RESERVE DETERMINATION STUDIES FOR THE … 14 Study Closure Rep... · rdm/wma16/01/con1413 ......

WP 10543

REPORT NO. RDM/WMA16/01/CON1413

RESERVE DETERMINATION STUDIES FOR THE

SELECTED SURFACE WATER, GROUNDWATER,

ESTUARIES AND WETLANDS IN THE GOURITZ

WATER MANAGEMENT AREA

PROJECT REPORT 14

STUDY CLOSURE REPORT

November 2015

Department of Water and Sanitation

Chief Directorate: Water Ecosystems

Published by

Department of Water and Sanitation

Private Bag X313

PRETORIA, 0001

Republic of South Africa

Tel: +27 (12) 336 7500

Fax: +27 (12) 323 0321

Copyright reserved

No part of this publication may be reproduced in any manner

without full acknowledgement of the source

This report should be cited as:

Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS), 2015. Reserve Determination Studies for Surface

Water, Groundwater, Estuaries and Wetlands in the Gouritz Water Management Area: Study

Closure Report. Prepared by AECOM SA (Pty) Ltd in association with Scherman Colloty and

Associates cc. RDM/WMA16/01/CON/1413.

Compiled by:

AECOM SA (Pty) Ltd

Waterside Place

South Gate

Tyger Waterfront

Carl Cronje Drive

Bellville

7530

In association with:

Scherman Colloty & Associates cc

22 Somerset Street

Grahamstown

6139

Reserve Determination Studies – Gouritz WMA: Project Management Component Page i

Study Closure Report

DOCUMENT INDEX

Reports as part of this project:

INDEX NUMBER REPORT NUMBER REPORT TITLE

Report Number 01 RDM/WMA16/00/CON/0113 Inception Report

Report Number 02 RDM/WMA16/00/CON/0213 Desktop EcoClassification Report

Report Number 03, Volume 1 RDM/WMA16/00/CON/0313,

Volume 1 Delineation Report, Volume 1 (Groundwater,

Estuaries and Wetlands)


Volume 2 Delineation Report, Volume 2 (Rivers)

Report Number 04 RDM/WMA16/02/CON/0413 Groundwater Report

Report Number 05 RDM/WMA16/03/CON/0513 Wetland Report

Report Number 06 RDM/WMA16/04/CON/0613 Estuaries RDM Report – Desktop Assessment


Volume 1 Estuaries RDM Report – Rapid Assessment,

Volume 1 (Klein Brak Estuary)


Volume 2 Estuaries RDM Report – Rapid Assessment,

Volume 2 (Wilderness System)


Volume 1 Estuaries RDM Report – Intermediate

Assessment, Volume 1 (Duiwenhoks Estuary)



Assessment, Volume 2 (Gouritz Estuary)



Assessment, Volume 3 (Goukou Estuary)

Report Number 09 RDM/WMA16/00/CON/0913 Scenario Report

Report Number 10 RDM/WMA16/01/CON/1013 Rivers RDM Report – IntermediateAssessment

Report Number 11 RDM/WMA16/01/CON/1113 Rivers RDM Report – Rapid Assessment

(Duiwenhoks, Goukou, Doring and

Kammanassie Rivers)

Report Number 12 RDM/WMA16/00/CON/1213 Monitoring Report

Report Number 13 RDM/WMA16/00/CON/1313 Main Report

Report Number 14 RDM/WMA16/00/CON/1413 Study Closure Report

Bold indicates this report

Reserve Determination Studies – Gouritz WMA: Project Management Component Page ii


APPROVAL

TITLE: Reserve Determination Studies for the Selected Surface Water,

Groundwater, Estuaries and Wetlands in the Gouritz Water Management

Area: Study Closure Report

DATE: November 2015

AUTHORS: Le Grange A, Scherman P-A

REVIEWERS: Project Management Team

LEAD CONSULTANT: AECOM SA (Pty) Ltd in association with Scherman Colloty & Associates

cc.

REPORT NO: RDM/WMA16/01/CON/1413

FORMAT: MSWord and PDF

WEB ADDRESS: http://www.dws.gov.za

Approved for Scherman Colloty & Associates cc.:

_________________________________

Dr Patsy Scherman

Technical Team Leader

Approved for AECOM SA (Pty) Ltd.:

________________________________

Dr Aldu le Grange

Study Leader

Approved for the Department of Water and Sanitation by:

_____________________________ _____________________________

Ms Nancy Motebe Ms Barbara Weston

Deputy-Director: Groundwater Deputy-Director: Surface Water

Reserve Requirements Reserve Requirements

_____________________________

Mr Yakeen Atwaru

Director: Reserve Requirements

______________________________

Ms Ndileka Mohapi

Chief Director: Water Ecosystems

http://www.dws.gov.za/

Reserve Determination Studies – Gouritz WMA: Project Management Component Page iii


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The following individuals are thanked for their contributions to this project:

Project Co-ordinators

Yakeen Atwaru Department of Water and Sanitation Project Director

Barbara Weston Department of Water and Sanitation Project Manager: Surface Water

Nancy Motebe Department of Water and Sanitation Project Manager: Groundwater

Thapelo Machaba Department of Water and Sanitation Project Co-ordinator

Project Management Team

Aldu le Grange AECOM SA (Pty) Ltd Professional Service Provider Study Leader

Patsy Scherman Scherman Colloty & Associates Technical Study Team Leader

Simon von Witt AECOM SA (Pty) Ltd Professional Service Provider Study Coordinator

Members of Project Steering Committee

Names Affiliation

Ndileka Mohapi CD: Water Ecosystems (WE)

Yakeen Atwaru D: Reserve Requirements (RR)

Barbara Weston D: RR: Surface Water Reserve Requirements (SWRR)

Nancy Motebe D: RR: Groundwater Reserve Requirements (GWRR)

Thapelo Machaba D: RR: SWRR

Vuledzani Muthelo D: RR: SWRR

Gladys Makhado D: RR: SWRR

Happy Maleme D: RR: SWRR

Wietsche Roets D: Water Abstraction and Instream Use

Shane Naidoo D: Water Resources Classification

Vusi Mema D: Resource Directed Measures Compliance (RDMC)

Boitumelo Sejamoholo D: RDMC

Manelisi Ndima D: GWRR

Isa Thompson DWS: National Planning

Pieter Viljoen DWS: Water Quality Planning

Mennard Mugumo DWS: Options Analysis

Fanus Fourie DWS: Planning Groundwater

Nadene Slabbert DWS: Resource Quality Services (RQS)

Neels Kleynhans DWS: RQS

Gerhard CillIers/Nolu Jafta DWS: RQS

Rashid Khan DWS Western Cape (WC): Regional Director

Wilna Kloppers DWS WC: Resource Protection

Andrew Gordon DWS WC: Resource Protection

Bertrand van Zyl DWS WC: Operations

John Roberts/Hester Lyons DWS WC: Gouritz Catchment Manager

Frans Mouski DWS WC: Hydrology

Mike Smart DWS WC: Geo-Hydrology

André Roux Department of Agriculture Western Cape (DAWC)

Danie Swanepoel/

Francois Naude

Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (DEADP)

Ian Russell/ South African National Parks Board (SANParks)

Reserve Determination Studies – Gouritz WMA: Project Management Component Page iv


Names Affiliation

Dirk Roux

Greg Palmer/

Andrew Turner/

Pierre de Villiers

CapeNature

Heidi Nieuwoudt South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI)

Jannie van Staden Breede Overberg Catchment Management Agency (BOCMA)

Vernon Gibbs-Halls Eden District Municipality

Harold Basson George Municipality

Alie Killian Oudtshoorn Municipality

Roy Parry Knysna Municipality

Johan du Preez Mossel Bay Municipality

Pikkie Lombard Bitou Municipality

Reggie Wesso Hessequa Municipality

Louw Smit/Christopher Wright Beaufort West Municipality

Richard Fransen/

Heinrich Mettler

Prince Albert Municipality

Jannie Venter Laingsburg Municipality

Aldu le Grange AECOM

Simon von Witt AECOM

Patsy Scherman SC&A

Cecilia Bester Agricultural Research Council

Carl Opperman Agri-Western Cape

Barry Levinrad Department of Land Affairs

Alwyn Lubbe Endangered Wildlife Trust

Connie Jonker Jonkersberg Plantation

Ayanda Matoti Marine and Coastal Management

Alan Boyd Marine Protected Area and Estuary Management

Reserve Determination Studies – Gouritz WMA: Project Management Component Page v


AUTHORS

The following person contributed to this report:

Authors Company

Le Grange, Aldu AECOM

Scherman, Patsy Scherman Colloty and Associates

REPORT SCHEDULE

Version Date

First draft November 2015

Final draft December 2015

Reserve Determination Studies – Gouritz WMA: Project Management Component Page vi


TABLE OF CONTENTS

DOCUMENT INDEX ........................................................................................................................ i APPROVAL .................................................................................................................................... ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.............................................................................................................. iii AUTHORS ...................................................................................................................................... v TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ vi LIST OF APPENDICES ................................................................................................................. ix LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................... x LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ xi ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................................. xii 1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY ............................................................................................. 1-2 1.3 STUDY AREA OVERVIEW .............................................................................................. 1-2 1.4 STRUCTURE OF STUDY ................................................................................................ 1-5 1.5 PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT ......................................................................................... 1-5 1.6 OUTLINE OF THIS REPORT ........................................................................................... 1-6 2 STUDY ARRANGEMENTS .............................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 STUDY APPOINTMENT .................................................................................................. 2-1 2.2 STUDY DURATION ......................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2.1 Study Commencement ..................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2.2 Study End ........................................................................................................................ 2-1

2.3 STUDY MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................. 2-1 2.3.1 Client ................................................................................................................................ 2-2

2.3.2 Professional Service Provider .......................................................................................... 2-2

2.3.3 Technical Team ................................................................................................................ 2-4

2.3.4 Project Management Committee ...................................................................................... 2-4

2.3.5 Project Steering Committee .............................................................................................. 2-5

2.4 STUDY TEAMS ................................................................................................................ 2-7 2.4.1 Project management team ............................................................................................... 2-7

2.4.2 Technical Component Team ............................................................................................ 2-8

3 SCOPE OF WORK ........................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 TERMS OF REFERENCE ................................................................................................ 3-1 3.2 AIMS, OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOMES OF THE STUDY ............................................... 3-1 3.3 PROJECT PLAN AND APPROACH ................................................................................ 3-2 3.4 PROJECT MANAGEMENT COMPONENT ...................................................................... 3-2 3.4.1 Objectives of the Project Management Component .......................................................... 3-2

3.4.2 Project Management Component Task Structure ............................................................. 3-2

3.5 TECHNICAL COMPONENT ............................................................................................. 3-4 3.5.1 Objectives of the Technical Component ........................................................................... 3-4

3.5.2 Technical Component Task Structure............................................................................... 3-4

3.6 VARIATION ORDER ........................................................................................................ 3-8 4 STUDY DELIVERABLES ................................................................................................. 4-1 4.1 STUDY PROGRAMME .................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 MILESTONES AND DELIVERABLES ............................................................................. 4-1 4.3 STUDY REPORTS ......................................................................................................... 4-12 5 STUDY MEETINGS AND WORKSHOPS ...................................................................... 5-13 5.1 STUDY INITIATION MEETINGS .................................................................................... 5-13 5.2 PMC MEETINGS ............................................................................................................ 5-13 5.3 PSC MEETINGS ............................................................................................................ 5-14 5.4 STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOPS .................................................................................... 5-15

Reserve Determination Studies – Gouritz WMA: Project Management Component Page vii


5.5 TECHNICAL MEETINGS/ WORKSHOPS ...................................................................... 5-15 6 STUDY MONITORING AND REPORTING....................................................................... 6-1 6.1 OVERALL PERFORMANCE ........................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 PERFORMANCE MONITORING ..................................................................................... 6-1 6.2.1 Progress reporting ............................................................................................................ 6-1

6.2.2 Feedback at PMC/PSC meetings ..................................................................................... 6-2

6.2.3 Study reporting ................................................................................................................. 6-2

6.2.4 Report reviewing .............................................................................................................. 6-3

7 STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION .................................................................................. 7-1 7.1 STAKEHOLDER AWARENESS ...................................................................................... 7-1 7.2 IDENTIFICATION OF STAKEHOLDERS ......................................................................... 7-1 7.3 COMMUNICATION WITH STAKEHOLDERS .................................................................. 7-1 7.3.1 Background Information Document .................................................................................. 7-1

7.3.2 Stakeholder Newsletters .................................................................................................. 7-2

7.4 STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOPS ...................................................................................... 7-2 7.4.1 Stakeholder Workshop 1 .................................................................................................. 7-2

7.4.2 Stakeholder Workshop 2 .................................................................................................. 7-2

7.5 ISSUES/COMMENTS AND RESPONSE REGISTER ...................................................... 7-3 7.6 IMPROVED STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT ................................................................ 7-3 8 TRAINING AND CAPACITY BUILDING .......................................................................... 8-1 8.1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................... 8-1 8.2 IDENTIFIED DWS TRAINEES: 2013 ............................................................................... 8-1 8.3 TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES .......................................................................................... 8-2 8.4 FEEDBACK FROM DWS TRAINEES .............................................................................. 8-4 9 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT ........................................................................................... 9-1 9.1 APPROVED STUDY BUDGET ........................................................................................ 9-1 9.1.1 Original study budget ....................................................................................................... 9-1

9.1.2 Variation order .................................................................................................................. 9-1

9.1.3 Revised study budget ....................................................................................................... 9-1

9.2 DETAIL OF STUDY BUDGET ......................................................................................... 9-2 9.3 INVOICING ...................................................................................................................... 9-3 9.3.1 Invoicing procedure .......................................................................................................... 9-3

9.3.2 Invoicing per task ............................................................................................................. 9-3

9.3.3 Summary of project invoicing ........................................................................................... 9-3

9.4 CASHFLOW..................................................................................................................... 9-4 9.5 HDI PARTICIPATION ...................................................................................................... 9-7 10 STUDY FEEDBACK ...................................................................................................... 10-1 10.1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT COMPONENT .................................................................... 10-1 10.1.1 Study administration and coordination ............................................................................ 10-1

10.1.2 Scope management ....................................................................................................... 10-2

10.1.3 Communications management ....................................................................................... 10-3

10.1.4 Risk management .......................................................................................................... 10-4

10.1.5 Time and cost management ........................................................................................... 10-4

10.1.6 Quality management ...................................................................................................... 10-4

10.1.7 Integration management ................................................................................................ 10-5

10.2 TECHNICAL COMPONENT ........................................................................................... 10-5 10.2.1 Economic overview ........................................................................................................ 10-5

10.2.2 Rivers study overview .................................................................................................... 10-7

10.2.3 Estuaries study overview ................................................................................................ 10-8

10.2.4 Basic Human Needs Reserve (surface water) .............................................................. 10-10

Reserve Determination Studies – Gouritz WMA: Project Management Component Page viii


10.2.5 Wetlands ...................................................................................................................... 10-10

10.2.6 Groundwater ................................................................................................................ 10-11

10.2.7 Scenario development .................................................................................................. 10-11

10.2.8 Monitoring .................................................................................................................... 10-13

10.2.9 Preliminary Ecological Reserve Categories’ Conclusions ............................................. 10-13

10.3 REVIEW AND EVALUATION PROCESS .................................................................... 10-14 10.4 LIAISON WITH THE CLIENT ....................................................................................... 10-15 10.5 AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION ............................................................................. 10-15 11 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................. 11-1 11.1 ECOLOGICAL COMPONENT OF THE RESERVE ........................................................ 11-1 11.2 IMPORTANCE OF OPERATIONAL SCENARIOS ......................................................... 11-1 11.3 RIVERS: ECOCLASSIFICATION AND EWR ASSESSMENT ....................................... 11-2 11.4 ESTUARIES: ECOCLASSIFICATION AND EWR ASSESSMENT ................................ 11-2 11.5 GROUNDWATER .......................................................................................................... 11-5 11.6 ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................... 11-6 12 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 12-1

Reserve Determination Studies – Gouritz WMA: Project Management Component Page ix


LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT

APPENDIX A.1: ORIGINAL CONTRACT

APPENDIX A.2: LETTER OF NOTIFICATION OF APPOINTMENT

APPENDIX A.3: VARIATION ORDER AND APPROVAL

APPENDIX B: STUDY PROGRAMME

APPENDIX C: BACKGROUND INFORMATION DOCUMENT

APPENDIX D: MINUTES OF STUDY INITIATION MEETINGS

APPENDIX E: MINUTES OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETINGS

APPENDIX F: MINUTES OF PROJECT STEERING COMMITTEE MEETINGS

APPENDIX G: ACTIONS/DECISIONS REGISTER

APPENDIX H: STAKEHOLDER INFORMATION

APPENDIX H.1: STAKEHOLDER LIST

APPENDIX H.2: STAKEHOLDER NEWSLETTERS

APPENDIX H.3: MINUTES OF STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOPS & ATTENDANCE REGISTERS

APPENDIX H.4: STAKEHOLDER ISSUES/CONCERNS AND RESPONSE REGISTER

APPENDIX I: STUDY BUDGET

APPENDIX J: COMMENTS AND RESPONSE REGISTER

Reserve Determination Studies – Gouritz WMA: Project Management Component Page x


LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: PMC Members ....................................................................................................... 2-5

Table 2.2: PSC members ....................................................................................................... 2-6

Table 2.3: Project management team members ................................................................... 2-8

Table 2.4: River Team ............................................................................................................ 2-9

Table 2.5: Estuaries Team ................................................................................................... 2-10

Table 2.6: Groundwater Team ............................................................................................. 2-10

Table 2.7: Wetlands Team ................................................................................................... 2-11

Table 3.1: Project Management Component tasks .............................................................. 3-3

Table 3.2: Technical Component task structure .................................................................. 3-5

Table 4.1: Integrated Study Milestones and Deliverables ................................................... 4-3

Table 4.2: Final list of reports produced for the GRDS ..................................................... 4-12

Table 5.1: Summary of PMC meetings ................................................................................ 5-13

Table 5.2: Summary of PSC meetings ................................................................................ 5-14

Table 5.3: Summary of Stakeholder Workshops ............................................................... 5-15

Table 5.4: Summary of technical meetings/workshops .................................................... 5-15

Table 6.1: Compilation and review process of study reports ............................................. 6-4

Table 8.1: Potential DWS trainees identified at Inception Stage ......................................... 8-1

Table 8.2: Training and capacity building opportunities ..................................................... 8-2

Table 9.1: Original approved study budget .......................................................................... 9-1

Table 9.2: Approved VO budget ............................................................................................ 9-1

Table 9.3: Revised study budget........................................................................................... 9-2

Table 9.4: Study budget distribution .................................................................................... 9-2

Table 9.5: Summary of study monthly invoicing record ..................................................... 9-4

Table 9.6: Cashflow comparison........................................................................................... 9-5

Table 10.1: Macro-economy of the Gouritz WMA ................................................................ 10-6

Table 10.2: Most dominant economic sector per economic region ................................... 10-6

Table 10.3: EWR river sites selected .................................................................................... 10-7

Table 10.4: EWR results as a percentage of the nMAR ....................................................... 10-8

Table 10.5: Summary reference of GRDS estuary study ..................................................... 10-8

Table 11.1: Summary of the Preliminary Reserve determination for estuaries in the

Gouritz WMA ....................................................................................................... 11-3

Reserve Determination Studies – Gouritz WMA: Project Management Component Page xi


LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1 Study area ............................................................................................................. 1-4

Figure 9.1: Cashflow comparison........................................................................................... 9-6

Figure 10.1: Summary of PES of estuaries in the Gouritz WMA illustrating the

continuum in estuary condition. ........................................................................ 10-9

Figure 10.2: Type of mitigation measures that would be required to meet RECs ............. 10-10

Reserve Determination Studies – Gouritz WMA: Project Management Component Page xii


ACRONYMS

AGES African Geo-Environmental Services

BAS Best Attainable State

BGCMA Breede-Gouritz Catchment Management Agency

BHNR Basic Human Need Reserve

BID Background Information Document

CD: WE Chief Directorate: Water Ecosystems

CMA Catchment Management Area

CSIR Council for Scientific and Industrial Research

DAFF Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries

DAGEOS Deep Artesian Groundwater Exploration for Oudtshoorn Supply

DAWC Department of Agriculture Western Cape

DEA Department of Environmental Affairs

DM District Municipality

D: RR Directorate Reserve Requirements

DWA Department of Water Affairs (name change from DWAF applicable after April 2009)

DWAF Department of Water Affairs and Forestry

DWS Department of Water and Sanitation (name change from DWA applicable after May

22014)

EC Ecological Category

EIS Ecological Importance and Sensitivity

ER Economic Region

EWR Ecological Water Requirements

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GRDS Gouritz Reserve Determination Study

GRU Groundwater Resource Unit

GWRR Groundwater Reserve Requirement

HDI Histroical Disadvantaged Individual

IWR Institute for Water Reosurces

LM Local Municipality

MCM Million Cubic Metres

nMAR natural Mean Annual Runoff

NMMU Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University

NWA National Water Act

NWRC National Water Resource Classification

ODRS Outeniqua Reserve Determination Study

pMAR present Mean Annual Runoff

PC Potential Concern

PES Present Ecological State

PMC Project Management Comittee

PMT Project Management Team

PSC Project Steering Committee

PSP Professional Service Provider

Reserve Determination Studies – Gouritz WMA: Project Management Component Page xiii


RC Reference Condition

RDMC Resource Directed Measures Compliance

REC Recommended Ecological Category

RQS Resource Quality Objectives

RR Reserve Requirements

RRD Reserve Requirements Determinations

SANBI South African National Biodiversity Institute

SANParks South African National Parks Board

SC&A Scherman Colloty and Associates cc

SD Sub-Directorate

SWRR Surface Water Reserve Requirement

SWRD Surface Water Reserve Determination

SWRDR Surface Water Reserve Determination Requirements

SQ Sub-Quaternary catchment

TPC Threshold Potential Concern

WC Western Cape

WMA Water Management Area

WRC Water Resource Classification

WRCS Water Resource Classification System

WRUI Water Resource Use Importance

WRYM Water Resources Yield Model

Quat Quaternary catchment

Reserve Determination Studies – Gouritz WMA: Project Management Component Page 1-1


1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

The National Water Act (Act No 36 of 1998) (NWA) is based on the principle that National

Government, through the Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS), has overall

responsibility for and authority over water resource management for the benefit of the public,

without affecting the functioning of the natural environment and in order to ensure that the

environment will be able to deliver the goods and services to society in a sustainable manner.

