Coastal Management Lines for Eden District

Project Report

July 2018

Coastal management lines for Eden District i

DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION Document title and version: Coastal Management Lines for Eden District: Project Report (March 2018)

Project Name: The Technical Delineation of both the coastal management line; the EIA development set- back line as well as an audit of coastal access in the Eden District Municipality

Client: Western Cape Government, Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning

Royal HaskoningDHV reference number: MD2368

Authority reference: EADP1/2016

Authors: Royal HaskoningDHV Gerard van Weele Rafeeqah Alexander Dr. Keming Hu Dr. David Brew Nomcebo Hlanguza Katarzyna Bozek Bronwen Griffiths Coastwise Consulting Tandi Breetzke

Acknowledgements: Western Cape Government Environmental Affairs & Development Planning Sub-directorate: Coastal Impact Management Directorate: Spatial Planning and Coastal Impact Management Email: [email protected] and Tel: 021 483 3370/2724

Appreciation is also expressed for all the contributions made by members of the public during the stakeholder engagement process, and the support received from the local municipalities of Hessequa, Mossel Bay, George, Knysna and Bitou, as well as Eden District Municipality.

Date: July 2018

Coastal management lines for Eden District ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The coastal zone has always attracted people, whether for recreational purposes or for the natural resources that can be harvested from the coast or adjacent marine area. However, this concentration of people necessitates the concentration of developmental activities that are often in conflict with the natural dynamic nature of the coast or the biophysical sensitivities associated with the coastline.

The Western Cape Government is under obligation to protect and preserve the inherent value of the Western Cape’s coastal zone. This implies that it has the responsibility to arrest on-going degradation driven by uninformed decision-making or irresponsible development, whilst promoting development that is responsive to the dynamic nature and risks associated with the coastal zone.

One of the key mechanisms through which this task is to be performed, is the delineation of coastal management set-back lines. These lines demarcate areas along the shoreline that are considered either too risky for development (i.e. coastal processes pose a risk to properties or people), or considered sensitive from a social or biophysical point of view and therefore worthy of conservation and preservation.

Following similar delineations for the West Coast and Overberg Districts, a process was undertaken to determine a coastal management line (CML) for the Eden District as per the provisions of the National Environmental Management: Integrated Coastal Management Act, 2008 (Act 24 of 2008). This line takes into consideration:

- Coastal risks such as long-term erosion trends, sea level rise and storm surges - The littoral active zone - Sensitive coastal vegetation, especially coastal vegetation identified as being provincial conservation importance - Areas of particular coastal quality or value such as primary dune systems and steep coastal cliffs - Protected areas - Flood risks and the estuarine functional zone around estuaries

The line demarcates a zone along the shore seawards of which intensification of development should not be allowed. Within this restricted development area, a range of development controls may be imposed as relevant to the nature of the risks or sensitivities present. For example, where a site is exposed to erosion risk, development should either not be allowed, or alternatively allowed only in a form that will accommodate the possibility of wave impact, undermining etc. and not pose secondary risks to adjacent development.

Additionally, the management line is to be used as a ‘development set-back line’ (DSL) as provided for in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) regulatory scheme created under the auspices of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act 107 of 1998). Application of the regulatory controls associated with the lines will be the responsibility of either the Provincial Government through the EIA regulatory scheme (using the DSL) or the

Coastal management lines for Eden District iii

local authorities in Eden District through means of the Spatial Development Framework (SDF) and Land Use Planning Schemes (using the CML).

A third line which demarcates the Coastal Protection Zone (CPZ) adds a final dimension to the scheme. This area includes all other features considered to form part of the coastal zone but that are not included in the CML, and has a minimum width of 100m from the high- water mark (HWM) in urban areas and 1km in rural areas. It is not used to specifically impose regulatory controls, but acts as an informant to general planning and development.

The lines different zones to be considered for development management, and the relevant risks or issues to be managed are listed below. Note that this introduces the concept of a ‘risk zone’ which includes the 50 or 100-year erosion risk zone, areas within the flood risk zones of estuaries and littoral active zones.

Zone Description Development controls to apply CPZ • Area seaward of the CPZ • No additional controls CML • Area seaward of the CML and • Prevent development transgressing the around development islands development boundary • General development parameters to avoid insensitive development DSL • Area seaward of the DSL and • As per EIA listing notices around development islands Risk • Medium term (50 year) erosion risk Development parameters specific to: zones zone (built-up areas) • Encroachment • Long term (100 year) erosion risk • Erosion risk zone (rural areas) • Mobile sand • Area within 1:100yr floodline or • Flooding below the 10m amsl contour • Storm damage around estuaries • Public access • Littoral active zones • Vegetation control • Public amenities and infrastructure

These management zones are shown as a conceptual scheme in the following figure:

Coastal management lines for Eden District iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 THE EDEN COASTLINE 1 1.2 COASTAL MANAGEMENT LINES 2 1.3 PRESCRIPTIONS IN THE ICM ACT 3 1.4 PROJECT DETAILS 5 2 IDENTIFICATION OF PHYSICAL PROCESSES 8 3 COASTAL MANAGEMENT LINE, DEVELOPMENT SET-BACK LINE AND COASTAL PROTECTION ZONE FOR EDEN DISTRICT 10 3.1 COASTAL MANAGEMENT LINE AND DEVELOPMENT SET-BACK LINE FOR EDEN DISTRICT 10 3.1.1 Proposed coastal management scheme 10 3.1.2 Coastal management line 10 3.1.3 EIA regulatory line 16 3.2 COASTAL PROTECTION ZONE 17 3.3 SUMMARY OF THE DELINEATION CRITERIA FOR THE CML AND CPZ 18 4 IMPLEMENTATION OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT LINES AND ZONES IN EDEN DISTRICT 20 4.1 INTEGRATED COASTAL DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT SCHEME 20 4.2 IMPLEMENTATION MECHANISMS 21 4.2.1 Municipal zoning schemes 21 4.2.2 EIA regulations 21 4.2.3 National protected areas 22 4.3 COASTAL DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PARAMETERS 22 4.3.1 Types of development that require management in the coastal zone 22 4.3.2 Suggested coastal development parameters for application at municipal level 23 5 WAY FORWARD 28 5.1 PROMULGATION AND IMPLEMENTATION 28 5.2 FURTHER STUDIES AND REFINEMENTS 29 5.3 UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES 30 6 CONCLUSION 31 7 REFERENCES 32 APPENDIX A: COASTAL PROCESSES AND RISK MODELLING 33 APPENDIX B: METHODOLOGY FOR DETERMINATION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT LINES IN THE WESTERN CAPE – WEST COAST PILOT, CITY OF CAPE TOWN, AS WELL AS OVERBERG AND WEST COAST DISTRICTS 34 APPENDIX C: EIA LISTED ACTIVITIES RELATED TO DEVELOPMENT SET-BACKS 39

Coastal management lines for Eden District ii

TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Overview of the Eden District 2 Figure 2: Project phases 6 Figure 3: Example of modelled risk projections 8 Figure 4: Simplified visualisation of the risk modelling methodology 9 Figure 5: Example of a development island surrounded by the CML 12 Figure 6: Example of the location of the coastal management line in developed parts of estuaries 12 Figure 7: Decision tree for the delineation of the CML and CPZ 19 Figure 8: Simplified representation of the Eden District coastal development management scheme 21 Figure 9: Conceptual structure of coastal set-back lines 34 Figure 10: Overberg District Coastal Set-Back Lines concept 35

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Description of main features informing the delineation of the CML 13 Table 2: Coastal management zones 20 Table 3: Activities that require regulation and activities that may be exempted from regulation 22 Table 4: Development parameters for application below the CML 24 Table 5: Development parameters for application in the Risk Zones 25

Coastal management lines for Eden District iii

ABBREVIATIONS amsl Above mean sea level CBA Critical Biodiversity Area CML Coastal Management Line CMP Coastal Management Programme CPZ Coastal Protection Zone DEA&DP Western Cape Government’s Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning EIA Environmental Impact Assessment HWM High-water mark I&AP Interested and Affected Party ICM Act National Environmental Management: Integrated Coastal Management Act (Act No. 24 of 2008) as amended by the National Environmental Management: Integrated Coastal Management Amendment Act (Act No. 36 of 2014) LIDAR Light detection and ranging LUMS Land Use Management Scheme MEC Member of the Executive Council NEMA National Environmental Management Act (Act No. 107 of 1998) PSDF Western Cape Provincial Spatial Development Framework SLR Sea level rise SPLUMA Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act (Act No. 16 of 2013) WCG Western Cape Government WWTW Wastewater Treatment Works

Coastal management lines for Eden District iv

GLOSSARY authorities An organ of state granted a legal power or right to give orders or make decisions (dynamic) coastal as defined by the ICM Act means all natural processes processes continually reshaping the shoreline and near shore seabed and includes — (a) wind action; (b) wave action; (c) currents; (d) tidal action; and (e) river flows. coastal defence walls, breakwaters, berms and other measures designed to protect land from being flooded or worn away by the sea coastal management as defined by the ICM Act: (a) the regulation, management, protection, conservation and rehabilitation of the coastal environment; (b) the regulation and management of the use and development of the coastal zone and coastal resources; (c) monitoring and enforcing compliance with laws and policies that regulate human activities within the coastal zone; and (d) planning in connection with the activities referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). coastal management means a line determined in accordance with section 25 of line the ICM Act, as amended, in order to demarcate an area within which development will be prohibited or controlled in order to achieve the objects of the Act or coastal management objectives. coastal protection zone as contemplated in sections 16 and 17 of the ICM Act, a zone established for enabling the use of land that is adjacent to coastal public property or that plays a significant role in a coastal ecosystem to be managed, regulated and/or restricted. coastal public property means coastal public property referred to in section 7 of the ICM Act. coastal risk risks specifically related to the coastline as informed by events such as coastal erosion, storm surges, sea level rise and storm wave run-up, as well as certain dynamic ecological processes such as active littoral zones (e.g. mobile dune systems). coastal set-back line see ‘coastal management line’ – ICM Act terminology changed to ‘coastal management line’ as per the 2014 amendment.

