BEACH EROSION AND REHABILITATION PROJECT: ST FRANCIS BAY

Introduction

This report has the objective of informing Council of the progress with regard to the beach erosion in St Francis Bay. Emanating from the research a way forward is proposed and certain decisions are required from Council in order to support and resolve the beach erosion challenge.

This report which may be seen as an executive summary, is supported by the Final Report by ASR Ltd (Marine Consultants and Research) dated June 2006 and which will be available in the main Library (A summary is attached as annexure A ). In addition during the meeting at which this report is tabled a presentation will be made by the St Francis Bay Beach Trust to Council.

Also attached are – Annexure B the Beach Trust deed and Annexure C the  Beachbrief for May /June 2006.

 1.  Background

Development to the west of St Francis has stabilized the dunes and thus the natural ability of the coast to replenish the beach within the bay has been lost. 

The Final Report states the following:

“This erosion has forced beachfront home owners to install rock revetments “in a last ditch effort” to save their properties from the sea. The state of the beach is now so severely degraded that the high tide laps up against the rock revetments leaving little or no beach for recreational use. Large easterly swells are responsible for the most damage with the most recent event during November 2005 causing such severe erosion that public toilets collapsed onto the beach.”

The Final Report emphasizes the downstream effects of the erosion on the economy, in particular the negative effects on tourism and longer term job creation.

After years of ineffective lobbying for a solution to the erosion problem at St. Francis Bay, residents combined to form the St. Francis Bay Beach Trust (SFBBT – a copy of the Trust Deed is attached to this report) and contracted ASR Marine Consulting and Research Limited in New Zealand. ASR are world leaders in the field of coastal processes, have developed cutting edge numerical modelling and completed the seminal work in the design and construction of multi-purpose reefs.

2.   Results of research

Past studies and the ASR Report have all to a greater or lesser degree considered the following options:

• No action

• Increase the revetments

• Build sea walls

• Install groynes

• Off-shore rock reefs and

• Submerged artificial reefs

The Final Report explains that due to either cost, economic losses, unsuitable environmental conditions in the Bay area, the possibility of encouraging further erosion or a combination of the aforementioned reasons the first five options are deemed unsuitable. The cost effective results obtained from the artificial reefs is recommended as the most suitable solution for St Francis Bay.

The project therefore envisages:

•  Restore the beach and therefore the sustainable supply of an ecosystem Service.

• Enhance tourism and therefore create and sustain job opportunities in this important core industry.

• Use local services and suppliers during implementation, wherever possible, to support local industry and provide employment opportunities to the local community, including initiation and support of BEE initiatives.

• Source funding from the private sector as much as possible. The intention is to raise the estimated R 20 million required for implementation and repay this through a beach levy paid by property owners in St. Francis Bay. (The investigatory phase including feasibility study and detailed modelling and design phase totalling some R 1 million has been entirely funded by donations from the residents/private sector).”

The reference to restoring the beach involves acquisition and placement of the envisaged artificial reefs and the transfer of sand from the estuary to the beach on an ongoing basis.

“The project offers an opportunity to provide technology transfer, through the collaboration of international and national experts, to sustain ecosystem services and its associated benefits and to enhance job creation by promoting St. Francis Bay as a prime tourism destination and jump-off point for nature tourism as indicated in the report.”

The following extract from the report summarises the previous experience and extent of involvement in the concept of artificial reefs:

“The first reef designed by ASR Ltd at Narrowneck on the Gold Coast in Queensland, Australia, won the State Environmental Award. This project has demonstrated the effectiveness of multi-purpose reef technology, with significant widening of the beach without down stream impacts (the Narrowneck area of the Gold Coast has a net northerly sediment transport of ~500,000 m3/yr), enhanced marine life and quality surfing waves. Similar multi-purpose reef projects undertaken by ASR world-wide are at various stages, projects that are primarily for either coastal protection (erosion control, submerged port walls), the creation of surfing breaks or ecological enhancement, in New Zealand (8), Australia (5), the USA (3) India (2), Bahrain (1), Fiji (1), Costa Rica (1), Spain (1) and the UK (4), with construction of two of these reefs currently underway and several others scheduled to proceed in the next 12 months.

