approaches the <strong>co</strong>nveyor route. Themagnitude of the cumulative impact will depend on the distances ofhouses from either of the two sources of noise. Over most of the life-ofminethe cumulative impact will be negligible. Only when the opencastoperation approaches the <strong>co</strong>nveyor will any house located both within adistance of 250 m from the <strong>co</strong>nveyor and 1,5 km from the haul roadexperience specific impacts of 5 dB from each <strong>co</strong>mponent. This wouldthen result in a cumulative impact of 8 or dB or more.Cumulative impact of New Largo – Roaming operations Interface of New Largo roaming operations with Kusile Power Station:With the roaming <strong>co</strong>mponent of the New Largo operation <strong>co</strong>ntinuallymoving across a large area, the potential cumulative impact will varyover time. Nowhere will the respective impacts of New Largo opencastoperations and Kusile Power Station overlap in areas where people willbe living in the future.Interface of New Largo roaming operations with Phola-Kusile Conveyor:A measureable cumulative impact by New Largo opencast operationsand the Phola-Kusile Conveyor can be expected where the movingopencast operation approaches the <strong>co</strong>nveyor route. The magnitude ofthe cumulative impact will depend on the distances of houses from eitherof the two sources of noise. Over most of the life-of-mine the cumulativeimpact will be negligible. Only when the opencast operation approachesthe <strong>co</strong>nveyor will any house located both within a distance of 250 m fromthe <strong>co</strong>nveyor and 1.5 km from the haul road experience specific impactsof 5 dB from each <strong>co</strong>mponent. This would then result in a cumulativeimpact of 8 or dB or more.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)417
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesCumulative impact of relocated R545Relocation of a section of the R545 will not result in a significant cumulativeimpact. The reason is that the small significant noise footprint will notoverlap with of the road has a significant impact footprint delineated by theLdn = 55 dBA <strong>co</strong>ntour is small, extending approximately 250 m on eitherside of the road. The small impact is due to two factors:(a) The relatively low baseline traffic volumes on the R545;(b) The small rate of New Largo project trip generation due to the fact that <strong>co</strong>al willbe transported by <strong>co</strong>nveyor rather than road transport.It should be cautioned that the specific impacts of the various<strong>co</strong>mponents are all localised to the respective project areas and cannotsimply be summed and interpreted as a cumulative impact on the entirestudy area. Kusile Power Station only significantly elevates the ambientlevel in its own surroundings (3 km radius); with only a small physicaloverlap with the Phola-Kusile footprint and with the future New Largoproject area. Phola-Kusile Conveyor only elevates the ambient levelalong a small zone (450 m unmitigated, 250 m mitigated) along the<strong>co</strong>nveyor route. Over the largest part of the New Largo study area, thepower station and the <strong>co</strong>nveyor will not overlap and will not <strong>co</strong>ntribute toa cumulative elevation of the background ambient noise level in thenoise study area. Moreover, what is not quantifiable is that theimplementation of the New Largo project will result in localised noisereductions and relief to the nearest residents due to cessation of someexisting small-scale noise-generating mining operations scattered overthe area.By and large, the overall cumulative impact over the largest part of thestudy area will be the same as the specific impact of New Largo.De<strong>co</strong>mmission and ClosurePhase:Post Closure:Similar to <strong>co</strong>nstruction phase.No applicable.8.12.2.4 Impacts of the No-Go / Alternative DevelopmentWith the no-go alternative the noise environment will be better off in the sense that a 1.5 km zone aroundthe proposed mine will not be exposed to additional noise impacts. Existing impacts of existing miningand agricultural activities and road traffic will remain.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)418
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices8.12.3 Conclusions and Key FindingsOver the largest part of the New Largo project study area, the overall cumulative impact of New Largoand other sources of existing and future noise will be the same as the specific impact of New Largo.Although the proposed New Largo project will have significant noise impacts, it is important to note thatthe impacts will be localised and restricted to quantifiable zones around the haul roads, the mining area,as well as a small zone along the relocated R545 route. It is not the entire area around the mine that willbe affected by noise from the development. Moreover, the impact of the roaming opencast operation,although it will over time <strong>co</strong>ver the entire mining area, will only be located at one position at a time.The plant and associated infrastructure which forms part of the stationary <strong>co</strong>mponent of the project willonly have a limited noise impact. A significant impact on a relatively small area is likely to result from theremainder of the stationary <strong>co</strong>mponent <strong>co</strong>mprising of the crushers and trucks on the haul road. Noisefrom moving operations <strong>co</strong>mprising of opencast mining and removal of overburden, will have asignificant impact up to a distance of 1.5 km for the duration of time when such operations are locatednear or at the boundary of the mining area. This impact will result primarily from noise generated bysurface operations (removal of overburden), while the <strong>co</strong>ntribution of noise from pit operations, screenedby the pit walls, will be negligible. A significant impact will result from blasting which will occur at frequentintervals throughout the <strong>co</strong>nstruction and life of the mine. Measures which should be <strong>co</strong>nsidered formitigation of noise impacts are proposed.Crusher noise which is the <strong>co</strong>mponent of plant noise most likely to be disturbing in the area south of theplant can be mitigated. Haul road noise as well as mining noise produced by surface equipment at theopencast operation can be mitigated by placement of waste dumps to create noise berms.8.12.4 Specialist Re<strong>co</strong>mmendationsAlthough the project is not expected to affect the largest part of the study area, where singular housesstand to be affected, the localised impacts of the main <strong>co</strong>mponents should nevertheless be addressed. Itis advised that the mine involve an a<strong>co</strong>ustical engineer to work out specific design solutions forimplementation of the noise reduction <strong>co</strong>ncepts outlined in this report.The noise specialist <strong>co</strong>ncluded that from a noise impact point of view there are no fundamental problemsfor the development to be implemented and the project is deemed acceptable.8.13 Soils and Land Capability8.13.1 Description of Baseline Environment Conditions8.13.1.1 Baseline Impact SourcesThe survey area is characterised by a variety of robust and sensitive, to highly sensitive soils that varyfrom extremes of moderate to very deep sandy loams and sandy clay loamy textures with moderate clay<strong>co</strong>ntents, good soil water storage ability, a moderate to low erosion index, moderate to poor nutrientstores and apedel to weak crumby structure. These characteristics are in <strong>co</strong>ntrast to the extreme ofmuch shallower rooted soils and rocky outcrop areas that returned little to no rooting depth. These soilsreturned fine to medium grained sandy texture (resistant sandstones) and poor water holding capabilitiesthat are more sensitive to erosion, while the highly sensitive wet based soils and wetland areasassociated with the pan structures, streams and riverine environs, are regarded as the more sensitivesoils mapped.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)419
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesThis <strong>co</strong>mplex of soils is modified and characterised by the range of sediments and geological structuresthat influence the topography and <strong>co</strong>ntrol the pedogenetic processes at work.The existing environmental <strong>co</strong>nsiderations (physical and socio e<strong>co</strong>nomic) and impact sources identifiedduring the baseline investigation that <strong>co</strong>uld have an effect on the soils and land capability include:The “Brownfields” nature of the majority of the project area (E<strong>co</strong>nomic, Agriculture and<strong>co</strong>mmercial grazing);The <strong>co</strong>nstruction of the Kusile operations albeit to the north and west of the site and outside the<strong>co</strong>al mining area;The <strong>co</strong>nstruction and operation of the Phola-Kusile Coal Conveyor;The presence and use of existing public roads;A number of <strong>co</strong>mmercial shops and farm stores;Numerous farm dams and water retention facilities;Irrigation of farm land and the effects of added water to the soils;Sand mining operations and brickworks.8.13.1.2 Synthesis of Baseline ImpactsThe baseline investigation of the soils and land capability identified a number of existing impacts that areof <strong>co</strong>nsequence to the pre-<strong>co</strong>nstruction / existing <strong>co</strong>nditions that <strong>co</strong>uld / will be impacted. These include:The modified nature of a large proportion of the soils that are planned to be disturbed. Thesesoils have been effected by <strong>co</strong>mmercial farming activities (cultivated cropping and livestockgrazing);The irrigation of some of the soils for <strong>co</strong>mmercial crop production;The <strong>co</strong>mmercial mining and sale of sand to the building industry;Clay mining and the production of bricks in close proximity to the study area;Drainage of a number of the wetland environments due to cultivation practices and themodification of the temporal zone around the wetlands;The <strong>co</strong>nfining / impoundment of surface water in farm dams and the saturation of otherwisetemporal wet based soils;Generation of dust from cultivation and exposure of soils while left fallow to wind erosion resultingin soil loss;Increased loss of soil resource due to water erosion of unprotected soils (removal of vegetative<strong>co</strong>ver);Possible <strong>co</strong>ntamination of soils and loss of land capability due to farming activities, and<strong>co</strong>mmercial and mining use of sections of the proposed mining area;Loss of soil resource due to <strong>co</strong>mpaction of areas being utilized for <strong>co</strong>mmercial or privatedwellings and farm businesses;New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)420
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesLoss of soil water resource due to disturbance of soil profile (<strong>co</strong>mpaction – reduced infiltration);andThe effects of dust generated by the <strong>co</strong>nstruction activities (inclusive of transport) from the Kusile<strong>co</strong>nstruction site and the building of the <strong>co</strong>nveyor system.Physical CharacteristicsThe physical characteristics of the soils include: Topsoil clay percentages that range from as low as 4% to 18%, and as high as 12% to 35%depending on the host geology from which they are derived, Subsoil clays that range from 16% to 57%,High infiltration/permeability rates are associated with the sandy loams and well sorted alluvialmaterials associated with the riverine deposits and some of the more sandy Forms associatedwith the quartzite deposits in the north;Moderate to high in-situ permeability rates (0.74m/day to 2.15m/day) on the more clay rich loamsand sandy clay loams associated with the shallower soils (600mm to 900mm) and materialsassociated with the ferricrete and/or the deposition of flood plain materials;A significant and impermeable ferricrete (hard plinthite) as the “C” horizon to many of thepedological profiles mapped either in the lower lying areas associated with wetlands and theirtransition zone or as relic land forms within the topography;Moderate to good intake (infiltration) rates (5mm/hr to 12mm/hr), depending on the type of claypresent;Moderate to poor water holding capacities for all but the more clay rich materials (80mm/m to120mm/m).The physical characteristics are highly influenced by the parent materials from which they are derived,as well as their position in the topography. The structure of the soils varies from those with a finegrainedapedel <strong>co</strong>mposition with occasional single grained structure within the very silty soils, to weakcrumby structure where the soils are <strong>co</strong>lluvial derived, and/or associated with the wetland bottom slopepositions.A significant percentage of the soils that are likely to be disturbed are associated with the flat toundulating Highveld plains and relatively wide <strong>co</strong>lluvial deposits within the open non-perennialwaterways.While <strong>co</strong>mpaction is a <strong>co</strong>ncern to be noted and managed in the natural environment, it is of greater<strong>co</strong>nsequence to the successful implementation of any rehabilitation plan. The variable grain size of thematerials will, when mixed and/or disturbed, result in a <strong>co</strong>mpaction index that is significantly alteredform the natural <strong>co</strong>nditions.The land capability (soils, climate, ground roughness etc.) ranges from very low intensity (poor quality)grazing lands with little to no significant e<strong>co</strong>nomic potential, to highly sensitive wilderness or<strong>co</strong>nservation status lands that by definition requires better than average management and areas thatare rated as poor agricultural potential land.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)421
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesThe presence of wetlands as defined by the wetland delineation guidelines are relatively limited (
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices8.13.2.1 Project Impact SourcesConstruction Phase: The depth of impact due to the open cast nature of the mining and theneed for deep foundations for the larger infrastructure and supportactivities will result in the disturbance of the <strong>co</strong>mplete soil profile;The length of time that some of the soils will need to be stored andmanaged (30 years plus);The sensitive e<strong>co</strong>logical and biodiversity aspects that are to be impacted– wet based soils and transition zone landscapes.Operational Phase: The size of area that will be disturbed by the open cast mining –potentially large loss of resource;De<strong>co</strong>mmission and ClosurePhase:The depth of impact due to the open cast nature of the mining and theneed for deep foundations for the larger infrastructure and supportactivities will result in the disturbance of the <strong>co</strong>mplete soil profile;The size and weight of machinery that will be used to mine the<strong>co</strong>mmodity;The length of time that some of the soils will need to be stored andmanaged (30 years plus);The sequence of mining and the extent of open void that exists at anymoment in time (roll over method proposed);The sensitive e<strong>co</strong>logical and biodiversity aspects that are to be impacted– wet based soils and transition zone landscapes.The length of time that some of the soils will need to be stored andmanaged (30 years plus);Post Closure: The length of time that some of the soils will need to be stored andmanaged (30 years plus);8.13.2.2 Project ImpactsMine Plan Version 6The activities that will take place during the LOM of the project and which will impact the soilenvironment have been dealt with using a phased approach. Mine Plan Version 6 <strong>co</strong>nsiders the miningof the <strong>co</strong>mplete “resource”, inclusive of the Northern Pan System and <strong>co</strong>nsiders the rerouting of theR545 to the north and east of the mining area.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)423
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesConstruction Phase: The stripping of all utilisable soil (top 150mm to 500mm depending onactivity);The preparation (levelling and <strong>co</strong>mpaction) of lay-down areas,foundations, dragline erection pad and pad footprint areas for stockpilingof utilisable soil removed from the footprint of the planned open castmining area, the soft overburden stockpile and the <strong>co</strong>nstruction of thestorm water <strong>co</strong>ntrol facility(s) inclusive of berms and trenches to divertclean water around the mine workings;The clearing, stripping and stockpiling from the <strong>co</strong>nstruction of all accessand haulage roads, water supply, alternative provincial road routes(R545) and electrical power supply servitudes (linear infrastructure);The use of heavy machinery over unprotected soils;The creation of dust and loss of materials to wind and water erosion(loss of resource), andThe possible <strong>co</strong>ntamination of the soils by chemical and hydrocarbonsspills (dust and dirty water runoff).Operational Phase: The sterilisation of the soil resource under which the <strong>co</strong>al is mined andthe where the support facilities are <strong>co</strong>nstructed. This will be an on-goingloss for the duration of the operation;The creation of dust and the possible loss (erosion) of utilisable soildown-wind and/or downstream, and the siltation of the local streams andwaterways;The <strong>co</strong>mpaction of the in-situ and stored soils and the potential loss ofutilisable materials from the system;The mining of wet based soils and wetlands (pans):The <strong>co</strong>ntamination of the in-situ and stored soils by dirty water run-offand or spillage of hydrocarbons from vehicle and machinery or from dustand emissions from the process of mining (blasting dust etc.) andhauling of <strong>co</strong>al;The <strong>co</strong>ntamination and impact of sensitive materials located on or inclose proximity (bordering) to the mining venture and their loss from thesystem;Contamination of soils through the use of dirty water for road wetting(dust suppression) and irrigation of the stockpile vegetation;New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)424
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesDe<strong>co</strong>mmission and ClosurePhase:Contamination of soil resource through dust emission fallout;Sterilisation and the loss of the soil nutrient pool, organic carbon storesand fertility of stored soils;Impact on soil structure and soil water balance and the impact on thebase flow to the local catchment due the mining of the wet based soils.The loss of the soils’ original nutrient store and organic carbon byleaching of the soils’ while in storage;Erosion and de-oxygenation of materials while stockpiled;Compaction and dust <strong>co</strong>ntamination due to vehicle movement whilerehabilitating the area;Erosion due to the lack of slope stabili<strong>za</strong>tion and re-vegetation ofdisturbed areas;Contamination of replaced soils through the use of dirty water for plantwatering and dust suppression on roads and haulage ways;Hydrocarbon, chemical and <strong>co</strong>al product spillage from <strong>co</strong>ntractor andsupply vehicles on roads and haulage ways;An improvement (positive impacts) due to the reduction in areas ofdisturbance and return of soil utilisation potential, un<strong>co</strong>vering of areas ofstorage and rehabilitation of <strong>co</strong>mpacted materials.Post Closure: Based on rehabilitation practices.Mine Plan Version 7The alternative to Mine Plan Version 6 is Mine Plan Version 7. This involves the sterilisation of the <strong>co</strong>alunder the northern pan system and its surrounds. The differences in the impacts that will be felt are sitespecific and of <strong>co</strong>nsequence to the specific system involved.Construction Phase: As for Mine Plan Version 6.Operational Phase: As for Mine Plan Version 6, except for the mining of wet based soils andDe<strong>co</strong>mmission and ClosurePhase:wetlands within the proposed mining area where the whole of thenorthern pan system will be excluded. As for Mine Plan Version 6.Post Closure: As for Mine Plan Version 6.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)425
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesComparison between Mine Plan Version 6 and Mine Plan Version 7In assessing the impacts that are likely to affect the soil environment between the two mining optionstabled (Options 6 and 7), it is important that the site specific nature of the activities are understood. It isalso important to understand that the impacts will potentially be felt some distance downstream of theoperation. The effects on soil water will ultimately influence and affect the base flow to the rivers.Construction Phase: During the <strong>co</strong>nstruction phase, the impacts will be very similar for the twomine plan versions, with the majority of the mining infrastructure andearly mining taking place in areas with less sensitive soils (no majorwetlands). The mining sequence is planned to start in the north andprogress southwards and there is no major infrastructure planned in andaround the northern pan system. However, impacts on the northern pansystem are currently experienced due to the sand mining operations.The significance of the impacts will be limited, albeit that the area will berestricted and all existing activities (sand mining etc.) will stop.Operational Phase: During the operational phase, mining will gradually progress southeastwardsinto the northern pan area some time into the 2030’s andearly 2040’s. Again little effect will be felt on the major pan system untilthis time. However, once mining is started, the impacts as described inmine plan Version 6 will occur and the system will be lost, with all of the<strong>co</strong>ntributing factors that are associated with the soil water and its<strong>co</strong>ntribution to the e<strong>co</strong>logy and biodiversity of the area.De<strong>co</strong>mmission and ClosurePhase:The closure scenario will be similar for the two mining options with onestriking difference, the recreation and restoration or rehabilitation of thenorthern pan system will not be possible for Mine Plan version 6.The system will have been lost with all the positive <strong>co</strong>ntributions of thedeep soils and soil water that is inherently part of the pan system alongwith its potential <strong>co</strong>ntribution to the base flow of the river.The impacts on the soil resource will affect the soil water balance, the<strong>co</strong>ntribution of the soils to the down slope catchments and the storagezones within the soil catena (seep zones, pans) and this will ultimatelyhave an impact on the base flow of the streams and rivers.Post Closure: As for Mine Plan 6.8.13.2.3 Cumulative ImpactsCurrently, there are potential sources of similar impacts from other <strong>co</strong>al mines operating or planned tothe south and east of New Largo, as well as the beneficiation plant to the south of the proposedNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)426