Coastal management lines for Eden District v

development as defined by the ICM Act in relation to a place, means any process initiated by a person to change the use, physical nature or appearance of that place, and includes— (a) the construction, erection, alteration, demolition or removal of a structure or building: (b) a process to rezone, subdivide or consolidate land; (c) changes to the existing or natural topography of the coastal zone; and (d) the destruction or removal of indigenous or protected vegetation. estuary as defined by the ICM Act means a body of surface water — (a) that is permanently or periodically open to the sea; (b) in which a rise and fall of the water level as a result of the tides is measurable at spring tides when the body of surface water is open to the sea; or (c) in respect of which the salinity is higher than fresh water as a result of the influence of the sea, and where there is a salinity gradient between the tidal reach and the mouth of the body of surface water. existing development executable rights for activities or development on properties, rights as allocated through zoning schemes and approvals in terms of applicable regulatory schemes. high risk coastal risk (i.e. risks emanating from sea level rise, storms, waves, wind, erosion etc.) with a 20 year return period – i.e. therefore with a 5% chance of taking place in any given year during the ensuing 100 years. LIDAR a remote sensing technology that measures distance by illuminating a target with a laser and analysing the reflected light in order to produce high resolution topographical maps. littoral active zone as defined by the ICM Act means any land forming part of, or adjacent to, the seashore that is — (a) unstable and dynamic as a result of natural processes; and (b) characterised by dunes, beaches, sand bars and other landforms composed of unconsolidated sand, pebbles or other such material which is either un-vegetated or only partially vegetated. low risk coastal risk (i.e. risks emanating from sea level rise, storms, waves, wind, erosion etc.) with a 100 year return period – i.e. therefore with a 1% chance of taking place in any given year during the ensuing 100 years. medium risk coastal risk (i.e. risks emanating from sea level rise, storms, waves, wind, erosion etc.) with a 50 year return period – i.e. therefore with a 2% chance of taking place in any given year during the ensuing 100 years.

Coastal management lines for Eden District vi

public facilities facilities developed and owned by government in the public interest, such as: - Buildings or structures or systems related to ablutions or public resorts - Buildings or structures or systems related to educational or cultural purposes - Buildings or structures or systems related to roads and utility services, including water, sewerage and electricity reticulation - Coastal defence structures and flood control structures - Public open space public open space a piece of land formally zoned as such in the applicable town planning scheme sea level rise a rise in mean sea level as a consequence of global climate change, and driven by the melting of glaciers, the expansion of ocean volume through temperature rise and changes to the amount of water stored on land.

Coastal management lines for Eden District vii

1 INTRODUCTION

The Western Cape is known as a region of outstanding natural beauty, with spectacular landscapes and a celebrated coastline. The coastline, in particular, draws tourists by the millions, and attracts development and economic activities. At the same time, the coastline is highly sensitive in many respects – whether in terms of ecological value, biological diversity, natural hazards and heritage resources. Through planning that underestimated dynamic coastal processes, unregulated development and a laissez faire approach to coastal management, a lot of value has already been lost along the coastline. This, and the general attraction as a space for recreational pursuits, places enormous pressure on the coastal zone and especially on sensitive areas that remain intact.

Modern times have also seen scientific confirmation that climate change is a future, and current, reality that needs to be recognised and anticipated. The coastal zone is a highly dynamic space, with terrestrial and marine influences combining to continuously shape and transform the physical landscape features as well as the ecological systems associated with the different landscapes. In respect of coastal development, two distinct but related factors are of particular importance – sea level rise (SLR) and coastal erosion/accretion. The first, sea level rise, is a consequence of several factors but is primarily related to thermal expansion of the oceans as global atmospheric temperatures rise. Although not a rapid process, and on its own apparently not significant, it must be considered in terms of its potential impact on dynamic forces acting along the coastline. Cycles of coastal erosion and accretion (especially sandy shores) are naturally present, and operate on timescales that range from daily cycles to geological periods. Sea level rise adds dynamic to this process by artificially accelerating the process of erosion, and depending on the coastal profile, can result in significant permanent horizontal coastline retreat over time.

In response to these concerns and challenges, the Western Cape Government’s (WCG) Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning (DEA&DP) proposes to delineate coastal management lines (CMLs) for the Eden District as one strategy through which responsible coastal management can be ensured. The delineation of these lines is a continuation of a larger overarching project which has seen similar lines being defined for the West Coast (WCG 2014) and Overberg Districts (WCG 2012 and 2015), and links to a similar project undertaken by the City of Cape Town. It is also preceded by an initial investigation into the risk of flooding due to storms and sea level rise in Eden District in 2010 (WCG 2010).

1.1 The Eden Coastline

Located within the Western Cape Province, the Eden District municipal area is characterised by beautiful, biodiversity rich landscapes rightly known as the Garden Route. It stretches from the Breede River mouth in the west towards the Bloukrans River and the provincial boundary past Nature’s Valley in the east (Figure 1).

This municipality’s coastline is shared by five local municipalities, namely Hessequa, Mossel Bay, George, Knysna and Bitou.

Coastal management lines for Eden District 1

Figure 1: Overview of the Eden District

The crenulated bays of Eden District are characterised by a range of habitats including rocky headlands, fossil dunes, aeolianite scarps, boulder beaches, wave-cut platforms, sandy beaches, subtidal soft sediment habitats, pocket beaches, estuaries, sub-tidal reefs and pelagic habitat. This can be broadly categorized into the following four types of shoreline: small sandy embayments where urban development has taken place; large open sandy stretches of coastline; steep rocky shorelines; and, rocky promontories. Along some sandy beaches, dune stabilisation, manipulation or rehabilitation has taken place, leaving artificially managed foredunes or dune fields.

In terms of coastal management initiatives, Eden District Municipality developed a District Coastal Management Programme (CMP) in 2012. It includes a status quo analysis, situational and needs assessment; as well as a vision and specific objectives for the management of the municipality’s coastal zone which are both strategic and operational in nature.

1.2 Coastal Management Lines

The use of CMLs is a particularly important response to the effects of climate change, as it involves both a quantification of risks and pro-active planning for future development. Although it cannot address historical decisions that have locked in development investment along potentially at-risk coastal areas, coastal management (formerly ‘set-back’) lines can

Coastal management lines for Eden District 2

influence how existing development is maintained over time and how new development will be allowed to proceed.

Delineation of coastal management lines must be undertaken in accordance, or in alignment, with several legislative tools. This includes the National Environmental Management: Integrated Coastal Management Act (Act No. 24 of 2008) and the National Environmental Management: Integrated Coastal Management Amendment Act (Act No. 36 of 2014)(together referred to as the ‘ICM Act’), the National Environmental Management Act (Act No. 107 of 1998)(NEMA), NEMA Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations, 2014, the Western Cape Provincial CMP as well as the Western Cape Provincial Spatial Development Framework (PSDF).

The coastal management lines effectively delineate different management zones proposed to facilitate improved planning and management of sensitive and often vulnerable coastal areas, and to safeguard public access points. The process outcomes will therefore need to filter into municipal planning through Integrated Development Plans (IDP), Spatial Development Frameworks (SDF) and Land Use Management Schemes (LUMS).

1.3 Prescriptions in the ICM Act

Coastal management lines, as detailed in the ICM Act, are prescribed boundaries that may limit development in ecologically sensitive or vulnerable areas, or an area where dynamic natural processes pose a hazard or risk to humans. Section 25 of the ICM Act compels the relevant Member of the Executive Council (MEC) of the Provincial Government to:

“establish or change coastal management lines -

a) to protect coastal public property, private property and public safety; b) to protect the coastal protection zone; c) to preserve the aesthetic values of the coastal zone; or d) for any other reason consistent with the objectives of the Act”.

The National Environmental Management: Integrated Coastal Management Amendment Act (Act 36 of 2014) amended the original ICM Act to simplify certain procedures and to avoid continued confusion with the EIA regulatory scheme:

• It reduces confusion with EIA development set-back lines (DSL) by renaming ‘coastal set-back lines’ as ‘coastal management lines’ • It gives the MEC the power to establish or change a CML simply by publishing a notice in the Gazette • It requires the MEC to consider the location of immovable property and the ownership and zonation of vacant land when establishing a CML

The ICM Act allows coastal management lines to demarcate areas where authorities such as protected area management agents, municipalities or the Western Cape Government can prohibit or restrict the building, alteration or extension of structures that are either wholly or partly seaward of the CML. It is noted that the location of immovable property and the

Coastal management lines for Eden District 3

ownership and zonation of vacant land must be taken into consideration when delineating coastal management lines. The ultimate intention of the CML is to:

• protect coastal public property, private property and public safety • determine features that should be protected under the coastal protection zone • preserve the aesthetic values of the coastal zone

While the establishment of coastal management lines is a Provincial responsibility, the Minister, after consultation with the relevant provincial MEC, must establish such lines if the following applies: if the area is part of a national protected area as defined in the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act (Act No. 57 of 2003); straddles a coastal boundary between two provinces; or extends up to, or straddles, the borders of the Republic.

The relevant MEC, however, may only declare coastal management line(s) after consultation with Municipalities and interested and affected parties (I&AP’s). The MEC must communicate this by publishing a notice in the Government Gazette. Once determined, this line must be delineated on the map(s) that forms part of municipal land use schemes. This is done to ensure consistency and to properly inform the public about the position of the CML in relation to existing cadastral boundaries, and facilitates compliance with section 24(2) of the Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act, 2013 (Act No. 16 of 2013) which states that:

“A land use scheme…must:

(b) take cognisance of any environmental management instrument adopted by the relevant environmental management authority and must comply with environmental legislation”.

The CML and accompanying management zones are proposed to give specific direction in respect to both the management of property with existing land use rights, and with the planning of proposed activities and land uses. Institutional structures tasked with coastal governance should ensure that future decision making is in line with the National CMP, the Provincial CMP, the District/Local CMP(s) and relevant proposed norms and standards and management strategies. If these are to be effective, the structures must assist decision makers in respect to the application of best practice coastal management principles, integrate and align regulatory and management prescriptions in order to reduce duplication and uncertainty, and mobilise limited resources in a way that stimulates sustainable interventions.

Coastal management lines may be established for various reasons and there may be more than one management line in any given area. For example, one line may relate to anticipated erosion, while another may be aimed at issues of aesthetics to control the height of buildings in a specific scenic landscape.

Coastal management lines for Eden District 4

1.4 Project details

The intended outcome of this project is a proposed management scheme for the Eden District coastal area that identifies:

• a coastal risk zone consisting of three sub-zones related to the projected coastal risk horizons, • a coastal management zone (demarcated by the CML) designating an area where no development, or no further development should take place, • a DSL line that can be used in respect of the EIA regulatory framework to further regulate development through environmental assessment studies, and • a coastal protection zone (CPZ) which is an area where coastal considerations must inform all planning and decision-making.

These lines and zones are specifically intended to inform future development, including the placement of municipal infrastructure and erection of new structures, as well as the intensification of development along the coast. In selected cases, where no feasible alternatives are possible, they may be used to temper or shape the execution of existing rights as a means to improve the future resilience of the development.

This study represents the fourth full-scale set of coastal management lines determined by the WCG. It is preceded by a study conducted during 2010 at Milnerton and Langebaan to devise a standard methodology for the delineation of coastal set-backs in the province (DEADP, 2010); the initial determination of coastal set-backs along the coastline of the Overberg District during 2011/12 (WCG, 2012); the development of coastal set- back/management lines for the West Coast District (WCG, 2014), as well as a refinement of the original Overberg study in 2015 (WCG, 2015). It also takes into consideration the need for national (National Coastal Committee discussions, i.e. Working Group 8 forum) and local alignment (similar work by the City of Cape Town). A description of these preceding studies is provided as APPENDIX B: METHODOLOGY FOR DETERMINATION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT LINES IN THE WESTERN CAPE – WEST COAST PILOT, CITY OF CAPE TOWN, AS WELL AS OVERBERG AND WEST COAST DISTRICTS.