The majority of these reef projects are in locations where the existing coastline is already developed, and where much of their income is derived from the tourism industry – these projects are 5 often driven by the socio-economic benefits that multi-purpose reefs provide.

Indeed, the public’s demand for beaches for recreation, combined with the increasing value society places on the natural environment, has led to a dramatic increase in the development of submerged reef projects world-wide (e.g. Ahren and Cox, 1990; Hsu and Silvester, 1990; Pilarczyk and Zeidler, 1996; Hall and Seabrook, 1998; Black et al., 1998; Harris, 2001; Mead et al., 2003; Babtie, 2003), and more recently independent research is strongly supporting the findings of the initial ARP (e.g. Nielsen, 2001; Houston, 2002; Pilarzyck, 2003; Ranashinge and Turner, 2005; Jackson et al., 2005).”

3.  Costs and Implications for the Community within the Bay Area

Using the ASR Feasibility Study as a starting point as well as including other information available to the SFB Beach Trust a broad estimate of costs and timing (cost as at July 2006) is as follows:

There is a possibility that one additional reef may be required.  To be confirmed following completion of design phase.

The operational costs would include:

• Servicing external finance and depreciation

• Dredging costs (including the fuel, insurance, labour and maintenance)

• Some cost to monitor the artificial reef

The estimated operational cost (including finance costs after phase 1 and 2 ) would be in the order of R 5.4 million per annum. In order to finance the operational cost an estimated special levy (a beach levy) based on property valuations for the properties deemed to be within the Bay area is calculated to be in around R150 per month for each property owner or approximately a 30% increase in the equivalent rates income from St Francis Bay. This figure will be further refined in the months ahead.

4.  Requirements for the Project

The primary role-players for this project would include:

• The National Department of Environmental Affairs which has been consulted and the Minister has been appraised of the circumstances and intentions of the project. There is general support for the initiative from his Department.
• The St Francis Bay Beach Trust which represents the affected Community
• Kouga Municipality. This report formalises the discussions and contact with the Municipality that has taken place via the Office of the Mayor todate.

It is not clear whether or to what extent the spheres of government will contribute financially and hence all costing and implications in this report are stated so as to reflect the maximum burden on the community.  There is an argument to be made that the impact of further beach erosion affects the entire Municipal area of Kouga.  Nevertheless, the Beach Trust is proceeding on the basis that there will be no contribution in view of the other priorities facing all spheres of Government.

The Beach Trust is expecting to source external finance and maintain the project after installation. The primary aim of this report is therefore to seek the support and assistance from the Kouga Municipality through the ability of the Municipality to support the project via the following means

• The external finance (at this stage an approach has been made to the Development Bank of Southern Africa) will no doubt require some security from the Municipality and in particular some assurance of the appropriate revenue stream to repay the loan.
• To assist the Beach Trust in accessing the envisaged revenue stream through a special levy to be administered via the Municipal revenue systems.

Other than the above support no other financial commitment is envisaged at this stage nor is the Municipality to accept any other risks for the venture such as risks associated with ownership. With regard to collection of the special levy the Beach Trust envisages doing the collection of any unpaid levies and thus there should be little impact on the existing administrative capacity.

The above arrangement would require a legal agreement in addition to the external finance agreement with the eventual bank. This project has already had extensive public participation and will receive further public consultation in the coming months as more specifically indicated below.

5.  Way Forward

In order for the Beach Trust to proceed there is a need for the in principle support from the Kouga Municipality to assist with raising the external finance as mentioned in the report and to administer and approve the special beach levy for the 2007/8 financial year.

The following project schedule below is a forecast of key milestones and timing merged with the approximate key municipal cycles:

• Meet  Mayor / Municipal Officials – done 7 August 2006

• Visit by the Environmental Minister – September 2006

• EIA – due for completion late 2006/early 2007

• Submit this report to Kouga Municipality for in principle approval for specific support from Council –  August 2006

• Review with the Community -  December 2006 /January 2007

• Municipal IDP Review – commences September 2006

• Municipal Budget 2007/8 Budget cycle – commences September 2006

• Beach Levy approved - May 2007

• Financial closure (external finance arranged and available) September, 2006 to March, 2007

• Project implementation start date – February/March, 2007

• Reef deployment commences – April 2007

• First payment of Beach Levy – July 2007

A concern of the Beach Trust is the timing as it would be preferable to start raising revenue before July 2007. Hence it has become urgent that this matter be considered by Council in order to allow further legal investigation in this regard.