In order to achieve this objective, the NWA (Section 3) provides for the protection of and

sustainable use of water resources, including groundwater resources, through the

determination and implementation of the Reserve for these resources.

The NWA Section 3 requires that the Reserve be determined for water resources, i.e. the

quantity, quality and reliability of water needed to sustain both human use and aquatic

ecosystems, so as to meet the requirements for economic development without seriously

impacting on the long-term integrity of ecosystems. The Reserve is one of a range of

measures aimed at the ecological protection of water resources and the provision of basic

human needs (i.e. in areas where people are not supplied directly from a formal water service

delivery system and thus directly dependent on the resource according to Schedule 1 of the

NWA). The Chief Directorate: Water Ecosystems (CD: WE) within the DWS is tasked with the

responsibility of ensuring that the Reserve is considered before water allocation and licensing

can proceed.

The requirement for detailed Reserve studies in the Gouritz Water Management Area (WMA)

became apparent for the following reasons:

Various licence applications in the area;

Gaps that have been identified as part of the Outeniqua Reserve Determination

Study (ORDS) completed in 2010;

The conservation status of various priority water resources in the catchment and

existing and proposed impacts on them; and

Increasing development pressures and secondary impacts related from the

aforementioned and the subsequent impact on the availability of water.

For management and improved governance reasons, South Africa’s 19 WMAs have been

consolidated into nine (9) WMAs. The Gouritz WMA (previously WMA 16) now forms part of the

Breede WMA (WMA 8) and is known as the Breede-Gouritz WMA. It will be governed by the

Breede-Gouritz Catchment Management Area (CMA).



The DWS, through the CD: WE, subsequently commissioned, via a study that will address the

Preliminary Reserve Determination Studies for Selected Surface Water (Estuaries and

Wetlands) and Groundwater (Project WP 1054) in the Gouritz WMA 8 to undertake

preliminary Reserve determinations in the Gouritz WMA on various levels of detail. This study

will hereafter be referred to as the Gouritz Reserve Determination Study (GRDS).

1.2 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The DWS has completed a Preliminary Reserve determination at various levels of confidence

on a number of priority water resources (rivers, wetlands, estuaries and groundwater) in the

Outeniqua catchment (previously part of WMA 16, which was part of the Gouritz WMA). The

study was completed and approved by the deigated authority in 2010. Since the

amalgamation of the Gouritz and Breede WMA’s to establish the new WMA 8, the DWS

recognised that a number of priority water resources have not been addressed that forms part

of the new established WMA. Hence, the commissioning of the GRDS to address the gaps of

the remaining water resources and as recommended as an implementation action in the

Outeniqua Main Report. One of the priority catachments that has now been included is the

Touw River with its estuary at Wilderness and its whole integrated wilderness laes/wetland

system. Various of the inland water resources situated in the Olifnats, Groot, Gamka and

some of the coastal rivers have been included in the GRDS. A focus was also placed on the

inland groundwater resources.

The GRDS focused on the preliminary Reserve determination and strives to be a

comprehensive and integrated study of selected surface and groundwater resources,

estuaries and wetlands in the Gouritz WMA. Note that the term “preliminary” merely refers to

the Reserve before formalization through the Water Resource Classification System (WRCS)

process. The Reserve process is a scenario-based approach and thus the overall outcome of

the GRDS is envisaged as a series of Reserve scenarios that will be provided to the DWS

with the associated ecological and socio-economic consequences at the end of the study.

This will enable the DWS to make informed decisions regarding the management of selected

water resources. This is done in terms of the authorisation of future water use and the

magnitude of the impacts of the proposed developments.

1.3 STUDY AREA OVERVIEW

The Gouritz WMA ((WMA16) falls predominantly within the Western Cape Province, with

small portions in the Eastern Cape and the Northern Cape Provinces. It has a surface area of

approximately 53 000 km2 and consists of primary drainage region J (approximately 90

quaternary catchments), and part of primary drainage regions K (K1 to K7) and H (H8 to H9).

The WMA therefore consists of approximately 100 – 105 quaternary catchments. It consists of

the large dry inland area that is comprised of the Karoo and Little Karoo, and the smaller

humid strip of land along the coastal belt. The main rivers are the Gouritz and its major

tributaries, the Buffels, Touws, Groot, Gamka, Olifants and Kammanassie rivers, with smaller



coastal rivers draining the coastal belt. All the inland rivers drain via the Gouritz into the Indian

Ocean. As such, the WMA consists of the following five sub-areas:

Groot River (secondary catchment J1);

Gamka River (secondary catchment J2);

Olifants River (secondary catchment J3);

Western Coastal Rivers (secondary catchments H8, H9 and J4); and

Eastern Coastal Rivers (Secondary Catchments K1, K2, K3, K4, K5, K6 and K7).

The GRDS excludes the majority of the coastal catchment areas that were covered by the

ORDS and other Reserve studies done previously (e.g. Oudtshoorn (Olifants River and

tributaries), Sout and Matjies).

The mean annual precipitation varies from as high as 865 mm in the coastal areas, which

experience all-year-round rainfall, to as little as 160 mm in the drier areas inland to the north,

which experience late summer rainfall. A map of the study area is provided below (refer to

Figure 1.1).



Figure 1.1 Study area



1.4 STRUCTURE OF STUDY

The GRDS is structured into two main components, namely:

Project Management Component, and

Technical Component (Reserve determination studies).

The scope of work of the overall study, including both the Project Management and Technical

Components, comprised three sequential phases, namely:

Phase 1 : Study Initiation and Design;

Phase 2 : Study Implementation; and

Phase 3 : Study Termination.

The Inception component of this study formed part of the Initiation and Design Phase with the

main deliverable being the Inception Report. The Inception Report formed the blueprint of the study

as it paved the way for the execution and deliverables produced as part of the study. The study

budget, approach, technical methods used and capacity (human and financial) needed had been

confirmed and agreed on with the approval of the Inception Report. This phase provided the

opportunities for both the DWS and PSPs to address all uncertainties that have been identified after

the initiation of the study and the contracts have been signed. regarding the scope of work were

clarified and confirmed during this stage.

The Study Implementation Phase comprised of the implementation of the project plan developed

during the Inception Phase and the undertaking of the Technical Component(s) of the ecological

Reserve determination study.

The Study Termination Phase was an administrative and final reporting stage, during which the

project was finalised and completed and all deliverables produced as final documents and data

provided to the DWS in the specified formats.

1.5 PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

This document represents the Study Closure Report and summarises the relevant scope of work,

study management arrangements, financial management, reporting and study feedback, including

lessons learned. In addition, the Study Closure Report’s intention is to provide feedback on the

financial status and timing of the project, and a reference point for future studies.

The purpose of this report is primarily to provide an overview of the study. The report attempts to

determine whether the study was undertaken with the aspects formulated in the Inception Report

with feedback in terms of the respective performances so as to ensure that the study was completed

efficiently and to the satisfaction of, and within the parameters set out by the DWS CD : WE.

The following information is provided and discussed in this report:

Study arrangements and responsibilities;

Scope of Work;



Study programme and deliverables;

Meetings and workshops;

Project monitoring and reporting;

Stakeholder participation;

Training and capacity building;

Financial aspects; and

Study feedback, including lessons learned.

1.6 OUTLINE OF THIS REPORT

The Study Closure Report has, for ease of reference, been structured as follows: Section 1 comprises a general introduction to the DWS Project WP 10543, i.e. the GRDS; Section 2 provides an overview of the study management arrangements of the GRDS, focussing largely on the various roles of different teams and studies; Section 3 refers back to the proposal on which the study has been approved by the DWS and the Scope of Works set out by the DWS and the variations that have been included in the Inception Report; Section 4 provides and overview of the study deliverables related to the study programme, deliverables and milestones; Section 5 contains a summary on all study related meetings and workshops; Section 6 discusses project monitoring and associated reproting; Section 7 provides a brief overview of stakehlder participation; Section 8 briefly refers to training and capacity building opportunities; and Section 9 contains an overview of the financial aspects of the project including budget, invoicing and cashflow. The following supporting documentation are attached: Appendix A: Contractual Agreement Appendix B: Study Programme Appendix C: Background Information Document Appendix D: Minutes of Study Initiation Meetings Appendix E: Minutes of Project Management Committee Meetings Appendix F: Minutes of Steering Committee Committee Meetings Appendix G: Actions/Decisions Register Appendix H: Stakeholder Information Appendix I: Study Budget

Appendix J: Comments and Response Register



2 STUDY ARRANGEMENTS

2.1 STUDY APPOINTMENT

Based on an official tender process which took place in September 2011, AECOM SA (Pty) Ltd

(AECOM) was appointed as the lead Professional Service Provider (PSP) responsible for the

execution of the GRDS on behalf of the DWS. Given the structure of the study, AECOM, as Lead

PSP, lead the Project Management Component, assisted by Milkwood Communications on

stakeholder participation related matters, while independent Specialist Advisors provided specialist

input and external review to oversee the technical compliance of the work undertaken by the

Technical Component. Reference to this team is hereafter made to as the Project Management

Team (PMT).

Scherman, Colloty and Associates cc (SC&A), supported by various specialists, provided support to

AECOM in leading the Technical Component in determining the Reserve for the various water

resource components.

All study related contractual agreemenst are included in Appendix A of this report. A copy of the

Letter of Notification of Appointment for the undertaking of the GRDS as issued on 23 February

2012 is attached as Appendix A.1. Both the original GRDS Terms of Reference (ToR) and the

Scope of Works, as was slightly amended during the Inception Phase, are detailed in the Inception

Report (DWA, 2014), with a copy of the original contract included as Appendix A.2.

2.2 STUDY DURATION

2.2.1 Study Commencement

An initial Project Inception Scoping Meeting took place at the DWS Offices, Pretoria, on 3 May

2012. However, a substantial delay was experienced with the finalization of the contractual

agreement between the DWS and AECOM, with the resulting official study commencement date as

7 May 2013. This was followed by a Project Initiation Meeting on 6 June 2013 at the AECOM

Offices, Bellville. The minutes of both meetings are included in Appendix D of this report.

2.2.2 Study End

The original time frame for the GRDS was set as 24 months with the intended study end date as 7

May 2015. However, based on a Variation Order (VO), as defined in Section 3.4, the study end

date was extended with six months to 7 November 2015.

2.3 STUDY MANAGEMENT

The study responsibilities in terms of managerial, technical and coordination functions are discussed

below, while details of the study team composition are provided in Section 2.4. Associated study

milestones and deliverables are discussed in Section 4.



2.3.1 Client

2.3.1.1 Departmental responsibility

The DWS was the Client with the Directorate: Reserve Requirements Determinations (D: RRD)

within the CD: WE responsible for the execution of the overall GRDS and administrating the study.

2.3.1.2 Project Manager

The study resided under the responsibility of Mr Yakeen Atwaru, Director D:RR, while Mrs Barbara

Weston, Scientific Manager: Surface Water Reserve Determination (SWRD) acted as the DWS

Project Manager. Signing off on the Study and Technical reports resides with the DWS Project

Management Team.

2.3.1.3 Project Coordinator

Ms Thapelo Machaba assisted the DWS Project Manager as the DWS Project Coordinator. She

assisted with the coordination and administration of the study from the DWS’ perspective and was

responsible for administrative liaison with the PSP. She was, inter alia, responsible for:

Coordinating the study;

Coordinating inputs from other DWS directorates;

Approving of additional study team members, invoices and Variation Order(s); and

Relaying the results and recommendations from the study to the DWS Management.

Direct administrative matters and all correspondence to the DWS was also directed to her, whilst

copied to Mr Atwaru and Mrs Weston.

2.3.2 Professional Service Provider

2.3.2.1 Project Management Team

The role of the PMT was that of an ancillary to the DWS: CD: WE to ensure that the GRDS was

undertaken in an efficient and timeous manner within the allocated budget and framework of DWS

requirements. The review, monitoring and follow up on reports, invoices, approval of additional

members, cash flows and submission of variation orders all formed part of the PMT’s duties.

The PMT was responsible for the following project management and administrative functions:

Study secretariat and coordination;

Work programme coordination;

Stakeholder communication;

Financial administration;

Technical review; and

Administrative progress reporting.

In addition, the PMT recorded the proceedings of Project Management Committee (PMC)/ Project



Steering Committee (PSC) meetings and made presentations as required. The PMT also kept an

up-to-date record of all decisions taken during the execution of the study, identifying issues raised

and decisions taken. This was done through maintaining a Decision and Issue/Action Register (refer

to Section 6.2.3.2).

2.3.2.2 Study Leader

Dr Aldu le Grange from AECOM acted as the PSP Study Leader responsible for overall study

coordination between the DWS, the PMT and the Technical Team, as well as monitoring and

performance control of the PSP Team. This included review of study progress, monitoring of

financial expenditure versus technical progress, review of technical reports and liaison with and

management of the input by the Specialist External Reviewers. Overall was responsible for the day-

to-day execution of the study, concentrating on the compliance of the work undertaken in line with

the Inception Report as approved by the PMC, co-ordination of the PSP team and study

administration to ensure coordinated output at key milestone dates.

On the technical side he was supported by Dr Patsy Scherman from SC&A as the Technical Study

Leader and the various Specialist External Reviewers (refer to Section 2.3.2.7).

2.3.2.3 Study Coordinator

Mr Simon von Witt from AECOM initially acted as the PSP Study Coordinator responsible for the

day-to-day study coordination and administration from the PSP’s perspective, assisting with liaison

with the DWS and the Technical Team. This included arranging of meetings, recording of the

proceedings of meetings, distribution of agendas and minutes, maintaining the Decision and

Issue/Action Registers, data and document control, provision of feedback to the DWS and other

related administrative tasks.

Since he left the services of AECOM in April 2015, he was replaced by Ms Colleen Thomas, who in

turn was eventaully replaced by Ms Shoeshoe Letoao in July 2015 during the Study Termination

Stage, both from AECOM.

2.3.2.4 Study Administration

Study operational support was initially provided by Ms Louise Buys and Ms Nelda Visser, who was

respectively responsible for the financial and administrative tasks, including the arrangement of

PMC meetings and invoice compilation and submission.This task was, however, taken over by Ms

Thomas, and eventually Ms Letoao.

2.3.2.5 Stakeholder Communication

As part of the PMT Milkwood Communications assisted with the following defined stakeholder

activities:

Stakeholder identification and database compilation and maintenance;

Compilation of a Background Information Document (BID) and the distribution thereof;

Obtaining current knowledge information on stakeholder attitudes, values and expectations

towards water resources in the study catchment; and



Presentation of the study results in terms of scenarios, consequences and results to the

stakeholders and obtaining their feedback to be included in the final study documentation.

Assistance was also provided with the preparation and presentation of reports on the study to

stakeholder forums and other organisations with an interest in the Gouritz WMA.

2.3.2.6 Technical Review

The PMT was responsible for technical monitoring of activities and progress of the Technical

Component. In the case of the GRDS the PMT was extended to include Specialist External

Reviewers (see Table 2.3) supporting the PMT with specialist Reserve determination technical

monitoring capabilities and review of deliverables.

Technical monitoring was limited to the attendance of selected PMC/PSC meetings and the review

of technical reports. In some cases, such as groundwater, specialist discussion meetings and work

sessions were also attended.

2.3.3 Technical Team

The Technical Team, lead by Dr Patsy Scherman of SC&A, was responsible for the technical

Reserve determination studies for the various water resource components, i.e. rivers, wetlands,

estuaries and groundwater. As Technical Study Team Leader, Dr Patsy Scherman was responsible

for the technical coordination and management of the specialist studies, compilation of technical

reports, coordination of specialist workshops, and technical feedback at PMC/PSC Meetings as well

as to the DWS.

The composition of the Technical Team is provided in Section 2.4.2.

2.3.4 Project Management Committee

The study was carried out under the guidance of a PMC, comprising representatives from the DWS

CD: WE and other DWS directorate/departmental representatives nominated from time to time, as

well as the PMT and the Technical Study Leader, as summarised in Table 2.1. Where relevant,

Technical Task Leaders and PMT Specialist Advisors/ External Reviewers were invited to attend

specific PMC meetings.

The PMC was responsible for guidance and steering of the general management of the study to

steer twoards the effective and efficient formulation, execution and conclusion of the study. It also

represented the project interactions with other projects and organisations. Responsibilities of the

PMC were as follows :

Assessing the scope of work and objectives of the study;

Monitoring and assessing study progress;

Monitoring the study budget and expenditure against deliverables produced;

Evaluating all reports, including the format and scope of reports as agreed on as per the

Inception Phase;

Address issues that require the attention of the DWS; and



Provide recommendations on various aspects of the study where required.

