Gamsberg ESIA - Hydrogeology

Annex G.
Geohrydrology Specialist
Report
Vedanta – Black Mountain Mining (PTY) LTD
GAMSBERG ZINC PROJECT ESIA
Groundwater Impact Assessment
DRAFT REPORT
April 2013
erm.com
Delivering sustainable solutions in a more competitive world

Vedanta – Black Mountain Mining (PTY) LTD
GAMSBERG ZINC PROJECT ESIA
Groundwater Impact Assessment
DRAFT REPORT
April 2013
Prepared by: Helen Seyler
For and on behalf of

Environmental Resources Management
Approved by: Stefan Muller
Signed:
Position: Partner
Date: 17 April 2013
This report has been prepared by Environmental Resources Management the

trading name of Environmental Resources Management Southern Africa (Pty)
Limited, with all reasonable skill, care and diligence within the terms of the Contract
with the client, incorporating our General Terms and Conditions of Business and
taking account of the resources devoted to it by agreement with the client.
We disclaim any responsibility to the client and others in respect of any matters
outside the scope of the above.
This report is confidential to the client and we accept no responsibility of whatsoever

nature to third parties to whom this report, or any part thereof, is made known. Any
such party relies on the report at their own risk.
DECLARATION OF CONSULTANTS INDEPENDENCE
The author of this report, HELEN SEYLER, does hereby declare that she is an
independent consultant and has no business, financial, personal or other
interest in the activity, application or appeal in respect of which she was
appointed other than fair remuneration for work performed in connection
with the activity, application or appeal. There are no circumstances that
compromise the objectivity of the specialist performing such work. All
opinions expressed in this report are her own.
HELEN SEYLER (Professional Reg No. 400042/12)

April 2013
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT GAMSBERG MINE ESIA & EMP

I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 BACKGROUND 1
1.2 TERMS OF REFERENCE 1
1.2.1 Objectives 1
1.2.2 Scope of Work 2
1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2
1.4 HEALTH AND SAFETY 3
2 METHODOLOGY 4
2.1 INTRODUCTION 4
2.2 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS 4
2.2.1 Hydrocensus 4
2.2.2 Groundwater Sampling 4
2.3 DATA ANALYSIS & DESKTOP STUDY 6
2.4 SITE RECONNAISSANCE 7
2.5 NUMERICAL GROUNDWATER MODELLING OVERVIEW 7
2.5.1 Model Objectives 7
2.5.2 Model Approach 7
2.5.3 Model Calibration 8
2.5.4 Software Selection 9
2.5.5 Model Limitations 10
3 PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 11
3.1 SITE LOCALITY 11

3.2 TOPOGRAPHY AND LAND USE 11
3.3 PRECIPITATION AND EVAPORATION 15
3.4 HYDROLOGY AND DRAINAGE 21
3.5 GEOLOGY 23
3.5.1 Regional Geology 23
3.5.2 Local Geology 27
3.5.3 Structural Geology 31
4 HYDROGEOLOGY BASELINE 33
4.1 HYDROCENSUS RESULTS OVERVIEW 33

4.2 REGIONAL HYDROGEOLGY AND HYDROSTRATIGRAPHY 38
4.3 EXISTING GROUNDWATER USE 39
4.4 GROUNDWATER LEVELS 41
4.5 HYDRAULIC PROPERTIES AND AQUIFER CHARACTERISATION 46
4.6 GROUNDWATER RECHARGE 49

II
4.7 GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE AND SURFACE WATER – GROUNDWATER
INTERACTIONS 52
4.8 EXISTING MINING ACTIVITIES AND GROUNDWATER IMPACTS 55
4.9 GROUNDWATER QUALITY 57
4.9.1 Groundwater Chemistry Results 57
4.9.2 Quality Assurance/Quality Control 63
4.9.3 Groundwater Quality Classification 67
4.9.4 Groundwater Characterisation / Fingerprinting 71
4.9.5 Historical Groundwater Chemical Data 76
5 CONCEPTUAL MODEL 78
5.1 HYDROGEOLOGICAL CONCEPTUAL MODEL 78

5.2 SOURCE – PATH – RECEPTOR APPROACH 79
5.3 TRANSLATION TO NUMERICAL MODEL 79
5.4 ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTUAL MODELS 82
6 GROUNDWATER FLOW AND TRANSPORT MODELS 83
6.1 BASE CASE MODEL SETUP 83

6.1.1 Model Domain 83
6.1.2 Boundary Conditions 83
6.1.3 Model Geometry and Discretisation 86
6.1.4 Model Dimension 87
6.1.5 Aquifer Type 87
6.1.6 Hydraulic Properties 87
6.2 STEADY STATE CALIBRATION 89
6.2.1 Observation points 89
6.2.2 Steady State Calibration Results 90
6.3 MINE AND POST CLOSURE MODEL SETUP 95
6.3.1 Groundwater Flow Model 96
6.3.2 Transport Model 101
6.3.3 Model Setup Summary 104
7 MINE AND POST CLOSURE MODEL RESULTS 106
7.1 FLOW MODEL RESULTS 106

7.1.1 Pit Inflow Rates 106
7.1.2 Hydraulic Head Change and Drawdown Cones 107
7.1.3 Impacts on Groundwater Budget (Fluxes) 115
7.2 TRANSPORT MODEL RESULTS 117
7.2.1 Sulphate Plumes 117
7.2.2 Sulphate Mass-Fluxes 120
7.3 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS 122
7.4 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS OF MODELLING RESULTS 124
7.4.1 Steady State Model 124
7.4.2 Mining Flow Model 124
7.4.3 Solute Transport Model 125

III
8 GROUNDWATER IMPACT ASSESSMENT 127
8.1 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY 127

8.1.1 Assessing Impacts 127
8.1.2 Mitigation Potential and Residual Impacts 132
8.1.3 Cumulative Impacts 133
8.2 IMPACT OF GROUNDWATER LEVEL CHANGES ON THE GROUNDWATER RESOURCE133
8.2.1 Impact Description and Assessment 133
8.2.2 Residual Impact 137
8.3 IMPACT OF GROUNDWATER LEVEL CHANGES ON PRIVATE GROUNDWATER USERS137
8.4 IMPACT OF GROUNDWATER LEVEL CHANGES ON BASE FLOW AND BASE FLOW
DEPENDANT ECOSYSTEMS IN THE KLOOF 141
8.5 GROUNDWATER QUALITY IMPACT ON THE GROUNDWATER RESOURCE 144
8.5.1 The impact on groundwater quality in this section is considered with respect
to the groundwater resource while the impact this will have on groundwater
users is considered in Section 9.6, below.Impact Description and Assessment144
8.6 GROUNDWATER QUALITY IMPACT ON PRIVATE GROUNDWATER USERS 151
8.7 IMPLICATIONS OF SUGGESTED CHANGES TO LAYOUT 154
9 GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 155
9.1 GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ACTIONS 155

9.2 PRELIMINARY GROUNDWATER MONITORING PLAN 156
9.2.1 Purpose of Preliminary Groundwater Monitoring Plan 156
9.2.2 Groundwater Monitoring Plan 157
10 REFERENCES 163

IV
LIST OF ANNEXES
Annex A Laboratory Test Reports

Annex B Mine Schedule
Annex C Sensitivity Analysis
Annex D Details of Mineral Liner (AMEC)

V
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3.1 Location Map of Gamsberg Inselberg 12

Figure 3.2 Site Plan showing Planned Mine Infrastructure Layout 13
Figure 3.3 Topographic Map 14
Figure 3.4 Map of Mean Annual Precipitation 17
Figure 3.5 Average monthly rainfall measured at Aggeneys, Pella, Pofadder and the
Gamsberg (Inselberg) weather stations 20
Figure 3.6 Drainage Map 22
Figure 3.7 Photograph of drainage channel exiting from Kloof 23
Figure 3.8 Geological Map (Council for Geoscience) 24
Figure 3.9 Geological Map 1 25
Figure 3.10 Geological Map 2 26
Figure 3.11 Stratigraphy (from Black Mountain) 29
Figure 3.12 Local Geological Map (from Black Moutain) 29
Figure 3.13 Geological Cross Sections over Gamsberg (from Black Mountain) 30
Figure 3.14 Annotated photograph of the North West face of Gamsberg, showing key
geological units (photograph from Black Mountain) 30
Figure 3.15 Photograph of the thrusted contact between basement gneiss and overlying
schist1, on the southwest wall of Gamsberg inselberg. Pella Quartzite cap
rock visible in top right of photograph. 32
Figure 3.16 Photograph of fractured white Pella Quartzite in kloof, from top of kloof 32
Figure 4.1 Borehole data inventory map 37
Figure 4.2 Groundwater Abstraction Volume and Use 40
Figure 4.3 Graph showing frequency distribution of depth to groundwater in all
boreholes with water level data 42
Figure 4.4 Graph of Water Levels Compared to Topography 43
Figure 4.5 Piezometric Map – based on all data 44
Figure 4.6 Piezometric Map – adapted for conceptual understanding of flow regime 45
Figure 4.7 Modelled distribution of hydraulic properties 49
Figure 4.8 Recharge over project region, based on GIS method, from SRK 2009 51
Figure 4.9 Recharge over project region, based on modelling 52
Figure 4.10 Photograph of trees in ephemeral drainage channel downstream of spring
GAMS9 54
Figure 4.11 Photograph of local structural control on springs in kloof, near GAMS7 55
Figure 4.12 Photograph of the north face of Gamsberg, showing two mining adits 56
Figure 4.13 Photograph of pumped water from adits 57
Figure 4.14 Groundwater EC Map as an Indicator of Groundwater Quality 70
Figure 4.15 Piper Diagram of the Groundwater Data 72
Figure 4.16 Changes in Chloride: Alkalinity Ratio with Increasing Salinity 73
Figure 4.17 Radial Diagrams 74
Figure 4.18 Groundwater pH Measurements for selected sampling Locations (2001 -2012)76
Figure 4.19 Groundwater EC (mS/m) Concentrations for selected sampling Locations
(2001 -2012) 77
Figure 4.20 Groundwater sulphate (mg/L) Concentrations for selected sampling Locations
(2001 -2012) 77
Figure 5.1 Conceptual Model of groundwater flow regime 81

VI
Figure 6.1 Location of Abstraction Boreholes 85
Figure 6.2 Location of Modelled Springs 86
Figure 6.3 Model Mesh 87
Figure 6.4 Transmissivity Zones 89
Figure 6.5 Steady State Piezometric Head Distribution 91
Figure 6.6 Scatter Diagram of Calculated vs. Observed Heads 92
Figure 6.7 Sensitivity Analysis Results 95
Figure 6.8 Modelled Mine Infrastructure 96
Figure 6.9 Pushbacks 97
Figure 6.10 Finite Element Mesh used for Mine and Post-Closure Models 101
Figure 6.11 Sulphate Leachate Concentration - Tailings Storage Facility 102
Figure 6.12 Model representation of mining processes 104
Figure 6.13 Model representation of post operation processes 105
Figure 7.1 North-South Cross-Section detailing Hydraulic Heads at Different Mine
Stages 108
Figure 7.2 West-East Cross-Section detailing Hydraulic Heads at Different Mine Stages109
Figure 7.3 Cross-Section Locations 109
Figure 7.4 Hydraulic Head Time Series on- and surrounding the Gamsberg 110
Figure 7.5 Location of Observation Points on- and surrounding the Gamsberg 110
Figure 7.6 Hydraulic Head Change at 19 Years (End of Mining) 112
Figure 7.7 Hydraulic Head Change at 69 Years (50 Years after Mine Closure) 112
Figure 7.8 Hydraulic Head Change at 119 Years (100 Years after Mine Closure) 113
Figure 7.9 South-North Cross-Section detailing Hydraulic Heads at Different Mine
Stages along the Kloof 115
Figure 7.10 Groundwater Fluxes 116
Figure 7.11 Flow through the Kloof - Cross-Section Location 117
Figure 7.12 Sulphate Plume in Year 19 (End of Mining) 118
Figure 7.13 Sulphate Plume in Year 69 (50 Years after Mine Closure) 119
Figure 7.14 Sulphate Plume in Year 119 (100 Years after Mine Closure) 119
Figure 7.15 Sensitivity of Transport Model Parameters 123
Figure 9.1 Recommended new monitoring boreholes 159

VII
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 Mean Annual Rainfall for the Aggenys (2), Pella, Pofadder, Plant and Berg
Weather Stations for the periods indicated (average of summed rainfall over
calendar years) 18
Table 3.2 Estimation of a representative Mean Annual Rainfall for the Gamsberg
Inselberg 18
Table 3.3 Average Monthly rainfall for the Aggenys, Pella, Pofadder, Plant and Berg
weather stations for the periods indicated 19
Table 3.4 Lithology of Geological Formations present in the Gamsberg Area (from SRK,
2010) 28
Table 4.1 September 2012 Hydrocensus Survey Results 34
Table 4.2 Borehole Data Inventory 36
Table 4.3 Summary of previous hydraulic tests performed 48
Table 4.4 Calculated recharge for Gamsberg inselberg 52
Table 4.5 pH and EC for Hydrocensus Boreholes 57
Table 4.6 Major Ion Chemistry of Hydrocensus Boreholes 59
Table 4.7 Trace Element Chemistry of Hydrocensus Boreholes 61
Table 4.8 RPDs for detected analytes in hydrocensus duplicate samples 66
Table 6.1 Abstraction Boreholes 84
Table 6.2 Observation Data 90
Table 6.3 Optimised Transmissivity (T) Values 92
Table 6.4 Groundwater Budget Steady-State Calibration 93
Table 6.5 95% Confidence Intervals (PEST) 94
Table 6.6 Time Series Pit Bottom Elevation 97
Table 6.7 Time Series TSF Head 99
Table 6.8 Transport Parameters used in Solute Transport Model 103
Table 7.1 Yearly Pit Inflow Rates 106
Table 7.2 Yearly Pit Water Balance 107
Table 7.3 Groundwater Level Impacts at Farm-Boreholes 113
Table 7.4 Groundwater Fluxes Pre-Mining (Baseline), End of Mining and 100 Years Post
Closure 116
Table 7.5 Characteristic Values Transport Model Plume SO 4 2- 119
Table 7.6 Sulphate Mass Flux into the Open Pit 121
Table 7.7 Waste Rock Dump Average Yearly Seepage Rates and Quality (Toe Drains)121
Table 8.1 Defining Impact Characteristics 127
Table 8.2 Definitions of likelihood 129
Table 8.3 Context for Defining Significance 131
Table 8.4 Impact Significance Rating Matrix 131
Table 8.5 Mitigation hierarchy 132
Table 8.6 Impact Characteristics: Groundwater Levels 133
Table 8.7 Pre- and Post- Mitigation Significance: Groundwater Level Changes 137
Table 8.8 Impact Characteristics: Groundwater Level Change on Private Groundwater
Users 137
Table 8.9 Pre- and Post- Mitigation Significance: Private Groundwater Users 140
Table 8.10 Impact Characteristics: Groundwater Level Impacts on Base Flow and Base
Flow Dependant Ecosystems in the Kloof 141

VIII
Table 8.11 Pre- and Post- Mitigation Significance: Base Flow and Base Flow Dependant
Ecosystems in the Kloof 143
Table 8.12 Impact Characteristics: Groundwater Quality 144
Table 8.13 Pre- and Post- Mitigation Significance: Groundwater Quality 150
Table 8.14 Impact Characteristics: Private Groundwater Users 151
Table 8.15 Pre- and Post- Mitigation Significance: Private Groundwater Users 154
Table 9.1 Recommended Monitoring Plan 160
Table 9.2 Recommended Field investigations 162

IX
ABBREVIATIONS
ERM Environmental Resource Management

ESIA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment
EMPr Environmental Management Programme
EC Electrical Conductivity
K Hydraulic Conductivity
D Molecular Diffusion Coefficient
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
SS Suspended Solids
SANAS Aquatico Scientific
QA/QC Quality Assurance and Quality Control
RMSE Root Mean Square Error
FEM Finite Element Method
DEM Digital Elevation Model
SAWS South African Weather Service
SANS South African National Standards
SAWQ South African Water Quality
DWAF Department of Water Affairs and Forestry
MAP Mean Annual Precipitation
WRD Waste Rock Dumps
TSF Tailings Storage Facility

X
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
Black Mountain Mining (Pty) Ltd (the client) tasked Environmental Resources
Management Southern Africa (Pty) LTD (ERM) to conduct a Specialist
Groundwater Study as part of the Environmental and Social Impact
Assessment (ESIA) for the proposed new Gamsberg zinc mine project.
In 1971, zinc deposits were discovered at Gamsberg by O’okiep Copper

Company. In 1988 Anglo American Corporation acquired the Gamsberg site
and completed subsequent prefeasibility and feasibility investigations in order
to explore the viability of mining the zinc deposit. These feasibility
investigations included an ESIA, which addressed the open pit mine
development and associated infrastructure. The necessary approvals for the
mining right and associated Environmental Management Programme (EMPr)
were obtained in 2001 and over the years, additional amendments were made.
Vedanta Resource Plc. acquired Black Mountain Mining (Pty) Ltd from Anglo
American Corporation in 2011. Apart from the abovementioned EMPr right,
all other approvals obtained previously by Anglo American have lapsed.
In terms of obtaining the necessary authorisation for the new zinc mine and
associated infrastructure, a new ESIA process will be undertaken in order to
obtain the necessary authorisation for the new zinc mine and associated
infrastructure. This process will provide a detailed assessment of potential
impacts as well as suitable mitigation measures. As part of this process ERM
has completed a baseline hydrogeology study and groundwater impact
assessment, presented in this report.
1.2 TERMS OF REFERENCE
1.2.1 Objectives
The objectives of this groundwater specialist study were as follows:
• Generate groundwater flow and transport numerical model(s), to assess

the current groundwater situation (baseline conditions) and quantify
potential future impacts of the proposed project and based on long term
(closure) scenario(s); and
• Develop groundwater mitigation measure(s) and monitoring plan(s),
based on the groundwater impact assessment(s), captured in a report to
comply with regulatory requirements for permitting (according to best
practise principals).

1
This report forms a groundwater specialist report based on currently available
project description for input into the overall ESIA project. The project
description is not finalised and therefore this study includes various
assumptions, all listed within this report.
1.2.2 Scope of Work
The specialist groundwater study for the Gamsberg Project, consisting of an

open pit zinc mine, including waste rock storage and tailings dam, and
associated project infrastructure, is divided into the following four tasks:
• Task 1: Numerical Flow and Transport Model(s);

• Task 2: Groundwater Impact Assessment;
• Task 3: Mitigation and management plans; and
• Task 4: Reporting.
1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The new Mine is located between the existing town of Aggeneys and the town
of Pofadder, approximately 120 km east of the Springbok, along the N14
(Figure 3.2 in Section 3.1). Black Mountain currently operates a zinc, lead,
copper and silver mine near the town of Aggeneyes. In addtition to that they
are peresently mining 60 000 tpa from underground workings in the
Gamsberg inselberg. The ore currently mined at the existing underground
operation is transported to the Black Mountain concentrator plant in
Aggeneys where it is processed, together with ore from the Black Mountain
Deeps Mine.
According to forecasts, the growing global demand for zinc will exceed
current global production by approximately 503 KTPA by the year 2015
(Wood Mackenzie, 2012). The proposed mine intends to meet the growing
demand, at the time of commencement of operation of the mine (ie 2015). The
zinc concentrate generated from the proposed Project would be exported to
Europe and Asia for refining and distribution. Gamsberg is also a key project
to ensure mining continues in the region.
The zinc deposit present within the Gamsberg inselberg is a defined ore body
that ranges from 100 m to 500 m in depth. The ore body has a large lateral
extent of 3 500 m (from east to west). The ore body is characterised with high
content of sulphide and manganese, resulting in a low grade ore deposit of
approximately 6% of zinc.
The feasibility study undertaken during the initial EIA process in 2000 (SRK
Consulting) identified open pit mining to be the most suitable mining method
applicable for a financially viable and environmentally acceptable extraction.

2
The Project will include the establishment of a new 10 Million tpa (Mtpa) open
pit zinc mine (beneficiation volume) with resultant waste rock dumps; mine
machinery fleet and workshops. A concentrator plant with resultant stockpile
areas, tailings facility and supporting infrastructure (ie water supply
distribution network, laboratories, sewage works and an office complex) will
be established to process the mined ore. A port facility is required for
shipment and export. Temporary storage facilities for the deposition, storage
and handling of ore/waste rock will be required (layout plan Figure 3.2 in
Section 3.1).
A process of sequentially excavating push backs will be undertaken to the

open pit. The final open pit is expected to cover a total area of 600 hectares,
which is expected to be the result of the extraction of some 1.65 billion tons of
material. To access the ore, drilling and blasting by means of explosives will
take place. An estimated 1.5 billion tons of waste rock will be generated
during the life of mine (19 years), resulting in waste rock dumps with a total
area of 300 hectares.
ERM was instructed by the client of planned mining activities, on which the
modelling study is based. These are described in detail in Section 95 in terms of
how they are represented in the model.
1.4 HEALTH AND SAFETY
As a global leader in environmental, safety and health services, ERM places

the highest priority on the health and safety of employees, sub-contractors and
the community, whilst maintaining a high level of resilience to work
disruption. ERM has implemented a comprehensive programme designed to
control and reduce the likelihood of work-related accidents. Driven by strict
standards, it emphasizes risk assessment and control, strong communications,
training, and self-assessment. It incorporates ISO-based elements, comparable
to those programmes implemented by health and safety conscious clients
across the globe. Our sub-contractors are required to abide by the ERM
standards of health and safety, as described in our policy.
As part of project planning and prior to undertaking any site visit, ERM has
prepared a Health and Safety Plan (HASP) including a Travel Risk
Assessment (TRA) to determine potential risks associated with travel on the
project and how these can best be mitigated. A site specific HASP, including
risk assessments for activities associated with the field work, was prepared
prior to the ERM field team mobilizing to site. In addition all sub-contractors
employed during fieldwork were given a tool box talk by ERM, based on
information presented in the HASP, outlining the health and safety
requirements for the site. All sub-contractors were required to sign and abide
by relevant HASP’s and/or TRA’s.

3
2 METHODOLOGY
2.1 INTRODUCTION
According to the data collation and identification of gaps in the scoping phase,
the following methodology was applied for the groundwater specialist study:
1. Field investigations of all available monitoring boreholes, as well as

natural springs and privately owned boreholes; to confirm baseline
hydrogeological information; and measure groundwater quality
2. Desktop level data analysis, to include new data and available data from
previous reports, leading to the development of a conceptual model for the
site
3. Site reconnaissance and meetings with Black Mountain and AMEC
geologists, by the ERM (Environmental Resource Management)
hydrogeological modelling team, to support development of the
conceptual model
4. Numerical modelling
2.2 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS
2.2.1 Hydrocensus
A detailed hydrocensus was conducted within the study area. The aim of the
hydrocensus was to compile a complete inventory of springs and available
groundwater level monitoring points, groundwater and surface water
abstraction points and a comprehensive groundwater level survey of the
entire study area.
During the hydrocensus, the following data was recorded:
• Geographic coordinates, recorded using a hand-held GPS;

• Depth to groundwater in boreholes;
• Borehole depths, where possible;
• Field measurements: temperature, pH and electrical conductivity (EC).
2.2.2 Groundwater Sampling
Groundwater samples were collected from monitoring boreholes, natural

springs and privately owned boreholes and well(s). Samples were obtained
from the various sampling points as follows:
Monitoring boreholes: Groundwater samples were collected using a submersible

pump.

4
Privately owned boreholes and wells: Equipped farm boreholes were sampled
directly from the tap closest to the pump outlet. Unequipped boreholes and
wells were sampled using disposable bailers (grab samples).
Springs: Springs were sampled directly at the discharge points using the
sample bottles.
As part of ERM’s Standard Operating Procedures, sampling bottles were

rinsed three times with water obtained from the sampling point before filling
them completely and dedicated disposable bailers were used to obtain water
from unequipped boreholes. Parameters pH, electrical conductivity and
temperature were measured directly in the field using calibrated equipment.
The analytical schedule for general chemical parameters, major ions and trace
elements analysis included the following constituents:
General Chemical Parameters
• pH;
• Electrical Conductivity (EC);
• Total Dissolved Solids (TDS);
• Suspended Solids (SS);
• Turbidity; and
• Total hardness.
Major Ions
• Total Alkalinity (CaCO3);

• Calcium (Ca);
• Magnesium (Mg);
• Sodium (Na);
• Potassium (K);
• Chloride (Cl);
• Sulphate (SO 4) ;
• Nitrate (NO 3 ) as N;
• Nitrite (NO2) as N;
• Ammonium (NH 4 ) as N;
• Orthophosphate (PO 4 ) as P; and
• Fluoride (F)
Trace Elements
• Aluminum (Al);
• Arsenic (As);
• Barium (Ba);
• Cadmium (Cd);
• Cobalt (Co);

5
• Copper (Cu);
• Iron (Fe);
• Lead (Pb);
• Manganese (Mn);
• Nickel (Ni);
• Total Chromium (Cr);
• Dissolved Uranium (U); and
• Zinc (Zn).
All samples collected where placed in a cooled container directly after

sampling and transported, at 4°C, to Aquatico Scientific Laboratory in
Pretoria. Aquatico Scientific is SANAS accredited.
Quality Control – QA/QC
As part of ERM’s Quality Assurance and Quality Control protocol (QA/QC)

standard operation procedures for sample collection were followed for the
collection of each type of sample. Defensible quality control for sampling and
decontamination procedures were followed to allow for the collection of
representative samples and to minimise the potential for cross-contamination
between samples. Duplicate samples were taken and field measurements
(pH, temperature and EC) were recorded for each sampling point.
Samples were handled, and stored in accordance with established protocols.

Samples were stored in laboratory-prepared sample bottles and placed in
coolers containing frozen ice packs.
2.3 DATA ANALYSIS & DESKTOP STUDY
Previous studies in the area have been used as reference material for the
desktop study, including:
• Anglo American Technical Services (AATS). Gamsberg
Hydrogeological Assessment of the area of the proposed mine as part
of the Environmental Impact Assessment (April 2000).
• Golder Associates. Hydrocensus of the Eastern Lobe of the Gamsberg.
Technical Report No. 8789/9402/1/G (April 2007).
• SRK Consulting. Preliminary Geohydrology and Groundwater Quality
Baseline Report, Gamsberg Pre-Feasibility Project. Report No
396036\Groundwater (January 2010).
In addition, various datasets were received from Black Mountain, and other
data sources included South African Weather Service, satellite images, maps
and national datasets. These data are referenced within the relevant sections.

6
2.4 SITE RECONNAISSANCE
The ERM hydrogeological modelling team visited site for a reconnaissance in

January 2013. The site visit addressed the following:
• geological information was obtained from Black Mountain geologists,

including assessment of local scale geological features ;
• sites of potential surface –groundwater interaction were visited to
investigate their setting; and
• the ERM hydrocensus was updated with information from mine
employees most specifically on the use patterns of various boreholes, and
impact of mining on groundwater.
2.5 NUMERICAL GROUNDWATER MODELLING OVERVIEW
2.5.1 Model Objectives
Using the hydrogeological conceptual model, the current groundwater

situation is represented with the use of numerical flow models to simulate the
present groundwater flow conditions in the study area.
The calibrated baseline models are flexible tools that are used during the
impact assessment, to simulate and quantify potential impacts of the proposed
open pit mining activities on the environment, as well as management
scenarios.
2.5.2 Model Approach
Before considering and implementing mining activities, a ‘steady state’

groundwater flow model is calibrated based on groundwater levels in the
baseline database. Steady-state simulations are independent of time, and the
model represents an equilibrium position, ie the long term average of
groundwater levels over time at the site. These can be considered as the
average of the existing conditions, ie a base-case. Steady state simulations are
used to calibrate time independent model parameters such as the hydraulic
conductivity, and to refine boundary conditions or conceptual models.
The hydraulic head distribution of the calibrated steady state solution is then
used as the initial head distribution for the transient (time-dependent) model.
Time dependent parameters such as aquifer storage are usually calibrated by
fitting modelled results to observed results for groundwater levels over time,
using water level results of pump tests.
There was no transient calibration performed because only four short term
constant rate pump tests in individual positions have been conducted, each
without observation borehole monitoring. These tests are not useful for
calibrating a regional model. Additional tests were not performed by ERM

7
because adding more pump tests even if somewhat longer duration, would
not significantly reduce uncertainties when carrying out predictions for 100
years, and at stresses much greater and more regional than that in a short
duration pump test (Section 2.5.5). Likewise, installation of continuous
monitoring at project inception could provide some time series data, however
with a heterogeneous fractured environment with erratic rainfall, several
years monitoring data is required in order to significantly improve confidence
in transient calibration, and thus be a worthwhile exercise and investment at
project planning and EIA stages.
The transient flow model is then used to replicate future mining activities and
therefore make predictions regarding the impacts from mine activities and
infrastructure. The flow model is also converted into a transport model to
predict impacts on groundwater quality.
The modelling approach was as follows:
• A regional scale steady state groundwater flow model was set-up taking
into consideration hydrogeological flow boundaries to incorporate the
project infrastructure;
• This model was calibrated using the baseline water level data;
• The calibrated models were then converted to transient, time-dependent,
models and storage parameters sought through curve fitting to pump test
data were applied;
• Mining, closure, and post-closure models were set-up and run using the
calibrated transient models to run different management scenarios;
• Any changes in the model setup (model discretisation, boundary
conditions, hydraulic parameters) were iterated and re-run in steady state
and transient, to ensure the final mine model setup also calibrated to
observed data; and
• Transport models were set-up in order to simulate different management
scenarios.
2.5.3 Model Calibration
Model calibration is the process of varying model input data within realistic
ranges of values until a satisfactory match between simulated and observed
data can be reproduced. The large number of parameters and complex nature
of the natural system combined with the simplification assumptions made
during the conceptual model process means that the calibrated solution is
non-unique. Reducing the non-uniqueness of the parameter combinations
that can lead to a seemingly calibrated model can for example be done by
reducing the number of degrees of freedom (ie the number of unknown input
parameters), by choosing a distinct calibration strategy and by constraining
spatially distributed input data via remote-sensing techniques (Brunner, et al.,
2007).

8
In order to avoid an over-fitting of the model, the number of unknown input
parameters (ie the degrees of freedom) has to be kept as small as possible. The
more the degrees of freedom used for model calibration, the better the
measured water levels can be reproduced by the model. However, with an
over-fitted or over-parameterised model a good fit between the observed and
simulated piezometric heads can always be obtained even if the model does
not reflect the structure and the behaviour of the real aquifer. A large number
of input parameters are unknown in this modelling problem, and to avoid an
over-parameterised model, certain assumptions are made for input
parameters such that the degrees of freedom are reduced. The model input
data is summarised in Section 6.1 and only transmissivity is used as the key
calibration parameter.
During the model calibration phase, hydraulic conductivities were optimized

in order to obtain an acceptable fit of calculated versus observed water levels.
A steady state calibration was performed for both recharge scenarios detailed
in Section 6.2.2. An objective criterion is used for steady state simulations
(MSE: mean square error or variance) to compare different calibrations:
1 n
MSE = ∑
n i =1
(him − hic ) 2 with h m measured head and h c calculated head
The model has reached a good or acceptable model calibration, when the root
mean square error (RMSE) is MSE ≤ 10% of the head difference between
upstream and downstream measured groundwater heads.
Calibration was performed using both manual and automated methods.

For automated parameter estimation, PEST was applied (Doherty J. L., 1994).
Models should ideally be used in prediction in a manner that is consistent

with their calibration. For example, a model that is calibrated in steady state
only will likely produce transient predictions of low confidence. Conversely,
when a transient calibration is undertaken, the model may be expected to have
a high level of confidence when the time frame of the predictive model is of
less or similar to that of the calibrated model. Furthermore, when a predictive
model includes stresses (ie pumping or dewatering) that are well outside the
range of stresses included in the calibration, the reliability of the predictions
will be low and the model confidence level also (Barnett, et al., 2012).
2.5.4 Software Selection
FEFLOW version 6 was used for the groundwater flow and transport
simulations. FEFLOW is a 3D finite element modelling software package for
modelling saturated and unsaturated fluid flow and transport of dissolved
constituents and/or heat transport processes in porous media. It is developed
by DHI-WASY GmbH, the German branch of the DHI group.

9
The finite element method (FEM) is a good choice for solving partial
differential equations over complicated domains, when the domain changes
and the desired precision vary over the entire domain. Using the FEM, one can
accurately follow complex geometries and material interfaces.
PEST is an inverse code, used for the automated estimation of parameters and
sensitivity analysis of parameters including for example transmissivity,
hydraulic conductivity or recharge etc (Doherty, Brebber, & Whyte, 1994).
2.5.5 Model Limitations
Numerical models are a powerful tool to solve problems. However,

groundwater systems are complicated beyond our capability to practically
evaluate them in detail. A model, no matter how sophisticated, will never
describe the investigated groundwater system without deviation of model
simulations from the actual physical processes that occur in the study area
(Spitz & Moreno, 1996).
All numerical modelling simulations require assumptions to be made during

the translation of the conceptual model into a numerical model. These
assumptions, which reflect data gaps in the conceptual model regarding the
aquifer distribution and the aquifer parameters, and reflect the impracticalities
of representing the conceptual model exactly, can result in uncertainty in the
model output and predictions. Further to these assumptions, the software
itself contains intrinsic assumptions in the representation of hydrogeological
processes. The model is then limited in its accuracy and ability to predict by
these assumptions. As a planning stage model, this model is constructed at a
regional scale with spatially averaged parameters. It is not capable therefore of
replicating small scale processes dominated by heterogeneous properties; such
as flow in an individual fracture system.
Uncertainty over assumptions can be managed with a sensitivity analysis.

Sensitivity analysis gives an indication of which assumptions regarding the
model input parameters have the greatest effect on the model output. Based
on the sensitivity analysis results, areas of concern and parameters that should
be studied in more detail can be identified and included in the
recommendations.
The transient model is not calibrated to time series data, and is not calibrated
to aquifer stresses of a similar order of magnitude to those applied to it. Given
the model calibration standard described in Section 2.5.3, the model can
therefore only be used as an indicative model for future timescales. It is
recommended that the model be updated with operational data (dewatering
rates, groundwater level responses) as mining commences, such that
predictions can be updated and translated into mine management practices
(see Section 9).

10
3 PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
3.1 SITE LOCALITY
The Gamsberg is located in the north-eastern region of Namaqualand in the

Northern Cape Province of South Africa. The site is located just south of the
N14 National Road, with Springbok 115km southwest (124km by road), and
Pofadder 43km northeast (58km by road), as shown in Figure 3.1.
The closest town, Aggeneys, is located 20km west of the site. Black Mountain
currently operates underground mining in the mountain north and northwest
of Aggenys.
The study area includes the area on, and around, the Gamsberg inselberg. The
site layout plan detailing planned mine infrastructure is shown in Figure 3.2.
3.2 TOPOGRAPHY AND LAND USE
The Gamsberg inselberg rises 250m above the general ground level of the
surrounding relatively flat plains (Figure 3.3, showing 20m contours derived
from the digital elevation model (DEM)). These maps also show the red
boundary, the ‘groundwater model domain’ for reference, which is the
position selected for the numerical model boundaries (see Section 83). It is oval
shaped in plan with steep slopes on all sides.
The outer rim of the inselberg is formed by resistant quartzite and sits around
60m higher than the centre of the inselberg (AATS, 2000), which has
developed as a structurally-controlled kidney shaped drainage basin. One
large kloof (gorge) is developed on the northern rim of the inselberg, which
has steep sided slopes rising 130m above the base of the kloof at the highest
points.
The soil on the plains is predominantly shallow (less than 60cm deep), and
stony, overlying dorbank (duripan) or calcrete. Areas of deeper red sandy
soils are limited to small dunes and pediment in the south-western portion of
the study area (SRK, 2010). Within the inselberg the soils are shallow lithosols,
and bare rock on the scarps and crest and shallow gravelly in the Basin.
The relatively flat plains surrounding Gamsberg are populated with large
farmsteads with sparse vegetation and low density livestock, supported by
groundwater from boreholes equipped with wind pumps. The land that
Gamsberg occupies is owned by Black Mountain and is currently used for
grazing and some small scale mining operations (see Section 4.8).

