Biodiversity Assessment of the Kannaland and Oudtshoorn Local Municipalities, And

Biodiversity Assessment of the Kannaland and Oudtshoorn Local Municipalities, and

Eden District Management Area (Uniondale)

Final Report

Date: 31st August 2010 Compiled By:

Andrew Skowno, Dr Stephen DEADP REPORT Number: LB07/2008a Holness & Dr Philip Desmet

Report Title: Biodiversity Assessment of the Kannaland and Oudtshoorn Local Municipalities, and Eden District Management Area (Uniondale)

Date: 31st August 2010

Authors & contact details: Andrew Skowno (corresponding author) ECOSOL GIS – 21 Neapolis, Pier Street, South End, Port Elizabeth 6001 Cell: 082 774 4613; Email: [email protected] Dr Stephen Holness Private Consultant , Port Elizabeth; Cell: 082 887 3735; Email: [email protected] Dr Phillip Desmet Private Consultant, Pretoria; Cell: 082 352 2955; Email: [email protected]

Client: Western Cape Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, Contact Mellisa Naiker (021) 483 2885

Principle funding agent: Western Cape Provincial Government

Citation: Skowno, A.L., Holness, S.D. and P.G. Desmet (2010) Biodiversity Assessment of the Kannaland and Oudtshoorn Local Municipalities, and Eden District Management Area (Uniondale). DEADP Report LB07/2008a, 65 pages.

Acknowledgements: Thanks to Mellisa Naiker and the rest of the project steering committee. In particular Donovan Kirkwood, Jeff Manual and Kerry Maree for providing technical and input and advice. Thanks to Jan Vlok, Anna Lise Vlok, and John Gallo for expert biodiversity, and planning input and helpful comments on draft manuscript.

Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 i

Figure 1. Context map of the Kannaland and Oudtshoorn Local Municipalities, and Eden District Management Area

Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 ii

Table of Contents List of Figures ...... iv List of Tables ...... v Objectives and Deliverables from the TOR ...... vi 1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY ...... 1 2 BIODIVERSITY INFORMATION ...... 3 2.1 BACKGROUND ...... 3 2.2 BIODIVERSITY FEATURES ...... 3 2.2.1 Habitat Types ...... 3 2.2.2 Nationally Listed Threatened Ecosystems ...... 5 2.2.3 Priorities identified in other conservation assessments within, or overlapping into, the planning domain...... 5 2.2.4 Existing data on species and biodiversity features ...... 6 2.2.5 Aquatic Features ...... 6 2.3 ECOLOGICAL PROCESS ...... 7 2.3.1 Connectivity ...... 8 2.3.2 Areas of potential importance in climate change adaptation ...... 8 2.3.3 Existing corridors from Gouritz Initiative ...... 8 2.4 ALIGNMENT WITH ADJACENT CONSERVATION PLANS ...... 9 2.5 LAND COVER ...... 10 2.6 TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM STATUS ...... 12 3 PROTECTED AREA NETWORK GAP ANALYSIS ...... 15 3.1 PROTECTION LEVEL AND URGENCY ...... 18 4 RETENTION AND RESTORATION OF BIODIVERSITY ...... 20 5 CRITICAL BIODIVERSITY AREAS ...... 23 5.1 WHAT ARE CBAS? ...... 23 5.2 CRITICAL BIODIVERSITY AREAS CATEGORIES ...... 24 5.3 PLANNING APPROACH...... 24 5.4 DESCRIPTION OF CBA‟S FOR THE KANNALAND MUNICIPALITY, OUDTSHOORN MUNICIPALITY AND EDEN DISTRICT MANAGEMENT AREA ...... 27 6 LAND-USE GUIDELINES ...... 30 6.1 DESIRED MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE ...... 30 6.2 RECOMMENDED BIODIVERSITY-COMPATIBLE LAND-USE GUIDELINES ...... 30 6.3 GUIDELINES FOR THE SOUND MANAGEMENT OF LAND AND WATER RESOURCES...... 32 6.4 LAND-USE ACTIVITY DEFINITIONS ...... 35 7 REFERENCES ...... 39 8 APPENDIX 1: GIS METHODS AND TECHNICAL NOTES ...... 41 8.1 PLANNING DOMAIN ...... 41 8.2 GENERAL ...... 41 8.3 TABLE SHOWING COLOURS USED IN THE CRITICAL BIODIVERSITY AREA MAP ...... 42 8.4 PROTECTED AREAS LAYER ...... 42 8.5 LAND COVER MODEL ...... 42 8.6 BIODIVERSITY FEATURES ...... 43 8.6.1 Habitat model ...... 43 8.6.2 Nationally listed threatened ecosystems ...... 44 8.6.3 Special plant species ...... 44 8.6.4 Forest patches ...... 44 8.6.5 Quartz patches ...... 44 8.6.6 Leslie Hill Succulent Karoo Expert areas ...... 45 8.6.7 John Gallo Expert areas ( including inputs from Jan Vlok) ...... 45

Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 iii

8.6.8 Priority areas from the STEP and SKEP Conservation Assessments...... 45 8.6.9 Succulent Karoo Priorities ...... 45 8.6.10 Garden Route Initiative Critical Biodiversity Areas and Ecological Support Areas ...... 46 8.6.11 East Cape Priorities ...... 46 8.7 AQUATIC FEATURES ...... 46 8.7.1 Priority Rivers and Catchments ...... 46 8.7.2 Additional rivers ...... 46 8.7.3 Wetlands and pans ...... 47 8.8 ECOSYSTEM STATUS ...... 47 8.9 PROTECTION LEVEL AND URGENCY ...... 47 8.10 CLIMATE CHANGE AND CORRIDORS ...... 47 8.10.1 High priority unfragmented landscapes...... 47 8.10.2 Riparian corridors ...... 47 8.10.3 Topographic variability...... 48 8.10.4 South-facing slopes ...... 48 8.10.5 Kloof model ...... 49 8.10.6 Existing corridors from the Gouritz Initiative...... 49 8.10.7 Alignment with adjacent conservation plans...... 49 8.11 NON-BIODIVERSITY ALIGNMENT LAYERS ...... 50 8.11.1 Important Natural Viewsheds ...... 50 8.12 COST LAYERS ...... 50 8.12.1 Landcover model ...... 50 8.13 RESTORATION / REHABILITATION MODEL ...... 50 8.14 TECHNICAL METHODS USED IN THE ASSESSMENT ...... 50 8.14.1 Planning Units ...... 50 8.14.2 Biodiversity Features and Targets ...... 50 8.14.3 Software methods...... 50 8.14.4 Planning Unit Cost ...... 50 8.14.5 Ecological Support Areas ...... 51 8.14.6 CBA Lookup Table ...... 51

9 APPENDIX 2: ECOSYSTEM STATUS FOR HABITAT UNITS IN THE PLANNING DOMAIN

List of Figures Figure 1. Context map of the Kannaland and Oudtshoorn Local Municipalities, and Eden District Management Area. Figure 2. Habitat units mapped by Vlok et al. (2005), showing the Little Karoo Region mapped and the municipal areas on which this assessment is focussed . 235 distinct habitat units were identified in the three Municipal areas covered by this report, out of a total of 369 mapped for the region. Figure 3. Biomes represented in the planning domain following Vlok et al. (2005) classification. Figure 4. Seven NEMBA listed threatened ecosystems found in the planning domain. Based on the South African National Vegetation Map (Mucina and Rutherford, 2006). Figure 5. Priorities areas identified by other conservation assessments. Figure 6. Biodiversity rich areas and threatened species distributions identified by other projects. Figure 7. Aquatic features used in the assessment included sensitive wetlands and pans, based on Cape Nature (Shaw 2007) and NFPA wetlands (Nel et al. in prep); priority sub-quaternary river catchments and river reaches , based on NFPA data, where FEPA are priority areas and FESA are support areas (Nel et al. in prep); additional order 2 and above rivers buffered by 100m. Figure 8. Features representing ecological processes, landscape connectivity and climate change adaptation. Figure 9. Biodiversity Corridors Developed for the Gouritz Region by Lombard et al. 2004 Figure 10. Critical Biodiversity Areas identified by other recent projects adjacent to the planning domain; including the Central Karoo District, Eastern Cape Provincial Plan, CAPE Fine Scale plans for Hessequa and Mossel Bay, and Garden Route Initiative. Figure 11. Land cover map of the Kannaland Municipality, Oudtshoorn Municipality, and Eden District Management Area. No natural (Transformed) class includes, cultivation, mining, rural and urban development, high density alien, plantations, roads and railways. Degradation class includes severely degraded areas mapped by Thompson et al. (2005).

Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 iv

Figure 12. Terrestrial ecosystem status (transformation and degradation combined). Due to the high levels of transformation and degradation 12 habitat types are Critically Endangered, 13 are Endangered and 19 are Vulnerable. A total of 235 habitat types are described in the planning are by Vlok et al. 2005. Figure 13. Protected areas in the Kannaland Municipality, Oudtshoorn Municipality and Eden District Management Area. A small portion of the Garden Route National Park is represented, ten Western Cape Provincial Reserves, one Eastern Cape Provincial Reserve and four Mountain Catchment Areas. Seven Cape Nature biodiversity stewardship sites and numerous private conservation areas. (provincial reserves, national parks, mountain catchment areas and contracted biodiversity stewardship sites were considered formal PAs in protection status calculations, private reserves are classed as informal CAs). Figure 14. Habitat Protection Levels in the planning domain. A habitat is considered partially protected if 25-100% of its target is met in protected areas; poorly protected if 5-25% of target met; very poorly protected < 5% target met. If More than 100% of target is met in PA it is considered protected (target met). If none of the habitat occurs in PA then it is considered completely unprotected (Table 4). Figure 15. Habitat Protection urgency in the planning domain. A habitat is considered critically urgent if insufficient habitat remains to achieve its PA target.; high urgency if > 50% of remaining habitat is required; moderate urgency if 25-50% of remaining habitat is required; low urgency if < 25% of remaining habitat is required to meet PA targets. (Table 4). Figure 16. Map extracted from Forsyth et al. (2008) to illustrate the available tools for responsible land management in the region; specifically the recommended stocking rates for Ostriches in the various habitats of the region . Figure 17. Map extracted from Forsyth et al. (2008) to illustrate the available tools for responsible land management in the region; specifically the spekboom thicket restoration potential of habitats in the region. Figure 18. Important tourism view sheds identified in the region by Reyers et al.( 2009). Figure 19. The outputs on the initial MARXAN runs were used to identify the highest priority network of Critical Biodiversity Areas. These include both irreplaceable sites (i.e. areas where there is no choice) as well as significant “best design” areas which are not the only options but represent an efficient and ecologically coherent network of optimal sites. Figure 20. Critical Biodiversity Areas in the Kannaland Municipality, Oudtshoorn Municipality and Eden District Management Area.

List of Tables Table 1. Summary of extent of Biomes in the Planning Domain, Note Vlok Et al. 2005 biome definitions followed not SA vegetation map definitions Table 2. The area covered by level one and level 2 land classes in the Kannaland and Oudtshoorn Local Municipalities, and Eden District Management Area. Table 3. The percentage coverage of level one land classes in the Kannaland and Oudtshoorn Local Municipalities, and Eden District Management Area. Table 4. Summary table of number of vegetation types found in each Ecosystem Status Class Table 5. Criteria used to identify threatened terrestrial ecosystems, with thresholds for critically endangered (CR), endangered (EN) and vulnerable (VU) ecosystems (SANBI 2008). Table 6. Summary table of protected areas in the Kannaland Municipality, Oudtshoorn Municipality and Eden District Management Area Table 7. Summary table of Habitat Protection Levels and Habitat Protection Urgency Table 8. Criteria used to define the CBA map categories (Figure 17) Table 9. Biodiversity criteria used to define Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBAs) in the Kannaland, Oudtshoorn Municipalities and DMA04. Table 10. Desired Management Objective per mapped category Table 11. Recommended biodiversity-compatible land use guidelines matrix Table 12. Land-use activity definitions adopted from the provincial Rural Land Use Planning and Management Guidelines (in preparation).

Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 v

Objectives and Deliverables from the TOR

Objective  The identification of biodiversity features and areas where conservation compatible land-use practices are required in order to meet nationally accepted targets for pattern and process.  To provide a realistic picture of patterns of transformation by assessing degradation.  To produce a conservation plan that is efficiently designed and will meet biodiversity targets in a spatial configuration that avoids conflict with non-conservation compatible land-use.

Project Deliverables linked to his Report  Map A: Biodiversity priority map(s) for Kannaland and Oudtshoorn Municipality and for Eden District Municipal Areas;  Land and resource use guidelines linked to the biodiversity features displayed in Map A;  Management recommendations for priority ecosystems identified in Map ;  Development of map A must conform closely to the methodology & work-plan developed in phase I of the project;  A detailed report documenting the methodology and techniques used;  The report is accompanied by an electronic archive of the spatial data used in this study. Key spatial information layers (protected areas, vegetation types and critical biodiversity areas) will be available on SANBI‟s BGIS web site (http://bgis.sanbi.org).

Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 vi

1 Introduction and Summary

The Kannaland Municipality, Oudtshoorn Municipality, and Eden District Management Area together make up the bulk of what is known as the Little Karoo Region. Although the Fynbos Biome is well represented in the mountainous areas of the region it is the prominence of the Succulent Karoo Biome that makes the region unique in the Western Cape Province. Kannaland Municipality, Oudtshoorn Municipality, and Eden District Management Area have benefited from the ground breaking conservation planning projects that focused on the CFR in 2000 (CAPE 2000), and more recent CEPF and World Bank funded biodiversity planning focussed on the Gouritz Corridor and Little Karoo Region. However, a fine scale or medium scale Critical Biodiversity Area (CBA) map has to date not been produced.

In an attempt to fill this gap in biodiversity planning the Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (DEADP) in conjunction with the Eden District Municipality commissioned this biodiversity assessment of the Kannaland Municipality, Oudtshoorn Municipality, and Eden District Management Area to inform Spatial Development Frameworks (SDFs), Biodiversity Sector plans, Environmental Management Frameworks (EMFs), Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEAs) and the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process. This biodiversity assessment, through the development of a critical biodiversity area (CBA) map for the district, is aimed at assisting biodiversity and land use managers and decision makers in this demanding task. This report summarizes the results of the biodiversity assessment conducted. Details of the analyses performed are contained in the appendices.

Biodiversity data:  The habitat map developed by Vlok et al. (2005) was used in this assessment. In total 235 habitat types were delineated in the planning domain;  Expert mapping available for the region included the areas of special botanical interest collected in the Leslie Hill Succulent Karoo Project, and ecological process related corridors from the Gouritz Initiative;  Areas of special biodiversity interest were obtained from various sources including Cape Nature, CREW, Little Karoo Study Group and Gouritz Initiative;  Priority conservation areas and critical biodiversity areas identified by other projects were incorporated into the analysis where possible. All CBA outputs from this study were aligned with outputs from adjoining studies to aid in implementation;  Existing aquatic biodiversity data from NFEPA and other sources was combined for the analysis; and  Additional process related features were modeled from the landscape, describing areas likely to be important in terms of climate change adaptation and connectivity.

Land cover data:  This project developed a simplified land cover based on existing land cover maps for the region developed by Kirkwood et al. (2010) and Thompson et al. (2005); and  According to the model, the majority of the district is still natural vegetation (76%), while 10% is transformed by cultivation, mining, dams and urbanization, and 14 % can be considered degraded.

Ecosystem status and threats:  Agriculture and urbanization are likely to be the principal drivers of biodiversity loss in the district, at present about 23% of the district‟s ecosystems are transformed or degraded. No information on agricultural developments and urban development was obtained; and  Due to the high levels of transformation and degradation in specific areas of the planning domain 12 habitat types are Critically Endangered, 13 are Endangered and 19 are Vulnerable.

Protected area network:

Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 1

 At present 19% of the planning domain is in formal Protected Areas. Approximately a third of the regions 235 vegetation types do not occur within any protected area, and a third are fully protected. The lowland and succulent Karoo habitat types in particular are poorly conserved compared to the Fynbos habitats. Cape Nature‟s Biodiversity stewardship Programme is active in the region with 12,459 Ha of private land under some form of legal conservation stewardship agreement.