This project consists of three main components, as indicated in Figure 2, namely inception and the modelling of dynamic coastal processes, the determination of a CML, DSL and CPZ and finally recommendations regarding management guidelines and project finalisation.

Coastal management lines for Eden District 5

Figure 2: Project phases

The first phase, information gathering and technical modelling1, took place between October 2016 and March 2017, and included the modelling and delineation of short (1:20 year storm event and a 20cm prediction of sea level rise), medium (1:50 year storm event and a 50cm prediction of sea level rise) and long (1:100-year storm event and a 100cm prediction of sea level rise) term risk.

Future risks are considered in terms of:

• natural coastal regression or accretion • littoral active zones (mobile sand) • projected sea level rise • storm-driven coastal inundation • projections of storm-driven coastal erosion

These designated risk areas informed the demarcation of risk zones, as a way of highlighting natural coastal processes and risks, and accompanying draft management controls / development parameters.

The CML, DSL, proposed management guidelines and CPZ are based on the technical risk projections. In addition, these are informed by local knowledge obtained via inputs from local municipal authorities, conservation agencies and stakeholder engagement, and takes cognisance of agreed-upon principles. Public consultation and engagement is actively sought as a means to ensure local buy-in and relevance. Similarly, the involvement of relevant authorities in the study area, namely the five Local Municipalities and the District

1 More detail on the risk modelling process is provided in Appendix A: Coastal Processes and Risk Modelling

Coastal management lines for Eden District 6

Municipality, CapeNature and SANParks is deemed a critical part of the stakeholder engagement process. A high level of agreement and buy-in is necessary as the authorities will share responsibility for the implementation of the development controls in the management zones.

It is important to recognise that the projections of risk and associated coastal management measures are based on the best available information at the time, and that this information will change and improve over time. All controls and delineations referred to in this report consequently relate specifically to the risk projections compiled during 2017. The project and its deliverables are specifically designed to allow for updating of both the risk projections and the designation of management features, as knowledge of coastal risk improve. The scale of investigation and modelling further implies that decisions relating to individual properties or locations can be informed further by higher resolution site-specific investigations.

Coastal management lines for Eden District 7

2 IDENTIFICATION OF PHYSICAL PROCESSES

The determination of specific risk zones or areas where dynamic coastal processes are active along the Eden coastline is based on the application of a consistent delineation methodology applied along the study area. The process, as it unfolded, is described in more detail in APPENDIX A: COASTAL PROCESSES AND RISK MODELLING.

The outcome of the risk modelling process is a set of risk projections for the coastline as related to events such as coastal erosion, storm surges, sea level rise and storm wave run- up, as well as dynamic ecological processes such as active littoral zones (e.g. mobile dune systems). Littoral active zones are identified based the presence of windblown sand furrows indicating currently active sand belts on aerial photographs, as well as distinctive vegetation types. The combined risks are then projected for short (1:20 year, or High Risk), medium (1:50 year, or Medium Risk) and long (1:100 year, or Low Risk) term time horizons (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Example of modelled risk projections

The risk modelling is based on high resolution LIDAR data, aerial photography as well as wind and wave data for the region. The modelling itself followed the method refined for the similar preceding coastal management line project undertaken in the West Coast District in 2013/2014 and Overberg District in 2012 and 2015). It does not account for extreme events such as anomalous ocean conditions (e.g. tsunamis) or man-made disasters (e.g. the failure of a dam wall upstream of an estuary). A simplified visualisation of the method is shown in Figure 4.

Coastal management lines for Eden District 8

Figure 4: Simplified visualisation of the risk modelling methodology

Estuaries are particularly dynamic ecological systems that display characteristics of both terrestrial and marine systems. This makes estuaries extremely complex and sensitive, and consequently also challenging to manage. Nevertheless, degradation of estuaries often results from increasing coastal development and the impact of human activities. In order to preserve the remaining ecological functioning, biodiversity, and sustainable use of these sensitive coastal resources, effective co-operative and integrated management is essential.

Since inundation in estuaries represents the primary risk, floodline determination that can anticipate flood events with different return periods is key to understanding how flood dynamics will impact on existing and future development. Unfortunately, to generate the necessary information within the scope of a regional CML demarcation project is prohibitively expensive. Consequently, an approach is adopted that uses a simple contour height line as approximation of the functional estuarine zone to inform management lines for estuaries. This can be supplemented by good quality local ecological sensitivity information or indications of recurring inundation gleaned from an assessment of the vegetation surrounding estuaries. In all cases though, future refinement of the CML must defer to fine-scale management plans or floodline determinations where such have or will be prepared.

Estuarine Management Plans have been prepared, or are being developed for most estuaries in the District. The local fine-scale planning initiatives offer further guidance on existing and planned land use and can be taken into consideration when determining the management lines. However, in the absence of estuary specific floodline delineation, it is recommended that the 5m or 10m above mean sea level (amsl) contour be used as a reference line to determine or inform development management lines. It is noted that for this project, lidar survey data are used to determine the 5m asml and 10m amsl contour lines.

Coastal management lines for Eden District 9

3 COASTAL MANAGEMENT LINE, DEVELOPMENT SET-BACK LINE AND COASTAL PROTECTION ZONE FOR EDEN DISTRICT

3.1 COASTAL MANAGEMENT LINE AND DEVELOPMENT SET-BACK LINE FOR EDEN DISTRICT

3.1.1 Proposed coastal management scheme This project proposes a management scheme for coastal development primarily consisting of a coastal management line (CML), an EIA Development Set-back Line (DSL) and a range of recommended development parameters for development within sensitive areas. Whereas the CML2 and DSL are intended as delimiters for where development can happen or intensify, the development parameters are proposed to ensure that development are regulated in a manner appropriate to risks and sensitivities in the coastal zone.

3.1.2 Coastal management line A CML, as envisaged by the amended ICM Act, is informed by the projections of risk generated in the first phase of the study, information on ecological or other sensitivities adjacent to the coast, as well as the location and extent of existing development and existing executable development rights. The CML is a continuous line, seawards of which lies:

• Areas of biophysical or social sensitivities such as sensitive coastal vegetation identified as priority conservation areas and formal protected areas, • those areas that should be left undeveloped, or only be granted appropriately restricted development rights, due to a high risk from dynamic coastal processes, or • coastal public property.

To determine the CML, coastal features are considered alongside coastal risk zones, based on observed and available information:

• Coastal risk as identified through the projections of coastal erosion, as estuarine functional zones or flood zones, and as littoral active zones. In built-up areas, a 50- year risk horizon is used, and a 100yr risk horizon in rural areas. • Environmental buffers required inland from the HWM to maintain a functional coastal ecosystem under future sea level rise scenarios. For the Eden District, these sensitive areas include formal protected areas, as well as intact coastal vegetation units where these are identified as Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBA) and Ecological Support Areas (ESA) (i.e. Protected Areas, CBA1, CBA2 and ESA1) as identified in the 2017 Western Cape Biodiversity Spatial Plan (CapeNature, 2017) (WCBSP). Additionally, steep coastal cliffs and primary dune areas, as identified by slope elements steeper than 25% (1:4 slope), are included as features that will contribute to ecological

2 As per the ICM Act, CMLs may be designated for a range of purposes. For this project, the CML relates to coastal risks and sensitivities, and associated restrictions on development.

Coastal management lines for Eden District 10

connectivity along the coastline, to aesthetic value and to natural erosion protection. • Social buffers required along the coast, for example, allowance for public beach access through and along the coastal frontage, areas which have cultural significance and that will need to be preserved from development, or heritage resources and historically sensitive locations that require specific management. • Economic requirements for the coast, for example, allowance for new beach facilities that will need to be placed closer than normal development to serve the public. Economic demands often require a trade-off against environmental aspects at a particular site. Sensitive coastal biodiversity was demarcated by selecting coastal vegetation types from the fine scale vegetation maps by Vlok3 and Harris4 where these vegetation units were identified as provincial priorities in the WCBSP. The vegetation types selected include:

Vlok: Harris: - Drift Sands - Estuary floodplain - Littoral Vegetation - Foredune - Primary Dune (Marine Biome) - Intertidal - Estuary - Sediment - Riverine Saltmarsh - Coastal Solid - Coastal Riverine - Coastal Dune Milkwood - Ekebergia

Generally, and especially in rural areas, the CML follows the landward boundary of the long- term (100yr) risk projections or areas identified as sensitive from a coastal perspective, whichever is further from the shoreline.

Where built-up or future development areas are fully enclosed by the CML, a separate line is drawn around existing development in order to protect the development rights within a ‘development island’. The area within the development island is then treated as being outside the CML. An example is shown in Figure 5.

3 Vlok. 2014. Fine-scale vegetation maps (http://www.bgis.sanbi.org) 4 Harris. 2015. Integrated Coastal Habitat map (http://www.bgis.sanbi.org)

Coastal management lines for Eden District 11

Figure 5: Example of a development island surrounded by the CML

The CML also extends along estuaries. The CML runs along the 1:100 yr floodline or 5m amsl contour around estuaries, whichever is wider, or alternatively landward of identified coastal (estuarine) sensitivities (Figure 6).

Figure 6: Example of the location of the coastal management line in developed parts of estuaries

Coastal management lines for Eden District 12

Individual sections of the CML, defined by physical features or location, can therefore be described in terms of the main factors that determine the alignment of the CML. These factors necessarily then also suggest what considerations to include in decision-making in relation to development within the area below the CML. For example, if the CML is aligned to the littoral active zone, it follows that any development proposal within the CML area would need to recognise the threat of potentially mobile dunes. These characterisations are provided in Table 1.