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesoperation. In addition the planned transportation of <strong>co</strong>al from the Phola Coal Processing plant to theKusile power station via the Phola-Kusile Coal Conveyor system, to be <strong>co</strong>nstructed to the south andwest of the mining area, also have an impact.These impacts are likely to occur as a result of the project and not as stand-alone activities, and as suchwill need to be <strong>co</strong>nsidered as part of the overall impact that will occur if the mining project materialises. Ifthe new Largo Mining Project does not materialise, these impacts will not be an issue.However, with Kusile Power Station at an advanced stage of <strong>co</strong>nstruction the assumption is that thetransport of <strong>co</strong>al via <strong>co</strong>nveyor from the beneficiation plant in the south will happen even if the New LargoProject does not materialise (<strong>co</strong>al will have to be found from another source). In addition, residentialdevelopments and existing power stations in the area supply sufficient data to undertake a riskassessment on the cumulative impacts.The cumulative impacts on the soils and land capability are <strong>co</strong>nfined mainly to the overall reduction inthe availability of the resource and the potential loss of utilisable materials that have the ability toproduce agricultural products. The overall loss of resource due to erosion, <strong>co</strong>mpaction and<strong>co</strong>ntamination is unlikely to be an issue in terms of cumulative effects as these <strong>co</strong>nstraints are sitespecific.Although soil resources are not limited in the region, the loss of land capability and a change in land useassociated with other developments (Townlands, additional mining, power stations etc.) <strong>co</strong>uld result in aloss of livelihood for the present/existing <strong>co</strong>mmunities. Further pressures <strong>co</strong>uld arise if there is an influxof job seekers to the region, with these job seekers potentially establishing informal settlements andresorting to subsistence type agricultural practices, all of which <strong>co</strong>uld further sterilising arable ande<strong>co</strong>nomically viable soil resources.8.13.2.4 Impacts of No-Go / Alternative DevelopmentThe impact of the project not materialising would result in the <strong>co</strong>ntinuing of the status quo. The farmingand small scale mining activities would <strong>co</strong>ntinue and the soils would <strong>co</strong>ntinue to be impacted by theoperations that currently occur on the land. Soils would be affected by farming and the support activitiesassociated with this existing practise, while the mining of the sands and clay would sterilise the soils andrender the areas of little use other than as wilderness status at closure (surface materials are utilised).An alternative development would need to be better understood before any meaningful <strong>co</strong>mment <strong>co</strong>uldbe made regarding the impacts. However, the potential loss of in<strong>co</strong>me to the state and the loss of jobopportunities if New Largo does not happen are likely to be greater than those afforded the people in theagricultural and small scale mining industries.The loss of soil resource from farming versus the mining option has not been calculated for anysignificant project of this size, but all indications from smaller projects worked on, is that there is nosignificant difference in the loss of resource on the soils in this geographic area when <strong>co</strong>mparing the“natural” land capability with that which is proposed for the rehabilitated area (grazing land potentialrating) after mining is <strong>co</strong>mpleted.8.13.3 Conclusions and Key FindingsThe findings of the soil and land capability specialist study <strong>co</strong>nclude that:There is a highly variable depth characteristic from significant areas of rocky outcrop and shallowsaprolitic/ferricrete exposure to deeper in-situ derived soils and <strong>co</strong>lluvial derived materialsassociated with the lower midslopes and lower slope positions;New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)427
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesGenerally moderate clay <strong>co</strong>ntent with low reserves of organic carbon and resultant moderate tohigh erodibility indices, albeit that these are tempered by the relative flatness of the terrain;Lower than acceptable nutrient stores in association with moderate permeability rates in theupper soil horizons and moderate to low water holding characteristics;In general, moderately sensitive soils that will require good management (erosion and<strong>co</strong>mpaction issues);Moderate to high significance ratings for the unmanaged impacts on the highly sensitive soilsassociated with the open cast mining area, materials stockpiles and associated supportinfrastructure;Moderate impacts on the soils and land capability due to the loss in resource of the soils that willbe effected by the <strong>co</strong>nstruction and operation of the open pit mining area (dragline and shoveland truck – roll over mining) and its associated support infrastructure;A moderate to low significance rating due to the potential for <strong>co</strong>ntamination, <strong>co</strong>mpaction anderosion of materials during the <strong>co</strong>nstruction phase predominantly, with a lower significance duringthe operational phase and into the de<strong>co</strong>mmissioning and closure of the facilities.The sensitivity of the soils mapped will require better than average management during the <strong>co</strong>nstructionand operational phases if it is to be useful for rehabilitation during the later stages of the operation andinto the closure phase of the project.The current land capability is rated as grazing land or wilderness / <strong>co</strong>nservation land with a low intensity(stocking) status for the most part (S.A. Chamber of Mines Guidelines (1991) Rating System). However,for successful rehabilitation to take place the site will require well developed and implementedmanagement to stabilise and re-establish the natural soil <strong>co</strong>mponents and obtain a self-sustaining andstandalone land class unit, all of which will require that a soil depth of at least 500 mm (Grazing LandPotential) is re-instated across the landscape.The pedological assessment revealed a strong <strong>co</strong>rrelation between the underlying lithologies andweathering of the in-situ materials, and the accumulation of depositional materials within the lower lyingareas as <strong>co</strong>lluvial and/or alluvial deposits. The result of these geomorphological interactions hasresulted in a <strong>co</strong>mplex of soil Forms.The accumulation of <strong>co</strong>lluvial materials in the transition zone are reflected in the sandy clays and clayloams that vary in depth, water holding capabilities and drainage characteristics. The pedogenisis andprocess are all important in better understanding the functionality of the soil within the greater life cycleof the area under study. The storage of water within the deeper soils and the movement of soil waterwithin the profile are of importance to the wet soils status and the functionality of the e<strong>co</strong>logy of thearea.The activities proposed for the mining development will definitely have a significant negative impact onthe soil resource for the life of the <strong>co</strong>nstruction, mining operation and rehabilitation operations, and willpotentially be felt beyond the mining into the closure phases.The land capability of the open cast mining areas and the surface infrastructure associated with theseactivities will be altered from moderate to poor potential grazing and arable land status to that of “miningland” status for the life of the mining operation and beyond.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)428
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices8.13.4 Specialist Re<strong>co</strong>mmendationsSuccessful rehabilitation of the sensitive and more structured soils will require significant managementinput if a sustainable vegetative <strong>co</strong>ver is to be re-established and the project is to obtain a standalonestatus at closure.Significant e<strong>co</strong>nomic gain can be achieved by getting the stripping and storage of utilisable materials<strong>co</strong>rrect as part of the overall mine planning early on, with successful rehabilitation and ease of closurebeing achieved if the materials are available and a <strong>co</strong>nceptual plan developed early in the planningstages.The soil specialist re<strong>co</strong>mmended additional work, which was <strong>co</strong>nsidered during the developmentof the s<strong>co</strong>pe of work for the Reserve Determination study that is currently being undertaken by WetlandConsulting Services (see Section 3.13). The s<strong>co</strong>pe of work for the Reserve Determination study wasdiscussed with the DWA.See additional re<strong>co</strong>mmendations on soil management and rehabilitation in Section 5.7.2.18.14 Vibrations and Blasting8.14.1 Description of Baseline Environment ConditionsBlasting generates short duration events that are noticeable by <strong>co</strong>mmunities and individuals living in theimmediate environment. These events tend to be emotive because of structural response (resonance) tovibration and air blast and are easily re<strong>co</strong>gnized as being related to blasting.People living in the area are likely to be familiar with blasting activity at the nearby Vlakfontein andKlipspruit strip <strong>co</strong>al mines.The various receptors are:Buildings and homesteads including:o Farmhouses and buildings within 1200 m of blasting.o The houses and infrastructure in the Voltargo (Voltargo Village).o A store (shop) and buildings on the south side of Voltargo and the R545.o Farmsteads.o Brickworks on the northern boundary of the mine.o Informal houses.o Buildings and people in Phola and the Kendal Forest will not suffer any risk fromvibration, but their impact risk will be high for air blast in unmitigated circumstances.Public roads including the N12, the R545 and other private farm roads. The N4 will not beimpacted, but is included in this report as it has been specifically noted in the Issues andResponse reports.Eskom infrastructure including:o power lines running through the area.o water pipelines.The Phola-Kusile <strong>co</strong>nveyor line.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)429
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices The Transnet pipeline along the N12.The underground Transnet storage facility on Vlakfontein strip <strong>co</strong>al mine.Graves in the area.There is a Telkom relay tower to the north of the property. This is unlikely to be impactedbecause of its distance from the planned mining and therefore is not included in the impactevaluation.8.14.2 Impact Assessment8.14.2.1 Project Impact SourcesConstruction Phase: Minor Blasting OperationsOperational Phase: Blasting OperationsDe<strong>co</strong>mmissioning Blasting Operations for demolition of surface infrastructure.8.14.2.2 Project ImpactsMine Plan Version 6Construction Phase: During the <strong>co</strong>nstruction phase of the infrastructure, there will be minorblasting activities <strong>co</strong>mpared to the major overburden, interburden and<strong>co</strong>al blasting operations during the mining.Blasting associated with the box-cut will be similar to operationalimpacts, as discussed below.Operational Phase: There are a number of receptors that will require management <strong>co</strong>ntrol inorder to minimize the impact of blasting. Of particular <strong>co</strong>ncern arestructures and buildings within an approximate 1200 m radius of theareas where the opencast mining is to occur. The buildings and peoplewithin this zone will be most susceptible to high vibrations in un<strong>co</strong>ntrolledmining.Mitigation measures will be needed when mining <strong>co</strong>mes to within 1200 mfrom people and buildings. This will occur when mining occurs nearVoltargo and between 2035 and 2055. Mitigation measures(management <strong>co</strong>ntrol) will be necessary for fly rock <strong>co</strong>ntrol, which willhave the most severe negative impact under un<strong>co</strong>ntrolled <strong>co</strong>nditions.The various receptors are:New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)430
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesPeople and animalsBuildings and homesteadsPublic roads including the N12, the R545 and other private farm roads.The N4 will not be impacted.The underground Transnet storage facility on Vlakfontein strip <strong>co</strong>al minePower lines and other Eskom infrastructureThe Phola-Kusile <strong>co</strong>nveyor lineGraves in the areaAnimals Un<strong>co</strong>ntrolled blasting associated with loud bangs <strong>co</strong>uld have a negativeimpact on animals. Controlled blasting is a relatively quiet activity thatshould not impact on any animals.Humans (adults and children) Humans are more tolerant to low frequency vibrations. Ground vibrationlevels received at a structure of 0.76 to 2.54 mm/s are quite perceptible,but the probability of damage is almost non-existent. Levels in the 2.54to 7.6 mm/s can be disturbing and levels above 7.6 mm/s can be veryunpleasant, although permanent damage is unlikely.Impact on children will be the same as for adults.Buildings Buildings withstand ground vibration amplitudes of 12.7 mm/s. To avoiddamaging buildings, the USBM limiting curve should be applied.To avoid <strong>co</strong>nstant <strong>co</strong>mplaints and possible litigation from neighbours, thevibration should preferably be kept beneath the unpleasant curve anddefinitely be kept beneath the intolerable curve. A limit of 7 mm/s isre<strong>co</strong>mmended. This limit should restrain <strong>co</strong>mplaints and will prevent therisk of blast induced damage to most buildings, including informally<strong>co</strong>nstructed buildings that are very <strong>co</strong>mmon in the area.Most informally <strong>co</strong>nstructed buildings usually suffer damage as a resultof naturally induced strains from temperature changes and humidityNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)431
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser viceschanges. Naturally induced strains are <strong>co</strong>mmonly much higher than blastinduced strains, so AAIC should be aware of the likelihood of this type ofdamage and bring it to the attention of homeowners before blasting bycarrying out pre-blast crack surveys.Eskom power lines Eskom places a limit of 75 mm/s at its pylons. This is a <strong>co</strong>nservative limitas the steel structure of each pylon and the <strong>co</strong>ncrete foundation blockscan both withstand significantly higher vibrations.Public roads For public roads, such as the R545, the N4 and the N12, risk ofdesegregation of the road material will start to appear at vibrationamplitudes of the vertical <strong>co</strong>mponent above 150 mm/s. Vibration levelsat these structures need to be kept below 150 mm/s.Telkom relay tower Structurally, towers will be able to withstand relatively high vibration atfrequencies above 5 Hz. However, the electronic circuitry will be moresensitive, and a ground vibration limit of 10 mm/s is applicable.Pipelines (water and Transnet) The limit at which pipelines start suffering damage is high. Blasting nearpressurized steel pipelines has safely taken place at peak particlevelocities in excess of 50 mm/s in South Africa. Unless the pipelines arein very poor <strong>co</strong>ndition or made of old <strong>co</strong>ncrete/asbestos, a level of 50mm/s will be safe. Transnet has prescribed a limit of 25 mm/s on theirpipeline that runs close to blasting operations along the N12 highway.ConveyorsThe steel <strong>co</strong>nveyor structure will withstand very high vibrations and the<strong>co</strong>ncrete plinths will remain undamaged by ground vibration up to 200mm/s.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)432
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesGraves The soil in old graves is well <strong>co</strong>mpacted and will not be impacted byvibration any more than the surrounding soil structure. Soil <strong>co</strong>mpactionor liquefaction starts to occur at vibration amplitudes above 150 mm/s.There should thus be no impact on graves.Ground vibrationFactors influencing ground vibration amplitudes: The charge mass fired per instance in time. The larger the chargemass, the higher the amplitude of the ground vibration. The charge masscan be limited by timing blasts so that holes fire one at a time or byreducing the blast hole diameters. These practical measures have amarked influence on vibration amplitudes.The distance from the blast. Vibration energy is attenuated in the rockthrough friction, reflections and increased distribution of the wave frontas distance increases from a blast. Normally, structures that are fartherfrom blasting experience lower amplitudes than those closer to blastingAir blastAir blast amplitudes are strongly influenced by the following factors: Un<strong>co</strong>nfined charges produce very high air pressure waves. Un<strong>co</strong>nfinedcharges are those that are not <strong>co</strong>nfined in a hole that is properlystemmed.Ineffective stemming material, unstemmed holes (often used in presplitblasts) and overcharged holes all create high air blast amplitudes andincrease the risk of fly rock.High air blast levels can also be generated by insufficiently <strong>co</strong>nfinedcharges, such as blast holes that are under-burdened.Atmospheric <strong>co</strong>nditions can amplify air blast amplitudes to damaginglevels. High wind velocities, thick cloud <strong>co</strong>ver or temperature inversionsare the main amplifying factors.Air blast levelsDisturbance to neighbours (humans and animals), destruction of nearbyNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)433
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser viceshomeowner’s infrastructure such as windows and ceilings.To limit disturbance to neighbours (humans and animals), air blastamplitudes must be lower than 120 dB. Air blast is more <strong>co</strong>mmonly aproblem to nearby homeowners than vibration, because it is felt throughresponse of large surfaces such as ceilings and windows.Influence of blasting practice on fly rock, dust and poisonous fumes In well-<strong>co</strong>ntrolled blasts where stemming lengths and quality are appliedas per design and blast holes are not under-burdened, fly rock and dustwill be easily <strong>co</strong>ntained to within the mining area. The factors that causehigh air blast levels are the same as those that cause dangerous fly rockand excessive dust.Ground displacement Apart from ground vibration and fly rock <strong>co</strong>ntrol, special precautions willbe needed to <strong>co</strong>ntain the risk of permanent rock displacement.Generation of gas emissions When explosives detonate, they generate nitrogen, carbon dioxide andwater vapour. These gasses are produced for explosives that arestoichiometrically balanced.Water pollution ANFO (Ammonia nitrate / Fuel Oil) is soluble in water resulting in higher<strong>co</strong>ncentrations of nitrates in the water. This is a risk when water from theblast area or storage silos finds its way into the ground water or streams.Water pollution occurs from dissolved explosives salts.Damage to wells and aquifersBlasting is unlikely to result in damage to the aquifers in the area.Water oscillation: Effects on aquifers seen from strong ground motioncaused by earthquakes are not present where vibration particle velocitiesare lower than 20 mm/s. Blasting generates much higher frequenciesNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)434
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices(periods of a fraction of a se<strong>co</strong>nd), and thus would not cause the watersystem in an aquifer to respond to the vibration (Oriard, 2005).De<strong>co</strong>mmission andClosure Phase:Wells and Aquifers: Damage to rock - damage to the aquifer host-rock byblasting vibration is very unlikely at distances greater than 100 m fromblasting.During the de<strong>co</strong>mmissioning phases of the mine, there will be blastingactivities as part of demolition. Impact will be minor <strong>co</strong>mpared to themajor overburden, interburden and <strong>co</strong>al blasting operations during theOperational Phase.Post Closure: No blasting anticipated.Comparison between Mine Plan Version 6 and Mine Plan Version 7Construction Phase: The Alternative Mine Plan will only reduce impacts in the north-easternsection of the mining area, around the large pan on farm Honingkrantz.Very few sensitive receptors are located in this northern area.Operational Phase: The Alternative Mine Plan will only reduce impacts in the north-easternsection of the mining area, around the large pan on farm Honingkrantz.Very few sensitive receptors are located in this northern area.De<strong>co</strong>mmission andClosure Phase:During the de<strong>co</strong>mmissioning phases of the mine, there will be blastingactivities as part of demolition. Impact will be minor <strong>co</strong>mpared to themajor overburden, interburden and <strong>co</strong>al blasting operations during theOperational Phase.Post Closure: No blasting anticipated.8.14.2.3 Cumulative ImpactsConstruction Phase: No cumulative impacts are expected for the <strong>co</strong>nstruction phase of theNew Largo Colliery.Operational Phase: There may be <strong>co</strong>ncern from homeowners about the cumulative effects ofvibration and air blast on cracking and fatigue in their homes. Impacts ofadjacent developments are generally to far apart to have a cumulativeimpact. The real impacts similar to impacts prescribed under projectimpactsDe<strong>co</strong>mmission andClosure Phase:As for project impacts.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)435
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesPost Closure: No blasting anticipated.8.14.2.4 Impacts of No-Go / Alternative DevelopmentImpacts in the project study area will be avoided. For an alternative development to replace New LargoColliery, the impacts of blasting are expected to the similar to that of New Largo Colliery.8.14.3 Conclusions and Key FindingsVoltargo will potentially have the highest negative impact for blasting related vibration, fly rock risk, dustand fumes. The buildings within 1200m of mining will also have high negative impact significance fromthe same causes. Mitigation measures will need to be applied <strong>co</strong>nsciously to keep the negative impactsignificance to Low when blasting closer than 1200 m to these structures.Mitigation measures will be needed to <strong>co</strong>ntrol vibration to within specified limits when mining within500 m of the Transnet Pipeline and Eskom infrastructure such as power lines, pipelines and the PholaKusile <strong>co</strong>nveyor.The Phola Township and the Kendal Forest Holdings will not be subjected to any vibration risk, but theywill be subjected to air blast and possible fly rock risk (north part of Kendal and west side of Phola), andmitigation measures will be needed to keep the negative impact significance to Low.Graves and wells are unlikely to be impacted by blasting vibration.Public roads (N12, R545) will not be impacted negatively by vibration, but will have a High negativeimpact significance for fly rock and dust. This will be<strong>co</strong>me Low when applying the specified mitigationmeasures.8.14.4 Specialist Re<strong>co</strong>mmendationsAll of AAIC blast designs for overburden, interburden and pre-splitting have been designed with 311 mmdiameter holes. Where blasting takes place within 1200 m from sensitive receptors, precautions have tobe put in place to ensure that the vibration amplitude of 7 mm/s, which is a maximum for human <strong>co</strong>ncern,are not exceeded at the receptor locations.8.15 Cultural and Heritage Resources8.15.1 Description of Baseline Environmental ConditionsThe area is located on the Highveld which did not see much human occupation in pre-<strong>co</strong>lonial times.This very much has to do with e<strong>co</strong>nomic strategies, cultural preferences and climate fluctuations. It wasonly after white settlers entered the area that population numbers increased significantly.Stone Age occupation took place on the steep quartzite ridge located on the farm Honingkrantz 536JR.Stone tools were noticed in a number of places, with one of the more interesting being a factory siteoccurring in front of a small rock shelter. The vegetation along this ridge is very dense, in some placesimpenetrable, making it difficult to determine the total extent of occupation here. It is possible that adetailed survey will produce a large number of sites, some that might even <strong>co</strong>ntain rock art.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)436