Critical biodiversity areas:  The biodiversity assessment for the Kannaland and Oudtshoorn Local Municipalities, and Eden District Management Area is designed to identify an efficient set of Critical Biodiversity Areas ( and Ecological Support Areas) that meet the targets for the underlying biodiversity features in as small an area as possible and in areas with least conflict with other activities. Of fundamental importance is that these areas are identified in a configuration that deliberately facilitates the functioning of ecological processes (both currently and in the face of climate change) which are required to ensure that the biodiversity features persist in the long term;  A critical biodiversity area (CBA) map has been developed for the planning domain.  This CBA map is intended to act as the biodiversity sector‟s input into multi-sectoral plans and assessments (e.g. SDF, EMF EIA, IDP, etc.);  The CBA map product is aligned with national standards for bioregional plans in terms of terminology and methods;  The CBA map should be integrated into the Eden district SDF, and the Kannaland and Oudtshoorn Local SDFs; and  Land use guidelines have been developed for each CBA category and aligned with land use categories commonly used in SDFs.

Data availability:  All maps, report and data will be made available on SANBI‟s Biodiversity GIS web site (http://bgis.sanbi.org).

Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 2

2 Biodiversity Information

2.1 Background A biodiversity dataset must meet several criteria if it is to be used in a spatial analysis such as this assessment. The data must be:  In an electronic format (e.g. spreadsheet or GIS database);  Spatial (e.g. point, line or polygon coverage);  At an appropriate spatial resolution to be compatible with the scale at which the assessment is being conducted; and  Accessible to the people conducting the analyses

Region-wide biodiversity assessment and planning projects always face the problem of lack of suitable biodiversity data that is (a) geo-referenced; (b) is of relevant spatial resolution such as point locality data; and (c) that covers the majority of the planning domain.

The Kannaland Municipality, Oudtshoorn Municipality, and Eden District Management Area do not have an operational biodiversity information management system (BIMS). There are, however, quite few high quality spatial biodiversity datasets that partially or completely cover the region. These range from Vlok et al.‟s (2005) excellent habitat map, to recent analyses by the Little Karoo study Group (Gallo et al. 2010), all of which are discussed in detail below.

Some new biodiversity process surrogate datasets were generated during the course of this project through spatial modelling, basic expert mapping, as well as integration of existing spatial information on habitat types, wetlands and pans, rivers and catchments.

The land cover for the region and selected sensitive viewsheds are also discussed here. Whilst these are not biodiversity datasets land cover is a key information layer in the biodiversity assessment process, and sensitive viewsheds are included to align outcomes with areas important for tourism as an ecological service.

2.2 Biodiversity Features The Little Karoo region, in which the Kannaland Municipality, Oudtshoorn Municipality, and Eden District Management Area fall, has some excellent biodiversity planning layers developed over the last few years. In addition to utilising these layers, incorporating expert knowledge into systematic conservation assessment is also an essential part of the conservation assessment and planning process that is widely used in South Africa. It can serve a number of important functions; the process serves as a cross reference to the predominantly data driven, mathematical/mechanistic process of irreplaceability analysis; it promotes confidence and credibility in the use of the information system; it can provide a rapidly gathered source of biodiversity information especially where no other electronic spatial biodiversity databases exist.

2.2.1 Habitat Types The conservation planning process made use of the finescale vegetation map produced by Jan Vlok (Vlok et al. 2005). This high quality vegetation map is based on a combination of extensive field surveys during 2004, the subdivision of landscape into topo-geomorphic units hand drawn on 1:50 000 LandSat images and additional remote sensing interpretation. A hierarchical classification system was used with vegetation units, nested within habitats which are nested within biomes. In transformed areas, the pre-transformation vegetation was estimated and mapped based on surrounding vegetation and remaining patches. 235 vegetation types are found within the Kannaland and Oudtshoorn Local Municipalities, and Eden District Management Area (Uniondale) of the Little Karoo. Targets were based on those defined for the Little Karoo study region using a systematic approach (Vlok & Reyers Unpublished). Each target was derived using the slope of the species- area curve (Desmet & Cowling 2004). This benefited habitats with greater species heterogeneity.

Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 3

The percentage of species targeted for conservation was set at 75%. The targets were rescaled so that the target range was 16-34% as per the national standard.

From a biome perspective (following Vlok et al. 2005) the planning domain has large areas of Fynbos (mostly mountains areas), thicket and thicket mosaics, Succulent Karoo, Renosterveld, and riverine habitats. (Table 1 and Figure 3)

Table 1. Summary of extent of Biomes in the Planning Domain, Note Vlok et al. 2005 biome definitions followed not SA vegetation map definitions. BIOME Kannaland Oudtshoorn DMA04 Total Municipal PD FYNBOS 89,313 101,793 157,395 348,502 RENOSTERVELD 8,444 15,758 91,582 115,784 SUCCULENT KAROO 121,497 34,358 17,218 173,074 THICKET 215,202 164,288 98,652 478,142 AQUATIC/RIVERINE 40,992 37,159 51,781 129,933 Total 475,449 353,357 416,629 1,245,435

Figure 2. Habitat units mapped by Vlok et al. (2005), showing the Little Karoo Region mapped and the municipal areas on which this assessment is focussed . 235 distinct habitat units were identified in the three Municipal areas covered by this report, out of a total of 369 mapped for the region.

Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 4

Figure 3. Biomes represented in the planning domain following Vlok et al. (2005) classification.

2.2.2 Nationally Listed Threatened Ecosystems Vegetation types that will be listed as threatened under NEMBA were obtained from SANBI. The boundaries of these units are based on the National Vegetation Map (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Seven NEMBA listed threatened ecosystems found in the planning domain. Based on the South African National Vegetation Map (Mucina and Rutherford, 2006).

2.2.3 Priorities identified in other conservation assessments within, or overlapping into, the planning domain Priorities and CBA‟s identified in plans that covered all or part of the planning domain were incorporated where appropriate (Figure 3); these included the following products: Leslie Hill Succulent Karoo Priorities (Desmet 2006); John Gallo‟s Succulent Karoo priority reserve and stewardship areas tool (Gallo et al. 2010); Garden Route Initiative (Holness et al. 2010, Vromans et al. 2010) Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan (Berliner and Desmet 2008); STEP (Cowling et al. 2003) and SKEP (Driver et al. 2003) priorities (Figure 5).

Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 5

2.2.4 Existing data on species and biodiversity features Existing spatial information on biodiversity “hot spots” and threatened species was included in the analysis, including (Figure 5): Expert plant areas based on expert consultations from Leslie Hill Succulent Karoo Project (Desmet 2006); Quartz patches and Forest Patches mapped by experts for Cape Nature (Kirkwood pers com); CREW and Cape Nature Database of Critically endangered, endangered and vulnerable plant species (Kirkwood pers com)(Figure 6).

Figure 5. Priorities areas identified by other conservation assessments

Figure 6. Biodiversity rich areas and threatened species distributions identified by other projects

2.2.5 Aquatic Features

2.2.5.1 Priority Rivers and Catchments Outputs of the National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Area assessment (NFEPA) which is currently being completed (Nel et al. in prep) were incorporated. This project identifies the most important rivers, river catchment and wetlands for meeting freshwater biodiversity targets and conserving ecological processes.

Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 6

2.2.5.2 Wetlands and Pans The sensitive wetland layer compiled by Cape Nature (Shaw 2007) was combined with NFEPA wetland layer (Nel et al. in prep) was used as the basis for analysis. To address ecological status or health of the wetlands. We applied the technique described by Amis (2009) in which the level of terrestrial transformation/degradation immediately surrounding a wetland was used as a proxy of wetland health. Each wetland feature was buffered by 500m and the percentage transformation and degradation in each of the buffered areas was calculated. Wetlands with low levels of transformation in their buffer zone are assumed to be in a better ecological state that wetlands with high levels of transformation. This ecological state analysis was used to categorize wetlands into critical and important wetlands for the CBA map. Wetlands that are in a better ecological state are priorities for conservation and land use management (Figure 7).

2.2.5.3 Additional Rivers From a process perspective, it is not just the nationally selected rivers which are important. A river buffer layer developed by Don Kirkwood which buffered the larger (above 2nd order) 1:50 000 rivers by 100m and the smaller rivers by 30m was included as a compulsory part of the Ecological Support Area layer in the second conservation run.