Table 1: Description of main features informing the delineation of the CML

CML Section Features used for delineation of the CML Breede River 100yr floodline Witsand (urban) 100yr floodline Littoral active zone (dune field) Witsand to Duiwenhoks River Littoral active zone (Duiwenhoksbos Nature Reserve dune field) Sensitive biodiversity (WCBSP) Duiwenhoks River Littoral active zone (Duiwenhoksbos Nature Reserve dune field) Sensitive biodiversity(WCBSP) 5m amsl contour Duiwenhoks River to Steep coastal cliffs Jongensfontein Sensitive biodiversity (WCBSP) Littoral active zone (Blombos area dune fields) Jongensfontein 50yr risk zone Jongensfontein to Still Bay 100yr risk zone Sensitive biodiversity (WCBSP) Still Bay-West Protected Area (Skulpiesbaai, connected to Stilbaai Marine Protected Area) 50yr risk zone Goukou River 5m amsl contour Still Bay-East 5m amsl contour Sensitive biodiversity (WCBSP) Littoral active zone (Geelkrans Nature Reserve dune field) Still Bay to Gouritsmond Sensitive biodiversity (WCBSP) Steep coastal cliffs 100yr risk zone Gouritsmond (town) 50yr risk zone Gouritsmond (estuary) 5m amsl contour Gouritsmond to Vleesbaai Sensitive biodiversity (WCBSP) Littoral active zone (dune field) 100yr risk zone Steep coastal cliffs/primary dunes Vleesbaai Sensitive biodiversity (WCBSP) 50yr risk zone

Coastal management lines for Eden District 13

CML Section Features used for delineation of the CML 5m amsl contour Vleesbaai to Mossel Bay Sensitive biodiversity (WCBSP) Littoral active zone (unconsolidated primary dune and ‘blow-outs’) 5m amsl contour 100yr risk zone Mossel Bay 50yr risk zone Seaward boundary of harbour activity and infrastructure 5m amsl contour or property boundaries in estuaries Hartenbos 50yr risk zone Sensitive biodiversity (WCBSP) 5m amsl contour Kleinbrak River Sensitive biodiversity (WCBSP) 5m amsl contour 50yr risk zone Kleinbrak River to Grootbrak Sensitive biodiversity (WCBSP) River 5m amsl contour 50yr risk zone Grootbrak River 5m amsl contour Sensitive biodiversity (WCBSP) Grootbrak River to Glentana Sensitive biodiversity (WCBSP) 50yr risk zone Glentana to Herolds Bay Steep coastal cliffs (including Maalgate) Herolds Bay 50yr risk zone Herolds Bay to Wilderness Steep coastal cliffs Wilderness 50yr risk zone Protected Area (Garden Route National Park, Wilderness Lakes Area) 5m amsl contour Sensitive biodiversity (WCBSP) Steep coastal cliffs/primary dunes (Note the development island between the lakes area and the shoreline) Sedgefield 100yr risk zone Sensitive Biodiversity (WCBSP) Protected Area (Garden Route National Park, Wilderness Lakes Area) Littoral active zone (Swartvlei mouth wind-blown sand corridor) 5m amsl contour (Note the development island East of Myoli Beach) Goukamma Sensitive biodiversity (WCBSP) Protected Area

Coastal management lines for Eden District 14

CML Section Features used for delineation of the CML 5m amsl contour 50yr risk zone (Note the development island between the N2 highway and the Goukamma river) Knysna Protected Area (Knysna National Lake Area) Sensitive biodiversity (WCBSP) Steep coastal cliffs/primary dunes 5m amsl contour Knysna to Plettenberg Bay Steep coastal cliffs/primary dunes Sensitive biodiversity (WCBSP) Protected Area Plettenberg Bay Protected area 50yr risk line 5m amsl contour Plettenberg Bay to 100yr floodline Keurboomstrand, including Sensitive biodiversity (WCBSP) the Keurbooms River estuary Protected Area 100yr risk line 50yr risk line Keurbooms River to Nature’s Steep coastal cliffs/primary dunes Valley Protected Area Sensitive biodiversity (WCBSP) 5m amsl contour (Note development islands at Nature’s Valley and Covie)

Coastal management lines for Eden District 15

3.1.3 EIA regulatory line In respect of the EIA regulatory scheme, an The EIA regulations are composed of three lists of additional line needs to be differentiated as it ‘listed activities’ that are differentiated relates to the ‘development set-back’ referred according to their level of environmental risk. to in the EIA regulations5 rather than the coastal Listing Notices 1 and 3 require that a Basic Assessment process be undertaken as the management lines described in the ICM Act. environmental impact of the activities listed For the Eden District area, the CML will also be therein is deemed to be of lesser impact and/or used as the DSL. a greater level of certainty is held as to what the impact will be of the activity. The difference Reference to development set-backs is found in between the listing notices is that Listing Notice 1 the so-called Listing Notices that list a range of relates to set activities anywhere within the boundaries of South Africa whilst Listing Notice 3 activities that require different levels of considers geographic areas within the nine environmental impact assessment and the provinces where activities are seen to be of issuing of an environmental authorisation prior specific relevance to that area, and thus the to being undertaken (see text box). thresholds are made more stringent or locally relevant. Typically, an activity would be listed in the form Listing Notice are for the activities deemed of a range of thresholds which, if exceeded, either have much more significant impacts, or the nature and extent of the impact of the trigger the need for an environmental impact specific activity is more uncertain. These assessment in the form of a Basic Assessment or activities require a full environmental impact full-blown EIA. In some cases, however, a assessment. development set-back line is used as spatial reference to include or exclude activities. The EIA regulations indicate that: “development setback” means a setback line defined or adopted by the competent authority”. This implies that if such a setback is defined, the setback delineation replaces the default parameters for an activity, as read within the context of that activity. The competent authority in the Western Cape is DEA&DP or the National Department of Environmental Affairs.

The EIA regulations also refer to whether a development is in front or behind the line – for a coastal development set-back this equates to any development seaward of the line being ‘in front of’, whilst landward of the line being ‘behind’.

An important further point to note is that the development set-backs are usually linked to the presence of urban built-up areas. The regulations indicate that ““urban areas” means areas situated within the urban edge (as defined or adopted by the competent authority), or in instances where no urban edge or boundary has been defined or adopted, it refers to areas situated within the edge of built-up areas”. These exclusion areas create de facto islands in the area below the DSL, within which the specifically excluded EIA triggers don’t apply.

5 The Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2014, published under Government Notice No. 982 in Gazette No. 3822 of 4 December 2014, in terms of sections 24(5) and 44 of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998)

Coastal management lines for Eden District 16

The Western Cape Government, as designated competent authority, considers the area below/seaward of existing development as falling outside of the ‘built-up area’. Therefore, any exclusions based on a listed activity taking place within the built-up area would not apply to this strip of coastal land, and the prescriptions for environmental assessments related to the particular activity will apply. For example, the beach in front of seafront houses is not considered ‘built-up’ and environmental authorisations will be required to execute any listed activities on that beach.

Listed activities affected by a provincially determined DSL are noted in APPENDIX B: Methodology for Determination of Coastal Management Lines in the Western Cape – West Coast Pilot, City of Cape Town, as well as Overberg and West Coast Districts.

3.2 COASTAL PROTECTION ZONE Section 17 of the ICM Act makes provision for the demarcation of a zone adjacent to coastal public property that “plays a significant role in a coastal ecosystem”. The demarcation allows the area to be managed, regulated or restricted in a way that differs from non-coastal areas, to:

a) protect the ecological integrity, natural character and the economic, social and aesthetic value of coastal public property b) avoid increasing the effect or severity of natural hazards in the coastal zone c) protect people, property and economic activities from risks arising from dynamic coastal processes, including the risk of sea-level rise d) maintain the natural functioning of the littoral active zone e) maintain the productive capacity of the coastal zone by protecting the ecological integrity of the coastal environment f) make land near the seashore available to organs of state and other authorised persons for i) performing rescue operations ii) temporarily depositing objects and materials washed up by the sea or tidal waters

The ICM Act defines a default CPZ which, in essence, consists of a continuous strip of land, starting from the HWM and extending 100m inland in developed urban areas zoned as residential, commercial, or public open space, or 1 000m inland in areas that remain undeveloped or that are commonly referred to as rural areas. It also includes certain sensitive or at-risk land such as estuaries, littoral active zones and protected areas. These default boundaries may only be changed through a formal process of adjustment by the relevant Provincial MEC or National Minister. The ICM Act is also specific in that Section 62(1) instructs all organs of state that are responsible for implementing national, provincial or municipal legislation that regulates the planning or development of land to, “…in a manner that conforms to the principles of cooperative governance contained in Chapter 3 of the Constitution, apply that legislation in relation to land in the coastal protection zone in a way that gives effect to the purposes for which the protection zone is established as set out in section 17”.

Coastal management lines for Eden District 17

The investigations and risk projections of this project allows for a concurrent recommendation on refinement of the CPZ in the Eden District. Consequently, it is recommended that the CPZ generally follows the CML, except where the following elements are present landward of the CML:

• the long term (100yr) risk projection • littoral active zones • properties that should form part of the Coastal Public Property, such as alienated Admiralty Reserve • harbour areas if they remain enclosed by sensitive natural areas • other ecologically sensitive areas directly linked to the shoreline • areas or features of social, economic and heritage value linked to the coast • the designated coastal risk zone (i.e. 10m amsl/1:100yr floodline) in estuaries

For the purposes of this project, a minimum width of 100m is retained as a conservative buffer in urban areas and 1 000m in rural areas in addition to the above considerations. Where a functional natural environment exists, for example a declared nature reserve (formal protected area), the inland boundary of the natural environment is recognised as forming part of the CPZ.

3.3 SUMMARY OF THE DELINEATION CRITERIA FOR THE CML AND CPZ

Figure 7 below provides a summary of the criteria used to inform a consistent delineation of both the CML and CPZ for the Eden District in the form of a decision tree. The decision tree differentiates between rural (undeveloped) and urban (developed) areas, and specifies specific criteria for estuaries.

Coastal management lines for Eden District 18

Figure 7: Decision tree for the delineation of the CML and CPZ

Coastal management lines for Eden District 19

4 IMPLEMENTATION OF COASTAL DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT LINES AND ZONES IN EDEN DISTRICT

4.1 Integrated coastal development management scheme

An integrated development management scheme is envisaged for the sensitive and at-risk zones along the Eden District coastline. This management scheme aims to align existing regulatory structures, namely the existing municipal land use schemes, the EIA regulatory system and protected area management plans, through means of the application of the newly delineated management lines, rather than the creation of additional regulatory mechanisms.

The delineation of the coastal risk zone, CML, DSL and CPZ allows for a consistent demarcation of management zones along the coast, and subsequently also the application of appropriate development regulation in each zone. The different zones to be considered for development management, and the relevant risks or issues to be managed are listed in Table 2.

Table 2: Coastal management zones

Zone Description Development controls to apply CPZ • Area seaward of the CPZ • No additional controls CML • Area seaward of the CML • Prevent new development and around development expansion areas below the CML islands • General development parameters to avoid insensitive new development and positively inform execution of existing rights DSL • Area seaward of the DSL • As per EIA listing notices and around development islands Risk zones • Medium term (50 year) Specific development parameters to erosion risk zone (built-up avoid insensitive new development areas) and positively inform execution of • Long term (100 year) existing rights with specific reference erosion risk zone (rural to: areas) • Encroachment • Area within 1:100yr • Erosion risk floodline or below the • Mobile sand 10m amsl contour around • Flooding estuaries • Storm damage • Littoral active zones • Public access • Vegetation control • Public amenities and infrastructure

Coastal management lines for Eden District 20

These management zones are shown as a conceptual scheme in Figure 8.

Figure 8: Simplified representation of the Eden District coastal development management scheme

4.2 Implementation mechanisms

4.2.1 Municipal zoning schemes Section 25(3) of the ICM Act requires that once a CML is adopted by the MEC it must be delineated in the municipal land use scheme. This points to the need for town planning and development control to be managed predominantly at a local authority level, with Provincial support and oversight, as required by the Constitution. As such, it is considered appropriate and effective to integrate the coastal management line and the coastal overlay zones into existing planning tools with which municipalities can identify with and which they can easily administer.

