TMG ECO-IMPACTS PROJECT

Notes from Project Meeting No. 3 held at Southern Waters on 9 July 2002

from 10:00 to 14:00

Present:Rowena Hay, Christine Colvin, Cate Brown, Paul Lochner, Simon Hughes, Chris Hartnady (Mike Luger joined the meeting from 12:00 to discuss links with the CMC project)

  1. Feedback on data audit (SH)

SH provided a summary of the data audit. This included CSIR data, Southern Waters data, and a data list provided by Umvoto to CSIR with 1:50 000 maps relevant to the CMC project.

Action:SH to add hydrocensus data for Hex, Berg and Breede; and Monis Cape Metro Area data (prepared by Julian Conrad).

RH proposed that licences for new data should be signed by WRC, with clauses to allow use by the team/third parties. The issue of adding value and creating a new product was discussed – at what point is the licence no longer applicable as one has created a new product.

Umvoto has negotiated with CGS to obtain the 1:50 000 maps needed for the CMC study area (free of charge? Check with RH). Umvoto will make the 1:50 000 geology product from the CMC project available to the WRC team.

Data from DWAF requires substantial additional work before it can be used. RH proposed that the data audit become a specific product from the WRC Project. It could be taken further by CSIR, in a study for DWAF that specifies the shortfalls in DWAF data composition and management, and proposed solutions.

Action:CC and SH to discuss formalising the data audit for WRC and a potential additional study for DWAF.

For the study focal area, it was agreed that the data audit focus on the catchments around the Berg and Breede (as identified by CH and CB at last meeting – file attached) and not the whole Cape Floral Kingdom. It is likely that we will actually focus on the western part of this focal area, and possibly later (with additional funding) include the eastern portion. The second scale will be for the study sites, which are still to be identified. These range from Tweewaterskloof area, through to Franschoek and north to Voelvlei.

The WRC and CMC databases should be merged in a common database. Umvoto are doing the database compilation for CMC and could compile a joint database. CH indicated the CMC database should be ready by September/October 2002.

Action:The database issues need further discussion between SH, CC, CH & RH.

CB raised that a budget should be available for assisting the team specialists view the data.

  1. Review overall approach to Scoping Phase

Paul presented a proposed approach to the Scoping phase that captures the items we included in our original proposal as well as subsequent discussion (file attached).

It was agreed that a key component of task 2 (characterisation and communication of TMG geological structures and aquifer systems) is to identify which features are the most important to characterise, for example, in terms of their likelihood to be impacted by large-scale groundwater abstraction. These features will form the focus for task 3. However, task 3 can start in the meantime.

The following actions and dates were agreed on:

Umvoto (CH) to lead task 2

CB and CC to lead task 3

CB and CC to liaise with CH about obtaining necessary inputs to task 3 timeously

Results from tasks 2 and 3 to be presented at Core Team Workshop on Friday 27 September(note: to facilitate debate, the draft results need to be sent to participants before the workshop. CH suggested we could coordinate this with Western Cape Hydrogeo workshop week?)

Scoping workshop (2 to 3 days) scheduled for mid-November 2002(note: please book 11-15 November in your diaries – date to be finalised shortly)

  1. International Atomic Energy Association

PL provided feedback from Kevin Pietersen. The IAEA proposal is no longer live, but $60,000 has made available for capital equipment and expert missions (visits). The capital equipment purchases need not be specifically for isotope work, but should be made on projects that include use of techniques such as isotope analysis. KP conveyed that he wants our team to provide quotes for equipment that we need and identify who we want for expert missions. IAEA budget won’t pay for isotope analysis. Kevin will do the reporting to the IAEA and we are not expected to provide any extra reports. He confirmed that IAEA has agreed to that their funds be directed into the WRC’s TMG Eco-impacts project (and another project).

Action:PL to confirm in writing with Kevin.

Note to team: We did not discuss this at the meeting, but can you please email me ideas for specialists from IAEA (or elsewhere) that would be useful to involve in our research, indicating how they would support the project and when we would need them. In our proposal we included international reviewers (section 6, pg 16), and need to start planning this. A key time would be for an international reviewer to join the mid-November Scoping Workshop.

Actions:(i) CC to provide equipment quotes to Kevin (we will submit our budget from the proposal, and update where necessary)

(ii) All to provide PL with ideas for experts we could use.

Additional note: CC suggested Dr Tom Hatton (CSIRO) could be useful for the GDE discussion at the Scoping Workshop. Irene suggested Prog Jeff McDonnell (Oregon State Univ) could visit in early 2003 during the setting up of the fieldwork.

  1. Students

Simon is ready to register and commence with MSc. Needs to discuss topic with CC and clarify links to the WRC project, given the discussion about database management under 1.

Action:All to follow up with potential masters students in their organisations.

5. Budget and Invoices

PL is following up with the first invoice to WRC.

7. Links with the CMC project

Mike indicated they are setting up the Key Stakeholders Committee, and will be preparing a report for communicating groundwater concepts to this group and other stakeholders. Data acquisition has started.

The discussion on the links between the WRC and CMC fieldwork led to the following key dates and conclusions:

The CMC project has a field workshop around 1-3 October 2002 to identify target areas (date to be confirmed by ML).

So far as possible, the WRC monitoring programme needs to be designed independently of the final drilling sites selected by the CMC project. The final CMC sites are to be selected by March 2003.

The WRC project will set up a monitoring framework (including boreholes) covering the CMC study area, including both the potential impact zones as well as control sites. The WRC project plans to commence with this at the start of 2003 and the budget includes one year of monitoring. Due to the timing of the CMC drilling and abstraction programme, it works out that the WRC project will monitor the baseline conditions (prior to any exploration drilling or abstraction) for one year. This is based on the understanding that CMC exploration drilling is likely to start early 2004 and abstraction in early 2005.

The CMC project will then monitor the effects of abstraction (in the impact zone and control sites) for atleast one year, using the monitoring infrastructure and programme established by the WRC project. A budget is included in the CMC project for the WRC team members to train up the CMC monitoring personnel. It is expected that many of the same people will involved in monitoring for the WRC and CMC project.

The WRC proposal calls for the need for post-abstraction monitoring, but this is not included in the budget. Additional funds will need to be sought.

Action:PL and CC to follow up with DWAF (Mike Smart) about using DWAF mobile Landy-based driller for drilling monitoring boreholes.

1

file: meeting notes 9 july 2002.doc