Figure 7. Aquatic features used in the assessment included sensitive wetlands and pans, based on Cape Nature (Shaw 2007) and NFPA wetlands (Nel et al. in prep); priority sub-quaternary river catchments and river reaches , based on NFPA data, where FEPA are priority areas and FESA are support areas (Nel et al. in prep); additional order 2 and above rivers buffered by 100m.

2.3 Ecological Process New ecological process layers were developed for the planning domain based on methodologies applied in the National Protected Areas Assessment but applied at a finer scale. These include identification of optimal ecological corridors and the identification of areas likely to provide climate change resilience (Figure 8). Specific areas that were identified include:

Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 7

2.3.1 Connectivity High priority areas in unfragmented landscapes were identified to enhance landscape connectivity. The National Protected Areas Expansion Conservation Assessment (Holness 2008) identified high priority unfragmented areas that if protected would contribute most to meeting national terrestrial and freshwater conservation targets. The areas identified are all over 5000ha in size. Every attempt should be made to avoid an activity that results in the fragmentation of these areas. River corridors represent important linkages across the landscape, particularly in arid and poorly differentiated habitats. In addition to the other river and aquatic features included in the plan, it was important to ensure that all major riparian corridor areas were included to ensure that the linkages important for climate change adaptation were protected.

2.3.2 Areas of potential importance in climate change adaptation Climate change resilience areas: Modelled approaches were used to identify areas of potential importance for promoting climate change resilience in the landscape (Figure 8). These modelled layers include:  Kloofs, which provide important connectivity and provide both temperature and moisture refuges;  South facing slopes, which similar to kloofs provide refuge habitats;  Topographically diverse areas, which contain important altitudinal and climatic gradients which are important for climate change adaptation as well as ensuring a range of micro- climates are protected; and  Riverine corridors, which provide important connectivity in extensive arid environments, were identified.

Details on the modelling of these features can be found in Appendix 1.

Figure 8. Features representing ecological processes, landscape connectivity and climate change adaptation.

2.3.3 Existing corridors from Gouritz Initiative The Gouritz Initiative developed a set of priority process areas to support long term ecological processes in the region. These identified areas included the STEP Megaconservancy Network, identified mountain corridors and the core Gouritz north-south corridor. These identified areas included the STEP Megaconservancy Network, identified mountain corridors, quartz patches, connectivity areas important for nectavores, and the core Gouritz north-south corridor. These components of the Gouritz plan were trimmed to their remaining natural extent and were included into the MARXAN run with a 60% target (Lombard et al. 2004)(Figure 9).

Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 8

Figure 9. Biodiversity Corridors Developed for the Gouritz Region by Lombard et al. 2004.

2.4 Alignment with adjacent conservation plans Corridors are worthless if the don‟t go anywhere. Fortunately, conservation plans have been undertaken for almost all the areas surrounding the Little Karoo (Figure 10). Priority corridors and adjacent CBA areas were collated from the adjacent 6 systematic conservation plans: • Central Karoo District FSBP (Skowno et al. 2009); • Winelands DMA FSBP (Skowno et al. 2009); • Hessequa FSBP (Pence et al. 2010); • Mosselbay FSBP (Pence et al. 2010); • Garden Route Initiative Critical Biodiversity Areas (Holness et al. 2010); and • East Cape Province (Berliner and Desmet 2008)

Figure 10. Critical Biodiversity Areas identified by other recent projects adjacent to the planning domain; including the Central Karoo District, Eastern Cape Provincial Plan, CAPE Fine Scale plans for Hessequa and Mossel Bay, and Garden Route Initiative.

Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 9

2.5 Land Cover Land cover is one of the most important information layers used in a conservation assessment. As transformed areas are generally considered to have very little biodiversity value, a land cover map tells us how much biodiversity is left and where this is located. There is generally a good inverse relationship between levels of transformation in a landscape and biodiversity intactness (e.g. Scholes and Biggs, 2005). In the absence of any actual biodiversity data we can still make inferences about the state of the natural environment based purely on the land cover. The ecosystem status index for South African vegetation types is such an index. Therefore an up-to-date representation of current land-cover is of key importance to the conservation and planning fraternity in the district, who require a detailed land cover map to help inform decisions on land use. Ultimately this layer is critical in developing a strategy for the conservation of biodiversity in the district (Figure 11).

This project developed a simplified land cover based on a land cover map put together by Kirkwood et al. (2010) as part of the Western Cape Biodiversity Framework (which in turn was based on Thompson et al. 2005). The land cover used in the analyses includes the Chief Directorate Surveys and Mapping 1:50 000 series roads, railways and built up areas buffered by 10-200m; the Western Cape fields layer developed by Geo Terra Image for National Department of Agriculture (based on the SPOT5 2006 series) (Table 2).

Land cover statistics with respect to the area of the target municipalities occupied by the different land classes are summarized in Table 1. Just over 10% of the planning area has been transformed from natural ecosystems to other land uses, and just over 14% has been severely degraded (Table 3).

Table 2: The area covered by level one and level 2 land classes in the Kannaland and Oudtshoorn Local Municipalities, and Eden District Management Area. Landcover (Hectares) Kannaland Oudtshoorn DMA04 Total Municipal PD Level 1 Level 2 Natural 380,884 251,232 320,205 952,320 Natural Natural 118,886 133,629 217,416 469,931 Natural Near Natural - AIP 18,199 17,882 11,028 47,108 Natural Near Natural - Mod Degr 243,798 99,721 91,761 435,280 Natural Unknown - - 0 0 No Natural 21,795 41,092 57,925 120,812 No Natural No Natural Agric 17,279 34,962 53,584 105,826 No Natural No Natural Dam 775 1,261 934 2,970 No Natural No Natural Urban 668 2,010 368 3,045 No Natural No Natural - Other 3,074 2,859 3,039 8,972 Degraded 72,770 61,033 38,499 172,302 Grand Total 475,449 353,357 416,629 1,245,435

Table 3: The percentage coverage of level one land classes in the Kannaland and Oudtshoorn Local Municipalities, and Eden District Management Area. Land Cover (%) Kannaland Oudtshoorn DMA04 Total Municipal PD Natural 80 71 77 76 No Natural 5 12 14 10 Degraded 15 17 9 14 Grand Total 100 100 100 100

Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 10

Figure 11. Land cover map of the Kannaland Municipality, Oudtshoorn Municipality, and Eden District Management Area. No natural (Transformed) class includes, cultivation, mining, rural and urban development, high density alien, plantations, roads and railways. Degradation class includes severely degraded areas mapped by Thompson et al. (2005).

Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 11

2.6 Terrestrial Ecosystem Status Ecosystem status classification refers to the likelihood of an ecosystem, in this case defined as a vegetation type, persisting into the future given the current amount of that ecosystem that has already been transformed to other land uses

SANBI has developed a classification system that uses a suite of biodiversity loss indicators or criteria to assign national ecosystem status to South African vegetation types. For the district level classification for the Central Karoo District only criterion A (Table 5) was used to determine ecosystem status of vegetation types. For criteria B to F the district level analyses have not been done yet.

The ecosystem status and protection level calculations presented here differ from the national assessment in three key areas. Firstly, the calculations consider only the extent of a vegetation type that occurs within the Little Karoo region (defined by Vlok et al. 2005 - refer to Appendix 8.1 for details) and not the national extent of a vegetation type. From a municipal environmental management perspective the focus is on the state of biodiversity within the three municipal areas and not in neighbouring municipalities. Secondly, this assessment calculates ecosystem status using transformation and severe degradation combined (Figure 12). Finally, smaller vegetation units, specifically mapped in the region are used in this analysis not the SA vegetation units. This gives a better picture of where ecosystems are threatened as it includes areas that are in the process of undergoing transformation. Degradation here includes only severe degradation such as soil erosion and reduction in cover but does not include components of degradation such as species shifts due to overgrazing, alien species or bush encroachment (Thompson et al. 2005).

Due to the high levels of transformation and degradation in the planning domain 12 habitat types are Critically Endangered, 13 are Endangered and 19 are Vulnerable. A total of 235 habitat types are described in the Municipal planning area by Vlok et al. (2005).