It is consequently proposed that as a first implementation step, Municipalities be required to include both the CML and the EIA DSL in their respective SDFs. This will increase awareness of the lines and the coastal sensitivities that they describe. Additionally, all risk zones should be identified in the SDF plans as areas that are to be developed with caution. Mitigation measures associated with the development of land occurring within the risk zones can then be proposed through development parameters potentially imposed as part of suitably adjusted building standards, zonation or planning by-laws, or coastal overlay zones. Suggested development parameters are explored further in section 4.3 below.

4.2.2 EIA regulations In addition to the municipal zoning scheme, the existing EIA regulatory framework will apply where activities are proposed in sensitive areas, or in a manner that might lead to significant detrimental impacts on the environment. As such any proposed development that triggers a listed activity in terms of the EIA Regulations would be subject to an environmental authorisation. The refined DSL is intended to ensure that the EIA regulations are applied only where appropriate.

Coastal management lines for Eden District 21

4.2.3 National protected areas In the case of protected areas administered by the National Parks Board (SANParks), jurisdiction rests with the national Department of Environmental Affairs and SANParks as implementing authorities. This is especially common in Bitou, Knysna and George municipalities, where the Garden Route National Park and two Protected Environments are located (Wilderness and Knysna6 Areas). The provincial coastal mandate extends to the demarcation of the CPZ in these areas, but otherwise requires the national protected area management authorities to delineate, detail and implement any CMLs, zones and development parameters. Intergovernmental cooperation in this project allows the provincial authority to provide provisional delineations of the management lines to its national counterparts for further consideration.

4.3 Coastal development management parameters

4.3.1 Types of development that require management in the coastal zone The information and guidance provided by the risk modelling and management line delineation exercise to decision-makers offers an opportunity to define development controls or guidelines for appropriate development within risk-prone areas along the coast. These controls need to be defined in respect of likely development types, risk levels, liabilities, value of the development and need for the development to be closely associated with the shoreline. Typical activities that justify some level of coastal-specific development oversight or active control, as well as activities that should not be hampered by further regulation are listed below.

Table 3: Activities that require regulation and activities that may be exempted from regulation

Exempted from active regulation should Activities in the coastal zone that warrant be activities aimed at: scrutiny and potentially regulation include:

1. Clearing of invasive alien plant 1. A change in land use; infestations; 2. Subdivision or consolidation; 2. Routine building maintenance and 3. The removal of title deed restrictions; repairs; 4. Rezoning of open space; 3. Rehabilitation and/ or maintenance of 5. Structural works requiring building plan natural coastal ecosystems as part of a approval in terms of the National rehabilitation or maintenance plan Building Act; approved by the relevant authority; 6. New structures, or work to an existing 4. Removal of windblown sand from structure, designed with the intent to paved roads and parking areas, beach act as a defence mechanism against access ramps, pools, patios, walkways, wave action, erosion, wind-blown sand

6 https://www.environment.gov.za/sites/default/files/legislations/nempaa_regulationforprop eradministration_g32797rg9204gon1175.pdf

Coastal management lines for Eden District 22

Exempted from active regulation should Activities in the coastal zone that warrant be activities aimed at: scrutiny and potentially regulation include:

or decks not involving a change in the or any other coastal process affecting general grade and provided that any property within or abutting the coastal beach quality sand is returned to the zone; beach and dune system; 7. Building or construction activities that 5. Reconstruction where fire, storm, or may lead to the discharge of similar disaster caused substantial concentrated run-off into, across or damage of buildings, and where the through primary dunes or beach areas; reconstruction does not increase floor 8. Any work, including rebuilding, area or the intensity of the use; resurfacing or repairing, on cadastral 6. Rectification of non-compliance with boundary demarcation structures the provisions of a coastal facing seaward within or abutting the development management scheme; coastal public space that changes the and scale, texture or colour of existing walls 7. Maintenance and repair of public or structures; access facilities, namely parking areas, 9. Activities that would detract from the public walkways and piers, provided coastal landscape character, cultural such maintenance or repair does not landscape, sense of place or involve dredge or fill. environmental scenic qualities; 8. Maintenance and repair of stormwater 10. Removal of indigenous vegetation or management infrastructure, provided site clearing; such maintenance or repair does not 11. Significant below-ground excavation, involve dredge or fill. or 12. Any change to a watercourse.

4.3.2 Suggested coastal development parameters for application at municipal level Specific development management parameters are the most basic form of regulation and can be imposed relative to the different projections of coastal risk to reduce risks to public and private property or human life. Accordingly, such controls should satisfy one or more of the following objectives:

• reduce public liability • reduce risk to human life • prevent intensification of development in the risk zone, but allow exercising of existing rights • maintain coastal environmental quality and amenity • prevent encroachment that will impact on the integrity of the shoreline ecology • inform planned retreat • prevent densification of rural areas

Coastal management lines for Eden District 23

Effectively three management zones are identified in this project, i.e. the area below the DSL, the area below the CML and the area considered to be at risk from dynamic coastal processes. The EIA regulations will regulate the area below the DSL, but further guidelines for development need to be applied within the CML and Risk Zone. Accordingly, a set of general development parameters for application in the CML zone is proposed in Table 4, with more specific development parameters applicable to the Risk Zone in Table 5.

Note that further refinement is possible, and indeed necessary, within each local authority in order to align with local development management schemes and concerns. Necessarily, this would follow preparatory work that integrates the CML, DSL and CPZ into the local SDF, and formal adoption of the lines by the Province.

Table 4: Development parameters for application below the CML

General parameters applicable to areas below the CML

1. Development and activities may not result in removal or destruction of vegetation which could either destabilize a primary or significant dune, or cause an adverse effect on the beach and dune system due to increased erosion. 2. Development and activities may not result in structure-induced scour, or removal or disturbance of in situ sandy sediments of the beach and dune environment to such a degree that an adverse effect to the beach and dune system would result from either reducing the existing ability of the system to resist erosion during a storm or lowering existing levels of storm protection to adjacent properties and structures. 3. Development and activities may not affect natural processes in a manner that results in increased rates of erosion along the shoreline on either side of the development or activity. 4. Existing coastal processes, including dune migration and littoral drift, should, where possible, not be impeded and indigenous vegetation must be maintained. 5. Development and activities may not direct discharges of water or other effluent in a seaward direction in a manner that would result in adverse effects. The activity shall be designed so as to minimize erosion induced surface water runoff within the beach and dune system and to prevent additional seaward or off-site discharges. 6. Development and activities may not result in a change in groundwater movement that significantly alters subsoil conditions, soil (sand) stability or vegetation seaward of the structure. 7. Development and activities may not impede public access and/or accessibility to the coast, public amenity or public recreation. 8. As per Section 28 of the National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998), all landowners, any person in control of land or premises or any person who has a right to use land or premises are obliged under a ‘duty of care’ to take appropriate measures to minimise or prevent pollution or degradation of the coastal environment during the execution of lawful activities. 9. Decisions and actions related to the coastal zone must take a risk averse and cautious approach, which takes into account the limits of current knowledge about the

Coastal management lines for Eden District 24

consequences of decisions and actions, and which promotes the integrity of coastal ecological systems and functions.

Table 5: Development parameters for application in the Risk Zones

Specific development parameters for development in the coastal risk zone

1) New construction other than coastal defences: a) The developer shall furnish the permitting authority with a land surveyor’s certificate identifying where any predicted rise in sea level and anticipated coastal surge will affect the property; and in response, the permitting authority may require that: i) a particular street or common boundary building line shall be complied with; or that ii) the finished floor level of a building shall be raised. b) New structures must preferably be elevated on pilings, posts, piers-and-joists, column or similar foundations without breakaway walls, designed in a manner as to not impede the flow of flood waters or wave action, and reduce the potential accumulation of debris below the structure; c) Any enclosed spaces below a minimum finished floor level specified in terms of item 1)a)ii) shall not be used for human occupancy and shall be designed to equalize automatically hydrostatic forces on exterior walls by allowing for the entry and exit of floodwaters; d) During conceptual building design, consideration must be given to issues of privacy, overshadowing, reflectivity and visual impact, as well as the apportionment and positioning of higher risk site areas for parking, open space and recreational areas; e) Only fully enclosed / self-contained effluent storage and treatment systems will be permitted if links to sewer mains are not possible. These must be located outside of risk areas, or otherwise on the landward side of structures or either side of structures, in accordance with prescriptions of a suitably qualified person to ensure suitable sealing and safety; f) Municipal bulk infrastructure, and where possible reticulation networks, are to be located outside the overlay zone unless related to coastal public amenity (e.g. playground); g) Expendable structures such as boardwalks or viewing platforms shall be sited so that their failure does not have adverse impact on the beach and dune system, any adjoining major structures, or any coastal protection structure; h) No infilling and excavation may occur within the 1:100 year floodline area of a river/estuary or within the estuarine functional zone; i) New structures or the alteration of existing structures may not result in the casting of a shadow onto the beach at winter solstice (i.e. 21 June) between 10am and 3pm; j) Reflective glass / mirror glass may not be used in a manner that would cause glare to coastal space users;

Coastal management lines for Eden District 25

k) Structural designs, site layouts and any barriers must be shown to accommodate wind-blown sand movement, with the intended outcome being unimpeded sand movement and avoidance of increased turbulence; and 2) On request by the applicant, the permitting authority shall make available any relevant information it has in order to enable compliance with sub-item 1); 3) Vegetated corridors between buildings should not be encroached into by permitting relaxation of setbacks in the sidespaces; 4) In respect of boundary demarcation: a) Public-owned land shall not be fenced, enclosed or utilised for any other use than that provided for in terms of its current zoning; b) Boundary walls, fencing etc. may not be erected below the high-water mark, except where the structures are specifically permitted as coastal defence structures; c) Fencing or other barriers on the seaward side of properties exposed to occasional wave action must be designed to limit structural damage to the fence or barrier and associated negative impacts on the environment; and d) Boundary walls adjoining public access routes may not exceed 1.8m in height in order to promote the safety of pedestrian routes through public surveillance; 5) Dune rehabilitation may not prevent public access to public property unless sanctioned by the authority, in which case alternative access must be provided; 6) Access points / paths to the beach must be consolidated and consist of raised wooden / recyclable plastic boardwalks without concrete foundations to reduce adverse effects on dunes and associated vegetation; 7) Gardening and landscaping may not result in removal or destruction of vegetation which will either destabilize a primary or significant dune, or cause a significant adverse effect on the beach and dune system due to increased erosion by natural coastal processes or human movement, or detrimentally affect the ecology or habitat; 8) In respect of planning and suitable appearance of coastal defences: a) Coastal defences shall be sited as far landward as practicable and designed to minimize adverse effects on the beach and dune system, fauna, flora, geology and existing structures within its proximity, and shall not interfere with public beach access or enjoyment; b) The structural design of coastal defence structures must: i) Integrate the defence of all properties within an area experiencing beach regression; ii) Be designed and certified by a professionally registered structural engineer; iii) Remain stable under the hydrodynamic and hydrostatic conditions for which they are proposed; iv) Provide a level of protection compatible with existing topography; and v) Be safe for animals and humans interacting with the structure; c) Materials used in physical barriers must i) Be applied consistently and uniformly across multiple properties within an area experiencing beach regression;

Coastal management lines for Eden District 26

ii) Have, where visible, a texture and/or colouring that matches the general aesthetic of the adjacent beach or coastal zone; iii) Not be of a form or nature that can be broken up, shredded or displaced by coastal processes; and iv) Not be injurious to humans or animals (i.e. no spikes, barbed wire, razor-wire or the like to be affixed to physical barriers, and no electrification below 1.8m above ground level); 9) Approval may be granted for temporary emergency defences on condition that the defences remain in place no longer than 90 days.