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesNo sites, objects or features dating to the Iron Age were identified.Remains dating to the historic period fall into three categories, which are actually intimately linked witheach other, but for the purpose of the study, are separated. Farmsteads/homesteads: Some of the formal structures (houses and outbuildings) identified dateback to the late 19th century. However, most buildings date to a much later period, c. the middle ofthe 20th century. This also holds true for the farm labourer houses, as they were much more likelyto be moved by the landowner, or abandoned to find work on a different farm.Cemeteries/graves: These are obviously related to the people occupying the various farmsteads,as well as the people who worked on the farms as labourers. It is expected that many more suchinformal cemeteries would be located if the vegetation has died (burned) down.Industrial/infra-structural remains, such as the old Wilge Power Station and the substation,currently still in use.A number of sites of cultural significance were identified in the study area. These date mostly fromhistoric times and can be categorised as structures (farmsteads/homesteads) and cemeteries/graves.None of the sites are deemed to be of such significance that it would prevent development in any of thetwo study areas.Some interesting structures (houses and outbuildings) were identified and, it they cannot be rehabilitatedand reused, they can be demolished after they have been re<strong>co</strong>rded in full, in which case SAHRA wouldhave to issue a permit for their destruction. Similarly, the graves also do not present a problem as theycan be relocated to new cemeteries, after the <strong>co</strong>rrect procedure has been followed. This include, interalia, notification of intent to remove the graves, <strong>co</strong>nsultation with descendants, permits from the policeand provincial authorities, and, in cases where the graves.8.15.2 Impact AssessmentHeritage sites are fixed features in the environment, occurring within specific spatial <strong>co</strong>nfines. Anyimpact upon them is permanent and non-reversible. Those resources that cannot be avoided and thatare directly impacted by the development can be excavated / re<strong>co</strong>rded and a management plan can bedeveloped for future action. Those sites that are not impacted on can be written into the managementplan, whence they can be avoided or cared for in the future.The following project actions may impact negatively on heritage sites and other features of culturalimportance. The actions are most likely to occur during the <strong>co</strong>nstruction phase of a project.8.15.2.1 Project Impact SourcesConstruction Phase: Damage to sites from <strong>co</strong>nstruction work.Looting of sites by <strong>co</strong>nstruction workers.Operational Phase: Damage to sites due to unscheduled <strong>co</strong>nstruction and developmentsduring operational phase.De<strong>co</strong>mmission and ClosurePhase:Looting of sites by workers and visitors during operational phase.Not applicableNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)437
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesPost Closure: Not applicable8.15.2.2 Project ImpactsMine Plan Version 6Construction Phase: Construction work which results in damage to sites.Looting of sites by curious workers.Impact negatively on heritage sites and other features of culturalimportance.Operational Phase: Not keeping to development plans which will result in damage to sites.Unscheduled <strong>co</strong>nstruction/developments which can result in damage tosites.Looting of sites by curious workers and visitors.Impact negatively on heritage sites and other features of culturalimportance.De<strong>co</strong>mmission and ClosurePhase: Not applicablePost Closure: Not applicableComparison between Mine Plan Version 6 and Mine Plan Version 7Construction Phase: Heritage sites in north eastern area will not be impacted by mining inMine Plan Version 7, these sites however, <strong>co</strong>uld still be impacted on, byfor example, looting of sites by curious workers and visitors.Once a final site has been selected and the ‘footprint’ of the developmentis known, it should again be surveyed by an archaeologist.Operational Phase: Sites of cultural significance will be addressed prior to <strong>co</strong>nstruction. Ifsites are identified during operational phase the <strong>co</strong>rrect procedures mustbe followed.De<strong>co</strong>mmission and ClosurePhase: Not applicablePost Closure: Not applicable8.15.2.3 Cumulative ImpactsConstruction Phase: No cumulative impacts expected. Sites of cultural significance will beNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)438
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesaddressed prior to <strong>co</strong>nstruction.Operational Phase: No cumulative impacts expected. Sites of cultural significance will beaddressed prior to <strong>co</strong>nstruction.De<strong>co</strong>mmission and ClosurePhase: Not applicablePost Closure: Not applicable8.15.2.4 Impacts of the No-Go / Alternative DevelopmentShould the development not go ahead then the culturally significant sites identified will not be impactedon by the proposed project but <strong>co</strong>uld still be impacted on by other factors such as the looting of sites byvisitors to the area.An alternative mining project would have its own set of impacts.8.15.3 Conclusions, Key Findings and Re<strong>co</strong>mmendationsIt is the view of the specialist that the proposed development can take place and we therefore putforward the following re<strong>co</strong>mmendations:Development can <strong>co</strong>ntinue only on <strong>co</strong>ndition of acceptance of the proposed mitigation measuresset out for each particular site.A final survey be <strong>co</strong>nducted before mining occurs in the different mining blocks to re-check forthe occurrence of graves, as graves are notoriously difficult to spot in tall grass, it may be thatthere <strong>co</strong>uld be graves that were not identified during the first survey. These follow-up surveysshould happen to allow sufficient time for relocation of graves before mining moves into theaffected area.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)439
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices9. Summary of Environmental Impacts Associated withAAIC Base Case Mine Plan (Mine Plan Version 6)This section of the report presents a summarised rating of impacts over the various project phases. Thesummarised results are based on a <strong>co</strong>mprehensive rating of impacts presented in Appendix A.Impacts are rated as follows in Section 9.1 to 9.4:Existing Impacts (Baseline) Project Impacts (Unmitigated and Mitigated) – Mine Plan Version 6Cumulative Impacts (Unmitigated and Mitigated)No-Go Development ImpactsQualitative Comparison of the New Largo Colliery to a ‘Theoretical’ Coal Mine(s) Qualitative Comparison of Mine Plan Version 7 Impacts with that of Mine Plan Version 6A qualitative <strong>co</strong>mparative assessment of Mine Plan Version 6 (AAIC Base Case) and Mine Plan Version7 (Alternative Mine Plan) is provided in Section 9.5.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)440
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices9.1 Construction Phase Impacts – Mine Plan Version 6ImpactExistingProject Impact Cumulative ImpactImpact Unmitigated Mitigated Unmitigated MitigatedNo-GoDevelopmentAlternative Development ImpactA1Climate and GreenhouseEmissions.Neg High Neg Low Neg Low Neg High Neg Moderate Neg HighLikely to be higher than New Largo Collierydue to transport of <strong>co</strong>al.A2 Air Quality. Neg High Neg Moderate Neg Moderate Neg High Neg Moderate Neg HighLikely to be higher than New Largo Collierydue to transport of <strong>co</strong>al.A3a Groundwater Quality. Neg Low Neg Low Neg Low Neg Moderate Neg Low Neg ModerateLikely to be similar to that of New LargoCollieryA3b Groundwater Quantity. Neg Low Neg Low Neg Low Neg Moderate Neg Low Neg ModerateLikely to be similar to that of New LargoCollieryA4a Surface Water Quality. Neg Moderate Neg Moderate Neg Moderate Neg High Neg Moderate Neg ModerateLikely to be similar to that of New LargoCollieryA4b Surface Water Quantity. Neg Low Neg Moderate Neg Low Neg Moderate Neg Low Neg LowLikely to be similar to that of New LargoCollieryB1aE<strong>co</strong>logy and Biodiversity(Terrestrial Habitats).Neg High Neg High Neg Moderate Neg High Neg Moderate Neg High Could be similar to that of New Largo CollieryB1bE<strong>co</strong>logy and Biodiversity (AquaticHabitats).Neg Moderate Neg Very High Neg High Neg Very High Neg High Neg Moderate Could be similar to that of New Largo CollieryB1cWetlands (Biodiversity andWater).Neg High Neg Very High Neg High Neg Very High Neg High Neg High Could be similar to that of New Largo CollieryC1 Soils and Land Capability. Neg Moderate Neg High Neg Moderate Neg High Neg Moderate Neg Moderate Could be similar to that of New Largo CollieryC2 Roads, Traffic and Infrastructure. Neg Moderate Neg Moderate Neg Low Neg Moderate Neg Moderate Neg ModerateLikely to be higher than New Largo Collierydue to transport of <strong>co</strong>al.C3 Social Impacts. Neg High Neg High Neg Moderate Neg Very High Neg Moderate Neg HighLikely to be similar to that of New LargoCollieryC4Land Use Change (Impact onExisting Land Uses).Neg Low Neg High Neg Moderate Neg High Neg Moderate Neg LowLikely to be similar to that of New LargoCollieryC5aE<strong>co</strong>nomic Impacts of Coal Supplyto Kusile.Neg High Neg Very High Pos Very High Neg Very High Pos Very High Neg HighCoal supply to Kusile <strong>co</strong>uld be delayed withsignificant negative <strong>co</strong>nsequences.C5bBenefits of New Largo Collieryversus Existing E<strong>co</strong>nomic Pos Moderate Pos Very High Pos Very High Pos Very High Pos Very High Neg Very HighLikely to be similar to that of New LargoActivities.CollieryC6 Noise Impacts. Neg Low Neg High Neg Moderate Neg High Neg Moderate Neg LowLikely to be similar to that of New LargoC7 Blasting impacts. None Neg High Neg Low Neg High Neg Low NoneCollieryLikely to be similar to that of New LargoCollieryC8 Visual Impacts. Neg High Neg Moderate Neg Moderate Neg High Neg High Neg High Could be similar to that of New Largo CollieryD1 Cultural and Heritage Impacts. Neg Low Neg Low Neg Low Neg Low Neg Low Neg Low Could be similar to that of New Largo CollieryNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)441
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices9.2 Operational Phase Impacts – Mine Plan Version 6ImpactExisting Project Impact Cumulative ImpactImpactUnmitigated Mitigated Unmitigated MitigatedNo-GoDevelopmentAlternative Development ImpactA1Climate and GreenhouseEmissions.Neg High Neg Moderate Neg Moderate Neg Very High Neg High Neg HighLikely to be higher than New Largo Collierydue to transport of <strong>co</strong>al.A2 Air Quality. Neg High Neg High Neg Moderate Neg High Neg High Neg HighLikely to be higher than New Largo Collierydue to transport of <strong>co</strong>al.A3a Groundwater Quality. Neg Moderate Neg Very High Neg Moderate Neg Very High Neg Moderate Neg ModerateLikely to be similar to that of New LargoCollieryA3b Groundwater Quantity. Neg Low Neg High Neg Moderate Neg High Neg Moderate Neg ModerateLikely to be similar to that of New LargoCollieryA4a Surface Water Quality. Neg Moderate Neg Very High Neg Moderate Neg Very High Neg Moderate Neg ModerateLikely to be similar to that of New LargoCollieryA4b Surface Water Quantity. Neg Low Neg High Pos Moderate Neg High Pos Moderate Neg LowLikely to be similar to that of New LargoCollieryB1aE<strong>co</strong>logy and Biodiversity(Terrestrial Habitats).Neg High Neg High Neg Moderate Neg High Neg Moderate Neg High Could be similar to that of New Largo CollieryB1bE<strong>co</strong>logy and Biodiversity(Aquatic Habitats).Neg Moderate Neg Very High Neg High Neg Very High Neg High Neg Moderate Could be similar to that of New Largo CollieryWetlands (Biodiversity andB1cWater).Neg High Neg Very High Neg High Neg Very High Neg Very High Neg High Could be similar to that of New Largo CollieryC1 Soils and Land Capability. Neg Moderate Neg High Neg Moderate Neg High Neg Moderate Neg Moderate Could be similar to that of New Largo CollieryC2Roads, Traffic andInfrastructure.Neg Moderate Neg Moderate Neg Low Neg Moderate Neg Moderate Neg ModerateLikely higher than New Largo Colliery due totransport of <strong>co</strong>al.C3 Social Impacts. Neg High Neg High Neg Moderate Neg Very High Neg High Neg HighLikely to be similar to that of New LargoCollieryC4Land Use Change (Impact onExisting Land Uses).Neg Low Neg High Neg Moderate Neg High Neg Moderate Neg LowLikely to be similar to that of New LargoCollieryC5aE<strong>co</strong>nomic Impacts of CoalSupply to Kusile.Neg High Neg Very High Pos Very High Neg Very High Pos Very High Neg Very HighCoal supply to Kusile <strong>co</strong>uld be delayed withsignificant negative <strong>co</strong>nsequences.C5bBenefits of New Largo Collieryversus Existing E<strong>co</strong>nomicActivities.Pos Moderate Pos Very High Pos Very High Pos Very High Pos Very High Pos ModerateLikely to be similar to that of New LargoCollieryC6 Noise Impacts. Neg Low Neg High Neg Moderate Neg High Neg Moderate Neg LowLikely to be similar to that of New LargoC7 Blasting impacts. None Neg High Neg Low Neg High Neg Low NoneCollieryLikely to be similar to that of New LargoCollieryC8 Visual Impacts. Neg High Neg Moderate Neg Moderate Neg High Neg High Neg High Could be similar to that of New Largo CollieryD1 Cultural and Heritage Impacts. Neg Low Neg Low Neg Low Neg Low Neg Low Neg Low Could be similar to that of New Largo CollieryNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)442
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices9.3 De<strong>co</strong>mmissioning and Closure Impacts – Mine Plan Version 6ImpactExistingProject Impact Cumulative ImpactImpact Unmitigated Mitigated Unmitigated MitigatedNo-GoDevelopmentAlternative Development ImpactA1Climate and GreenhouseEmissions.Neg High Neg Low Neg Low Neg High Neg Moderate Neg HighLikely to be higher than New Largo Collierydue to transport of <strong>co</strong>al.A2 Air Quality. Neg High Neg Moderate Neg Moderate Neg High Neg Moderate Neg HighLikely to be higher than New Largo Collierydue to transport of <strong>co</strong>al.A3a Groundwater Quality. Neg Low Neg Low Neg Low Neg Moderate Neg Low Neg ModerateLikely to be similar to that of New LargoCollieryA3b Groundwater Quantity. Neg Low Neg Low Neg Low Neg Moderate Neg Low Neg ModerateLikely to be similar to that of New LargoCollieryA4a Surface Water Quality. Neg Moderate Neg Moderate Neg Moderate Neg High Neg Moderate Neg ModerateLikely to be similar to that of New LargoCollieryA4b Surface Water Quantity. Neg Low Neg Moderate Neg Low Neg Moderate Neg Low Neg LowLikely to be similar to that of New LargoCollieryB1aE<strong>co</strong>logy and Biodiversity(Terrestrial Habitats).Neg High Neg High Neg Moderate Neg High Neg Moderate Neg High Could be similar to that of New Largo CollieryB1bE<strong>co</strong>logy and Biodiversity (AquaticHabitats).Neg Moderate Neg Very High Neg High Neg Very High Neg High Neg Moderate Could be similar to that of New Largo CollieryB1cWetlands (Biodiversity andWater).Neg High Neg Very High Neg High Neg Very High Neg High Neg High Could be similar to that of New Largo CollieryC1 Soils and Land Capability. Neg Moderate Neg High Neg Moderate Neg High Neg Moderate Neg Moderate Could be similar to that of New Largo CollieryC2 Roads, Traffic and Infrastructure. Neg Moderate Neg Moderate Neg Low Neg Moderate Neg Moderate Neg ModerateLikely higher than New Largo Colliery due totransport of <strong>co</strong>al.C3 Social Impacts. Neg High Neg High Neg Moderate Neg Very High Neg Moderate Neg HighLikely to be similar to that of New LargoCollieryC4Land Use Change (Impact onExisting Land Uses).Neg Low Neg High Neg Moderate Neg High Neg Moderate Neg LowLikely to be similar to that of New LargoCollieryC5aE<strong>co</strong>nomic Impacts of Coal Supplyto Kusile.None None None None None NoneCoal supply to Kusile <strong>co</strong>uld be delayed withsignificant negative <strong>co</strong>nsequences.C5bBenefits of New Largo Collieryversus Existing E<strong>co</strong>nomic Pos ModerateNegPosActivities.Moderate ModeratePos Moderate Pos Moderate Pos ModerateLikely to be similar to that of New LargoCollieryC6 Noise Impacts. Neg Low Neg High Neg Moderate Neg High Neg Moderate Neg LowLikely to be similar to that of New LargoC7 Blasting impacts. None Neg High Neg Low Neg High Neg Low NoneCollieryLikely to be similar to that of New LargoCollieryC8 Visual Impacts. Neg High Neg Moderate Neg Moderate Neg High Neg High Neg High Could be similar to that of New Largo CollieryD1 Cultural and Heritage Impacts. Neg Low Neg Low Neg Low Neg Low Neg Low Neg Low Could be similar to that of New Largo CollieryNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)443
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices9.4 Post Closure Impacts – Mine Plan Version 6ImpactExistingProject Impact Cumulative ImpactImpact Unmitigated Mitigated Unmitigated MitigatedNo-GoDevelopmentAlternative Development ImpactA1Climate and GreenhouseEmissions.Neg High Neg Low Neg Low Neg High Neg High Neg HighLikely to be higher than New Largo Collierydue to transport of <strong>co</strong>al.A2 Air Quality. Neg High Neg Low Neg Low Neg High Neg High Neg HighLikely to be higher than New Largo Collierydue to transport of <strong>co</strong>al.A3a Groundwater Quality. Neg Moderate Neg Very High Neg Moderate Neg Very High Neg Moderate Neg ModerateLikely to be similar to that of New LargoCollieryA3b Groundwater Quantity. Neg Low Neg High Neg Moderate Neg High Neg Moderate Neg ModerateLikely to be similar to that of New LargoCollieryA4a Surface Water Quality. Neg Moderate Neg Very High Neg Moderate Neg Very High Neg Moderate Neg ModerateLikely to be similar to that of New LargoCollieryA4b Surface Water Quantity. Neg Low Neg High Pos Moderate Neg High Pos Moderate Neg LowLikely to be similar to that of New LargoCollieryB1aE<strong>co</strong>logy and Biodiversity(Terrestrial Habitats).Neg High Neg Moderate Pos Moderate Neg High Pos Moderate Neg High Could be similar to that of New Largo CollieryB1bE<strong>co</strong>logy and Biodiversity (AquaticHabitats).Neg Moderate Neg Very High Neg High Neg Very High Neg High Neg Moderate Could be similar to that of New Largo CollieryB1cWetlands (Biodiversity andWater).Neg High Neg Very High Neg High Neg Very High Neg Very High Neg High Could be similar to that of New Largo CollieryC1 Soils and Land Capability. Neg Moderate Neg Moderate Pos Moderate Neg Moderate Pos Moderate Neg Moderate Could be similar to that of New Largo CollieryC2 Roads, Traffic and Infrastructure. None Neg Low Neg Low Neg Low Neg Low Neg ModerateLikely higher than New Largo Colliery due totransport of <strong>co</strong>al.C3 Social Impacts. Neg High Neg High Neg Low Neg High Neg Moderate Neg HighLikely to be similar to that of New LargoCollieryC4Land Use Change (Impact onExisting Land Uses).Neg Low Neg Moderate Pos Moderate Neg Moderate Pos Moderate Neg LowLikely to be similar to that of New LargoCollieryC5aE<strong>co</strong>nomic Impacts of Coal Supplyto Kusile.None None None None None NoneCoal supply to Kusile <strong>co</strong>uld be delayed withsignificant negative <strong>co</strong>nsequences.C5bBenefits of New Largo Collieryversus Existing E<strong>co</strong>nomic Pos Moderate Neg Moderate Pos Moderate Pos Moderate Pos Moderate Pos ModerateLikely to be similar to that of New LargoActivities.CollieryC6 Noise Impacts. Neg Low Neg Low Neg Low Neg Low Neg Low Neg LowLikely to be similar to that of New LargoC7 Blasting impacts. None None None None None NoneCollieryLikely to be similar to that of New LargoCollieryC8 Visual Impacts. Neg High Neg Low Neg Low Neg High Neg Moderate Neg High Could be similar to that of New Largo CollieryD1 Cultural and Heritage Impacts. Neg Low None None Neg Low Neg Low Neg Low Could be similar to that of New Largo CollieryNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)444
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices9.5 Comparison of Mine Plan Version 6 and Mine Plan Version 7 ImpactsThe information as tabled below was presented to I&APs at the public feedback meetings held on the 6 th of March 2012 and was made available on CD,on request (the original presentation is attached as Appendix D14). It presents a summarized <strong>co</strong>mparison of the overall impacts of Mine Plan Version 6<strong>co</strong>mpared to Mine Plan Version 7.In order to achieve an objective an true <strong>co</strong>mparison of impacts, impacts for Mine Plan 7 on a regional / trans-boundary level includes the impacts of ~100Mt of <strong>co</strong>al mined at theoretical mine(s) external to New Largo Colliery. This is deemed necessary for the assessment due to the fact that Kusile will berequired to source the ~100 Mt of <strong>co</strong>al that is not mined in Mine Plan Version 7 from elsewhere and this would affect the region.Table 9-1: Comparison of Mine Plan Version 6 and Mine Plan Version 7 ImpactsImpacts on a Local LevelImpacts on a Regional / Trans-Boundary LevelA1A2ImpactClimate andGreenhouseEmissions.Air Quality.Comparison of Mine Plan 6 and 7~100 Mt high quality <strong>co</strong>al will not bemined at New Largo Colliery Total emissions at New LargoColliery lower for Mine Plan 7 thanMine Plan 6. Emissions per tonne of <strong>co</strong>alexpected higher for Mine Plan 7than Mine Plan 6.~100 Mt high quality <strong>co</strong>al willnot be mined at New LargoColliery Total emissions at New Largo lowerfor Mine Plan 7 than Mine Plan 6.Mine PlanVersion 6Neg Higher(total)Neg Lower(per tonne of<strong>co</strong>al)Neg Higher(totalemissions)Mine PlanVersion 7(without ~100 Mtexternal <strong>co</strong>al)Neg Lower (total)Neg Higher(per tonne of<strong>co</strong>al)Neg Lower (totalemissions)Comparison of Mine Plan 6 and 7Coal not mined at New Largo Colliery replaced with<strong>co</strong>al from a different mine to supply Kusile andreplace the ~100 Mt not mined in Mine Plan 7Quality of ~100 Mt replacement <strong>co</strong>al uncertain Overall impacts similar for Mine Plan 7 and MinePlan 6 if high quality replacement <strong>co</strong>al from anothersource is used to supply Kusile. Overall impacts higher for Mine Plan 7 than MinePlan 6 if low quality replacement <strong>co</strong>al from anothersource is used to supply Kusile.Coal not mined at New Largo Colliery replaced with<strong>co</strong>al from a different mine to supply Kusile andreplace the ~100 Mt not mined in Mine Plan 7Quality of ~100 Mt replacement <strong>co</strong>al uncertain Total emissions higher for Mine Plan 7 than MinePlan 6 due to <strong>co</strong>al transportation associated with~100 Mt of <strong>co</strong>al sourced from an alternative mine.Mine PlanVersion 6Neg SimilarorNeg LowerNeg Lower(total emissions)Mine PlanVersion 7(with ~100 Mtexternal <strong>co</strong>al)Neg SimilarorNeg HigherNeg Higher(totalemissions) Smaller impact footprint area(north-eastern portion).Neg Higher(footprint)Neg Lower(footprint)New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)445