11
Pella
18°49'30"E 18°55'0"E 19°0'30"E 19°6'0"E
Legend
National Route
Main Road
Secondary Road
29°8'0"S
29°8'0"S
Other Road
Track/Footpath
KHÂI-MA RURAL
Ephemeral Rivers
N14
Mineral Rights Boundary

Ground Water Model Domain
Town Boundary
Flood Plains
C:\Users\Dell4\Documents\Thurlow Mapping\PRIVATE WORK\ERM\CONTRACT\GIS\0164903_GAMSBERG\MXD\MXD_REV2\Location_Map_of_Gamsberg_Inselberg_Rev2.mxd

AGGENEYS
N14
ZIMBABWE
MOZAMBIQUE
29°13'30"S
29°13'30"S
Study Area BOTSWANA
LIMPOPO
NAMIBIA
MPUMALANGA
NORTH WEST GAUTENG
SWAZILAND
FREE STATE
KWAZULU-NATAL
* NORTHERN CAPE
#
LESOTHO
EASTERN CAPE
N 14
WESTERN CAPE
±
SCALE:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Kilometres
TITLE:
Figure 3.1: Location of Gamsberg Inselberg
KHÂI-MA RURAL
29°19'0"S
29°19'0"S
CLIENT:
BLACK MOUNTAIN MINING (PTY) LTD
DATE:Jan 2013 CHECKED: MP PROJECT: 0164903
DRAWN: AT APPROVED: SHC SCALE: 1 : 80 000
DRAWING: REV:
Location_Map_of_Gamsberg_Inselberg_Rev2.mxd 0
ERM
Block A, Silverwood House
Silverwood Close
Steenberg Office Park, 7945
Cape Town, SOUTH AFRICA
Tel: +27 (0)21 702 9100
Fax +27 (0)21 701 7900
Projection: Transverse Mecator, CM19. Datum : WGS84 SIZE:
Source: Chief Directorate National Geo-Spatial
18°49'30"E 18°55'0"E 19°0'30"E 19°6'0"E
Information. David Morriss, 2012. A3
Inset Map: Esri Data & Maps
It is unlawful for any firm or individual to reproduce copyrighted maps, graphics or drawings, in whole or in part, without permission of the copyright owner, ERM Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd ·
Kh?i-Ma Rural
18°55'0"E 19°0'30"E
Pella19°6'0"E Legend
National Route
29°8'0"S
29°8'0"S
KHÂI-MA
Main Road
LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
Secondary Road
Other Road
Track/Footpath
Railway
KHÂI-MA RURAL
Conveyors
N14
Electrical cables
Haul Roads
Ephemeral Rivers
Waste Rock Dump 1 (116.1 Hectares)

Waste Rock Dump 2 (144.08 Hectares)
Tailings Dam (273.44 Hectares)
Tailings Dam
C:\Users\Dell4\Documents\Thurlow Mapping\PRIVATE WORK\ERM\CONTRACT\GIS\0164903_GAMSBERG\MXD\MXD_REV2\Site_Plan_of_Gamsberg_Inselberg_Rev2.mxd

Plant (45.62 Hectares)
Contractor Area (31.78 Hectares)
Open Pit (273.44 Hectares)
Workshop/Office
Contractor
Truck Workshop / Office (0.78 Hectares)
AGGENEYS Area Waste Rock Explosive Magazine (32.33 Hectares)
Dump 2 Primary Crusher
N14
Plant
Electrical Switching Yard
Electrical Switch Mineral Rights Boundary

Stations
29°13'30"S
29°13'30"S
Town Boundary
Waste Rock Farm Boundaries
Dump 1
Flood Plains
Open Pit
±
SCALE:
To
L
0 1 2 3 4
oo
p1
Kilometres
0 TITLE:
Explosive
Magazine Figure 3.2: Site Plan showing Mine
14
Infrastructure
N
CLIENT:
Primary
Crusher BLACK MOUNTAIN MINING (PTY) LTD
DRAWING: REV:
Site_Plan_of_Gamsberg_Inselberg_Rev2.mxd 0
ERM
Silverwood Close
KHÂI-MA RURAL Steenberg Office Park, 7945
29°19'0"S
29°19'0"S
Tel: +27 (0)21 702 9100

Fax +27 (0)21 701 7900
18°55'0"E 19°0'30"E 19°6'0"E
Pella
Legend
18°49'30"E 18°55'0"E 19°0'30"E 19°6'0"E
National Route
0 860
1 08
700
0 Main Road
106
880 Secondary Road
29°8'0"S
0
29°8'0"S
100
0
72
KHÂI-MA
Other Road
980
LOCAL MUNICIPALITY 900
KHÂI-MA RURAL 0
Track/Footpath
20 74
0 92
800
10 102 0
1000 Ephemeral Rivers
94 Contours (20m)
0 N14
0
78
96
0 Groundwater Domain Model
Town Boundary
1100 1000 Flood Plains
1020 1060
0 94
06 0
1
1040
AGGENEYS
900
C:\Users\Dell4\Documents\Thurlow Mapping\PRIVATE WORK\ERM\CONTRACT\GIS\0164903_GAMSBERG\MXD\MXD_REV2\Topographic_Map_Gamsberg_Rev2.mxd

1000 92 980
0 N14 900
0
80 98
10
ZIMBABWE
29°13'30"S
29°13'30"S
MOZAMBIQUE
90 Study Area BOTSWANA
0 LIMPOPO
980 0
1120 102
NAMIBIA
MPUMALANGA
NORTH WEST
88
GAUTENG
0
SWAZ ILAND
0 2
920 11 1100
98
0
86
FREE STAT E
KWAZULU-NATAL
880 0 * NORTHERN CAPE

#
LESOTHO
84 1100 980
0 1120
0 0
EASTERN CAPE
11
82 4
0 N1
WEST ERN CAPE
102 0
0 112
920
1060
1040
±
SCALE:
88 80
0 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
1100
Kilometres
0
80
TITLE:
Figure: 3.3: Topograpghic of Gamsberg

Study Area
780
29°19'0"S
29°19'0"S
CLIENT:
880
940
900
920
980
960
860
840 DATE:Jan 2013 CHECKED: MP PROJECT: 0164903
820
840
860
DRAWING: REV:
Topographic_Map_Gamsberg_Rev2.mxd 0
960
KHÂI-MA RURAL ERM
920 Block A, Silverwood House
900 Silverwood Close
Tel: +27 (0)21 702 9100
Fax +27 (0)21 701 7900
18°49'30"E 18°55'0"E 19°0'30"E 19°6'0"E
2918BD_2003_ED2_GEO.TIF A3
It is unlawful for any firm or individual to reproduce copy righted maps, graphics or drawings, in whole or in part, without permission of the copyright owner, ERM Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd ·
3.3 PRECIPITATION AND EVAPORATION
The conditions in the Gamsberg study area are described as “Hot Desert”
(Köppen classification in Peel, Finlayson, & McMahon (2007)), being one of the
hottest and driest areas in South Africa, with maximum temperatures
exceeding 40ºC in summer months (SRK, 2010) and annual rainfall sometimes
as low as a few tens of millimetres (Table 3.1).
The mean annual evaporation rate is high (3500 mm/a in SRK (2010),
3700 mm/a in AATS (2000) and 2650 mm/a in Midgley & Middelton (1994))
compared to annual rainfall on the plains, hence a permanent water deficit
exists in the area. This deficit reaches a peak of 400 mm in November to
January and droughts are therefore common in the area (SRK, 2010).
Rainfall data has been recorded at six rainfall stations in the area. The South
African Weather Service (SAWS) has been recording daily data at Aggeneys
since 1999, in Pella (Station 0247242 W) for 1877-1999, and in Pofadder since
1901. In addition to the SAWS data for Aggenys, a rain gauge is positioned at
the Black Mountain offices in the town, and recorded by the Black Mountain
Mineral Resources Manager Mr J Potgieter. This data is available since 1986.
Data from two rainfall stations installed by Black Mountain is available, one
on the northwest rim of the Gamsberg Inselberg (“Berg”), and a second in an
unknown location, named “Plant” (pers comm. Abraham J. Engelbrecht,
Project Engineer, Black Mountain). The “plant” station could either be a
reported second weather station at the Gamsberg Inselberg (SRK, 2010), or it
could reflect data from a weather station installed at the Deeps Shaft at Black
Mountain mine, NW of Aggenys (pers comm. Abraham J. Engelbrecht, Project
Enginner, Black Mountain). Only one year of incomplete data is available from
these stations (May 1999-April 2000, missing August), and their current state
of functionality is unknown to Black Mountain.
The average of the annual rainfall (mean annual precipitation, MAP) of these
six stations, are listed in Table 3.1, for the available data indicated. The MAP
varies between 74 mm (Pella) to 110 mm (Aggenys) for stations recording on
the plains. Aggenys has a higher MAP than Pella and Pofadder, and it is not
possible to determine whether this is due to the longer record at Pella and
Pofadder, or whether it is a true difference in rainfall distribution.
There appears to be an orographic control on the rainfall distribution with the

mountainous areas receiving higher rainfall, as indicated by the modelled
distribution of mean annual precipitation provided by DWA (Figure 3.4, from
SRK (2010)), which indicates around 110 – 145 mm MAP on the Gamsberg
inselberg. The rainfall recorded at Plant and Berg stations are also elevated
compared to Aggenys. However, only data for 1999-2000 is available, and the
rainfall received at other stations were above average in 1999-2000, hence it
cannot be taken as representative. An attempt has been made to estimate a

15
representative MAP for the Berg station, as this is relevant to the estimation of
recharge on the inselberg (see Table 3.2). The rainfall at Berg in May 1999-
April 2000 is compared to the sum for these months at other stations (Table 3.2,
1st row). This is compared to the MAP and a factor for the difference in the
two values calculated. Applying this factor to the Berg rainfall, provides a
guideline of what the representative MAP for the Berg might be; around
90 mm to 170 mm, depending on which stations are used to generate the
factor. This of course assumes that the difference between the inselberg and
plains is linear and independent of the rainfall magnitude.
The variation in the annual rainfall indicated in the longer records of the
Aggenys, Pella and Pofadder stations, is extremely high. For example at
Aggenys, the MAP is 110mm, with a minimum MAP of 4mm, and a
maximum of 220 mm, representing a range from almost 0% to 200%. Likewise
the MAP at Pella and Pofadder is 70-80mm, yet their maximums are 259mm
and 262mm respectively. Essentially, given the range in data also highlighted
by the high standard deviation in MAP, the concept of a ‘mean annual
precipitation’ actually does not apply in the area.
The monthly distribution in rainfall is show in Table 3.3 and Figure 3.5.
Precipitation occurs throughout the year, in summer and winter. The graph
(Figure 3.5) shows significantly higher rainfall is experienced in summer and
February indicated as the wettest month, likely to be dominated by afternoon
thunderstorms. However this is skewed as the series for Berg and Plant is
based on only one year of data. Assessing the monthly variability for only
those stations with significant time series data, the monthly variability is less
significant. The graph suggests however that years’ of high rainfall are
contributed to by significant thunder storms in February, and when these do
not occur, annual rainfall is further limited.

16
Figure 3.4 Map of Mean Annual Precipitation
Table 3.1 Mean Annual Rainfall for the Aggenys (2), Pella, Pofadder, Plant and Berg Weather Stations for the periods indicated (average
of summed rainfall over calendar years)
Mean Minimum Maximum

Available Standard
Station Annual Annual Annual Range Source
data Deviation
Rainfall Rainfall Rainfall
Aggenys 1999-2012 103 37 196 160 50 SAWS
Aggenys 1986-2012 110 11 220 209 52 Mr J Potgieter Black Mountain
Pella 1877-1999 74 5 259 254 52 SAWS
Pofadder 1901-2012 78 4 266 262 55 SAWS
May 1999-
Plant AATS 2000
April 2000 241
May 1999-
Berg AATS 2000
April 2000 329 n/a
Table 3.2 Estimation of a representative Mean Annual Rainfall for the Gamsberg Inselberg
Aggenys SAWS Aggenys BM Pofadder Gamsberg

Rainfall May 1999 - April 2000
(mm) 212 208 286 329
MAP (mm) 103 110 78 n/a
Factor 2.06 1.88 3.68 n/a
Average factor, all stations 2.54 n/a

Average factor, Aggenys 1.97 n/a n/a
Calculated MAP for Berg, using Pofadder (mm) 89
Calculated MAP for Berg, using all stations (mm) 129
Calculated MAP for Berg, using Aggenys (mm) 167

Table 3.3 Average Monthly rainfall for the Aggenys, Pella, Pofadder, Plant and Berg weather stations for the periods indicated
Station Dates JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Source
Aggenys 1999-2012 10.0 23.4 10.2 9.3 6.7 6.1 3.3 9.4 0.5 7.3 4.3 5.7 SAWS
Mr J Potgieter Black
Aggenys 1986-2012 16.7 18.9 17.5 24.2 8.4 8.1 9.6 11.1 10.2 13.8 10.6 12.4 Mountain
Pella 1877-1999 6.0 15.1 15.8 9.5 5.6 3.8 2.9 1.9 3.1 3.6 4.2 6.0 SAWS
18783-
Pofadder 2023 8.5 12.8 15.1 10.5 4.4 3.1 3.7 1.7 3.7 4.6 5.8 5.5 SAWS
May1999- AATS 2000
April
Plant 2000 21.6 92.8 42 2.8 7 0 0.8 -1 8.6 19.6 5.4 40.2
May AATS 2000
1999-
April
Berg2 2000 20.8 112 42.6 4.8 2 0.6 2.8 -1 17.6 23 17.4 85
1No data
2Weather station positioned at high point on north west rim of inselberg (pers comm. Abraham J. Engelbrecht, Project Engineer, Black Mountain)
3Pofadder station has incomplete data 1878 to 1901 hence not included in annual rainfall prior to 1901.
Figure 3.5 Average monthly rainfall measured at Aggeneys, Pella, Pofadder and the Gamsberg (Inselberg) weather stations
3.4 HYDROLOGY AND DRAINAGE
Situated in the Orange River basin, the study area is located at the watershed
between two quaternary catchments, D81G and D82C (Figure 3.6). The
Gamsberg inselberg itself, excluding the west ridge, is situated within
quaternary catchment D81G, which drains in a northerly direction towards
the Orange River some 35km from the inselberg. The D82C catchment is
endoreic; an interior drainage basin that does not drain to the sea and
equilibrates through evaporation (HHO Africa, 2013).
Because of the climate, the drainage features in the region are all ephemeral.
All known surface water features are captured and displayed in Figure 3.6,
and they are summarised as:
• The inselberg itself is drained by an ephemeral drainage course that exits

the inselberg via the steep sided kloof in the northern rim (marked as
flood plain in Figure 3.6). This drainage course, once exits the kloof, flows
to the east and connects with other small channels draining from high
ground, then trends to the northeast. This drainage channel is considered
the main one, and is clearly visible in the landscape from the soils and the
vegetation (see Figure 3.7). This channel may have developed in the
Pleistocene when the climate was wetter, as significantly elevated levels
of zinc and other metals are found in the sediments in the channel
confirming its origin as runoff water from the inselberg (pers comm Mr J
Potgieter Black Mountain Mineral Resources Manager). Local knowledge
of the area informs that this channel only flows in response to significant
rain events, and when it does, it rarely flows for great distances or
durations. This channel is mapped from data stored in the National
Surveys and Mapping databases.
• The springs marked on Figure 3.6 are based on data from Black Mountain,
and field data taken during the hydrocensus. These springs are
considered constant groundwater discharge points. At times they only
have small standing water pools at them, and do not generate streams,
likely due to the evaporation matching the rate of discharge. The springs
are described further in Section 4.
• Headwater seeps marked in Figure 3.6 are based on data from Black
Mountain. They are assumed to be geologically controlled, where
groundwater and surface runoff from the permeable quartzite meets the
less permeable ore body formations. The seeps are described further in
Section 4.
The existing mining operations on the inselberg may have already impacted
on groundwater fed spring flows, by reducing the hydraulic head and driving
force for discharge (Section 4.8).

21
Pella
Legend
18°49'30"E 18°55'0"E 19°0'30"E 19°6'0"E
#
* Springs
National Route
KHÂI-MA RURAL
29°8'0"S
29°8'0"S
D82A
Main Road
KHÂI-MA
LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
Secondary Road
Other Road
Track/Footpath
N14 Ephemeral Rivers

Groundwater Domain Model
Town Boundary
Flood Plains
Headwater seeps catchments
Quaternary Catchment
AGGENEYS D81G
N14
C:\Users\Dell4\Documents\Thurlow Mapping\PRIVATE WORK\ERM\CONTRACT\GIS\0164903_GAMSBERG\MXD\MXD_REV2\Drainage_Map_Rev2.mxd

29°13'30"S
29°13'30"S
#
*#
*
#
*
D82C
4
N1 #
*
±
SCALE:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Kilometres
TITLE:
Figure 3.5 Drainage map
29°19'0"S
29°19'0"S
CLIENT:
KHÂI-MA RURAL BLACK MOUNTAIN MINING (PTY) LTD
D82B
DRAWING: REV:
Drainage_Map_Rev2.mxd 0
ERM
Silverwood Close
Tel: +27 (0)21 702 9100
Fax +27 (0)21 701 7900
18°49'30"E 18°55'0"E 19°0'30"E 19°6'0"E
Figure 3.7 Photograph of drainage channel exiting from Kloof
3.5 GEOLOGY
3.5.1 Regional Geology
The study area is situated in the Bushmanland terrane, one of the Northern
Cape’s tectonically bound terrains. The area consists of hard-rock formations;
metasedimentary, metavolcanic and intrusive rock units of the Namaqua
Metamorphic Province (Vegter, 2006), or Namaqua-Natal Province (SRK,
2010).
The Bushmanland Terrane is composed of basement granitic rocks (1 700-

2 050Ma), supracrustal sequences of sedimentary and volcanic origin (1 200,
1 600 & 1 900Ma) and intrusive charnokite to granitic rocks (950, 1 030-1 060 &
1 200Ma). The rocks here have been subjected to multiple phases of
deformation and medium- to high-grade metamorphism during the Namaqua
Orogeny at ~1 200-1 000Ma (SRK, 2010).
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT GAMSBERG

23
18°49'30"E 18°55'0"E 19°0'30"E 19°6'0"E Legend
Ground Water Model Domain
Kbk - Brulkolk Formation*
29°8'0"S
29°8'0"S
Kga - Gams Member

Kht - Hoston Formation
Kkoe - Koeris Formation*
Kkop - Koeiporrt Gneiss
Kwr - Wortel Formation*
N14 Nsm - Swartmodder Gneiss*
Q-S1 - Quaternary Sedimentary/volcanic Rocks
Q-S2 - Quaternary Sedimentary/volcanic Rocks
C:\Users\Dell4\Documents\Thurlow Mapping\PRIVATE WORK\ERM\CONTRACT\GIS\0164903_GAMSBERG\MXD\MXD_REV2\Geology_Map_of_Gamsberg_Inselberg_rev2.mxd

N14
29°13'30"S
29°13'30"S
4
N1
±
SCALE:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Kilometres
TITLE:
Figure 3.6: Geological Map
29°19'0"S
29°19'0"S
CLIENT:
DRAWING: REV:
Geology_Map_of_Gamsberg_Inselberg_rev2.mxd 0
ERM
Silverwood Close
Tel: +27 (0)21 702 9100
Fax +27 (0)21 701 7900
Source:Council of Geoscience Geology Kaarte 2918
18°49'30"E 18°55'0"E 19°0'30"E 19°6'0"E
Inset Map: Esri Data & Maps A3
Figure 3.9 Geological Map 1
Strydom et al, 1987

1 Geological map available in hard copy only at Black Mountain, and reproduced for this report
as a photograph of the original. No key is available

25
Figure 3.10 Geological Map 2
Colliston, et al., 1986

2 Geological map available as a digital image only, provided by Black Mountain. No key is available
3.5.2 Local Geology
Three geological maps from various authors are presented in Figure 3.8
(Council for Geoscience), Figure 3.9 (Strydom, et al., 1987) and Figure 3.10
(Colliston, et al., 1986). The stratigraphy is provided in Figure 3.11 (Black
Mountain) and Table 3.4 (SRK, 2010). A local scale geological map and
associated cross section is presented in Figure 3.12 and Figure 3.13
respectively, based on geological mapping by Black Mountain, supported by
an annotated photograph presented in Figure 3.14. Based on different level of
detail of geological mapping, and different geological interpretations, these
data sets show slightly different distributions of various units, slightly
different traces of various faults, and slightly different sub-divisions of the
stratigraphy. The important features for this study are summarised as:
• The plains consist of various depths of surficial, relatively thin cover of

wind-blown sand, dunes, scree rubble, sandy soil and alluvium (SRK,
2010). Underlying this in the vicinity of the inselberg is the Haramoep
Gneiss Member of the Koeipoort (Gneiss) Formation, which is a pink
medium to fine grained, biotite-rich, leucogneiss. The gneiss can be
considered the basement rocks in the region (Figure 3.13).
• The Namies Schist Member of the Wortel (Witputs) Formation overlies

the Haramoep Gneiss. It is a pelitic schist around 70 m thick. The schist
is clearly visible in the walls of the inselberg (Figure 3.14), and the base
of the schist forms a bowl shape (Figure 3.13).
• Overlying the Koeipoort Formation, is the Pella Quartzite Member of

the Wortel (Witputs) Formation, reported as a layered sequence of
medium to thick bedded quartzite with interbedded sillimanite,
lenticular quartzite, biotite gneiss and amphibolite/calc-sillicate gneiss
(SRK, 2010). Outcrops of the Pella Quartzite in Gamsberg inselberg
suggest the interbedded units are minor, and the massive fractured
quartzite dominates (Figure 3.16). The unit reaches a maximum
stratigtraphic thickness 375 m.
• The Gamsberg Iron Formation overlies the Pella Quartzite, and is a

sequence of schist, quartzite, banded iron formation, and the ore body,
which is the target of the proposed mining operations.
• The Koeris Formation (schists and amphibolite) overlies the Gamsberg

Iron Formation

27
Table 3.4 Lithology of Geological Formations present in the Gamsberg Area (from SRK, 2010)
Eon/
Group Sub-group Formation Member Description
Epoch
Alluvium
Quaternary Recent Red, wind-blown sand and dunes
Sand, scree, rubble and sandy soil
Koeris Brown psammitic schist, conglomerate, amphibolite and quartzite
Sulphide bearing magnetite-grunerite-garnet-pyroxene rocks, cordierite feldspar,

Gams
sillimanite schist and quartzite
Hotson
Rhythmically layered quartzite, quartz-feldspar-biotite gneiss ±sillimanite nodules,
quartz-biotite-sillimanite gneiss
Upper units – white quartzite and schist ± graphite

Proterozoic
Bushman-
/ Aggenys T’hammaberg1
land Lower unit – well embedded dark blue quartzite and muscovite-sillimanite schist ±
Mokolian-
graphite, minor iron formation lenses
Keisian
Muscovite-sillimanite schist grading into rhythmically bedded graphite-fuchsite-

Skelmpoort1 quartz-garnet schist and graphite-quartzite, biotite-sillimanite schist with
interlayered brown quartzite and minor gossans and garnet-quartz rocks
Layered sequence of medium to thick bedded quartzite with interbedded sillimanite,

Wortel (Witputs) Pella quartzite
lenticular quartzite, biotite gneiss and amphibolite/calc-sillicate gneiss
Namies schist Pelitic schist
Glad-kop Koeipoort Haramoep gneiss Pink medium to fine grained biotite-rich, augen Leucogneiss
1 Formations do not occur in the Gamsberg area and outcrop further west and north within the other mineralised deposits (SRK, 2010).
Figure 3.11 Stratigraphy (from Black Mountain)
Figure 3.12 Local Geological Map (from Black Moutain)

29
Figure 3.13 Geological Cross Sections over Gamsberg (from Black Mountain)
Figure 3.14 Annotated photograph of the North West face of Gamsberg, showing key
geological units (photograph from Black Mountain)

30
3.5.3 Structural Geology
The Bushmansland Terrain shows multi-phase metamorphic and tectonic

events, four of which have been identified in the Aggenys – Gamsberg area,
and are summarised by SRK (2010). The key structural information relevant to
this study can be summarised as:
• The main deformation events resulted in the development of the

Gamsberg – a large east trending inclined basin structure with over-
folded beds within it, allowing for a doubling up of the thickness of the
Pella Quartzite and the Gamsberg Iron Formation (Figure 3.13).
• The main deformation events also resulted in the large east- west trending
thrust faults at Broken Hill, Aggenys se Berg, and also within Gamsberg
(Figure 3.9 and Figure 3.10). The alluvial deposit makes the geological
mapping of faults, and their correlation between mountains where they
are exposed in outcrops, difficult. Colliston et al (1986), and Strydom et al
(1987), extent the Broken Hill trust fault east towards Gamsberg, trending
south-east before reaching the inselberg (Figure 3.9 and Figure 3.10).
Lineament mapping by SRK (2010), highlights a structure close to the
southwest rim of the inselberg. Pump test results from AATS (2000), show
one higher yielding borehole also on the southwest of the inselberg
(Section 4), which formed the basis for AATS (2000), developing a
structurally controlled higher hydraulic conductivity and drainage
channel in this location. These two observations could suggest that the
Broken Hill thrust extends closer to the Gamsberg inselberg than that
mapped by Colliston et al (1986), and Strydom et al (1987).
• Inspection of the outcrops along the south-east of the inselberg (current

road access to the inselberg), highlights no major fault within the
inselberg wall. The contact from the gneiss to the schist, and from the
schist to the quartzite, are deformed by contact thrusts that have
generated shear zone material at the contact, and are not considered to be
regional water bearing features (pers comm, Mr J Potgieter Black
Mountain Mineral Resources Manager, Figure 3.15).
• In addition to the larger scale faulting, the multiple phases of deformation

have resulted in an extremely folded and fractured environment, evident
in the exposed quartzite in the kloof (Figure 3.16).

31
Figure 3.15 Photograph of the thrusted contact between basement gneiss and overlying
schist1, on the southwest wall of Gamsberg inselberg. Pella Quartzite cap
rock visible in top right of photograph.
1View of schist partly obscured by Pella Quartzite boulders
Figure 3.16 Photograph of fractured white Pella Quartzite in kloof, from top of kloof

32
4 HYDROGEOLOGY BASELINE
4.1 HYDROCENSUS RESULTS OVERVIEW
The hydrocensus survey was carried out by ERM between 30th August and 8th
September 2012.
In total, 42 hydrocensus sites were identified. These included the following:
• 35 boreholes of which 15 were privately owned by farmers and 20 were

existing Verdanta-owned monitoring boreholes;
• 3 wells, all privately owned by farmers (well refers to hand dug wells or
open holes);
• Four natural springs of which two were located on privately owned land
and two springs were located on land owned by Verdanta.
The September 2012 hydrocensus survey results are summarised in Table 4.1.
This data has been combined with hydrocensus data from all previous studies
(AATS (2000), Golders (2007), and SRK (2010)), and with data from Black
Mountain, to generate a borehole data inventory, presented in Table 4.2, and
shown graphically in Figure 4.1.

33
Table 4.1 September 2012 Hydrocensus Survey Results
ID Latitude Longitude Description Water Depth of hole Type Water samples

