Hello all, following publication of his interesting article on why there is not currently a SIG focusing on hydrology within BCRA, I've been asked to arrange a session to discuss the potential and hopefully recruit enthusiastic individuals who may want to take this very important idea forward.  So to that end, I've arrange a one-hour open forum discussion where karst scientists can discuss the need for, merit and structure of a SIG in hydrology to better support related research and arrange field meetings, encourage young researchers or non-academic interested cavers to take their ideas forward.

Anyone interested in karst hydrology or hydrogeology, academic and general cavers, is more than welcome to attend.  If possible, please read Dr Wilcock's article in the latest BCRA publication (Cave and Karst Science 45(2), 51-61) on the topic.  Copies of the article will be available at HE reception if you are not currently a BCRA member and wish to participate or just find out what its all about.

Please feel free to contact me should you wish to participate as a panel member on the discussion, or just have ideas you'd like to put forward, but are unable to attend for any reason.

It may be of interest to note that the British Caving Library holds a set of BCRA Hydrology SIG Newsletters:
No.1, Jan. 1990
No.2, August 1990
No.3, September 1992
No.4, June 1994
No.5, Summer 1996

I don't know if any more Newsletters were ever issued but No. 5 is the last we have.

The No.1 issue reports on a meeting held at the Hill Inn, Chapel-le-Dale, on 28 October 1989 and lists all those present and lists the officers of the SIG.  This presumably was the inaugural meeting of the SIG.

The Library also holds a copy of a Report from the Hydrology SIG (no names of authors or participants mentioned) entitled:
Hydrology Group
A BCRA Special Interest Group
Swaledale 91
The Crackpot Cave Project
May 3rd. - 6th.

I'd like to come to your open discussion at Hidden Earth but may be otherwise occupied, however I am interested and would like to see this idea progress.

Delighted that this valuable SIG looks like it'll be resurrected; it's long overdue.

Just a reminder though; BCRA organised a fairly major hydrological project a couple of years ago, with the valued help of John Gunn, based at Malham. Assorted dye traces were done, together with the release of an artificial flood pulse from the Malham Tarn sluice. Cave Diving Group members were very much involved (placing and recovering detectors and data loggers a long way into the underwater cave system at the foot of Malham Cove). There was a meeting held on the Saturday evening that weekend to discuss the future of the BCRA Hydrology Group. Quite a lot of useful suggestions were made; it wasn't me that recorded them but I hope these will be taken into account when you gather at the BCA conference to discuss this.

I can't make the conference due to work - but I certainly support any initiative to get the Hydrology Group functioning formally again.

As an aside, a number of us have some ideas for a possible weekend along the lines of the Malham study, based in the Wild Boar Fell limestone area. This is hydrologically fascinating and has many secrets to reveal (and a lot of new caves to be discovered). There is also a certain major system in Wharfedale which would benefit from a similar practical approach, which some of us have on the radar. Many people believe that the BCRA is most effective when doing actual science in the field - that was certainly the feeling among those involved on the Malham project.

So yes - a renewed hydrology group - let's do it!

Will it involve any humming, hand-holding or hazel twigs?

A disappointingly sparse attendance at Hidden Earth for the meeting on a proposed hydrology SIG for BCRA. When you consider the large number of cavers that went to the Malham event I would have expected more.

Three years ago at the same HE venue John Gunn did a fascinating talk on how to carry out work on hydrology at fairly minimal expense. The room was pretty well full on that occasion - what happened to everyone? It certainly inspired me to turn my rather general interest in the subject into starting out on some practical work - surely I wasn't the only caver to do so?

It was interesting that those in the room seemed to be thinking in terms of hydrology in the context of major systems like Mossdale or Peak/Speedwell, whereas as Andy Farrant pointed out there are many less complex systems where no work has ever been done.

Were there perhaps a number of cavers like Pitlamp who would have come but for other commitments? Maybe if a nucleus of people got together and carried out some work or shared their own work, either practical or theoretical, it could perhaps grow and provide some impetus towards an SIG?

Anyway, just thought that I would share my thoughts on the event.

I feel like in the meeting there was a definite divide between what people's interpretation of a 'worthwhile' hydrology project was. I think this is something of a divide between those with an academic mindset and those without. For example, in my mind, the really fascinating projects are those with a real enigma and history to them, which is why projects at Black Keld and Brants Gill Head really spring to mind as big hydrological unknowns to people such as myself, especially given my club's long association with exploration at these sites.