 Comments by Director Technical Services

Comments by Director: Community Services

Comments from Acting Chief Financial Officer

 Comments by Acting  Municipal Manager

7.  RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 That Council supports the community initiative via the St Francis Bay Beach Trust to resolve the beach erosion via an artificial reef subject to:

• Submission of appropriate agreement/s for consideration by Council in due course

• Compliance with any legislation that may apply to the project; and

• after the appropriate public consultation process as required by legislation.

7.2 Subject to recommendation 7.1 Council supports the initiative and in principle will support the St Francis Bay Beach Trust to acquire external finance by providing reasonable security (in the form of a dedicated revenue stream),

7.3 Subject to recommendation 7.1 Council supports in principle a beach levy to be determined in terms of the relevant legislation, to be applied and recovered for an area to be designated in due course, accrue such levy via the revenue systems of the municipality provided that the St Francis Bay Trust shall accept responsibility for the debt collection process for any unpaid levies and subject to the SFBBT assisting the Municipality to obtain the consent of the majority of the community affected by the levy. 

7.4 For the purposes of this project the required consent of the community be obtained by recording community members not in favour of a beach levy, expressed either in writing or by signing a register at any public meetings for this purpose to record members of the community not in favour of the special beach levy.

Extract of 7th September Council Meeting Agenda

7. Comment Director Technical Services

   1. SRK Consultants undertake the EIA process and had submitted a report to DEAT for construction of groynes as a solution to the problem.

   2. The EIA process was put on hold to accommodate the Permeable Groyne as project was abolished due to the shortage of funds.

   3. In view of the Beach Trust Study and the potential success of submerged reefs as proposed by the Beach Trust. he following steps need to be taken to activate the EIA process:

   4. Council to re-appoint SRK Consultants to withdraw the Experimental Timber Project from DEAT.

   5. SRK to undertake the public participation process on the submerge reefs for inclusion in the EIA Study as a final recommendation for construction.

   6. Council to take a decision that the reefs will be the method of construction to replenish the beach.

   7. That SRK complete the final EIA report to submit it to DEAT for approval.

   8. SRK will also need to compile a construction and Management Plan for the submerged reefs.

    

8. Comments by Director: Community Services

   1. No comment received from Director Community Services.

    

9. Comments from Acting Chief Financial Officer

   1. No comment received from Acting Chief Finance Officer.

    

10. Recommendations

    1. That Council supports the community initiative via the St Francis Bay Beach Trust to resolve the beach erosion via an artificial reef subject to:

       • Submission of appropriate agreement/s for consideration by Council in due course.

       • Compliance with any legislation that may apply to the project: and

       • offer the appropriate public consultation process as required by legislation.

    2. Subject to recommendation 7.i Council supports the initiative and in principle will support the St Francis Bay Beach Trust to acquire external finance by providing reasonable security (in the form of a dedicated revenue stream).

    3. Subject to recommendation 7.i Council supports in principle a beach levy to be determined in terms of the relevant legislation, to be applied and recovered for an area to be designated in due course. accrue such levy via the revenue systems of the municipality provided that the St Francis Bay Beach Trust shall accept responsibility for the debt collection process for any unpaid levies and subject to the SFBBT assisting the Municipality to obtain the consent of the majority of the community affected by the levy.

    4. For the purposes of this project the required consent of the community be obtained by recording community members not in favour of a beach levy, expressed either in writing or by signing a register at any public meetings for this purpose to record members of the community not in favour of the special beach levy.

    5. That Council re-appoints SRK to undertake the public participation process.

    6. That Council approves the submerged reefs as a method to replenish the beach.

    7. That after the public participation process have been completed, SRK to re-submit the update EIA document to DEAT.

PREPARED BY: L GOUWS
 

L. GOUWS
DIRECTOR TECHNICAL SERVICES
 

F. DENNIS
ACTING MUNICIPAL MANAGER