In respect of an application for approval of an activity, the permitting authorities may require information from an applicant it deems necessary, which may, inter alia, include:

1. A site development plan 2. A landscape plan 3. A tree or vegetation survey 4. A site survey by a registered land surveyor indicating existing ground levels of the property and adjacent properties, contours, rocky features, dunes, trees, structures, etc. 5. A clear and comprehensive method statement 6. A statement of anticipated impact significance 7. Coastal modelling assessments and reports 8. Specialist studies, evaluations, audits or research by independent, suitably qualified and/or professionally person(s) 9. Details of measures aimed at mitigation of anticipated adverse effects 10. Comment from interested and affected parties 11. Environmental, botanical or other audit or research information 12. Photographs

Coastal management lines for Eden District 27

5 WAY FORWARD

5.1 Promulgation and implementation

The ICM Act requires Municipalities to give effect to the CML in their local spatial planning and mapping, with the Western Cape Government providing support and guidance, and formal demarcation of the management lines.

Prior to further implementation, the WCG will need to formally adopt the CML and CPZ in accordance with the prescriptions of the ICM Act. In terms of Section 25(1) of the ICM Act, the MEC can declare coastal management line(s) after consultation with Municipalities and interested and affected parties, through publishing it as a notice in the Government Gazette. This is done so that public may constructively contribute during public participation processes to the delineation and determination of the CML, DSL and CPZ. Once determined, the lines and risk zones must be delineated on the map or maps that form part of the municipal land use scheme. This is done so that the public may determine the position of the CML and risk zones in relation to existing cadastral boundaries.

Alignment between the stakeholder engagement processes respectively required for the CML/DSL adoption and municipal land use scheme amendments is, however, likely to be facilitated best if the consultation with affected stakeholders can precede final adoption by the MEC. This would avoid the municipal consultation processes becoming nothing more than a rubber-stamp of the provincial process. It is also important that the lines be reflected within the SDF, to create the necessary spatial planning context.

The process for adoption and future adjustment of the CPZ is, however, not a simple process and the Act requires authorities to consider the concerns and representations of interested and affected parties as well as the interests of any local community affected by the boundary or amendment to a boundary. The applicable authority needs to consider any coastal specific planning (applicable coastal management programme) prior to amending boundaries and such amendments then need to be reflected on municipal land use management and zoning schemes. Thereafter the relevant Registrar of Deeds needs to be notified in writing and provided with a description of the land involved. The notification must be accompanied by a diagram signed by a surveyor who is approved in terms of the Land Survey Act. The relevant Registrar of Deeds is then required to make note of such determination, adjustment or demarcation.

Authorities can also consider the option of incorporating some of the areas identified as high-risk areas into protected areas. Formal proclamation as protected areas under the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act (Act 57 of 2003), would increase awareness of the eminent risks, and make it harder to place new infrastructure in harm’s way.

A complete review of the overall approach, risk projections and implementation of the coastal management lines should follow an implementation period of no less than five years. All complications that arise during the implementation process, and any legislative changes can then be incorporated in the revision. Timing of the revision should take into

Coastal management lines for Eden District 28

account parallel processes such as national law reform (specifically related to the ICM Act, NEMA, Protected Areas Act and land use management), Provincial planning processes such as the PSDF review and regularisation of public coastal access, as well as planning and regulatory adjustments at local authority level. Note that this review does not obviate the need for more refined site-specific investigations where individual developments are to be informed by coastal risk and sensitivities.

5.2 Further studies and refinements The scale at which this project was undertaken means that some data gaps or uncertainties remain unresolved. Although measures are put in place to minimise the effect that such uncertainties have on the overall project, a need remains for further refinement as well as ground truthing over time.

Improved accuracy is also possible should higher resolution studies be done for specific locations. The resolution of this study does take coastal form and topography into consideration, but cannot compensate for local dynamics such as stormwater runoff from the shore, human intervention in sediment transport, or geological resistance to erosion. It is therefore conceivable that studies on particular properties could point out detail like submerged or sand-covered rock layers that are not evident from aerial photography but which would substantially alter the rates of erosion. Similarly, in some locations, concentration of human activity could lead to destabilisation of dune vegetation, accelerating the rate of erosion, or interventions aimed at dune stabilisation could slow down and even reverse erosion.

Some specific areas or situations that warrant more in-depth investigation and resolution on a local scale are:

• Areas where issues related to wind-blown sand bear witness to the remobilisation of littoral active zones, or interference with natural balances. These areas need to be investigated in order to fully understand the dynamics driving the destabilisation. The findings can then inform an amendment to the risk projections and resultant risk zones to better reflect both current and projected future risks. The recommendation captured in this project, as with those undertaken in the West Coast and Overberg Districts, is to consider the full extent of the affected littoral active zone as part of the risk zone, negating the need to project the risk emanating from the mobilised sand into the future. • Although fine scale vegetation maps and biodiversity planning was used to inform the delineation of the CML, local scale investigations should inform further refinement of the CML (and CPZ) to determine an appropriate consideration of coastal ecological sensitivities. • Although it is found that there is general agreement between the 5m amsl contour height and estuarine functional zone around estuaries, a more refined approach should ideally be followed. Where at all possible, estuary management plans, delineation of floodlines and accurate demarcation of the estuarine functional zone should be used as informants for the delineation of the CML and demarcation of the CPZ.

Coastal management lines for Eden District 29

• Issues related to coastal access land and protecting public access to the coast need to be addressed simultaneously with the development-focussed CML/CPZ demarcation. For this reason, conservative approaches to establishing development limits should be applied, to maintain a high quality coastal strip that can accommodate public access should this be desirable and required in future.

5.3 Unintended consequences Although the introduction of risk-aware development management parameters through Land Use Management Schemes (or similar) is a generally acceptable form of ‘passive retreat’ in the face of increasing coastal risks, the general scale of implementation will result in unintended consequences. One of these consequences will be an increase in the costs of development due to the requirements for specialised investigations, designs and construction methods. This will make development for and by impoverished communities increasingly unaffordable. Special arrangements or pre-emptive solutions need to be found to accommodate the need for, for example, in-situ upgrades of informal settlements or the provision of social services facilities in disadvantaged communities. This could potentially be in the form of authority-determined design standards that would make individual investigations unnecessary and prevent the siting of low-income development in compromised areas.

Coastal management lines for Eden District 30

6 CONCLUSION

Application and implementation of the CML, in conjunction with the DSL and risk-based overlay zones, is envisaged as part of an overall coastal management scheme that will satisfy the principles of the ICM Act. It also forms part of the WCG’s programme of adaptation and mitigation to climate change impacts.

In order for the proposed CML, DSL and risk-based overlay zones to function effectively as part of the overall integrated coastal management in the Eden District, an alignment of resources and intent needs to be achieved. Responsibility is shared between protected area management authorities, the Provincial Government and Local Authorities, with the municipalities playing a pivotal role as the ultimate implementers and enforcers of the proposed spatial and developmental controls. However, as the authority ultimately responsible for the coordination of coastal management in the Western Cape, the WCG shares the responsibility albeit in the form of oversight and in a strategic coordination and advisory capacity.

All planning and decision-making related to coastal management lines, development set- back lines and risk zonations must ultimately recognise the need to limit and fairly allocate the liabilities related to development in the coastal zone. Municipalities are responsible for decision-making and they need to take into account the best information that is currently available. However, risk is a shared responsibility and the private sector (including landowners) along with the Municipality and other government departments need to ensure that available information translates into sustainable development and, very importantly, protection of public coastal access. Consequently, in order to reduce conflicts over responsibilities and appropriation of blame, it is of utmost importance that the information and knowledge generated by this and similar studies be applied with the necessary level of consistency and alignment.

Coastal management lines for Eden District 31

7 REFERENCES

CapeNature (2017). 2017 Western Cape Biodiversity Spatial Plan. Data Layers. [online] http://bgis.sanbi.org/Projects/Detail/194.

DEADP (2010). Development of a Methodology for Defining and Adopting Coastal Development Setback Lines, Volume 1: Main Report, 31 May 2010. Western Cape Government Environmental Affairs and Development Planning.

Mather, A. A., Stretch, D. D., & Garland, G. (2010). A simple empirical model for extreme wave run-up on natural beaches. International conference on Coastal Engineering, Shanghai. China.

WCG (2010). Sea Level Rise and Flood Risk Assessment for a Select Disaster Prone Area Along the Western Cape Coast: Phase 2 Report: Eden District Municipality Sea Level Rise and Flood Risk Modelling. Final May 2010. Western Cape Government Environmental Affairs and Development Planning.

WCG (2012). The Establishment of Coastal Set-back Lines for the Overberg District, March 2012. Western Cape Government Environmental Affairs and Development Planning.

WCG (2014). Coastal Management / Set-back Lines for the West Coast District, Final Project Report, July 2014. Western Cape Government Environmental Affairs and Development Planning.

WCG (2015). Coastal Management (Set-back) Lines for the Overberg District, 31 March 2015. Western Cape Government Environmental Affairs and Development Planning.

Coastal management lines for Eden District 32

APPENDIX A: COASTAL PROCESSES AND RISK MODELLING

Contained in a separate report available from the Sub-Directorate: Coastal Management, Directorate: Biodiversity and Coastal Management of the Western Cape Government Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning.

DEA&DP (2017). Coastal Management Lines for Eden District: Coastal Processes and Risk Modelling (January 2018). Western Cape Government Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning. Cape Town.