Table 2.1: PMC Members

Names Affiliation

Ndileka Mohapi DWS: CD: WE

Yakeen Atwaru DWS: D: RR

Barbara Weston DWS: SD: Surface Water Reserve Determination Requirements (SWRDR)

Nancy Motebe DWS: SD: Groundwater Reserve Requirements (GWRR)

Thapelo Machaba DWS: D: SWRR

Wietsche Roets DWS: D: Water Abstraction and Instream Use

Shane Naidoo DWS: D: Water Resources Classification (WRC)

Vusi Mema DWS: D: Resource Directed Measures Compliance (RDMC)

Manelisi Ndima DWS: SD: GWRR






Neels Kleynhans/ Gerhard CillIers/ Nolu Jafta

DWS: RQS

Rashid Khan DWS Western Cape (WC): Regional Director

Wilna Kloppers/ Andrew Gordon

DWS WC : Resource Protection

Bertrand van Zyl DWS WC : Operations

John Roberts/ Hester Lyons DWS WC : Gouritz Catchment Manager

Frans Mouski DWS WC : Hydrology

Mike Smart DWS WC : Geo-Hydrology


Simon von Witt/Colleen Thomas/Shoeshoe Letoao

AECOM

Patsy Scherman SC&A

2.3.5 Project Steering Committee

Although not defined by the original ToR, the need for a separate PSC was discussed during the Project Initiation Meeting of 6 June 2013. It was decided that for the purposes of the PSC, the PMC be enlarged to include additional stakeholders with a vested interest in the study area. The proposed composition of the PSC is indicated in Table 2.2:



Table 2.2: PSC members

Names Affiliation

Ndileka Mohapi DWS: CD: WE

Yakeen Atwaru DWS: D: RR

Barbara Weston DWS: SD: SWRDR

Nancy Motebe DWS: SD: GWRR

Thapelo Machaba DWS: D: SWRR

Vuledzani Muthelo DWS: D: RR-SWRR

Gladys Makhado DWS: D: RR

Happy Maleme DWS: D: RR

Wietsche Roets DWS: D: Water abstraction and instream use

Shane Naidoo DWS: D: Water Resources Classification

Vusi Mema DWS: SD: Resource Directed Measures Compliance (RDMC)

Boitumelo Sejamoholo DWS: D: RDMC

Manelisi Ndima DWS: D: GWRR






Neels Kleynhans/ Gerhard CillIers/ Nolu Jafta

DWS: RQS

Rashid Khan DWS WC: Regional Director

Wilna Kloppers/ Andrew Gordon

DWS WC : Resource Protection

Bertrand van Zyl DWS WC : Operations

John Roberts/ Hester Lyons DWS WC : Gouritz Catchment Manager

Frans Mouski DWS WC : Hydrology

Mike Smart DWS WC : Geo-Hydrology

Andre Roux Department of Agriculture Western Cape (DAWC)

Danie Swanepoel/Francois Naude

Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (Western Cape) (DEA))

Ian Russell/Dirk Roux South African National Parks Board (SANParks)

Greg Palmer/Andrew Turner/

Pierre de Villiers CapeNature

Heidi Nieuwoudt South African National Botanical Institute (SANBI)

Jannie van Staden Breede-Gouritz Catchment Management Agency (BGCMA)



Names Affiliation

Vernon Gibbs-Halls Eden District Municipality

Harold Basson George Municipality

Albertus Killian Oudsthoorn Municipality

Roy Parry Knysna Municipality

Johan du Preez Mossel Bay Municipality

Pikkie Lombard Bitou Municipality

Reggie Wesso Hessequa Municipality

Louw Smit/Christopher Wright Beaufort West Municipality

Richard Fransen/Heinrich Mettler

Prince Albert Municipality

Jannie Venter Laingsburg Municipality


Simon von Witt/Colleen Thomas/Shoeshoe Letoao

AECOM

Patsy Scherman SC&A

Cecile Bester Agricultural Research Council

Carl Opperman Agri-Western Cape

Barry Levinrad Department of Land Affairs

Alwyn Lubbe Endangered Wildlife Trust

Connie Jonker Jonkersberg Plantation

Ayanda Matoti Marine and Coastal Management

Alan Boyd Marine Protected Area and Estuary Management

2.4 STUDY TEAMS

Senior and other key staff members of the respective Project Management and Technical

Components’ study teams, including changes, are defined in Sections 2.4.1 (Project Management

Component) and 2.4.2 (Technical Component).

2.4.1 Project management team

Details of the PMT members in terms of name, organisation and associated study responsibility are

provided in Table 2.3:



Table 2.3: Project management team members

Team Member Organisation Role

Management Team:

Aldu le Grange AECOM Study Leader

Simon von Witt/Colleen

Thomas/Shoeshoe

Letoao

AECOM Study Coordinator

Louise Buys AECOM Financial Controller

Nelda Visser AECOM Study Administrator

Stakeholder Participation:

Bea Whittaker Milkwood Communications Stakeholder Participation Task

Leader

Mathabo Ntumba Milkwood Communications Stakeholder Particpation

Administrator

Specialist External Reviewers:

Johan Rossouw AECOM Yield modelling and system

analysis

Cate Brown Southern Waters Ecological

Research Rivers

Julian Conrad Geohydrological and Spatial

Solutions cc (GEOSS) Groundwater

Kai Whitthueser Delta-H Water Systems

Modelling Pty Ltd Groundwater

Angus Paterson South African Institute for

Aquatic Biodiversity (SAIAB) Estuaries

Justine Ewart-Smith The Freshwater Consulting

Group Wetlands

Given the above-mentioned PMT composition, it should be noted that those proposed as Specialist

Advisors at the Initiation and Design Stage merely acted as External Reviewers during the later

stages of the GRDS, and not as Specialist Advisors.

2.4.2 Technical Component Team

The Technical Component of the study was managed by Dr Patsy Scherman of SC&A as the overall

study Technical Leader. However, although the technical Reserve determination studies were

undertaken under the management of SC&A, various individual specialists formed part of the overall

larger Technical Team as sub-contracted PSPs.

The Technical Component comprises four sub-studies related to rivers, estuaries, groundwater and

wetlands. The relevant study teams for each of these are summarised in Tables 2.4 to 2.7 included

in Sections 2.4.2.1 to 2.4.2.4.



2.4.2.1 River team

The river study team is listed in Table 2.4.

Table 2.4: River Team

Team members Organisation Role

Delana Louw Rivers for Africa

Rivers Task Leader; habitat

integrity and Environmnetal

Water Requirement (EWR)

integrator

Shael Koekemoer Koekemoer Aquatic Services Reporting and diatoms

Patsy Scherman SC&A Water quality

Estelle van Niekerk AECOM Hydrology and yield modelling

Stephen Mallory IWR Water Resources Yield modelling

Denis Hughes Institute for Water Research

(IWR), Rhodes University SPATSIM

Andrew Birkhead Streamflow Solutions Hydraulics

Mark Rountree Fluvius Consulting Geomorphology

Brian Colloty SC&A Riparian vegetation: Rapid sites

James Mackenzie Mackenzie Environmental

Development Solutions

Riparian vegetation:

Intermediate sites

Pieter Kotzé Clean Stream Biological

Services Fish: Intermediate sites

Anton Bok Anton Bok Aquatic

Consultants Fish: Rapid sites

Mandy Uys Laughing Water:

Macroinvertebrates Invertebrates

Greg Huggins Nomad Consulting Basic Human Needs Reserve

(BHNR), Ecosystem Services

William Mullins Mosaka Consulting Macro-economics

David Mosaka Mosaka Consulting Macro-economics

Kagiso Kwele AECOM Hydrology and yield modelling

Shileen Louw Rivers for Africa Administrative assistant

Khaya Mgaba IWR Trainee: Invertebrates

Nkosinathi Mazungula SAIAB Trainee: Fish



2.4.2.2 Estuaries team

The estuaries study team is listed in Table 2.5.

Table 2.5: Estuaries Team


Susan Taljaard Council for Scientific and

Industrial Research (CSIR)

Estuaries Task Leader and

water quality

Lara van Niekerk CSIR Hydrodynamics

Piet Huizenga Private Hydrodynamics

Stephen Mallory IWR Water Resources Yield modelling

Andre Theron CSIR Sediment modelling

Janine Adams

Nelson Mandela

Metropolitan University

(NMMU)

Macro- and micro flora

Gavin Snow NMMU Macro- and micro flora

Steve Lamberth

Department of Agriculture,

Forestry and Fisheries

(DAFF)

Fish

Jane Turpie Anchor Environmental Birds

Tris Wooldridge NMMU Invertebrates

Alistair Adonis CSIR Field Assistant and skipper

Chantel Petersen CSIR Assistant: Abiotic components

Alexis Olds Cape Nature Trainee: Estuarine invertebrates

Jean du Plessis Cape Nature Trainee: Fish

2.4.2.3 Groundwater team

The groundwater study team is listed in Table 2.6.

Table 2.6: Groundwater Team


Koos Vivier

Exigo ( previously Africa

Geo-Environmental Services

(AGES))

Groundwater Task Leader and

modelling

Jan Myburgh Exigo Structural geology &

geohydrology

Stephan Meyer Exigo Groundwater flow modelling

Megan Hill Exigo Field work and geophysics




Reuben Grobler Exigo Groundwater modelling

Frans Meyer Exigo Fieldwork

2.4.2.4 Wetlands team

The wetlands study team is listed in Table 2.7.

Table 2.7: Wetlands Team

Team member Organisation Role

Mark Rountree Fluvius Consulting Wetlands Task Leader and

EcoClassification



3 SCOPE OF WORK

3.1 TERMS OF REFERENCE

The GRDS ToR as included in the Inception Report (DWA, 2014) contains the Scope of Work for

both the Project Management and Technical Components of the GRDS. The ToR provides a clear

description of the work to be undertaken and the expected deliverables. However, based on

discussions during the Inception component of the Initiation and Design Phase, the Inception Report

formed the contractual basis upon which work has been undertaken.

Only one Variotion Order (VO) was submitted to the DWS during the course of the GRDS. This VO

is discussed in Section 3.4.

3.2 AIMS, OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOMES OF THE STUDY

With the purpose of the GRDS defined in Section 1.2, the study was aimed as an integrated study

to determine the Preliminary Reserves of selected surface (rivers, estuaries and wetlands) and

groundwater resources, estuaries and wetlands was undertaken for the Gouritz part of WMA 8. In

addition, the outcome of the study assisted in providing detailed ecological information as input to

Water Resource Classifcation (WRC), which will be initiated for the Breede-Gouritz WMA during

2016.

The focus of the GRDS was to determine the EWRs of resources in the study area. It was assumed

that scenario and economic steps of the process only focused on major developments in the

catchment.

Operational constraints and catchment requirements were incorporated into yield scenario

modelling, and catchment activities impacting on ecology were considered. The scenarios selected

considered the realities of the current and possible future ecological and socio-economic situation in

the study area as identified during a Scenario Workshop conducted with the DWS and local

municipalities on 25 August 2014. Stakeholder attitudes, values and expectations towards water

resources of the study area, as determined during Stakeholder Workshop No 1, were also taken into

account.

The Ecological Reserve Categories associated with the Preliminary Reserve values were arrived at

by following the recognized ecoclassification process to determine the said categories, considering

the driving ecological considerations in the study area, an evaluation of future developments and

the ecological consequences in response to. Further discussions with the DWS in September 2015,

and stakeholders at two meetings in October 2013 and 2015 also aided in determining the EC

based on Best Attainable State (BAS) principles. The final recommendations are presented in the

Main Report (DWS, 2015b) for priority rivers, estuarine systems, and for priority wetlands in the

study area. Of importance for the way forward and the implementation of the study results into

management action, are the EWR sites that have been created and used in the study. These are

now to be considered as primary monitoring sites for which ecological specifications have been set.

The latter will be used as indicators to measure the health status of these water resources and



provide baseline information as input to the upcoming classification and reporting on the state of the

relevant water resources.

The level of detail at which a study can be undertaken is dependent on the data available, i.e. the

more data available on a particular system, the more accurate the Ecological Category (EC), the

ecological flows (Ecological Reserve), as well as Ecological specifications (Ecospecs) can be set.

However, in instances where the lack of certain data sets poses uncertainties, a precautionary

approach was adopted, i.e. the Ecological Reserves were set conservatively. The levels of

assessments at which various river and estuarine systems were evaluated, were indicated where

relevant. It is acknowledged that the confidence in results are related to the data available,

particularly hydrological data.

3.3 PROJECT PLAN AND APPROACH

The GRDS was structured into two main components, namely:

Project Management Component, led by Dr Aldu Le Grange of AECOM, and

Technical Component (Reserve determination studies), led by Dr Patsy Scherman of SC&A.

Project-related activities were grouped into study tasks as defined for each of the Project

Management and Technical Components. The purpose and task structure of each component are

described below:

3.4 PROJECT MANAGEMENT COMPONENT

3.4.1 Objectives of the Project Management Component

The primary purpose of the Project Management Component assignment was to assist the DWS

CD: WE, i.e. the Client, with the coordination of all the activities required to achieve the objectives of

the Reserve determination study. In summary, the scope of the Project Management Component

professional services provided are:

Assistance with the overall study management functions to the DWS CD: WE and the

dissemination of information to serve their requirements;

Responsibility for all day-to-day management activities of the study as set out in the ToR,

and amended in the Inception Report;

Establishment and maintenance of an information framework;

Ensuring that all deliverables are produced on time and within budget; and

Support with reporting and communications to stakeholders.

3.4.2 Project Management Component Task Structure

A summary of the GRDS Project Management Component task structure undertaken is provided in

Table 3.1.



Table 3.1: Project Management Component tasks

Task description

Task 1 : Study Initiation and Design

Task 1.1: Inception meetings

Task 1.2: Familiarisation with Scope of Work

Task 1.3: Familiarisation with historic and current Reserve studies

Task 1.4: Resource Monitoring Inventory

Task description

Task 1.5: Management Framework

Task 1.6: Project Monitoring and Control System

Task 1.7: Establishment of an Information Management System

Task 1.8: Support to the Technical Component PSP's

Task 1.9: Stakeholder Engagement, BID & Stakeholder Workshop No.1

Task 1.10: Phase 1 Close-out: Inception Report (including Project Plan)

Task 1.11: PMC Meeting No.1

Task 2: Study Implementation

Task 2.1: Project Management, including PMC and PSC meetings

Task 2.2: Client Liaison

Task 2.3: Technical Monitoring and Support

Task 2.4: Stakeholder Participation

Task 2.5: Status and Progress Reports

Task 2.6: Integration of Technical Results

Task 2.7: Provision of data, reports and supporting information

Task 3: Management and Review

Task 3.1: Review and Management of Deliverables

Task 3.2: Project Auditing

Task 3.3: Termination Strategy

Task 3.4: Newsletter

Task 3.5: Reserve Templates

Task 3.6: Feedback to DWS

Task 3.7: Final PMC & PSC Meetings

Task 3.8: Study Closure Report



3.5 TECHNICAL COMPONENT

3.5.1 Objectives of the Technical Component

The Technical Component was aimed at the actual coordination and execution of the Reserve

determination tasks to be undertaken for each water resource component as per the approved

Reserve steps for each sub-system.

The specific objectives and outcomes of the Reserve determination for the different aquatic

ecosystems were to:

Conduct a desktop EcoClassification (rivers) on a sub-qQuaternary scale to determine the

Present Ecological State (PES)1, Ecological Importance and Sensitivity (EIS),

Recommended Ecological Category (REC), causes and sources and identify hotspots2.

Conduct a reconnaissance field survey and together with the output of the desktop

EcoClassification, select Ecological Water Requirement (EWR) sites in selected rivers.

Determine the Reference Condition (RC), PES and RECs for each relevant section of the

rivers, estuaries, wetlands and groundwater components.

Determine and recommend Ecological Categories (ECs) for each relevant section of of the

rivers, estuaries, wetlands and groundwater components.

Determine EWR for the selected resources at the EWR sites.

Evaluate and select water resource operational scenarios for consideration during the study.

Determine the impact of scenarios on systems in question where information regarding the

scenarios was available.

Determine the ecological consequences of these scenarios.

Provide DWS with all information relevant to the RECs and Alternative ECs (where

available) to enable DWS to recommend an Ecological Reserve Category at the relevant

EWR site for the protection and management of the water resources in the study area. The

latter will be captured in the legal template to be approved and to be included in future water

allocation and operating rules from infrastructure.

Provide the ecological specifications associated with the selected EC, and provide vital

information as input into the development of monitoring programmes for water resources.

Prepare the surface and groundwater Basic Human Needs Reserve (BHNR) for water use

directly from rivers and boreholes.

Provide DWS with all relavent data (raw data, populated models and shape files used in the

generation of maps) in electronic format.

Provide CD: WE with the information required to prepare the Reserve templates, including

draft templates, for authorization.

Train selected DWS Directorate: Reserve Requirements (D:RR) staff in specific tasks

relating to Reserve determinations.

3.5.2 Technical Component Task Structure

1 PES: Health or integrity as compared to the natural or reference state

2 Hotspots: areas of ecological importance; an output of the Desktop EcoClassification process



A summary of the GRDS Technical Component task structure undertaken is provided in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2: Technical Component task structure

Task description

Task A: Project Management

Task A1: Technical team management and coordination

Task A2: PMC Meetings

Task A3: PSC Meetings

Task A4: Financial Management

Task A5: Technical team management - Rivers

Task A6: Technical team management - Estuaries

Task A7: Technical team management - Groundwater

Task description

Task A8: Presentation of study results to DWS

Task B: Project Inception (Planning and Process)

Task B1: Gather background information

Task B2: Design Project plan and produce Inception Report

Task B3: Mobilisation of study team

Task C: Desktop Ecoclassification - Rivers

Task C1: Ecosystem services

Task C2: Rivers ecological and water quality (workshop)

Task C3: Water Resource Unit Importance (WRUI)

Task C4: Desktop EcoClassification Report (including hotspots)

Task D: Reconnaissance River Surveys

Task D1: Survey 1

Task D2: Survey 2

Task E: Delineation Resource Units

Task E1: Rivers

Task E2: Estuaries

Task E3: Wetlands

Task E4: Groundwater

Task E5: Delineation Report

Task F: Field Surveys



Task F1: Estuary summer survey

Task F2: River survey 1

Task F3: River survey 2

Task F4: Additional high flow surveys

Task F5: Groundwater field survey (hydrocensus + groundwater sampling)

Task F6: Wetland (rapid) survey 1

Task F7: Wetland survey 2 - priority wetlands

Task G: Data Analysis - Estuaries

Task G1: Hartenbos, Blinde, Piesang, Groot (Wes) and Bloukrans

Task G2: Duiwenhoks, Klein Brak and Touw/Wilderness

Task G3: Goukou and Gouritz

Task description

Task H: Data Analysis - Rivers

Task H1: EcoClassification and EWR

Task H2: Hydraulic data analysis and modelling

Task I: Data Analysis - Wetlands

Task I1: Identification of priority wetlands and data collection

Task I2: Determining RC, PES, EIS

Task I3: Management recommendations and Wetlands Report

Task J: Rapid Reserve - Groundwater

Task J1: Data collection and analysis

Task J2: Develop a conceptual groundwater model

Task J3: Report on data gaps and groundwater sources/sinks

Task K: Reserve Determination of the Groundwater Component

Task K1: Update groundwater conceptual model

Task K2: Conduct Reserve assessment

Task K3: Groundwater Report

Task L: Hydrology, Yield Modelling and Operational Scenarios

Task L1: Evaluation of hydrology and compilation of flow records

Task L2: Systems modelling and yield analysis

Task L3: Water balances



Task L4: Liaison re: scenarios and defining scenarios

Task L5: Running scenarios and reporting

Task M: Estuary EWR Assesments

Task M1: EWR workshop 1

Task M2: EWR worskhop 2

Task N: River Ecoclassification and EWR Determination

Task N1: Intermediate specialist meeting

Task N2: Rapid assessment

Task N3: Reports

Task O: Basic Human Needs Reserve (surface water)

Task P: Consequences to Operational Scenarios

Task P1: Rivers - Consequences and reporting

Task description

Task P2: Estuaries

Task P3: Economics

Task P4: Ecosystem Services

Task Q: Estaury Reports (including monitoring)

Task Q1: Desktop Level Assessment reports

Task Q2: Rapid Level EWR reports

Task Q3: Rapid / Intermediate Level EWR reports

Task R: Ecological and other objectives

Task R1: EcoSpecs & Thresholds of Potential Concern (PCs) - Rivers

Task R2: Wetland objectives for priority wetlands

Task R3: Groundwater objectives and monitoring programme

Task S: Stakeholder Engagement

Task S1: Input to advertisements, Background Information Document (BID), etc.

Task S2: Public meeting at start of study

Task S3: Public meeting at end of study

Task T: Integrated Main Report

Task U: Training Workshops

Task U1: Training Worskhop 1 – Introduction and Rivers

Task U2: Training Worskhop 2 - Estuaries and Wetlands

Task U3: Training Workshop 3 - Modelling, Groundwater and Economics



Task U4: Reporting

3.6 VARIATION ORDER

Although the Letter of Notification of Appointment was issued on 23 February 2012, the finalisation

of the contractual agreement was delayed until 7 May 2013, i.e. more than a year’s delay and took

up unnecessary time. It also resulted in the GRDS being undertaken at the tendered rates of

November 2011, with no escalation, which is not considered as reasonable, considering the

Consumer Price Index.

The late study commencement resulted in the study starting in the winter instead of summer as

planned, delaying the anticipated completion of technical tasks (e.g. field surveys) due to the

seasonal variation. An extension of time was therefore required to complete the technical work,

undertake additional hydrological modeling, review of reports and amendments before the approval

of the final deliverables.

In terms of hydrological modelling and system yield assessment, a detailed Water Resources Yield

Model (WRYM) is essential for any Reserve study. It is the foundation upon which all other

conclusions and risk assessments related to the ecology is made. It was determined that the EWR

sites selected for the GRDS were located on small tributaries with small catchments which were not

covered in any existing yield model. Since all the scenarios for the study were highly dependent on

accurate hydrology, additional hydrological work was required and the yield model had to be refined

to accommodate the total study area as a system. The information required was critical for the

Reserve process to increase the study confidence and assist in informative decision making.

Further to this, additional hydrological modeling results were crucial information required for the

future upcoming Water Resource Classification Process. The advantage of this additional modelling

is not only a vital peace of information that will aid the upcoming Classification studies’ operational

scenario evaluation, but the complete yield model set up with the additions will be provided to the

DWS to be used in water resources and other related studies.

