Developments at Nossob

[Peterbee]

This layout plan is included as one the appendices to the "Final Basic Assessment Report for Public Review" issued March 2014, forming part of the EIA process which Sanparks is required to complete.

Quote from the report :

A Final Basic Assessment Report: October 2012, (FBAR) was submitted to the DEA on 25 October 2012, and was
subsequently rejected by the DEA on 8 March 2013. The DEA has requested additional information and clarification
regarding the projects (contained in this addendum) and be made available to all stakeholders for a 21 day review period.
Thereafter, the addendum report will be submitted to DEA for their consideration. The 21 day public review period is from
10 March 2014 to 4 April 2014. Please submit all comments by 4 April 2014 via fax, e-mail or in writing to Delron
Consulting cc.

As per above quote, DEA rejected the initial FBAR, and as a result of the Public Participation Process (PPP) conducted in 2012, is requesting further details about water supply and sewage systems, particularly at Nossob. Various other matters are also to be clarified.

It appears that concerns raised by the public in the PPP, regarding road usage, vehicle density, visitor carrying capacity and game density, and in general the increased number of tourists and the effect this will have on visitor experiences, have not been considered by DEA. Perhaps because they do not have a direct environmental impact? In the motivating documentation submitted by Sanparks, it appears they have also given no consideration to these issues. I get the idea that the entire EIA process is just a matter of getting the right boxes ticked.

I am not saying development of KTP is good or bad. Just that there seems to be no overall plan for this unique wilderness area - piecemeal developments such as this, once added to developments on Botswana side, and more camp development planned at Unions End, Marie se Draai, Kaspersdraai and Auob/Land Settlement Lodge, may well produce an undesirable outcome.

PM me if you require a copy of the relevant FBAR documents.

[Lisbeth]

It appears that concerns raised by the public in the PPP, regarding road usage, vehicle density, visitor carrying capacity and game density, and in general the increased number of tourists and the effect this will have on visitor experiences, have not been considered by DEA. Perhaps because they do not have a direct environmental impact? In the motivating documentation submitted by Sanparks, it appears they have also given no consideration to these issues. I get the idea that the entire EIA process is just a matter of getting the right boxes ticked.

When did Sanparks ever listen to the concerns of the public (the tourists who pay for visiting the parks and thus pay their salaries and make all their eccentricities possible)???

[Peterbee]

Appendix B contains permits to operate waste dumps at TR, MM and Nossob. These permits were issued in 1998....
Whereas what DEA actually asked for was :
"Please provide the Department with details on the waste license as well as the water use license for this facility.The capacity and airspace available in these facilities must also be presented to the Department"
Don’t think question has been answered.

Appendix J (Dept of Water Affairs report dated 2012) gives an interesting history of the many problems finding suitable water sources for Nossob camp. The attachments to this report have not been emailed to us, but are required to help interpret the report. These missing attachments also provide analyses of the water quality and safety at all camps.

In summary :
Since 1997, Kwang was used exclusively to pipe all the water for the camp (26km south), but could not meet peak demand. Such was the abuse of this water source, that the output has become increasingly salty, and is no longer fit for human consumption. It is possible that this water aquifer will not recover. Advice (in 1999) not to use Kwang as the sole source of water was ignored.

In 1999, three boreholes at Kortpad (4km south of Kwang) were drilled and equipped to provide water. They were never put into operation – quote “for financial reasons and problems with the EIA process”

The solution now proposed is to activate the existing boreholes at Kortpad and pipe water 22km to Nossob camp.

Sanparks claims a supply of 37 cubic metres from Kwang and 37 from Kortpad, with daily consumption of 34, leaving a spare capacity of 40 per day. (for info there are 1000 litres in a cubic metre of water)

But the Kwang supply is not fit for human consumption, and per the report, Kortpad only provides 28 cubic metres per day (not 37 claimed by Sanparks, I think they made an error here).

So if I read the water situation correctly :

Kortpad will supply 28 cubes per day of good water
Kwang supplies 37 cubes per day of water not fit for human consumption
The camp has a projected peak requirement of 34 cubes per day. But this does not include staff, swimming pool, passing visitors, waterhole. In fact, the daily (peak) estimated consumption per Sanparks appears to be 150 litres per person per day. This seems a bit low.

Kortpad cannot provide all the water required. Water from Kwang may have to be mixed with water from Kortpad to provide acceptable quality. What if Kortpad (only 4km from Kwang) deteriorates the same way as Kwang did, and becomes salty?

The report emphasises the scarcity of groundwater in the area, and the need for careful management and monitoring of boreholes.

Why then does Sanparks add another 80 visitors a day to the existing capacity of 153 visitors (52% increase), in a region with such a fragile and vulnerable groundwater supply? Isn't this what an EIA process is supposed to address?