Note: The vegetation map produced by Vlok et al. (2005) covers a larger area than the municipal planning domain used in this report (see point 8.1 in Appendix 1). The larger Little Karoo Planning Domain includes 371 vegetation Units compared to the 235 habitat units in the smaller Municipal Planning Domain on which this report is focussed. However, all ecosystem status calculations and protection level calculations were based on the larger Little Karoo PD. This is standard practise in biodiversity assessment s and ensures that the entire extent of each habitat unit is considered in the calculation of Ecosystem statistics (Table 4) (Appendix 1).

Table 4. Summary table of number of vegetation types found in each Ecosystem Status Class Municipality Kannaland Oudtshoorn DMA04 Total Municipal PD Ecosystem status (# Vegetation units) Critically Endangered 8 6 4 12 Endangered 10 6 2 13 Vulnerable 11 9 6 19 Least Threatened 125 62 51 191 Total Number 154 83 63 235

Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 12

Table 5: Criteria used to identify threatened terrestrial ecosystems, with thresholds for critically endangered (CR), endangered (EN) and vulnerable (VU) ecosystems (SANBI 2008). Criterion CR EN VU A1: Irreversible loss of natural Remaining natural Remaining natural Remaining natural habitat habitat ≤ habitat ≤ habitat ≤ 60% of biodiversity target (biodiversity target + original area of 15%) ecosystem A2: Ecosystem degradation ≥ 60% of ecosystem ≥ 40% of ecosystem ≥ 20% of ecosystem and loss of integrity* significantly significantly significantly degraded degraded degraded B: Rate of loss of natural habitat** C: Limited extent and -- Ecosystem extent ≤ 3 Ecosystem extent ≤ 6 imminent threat* 000ha, and imminent 000ha, and threat imminent threat D1: Threatened plant species ≥ 80 threatened ≥ 60 threatened Red ≥ 40 threatened Red associations Red Data List plant Data List plant Data List plant species species species D2: Threatened animal species associations** E: Priority areas for meeting Very high Very high Very high explicit biodiversity targets as irreplaceability and irreplaceability and irreplaceability and defined in a systematic high threat medium threat low threat biodiversity plan F: Fragmentation** * Because of data constraints, Criteria A2 and C have been applied to forests but not to other vegetation types. ** Because of data constraints, Criteria B and D2 are dormant at this stage and thresholds have not been set for these criteria. Further testing of Criterion F is needed to determine whether it is a workable criterion for terrestrial ecosystems.

Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 13

Figure 12: Terrestrial ecosystem status (transformation and degradation combined). Due to the high levels of transformation and degradation 12 habitat types are Critically Endangered, 13 are Endangered and 19 are Vulnerable. A total of 235 habitat types are described in the planning are by Vlok et al. 2005.

Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 14

3 Protected Area Network GAP Analysis Protected areas (PAs) are the primary strategy for ensuring that a representative portion of the regions biodiversity is conserved as a benchmark for the benefit of current and future generations. Whilst the long term persistence of biodiversity will require the management of biodiversity both in PAs and in the surrounding matrix of production landscapes, there are clear national guidelines as to the proportion of the district‟s surface area that should be under some form of formal conservation management. Comparing the proportion of the regions biodiversity represented and targets achieved in the existing PA network to what is recommended in the national guidelines provides a quantitative measure of the conservation effectiveness of the provincial PA network. This also gives an indication of the amount of work still required to reach the goal of a fully representative PA network .

The National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act (57 of 2003) defines a „protected area‟ (PA) as one of the following types: Special Nature Reserves; National Parks; Nature Reserves; Protected Environments; World Heritage Sites; Marine Protected Areas; Specially Protected Forest Areas; and Mountain catchment areas. Collectively, the formal terrestrial and marine protected areas comprise the National Protected Area System (National PAS).

The protected area (PA) layer for the planning domain was based on that used in the National Protected Areas Expansion Strategy (NPAES). To this layer we added the official Biodiversity Stewardship sites for the region (supplied by CAPE NATURE , A. Vlok pers com) as Formal Pas. Informal private conservation areas identified by Pasquini (2007) were added as Informal CAs in the Protected areas context map only and were not considered as CAs in the analysis (Figure 13).

Only Formal Protected Areas and contracted Cape Nature Stewardship sites were considered as Formal Protected Areas in the analysis. These sites are assumed to contribute to meeting biodiversity targets, and as such are “hard wired” into the CBA Model as PAs. Informal sites are not assumed to contribute to meeting biodiversity targets as there is no guarantee in the long term that the biodiversity contained in them will be conserved.

Protected Areas (as recognized in the PA act):  Special Nature Reserves;  National Parks;  Provincial Nature Reserves;  Protected Environments;  Contract Nature Reserves; and  Also includes are: World Heritage Sites, Marine Protected Areas, Marine Conservation Areas, specially protected forests.

Conservation Areas (CAs) non-statutory protected areas not recognized in the PA act:  Biodiversity agreements; and  Conservancies.

Note that this classification does not take into account PA management effectiveness. This classification relates solely to the legal status of PAs with regards the PA Act.

Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 15

Table 6: Summary table of protected areas in the Kannaland Municipality, Oudtshoorn Municipality and Eden District Management Area. Protected Areas (Ha) v2 Kannaland Oudtshoorn DMA04 Total Municipal PD Level 1 Level 2 Formal 91,155 69,874 68,468 229,496 National Park 4,383 4,383 Provincial Nature Reserve 17,195 7,553 16,068 40,816 State Forest Nature Reserve 25,666 41,175 21,993 88,834 Wilderness Area 6,132 6,132 Local Authority Nature Reserve 2,770 240 114 3,124 Mountain Catchment Area 34,175 14,774 24,799 73,749 CN Stewardship Site 11,348 1,110 12,459 Informal 82,137 36,215 30,752 149,103 Private Nature Reserve (NPAES) 10,882 1,236 3,137 15,255 Pasquini Private Cons Sites 71,255 34,978 27,615 133,848 Grand Total 173,292 106,088 99,219 378,599

A small portion of one national park (Garden Route National Park), ten Western Cape Provincial Reserves, one Eastern Cape Provincial Reserve, four Mountain Catchment Areas, seven Cape Nature biodiversity stewardship sites and numerous private conservation areas are represented in the planning domain (provincial reserves, national parks, mountain catchment areas and contracted biodiversity stewardship sites were considered Formal PAs in protection status calculations, private reserves are classed as informal CAs) (Figure 13).

Protected Areas cover 30.4% of the planning domain with 229,4961ha (18.4%) being formal protected areas and 149,103ha (12%) comprising conservation areas.

Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 16

Figure 13: Protected areas in the Kannaland Municipality, Oudtshoorn Municipality and Eden District Management Area. A small portion of the Garden Route National Park is represented, ten Western Cape Provincial Reserves, one Eastern Cape Provincial Reserve and four Mountain Catchment Areas. Seven Cape Nature biodiversity stewardship sites and numerous private conservation areas. (provincial reserves, national parks, mountain catchment areas and contracted biodiversity stewardship sites were considered formal PAs in protection status calculations, private reserves are classed as informal CAs).

Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 17

3.1 Protection Level and Urgency Protection level is the measurement of how well the existing protected area network conserves the biodiversity of the district. It is calculated as the percentage biodiversity target achieved by the protected area network for each vegetation type. Protection urgency is based on irreplaceability of the remaining unfragmented areas of that vegetation type that are available to meet PA targets. To do these calculations the vegetation layer for the district was unioned with the protected areas layers and the proportion of each vegetation type within PAs was summarized (Table 7, Figures 14 & 15).

Considering Formal Protected Areas only:  89 vegetation types have their targets achieved in the PA network;  27 vegetation type is partially protected, 10 vegetation types are very poorly protected, and 17 are poorly protected; and  92 vegetation types are not represented within the PA network at all.