Now, there was some suggestion of projects of a slightly less challenging nature, such as repeat testing, archiving and compiling of results and tests in smaller karst systems. While these projects may appeal to certain individuals, I can certainly say that the majority of cavers that I know who might have an interest in hydrology would be immediately turned off by projects involving a lot of desk-based and admin work, because they have enough of this in their daily lives that they don't want anything to do with it in their free time. Case in point: the number of cavers who go out on CUCC's expo to Austria who survey caves when they explore them, but then find it a real challenge to be motivated to draw up and process the data, leaving it to a few dedicated individuals to do most of this work. These people then get quite pissed off that they end up doing all of this work. So, for there to be an interest in hydrology, there needs to be an element of either real cave exploration involved as well (eg Fountains Fell or Black Keld), or there needs to be a group of people who are ready to pick up other people's slack in the case of the less hands-on desk-based jobs related to particular projects.

mch said:

A disappointingly sparse attendance at Hidden Earth for the meeting on a proposed hydrology SIG for BCRA. When you consider the large number of cavers that went to the Malham event I would have expected more.

Three years ago at the same HE venue John Gunn did a fascinating talk on how to carry out work on hydrology at fairly minimal expense. The room was pretty well full on that occasion - what happened to everyone? It certainly inspired me to turn my rather general interest in the subject into starting out on some practical work - surely I wasn't the only caver to do so?

Click to expand...

I might suggest that the large number of people who went to the Malham event (can't say for sure, I was in New Zealand at the time so didn't attend) was somewhat influenced by the presence of a 'figurehead' who really led the event - John Gunn, a real expert in the field. Having someone like that spearheading an SIG is certianly not necessary, but it does help. The inception of the biology SIG is I would say largely the result of the people involved being very good friends before the inception of the group, who caved together often and lived in the same city. Will Burns, in particular, is someone with a very keen interest in cave biology that I would say definitely trumps his interest in caving and cave exploration (he may wish to correct me on this). I'm not sure the same can be said of many young cavers who might be a part of the hydrology SIG.

mch said:

Maybe if a nucleus of people got together and carried out some work or shared their own work, either practical or theoretical, it could perhaps grow and provide some impetus towards an SIG?

Click to expand...

My future right now is quite uncertain (not sure I will be living in the UK as of the start of 2019), so I don't feel like I am in a position to volunteer to be a part of the SIG unfortunately. However, I have some ideas for work that could be done in the Fountains Fell and Penyghent area, which I had been planning to do myself before I moved to Ireland in December. If anyone wants to talk to me about getting this going then I'd be more than happy to help as much as I can.

nobrotson said:

Will Burns, in particular, is someone with a very keen interest in cave biology that I would say definitely trumps his interest in caving and cave exploration (he may wish to correct me on this).

Click to expand...

This is libel!

Just to answer mch's point - yes, I'd have attended that session if I could have made it to the conference. But I was working in the Dales this weekend. Guess there's worse places to be stuck at work. 

Nobrotson raises some interesting points. I agree there are those who are mainly academics and others who merely wish to apply the science to provide knowledge which helps discover new caves. The Malham weekend went really well, because we had the right blend of both; the experts were there to ensure things were done properly and a great many cavers turned up to offer to help, knowing it was being done right. I was one of the organisers of that study; it was hard work at times but always worth it. Apart from anything else it was rewarding to meet a whole load of new faces, gathered together in a common effort.

When planning any hydrological work, one of the first questions is inevitably "What's been done before?" This might then be followed by "How well (i.e. "reliably") was it done?". Answering these two questions is sometimes far from easy, as the information is scattered all over the place in disparate club journals and scientific papers, not to mention those tests which are languishing unpublished in cavers' personal records.

Wouldn't it be great if someone with the necessary skills could set up a single website, to which we cavers could submit details of previous dye traces? Such a resource would be invaluable in deciding where to target future efforts most reliably. It would reveal where useful replication has taken place and, perhaps more importantly, identify the blank areas crying out for serious hydrological effort.

If such a resource could be created, under the banner of a hydrology Group SIG,  I reckon that would be a very useful start. I have some ideas for useful features (as, no doubt, have others) but I haven't a clue how to make it work. Is anyone out there interested in having a go?

Pitlamp said:

Wouldn't it be great if someone with the necessary skills could set up a single website, to which we cavers could submit details of previous dye traces? Such a resource would be invaluable in deciding where to target future efforts most reliably. It would reveal where useful replication has taken place and, perhaps more importantly, identify the blank areas crying out for serious hydrological effort.

If such a resource could be created, under the banner of a hydrology Group SIG,  I reckon that would be a very useful start. I have some ideas for useful features (as, no doubt, have others) but I haven't a clue how to make it work. Is anyone out there interested in having a go?

Click to expand...

A hydrology Wiki?

In reply to Pitlamps point about a central location for information.

We already have the BCA Cave Registry Data Archive, I can't see why this could not be used. It works well enough for the survey data and only this weekend at HE people were talking about using it for biological data The hydrological stuff would fit well if you ask me.

I'm happy to help put together a hydrology wiki as you call it. I agree with swallowneck that the cave registry would be suitable, and since I know how to use this and have friends like Andrew and Julian to help with setup this should be reasonably straightforward...

Next step then is to decide how it should be structured and what to include. I'll have a think and come back with ideas tomorrow.