Coastal management lines for Eden District 33

APPENDIX B: METHODOLOGY FOR DETERMINATION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT LINES IN THE WESTERN CAPE – WEST COAST PILOT, CITY OF CAPE TOWN, AS WELL AS OVERBERG AND WEST COAST DISTRICTS 2010 Provincial methodology for the delineation of coastal set-back lines

The 2010 Western Cape Coastal Development Set-back Lines Methodology project differentiated between a coastal ‘erosion’ set-back and a development set-back, and described a methodology for the determination of a coastal processes/hazard line and a management line that combined the erosion and development set-backs. In terms of the WCG’s initial Coastal Development Set-back Lines Methodology two coastal set-back lines were therefore envisaged:

• A physical process / hazard line was proposed to define the limit of the coastal area seaward of which any development is likely to experience unacceptable risk of erosion, flooding by wave action and/or unacceptable maintenance of wind-blown sand accumulations • A management (limited/controlled development) ‘set-back’ line. This line proposed to define areas where some limited and/or controlled development could occur that accommodates requirements of biodiversity, heritage and other aspects not related directly to coastal processes. This line was situated on or landward of the hazard/coastal processes line

Conceptually, this designated a hazard zone adjacent to the water’s edge as a ‘no development zone’, a managed development area immediately outside the risk zone, and lastly, a zone of minimum regulation beyond that (Figure 9):

Figure 9: Conceptual structure of coastal set-back lines

Coastal management lines for Eden District 34

Overberg District (as a pilot study)

The reality of existing legal coastal development in the Overberg District meant that coastal set-back lines had to make provision for existing developments and development planning that already extended into the hazard zone. Decisions regarding development in this zone are particularly difficult as they affect existing or assumed property rights as well as development precedents, and are relative to planning horizons. For example, a partly developed residential area within the hazard zone is unlikely to be removed or relocated, and approval for infill development is unlikely to be refused.

By implication, the conceptualization of a development-free hazard zone, determined on the basis of a coastal erosion and coastal inundation threat, needed to be refined to accommodate existing development. A management response was required that differentiated between a modelled long-term erosion hazard and a pragmatic development control. The solution recommended by the Overberg Coastal Set-backs project involved delineating realistic coastal set-back line(s) in addition to the modelled maximum risk line. The management lines would then translate long term (e.g. 100 year) natural processes modelling into guidance that relates to planning horizons (e.g. 50 year structural life expectancy).

The project culminated in the designation of three conceptual lines or zones:

• A broad Coastal Protection Zone extending to the landward boundary of sensitive coastal features in addition to the maximum modelled coastal risk zone, within which limited management control was required • A Physical Processes Zone which demarcated the output of the rigorous scientific modelling process used to project future coastal risk • A Draft Overberg Coastal Set-back Line which designated a narrow band of high risk area along the shoreline within which strict management controls are to be applied

As compared to the theoretical concept described in the Provincial Methodology (Figure 9), the revised concept can be schematically represented as is shown in Figure 10.

Figure 10: Overberg District Coastal Set-Back Lines concept

Coastal management lines for Eden District 35

Key recommendations emanating from the Overberg District pilot project

Realistic development controls

In practice, it was found that the application of coastal set-back lines, as conceptualised by the original WCG’s Coastal Set-back Lines Methodology, was not fully compatible with the diversity and dynamics of long sections of coastline or with the current level of development encroachment into the conceived ‘hazard zone’. In particular, it was found that in assuming that the ‘no development’ zone should equate to land seaward of the modelled coastal erosion set-back line, the provincial Set-back Lines Methodology failed to fully accommodate the reality that development and developed areas had already encroached beyond the physical processes / erosion line.

The most practical solution recommended placing more emphasis on the use of local knowledge and planning considerations to determine development restrictions rather than a rigid line based solely on mathematical modelling.

Link proposed activities to realistic planning horizons

An additional recommendation related to considering the nature of proposed development activities in relation to the planning horizon applied in decision making. For this purpose, modelling was recommended to be undertaken for three proposed sea level rise scenarios, namely – low (20 years or 200mm), medium (50 years or 500mm) and high (100 years or 1000mm). Decisions regarding land use and development could then be based on either the proposed value of the proposed development or activity, or the nature of the proposed activity

Use of physical processes modelling

For the reasons outlined above, it was recommended that the scientifically modelled physical processes lines should not become the legally promulgated Coastal management/set-back Line. Physical processes modelling must simply inform regulatory zones as well as future decision making in the Coastal Zone in current and future development areas.

The nature of regulatory controls

The use of coastal set-back line regulations, as provided for in the 2008 ICM Act, was contemplated for the Overberg District. As such, a set of regulations was drafted that defined compatible and incompatible developments and activities in the different set- back areas. The regulations were intended for official promulgation through gazetting by the Provincial Minister responsible for environmental matters.

However, it was found that the nature of such strict regulatory control was less than palatable to the general public and especially to property owners and developers along the coast. Regulations are absolute – in terms of not offering space for negotiation, mitigation and discretion – and are consequently viewed as a top-down form of

Coastal management lines for Eden District 36

governance. The regulations would also create multiple layers of authority control, which could lead to conflicting decision-making and overlapping mandates. Formal regulations from a Provincial level of governance were therefore abandoned for the time being in favour of more practical and locally customisable form of development control.

City of Cape Town

Independently, the City of Cape Town undertook a process to determine two management lines, namely the CPZ (as per the definition from the ICM Act) and a set-back line seaward of existing development or properties with existing development rights. The two coastal zones determined by these lines (i.e. between the high-water mark (HWM) and Coastal Edge Line, and between the Coastal Edge Line and the CPZ) are proposed to be managed in a manner appropriate to the level of existing or desired development through means of zoning schemes. The locations of the two management lines are informed by the profiling of different points along the coastline which considered risk from storm damage, possible inundation under storm surge scenarios, biophysical processes and public access issues.

General zoning schemes are proposed to be used as a base management system of land- use decisions to control commercial, residential, industrial, and agricultural construction, with coast-specific ‘overlay zones’ that are superimposed on the baseline plan to increase or decrease the level of regulation. Each coastal management overlay zone is assigned specific regulatory requirements based on land use that include resilient building designs, set-backs and ecological buffers.

The West Coast District & Revisited Overberg District

Three risk horizons modelled

On the basis of lessons learnt, the WCG undertook a project to delineate coastal set-back lines for the West Coast District Municipality and subsequently also accordingly revise the Overberg management lines. Project components included, in contrast to the original Overberg project, the modelling of three risk horizons in addition to the HWM, a coastal set- back or management line and a refined delineation of the CPZ. A more holistic and comprehensive engagement process was also undertaken which improved the participation from public stakeholders whilst at the same time avoiding conflict over the placing of the demarcated lines.

Methodology amended and overlay zones applied

The WCG coastal set-back line methodology was adjusted in late 2013 as a result of contextual changes related to the alignment of Provincial, Local and National planning processes. National agreement on coastal set-back line delineation, as discussed at the National Coastal Committee coordinated by the national Department of Environmental Affairs, required the demarcation of risk zones as opposed to mere lines. In addition, proposed management controls / development parameters for the risk zones or overlay zones were required to align with established Town Planning mechanisms.

Coastal management lines for Eden District 37

Confirmation of the use of contour heights as risk proxy in estuaries

A further amendment made was in respect to the delineation of coastal set-back lines in estuaries. In order to verify whether the use of a 5m and 10m contour height around estuaries was an accurate enough proxy indicator of coastal risk in estuarine zones, it was necessary to compare the risk projections to actual floodlines. In the instance of the West Coast District, floodline information was procured for the Berg River Estuary, and the results were found to compare favourably with the 5m and 10m contour heights.

Coastal management lines for Eden District 38

APPENDIX C: EIA LISTED ACTIVITIES RELATED TO DEVELOPMENT SET-BACKS

Activity Activity description no. Listing Notice 1 (GNR 983 (2014), amended by GNR 327 (2017))

12 The development of – (ii) infrastructure or structures with a physical footprint of 100 m2 or more; where such development occurs – (b) in front of a development setback; … excluding – (aa) the development of infrastructure or structures within existing ports or harbours that will not increase the development footprint of the port or harbour; (bb) where such development activities are related to the development of a port or harbour, in which case activity 26 in Listing Notice 2 of 2014 applies; (cc) activities listed in activity 14 in Listing Notice 2 of 2014 or activity 14 in Listing Notice 3 of 2014, in which case that activity applies; (dd) where such development occurs within an urban area; (ee) where such development occurs within existing roads, road reserves or railway line reserves; or (ff) the development of temporary infrastructure or structures where such infrastructure or structures will be removed within 6 weeks of the commencement of development and where indigenous vegetation will not be cleared. 17 Development – (i) in the sea; (ii) in an estuary; (iii) within the littoral active zone; (iv) in front of a development setback; or (v) if no development setback exists, within a distance of 100 m inland of the high- water mark of the sea or an estuary, whichever is the greater; in respect of – (a) fixed or floating jetties and slipways; (b) tidal pools; (c) embankments; (d) rock revetments or stabilising structures including stabilising walls; or (e) infrastructure or structures with a development footprint of 50 m2 or more – but excluding – (aa) the development of infrastructure and structures within existing ports or harbours that will not increase the development footprint of the port or harbour; (bb) where such development is related to the development of a port or harbour, in which case activity 26 in Listing Notice 2 of 2014 applies; (cc) the development of temporary infrastructure or structures where such structures will be removed within 6 weeks of the commencement of development and where coral or indigenous vegetation will not be cleared; or (dd) where such development occurs within an urban area.

Coastal management lines for Eden District 39

Activity Activity description no. 18 The planting of vegetation or placing of any material on dunes or exposed sand surfaces of more than 10m2, within the littoral active zone, for the purpose of preventing the free movement of sand, erosion or accretion, excluding where — (i) the planting of vegetation or placement of material relates to restoration and maintenance of indigenous coastal vegetation undertaken in accordance with a maintenance management plan; or (ii) such planting of vegetation or placing of material will occur behind a development setback. 19A The infilling or depositing of any material of more than 5 m3 into, or the dredging, excavation, removal or moving of soil, sand, shells, shell grit, pebbles or rock of more than 5 m3 from – (i) the seashore; (ii) the littoral active zone, an estuary or a distance of 100 m inland of the high-water mark of the sea or an estuary, whichever distance is the greater; or (iii) the sea – but excluding where such infilling, depositing, dredging, excavation, removal or moving – (f) will occur behind a development setback; (g) is for maintenance purposes undertaken in accordance with a maintenance management plan; (h) falls within the ambit of activity 21 in this Notice, in which case that activity applies; (i) occurs within existing ports or harbours that will not increase the development footprint of the port or harbour; or (j) where such development is related to the development of a port or harbour, in which case activity 26 in Listing Notice 2 of 2014 applies. 48 The expansion of – (i) infrastructure or structures where the physical footprint is expanded by 100 m2 or more; or (ii) dams or weirs, where the dam or weir, including infrastructure and water surface area, is expanded by 100 m2 or more; where such expansion occurs – (a) within a watercourse; (b) in front of a development setback; or (c) if no development setback exists, within 32 m of a watercourse, measured from the edge of a watercourse; Excluding – (aa) the expansion of infrastructure or structures within existing ports or harbours that will not increase the development footprint of the port or harbour; (bb) where such expansion activities are related to the development of a port or harbour, in which case activity 26 in Listing Notice 2 of 2014 applies; (cc) activities listed in activity 14 in Listing Notice 2 of 2014 or activity 14 in Listing Notice 3 of 2014, in which case that activity applies; (dd) where such expansion occurs within an urban area; or (ee) where such expansion occurs within existing roads or road reserves or railway line reserves. 54 The expansion of facilities – (i) in the sea; (ii) in an estuary; (iii) within the littoral active zone;