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesImpacts on a Local LevelImpacts on a Regional / Trans-Boundary LevelA3aA3bImpactGroundwaterQuality.GroundwaterQuantity.Comparison of Mine Plan 6 and 7~100 Mt high quality <strong>co</strong>al will not bemined at New Largo CollieryMine PlanVersion 6Mine PlanVersion 7(without ~100 Mtexternal <strong>co</strong>al)Comparison of Mine Plan 6 and 7Coal not mined at New Largo Colliery replaced with<strong>co</strong>al from a different mine to supply Kusile andreplace the ~100 Mt not mined in Mine Plan 7Quality of ~100 Mt replacement <strong>co</strong>al uncertain Amount of discard generated. Neg Similar Neg Similar Overall impacts similar for Mine Plan 7 and MinePlan 6 if high quality replacement <strong>co</strong>al from anothersource is used to supply Kusile. Impacts on groundwater quality. Neg Similar Neg Similar Overall impacts higher for Mine Plan 7 than MinePlan 6 if low quality replacement <strong>co</strong>al from anothersource is used to supply Kusile.~100 Mt high quality <strong>co</strong>al will not bemined at New Largo CollieryCoal not mined at New Largo Colliery replaced with<strong>co</strong>al from a different mine to supply Kusile andreplace the ~100 Mt not mined in Mine Plan 7Quality of ~100 Mt replacement <strong>co</strong>al uncertain External users influenced. Neg Higher Neg Lower Mine Plan 7 implies that ~100 Mt of <strong>co</strong>al supply toKusile will have to be supplemented from analternative <strong>co</strong>al reserve, which will be associatedwith its own set of environmental impacts. Overall impacts higher for Mine Plan 7 than MinePlan 6 on groundwater quantity if replacement <strong>co</strong>alfrom another source is used to supply Kusile andwater treatment plant and other mitigationmeasures are not put in place.Mine PlanVersion 6Neg SimilarorNeg LowerNeg SimilarorNeg LowerMine PlanVersion 7(with ~100 Mtexternal <strong>co</strong>al)Neg SimilarorNeg HigherNeg SimilarorNeg HigherNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)446
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesImpacts on a Local LevelImpacts on a Regional / Trans-Boundary LevelA4aA4bImpactSurface WaterQuality.Surface WaterQuantity.Comparison of Mine Plan 6 and 7~100 Mt high quality <strong>co</strong>al will not bemined at New Largo Colliery Large Pan: Mine Plan 6 will result indestruction of the large pan. Mine Plan 7’s impact on waterquality would be less than MinePlan 6 as the pan is not mined. Potential salt loading from the minebeing 13% greater for Mine Plan 6than for Mine Plan 7. Mine Plan 7 will have fewer impactsthan Mine Plan Version 6.~100 Mt high quality <strong>co</strong>al will not bemined at New Largo Colliery Catchment Yield: Mine Plan 7causes a reduction in catchmentyield of 0.46% as <strong>co</strong>mpared toVersion 6 which causes a reductionof 0.5% (absolute difference = 8%). Post closure water make for MinePlan 6 is 13% greater than for MinePlan 7.Mine PlanVersion 6Mine PlanVersion 7(without ~100 Mtexternal <strong>co</strong>al)Comparison of Mine Plan 6 and 7Coal not mined at New Largo Colliery replaced with<strong>co</strong>al from a different mine to supply Kusile andreplace the ~100 Mt not mined in Mine Plan 7Quality of ~100 Mt replacement <strong>co</strong>al uncertainNeg Higher Neg Lower Mine Plan 7 implies that ~100 Mt of <strong>co</strong>al supply toKusile will have to be supplemented from analternative <strong>co</strong>al reserve, which will be associatedwith its own set of environmental impacts.Neg Higher Neg Lower Overall impacts higher for Mine Plan 7 than MinePlan 6 on water quality if replacement <strong>co</strong>al fromanother source is used to supply Kusile and watertreatment plant and other mitigation measures arenot put in place.Neg HigherNeg HigherNeg LowerNeg LowerCoal not mined at New Largo Colliery replaced with<strong>co</strong>al from a different mine to supply Kusile andreplace the ~100 Mt not mined in Mine Plan 7Quality of ~100 Mt replacement <strong>co</strong>al uncertainNeg Higher Neg Lower Mine Plan 7 implies that ~100 Mt of <strong>co</strong>al supply toKusile will have to be supplemented from analternative <strong>co</strong>al reserve, which will be associatedwith its own set of environmental impacts.Neg Lower Neg Higher Overall impacts higher for Mine Plan 7 than MinePlan 6 on water quantity if replacement <strong>co</strong>al fromanother source is used to supply Kusile and watertreatment plant and other mitigation measures arenot put in place.Mine PlanVersion 6Neg SimilarorNeg LowerSimilarorNeg LowerMine PlanVersion 7(with ~100 Mtexternal <strong>co</strong>al)Neg SimilarorNeg HigherSimilarorNeg HigherNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)447
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesImpacts on a Local LevelImpacts on a Regional / Trans-Boundary LevelB1aB1bB1cC1ImpactE<strong>co</strong>logy andBiodiversity(TerrestrialHabitats).E<strong>co</strong>logy andBiodiversity(AquaticHabitats).Wetlands(Biodiversity andWater).Soils and LandCapability.Comparison of Mine Plan 6 and 7~100 Mt high quality <strong>co</strong>al will not bemined at New Largo Colliery Terrestrial impacts: Mine Plan 7preferred due to potential for<strong>co</strong>nserving habitats aroundnorthern pan.~100 Mt high quality <strong>co</strong>al will not bemined at New Largo Colliery Mine Plan Version 7 will have asmaller impact than AlternativeMine Plan Version 6.~100 Mt high quality <strong>co</strong>al will not bemined at New Largo CollieryMine PlanVersion 6Mine PlanVersion 7(without ~100 Mtexternal <strong>co</strong>al)Comparison of Mine Plan 6 and 7Coal not mined at New Largo Colliery replaced with<strong>co</strong>al from a different mine to supply Kusile andreplace the ~100 Mt not mined in Mine Plan 7Quality of ~100 Mt replacement <strong>co</strong>al uncertainNeg Higher Neg Lower Mine Plan 7 implies that ~100 Mt of <strong>co</strong>al supply toKusile will have to be supplemented from analternative <strong>co</strong>al reserve, which will be associatedwith its own set of environmental impacts.Coal not mined at New Largo Colliery replaced with<strong>co</strong>al from a different mine to supply Kusile andreplace the ~100 Mt not mined in Mine Plan 7Quality of ~100 Mt replacement <strong>co</strong>al uncertainNeg Higher Neg Lower Mine Plan 7 implies that ~100 Mt of <strong>co</strong>al supply toKusile will have to be supplemented from analternative <strong>co</strong>al reserve, which will be associatedwith its own set of environmental impacts.Coal not mined at New Largo Colliery replaced with<strong>co</strong>al from a different mine to supply Kusile andreplace the ~100 Mt not mined in Mine Plan 7Quality of ~100 Mt replacement <strong>co</strong>al uncertain Overall functionality of wetlands. Neg Higher Neg Lower Mine Plan 7 implies that ~100 Mt of <strong>co</strong>al supply toKusile will have to be supplemented from analternative <strong>co</strong>al reserve, which will be associatedwith its own set of environmental impacts.~100 Mt high quality <strong>co</strong>al will not bemined at New Largo Colliery Overall impact on soil and landcapability.Coal not mined at New Largo Colliery replaced with<strong>co</strong>al from a different mine to supply Kusile andreplace the ~100 Mt not mined in Mine Plan 7Quality of ~100 Mt replacement <strong>co</strong>al uncertainNeg Higher Neg Lower Mine Plan 7 implies that ~100 Mt of <strong>co</strong>al supply toKusile will have to be supplemented from analternative <strong>co</strong>al reserve, which will be associatedwith its own set of environmental impacts.Mine PlanVersion 6Neg SimilarNeg SimilarNeg SimilarNeg SimilarMine PlanVersion 7(with ~100 Mtexternal <strong>co</strong>al)Neg SimilarNeg SimilarNeg SimilarNeg SimilarNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)448
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesC2C3C4C5aImpactRoads, TrafficandInfrastructure.Social Impacts.Land UseChange (Impacton Existing LandUses).E<strong>co</strong>nomicImpactsComparison of Mine Plan 6 and 7Impacts on a Local LevelMine PlanVersion 6Mine PlanVersion 7(without ~100 Mtexternal <strong>co</strong>al)Impacts on a Regional / Trans-Boundary LevelComparison of Mine Plan 6 and 7Mine PlanVersion 6Mine PlanVersion 7(with ~100 Mtexternal <strong>co</strong>al)~100 Mt high quality <strong>co</strong>al will not bemined at New Largo CollieryCoal not mined at New Largo Colliery replaced with<strong>co</strong>al from a different mine to supply Kusile andreplace the ~100 Mt not mined in Mine Plan 7Quality of ~100 Mt replacement <strong>co</strong>al uncertain Overall impact on roads, traffic andinfrastructure.Neg VerySimilarNeg Very Similar Mine Plan 7 implies that ~100 Mt of <strong>co</strong>al supply toKusile will have to be supplemented from analternative <strong>co</strong>al reserve, which will be associatedwith its own set of impacts.Neg Similar Neg Similar~100 Mt high quality <strong>co</strong>al will not beCoal not mined at New Largo Colliery replaced withmined at New Largo Colliery<strong>co</strong>al from a different mine to supply Kusile andreplace the ~100 Mt not mined in Mine Plan 7Quality of ~100 Mt replacement <strong>co</strong>al uncertain Overall impact on the social Neg Higher Neg Lower Mine Plan 7 implies that ~100 Mt of <strong>co</strong>al supply to Neg Similar Neg Similar environment.~100 Mt high quality <strong>co</strong>al will not bemined at New Largo Colliery Overall impact on existing landuses.~100 Mt high quality <strong>co</strong>al will not bemined at New Largo Colliery Kusile will have to be supplemented from analternative <strong>co</strong>al reserve, which will be associatedwith its own set of social impacts.Coal not mined at New Largo Colliery replaced with<strong>co</strong>al from a different mine to supply Kusile andreplace the ~100 Mt not mined in Mine Plan 7Quality of ~100 Mt replacement <strong>co</strong>al uncertainNeg Higher Neg Lower Mine Plan 7 implies that ~100 Mt of <strong>co</strong>al supply toKusile will have to be supplemented from analternative <strong>co</strong>al reserve, which will be associatedwith its own set of impacts.Coal not mined at New Largo Colliery replaced with<strong>co</strong>al from a different mine to supply Kusile andreplace the ~100 Mt not mined in Mine Plan 7Quality of ~100 Mt replacement <strong>co</strong>al uncertainNeg SimilarNeg Similar Property Values. Neg Similar Neg Similar Property Values. Neg Similar Neg Similar Employment. Pos Higher Pos Lower Employment. Pos Similar Pos Similar Coal Supply to Kusile. Pos Higher Pos Lower Coal Supply to Kusile. Pos High Neg HighNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)449
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesC5bImpactBenefits of NewLargo Collieryversus ExistingE<strong>co</strong>nomicActivities.Comparison of Mine Plan 6 and 7Impacts on a Local LevelMine PlanVersion 6Mine PlanVersion 7(without ~100 Mtexternal <strong>co</strong>al)Impacts on a Regional / Trans-Boundary LevelComparison of Mine Plan 6 and 7Mine PlanVersion 6Mine PlanVersion 7(with ~100 Mtexternal <strong>co</strong>al)~100 Mt high quality <strong>co</strong>al will not bemined at New Largo CollieryCoal not mined at New Largo Colliery replaced with<strong>co</strong>al from a different mine to supply Kusile andreplace the ~100 Mt not mined in Mine Plan 7Quality of ~100 Mt replacement <strong>co</strong>al uncertain Existing e<strong>co</strong>nomic activities. Pos Higher Pos Lower Existing e<strong>co</strong>nomic activities. Pos Similar Pos SimilarC6C7C8Noise Impacts.Blastingimpacts.Visual Impacts.~100 Mt high quality <strong>co</strong>al will not bemined at New Largo CollieryCoal not mined at New Largo Colliery replaced with<strong>co</strong>al from a different mine to supply Kusile andreplace the ~100 Mt not mined in Mine Plan 7Quality of ~100 Mt replacement <strong>co</strong>al uncertain Overall noise impacts. Neg Higher Neg Lower Mine Plan 7 implies that ~100 Mt of <strong>co</strong>al supply toKusile will have to be supplemented from analternative <strong>co</strong>al reserve, which will be associatedwith its own set of noise impacts.~100 Mt high quality <strong>co</strong>al will not bemined at New Largo CollieryCoal not mined at New Largo Colliery replaced with<strong>co</strong>al from a different mine to supply Kusile andreplace the ~100 Mt not mined in Mine Plan 7Quality of ~100 Mt replacement <strong>co</strong>al uncertain Overall blasting impacts. Neg Higher Neg Lower Mine Plan 7 implies that ~100 Mt of <strong>co</strong>al supply toKusile will have to be supplemented from analternative <strong>co</strong>al reserve, which will be associatedwith its own set of blasting impacts.~100 Mt high quality <strong>co</strong>al will not bemined at New Largo CollieryCoal not mined at New Largo Colliery replaced with<strong>co</strong>al from a different mine to supply Kusile andreplace the ~100 Mt not mined in Mine Plan 7Quality of ~100 Mt replacement <strong>co</strong>al uncertain Overall visual impacts. Neg Higher Neg Lower Mine Plan 7 implies that ~100 Mt of <strong>co</strong>al supply toKusile will have to be supplemented from analternative <strong>co</strong>al reserve, which will be associatedwith its own set of visual impacts.Neg SimilarNeg SimilarNeg SimilarNeg SimilarNeg SimilarNeg SimilarNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)450
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesImpacts on a Local LevelImpacts on a Regional / Trans-Boundary LevelD1Pos:Neg:ImpactCultural andHeritageImpacts.Positive ImpactNegative ImpactComparison of Mine Plan 6 and 7~100 Mt high quality <strong>co</strong>al will not bemined at New Largo Colliery Overall cultural and heritageimpacts.Mine PlanVersion 6Mine PlanVersion 7(without ~100 Mtexternal <strong>co</strong>al)Comparison of Mine Plan 6 and 7Coal not mined at New Largo Colliery replaced with<strong>co</strong>al from a different mine to supply Kusile andreplace the ~100 Mt not mined in Mine Plan 7Quality of ~100 Mt replacement <strong>co</strong>al uncertainNeg Higher Neg Lower Mine Plan 7 implies that ~100 Mt of <strong>co</strong>al supply toKusile will have to be supplemented from analternative <strong>co</strong>al reserve, which will be associatedwith its own set of cultural and heritage impacts.Mine PlanVersion 6Neg SimilarMine PlanVersion 7(with ~100 Mtexternal <strong>co</strong>al)Neg SimilarNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)451
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices10. Environmental Impact Statement10.1 Project Motivation and LocationAnglo American Inyosi Coal (Pty) Limited (AAIC) is proposing to develop a new opencast <strong>co</strong>al mine tosupply <strong>co</strong>al to Eskom’s new Kusile Power Station (Kusile). The New Largo Colliery is proposed to meetthe future demand for <strong>co</strong>al at the power station. Kusile is currently under <strong>co</strong>nstruction, just south of theN4 highway between Bronkhorstspruit and Emalahleni (Witbank) in Nkangala District Municipality ofMpumalanga Province.At full production, Kusile will require approximately 17 million tonnes (Mt) of <strong>co</strong>al per year, depending onthe quality of the <strong>co</strong>al. AAIC intends to enter into a long-term agreement with Eskom to supply <strong>co</strong>al to thenew Kusile Power Station. AAIC has <strong>co</strong>mmitted, in a letter of intent, to supply the bulk of the 17 Mt of<strong>co</strong>al to Kusile over a period of 47 years. The intention is for this <strong>co</strong>al to be sourced from the New LargoColliery, with supporting production from AAIC’s Zibulu 2 seam and Zondagsfontein 4 seam operations.10.2 Project Need and DesirabilityKusile Power Station forms part of the South African National Government’s national electricitygeneration strategy (IRP2010) to supply much needed electricity to the South African national electricitygrid.The ultimate purpose of the New Largo Colliery will be to supply <strong>co</strong>al to Kusile Power Station. AAIC andEskom maintain that the proposed New Largo Colliery is needed to:Ensure the supply of a secure, long-term supply of <strong>co</strong>al to Kusile.Enable Kusile to provide power to the national electricity grid on schedule.Address power shortages in the national grid since there are no short to medium term options toreplace Kusile’s energy generation capacity at a national level.Avoid negative impacts of energy shortages on national e<strong>co</strong>nomic growth and development.Achieve the objectives and targets set out in IRP2010 and the National Government’s nationalelectricity generation strategy.10.3 No-Go DevelopmentThe no-go development will have high negative impacts on the <strong>co</strong>st and timing of <strong>co</strong>al supply to KusilePower Station, timeous delivery of electricity to the national grid, and associated impacts on the nationale<strong>co</strong>nomy and it is therefore assumed that if the proposed New Largo Colliery is not allowed to bedeveloped, an alternative <strong>co</strong>al supply and transportation of that <strong>co</strong>al supply will have to be found tosupply Kusile.An alternative <strong>co</strong>al mine(s) will be associated with its own set of environmental impacts, likely to besimilar to that of New Largo Colliery.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)452
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices10.4 Comparative Assessment of the Proposed Activity and Identified AlternativesThe following alternatives were assessed during the <strong>EIA</strong> process:Table 10-1: Alternatives Assessed in the <strong>EIA</strong> and Comments on Preferred DevelopmentAlternatives<strong>Report</strong> DevelopmentComment on Preferred Development AlternativeSection AlternativeSection5.1No-GoDevelopment –Alternative CoalReserves toReplace NewLargo CollieryThe area affected by the New Largo Colliery <strong>co</strong>nsists of
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices<strong>Report</strong>SectionDevelopmentAlternativeComment on Preferred Development Alternativeof Kusile and when <strong>co</strong>nsidering: The uncertainties around the ability of Mine Plan Version 7 tosafeguard the Honingkrantz pan, and the failures that aresometimes associated with an ad-hoc approach to wetlandprotection on a project-to-project / mine-to-mine basis. Probable environmental impacts of the ~100 Mt replacement<strong>co</strong>al including the impacts it will pose due to the <strong>co</strong>altransportation to Kusile. AAIC’s <strong>co</strong>mmitment to an advanced soil management andrehabilitation plan, thus optimising end land use capability tosupport the eventual establishment of a variety of end landuses. AAIC’s <strong>co</strong>mmitment to long-term water management andtreatment. AAIC’s <strong>co</strong>mmitment to release treated water into surroundingstreams as per the re<strong>co</strong>mmendations of the hydrologicalspecialist (once these re<strong>co</strong>mmendations have been reviewedand verified as part of the Reserve Determination). AAIC’s <strong>co</strong>mmitment to put in place a wetland offset plan inac<strong>co</strong>rdance with the strategy as proposed by WetlandConsulting Services in Appendix U in order to offset the impactson wetlands that are impacted by AAIC’s preferred mine plan(Mine Plan Version 6).Taking a pre-cautionary approach based on biodiversity and e<strong>co</strong>systemservices issues, the EAP would be <strong>co</strong>mpelled to re<strong>co</strong>mmend that thealternative Mine Plan Version 7 be adopted.However, when <strong>co</strong>nsidering that the key biodiversity impacts are beingmitigated at New Largo (i.e. impacted mine water will be treated andreleased; the <strong>co</strong>nceptual end land use plan is based on a no net loss offood production and agricultural in<strong>co</strong>me; a strategy to develop awetland offset plan has been adopted), as well as all the other socialand environmental <strong>co</strong>nsiderations and mitigations discussed in the <strong>EIA</strong><strong>Report</strong>, the financial implications to Eskom and its <strong>co</strong>nsumers, and thetechnical risks highlighted by AAIC (with a knock-on effect on Eskomand its <strong>co</strong>nsumers), the EAP is re<strong>co</strong>mmending that the project beapproved based on Mine Plan Version 6 as the preferred mine plan.This re<strong>co</strong>mmendation is <strong>co</strong>nditional to the implementation of the EMPas <strong>co</strong>ntained in Appendix B, of which the key measures and<strong>co</strong>mmitments are: Implementation of AAIC’s adopted soil management andrehabilitation plan as detailed in the Section 4.11 of the <strong>EIA</strong> (thisplan has been written into the EMP <strong>co</strong>mmitments), Development and <strong>co</strong>ntinued operation of a water treatmentplant to treat water impacted by the mine and historical miningactivities within the mining area from day one, throughout thelife of the mine and post closure until such time that monitoringresults prove that treatment is no longer necessary, and releaseof only treated water into streams at various points insurrounding streams, proportionally to the requirements andflow in the different streams (based on the re<strong>co</strong>mmendations ofthe hydrological specialist, once the re<strong>co</strong>mmendations haveNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)454
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices<strong>Report</strong>SectionDevelopmentAlternativeComment on Preferred Development Alternativebeen reviewed and verified as part of the ReserveDetermination),Development and implementation of a wetland offset plan forimpacts on wetlands affected by AAIC’s Mine Plan Version 6, inac<strong>co</strong>rdance to the strategy developed by Wetland ConsultingServices (see Appendix U).Section5.4Mining MethodAAIC views opencast mining using draglines, supported by smallshovel and truck operations, as the only mining method due to: The Kusile Power Station requires the New Largo Colliery toform the base of their <strong>co</strong>al supply for about 50 years. This canonly be achieved if the reserve is mined using a high extractionmining method, implying that an opencast mining method isrequired. It is estimated that approximately 27% of the reserve plan area<strong>co</strong>ntains defunct <strong>co</strong>llieries with remnant reserves <strong>co</strong>ntained inpillars and roof and/or floor of the old underground workings.Opencast mining methods can enable one to effectively andsafely extract the remnant <strong>co</strong>al reserves as opposed tounderground mining methods. The overburden thicknesses and strip ratios of the New LargoColliery reserves are suitable for dragline opencast methods.The average strip ratio of the reserve is 2.76. The <strong>co</strong>al tonnage that Eskom requires (~14 Mt / annum)involves moving large volumes of overburden. Dragline mining is more <strong>co</strong>st effective <strong>co</strong>mpared to shovel andtruck mining. The 50 year life of mine supports the procuring of draglines. Draglines are better suited to expose <strong>co</strong>al remaining in areaspreviously mined by underground mining methods - withreference to safety and productivity. Draglines with shovel and truck support are not necessarybecause of the selected draglines having sufficient capacity tomove the required volumes. Shovel and truck only would require a large fleet of equipmentwith the equivalent workforce to meet the required volumes -less <strong>co</strong>st effective <strong>co</strong>mpared to draglines. The use of draglines simplifies mining in that the supervisory,operational and maintenance aspects can be focused on asingle mining method and a few units of ancillary equipment.Underground mining is not being <strong>co</strong>nsidered as an alternative miningmethod (reasons highlighted above).The preferred mining method would thus be opencast dragline mining,supported by small shovel and truck operations.Section5.5Location ofSurfaceInfrastructureNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)The location of any surface infrastructure such as tips, power lines,<strong>co</strong>mmunication masts, the <strong>co</strong>al processing plant, access, service andhaul roads and <strong>co</strong>nveyors to Kusile, had to take <strong>co</strong>gnisance of thelocation of Kusile, location of the minable <strong>co</strong>al reserve in relation toKusile, and the fact that <strong>co</strong>al needs to be hauled from the mine and<strong>co</strong>nveyed to Kusile. Distances and efficiency are of utmost <strong>co</strong>ncern, notonly from an e<strong>co</strong>nomic viewpoint, but also from an air quality and455