In summary:  The Protected Areas network covers the Fynbos biome component of the planning very well, and is under representative of the lowland and succulent Karoo components; and  Conservancies play a vital role in the PA network and the biodiversity stewardship approach of Cape Nature. Table 7: Summary table of Habitat Protection Levels and Habitat Protection Urgency Municipality Kannaland Oudtshoorn DMA04 Total Municipal PD Protection level (# Vegetation units) Completely Unprotected 65 26 19 92 Very Poorly Protected 5 7 5 10 Poorly Protected 7 8 9 17 Partially Protected 18 10 4 27 PA Targets Met 59 32 26 89 Protection urgency (# Vegetation units) Critically Urgent 5 3 2 7 High Urgency 4 3 2 6 Medium Urgency 19 11 7 27 Low Urgency 67 34 26 106 Fully Protected 59 32 26 89 Total Number 154 83 63 235 Protection Level categories Description Completely unprotected No formal protection Very poorly protected Under 5% of PA target met Poorly protected 5% - under 25% of target met Partially protected 25-under 100% of target met Targets met Targets fully met Protection Urgency categories Description Target met PA target met 0->25% of remaining unfragmented areas required to meet PA Low urgency targets 25->50% of remaining unfragmented areas required to meet PA Medium urgency targets 50->100% of remaining unfragmented areas required to meet PA High urgency targets Insufficient remaining unfragmented areas available to meet PA Critically urgent targets

Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 18

Figure 14. Habitat Protection Levels in the planning domain. A habitat is considered partially protected if 25-100% of its target is met in protected areas; poorly protected if 5-25% of target met; very poorly protected < 5% target met. If More than 100% of target is met in PA it is considered protected (target met). If none of the habitat occurs in PA then it is considered completely unprotected (Table 7).

Figure 15. Habitat Protection urgency in the planning domain. A habitat is considered critically urgent if insufficient habitat remains to achieve its PA target.; high urgency if > 50% of remaining habitat is required; moderate urgency if 25-50% of remaining habitat is required; low urgency if < 25% of remaining habitat is required to meet PA targets. (Table 7).

Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 19

4 Retention and Restoration of Biodiversity Drivers of biodiversity loss can also be referred to as “threats to biodiversity” or simply a site‟s “cost” or “vulnerability” in relation to identified threats.

Threats to biodiversity are defined here as human-induced or mediated activities that result in the loss (transformation) or reduction (degradation) of biodiversity pattern and/or processes. The impacts of threats may manifest as changes in biodiversity structure (e.g. landscape fragmentation, over grazing, composition (e.g. species loss), or as changes in ecosystem functioning (e.g. altered hydrology, reduced net primary productivity)

Agriculture and urbanisation are viewed as the direct agents of biodiversity loss and degradation. The direct impacts on biodiversity due to competing land-uses result in (a) loss of habitat and landscape fragmentation, and (b) degradation of the natural environment, but their impact could be significantly mitigated if the institutions responsible for environmental and land-use planning and management operated and applied the law effectively. Threats to biodiversity in the Little Karoo were only superficially considered in this assessment. A comprehensive report on the perceptions of biodiversity threat in the Namakwa District, based on a survey of karoo ecological and livestock management experts was recently completed (Todd et al. 2009). This report (an extract from which can be found in Box 1.) is potentially very useful to planners in the Little Karoo region as the land- use and threats are similar.

Specific threats to biodiversity and potential drivers of biodiversity loss for the region are addressed in a report entitled “Retention and restoration of the biodiversity of the Little Karoo” by Forsyth, Vlok and Reyers (2008). Recommendations on wildlife stocking, ostrich farming, fire management and veld restoration potential for the region are provided in the report. The report, maps and spatial data is available from the Gouritz initiative web site (www.gouritz.com) and SANBI‟s BIS system (http://bgis.sanbi.org) (Figure 16 & 17).

Figure 16. Map extracted from Forsyth et al. (2008) to illustrate the available tools for responsible land management in the region; specifically the recommended stocking rates for Ostriches in the various habitats of the region .

Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 20

Figure 17. Map extracted from Forsyth et al. (2008) to illustrate the available tools for responsible land management in the region; specifically the spekboom thicket restoration potential of habitats in the region.

Ecosystem services The Ecosystem services of forage production and carbon storage are addressed in the Forsyth et al. (2008) report, and a recent study has expanded this in the Little Karoo. Reyers et al. (2009) highlight the impact of land use change on the following ecosystem services  forage production;  carbon storage;  water flow regulation;  erosion control ; and  tourism view sheds.

This biodiversity assessment, although not aimed at ecosystem services directly, addresses most of these issues. The NFEPA catchment prioritisation (Nel et al. iIn prep) specifically aims to include areas important for flow regulation and catchment recharge. Wetlands and riparian areas highlighted in this assessment as CBA or ESA also specifically address water flow regulation. Important tourism viewsheds identified by Reyers et al. (2009) have been included in this assessment as a connectivity layer (Figure 18).

Figure 18. Important tourism view sheds identified in the region by Reyers et al.( 2009).

Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 21

BOX 1. Perceptions of Biodiversity Threat in the Namakwa District -extract from Todd et al. (2009)

“Of all the commonly reported threats to the biodiversity of the Namakwa District, livestock grazing is the most pervasive as well as the most pernicious. While mining and cropping are severe and conspicuous, their extent is limited. Less than 5% of the Namakwa District is transformed by mining and cropping. Other threats include illegal collection of plants, alien invasive plants and unsustainable water abstraction, all of which are restricted to certain species or habitats. The importance of these threats should however not be overlooked because the impact they have is often severe, resulting in the local extinction of affected species or extensive transformation of habitats. More than 90% of the Namakwa District is however utilized for livestock grazing, making this by far the most widespread landuse. Although well managed livestock grazing is compatible with biodiversity conservation, poor grazing management can lead to degradation and significant biodiversity loss at the landscape scale. Changes in vegetation composition associated with grazing are frequently not obvious and as a result, grazing as a threat to biodiversity is frequently underestimated or overlooked. Furthermore, despite being reported as a threat to many vegetation types, the actual impact of livestock grazing livestock is very difficult to quantify at a broad scale and most assessments rely on remote sensing or anecdotal evidence to gauge grazing threat.

Based on a survey of experts in the field of livestock production, overgrazing was overwhelmingly identified as the primary threat to biodiversity and ecosystem function in the region (Figure A). Ploughing was identified as the next most significant threat to biodiversity with wetland management and game farming also emerging as important threats. Alien plants were only ranked fifth, perhaps reflecting the positive impact that programs such as Working for Water have had on the perception of alien plants as a continued threat to biodiversity. The use of traps for predator management and the use of pesticides and livestock remedies were identified as the lowest threats.”

“Figure A. Priority ranking of threats to the biodiversity and ecosystem function of the Namakwa District, as ranked by scientists and conservation officials working in the region. Higher scores represent greater importance, the maximum potential score is 11. 0123456789 10 Overgrazing Illegal Ploughing Wetland Mismanagement Game Farming Invasive Plants Infrastructure Erosion Predator Poisoning Predator Trapping Herbicides & Pesticides Dips & Dosing”

Extracted from : Todd, S., Milton, S. J., Dean, R., Carrick, P. and Meyer, A. (2009). Ecological best practice livestock production guidelines for the Namakwa District. Report for The Botanical Society of South Africa by The Karoo Consortium.

Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 22

5 Critical Biodiversity Areas

5.1 What are CBAs? The Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBA) map aims to guide sustainable development by providing a synthesis of biodiversity information to decision makers. It serves as the common reference for all multi-sectoral planning procedures, advising which areas can be lost to development, and which areas of critical biodiversity value and their support zones should be protected against any impacts.

The CBA map indicates areas of land as well as aquatic features which must be safeguarded in their natural state if biodiversity is to persist and ecosystems are to continue functioning. Land in this category is referred to as a Critical Biodiversity Area. CBAs incorporate: (i) areas that need to be safeguarded in order to meet national biodiversity thresholds (ii) areas required to ensure the continued existence and functioning of species and ecosystems, including the delivery of ecosystem services; and/or (iii) important locations for biodiversity features or rare species.

Ecological Support Areas (ESAs) are supporting zones required to prevent the degradation of Critical Biodiversity Areas and Protected Areas. An ESA may be an ecological process area that connects and therefore sustains Critical Biodiversity Areas or a terrestrial feature, e.g. the riparian habitat surrounding and supporting aquatic Critical Biodiversity Areas.

Those areas of natural vegetation identified on the map as Other Natural Areas are sufficiently extensive at this stage that they may withstand some loss through conversion of their natural state, and undergo development. It is important to note that in the future, such areas will be increasingly converted or impacted, and it is possible that they will eventually be reclassified as Critical Biodiversity Areas. Therefore, in all decision making, the precautionary principle needs to be applied.