Coastal management lines for Eden District 40

Activity Activity description no. (iv) in front of a development setback; or (v) if no development setback exists, within a distance of 100 m inland of the high- water mark of the sea or an estuary, whichever is the greater; in respect of – (a) fixed or floating jetties and slipways; (b) tidal pools; (c) embankments; (d) rock revetments or stabilising structures including stabilising walls; or (e) infrastructure or structures where the development footprint is expanded by 50 m2 or more, but excluding – (aa) the expansion of infrastructure or structures within existing ports or harbours that will not increase the development footprint of the port or harbour; or (bb) where such expansion occurs within an urban area. 55 Expansion – (i) in the sea; (ii) in an estuary; (iii) within the littoral active zone; (iv) in front of a development setback; or (v) if no development setback exists, within a distance of 100 m inland of the high- water mark of the sea or an estuary, whichever is the greater; in respect of – (a) facilities associated with the arrival and departure of vessels and the handling of cargo; (b) piers; (c) inter- and sub-tidal structures for entrapment of sand; (d) breakwater structures; (e) coastal marinas; (f) coastal harbours or ports; (g) tunnels; or (h) underwater channels; but excluding the expansion of infrastructure or structures within existing ports or harbours that will not increase the development footprint of the port or harbour. 67 Phased activities for all activities – (Note: Only listing those listed in this activity that are discussed in this table) (i) listed in this Notice, which commenced on or after the effective date of this Notice or similarly listed in any of the previous NEMA notices, which commenced on or after the effective date of such previous NEMA Notices; excluding the following activities listed in this Notice– 17(i)(a-d), 17(ii)(a-d), 17(iii)(a- d), 17(iv)(a-d), 17(v)(a-d), 31, 54(i)(a-d), 54(ii)(a-d), 54(iii)(a-d), 54(iv)(a-d), 54(v)(a- d), 55, or (ii) listed as activities 5, 7, 8(ii), 11, 13, 16, 27(i) or 27(ii) in Listing Notice 2 of 2014 or similarly listed in any of the previous NEMA notices, which commenced on or after the effective date of such previous NEMA Notices; where any phase of the activity was below a threshold but where a combination of the phases, including expansions or extensions, will exceed a specified threshold.

Coastal management lines for Eden District 41

Activity Activity description no. Listing Notice 2 (GNR 984 (2014), amended by GNR 325 (2017))

26 Development – (i) in the sea; (ii) in an estuary; (iii) within the littoral active zone; (iv) in front of a development setback; or (v) if no development setback exists, within a distance of 100 m inland of the high- water mark of the sea or an estuary, whichever is the greater; in respect of — (a) facilities associated with the arrival and departure of vessels and the handling of cargo; (b) piers; (c) inter- and sub-tidal structures for entrapment of sand; (d) breakwater structures; (e) coastal marinas; (f) coastal harbours or ports; (g) tunnels; or (h) underwater channels; but excluding the development of structures within existing ports or harbours that will not increase the development footprint of the port or harbour. Listing Notice 3 (GNR 985 (2014), amended by GNR 324 (2017))

4 The development of a road i. Western Cape wider than 4 m with a reserve i. Areas zoned for use as public open space or less than 13.5 m equivalent zoning; ii. Areas outside urban areas; (aa) Areas containing indigenous vegetation; (bb) Areas on the estuary side of the development setback line or in an estuarine functional zone where no such setback line has been determined; or iii. Inside urban areas: (aa) Areas zoned for conservation use; or (bb) Areas designated for conservation use in Spatial Development Frameworks adopted by the competent authority. 10 The development and related i. Western Cape operation of facilities or i. Areas zoned for use as public open space or infrastructure for the storage, or equivalent zoning; storage and handling of a ii. All areas outside urban areas; or dangerous good, where such iii. Inside urban areas: storage occurs in containers (aa) Areas seawards of the development with a combined capacity of 30 setback line or within 200 m from the but not exceeding 80 m3 high-water mark of the sea if no such development setback line is determined; (bb) Areas on the watercourse side of the development setback line or within 100 m

Coastal management lines for Eden District 42

Activity Activity description no. from the edge of a watercourse where no such setback line has been determined; or (cc) Areas on the estuary side of the development setback line or in an estuarine functional zone where no such setback line has been determined. 11 The development of tracks or i. Western Cape routes for the testing, i. Areas on the estuary side of the development recreational use or outdoor setback line or in an estuarine functional zone racing of motor powered where no such setback line has been vehicles excluding conversion determined; of existing tracks or routes for the ii. Seawards of the development setback line or testing, recreational use or within 200 m of the high water mark of the sea outdoor racing of motor if no such development setback line is powered vehicles determined; or iii. Areas of indigenous vegetation outside urban areas. 12 The clearance of an area of i. Western Cape 300 m2 or more of indigenous i. Within any critically endangered or vegetation except where such endangered ecosystem listed in terms of clearance of indigenous section 52 of the NEMBA or prior to the vegetation is required for publication of such a list, within an area that maintenance purposes has been identified as critically endangered undertaken in accordance with in the National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment a maintenance management 2004; plan ii. Within critical biodiversity areas identified in bioregional plans; iii. Within the littoral active zone or 100 m inland from high water mark of the sea or an estuarine functional zone, whichever distance is the greater, excluding where such removal will occur behind the development setback line on erven in urban areas; iv. On land, where, at the time of the coming into effect of this Notice or thereafter such land was zoned open space, conservation or had an equivalent zoning; or v. On land designated for protection or conservation purposes in an Environmental Management Framework adopted in the prescribed manner, or a Spatial Development Framework adopted by the MEC or Minister. 13 The development and related i. Western Cape operation of facilities of any size i. Areas on the estuary side of the development for any form of aquaculture setback line or in an estuarine functional zone where no such setback line has been determined;

Coastal management lines for Eden District 43

Activity Activity description no. ii. In a Protected area identified in terms of NEMPAA; or iii. In an aquatic critical biodiversity area. 14 The development of — i. Western Cape (i) dams or weirs, where the i. Outside urban areas: dam or weir, including (aa) A protected area identified in terms of infrastructure and water NEMPAA, excluding conservancies; surface area exceeds 10 m2; (bb) National Protected Area Expansion or Strategy Focus areas; (ii) infrastructure or structures (cc) World Heritage Sites; with a physical footprint of (dd) Sensitive areas as identified in an 10 m2 or more; environmental management framework where such development as contemplated in chapter 5 of the Act occurs — and as adopted by the competent (a) within a watercourse; authority; (b) in front of a development (ee) Sites or areas listed in terms of an setback; or international convention; (c) if no development (ff) Critical biodiversity areas or ecosystem setback has been adopted, service areas as identified in systematic within 32 m of a watercourse, biodiversity plans adopted by the measured from the edge of competent authority or in bioregional a watercourse; plans; excluding the development of (gg) Core areas in biosphere reserves; or infrastructure or structures within (hh) Areas on the estuary side of the existing ports or harbours that will development setback line or in an not increase the development estuarine functional zone where no such footprint of the port or harbour setback line has been determined. 18 The widening of a road by more i. Western Cape than 4 m, or the lengthening of a i. Areas zoned for use as public open space or road by more than 1 km equivalent zoning; ii. All areas outside urban areas: (aa) Areas containing indigenous vegetation; (bb) Areas on the estuary side of the development setback line or in an estuarine functional zone where no such setback line has been determined; or iii. Inside urban areas: (aa) Areas zoned for conservation use; or (bb) Areas designated for conservation use in Spatial Development Frameworks adopted by the competent authority.

Coastal management lines for Eden District 44

Activity Activity description no. 21 The expansion of tracks or routes i. Western Cape for the testing, recreational use i. Areas on the estuary side of the development or outdoor racing of motor setback line or in an estuarine functional zone powered vehicles excluding where no such setback line has been conversion of existing tracks or determined; routes for the testing, ii. Seawards of the development setback line or recreational use or outdoor within 200 m from the high water mark of the racing of motor powered sea if no such development setback line is vehicles, where the determined; or development footprint will be iii. Areas of indigenous vegetation outside urban expanded areas. 22 The expansion and related i. Western Cape operation of facilities or i. Areas zoned for use as public open space, infrastructure for the storage, or conservation or an equivalent zoning; storage and handling of a ii. All areas outside urban areas; or dangerous good, where such iii. Areas inside urban areas: storage facilities or infrastructure (aa) Areas seawards of the development will be expanded by 30 m3 or setback line or within 200 m from the more but no more than 80 m3 high-water mark of the sea if no such development setback line is determined; (bb) Areas on the watercourse side of the development setback line or within 100 m from the edge of a watercourse where no such setback line has been determined; or (cc) Areas on the estuary side of the development setback line or in an estuarine functional zone where no such setback line has been determined. 23 The expansion of— i. Western Cape (i) dams or weirs where the dam i. Outside urban areas: or weir is expanded by 10 m2 (aa) A protected area identified in terms of or more; or NEMPAA, excluding conservancies; (ii) infrastructure or structures (bb) National Protected Area Expansion where the physical footprint Strategy Focus areas; is expanded by 10 m2 or (cc) World Heritage Sites; more; (dd) Sensitive areas as identified in an where such expansion occurs— environmental management framework (a) within a watercourse; as contemplated in chapter 5 of the Act (b) in front of a development and as adopted by the competent setback adopted in the authority; prescribed manner; or (ee) Sites or areas listed in terms of an (c) if no development international convention; setback has been adopted, (ff) Critical biodiversity areas or ecosystem within 32 m of a watercourse, service areas as identified in systematic measured from the edge of biodiversity plans adopted by the a watercourse; competent authority or in bioregional excluding the expansion of plans; infrastructure or structures within (gg) Core areas in biosphere reserves; or

Coastal management lines for Eden District 45

Activity Activity description no. existing ports or harbours that will (hh) Areas on the estuary side of the not increase the development development setback line or in an footprint of the port or harbour estuarine functional zone where no such setback line has been determined.

24 The expansion and related i. Western Cape operation of facilities of any size i. Areas on the estuary side of the development for any form of aquaculture setback line or in an estuarine functional zone where no such setback line has been determined; ii. In a Protected area identified in terms of NEMPAA; or iii. In an aquatic critical biodiversity area. 26 Phased activities for all activities All the areas as identified for the specific activities – listed in this Notice. i. listed in this Notice and as it applies to a specific geographical area, which commenced on or after the effective date of this Notice; or ii. similarly listed in any of the previous NEMA notices, and as it applies to a specific geographical area, which commenced on or after the effective date of such previous NEMA Notices – where any phase of the activity was below a threshold but where a combination of the phases, including expansions or extensions, will exceed a specified threshold; –

Coastal management lines for Eden District 46

Activity Activity description no. excluding the following activities listed in this Notice – 7; 8; 11; 13; 20; 21; & 24.

Coastal management lines for Eden District 47