[Bushveld Jock]

Hi Peterbee,

If Nossob is fully book and campsites 6 per site plus the extra 4 sites the number is 144 campers plus 58 chalets = 202 people per day. Often people on their way to Bots camps fill up their large tanks under the trailers with about 100 liters of water and shower as well at Nossob. You can add another 6- 10 people easily getting to ~ 210. Now add the extra 80 visitors and you get to nearly 290 people and about 44 cubes per day.

This is max capacity and in reality all beds are not taken therefore you can maybe work on 120 campers and 50 in chalets in peak season, but peak season can run for a couple of months unlike other resorts, therefore quite a bit of strain in the winter. I guess the water supply was measured in the wet season or did they work on a average capacity.

I am really getting worried to think that the chalets will increase from 18 to 28 (did not at the tents planned next to the camp site). That is an increase of more than 50 % in chalets in a camp that has water problems.

Polentswa lodge must be taking a considerate volume of water for their guest that will result in less under ground water flowing towards Kwang. No wonder another water source must be found, but for how long will it last and how long will you find water in the man-made water holes.

[Bushveld Jock]

Hi,

For those that have not seen the BAR report and amended report I've added a link to SAHRA website that listed both reports.

http://www.sahra.org.za/cases/tourism-d ... ntier-park

[Peterbee]

Just returning to the number of visitors and water consumption:

Sanparks assumes a daily consumption of 100 litres per camper, and 200 litres per chalet resident (per BAR 2012). These seem very low. Do campers really get by with 100 l/day ??

Bushveld Jock is correct - max 204 campers and 63 in the chalets (previously 144 and 35) - almost 50% increase in the number of potential overnight visitors

Can water be pumped from Kwang and Kortpad 24 hours a day - generator is not operated 7 hours a day, or do they use solar power? The borehole report assumes 24h/day pumping. Dont have the technical insight into this area...

As Mel pointed out - this is a big development at Nossob. The chalets are now outside the perimeter fence, almost in the riverbed, whereas initial plans had them inside the perimeter fence. The proposed tents extend over an area of approx 400 metres to the south of the existing camping area, also outside of the existing fenced camp.

Still plodding through the amending BAR - has anybody else noticed the following :

1. Water permits are not complete (pages missing) and no mention of the capacity of the waste disposal as requested by DEA
2. Site layout maps only provided for Nossob, whereas DEA requested for all 3 sites (Gharagab and Craig Lockhardt)
3. Proof of consultation with Botswana authorities is not provided. Mention is made of a Tourism Development Plan for the park, this document should surely be made available to I&APs, Public and DEA,
to ensure piecemeal developments such is this comply with an overall framework/plan?
4. Water report from DWA does not contain any attachments, maps or referenced reports.

[Mel]

Noticed 2 and 3 but gave up on the water stuff as it was in Afrikaans.

I think, any assumption that something will work for 24 hours a day 365 days a year in KTP is a pretty naïve one...
But I don't know either how the pumping is done.

Now, if they have applied for the development being inside the existing fence / within the existing camp perimeters,
surely they can't just change to building as it is shown in the additional appendices?

Really hope someone wide awake will take the decision over this all.

(And I think, I need to do some house cleaning soon. We're actually discussion the whole development at Nossob, not only about the hide anymore. )

[Toko]

The BAR was never about additional units in Mata Mata.

The Mata Mata development was mentioned in the Strategic Plan for the Fiscal 2013/14 – 2017/18

and is again mentioned int the Strategic Plan 2014-2015 to 2018-2019: Link

Here the KTP developments:

Infrastructure Development Programme – Phase 2 Start: 2011/03/01 Finish: 2014/03/31

Re-design Nossob Rest Camp:
- 10 x 2-bed units
- Road
- Bulk services


Infrastructure Development Programme – Phase 3 Start: 2013/04/01 Finish: 2015/03/31

Nossob
- 10 x luxury camps sites

Mata Mata
- 2 x chalets
- Camp site ablutions

Twee Rivieren
- Replace 2 x junior staff houses (asbestos)
- Expand sewer system

Urikaruus & Kieliekrankie
- Additional units

Note the "Start" dates

I wonder if the Mata Mata units even require EIA, if they are within the footprint of the existing camp

[Bushveld Jock]

Toko,

Agree Mata-Mata upgrades and new chalets are different issues and might not include further EIA or BAR assesments. The re-design of Nossob was under the BAR report of 2012 and the additional documents handed in March 2014. The budget must have been drawn up before 2011, therefore starting date 2011. This however does not mean they can continue with the work at Nossob without the BAR being approved. Looks like that information is not out yet or no-one wants to communicate it for the fear of booking cancellations during the construction phase.

I get the feeling it will be approve and next time I am visiting Nossob things will look very differently, including camp, road and hide. More Botswana visits coming up.

[Bushveld Jock]

So far no tenders for Nossob then. Will watch this space.