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices<strong>Report</strong>SectionSection5.6Section5.7Section5.8DevelopmentAlternativeAlternativeOptions forDeviation of theR545Soil Managementand RehabilitationClean WaterManagementComment on Preferred Development Alternativecarbon emissions viewpoint, since the haulage of <strong>co</strong>al is the singlemost significant source of dust at an opencast <strong>co</strong>al mine.The location of infrastructure also had to take <strong>co</strong>gnisance of existingpower lines, pipelines, roads and adjacent mining activities.The majority of the surface infrastructure is located between the NewLargo Colliery mining area and Kusile and is therefore some distanceaway from residential areas, as such, the need for investigatingalternatives to locations and routes proposed by AAIC was notrequired.The infrastructure <strong>co</strong>mponents are illustrated on the various figures inthis <strong>EIA</strong> main report, and Appendix T <strong>co</strong>nsists of drawings indicatingthe positions of surface infrastructure including roads,tele<strong>co</strong>mmunication masts and power lines.Although the positions of surface infrastructure are indicated asaccurately as possible on these figures and drawings, the positionsmay change and additional infrastructure may be required over time.This is inherent to an opencast mining operation where the open minepits move over time, especially for a mine with a long life such as thatanticipated for the New Largo Colliery.AAIC’s preferred route for the deviation of a section of the R545 is to<strong>co</strong>nstruct a new road from the R545, approximately 2 kilometres southof the Kendal-Balmoral intersection, to run south-eastwards and thensouthwards along the eastern border of the proposed New LargoColliery, tying in with the R545 (eastern split) near Voltargo Village.AAIC aimed to keep to route on their property as far as possible, inorder to minimise impacts on third parties. Various route alignmentswere <strong>co</strong>nsidered. The final route is Option 1A (new / updated) asindicated as the AAIC preferred route on Figure 1-1 and other maps.The merits of the specialist re<strong>co</strong>mmendations presented in Section5.7.2.1 and AAIC’s draft strategy in Section 5.7.2.2 were discussedbetween AAIC, the EAP and the various specialists. Commentsreceived from authorities and I&APs on the draft <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong> were also<strong>co</strong>nsidered. Based on the results of <strong>co</strong>mments received anddiscussions with the specialist team, AAIC adopted an amended soilmanagement and rehabilitation strategy for New Largo Colliery.The adopted strategy is the preferred alternative for soil managementand rehabilitation. As explained in 4.11, the adopted strategy is inac<strong>co</strong>rdance with best practice and allows for the reinstated soil depthsto be optimised. Implementation of the adopted soil management andrehabilitation strategy over the life of the mine will ensure that thepotential for the establishment of end land uses are optimised and willensure the need for post closure water treatment is managed.The design of the water management system for New Largo Collieryhas been refined by the engineering team, based on input from thehydrological specialist and the water balance results. The designs alsoform part of the IWULA application, as required, and the latest revisionNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)456
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices<strong>Report</strong>SectionSection5.9Section5.10Section5.11Section5.12DevelopmentAlternativeWater TreatmentUse of TreatedWaterCoalTransportationAlternativesWetlandMitigation andOffsetsComment on Preferred Development Alternativeof the water flow diagram is presented in Appendix T (<strong>EIA</strong> Volume 7).Various refinements and revisions have been undertaken to date and itis likely that further optimisation will be done during detailed design.A water treatment plant to treat water impacted by New Largo Collieryand previous mining activities within the mining area, from day one,throughout the life of the mine and post closure until such time thatmonitoring results prove that treatment is no longer necessary. Linkedto the water treatment plant, is the release of only treated water intostreams at various points in surrounding streams, proportionally to therequirements and flow of the different streams, based on there<strong>co</strong>mmendations of the hydrological specialist (once thesere<strong>co</strong>mmendations have been reviewed and verified as part of theReserve Determination).Water will be treated to catchment release qualities. The treatmenttechnology for the permanent WTP has not been defined. It is expectedthat water treatment technologies may progress and develop in theyears prior to the permanent WTP being developed.Until such time as the results of the Reserve Determination areavailable, the strategy proposed by the hydrological specialist, torelease water proportionally into the surrounding stream is thepreferred alternative.A <strong>co</strong>nveyor system is proposed to transport the <strong>co</strong>al to Kusile. Due tothe short distance required, no other transportation options were<strong>co</strong>nsidered.The Alternative Mine Plan (Mine Plan Version 7) was introducedsubsequent to the s<strong>co</strong>ping phase <strong>co</strong>nsultation process as <strong>co</strong>ncernswere raised by I&APs and authorities regarding the impact of mining onwetlands. Ac<strong>co</strong>rding to AAIC, this mine plan presents challenges interms of mine plan sequencing and blending of <strong>co</strong>al to provide Kusilewith an adequate supply of <strong>co</strong>al at the <strong>co</strong>rrect specification.Although alternative mine plans were evaluated to minimise impacts onwetlands, AAIC maintains that there are serious risks associated withthe alternative mine plans and that their base case mine plan (MinePlan Version 6) should be adopted as the preferred mine plan.Subsequently, AAIC has appointed Wetland Consulting Services todevelop a wetland offset plan based on Mine Plan Version 6 beingimplemented. The plan will thus address offsets for wetlands affectedas part of Mine Plan Version 6.DWA, DMR and MDEDET have not given clear feedback on theirrequirements for wetland offsets / off-site mitigation and on-sitemitigation for affected wetlands. Offsets plans are not legislated and itis uncertain what potential future legislation on this topic would require.No National or Mpumalanga provincial guidelines currently exist forwetland offset projects despite numerous offset projects already beenundertaken within the Mpumalanga <strong>co</strong>alfields with varying degrees ofsuccess. Each has had its own approach which has been projectspecific depending on objectives, requirements of the authorities andNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)457
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices<strong>Report</strong>SectionSection5.13DevelopmentAlternativeClosure Visionand AlternativeEnd Land UsesComment on Preferred Development Alternativethe willingness of different mining houses to pursue and / or embracethe approach. Re<strong>co</strong>gnizing the need for such guidelines, the SANBIGrasslands Programme recently funded a project entitled: Towards abest-practice guideline for wetland offsets in South Africa. A draftversion of these guidelines has been released. The technical guidelines<strong>co</strong>ntained in this report, which were developed specifically for <strong>co</strong>almining in the Mpumalanga Highveld, will be <strong>co</strong>nsidered in the strategyto develop a wetland offset plan for New Largo Colliery.It is clear that developing an offset plan for the New Largo Colliery<strong>co</strong>uld be a lengthy process of which the first step is to develop astrategy ac<strong>co</strong>rding to which the offset plan would be developed. Thestrategy as proposed by Wetland Consulting Services is presented inAppendix U. Part of the strategy would be to involve I&APs,stakeholders and authorities through the environmental monitoring<strong>co</strong>mmittee in the process, evaluate <strong>co</strong>mments and re<strong>co</strong>mmendationsmade by these parties, evaluate alternative offset options, and developa final offset plan on the selected offset options.Based on the adopted soil management and rehabilitation plan, a<strong>co</strong>nceptual end land use plan was developed which indicates that itwould be possible to achieve no net loss of food production and in<strong>co</strong>megeneration from agriculture (see Appendix R: Agricultural and Land UsePotential Specialist Assessment). At this stage, the <strong>co</strong>nceptual endland plan was developed to optimise the use of the land for agriculturebut obviously this plan will be revised and updated over the life of themine in <strong>co</strong>nsultation with the I&APs and the environmental monitoring<strong>co</strong>mmittee. From a biodiversity protection viewpoint, this plan supportsthe e<strong>co</strong>logical specialists’ re<strong>co</strong>mmendations to focus on the reestablishmentof agricultural land uses so that the need to transformother areas for agricultural food production is avoided.The <strong>co</strong>nceptual end land use plan in<strong>co</strong>rporates: pastures (livestockgrazing or stocked game), rehabilitated grasslands (livestock grazing,game stocking, re-population by certain wildlife species possible),rainfed grain, irrigated crops, fruit production, and feedlots and poultryunits.However, due to the availability of treated water from the watertreatment plant, there is also potential for the establishment ofadditional intensive agricultural practices such as hydroponics,occupying fairly small land footprints, to substantially increase foodproduction and in<strong>co</strong>me generation from agriculture. New LargoColliery’s location in relation to Gauteng lends itself to this intensiveagricultural practice.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)458
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices10.5 Key Issues and Concerns Identified by Authorities and I&APsAll issues identified by I&APs are listed and discussed in Appendix D1 and summarised list is provided inSection 7. The key issues and how they were addressed are listed below:Table 10-2: Key Issues and Concerns Identified by Authorities and I&APs and How They AreAddressedReference to Further Reading inActions / Mitigation to Address theKey Issue<strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong> where the Issue isIssueDiscussed in Detail.Loss of WetlandsThe viability of an alternative mine plan,to reduce the impact on wetlands, wasinvestigated. A detailed assessment ofthe technical, e<strong>co</strong>nomic andenvironmental <strong>co</strong>nsiderations was<strong>co</strong>nducted and re<strong>co</strong>mmended thatAAIC’s preferred mine plan (Mine PlanVersion 6) be adopted.Section 5.3 provides a detailedexplanation for the re<strong>co</strong>mmendationto adopt Mine Plan Version 6 as thepreferred mine plan.See Section 8 (Wetland section) forassessment of impacts (existing,project and cumulative).See EMP Section 31 on Wetlands,Water and Biodiversity (Appendix B).See EMP (Appendix B) for full list ofmitigation measures.Wetland offset planhas not been<strong>co</strong>mpleted andcannot be<strong>co</strong>mpleted the bytime of <strong>co</strong>nstructionAAIC has adopted a strategy to put inplace a wetland offset plan to offset thewetlands affected by their preferredmine plan (Mine Plan Version 6).AAIC has appointed WetlandConsulting Services to develop theoffset plan as per the adopted strategy.The offset strategy will be developed in<strong>co</strong>nsultation with I&APs, stakeholdersand authorities through theenvironmental monitoring <strong>co</strong>mmittee(EMC).No National or Mpumalanga provincialguidelines currently exist for wetlandoffsets. Offsets plans are not legislatedand it is uncertain what potential futurelegislation on this topic would require.In light of this, AAIC cannot be heldac<strong>co</strong>untable to have a <strong>co</strong>mpleted offsetplan in place at the time of <strong>EIA</strong>submission and approval.Strategy for developing a wetlandoffset plan attached as Appendix U.See EMP Section 31 on Wetlands,Water and Biodiversity (Appendix B).See Appendix U.See EMP Section 31 on Wetlands,Water and Biodiversity (Appendix B).See Section 10.6.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)The schedule as <strong>co</strong>ntained in the offsetstrategy (Appendix U) indicates that thewetland plan will be <strong>co</strong>mpleted in thelast quarter of 2014 – after the start of<strong>co</strong>nstruction and the initial box-cut butSee Appendix U and EMP Section 31on Wetlands, Water and Biodiversity(Appendix B).459
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesKey IssueLate start to<strong>co</strong>nstruction of NewLargo Collierywould impact ondelivery of <strong>co</strong>al toKusile, thus<strong>co</strong>mpromisingnational electricitygeneration andsupplyE<strong>co</strong>nomic Benefitsof New Largo andKusileE<strong>co</strong>nomic feasibilityof the watertreatment plant totreat water for manyyears post closureActions / Mitigation to Address theIssuewell before mining of the prioritywetland (Honingkrantz pan).Phase 1 of wetland strategy will havebeen <strong>co</strong>mpleted prior to <strong>co</strong>nstruction.Phase 2 of wetland strategy will havebeen <strong>co</strong>mpleted in the last quarter of2014 – after the start of <strong>co</strong>nstructionand the initial box-cut but well beforemining of the priority wetland(Honingkrantz pan).The <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong> describes the need anddesirability of the project and explainsthe project implementation programmeand expected timeframes.Authorities to review and process the<strong>EIA</strong>, IWULA and WML applications intime for the scheduled start of<strong>co</strong>nstruction date.To assist government AAIC hasappointed Wetland Consulting Servicesto assist with the ReserveDetermination study for the affectedareas. The study approach andmethodology used had to be discussedwith the Department of Water Affairs. Itis estimated that the WetlandConsulting Services study will be<strong>co</strong>mpleted in May 2013.New Largo forms part of a much largervalue chain for electricity production inSouth Africa. The mining developmentis an investment of R21.3 billion, andrepresents a part of the investmentincluding the Kusile Power Station and<strong>co</strong>nveyor belts that will invest over R90billion in the local and nationale<strong>co</strong>nomy. All these projects are neededto ensure that electricity supply isincreased to facilitate e<strong>co</strong>nomic growthfor the national e<strong>co</strong>nomy).Costs included in AAIC’s financialmodel for New Largo Colliery.Reference to Further Reading in<strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong> where the Issue isDiscussed in Detail.See Appendix U.See Appendix U.Section 1.5 explains the need anddesirability of Kusile and New LargoColliery, and the NationalGovernment’s Integrated ResourcePlan for Electricity.Section 1.13 explains the projectprogramme and expected timeframesfor authority review.See Preliminaries (front of <strong>EIA</strong><strong>Report</strong>).See Section 10.6.See Section 8.9 for summary ofE<strong>co</strong>nomic Assessment.See Appendix D1 and Section 4.7.2.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)460
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesKey IssueImpact on theavailability of cleanwater and impactson downstreamenvironmentsLoss of arable landand foodproduction, landcapabilityActions / Mitigation to Address theIssueDecant of acid mine water will beprevented through the installation of awater treatment plant (WTP) to treatwater impacted by New Largo Collieryand previous mining activities within themining area, from day one, throughoutthe life of the mine and post closureuntil such time that monitoring resultsprove that treatment is no longernecessary.Linked to the water treatment plant, isthe release of only treated water intostreams at various points insurrounding streams, proportionally tothe requirements and flow of thedifferent streams, based on there<strong>co</strong>mmendations of the hydrologicalspecialist (once thesere<strong>co</strong>mmendations have been reviewedand verified as part of the ReserveDetermination).The soil management and rehabilitationstrategy that AAIC adopted for NewLargo is in ac<strong>co</strong>rdance with bestpractice and allows for the reinstatedsoil depths to be optimised. In essence,the strategy involves sequential prestrippingof soft overburden claymaterial placed separately on top of thelevelled overburden, with utilisable soilsplaced on top of the clay material. Thestrategy has been developed within thelimitations presented by dragline miningoperations.Based on the adopted soil managementand rehabilitation plan, a <strong>co</strong>nceptualend land use plan was developed whichindicates that it would be possible toachieve no net loss of food productionand in<strong>co</strong>me generation from agriculture.The availability of water from the watertreatment, allows for the introduction ofirrigation and intensive farmingpractices not only in the <strong>co</strong>re miningareas as indicated on the <strong>co</strong>nceptualland use plan but also in the widermining right area (total of 12 773hectares) to mitigate the impact onarable land and potential loss in cropReference to Further Reading in<strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong> where the Issue isDiscussed in Detail.See Section 4.7 for description ofWTP.See Section 8 (Surface Water andGroundwater sections for assessmentof impacts (existing, project andcumulative).See EMP Section 28 on Active WaterManagement (Appendix B).See EMP (Appendix B) for full list ofmitigation measures.See Section 4.11 for AAIC’s adoptedsoil management and rehabilitationstrategy.AAIC’s reasons for using draglinesare explained in Section 5.4.See Section 13.3.4 for ConceptualEnd Land Use PlanSee Section 8 (Soils and LandCapability for assessment of impacts(existing, project and cumulative).See EMP Section 33 onRehabilitation Plan. (Appendix B).See EMP (Appendix B) for full list ofmitigation measures.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)461
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesKey IssueAir Quality(New Largo willoperate in an areawith elevatedbaseline emissionlevels)Impacts onNeighbours (Most ofthe negative socialimpacts of a projectsuch as New LargoColliery are oftenexperienced locallyby the people livingin close proximity tothe project)Actions / Mitigation to Address theIssueyields.Implementation of an operational airquality monitoring and managementplan.AAIC has implemented baseline airquality monitoring, undertakenindependently by GondwanaEnvironmental Solutions (Pty) Ltd.In addition to dust buckets, monitoringincludes the recent installation of anadvanced stationary monitoring stationto monitor particulate (PM 10 ), H 2 S / SO 2and BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes) andmeteorological data including relativehumidity, solar radiation, wind speed,wind direction and ambienttemperature.A mobile monitoring station for PM10monitoring and meteorologicalmonitoring including relative humidity,solar radiation, wind speed, winddirection and ambient temperature isplanned for the project implementationphase.Location of main haul roads, plant andtips away from sensitive receptors(between mine pit and Kusile).Impacts on the lives and livelihood ofthe project’s future neighbours willrequire pro-active mitigation (i.e.measures to avoid, reduce, manageand / or <strong>co</strong>mpensate for impacts). TheEMP includes clear measures toaddress the need for <strong>co</strong>ntinuedstakeholder engagement, and deal with<strong>co</strong>mplaints, claims and potentialdisputes. It also allows for theestablishment of an environmentalmonitoring <strong>co</strong>mmittee.Reference to Further Reading in<strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong> where the Issue isDiscussed in Detail.See EMP Section 17 on Air Quality(Appendix B).See EMP (Appendix B) for full list ofmitigation measures.See Section 8 (Air Quality Section forassessment of impacts (existing,project and cumulative) and keyre<strong>co</strong>mmendations.See EMP Section 17 on Air Quality(Appendix B).See EMP (Appendix B) for full list ofmitigation measures.See drawings in Appendix T.Impacts discusses in various sectionsin the <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong>.See EMP Section 9 on SocialDisplacement and Direct Impacts onNeighbours (Appendix B).See EMP Section 10 on Complaintsregister and management. (AppendixB).See EMP Section 11 on StakeholderEngagement Plan (Appendix B).See EMP (Appendix B) for full list ofmitigation measures.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)462
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesKey IssueRelocation of asection of aProvincial Road (theR545 north-southkink between the N4and N12)Impact on grasslandremnants currentlyremaining withinmining footprintImpact on localizedFrithia humilisfound on rocky areain northern portionon mining area.Please note: AAICnot responsible forcurrent treats toFrithia humilis stands(i.e. sand mining)Concerns that AAICwill not deliver onthe <strong>co</strong>mmitments inthe EMPActions / Mitigation to Address theIssueVarious route alternatives wereinvestigated.AAIC will develop a new road linkbetween the N4 and N12 around theeastern boundary of the opencastmining area, as close as possible to theold route (within limitations of miningand road engineering criteria).Eskom developed a separate northsouthlink around the west of Kusilepower station.Best practice rehabilitation strategy asdiscussed above.Optimise food production as per<strong>co</strong>nceptual land use plan in order toreduce the need to transform ordegrade other intact areas. The ‘no netloss in agricultural production’ istherefore not only critical for foodsecurity reasons but also importantfrom a biodiversity viewpoint.Protection of intact grasslands in areasoutside mining footprint but withinmining right area on AAIC owned land.100 m buffer zone around <strong>co</strong>nfirmedFrithia habitats (Frithia humilis) in thenorthern portion of the mining area.Appointments, Roles andResponsibilities discussed in detail inEMP.An environmental monitoring <strong>co</strong>mmittee(EMC) will be established before<strong>co</strong>nstruction <strong>co</strong>mmences. The EMC willmeet on a quarterly basis for the firsttwo years and bi-annually thereafter,and will be chaired by a neutralindependent facilitator. The purpose ofReference to Further Reading in<strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong> where the Issue isDiscussed in Detail.See Section 5.6 for discussion onalternative routes.See Figure 1-1 for route alternatives.See Section 13.3 on end land use.Section 8.6.1 for current impacts ongrasslands.See EMP Section 34 on Closure Plan(Appendix B).See EMP (Appendix B) for full list ofmitigation measures.See Figure 6-18 for <strong>co</strong>nfirmedhabitats and 100 m buffer.Buffer zone included in EMP. SeeEMP Section 31 on Wetland, Waterand Biodiversity Management(Appendix B).See Section 13.2.See EMP Section 1 on Appointments,Roles and Responsibilities (AppendixB).See Section 13.2.See EMP Section 1 on Appointments,Roles and Responsibilities (AppendixB).New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)463