As a result of the above, a VO was submitted to the DWS on 30 January 2015 and approved by the

DWS on 8 May 2015. The VO and the approval thereof are included in Appendix A.3. This resulted

in the GRDS to be extended with six months from 24 months to 30 months up to 7 November 2015

and a budget increase of R 1 057 030.80 (VAT inclusive), i.e. an 8.53% increase.



4 STUDY DELIVERABLES

4.1 STUDY PROGRAMME

The overall study programme was to a large extent determined by the schedule of activities of

the Technical Component. Due to the contractual delay experienced, the GRDS commenced

during winter 2013 instead of an envisaged earlier summer start. As a result the Technical

Component study programme had to be amended to cater for the seasonal variation. This

resulted in the Initiation and Design Phase to be longer than anticpated.

However, the different study phases were not entirely independent and could overlap with

each other, depending on the different technical approaches. Therefore, some Technical

Component Implementation Phase tasks already commenced in November/December 2013.

The initial study programme, providing for both the Project Management and Technical

Components, is included in Appendix B.

Although it was previously planned that the technical input would be completed by February

2015 with the study completion by May 2015, the seasonal delay variation, additional

hydrology work required as well as opposing opinions with regard to the groundwater aspects

caused the study to be delayed and extended to 7 November 2015.

On completion of the GRDS, it is clear that the six month extension was not sufficient to

finalise and wrap up the study. The general study delay and delay in review feedback caused

that most reports only be finalised during the Termination Stage. This again impacted on the

compilation and finalisation of the final study reports, such as the Monitoring, Main and Study

Closure Reports. Although these reports were submitted in draft format on or about 7

November 2015, the outstanding review thereof resulted in these reports to only be finalised

during December 2015.

In terms of similar type of studies cognisance should in future be taken of the time of

tendering, proposed study programme and contractual agreement finalisation, not causing the

kind of delays experienced during the commencement of the GRDS.

4.2 MILESTONES AND DELIVERABLES

The study scheduling, in terms of milestones and deliverables, was based on that of the of the

Technical Component programming.

Although study-related milestones and deliverables were set duirng the Initiation and Design

Phase, some challenges, as stated above, were experienced during study inception. Changes

in deadlines were, however, requested in October 2014 with a further scheduling was in May

2015. Final scheduling of deliverables took place during PMC Meeting No 5 on 4 August 2015.



The revised associated milestones and deliverables are presented in Table 4.1. Q refers to

the relevant DWS yearly quarter of three months, i.e. Q1 refers to April to June, Q2 refers to

July to September, Q3 refers to October to December and Q4 refers to January to March. Q1-

13 would therefore refer to the quarter of April to June in 2013.

The deliverable deadlines presented in Table 4.1 are based on:

Project extension from 7 May 2015 to 7 November 2015.

DWS quarterly deliverables for internal auditing purposes.

Realistic and specific dates (as requested) for remaining meetings with DWS. This has

also taken into account the availability of the technical team to attend meetings. Note

that the PMC and PSC meetings planned for March 2015 were delayed by a couple of

months, and then fell over a period when the Technical Team Leader and other

members of the technical team were not available. The DWS was informed about this

delay and the subsequent consequences during the beginning of 2015.

The slow rate at which review comments have been provided to the Technical Team.

This includes comments from both the PMT and DWS. In general, the review process

was, however, subject to the availability of final draft reports. In the case of the DWS,

internal capacity challenges related to the technical availability of reviewers and the

complexity, number, and extent of report delays, review delays have been experienced

receiving comments, dealing with the comments and finalising reports.

Change in date for the delivery of the Monitoring Report, based on the final monitoring

objectives only being available once results have been presented to DWS (done on 11

September 2015) and final decisions have been made regarding the management of

water resources of the study area.



Table 4.1: Integrated Study Milestones and Deliverables

Deliverables, Reports, Field Surveys, Workshops, Meetings

Date Q Requested

date change (October 2014)

Date undertaken

Deliverable comment

Study contractual commencement May 2013 Q1-13 7 May 2013

Initiation Meeting June 13 Q1-13 6 June 2013

Inception Report: Draft 1 September

2013 Q2-13

Draft September 2013; Final February

2014

Info for stakeholder engagement, e.g. Background Information Document (refer to Appendix C)

September/ October

2013 Q3-13

October 2013

PMC Meeting 1 October

2013 Q3-13

2 October 2013

Stakeholder Workshop 1 October

2013 Q3-13

3 October 2013

Prepare spreadsheet templates November/ December

2013 Q3-13

EcoSystem services input to Desktop EcoClassification December

2013 Q3-13

Water Resource Use Importance (WRUI) December

2013 Q313

Water quality, wetlands input to Desktop EcoClassification

December 2013

Q3-13

Estuary field survey December

2013 Q3-13

3 – 9 December

2013

Desktop EcoClassification (rivers) workshop January

2014 Q4-14



Deliverables, Reports, Field Surveys, Workshops, Meetings

Date Q

Requested

date change

(October 2014)

Date undertaken

(refer to Table 6.1)

Deliverable comment

Reconnaissance river survey 1 January

2014 Q4-14

Reconnaissance river survey 2 February

2014 Q4-14

Results spreadsheets: Desktop EcoClassification February

2014 Q4-14

Groundwater Reserve hydrocensus and field survey March–May

2014

Q4-14/Q1-15

28 – 30 May 2014

PMC Meeting 2 March 2014 Q4-14 4 March

2014

Outputs from groundwater Rapid Reserve study: spreadsheet, short report & BHNR (groundwater)

March 2014 Q4-14

Desktop EcoClassification Report March 2014 Q4-14 Draft April

2014; Final July 2014

Delineation Report March 2014 Q4-14

Draft April 2014;

August/ September

2014

Report comprises two volumes

Training Workshop 1 (Overview and rivers) May 2014 Q1-14 30

September 2014

River Reserve survey 1: Winter rainfall area April 2014 Q1-14 8 – 12 April

2014

Liaison regarding scenarios June 2014 Q1-14

Completed templates: Desktop estuaries August 2014 Q2-14

Preparation of basic hydrology May - June

2014 Q1-14



Deliverables, Reports, Field Surveys, Workshops,

Meetings Date Q

Requested

date change

(October 2014)

Date

undertaken

(refer to

Table 6.1)

Deliverable comment

BHNR (surface water) May - June

2014 Q1-14

River Reserve survey 2: Summer rainfall area June 2014 Q1-14 23 – 26 June

2014

SPATSIM preparation: rivers June 2014 Q1-14

Hydraulic look-up tables: rivers June 2014 Q1-14

PMC Meeting 3 July 2014 Q2-14 23 July 2014

PSC Meeting 1 July 2014 Q2-14 24 July 2014

Specialist Workshop 1: Rivers (Rapids) July 2014 Q2-14 28 July – 1

August 2014

Completed info templates & reports: Rapid Level

estuaries

October

2014 Q3-14

Groundwater Report August 2014 Q2-14 November 2014

(Q3-14)

1st Draft

December

2014; 2nd

Draft March

2015; 3rd

Draft May

2015; Final

November

2015

Report was subject to

extensive review by DWS,

External Reviewers (GEOSS

(Julian Conrad) and Delta-H)

and Umvoto Africa




Meetings Date Q

Requested

date change

(October 2014)

Date undertaken

(refer to

Table 6.1)

Deliverable comment

Set up and run scenarios through yield model June –

August 2014

Q1/Q2-

14

Completed river models: Rapid sites July 2014 Q2-14

Scenario workshop August 2014 Q2-14 24 August

2014

Wetland field survey: rapid assessment

August -

September

2014

Q2-14

November 2014

(Q3-14)

17 – 19

December

2014

Groundwater monitoring programme September

2014 Q2-14

January 2015

(Q4-14)

Completed as part of

Monitoring Report

PMC Meeting 4 September

2014 Q2-14

3 December

2014

PSC Meeting 2 September

2014 Q2-14

Postponed Took place on 5 August 2015

Completed river models: Intermediate sites September

2014 Q2-14

Specialist Workshop 2: Rivers (Intermediates)

September

2014 Q2-14

8 -12

September

2015

Training Workshop 2 (estuaries and wetlands) September

2014 Q2-14

1 October

2014

Wetland field survey: priority wetlands September

2014 Q2-14 November 2014

(Q3-14)

17 – 19

December

2014

Estuary workshop: Desktop / Rapid sites November

2014 Q3-14

17 – 21

November

2014




Meetings Date Q

Requested

date change

(October 2014)

Date undertaken

(refer to

Table 6.1)

Deliverable comment

Completed templates & specialist reports:

Rapid/Intermediate Level estuaries

November

2014 Q3-14

River input to Scenario Report

November

2014 Q3-14

May 2015

Wetlands Report

November

2014

Q3-14

January 2015

(Q4-14)

1st Draft April

2015, 2nd

Draft July

2015; Final

November

2015

General delay in terms of

report completion

PMC Meeting 5 November

2014 Q3-14

Postponed Took place on 4 August 2015

Estuary Report: Desktop assessment December

2014 Q3-14

Febraury

2015

EWR Report: Rapid sites, rivers December

2014 Q3-14

Draft May

2015; Final

Octoberr

2015

Groundwater meeting with DWS and Umvoto Africa January

2015 Q4-14

26 January

2015

Estuary workshop: Intermediate sites

January/

February

2015

Q4-14

16 – 29

January

2015




Meetings Date Q

Requested

date change

(October 2014)

Date undertaken

(refer to

Table 6.1)

Deliverable comment

Estuary Report: Rapid assessment January

2015 Q4-14

1st Draft

December

2014; 2nd

drfat

February

2015; Final

October/

November

2015

Report comprises two

volumes, i.e. one each for

the Klein Brak and

Wilderness estuaries

Economic consequences of scenarios: Input to

Scenario Report

January

2015 Q4-14

Not undertaken as there

were no river scenarios to

evaluate

Goods & Services consequences of scenarios: Input to

Scenario Report

January

2015 Q4-14

Not undertaken as there

were no river scenarios to

evaluate

Training Workshop (yield modelling, groundwater,

socio-economics)

January

2015 Q4-14

29 – 30

September

2015

PMC Meeting 6 January

2015 Q4-14

Postponed Took place on 15 October

2015

PSC Meeting 3

January

2015 Q4-14

Postponed Decided on 5 August 2015 to

have a joint PSM Meeting No

3 and Stakeholder Workshop

No 2 on 16 October 2015




Meetings Date Q

Requested

date change

(October 2014)

Date undertaken

(refer to

Table 6.1)

Deliverable comment

Scenario Report

January

2015 Q4-14

April 2015 (Q1-

15)

1st

Draft June

2015; 2nd

Draft

October

2015.

2nd

Draft submitted at end

October 2015 as final

deliverable subject to review

by DWS.

EcoSpecs, TPCs and qualitative statements: rivers January

2015 Q4-14

February 2015 End April

2015

Wetlands EcoSpecs January

2015 Q4-14

February 2015 July 2015

EWR Report: Intermediate sites, rivers February

2015 Q4-14

1st Draft May

2015; Final

October

2015

Presentation of results to DWS February

2015 Q4-14

11

September

2015

Agreed to presentation date

on 4 August 2015

Estuary Report: Intermediate assessment March 2015 Q4-14

1st Draft

Decmber

2014 &

February

2015; Final

October/

November 2015

Report comprises four

volumes, i.e. one each for

the Duiwenhoks, Goukou,

Gouritz and Keurbooms

estuaries




Meetings Date Q

Requested

date change

(October 2014)

Date

undertaken

(refer to

Table 6.1)

Deliverable comment

Monitoring Report March 2015 Q4-14

1st Draft

November

2015

This report has to follow the

Presentation of results to

DWS, as monitoring

recommendations have to

follow final decision-making;

subject to review by DWS.

PMC Meeting 7 March 2015 Q4-14 Not required Not required

Task inputs for Main Report April 2015 Q4-14 Throughout 2015

Main Report May 2015 Q1-15

1st Draft

November

2015

This report could only be

finalised and submitted at the

end of the study and once

the results have been

presented to DWS as final

recommendations are

included in the Main Report;

subject to review by DWS

PMC Meeting 8 May 2015 Q1-15 Did not take

place

Not required

PSC Meeting 4 May 2015 Q1-15 Did not take

place

Not required

Stakeholder Workshop 2 May 2015

Q1-15 16 October

2015

Agreed to date on 4 August

2015

Templates: Draft

May 2015 Q1-15 This deliverable is not

possible in time due to the

delays in meetings and

reviews.




Meetings Date Q

Requested

date change

(October 2014)

Date

undertaken

(refer to

Table 6.1)

Deliverable comment

Templates: Final

May 2015 Q1-15 This deliverable is not

possible due to the delays in

meetings and reviews.

Study Closure Report May 2015

Q1-15

1st Draft

November

2015

This report could only be

finalised and submitted at the

end of the study; subject to

review by DWS



4.3 STUDY REPORTS

The final list of reports compiled and produced for the GRDS is, together with the relevant index and

report numbers, summarized in Table 4.2:

Table 4.2: Final list of reports produced for the GRDS

INDEX NUMBER REPORT NUMBER REPORT TITLE

Report Number 01 RDM/WMA16/00/CON/0113 Inception Report

Report Number 02 RDM/WMA16/00/CON/0213 Desktop EcoClassification Report

Report Number 03, Volume 1 RDM/WMA16/00/CON/0313, Volume 1 Delineation Report, Volume 1 (Groundwater,

Estuaries and Wetlands)

Report Number 03, Volume 2 RDM/WMA16/00/CON/0313, Volume 2 Delineation Report, Volume 2 (Rivers)

Report Number 04 RDM/WMA16/02/CON/0413 Groundwater Report

Report Number 05 RDM/WMA16/03/CON/0513 Wetland Report

Report Number 06, Volume 1 RDM/WMA16/04/CON/0613, Volume 1 Estuaries RDM Report – Desktop Assessment

Report Number 06, Volume 2 RDM/WMA16/04/CON/0613, Volume 2 Estuaries RDM Report – Desktop Re-

evaluation of the 2008 EWR Study on the

Keurbooms Estuary

Report Number 07, Volume 1 RDM/WMA16/04/CON/0713, Volume 1 Estuaries RDM Report – Rapid Assessment,

Volume 1 (Klein Brak Estuary)

Report Number 07, Volume 2 RDM/WMA16/04/CON/0713, Volume 2 Estuaries RDM Report – Rapid Assessment,

Volume 2 (Wilderness System)

Report Number 08, Volume 1 RDM/WMA16/04/CON/0813, Volume 1 Estuaries RDM Report – Intermediate

Assessment, Volume 1 (Duiwenhoks Estuary)


Assessment, Volume 2 (Gouritz Estuary)


Assessment, Volume 3 (Goukou Estuary)

Report Number 09 RDM/WMA16/00/CON/0913 Scenario Report

Report Number 10 RDM/WMA16/01/CON/1013 Rivers RDM Report – Intermediate

Assessment

Report Number 11 RDM/WMA16/01/CON/1113 Rivers RDM Report – Rapid Assessment

Report Number 12 RDM/WMA16/00/CON/1213 Monitoring Report

Report Number 13 RDM/WMA16/00/CON/1313 Main Report

Report Number 14 RDM/WMA16/00/CON/1413 Study Closure Report



5 STUDY MEETINGS AND WORKSHOPS

5.1 STUDY INITIATION MEETINGS

As indicated in Section 2.2.1, an initial Project Inception Scoping Meeting took place at the DWS

Offices, Pretoria, on 3 May 2012. Subsequent to the finalization of the contractual agreement

between the DWS and AECOM, and with the official study commencement date as 7 May 2013, a

Project Initiation Meeting took place on 6 June 2013 at the AECOM Offices, Bellville. The minutes of

both meetings are included in Appendix D.

5.2 PMC MEETINGS

Nine (9) PMC meetings were originally envisaged. In addition to the Study Initiation Meeting of 6

Jnue 2013, seven (7) further PMC meetings, including a special PMC meeting during which the

study results were presented to the DWS, took place during the study.

A summary of the PMC meetings in terms of date and venue is provided in Table 5.1, while copies

of the relevant meeting minutes are included in Appendix E.

Table 5.1: Summary of PMC meetings

PMC Meeting No Date of Meeting Meeting Venue

Meeting 1 2 October 2013 Pearl of Oudsthoorn Hotel, Oudtshoorn

Meeting 2 4 March 2014 Main Boardroom, AECOM Offices, Bellville

Meeting 3 23 July 2014 Boardroom, DWS Regional Offices,

George

Meeting 4 3 December 2014 Main Boardroom, AECOM Offices, Bellville

Meeting 5 4 August 2015 Protea King George Hotel, George

Special Meeting 11 September 2015 Emanzini Room 335, DWS Head Offices,

Pretoria

Meeting 6 15 October 2015 Hotel Wilderness, Wilderness

PMC meeting attendance was earmarked by irregular attendance by PMC members. Although the

meetings were attended by the core PMC members, some of the PMC members indicated in Table

2.1. only attended selective meetings, whilst other identified PMC members did not attend any

meetings at all.

Although the intention was to have PMC meetings at specific study milestone dates, challenges

were experienced around this, amongst other, the availability of PMC members to meet on targeted

dates. This resulted in prolonged periods between the sequential PMC meetings, which in turn

resulted in its own set of challenges. It was identified that an additional meeting between PMC

Meetings 4 (December 2014) and 5 (August 2015), which was eight months apart, for instance

would have aided in providing guidance on intervention actions to get the study on track again. In



this regard it is to be noted that a PMC meeting was originally planned for March 2015 but was

delayed due to the unavailability of DWS officials, and then postponed for a period when the

Technical Team Leader and other members of the technical team were not available.

5.3 PSC MEETINGS

It was originally planned envisaged that there will be in the order of four (4) to five (5) PSC

meetings, with the intention that the PSC meetings follow the PMC meetings on the same or

following day. However, only three PSC meetings took place during the study. In addition, and

based on time limitations and associated cost savings, PSC Meeting 3 and Stakeholder Workshop 2

were held jointly.

A summary of the PSC meetings in terms of date and venue is provided in Table 5.2, while copies

of the relevant meeting minutes of PSC Meetings 1 and 2 are included in Appendix F. Minutes of

PSC Meeting 3 was compiled as Stakeholder Workshop minutes and is included in Appendix H.

Table 5.2: Summary of PSC meetings

PSC Meeting No Date of Meeting Meeting Venue

Meeting 1 24 July 2014 Protea King George Hotel, George

Meeting 2 5 August 2015 Protea King George Hotel, George

Meeting (jointly with

Stakheholder Workshop 2)

16 October 2015 Hotel Wilderness, Wilderness

PSC meeting attendance was earmarked by poor attendance and participation by local authorities

and government and/or semi-government institutions other than DWS. As a result the PSC

meetings was predominantly attended by DWS representatives (refer to attendance list as per the

relevant meeting minutes included in Appendix F). Considering the proposed PSC composition as

indicated in Table 2.2, the attendance of PSC meetings by a wider representative grouping would

aided specific challenges experienced during the study. Such missing interest and involvement is a

concern. It needs to be indicated that the two dedicated PSC meetings were not attended by

organisations such as SANParks, DAFF, DAWC and specific local authorities. Given the local

issues raised by stakeholders, i.e. the lack of attendance by key stakeholders, has resulted in

conflicts, related to specific areas such as Swartvlei, Lemoenshoek and the Keurbooms and Bitou

Reserve study results,to mention but a few. Hence, instead of identifying these and similar issues

early in the study and providing opportunity for discussions around possible solutions, it resulted in

ministerials and various complaints addressed to the DWS, causing PSPs to address specific issues

outside the scope of the study, leading to low confidence desktop results and confrontation with

stakeholders instead of consultation as intended with the stakeholder process.

As for the originally planned March 2015 PMC meeting, it is to be noted that the PSC meeting

planned for March 2015 was delayed similarly as the PMC meeting.



5.4 STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOPS

Stakeholder participation is discussed in Section 7. However, a summary of stakeholder workshops

in terms of date and venue is provided in Table 5.3. Copies of the relevant meeting minutes are

included in Appendix H.

Table 5.3: Summary of Stakeholder Workshops

Stakeholder Workshop Date of Meeting Meeting Venue

Workshop 1 3 October 2014 Pearl of Oudsthoorn Hotel, Oudtshoorn

Workshop 2 16 October 2015 Hotel Wilderness, Wilderness

5.5 TECHNICAL MEETINGS/ WORKSHOPS

Various Technical Component meetings/workshops were conducted. A summary of these meetings

in terms of type, date, venue and an indication of available minutes are provided in Table 5.4.