depth (mbgl) collected
(mbgl)
RS1 -29.1537 18.81145 Borehole NM NM Private Yes
RS2* -29.14561 18.84222 Borehole NM NM Private Yes
RS3* -29.14472 18.84124 Borehole NM NM Private Yes
RS6 -29.08593 18.9124 Spring NM NM Private Yes
RS7 -29.11157 18.85755 Borehole NM NM Private Yes (plus DUP 2)
KGT1 -29.2886 19.06108 Borehole NM NM Private Yes
KGT4 -29.29631 19.07336 Well NM NM Private Yes
KGT7 -29.42412 19.02975 Borehole NM NM Private Yes (plus DUP 1)
GAMS 2 -29.22713 18.98031 Borehole NM NM Mine Yes
GAMS 3 -29.25241 18.98299 Borehole 25.65 100+ Mine Yes (plus DUP 3)
GAMS 4 -29.24893 18.9684 Borehole 15.43 100+ Mine Yes
GAMS 7 -29.23132 18.98006 Spring DRY - Mine No (DRY)
GAMS 8 -29.21529 18.96745 Borehole 44.3 54 Mine Yes
GAMS 9 -29.25111 19.01113 Spring - - Mine Yes
GAMS10 -29.23074 19.02155 Borehole NM NM Mine Yes
AR 1 -29.20106 18.91166 Well NM NM Private Yes
AR 2 -29.19986 18.91041 Well 4.56 NM Private Yes
AR 3 -29.21723 18.90741 Borehole NM NM Private Yes
AR 4 -29.21636 18.94176 Borehole 42.1 55 Mine Yes
ID Latitude Longitude Description Water Depth of hole Type Water samples
depth (mbgl) collected
(mbgl)
AR10 -29.16872 18.95609 Borehole 35.3 61.5 Mine Yes
AR11 -29.16931 18.94323 Borehole 22.92 61.5 Mine Yes
AR12 -29.18267 18.95382 Borehole NM NM Mine Yes
ACH1 -29.26867 19.07354 Spring - - Private Yes
ACH2 -29.24767 19.04433 Borehole NM NM Private Yes
BLH1 -29.29483 18.98713 Borehole NM NM Private Yes
BLH2 -29.27109 18.94107 Borehole DRY 45 Mine No (DRY)
BLH3 -29.24851 18.90795 Borehole 52.7 84 Mine Yes
BLH4 -29.24631 18.92064 Borehole 47.7 53 Mine Yes (plus DUP4)
AGG1 -29.18801 18.86794 Borehole NM NM Mine Yes
LUS1 -29.31576 19.01696 Borehole 53.58 100+ Mine Yes
* Wind pumps RS2 and RS3 pump into the same reservoir. One groundwater sample (RS2+3) collected.
NM Not measured (often due to borehole being capped by pump infrastructure)
mbgl metres below ground level
DUP Duplicate sample
Table 4.2 Borehole Data Inventory
In ERM Hydrocensus
Water Level Geology Abstraction Volume Use type Pump tests SRK ERM Hydrocensus Results MEAN
In SRK Hydrocensus
mamsl SRK - Map, pg 32 SRK - ERM AATS Golde Date
mbd / Geol
mbd mbgl mbgl mbgl mbgl mbgl mbd mbd / mgbl Depth unknow EC EC
Gamsberg mgbl Log
ID Alternate ID Owner Farm name Type Latitude Longitude Altitude
inselberg m3/a Appendix1, pg Appen 04/2009 05/2009 08/2009 17&18/08/2009 n (mS/m) Temp pH FIELD (mS/m) pH
AATS: AATS: G- AATS: Golder SRK pg SRK - ERM RANGE AATS SRK ERM SRK - Map, pg SRK - EC @ pH @ EC @ pH @ EC @ pH @ FIELD
Append HMS G-HMS Associat Append Hydroc MEAN MEAN Appendix 1, 25°C 25°C 25°C EC
ix 4 Table 1, Table es Africa xi (76) ix 2, pg ensus 32 pg xi xi dix 4 r (mS/m) 20°C (mS/m) 20°C (mS/m) 20°C (mS/m) pH EC pH
ACH1 20 Girrie v/d Heever Achab yes yes spring -29.26867 19.07354 921 921.03 10000-18250 15 768 domestic/livestock domestic/livestock 30.8 6.4 32.4 6.4 37.3 5.8 29 6.93 32.375 6.4
ACH2 21 Girrie v/d Heever Achab yes yes BH -29.24767 19.04433 901 51.60 51.00 0.60 51.30 849.37 60 500-1000 900 livestock livestock 30.7 6.3 239 7.54 134.85 6.9
AGG1 Mine yes BH -29.18801 18.86794 934
AR 1 Tore van Niekerk Aroam Daddiespoort yes Well -29.20106 18.91166 933 1000-2500 1 800 livestock livestock 660 8 660 8.4 0.6 8.18 584 7.33 476.15 8.0
AR 2 2 Tore van Niekerk Aroam Daddiespoort yes Well -29.19986 18.91041 928 5.70 3.49 4.00 2.21 4.40 923.64 not used not used 1776 20.8 7.41
AG1 3 Tore van Niekerk Aroam Daddiespoort yes yes BH -29.21723 18.90741 914 1000-2500 1 200 livestock livestock 129 8.2 114 8.4 150 8.5 147.5 7.53 120 8.45 132.1 8.2
AR 4 MBH 2 Mine Ghaamsberg yes BH -29.21636 18.94176 917 50.00 24.01 42.10 25.99 38.70 878.30 yes 55 2 111 23.7 7.62
AR 5 MBH 3, GBH03 Mine Ghaamsberg yes yes BH -29.22956 18.92467 902 43.09 42.97 40.03 40.00 40.70 3.09 41.36 860.64 yes 53 Monitoring 2 208 8 199 7.7 20 7.64 212 24.2 7.59 142.3333 7.8
AR 7 MBH11 Mine yes BH -29.19654 18.93952 939 22.10 22.10 916.90 yes 170 22.3 7.3
AR 8 MBH 7 Mine yes BH -29.18588 18.93958 953 yes 362 24.4 7.46
AR 9 MBH 9 Mine yes BH -29.17954 18.95613 953 26.83 26.86 0.03 26.85 926.16 yes Monitoring 269 24 7.32
AR10 MBH10 Mine yes BH -29.16872 18.95609 967 yes 235 24.4 7.16
AR11 MBH 8 Mine yes BH -29.16931 18.94323 966 23.92 23.92 942.08 yes 237 24.9 7.81
AR12 Mine yes BH -29.18267 18.95382 957 356 18.4 8.36
BH 1 Mine BH -29.24563 18.99939 1135 yes 178.70 178.70 956.50
BH 2 Mine BH -29.24794 19.00027 1146 yes
BH 3 Mine BH -29.25658 18.96286 1037 yes 34.10 34.10 1003.00
BH5 GAMS2, 5 Mine Ghaamsberg yes yes BH -29.22713 18.98031 919 9.44 9.68 8.56 1.12 9.23 909.47 1000-2500 18 250 Drilling Water drilling No loner used 1 35.6 6.2 26.8 8 34.2 7.51 28 8.28 31.15 7.5
BH6 BLH2, MBH 6 Mine Loop 10 road yes yes BH -29.27109 18.94107 868 44.00 dry 44.00 824.05 yes not used 2
BH11 11 Mine BH -29.25748 18.96696 1045 yes 52.73 52.73 992.27 5
BLH1 14, 13, (12) Mine Blomhoek yes yes BH -29.29483 18.98713 875 50.18 47.14 41.33 43.00 8.85 45.41 829.92 1000-2500 1 900 livestock livestock 182 8.3 171 8 185 7.9 192.5 7.53 176 7.36 181.3 7.8
BLH3 MBH 5 Mine yes BH -29.24851 18.90795 876 54.09 52.62 52.70 1.47 53.14 822.36 yes 84 130 24.2 7.76
BLH4 MBH 4 Mine yes BH -29.24631 18.92064 887 50.48 41.12 47.70 9.36 46.43 840.57 yes 53 2 102 24.2 7.43
DG 43 Mine BH -29.25622 18.96454 1033 yes 26.37 26.37 1006.47
DG 56 Mine BH -29.25563 18.96283 1041 yes 34.10 34.10 1007.01
DG 67 Mine BH -29.25428 18.96146 1033 yes 31.01 31.01 1002.46
DG 68 Mine BH -29.25510 18.96342 1037 yes 31.63 31.63 1005.02
DG 77 Mine BH -29.25226 18.96747 1013 yes 21.15 21.15 991.76
GAM 75 Mine BH -29.25695 18.97658 1015 yes 26.93 26.93 988.29
GAMB 1 GAMS4 Mine Gamsberg yes yes BH -29.24893 18.96840 1002 yes 15.65 14.16 13.79 16.00 15.43 2.21 15.01 987.29 100+ not used Strong borehole previously
yes used for drilling 114 7.4 114 7.2 123.3 6.85 111 7.16 103 24.1 7.12 115.575 7.2
GAMB 2 Mine BH -29.25606 18.96472 1032 34.93 34.93 997.12 yes
GAMB 3 Mine BH -29.25608 18.96477 1032 yes 33.35 33.35 998.95 yes
GAMB 4 GAMS 5 Mine Gamsberg yes yes BH -29.25766 18.96370 1045 yes 37.64 36.85 37.70 0.85 37.40 1007.40 100+ not used yes 71 6.15 80 23.5 6.94 71 6.2
GAMB 5 Mine BH -29.25603 18.96479 1033 yes 34.65 34.65 998.25 yes
GAMS 3 K1 Mine Gamsberg yes yes BH -29.25241 18.98299 1015 yes 24.85 25.00 25.65 0.80 25.17 990.08 100+ 1000-2500 1 800 Domestic 114 7.6 113 7.5 115 24 7.08 113.5 7.6
GAMS 6 Mine Gamsberg yes yes BH -29.25608 18.96474 1031 yes 37.32 34.11 37.09 3.21 36.17 994.60 100+ 1000-2500 1 200 Drilling Water 93 7.06 82 24.1 6.06 93 7.1
GAMS 7 Mine Gamsberg yes yes Spring -29.23132 18.98006 923 922.95 1000-2500 6 307 Monitoring 16.1 6.6 21 7.14 18.55 6.9
GAMS 8 MBH1 Mine Gamsberg yes yes BH -29.21529 18.96745 920 40.19 44.00 44.30 4.11 42.83 877.12 yes 54 Monitoring 3 145 7.4 124 7.3 144.5 6.63 120 23.6 7.32 137.8333 7.1
GAMS 9 22 Mine Gamsberg yes yes Spring -29.25111 19.01113 912 912.00 3 154 not used/livestock
Damed by boulder dam 105 7.3 104 6.8 116 6.44 108.3333 6.8
GAMS 10 24 Mine BH -29.23240 19.02154 868 34.10 34.10 833.90
GBH01 Mine Gamsberg yes BH -29.22410 18.92492 846
GBH10 Mine Gamsberg yes BH -29.22271 18.93101 907 livestock
KGT1 Jan Visser Kykgat yes yes BH -29.28860 19.06108 922 31 500-1000 1 900 Domestic livestock 176 7.18 176 7.2
KGT2 17 Jan Visser Kykgat yes yes BH -29.28803 19.06112 926 27.52 27.52 898.48 500-1000 900 Domestic domestic 204 8.0 200 7.44 202 7.7
KGT3 18 Jan Visser Kykgat yes yes BH -29.29607 19.07350 934 36.99 36.99 896.96 500 domestic, livestock
KGT4 Jan Visser Kykgat yes yes Well -29.29631 19.07336 934 29.36 29.36 904.31 29.4 1000-2500 1 200 Domestic/livestock domestic, livestock 174 7.25 174 7.3
KGT5 19 Jan Visser Kykgat yes yes BH -29.32470 19.08273 943 76.90 76.90 866.15 1000-2500 1 200 livestock livestock 265 7.3 265 7.3
KGT7 Jan Visser Kykgat yes yes BH -29.42412 19.02975 843 1 200 livestock 142 7.46 142 7.5
KGT8 15 Jan Visser Kykgat yes yes BH -29.30538 19.01575 907 49.28 49.28 857.27 1000-2500 1 200 livestock livestock 1245 7.54 1245 7.5
LUS1 Mine Loop 10 Road yes yes BH -29.31576 19.01696 905 53.58 53.58 851.42 100+ not used 148 22.4 7.67
RS1 Danie Luttig Rosynebos yes yes BH -29.15370 18.81145 983 1000-2500 1 200 livestock livestock 76 8.27 76 8.3
RS2 Danie Luttig Rosynebos yes yes BH -29.14561 18.84222 987 26.59 26.59 960.71 1000-2500 1 200 Domestic/livestock domestic,livestock 142 7.4 142 7.4
RS3 Danie Luttig Rosynebos yes yes BH -29.14472 18.84124 987 42.19 42.19 945.11 1000-2500 900 livestock livestock 133 7.8 131 7.55 132 7.7
RS4 Danie Luttig Rosynebos yes yes BH -29.15520 18.88154 971 21.07 21.07 950.23 1000-2500 1 200 livestock livestock 116 8.4 116 8.4
RS5 Sakkie v Niekerk Rosynebos yes yes Spring -29.08655 18.91156 865 0.80 3 154 domestic,livestock 93 7.2 93 7.2
RS6 Sakkie v Niekerk Rosynebos yes yes Spring -29.08593 18.91240 865 6 307 domestic,livestock 96 7.16 96 7.2
RS7 Sakkie v Niekerk Rosynebos yes yes BH -29.11157 18.85755 950 900 livestock 142 7.35 142 7.4
1 Mine BH -29.17451 18.90833 951 22.25 22.25 928.75
4 Mine BH -29.21436 18.99143 899 41.40 41.40 857.60
6 Mine BH -29.23355 18.96184 1122 yes 123.60 123.60 998.40
7 Mine BH -29.24035 18.95191 1041 yes 53.84 53.84 987.16
8 Mine BH -29.24045 18.94958 1050 yes 64.15 64.15 985.85
9 Mine BH -29.24339 18.95496 1031 yes 44.47 44.47 986.53
10 Mine BH -29.25611 18.96668 1032 yes 46.71 46.71 985.29
16 Mine BH -29.29446 19.02361 910 45.82 45.82 864.18
23 Mine BH -29.23007 18.99330 905 16.50 16.50 888.50
25 Mine BH -29.20566 19.04801 889 46.57 46.57 842.43
27 Mine BH -29.23337 19.10716 888 55.10 55.10 832.90
28 Mine BH -29.24280 19.08072 853 19.60 19.60 833.40
Supporting Notes: MEDIAN 36.17 SUM 75 240
Boreholes 1- 28: from AATS report. Assumed to be mine owned monitoring holes MAX 178.70 SUM minus unused 53 836
Altitude: in order of preference altitude uses Golder Survey data, or Golder/ SRK GPS data if survey not avaiable, and DEM data where nothing else available MIN 4.40
mbgl = metres below ground level
mbd = metres below datum
18°49'30"E 18°55'0"E 19°0'30"E Pella 19°6'0"E
Legend
! RS7
A
Borehole and Spring Inventory
A
! Water Level - Borehole
GBH09
Pella A
! Chemistry - Borehole
A
!
A
! Water Level, Pump test -- Borehole
29°8'0"S
29°8'0"S
GBH10
KHÂI-MA A
! Water Level, Chemistry - Borehole
LOCAL MUNICIPALITY A
!
RS3 A
!
GBH05
Water Level, Chemistry, Pump test - Borehole
A!!
ARS2 KHÂI-MA
A
! RURAL A
! No Data - Borehole
GBH07
RS1 GBH01 #
*
RS4
AGGENEYS
Water Level, Chemistry -Springs
A
! A
! GBH04
A
!
A
!
GBH02 ! 4 GBH08
A N1
GBH06 National Route
A
!
A
!
! A
AR11 AR10 Main Road
A
! A
! Secondary Road
1
A Other Road
AR 9
!
AR 8 A
! Track/Footpath
! AR12
A N14
AGG1
A
!
Ephemeral Rivers
A
!
AR 7
AR 2 A
! Mineral Rights Boundary
A
!!
A AR 1 25 Groundwater Domain Model
AGGENEYS A
! Town Boundary
AR 4 GAMS 8
AG1 A 4
C:\Users\Dell4\Documents\Thurlow Mapping\PRIVATE WORK\ERM\CONTRACT\GIS\0164903_GAMSBERG\MXD\MXD_REV2\BH_inventory_Map_Rev2.mxd

! Flood Plains
A
! A
! A
!
29°13'30"S
29°13'30"S
A!
BH5
!A
A!A !
A
!
!A
!A!!
A
A
!
GAMS 10
A
! 27
A 23
!
AR 5 #
*
GAMS 7 A
!
6A
! A
!
7
28
8AA !
!!
BH 1
! BH 2 ACH2 A
!
9A GAMB 1 A
To GAMS 9
A
!
BLH4 A
! A
!
A
! A
L BLH3
!
oo A
! A
! #
*
p1 A
!!
A
!!!
A GAMS 3
0 A
!
A
!AA
A
! A
!
GAM 75
ACH1
4 BH6
N1 #
*
A
!
±
SCALE:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
KGT2
! Kilometres
AKGT1
BLH1 16 TITLE:
DG 77 A
! A
!
! KGT4
A
A
! KGT3 Figure: 4.1 Borehole Inventory Map
KGT8
A
!
LUS1
29°19'0"S
29°19'0"S
A
! CLIENT:
DG 67 KGT5
A
! A
!
DG 68
A
! DATE:Jan 2013 CHECKED: MP PROJECT: 0164903
DG 56 DRAWN: AT APPROVED: SHC SCALE: 1 : 110 000

A
!
GAMS 6 GAMB 3 10
KHÂI-MA RURAL
DRAWING: REV:
!A
A
!
BH 3 A
!
GAMB 5 A
! BH_inventory_Map_Rev2.mxd 0
DG 43
A
! ERM
Silverwood Close
BH11 Steenberg Office Park, 7945
GAMB 4
A
! A
! Cape Town, SOUTH AFRICA
Tel: +27 (0)21 702 9100
Fax +27 (0)21 701 7900
18°49'30"E 18°55'0"E 19°0'30"E 19°6'0"E
Information. ERM 2013 A3
4.2 REGIONAL HYDROGEOLGY AND HYDROSTRATIGRAPHY
Because of the limited thickness of the alluvial cover and the hard rock nature
of all other rocks in the area, no regional-scale aquifers transmitting water
over large scales have developed in the Namaqualand Metamorphic Complex
(Vegter, 2006).
The geological units of hydrogeological interest in the study area are all those
in and around Gamsberg: the basement Haramoep gneiss and alluvial cover
on the plains, the Namies schist, the Pella Quartzite and the Gamsberg Iron
Formation (Section 3.5.2).
Some groundwater movement will occur in the primary permeability of the

alluvium around Gamsberg. The remaining units – the highly fractured and
weathered hard rock terrains, will provide secondary permeability aquifers,
albeit with low productivity. Vegter (2006) assessed the properties of 115
boreholes drilled across a larger region including Gamsberg. As drillers logs
available did not differentiate between the variety of metamorphic and
intrusive rock types present, no attempt was made to differentiate their
hydrogeology. However, the results are nonetheless useful for general
characteristics of the hard rock formations. The borehole data was analysed
for depth, water level, yield, water strikes, and relationships between these
parameters. Although the borehole data inventory for Gasmberg has some of
this information (Table 4.2), there are very few boreholes with each parameter
available. Key observations on the data can be summarised as:
• Out of 115 boreholes, the depths ranged from 10 – 152 m. The median
depth was 68 m.
• Forty one boreholes (36%) yielded greater than 0.1 l/s, 8 boreholes (7%)
yielded greater than 1 l/s, one borehole (<1%) yielded greater than 10 l/s.
• Water levels ranged from 2 to 72 mbgl, with the median depth at 20 mbgl.
• The distribution of water strikes with depth shows a large range from 10
to 113 m, and shows a fairly flat distribution over depth (ie no decrease in
water strikes with depth). Boreholes even above 90 m, and boreholes at
110 – 114 m, also encountered water strikes, indicating open water-
bearing fractures at depth.
Vegter (2006) summarises that weathering as a primary agent in producing or

enhancing secondary porosity is of importance where the water levels are less
than around 30 mbgl, and that water can be struck in fractured fresh rock
below the weathered zone and not at the transition between weathered zone
and fresh rock, as in higher rainfall areas. Although both AATS (2000), and
SRK (2010), reference larger scale faults and lineaments, and their degree of
connectivity as having a dominant control on water movement, Vegter (2006),
suggests the larger regional faults and lineaments are not water bearing as
most fault cores in the area consist of impermeable rock. Nevertheless,
increased fracturing in the damage zone around fault cores is likely to increase
permeability.

38
The primary control on permeability is taken as depth from surface, controlled
by structures and weathering, rather than rock type, with the understanding
that un-weathered units at depth can also be water bearing, and that major
faults will increase water flow.
The importance of the weathered zone on rocks that would otherwise be

considered impermeable is also highlighted by Kenhardt’s municipal water
supply (150 km east), which is obtained from alluvium and weathered and
fractured gneiss and schist, in the valley of Driekop se Rivier (Vegter, 2006).
4.3 EXISTING GROUNDWATER USE
The extent of local groundwater use in the vicinity of Gamsberg is presented

in Table 4.2 and based on measurements by SRK (2010) (see columns
‘abstraction volume’ and ‘use type’). Private boreholes are used for either
domestic or livestock watering, and are equipped with wind pumps. The
average borehole abstraction rate is 1 160 m3/a, or 0.04 l/s. Three springs on
private land are recorded as being utilised for abstraction, and their
abstraction rates range from 3 154 to 15 768 m3/a, or 0.1 to 0.5 l/s.
Some mine-owned boreholes have been previously used for drilling water, but
are no longer in use (Table 4.2). Based on this updated information, the total
groundwater abstracted from boreholes and springs in the area is
± 54 000 m3/a. This however excludes groundwater abstracted in the adits, the
volume of which it is not possible to estimate (Section 4.8)
The distribution of pumped boreholes is shown in Figure 4.2.

39
18°49'30"E 18°55'0"E 19°0'30"E Pella 19°6'0"E
Legend
( RS7
!
Borehole Abstraction Rates (m³/annum)
(
! No Data
Pella GBH09
(
!!
A
!
( < 900.00
!
(
29°8'0"S
29°8'0"S
900.01 - 1200.00
KHÂI-MA GBH10
RS3
LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
(
!
!
A
!
( 1200.01 - 1900.00
!
(
!
( KHÂI-MA RURAL
GBH05
RS1
RS2
RS4 GBH01
(
! !
A
!
(
GBH07
!
!
( 1900.01 - 18250.00
!
A
( !
( (
!
!
A
GBH04
GBH02 (
! N14 GBH08
GBH06
!
A
!
(
!
A (
! !
A
National Route
(
! !
A
AR11 AR10 Main Road

(
! (
!
1 Secondary Road
AR 9
(
!
Other Road
AR 8 (
!
( AR12
! N14 Track/Footpath
AGG1 (
!
(
!
AR 7 Ephemeral Rivers
AR 2 (
!
AGGENEYS
!
((
!
AR 1
(
!
25 Mineral Rights Boundary
AR 4 GAMS 8
C:\Users\Dell4\Documents\Thurlow Mapping\PRIVATE WORK\ERM\CONTRACT\GIS\0164903_GAMSBERG\MXD\MXD_REV2\BH_Abstraction_Map_Rev2.mxd

AG1 Town Boundary
4
(
! (
!
!
( (
!
29°13'30"S
29°13'30"S
(
!
!
((!
!
(!
!(((!
! (
(
! BH5 Flood Plains
(
!
AR 5
!
((
! (
!
23
GAMS 10 27
GAMS 7
(
!
6
(
! (
!
7
28
8
(!(
BH 1
!
( BH 2 ACH2
(
!
9
(
!
GAMB 1 !
To GAMS 9
(
!
!
( BLH4 (
! !
(
L BLH3
!
(
oo !
(
(
! (
!
p1 (!
! (!
!
!
( GAMS 3
0
(
(!
! (!
( (
!
(!(
GAM 75
ACH1
4 BH6
N1
(
! !
(
±
SCALE:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
KGT2
Kilometres
BLH1 16 !
(
!
(
KGT1
TITLE:
DG 77 !
( ( KGT4
(
!
(
!!
A
!
(
!
KGT3 Figure: 4.2 Groundwater Abstraction Volumes
KGT8
!
(
LUS1
29°19'0"S
29°19'0"S
(
! CLIENT:
DG 67 KGT5
(
! !
( BLACK MOUNTAIN MINING (PTY) LTD
!
A
DG 68
!
( !
A DATE:Jan 2013 CHECKED: MP PROJECT: 0164903

(
!
GAMS 6 GAMB 3
!
A
10
DRAWING: REV:
BH 3
!(
!
(!
(
( GAMB 5
! !
A
!
(
!
A! !
AA
!
A
(
!
!
A
BH_Abstraction_Map_Rev2.mxd 0
DG 43
(
! !
A
KHÂI-MA RURAL ERM

Silverwood Close
GAMB 4 (
!!
A Cape Town, SOUTH AFRICA
(
!
!
A
Tel: +27 (0)21 702 9100
Fax +27 (0)21 701 7900
18°49'30"E 18°55'0"E 19°0'30"E 19°6'0"E
4.4 GROUNDWATER LEVELS
The borehole inventory (Table 4.2) collates all available data, however often
this is incomplete. For example, the date of previous water levels is not
known, and whether these were taken in metres below ground level, or more
likely as metres below datum (and datum being the borehole collar). At the
regional scale of this study, the potential error this would generate in the
water levels is insignificant. The water level data have been averaged per
borehole, rather than only use one time set of data, to provide a larger dataset
as a good distribution of water levels is required. Water levels from one time
period are therefore compared to water levels averaged from many times, for
example, GAMB1 has 5 measurements ranging from 13.79 mbgl to 16.0 mbgl,
compared with GAMB2 which has one measurement only (Table 4.2). The
boreholes with one measurement may not sit central to the range of those with
more than one measurement hence this doesn’t compare like with like. The
potential error induced in this is also assumed small based on the regional
scale of the study based on the range of measurements: 14 boreholes have
more than one measurement and 11 of these show a range of water levels less
than 4.5 m, two of these show a range 5-10 m, and one outlier (AR4) has a
range greater than 25 m. There is also little insight captured into whether a
previous measurement was taken whilst or soon after a borehole had
pumped.
The median depth to water, as shown in Table 4.2, is 36 m, with a range of 4.4
to a maximum of 178.8 m. The frequency distribution shows that most
boreholes have water depth ranging from 20 – 50 m, and up to 60 m deep,
which applies to boreholes on the inselberg and those on the plains (Figure
4.3). Two outliers with water levels deeper (lower mamsl) than would be
expected for their altitude exist on the inselberg. These may be impacted by
draining of the highest water levels in the quartzite, by the existing mining
activities (see Section 4.8).
SRK (2010) presented a graph of water level compared to topography, with an

extremely strong correlation coefficient of 0.96. Presenting this graph for all
water level data taken to date, the correlation remains strong at an R2 value of
0.84 (Figure 4.4). The two outliers with deep water levels (>120 m), are
boreholes 6 and BH1 with altitudes of 1122 m and 1135 m respectively,
measured once each by AATS (2000) and Golders (2007) respectively. These
are the highest elevation boreholes in the record, within the quartzite rim of
the inselberg. Removing the two outliers from this data set adjusts the R2 value
of correlation between topography and water level to 0.93.
Based on this correlation, topography is clearly a dominant control on the

water level and therefore groundwater flow direction. A piezometric map
generated through automated interpolation is presented in Figure 4.5. As this
is based on all available data (the averaged water levels at each point), the
contours stop at the edge of an area generated by points with water level data.

41
A clear trend is visible, also presented by SRK (2010) with higher water levels
in the inselberg compared to the plains.
The piezometric map has been adjusted manually to reflect conceptual

interpretation of the groundwater flow regime, and is presented in Figure 4.6
(manual adjustments are dashed contours). This shows:
• Groundwater flowing radially outwards from the inselberg towards the

plains with the surface drainage controlling groundwater flow towards
the northeast;
• groundwater flows with higher hydraulic gradient around the inselberg,
and significantly lower gradient in the plains; and
• two flow divides exist to the northwest of gamsberg and to the southeast,
due to the influence of the Aggenys Berg and the Achab se Berge
respectively.
Further discussion of the groundwater flow regime is given in Section 5.
Figure 4.3 Graph showing frequency distribution of depth to groundwater in all

boreholes with water level data
All boreholes Inselberg boreholes Plains boreholes
14
12
Frequency of boreholes
10
8
6
4
2
0
Range of depth to water (m)

42
Figure 4.4 Graph of Water Levels Compared to Topography
1150
1100
1050
Altitude (mamsl)
1000
950
R² = 0.8363
900
850
800
800 850 900 950 1000 1050
Water Level (mamsl)

43
Pella
18°49'30"E 18°55'0"E 19°0'30"E 19°6'0"E
Legend
A
! Boreholes (Water Levels)
Interpolated Groundwater Contours
29°8'0"S
29°8'0"S
KHÂI-MA National Route

LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
KHÂI-MA RURAL Main Road
A
!!
A RS2
RS3
Secondary Road
RS4 Other Road
A
!
N14 Track/Footpath
AR11 Ephemeral Rivers

1 A
!
940
940
A AR 9
!
A
!
Town Boundary
920 AR 7
AR 2 A
! Flood Plains
0
88
A
!
25
A
!
GAMS 8 4
N14
C:\Users\Dell4\Documents\Thurlow Mapping\PRIVATE WORK\ERM\CONTRACT\GIS\0164903_GAMSBERG\MXD\MXD_REV2\Water_Levels_Interpolation_Rev2

! AR 4 A
!
A A
!
92
0
AGGENEYS
ZIMBABWE
29°13'30"S
29°13'30"S
MOZAMBIQUE
BH5 Study Area BOTSWANA
AR 5 ! GAMS 7 23 LIMPOPO
A GAMS 10
A
! 6 A! 27
A
!
A
!
A NAMIBIA
A
!
840
!
96
87
MPUMALANGA
0
28
NORTH WEST
9
GAUTENG
SWAZ ILAND
BLH4
A
!A
!
BH 1
ACH2 A
A !
BLH3 !
!
GAMB 1 A
!
A ! DG 77 GAMS 9 A
! FREE STAT E
A
! A 860
KWAZULU-NATAL
! GAMS 3
* NORTHERN CAPE
#
980
A
! A A
! LESOTHO
94
10
A
!!
AA
0
!!A
A !
00
A!!
AA ! A
!
86 GAM 75
0
ACH1
EASTERN CAPE
N1
4 BH6
A
!
82 A! WEST ERN C APE
0
840
900
900
±
SCALE:
KGT2 KGT1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
860 !
A
!
BLH1 16 Kilometres
KGT3 KGT4
840 A
880
! A
!
A
! TITLE:
84
KGT8 Figure: 4.3: Piezometric map - based
0
A
! on all data
LUS1
29°19'0"S
29°19'0"S
A
!
CLIENT:
KGT5
A
!
DRAWING: REV:
Water_Levels_Interpolation_Rev2 0
KHÂI-MA RURAL ERM

Silverwood Close
Tel: +27 (0)21 702 9100
Fax +27 (0)21 701 7900
Source: Chief Directorate N ational Geo-Spatial
18°49'30"E 18°55'0"E 19°0'30"E 19°6'0"E
It is unlawful for any firm or individual to reproduce copyrighted maps, graphics or drawings, in whole or in part, without permiss ion of the c opyright owner, ERM Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd ·
Pella
18°49'30"E 18°55'0"E 19°0'30"E 19°6'0"E Legend
A
! Boreholes (Water Levels)
Intepolated Groundwater Contours
29°8'0"S
29°8'0"S
Conceptual Groundwater Contours

KHÂI-MA
LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
KHÂI-MA RURAL National Route
A
!!
A RS2 Main Road
RS3
RS4 Secondary Road
A
!
N14
Other Road
Track/Footpath
AR11
1 A
!
Ephemeral Rivers
A AR 9
!
A
! Mineral Rights Boundary
AR 7
Town Boundary
920
0
90
86
AR 2 A
!
0
88
A
!
25
Flood Plains
84
0 A
!
4
C:\Users\Dell4\Documents\Thurlow Mapping\PRIVATE WORK\ERM\CONTRACT\GIS\0164903_GAMSBERG\MXD\MXD_REV2\Water_Levels_Conceptual_Rev2.mxd

N14 GAMS 8
! AR 4 A
!
A A
!
92
AGGENEYS 0
ZIMBABWE
29°13'30"S
29°13'30"S
MOZAMBIQUE
BH5 Study Area BOTSWANA
AR 5 ! GAMS 7 23 LIMPOPO
A GAMS 10
A
! 6 A! 27
A
!
A
!
A NAMIBIA
A
!
840
!
87
MPUMALANGA
28
NORTH WEST
9
GAUTENG
SWAZ ILAND
BLH4
A
!A
!
BH 1
A 960 ACH2 A
!
BLH3 !
!
GAMB 1 A
!
A ! DG 77 GAMS 9 A
! FREE STAT E
A
! A KWAZULU-NATAL
840
! GAMS 3
* NORTHERN CAPE
#
980
A
! A A
! LESOTHO
94
10
A
!!
AA
0
!!A
A !
00
A!!
AA ! A
!
86 GAM 75
0
ACH1
EASTERN CAPE
N1
4 BH6
A
!
WEST ERN C APE
A
!
86
0
88
0
±
SCALE:
880
KGT2 KGT1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
860 !
A
!
BLH1 16 Kilometres
KGT3 KGT4
A
! A
!
A
! TITLE:
84 KGT8 900 Figure: 4.4: Piezometric map - conceptual

0
A
!
LUS1
29°19'0"S
29°19'0"S
A
!
CLIENT:
KGT5
A
!
DRAWING: REV:
Water_Levels_Conceptual_Rev2.mxd 0
KHÂI-MA RURAL ERM

Silverwood Close
Tel: +27 (0)21 702 9100
Fax +27 (0)21 701 7900
Source: Chief Directorate N ational Geo-Spatial
18°49'30"E 18°55'0"E 19°0'30"E 19°6'0"E
It is unlawful for any firm or individual to reproduce copyrighted maps, graphics or drawings, in whole or in part, without permiss ion of the c opyright owner, ERM Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd ·
4.5 HYDRAULIC PROPERTIES AND AQUIFER CHARACTERISATION
All previous hydraulic tests are summarised in Table 4.3 below. The position
of boreholes which underwent hydraulic tests are also marked in Figure 4.1,
and referenced in Table 4.2. A total of 14 boreholes have undergone hydraulic
tests and as geological logs are often not available, the geology is assumed to
be the surface geology at the borehole. Observations from Table 4.3 are:
• hydraulic conductivity results in the gneiss range over one order of

magnitude; 1E-04 to 4E-03 m/d
• hydraulic conductivity results in the schist range over three orders of
magnitude; 4E-03 to 5E+00 m/d
• hydraulic conductivity results in the quartzite range over one order of
magnitude; 6E-01 to 6E+00 m/d
The quartzite presents the highest hydraulic conductivity material, closely

followed by the schist. However, the number of tests are small, and local
structural heterogeneities influence individual tests and may render the test
non applicable to the unit across the entire area of interest. For example,
boreholes GAMB3 and GAMB4, both presenting in the upper range of
measured values, are clustered inside the southern rim of the inselberg, and
proposed to be located around southeast-northwest trending structural
controls (pers comm Mr J Potgieter Black Mountain Mineral Resources
Manager). Also, slug tests and lugeon are tests in which only a small stress is
applied to the aquifer, hence they only measure a small radius of aquifer close
to the borehole, and it is difficult to take these are representative for the entire
area. The constant discharge tests, highlighted in Table 4.3 below, are
considered more representative.
The hydraulic conductivity calibrated in numerical modelling by AATS (2000),

is shown in Figure 4.7. The hydraulic conductivities are summarised as:
• the inner areas of the inselberg (assumed equivalent to the Gamsberg Iron
Formation) has 1E-05 m/d
• the outer areas of the inselberg (assumed equivalent to Pella Quartzite
and Schist grouped) has 3E-05 m/d
• the plains (assumed equivalent to alluvium and gneiss grouped) has 1E-
03 m/d
• structurally controlled preferential drainage lines are set at 4E-01 m/d
and 1E+00 m/d
The AATS modelled values are a similar range of orders of magnitude to the
pump tests, however individual units differ greatly. The calibrated
conductivity for the quartzite areas for example is 3E-05 m/d compared to the
measured range of 6E-01 to 6E+00 m/d. This difference is expected given the
reasons above that pump tests measure a small radius close to the borehole.
Modelled conductivities are not proposed as those that would be found at an

46
individual site, but those that represent and equivalent hydraulic conductivity
over the region it is applied to.
Carrying out additional pump tests in this study, and even for longer
duration, was not considered necessary, as this would still yield point data,
which would need translation to the entire aquifer, and the stresses that can
feasibly be applied in a pump test will still be significantly less than those
tested in the model, hence the limitations would not be alleviated. The values
from testing and previous modelling can be taken as a guideline and starting
point for numerical modelling, and hydraulic parameters remain the key
calibration parameter in the modelling.
It is useful to recognise from these pump test readings that the ranges for
various units are similar. This supports the interpretation that depth from
surface due to weathering, and local (cross cutting) structural controls will be
the greatest control on hydraulic parameters, rather than rock type (also in
Section 4.2).
Fitting characteristic curves to the constant discharge tests shows a broadly

confined character for each test (AATS, 2000). This is a usual characteristic for
fractured rock environments, even though there is no low permeability layer
overlying the aquifers in question, as the fractured rock essentially is self-
confining.

47
Table 4.3 Summary of previous hydraulic tests performed
Hydraulic
Data Geology Type of Aquifer Transmissivity Conductivity
BH No. Source Geology Structures Source Aquifer Test Thickness2 [m2/d] [m/d]
Alluvium &
BH5 AATS Map CDT1 1E+00
Gneiss
AR 4 AATS Gneiss BH log Slug - In 1E-04
AR 5 AATS Gneiss BH log Slug - In 8E-04
BLH2(BH6) AATS Gneiss BH log Slug - In 4E-03
BLH4 AATS Gneiss BH log Slug - In 2E-04

MBH1
AATS Gneiss BH log Slug - In 1E-04
(GAMS8)
BLH3 (BH5) AATS Quartzite Thrust Fault? BH log Slug - In 6E-01
GAMB 4 Golder Quartzite Thrust Fault? Map Slug - In&Out 6E+00
BH11 AATS Schist Map CDT 20 7E-02 4E-03
GAMB 1 Golder Schist Map CDT 7E-02
GAMB 1 Golder Schist Map Slug - In&Out 1E+00
GAMB 2 Golder Schist Thrust Fault? Map Slug - In&Out 5E+00
GAMB 3 Golder Schist Thrust Fault? Map CDT 1E+00
GAMB 5 Golder Schist Thrust Fault? Map Slug - In&Out 4E+00

1 CDT = Constant Discharge Test
2 AquiferThickness is that reportedly used in the analysis
Note: AATS (2000) lists an additional 9 boreholes with hydraulic conductivities from slug-in and lugeon tests, and 1 constant rate test, however these
borehole names are not referred to elsewhere, are not reflected on any maps, their coordinates and geology is not known, and cannot be recollected by those
involved in the AATS (2000) study. They are discarded in this table.
Figure 4.7 Modelled distribution of hydraulic properties
AATS (2000)
4.6 GROUNDWATER RECHARGE
The piezometric contour map, Figure 4.6, is taken as indication that there is a
driving force for groundwater flow in the area ie there is effective recharge,
and that this recharge is higher on the inselberg. The higher recharge on the
inselberg is assumed caused by the increased infiltration capacity of the
fractured quartzite, with higher permeability and uneven surface reducing the
effective evaporation, and due to the potentially higher MAP on the inselberg
(Table 3.1).
SRK (2010) presented a GIS-based approach to calculation of recharge,

adapted from a DWA methodology using various percentages of MAP, with
percentages adjusted for geological factors among others (Figure 4.8). This
shows recharge ranging from <0.5 mm/a in the south west of the area, to
>1.3 mm/a broadly correlating with high ground. This study requires better
constrained values for recharge on the plains and inselberg.
Given the high evaporation rates, the existence of any effective recharge on the
plains is questionable. The poorer quality of groundwater on the plains
(Section 0) could be taken as indication of the significantly reduced flush of
fresh water on the plains, however this will also have some geological control
and it is not possible to quantitatively estimate the relative influences. The

49
numerical model prepared by AATS (2000) could not calibrate with inclusion
of any recharge in the plains as this generated unrealistically high water
levels, and the same was experienced in this modelling study. Hence AATS
(2000) applied recharge only to the Gamsberg inselberg and other high ground
(their recharge distribution is shown in Figure 4.9).
AATS (2000) provided a summary of estimates for recharge on the Gamsberg,

which ranged in their literature search for similar environments between
1 mm/a and 2.9 mm/a. Two scenarios for recharge were ran in their models,
1 mm/a and 2 mm/a, over the distribution shown in (Figure 4.9). A
comparison of 2 mm/a to the MAPs that have been calculated for the
inselberg is given in Table 4.4, showing that 2 mm/a represents between 1.2
and 2.2% of MAP, which is taken as reasonable (De Vries, Selaolo, & Beekman,
2000).

50
Figure 4.8 Recharge over project region, based on GIS method, from SRK 2009
Figure 4.9 Recharge over project region, based on modelling
AATS (2000)
Table 4.4 Calculated recharge for Gamsberg inselberg
Gamsberg
Calculated MAP for Berg, using Pofadder 89
Calculated MAP for Berg, using all stations 129
Calculated MAP for Berg, using Aggenys 167
2mm/a of recharge as a % of MAP (max) 2.2%
2mm/a of recharge as a % of MAP (min) 1.2%

20% min MAP (mm) 18
20% max MAP (mm) 33
4.7 GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE AND SURFACE WATER – GROUNDWATER

INTERACTIONS
The presence of tree lined ephemeral stream beds (Figure 4.10) and shallow
groundwater levels (BH5, <10 mbgl within drainage channel exiting from
kloof), are evidence for groundwater flow and groundwater discharges
through evapotranspiration losses; also noted in the area by Vegter (2006).
Two such areas are identified: in the kloof, and around ‘GAMS9’ (see below).