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesKey IssueImpact onproperties directlyaffected by mining(landowners, farmworkers, peopleliving on the land,tenants)Job losses andsocial impacts atclosureActions / Mitigation to Address theIssuethis EMC will be multi-facetted but it isenvisaged that this body will be themain driving force ensuring the effectiveimplementation of all <strong>co</strong>mmitments<strong>co</strong>ntained within the EMP andassociated permitting documents.AAIC owns most of the propertieswhere mining will take place.AAIC in process of negotiation withthird party owners regarding purchaseagreements.AAIC <strong>co</strong>ntractual arrangement withaffected third parties.Relocation, where required, inac<strong>co</strong>rdance to best practice guidelines.Complaints register and management.Stakeholder engagement plan.AAIC Social and Labour Plan (updatedand revised throughout life of mine asper the requirements of the MPRDA).Reference to Further Reading in<strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong> where the Issue isDiscussed in Detail.See EMP Section 9 on SocialDisplacement and Direct Impacts onNeighbours (Appendix B).See EMP Section 10 on Complaintsregister and management. (AppendixB).See EMP Section 11 on StakeholderEngagement Plan (Appendix B).Submitted separately to the DMR.10.6 Uncertainties, Gaps and Outstanding IssuesWetland Offset PlanThe draft <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong> listed potential alternative wetland offset options (see Section 5). Thesewere regarded as preliminary since the preferred mine plan was not defined at that stage. Thepurpose of listing potential wetland offset options at that stage was to stimulate debate and obtain<strong>co</strong>mments from I&APs and authorities during the review of the draft <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong>.Although alternative mine plans were evaluated to minimise impacts on wetlands, AAICmaintains that there are serious risks associated with the alternative mine plans and that theirbase case mine plan (Mine Plan Version 6) should be adopted as the preferred mine plan.Subsequently, AAIC has appointed Wetland Consulting Services to develop a wetland offset planbased on Mine Plan Version 6 being implemented. The plan will thus address offsets for wetlandsaffected as part of Mine Plan Version 6.No National or Mpumalanga provincial guidelines currently exist for wetland offset projectsdespite numerous offset projects already being undertaken within the Mpumalanga <strong>co</strong>alfields withvarying degrees of success. Re<strong>co</strong>gnizing the need for such guidelines, the SANBI GrasslandsNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)464
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesProgramme recently funded a project entitled: Towards a best-practice guideline for wetlandoffsets in South Africa. A draft version of these guidelines has been released. The technicalguidelines <strong>co</strong>ntained in this report, which were developed specifically for <strong>co</strong>al mining in theMpumalanga Highveld, will be <strong>co</strong>nsidered as part to the strategy to develop a wetland offset planfor New Largo Colliery.Developing an offset plan for New Largo <strong>co</strong>uld be a lengthy process of which the first step is todevelop a strategy ac<strong>co</strong>rding to which the offset plan would be developed. The strategy asproposed by Wetland Consulting Services is presented in Appendix U. Part of the strategy wouldbe to involve I&APs, stakeholders and authorities through the environmental monitoring<strong>co</strong>mmittee in the process, evaluate <strong>co</strong>mments and re<strong>co</strong>mmendations made by these parties,evaluate alternative offset options, and develop a final offset plan on the selected offset options.DWA, DMR and MDEDET have not given clear feedback on their requirements for wetlandoffsets / off-site mitigation and on-site mitigation for affected wetlands. Offsets plans are notlegislated and it is uncertain what potential future legislation on this topic would require. In light ofthis AAIC cannot be held ac<strong>co</strong>untable to have a <strong>co</strong>mpleted offset plan in place at the time of <strong>EIA</strong>submission and approval.Due to the urgent nature of the project to supply <strong>co</strong>al to Kusile and thus electricity to South Africa,it is proposed that the <strong>EIA</strong> be accepted and reviewed by the authorities based on the fact thatAAIC has <strong>co</strong>mmitted to the offset strategy as proposed in Appendix U.The schedule as <strong>co</strong>ntained in the offset strategy (Appendix U indicates that the strategy will be<strong>co</strong>mpleted in the last quarter of 2014 – after the start of <strong>co</strong>nstruction and the initial box-cut butwell before mining of the priority wetland (Honingkrantz pan).Source of ~100 Mt <strong>co</strong>al to replace <strong>co</strong>al not mined as part of Mine Plan Version 7The draft <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong> stated that feedback from Eskom is required on where the ~100 Mt of <strong>co</strong>alwill be sourced to replace the <strong>co</strong>al excluded from the alternative mine plan as this is needed fordecision-making regarding the mine plan to be adopted for the New Largo Colliery. One needs tobear in mind that <strong>co</strong>al mining in other areas will be associated with their own set of environmentalimpacts. However, based on the dates when the <strong>co</strong>al would be needed, AAIC <strong>co</strong>ncluded that atthe stage when Kusile would need to source the ~100 Mt shortfall of <strong>co</strong>al, most of the <strong>co</strong>alreserves in the Witbank <strong>co</strong>alfields would be depleted. This shortfall in <strong>co</strong>al will then need to beimported from another <strong>co</strong>alfield (e.g. the Waterberg, which is more than 500 km away) at anincreased <strong>co</strong>st and environmental impacts associated with <strong>co</strong>al mining in the Waterberg andtransport of <strong>co</strong>al via road. This issue should not impact on authority review and approval of the<strong>EIA</strong> and IWULA.Government Action to Protect the Honingkrantz PanMDEDET, DWA and DMR has not provided feedback on their plans to protect the Honingkrantzpan area if this area is not mined by AAIC. This issue should not impact on authority review andapproval of the <strong>EIA</strong> and IWULA.Reserve DeterminationUnder the protection of water resources, the National Water Act (Act No. 36, 1998) (NWA)stipulates the determination of the Reserve. The e<strong>co</strong>logical Reserve maintains aquatice<strong>co</strong>systems in such a way that they can <strong>co</strong>ntinue to provide goods and services to society. TheReserve forms the only right to water, with all other water uses subject to authorisations.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)465
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesIn terms of the NWA, before the required authorisation to utilise a particular water resource canbe granted, it is necessary to determine the Reserve for the relevant e<strong>co</strong>logical <strong>co</strong>mponent of theresource that will be impacted by the proposed water use.In terms of Section 15 and 16 of the NWA, it is a government responsibility to determine the classof a water resource and the resource quality objectives. Government is also required todetermine the Reserve for all or part of any significant water resource. If a resource has not yetbeen classified, a preliminary determination of the Reserve may be made and later supersededby a new one. Once the Reserve is determined for a water resource it is binding in the same wayas the class and the resource quality objectives.Further research will be needed if the significance of the Honingkrantz pan is to be understood –this will be addressed in the Reserve Determination study that is currently underway.AAIC has appointed Wetland Consulting Services to assist with the Reserve Determination studyfor the affected areas, to assist government with the determination of the Reserve. The studyapproach and methodology used had to be discussed with the Department of Water Affairs. It isestimated that the Wetland Consulting Services study will be <strong>co</strong>mpleted in May 2013.AAIC Stakeholder Engagement PlanFurther <strong>co</strong>nsultation with affected parties took place during the review period of the draft <strong>EIA</strong>report. AAIC has developed a stakeholder engagement plan, summary <strong>co</strong>ntained in the EMP(Section 13 and Appendix B), which will form the framework for further <strong>co</strong>nsultation with directlyaffected parties / neighbours once (if) the project has been approved. This <strong>co</strong>nsultation will be todiscuss specific impacts that affect them / <strong>co</strong>uld potentially affect them.Costs of Long-Term Water Management and TreatmentAAIC has indicated that the financial model <strong>co</strong>ntains sensitive and <strong>co</strong>nfidential <strong>co</strong>mmercial informationbut, in order to address the I&AP request, stated that they will issue the financial model to anindependent, credible financial audit <strong>co</strong>mpany, as third party reviewer and that the results of the reviewwill be released to the FSE and other I&APs who request insight into this information. AAIC also statedthat they are willing to meet with the FSE, other I&APs representatives and the third party reviewer, todiscuss specific issues, but request that sensitive <strong>co</strong>mmercial information remain <strong>co</strong>nfidential.AAIC is adamant that the process for the third party review must be agreed between AAIC and theI&APs who requested access to the financials and thus requested the FSE to agree to the third partyreview, upon which the third party reviewer would be agreed and appointed. This approach is deemedessential to avoid future disputes about the credibility and independence of the reviewer. AAIC indicatedthat they are prepared to <strong>co</strong>ver the <strong>co</strong>st of the third party review.The FSE then indicated that AAIC should motivate why they see the information as <strong>co</strong>nfidential. AAICresponded by stating that they cannot disclose information such as operational and maintenance <strong>co</strong>sts,which include, amongst other elements, staff and <strong>co</strong>ntractor remuneration and overheads and chemicalsand <strong>co</strong>nsumable <strong>co</strong>sts, all of which are <strong>co</strong>ntractually negotiated and remain <strong>co</strong>nfidential between AAICand the individual or supplier. Based on this, the FSE was requested to re-<strong>co</strong>nsider AAIC’s proposal fora third party review and to indicate if they are willing to discuss and agree on an independent, credibleaudit <strong>co</strong>mpany to undertake the review.The FSE maintained that they wanted to see more detail on what is and what is not <strong>co</strong>nfidential inAAIC’s financial model, while AAIC maintained that the motivation they provided adequately explainstheir reasons for keeping the financial model <strong>co</strong>nfidential but that they agree to release it to a third partyreviewer.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)466
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesAAIC has indicated that they will proceed with the third party review as soon as the FSE (or any otherI&AP) has <strong>co</strong>nfirmed, in writing, that they are amenable to this option and there is agreement on theaudit <strong>co</strong>mpany to act as the third party reviewer.The EAP is of the opinion that using a credible independent audit <strong>co</strong>mpany to review the financial datapertaining to water treatment <strong>co</strong>sts for the New Largo Colliery, and to provide the results of theindependent review to FSE and other I&APS, remains an option to address the FSE’s request to haveaccess to financial data regarding water treatment <strong>co</strong>sts for the New Largo Colliery.The third party audit can only proceed if the FSE accepts the third party review in principle.AAIC has also revised50 their soil and rehabilitation strategy in <strong>co</strong>nsultation with the environmentalspecialist team and their re<strong>co</strong>mmendations are <strong>co</strong>ntained in Section 5.7.2.1. Their revised soil andrehabilitation strategy as outlined in Section 4.11 allows for deeper soil layers which would allow betterpotential for establishing a variety of agricultural or other end land uses, reduced water ingress and thusa reduced need for post closure water. The current water balance is based on the less stringent soilstriping and replacement regime (thinner reinstated soil layers) as was presented in the draft <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong>and thus represents a case that is expected to be worse in terms of water treatment requirements.Although current information indicates that the deeper reinstated soil layers would reduce water ingressand the need for water treatment, AAIC has <strong>co</strong>mmissioned Jones & Wagener to investigate the potentialreduction of water infiltration based on the depth of the reinstated soil layer and the benefits of theimproved soil management and rehabilitation in terms of post closure water treatment.10.7 Conclusions and Key FindingsThe New Largo Colliery is proposed to meet the future demand for <strong>co</strong>al at the Kusile power station.Kusile will require a <strong>co</strong>nstant supply of ~17 Mt per year over a life span of 55+ years. This requires amassive <strong>co</strong>al reserve. The New Largo Colliery <strong>co</strong>al reserve is located directly to the east of Kusile,between the N4 highway in the north and the N12 highway in the south, with a small portion of the <strong>co</strong>alreserve found to the south of the N12 highway (Figure 1-1).With the design and location of Kusile, it was always intended that the New Largo <strong>co</strong>al reserve wouldsupply the base load <strong>co</strong>al to Kusile. The boilers of Kusile were planned based on the <strong>co</strong>al qualityaverage obtained from the whole of the New Largo <strong>co</strong>al reserve including the Honingkrantz reserves. Inessence – Kusile was designed in ac<strong>co</strong>rdance with Mine Plan Version 6 <strong>co</strong>al quality average.The larger part of the <strong>co</strong>al reserve is re<strong>co</strong>gnised to be of poorer quality which requires some form ofbeneficiation in order to improve the <strong>co</strong>al quality to the requirements stipulated in the preliminary <strong>co</strong>alsale agreement between AAIC and Eskom. The <strong>co</strong>al sale agreement stipulations are based on thedesign of Kusile.New Largo Colliery will be an extensive opencast <strong>co</strong>al mine and, as for any <strong>co</strong>al mine of this scale, itwould be associated with impacts of a very high significance that will require careful management andspecialised long-term mitigation at <strong>co</strong>nsiderable <strong>co</strong>st. Some of the impacts and mitigation will remain arisk and a <strong>co</strong>st for many years after mining has ceased.The project will impact on a number of wetlands within in the mining area. Although alternative mineplans were evaluated to minimise impacts on wetlands, AAIC maintains that there are serious risksassociated with the alternative mine plans and that their base case mine plan (Mine Plan Version 6)should be adopted as the preferred mine plan. AAIC has appointed Wetland Consulting Services todevelop a wetland offset plan for wetlands affected by Mine Plan Version 6. The strategy as proposed byWetland Consulting Services and adopted by AAIC is presented in Appendix U. Part of the strategy50The revised soil management and rehabilitation strategy adopted by AAIC is presented in Section 4.11 (under the heading Project Description) whilethe earlier, less stringent strategy is presented in Section 5.7.2.2 as a now outdated development alternative (under the heading DevelopmentAlternatives).New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)467
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser viceswould be to involve I&APs, stakeholders and authorities through an environmental monitoring <strong>co</strong>mmitteein the development of an offset plan.Coal mines are often associated with significant long-term impacts on water quality. AAIC has <strong>co</strong>mmittedto develop a water treatment plant to treat water impacted by the mine and past mining activities withinthe mining area from day one, throughout the life of the mine and post closure, until such time thatmonitoring results prove that treatment is no longer necessary. Although the active treatment of waterwill assist with reducing this impact by returning clean water to the streams and total stream flow ispredicted to increase, the seasonality of the streams will be affected, which will impact on downstreamwetlands and aquatic habitats.Large parts of the mining area has been cultivated in recent years. AAIC has adopted a soilmanagement and rehabilitation plan that are more advanced that for most other <strong>co</strong>al mines, especiallythose using draglines. The soil management and rehabilitation that was developed based onre<strong>co</strong>mmendations from various specialists on the <strong>EIA</strong> study team and <strong>co</strong>mments received fromauthorities and I&APs (details of the plan presented in Section 4.11). The plan optimises the potential forthe establishment of agricultural land uses post mining and should also reduce the need for post closurewater treatment. Based on the adopted soil management and rehabilitation plan, a <strong>co</strong>nceptual end landuse plan was developed which indicates that it would be possible to achieve no net loss of foodproduction and in<strong>co</strong>me generation from agriculture. At this stage, the <strong>co</strong>nceptual end land plan (Figure13-1) is optimising the use of the land for agriculture but obviously this plan will be revised and updatedover the life of the mine in <strong>co</strong>nsultation with the I&APs and the environmental monitoring <strong>co</strong>mmittee.From a biodiversity protection viewpoint, this plan supports the e<strong>co</strong>logical specialists re<strong>co</strong>mmendationsto focus on the re-establishment of agricultural land uses so that the need to transform other areas foragricultural food production is avoided.The various impacts of the New Largo Colliery are discussed in detail in Section 8 and have been rated,for all project activities and project phases, in Section 9, these sections clearly indicate that there aresubstantial negative impacts as well as substantial positive impacts.Most of the negative social impacts of a project such as New Largo Colliery are often experienced locallyby the people living in close proximity to the project. Impacts on the lives and livelihood of the project’sfuture neighbours will require pro-active mitigation (i.e. measures to avoid, reduce, manage and /or<strong>co</strong>mpensate for impacts). The EMP includes clear measures to address the need for <strong>co</strong>ntinuedstakeholder engagement, and deal with <strong>co</strong>mplaints, claims and potential disputes. It also allows for theestablishment of an environmental monitoring <strong>co</strong>mmittee.When <strong>co</strong>nsidering the impacts of the proposed New Largo Colliery, the importance of the project in thenational (South African) interest must be <strong>co</strong>nsidered. New Largo Colliery forms part of a much largervalue chain for electricity production in South Africa. The mining development is an investment of R21.3billion, and represent a part of the investment including the Kusile Power Station and <strong>co</strong>nveyor belts thatwill invest over R90 billion in the local and national e<strong>co</strong>nomy. All these projects are needed to ensurethat electricity supply is increased to facilitate e<strong>co</strong>nomic growth for the national e<strong>co</strong>nomy.The New Largo <strong>co</strong>al reserve <strong>co</strong>nsists of areas with high quality <strong>co</strong>al and areas with lower quality <strong>co</strong>al,which will have to be blended in order to ensure a <strong>co</strong>nsistent supply of <strong>co</strong>al that meets Eskom’s qualityrequirements for <strong>co</strong>al supply to Kusile, which uses pulverised <strong>co</strong>al <strong>co</strong>mbustion technology. There areseveral portions of the New Largo <strong>co</strong>al reserve where mining by underground methods has taken placein the past, the largest and most extensive being the now defunct underground New Largo Coal Mine. Itis estimated that approximately 20% of the reserve area <strong>co</strong>mprises of defunct <strong>co</strong>llieries with reserves<strong>co</strong>ntained both in pillars and roof and/or floor of the workings. About ~45 Mt of <strong>co</strong>al over an area of 1500hectares have been extracted by previous mining activities.Collapse of old underground workings and spontaneous <strong>co</strong>mbustion poses a ha<strong>za</strong>rd to both theworkforce and equipment if not adequately managed. AAIC has extensive experience in opencast miningof previously mined underground workings and safe work practices employed at these <strong>co</strong>llieries will beimplemented. However, the presence of the old underground workings do pose significant limitations onNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)468
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesthe mining methods chosen as well as on mine scheduling / sequencing to achieve safe mining<strong>co</strong>nditions and achieve the required <strong>co</strong>al qualities for Kusile. AAIC views opencast mining usingdraglines, supported by small shovel and truck operations, as the only viable mining method to re<strong>co</strong>ver<strong>co</strong>al reserves remaining in areas previously mined by underground methods and to produce the vastquantities of <strong>co</strong>al required by Kusile.In terms of scale and tonnages required, it is the opinion of the Environmental Assessment Practitionerthat there is no alternative <strong>co</strong>al mine, or <strong>co</strong>mbination of smaller <strong>co</strong>al mines, that <strong>co</strong>uld supply this <strong>co</strong>al onschedule and at the <strong>co</strong>rrect grade, quality and quantities – with less environmental impacts thanthose associated with the New Largo Colliery. In the light of the discussions in Section 1(Development Need and Desirability), Section 5 (Development Alternatives, and Section 8(Environmental Impact Assessment) of the report, it is clear that New Largo Colliery is the best suited<strong>co</strong>al reserve to supply <strong>co</strong>al to Kusile. This <strong>co</strong>nclusion was reached based on the EnvironmentalAssessment Practitioner’s professional experience working with <strong>co</strong>al mines throughout all the major <strong>co</strong>alfields in Mpumalanga, Kwa-Zulu Natal and Limpopo provinces of South Africa.The Environmental Assessment Practitioner for this project is of the opinion that there are no notableuncertainties and knowledge gaps that should affect the approval of the New Largo Colliery project.Regardless of the obvious need for the project to be approved timeously to supply <strong>co</strong>al to Kusile, and to<strong>co</strong>ntinue to provide a <strong>co</strong>nstant supply of <strong>co</strong>al to Kusile, AAIC needs to keep to the strategy fordeveloping a wetland mitigation and offset plan as attached in Appendix U (and summarised in theEMP).The EAP is re<strong>co</strong>mmending that the project be approved by government subject to the implementation ofthe EMP as <strong>co</strong>ntained in Appendix B. The approval should be for the preferred development alternativesas described above and in more detail in Section 5.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)469