Table 5.4: Summary of technical meetings/workshops

Meeting/Workshop

Description

Date of

Meeting/Workshop

Meeting/Workshop

Venue

Comments

Wetlands Meeting 7 August 2013

Room 440, DWS

Regional Offices,

Bellville

Refer to Wetlands

Report for

minutes

Desktop

EcoClassification

Workshop (Rivers)

January 2014 Pearly Beach

Groundwater Meeting

with Umvoto Africa and

Oudtshoorn Municipality

16 January 2014 Umvoto Africa

Offices, Muizenberg

Unofficial notes

on discussion are

available

Hydrology and Yield

Modelling Requirements

Meeting

19 June 2014

Pretoria

River Specialist

Workshop 1: Rapid Sites

28 July – 1 August

2014 East London

Scenario Meeting

24 August 2014 Main Boardroom,

AECOM Offices,

Bellville

Groundwater/Wetlands

Meeting

26 August 2014 Pretoria

Unofficial notes

are available

River Specialist

Workshop 2:

Intermediate Sites

8 – 12 September

2014 East London



Meeting/Workshop

Description

Date of

Meeting/Workshop

Meeting/Workshop

Venue

Comments

Estuary Specialist

Workshop 1

17 – 21 November

2014 CSIR, Stellenbosch

Estuary Specialist

Workshop 2

16 – 29 January

2015 CSIR, Stellenbosch

Groundwater Specialist

Meeting with Umvoto

Africa and DWS

26 January 2015 DWS Regional

Offices, Bellville

Unofficial

memoranda, etc.

are available

Preparation of EcoSpecs 20 - 24 April 2015 Pearly Beach

Preparation of Main

Report

13 – 15 October

2015 Pearly Beach



6 STUDY MONITORING AND REPORTING

6.1 OVERALL PERFORMANCE

The main function of the PMT was to direct and co-ordinate the efforts of the Technical

Component, both pro-actively and reactively, on a daily basis with a specific focus on

delivering decision support information to the DWS. Based on that, the GRDS was

managed to ensure that all objectives are achived on time, within budget and as per the

stipulated briefs. As a result standard protocols such as project status and progress reports

to monitor progress and to ensure that required deliverables are provided were introduced.

This, however, did not detract from the responsibility of the Technical Team to manage the

activities within their assignment.

In addition, regular communication between the PMT and the Technical Team as well as

with the DWS ensured continuous progress feedback.

6.2 PERFORMANCE MONITORING

Performance monitoring and reporting during the GRDS was based on four components,

i.e. monthly progress and status reports, feedback at PMC/PSC meetings and study

reporting. Each of these is briefly discussed below:

6.2.1 Progress reporting

The intention at Inception Stage was that detailed progress reports, with the purpose of

reporting to the PMC, had to be submitted to the PMC two weeks prior to each PMC

meeting. However, based on a request from DWS during PMC Meeting No 2, this approach

changed due to an internal DWS request by the Deputy Director General for monthly

reports. As a result, brief progress reports in e-mail format for each of the Project

Management and Technical Components were submitted to the DWS Project Coordinator

on a monthly basis, accompanying the monthly invoices. These progress reports basically

summarised the activities undertaken during the period of invoicing.

In addition to the above-mentioned monthly progress reporting, monthly project status

reporting was introduced for auditing purposes of interim payment claims compared with

task related progress. This reporting was submitted as part of the monthly invoice

submission to the DWS and provided an indication of work done, progress and percentage

completed, fees claimed and HDI participation related to a specific task for which a

payment claim was submitted.



Furthermore four detail progress feedback reports were submitted during the study to the

DWS. Integrated progress reports were submitted in November 2013, February 2014 and

December 2014 whilst a technical progress report was submitted in July 2015.

6.2.2 Feedback at PMC/PSC meetings

6.2.2.1 Presentations at meetings

Each of the six PMC meetings held during the study included progress feedback in terms of

both the Project Management and Technical Components in the form of presentations. The

Project Management Component primarily concentrated on administrative and financial

matters, while technical progress feedback on the Technical Component was discussed in

detail. The latter not only included progress feedback, but also covered discussions on

matters in question and the associated way forward.

Feedback at the two PSC meetings primarily concentrated on the Technical Component

progress and findings. The aim was also to obtain feedback from stakeholder concerns and

recommendations with specific reference to potential water resource developments,

resources that require priority protection as well as measures for coordinating management

efforts to potect and manage water resources.

6.2.2.2 Actions and Decisions Register

The control of all action items discussed and decisions taken at PMC/PSC meetings during

the Initiation and Design Phase as well as Implementation Phase was considered to be of

utmost importance. As susch, action items and decisions resulting from PMC Meetings No

1 to 5 and PSC Meetings 1 and 2 were recorded in an Actions and Decisions Register. The

purpose of such a register was to keep record of all decisions taken and follow up on the

progress on any outstanding action items. A copy of this Actions and Decisions Register is

included in Appendix G.

It is to be noted that, although most of the listed actions and decisions refer to the GRDS,

there are some which either refer to another process outside the scope of, or could not be

addressed during the GRDS.

6.2.3 Study reporting

Various project reports, representing the work undertaken and completed, were produced

during the course of the GRDS. The main reports regarded as study deliverables were

determined in consultation with the DWS during the Initiation and Design Phase, followed

by minor adjustments, such as the introduction of reporting volumes, etc.



Report standards related to report numbering, report format, report references and a report

review mechanism that was set in consultation with the DWS. Relevant study related report

numbers were confirmed with the DWS.

A summary of these reports are provided in Table 4.2.

6.2.4 Report reviewing

Except for the Inception and Study Closure Reports, the Technical Team was responsible

for the integrated compilation of technical reports, subject to input by specialists. In terms

of monitoring, the draft study reports were reviewed by the PMT, External Reviewers and

the PMC/DWS. Although the original intention was that the draft technical reports were

subject to a single parallel round of review of comments by the PMT, Specialist External

Reviewers, PMC/DWS, feedback on the review process was diversive and took much

longer than anticpated. As a result, various versions of the reports were compiled and it

took much longer than anticipated to finalise the study reports. As such, each report

contains a report schedule indicating the various versions and date of compilation.

In addition to the review by the PMT and the DWS, external specialist review (refer to Table

2.3) of the Technical Component reporting was undertaken as follows:

Groundwater Report

External specialist review by Julian Conrad from GEOSS and Prof Kai Whiithueser

of Delta-H Water Systems Modelling

Additional external review by Umvoto Africa

Wetlands Report

External specialist review by Dr Justine Ewart-Smith from The Freshwater

Consulting Group

Estuaries Reports

External specialist review by Dr Angus Paterson from SAIAB

Rivers Reports

External specialist review by Dr Cate Brown from Southern Waters Ecological

Research

A summarised overview of the report review, including the review by the PMT, Specialist

External Reviewers as well as the DWS, and completion process is provided in Table 6.1

below:



Table 6.1: Compilation and review process of study reports

Report No.

Report number Report title Date of 1st Draft

Date of 2nd Draft

Date of 3rd Draft

Date Finalised

Comments

1 RDM/WMA16/00/CON/0113 Inception Report September 2013

February 2014

April 2014

2 RDM/WMA16/00/CON/0213 Desktop EcoClassification Report

April 2014 July 2014 July 2014 Report available on DWS & GRDS website

3 RDM/WMA16/00/CON/0313 Delineation Report

Volume 1 April 2014 May 20144 August 2014

Report available on DWS & GRDS website

Volume 2 April 2014 September 2014

September 2014


4 RDM/WMA16/02/CON/0413 Groundwater Report December 2014

March 2015 May 2015 November 2015

Final comments received from DWS, Julian Conrad, Umvoto Africa & Kai Whitthuesser incorporated.



Report No.


Date of 2nd Draft

Date of 3rd Draft

Date Finalised

Comments

5 RDM/WMA16/03/CON/0513 Wetlands Report Incomplete draft: April 2015

July 2015 November 2015


6 RDM/WMA16/04/CON/0613 Estuaries RDM Report – Desktop assessment

February 2015

October/ November 2015

Reports available on DWS & GRDS website

7 RDM/WMA16/04/CON/0713 Estuaries RDM Report – Rapid assessment

Klein Brak December 2014

February 2015

Wilderness

December 2014

February 2015

8 RDM/WMA16/04/CON/0813

Estuaries RDM Report – Intermediate assessment

Duiwenhoks December 2014

February 2015

Goukou February 2015

Gouritz February 2015

Keurbooms Estuary: Professional Opinion and Re-assessment of 2008 Rapid Reserve

February 2015

9 RDM/WMA16/00/CON/0913 Scenario Report June 2015 October 2015


10 RDM/WMA16/01/CON/1013 Rivers RDM Report – Intermediate assessment

May 2015

October 2015




Report No.


Date of 2nd Draft

Date of 3rd Draft

Date Finalised

Comments

11 RDM/WMA16/01/CON/1113 EWR Report - Rapid assessment

December 2014

May 2015 September 2015


12 RDM/WMA16/00/CON/1213 Monitoring Report November 2015

December 2015


13 RDM/WMA16/00/CON/1313 Main Report November 2015

December 2015


14 RDM/WMA16/00/CON/1413 Study Closure Report November 2015

December 2015




7 STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION

7.1 STAKEHOLDER AWARENESS

The ToR required that the GRDS include limited public awareness activities. Specific reference was

made to a stakeholder meeting during the Implementation Phase so as to involve stakeholders from

the beginning of the study. However, experience gained during the ORDS indicated that an

extended stakeholder participation is more appropriate. As a result two Stakeholder Workshops

were proposed for the GRDS (refer to Section 7.4).

Given the extended GRDS stakeholder particpation programme, Milkwood Communications was

included as part of the PMT during the Initiation and Design Phase to assist with stakeholder

activities.

The PMT assisted with the following during the Study Initiation and Design Phase:

Stakeholder identification;

Compilation and distribution of a BID;

Organisation of the Initial Stakeholder Workshop; and

Compilation of an Issues/Comments and Response Register.

Stakeholder participation during the Implementation Stage was limited to responses to queries,

progress update and maintenance of the Issues/Comments and Response Register. The

Termination Stage included a further newsletter and a final stakeholder workshop.

More detail related to the stakeholder activities are provided below: 7.2 IDENTIFICATION OF STAKEHOLDERS

Milkwood Communications updated the ORDS stakeholder database with input from the DWS,

AECOM and SC&A as well as other databases relevant to previous Gouritz WMA related studies. In

addition, members of the public and other potential stakeholders not identified yet were given

opportunity via advertisements placed in various newspapers to register as official stakeholders in

the GRDS in order to be able to receive study related information.

A detail stakeholder list is included in Appendix H.

7.3 COMMUNICATION WITH STAKEHOLDERS

7.3.1 Background Information Document

In consultation with AECOM and SCA, Milkwood Communications compiled and distributed a BID in

October 2013, providing the background and purpose as well as the time frame of the study,

explaining the sudy components and introducing the team to be involved. The BID also provided

DWS and PSP contact details where further study related enquires could be made explaining the

basics of the study. This was distributed to identified stakeholders to enlighten them of what is

underway with respect to the GRDS and inform them of the way forward. A copy of the BID bid is



included in Appendix C.

7.3.2 Stakeholder Newsletters

Two newsletters were compiled by the study team and distributed to stakeholders.

The aim of the first newsletter during November 2013 was to inform stakeholders of the GRDS

scenarios to be considered during the operational and scenario phase. The ecological implications

of applying those scenarios will be briefly discussed in the newsletter. The primary objective of the

newsletter, however, is to discuss the recommended scenarios for future management strategies

with the DWS as the client and custodian for the Reserve study.

The aim of the second newsletter of October 2015 was to provided stakeholders of an overview of

the results of the GRDS to be discussed at the second stakeholder workshop.

Copies of the two stakeholder newsletters are included in Appendix H.

7.4 STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOPS

Two Stakeholder Workshops were held during the GRDS. The intention of these workshops was to

gain stakeholder input durng the Initiation and Design Phase and to present the study results and

obtain stakeholder buy-in by the time the Termination Stage has been reached.

7.4.1 Stakeholder Workshop 1

The first Stakeholder Workshop took place on 3 October 2013 in Oudtshoorn. The purpose of the

workshop was to introduce the GRDS to stakeholders, provide background on the study area,

explain the process, discuss the study approach and to obtain input and comments from

stakeholders that will aid the GRDS, especially related to the development of realistic scenarios,

needed as vital input to the system hydrological and yield modelling and assessing the ecological

consequences on the Present Ecological State (PES) of water resources and associated future

development

Stakeholders included on the provisional stakeholder list were initially invited to the workshop by e-

mail on 5 September 2013. In addition, further invitations were sent to those stakeholders who

registered in response to newspaper advertisements. As a result 80 delegates attended Stakeholder

Workshop 1.

The Attendance Register and Minutes of the Stakeholder Workshop 1 are included in Appendix H.

7.4.2 Stakeholder Workshop 2

The second Stakeholder Workshop was initially planned for May 2015. However, due to the study

delay and resulting extension, the second Stakeholder Workshop took place during the Termination.

Phase. It was decided during PSC Meeting No 2 on 5 August 2015 that the last Stakeholder

Workshop and PSC Meeting 3 will be a joint event on 16 October 2015 at Wilderness. During this

workshop the various scenarios and ecological consequences were presented to the stakeholders



present, with their feedback and comments discussed and documented.

Stakeholder Workshop 2 was attended by about 75 delegates.The Attendance Register and

Minutes of the Stakeholder Workshop No 2 is included in Appendix H.

7.5 ISSUES/COMMENTS AND RESPONSE REGISTER

In response to the initial Stakeholder Workshop, an Issues/Comments and Response Register was

compiled and regularly updated to monitor enquiries and feedbacks. A copy of this

Issues/Comments and Response Register is included in Appendix H.

7.6 IMPROVED STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

The stakeholders living within the study area possessed a wealth of knowledge of the area, its

attributes, water resources and also engineering specifications required. These stakeholders should

have been more actively involved through having a representative from each or the towns located

within the study area or through more regular workshopping with the respective stakeholders and

the distribution of both minutes and reports to these stakeholders.



8 TRAINING AND CAPACITY BUILDING

Training and capacity building building is discussed in detail in the GRDS Main Report, Appendix A

(DWS, 2015b). This includes an overview of the GRDS training and capacity building opportunities,

the attendance thereof as well as feedback from trainees.

A brief overview on training opportunities is provided below:

8.1 BACKGROUND

Although defined as study objective in the ToR, the budgetary constraints imposed by the project

did not allow for sufficient training opportunities. Training is therefore included as the participation of

DWS trainees in workshops and field trips and specific training opportunities as identified per Table

3.2, Task U.

All training opportunities presented focussed on DWS personnel from both the Head Office and WC

Regional Office. In addition, PSP trainees also attended workshops and field surveys, but did so at

their own cost.

Information sharing was also provided by circulating progress reports and extending invitations to

attend meetings and workshops to the DWS WC Regional Office (RO) and the DWS CD: WE

Project Coordinator (Ms Machaba). Ms Machaba coordinated training events for DWS

representatives in liaison with Dr Scherman and Ms Wilna Kloppers and Dr Andrew Gordon from

DWS WC.

8.2 IDENTIFIED DWS TRAINEES: 2013

At the GRDS Inception Stage the DWS personnel as indicated in Table 8.1 were identified as

potential trainees per water resource (refer to Inception Report; DWS, 2014):

Table 8.1: Potential DWS trainees identified at Inception Stage

Water source Identified trainee

Rivers

Thapelo Machaba

Happy Maleme

Vuledzani Muthelo

Gladys Makhado

Estuaries

Thapelo Machaba

Happy Maleme

Gladys Makhado

Vuledzani Muthelo

Wetlands Vuledzani Muthelo



Water source Identified trainee

Gladys Makhado

Happy Maleme

Groundwater

Lawrence Maluleke

Netshiendeulu Ndivhuwo

Khoza Philani

Kutama Rotondwa

Tichatonga Gonah

8.3 TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES

Training and capacity building opportunities provided during the GRDS and attendance thereof are

summarised in Table 8.1. Agendas for the training workshops are included in the Main Report,

Appendix A (DWS, 2015b).

Table 8.2: Training and capacity building opportunities

Opportunity Description Date Attendance

Estuaries

Estuary field survey:

Goukou, Duiwenhoks, Gouritz, Klein

Brak, Wilderness, Keurbooms

3 – 9 December

2013

DWS: Gladys Makhado, Happy

Maleme, Thapelo Machaba, Nolu

Jafta

Other attendees:Nompumelelo

Thwala (DEA), Alexis Olds

(CapeNature), Corne Erasmus,

Carlo Williamson (DAFF)

Estuary Specialist Workshop 1:

Duiwenhoks, Klein Brak,

Touw/Wilderness, Hartenbos, Blinde,

Groot, Piesang, Bloukrans

7 – 21 November

2014

DWS: Gladys Makhado, Happy

Maleme, Thapelo Machaba, Nolu

Jafta, Esther Lekalake, Gerhard

Cilliers, Sibusiso Majola

Other attendees:Nompumelelo


Thwala (DEA), Alexis Olds

(CapeNature), Corne Erasmus,

(DAFF), Chantal Petersen,

Christo Rautenbach, Hellen Mpe,

Janine & Marileen (interns)

(CSIR)



Estuary Specialist Workshop 2:

Goukou, Gouritz, Keurbooms,

EcoSpecs and monitoring

16 – 29 January

2015

DWS: Gerhard Cilliers, Sibusiso

Majola, Nolu Jafta, Wina

Kloppers, Thembela Bushula,

Pumza Buwa

Other attendees:Jean du

Plessis, Alexis Olds

(CapeNature), Chantal Petersen

(CSIR), Angus Paterson (SAIAB:

Specialist Advisor/External

Reviewer), Jill Slinger (TU Delft)

Rivers

Rivers field survey 1:

Gouritz, Doring, Touws, Buffels,

Gamka

8 – 12 April 2014

DWS: Thembela Bushula,

Andrew Gordon, Earl Herdien,

Fezile Daniel, Caroline Tlowana,

Gladys Makhado,Gloria Muthelo,

Happy Maleme, Thapelo

Machaba

Rivers field survey 2:

Duiwenhoks, Kammanassie,

Goukou, Olifants, Keurbooms

23 – 26 June 2014


Andrew Gordon, Gladys

Makhado,Gloria Muthelo, Happy

Maleme, Thapelo Machaba

Other attendees: Khaya Mgaba,

Nkosinathi Mazangula (IRW,

Rhodes University)

River Specialist Workshop 1:

Rapid Sites – Duiwenhoks, Doring,

Goukou, Kammanassie

28 July – 1 August

2014


Andrew Gordon

Other attendees: Khaya Mgaba,

Nkosinathi Mazangula (IRW,

Rhodes University)

River Specialist Workshop 2:

Intermediate Sites – Touws, Buffels,

Gamka, Gouritz, Keurbooms

8 – 12 September

2014 DWS: Thembela Bushula,

Andrew Gordon


Groundwater

Goundwater field survey 28 – 30 May 2014 DWS: Manelisi Ndima, Netshiendeulu

Ndivhuywo, Philani Khoza

Wetlands

Wetlands field survey 17 – 19 December

2014

DWS: Manelisi Ndima, Vuledzani

Muthelo, Shaddai Daniels

Specific training

Workshop 1:

Overview and River Reserve

30 September 2014 DWS:

Resource Protection: Thembela

Bushula, Bentley Engelbrecht,

Graeme Williams, Poppy Bhele,

Shaddai Daniels, Andrew

Gordon, Pumza Buwa, Rafieka

Workshop 2:

Estuary and Wetland Reserve

1 October 2014



Johaar, Earl Herdien, Searle

Korasie, Fezile Daniel, Richard

Phaiphai, Bheki Cele, Wilna

Kloppers

Berg Section:

Bonelwa Mabowu, Nkosinathi

Mkonto, Tshiliszi Mnavhela,

Hester Lyons

Geo-Hydrology: Vuyi Tumana

BGCMA: Zama Mbunquka

CD :WE (SWRR): Thapelo

Machaba

Workshop 3:

Groundwater, Economics and Yield

Modelling

29 - 30 September

2015

DWS: Phlani Khoza; Manelisi

Ndima, Nwabisa Makiwane,

Ntsoakaleng Nakin, Vuyoazi

Jezile, Ashton van Niekerk,

Fezile Daniel, Pumza Buwa,

Imelda Haines, Mzukhisi

Naqhamza, Bentley Engelbrecht,

Bulelani Rolinyathi, Bheki Cele,

Grant Williams, Richard

Phaiphai, Thembela Bushula,

Andrew Gordon, Nancy Motebe,

Esther Lekalake, Mike Smart,

Thapelo Machaba, Nomvuyiseko

Tumara, Bonelwa Mabovu,

Busiswa Matyou, Mashiedu

Mushovi

8.4 FEEDBACK FROM DWS TRAINEES

Main gaps identified by DWS trainees during the feedback regarding the training provided include:

No proper training programme was in place, thus it was difficult to measure the effectiveness

of the training provided.