52
The piezometric map, Figure 4.6, is taken as indication that groundwater
originating as recharge in Gamsberg, discharges at distances far from the
project area, as the piezometric map indicates flow out of the area towards the
northeast and southwest.
Two springs are recorded in the Borehole Data Inventory (Table 4.2) as
GAMS7 and GAMS9. Both of these are considered groundwater fed springs
through the following mechanisms:
1) Topographically and structurally controlled spring discharge, GAMS7:
Although only one point is recorded in the inventory, pools of water exist
throughout the length of the kloof, and around 8 were noted during a site visit
in January 2013. The coordinates of GAMS7 reflect the uppermost spring,
locally called the ‘waterfall’. In years where there is insignificant rain, these
springs / pools do not flow, and they have been reported as not flowing in
previous works (AATS (2000) who visited in January 1999). However, the
pools are constantly present (pers comm Abraham J. Engelbrecht, Project
Engineer, Black Mountain) and they would evaporate, unless there is constant
inflow. This leads to the interpretation that the pools are groundwater fed,
and should be considered groundwater discharge points, however that the
rate of discharge is likely similar to the rate of evaporatoin, generating
permament pools. Local scale detailed monitoring (of groundwater levels and
climatic factors) would be required to determine the natural groundwater
discharge rate at the kloof spring sites.
The mechanism by which groundwater discharges at these kloof springs is

likely to be a combination of topographic control, where the groundwater
table simple intersects the low topography in the kloof, and also local scale
structural control where deep connecting fractures allow groundwater under
pressure to seep to surface (refers to confining nature of aquifers, section 4.5).
Each of the 8 pools visited, were located where two laterally extensive sub-
vertical fractures were present, and could be traced all the way up the kloof
walls. Given the variability observed in the flow of these springs it is not
possible to quantify a groundwater discharge.
2) Geological contact spring discharge, GAMS9:
One spring emanates from the east side of the Gamsberg, likely to be due to
groundwater meeting the contact between the gneiss below and the schist
above. The discharge from this spring has been estimated at 100 – 200 l/hour
in January 1999, and 500-1000 l/hour in October 1999 (AATS, 2000). In
January 2013 it was not flowing but formed a large standing pool, dammed by
the manmade boulder dam beneath the spring (relics from a previous farm).
Headwater seeps marked on Figure 3.6 are based on data from Black
Mountain. They are assumed to be geologically controlled, where

53
groundwater and surface runoff from the permeable quartzite meets the less
permeable Gamsberg Iron Formation.
Figure 4.10 Photograph of trees in ephemeral drainage channel downstream of spring

GAMS9

54
Figure 4.11 Photograph of local structural control on springs in kloof, near GAMS7
4.8 EXISTING MINING ACTIVITIES AND GROUNDWATER IMPACTS
Two adits were constructed in the northern wall of the inselberg in the 1970’s,
to access the ore body buried beneath the quartzite rim (Figure 4.12). There are
no historical records of (ground)water volumes pumped to maintain a dry
working environment within the adits, however anecdotal evidence from
Black Mountain employees states that when constructed the adits flowed
freely with water, and they now do not. It is assumed that the groundwater
levels within the inselberg have been drained to some degree.
The adits are still cleared of collected water with sump pumps, turned on once
a week. It is not possible to determine what of this water may be from internal
groundwater seepage however, as it is also removing drilling water sourced
from the Pella pipeline and used in the adit. This water from the adit is
discharged to the environment on the northern side of Gamsberg (Figure 4.13).

55
Figure 4.12 Photograph of the north face of Gamsberg, showing two mining adits

56
Figure 4.13 Photograph of pumped water from adits
4.9 GROUNDWATER QUALITY
4.9.1 Groundwater Chemistry Results
Groundwater chemistry results are presented in Table 4.5 to Table 4.7. A full
laboratory report is provided in Annex A.
Table 4.5 pH and EC for Hydrocensus Boreholes
Hydrocensus Field pH Field EC Laboratory Laboratory

ID pH EC
pH units mS/m pH units mS/m
GAMS3 7.1 115 8.51 117
GAMS4 7.1 103 7.25 113
GAMS5 6.9 80 5.81 111
GAMS6 6.1 82 7.4 175
GAMS8 7.3 120 7.51 121
AR2 7.4 1776 7.7 1626
AR4 7.6 111 7.54 117
AR5 7.6 212 7.83 239
AR7 7.3 170 7.81 157
AR8 7.5 362 7.74 317
AR9 7.3 269 7.76 241

57
Hydrocensus Field pH Field EC Laboratory Laboratory
ID pH EC
pH units mS/m pH units mS/m
AR10 7.2 235 7.49 220
AR11 7.8 237 7.96 217
AR12 8.4 356 7.54 333
BLH3 7.8 130 7.6 101
BLH4 7.4 102 7.65 139
LUS1 7.7 148 7.65 138
Notes:
EC Electrical conductivity
mS/m Milli-Siemens/metre

58
Table 4.6 Major Ion Chemistry of Hydrocensus Boreholes
Hardnes Alkalini
Sample Lab pH Lab EC TDS Cl SO4 NO3 NO2 NH4 PO4 F Ca Mg Na K
s ty
mg/L as mg/L as mg/L as mg/L as mg/L as
mg/L pH units mS/m mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L
CaCO3 N N N P
DWAF
NV NV 6-9 70 450 100 200 6 6 NV NV 1 32 30 100 50
Domestic
DWAF
NV NV NV NV 1000 1500 1000 100 NV NV NV 2 1000 500 2000 NV
Livestock
RS1 201 208.63 8.44 58 324 36 36 1.8 0.12 0.431 <0.025 3.61 49 19.0 50 3.05
RS2+3 448 152.98 8.18 146 853 303 143 14.3 0.12 0.066 <0.025 3.38 111 41.3 141 3.44
RS4 268 187.7 8.67 115 477 118 82 1.6 0.08 0.105 <0.025 2.48 59 29.4 69 2.91
RS5 232 127.27 8.29 56 350 70 65 4.7 0.17 0.095 <0.025 3.02 50 25.8 52 2.57
RS6 266 172.15 7.72 75 435 105 57 0.8 0.04 0.098 <0.025 3.99 68 23.3 71 1.95
RS7 281 174.28 8.5 125 672 217 106 3.9 0.15 0.109 <0.025 4.15 54 35.7 142 4.21
KGT1 714 276.29 7.34 249 1536 603 219 5.9 0.03 0.088 <0.025 3.80 183 62.8 282 11.4
KGT2 805 278.19 7.82 322 1652 741 157 6.9 0.03 0.089 0.061 4.10 203 72.4 291 9.74
KGT3 548 276.9 8.33 177 1019 293 140 32 0.03 0.087 0.047 3.00 141 47.7 189 7.32
KGT4 473 261.12 8.54 150 846 250 115 10.0 <0.005 0.051 0.074 2.98 121 41.5 142 7.08
KGT5 749 229.58 8.58 292 1800 630 378 23.5 <0.005 0.046 0.062 2.76 152 89.7 368 19.0
KGT7 1680 162.24 8.01 1021 6444 3573 352 12.0 0.13 0.057 <0.025 2.09 346 198 1791 72.8
KGT8 351 247.82 8.6 143 810 209 162 5.5 0.13 0.036 <0.025 3.12 86 33.0 159 2.95
GAMS2 78 36.09 7.64 37 190 43 62 0.1 0.03 0.025 <0.025 0.65 14 10.5 33 5.71
GAMS3 361 203.74 8.51 117 679 178 142 0.3 <0.005 <0.015 <0.025 1.03 81 38.6 111 4.81
GAMS4 387 346.61 7.25 113 690 102 136 1.4 <0.005 <0.015 <0.025 0.59 91 38.7 106 6.25
GAMS5 319 <8.26 5.81 111 765 29 599 <0.057 <0.005 0.06 0.057 <0.183 78 30.3 19 9.66
GAMS6 746 131.15 7.4 175 1266 109 673 1.7 <0.005 5.95 0.11 1.10 192 64.7 128 17.9
GAMS8 355 297.01 7.51 121 685 137 105 0.3 <0.005 7.56 0.206 2.02 101 25.0 117 19.7
GAMS9 57 19.91 6.46 24 116 35 22 3.2 <0.005 0.086 0.097 0.25 10 7.7 23 2.59
GAMS10 248 98.82 7.35 94 536 188 103 0.3 <0.005 0.079 0.083 2.00 41 35.2 105 1.89
AR1 1313 282.48 8.03 662 4249 1907 669 2.3 0.06 0.081 0.147 4.04 266 158 1013 60.6
AR2 4139 591.12 7.7 1626 11097 5234 1706 0.4 0.11 0.592 0.128 5.20 878 473 2333 113
AR3 664 280.75 8.01 229 1522 553 277 1.6 0.10 0.119 0.062 2.93 149 71.0 275 24.2
AR4 253 282.51 7.54 117 652 143 94 1.7 0.08 4.79 0.052 2.27 69 19.6 134 18.6
AR5 475 210.35 7.83 239 1392 599 181 0.8 0.02 0.189 0.085 3.04 113 47.0 303 19.6
AR7 423 247.03 7.81 157 961 334 120 6.4 0.01 0.066 0.045 3.06 114 33.7 189 13.4
AR8 701 188.89 7.74 317 1804 625 437 15.8 0.01 0.062 0.044 2.96 188 56.3 349 17.4
Hardnes Alkalini
Sample Lab pH Lab EC TDS Cl SO4 NO3 NO2 NH4 PO4 F Ca Mg Na K
s ty
mg/L as mg/L as mg/L as mg/L as mg/L as
mg/L pH units mS/m mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L
CaCO3 N N N P
AR9 570 276.2 7.76 241 1607 554 314 0.3 0.01 0.153 0.042 2.81 164 38.8 350 16.6
AR10 696 194.57 7.49 220 1404 543 231 15.0 <0.005 0.063 0.06 2.63 201 47.2 235 12.4
AR11 560 154.46 7.96 217 1392 547 259 7.8 0.25 0.063 0.044 2.97 149 45.6 273 15.1
AR12 718 172.98 7.54 333 1450 606 181 9.9 0.13 <0.015 <0.025 2.65 215 43.7 262 25.6
ACH1 83 26.61 6.69 31 172 47 44 3.7 <0.005 0.061 0.052 0.36 16 10.6 32 3.47
ACH2 761 209.59 7.49 414 2295 449 952 18.9 0.13 <0.015 <0.025 4.11 200 63.4 450 32.0
BCH1 394 267.79 7.39 158 916 294 89 7.9 0.02 0.092 0.053 3.29 103 33.3 208 16.8
BCH3 212 243.27 7.6 101 620 108 128 2.8 0.02 0.162 0.047 3.08 53 19.6 146 13.7
BCH4 351 211.38 7.65 139 827 248 128 12.1 0.01 0.069 <0.025 2.73 91 30.0 169 18.6
AGG1 753 123.01 7.04 348 2014 770 440 1.1 0.13 <0.015 <0.025 4.80 155 89.2 463 17.9
LUS1 352 208.74 7.65 138 899 247 202 12.1 0.07 <0.015 <0.025 2.81 92 30.0 170 18.6
MIN 57 19.91 5.81 24 116 28.7 22 <0.057 <0.005 <0.015 <0.025 <0.183 10 7.72 19 1.89
MAX 4139 591 8.67 1626 11097 5234 1706 32 0.25 7.56 0.21 5.20 878 473 2333 113
AVE 589 212 7.74 241 1472 558 264 6.59 0.08 0.66 0.08 2.78 140 58 301 17
Notes:
NV No value
Highlighted concentrations exceed DWAF water quality guidelines (target values) for domestic use
Concentrations underlined exceed DWAF water quality guidelines (target values) for livestock watering
Table 4.7 Trace Element Chemistry of Hydrocensus Boreholes
Sample Al Fe Mn Cr Cu Ni Zn Co Cd Pb As Ba U
mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L
DWAF
0.15 0.1 0.05 0.05* 1 NV 3 NV 0.005 0.01 0.01 NV 0.07
Domestic
DWAF
5 10 10 1 0.5 1 20 1 0.01 NV NV NV NV
Livestock
RS1 <0.006 <0.006 <0.001 <0.002 <0.001 <0.003 0.237 <0.002 <0.001 <0.001 <0.023 0.002 0.01
RS2+3 <0.006 <0.006 <0.001 <0.002 <0.001 <0.003 0.08 <0.002 <0.001 <0.001 <0.023 0.006 0.03
RS4 <0.006 <0.006 <0.001 <0.002 0.003 <0.003 0.13 <0.002 <0.001 <0.001 <0.023 0.011 0.02
RS5 <0.006 <0.006 <0.001 <0.002 <0.001 <0.003 0.012 <0.002 <0.001 0.002 <0.023 0.046 0.02
RS6 <0.006 <0.006 <0.001 <0.002 <0.001 <0.003 <0.004 <0.002 <0.001 <0.001 <0.023 0.03 0.02
RS7 <0.006 <0.006 <0.001 <0.002 <0.001 <0.003 <0.004 <0.002 <0.001 <0.001 <0.023 0.021 0.10
KGT1 <0.006 <0.006 <0.001 <0.002 <0.001 <0.003 0.014 <0.002 <0.001 0.003 <0.023 0.013 0.13
KGT2 <0.006 <0.006 <0.001 <0.002 0.004 <0.003 <0.004 0.003 <0.001 <0.001 <0.023 0.016 0.16
KGT3 <0.006 <0.006 <0.001 <0.002 <0.001 <0.003 0.005 <0.002 <0.001 <0.001 <0.023 0.001 0.12
KGT4 <0.006 0.869 <0.001 <0.002 <0.001 <0.003 0.025 <0.002 <0.001 <0.001 <0.023 0.011 0.08
KGT5 <0.006 <0.006 <0.001 <0.002 <0.001 <0.003 <0.004 0.002 <0.001 <0.001 <0.023 0.027 0.18
KGT7 <0.006 <0.006 <0.001 <0.002 0.047 0.036 <0.004 <0.002 <0.001 <0.001 <0.023 0.043 0.07
KGT8 <0.006 <0.006 <0.001 <0.002 <0.001 <0.003 <0.004 <0.002 <0.001 <0.001 <0.023 0.002 0.03
GAMS2 <0.006 <0.006 1.97 <0.002 <0.001 <0.003 1.147 <0.002 <0.001 <0.001 <0.023 0.017 <0.01
GAMS3 <0.006 <0.006 <0.001 <0.002 <0.001 <0.003 0.031 0.002 <0.001 0.002 <0.023 0.058 0.01
GAMS4 <0.006 <0.006 <0.001 <0.002 <0.001 <0.003 <0.004 <0.002 <0.001 <0.001 <0.023 0.036 0.02
GAMS5 0.138 84.32 69.3 <0.002 0.052 <0.003 11.25 0.006 <0.001 0.028 <0.023 0.017 0.16
GAMS6 <0.006 0.095 3.23 <0.002 <0.001 <0.003 0.027 0.004 <0.001 0.002 <0.023 0.025 <0.01
GAMS8 <0.006 0.009 0.419 <0.002 <0.001 <0.003 <0.004 0.002 <0.001 <0.001 <0.023 0.034 0.05
GAMS9 <0.006 <0.006 <0.001 <0.002 <0.001 <0.003 0.228 <0.002 <0.001 <0.001 <0.023 0.039 <0.01
GAMS10 <0.006 <0.006 0.062 <0.002 <0.001 <0.003 0.229 0.006 <0.001 <0.001 <0.023 0.033 <0.01
AR1 <0.006 <0.006 <0.001 <0.002 0.044 <0.003 <0.004 <0.002 <0.001 <0.001 <0.023 0.08 0.3
AR2 <0.006 <0.006 0.028 <0.002 0.103 <0.003 0.005 <0.002 <0.001 0.017 <0.023 0.231 0.32
AR3 <0.006 <0.006 <0.001 <0.002 0.005 <0.003 0.105 <0.002 <0.001 <0.001 <0.023 0.073 0.16
AR4 <0.006 0.136 0.218 <0.002 <0.001 <0.003 <0.004 <0.002 <0.001 0.006 <0.023 0.027 0.02
AR5 <0.006 <0.006 <0.001 <0.002 <0.001 <0.003 0.018 <0.002 <0.001 <0.001 <0.023 0.047 0.09
AR7 <0.006 <0.006 <0.001 <0.002 <0.001 <0.003 0.01 <0.002 <0.001 <0.001 <0.023 0.026 0.05
AR8 <0.006 <0.006 <0.001 <0.002 0.008 <0.003 0.052 <0.002 <0.001 <0.001 <0.023 0.047 0.09
AR9 <0.006 0.537 0.566 <0.002 <0.001 <0.003 0.006 0.002 <0.001 0.004 <0.023 0.048 0.09
AR10 <0.006 <0.006 <0.001 <0.002 <0.001 <0.003 0.018 <0.002 <0.001 0.003 <0.023 0.034 0.03
AR11 <0.006 <0.006 <0.001 <0.002 <0.001 <0.003 <0.004 <0.002 <0.001 0.001 <0.023 0.033 0.04
AR12 <0.006 <0.006 <0.001 <0.002 0.005 <0.003 <0.004 <0.002 <0.001 0.02 <0.023 0.033 0.05
ACH1 <0.006 <0.006 <0.001 <0.002 0.013 <0.003 0.092 <0.002 <0.001 <0.001 <0.023 0.03 <0.01
Sample Al Fe Mn Cr Cu Ni Zn Co Cd Pb As Ba U
mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L
ACH2 <0.006 <0.006 <0.001 <0.002 0.014 <0.003 0.031 <0.002 <0.001 0.015 <0.023 0.02 0.16
BCH1 <0.006 <0.006 <0.001 <0.002 <0.001 <0.003 0.639 <0.002 <0.001 <0.001 <0.023 0.008 0.08
BCH3 <0.006 0.024 <0.001 <0.002 <0.001 <0.003 <0.004 <0.002 <0.001 0.002 <0.023 0.019 0.06
BCH4 <0.006 0.424 <0.001 <0.002 <0.001 <0.003 0.006 0.004 <0.001 <0.001 <0.023 0.054 0.13
AGG1 <0.006 <0.006 <0.001 <0.002 0.01 <0.003 0.043 <0.002 <0.001 0.015 <0.023 0.065 0.05
LUS1 <0.006 0.233 <0.001 <0.002 <0.001 <0.003 0.006 <0.002 <0.001 <0.001 <0.023 0.029 0.13
MIN <0.006 <0.006 <0.001 <0.002 <0.001 <0.003 <0.004 <0.002 <0.001 <0.001 <0.023 0.001 <0.01
MAX 0.138 84.321 69.3 0.002 0.103 0.036 11.25 0.006 <0.001 0.028 <0.023 0.231 0.32
AVE 0.01 2.23 1.94 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.04 0.08
Notes:
NV No value
Highlighted concentrations exceed DWAF water quality guidelines (target values) for domestic use
Concentrations underlined exceed DWAF water quality guidelines (target values) for livestock watering
* Target value for chromium VI
4.9.2 Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Field versus Laboratory Data
The pH and EC were measured in the field during groundwater sampling

using calibrated equipment. For quality control purposes, these
measurements were repeated in the laboratory.
There is good agreement between field and laboratory data for EC, with a
slope of 0.90 and a correlation coefficient of 0.99. A poor correlation exists
between field pH measurements and the laboratory recorded pH (correlation
coefficient of 0.07). This is due to various factors such as changes in chemistry
that occur between sampling and laboratory analysis.
Due to the fact that field pH and EC measurements are only available for a
few of the samples, the decision was taken to use the laboratory pH and EC
data for the purpose of assessing water quality.
Anion-Cation Balance
The cation charge should equal the anion charge in a water sample. The
Anion-Cation Balance (ACB) is the difference between the anion and cation
charge and should be between -10% and 10%. Negative ACB values indicate
either low cations or high anions in the analysis, and could reflect an
analytical error, or an analyte that has not been included in the analysis.
The ACBs calculated for the analysed water samples range between -3.89%
and 7.03%. The data are therefore of acceptable quality.
Duplicate Analysis
Four duplicate samples were collected for the hydrocensus samples. The
chemical results of both the parent and the duplicate samples are presented in
Table 4.8.
The blind duplicate samples were submitted to the laboratory in order to

measure precision, which is calculated as Relative Percent Difference (%RPD).
A calculated RPD (%) range below 30% would be accepted as quality data,
whereas data outside of the acceptance criteria would require further
discussion and investigation.
The Relative Percent Difference is expressed as:

D1 − D 2
% RPD = ⋅ 100 ,
( D1 +D 2) / 2
Where: D1= parent sample concentration; and

D2=duplicate sample concentration.

63
Table 4.8 shows that the majority of RPDs calculated for KGT7, RS7 and
GAMS3 are below 30%. RPDs for a few duplicate samples are not within
acceptable ranges and are discussed below:
• The RPDs for nitrate in RS7, GAMS3 and BLH4 are 165%, 113% and
123%, respectively. This calls into question the confidence that can be
placed in nitrate results. Nitrate data should therefore be interpreted
with care;
• The RPDs for fluoride in RS7 and GAMS3 are 118% and 41%,
respectively. Although the latter represents a concentration difference
which is the same order of magnitude as the detection limit, the former
is an order of magnitude greater than the detection limit for fluoride.
Fluoride concentrations should therefore be interpreted with care.
• The RPDs for calcium in RS7 and BLH4 are 41% and 57.4%,
respectively. This calls into question the confidence that can be placed
in calcium results.
• RPDs for potassium in GAMS3 and BLH4 are 36% and 30%,
respectively. The repeatability of potassium analyses is therefore called
into question.
• The RPDs for chloride in GAMS3 and BLH4 are 48% and 77.6%,
respectively. This calls into question the confidence that can be placed
in chloride results, particularly mid-range concentrations.
• The RPD for alkalinity in GAMS3 is 51%. Alkalinity results are
therefore not repeatable within acceptable limits.
• The RPDs for nitrite and magnesium in BLH4 are 159% and 44%,
respectively. This calls into question the repeatability of nitrite and
magnesium data.
• The RPD for ammonium in BLH4 is 80%. However, this reflects a
difference of 0.09 mg/L, which is the same order of magnitude as the
detection limit. The repeatability of ammonium analyses is therefore
considered to be acceptable;
• The RPDs for barium in KGT7 and BLH4 are 92% and 96%,
respectively. Although these values reflect concentration differences of
0.02 mg/L and 0.03 mg/L, respectively, they are an order of
magnitude greater than the detection limit for barium. The
repeatability of barium analyses is therefore called into question.
• The RPDs for uranium in KGT7 and BLH4 are 55% and 74%,
respectively. However, these values reflect differences between the
parent and duplicate samples of 0.03 mg/L and 0.07 mg/L,
respectively, which are of the same order of magnitude as the
detection limit. The repeatability of uranium analyses is therefore
considered to be acceptable.
• RPDs for both zinc and cobalt in sample BLH4 are 67%. However,
these represent concentration differences of 0.006 mg/L and 0.002
mg/L, respectively, which are of the same orders of magnitude of the

64
laboratory detection limits. The repeatabilities of zinc and cobalt
analyses are therefore considered to be acceptable.
In summary, the repeatability of results for many parameters is poor, notably ,

nitrate, nitrite, fluoride, calcium, potassium, chloride, alkalinity, magnesium
and barium data.

65
Table 4.8 RPDs for detected analytes in hydrocensus duplicate samples
DUP1 DUP2 DUP3 DUP4 %RPD

Sample ID Units KGT7 %RPD RS7 %RPD GAMS3 %RPD BLH4
(KGT7) (RS7) (GAMS3) (BLH4)
pH 8.01 7.97 0.50 8.50 8.42 0.95 8.51 7.19 16.8 7.65 7.71 -0.8
EC mS/m 1021 1042 -2.0 125 112 12 117 115 1.4 139 102 30
Turbidity NTU 0.8 0.7 13 1.0 5.0 -135 5.3 3.6 39 11 12 -8.1
Total
mg/L 1680 1646 2.0 281 369 -27 361 406 -12 351 205 53
Hardness
SS mg/L 44 50 -13 10 9 11 9 15 -50 197 32 144
TDS mg/L 6444 6371 1.1 672 683 -1.6 679 708 -4.2 827 616 29
Alk mg/L 162 161 0.8 174 207 -17 204 344 -51 211 246 -15
Cl mg/L 3573 3473 2.8 217 174 22 178 108 48 248 110 78
SO4 mg/L 352 386 -9.3 106 143 -29 142 141 1.1 128 126 1.6
mg/L as
NO3 12 12 0.0 3.9 0.4 165 0.3 1.2 -113 12 2.9 123
N
mg/L as
NO2 0.1 0.1 0.8 0.2 <0.005 NA <0.005 <0.005 NA 0.01 0.07
N -159
mg/L as
NH4 0.1 0.1 -1.7 0.1 <0.015 NA <0.015 <0.015 NA 0.07 0.16
N -80
PO4 mg/L as P <0.025 <0.025 NA <0.025 <0.025 NA <0.025 <0.025 NA <0.025 0.0 NA
F mg/L 2.1 2.2 -3.8 4.2 1.1 118 1.0 0.7 41 2.7 3.1 -12
Ca mg/L 346 359 -3.7 54 81 -41 81 92 -13 91 50 57
Mg mg/L 198 182 8.6 36 40 -12 39 43 -10 30 19 44
Na mg/L 1791 1787 0.2 142 115 21 111 109 1.7 169 144 17
K mg/L 73 73 -0.8 4.2 4.7 -11 4.8 6.9 -36 19 14 30
Al mg/L <0.006 <0.006 NA <0.006 <0.006 NA <0.006 <0.006 NA <0.006 <0.006 NA
Fe mg/L <0.006 <0.006 NA <0.006 <0.006 NA <0.006 <0.006 NA 0.4 <0.006 NA
Mn mg/L <0.001 <0.001 NA <0.001 <0.001 NA <0.001 <0.001 NA <0.001 <0.001 NA
Cr mg/L <0.002 <0.002 NA <0.002 <0.002 NA <0.002 <0.002 NA <0.002 <0.002 NA
Cu mg/L 0.047 0.042 11 <0.001 0.001 NA <0.001 <0.001 NA <0.001 <0.001 NA
Ni mg/L 0.036 0.034 5.7 <0.003 <0.003 NA <0.003 <0.003 NA <0.003 <0.003 NA
Zn mg/L <0.004 <0.004 NA <0.004 <0.004 NA 0.031 <0.004 NA 0.006 0.012 -67
Co mg/L <0.002 <0.002 NA <0.002 <0.002 NA 0.002 <0.002 NA 0.004 0.002 67
Cd mg/L <0.001 <0.001 NA <0.001 <0.001 NA <0.001 <0.001 NA <0.001 <0.001 NA
Pb mg/L <0.001 <0.001 NA <0.001 <0.001 NA 0.002 <0.001 NA <0.001 0.004 NA
As mg/L <0.023 <0.023 NA <0.023 <0.023 NA <0.023 <0.023 NA <0.023 <0.023 NA
Ba mg/L 0.04 0.02 92 0.021 0.024 -13 0.058 0.068 -16 0.05 0.02 96
U mg/L 0.07 0.04 55 0.10 0.11 -10 0.01 0.01 0.0 0.13 0.06 74
Notes:
DUP Duplicate sample
RPD Relative percent difference
< Value smaller than the laboratory detection limit
NA RPD could not be calculated
4.9.3 Groundwater Quality Classification
Water quality in the study area was compared to the South African Water
Quality Guidelines for domestic purposes as well as livestock watering
(Department of Water Affairs and Foresty , 1996).
• Laboratory pH varies from 5.8 to 8.7. All but one of the pH

measurements (pH 5.8 in sample GAMS5) fall within the DWAF target
range for domestic water use (pH 6-9).
• Electrical conductivities range from 24 mS/m (GAMS9) to 1626 mS/m

(AR2). The majority of the EC values exceed the domestic water target
of 70 mS/m. The higher EC concentrations are generally detected in
boreholes located in the plains surrounding the Gamsberg inselberg.
Salts concentrating in the soil by evaporation of rainfall can be washed
through the soil by rainfall. As limited recharge occurs on the plains,
the concentration of salts in recharge is likely to be high. An
groundwater EC map is presented in Figure 4.14, which is based on the
average of all EC measurements at each borehole (from Table 4.2).
• Chloride concentrations range from 29 mg/L (GAMS5) to 5234 mg/L

(AR2). The majority of the groundwater samples exceed the DWAF
domestic target value of 100 mg/L for chloride. The target value for
livestock watering (1500 mg/L) is exceeded in three samples: KGT7,
AR1 and AR2.
• TDS concentrations reflect the EC values: TDS concentrations range

from 116 mg/L in GAMS9 to 11097 mg/L in AR2. The majority of the
samples exceed the target for domestic use (450 mg/L) and a number
of samples also exceed the target for livestock watering (1000 mg/L).
Higher TDS concentrations are detected in samples collected from
boreholes in the plains surrounding the Gamsberg inselberg.
• Sulphate concentrations range from 22 mg/L (GAMS9) to 1706 mg/L

(AR2). A number of samples exceed the domestic water target value of
200 mg/L. The sulphate concentration in sample AR2 (1706 mg/L)
exceeds the target for livestock watering (1000 mg/L). Well AR2 is
located in the kloof at the eastern end of Aggeneys Berg.
• Groundwater nitrate concentrations range from <0.057 mg/L (GAMS5)

to 32 mg/L (KGT3). A number of nitrate concentrations exceed the
DWAF target value for domestic water use (6 mg/L). Elevated levels
appear to be located on farms surrounding the inselberg and are
possibly related to livestock farming.

67
• Fluoride concentrations range from <0.183 mg/L (GAMS5) to 5.2
mg/L (AR2). The majority of the groundwater samples contain
concentrations exceeding both the domestic use and livestock watering
target values of 1 mg/L and 2 mg/L, respectively. Naturally occurring,
high levels of fluoride in groundwater in the Northern Cape are well
documented (Ncube & Schutte, 2005).
• Calcium concentrations in the groundwater samples range from 10

mg/L (GAMS9) to 878 mg/L (AR2). The majority of the samples have
concentrations exceeding the DWAF domestic target value of 32 mg/L.
• The concentrations of magnesium in the samples range from 7.72

mg/L (GAMS9) to 473 mg/L (AR2). The majority of the samples have
concentrations exceeding the DWAF domestic target value of 30 mg/L.
• Sodium concentrations in the groundwater samples range from 19

mg/L (GAMS5) to 2333 mg/L (AR2). The DWAF target value for
domestic use (100 mg/L) is exceeded in most of the samples and the
target value for livestock watering (2000 mg/L) is exceeded in one
sample (AR2).
• Potassium concentrations range from 1.89 mg/L (GAMS10) to 113

mg/L (AR2). The domestic use target value of 50 mg/L is exceeded in
three samples (KGT7, AR1 and AR2).
• The domestic use target values for iron (0.1 mg/L), manganese (0.05
mg/L) and lead (0.01 mg/L) are exceeded in several samples. The
highest iron (84.32 mg/L), manganese (69.3 mg/L) and lead (0.028
mg/L) concentrations were detected in sample GAMS5, which has the
lowest pH of any of the samples. Concentrations of iron and
manganese in this sample exceed the target values for livestock
watering. GAMS5 was also found to contain the highest concentration
of zinc (11.25 mg/L), exceeding the domestic target value of 3 mg/L.
• Almost half of the water samples contain uranium concentrations

exceeding the DWAF domestic target value of 0.07 mg/L.
Concentrations range from <0.01 to 0.32 mg/L (AR2). Occurrence of
elevated uranium in groundwater in the Northern Cape is well
documented (Van Wyk & Coetzee, 2008).
• Arsenic concentrations were reported as being below the laboratory

limit of detection (0.023 mg/L). This limit of detection, however, is
higher than the DWAF target value for domestic use.
The groundwater within the study area is considered to be unsuitable for

domestic use as well as livestock watering.

68
Elevated EC, TDS, chloride, sulphate, calcium, magnesium, sodium and zinc
are likely to affect the palatability of the groundwater, while nitrate, fluoride,
potassium, iron, manganese, lead and uranium present potential health risks.

69
Pella
Legend
18°49'30"E 18°55'0"E 19°0'30"E 19°6'0"E
( RS7
!
Electrical Conductivity (mS/m)
(
! No Data
Pella GBH09
!
(!
A
!
( < 150.00
29°8'0"S
29°8'0"S
!
( 150.01 - 300.00
KHÂI-MA GBH10
RS3
LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
!
(
!
A
!
( 300.01 - 500.00
!
( KHÂI-MA RURAL
GBH05
RS1
!
(RS2 !
( !
A
GBH07
!
( 500.01 - 1000.00
RS4 GBH01 (
!
!
A
!
( !
(
!
(
!
A
(
!
!
A
GBH02 !
(
GBH04
N14 GBH08
GBH06
!
A
!
( !
A
!
( 1000.01 - 1776.00
!
( !
A
AR11 AR10
National Route
1 !
( !
(
Main Road
(
!
AR 9
Secondary Road
AR 8 !
(
!
(AR12 N14
AGG1
Other Road
(
! !
( Track/Footpath
AR 7
AR 2 !
(
!
(! Ephemeral Rivers
C:\Users\Dell4\Documents\Thurlow Mapping\PRIVATE WORK\ERM\CONTRACT\GIS\0164903_GAMSBERG\MXD\MXD_REV2\BH_Electrical_Conductivity_Map_Rev2.mxd

( AR 1 25
(
!
AR 4 GAMS 8
AG1 (4
! Groundwater Domain Model
!
( !
( !
(
Town Boundary
29°13'30"S
29°13'30"S
(
!
AGGENEYS BH5
!
(
(!
! (
! (
!
(
(
!(
!
!
( GAMS 10
Flood Plains
!
( (23
! 27
AR 5 (
!
GAMS 7
(
! (
!
6
(
!
7
28
8
!!
((
BH 1
ACH2
(
!
9 ! BH 2
(
!
GAMB 1 (
To ! !
(
BLH4 (
! GAMS 9 !
(
( !
(
L oo
BLH3
!
( !
( (
!
p1 (!
!(!
! GAMS 3
0
(
(
!(
(!
!( (
!
(
!!
(
GAM 75
ACH1
4 BH6
N1 !
(
(
!
±
SCALE:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
KGT2
Kilometres
BLH1 16
!KGT1
( TITLE:
DG 77 !
( (
! ( KGT4
!
( !
A
!
(
!
KGT3 Figure: 4.10 EC as a measurement of
KGT8
groundwater quality
!
(
LUS1
29°19'0"S
29°19'0"S
!
( CLIENT:
DG 67 KGT5
!
( !
(
!
A
DG 68
!
( !
A

!
(
GAMS 6 GAMB 3
!
A
10
DRAWING: REV:
!
((
!
(
!
( !
A! !
!
A
!
( 0
GAMB 5
AA
!
BH_Electrical_Conductivity_Map_Rev2.mxd
A
BH 3
!!
A
DG 43
!
( ERM
KHÂI-MA RURAL
!
A

Silverwood Close
GAMB 4 !
(!
A Cape Town, SOUTH AFRICA
!
(
!
A
Tel: +27 (0)21 702 9100
Fax +27 (0)21 701 7900
18°49'30"E 18°55'0"E 19°0'30"E 19°6'0"E
4.9.4 Groundwater Characterisation / Fingerprinting
The hydrocensus groundwater results were plotted on a Piper diagram in

order to determine whether there are any groupings or trends within the data
(Figure 4.15).
Cations are generally more tightly clustered than anions, and indicate a
mixture of Na, Ca and Mg, with Na generally being the dominant ion. Anions
show a considerably wider spread, with most samples defining a trend from
alkalinity to chloride dominated. Samples that are alkalinity dominated
generally have lower EC than those that are chloride dominated, indicating an
evolution of water from fresher alkalinity dominated water to more saline
chloride dominated water. This is clearly illustrated in Figure 4.16, where
samples become more chloride dominated at higher EC. Salts are likely to
concentrate in soils following rainfall. Occasional heavy rainfall will leach the
accumulated salts into the groundwater. The lower the recharge, the more
salts can concentrate. Minerals will precipitate in soils in order of increasing
solubility ie calcite (CaCO 3 ) will precipitate before halite (NaCl), and will also
dissolve in order of decreasing solubility ie halite will dissolve before calcite.
This results in fractionation of salts with alkalinity remaining in the soil as
calcite, and chloride being transported into the groundwater, often at high
concentrations due to the accumulation of salts over time in the semi-arid
environment. Therefore, samples with higher alkalinity indicate recharge in
areas of higher rainfall and higher chloride indicates recharge in areas where
there is little rainfall. Alkalinity dominated samples are mostly located close
to the inselberg, which has a higher average rainfall than the surrounding
plains.
Some samples also indicate a tendency to sulphate dominance. These samples

are GAMS2, GAMS5, GAMS6 and ACH2. The GAMS samples are all within
the inselberg, and likely to be affected by the sulphide-rich ore deposit.
GAMS5 has the highest proportion of sulphate and the lowest pH of water
samples collected, and may indicate acid rock drainage.
Radial diagrams illustrating the different geochemical signatures (chloride

dominated, alkalinity dominated, sulphate dominated and chloride-alkalinity-
sulphate mixture) of the groundwater samples are presented in Figure 4.13.