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices11. Consultant DeclarationSynergistics Environmental Services is an independent environmental <strong>co</strong>nsultancy that was establishedin South Africa in 2004.Mari Wolmarans, the project leader for the New Largo Colliery <strong>EIA</strong>, is an independent <strong>co</strong>nsultant andcertified as an Environmental Assessment Practitioner by the Interim Certification Board in South Africa.She has 20 years’ experience in the field of environmental <strong>co</strong>nsulting, particularly in the mining andinfrastructure development sectors.The undersigned <strong>co</strong>nsultants herewith declare that this <strong>EIA</strong> report represents an objective and <strong>co</strong>mpleteassessment of the environmental impacts associated with the proposed New Largo Colliery. Issues andimpact were identified and assessed through professional judgement and <strong>co</strong>nsultation with interestedand affected parties and authorities.The <strong>EIA</strong> process followed for the project is deemed to <strong>co</strong>mply with relevant legislation, best practicesand principles of integrated environmental management.The Environmental Assessment Practitioner has also signed the <strong>co</strong>nsultant’s declaration on theMDEDET standard form (Appendix D4).__________________________________Mari WolmaransBL Arch, MSAIE&ES, EAPSA CertifiedEnvironmental AdvisorProject Leader and Independent Environmental Assessment Practitioner__________________________________Marline MedallieM.Sc Botany (Molecular Systematics)Environmental AdvisorSynergistics Environmental ServicesNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)470
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices12. Specialist Team Declarations of IndependenceAll the specialists involved with the <strong>EIA</strong> for the New Largo Colliery have signed declarations ofindependence on the standard MDEDET form. These forms have been attached to the back of eachspecialist report (Appendix E to Appendix S).New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)471
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices13. Environmental Management Plan (EMP)The EMP is provided as a standalone report section in Appendix B. The EMP is a live document whichwill be updated based on the findings of environmental audits and inspections. During <strong>co</strong>nstruction, EMPupdates will be <strong>co</strong>nducted as dictated by the environmental issues and <strong>co</strong>nditions of the <strong>co</strong>nstruction siteand surroundings. The EMP has been designed to manage the environmental aspects associated withthe following project activities and facilities during <strong>co</strong>nstruction.In addition, AAIC is planning to develop and implement an Environmental Management System (EMS)during the <strong>co</strong>nstruction phase. The EMS will be used as a tool to manage AAIC’s environmental<strong>co</strong>mmitments and obligations and to ensure <strong>co</strong>ntinuity from <strong>co</strong>nstruction to operation and eventualclosure of the mine.13.1 EMP StructureThe EMP is provided as a standalone report section in Appendix B. The EMP is a live document whichwill be updated based on the findings of environmental audits and inspections. During <strong>co</strong>nstruction, EMPupdates will be <strong>co</strong>nducted as dictated by the environmental issues and <strong>co</strong>nditions of the <strong>co</strong>nstruction siteand surroundings.EMP <strong>co</strong>mmitments are all in<strong>co</strong>rporated into Column B of the EMP. The timeframes and scheduling areprovided in Column C.The EMP has been structured to in<strong>co</strong>rporate the following project phases: Construction Phase (including planning, design and pre-<strong>co</strong>nstruction). EMP Column D Operational Phase. EMP Column E De<strong>co</strong>mmissioning and Closure Phase. EMP Column F Post Closure. EMP Column GWhere an EMP <strong>co</strong>mmitment is relevant to any of these phases, a “Y” (Yes) is provided in the relevantColumns, i.e. a “Y” in Column E indicates that the specific <strong>co</strong>mmitment is applicable to the OperationalPhase of the project.The main project activities, for assessment in the <strong>EIA</strong> and management in the EMP, can be categorisedas follow: All Activities. EMP Column H Earthworks and Soil Management. EMP Column I Mining Activities. EMP Column J Coal Processing and Coal Discard Management. EMP Column K Materials Handling and Transport. EMP Column L Supporting Infrastructure. EMP Column M Water Management. EMP Column N Waste Management (Non-Mineralogical). EMP Column O Rehabilitation. EMP Column P R545 Road Deviation EMP Column QWhere an EMP <strong>co</strong>mmitment is relevant to any of these activities, a “Y” is provided in the relevantColumns, i.e. a “Y” in Column K indicates that the specific <strong>co</strong>mmitment is applicable to the CoalNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)472
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesProcessing Plant and Coal Discard Management. Where a “Y” is provided in Column H, it indicates ageneral EMP <strong>co</strong>mmitment applicable to all project activities.13.2 Appointments, Roles and ResponsibilitiesThe ultimate responsibility for implementation of the EMP rests with Anglo American Inyosi Coal (AAIC)as owner of New Largo Colliery.Individual appointments, roles and responsibilities of the following parties are also outlined: Environmental Control Officer (ECO) Environmental Auditor (EA)Environmental Monitoring CommitteeContractorsContractor SHE OfficerAAIC Project Manager (PM)Third-Party Infrastructure OwnersPublic / Community Liaison OfficerCompetent Authorities for the ProjectEnvironmental Assessment Practitioner responsible for preparing the EMPThe environmental monitoring <strong>co</strong>mmittee (EMC) will be established before <strong>co</strong>nstruction <strong>co</strong>mmences.The EMC will meet on a quarterly basis for the first two years and bi-annually thereafter, and will bechaired by a neutral independent facilitator. The purpose of this EMC will be multi-facetted but it isenvisaged that this body will be the main driving force ensuring the effective implementation of all<strong>co</strong>mmitments <strong>co</strong>ntained within the EMP and associated permitting documents.The EMC <strong>co</strong>uld include the following stakeholders: Project Manager of New Largo Colliery Mpumalanga Department of E<strong>co</strong>nomic Development, Environment and Tourism (MDEDET)Mpumalanga Department of Water Affairs (DWA)Mpumalanga Department of Mineral Resources (DMR)Mpumalanga Department of Agriculture, Forestry and FisheriesNkangala District MunicipalityVictor Khanye Local Municipality and Emalahleni Local MunicipalitySouth African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI)Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency (MTPA)Olifants River ForumCatchment Management AgencyNon-government organisations (NGOs)Eskom representativeWetland Consulting ServicesAgriculture specialist;EkoInfo;E<strong>co</strong>tone;Community representatives; andRepresentatives of the media.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)473
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesThe EMC will be specifically involved during the development of the New Largo wetland offset plan andwhen the <strong>co</strong>nceptual end land use plan needs to be revised.13.3 Rehabilitation and ClosureThe vision for closure and selection of end land uses need to take <strong>co</strong>gnisance of the existing landcapabilities, current use of the land, the sensitivity of the affected environment and the anticipated needsof future generations.During the <strong>EIA</strong> process, I&APs were specifically <strong>co</strong>nsulted on their views regarding end land use (all<strong>co</strong>mments <strong>co</strong>ntained in Appendix D1). Their views were generally around agriculture and food security.I&APs, including the Department of Agriculture, stated that there should be no net loss in agriculturalproduction.Current agricultural uses are mainly maize cultivation and grazing, interspersed with some irrigated landand poultry production units (see Section 6.3.4). When the <strong>co</strong>ncept of ‘no net loss in agriculturalproduction’ was discussed with I&APs, it was generally deemed that this does not have to mean that‘maize needs to be replaced with maize’ with an expected yield per hectare, as there may be crops thatare better suited and desirable to the area – in the New Largo study area, maize is grown with highfertiliser and lime inputs. The focus should rather be on no net loss of food production, job losses ande<strong>co</strong>nomic <strong>co</strong>ntribution.The loss of agricultural production areas <strong>co</strong>uld also have a domino effect on the landscape and theremaining natural areas in the region since the production areas will have to be replaced and, therefore,there <strong>co</strong>uld be an increase in grazing pressure, overgrazing and grassland / grazing land <strong>co</strong>uld be<strong>co</strong>nverted and lost to cultivation. Habitat loss and habitat fragmentation are the most significant<strong>co</strong>ntributors to biodiversity loss globally. Therefore, it should be a high priority that disturbed ortransformed land, when altered beyond the level of natural re<strong>co</strong>very / succession, be optimised in orderto reduce the need to transform or degrade other intact areas. The ‘no net loss in agricultural production’is therefore not only critical for food security reasons but also important from a biodiversity viewpoint.I&APs acknowledged that food production <strong>co</strong>uld be enhanced through alternative intensive agriculturaldevelopments such as hydroponics, and use of alternative crops and irrigation (using treated water fromthe WTP), but it was re<strong>co</strong>gnised that these alternative developments needed start-up capitalinvestments, technical knowledge and a trained workforce not generally available to the average farmer.These are issues that <strong>co</strong>uld be in<strong>co</strong>rporated into the New Largo social and labour plan and closureplanning process as and when end land uses are being introduced into rehabilitated opencast miningareas.Soil management and rehabilitation efforts during operation of the mine dictates, to a large degree, theend land use capability and potential for establishing sustainable agricultural end land uses (within the<strong>co</strong>ntext of the baseline soil types, climatic <strong>co</strong>nditions and land capability).I&APs were <strong>co</strong>ncerned that <strong>co</strong>nventional soil management and rehabilitation measures currently used atopencast most <strong>co</strong>al mines, are not achieving the desired post mining land capability and the EMP<strong>co</strong>mmitments of these mines. Since New Largo Colliery occupies an extensive area – the opencastmining area (mine pits) will occupy 5600 hectares for Mine Plan Version 6, it would have a notable<strong>co</strong>ntribution to the cumulative impact of <strong>co</strong>al mining on food production on the Highveld. The opencastmining area falls within the total mining right area that is 12 773 hectares in size.End land uses for rehabilitated opencast mining areas, particularly where <strong>co</strong>al discard has beenbackfilled into the mine pit, need to be carefully selected to ensure that rehabilitation efforts by the mineduring operation, de<strong>co</strong>mmissioning and closure are not negatively affected / destroyed during the postclosure phase. The major post closure <strong>co</strong>st for the New Largo Colliery relates to the long-term pumping,treatment of water to prevent decant water from entering downstream environments. Water treatment willhave to take place until the water quality monitoring results proves <strong>co</strong>nclusively that treatment is noNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)474
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser viceslonger required. Inappropriate cultivation on mined out areas <strong>co</strong>uld place the operation of the WTP andtherefore the water quality downstream of the mine at risk over the long-term. For example, cultivatedcrops involving ploughing, can have a significant impact on the water treatment plant and the <strong>co</strong>st ofwater treatment if reinstated soil layers are too thin and:Carbonaceous spoil material or <strong>co</strong>al discards are exposed,Post closure water make (as anticipated in Section 4.15) increases due to higher than anticipatedwater ingress (<strong>co</strong>uld occur if the <strong>co</strong>mbined effect of the depth of the reinstated soil layers andevapo-transpiration of the vegetation <strong>co</strong>ver is not sufficient retain the desired quantities of water).Maize cultivation, as currently practiced with high fertiliser and lime inputs, is not a desirable end landuse for rehabilitated opencast mining areas where the reinstated soil layers are not deep enough tomanage water ingress throughout the year (i.e. at times when crops have been harvested and thus theevapotranspiration effect of the plant <strong>co</strong>ver has been effectively removed) and avoid exposure ofcarbonaceous material or <strong>co</strong>al discards.In effect, there is a trade-off between soil management and rehabilitation, post mining cultivation, andpost mining water quality and quantity in the catchment.As explained in 4.11, the soil management and rehabilitation strategy that AAIC adopted for New Largois in ac<strong>co</strong>rdance with best practice and allows for the reinstated soil depths to be optimised. In essence,the strategy involves sequential pre-stripping of soft overburden clay material placed separately on top ofthe levelled overburden, with utilisable soils placed on top of the clay material. The average <strong>co</strong>mbinedpre-stripping depth of the utilisable soils and soft overburden across the <strong>co</strong>al reserve is estimated to be~3.8 metres. The estimated reinstated post mining soil depth will exceed 2.0 metres in most instances.These deeper soil layers will improve water retention capability, and will reduce the water that willpermeate through the spoils into the pit, thus less water will need to be pumped to and treated. In orderto restore soil functionality, planning for subsurface water movement is vital as most of the lateral watermovement takes place in the first 2.0 metres of the soil. With the AAIC adopted strategy, there is a goodchance that subsurface water movement might be achievable.Implementation of the adopted soil management and rehabilitation strategy over the life of the mine, willensure that the potential for the establishment of end land use are optimised and the need for postclosure water treatment are managed.13.3.1 Closure VisionAAIC’s vision is to plan and operate New Largo Colliery in such a way as to leave behind a safe, stableand non-polluting environment that will facilitate the potential future use of infrastructure and en<strong>co</strong>uragethe growth of sustainable, e<strong>co</strong>nomically viable socio-e<strong>co</strong>nomic systems.This will be achieved through the following:Design and plan infrastructure developed for New Largo Colliery in such a way as to facilitatepost closure use of the infrastructure.Manage non-operational areas for biodiversity <strong>co</strong>nservation throughout the operation of the mineand beyond closure.Rehabilitate mine pits to enable the establishment of beneficial and sustainable end land usesand foster the development of projects aimed at <strong>co</strong>mpensating for the loss in pre-mining foodproduction. The bulk of the land will revert to grazing, with some areas utilised for intensivefarming (variety of crops, not only maize).New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)475
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesThe rehabilitation programme is aimed at providing predominately grazing land with areas ofintensive agricultural practices and <strong>co</strong>nservation areas which align with the priorities withinMpumalanga Province.Facilitate recreational use of the land where appropriate.None of the activities should <strong>co</strong>mpromise / degrade the status of land that has been rehabilitated.Ensure the entire mining right area is safe, stable and non-polluting.13.3.2 Areas for Establishment of End Land UsesPlanning of end land uses has to take <strong>co</strong>gnisance of the following broad areas within the New Largomining right area:Mine PitsRehabilitated mining areas, including areas where discards has been backfilled.Surface InfrastructureAreas occupied by surface infrastructure such as roads, tips, <strong>co</strong>nveyors, the processing plant,etc. which would be demolished as part of de<strong>co</strong>mmissioning.Infrastructure that will have to remain in place after closure of the mine – most notably the WTPand associated activities such as storage dams and reservoirs, pumps, pipelines andinfrastructure for release of the water to streams and/or for distribution to third parties.Infrastructure that would have a beneficial use post closure. These infrastructure, i.e. offices,workshops, canteen, etc., <strong>co</strong>uld remain in place or <strong>co</strong>uld be modified for an alternative use bythird parties post closure.Non-Operational Areas within the Mining Right AreaThese areas present land around the mine pit and surface infrastructure areas, and would notrequire rehabilitation. The land will remain available for current land uses and land capabilities, orother suitable land uses desirable at the time of closure.13.3.3 Identification of Potential End Land UsesThe following possible land uses were identified by AAIC, I&APs and the environmental study teamduring the <strong>EIA</strong> process.Pastures (livestock grazing or stocked game).Rehabilitated grasslands (livestock grazing, game stocking, re-population by certain wildlifespecies possible).Rainfed grain.Irrigated crops.Fruit production.Wilderness / <strong>co</strong>nservation areas.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)476
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesFeedlots, poultry units, piggeries (protein production).Industrial e.g. regional water treatment and bottling plant.Recreational (e.g. fishing, bird watching, hiking, adventure sports, etc.).Landfill/waste disposal site (e.g. request for use for old quarries, but this will be mined).Alternative energies (e.g. algae – based on presence of power infrastructure in region).Urban development (e.g. expansion of Phola), outside the mine pit footprint.Organic agricultural tunnels – availability of excess water (high intensity farming practices).Hydroponics (high intensity farming practices).Infrastructure with post-closure use e.g. workshops, office block, etc. Carbon sequestration / sink through a sustainable vegetation <strong>co</strong>ver (i.e. in the form of woodlots /bamboo / other suitable vegetation <strong>co</strong>ver).Energy production (solar / wood chips / char<strong>co</strong>al).Human settlement.End land uses is likely to be a <strong>co</strong>mbination of those proposed in the list above, but would be based onthe out<strong>co</strong>me of future pilot projects and feasibility studies to determine their e<strong>co</strong>nomic and environmentalsustainability.13.3.4 Conceptual End Land Use PlanBased on the adopted soil management and rehabilitation plan, a <strong>co</strong>nceptual end land use plan wasdeveloped which indicates that it would be possible to achieve no net loss of food production and in<strong>co</strong>megeneration from agriculture (see Appendix R: Agricultural and Land Use Potential SpecialistAssessment). At this stage, the <strong>co</strong>nceptual end land plan was developed to optimise the use of the landfor agriculture but obviously this plan will be revised and updated over the life of the mine in <strong>co</strong>nsultationwith the I&APs and the environmental monitoring <strong>co</strong>mmittee. From a biodiversity protection viewpoint,this plan support the e<strong>co</strong>logical specialists re<strong>co</strong>mmendations to focus on the re-establishment ofagricultural land uses so that the need to transform other areas for agricultural food production isavoided.The <strong>co</strong>nceptual end land use plan in<strong>co</strong>rporates:Pastures (livestock grazing or stocked game).Rehabilitated grasslands (livestock grazing, game stocking, re-population by certain wildlifespecies possible).Rainfed grain.Irrigated crops.Fruit production.Feedlots and poultry units.However, due to the availability of treated water from the water treatment plant, there is potential for theestablishment of additional intensive agricultural practices such as hydroponics, occupying fairly smallland footprints, to substantial substantially increase food production and in<strong>co</strong>me generation fromNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)477
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesagriculture. New Largo Colliery’s location in relation to Gauteng lends itself to this intensive agriculturalpractices.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)478
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesFigure 13-1: Conceptual End Land Use Plan (Agriculture Optimised)Note: Conceptual End Land Use Plan as Proposed by Agricultural Specialist, with input from E<strong>co</strong>logical, Soil and Land Capability and Hydrological Specialist.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)479
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesThe <strong>co</strong>nceptual land use plan focuses on the opencast mining area (5 600 hectares for Mine PlanVersion 6) since this is the area of substantial change. Land use potential within the undisturbed areaswithin the larger mining right area (12 773 hectares in size), will essentially remain intact and <strong>co</strong>uld<strong>co</strong>ntinue as before. Current land useMining will bring about significant change to the soil layers and topography within the opencast miningarea, particularly for the arable land portions in terms of size and rainfed crop yield potential. The soilmanagement and rehabilitation strategy adopted by AAIC is optimising on the depth and water retentioncapacity of the reinstated soil layers.The post mining topography <strong>co</strong>nsist of large reasonably ‘flat’ areas with the steeper sloping ramp scars,as depicted on Figure 13-3.As illustrated on Figure 13-5, the <strong>co</strong>nceptual end land uses took <strong>co</strong>gnisanceof the post mining topography, soil types and reinstated soil depths as depicted on Figure 13-3. Themaximum slope in the post mining landscape will be 1 in 7 and is associated with the ramp scars.In terms of the <strong>co</strong>nceptual land use plan, the steeper slopes, associated with the ramp scars, would beused for grazing or rehabilitated grasslands. Based on the out<strong>co</strong>me of pilot projects and feasibilitystudies, these areas <strong>co</strong>uld be used for other perennial planting such as woodlots or carbonsequestration 51 projects. Annual crops are to be avoided on these areas.Between the ramp scars, there are large areas with gentle gradients (relatively ‘flat’ areas indicated indotted lines on Figure 13-5 and in orange on Figure 13-3). The estimated reinstated post mining soildepth (depicted in Figure 13-4) will, in most instances, exceed 2.0 metres in these areas. Areas withdeep reinstated soils and gentler slopes represent arable land earmarked for cultivated crops (rainfedand irrigated). After mining and rehabilitation, the focus would first be to improve the soil (i.e. pastures forthree years) after which crops <strong>co</strong>uld be introduced. For annual crops, optimum yields should be achieved~10 years after mining.The availability of water from the water treatment, allows for the introduction of irrigation and intensivefarming practices not only in the <strong>co</strong>re mining areas as indicated on the <strong>co</strong>nceptual land use plan but alsoin the wider mining right area (total of 12 773 hectares) to mitigate the impact on arable land andpotential loss in crop yields.Pastures / grasslands were proposed for the northern portion of the <strong>co</strong>al reserve as potential future linkto Ezemvelo <strong>co</strong>nservation area found some distance north of New Largo Colliery.51As per the bamboo project suggested by Wilge Conservancy (see Appendix D1).New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)480