No proper direction from the DWS on the requirements for the capacity building and skills

transfer.

No specific tasks given to the trainees and this makes the trainees move from one activity to

the other without building a proper skill. Other trainees then appear sluggish and show a lack

of interest during the site survey.

No sufficient time during the field surveys to train DWS personnel on how to use the

instruments and no proper explanation on the methodology used for assessments during the

site surveys. This contributed to the minimal skills transfer.

PSPs were concerned about their time schedule and meeting the deadlines, thus not paying

attention to the trainees and this also contributed to minimal capacity building.

Due to budget constrains within the DWS, the personnel were not able to attend the full

activities as planned. There was no continuation of the training.



9 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

9.1 APPROVED STUDY BUDGET

9.1.1 Original study budget

The original approved GRDS budget, Value Added Tax (VAT) inclusive, is indicated in Table 9.1.

Table 9.1: Original approved study budget

Study Component VO Budget

(R – VAT inclusive) % of Budget

Project Management 3 689 427.60 29.8

Technical 8 698 815.60 70.2

Total 12 388 243.20 100.0

9.1.2 Variation order

In addition to the original approved study budget, a single VO was approved by the DWS on 7 May

2015. As discussed in Section 3.4, this VO related to both additional work and an extension of time.

A breakdown of the VO budget allocation, Value Added Tax (VAT) inclusive, is indicated in Table

9.2:

Table 9.2: Approved VO budget

Study Component Approved Budget

(R – VAT inclusive) % of Budget

Project Management 803 950.80¹ 76.06

Technical 253 080.00 23.94

Total 1 057 030.80 100.0

¹Including hydrology and yield modelling done by AECOM for Technical Component

The approved VO budget of R 1 057 030.80 (VAT inclusive) respresents an increase of 8.53% of

the originally approved study budget.

9.1.3 Revised study budget

Given the approved original budget and VO, as discussed in Sections 9.1.1 and 9.1.2, respectively,

the revised study budget is summarised in Table 9.3:



Table 9.3: Revised study budget

Study Component Revised Approved Budget

(R – VAT inclusive) % of Approved Budget


Original 3 689 427.60

29.8

VO 803 950.80 76.06

Technical 8 951 895.60 66.58

Original 8 698 815.60

70.2

VO 253 080.00 23.94

Total 13 445 274.00 100 100

In addition to the above-mentioned differentiation between the Project Management and Technical

Components’ budgets, a further R 132 787.80 (VAT inclusive) was transferred from the Project

Management Component budget to that of the Technical Component, with the primary aim to

financially assist with the additional groundwater work undertaken due to the various rounds of

review, including discussions with Umvoto Africa (refer to Sections 10.1. and 5.4.2). As a result the

final budget distribution is provided in Table 9.4.

Table 9.4: Study budget distribution

Study Component Revised Approved Budget

(R – VAT inclusive) % of Approved Budget


Original 3 689 427.60

29.8

VO 671 072.00 63.49

Technical 9 084 774.40 67.57

Original 8 698 815.60

70.2

VO 253 080.00

36.51 Transfer from

Project

Management

Component

132 878.80

Total 13 445 274.00 100 100

9.2 DETAIL OF STUDY BUDGET

The financial management of the GRDS was based on a detail task breakdown. The detail

breakdown of the revised study budget, covering both the Project Management and Technical

Components, and based on the defined study tasks, is included in Appendix I.



9.3 INVOICING

9.3.1 Invoicing procedure

Study invoicing was aimed at monthly submissions to the DWS, based on the following procedure:

The Technical Component and Specialist Reviewers, submitted, as applicable, monthly

invoices to the PMT;

Invoicing for work done in a specific month was preferably to be done at the end of the same

nth to reach the PMT by no later than the 7th of the following month;

Invoices received by the PMT were checked for confirmation that the costs incurred were

realistic in relation to the work done;

All claims for disbursements were verified against proof provided. Records of all

disbursements were attached to the monthly invoices;

Invoices were then forwarded to the DWS Project Coordinator for checking, certification and

payment approval, and

All monthly invoices were supported by monthly status reports (refer to Section 6.2.2).

9.3.2 Invoicing per task

Monthly invoices submitted were detailed in accordance with the study task breakdown. The detail of the study breakdown is provided in Appendix I. Monthly invoices also contained a status report summary as indicated in Appendix I, whereby information was provided in terms the original allocated task budget, invoicing per task, HDI expenditure per task, over/under-spending per task, etc. 9.3.3 Summary of project invoicing

A summary of the monthly study invoicing and payments received is provided in Table 9.5:



Table 9.5: Summary of study monthly invoicing record

Invoice no.

Submission date Period covered Amount invoiced

(VAT inclusive) Date paid

1 12 November 2013 Up to 1 November 2013 R 936 133.22 20 December 2013

2 6 February 2014

2 November 2013 -

31 January 2014 R 569 423.00 12 March 2014

3 15 February 2014 31 January - 7 February2014 R 447 134.54 12 March 2014

4 28 February 2014 8 - 21 February 2014 R 355 195.24 24 March 2014

5 25 April 2014 22 February - 18 April 2014 R 224 579.08 10 June 2014

6 22 May 2014 18 April - 22 May 2014 R 359 630.61 1 July 2014

7 17 June 2014 22 May - 13 June 2014 R 675 799.95 30 July 2014

8 11 July 2014 14 June - 11 July 2014 R 317 391.13 22 August 2014

9 29 August 2014 12 July - 19 August 2014 R 705 771.87 29 September 2014

10 8 September 2014 20 August - 5 September 2014 R 574 820.44 13 October 2014

11 27 October 2014 5 September - 27 October 2014 R 790 918.70 12 November 2014

12 21 November 2014 28 October - 21 November 2014 R 502 921.10 22 December 2014

13 9 December 2014 21 November - 9 December 2014 R 847 652.65 20 January 2015

14 17 February 2015 10 December - 4 February 2015 R 845 396.46 10 March 2015

15 11 March 2015 5 February - 06 March 2015 R 1 141 473.21 31 March 2015

16 13 April 2015 7 March 2015 - 08 Apr 2015 R 126 803.91 8 May 2015

17 19 May 2015 09 Apr - 08 May 2015 R 320 797.39 29 June 2015

18 2 July 2015 09 May - 05 Jun 2015 R 142 259.65 17 August 2015

19 24 July 2015 08 Jun - 10 Jul 2015 R 164 302.50 2 September 2015

20 31 August 2015 13 July -21 August 2015 R 379 318.10 23 September 2015

21 28 September 2015 21 August - 18 September 2015 R 617 781.92 21 October 2015

22 23 October15 20 September - 16 October 2015 R 1 633 235.10 3 December 2015

23 5 November 2015 19 - 30 October 2015 R 442 161.97 30 November 2015

24 6 November 2015 2 - 6 November 2015 R 324 136.20 3 December 2015

Total R 13 445 037.94

9.4 CASHFLOW

Based on the amended study programme at Study Initiation and Design Phase (refer to Appendix

C), a provisonal cashflow for study financial management comparison purposes was included in the

GRDS Inception Report.

However, although the study has officially commenced in May 2013, the study programme was

delayed as discussed in Sections 2.2 and 4.1, with contractual agreements between the various

service providers to be agreed to, resulting in the actual technical work only to start later. As a result

the first invoice was only submitted in November 2013, with an immediate impact on the study



cashflow projection.

Due to the impact of the December 2013/January 2014 and December 2014/January 2015 holiday

breaks, no invoices were submitted for December 2013 and January 2015.

A summary of the actual study cashflow, based on invoicing and payment received, is provided in

Table 9.5 and Figure 9.1. The initial study delay impacted severely on the envisaged study

programme and cashflow, resulting in a lot of effort required during the Termination Phasee of the

study, i.e. August 2015 to November 2015 to complete the study in time.

Table 9.6: Cashflow comparison

Month

Projected monthly cashflow

(VAT inclusive)

Projected cumulative cashflow

(VAT inclusive)

Actual monthly invoicing

(VAT inclusive)

Actual cumulative invoicing

(VAT inclusive)

Monthly payment received

(VAT inclusive)

Cumulative payment received

(VAT inclusive)

May 2013

June 2013 R 22 344.00 R 22 344.00

July 2013 R 22 344.00

August 2013 R 27 972.34 R 50 316.34

September 2013 R 74 142.34 R 124 458.69

October 2013 R 320 193.43 R 44 652.11

November 2013 R 162 053.99 R 606 706.10 R 936 133.22 R 936 133.22 R 936 133.22 R936 133.22

December 2013 R 1 100 223.38 R 1 706 929.48

January 2014 R 459 648.51 R 2 166 577.99 R 569 423.00 R 1 505 556.22 R 569 423.00 R 1 505 556.22

February 2014 R 392 103.51 R 2 558 681.50 R 447 134.54 R 1 952 690.76 R 447 134.54 R 1 952 690.76

March 2014 R 290 501.01 R 2 849 182.50 R 355 195.24 R 2 307 886.00 R 355 195.24 R 2 307 886.00

Aprril 2014 R 492 888.47 R 3 342 070.97 R 224 579.08 R 2 532 465.08 R 224 579.08 R 2 532 465.08

May 2014 R 445 228.82 R 3 787 299.80 R 359 630.61 R 2 892 095.69 R 359 630.61 R 2 892 095.69

June 2014 R 1 225 113.68 R 5 012 413.48 R 675 799.95 R 3 567 895.64 R 675 799.95 R 3 567 895.64

July 2014 R 440 292.08 R 5 452 705.56 R 317 391.13 R 3 885 286.77 R 317 391.13 R 3 885 286.77

August 2014 R 701 317.88 R 6 154 023.44 R 705 771.87 R 4 591 058.64 R 705 771.87 R 4 591 058.64

September 2014 R 836 309.62 R 6 990 333.07 R 574 820.44 R 5 165 879.08 R 574 820.44 R 5 165 879.08

October 2014 R 1 097 046.08 R 8 087 379.15 R 790 918.70 R 5 956 797.78 R 790 918.70 R 5 956 797.78

November 2014 R 1 297 234.42 R 9 384 613.57 R 502 921.10 R 6 459 718.88 R 502 921.10 R 6 459 718.88

December 2014 R 340 406.55 R 9 725 020.12 R 847 652.65 R 7 307 371.53 R 847 652.65 R 7 307 371.53

January 2015 R 1 076 424.02 R 10 801 444.15

February 2015 R 383 132.48 R 11 184 576.63 R 845 396.46 R 8 152 767.99 R 845 396.46 R 8 152 767.99



Figure 9.1: Cashflow comparison

Month

Projected monthly

cashflow (VAT inclusive)

Projected cumulative

cashflow (VAT inclusive)

Actual monthly invoicing

(VAT inclusive)

Actual cumulative

invoicing (VAT inclusive)

Monthly payment received

(VAT inclusive)

Cumulative payment received

(VAT inclusive)

March 2015 R 290 667.62 R 11 475 244.25 R1 141 473.21 R 9 294 241.20 R 1 141 473.21 R 9 294 241.20

April 2015 R 237 493.68 R 11 712 737.94 R 126 803.91 R 9 421 045.11 R 126 803.91 R 9 421 045.11

May 2015 R 484 168.51 R 12 196 906.45 R 320 797.39 R 9 741 842.50 R 320 797.39 R 9 741 842.50

June 2015 R 127 010.90 R 12 323 917.34 R 142 259.65 R 9 884 102.15 R 142 259.65 R 9 884 102.15

July 2015 R 64 325.86 R 12 388 243.20 R 164 302.50 R 10 048 404.65 R 164 302.50 R10 048 404.65

August 2015 R 264 257.70 R 12 652 500.90 R 379 318.10 R 10 427 722.75 R 379 318.10 R10 427 722.75

September 2015 R 264 257.70 R 12 916 758.60 R 617 781.92 R 11 045 504.67 R 617 781.92 R11 045 504.67

October 2015 R 264 257.70 R 13 181 016.30 R 1 633 235.10 R 12 678 739.77 R 1 633 235.10 R 12 678 739.77

November 2015 (1) R 264 257.70 R 13 445 274.00 R 442 161.97

R 13 120 901.74 R 442 161.97

R 13 120 901.74

November 2015 (2) R 13 445 274.00 R 324 136.20

R 13 445 037.94 R 324 136.20

R 13 445 037.94

Total R 13 445 274.00 - R 13 445 037.94 R 13 445 037.94



9.5 HDI PARTICIPATION

The ToR defined HDI participation as the ratio of professional fees apportioned to HDIs. The

minimum target HDI participation was specified as 25%.

Based on the task related information provided in Appendix I the HDI ratio of professional fees at

study completion were 43.35%, more than required.



10 STUDY FEEDBACK

In addition to the information presented in the previous sections, general feedback on the GRDS is

provided below in the following categories:

Project Management Component

Technical Component

Time frame of the study

Review and evaluation process

Capacity building

Financial considerations

Liaison with the Client

Other aspects

10.1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT COMPONENT

In general, project management entails the planning, organising, monitoring and controlling of all

project related aspects in a continuous process to achieve the stated objectives. As such, the GRDS

Project Management Component covered the following project management and administrative

activities:

10.1.1 Study administration and coordination

The administrative aspects of the study were handled as timeously and efficiently as possible by the

PMT, but was negatively impacted on by the departure of Mr Simon von Witt, who acted as PMT

Study Coordinator. Mr von Witt was also previously involved in the ORDS in a similar capacity and

has always conducted his work at a high standard with enthusiasm, efficiency and dedication. The

DWS has reported at varios occasions their satisfaction with his work. When he left, he left a great

gap that had to be filled in a short period of time.

In April 2015 Ms Colleen Thomas, was appointed on the project to replace Mr von Witt. However,

she resigned from AECOM in July 2015. As a result Ms Shoeshoe Letoao took over as Study

Coordinator at a difficult stage at the commencement of the Termination Phase in August 2015,

All PMC/PSC meetings and stakeholder workshops were well organised and catered for with well

structured agendas. Meeting agendas were, in general, compiled in advance by the PMT in

consultation with the Technical Study Leader, i.e. Dr Patsy Scherman, and then submitted to the

DWS Project Coordinator, Ms Thapelo Machaba, for amendments/approval. Therafter agendas

were distributed to meeting attendees at least a week prior to the meetings. In doing so, PMC/PSC

meetings kept to the agendas sent out prior to the meeting, without wasting time on topics, which

bore little direct significance to the study.

The capturing of the proceedings from PMC/PSC meetings and stakeholder workshops in the form

of minutes was done in an accurate and well structured manner, capturing most of the key issues

highlighted during the meetings. A recommendation for future studies is that minutes be compiled as

soon as possible after a meeting in order to be distributed within a week or two from the date of the

meeting.



Furthermore continual liaison and follow up work was done by the PMT requesting input from

specifically PMC members for their input into PMC related minutes, notes and the Action/Decision

Register.

10.1.2 Scope management

Given the original set study period and budget, it was important that the GRDS scope of work be

managed in line with the ToR requirements agreed to at the Study Initiation and Design Phase. This

kicked-off with the Study Initiation Meeting on 6 June 2013, i.e within a month of the study

commencement.

In addition, various initial workshops as part of the Technical Component were conducted during the

early stages of the GRDS to define the specific task requirements (refer to Table 5.4). Feedback

from these workshops and progress were presented in progress reports as well as duirng PMC

meetings. PMC meetings presented the opportunity to discuss the scope undertaken and/or any

deviation thereof.

Two scope aspects, however, need to be highlighted, i.e. groundwater and the additional

hydrological and yield modelling:

The groundwater task undertaken during the GRDS resulted in much more work than

envisaged to be done. This was primarily as a result of the different approaches followed by

Umvoto Africa during their previously undertaken Deep Artesian Groundwater Exploration for

Oudtshoorn Supply (DAGEOS) study and that of Exigo, the Technical Component

Groundwater Specialist, during the GRDS.

Although not part of the GRDS PSP team, Umvoto Africa was, based on their involvement

with the DAGEOS project and the Development of Reconciliation Strategies for all Towns in

the Southern Planning Region System (DWS, 2014), invited by Ms Isa Thompson of DWS to

attend the GRDS PMC Meeting 4 of 3 Dember 2014. As a result they requested to be

provided the opportunity to review the GRDS groundwater work undertaken.

This difference in approach and opinion about groundwater yield availability resulted in the

exchange of opposing correspondence, almost derailing the GRDS groundwater task and

required a detail workshop discussion on 26 January 2015, attended by DWS, Umvoto

Africa, Exigo, the External Groundwater Reviewer (Mr Julian Conrad of GEOSS) and the

GRDS leadership, represented by Drs Aldu le Grange of AECOM and Patsy Scherman of

SC&A. Given the ongoing difference of opinion, AECOM decided in August 2015 to involve

Dr Kai Whittueser from Delta-H Water Systems Modelling Pty Ltd as additional specialist

external reviewer.

Given the difference in approach and opinion, the scope of the groundwater task originally

envisaged changed dramatically to include a lot of additional rearch, review and rewriting of

the Groundwater Report, with a resulting over-expenditure on the task related budget.



A detailed Water Resources Yield Model (WRYM) is, in terms of hydrological modelling and

system yield, essential for any Reserve study as it is the foundation upon which all other

conclusions and risk assessments related to the ecology is made. In June 2014 it was

determined that the EWR sites selected for the GRDS were located on small tributaries with

small catchments which were not covered in any existing yield model. Since all the scenarios

for the study were highly dependent on accurate hydrology, additional hydrological work was

required and the yield model had to be refined to accommodate the total study area as a

system.

The information required was, however, critical for the Reserve process to increase the

study confidence and assist in informative decision making. This resulted in additional work

and budget approved as discussed in in Section 3.4.

10.1.3 Communications management

Communication refers to the overall written study management related communication, including

letters, faxes, e-mail, etc., as opposed to general technical communication within the Technical

Component, and the dissemination thereof. In this regard, the following specific communication was

identified to be managed:

Communication between the DWS and PSP;

Communication between the DWS and the PMT;

Communication between the PMT and the Technical Team;

Communication within the PMT, between the PMT Lead, Stakeholder Participation Task

Leader and Specialist Advisors/External Reviewers; and

Communication with stakeholders.

In order for the PMT to be informed of study management and deliverable related activities, the

following communication arrangements were proposed at Study Initiation and Design Stage:

All communication between the DWS and overall study team needs to be through the PMT;

All communication related to team changes, scope variation and motivations for additional

budget should be through the PMT;

All communication potentially affecting costs and programme and relating to quality should

be copied to the PMT; and

Electronic communication to the PMT should be copied to both Aldu le Grange and Simon

von Witt (later replaced by Colleen Thomas/Shoeshoe Letoao).

This protocol was, in general, followed throughout the duration of the study, although there were

isolated instances where the PMT was not informed and communication was done directly between

the DWS and the Technical Team Leader, which caused unnecessary confusion between the DWS,

PMT and Technical Team and uncertainty with the PMT.

In addition to the above,stakeholder communication was managed through Milkwood

Communications by means of a BID, two stakeholder newsletters and a Stakeholder

Issues/Comments and Response Register.



10.1.4 Risk management

Considering the GRDS, three potential risks were identified, i.e. results of the groundwater task,

additional hydrological and system yield modelling and scenario development. The risk associated

with the groundwater task as well as the required additional hydrological and system yield modelling

is discussed in Section 10.1.2. The risk associated with scenario development is discussed in

Section 10.2.7.

10.1.5 Time and cost management

As stated in Section 4.2 , the overall study progress was determined by the Technical Component

activities. As such, and based on the initial study programme, specific study-related milestones and

deliverables were set at the Study Initiation and Design Stage. However, due to the study delay

experienced, milestones dates had to be revised. Changes in deadlines were requested in October

2014, and then a final scheduling was done in May 2015. Final milestones for outstanding

deliverables were agreed on during PMC Meeting 5 on 4 August 2015 with the revised associated

milestones and deliverables presented in Table 4.1.