71
Figure 4.15 Piper Diagram of the Groundwater Data
Figure 4.16 Changes in Chloride: Alkalinity Ratio with Increasing Salinity

73
Figure 4.17 Radial Diagrams
Group 1: Chloride dominated
Group 2: Alkalinity dominated
Figure 4.13 continued: Radial Diagrams

Group 3: Sulphate dominated
Group 4: Chloride-alkalinity-sulphate
4.9.5 Historical Groundwater Chemical Data
Temporal groundwater pH, EC and sulphate concentrations for selected

sampling locations (AG1, KGT2, ACH1, GAMS4, GAMS8 and GAMS10) are
presented in Figure 4.18 to Figure 4.20. These data represent sampling events
undertaken during 2001, 2009 and the most recent event, September 2012.
Although the data presented do not represent regular sampling intervals

during the 2001-2012 period, the graphs suggest the following:
• Relatively little fluctuation in pH and EC concentrations at the
sampling locations; and
• The groundwater sulphate concentration at AG1 was an order of
magnitude less during the 2001 sampling event than during the most
recent sampling event (September 2012).
Figure 4.18 Groundwater pH Measurements for selected sampling Locations (2001 -2012)

76
Figure 4.19 Groundwater EC (mS/m) Concentrations for selected sampling Locations
(2001 -2012)
Figure 4.20 Groundwater sulphate (mg/L) Concentrations for selected sampling Locations
(2001 -2012)

77
5 CONCEPTUAL MODEL
5.1 HYDROGEOLOGICAL CONCEPTUAL MODEL
The highly fractured and weathered hard rock terrain of the white quartzite
unit, the schist, and the gneiss, are considered to be water-bearing units, or
secondary permeability aquifers.
Based on observed groundwater level data on and around the Gamsberg it is

assumed that groundwater flow is radially outwards from the berg towards
the plains. Available data also indicates a preferential flow in the plains in a
north-east direction, mimicking a surface drainage channel which may have
structural control, and south-west direction.
Groundwater levels close to the inselberg are higher than the ones in the
plains and show a gradual increase in groundwater level closer to the
inselberg, very closely mimicking topography. The above indicates that the
groundwater flow in the Gamsberg is hydraulically connected to the
groundwater in the plains and that there is groundwater flow across the
geological units from the quartzite on Gamsberg, through the sillimanite
schist, to the gneiss on the plains. This is to be expected given the highly
faulted and folded environment, such that a typically low hydraulic
conductivity material such as a schist, becomes permeable. Pump test
information shows similar ranges of hydraulic conductivities in the gneiss,
schist and quartzite, and shows a broadly confined character in the pump test
curves.
The primary control on permeability is taken as structures and weathering

(related to depth from surface), rather than rock type, appreciating that un-
weathered units at depth can also be water bearing, and that fracturing
around major faults will increase hydraulic conductivity.
The piezometric contour map, is taken as indication that there is a driving

force for groundwater flow in the area ie there is effective recharge, and that
this recharge is higher on the inselberg. The higher recharge on the inselberg is
assumed caused by the increased infiltration capacity of the fractured
quartzite, with higher permeability and uneven surface reducing the effective
evaporation, and due to the potentially higher MAP on the inselberg. Due to
the high evaporation rates, it is assumed there is zero effective recharge on the
plains, which may be supported by the lower EC on the Gamsberg and in
boreholes close to the Gamsberg than on the plains.
Groundwater discharge, of water recharged at Gamsberg, is on the form of:

1) springs in the kloof on the northern side of Gamsberg, and on the east
of the Gamsberg;

78
2) through direct evapotranspiration losses in tree lined ephemeral
drainage lines and from the water table, where sufficiently shallow;
and
3) through lateral flow at great distances from the project area, as the
peizometric map indicates groundwater flow out of the area of interest
towards the northeast and southwest.
5.2 SOURCE – PATH – RECEPTOR APPROACH
In terms of the Environmental Impact Assessment the following potential

activities are assessed for their potential impact on groundwater resource
availability (drawdown and natural flow regime), and on groundwater
quality:
• Mine dewatering and the associated pit lake or sink

• Tailings storage facilities
• Waste rock dumps
The pathway considered in this study is saturated groundwater flow.
The receptors under consideration are:
• Groundwater, as a resource
• Users of groundwater, including
o Privately owned boreholes
o The environment, ie groundwater discharge to springs, and
plants or trees dependent on shallow groundwater
5.3 TRANSLATION TO NUMERICAL MODEL
The vertical distribution of hydraulic conductivity (K) in the area is not

known. Although weathering will decrease with depth, open water bearing
fractures will occur at depth. Without information on the likely decrease in K
with depth, a conservative approach is followed assuming constant K values
to 550mamsl (final depth of the pit). This assumption could result in an
overestimation of pit inflows at depth, however, low inflows are expected and
the overestimation is not expected to be significant.
Given the conceptual approach to the vertical distribution of hydraulic

conductivity, a two-dimensional (2D) model is applied. AATS (2000) also
applied a 2D model. This assumption is valid for aquifers that have a
horizontal extent that is much larger than the aquifer thickness, which is the
case for the Gamsberg model. Further, the assumption is valid in aquifers
where the vertical flow component is negligible (Barnett, et al., 2012).

79
The conceptual understanding of the groundwater flow regime is shown in
below. This figure also includes representation of various features in the
numerical model which are described in more detail in Section 6.1 below.

80
Figure 5.1 Conceptual Model of groundwater flow regime

81
5.4 ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTUAL MODELS
The conceptual model applied, essentially that there is a hydraulic continuum

between the geological units and constant hydraulic conductivity with depth,
is a simplification of the natural system, necessary and appropriate for this
modelling exercise.
Although this conceptual approach is the same as previous hydrogeological

investigations at Gamsberg (AATS (2000), SRK (2010)), it is not a conceptual
approach shared by all (pers comm Rod Cameron, AMEC, 2013). Alternative
assumptions, not held by the authors of this report, are that the schist acts as a
barrier to groundwater flow, thus separating the white quartzite as a perched
aquifer system, and the gneiss as a separate aquifer system. If there was a
hydraulic separation, any impacts associated with de-watering in the
quartzite, would be separated from the gneiss based on the schist as a
hydraulic barrier.
Given that the water level data is interpreted to indicate hydraulic continuum,
and that a hydraulic continuum allows a more conservative scenario of
transmission of impact to be assessed, this is the appropriate approach for an
impact assessment modelling exercise. It allows a monitoring plan to be
established based on a realistic yet conservative understanding of the natural
system. Furthermore, the worth of representing 3D complexity in a model
which by definition is low confidence, (due to the long timescale prediction,
and the calibration with stresses less than those modelled), is questionable.
It is recommended that the hydraulic continuum conceptual approach be

tested with targeted field investigations, and once further information on
geological and hydrogeological characteristics are known, the model be
updated to a 3D construction.

82
6 GROUNDWATER FLOW AND TRANSPORT MODELS
6.1 BASE CASE MODEL SETUP
6.1.1 Model Domain
Groundwater level measurements indicate that groundwater flow is similar to

surface drainage lines. There are two distinct surface drainage features present
in the area around the Gamsberg, being:
1. Northern system comprising drainage from the Gamsberg northerly

through the Kloof towards the north-east in the direction of the Orange
River; and
2. Southern system draining from the Gamsberg to the south and south-west.
The proposed Gamsberg mine is situated on a surface and groundwater

divide and can therefore influence both northern and southern drainage
systems. Therefore both catchments have been included in the model domain
with the Gamsberg Inselberg at the centre. A rectangular model domain of
34km (west to east) and 29km (north to south) was chosen (shown as a red box
in all maps), which is very similar to the Anglo model (AATS, 2000). The area
was selected such that the model boundaries are far enough away from the
area of interest so as not to negatively impact on results.
6.1.2 Boundary Conditions
Groundwater Flow Boundaries
The following external boundary conditions were implemented in the model:
• Groundwater outflow boundary in the north-east modelled using hydraulic

head(Dirichlet) boundary condition (BC) with variable head based on
topography between 650 and 790mamsl;
• Groundwater outflow boundary in the south-west modelled using
hydraulic head (Dirichlet) BC with a head of 650mamsl; and
• No-flow boundary condition for the rest of the model boundary.
Recharge
A groundwater recharge rate of 2 mm/a was used over the three inselbergs
located within the model domain, Gamsberg, Aggenys-se-Berge and Achab-
se-Berge (see Section 4.6).
Groundwater Abstraction
Existing (known) farm abstraction boreholes within the model domain were
included in the steady state model. Table 6.1 details the abstraction rates

83
implemented in the model, which are based on SRK (2010) (and are also
reflected in Table 4.2). Mine boreholes on the Gamsberg (BH5, GAMS3 and
GAMS6) were not included as they are not actively pumping.
Table 6.1 Abstraction Boreholes
ID Farm Owner X Y Abstraction Rate (m3/d)

ACH2 Achab Girrie v/d Heever 309954 6762989 2.5
AG1 Aggeneys Abrie van Niekerk 296586 6766133 3.3
AR1 Aroams Mine 296967 6767933 4.9
BLH1 Blomhoek Albertus Roux 304484 6757668 5.2
KGT1 Kykgat Jan Visser 311657 6758480 5.2
KGT2 Kykgat Jan Visser 311660 6758543 2.5
KGT3 Kykgat Tertius Visser 312878 6757672 1.4
RS1 Rosynebos Danie Luttig 287124 6773004 3.3
Abstraction boreholes were implemented using the Well BC in the model.

Locations of the boreholes are depicted in Figure 6.1. In the model, abstraction
points were allocated a BC at the closest available node. This resulted in
locations slightly different from the surveyed locations. In the event that
several boreholes came to lie at the same node due to the proximity of these to
each other, abstraction rates were summed (RS2 and RS3; KGT1 and KGT2;
KGT3 and KGT4).

84
Figure 6.1 Location of Abstraction Boreholes
Springs
Eight springs were implemented in the model using Seepage Face BCs (Dirichlet
BC with a maximum flow constraint = 0m3/d). The spring locations are
depicted in Figure 6.2. Spring GAMS9 to the east of the Gamsberg and ACH1
on the Achab-se-Berge were included as well as six springs along the Kloof
including GAMS7. The locations of springs in the Kloof were based on field
observations.

85
Figure 6.2 Location of Modelled Springs
GAMS7
GAMS9
ACH1
6.1.3 Model Geometry and Discretisation
The numerical simulation of groundwater flow and transport by finite

element method as used in FEFLOW requires a spatial discretization of the
aquifer parameters across a triangular mesh. The Triangle Mesh Generator
(Shewchuk, 1996) was used to generate a triangular mesh with local
refinement in the project area (x20) and a one kilometre wide buffer zone
around the project area (x10). Therefore, element size in the groundwater
model grid is variable.
Figure 6.3 depicts the mesh including refinement used for the steady state
model, containing 11 887 elements and 5 968 nodes in total. The model was
subsequently refined during transient flow and transport modelling (Section
6.3.1).

86
Figure 6.3 Model Mesh
TSF
WRDs
Pit
Notes: TSF Tailings Storage Facility

WRDs Waste Rock Dumps
6.1.4 Model Dimension
The model dimension should be chosen based on the dimensions needed to

describe the key processes controlling groundwater movement. For this
modelling exercise a two-dimensional (2D) areal flow model was constructed
(see Section 5.3).
6.1.5 Aquifer Type
Based on the available aquifer test data, the responses observed in the tested
boreholes indicate confined behaviour as expected from a fractured aquifer
(refer Section 4.5). Therefore the aquifer was modelled as a confined aquifer.
6.1.6 Hydraulic Properties
Transmissivity
In a 2D confined model, transmissivity (T) is used directly as an input

parameter. T relates to hydraulic conductivity (K) as follows:
𝑇 =𝐾∙𝐷 where D is aquifer thickness

87
Different T zones were implemented broadly based on surface geology
(Section 3.5.1, Figure 3.10) and T was calibrated during steady state calibration.
T zones are depicted in Figure 6.4.
• T1 – Gamsberg inner zone (amphibolite, quartz-muscovite schist, Gams

iron formation, dark quartzite and white quartzite at depth);
• T2 – Gamsberg outer zone (mainly white quartzite, sillmanite schist);
• T3 – Drainage lines to north-east (fault-zone);
• T4 – Aggenys-se-Berge;
• T5 – Achab-se-Berge;
• T6 – Sediments; and
• T7 – Plains (granite gneiss).
The fault-zone inferred by AATS (2000) to the south and west of the Gamsberg
was not implemented in this model for following reasons:
• Although the western portion of the fault is marked on the 1 : 250 000
geological map (Figure 3.8), the portion close to the Gamsberg was
inferred by AATS (2000);
• One borehole (BLH3) had an elevated K value based on slug tests (AATS,
2000) and was interpreted to have intersected a fault;
• AATS (2000) assumed that the intersected fault was an extension of the
major fault indicated further west on maps, and included the fault to
model a worst case scenario based on the previous position of the tailings
storage facility, which was moved to the north; and
• This fault is not expected to have any influence on the results of this
modelling exercise due to the location of potential sources and receptors.

88
Figure 6.4 Transmissivity Zones
TSF
T3
T7
T4
WRDs
T2
T1
T5
T6 Pit
6.2 STEADY STATE CALIBRATION
During steady state calibration groundwater transmissivity was optimized in

order to best fit groundwater elevations observed in the model domain.
Surface topography was used as an additional optimisation criterion in areas
where no groundwater levels were available, ie model was not allowed to be
flooded.
Calibration was performed using both manual and automated methods. For
automated parameter estimation methods PEST (Doherty, Brebber, & Whyte,
1994) was used.
6.2.1 Observation points
Available groundwater level data was studied carefully and suitable

boreholes were selected as observations for model calibration (Table 6.2).
Sources included AATS (2000), SRK (2010), Golder (2007) and the recent ERM
hydrocensus (Section 2.2.1 and Table 4.2). Abstraction boreholes and springs
were excluded from calibration.

89
Table 6.2 Observation Data
Groundwater
Level
BH_ID X (m) Y (m) (mamsl)
AR_4 299924 6766289 875
AR_5 298288 6764796 861
AR_7 299667 6768481 917
AR_9 301250 6770394 926
AR11 299975 6771506 942
BH_1 305582 6763141 957
BH_3 302053 6761867 1003
BH11 302453 6761774 992
BH5 303692 6765160 909
BLH3 296700 6762667 822
BLH4 297929 6762933 841
DG_67 301912 6762119 1002
DG_68 302104 6762032 1005
DG_77 302492 6762353 992
GAM_75 303387 6761849 988
GAMB_1 302576 6762724 987
GAMB_4 302136 6761748 1008
GAMB_5 302239 6761931 998
GAMS_10 307711 6764644 834
GAMS_3 304001 6762363 990
GAMS_8 302420 6766451 877
LUS1 307422 6755398 851
No1 296591 6770869 929
No10 302423 6761925 985
No16 308028 6757770 864
No23 304961 6764856 889
No25 310235 6767651 842
No27 316036 6764674 833
No28 313482 6763587 833
No4 304749 6766594 858
No6 301909 6764417 998
No8 300731 6763632 986
No9 301259 6763315 987
Notes: Co-ordinates in WGS84 – UTM 34S
BH ID Borehole Identification
6.2.2 Steady State Calibration Results
Groundwater Levels and Flow Direction
Piezometric heads for the calibrated steady state models range from
650 mamsl in the north-east of the model domain to 1,130 mamsl on the
Gamsberg. The main groundwater flow directions are from the Gamsberg in
north-easterly and south-westerly direction (Figure 6.5).

90
Figure 6.5 Steady State Piezometric Head Distribution
Scatter Diagram
Calculated piezometric heads were compared to observed heads in Figure 6.6.

The root mean square error (RMSE) of the model calibration is 20 m, which is
considered to be sufficiently small, given the model area, limited data and
given that the maximum head difference over the model area is 480 m.

91
Figure 6.6 Scatter Diagram of Calculated vs. Observed Heads
Calibrated Parameters
Optimised transmissivity (T) values are between 5·10-3 and 1·101 m2/d (Table
6.3). Higher T values were obtained for T3 (drainage lines to north-east) and
T6 (quaternary sediments) enabling water drainage in the plains towards the
modelled outflow boundaries.
Table 6.3 Optimised Transmissivity (T) Values
T Zone Description T (m2/d)

T1 Gamsberg inner zone (amphibolite, quartz-muscovite schist, Gams iron 3E-01
formation, dark quartzite and white quartzite at depth);
T2 Gamsberg outer zone (mainly white quartzite, sillmanite schist) 3E-02
T3 Drainage lines to north-east (fault-zone) 7E+00
T4 Aggenys-se-Berge 1E-01
T5 Achab-se-Berge 5E-03
T6 Quaternary Sediments 1E+01
T7 Plains (granite gneiss) 4E-01

92
Groundwater Balance
The steady state water budget of the whole model domain is shown in Table
6.4. In flux represents water flowing into the groundwater system
(aquifer/model) and out flux represents water leaving the system
(groundwater discharge).
Water flows into the model domain via recharge on the inselbergs (535 m3/d)
and leaves the model through regional groundwater outflows in the north-
east (330 m3/d) and south-west (150 m3/d) of the model domain. Further,
groundwater is removed from the system by water abstraction from farm
boreholes (50 m3/d) and through springs. Discharging springs includes
GAMS7 in the Kloof (1 m3/d) and GAMS9 to the east of the Gamsberg (4
m3/d).
It was not possible to re-create the conditions of the Kloof springs (i.e
groundwater at surface at discrete points). Only one of the modelled springs
in the Kloof actively discharges water under pre-mining conditions (GAMS7).
This is an effect of the scale of the model, indicating that small scale features
cannot be represented in the regional model. This indicates that the
groundwater table may be not so close to surface in places, and local scale
structural control allows groundwater to seep to surface at the springs
combined with topographical control.
Also, spring ACH1 east of the Gamsberg did not flow in the model. However,
there is very limited data available for this region (Achab-se-Berge) and
considering the distance of this spring from the planned mining operations,
this does not represent a major issue.
In a steady state system total inflow and total outflow fluxes are equal. Total
flux into and leaving the model domain equals 535 m3/d.
Table 6.4 Groundwater Budget Steady-State Calibration
In-Flux Out-Flux
Flow Component (m3/d) (m3/d)
Recharge 535
Regional Groundwater Outflow 480
Well Abstraction 50
Springs 5
Sums 535 535
Confidence Levels
PEST provides 95 % confidence limits for estimated parameter values, which

are displayed in Table 6.5. Confidence limits give an indication of the
parameter uncertainty where high confidence limit intervals indicate
uncertain parameters.

93
The most uncertain parameter is T5 (Achab-se-Berge) and T4 (Aggenys-se-
Berge), where no observation points were available for calibration. 95 %
confidence intervals for other parameters are mostly within one order of
magnitude.
Table 6.5 95% Confidence Intervals (PEST)
T Zone Calibrated Value (m2/d) 95% Lower Limit 95% Upper Limit
T1 3E-01 2E-02 5E+00
T2 3E-02 2E-02 5E-02
T3 7E+00 3E+00 1E+01
T4 1E-01 6E-03 1E+00
T5 5E-03 5E-229 4E+219
T6 1E+01 5E+00 3E+01
T7 4E-01 2E-01 1E+00
Sensitivity Analysis
Sensitivity analysis was carried out using PEST for transmissivity and
recharge. Figure 6.7 presents the relative sensitivities for the respective
parameters. Relative sensitivity of a parameter is a measure of the changes in
model outputs that are incurred by a change in the value of the parameter
(Doherty, Brebber, & Whyte, 1994).
The most sensitive parameter is recharge (RCH). Sensitivities of

transmissivities are generally one to two orders of magnitude lower than of
recharge. The most sensitive transmissivity parameter is T2 (Gamsberg outer
zone) followed by the T6 (quart. sediments), T3 (drainage lines to north-east)
and T7 (plains).
Changes in sensitive parameters (RCH, T2) will have a greater impact on the
model output than less sensitive parameters.

94
Figure 6.7 Sensitivity Analysis Results
1.E+03
1.E+02
Relative Sensitivity [-]

1.E+01
1.E+00
1.E-01
1.E-02
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 RCH
6.3 MINE AND POST CLOSURE MODEL SETUP
During model setup, the steady state groundwater flow model is converted
into a transient (“time-dependent”) groundwater flow model in order to run a
number of simulations and predictive model scenarios.
The planned open pit mine with associated waste rock dumps (WRDs) and a
tailings storage facility (TSF) were modelled. The location of these
infrastructure components is presented in Figure 6.8.

95
Figure 6.8 Modelled Mine Infrastructure
TSF
WRDs
Pit
The geometry of the model domain, boundaries and discretization were taken
from the steady state model as well as the optimized time-independent
parameters like transmissivities and recharge values. Further, the solution of
the calibrated steady state model was used as initial hydraulic head
distribution for the transient models.
The model setup for the mining and post-closure models is detailed in the
following sections.
6.3.1 Groundwater Flow Model
Open Pit Mining
The open pit mining operation was implemented in the models using yearly
time steps according to the mine plan and schedule supplied by the client.
Mining progress plans (mining schedule) indicate the stages of the proposed
mine on an annual basis over a time period of 19 years. The open pit is
partitioned into five pushbacks, which are depicted in Figure 6.9. The yearly
production schedule detailing the pit bottom per year is detailed in Annex B.

96
Open pit groundwater inflows were modelled using Hydraulic Head (Dirichlet)
BCs with the head value of the BC equal to the pit bottom in the respective
pushback at any given time (Table 6.6). A maximum flow constraint was
implemented to prevent recharge from the pit.
Figure 6.9 Pushbacks
3 5
Table 6.6 Time Series Pit Bottom Elevation
Push back 1 Push back 2 Push back 3 Push back 4 Push back 5
Constant Constant Constant Constant Constant
Head Head Head Head Head
Time Elevation Time Elevation Time Elevation Time Elevation Time Elevation
[days] [mamsl] [days] [mamsl] [days] [mamsl] [days] [mamsl] [days] [mamsl]
365 1100 1095 1100 1095 1100 1095 1100 2920 1100
730 1040 1460 1040 1460 1080 1460 1100 3285 1100
1095 950 1825 970 1825 1060 1825 1100 3650 1100
1460 870 2190 880 2190 1020 2190 1100 4015 1000
1825 800 2555 780 2555 970 2555 1100 4380 1000
2920 730 2920 730 2920 890 2920 1090 4745 960
4380 700 4380 700 3285 840 3285 1010 5110 910
5840 650 5840 650 3650 800 3650 950 5475 840
7300 550 7300 550 4015 740 4015 930 5840 750
4380 700 4380 850 6205 680
5840 650 4745 790 6570 640
7300 550 5110 730 6935 570
5475 680 7300 550
5840 650

97
Push back 1 Push back 2 Push back 3 Push back 4 Push back 5
Constant Constant Constant Constant Constant
Head Head Head Head Head
Time Elevation Time Elevation Time Elevation Time Elevation Time Elevation
[days] [mamsl] [days] [mamsl] [days] [mamsl] [days] [mamsl] [days] [mamsl]
7300 550
Groundwater recharge over the pit void whilst being mined was set at zero.
The groundwater model results therefore calculated the net volume of
groundwater inflow into the pit, and do not contain the additional volume of
direct rainfall to the open pit. These were, however, added to the pit water
balance.
Waste Rock Dumps
A raised water table can be expected under WRDs compared to the pre
mining situation, caused by the increase in recharge over the dump. This is in
turn caused by the disruption of natural material, increase in hydraulic
conductivity and the higher porosity of the dumps reducing the amount of
surface runoff and increasing the amount of infiltration. An increase in
recharge to 20% MAP (30 mm/a) was incorporated in the model over the
footprint of the two WRDs (Vermeulen, 2006).
Due to the expected high porosity and hydraulic conductivity of the waste
rock material, it is assumed that no groundwater mounding will happen in the
dumps. Therefore, toe seeps were modelled at ground level using Hydraulic
Head (Dirichlet) BCs with variable head based on topography, including a
maximum flow constraint to prevent inflow.
Tailings Storage Facility
Tailings (slurry) deposition will commence in year 2 and continue up until the
end of mining in year 19 according to the mine plan provided by the client.
For the geochemical assessment a TSF water balance was estimated based on
the available data (Geochemistry Specialist Study).
Based on information received from Ciaran Molloy (AMEC), the following

was assumed:
• A saturated pond will form on the surface of the TSF with an area of 30%
of the total surface area of the top;
• The phreatic surface within the TSF was assumed at one third of the
embankment height at the respective time during operation; and
• The embankment height will increase linearly with time up to the
maximum height of 70 m and initial elevation is assumed at 950 mamsl.
The TSF was modelled using Fluid-Transfer BC (3rd kind or Cauchy type) with
the head set at the embankment height in the respective year of development.

98
The time series for the BC head is detailed in Table 6.7. The in-transfer rate was
set to 5·10-5 m/d representing the fine grained (clayey) tailings material
(Freeze & Cherry, 1979).
Table 6.7 Time Series TSF Head
Year of Operation Hydraulic Head [mamsl]
1 920.0
2 950.0
3 954.1
4 958.2
5 962.4
6 966.5
7 970.6
8 974.7
9 978.8
10 982.9
11 987.1
12 991.2
13 995.3
14 999.4
15 1003.5
16 1007.6
17 1011.8
18 1015.9
19 1020.0
20 920.0
Transient Hydrogeological Parameters
Transient simulations require a storage coefficient (S) to be defined. In a 2D

confined model the storage coefficient relates to specific storage (SS) as follows:
𝑆 = 𝑆𝑆 ∙ 𝐷 where D is aquifer thickness
Specific storage is the amount of water per unit volume of a saturated

formation that is stored or expelled from storage owing to compressibility of
the mineral skeleton and the pore water per unit change in head.
No field measurements were available for this parameter and therefore a

storage coefficient of 10-3 was implemented based on AATS (2000). The
sensitivity of this parameter was tested.

99
Simulation Time and Discretisation
Based on the mine schedule provided by the client, a mining period of 19

years was modelled. Following mine closure, a post-closure period of an
additional 100 years was modelled.
Time step size was automatically determined in FEFLOW using the second
order accurate (AB/TR 1) predictor-corrector scheme. An initial time-step length
of 10-3 d was used and a final simulation time of 43 800 d.
Mesh Refinement
The finite element (FE) mesh was subsequently refined in proximity of the
modelled mine infrastructure (pit, WRDs and TSF) to ensure numerical
stability. The final FE mesh is presented in Figure 6.10.
The total number of elements increased to 44 385 and nodes to 22 217.

Element side lengths of approximately 20 m in and around the pit and 80 m in
and around the WRDs and TSF were implemented.
1 Forward Adams-Bashforth/Backward Trapezoid rule (AB/TR) time integration scheme

100
Figure 6.10 Finite Element Mesh used for Mine and Post-Closure Models
TSF
WRDs
Pit
6.3.2 Transport Model
Groundwater quality impacts of the proposed project were assessed using

transient solute transport modelling. Contamination sources identified in the
conceptual model were considered for the transport model and included
WRDs and TSF.
Sulphate (SO 4 ) was selected as an indicator of contamination for the transport

model. Sulphate is a conservative tracer (transported via advection and
dispersion), providing an indication of the maximum potential contaminant
extent. The geochemical assessment (Geochemistry Specialist Study) identified a
number of additional contaminants of concern including Fe, Mn, Zn, Cu, Cd,
Pb, As and NO 3 . These were, however, not modelled because they are not
conservative tracers and therefore their concentration is dependent on
chemical reactions, adsorption etc. In order to produce meaningful results
detailed input data is required, which was not available.
Baseline SO 4 groundwater concentrations were not implemented into the

model, in order to assess the impact strictly in relation to additional

101
contamination emerging from mining activities. The actual concentration can
be estimated by adding the predicted value from the model to the measured
baseline concentration (an average of 257 mg/l, and up to 1706 mg/l).
Source Terms
Sulphate leachate concentrations calculated by geochemical modelling (ERM,

2013) were implemented as Mass-Sources to simulate leaching of SO 4 from
WRDs and TSF. For the WRDs a constant concentration of 1 770 mg/L was
implemented for the entire life-of-mine and post-closure periods. The
groundwater recharge was loaded with this concentration resulting in a
source value of 0.15 g/m2/day.
The SO 4 leachate concentrations for the TSF vary with time from 670 mg/L in
year 2 to 12 110 mg/L in year 19 (end of mining) (Figure 6.11). After mine
closure, the tailings disposal will cease and the remaining water body on top
of the TSF will be drained. Therefore the Mass-Source was switched off after
closure. Leachate rates were calculated by the model to between 20 and 80
m3/d, which were loaded with the respective concentrations resulting in
source values of 0.02 to 2 g/m2/day.
Figure 6.11 Sulphate Leachate Concentration - Tailings Storage Facility
Transport Parameters
The primary mechanisms that control the transport of solutes (contaminants)

in porous aquifers are advection and hydrodynamic dispersion. Advection is the
mass transport caused by the bulk movement of flowing groundwater.

102
Contaminant transport influenced by advection only, will move in the
direction of the groundwater flow at the rate of the mean groundwater flow
velocity. Hydrodynamic dispersion occurs as a result of mechanical
dispersion and molecular diffusion.
Dispersive spreading causes a gradual dilution of the contaminant plume

within and transverse to the main flow direction. Solutes that are controlled
primarily by advection and dispersion are termed conservative. Anions, such
as chloride, sulphate or nitrates are conservative tracers and its migration in
groundwater is therefore primarily controlled by advective and dispersive
flux.
A number of reasonable assumptions for transport parameters had to be made

because of the lack of site specific data, which are detailed in this paragraph.
A sensitivity analysis was conducted in order to assess the relative sensitivity
of the model with respect to a number of input parameters.
No site specific field measurements are available for dispersivity. As a

conservative assumption, the horizontal longitudinal dispersivity (α L ) is
approximately 0.1 of the advective travel distance of the plume. Therefore a
model was run with only advection to determine the relevant plume extent,
which is approximately 1 500 m. Therefore an α L of 150 m was used in the
models. Horizontal transversal dispersivity (α T ) was assumed at one tenth of
αL.
No site specific field measurements are available for molecular diffusion

either. The molecular diffusion coefficient (D) is generally very small and
negligible compared to the mechanical dispersion and is only important when
groundwater velocity is very low. For major ions in water, D ranges from
1*10-9 to 2*10-9 m2/s (Fetter, 2001). A conservative, effective diffusion
coefficient (D*) of 1*10-9 m2/s (9*10-5 m2/d) was used in the models (1).
Porosity of fractured rock is reported to be between 0.00 and 0.05 (Freeze &
Cherry, 1979). A conservative value of 0.005 was used for the model. Further,
an average aquifer thickness of 100m was used. Table 6.8 shows a summary of
transport parameters used in the model.
Table 6.8 Transport Parameters used in Solute Transport Model
Transport Parameter Unit Value

Porosity - 0.005
Aquifer Thickness m 100
Horizontal Longitudinal Dispersivity m 150
Horizontal Transversal Dispersivity m 15
Effective Molecular Diffusion Coefficient m2/day 9E-05
(1) 1(Freeze & Cherry, 1979) determined D* = ω D, with ω ranging from 0.5 to 0.01 for species that are not absorbed onto the
mineral surface. A conservative value of 0.5 was therefore assumed for ω.

103
6.3.3 Model Setup Summary
A schematic sketch of the mining processes and their representation in the

numerical model is shown in Figure 6.12 for during mining, and Figure 6.13
for post mining, which summarises the input parameters described above.
Figure 6.12 Model representation of mining processes

104
Figure 6.13 Model representation of post operation processes

105
7 MINE AND POST CLOSURE MODEL RESULTS
7.1 FLOW MODEL RESULTS
7.1.1 Pit Inflow Rates
Pit inflow rates were modelled for the life of mine and 100 years post closure.
The pit inflow rates averaged for each year are given in Table 7.1. Inflow rates
increase from 0 L/s in year one to 10 L/s (890 m3/d) in year 19. AATS (2000)
had a result of 8 L/s as the maximum inflow – thus these results are similar.
After mine closure the inflow rates steadily decrease to 3 L/s (240 m3/d) at
100 years post-closure (year 119), because the gradient towards the pit is
reduced.
Table 7.1 Yearly Pit Inflow Rates
Year Pit Inflow Rates in L/s Pit Inflow Rates in m3/d

1 0 0
2 0 0
3 1 70
4 3 250
5 3 270
6 3 280
7 5 440
8 5 430
9 4 340
10 3 240
11 5 470
12 4 350
13 5 470
14 5 400
15 6 560
16 7 570
17 6 520
18 9 760
19 10 890
69 3 300
119 3 240
A simplified pit water balance is shown in Table 7.2. Water sources in the pit
water balance are (i) groundwater inflows (pit inflows), (ii) direct rainfall into
the pit and (iii) surface water run-off into the pit; and the only sink is
evaporation.
Following a conservative approach, a relatively high annual rainfall of 180

mm/a and a relatively low evaporation rate of 2 650 mm/a was assumed.
This simplified water balance does not take into account surface water run-off
into the pit. At the time of this assessment, the surface water run-off into the

106
pit was only available for the post-closure period (5 m3/d). However,
compared to the overall deficit this volume is negligible.
The water balance calculation suggests that there is a water deficit in every
year due to the high evaporation in the area hence the maximum inflow of 10
L/s during year 19 is unlikely to be visible. Therefore it is currently believed
that there will be no need for active pumping on a regular basis. However,
due to the nature of rainfall patterns in the area (Section 3.3), it is possible that
periodical pumping is needed following rain events.
Table 7.2 Yearly Pit Water Balance
Sources Sink Balance

Groundwater Direct Rainfall Evaporation
Year [m3/d]
Inflows [m3/d] [m3/d] [m3/d]
1 0 280 4 170 -3 890
2 0 280 4 170 -3 890
3 70 280 4 170 -3 820
4 250 280 4 170 -3 640
5 270 580 8 540 -7 690
6 280 580 8 540 -7 690
7 440 580 8 540 -7 520
8 430 910 13 370 -12 030
9 340 910 13 370 -12 120
10 240 910 13 370 -12 220
11 470 910 13 370 -11 990
12 350 1 200 17 620 -16 070
13 470 1 200 17 620 -15 960
14 400 1 200 17 620 -16 030
15 560 1 200 17 620 -15 860
16 570 1 480 21 740 -19 700
17 520 1 480 21 740 -19 750
18 760 1 480 21 740 -19 510
19 890 1 480 21 740 -19 380
69 300 1 480 21 740 -19 970
119 230 1 480 21 740 -20 030
7.1.2 Hydraulic Head Change and Drawdown Cones
The modelled change in hydraulic head across the modelled domain is shown
in Figure 7.1 (north to south) and Figure 7.2 (west to east) as cross-section
graphs of hydraulic head at different times, including (i) pre-mining, (ii) end
of mining and (iii) 100 years after mine closure. The location of the different
cross-sections is indicated in Figure 7.3.
The pre-mining piezometric head mimics topography and is higher under the
Gamsberg than on the plains. At the end of mining the head is at the base of
the pit, with steep hydraulic gradients around it due to the low hydraulic
conductivity of the formation. The maximum drawdown in the pit is
approximately 500m.