The CBA map identifies areas that have been irreversibly transformed through development (e.g. urban development, plantation, agriculture). These areas are referred to as No Natural Areas Remaining. They no longer contribute to the biodiversity of the area. However, there are areas of land (partially or wholly transformed or degraded land) that have been classified as ESAs or even CBAs. Although these areas are heavily degraded or transformed, they still play an important role in supporting ecological processes. This is particularly the case with riparian areas, some key catchment areas and key pieces of corridors. No further intensification of land-use activities should be permitted and they should be prioritized for rehabilitation, where possible.

Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 23

5.2 Critical Biodiversity Areas Categories Criteria defining the CBA map categories are presented in Table 8. These criteria are closely linked to those used in other plans such as the Garden Route Systematic Biodiversity Plan Report (Holness, 2009).

Table 8: Criteria used to define the CBA map categories (Figure 20) CBA MAP CRITERIA DEFINING THE CATEGORY CATEGORY Protected Formal Protected Areas Areas a) Nature Reserves & National Parks (protected by the National Environment Management: Protected Areas Act 57 of 2003); b) Forest Nature Reserves (declared in terms of the National Forest Act 84 of 1998). c) Mountain Catchment Areas (declared in terms of the Mountain Catchment Area Act 63 of 1970); and d) World Heritage Sites (declared in terms of the World Heritage Convention Act 49 of 1999).

Critical 1. Any terrestrial or aquatic area required to meet biodiversity pattern and/or process Biodiversity thresholds: Areas a) Any area that is required for meeting pattern thresholds, namely: . Remaining areas of Critically Endangered vegetation types; . Special habitats (areas required to protect special species and habitats); . Listed Ecosystems in terms of the National Biodiversity Act (10 of 2004); . Remaining areas protected by the National Forest Act (84 of 1998); and . High priority river reaches. b) Any area that is required for meeting process thresholds including: . Ecological corridors; . Areas important for climate change adaptation; and . Riparian corridors. c) Hydrological process areas (wetlands, priority catchment areas). d) All 'best design' sites (largest, most intact, least disturbed, connected and/or adjacent) in terms of meeting pattern and process thresholds. 'Best design' refers to an identified network of natural sites that meet pattern and process thresholds in all vegetation types in a spatially efficient and ecologically robust way, and aim to avoid conflict with other activities (e.g. economic activity) where it is possible to achieve biodiversity thresholds elsewhere.

Ecological Supporting zone required to prevent degradation of Critical Biodiversity Areas and Protected Support Area Areas. a) Areas required to prevent degradation of Critical Biodiversity Areas and formal Protected Areas; b) Remaining catchment and other process areas that are required to prevent degradation of Critical Biodiversity Areas and formal Protected Areas; and c) Areas that are already transformed or degraded, but which are currently or potentially still important for supporting ecological processes e.g. transformed or alien plant infested areas that have transformed or degraded the natural buffer area of a wetland or river. These areas are a focus for rehabilitation rather than the intensification of land uses. Other Natural Natural areas not included in the above categories. Areas No Natural These areas include cultivated areas (intensive agriculture), afforested areas (plantation Areas forestry), mined areas, urban areas, infrastructure, dams and areas under coastal Remaining development. Source Reference: Holness, 2009

5.3 Planning approach The biodiversity assessment for the Kannaland Municipality, Oudtshoorn Municipality and Eden District Management Area is designed to identify an efficient set of Critical Biodiversity Areas (and Ecological Support Areas) that meet the targets for the underlying biodiversity features in as small an area as possible and in areas with least conflict with other activities. Of fundamental importance is that these areas are identified in a configuration that deliberately facilitates the

Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 24

functioning of ecological processes (both currently and in the face of climate change) which are required to ensure that the biodiversity features persist in the long term.

A two step optimization approach to systematic conservation planning was undertaken making use of MARXAN. This approach has the advantage of allowing an efficient network to be identified (i.e. one which uses the least possible space to achieve its targets and also minimizes cost to other sectors) as well as to promote the identification of a network which is sensible from an ecological point of view (the approach strongly favours connected and adjacent areas, and allows preferential meeting of targets in priority catchments and areas important for climate change resilience) (Figure 19). For details on the methods used refer to Appendix 1.

Figure 19. The outputs on the initial MARXAN runs were used to identify the highest priority network of Critical Biodiversity Areas. These include both irreplaceable sites (i.e. areas where there is no choice) as well as significant “best design” areas which are not the only options but represent an efficient and ecologically coherent network of optimal sites.

Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 25

Figure 20. Critical Biodiversity Areas in the Kannaland Municipality, Oudtshoorn Municipality and Eden District Management Area.

Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 26

5.4 Description of CBA’s for the Kannaland Municipality, Oudtshoorn Municipality and Eden District Management Area Table 9. Biodiversity criteria used to define Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBAs) in the Kannaland, Oudtshoorn Municipalities and DMA04 (Figure 20). Name Description of biodiversity features Category Shp File Name used to define CBA category Terrestrial Habitat map Base habitat map of LK_Region_veg_Ecostat Features 235 terrestrial habitats us.shp mapped by Vlok et al. (2005). Special species CR EN and VU plant Combined_rares_1.shp locations from the CREW and DK datasets buffered by 250m Nationally Listed Remaining extent of Threatened_veg_clippe threatened EN and VU vegetation d_to_natural.shp ecosystems types listed under NEMBA as threatened. Leslie Hill Expert Identified expert Leslie_Hill_expert_areas_ areas features from the 1.shp Succulent Karoo assessment undertaken for the Leslie Hill Trust Quartz patches Quartz patches from Quartz _1.shp DK dataset Forest Forest habitat from DK Forest_1.shp dataset Aquatic High priority river Identified high priority Rivers_1.shp features reaches river catchments from the NFEPA assessment (Nel et al. In prep) High priority Identified high priority Catch_1.shp catchments river reaches from the NFEPA assessment (Nel et al. In prep) Sensitive Sensitive wetlands Wetlands_notclipped_1. wetlands from the Cape Nature shp assessment and NFEPA Riparian Variable width All_Riparian_corridors_1. corridors buffered corridors shp along major rivers in the Little Karoo. Climate High priority High priority High_priority_ change and unfragmented unfragmented areas unfragmented_ connectivity landscapes identified within the landscapes_1.shp NPAES conservation assessment. The study identified the largest, most intact areas for

Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 27

Name Description of biodiversity features Category Shp File Name used to define CBA category meeting national pattern and process targets. High Areas of potential High_topo_variability_1.s topographic climate change hp variability resilience and climate refuges based on a multi-scale modelled assessment of landscapes of high topographic diversity. These areas also include important altitude gradients. Kloofs Modelled layer of Kloofs_1.shp kloofs which are important refuge habitats Gouritz Corridors Climate Change Gouritz_all_1.shp connectivity corridors developed by Lombard et al. 2004 for Gouritz Initiative South Facing Modelled layer of Large_southernslopes_1. Slopes south facing slopes shp which represent areas of climate change resilience due to probable lower temperatures and higher moisture levels. Related climate o Riparian change layers corridors (see and inputs above) o River reaches (see above) o Marxan analysis which favours areas with high variety of habitats Priorities Priority areas Identified high StepSkep_1.shp from other from SKEP irreplaceability priority conservatio areas from the SKEP n plans assessment Priority areas Identified pattern and StepSkep_1.shp from STEP process priority areas from the STEP assessment Succulent Karoo Priority areas from the Leslie_hill_1.shp priorities Leslie Hill Succulent (Desmet 2006) Karoo assessment Succulent Karoo Priority areas from the Gallo _1.shp Priorities (Gallo Leslie Hill Succulent

Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 28

Name Description of biodiversity features Category Shp File Name used to define CBA category et al. 2010) Karoo assessment by Gallo et al. (2010) East Cape Priority subcatchments Ec_priorities_1.shp Priorities from the Eastern Cape Biodiversity assessment where these extend into the Little Karoo Alignment Corridor linkages Identified CBA areas in LK_Region_ProtectedAr with to adjacent the adjacent 6 eas.shp adjacent plans conservation plans: conservatio o Central Karoo n plans o Cape Winelands DMA o Hessequa FSBP o Mossel Bay FSBP o Garden Route Initiative o East Cape Province BCP

Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 29

6 Land-use Guidelines

6.1 Desired Management Objective The Desired Management Objective refers to the ecological state that a parcel of land or aquatic ecosystem should be maintained in (Table 10). It guides the identification of appropriate land or resource use activities and management guidelines. Only land-use activities or resource use levels that are compatible with maintaining the Desired Management Objective should be encouraged.