Revision of the milestone deadlines can be ascribed to:

Project extension from 7 May 2015 to 7 November 2015;

DWS quarterly deliverables for internal auditing purposes;

Realistic and specific dates (as requested) for remaining meetings with DWS;

The slow rate at which reviewer comments have been provided;

Technical team members’ availablility;

Late compliation of some technical reports without reason; and

Change in date for the deliverables, based on results presented to DWS on 11 September

2015 and final decisions regarding the management of water resources of the study area.

Cost management was done through the process described in Section 9.3, and managed by

means of project status reporting described in Section 6.2.2. Each monthly invoice also included a

cash flow summary to date as indicated in Section 9.4.

10.1.6 Quality management

Quality management by the PMT was based on four tiers:

Technical review of technical reports by External Reviewers;

Review of technical report layout, format, grammar, etc. and compatability with other study

reports;

Verification and validation of the Technical Componnet invoices; and

Overall financial auditing and control.

All report review information management was managed in terms collection, storage and

dissemination to the Technical Stusy Leader. In terms of financial auditing a thorough checking

system was put in place where all invoices and related documents submitted to the DWS by the

PMT were subjected to a thorough internal checking process by the PMT Study Leader and Study



Coordinator.

10.1.7 Integration management

Integration management during the GRDS was primarily limited to enginering assistance in terms of

scenario development, compilation of minutes of PMC meetings during which the study progress

and resuls were presented and discussed, monthly progress reporting as well as liaison between

the DWS, PMT and Technical Team to facilitate the timeous delivery of accurate and technically

sound technical reports.

Given the GRDS scope with diversive activities, the compilation of the PMC minutes, and specific

those related to the PMC Meetings 5 and 6, as well as the presentation of results to DWS presented

an extreme challenge to integrate all presentations to reflect the correct discussions and decisions.

Considering, the delayed study progress, the presentation of results to DWS, the final stakeholder

feedback and the finalisation of study reports, only took place late during the Study Termination

Stage, resulting in an integrated effort to effectively deal with all events and milestones, requiring a

structured and efficient information flow between the DWS, the PMT and Technical Team and

stakeholders.

10.2 TECHNICAL COMPONENT

Although it is acknowledged that the Breede and Gouritz WMA have been consolidated, the focus of

the GRDS was the Gouritz River and its associated catchments, and the Reserve component

ecological requirements. The study area was therefore described in terms of the original WMA, the

Gouritz WMA, i.e. WMA 16.

The purpose of this section is to provide a summarised overview of the main results of the GRDS,

and the information provided below is from the Main Report (DWS, 2015b), as it outlines the

technical activities undertaken during the GRDS:

10.2.1 Economic overview

The Gouritz WMA is classified in terms of five identified economic regions (ERs):

ER 1: Coastal (Tertiary catchments K10, K20, K30, K40, K50, K60 and K70);

ER 2: Olifants (Tertiary catchments J31, J32, J33, J34 and J35);

ER 3: Gamka (Tertiary catchments J21, J22, J23, J24 and J25);

ER 4: Goukou/Gouritz/Duiwenhoks) (Tertiary catchments J40, H80 and H90; and

ER 5: Touws/Buffels/Groot) (Tertiary catchments J11, J12 and J13).

The status quo of the five identified economic regions in the WMA represented by the economic

sector related water dependent activities expressed in macro–economic parameters is summarised

in Table 10.1:



Table 10.1: Macro-economy of the Gouritz WMA

Economic Sector

GDP (R million) Employment (Numbers) Household Income (R million)

Direct Indirect

and Induced

Total Direct Indirect

and Induced

Total Total Medium Low

Agriculture 1 483.26 1 519.66 3 002.92 17 559 14 875 32 434 3 071.00 2 251.54 819.46

Commercial Forestry

294.76 193.61 488.38 3 266 1 697 4 963 350.47 226.97 123.50

Saw Mills - - - - - - - - -

Mining - - - - - - - - -

Electricity - - - - - - - - -

Industry 13 386.63 9 220.76 22607.38 5 007 34 174 39 181 15392.76 9 038.98 6 50.82

Tourism 3 225.14 2 840.76 6 065.90 28 722 9 896 38 618 4 970.51 3 663.03 130748

Total 18 389.79 13774.79 32164.58 54 554 60 643 11517 23784.74 15180.52 860126

The contribution by water to economic growth in the WMA as represented by direct Gross Domestic

Product (GDP) is over R18 000 million per annum, mainly driven by Mossgas in the industry sector.

Overall in the Gouritz WMA tourism is the major direct employment creator with 28 700, followed by

agriculture with 17 500, industry with 5 000 and commercial forestry, lagging far behind, with 3 200

employment opportunities. Table 10.2 shows the most dominant sector per ER:

Table 10.2: Most dominant economic sector per economic region

ER1 ER2 ER3 ER4 ER5

Tourism by far followed by forestry and

industry (saw mills, dairy factories and

Mossgas)

Agriculture leads by far followed by

tourism

Tourism and Agriculture virtually share the honour

Agriculture leads by far followed by limited tourism

Agriculture leads by far followed by

tourism

In the coastal ER, i.e. ER 1, tourism dominates and is the most prominent economic sector in the

WMA with forestry also making some contribution. Agriculture is the main economic sector in ERs

2, 4 and 5. Tourism and agriculture are the dominant sectors in ER 3. The dominant activity for the

total catchment is the tourism followed by agricultural related industry.



10.2.2 Rivers study overview

Ten EWR sites, as listed in Table 10.3, were selected in the study area (the letters following the

MRU description are part of the description and delineation and not the REC, being a standard

format followed):

Table 10.3: EWR river sites selected

EWR site name SQ

1

reach River MRU

2 Latitude Longitude

Eco-

Region

(Level II)

Geo3

Zone Altitude

(m) Quat

4

H8DUIW-EWR1 H80E-09314 Duiwen-hoks

MRU Duiwenhoks C

S34.25167 E20.99194 22.02 E Lower Foothills

15 H80E

H9GOUK-EWR2 H90C-09229 Goukou MRU Goukou A


87 H90C

J1TOUW-EWR3 J12M-08904 Touws MRU Touws B


271 J12M

J2GAMK-EWR4 J25A-08567 Gamka MRU Gamka B


375 J25A

J1BUFF-EWR5 J11H-08557 Buffels MRU Buffels B


499 J11H

J4GOUR-EWR6 J40B-09106 Gouritz MRU Gouritz A


121 J40B

J1DORI-EWR7 J12L-09895 Doring S33.79137 E20.92699 19.07 E Lower Foothills

370 J12L

K6KEUR-EWR8 K60C-09882 Keur-booms

MRU Keurbooms B

S33.88955 E23.24392 20.02 D Upper Foothills

161 K60C

J3OLIF-EWR9 J31D-08592 Olifants MRU Olifants A


621 J31D

J3KAMM-EWR10

J34C-8869 Kamma-nassie

MRU Kammanassie A


445 J34C

1 Sub Quaternary 2 Management Resource Unit 3 Geomorphic 4 Quaternary catchment

The EWR results are shown in Table 10.4 as a percentage of the nMAR:



Table 10.4: EWR results as a percentage of the nMAR

Site EcoStatus nMAR

(MCM)1

pMAR2

(MCM)

Low flows (MCM)

Low flows (%)

High flows (MCM)

High flows (%)

Total flows (MCM)

Total

flows

(%)

H8DUIW-EWR1 PES; REC: D 83.7 79.8 14.2 17 8.2 10.2 22.4 27.2

H9GOUK-EWR2 PES; REC: C/D 54.1 46 7.1 13.1 4.3 13.9 11.4 27.0

J1TOUW-EWR3 Instream: C 45.20 22.26 1.15 2.6 11.54 25.6 12.69 28.2

J2GAMK-EWR4 PES: C/D 85.54 61.69 3.94 4.6 17.44 20.4 21.38 25.0

J1BUFF-EWR5 PES; REC: C 29.31 18.67 1.37 4.7 6.85 23.3 8.22 28.0

J4GOUR-EWR6 PES; REC: C 543.52 310.35 27.12 5.0 102.47 18.8 129.59 23.8

J1DORI-EWR7 PES; REC: C/D 4.52 2.01 0.386 8.5 0.644 14.3 1.03 22.8

K6KEUR-EWR8 Instream PES: C 49.81 30.45 10.66 21.4 8.66 17.4 19.32 38.8

Instream REC: B 49.81 30.45 13.93 28.0 9.27 18.6 23.3 46.6

J3OLIF-EWR9 PES; REC: C 13.76 11.32 0.54 3.9 3.05 22.2 3.59 26.1

J3KAMM-EWR10

PES; REC: C/D 20.6 19.6 1.8 8.9 2.8 13.5 4.6 22.4

1 Million Cubic Metres 2 Present Day Mean Annual Runoff

10.2.3 Estuaries study overview

The Gouritz WMA includes 21 estuaries stretching from the Duiwenhoks Estuary in the west to the

Bloukrans Estuary in the east. Within this WMA, 11 estuaries have been assessed as part of

previous EWR studies. The GRDS therefore focused on the remaining 10 estuaries (refer to Table

10.5). Of the 11 estuaries that was assessed previously, EWR assessments on eight of those did

not define Ecological specifications (referred to in this document as EcoSpecs) and TPCs, nor were

monitoring programmes provided. Therefore, the GRDS also defined such parameters and

programmes for those eight estuaries as indicated in Table 10.5.

Table 10.5: Summary reference of GRDS estuary study

Estuary EWR level EcoSpecs/TPCs Monitoring programme

Duiwenhoks Intermediate (GRDS study)

Goukou Intermediate (GRDS study)

Gourits Intermediate (GRDS study)

Blinde Desktop (GRDS study)

Hartenbos Desktop (GRDS study)

Klein Brak Rapid (GRDS study)

Maalgate Desktop (previous EWR)



Estuary EWR level EcoSpecs/TPCs Monitoring programme

Gwaing Desktop (previous EWR)

Kaaimans Desktop (previous EWR)

Wilderness Rapid (GRDS study)

Goukamma Rapid (previous EWR)

Noetsie Desktop (previous EWR)

Piesang Desktop (GRDS study)

Keurbooms Rapid (previous EWR)

Matjies Intermediate (previous EWR)

Sout (Oos) Intermediate (previous EWR)

Groot (Wes) Desktop (GRDS study)

Bloukrans Desktop (GRDS study)

Only about 9% of the estuaries in the WMA are in excellent health (Category A), while about half the

systems (52%) are in a good state (Category B and B/C). An additional 40% is in a fair state

(Categories C to D). The remainder of the estuaries in the region are in a poor state as reflected by

9% in Category D/E. Figure 10.1 provides a summary of PES of estuaries in the Gouritz WMA

illustrating the continuum in estuary condition.

Figure 10.1: Summary of PES of estuaries in the Gouritz WMA illustrating the continuum in

estuary condition.



The Recommended Ecological Categories (RECs) allocated to the various estuaries show that 74%

of estuaries (17 systems) need to improve in health condition in order to achieve overarching

biodiversity and related ecosystem services objectives. This high percentage is driven by the high

number of estuaries in protected areas, or desired protected areas in the region. The type of

mitigation measures that would be required to meet RECs are summarised in Figure 10.2 below:

Figure 10.2: Type of mitigation measures that would be required to meet RECs

10.2.4 Basic Human Needs Reserve (surface water)

The prescribed minimum standard of water supply services necessary for the reliable supply of a

sufficient quantity and quality of water to households, including informal households, to support life

and personal hygiene from run-of-river, is provided in Section 18 of the Main Report (DWS, 2015b).

The BHNR demand (for year 2011 and by extension, given the no growth scenario, also for 2014) is

estimated at 659 065 m3/per annum and 1 316 114 m3/per annum for the 25 and 50 litre limits,

respectively.

10.2.5 Wetlands

Two high priority wetlands, the Duiwenhoks unchannelled valley bottom, a large palmiet-dominated

wetland, and the Bitou floodplain, were assessed in the field. Both wetlands had a moderate

importance. The Duiwenhoks was in a PES of a D EC, largely due to extensive erosion of the

palmiet wetland. The Bitou wetland was in a PES of a C EC, largely attributable to landuse

conversion. Like many wetlands across the WMA, the impacts of invasive alien vegetation were



ubiquitous and the removal and control of woody alien trees could greatly reduce or even reverse

some of the wetland degradation in the region.

Quaternary catchments with 0.5% area or more of wetlands within them were identified using

available wetland maps, and average EIS and PES conditions for wetlands within these catchments

were also estimated using a desktop assessment tool.

10.2.6 Groundwater

Objectives of the groundwater study were as follows:

Perform a Desktop-Rapid level groundwater Reserve determination for the entire Gouritz

WMA to identify hotspots/areas of water resource concern and areas in the WMA where

limited groundwater is available after the Reserve is allocated;

Perform Intermediate groundwater Reserve determinations for selected

catchments/Groundwater Resource Units (GRUs) that are classified as stressed based on

the classification of the desktop Reserve; and

Report on groundwater Reserve figures and findings for the WMA and selected GRUs and

make recommendations on where more detailed future studies should be performed.

A few key findings from the Intermediate Reserve results were as follows:

Alien vegetation has the potential to reduce groundwater recharge/groundwater potential

significantly;

Irrigation also has one of the biggest influences on the groundwater balance. When irrigation

land use and typical irrigation water use is considered, the volumes are so large that it was

concluded that there must be large surface water dams, river abstraction or irrigation canals

present to justify these volumes. An assumption was made that 10-15% of all irrigation

comes from groundwater;

The Gouritz WMA is indicated to be stressed in a number of areas, more specifically in the

Great Karoo basin as well as the Klein Karoo area and H90E. In the coastal areas further

east, e.g. K50B and K60G, less groundwater stress is experienced due to the availability of

surface water;

The groundwater quality of the regional area is generally good but influenced by the local

geology;

Groundwater development potential is possible in ±70% of the catchments. The allocable

groundwater potential is between a minimum of 31 million m3/a, and 60 million m3/a if

advantage can be taken from reducing losses; and

Conjunctive use between surface water and groundwater and artificial recharge are two

future water use strategies that would be important to explore.

10.2.7 Scenario development

Operational constraints and catchment requirements were incorporated into yield scenario

modelling, and catchment activities impacting on ecology were considered. The scenarios selected

considered the realities of the current and possible future ecological and socio-economic situation in



the study area as identified during a Scenario Workshop conducted with the DWS and local

municipalities. Stakeholder attitudes, values and expectations towards water resources were also

taken into account. However, it I sto be noted that:

Level of determination is data dependent.

Scenarios in Reserve to tests sensitivities and provide some information for planning prior to

Classification.

Focus to be on highly likely (feasibility level) scenarios.

Operational scenarios cannot evaluate future developments if sufficient technical data are

not available.

The risk associated with scenario development refers to the overarching aim of the scenario

evaluation process to find the appropriate balance between the level of environmental protection

and the use of the water to sustain socio-economic activities. Once the preferred scenario has been

selected, the EC for managing the resource into the future is defined by the level of environmental

protection embedded in that scenario.

Since scenario assessments are an important part of the National Water Resource Classification

(NWRC) process, the following are important regarding operational scenarios:

Estuaries: A range of scenarios is required to ensure that one can test the sensitivity of

ecological categories;

The scenario step in the Reserve process is primarily to test sensitivities and to provide

some information for planning prior to Classification. The focus should therefore be on highly

likely scenarios as Classification will assess other planning recommendations;

Operational scenarios do not evaluate impacts of small developments such as single

licenses;

Operational scenarios are not a wish or shopping list for possible pie-in-the-sky

developments;

Operational scenarios cannot evaluate future developments if sufficient technical data are

not available; and

High resolution scenario evaluation requires Ecological Water Requirement (EWR) sites in

the river (hotspot process) and selected estuary with reasonable confidence level

information (e.g. suitable water level and measured hydrological data).

The following approach was followed during the Scenario Workshop of 24 August 2014:

Identify the relevant systems in which scenarios will be selected;

Identify the variables to be considered in the scenario; and

Design a matrix showing the range of scenarios each consisting of some or all of the

variables which are in place.

Although referred to, information of proposed water source development was not available at the

workshop or subsequent to the workshop to properly follow the approach above. When detailed

information was sought for the scenarios identified on 24 August 2014, little was available. The

proposed developments for which detailed information was available were limited to those outlined

in the following reports:



Preliminary Design Report for the regional integration of the bulk water supply systems of the

Knysna and Bitou Municipalities, which focuses on the Wadrif Dam (Eden DM, 2014);

Development of Reconciliation Strategies for all Towns in the Southern Planning Region,

referring to increasing supply to the Riversdal area from the Korinte/Vet river system (DWS,

2014); and

Feasibility and Implementation Ready Study Ladismith, referring to the proposed Swartberg

Dam for increased water supply to Ladismith (Element Consulting Engineers, 2013).

Little other information regarding estuary scenarios, e.g. the building of the proposed dam on the

Goukou River, could be located. As the estuary team have to evaluate scenarios to assess the

sensitivity of their ecological categories, some assumptions were made. The proposed position of the

Duiwenhoks Dam was obtained from DWS’ Mr John Roberts, but not that of the dam on the Goukou

River. A likely position was assumed for modelling and production of scenarios. This approach was

followed where information were not available, and signed off during PMC Meeting No 4 on 3

December 2015.

The approach, reasons why river scenarios were not evaluated and results of the estuary scenario

assessments, together with a list of potential development projects identified at the Scenario

Workshop in August 2014, are outlined in the Scenario Report (DWS, 2015a).

10.2.8 Monitoring

The GRDS Monitoring Report includes EcoSpecs and TPCs for habitat and biota for rivers and

estuaries, as well as guidelines for the development of monitoring programmes.

An approach is also outlined for desktop monitoring (using available wetland maps, Google Earth

imagery and available landcover records to compare the baseline (2015) records with the most

recent available imagery at the time of assessment) of priority and key wetlands in the study area.

The groundwater monitoring component included an assessment of the availability of monitoring

boreholes, and recommendations on where in the WMA additional monitoring boreholes would be

prudent. There should also be an attempt to include current active monitoring conducted by

consultants into the DWS active monitoring boreholes database.

10.2.9 Preliminary Ecological Reserve Categories’ Conclusions

The Ecological Reserve Categories represent the final management decisions reached by

consulting with the DWS in September 2015 and presenting results to stakeholders in October

2015. Recommended Reserve Categories were arrived at by following the recognized

EcoClassification process to determine the said categories considering the driving ecological

considerations in the study area, an evaluation of future developments and the ecological

consequences in response to future developments and associated scenarios. The final

management recommendations are presented in the Main Report (DWS, 2015b) for priority river,

estuarine and wetland systems, and the groundwater resource in the study area. Riverine EWR

sites and designated estuaries are now to be considered as primary monitoring sites for which



ecological specifications have been set. The latter will be used as indicators to measure the health

status of these water resources and provide baseline information as input to the upcoming

Classification study, as well as reporting on the state of the relevant water resources.

10.3 REVIEW AND EVALUATION PROCESS

Technical report review was undertaken by the PMT, External Reviewers and the DWS. As

indicated in Section 6.2.4, the intention was that the draft technical reports were subject to a single

parallel round of review by the PMT, External Reviewers and the DWS. However, this approach was

not successful as all review feedback was not received in time. It is acknowldeged that some study

reports was not submitted on time, but it needs to be emphasised that the review feedback received

from the DWS, in general, exceeded the three week review period as was agreed during the Project

Initiation Meeting of 6 June 2013. As a result the finalisation of final reports was completed later

than envisaged. In terms of similar type of studies, the DWS should attempt to adhere to the set

report review period.

The approach followed by submitting draft reports for review resulted in some cases in a further

draft version of a specific report to be compiled and reviewed again. This, together with the above-

mentioned delay in review feedback resulted in additional report editing and a longer report

compilation and finalisation period. As a result, most reports, previously in a draft format, could only

be finalised during the Study Termination Phase. Given the various versions of a specific report,

each report contains a report schedule indicating the various versions and date of compilation.

Wheras the PMT primarily focussed on editorial, formatting and grammar aspects, the Specialist

External Reviewers for the river, estuary, wetlands and groundwater related reports provided

invaluable technical input. In addtion, DWS representatives also provided constructive technical and

value added review input.

The review of the Groundwater Report needs to be highlighted as a concern.With reference to the

difference in opinion between Exigo and Umvoto Africa, as indicated in Section 10.1.2, the

groundwater task required much more effort as envisaged. Given the review of Umvoto Africa, as

representative DAGEOS stakeholder, and associated comments on the groundwater work

undertaken, the Groundwater Report report was subject to various rounds of review with detail

feedback from the PMT, External Reviewer, DWS and Umvoto Africa. As a result the Groundwater

Report underwent three rounds of review, including a further external review by Dr Kai Whitthueser.