Thanks for offering to progress this!

One thing perhaps worth thinking about from the outset is whether some parts might have restricted access.

We have something along these lines in the CDG; dive logs are openly available in CDG Newsletters but reports of a sensitive nature can go into the "Secret File". This was initiated by the late Dr. Oliver Lloyd many years ago, to capture information for the future which might otherwise be forgotten about. Contributors to the Secret File have final say over the detail of how it might be made available in the future - or who might be allowed access to it / for what reason.

I don't know if such a system would be technically possible as a feature of hydrological recording but there's a lot to be said for it if it can be engineered somehow. There are many legitimate reasons why contributors might appreciate such a "safe" place to deposit information. This is better than it being lost for ever . . . .

Pitlamp said:

One thing perhaps worth thinking about from the outset is whether some parts might have restricted access.

Click to expand...

The Data Archive works in exactly this way.

Swallowneck said:

In reply to Pitlamps point about a central location for information.

We already have the BCA Cave Registry Data Archive, I can't see why this could not be used. It works well enough for the survey data and only this weekend at HE people were talking about using it for biological data The hydrological stuff would fit well if you ask me.

Click to expand...

It would be good to put biological data on it as a backup/repository, but the current plan from my point of view is to but the data on the National Biodiversity Network backed up to the Global Biodiversity Information Facility. This means it would be open access to anyone on the planet (they already have over 1 billion records in 40k datasets but I suspect ours are a little rarer...)

Swallowneck said:

In reply to Pitlamps point about a central location for information.

We already have the BCA Cave Registry Data Archive, I can't see why this could not be used. It works well enough for the survey data and only this weekend at HE people were talking about using it for biological data The hydrological stuff would fit well if you ask me.

Click to expand...

It does already have a section for biological data, though it appears to be vastly under-utilised - unless there's nothing in our caves!

http://www.cave-registry.org.uk/svn/BiologyData/

OK, so for anyone currently unfamiliar with the cave registry data archive, here it is for you to explore:

http://cave-registry.org.uk/

To download/upload data, you simply install some software called 'TortoiseHG', and this does it ffor you. See here for instructions:

http://cave-registry.org.uk/check-out-instructions

As you can see, it is divided into a number of sub-sections, including: project information for different geographical areas; and datasets of 3D cave survey data for these projects. At this stage, we don't really have a need for defining hydrology research into geographical areas, since no one is actively doing anything yet. But this can be incorperated into the data structure at a later point when necessary, so thats fine. Since hydrological and geological research in caves requires a good survey, linking the survey data with any hydrological data we record seems pretty sensible in the long term.

Right now, sections I can think of are:

- an area where we store useful papers regarding key concepts in karst hydrology (such as that by John Wilcock recently and also those by John Gunn on the Malham karst, and also a good piece that Pitlamp wrote in Descent about GG some time ago).

- reference lists for different tracer tests in different cave systems

- a 'wiki' on methods in karst hydrology: this will be more complicated, because ideally we want people with access to the registry to be able to edit this. We have two choices: we either have it as a 'read-me' style document which you have to essentially download, edit and then re-upload; or it could be an online webpage written in code eg HTML, which is the way that CUCC's expedition 'handbook' works:

http://expo.survex.com/handbook/ 

this option is good because it saves a lot of time, effort and storage space in the longterm, but it does require those who wish to edit it to learn how to write code in whatever language we choose rather than simply using a text editor of some kind, which in my experience is a big barrier to getting less technically arsed people (myself included) involved. We should come to a decision between us on this.

In addition to all this, hydrogeology has a big crossover with cave surveying and GIS from a more scientific perspective, but also if you want to have a good think about hydrology before actually doing a survey then this step is pretty vital. So, I suggest a section including links to relevant geological datasets that we either compile ourselves, or which are available elsewhere. This could include:

- high-resolution topographic data eg lidar: the environment agency has made this freely available where surveyed. it doesn't include all areas (sadly not the 3 counties system) but does include many others (eg penyghent and fountains fell)
- stratigraphical and structural geology: with some digging this can be found for free online, in varying resolutions
- tracer tests already carried out: in progress by the BGS. As mentioned at the meeting, some of this stuff will not have yet been recorded. I will ask Lou Maurice at BGS what the status of her project is.

We will need to be a bit careful about 3rd party datasets and giving due credit etc.

Regarding using GIS software, I think we should avoid wikis on this as huge amounts of information already exists for open-source software eg QGIS.

that's my thoughts so far, if anyone else has anything to offer please say!

Looks like a great starting point to me Rob.

Might be an idea to get Andrew and Cookie involved now to discuss the best way forward.

Hey folks,

I've started a FB page for this group, but since then have had zero time to contact people or populate it further.  I was reluctant to stick my hand up for this reason as my over-volunteering and over working coupled with a new motorbike means I am simply not having any time to do even the minimum of what I set out to do.  Anyone able to help?

What name is the page under on Facebook?