107
The water levels continue to decrease after mining and the drawdown cone
expands, because the evaporation from the open pit generates a net sink to the
aquifers which continues to remove water from the aquifer after mine closure.
Groundwater mounds are visible on the northern and western base of the
Gamsberg due to increased recharge under the WRDs. This mound remains
after closure on the western side only, whereas the one on the northern side
disappears due to the expansion of the drawdown cone.
Figure 7.1 North-South Cross-Section detailing Hydraulic Heads at Different Mine

Stages

108
Figure 7.2 West-East Cross-Section detailing Hydraulic Heads at Different Mine Stages
Figure 7.3 Cross-Section Locations
The change in hydraulic head with time is show in Figure 7.4 for a number of
observation points on and around the Gamsberg. The location of the
observation points is shown in Figure 7.5.
This shows the hydraulic head reduction at points south-east and north-east of
the pit (GAMS1, GAMB3, BH5), and a rise in hydraulic head at the waste rock

109
dumps due to the increased recharge. Hydraulic heads are stabilising around
100 years post closure indicating no significant further drawdown is expected
in these boreholes.
Figure 7.4 Hydraulic Head Time Series on- and surrounding the Gamsberg
Figure 7.5 Location of Observation Points on- and surrounding the Gamsberg

110
Drawdown Cones
Figure 7.6, Figure 7.7, and Figure 7.8 show the change in hydraulic head in plan
view (hydraulic head at said time minus initial water level, with negative
values being a drop in water level or drawdown and positive being an
increase or groundwater mounding). These are presented at the end of
mining, 50 years post closure and 100 years post closure. Existing (known)
farm-boreholes are indicated with crosses, and labelled with the borehole ID.
The drawdown cone induced by the planned mining activities develops from
the pit towards the north-east, east, south and south-west. Drawdown is not
expected to expand towards the west due to the increased recharge on the
WRDs.
Groundwater mounds (increase of hydraulic head) develop under both the

TSF and the WRDs due to increased recharge. The tailings storage facility
(TSF) is modelled without a liner, and a constantly saturated pond forms on
top by the piping of tailings to its surface. The total modelled groundwater
mound is of approximately 70 m compared to pre-mining levels.
The modelled water level within the TSF at the end of mining equals 25 metres
above initial topographic surface elevation. This represents approximately
one third of the height of the dam (70 m), which is in line with the engineering
of the TSF.
The pond on the TSF will be drained during mine decommissioning and the
groundwater mound will steadily seep away. Modelling results suggest, that
2-3 years after mine closure, the water level will drop below surface level
(bottom of the TSF). Groundwater levels are expected to reach pre-mining
levels approximately 80 years post-closure. The mound underneath WRDs
will remain as infiltration continues indefinitely.
The waste rock dump consists of significantly coarser material than the
surrounding country rock, allowing increased infiltration, and hence is
modelled with an increased recharge, from 1% MAP to 20% MAP (Vermeulen,
2006). This results in a groundwater mound of maximum 50m compared to
pre-mining levels, which however was not allowed to exceed the topography
(would be drained at the base of the WRD).

111
Figure 7.6 Hydraulic Head Change at 19 Years (End of Mining)
Figure 7.7 Hydraulic Head Change at 69 Years (50 Years after Mine Closure)

112
Figure 7.8 Hydraulic Head Change at 119 Years (100 Years after Mine Closure)
Impact on Private Groundwater Users
Groundwater modelling indicates that most existing (known) farm boreholes

experience no significant head change during mining and post-closure phases
(ie less than 5m), except ACH2 (Achab) and BLH1 (Blomhoek), where model
results suggest drawdowns of between 5 and 10 m 100 years after mine
closure.
The predicted change in water level for each known farm borehole is given in
Table 7.3.
Table 7.3 Groundwater Level Impacts at Farm-Boreholes
Farm Owner Boreholes Waterlevel Change Waterlevel Change at

at 19 years (end 119 years (100 years
mining) in m post mining) in m
Achab Girrie v/d Heever ACH1 No significant impact No significant impact
Achab Girrie v/d Heever ACH2 No significant impact -10 to -5
Aroams Tore van Niekerk AR2 No significant impact No significant impact
Blomhoek N/A BLH1 No significant impact -10 to -5
Kykgat Jan Visser KGT1 No significant impact No significant impact
Kykgat Jan Visser KGT2 No significant impact No significant impact
Kykgat Tertius Visser KGT3 No significant impact No significant impact
Rosynebos Danie Luttig RS2 No significant impact No significant impact

113
Farm Owner Boreholes Waterlevel Change Waterlevel Change at
at 19 years (end 119 years (100 years
mining) in m post mining) in m
Rosynebos Sakkie v Niekerk RS5 No significant impact No significant impact
Impact on Groundwater Levels in the Kloof
The change in hydraulic head for a cross section along to the Kloof is show in
Figure 7.9, with different series indicating various times, including (i) pre-
mining, (ii) end of mining and (iii) 100 years after mine closure.
The modelled pre-mining water table is within 50 m of topography and it was

not possible to re-create the conditions of the Kloof springs (i.e groundwater at
surface at discrete points). Only one of the modelled springs in the Kloof
actively discharged water (1m3/d) under pre-mining conditions (GAMS7).
However, the model can still be used to indicate relative change of hydraulic
heads in the Kloof.
The difference between the pre-mining piezometric head (red line) and the
end of mining head (green line) gives an indication of the drawdown in
groundwater level along the Kloof, which is 15 to 20 m during mining. At the
end of mining the piezometric level in the Kloof has reduced, however the
groundwater gradient is still towards the plains hence water still flows out
along the Kloof at depth.
After mine closure the mine pit continues to act as a sink to groundwater flow
because of the elevated evaporation rates and therefore the drawdown extent
will also increase. At 100 years post closure groundwater levels in the Kloof
are expected to decrease by 100-125m and hence the hydraulic gradient along
the Kloof is reversed and water is flowing from the plains towards the
Gamsberg (pit).

114
Figure 7.9 South-North Cross-Section detailing Hydraulic Heads at Different Mine
Stages along the Kloof
7.1.3 Impacts on Groundwater Budget (Fluxes)
The impact of the planned mining activities on groundwater fluxes and

budget is presented in Figure 7.10 and Table 7.4. Fluxes at end of mining and
100 years after mine closure are compared to pre-mining fluxes (steady state
model).
The pre-mining natural groundwater major inflows and outflows across the
modelled area are indicated by the red bars in Figure 7.10, where inflows
(recharge) equal outflows (boundary outflow and well abstraction).
At the end of mining (green bars) recharge has increased due to the increased
recharge over the waste rock dumps. However, not all of this increased
recharge is actually reaching groundwater, since 50% of it is drained at the
base of the WRDs on average over the 19 operational years. In the figure only
net recharge rates are displayed, ie drained portion was subtracted.
Total outflows (pit inflow, boundary outflow and well abstraction) are greater
than model inflows (recharge) indicating that a part of the outflows is coming
from groundwater storage. Regional groundwater boundary outflows are
reduced slightly during mining (-6%) and post-closure (-14%) compared to
pre-mining outflows.

115
Figure 7.10 Groundwater Fluxes
1 000
900
800
700
Fluxes [m3/d] 600

500 Pre-mining
400 End of mining
300 100 years post-closure
200
100
0
Pit inflow Boundary Recharge Well
rate outflow abstraction
rate
Table 7.4 Groundwater Fluxes Pre-Mining (Baseline), End of Mining and 100 Years Post
Closure
Flux Pre-Mining End of Mining 100 Years Post Closure

[m3/d] (Baseline) (Year 19) (Year 119)
Pit inflow rates 0 890 240
Boundary outflow rates 480 450 410
Recharge 540 640 670
Well abstraction 50 50 50
Spring Flow (Kloof) 1 0 0
Spring Flow (East) 4 4 3
Model flow across a 50m wide cross
section in the Kloof 40 30 -20
Leachate rate WRDs 0 130 170
Leachate rate TSF 0 80 0
As detailed in Table 7.4 spring flow in the Kloof (GAMS7) decreases from
1m3/d pre-mining to zero at the end of mining. The discharge of the spring in
the east of the Gamsberg (GAMS9) remains at 4 m3/d at the end of mining
and is reduced to 3 m3/d 100 years after mine closure.
Groundwater flow through the Kloof (across a 250 m cross-section) was

quantified using Darcy Flux (nodal) approximation in FEFLOW. The cross-
section is located in the lower reaches of the Kloof close to the spring GAMS7
(Figure 7.11). Groundwater flow through the Kloof is reduced by
approximately 25% at the end of mining compared to pre-mining conditions.

116
At 100 years after mine closure, the flow is reversed and approximately 20
m3/d is flowing from the plains towards the Gamsberg (pit) across the section.
Figure 7.11 Flow through the Kloof - Cross-Section Location
Kloof Cross-Section
Leachate rates from the TSF and WRDs are in the order of 80 and 130 m3/d
respectively at the end of mining. Modelling results suggest, that the leachate
rate from the WRDs will increase after mine closure to 170 m3/d in year 119.
7.2 TRANSPORT MODEL RESULTS
This section details results of the groundwater solute transport modelling

which was used to quantify water quality impacts of the proposed Project.
Sulphate (SO 4 ) was selected as an indicator of contamination for the solute
transport model. Sulphate is a conservative tracer, providing an indication of
the maximum potential contaminant extent.
7.2.1 Sulphate Plumes
Figure 7.12, Figure 7.13 and Figure 7.14 show the sulphate plumes emanating
from WRDs and TSF for different time stages (end of mining, 50 years post
closure and 100 years post closure). The figures show groundwater

117
concentrations above the SANS 241-1:2011 (2011) drinking water limit of 400
mg/L.
The plumes grow over time due to the continued leaching and combined
dispersion and diffusion processes. SO 4 concentration of leachate released
from the TSF is increasing over time and is higher than the SO 4 concentration
of leachate from the WRDs. Therefore, the maximum SO 4 concentration
modelled is observed underneath the TSF at 10 500 mg/L, at the end of
mining. Thereafter, the SO 4 concentrations in groundwater underneath the
TSF will decrease slowly (refer Table 7.5) and the plume will start to move
eastwards.
Figure 7.12 Sulphate Plume in Year 19 (End of Mining)

118
Figure 7.13 Sulphate Plume in Year 69 (50 Years after Mine Closure)
Figure 7.14 Sulphate Plume in Year 119 (100 Years after Mine Closure)
Table 7.5 Characteristic Values Transport Model Plume SO 4 2-
End of Mining 50 years Post 100 years Post

Closure Closure
Tailings Storage Facility
Maximum Concentration [mg/l] 10 500 9 390 8 190
Plume Size (>400 mg/L) [km2] 1.6 2.1 2.4

119
End of Mining 50 years Post 100 years Post
Closure Closure
Maximum Transport [m] 350 620 900
Distance
Waste Rock Dumps
Plume Size (>400 mg/L) [km2] 3.8 6.4 8.8
Maximum Transport [m] 250 800 1 200
Distance
The plumes emanating from the WRDs have larger extent and transport
distances, with a maximum of 1 200 m after 100 years post-closure (refer Table
7.5). This is mainly due to the larger source area of the WRDs compared to the
TSF, greater seepage rates and continued seepage after mine closure. The
plumes do not expand across the pit boarder, as all inflow into the pit
evaporates. SO 4 mass flux into the pit is discussed in Section 7.2.2 below.
Impact on Private Groundwater Users
Modelling results further suggest that existing (known) farm boreholes will
not be impacted by SO 4 contamination. The borehole located closest to any
SO 4 plume is AR2, located on the farm Aroams, which remains 3km south-
west of the plume emanating from the TSF. The nearest farm boreholes are
indicated with crosses on the figures.
7.2.2 Sulphate Mass-Fluxes
SO 4 mass loads flowing into the pit from the WRDs located immediately on
the western pit boarder were quantified. Further, the volumes and quality of
water seeping out at the base of the WRDs, captured by the toe drains, was
equally quantified using the model.
Water seeping out at the base of the TSF is not considered in the groundwater
model and therefore quantification was not possible. However, the TSF water
balance used for geochemical modelling (ERM, 2013) indicates that significant
seepage rates of contaminated water can be expected at the base of the TSF.
Sulphate Flux into Open Pit
Modelling results indicate that the SO 4 concentration of pit inflow water from
the western pit boundary will increase to 670mg/L at the end of mining and
increase further to 1 580mg/L 100 years post-closure (Table 7.6). Combined
with pit inflow rates of 140 – 180m3/d, sulphate mass flux of 120kg/day is
expected at the end of mining and will increase to 220kg/day 100 years post-
closure.
As discussed in Section 7.1.1, it is unlikely that water will be visible in the pit
except following rain events. These results therefore indicate a potential
accumulation of salts and other contaminants in the pit.

120
Table 7.6 Sulphate Mass Flux into the Open Pit
Year Seepage Rates SO 4

into Open Pit Concentration SO 4 Mass Flux
[m3/d] [mg/L] [kg/d]
1 0 0 0
2 10 20 0.1
3 30 60 2
4 40 120 5
5 60 120 7
6 80 120 10
7 90 160 10
8 80 200 20
9 80 250 20
10 90 280 20
11 100 330 30
12 100 390 40
13 100 440 50
14 100 490 50
15 110 530 60
16 130 560 70
17 150 600 90
18 170 630 110
19 180 670 120
69 140 1 230 170
119 140 1 580 220
Waste Rock Dump Toe Seepage Quality
At the base of the WRDs, seepage will occur mainly due to the increased
recharge through the coarse material stored in the WRDs. It is anticipated that
this will mainly happen following rain events. However, since the
groundwater models do not take into account discrete rain events but rather a
mean annual precipitation resulting in a mean annual recharge value, average
yearly seepage rates were calculated and the water quality determined in
terms of SO 4 concentrations.
Average yearly seepage rates during operation are expected to be in the order
of 20 – 140 m3/d (refer Table 7.7). However, these could fluctuate due to the
erratic rainfall patterns observed in the area.
Seepage SO 4 concentrations are expected to exceed the SANS 241-1:2011

(2011) standard for drinking water of 400 mg/L from year 7 onwards, where
after they will increase to 1 000 mg/L in year 18, 1 460 mg/L in year 69 and
1 550 mg/L in year 119 (Table 7.7). These concentrations are not expected to
vary significantly depending on the rainfall patterns.
Table 7.7 Waste Rock Dump Average Yearly Seepage Rates and Quality (Toe Drains)
Year Seepage Rates (Toe Drains) SO 4 Concentration

[yr] [m3/d] [mg/L]
1 20 20

121
Year Seepage Rates (Toe Drains) SO 4 Concentration
[yr] [m3/d] [mg/L]
2 90 80
3 130 150
4 140 220
5 140 290
6 140 350
7 130 440
8 130 480
9 120 550
10 110 630
11 110 660
12 110 680
13 100 770
14 100 790
15 90 890
16 90 910
17 90 900
18 80 1 000
19 80 970
69 50 1 460
119 50 1 550
7.3 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
Through sensitivity analysis the uncertainty in the calibrated model caused by

uncertainty in the estimates of aquifer parameters, stresses, boundary
conditions and transport parameters can be quantified (Anderson &
Woessner, 1992).
Sensitivity analyses were conducted and the sensitivity of the model output
was quantified with respect to different input parameters, including specific
storage, aquifer thickness, porosity, molecular diffusion coefficient and
dispersivity.
Each of these parameters was changed by one order of magnitude and the
sensitivity quantified by determining their relative effects on drawdown and
pit inflows (flow model); and on plume size (transport model). A summary of
the sensitivity analysis is provided in this section and the detailed results are
appended in Annex C.
Flow Model
Additional parameters used for solute transport models parameters including

dispersivity, molecular diffusion coefficient, aquifer thickness and porosity
will not have any influence on the results of the flow model (drawdowns and
pit inflows). Therefore, only the sensitivity of specific storage was quantified.
Additional parameters influencing drawdowns and pit inflows are

transmissivity and recharge. Their relative sensitivities were assessed using
the steady state model (refer Section 6.2.2).

122
A decrease of specific storage from 10-3 to 10-4 results in an increase of
drawdown extent by 143% based on the 20m drawdown extent. Cumulative
pit inflows over the operational phase decrease by 60% and over operational
and 100 year post-closure phase by 20%. This indicates that a decreased
specific storage “delays” the aquifer response.
Therefore, a change of specific storage has a significant impact on drawdown

extent, whereas the impact on pit inflows is less significant.
Transport Model
Figure 7.15 presents the relative sensitivities of the tested parameters on the
transport model. The percentage represents the % change in plume size (area)
as a result to the one order of magnitude change of the respective input
parameter.
Figure 7.15 Sensitivity of Transport Model Parameters
The most sensitive parameters are aquifer thickness and porosity. Both
influence the results of the transport model in the same way. As for the
transport parameters, the sensitivity of molecular diffusion is not significant,
whereas the dispersivity is a sensitive parameter. Specific storage has no
significant influence on transport model results.

123
7.4 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS OF MODELLING RESULTS
The modelling results from steady state, mine and transport models are
discussed in this section. Conclusions are drawn from the discussion with
regards to the groundwater impact assessment.
7.4.1 Steady State Model
A two-dimensional (2D) areal flow model was constructed, based on the

assumption that groundwater flow is predominantly in the horizontal plane.
This assumption is valid for aquifers that have a horizontal extent that is much
larger than the aquifer thickness, which is the case for the Gamsberg model.
This approach assumes that K does not decrease with depth. Lower K with
depth would result in decreased pit inflows and decreased drawdown extent
with depth. Therefore, modelled impacts represent a conservative scenario.
Rainfall in the area is of erratic nature and it has been reported that 100% of
the average annual precipitation can occur during one 24 hour rain event. The
groundwater response to rainfall events is currently not well understood as no
continuous groundwater level measurements are available. However, it is
thought that the natural variations in groundwater levels remain within a few
meters and therefore within the model accuracy.
The model time discretisation is set at a yearly increment and an average

recharge was assigned based on the long term mean annual precipitation in
the area. Discrete rainfall events were not considered in the model but the
potential impact of heavy rainfall events on groundwater was assessed
qualitatively, highlighting the potential risks associated with this.
Recharge was found to be the most sensitive parameter with regards to the
steady state solution followed by the transmissivity zone T2 (Gamsberg outer
zone: mainly white quartzite, sillimanite schist). Further data collection and
calibration effort should therefore be focussed on improving the
certainty/confidence in these parameters since changing them will have the
largest effect on model results (see Section 9).
7.4.2 Mining Flow Model
Model results indicate that pit inflows will be insignificant compared to

expected evaporation rates from the pit at different mine stages. Further, a
simple pit water budget calculation taking into account inflows from
groundwater and rainfall indicated that there will be a constant water deficit
of between 4 000 m3/d in year one to 20 000 m3/d at the end of mining and
during post-closure, which is greater than expected surface water inflows.
Therefore it is concluded that there will be no need for active dewatering.

However, due to the nature of rainfall patterns in the area, it is possible that
periodical pumping will be necessary following heavy rain events.

124
Hydraulic gradients in proximity of the pit are very steep due to low
hydraulic conductivities, which resulted in drawdown cones with limited
horizontal extent. It is therefore not expected that private groundwater users
will be affected significantly by the lowering of groundwater levels due to
mining activities at the Gamsberg. Modelling results suggest that two
boreholes will, however, experience drawdowns in excess of 5 m, which is
deemed significant. These drawdowns are only expected to happen between
50 and 100 years after mine closure and should not exceed 10 m.
In terms of the groundwater budget, overall inflows through recharge are

expected to increase by 19% due to increased recharge from the waste rock
dumps (WRDs). However, these additional inflows are mainly discharged
into the open pit due to the proximity of the WRDs to the pit. The overall
budget at the end of mining indicates, that outflows exceed inflows and
therefore the groundwater system is not balanced, water being taken from
storage. A new equilibrium will almost be reached 100 years after mine
closure.
Modelling results suggest further, that mining will have a significant impact
on the groundwater flow regime in the Kloof. Although the Kloof is a local
feature, which cannot be adequately represented in a regional model, it was
possible to calculate relative water level changes and draw conclusions from
the results.
Groundwater levels in the Kloof are expected to decrease by 15-20 m during

mining and by 100-125 m 100 years post closure. This is expected to reverse
the groundwater flow gradient in the Kloof resulting in groundwater flowing
from the plains towards the Gamsberg (mine pit). It is expected, that
groundwater controlled spring flow in the Kloof will essentially be reduced to
zero during mining and is not expected to be reinstated after mine closure.
Sensitivity analysis has shown that the parameter specific storage has a
significant impact on drawdown extent, whereas the impact on pit inflows is
less significant. Further data collection and calibration effort should include
this parameter.
7.4.3 Solute Transport Model
The geochemical assessment identified contaminants of concern including

SO 4 , Fe, Mn, Zn, Cu, Cd, Pb, As and NO 3 . Sulphate (SO 4 ) being a
conservative tracer (no adsorption or decay), was selected as an indicator of
contamination for the solute transport model, providing an indication of the
maximum potential contaminant extent.
At the end of mining modelled SO 4 plumes at concentrations exceeding the

SANS 241-1:2011 drinking water standard (400 mg/L) are mainly confined
within the immediate footprint (250-350 m) of the contaminant sources

125
including the tailings storage facility and the waste rock dumps. After mine
closure, the plumes expand mainly due to the continued seepage of
contaminated water from the WRDs. The plume emanating from the TSF is
expected to remain in proximity of the footprint of the facility. The plumes are
not predicted to intersect private boreholes.
Impact on the groundwater resource is therefore expected to be more

significant as a result of seepage from the WRDs, although seepage from the
TSF will has higher SO 4 concentrations. The main difference in terms of
seepage characteristics of these two sources is that the TSF will be drained at
the end of mine and is not expected to continue releasing contaminants
assuming that due to the fine texture of the tailings material any rainfall
would not result in infiltration but rather surface run-off.
The seepage from WRDs is controlled by increased recharge from rainfall due
to the disruption of natural material, increase in hydraulic conductivity and
the higher porosity of the dumps reducing the amount of surface runoff and
increasing the amount of infiltration. Therefore the seepage from WRDs is not
expected to stop after mine closure unless suitable infiltration control
measures (ie capping) are implemented.
WRDs are located immediately adjacent to the mine pit and contaminated
seepage from the WRDs is expected to partly flow into the pit. It is unlikely
that water will be visible in the pit except following rain events. Due to the
high evaporation rate, salts and other contaminants are expected to
accumulate in the pit and can be dissolved and mobilised during heavy rain
events. Pumped water from the pit following heavy rain events could
therefore be heavily contaminated and might need to be treated before
discharge into the environment.
Further, toe seepage is expected to occur at the base of the WRDs following
heavy rain events. This seepage is expected to be contaminated and suitable
management measures should be in place to prevent the release of this
contaminated water into the environment. These include the collection of
seepage water (ie by the means of toe drains) and the treatment of collected
water to applicable standards prior to release into the environment.
The most sensitive of the additional parameters needed for solute transport
simulations are aquifer thickness and porosity. As for the transport
parameters, the sensitivity of molecular diffusion is not significant, whereas
the dispersivity is a sensitive parameter. Specific storage has no significant
influence on transport model results. Further data collection and calibration
effort should include porosity and aquifer thickness.

126
8 GROUNDWATER IMPACT ASSESSMENT
8.1 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
The adequate assessment and evaluation of the potential impacts and benefits
that will be associated with the proposed Project necessitates the development
of a methodology that will reduce the subjectivity involved in making such
evaluations. A clearly defined methodology is used in order to accurately
determine the significance of the predicted impact on, or benefit to, the
surrounding natural and/or social environment. For this the Project must be
considered in the context of the area and the people that will be affected.
Nonetheless, an impact assessment will always contain a degree of

subjectivity, as it is based on the value judgment of various specialists and
ESIA practitioners. The evaluation of significance is thus contingent upon
values, professional judgment, and dependent upon the environmental and
community context. Ultimately, impact significance involves a process of
determining the acceptability of a predicted impact to society.
The purpose of impact assessment is to identify and evaluate the likely

significance of the potential impacts on identified receptors and resources
according to defined assessment criteria, to develop and describe measures
that will be taken to avoid, minimize, reduce or compensate for any potential
adverse environmental effects, and to report the significance of the residual
impacts that remain following mitigation. There are a number of ways that
impacts may be described and quantified. An impact is essentially any change
to a resource or receptor brought about by the presence of the Project
component or by the execution of a Project related activity.
8.1.1 Assessing Impacts
A definition of each impact characteristic is provided to contextualise the

requirements. The designations for each of the characteristics are defined
below.
Table 8.1 Defining Impact Characteristics
Characteristic Definition Designation

Type A descriptor indicating the Direct - Impacts that result
relationship of the impact to from a direct interaction
the Project (in terms of cause between the Project and a
and effect). resource/receptor (eg,
between occupation of a plot
of land and the habitats which
are affected).
Indirect - Impacts that follow
on from the direct interactions
between the Project and its
environment as a result of
subsequent interactions within

127
the environment (eg, viability
of a species population
resulting from loss of part of a
habitat as a result of the
Project occupying a plot of
land).
Induced - Impacts that result
from other activities (which
are not part of the Project) that
happen as a consequence of
the Project (eg, influx of camp
followers resulting from the
importation of a large Project
workforce).
Duration The time period over which a Temporary (negligible/ pre-
resource / receptor is affected. construction)
Short‐term (period of less than
5 years ie production ramp up
period)
Long‐term (period of more
than 5 years and less than 19
years ie life of mine)
Permanent (a period that
exceeds the life of mine – ie
irreversible.)
Extent The reach of the impact (ie On-site – impacts that are
physical distance an impact limited to the project site.
will extend to) Local – impacts that are
limited to the project site and
adjacent properties.
Regional – impacts that are
experienced at a regional scale,
eg District or Province.
National – impacts that are
experienced at a national scale.
Trans-boundary/International
– impacts that are experienced
at an international scale, eg
extinction of species resulting
in global loss.
Scale The size of the impact (eg the 1 - functions and/ or processes
size of the area damaged or remain unaltered
impacted the fraction of a 2 - functions and/ or processes
resource that is lost or are notably altered
affected). 3 - functions and/ or processes
are severely altered
Frequency Measure of the constancy or 1 - Periodic
periodicity of the impact. 2 - Once off
The terminology and designations are provided to ensure consistency when

these characteristics are described in an Impact Assessment deliverable.
An additional characteristic that pertains only to unplanned events (eg, traffic

accident, accidental release of toxic gas, community riot, etc) is likelihood. The
likelihood of an unplanned event occurring is designated using a qualitative
(or semi-quantitative, where appropriate data are available) scale.

128
Table 8.2 Definitions of likelihood
Likelihood Definition
Unlikely The event is unlikely but may occur at
some time during normal operating
conditions.
Possible The event is likely to occur at some
time during normal operating
conditions.
Likely/ Certain The event will occur during normal
operating conditions (ie, it is
essentially inevitable).
Likelihood is estimated on the basis of experience and/or evidence that such

an outcome has previously occurred. It is important to note that likelihood is a
measure of the degree to which the unplanned event is expected to occur, not
the degree to which an impact or effect is expected to occur as a result of the
unplanned event. The latter concept is referred to as uncertainty, and this is
typically dealt with in a contextual discussion in the Impact Assessment
deliverable, rather than in the impact significance assignment process.
Assessing Significance
Once the impact characteristics are understood, these characteristics are used
(in a manner specific to the resource/receptor in question) to assign each
impact a magnitude. Magnitude is a function of the following impact
characteristics:
• Extent (1)
• Duration (2)
• Scale
• Frequency
• Likelihood
Magnitude essentially describes the degree of change that the impact is likely
to impart upon the resource/receptor. The magnitude designations are as
follows:
• Positive
• Negligible
• Small
• Medium
• Large
The methodology incorporates likelihood into the magnitude designation (ie,

in parallel with consideration of the other impact characteristics), so that the
(1) Important in defining ‘extent’ is the differentiation between the spatial extent of impact (ie the physical distance of the
impact in terms of on-site, local, regional, national or international) and the temporal extent/ effect of an impact may have (ie
a localised impact on restricted species may lead to its extinction and therefore the impact would have global
ramifications).
(2) Duration must consider irreversible impacts (ie permanent).

129
“likelihood-factored” magnitude can then be considered with the
resource/receptor sensitivity/vulnerability/irreplaceability in order to assign
impact significance.
The magnitude of impacts takes into account all the various dimensions of a
particular impact in order to make a determination as to where the impact
falls on the spectrum from negligible to large. Some impacts will result in
changes to the environment that may be immeasurable, undetectable or
within the range of normal natural variation. Such changes can be regarded as
essentially having no impact, and should be characterised as having a
negligible magnitude.
In addition to characterising the magnitude of impact, the other principal step

necessary to assign significance for a given impact is to define the
sensitivity/vulnerability/ irreplaceability of the resource/receptor. There are
a range of factors to be taken into account when defining the
sensitivity/vulnerability/ irreplaceability of the resource/receptor, which
may be physical, biological, cultural or human. Where the resource is physical
(for example, a water body) its quality, sensitivity to change and importance
(on a local, national and international scale) are considered. Where the
resource/receptor is biological or cultural (for example, the marine environment
or a coral reef), its importance (for example, its local, regional, national or
international importance) and its sensitivity to the specific type of impact are
considered. Where the receptor is human, the vulnerability of the individual,
community or wider societal group is considered.
As in the case of magnitude, the sensitivity/vulnerability/ irreplaceability

designations themselves are universally consistent, but the definitions for
these designations will vary on a resource/receptor basis. The universal
sensitivity/vulnerability/irreplaceability (1) of resource/receptor is:
• Low
• Medium
• High
Once magnitude of impact and sensitivity/vulnerability/irreplaceability of

resource/receptor have been characterised, the significance can be assigned
for each impact. The following provides a context for defining significance.
(1) Irreplaceable (SANBI, 2013): “In terms of biodiversity, irreplaceable areas are those of highest biodiversity value outside the formal
protected area network. They support unique biodiversity features, such as endangered species or rare habitat patches that do not occur
anywhere else in the province. These features have already been so reduced by loss of natural habitat, that 100% of what remains must
be protected to achieve biodiversity targets.”

130
Table 8.3 Context for Defining Significance
• An impact of negligible significance is one where a resource/receptor (including

people) will essentially not be affected in any way by a particular activity or the
predicted effect is deemed to be ‘imperceptible’ or is indistinguishable from
natural background variations.
• An impact of minor significance is one where a resource/receptor will experience
a noticeable effect, but the impact magnitude is sufficiently small (with or
without mitigation) and/or the resource/receptor is of low sensitivity/
vulnerability/ importance. In either case, the magnitude should be well within
applicable standards.
• An impact of moderate significance has an impact magnitude that is within
applicable standards, but falls somewhere in the range from a threshold below
which the impact is minor, up to a level that might be just short of breaching a
legal limit. Clearly, to design an activity so that its effects only just avoid
breaking a law and/or cause a major impact is not best practice. The emphasis
for moderate impacts is therefore on demonstrating that the impact has been
reduced to a level that is as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP). This does
not necessarily mean that impacts of moderate significance have to be reduced to
minor, but that moderate impacts are being managed effectively and efficiently.
• An impact of major significance is one where an accepted limit or standard may
be exceeded, or large magnitude impacts occur to highly valued/sensitive
resource/receptors. An aim of IA is to get to a position where the Project does
not have any major residual impacts, certainly not ones that would endure into
the long-term or extend over a large area. However, for some aspects there may
be major residual impacts remaining even after all practicable mitigation options
have been exhausted (ie ALARP has been applied). An example might be the
visual impact of a facility. It is then the function of regulators and stakeholders
to weigh such negative factors against the positive ones, such as employment, in
coming to a decision on the Project.
Based on the context for defining significance, the impact significance rating
will be determined, using the matrix below.
Table 8.4 Impact Significance Rating Matrix
Sensitivity/Vulnerability/Irreplaceability of
Resource/Receptor
Low Medium High
Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible

Magnitude of Impact
Small Negligible Minor Moderate
Medium Minor Moderate Major
Large Moderate Major Major
Once the significance of the impact has been determined, it is important to

qualify the degree of confidence in the assessment. Confidence in the

131
prediction is associated with any uncertainties, for example, where
information is insufficient to assess the impact. Degree of confidence can be
expressed as low, medium or high.
8.1.2 Mitigation Potential and Residual Impacts
Once the significance of a given impact has been characterised using the above
matrix, the next step is to evaluate what mitigation measures are warranted.
In keeping with the Mitigation Hierarchy, the priority in mitigation is to first
apply mitigation measures to the source of the impact (ie, to avoid or reduce
the magnitude of the impact from the associated Project activity), and then to
address the resultant effect to the resource/receptor via abatement or
compensatory measures or offsets (ie, to reduce the significance of the effect
once all reasonably practicable mitigations have been applied to reduce the
impact magnitude). A demonstration of the application of the mitigation
hierarchy must be outlined in the specialist reports, for purposes of
transparency.
Once mitigation measures are declared, the next step in the Impact
Assessment Process is to assign residual impact significance. This is essentially
a repeat of the impact assessment steps discussed above, considering the
assumed implementation of the additional declared mitigation measures.
The approach taken to defining mitigation measures is based on a typical

hierarchy of decisions and measures, as described below.
Table 8.5 Mitigation hierarchy
• Avoid at Source; Reduce at Source: avoiding or reducing at source through the design of the
Project (e.g., avoiding by siting or re-routing activity away from sensitive areas or reducing by
restricting the working area or changing the time of the activity).
• Abate on Site: add something to the design to abate the impact (e.g., pollution control
equipment, traffic controls, perimeter screening and landscaping).
• Abate at Receptor: if an impact cannot be abated on-site then control measures can be
implemented off-site (e.g., noise barriers to reduce noise impact at a nearby residence or fencing
to prevent animals straying onto the site).
• Repair or Remedy: some impacts involve unavoidable damage to a resource (e.g. agricultural
land and forestry due to creating access, work camps or materials storage areas) and these
impacts can be addressed through repair, restoration or reinstatement measures.
• Compensate in Kind; Compensate Through Other Means: where other mitigation approaches
are not possible or fully effective, then compensation for loss, damage and disturbance might be
appropriate (e.g., planting to replace damaged vegetation, financial compensation for damaged
crops or providing community facilities for loss of fisheries access, recreation and amenity
space).