With reference to PMC Meeting No 2 it was decided that, as part of the report review process, each

report should include a comments/response register or some form of proof of changes be included

in reports to see which comments have and/or have not been addressed. Reasons should be

provided by the author for not including comments received from the PMC and/or Specialist External

Reviewers in the final report.

For future studies it is advised that reviewers be alerted of only one review period given and the

importance of their input and actively encouraged to provide comments on the report.



10.4 LIAISON WITH THE CLIENT

In general, the relationship during the GRDS between the PSP and the DWS, as the Client was, in

general, considered as efficient. The slow report review feedback at times, as referred to in Section

10.3, posed some challenges in terms of complying with target dates for deliverables. It is, however,

realised that the DWS has limited capacity in terms of technical staff to review the bulky and large

number of technical reports produced during a study of this nature. Although not in time, the DWS

received were, however, in most cases constructive and added value to the final products to be

approved by the DWS. Both the PMT and the Technical Study Leader had regular contact with the

DWS project management team comprising Mr Yakeen Atwaru, Ms Barbara Weston and Ms

Thapelo Machaba.

Mr Atwaru was always willing to listen to and address any problems experienced during the GRDS.

In addition, he managed PMC and PSC meetings efficiently and strictly according to the set

agendas.

With her experience Ms Barbara Weston was very helpful in the technical review of study reports

and general day-to-day difficulties experienced during the study. In general, her reviews provided

the backbone of the DWS review, being constructive and adding value.

As DWS Project Coordinator, Ms Thapelo Machaba assisted the PMT and the Technical Study

Leader a lot with the the general study proocal, setting of meeting agendas, contact with DWS PMC

members, availability of DWS PMC members to attend meetings, collection of comments on

minutes and reports, etc.

In addition, the assistance provided by the following DWS officials is also acknowledged:

Ms Nancy Motebe – dealing with the groundwater aspects in terms of difference of opinion

and review of the groundwater report;

Mr Mike Smart - dealing with the groundwater aspects in terms of difference of opinion and

review of the groundwater report;

Dr Andrew Gordon – general report review assistance; and

Mr Johan Knoetzen – hosting study meetings at the DWS George Regional Office.

10.5 AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION

Information from previous studies was often found to be outdated or references to potential

developments insufficient for truly accurate studies to be undertaken and Technical Team had to

make do with the available data and make certain assumptions. This could be seen as a common

problem in many studies and will continue to be so. The only manner to get around this would be to

provide more budget to do more monitoring of the water resources within this and other study areas.

It could be an opportunity to provide local people with jobs and actively involve the community within

the respective areas, however, funding is seen as the major obstacle to achieve this.



11 CONCLUSIONS

The GRDS is an integrated study during which the Preliminary Reserves of selected surface

angroundwater resources, estuaries and wetlands in the Gouritz part of WMA 8 were determined.

The focus of the GRDS was on providing detailed ecological information as per Section 17 of the

NWA to address gaps not covered in the ORDS, to determine ecological specifications for the

priority water resources that are critical input to the future monitoring of the priority water resources

and ultimately provide the ecological baseline information as input to Water Resource Classifcation

(WRC) as required per Section 17 of the NWA. The latter study will be initiated for the Breede-

Gouritz WMA during 2016. As such the study focused on the ecological aspect of a Reserve study,

as is appropriate within the broader framework of Classification.

While the summarised aims, objectives and proposed outcomes of the GRDS are described in

Section 3.5.1, some conclusions and recommendations are provided below:

11.1 ECOLOGICAL COMPONENT OF THE RESERVE

The level of detail at which the GRDS could be undertaken, including the level of Reserve

determination (Rapid, Intermediate and Comprehensive) applied, was dependent on the data

available, i.e. the more data available on a particular system, the more accurate the EC, the

ecological flows (Ecological Reserve), as well as Ecospecs can be set. However, in instances where

the lack of certain data sets poses uncertainties, a precautionary approach was adopted, i.e. the

Ecological Reserves were set conservatively. The levels of assessments at which various river and

estuarine systems were evaluated, were indicated where relevant. It is acknowledged that the

confidence in results are related to the data available, particularly hydrological data.

The level of detail at which the GRDS could be undertaken was dependent on the data available,

i.e. the more data available on a particular system, the more accurate the Present ecological

category can be derived and the REC, ecological flows (Ecological Reserve), as well as the

Ecospecs can be set. However, in instances where the lack of certain data sets posed uncertainties,

a precautionary approach was adopted, i.e. the Ecological Reserves were set conservatively. The

levels of assessments at which various river and estuarine systems were evaluated, were indicated

where relevant. It is acknowledged that the confidence in results are related on the data available,

particularly hydrological data.

11.2 IMPORTANCE OF OPERATIONAL SCENARIOS

A range of operational scenarios was used to test and assess the ecological sensitivities and

responses to future and current developments. This information is also key to determine the

ultimate Ecological Management Category (REC or PES) to be used as input into the Reserve legal

templates. The EWR volumes and time series are vital information for the operational rules of

infrastructure and water use licence conditions. In general, the focus should be on highly likely

(feasibility level) scenarios, i.e. potential developments. In the case of the GRDS, very little such

information was available.(refer to Section 10.2.7). Therefore, operational scenarios could, in

general, not be used to evaluate future developments.



Although some technical feedback is provided in Section 10, the major water resources’ related

conclusions and recommendations are summarised below:

11.3 RIVERS: ECOCLASSIFICATION AND EWR ASSESSMENT

The confidence in the EcoClassification results was generally Moderate which was acceptable for a

Rapid to Intermediate assessment. Furthermore, no further work on EcoClassification was required

as it would not influence the EWR determination. However, monitoring is essential to ensure that the

ecological objectives are achieved.

The confidence in all the parameters, used during EWR quantification, was generally Moderate, for

most sites, except:

A low confidence for hydrology was at J1DORI-EWR7 was linked to the available hydrological

model for the Doring River which was out of date.

The low confidence for hydrology at J3OLIF-EWR9 was linked to the absence of a reliable

gauge in the area and in turn influenced the overall confidence in low flows.

Low confidence dominated the biotic responses to low flow parameters for J1TOUW-EWR3

due to non-sensitive fish species naturally present in this reach.

Confidence in the hydraulic modelling results overrode the confidence in the biophysical responses,

except at J1TOUW-EWR3. The confidence was generally Moderate, for all the EWR sites with High

confidence in the high flow determination. The low confidence for low flow determination achieved at

some sites was because measured flow data used for calibrating the hydraulic model was higher

than the low flow EWR determination. Further work to improve the hydraulics would require

additional measured calibration at very low flows.

The most effective way of improving confidence is linked to monitoring the ecological status of the

rivers and, if required, improving the hydraulics for low flows at selected sites as part of the

monitoring programme. However, this can only be successful if good reliable hydrological

measurements are available. No specific studies to improve any confidences other than monitoring

are therefore recommended.

11.4 ESTUARIES: ECOCLASSIFICATION AND EWR ASSESSMENT

An overview of the Preliminary Reserve determination of estuaries in the Gouritz WMA (i.e.

Duiwenhoks to Bloukrans estuaries), as derived from the GRDS, as well as previous EWR studies,

is presented in Table 11.1.



Table 11.1: Summary of the Preliminary Reserve determination for estuaries in the Gouritz WMA

Estuary

Co

nfi

de

nce

EcoClassification

Recommended mitigation measures

Water Land-use and development Fisheries

PE

S

Imp

ort

an

ce

Pro

tec

tio

n S

tatu

s

RE

C

Re

sto

re b

as

e f

low

s

Re

sto

re F

loo

ds

Imp

rov

e W

ate

r Q

ua

lity

Re

sto

re c

on

ne

cti

vit

y/ h

yd

rolo

gic

al

fun

cti

on

ing

Imp

rov

e m

ou

th m

an

ag

em

en

t

Re

ha

bil

ita

te r

ipa

ria

n a

rea

s/ w

etl

an

ds

Re

mo

ve

ali

en

ve

ge

tati

on

Imp

lem

en

t ca

ttle

ex

clu

sio

n z

on

e

Co

ntr

ol

hu

man

dis

turb

an

ce

of

bir

ds

Imp

ort

an

t n

urs

eri

es

Re

mo

ve

/red

uc

e f

ish

ing

pre

ss

ure

/ b

ait

co

lle

cti

on

Re

mo

ve

ali

en

fis

h

Duiwenhoks M C 5 1 B

Goukou M C 5 5 B

Gouritz M C/D 4 5 B

Blinde VL C 3 1 C

Tweekuilen1 D/E 4 1 D

Gericke1 D/E 3 1 D

Hartenbos VL D 4 1 C

Klein Brak L C 3 1 C

Groot Brak2 D 4 1 C

Maalgate2 B/C 3 1 B

Gwaing2 B/C 3 1 C

Kaaimans B 3 5 A/B

Wilderness L B/C 5 5 B

Swartvlei2 B 5 5 B

Goukamma2 B 4 5 A

Knysna2 B 5 5 B

Noetsie2 B 3 5 A

Piesang VL D 4 5 B/C

Keurbooms M A/B 5 5 A/B

Matjies2 B 3 1 B

Sout (Oos) 2 A 3 5 A

Groot (Wes) VL B 4 5 A

Bloukrans VL A 3 5 A

1 Micro estuaries identified as part of recent WRC project (Van Niekerk et al., 2014).

2 Obtained from previous EWR studies.



The summary includes:

The PES and REC.

Estuary Importance (rated as 3 = “Average Importance” (Importance score 0 – 60), 4 =

“Important” (Importance score 61 – 80) or 5 = “High Importance” [Importance score > 80).

Priority estuaries identified in the South African National Estuary Biodiversity Plan are

allocated a rating of 5 for protection status); and

Recommended mitigation measures to achieve the REC, organised in the various

management sectors, namely water, land-use and development, and fisheries.

With reference to Section 10.2.3, when analysed according to “estuarine area” rather than the

number of estuaries, 79% is in a good condition (Category B and B/C), while about 21% of the

estuarine area in the WMA is in a fair state (Category C to D). This indicates that the high number of

near pristine estuaries in this WMA is of a very small size. The high percentage good condition

systems in the WMA are reflecting the state of the large estuarine lakes that dominate from an

estuarine habitat perspective.

From an estuarine importance perspective 26% (6 systems) of the estuaries in this WMA are rated

as “highly important”, while an additional 26% (6 systems) are rated as “important”, with the

remaining 48% (11 systems) rated as of “average to low importance”. Further, about 57% (13

systems) of estuaries are either in formally protected areas or form part of the core set of estuaries

required to meet biodiversity targets for the region.

From the water sector perspective, about 35% of estuaries in the WMA require some restoration in

base flow condition (especially during the low flow period), while 52% needs improvement in water

quality. From the land-use and development sector outlook, 9% of systems require increased

connectivity with the sea and/or improved hydrological functioning, while 17% requires an

improvement in mouth management operations. Nearly 13% of estuaries requires rehabilitation of

the riparian habitat and/or restoration of floodplain/wetland habitat, while 9% require the removal of

alien vegetation from their surrounding environs. About 26% of systems require some control of

recreational activities, such as boating or hiking, to reduce disturbance to birds. From the fisheries

sector perspective, about 39% of estuaries require the reduction/removal of fishing effort (i.e. no-

take estuaries, zonation for closed areas, or closed periods such as night fishing ban), while about

9% of estuaries required the removal of alien fish species to allow for the recovery of indigenous

populations.

It is recommended that the implementation of the EWR (e.g. mitigations, additional baseline surveys

and long-term monitoring programmes) be undertaken in collaboration with various responsible

departments in the DWS, as well as other national and provincial departments and institutions

responsible for estuarine resource management such as DAFF, Department of Environmental

Affairs (DEA): Oceans and Coasts, South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI),

CapeNature, SANParks as well as relevant municipal authorities. It is recommended that the

estuarine management planning process and the associated institutional structures (as required

under the Integrated Coastal Management Act 2008) be used as a mechanisms through which to

facilitate the implementation these programmes.



11.5 GROUNDWATER

Whilst key findings of the groundwater assessment are presented in Section 10.2.6, the following

recommendations, which largely relate to either improving groundwater availability through certain

actions and interventions, or additional work to verify issues which remain unclear, are proposed:

Alien vegetation must be monitored and eradicated as far as possible in the Gouritz WMA. The

catchments that classified as the highest GRDM index should be targeted first. Alien vegetation

should preferably be removed first in riparian-, spring- and wetland-areas.

Groundwater monitoring should be performed across the WMA, but with preference in the

hotspot (or focus) areas and catchments that classified with high GRDM stress indices.

The general authorizations in the 28 potentially stressed catchments must be reviewed and

reduced to sustainable levels and in some cases it may be zero.

Detailed groundwater investigations and numerical flow management models using models

such as MIKE SHE and Finite Element subsurface FLOW system (FEFLOW), should be

developed to characterise catchments H90E, J33E and J33F to verify the role that groundwater

storage can play in the buffering of dry cycles. It will be important to verify the water use

quantities. The deep Peninsula Aquifer will require a detailed three dimensional numerical

groundwater flow model to refine and verify the yield.

The yield of the semi-confined shallow aquifer (GRU 1) and the deep confined Peninsula

Aquifer (GRU 2) must be quantified using detailed 3D numerical groundwater flow models

based on the latest data sets. The potential constraints of protected areas and surface water

features, e.g. streams and dams such as the George Dam, must be evaluated and

environmental impacts qualified. It will be important to manage the groundwater abstraction

from both GRU 1 and GRU 2 so as to ensure that the environmental flow requirements are met.

The groundwater contribution to baseflow should be verified in the catchments that flagged with

a high GRDM index rating. Sampling of the water quality changes and parameter tracing based

on hydrogeochemical mixing models can be considered to achieve this.

Detailed field investigations and models should be used to determine a buffer zone to mitigate

saline water intrusion. This aspect should be further investigated at K40D, K50B, K40E and

K10A.

More research is required to determine under which conditions more groundwater may be

available if losses can be reduced.

Additional groundwater development in the hotspot- and stressed-areas should be prevented if

the stressed situation is verified. Options to regionally distribute groundwater abstraction to

alleviate local concentrated abstraction should be investigated.

The Intermediate Reserve EWR must be refined as it could be less than the volumes that were

conservatively estimated in this study.

Conjunctive use strategies between surface water and groundwater should be investigated and

a guideline document be compiled that would account for the constraints in each catchment.

Artificial recharge should be considered as a future water management option. Notable artificial

recharge case studies include Prince Albert and Plettenberg Bay that fall within the Gouritz

WMA.

The water management strategy for the deep confined TMG aquifers should be reviewed and a

guideline document be compiled to ensure sustainable development and utilisation of the deep

groundwater systems.



Shale gas exploration (fracking) in the Karoo formations should be done with due diligence and care

should be taken not to adversely affect the groundwater quality and supplies. The level of

information on the hydrogeology of the deep Karoo Aquifers is currently too limited to make

informed decisions on this aspect. Recent progress has been made in improving knowledge on the

processes of deep groundwater circulation in Karoo aquifers and their flow mechanisms.

11.6 ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS

In addition to the general recommendations included under study feedback in Section10, the

following general recommendations are proposed:

Few large-scale scenarios were available for evaluation. It would have been valuable to the

technical team if DWS specialists had engaged earlier in the study so as to advise of potential

developments (e.g. the proposed Swart River Dam). The impact of such a dam cannot be

undertaken with any level of confidence if a downstream EWR site is not available. A site on

this river was not included as the Swart River had not come out of Desktop EcoClassification

as an ecological hotspot. If the team had been informed of the proposed development, the site

would have been included as an additional hotspot.

An important outcome of the study is the need for a revision of the Operating Rules for

Gamkapoort Dam, so as to meet the Ecological Reserve and irrigation demans. It is presumed

that this action will be undertaken by DWS.

Rules for operationalizing the Reserve for the Keurbooms Estuary was also highlighted as an

item to be undertaken by DWS, with the assistance of the CSIR. AURECON has also

undertaken work on this system and should be included in operationalizing steps. Note that

improvements to the upstream river system must also be undertaken (see the Main Report for

the study).

One of the major recommendations of the GRDS is around additional work needed regarding

the long-term viability of aquifers in the study area. This aspect caused controversy, but

should be considered if the precautionary principle is to be adhered to.

DWS is strongly recommended to allocate training budgets on future projects. Although

always an important aspect of the study, the focus for the technical specialists is on getting the

job done in the time allocated, which means that the training is not covered as

comprehensively as required during field trips and workshops. The DWS personnel input on

the GRDS training (Appendix A of the Main Report) was a very good initiative. Their

comments and issues should now be addressed in future projects.

None of the recommedations made or studies undertaken during the GRDS will be of any

value if monitoring is not instituted, and management interventions are not undertaken. This is

outside of the ambit of the GRDS, and must be undertaken by the relevant organizations as

specificied in the Main Report and templates produced for the study.

The importance of good quality hydrological data, gauging weirs and water level recorders in

estuaries is emphasized in the technical reports of the study.

Following and various discussions during the study, it is recommended that Reserve studies

should not be conducted outside of Classification. It is much easier to take Reserves,

Classification and RQOs on as a package deal.



Although the GRDS started slowly, and required input was not always available exactly when

needed, the technical team is of the opinion that a good working relationship was developed with

the DWS (particularly the regional officers) and other key stakeholders. The stakeholder database

developed, and interest shown by stakeholders, should provide a solid support base for the

Classification study to be initiated in WMA8.



12 REFERENCES

Department of Water Affairs (DWA), 2014. Reserve Determination Studies for the Selected Surface

Water, Groundwater, Estuaries and Wetlands in the Gouritz Water Management Area: Inception

Report. Prepared by AECOM SA (Pty) Ltd in association with Scherman Colloty & Associates cc.

Report no. RDM/WMA16/00/CON/0113.

Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS), 2014. Development of Reconciliation Strategies for

all Towns in the Southern Planning Region. Riversdal, Hessequa LM, Eden DM, Western Cape,

Version 2.

Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS), 2015a. Reserve Determination Studies for Surface

Water, Groundwater, Estuaries and Wetlands in the Gouritz Water Management Area: Monitoring

Report. Prepared by AECOM SA (Pty) LTD, CSIR and Scherman Colloty and Associates cc. Report

no. RDM/WMA16/00/CON/0913.

Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS), 2015b. Reserve Determination Studies for Surface

Water, Groundwater, Estuaries and Wetlands in the Gouritz Water Management Area: Main

Report. Prepared by Scherman Colloty and Associates cc. Report no. RDM/WMA16/00/CON/1313.

Eden District Municipality, 2014. Feasibility Study of the Regional Integration of the Bulk Water

Supply Systems of Knysna and Bitou Municipalities, Phase 2B: Preliminary Design Report.

Compiled by Aurecon. Eden DM Ref No BID/01/12-13.

Element Consulting Engineers, 2013. RBIG: Feasibility and Implementation Readiness Study

Ladismith. Module 8: Construction of a new storage dam. Project No 12061.Prepared by Retief

Kleynhans from Gorra Water.

APPENDIX A: CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT

APPENDIX A.1: ORIGINAL CONTRACT

APPENDIX A.2: LETTER OF NOTIFICATION OF APPOINTMENT

APPENDIX A.3: VARIATION ORDER AND APPROVAL

APPENDIX B: STUDY PROGRAMME

APPENDIX C: BACKGROUND INFORMATION DOCUMENT

APPENDIX D: MINUTES OF STUDY INITIATION MEETINGS

APPENDIX E: MINUTES OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

MEETINGS

APPENDIX F: MINUTES OF PROJECT STEERING COMMITTEE

MEETINGS

APPENDIX G: MINUTES OF SCENARIO WORKSHOP

APPENDIX G: ACTIONS/DECISIONS REGISTER

APPENDIX H: STAKEHOLDER INFORMATION

APPENDIX H.1: STAKEHOLDER LIST

APPENDIX H.2: STAKEHOLDER NEWSLETTERS

APPENDIX H.3: MINUTES OF STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOPS &

ATTENDANCE REGISTERS

APPENDIX H.4: STAKEHOLDER ISSUES/CONCERNS AND RESPONSE

REGISTER

APPENDIX I: STUDY BUDGET

APPENDIX J: COMMENTS & RESPONSE REGISTER

Date post:	10-Sep-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	hoangnga
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times

RESERVE DETERMINATION STUDIES FOR THE … 14 Study Closure Rep... · rdm/wma16/01/con1413 ......

Documents