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesFigure 13-2: Pre-Mining Cultivationwithin the New Largo Coal Reserveand Wider Mining Right AreaFigure 13-3: Post MiningTopography Slope Classes(showing large Reasonably ‘Flat’Areas, Sloped Areas and DrainagePathsFigure 13-4: Total ReinstatedSoil Depth (Combined Depth ofUtilisable Soil and Pre-StrippedSoft Overburden)New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)481
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesFigure 13-5: View of a Portion of the Mine Plan showing how the Post Mining Topography is usedto Facilitate Agricultural End Land Uses: Cultivation Crops on Gentler Slopes (Arable), RampScars and Steeper Slopes used for Grazing or other Uses (maximum slopes is 1.7 in post mininglandscape)13.3.5 Rehabilitation and Closure CostsThe closure <strong>co</strong>sts were calculated by Venn & Milford Quantity Surveyors.13.3.5.1 Immediate ClosureImmediate closure <strong>co</strong>sts, determined for the end of Year 2, are estimated at R 259 million 52 excludingVAT and the value of scrap sales, but including <strong>co</strong>ntingencies (15%) and preliminary and general <strong>co</strong>sts(35%). The amount including VAT is 295 million 53 .A breakdown of the calculations is provided in Appendix B.At the end of Year 2, <strong>co</strong>nstruction of New Largo Colliery Mining Phase 1 (Stage 2 Coal Supply to Kusile)as described in Section 1.12.2 and Section 4.3 will be underway, assuming that:Plant, Buildings and StructuresoConstruction of surface infrastructure, including the access road, Tip 1, run of minestockpile, offices, workshops, parking areas, water management infrastructure and haulroad will be <strong>co</strong>mpleted.o Assembly of Dragline 1 will be underway on the engineered dragline pad.5253Rounded to the nearest million. Figures updated from draft <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong> to final <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong>. <strong>Final</strong> <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong> figures based on AAIC’s more detailedfeasibility study results.Rounded to the nearest million. Figures updated from draft <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong> to final <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong>. <strong>Final</strong> <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong> figures based on AAIC’s more detailedfeasibility study results.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)482
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesMine Pit (Box-Cut)o The first box-cut and ramps (Mine Pit B) will have been established.o Topsoil from the box-cut will have been stripped and stockpiled and overburden haulingto the overburden stockpile will be in process.General Surface Disturbanceo The areas that will be disturbed at the end of Year 2, will include the plant, buildings andstructures, the box-cut as listed above as well as the topsoil stockpiles, overburdenstockpiles and <strong>co</strong>nstruction laydown areas.The quantities used were calculated based on footprint areas of structures and sizes of affected surfaceareas. Where <strong>co</strong>ncrete is <strong>co</strong>ncerned, the volume was taken into <strong>co</strong>nsideration. Steel structures werecalculated in tonnage, addressing the height and average weight. Current Contractor’s rates were usedfor immediate closure as it is assumed that AAIC and New Largo Colliery will not able to <strong>co</strong>ntinue theiroperation.Detailed drawings of the activities listed are provided in Appendix T (<strong>EIA</strong> Volume 7).In the calculation of the immediate closure <strong>co</strong>sts, Venn & Milford Quantity Surveyors assumed thefollowing rehabilitation and closure methods to be followed:Plant, Buildings and StructuresDemolishing, dismantling, cleaning and rehabilitation of the areas that <strong>co</strong>ntains all of Dragline 1, Tip 1buildings and infrastructure:Demolishing - Structures that are blasted and demolished shall be broken up and hauled away tobe disposed of in the existing mine void (box-cut).Subsoil - 1.0 metre deep subsoil shall be placed over the entire area of the demolished structure.Topsoil - 0.3 metre deep topsoil shall be placed over the entire area of the demolished structure.Vegetation - once topsoil has been replaced, the necessary fertili<strong>za</strong>tion and seeding will becarried out over the entire area of the demolished structure.Structural steel - structures <strong>co</strong>ntaining structural steel will be dismantled and the scrap steel willbe sold to re<strong>co</strong>ver some of the <strong>co</strong>sts. These <strong>co</strong>sts were calculated in this report, but are notdeducted from the total <strong>co</strong>st of the liability.Mine Pit (Box-Cut)<strong>Final</strong> voids shall be closed to an average depth of 21.2 metres.The area will be made free draining.Ramps shall be shaped and levelled by using dozers.Spoil heaps shall be shaped and levelled.Topsoil - a minimum of 0.3 metre deep topsoil shall be placed over the entire disturbed area.Vegetation - once topsoil has been replaced, the necessary fertili<strong>za</strong>tion and seeding will becarried out over the entire disturbed area.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)483
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesAftercare of vegetation - one year of active maintenance and thereafter another two years ofpassive maintenance were allowed for.General Surface RehabilitationThis section <strong>co</strong>ntains the <strong>co</strong>st for the rehabilitation of the general surface which is not included in theplant, structures and buildings already included. General surface areas that have been disturbed will be<strong>co</strong>vered by 0.3 metre deep topsoil and the necessary vegetation applied.Vegetation - once topsoil has been replaced, the necessary fertili<strong>za</strong>tion and seeding will becarried out over the entire disturbed area.Aftercare of vegetation - one year of active maintenance and thereafter another two years ofpassive maintenance were allowed for.Discard FacilitiesNot applicable in the first years of operation.Water Treatment PlantThe <strong>co</strong>sts of water treatment are reflected as a liability in the New Largo Colliery financial statements,but for the purposes of the immediate financial provision, AAIC is not including water treatment <strong>co</strong>sts inthe submission to the DMR.Maintenance and MonitoringAllowance for the management and monitoring of the rehabilitated area for 5 years after closure wasmade and priced at current market rates. The allowance for the management of the water treatmentplant was included in the water treatment plant operating <strong>co</strong>sts which form part of the water liabilityassessment.ManagementAllowance was made for the project management <strong>co</strong>st of the rehabilitation and closure for 5 years afterclosure.ContingenciesAllowance was made for 10% <strong>co</strong>ntingencies.Preliminary and GeneralAllowance was made for 20% preliminary and general <strong>co</strong>sts.13.3.5.2 Planned ClosureThe <strong>co</strong>sts for planned closure have also been calculated by Venn & Milford Quantity Surveyors. These<strong>co</strong>sts are reflected as a liability in the New Largo Colliery financial statements and <strong>co</strong>sts will be updatedat the end of AAIC’s feasibility study in February 2012. Once the mining right has been approved these<strong>co</strong>sts will be updated on an annual basis and the <strong>co</strong>mpany’s liability statement amended ac<strong>co</strong>rdingly.Closure will be undertaken as per the EMP management measures on rehabilitation and closure (EMP inAppendix B).New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)484
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices13.3.5.3 Post Closure Management of Residual Environmental ImpactsThe major post closure <strong>co</strong>st for the New Largo Colliery relates to the long-term pumping, treatment andrelease of water to prevent decant water from entering downstream environments. Water treatment willoccur for 100 plus years post closure until the water quality monitoring results proves <strong>co</strong>nclusively thattreatment is no longer required.The <strong>co</strong>sts are reflected as a liability in the New Largo Colliery financial statements but AAIC is notsubmitting these <strong>co</strong>sts to the DMR as part of the EMP submission. These <strong>co</strong>sts were updated at the endof AAIC’s feasibility study in February 2012.The Federation for a Sustainable Environment (FSE) requested specific financial information about watertreatment <strong>co</strong>sts in the New Largo Colliery financial model. AAIC has indicated that the financial model<strong>co</strong>ntains sensitive and <strong>co</strong>nfidential <strong>co</strong>mmercial information but, in order to address the I&AP request,stated that they will issue the financial model to an independent third party for review and that the resultsof the review will be released to the FSE and other I&APs who request insight into this information.AAIC is willing to meet with the FSE representatives and the independent reviewer, to discuss specificissues, but request that sensitive <strong>co</strong>mmercial information remain <strong>co</strong>nfidential.AAIC is adamant that the process for the third party review must be agreed between AAIC and theI&APs who requested access to the financials (i.e. the party <strong>co</strong>nducting the review must be agreed).The FSE has indicated that all their questions must be answered before meaningful further discussionscan take place. FSE subsequently indicated that AAIC should motivate further why they see theinformation as <strong>co</strong>nfidential.AAIC is stating that they cannot disclose information such as Operational and Maintenance (O&M) <strong>co</strong>sts,which include, amongst other elements, staff and <strong>co</strong>ntractor remuneration and overheads and chemicalsand <strong>co</strong>nsumable <strong>co</strong>sts, all of which are <strong>co</strong>ntractually negotiated and remain <strong>co</strong>nfidential between AAICand the individual or supplier.Based on this, the FSE was requested to re-<strong>co</strong>nsider AAIC’s proposal for a third party review and toindicate if are willing to discuss and agree on the audit <strong>co</strong>mpany to undertake the review.AAIC has indicated that they will proceed with the third party review as soon as the FSE has <strong>co</strong>nfirmedthat they are amenable to this option and as soon as there is agreement on who the third party reviewershould be. This matter will be further discussed with AAIC and the FSE.13.3.6 Method of Financial ProvisionAAIC will pay for a bank guarantee to fund the immediate closure value after approval by the DMR. Theamount will be revised on an annual basis once the mining right has been approved.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)485
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesList of AppendicesAppendix A and B are bound into the main <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong><strong>EIA</strong> Volume 1 (Main <strong>Report</strong>, and Appendix A and B)Appendix A: Detailed Environmental Impact Assessment and RatingAppendix B: Environmental Management ProgrammeB1: Environmental Management Programme (updated June 2012 for final <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong>)B2: Closure Cost Calculations by Venn & Milford Quantity Surveyors (updated March 2012)<strong>EIA</strong> Volume 2 (Appendix C: Supplementary Reading, and Appendix D1-9:Portion of Public Participation)Appendix C: Supplementary Reading on the Need and Desirability of the DevelopmentAppendix D: Public Consultation DocumentationD1. Issues and Response <strong>Report</strong> (updated for <strong>Final</strong> <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong>)D2. Interested and Affected Parties Database (updated for <strong>Final</strong> <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong>)D3. Project Notification to LandownersD4. Copy of the NEMA Application Form Submitted to MDEDETD5. MDEDET and DMR Acceptance of Application and S<strong>co</strong>ping <strong>Report</strong>D6. Proof of Newspaper Placements and Site NoticesD7. Project Notification to Interested and Affected Parties and AuthoritiesD8. Background Information Document and FlyersD9. Re<strong>co</strong>rd of Public Information Meetings during S<strong>co</strong>ping (11 and 12 May 2011)(issues highlighted are <strong>co</strong>ntained in the Issues and Response <strong>Report</strong>, Appendix D1).<strong>EIA</strong> Volume 3 (Appendix D10-14: Public Participation (Continued))Appendix D: Public Consultation Documentation (Continued)D10. Re<strong>co</strong>rd of Authority Meetings during S<strong>co</strong>ping and prior to submission of the draft <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong>a. Meeting with Mpumalanga DWA (9 May 2011)b. Meeting with MDEDET (19 May 2011)c. Meeting with National DWA (17 June 2011)d. Meeting with Competent and Commenting Authorities (26 July 2011)e. Meeting with Emalahleni Local Municipality (11 August 2011)f. Meeting with DEA (30 September 2011)g. Meeting with Mpumalanga DMR (10 October 2011)h. Meeting with Mpumalanga DWA (11 October 2011)i. Meeting with DWA (28 October 2011)(issues highlighted are <strong>co</strong>ntained in the Issues and Response <strong>Report</strong>, Appendix D1).D11. Re<strong>co</strong>rd of Water Focus Group Meeting and Authority Meeting (26 July 2011)(issues highlighted are <strong>co</strong>ntained in the Issues and Response <strong>Report</strong>, Appendix D1).D12. Correspondence to and from AuthoritiesNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)486
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices(issues highlighted are <strong>co</strong>ntained in the Issues and Response <strong>Report</strong>, Appendix D1).D13. Correspondence to and from Interested and Affected Parties(issues highlighted are <strong>co</strong>ntained in the Issues and Response <strong>Report</strong>, Appendix D1).D14. Re<strong>co</strong>rd of Public Information Feedback Open Day and Meetings during <strong>EIA</strong> Phase (6 March2012)o Presentation by AAICo Presentation by Environmental Assessment Practitionero Presentation by Environmental Specialistso Project Zone of Influence Maps(issues highlighted are <strong>co</strong>ntained in the Issues and Response <strong>Report</strong>, Appendix D1).<strong>EIA</strong> Volume 4 (Appendix D15: Public Participation (Continued) andAppendix E and F: Specialist Studies 1)Appendix D: Public Consultation Documentation (Continued)D15. Re<strong>co</strong>rd of Authority Meetings subsequent to submission of the draft <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong>a. Meeting with Mpumalanga DWA (April 2012)b. Meeting with MDEDET (April 2011)(issues highlighted are <strong>co</strong>ntained in the Issues and Response <strong>Report</strong>, Appendix D1).Appendix E: E<strong>co</strong>logy and Biodiversity Specialist AssessmentAppendix F: Wetland Specialist Impact AssessmentF1: New Largo Colliery Wetland AssessmentF2: R545 Road Wetland Assessment<strong>EIA</strong> Volume 5 (Appendix G and H: Specialist Studies 2)Appendix G: Surface Water Specialist Impact AssessmentG1: Surface Water Specialist Impact Assessment <strong>Report</strong>G2: Surface Water Specialist Technical Memo regarding Discharge Points for Water Treated atWater Treatment Plant (Mike Palmer, Jones & Wagener)G3: Additional Surface Water Quality Results (monitoring results that became available after the<strong>co</strong>mpletion of the Surface Water Specialist Impact Assessment (G1).Appendix H: Groundwater Specialist Impact AssessmentH1: Groundwater Specialist Impact Assessment and Geochemical Specialist Impact AssessmentH2: Specialist Comment on Additional Monitoring Conducted Subsequent to the <strong>co</strong>mpletion of theSpecialist Assessment (H1).<strong>EIA</strong> Volume 6 (Appendix H to L: Specialist Studies 3)Appendix I: Geology and Geochemical Specialist Impact AssessmentAppendix J: Soil Specialist Impact AssessmentAppendix K: Air Quality Specialist Impact Assessment and MonitoringK1: Air Quality Specialist Impact Assessment (Airshed Planning Professionals)K2: Air Quality Monitoring <strong>Report</strong>s (Gondwana) 54Appendix L: Traffic Specialist Impact Assessment54New monitoring reports added in final <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong> (draft <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong> only presented the November 2011 monitoring report).New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)487
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vices<strong>EIA</strong> Volume 7 (Appendix M to S and U: Specialist Studies 4, and Appendix T:Project Layout and Design - Maps and Drawings)Appendix M: Noise Specialist Impact AssessmentAppendix N: Heritage Resources Specialist Impact AssessmentAppendix O: Visual Specialist Impact AssessmentAppendix P: Social Specialist Impact AssessmentAppendix Q: E<strong>co</strong>nomic Specialist Impact AssessmentAppendix R: Agricultural and Land Use Potential Specialist AssessmentAppendix S: Blasting Impact AssessmentAppendix T: Project Design and Layout - Maps and DrawingsAppendix U: Wetland Offset Strategy prepared by Wetland Consulting Services 5555New Appendix added to final <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong> (was not included in draft <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong>).New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)488
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesReferencesAnglo Inyosi Coal (Pty) Ltd. 2011. Phola-Kusile Coal Conveyor - Draft <strong>EIA</strong> <strong>Report</strong>.Anglo Inyosi Coal (Pty) Ltd. 2012. Mobile Water Treatment Plant on Portion 1 or Portion 17 FarmKlipfontein 566 JR - <strong>Final</strong> S<strong>co</strong>ping <strong>Report</strong>.Anglo Coal South Africa. 2007. Baseline <strong>Report</strong> For The Proposed New Largo Colliery, MpumalangaProvince.Department of Water Affairs, 2010. Nature, distribution and value of aquatic e<strong>co</strong>system services ofOlifants, Inkomati and Usutu to Mhlatuze Water Management Areas (Anchor Environmental).De Frey, W.H. 2010. Specialist <strong>Report</strong>: E<strong>co</strong>logical Assessment (Flora, Fauna, Aquatic) for the NewLargo Coal Development - Mpumalanga EkoInfoKamffer, D. T. Mostert. 2007. New Largo Faunal Study. Faunal Species In<strong>co</strong>rporated.Mpumalanga Provincial Government Department of Agriculture and Land Administration. 2005.Integrated Resource Information <strong>Report</strong> Emalahleni. Resource Management and Land usePlanning.Oryx Environmental. 2007. Surface Water Inputs To The EMPR For New Largo Opencast Mine. Jonesand Wagener.Van Schalkwyk, J., 2006. Heritage Impact S<strong>co</strong>ping Assessment for the Proposed New Largo MiningDevelopment, Witbank Area, Mpumalanga. National Cultural History MuseumVermaak, P.S; Jones, I.P.C. 2006. New Largo Project Baseline Soils and Land Capability Survey. EarthScience Solutions.Von Gruenewaldt, R.G.; H. Liebenberg-Enslin. 2010. Air Quality Baseline Assessment For The ProposedNew Largo Opencast Coal Mine In The Kendal Area. Airshed Planning Professionals.Young, G. 2007. Visual Assessment for New Largo Colliery in the Kendal/Balmoral Area. NewtownLandscape Architects.Specialist Impact Assessment <strong>Report</strong>s prepared as part of the <strong>EIA</strong>, IWULA and WML applicationprocesses:Appendix E: E<strong>co</strong>logy and Biodiversity Specialist AssessmentAppendix F: Wetland Specialist Impact AssessmentAppendix G: Surface Water Specialist Impact AssessmentAppendix H: Groundwater Specialist Impact AssessmentAppendix I: Geology and Geochemical Specialist Impact AssessmentAppendix J: Soil Specialist Impact AssessmentAppendix K: Air Quality Specialist Impact AssessmentAppendix L: Traffic Specialist Impact AssessmentAppendix M: Noise Specialist Impact AssessmentAppendix N: Heritage Resources Specialist Impact AssessmentAppendix O: Visual Specialist Impact AssessmentAppendix P: Social Specialist Impact AssessmentAppendix Q: E<strong>co</strong>nomic Specialist Impact AssessmentAppendix R: Agricultural and Land Use Potential Specialist AssessmentAppendix S: Blasting Impact AssessmentNew Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)489
<strong>Report</strong> S0403/NLC/<strong>EIA</strong>01, February 2012 (Revision 01-<strong>Final</strong>)Environmental Ser vicesAppendix U: Wetland Offset Strategy prepared by Wetland Consulting ServicesDocuments listed in Appendix C:C1: Media Comment on the National Government’s <strong>Final</strong> Integrated Resource Plan forElectricity 2010-2030: “Massive renewable and nuclear build ahead - but <strong>co</strong>al is here tostay”. Understanding IRP2010 – the national Integrated Resource Plan for Electricity, articleby Chris Yelland, Managing Director, EE Publishers, December 2011.C2: South Africa’s ‘National Government’s <strong>Final</strong> Integrated Resource Plan for Electricity 2010-2030’ as approved by cabinet (<strong>Final</strong> <strong>Report</strong> March 2011).C3: The launch of the South African Renewables Initiative [SARi] in Durban during theUNFCCC COP17 climate change <strong>co</strong>nference, 7 Dec 2011C4: “Urgent Needs for Low Carbon SA” Minister of Energy Ms Dipuo Peters, speaking COP17C5: SA will <strong>co</strong>ntinue using <strong>co</strong>al: Energy Minister, Thursday 1 December 2011, SABCC6: Speaking notes for Minister Gigaba: Kusile Boiler Construction Commencement Function,Issued by: Department of Public Enterprises, 19 Nov 2011C7: “Weighing the merits of Medupi and Kusile is a ticklish business” Power Complex. Article byStef Terblanche in the ‘The Project Manager’, 28 March 2011C8: Greenpeace protest Kusile Power station. “Activists fired up against <strong>co</strong>al plants”.Independent Newspapers. November 8, article by Kristen van SchieC9: “Greenpeace activists arrested at Kusile <strong>co</strong>al station”. 7 November 2011. Article publishedin the Mail & Guardian Online.C10: “How can SA move to a green e<strong>co</strong>nomy when we’ve been addicted to <strong>co</strong>al for so long?”National Business Initiative debate. ‘Urgent action is needed on <strong>co</strong>al’ – article ColleenDardagan in the Mercury Newspaper, 7 December 2011.C11: “Solving Eskom's <strong>co</strong>al <strong>co</strong>nundrum”, article on miningmx.<strong>co</strong>m (Jan de Lange, 03 February2011)C12: “Government will ensure enough <strong>co</strong>al for Eskom”, Mail & Guardian Online Article byAgnieszka Flak, 02 February 2011.C13: Eskom <strong>co</strong>mplaints about ‘inferior <strong>co</strong>al’ Business Day, January 11 2011.C14: ‘Tough times at the face’, miningmx.<strong>co</strong>m, article by Brendan Ryan, 04 Jul 2011.C15: “Eskom says 15 new Mpumalanga <strong>co</strong>al mines needed by 2015”, article in Mining Weekly(online), by Loni Prinsloo, 21 June 2011.New Largo CollieryENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT (<strong>Final</strong>)490
Change language