132
8.1.3 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts and effects are those that arise as a result of an impact
and effect from the Project interacting with those from another activity to
create an additional impact and effect. These are termed cumulative impacts
and effects.
The ESIA Report will predict any cumulative impacts/effects to which the
Project may contribute. The approach for assessing cumulative impacts and
effects resulting from the Project and another activity affecting the same
resource/receptor is based on a consideration of the approval/existence status
of the ‘other’ activity and the nature of information available to aid in
predicting the magnitude of impact from the other activity.
8.2 IMPACT OF GROUNDWATER LEVEL CHANGES ON THE GROUNDWATER RESOURCE
The impact of groundwater level changes on the groundwater resource is

considered in this section while the impact of these groundwater level changes
on groundwater users is considered in Section 8.3, below.
8.2.1 Impact Description and Assessment
Table 8.6 Impact Characteristics: Groundwater Levels
Summary Construction Operation Post-Closure

Project Groundwater may be Open pit mining will Abandoned pit will
Aspect/Activity used for construction dewater the aquifer and remain a groundwater
however this is not a drawdown cone will sink and drawdown cone
anticipated to result develop. Groundwater will continue to expand.
in significant changes levels will rise Groundwater mounds
in groundwater (mounding) underneath underneath TSF will seep
levels. tailings storage facility away, but will remain
(TSF) and waste rock underneath the WRDs.
dumps (WRDs).
Impact Type Direct Direct Direct
Stakeholders/ Groundwater Groundwater Resource Groundwater Resource
Receptors Resource
Affected
Construction Phase Impacts
It is anticipated that groundwater will be used during the construction phase

which may result in localised groundwater level drawdown. This is, however,
not expected to have noticeable impact on the groundwater resource. The
significance rating is therefore NEGLIGIBLE.
Operational Phase Impacts
The planned open pit mining operation will dewater the aquifer on and
around the Gamsberg and a drawdown cone will develop predominantly

133
towards the north-east, east, south and south-west. Increased recharge from
the WRDs will prevent the drawdown cone propagation towards the west and
north-west.
Groundwater modelling suggests that at the end of mining drawdowns in

excess of 5m can be expected to reach approximately 1km to the north-east
and south-west of the pit and between 2-3km to the east and south-east. The
maximum drawdown in close proximity of the pit is approximately 500m.
Groundwater levels will rise (mounding) underneath tailings storage facility

(TSF) to approximately 25 metres above surface (mas) and underneath waste
rock dumps (WRDs) to surface level.
Groundwater is used in the area and represents the sole source of water for a
number of farmers despite groundwater quality in the study area being
considered unsuitable for domestic use or livestock watering when compared
to South African Water Quality Guidelines (Department of Water Affairs and
Foresty , 1996). Farm boreholes closest to the planned Project are located in
between 5.5 and 7km away from the planned open pit and remain unaffected
during operation as the drawdown cone will be confined to the Project site.
The Sensitivity/Vulnerability/Importance of the groundwater resource was
rated as Medium since the groundwater resource is an important water
supply in the area. The planned activity will not result in the loss of
irreplaceable resource with regards to the groundwater resource.
Hydraulic head change is expected to be limited to the Project site and

adjacent properties belonging to the client, and is on site and local in extent.
Groundwater levels are not expected to recover after mine closure, since the
pit will continue to act as a sink to groundwater based on the elevated
evaporation rate, which results in a permanent impact. Lowering of the
hydraulic head due to the proposed mining activities will result in
drawdowns of up to 500m in the vicinity of the pit reducing to levels in line
with natural fluctuations within 1 to 2km from the pit. The frequency is
classified as continuous due to the nature of the project and the likelihood is
certain.
The impact magnitude is therefore rated as Medium and the impact

significance (pre-mitigation) is MODERATE. The groundwater model is
currently based on a number of conservative assumptions and is not
calibrated to aquifer stresses of a similar order of magnitude to those applied
to it. This implies that reliability of the model predictions is relatively low.
However, the model confidence is deemed sufficient to assess conservative
impacts and make appropriate mitigation recommendations at the EIA stage
of the project. The degree of confidence in this assessment is medium.

134
Box 8.1 Summary of Operational Impact: Groundwater Level Changes on
Groundwater Resource
Nature: Operational activities would result in a negative direct impact the groundwater
resource in the Project Area.
Sensitivity/Vulnerability/Importance of Resource/Receptor – Medium

Irreplaceability: The activity will not result in the loss of irreplaceable resources
Impact Magnitude – Medium

• Extent: The extent of the impact is local
• Duration: The expected impact will be permanent (ie irreversible)
• Scale: The impact will severely alter the resource
• Frequency: The frequency of the impact will be continuous
• Likelihood: The likelihood of the impact is certain
IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE (PRE-MITIGATION) – MODERATE
Degree of Confidence: The degree of confidence is medium.
Operational Phase Mitigation
Groundwater level change (drawdown) cannot be mitigated. It is therefore

recommended that groundwater levels in the vicinity of the pit, in radially
increasing distance, as well as in each of the known farm boreholes, are
monitored on a regular basis throughout the operational phase. The
monitoring data should be stored in an appropriate data management
tool/database (see Section 9).
Targeted monitoring, to provide data on key areas of uncertainty, allows the

assumptions in predictive models to be reduced and thus the reliance of such
models improves. Groundwater models should therefore be validated and
updated using the monitoring data such that drawdown predictions can be
updated. This will lead to models with a higher confidence level that can be
used as management tools throughout the operational phase (ie update
predicted impacts in order to be proactive etc) and for planning of the post-
closure phase of the Project to ensure appropriate provisions are made.
Post-Closure Phase Impacts
Groundwater levels are not expected to recover after mine closure because the
pit will continue to act as a groundwater sink due to the high evaporation
rates, which will result in the expansion of the drawdown cone. The
maximum drawdown in close proximity of the pit remains at approximately
500m.
Two farm boreholes located between 6 and 7km away from the planned open
pit are expected to experience drawdowns of between 5 to 10m approximately

135
100 years after mine closure. These groundwater level changes match natural
fluctuations currently experienced. The Sensitivity / Vulnerability /
Importance of the groundwater resource remains Medium as the resource is
an important water supply and is currently used. The planned activity will
not result in the loss of irreplaceable resource with regards to the groundwater
resource.
Groundwater level change is expected to be limited to the Project site and

adjacent properties, and remains local in extent. Groundwater levels are not
expected to recover after mine closure, since the pit will continue to act as a
sink to groundwater based on the elevated evaporation rate, which results in a
permanent impact. The frequency is classified as continuous due to the
nature of the project and the likelihood is certain.
The impact magnitude is therefore rated as Medium and the impact

significance (pre-mitigation) is MODERATE. The degree of confidence in this
assessment is medium.
Box 8.2 Summary of Post-Closure Impact: Groundwater Level Changes on

Groundwater Resource


Post Closure Phase Mitigation
Higher confidence groundwater models (developed/updated using

monitoring data collected throughout the operational phase) should be used
for post-closure planning and to determine the extent and frequency of post-
closure groundwater level monitoring (see Section 9).

136
8.2.2 Residual Impact
The impact cannot be mitigated and therefore the impact significance for
operational and post-closure phases remain unchanged. The pre- and post-
mitigation impacts are compared in Table 8.7 below.
Table 8.7 Pre- and Post- Mitigation Significance: Groundwater Level Changes
Phase Significance (Pre-mitigation) Residual Significance (Post–mitigation)

Construction NEGLIGIBLE (-ve) NEGLIGIBLE (-ve)
Operation MODERATE (-ve) MODERATE (-ve)
Post Closure MODERATE (-ve) MODERATE (-ve)
8.3 IMPACT OF GROUNDWATER LEVEL CHANGES ON PRIVATE GROUNDWATER USERS
The impact of groundwater level changes on groundwater users is considered

below.
Table 8.8 Impact Characteristics: Impact of Drawdown on Groundwater Users
Summary Construction Operation Post Closure

Project None Open pit mining will Abandoned pit will remain a
Aspect/Activity dewater the aquifer and a groundwater sink and
drawdown cone will drawdown cone will
develop. Groundwater levels continue to expand.
will rise (mounding) Groundwater mounds
underneath tailings storage underneath TSF will seep
facility (TSF) and waste rock away, but stay underneath
dumps (WRDs). the WRDs.
Impact Type N/A Indirect Indirect
Stakeholders/ N/A Private Groundwater Users Private Groundwater Users
Receptors
Affected
The Construction Phase of the Project is not expected to negatively impact on

groundwater users in the Project Area and its significance is NEGLIGIBLE.


137
Private groundwater users are not expected to be impacted during mining as

the drawdown cone remains at a distance of more than 4km from the closest
existing (known) farm boreholes being BLH1 and ACH2 and remains on site.
Groundwater is used in the area and represents the sole source of water for a
number of farmers. Private groundwater users are not expected to be
significantly impacted during mining as the drawdown cone remains at a
distance of more than 4km from the closest receptors being BLH1 and ACH2.
Therefore, the Sensitivity/Vulnerability/Importance of the groundwater

resource was rated as Medium. The planned activity will not result in the loss
of an irreplaceable resource with regards to private groundwater users.
Drawdown cone is expected to be limited to the Project site and is therefore

on-site and local in extent. Groundwater levels are not expected to recover
after mine closure, since the pit will continue to act as a sink to groundwater
based on the elevated evaporation rate, which results in a permanent impact.
Lowering of the groundwater level due to the proposed mining activities will
not extend off site and therefore groundwater users are not anticipated to be
impacted. The frequency is classified as continuous due to the nature of the
project and the likelihood is likely. The impact magnitude is therefore rated as
Negligible and the impact significance (pre-mitigation) is NEGLIGIBLE. The
degree of confidence in this assessment is medium.
Box 8.3 Summary of Operational Impact: Drawdown on Groundwater Users

Impact Magnitude – Negligible

• Extent: The extent of the impact is on-site and local
• Duration: The expected ground level change will be permanent (ie irreversible)
• Scale: The drawdown cone is not anticipated to impact groundwater users off-site.
• Likelihood: Groundwater drawdown is likely
IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE (PRE-MITIGATION) – NEGLIGIBLE
Groundwater level change (drawdown) cannot be mitigated. However, it is

further recommended that groundwater levels in each of the known farm

138
boreholes are monitored on a regular basis throughout the construction and
operation phases.
Should monitoring confirm that any of the private boreholes are affected by
lowering the groundwater table, rendering boreholes unusable (ie loss of
water supply source), the client will compensate affected famers for their loss,
replacing the lost water supply source. This can be achieved for example by
drilling new boreholes for the affected farmers outside of the drawdown cone,
by increasing the depth of the existing boreholes or by providing an
alternative good quality water source.
Post-Closure Phase Impacts
Modelling results suggest that two private boreholes located to the south-east
of the Gamsberg (BLH1 and ACH2) will experience drawdowns of between 5
and 10m approximately 100 years post closure. Other existing (known)
private boreholes will not experience any significant drawdowns (ie less than
5m). However, since the drawdown cone extends to additional farms located
adjacent to the Project, this may impact future groundwater users.
The Sensitivity / Vulnerability / Importance of the groundwater resource

remains Medium. The planned activity is not expected to result in the loss of
irreplaceable resource with regards to private groundwater users.
Hydraulic head change is expected to extend off site but remains local in
extent. Groundwater levels are not expected to recover after mine closure,
since the pit will continue to act as a sink to groundwater based on the
elevated evaporation rate, which results in a permanent impact. Lowering of
the hydraulic head due to the proposed mining activities is likely to extend to
groundwater users in the vicinity of the site. The frequency is classified as
continuous due to the nature of the project and the likelihood is likely. The
impact magnitude is therefore rated as Medium and the impact significance
(pre-mitigation) is MODERATE. The degree of confidence in this assessment
is medium.

139
Box 8.4 Summary of Post-Closure Impact: Drawdown on Groundwater Users
Nature: Operational activities would result in a negative direct impact on groundwater users in
the vicinity of the Project, post-closure.


• Duration: The expected ground level change will be permanent (ie irreversible)
• Scale: The drawdown cone is anticipated to impact two groundwater users off-site.
• Likelihood: Groundwater drawdown is likely
Post-Closure Phase Mitigation

monitoring data collected throughout the operational phase) should be used
for post-closure planning and to determine the extent and frequency of post-
closure groundwater level monitoring.
Should monitoring confirm that any private boreholes are affected by

lowering the groundwater table, rendering boreholes unusable (ie loss of
water supply source), the client will compensate affected famers for their loss,
replacing the lost water supply source. This can be achieved for example by
drilling new boreholes for the affected farmers outside of the drawdown cone,
by increasing the depth of the existing boreholes or by providing an
alternative good quality drinking water source.
Compensation of impacted farmers, where impact is confirmed through

monitoring data, would result in the operation and post-closure impacts of
NEGLIGIBLE and may even change the negative impact to a positive impact
(ie if the quality of the alternative water source provided by the project
exceeds the existing one which does not meet drinking water).
The pre- and post-mitigation impacts are compared in Table 8.9 below.
Table 8.9 Pre- and Post- Mitigation Significance: Private Groundwater Users

Operation NEGLIGIBLE (-ve) NEGLIGIBLE (-ve)
Post Closure MODERATE (-ve) NEGLIGIBLE (-ve)

140
8.4 IMPACT OF GROUNDWATER LEVEL CHANGES ON BASE FLOW AND BASE FLOW
DEPENDANT ECOSYSTEMS IN THE KLOOF
Table 8.10 Impact Characteristics: Groundwater Level Impacts on Base Flow and Base
Flow Dependant Ecosystems in the Kloof

Project None Open pit mining will Abandoned pit will remain a
Aspect/Activity dewater the aquifer and a groundwater sink and
drawdown cone will drawdown cone will
develop. Groundwater levels continue to expand.
will rise (mounding) Groundwater mounds
underneath tailings storage underneath TSF will seep
facility (TSF) and waste rock away, but stay underneath
dumps (WRDs). the WRDs.
Stakeholders/ N/A Ecosystems in the Kloof Ecosystems in the Kloof
Receptors which are dependent on the which are dependent on the
Affected base flow provided by base flow provided by
groundwater groundwater

Groundwater levels in the Kloof will be lowered by 15-20m during mining.

At the end of mining the groundwater level in the Kloof is reduced, however
the groundwater gradient is still towards the plains hence water still flows out
along the Kloof at depth. Groundwater flows through the Kloof will be
reduced by approximately 25% at the end of mining. Further, model results
indicate that spring flow in the Kloof might be effectively cut off.
The ecosystems (vegetation and habitat) in the Kloof are dependent on the
groundwater fed springs. Therefore, the Sensitivity / Vulnerability /
Importance of the groundwater resource is High. The planned activity will
result in the loss of irreplaceable resource.
Hydraulic head change is expected to be limited to the Project site and

adjacent properties belonging to the client, and is local in extent.
Groundwater levels are not expected to recover after mine closure and
therefore the impact is permanent. Lowering of the hydraulic head due to the
proposed mining activities will severely alter the base flow levels. The
frequency is classified as continuous due to the nature of the project and the
impact is likely. The impact magnitude is therefore rated as Large and the
impact significance (pre-mitigation) is MAJOR. The degree of confidence in

141
this assessment is high based on the proximity of the Kloof to the planned
open pit and the planned final depth of the pit.
Box 8.5 Summary of Operational Impact: Impacts on Base Flow and Base Flow
Dependant Ecosystems in the Kloof
Nature: Operational activities would result in a negative indirect impact on ecosystems

(vegetation and habitat) in the Kloof.
Sensitivity/Vulnerability/Importance of Resource/Receptor – High

Irreplaceability: The activity will result in the loss of irreplaceable resources
Impact Magnitude – Large

• Frequency: The frequency of the impact will be once off
• Likelihood: Vegetation and habitat will certainly be lost
IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE (PRE-MITIGATION) – MAJOR
Degree of Confidence: The degree of confidence is high.
Groundwater level change (drawdown) in the Kloof cannot be mitigated.
Post Closure Phase Impacts
As the cone of depression continues expand after mine closure, groundwater

levels in the Kloof continue to decrease. At 100 years post closure,
groundwater levels in the Kloof are expected to have decreased by 100-125m
compared to pre-mining levels.
Hence the hydraulic gradient along the Kloof will be reversed and water will
flow from the plains towards the Gamsberg (pit). It is not expected that
spring flow will recover post mine closure.
The impact characteristics and magnitude ratings remain unchanged for post-
closure impacts with regards to operational impacts. Significance remains
MAJOR.

142
Box 8.6 Summary of Post-Closure Impact: Impacts on Base Flow and Base Flow
Dependant Ecosystems in the Kloof
Nature: Operational activities would result in a negative indirect impact on ecosystems

(vegetation and habitat) in the Kloof.
Sensitivity/Vulnerability/Importance of Resource/Receptor – High

Irreplaceability: The activity will result in the loss of irreplaceable resources
Impact Magnitude – Large

• Likelihood: Vegetation and habitat will certainly be lost
IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE (PRE-MITIGATION) – MAJOR
Degree of Confidence: The degree of confidence is high.
Post Closure Phase Mitigation
Groundwater level change (drawdown) in the Kloof cannot be mitigated.
The impact cannot be mitigated and therefore the impact significance for
operational and post-closure phase remains unchanged. The pre- and post-
mitigation impacts are compared in Table 8.11 below.
Table 8.11 Pre- and Post- Mitigation Significance: Base Flow and Base Flow Dependant
Ecosystems in the Kloof

Construction INSIGNIFICANT (-ve) INSIGNIFICANT (-ve)
Operation MAJOR (-ve) MAJOR (-ve)
Post Closure MAJOR (-ve) MAJOR (-ve)

143
8.5 GROUNDWATER QUALITY IMPACT ON THE GROUNDWATER RESOURCE
The impact on groundwater quality in this section is considered with respect

to the groundwater resource while the impact this will have on groundwater
users is considered in Section 8.6, below.
8.5.1 Impact DescriptIon and Assessment
Table 8.12 Impact Characteristics: Groundwater Quality

Project Accidental Contaminated leachate from Contaminated leachate from
Aspect/Activity spillage from tailings storage facility (TSF) tailings storage facility (TSF)
construction and waste rock dumps and waste rock dumps
equipment (WRDs). Spillage from (WRDs).
and chemicals mining equipment.
storage areas. Contamination through
residuals of explosives used
in the mining process.
Impact Type Direct Direct Direct
Stakeholders/ Groundwater Groundwater Resource Groundwater Resource
Receptors Resource
Affected
Accidental spillage of hydrocarbons or other chemical substances used and

stored during the Construction Phase can potentially contaminate
groundwater locally.
The sensitivity and vulnerability of the groundwater resource to

contamination is rated Medium.
It is anticipated that large volumes of chemicals, that have a potential to

contaminate groundwater, will be stored/used on site during the construction
phase however the impact magnitude is Small and it is not anticipated that
the activity will result in the loss of an irreplaceable source. The impact
significance (pre-mitigation) is MINOR and the degree of confidence is
Medium.

144
Box 8.7 Summary of Construction Impact: Groundwater Quality
Nature: Construction activities could have a negative direct impact on groundwater quality.

Impact Magnitude – Small

• Extent: The extent of the impact is on-site
• Duration: The expected impact will be permanent
• Scale: The resource/ receptor will remain unaltered
• Likelihood: Likelihood for accidental spillages is possible
IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE (PRE-MITIGATION) – MINOR
Degree of Confidence: The degree of confidence is medium
Construction Phase Mitigation
A construction environmental management plan (EMP) needs to be in place

including, but not limited to:
• Adhere to best practice principles;

• Construction equipment should be up to standards and serviced regularly
to prevent oil spills;
• A spill response plan should be in place and construction workers should
be trained accordingly; and
• On-site storage areas for hydrocarbons and other chemicals should be
constructed in a way that potential tank failures can be contained
including bunds and surface hardstanding.
Contaminants of Concern (CoCs) related to the mining operation were

identified during the geochemical assessment and include sulphate (SO 4 ), iron
(Fe), manganese (Mn), zinc (Zn), copper (Cu), cadmium (Cd), lead (Pb),
arsenic (As) and nitrate (NO 3 ). Further, due to blasting activities it is expected
that large amounts of NO 3 will be released and possibly diesel depending on
the explosives used.
SO 4 leachate concentrations for tailings storage facility (TSF) and waste rock
dumps (WRDs) were quantified using geochemical modelling for input into
the groundwater model. SO 4 groundwater contamination emanating from
TSF and WRDs was quantified using numerical solute transport modelling.
SO 4 is a conservative tracer, providing an indication of conservative
contaminant extent.

SANS 241-1:2011 drinking water standard of 400mg/L are mainly confined to

145
within the immediate footprint (250m) of the contaminant sources. The
plumes are expected to impact areas of 1.6km2 (TSF) to 3.8km2 (WRDs) and not
extend off-site.
WRDs are located immediately adjacent to the mine pit and contaminated
seepage from the WRDs is expected to partly flow into the pit. It is unlikely
that water will be visible in the pit except following heavy rain events. Due to
the high evaporation rate, salts and other contaminants are expected to
accumulate in the pit and can be dissolved and mobilised during rain events.
Pumped water from the pit following rain events could therefore be heavily
contaminated. Further, toe seepage is expected to occur at the base of the
WRDs following rain events and continuously at the base of the TSF. This
seepage is expected to be contaminated.

rated as Medium since the groundwater is an important resource even though
groundwater quality does not meet drinking water or stock watering
standards. The planned activity will not result in the loss of irreplaceable
resource with regards to the groundwater resource.
Sulphate leaching from the TSF is predicted to steadily increase in

concentration to a maximum of about 12 000 mg/L on closure. This is
significantly higher than sulphate concentrations measured in groundwater
sampled from hydrocensus boreholes during the current study which range
from 22 mg/L to 1706 mg/L. However, water quality impacts are expected to
be limited in extent to the footprints of the TSF and WRDs and are therefore
on-site and local in extent. Groundwater quality is not expected to improve
after mine closure, hence it will be a permanent impact. Leaching of
contaminated water from TSF and WRDs will severely alter the groundwater
quality within the footprint of these facilities. The frequency is classified as
continuous due to the nature of the project and the impact on groundwater
quality is considered to be likely. The impact magnitude is rated as Medium
and the impact significance (pre-mitigation) is MODERATE. The degree of
confidence in this assessment is medium.

146
Box 8.8 Summary of Operational Impact: Groundwater Quality
resource in the Project area.


• Extent: The extent of the impact is confined to the footprint of the TSF and the WRDs
and is therefore on-site and local.
• Scale:The impact will severely alter the groundwater quality within the footprint of the
TSF and WRDs.
In keeping with the mitigation hierarchy, the priority in mitigation is to apply

mitigation measures to the source of the impact, main sources being the TSF
and WRDs.
Modelling results indicate that the TSF and WRDs will produce acid rock
drainage (ARD) which is expected to seep into groundwater. This will result
in a moderate significance rating based on the assumptions made during
modelling. Detailed geotechnical and geophysical investigations will be
undertaken prior to construction to refine and confirm assumptions made in
respect to the current studies around the integrity of the subsurface beneath
the TSF. Mitigation measures required to reduce the impact on groundwater
quality include the following:
• Prior to construction of WRDs and TSF, the ground of the facility’s

footprint should be prepared to reduce the hydraulic conductivity of the
material, ie through means of compaction, so that seepage water is forced
out of the facility at ground level rather than infiltrating into groundwater.
• Toe drains (interception trenches) along the base of both TSF and WRDs to
intercept drainage and convey to a return water dam. Toe seepage from
these facilities is expected to be contaminated and suitable management
measures should be in place to prevent the release of this contaminated
water into the environment. It is recommended to recycle as much water
as possible and re-use it.

147
Management options specifically for the TSF include the following:
• Short deposition cycles should be followed by regularly covering fresh

tailings soon after deposition to prevent them drying out and oxidising on
placement. Cladding the TSF side slopes with inert waste rock,
concurrently with deposition, to minimise both oxygen ingress and side-
slope erosion.
• Further addition of additives such as lime or slaked lime could help to

increase the alkalinity of the Gamsberg tailings prior to deposition. The
WMB (2000) results suggest, however, that the liming requirement to
offset the acid potential of the tailings would be high. Note also that
neutralising materials introduced during tailings amendment may
dissolve and be flushed from the TSF system prior to reacting with acidity
generated by the oxidation of sulphides in the tailings.
To decrease quality impact on the groundwater resource in the vicinity of the

TSF, a mineral liner system as specified by the design engineers is required to
be installed beneath the TSF (see details included in Annex D). The detailed
specifications of the TSF liner system requirements will be agreed upon by the
Department of Water Affairs and be in line with the conditions of the IWULA.
The present numerical groundwater flow and transport model is based on a

number of conservative assumptions and should be updated/validated as
additional information becomes available (ie SEEP/W model results,
geophysics results and hydraulic conductivity of tailings material) prior to
construction to ensure assumptions made during the development of the
model remain valid.
Pumped water from the pit following heavy rain events is expected to be
contaminated and will need to be contained, or treated to applicable standards
if it is to be released into the environment, in accordance with the water use
licence requirements.
It is further recommended that these mitigation measures be complemented

with groundwater quality monitoring in the vicinity of contamination sources
and in radially increasing distance from them. Monitoring should be carried
out on a regular basis throughout the construction and operational phases.
The monitoring data should be stored in an appropriate data management
tool/database.
Targeted monitoring, to provide data on key areas of unknown, allows the

assumptions in predictive models to be reduced and thus the reliance of such
models improves. Groundwater models should therefore be validated and
updated using the monitoring data such that transport model predictions can
be updated (ie plume extent, modelled concentrations). This will lead to
models with a higher confidence level that can be used as management tools

148
throughout the operational phase (ie update predicted impacts in order to be
proactive etc) and for planning of the post-closure phase of the Project to
ensure appropriate provisions are made.
The seepage from WRDs is controlled by increased recharge from rainfall due
to the disruption of natural material, increase in hydraulic conductivity and
the higher porosity of the dumps reducing the amount of surface runoff and
increasing the amount of infiltration. Therefore the seepage from WRDs is not
expected to stop after mine closure and is therefore expected to expand
further.
The TSF will be drained at the end of mine and is not expected to continue
releasing contaminants, assuming that due to the fine texture of the tailings
material any rainfall would not result in infiltration but rather surface run-off.
The plume emanating from the TSF is expected to remain in proximity of the
footprint of the facility.
Impact on the groundwater resource is therefore expected to be more

significant as a result of seepage from the WRDs, although seepage from the
TSF has higher SO 4 concentrations. Modelled areal extent of SO 4 plumes 100
years after mine closure are 2.4km2 for the TSF and 8.8km2 for the WRDs
which represents increases of 50% and 140% respectively. The maximum
travel distance of 1.2km is observed from the WRDs in south-westerly
direction.

rated as Medium. The planned activity will not result in the loss of
Water quality impacts are expected to be limited to the footprints of the TSF
and WRDs, and are on-site and local in extent. Groundwater quality is not
expected to improve after mine closure, hence it will be a permanent impact.
Leaching of contaminated water from TSF and WRDs will severely alter the
groundwater quality within the footprint of these facilities. The frequency is
classified as continuous due to the nature of the project and the likelihood is
certain. The impact magnitude is rated as Medium since the SO 4
concentrations are high however the extent of the plume is confined to the
mine lease area. The impact significance (pre-mitigation) is MODERATE.
The degree of confidence in this assessment is medium.

149
Box 8.9 Summary of Post-Closure Impact: Groundwater Quality


• Extent: The extent of the impact is on-site and local
Decommissioning and Post Closure Phase Mitigation
Operational mitigation measures have to be maintained post closure. Further,

final profiling of the TSF and WRDs should be aimed at reducing erosion and
minimising further water infiltration.

monitoring data collected throughout the construction and operational
phases) should be used for post-closure planning and to determine the extent
and frequency of post-closure groundwater level monitoring.
The implementation of the mitigation measures outlined above would reduce

the construction impacts from Minor significance to Negligible and the
operation impacts from Moderate to Moderate-Minor. The implementation of
the decommissioning phase mitigation measures would not reduce the
significance rating, and thus remain Moderate. The pre- and post-mitigation
impacts are compared in Table 8.13 below.
Table 8.13 Pre- and Post- Mitigation Significance: Groundwater Quality

Construction MINOR (-ve) NEGLIGIBLE (-ve)
Operation MODERATE(-ve) MODERATE-MINOR(-ve)
Decommissioning MODERATE (-ve) MODERATE-MINOR (-ve)
and Post Closure

150
8.6 GROUNDWATER QUALITY IMPACT ON PRIVATE GROUNDWATER USERS
This section considers the potential impact of water quality on groundwater

users.
Table 8.14 Impact Characteristics: Groundwater Users

Project N/A Contaminated leachate from Contaminated leachate from
Aspect/Activity tailings storage facility (TSF) tailings storage facility (TSF)
and waste rock dumps and waste rock dumps
(WRDs). Spillage from (WRDs).
mining equipment.
Contamination through
residuals of explosives used
in the mining process.
Stakeholders/ N/A Private Groundwater Users Private Groundwater Users
Receptors
Affected

groundwater users in the Project Area and its significance is therefore
NEGLIGIBLE.
SO 4 groundwater contamination emanating from TSF and WRDs was

quantified using numerical solute transport modelling. SO 4 is a conservative
tracer, providing an indication of conservative contaminant extent.

SANS 241-1:2011 drinking water standard of 400mg/L are mainly confined
within the immediate footprint (250m) of the contaminant sources and are not
expected to affect any private groundwater users (farm boreholes).

and WRDs, and are on-site in extent. Groundwater quality is not expected to
improve after mine closure, hence it will be a permanent impact. Leaching of
contaminated water from TSF and WRDs will remain unaltered the
groundwater quality outside of the footprint of these facilities. The frequency
is classified as continuous due to the nature of the project and the likelihood is
certain.

151
The impact magnitude is therefore rated as Negligible and the impact
significance (pre-mitigation) is NEGLIGIBLE. The degree of confidence in
this assessment is medium.
Box 8.10 Summary of Operational Impact: Groundwater Users


• Extent: The extent of the impact is confined to the site and is local
• Scale: The groundwater resource is expected to remain unaltered outside of the footprint
of TSF and WRDs
Groundwater quality should be monitored at the existing (known) private

boreholes in regular intervals to confirm modelling results. Should
monitoring data confirm impact on private users, the client will compensate
affected famers for their loss, replacing the lost water supply source.
The seepage from WRDs is not expected to stop after mine closure and will
therefore continue to expand post-closure. The plume emanating from the
TSF is expected to remain in proximity of the footprint of the facility.
Modelled areal extent of SO 4 plumes 100 years after mine closure are 2.4km2
for the TSF and 8.8km2 for the WRDs which represents increases of 50% and
140% respectively. The maximum travel distance of 1.2km is observed from
the WRDs in south-westerly direction. Private groundwater users are not
expected to be impacted by groundwater contamination as plumes remain
within farms owned by the client.

and WRDs, and remain on site and local in extent. Groundwater quality is

152
not expected to improve after mine closure, hence it will be a permanent
impact. Leaching of contaminated water from TSF and WRDs will remain
unaltered the groundwater quality outside of the footprint of these facilities.
The frequency is classified as continuous due to the nature of the project and
the likelihood is certain.
The impact magnitude is therefore rated as Negligible and the impact

significance (pre-mitigation) is NEGLIGIBLE. The degree of confidence in
this assessment is medium.
Box 8.11 Summary of Operational Impact: Groundwater Users


• Extent: The extent of the impact is confined to the site and is local
• Scale: The groundwater resource is expected to remain unaltered outside of the footprint
of TSF and WRDs
Groundwater quality should be monitored at the existing (known) private

boreholes in regular intervals starting prior to or during construction to
confirm modelling results (see the groundwater management plan in Section
10) Should monitoring data confirm impact on private users, the client will
compensate affected famers for their loss, replacing the lost water supply
source.
The present numerical groundwater flow and transport model will be

updated at regular intervals starting prior to construction as additional
information becomes available to ensure assumptions made during the
development of the model remain valid and that model predictions remain
current.
Pre-mitigation impacts were rated NEGLIGIBLE for construction, operational

and post-closure phases of the project, maybe change the negative impact to a
positive impact (ie if the quality of the alternative water source provided by

153
the project exceeds the existing one). The pre- and post-mitigation impacts are
compared in Table 8.15 below.
Table 8.15 Pre- and Post- Mitigation Significance: Private Groundwater Users

Operation NEGLIGIBLE (-ve) NEGLIGIBLE (-ve)
Post Closure NEGLIGIBLE (-ve) NEGLIGIBLE (-ve)
8.7 IMPLICATIONS OF SUGGESTED CHANGES TO LAYOUT
Based on recent discussions with the Applicant and design engineers, the
following changes to the project layout have been suggested after the
completion of this study. The changes are as follows:
• Relocation of the explosives magazine area from the top of the inselberg
to an area located between the N14 and inselberg. Due to the impacts to
three watercourses on the inselberg, this relocation was requested by
the Specialist Team; and
• Increase in size of the waste rock dump from to 270 hectares to
490 hectares. In order to reduce the slope angle of the waste rock dump
(i.e. from 450 – 350 degree slope), the footprint of the waste rock dump
has increased. This design refinement was in response to DMR
requirements for a waste rock dump.
Based on professional judgement, ERM is of the opinion that the suggested

changes with regards to the explosives magazine will not have any
implications on the outcomes of this study.
Suggested changes to the waste rock dump, however, will likely increase the
footprint of the modelled sulphate plumes as detailed in Section 7.2, but the
sulphate and metal concentrations of the leachate might decrease. ERM is of
the opinion that this will, however, not change the impact ratings or proposed
mitigation measures.

154
9 GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
9.1 GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
Management actions during mine operation and closure aim to:
• Minimise seepage of contaminants to groundwater through various

means including the capture and treatment surface water to minimise
seepage to groundwater.
• Reduce the volumes of water in the mine environment.
• Reduce the business risk to the mine of legacy groundwater

contamination, and the risk of spiralling closure costs through predictive
management of groundwater impacts, using routinely updated numerical
groundwater modelling.
Based on these aims, the following groundwater management actions are

recommended during operation and closure phases.
• As per the recommendations provided in the surface water impact

assessment (HHO, 2013), surface water should be captured in the
mining environment to minimise infiltration of potentially
contaminated water to groundwater
• Any water obtained from dewatering or sump pumping in the pit or

mining environment, will require treatment to applicable standards, if
it is to be released into environment, in accordance with legislative
requirements. Where possible this water should be considered for re-
use in the mining operations.
• The pit should be maintained such that it remains a water sink even
during exceptionally heavy rains, through ensuring that the final
surface water catchment is minimised such that evaporation exceeds
rainfall and runoff, and groundwater recovery
• The numerical groundwater model developed for this study must

routinely be updated to support adaptive groundwater management
measures. The model developed here is low confidence due to the
limitations presented (Section 2.5.5). If the model is updated with
operational data, predictions of impact can be updated and translated
into mine management practices, supporting risk management and
post-closure planning.
• Integrated with update of numerical models, the monitoring plan

presented below must be regarded as the starting point for a living

155
document, to be updated based on interpretation of the monitoring
results, and results of modelling. In addition, strategies detailing what
extra mitigation measures or management actions are initiated based
on certain possible results, should be developed.
• Survey all monitoring boreholes to provide elevation of borehole in

mamsl.
• Establish a Groundwater Monitoring Committee, for the presentation

and sharing of all groundwater monitoring data, as a risk management
measure to the mine. The Committee is to be attended by management
of the mine, regulatory bodies (DWA, DEA, catchment management
agency if established), local groundwater users, and any other
Interested and Affected Parties. It is recommended that the Committee
meet at least quarterly initially, which could be relaxed to 6-monthly
depending on monitoring results.
9.2 PRELIMINARY GROUNDWATER MONITORING PLAN
9.2.1 Purpose of Preliminary Groundwater Monitoring Plan
The monitoring plan has been developed taking into account the best practice
guidelines for water monitoring in the South African mining industry (DWA
2007). The measurement of water levels and taking of groundwater samples
discussed below should proceed according the best practice for monitoring
methods as outlined by Weaver (2007).
Monitoring is required for the following purposes:
1. To detect the actual impact on groundwater quantity and quality

timeously,
2. To assess whether the mitigation measures given in Section 8 are

effective, supporting the update of mitigation measures where
necessary;
3. To support adaptive management in which the numerical model can

be updated based on new information, and used to predict
groundwater impacts. With updated high confidence predictions the
mine can act in a pre-emptive manner, thus reducing risks, rather than
acting in hindsight when monitoring data reveals a problem; and
4. To interrogate unknowns listed in this report, in which various field

investigations can be carried out to test and improve the
hydrogeological conceptual understanding of the aquifer system.

156
9.2.2 Groundwater Monitoring Plan
The monitoring plan presented in Table 9.1 below addresses the recommended
monitoring required to address items 1, 2 and 3 above. As listed in Section 9.1
above, this is not a standalone monitoring plan, yet needs to be updated as
monitoring data and modelling results are generated, hence it should be
considered a preliminary monitoring plan. Details in support of Table 9.1 are
listed as follows:
• Each borehole was selected with reference to mining infrastructure

that it is there to monitor – and this is reflected as the ‘primary reason’.
This is listed as primary reason because the borehole may have two
purposes, for example borehole ‘4’ is within the plan as it is within the
projected drawdown cone and can reflect the change in water level
within the kloof drainage channel, yet secondly it can also act as a
farfield monitoring borehole for the waste rock dumps.
• “Boundary” boreholes are located at the boundary of the mine

infrastructure and are within the projected (drawdown or quality)
impact zone. Farfield boreholes are mostly beyond the projected
impact zone. Nearfield boreholes sit between these two and are
designed to act as early warning boreholes to potential impact
reaching the farfield boreholes.
• Existing mine owned boreholes (Figure 4.1 and Table 4.2) have been
selected for monitoring, and where there are no boreholes available,
yet monitoring in a certain position is required, a Recommended
Monitoring Borehole is listed (RMBH1 to RMBH10). The approximate
location of these boreholes is shown in Figure 9.1.
• Boundary monitoring boreholes are required for the pit, but are not
individually listed or positioned in Figure 9.1 (listed as RMBHx). Wire-
line vibrating piezometers should be installed for monitoring pore
pressure and wall stability.
• In addition to the existing boreholes and the recommended new

boreholes, it is suggested that Black Mountain undertakes the
monitoring of all private boreholes, as a risk management measure in
order to ensure a reliable and complete dataset of water levels and
water chemistry exists for these holes.
• The frequency of water level measurement is divided between

monthly (manually with a water level or ‘dip’ meter), and continual
(automatically on 1-hour readings, with pressure loggers installed in
the borehole). Certain boreholes are selected for continual

157
measurement for building the conceptual understanding of aquifer
behaviour (Table 9.2).
• Boundary and nearfield boreholes are to be sampled for water quality

quarterly and Farfield boreholes can be sampled 6-monthly. Samples
should be submitted to a SANAS accredited laboratory and the
sampling protocol for that chemistry adhered to. Due to the natural
poor quality of the groundwater, future water quality results should be
compared to the baseline groundwater characteristics presented here
rather than DWA guidelines or SANS drinking water standards. The
list of chemical constituents to be sampled for should be routinely
updated based on prior results. Parameters to be tested include, but
are not limited to:
o Major metals: Al, Cd, Cu, Fe (Ferric & Ferrous iron), Mn, Pb, Sb,
Zn, U
o Majors constituents pH, EC, TDS, Cl, SO4, NO3, F, Ca, Mg, Na
and K
o It is recommended that the metals are assessed via inductively
coupled plasma – mass spectrometry
• The weather station established on the northwest rim of the inselberg

must be reinstated, maintained and downloaded routinely. This is key
to interpretation of water level signatures and can contribute to
quantification of recharge
• All monitoring records should be stored in a database which is

routinely updated, maintained, and includes all metadata associated
with the monitoring activities.

158
Figure 9.1 Recommended new monitoring boreholes

159
Table 9.1 Recommended Monitoring Plan
Proposed Monitoring Protocol
ID Alternate ID Water Water

Primary Level quality
Reason Category frequency frequency
AR 4 MBH 2 WRD Nearfield Quarterly
MBH 3,
AR 5 GBH03 WRD Nearfield Quarterly
Boundar
MBH11
AR 7 TSF y Quarterly
Boundar
MBH 7
AR 8 TSF y Quarterly
AR 9 MBH 9 TSF Nearfield Quarterly
AR10 MBH10 TSF Nearfield Quarterly
AR11 MBH 8 TSF Nearfield Quarterly
Existing boreholes
Boundar
AR12 TSF y Quarterly
BH5 GAMS2, 5 Pit Nearfield Quarterly
BLH2, MBH
BH6 6 WRD Farfield 6-monthly
BLH1 14, 13, (12) Pit Farfield 6-monthly
BLH3 MBH 5 WRD Nearfield Quarterly
BLH4 MBH 4 WRD Nearfield Quarterly
GAMB 1 GAMS4 Pit Nearfield Quarterly
GAMB 3 Pit Nearfield Quarterly
GAMB 4 GAMS 5 Pit Nearfield Quarterly
GAMB 5 Pit Nearfield Quarterly
GAMS 3 K1 Pit Nearfield Quarterly
GAMS 8 MBH1 WRD Nearfield Quarterly
LUS1 Pit Farfield 6-monthly
4 Pit Farfield 6-monthly
25 Pit Farfield 6-monthly
RMBH1 TSF Farfield 6-monthly
Recommended new boreholes
RMBH4 WRD Farfield 6-monthly

RMBH5 WRD Farield 6-monthly
RMBH6 Pit Nearfield Quarterly
RMBH7 Pit Farfield 6-monthly
Boundar
RMBH8 WRD y Quarterly
Boundar
RMBH9 WRD y Quarterly
RMBH1 Boundar
0 WRD y Quarterly
Boundar
RMBHx Pit y Quarterly

160
Private
borehole n/a Risk
s All Management n/a Monthly 6-monthly
The actions listed in Table 9.2 address the recommended monitoring actions
for item 4 above.

161
Table 9.2 Recommended Field investigations
Item Investigation Implementation Strategy

Groundwater The predictions provided in the numerical groundwater model are highly sensitive to the recharge value Recommend the
Recharge applied, yet this is a parameter with little data. Recharge to the inselberg and plains should be appointment of a
investigated via various methods, including: hydrogeological support
• Comparison of continuously monitored water levels to rainfall events, to identify which rain consultant to manage this
events contribute to groundwater recharge investigation. It can be
• Quantification of recharge via the chloride method which compares chloride concentration of carried out cost effectively
rainfall and groundwater to the mine by linking with
Hydraulic continuum Test the conceptual understanding of a hydraulic continuum through national research
approach • Pump tests, detailed below programmes such as
• Comparison of continuously monitored water levels, detailed above carrying out aspects of the
Aquifer hydraulic The predictions provided in the numerical groundwater model are sensitive to the storage parameters investigation under the
properties and porosity applied, yet these are uncertain parameters. These can be investigated via: Water Research
• Extended pump tests conducted in each major lithology, with monitoring of observation holes Commission.
• Tracer tests to assess porosity
Structural The model is based on a homogeneous medium assumption and the omission of as yet unknown
Heterogeneity dominant structural features could impact results. Geophysics is recommended in the vicinity of
contaminant sources to detect major faults which could act as preferential pathways.
Aquifer hydraulic The variation of hydraulic properties with depth is uncertain. Deep drilling on the inselberg is planned
properties with depth by Black Mountain and should include:
• Drilling should proceed through the base of the ore body to the base of the Pella Quartzite to
establish the 3D surface of the base of the Pella Quartizte, such that the numerical model can be
translated to a 3D model
• Logging of fracture frequency with depth, if possible
• Packer testing over various depths to test water bearing strata at depth
10 REFERENCES
AATS. (2000). Gamsberg - Hydrogeological Modelling Study. Anglo American

Technical Services.
Anderson, M. P., & Woessner, W. W. (1992). Applied Groundwater Modelling.

Simulation of Flow and Advective Transport. San Diego, California: Academic
Press, Inc.
Barnett, B., Townley, L. R., Post, V., Evans, R. E., Hunt, R. J., Peeters, L., . . .
Boronkay, A. (2012). Australian groundwater modelling guidelines. Waterlines
Report. National Water Commission, Canberra.
Brunner, P., Henricks, H.-J., Franssen, L., Kgotlhang, P., Bauer-Gottwein, &
Kinzelbach, W. (2007). How can remote sensing contribute in groundwater.
Hydrogeology Journal 15, 5-18.
De Vries, J. J., Selaolo, E. T., & Beekman, H. E. (2000). Groundwater recharge

in the Kalahari, with reference to. Journal of Hydrology 238, 110-123.
Department of Water Affairs and Forestry. (1996). South African Water Quality
Guidelines (second edition). Agricultural use: Livestock Watering (2nd ed., Vol. 5).
Department of Water Affairs and Foresty . (1996). South African Water Quality
Guidelines (second edition). Domestic Use (Vol. 1).
Doherty, J. L. (1994). PEST – Model-independent parameter estimation. User’s

Manual. Watermark Computing, Australia.
Doherty, J., Brebber, L., & Whyte, P. (1994). PEST – Model-independent

parameter estimation. User’s Manual. Watermark Computing, Australia.
Freeze, R. A., & Cherry, J. A. (1979). Groundwater. Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Golder. (2007). Hydrocensus of the Eastern Lobe of the Gamsberg.
HHO Africa. (2013). Proposed Gamsberg Zinc Mine, Hydrological Impact

Assessment. Cape Town.
Midgley, D. C., Pitman, W. V., & Middelton, B. J. (1994). Surface Water

Resources of South Africa - (First ed., Vol. III). WRC Report No 298/3.1/94.
Ncube, E. J., & Schutte, C. F. (2005). The occurrence of fluoride in South African
groundwater: A water quality and health problem (Vol. 31).

163
Peel, M. C., Finlayson, B. L., & McMahon, T. A. (2007). Updated world map of
the Köppen–Geiger climate classification. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 11: 1633–1644.
SANS, 2.-1. (2011). Drinking Water Part 1: Microbiological, physical, aesthetic and
chemical determinands. South African Bureau of Standards (SABS).
Shewchuk, J. R. (1996, May). Triangle: Engineering a 2D Quality Mesh

Generator and Delaunay Triangulator. (Manocha, C. Ming, & Dinesh, Eds.)
Applied Computational Geometry: Towards Geometric Engineering, 1148, 203-222.
Spitz, K., & Moreno, J. (1996). A Practical Guide to Groundwater and Solute
Transport Modeling. John Wiley & Sons Inc.
SRK. (2010). Preliminary Geohydrology and Groundwater Quality Baseline Report,

Gamsberg Pre-Feasibility Project. Groundwater Report No 396036. Retrieved
January 2010
Strydom, Colliston, W. P., Praekelt, H. E., Schoch, A. E., van Aswegen, J. J.,
Beukes, G. J., . . . Botes, F. J. (1987). The techtonic units of parts of Namaqualand,
bushmanland, and Souther South-west Africa / Namibia. Bushmanland Research
Project, Department of Geology, University of the Orange Free State.
Van Wyk, N., & Coetzee, H. (2008). The distribution of uranium in

groundwater in the Bushmanland and Namaqualand areas, Northern Cape
Province, South Africa. Uranium, Mining and Hydrogeology, 639-643.
Vegter, J. R. (2006). Hydrogeology of Groundwater, Region 26: Bushmanland. WRC

Report No TT 285/06.
Vermeulen, P. D. (2006, November). An investigation into recharge in South

African underground collieries. (Vol. 106).
Weaver, J. M. C., L. Cave and A. S. Talma (2007) Groundwater Sampling

(Second Edition). WRC Report no. TT 303/07.

164
Annex A
Laboratory Report
Test Report Page 1 of 14
Client: ERM Date of certificate: 20 September 2012

Address: Building 23, The Woodlands Office Park, Woodlands Drive, Woodmead, Sand Date accepted: 11 September 2012
Report no: 9675 Date completed: 19 September 2012
Project: ERM Revision: 0
Lab no: 101161 101162 101163 101164 101165 101166 101167

Date sampled: 03-Sep-12 03-Sep-12 03-Sep-12 03-Sep-12 03-Sep-12 03-Sep-12 01-Sep-12
Sample type: Water Water Water Water Water Water Water
Locality description:
RS1 RS2+3 RS4 RS5 RS6 RS7 KGT1
Analyses Unit Method

A pH pH CSM 20 8.44 8.18 8.67 8.29 7.72 8.50 7.34
A Electrical conductivity (EC) mS/m CSM 20 58.30 145.80 114.50 56.30 74.90 125.30 249.30
A Total dissolved solids (TDS) mg/l CSM 26 324 853 477 350 435 672 1536
A Total alkalinity mg/l CSM 01 208.63 152.98 187.70 127.27 172.15 174.28 276.29
A Chloride (Cl) mg/l CSM 02 36.00 302.86 117.85 69.85 105.47 217.44 602.83
A Sulphate (SO₄) mg/l CSM 03 36.21 143.29 82.46 64.81 57.15 106.06 218.73
A Nitrate (NO3) as N mg/l CSM 06 1.79 14.3 1.61 4.67 0.762 3.92 5.90
A Nitrite (NO2) as N mg/l CSM 07 0.119 0.120 0.081 0.166 0.036 0.151 0.032
A Ammonium (NH4) as N mg/l CSM 05 0.431 0.066 0.105 0.095 0.098 0.109 0.088
A Orthophosphate (PO4) as P mg/l CSM 04 <0.025 <0.025 <0.025 <0.025 <0.025 <0.025 <0.025
A Fluoride (F) mg/l CSM 08 3.605 3.377 2.480 3.022 3.989 4.151 3.802
A Calcium (Ca) mg/l CSM 30 49.13 111.23 59.01 50.27 68.22 53.60 182.58
A Magnesium (Mg) mg/l CSM 30 18.98 41.33 29.38 25.84 23.33 35.70 62.77
A Sodium (Na) mg/l CSM 30 50.42 141.24 69.01 52.20 70.94 142.19 281.97
A Potassium (K) mg/l CSM 30 3.05 3.44 2.91 2.57 1.95 4.21 11.37
A Aluminium (Al) mg/l CSM 31 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006
A Iron (Fe) mg/l CSM 31 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006
A Manganese (Mn) mg/l CSM 31 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
A Total chromium (Cr) mg/l CSM 31 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002
A Copper (Cu) mg/l CSM 31 <0.001 <0.001 0.003 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
A Nickel (Ni) mg/l CSM 31 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003
A Zinc (Zn) mg/l CSM 31 0.237 0.080 0.130 0.012 <0.004 <0.004 0.014
A Cobalt (Co) mg/l CSM 31 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002
A Cadmium (Cd) mg/l CSM 31 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
A Lead (Pb) mg/l CSM 31 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.002 <0.001 <0.001 0.003
A Turbidity NTU CSM 21 1.99 1.96 1.86 3.36 2.12 0.96 0.85
A Total hardness mg/l CSM 26 201 448 268 232 266 281 714
N Suspended solids (SS) mg/l CSM 25 15.0 7.00 5.00 21.0 30.0 10.00 11.0
A Arsenic (As) mg/l CSM 34 <0.023 <0.023 <0.023 <0.023 <0.023 <0.023 <0.023
A = Accredited N= Not accredited O = Outsourced S = Sub-contracted NR = Not requested RTF = Results to follow NATD = Not able to determine
Results marked 'Not SANAS Accredited' in this report are not included in the SANAS Schedule of Accreditation for this laboratory.
This test report shall not be reproduced except in full, without written approval of the laboratory.
Measurement of uncertainty available on request for all methods included in the SANAS Schedule of Accreditation.
Results reported against the limit of quantification. Laboratory Manager: H. Holtzhausen
www.aquatico.co.za 489 Jacqueline Drive, Garsfontein, Pretoria, South Africa Tel: +27 12 348 2813/4 Fax: +27 12 348 8575

Lab no: 101161 101162 101163 101164 101165 101166 101167

RS1 RS2+3 RS4 RS5 RS6 RS7 KGT1

N Barium (Ba) mg/l CSM 32 0.002 0.006 0.011 0.046 0.030 0.021 0.013
N Dissolved Uranium (U) mg/l CSM 37 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.10 0.13

Lab no: 101168 101169 101170 101171 101172 101173 101174

KGT2 KGT3 KGT4 KGT5 KGT7 KGT8 GAMS2

A pH pH CSM 20 7.82 8.33 8.54 8.58 8.01 8.60 7.64
A Nitrite (NO2) as N mg/l CSM 07 0.031 0.026 <0.005 <0.005 0.130 0.130 0.028
A Orthophosphate (PO4) as P mg/l CSM 04 0.061 0.047 0.074 0.062 <0.025 <0.025 <0.025
A Iron (Fe) mg/l CSM 31 <0.006 <0.006 0.869 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006
A Manganese (Mn) mg/l CSM 31 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 1.97
A Copper (Cu) mg/l CSM 31 0.004 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.047 <0.001 <0.001
A Nickel (Ni) mg/l CSM 31 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 0.036 <0.003 <0.003
A Zinc (Zn) mg/l CSM 31 <0.004 0.005 0.025 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 1.147
A Cobalt (Co) mg/l CSM 31 0.003 <0.002 <0.002 0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002
A Lead (Pb) mg/l CSM 31 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Lab no: 101168 101169 101170 101171 101172 101173 101174

KGT2 KGT3 KGT4 KGT5 KGT7 KGT8 GAMS2

N Dissolved Uranium (U) mg/l CSM 37 0.16 0.12 0.08 0.18 0.07 0.03 <0.01

Lab no: 101175 101176 101177 101178 101179 101180 101181

GAMS3 GAMS4 GAMS5 GAMS6 GAMS8 GAMS9 GAMS10

A pH pH CSM 20 8.51 7.25 5.81 7.40 7.51 6.46 7.35
A Total alkalinity mg/l CSM 01 203.74 346.61 <8.26 131.15 297.01 19.91 98.82
A Nitrate (NO3) as N mg/l CSM 06 0.329 1.35 <0.057 1.65 0.270 3.21 0.336
A Nitrite (NO2) as N mg/l CSM 07 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005
A Ammonium (NH4) as N mg/l CSM 05 <0.015 <0.015 0.060 5.95 7.56 0.086 0.079
A Orthophosphate (PO4) as P mg/l CSM 04 <0.025 <0.025 0.057 0.110 0.206 0.097 0.083
A Fluoride (F) mg/l CSM 08 1.029 0.591 <0.183 1.096 2.022 0.254 1.997
A Aluminium (Al) mg/l CSM 31 <0.006 <0.006 0.138 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006
A Iron (Fe) mg/l CSM 31 <0.006 <0.006 84.321 0.095 0.009 <0.006 <0.006
A Manganese (Mn) mg/l CSM 31 <0.001 <0.001 69.3 3.23 0.419 <0.001 0.062
A Copper (Cu) mg/l CSM 31 <0.001 <0.001 0.052 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
A Zinc (Zn) mg/l CSM 31 0.031 <0.004 11.25 0.027 <0.004 0.228 0.229
A Cobalt (Co) mg/l CSM 31 0.002 <0.002 0.006 0.004 0.002 <0.002 0.006
A Lead (Pb) mg/l CSM 31 0.002 <0.001 0.028 0.002 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Lab no: 101175 101176 101177 101178 101179 101180 101181

GAMS3 GAMS4 GAMS5 GAMS6 GAMS8 GAMS9 GAMS10

N Dissolved Uranium (U) mg/l CSM 37 0.01 0.02 0.16 <0.01 0.05 <0.01 <0.01

Lab no: 101182 101183 101184 101185 101186 101187 101188

AR1 AR2 AR3 AR4 AR5 AR7 AR8

A pH pH CSM 20 8.03 7.70 8.01 7.54 7.83 7.81 7.74
A Nitrite (NO2) as N mg/l CSM 07 0.063 0.109 0.099 0.083 0.024 0.006 0.008
A Orthophosphate (PO4) as P mg/l CSM 04 0.147 0.128 0.062 0.052 0.085 0.045 0.044
A Iron (Fe) mg/l CSM 31 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 0.136 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006
A Manganese (Mn) mg/l CSM 31 <0.001 0.028 <0.001 0.218 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
A Copper (Cu) mg/l CSM 31 0.044 0.103 0.005 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.008
A Zinc (Zn) mg/l CSM 31 <0.004 0.005 0.105 <0.004 0.018 0.010 0.052
A Cobalt (Co) mg/l CSM 31 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002
A Lead (Pb) mg/l CSM 31 <0.001 0.017 <0.001 0.006 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
N Suspended solids (SS) mg/l CSM 25 13.0 106 9.00 88.0 50.0 24.0 23.0

Lab no: 101182 101183 101184 101185 101186 101187 101188

AR1 AR2 AR3 AR4 AR5 AR7 AR8


Lab no: 101189 101190 101191 101192 101193 101194 101195

AR9 AR10 AR11 AR12 ACH1 ACH2 BCH1

A pH pH CSM 20 7.76 7.49 7.96 7.54 6.69 7.49 7.39
A Nitrite (NO2) as N mg/l CSM 07 0.007 <0.005 0.246 0.130 <0.005 0.126 0.019
A Ammonium (NH4) as N mg/l CSM 05 0.153 0.063 0.063 <0.015 0.061 <0.015 0.092
A Orthophosphate (PO4) as P mg/l CSM 04 0.042 0.060 0.044 <0.025 0.052 <0.025 0.053
A Iron (Fe) mg/l CSM 31 0.537 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006
A Manganese (Mn) mg/l CSM 31 0.566 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
A Copper (Cu) mg/l CSM 31 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.005 0.013 0.014 <0.001
A Zinc (Zn) mg/l CSM 31 0.006 0.018 <0.004 <0.004 0.092 0.031 0.639
A Cobalt (Co) mg/l CSM 31 0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002
A Lead (Pb) mg/l CSM 31 0.004 0.003 0.001 0.020 <0.001 0.015 <0.001
N Suspended solids (SS) mg/l CSM 25 11.0 13.0 6.00 18.0 <1.00 12.0 7.00

Lab no: 101189 101190 101191 101192 101193 101194 101195

AR9 AR10 AR11 AR12 ACH1 ACH2 BCH1

N Dissolved Uranium (U) mg/l CSM 37 0.09 0.03 0.04 0.05 <0.01 0.16 0.08

Lab no: 101196 101197 101198 101199 101200 101201 101202

BCH3 BCH4 AGG1 LUS1 DUP1 DUP2 DUP3

A pH pH CSM 20 7.60 7.65 7.04 7.65 7.97 8.42 7.19
A Nitrite (NO2) as N mg/l CSM 07 0.018 0.008 0.129 0.069 0.129 <0.005 <0.005
A Ammonium (NH4) as N mg/l CSM 05 0.162 0.069 <0.015 <0.015 0.058 <0.015 <0.015
A Orthophosphate (PO4) as P mg/l CSM 04 0.047 <0.025 <0.025 <0.025 <0.025 <0.025 <0.025
A Iron (Fe) mg/l CSM 31 0.024 0.424 <0.006 0.233 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006
A Manganese (Mn) mg/l CSM 31 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
A Copper (Cu) mg/l CSM 31 <0.001 <0.001 0.010 <0.001 0.042 0.001 <0.001
A Nickel (Ni) mg/l CSM 31 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 <0.003 0.034 <0.003 <0.003
A Zinc (Zn) mg/l CSM 31 <0.004 0.006 0.043 0.006 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004
A Cobalt (Co) mg/l CSM 31 <0.002 0.004 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002
A Lead (Pb) mg/l CSM 31 0.002 <0.001 0.015 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
N Suspended solids (SS) mg/l CSM 25 38.0 197 22.0 164 50.0 9.00 15.0

Lab no: 101196 101197 101198 101199 101200 101201 101202

BCH3 BCH4 AGG1 LUS1 DUP1 DUP2 DUP3


Lab no: 101203

Date sampled: 01-Sep-12
Sample type: Water
DUP4

A pH pH CSM 20 7.71
A Electrical conductivity (EC) mS/m CSM 20 101.50
A Total dissolved solids (TDS) mg/l CSM 26 616
A Total alkalinity mg/l CSM 01 245.55
A Chloride (Cl) mg/l CSM 02 109.58
A Sulphate (SO₄) mg/l CSM 03 126.06
A Nitrate (NO3) as N mg/l CSM 06 2.87
A Nitrite (NO2) as N mg/l CSM 07 0.070
A Ammonium (NH4) as N mg/l CSM 05 0.160
A Orthophosphate (PO4) as P mg/l CSM 04 0.045
A Fluoride (F) mg/l CSM 08 3.082
A Calcium (Ca) mg/l CSM 30 50.46
A Magnesium (Mg) mg/l CSM 30 19.26
A Sodium (Na) mg/l CSM 30 143.50
A Potassium (K) mg/l CSM 30 13.72
A Aluminium (Al) mg/l CSM 31 <0.006
A Iron (Fe) mg/l CSM 31 <0.006
A Manganese (Mn) mg/l CSM 31 <0.001
A Total chromium (Cr) mg/l CSM 31 <0.002
A Copper (Cu) mg/l CSM 31 <0.001
A Nickel (Ni) mg/l CSM 31 <0.003
A Zinc (Zn) mg/l CSM 31 0.012
A Cobalt (Co) mg/l CSM 31 0.002
A Cadmium (Cd) mg/l CSM 31 <0.001
A Lead (Pb) mg/l CSM 31 0.004
A Turbidity NTU CSM 21 11.50
A Total hardness mg/l CSM 26 205
N Suspended solids (SS) mg/l CSM 25 32.0
A Arsenic (As) mg/l CSM 34 <0.023

Lab no: 101203

Date sampled: 01-Sep-12
Sample type: Water
DUP4

N Barium (Ba) mg/l CSM 32 0.019
N Dissolved Uranium (U) mg/l CSM 37 0.06
Annex B
Mine Schedule
GAMSBERG NORTH OPEN PIT, Based on Pitshell from Whittle Optimization Run Case 1
Yearly Production Schedule
PUSHBACK 1 PUSHBACK 2 PUSHBACK 3 PUSHBACK 4 PUSHBACK 5
PERIOD Mill Feed Waste Total Top Bottom Mill Feed Waste Total Top Bottom Mill Feed Waste Total Top Bottom Mill Feed Waste Total Top Bottom Mill Feed Waste Total Top Bottom
Year tonnes tonnes tonnes Elevation Elevation tonnes tonnes tonnes Elevation Elevation tonnes tonnes tonnes Elevation Elevation tonnes tonnes tonnes Elevation Elevation tonnes tonnes tonnes Elevation Elevation
1 - 124 000 000 124 000 000 1120 1040 - - - - - - - - - - - -
2 7 140 767 116 859 233 124 000 000 1040 950 - - - - - - - - - - - -
3 9 882 907 34 204 527 44 087 434 950 870 - 71 999 828 71 999 828 1120 1040 - 7 761 190 7 761 190 1110 1080 - 151 548 151 548 1110 1100 - - -
4 3 436 545 5 993 465 9 430 010 870 800 6 482 372 98 471 135 104 953 507 1040 970 - 9 616 483 9 616 483 1080 1060 - - - 1100 1100 - - -
5 - - - 9 834 780 52 697 043 62 531 823 970 880 - 61 468 177 61 468 177 1060 1020 - - - 1100 1100 - - -
6 - - - 6 972 361 20 303 806 27 276 167 880 780 2 731 417 99 992 416 102 723 833 1020 970 - - - 1100 1100 - - -
7 - - - 1 353 950 1 600 715 2 954 665 780 730 8 333 031 117 326 121 125 659 151 970 890 - 1 386 183 1 386 183 1100 1090 - - -
8 - - - - - - 9 612 948 41 780 489 51 393 437 890 840 - 78 346 995 78 346 995 1090 1010 - 259 568 259 568 1100 1100
9 - - - - - - 9 459 193 22 484 241 31 943 434 840 800 291 489 97 765 076 98 056 566 1010 950 - - - 1100 1100
10 - - - - - - 8 991 128 11 307 381 20 298 509 800 740 989 711 39 124 195 40 113 907 950 930 - 69 587 585 69 587 585 1100 1000
11 - - - - - - 2 829 779 1 567 468 4 397 247 740 700 7 008 587 113 046 624 120 055 210 930 850 - 5 547 543 5 547 543 1000 1000
12 - - - - - - - - - 9 807 575 62 936 507 72 744 082 850 790 - 57 255 919 57 255 919 1000 960
13 - - - - - - - - - 9 776 424 34 600 271 44 376 695 790 730 - 85 623 305 85 623 305 960 910
14 - - - - - - - - - 9 425 840 11 201 339 20 627 179 730 680 455 917 108 916 904 109 372 821 910 840
15 - - - - - - - - - 2 129 869 1 324 705 3 454 574 680 650 7 553 134 118 992 292 126 545 426 840 750
16 - - - - - - - - - - - - 9 999 995 71 199 295 81 199 290 750 680
17 - - - - - - - - - - - - 9 999 995 24 179 601 34 179 596 680 640
18 - - - - - - - - - - - - 10 000 000 13 076 287 23 076 287 640 570
19 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 721 297 956 553 2 677 849 570 550
TOTAL 20 460 219 281 057 225 301 517 444 24 643 463 245 072 527 269 715 990 41 957 496 373 303 966 415 261 461 39 429 495 439 883 443 479 312 939 39 730 338 555 594 852 595 325 189
Mill Feed Waste Total Top Bottom

tonnes tonnes tonnes Strip Ratio Elevation Elevation
PB1 20 460 219 281 057 225 301 517 444 13.74 1120 800
PB2 24 643 463 245 072 527 269 715 990 9.94 1120 730
PB3 41 957 496 373 303 966 415 261 461 8.90 1110 700
PB4 39 429 495 439 883 443 479 312 939 11.16 1110 650
PB5 39 730 338 555 594 852 595 325 189 13.98 1100 550
TOTAL 166 221 011 1 894 912 013 2 061 133 023 11.40
Annex C
Sensitivity Analysis
Table 1 Sensitivity Analysis Overview, Input Parameters and Results for 100 years
Post Closure
Reference Aquifer Thickness Porosity

Aquifer [m] 100 10
Thickness
Porosity [] 0.005 0.0005
Plume
Plume size [km2] 12.91 68.15 68.15

TSF [km2] 3.334
WRD [km2] 9.583
Maximum [m] 1400 6500 6500
transport
distance
WRD
Drawdown [m] 0 0 0
difference
Post Closure
Reference Specific Storage

Specific Storage [] 0.001 0.0001
Plume
Plume size [km2] 12.91 13.632

TSF [km2] 3.334 2.948
WRD [km2] 9.583 10.684
Maximum transport [m] 1400 1400
distance WRD
Drawdown
Drawdown [m] 0 36
difference
Post Closure
Reference Molecular Diffusion Dispersivity
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

S1
Reference Molecular Diffusion Dispersivity
Molecular [m2/s] 1.00E-09 1.00E-10
diffusion
Dispersivity [m] 150 1500
longitudinal
Dispersivity [m] 15 150
transversal
Plume
Plume size [km2] 12.91 12.966 27.935

TSF [km2] 3.334 3.367 16.65
WRD [km2] 9.583 9.599 11.285
Maximum [m] 1400 1400 2000
transport
distance WRD
Drawdown [m] 0 0 0
difference
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

S2
Annex D
Details of Mineral Liner as

Proposed by AMEC
Gamsberg Tailings Storage Facility Details (For discussion)
HDPE Liner Design Option
Figure 1 Underliner System Drainage Plan (Pre-deposition Stage)

Figure 2 Underliner System Drainage Details – Sand Drains
Figure 3 Underliner System Drainage Details – Upstream Sump
Figure 4 Overliner System Drainage Plan (Pre-deposition Stage)
Figure 5 Overliner System Drainage Details
Mineral Liner Design Option (no HDPE liner)
Figure 6 Under-drainage System Drainage Details

Figure 7 Seepage Collection Pond Detail

Gamsberg ESIA - Hydrogeology

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gamsberg ESIA - Hydrogeology

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gamsberg ESIA - Hydrogeology

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Annex G.

GAMSBERG ZINC PROJECT ESIA

Groundwater Impact Assessment

Delivering sustainable solutions in a more competitive world

GAMSBERG ZINC PROJECT ESIA

Groundwater Impact Assessment

Prepared by: Helen Seyler

For and on behalf of

Approved by: Stefan Muller

Date: 17 April 2013

This report has been prepared by Environmental Resources Management the

This report is confidential to the client and we accept no responsibility of whatsoever

HELEN SEYLER (Professional Reg No. 400042/12)

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT GAMSBERG MINE ESIA & EMP

3 PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 11

3.1 SITE LOCALITY 11

4.1 HYDROCENSUS RESULTS OVERVIEW 33

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT GAMSBERG MINE ESIA & EMP

5.1 HYDROGEOLOGICAL CONCEPTUAL MODEL 78

6 GROUNDWATER FLOW AND TRANSPORT MODELS 83

6.1 BASE CASE MODEL SETUP 83

7 MINE AND POST CLOSURE MODEL RESULTS 106

7.1 FLOW MODEL RESULTS 106

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT GAMSBERG MINE ESIA & EMP

8.1 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY 127

9 GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 155

9.1 GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ACTIONS 155

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT GAMSBERG MINE ESIA & EMP

Annex A Laboratory Test Reports

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT GAMSBERG MINE ESIA & EMP

Figure 3.1 Location Map of Gamsberg Inselberg 12

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT GAMSBERG MINE ESIA & EMP

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT GAMSBERG MINE ESIA & EMP

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT GAMSBERG MINE ESIA & EMP

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT GAMSBERG MINE ESIA & EMP

ERM Environmental Resource Management

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT GAMSBERG MINE ESIA & EMP

In 1971, zinc deposits were discovered at Gamsberg by O’okiep Copper

1.2 TERMS OF REFERENCE

The objectives of this groundwater specialist study were as follows:

• Generate groundwater flow and transport numerical model(s), to assess

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT GAMSBERG MINE ESIA & EMP

1.2.2 Scope of Work

The specialist groundwater study for the Gamsberg Project, consisting of an

• Task 1: Numerical Flow and Transport Model(s);

1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT GAMSBERG MINE ESIA & EMP

A process of sequentially excavating push backs will be undertaken to the

1.4 HEALTH AND SAFETY

As a global leader in environmental, safety and health services, ERM places

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT GAMSBERG MINE ESIA & EMP

1. Field investigations of all available monitoring boreholes, as well as

2.2 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS

During the hydrocensus, the following data was recorded:

• Geographic coordinates, recorded using a hand-held GPS;

2.2.2 Groundwater Sampling

Groundwater samples were collected from monitoring boreholes, natural

Monitoring boreholes: Groundwater samples were collected using a submersible

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT GAMSBERG MINE ESIA & EMP