The Desired Management Objective refers to both biodiversity pattern and/or ecological processes. In formally Protected Areas and Critical Biodiversity Areas, it is important to maintain both biodiversity pattern and ecological processes, whilst in Ecological Support Areas it is important to maintain ecological processes only.

Table 10. Desired Management Objective per mapped category CBA Map Critical Formal Category: Biodiversity Ecological Other Natural Areas No Natural Areas Protected Areas Support Areas Remaining Areas

Desired Maintain natural land. Favoured areas for Managemen Rehabilitate degraded to Sustainable development. Maintain t Objective: natural or near natural Management within Sustainable ecological and manage for no general rural land use Management processes further degradation. principles within general rural land use principles

6.2 Recommended Biodiversity-compatible Land-use Guidelines For the biodiversity priority areas, namely formal Protected Areas, Critical Biodiversity Areas and Ecological Support Areas, the guidelines have been informed by: (1) the desired management objective (described above); and (2) the likely impact of land and resource use activities on biodiversity (i.e. the impact on the receiving environment should guide development) (Table 11).

In Other Natural Areas and No Natural Area Remaining, development guidelines should take all sectors into consideration and must result in sustainable development. If beyond the urban edge, guidance should be obtained from the provincial Rural Planning and Management Guidelines (in preparation) (Table 11).

Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 30

Table 11. Recommended biodiversity-compatible land use guidelines matrix KEY: Biodiversity sector land-use recommendations  Yes = Encouraged so long as conditions listed in the rural guidelines are adhered to.  No = Discouraged;  Restricted = Land-use possible so long as the overall desired management objective is maintained, impacts on biodiversity are mitigated where possible, and conditions listed in the rural guidelines are adhered to. CBA MAP CATEGORY: → Other Natural No Natural Areas Formal Protected Critical Biodiversity Ecological Areas Remaining Areas Areas Support Areas

DESIRED MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE: → Maintain natural Sustainable Maintain natural land. Rehabilitate Sustainable Management land. Rehabilitate degraded to Maintain Management within general degraded to natural natural or near ecological within general rural land-use or near natural and natural and processes rural land-use principles. manage for no manage for no principles Favoured areas further degradation. further for development. degradation. RECOMMENDED PSDF SPATIAL PLANNING Buffer 1 or 2 CATEGORY: → Intensive at the discretion of Core 1 Core 1 Core 2 Agriculture and Town and LAND-USE ACTIVITY Settlement Regional Planners  1) CONSERVATION Yes Yes

2a) AGRICULTURE -HIGH IMPACT : Intensive Agriculture No No (includes forestry plantation and space extensive agricultural enterprises) 2b) AGRICULTURE - LOW IMPACT: Extensive Agriculture Restricted Yes 3) HOLIDAY ACCOMMODATION Restricted Restricted

4a) RURAL HOUSING: Low Density Rural Housing (Consolidation Restricted Restricted of rural erven for conservation) 4b) RURAL HOUSING: On-Farm Workers Settlement No Restricted REFER TO THE PROVINCIAL RURAL 5a)TOURIST and RECREATIONAL FACILITIES LAND-USE LAND-USE PLANNING AND - LOW IMPACT: Lecture rooms, restrooms, GOVERNED BY THE Restricted Restricted MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR restaurants, gift shops and outdoor NATIONAL GUIDANCE IN IDENTIFYING recreation ENVIRONMENTAL APPROPRIATE LAND-USE ACTIVITIES 5b) TOURIST and RECREATIONAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT:

- HIGH IMPACT: Golf , polo, and housing PROTECTED AREAS No No ALWAYS MANAGE FOR SUSTAINABLE eco-estates ACT AND A DEVELOPMENT WHEN CONSIDERING 6a) RURAL BUSINESS: PROTECTED AREA LAND and WATER RESOURCE USE Place Bound MANAGEMENT PLAN Restricted Restricted APPLICATIONS IN NATURAL AREAS 6b) RURAL BUSINESS: Non Place Bound No No 7) RURAL INDUSTRY No No

8) SMALL HOLDINGS No No 9) COMMUNITY FACILITIES and INSTITUTIONS No No 10) INFRASTRUCTURE INSTALLATIONS Restricted Restricted 11a) SETTLEMENT: No No Existing Settlements (Urban Expansion) 11b) SETTLEMENT: No No New Settlements

Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 31

6.3 Guidelines for the sound management of land and water resources The land and water resource use management guidelines in the boxes 2 - 4 below can be used to guide decision making by all parties involved in land-use planning and decision-making e.g. provincial and local government (as part of the municipal LUMS), landowners, Interested and Affected Parties and developers etc.

BOX 2: MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR AREAS CLASSIFIED AS CRITICAL BIODIVERSITY AREAS (CBA)

 Minimise loss of any natural habitat.  Minimise further fragmentation of habitat.  If degraded or disturbed lands are identified as components of a landscape corridor, no further hardening of the surface should be allowed as this poses threats to the functioning of the corridor.  Prioritise as prime candidates for biodiversity offset receiving areas.  Implement management programmes to maintain natural ecological processes; e.g. fire management in fynbos vegetation types.  Implement regular environmental monitoring and reporting of biodiversity and/or change of land-use to prevent unauthorized development or degradation by neglect or ignorance. To be carried out by DEADP, Department of Water Affairs (of DWEA), and the Department of Agriculture (of DAFF).  Prioritise as prime areas for conservation projects or activities and alien clearance programmes etc. by LandCare, Working for Water, Working for Wetlands, Working for the Coast (CoastCare) and NGOs.  Implement restoration or rehabilitation programmes in degraded or disturbed sites i.e. an integrated alien management plan.  Compile Environmental Management Plans, where possible, to include, e.g. alien plant control, fire management etc.  Prioritise for incorporation into the protected areas network, and for stewardship agreements.  Prioritize for rates rebates by Municipalities (in terms of the Municipal Property Rates Act 6 of 2004).  Use CBA boundaries to demarcate urban edges to limit lateral expansion of urban development along landscape corridors.  Incorporate CBA into Urban Open Space Systems.  All the management conditions/controls provided in the land use definition tables that correlate to the recommended land-uses in CBA should be adhered to. These should be further supported by the Western Cape Provincial Rural Land-Use Planning and Management Guidelines.  Any loss in CBA should be recorded, preferably in GIS format, to encourage monitoring of the CBA Map.

GUIDANCE TO ALL PARTIES INVOLVED IN LAND-USE CHANGE APPLICATIONS IN CBA (and as part of municipal LUMS)

 Land-use activities that are not compatible with a CBA should not be approved or applied for, unless an adequate biodiversity offset receiving area is identified.  Land-use activities that will result in major loss in natural habitat are incompatible with the Desired Management Objectives of a CBA.  Subdivision of land likely to result in the loss of natural areas or more intensive use of CBA should be discouraged.  Where developments are unavoidable in a CBA, some form of conservation agreement or mechanism should be adopted in the undeveloped areas e.g. formal Protected Area status in terms of NEMPAA, appropriate zoning (in terms of LUPO) and other conservation areas, such as stewardship agreements or conservancies. Appropriate biodiversity offset receiving areas must also be identified to compensate for the CBA loss. SPECIFIC MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS  Do not permit development within at least 30m of the delineated wetland/estuary boundary or riparian edge, the 5m contour around estuaries or within the 1:100 year floodline (or higher where increased flooding has occurred), whichever is the more restrictive. This reduces the incidence or

Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 32

severity of natural hazards.  The “buffer” may need to be wider than 30m. This should be determined on a case-by-case basis by a specialist ecologist or hydrologist in consultation with appropriate authorities to reflect site-specific factors. The approach for determining buffer width should consider the current condition of the aquatic ecosystem and existing and proposed buffer, as well as the functioning of the system in the broader landscape, plus an assessment of the impacts to the ecosystem of the existing and proposed adjacent land-use.  Maintain water quantity, quality and flow regimes as close to natural as possible (desired Eco-status or Ecological Management Class of A: Natural or B: Largely Natural).  Large-scale groundwater abstraction should be avoided.  Areas that are degraded or disturbed should be rehabilitated through programmes such as Working for Water, Working for Wetlands, Working for the Coast (Coastcare); and a systematic alien vegetation (and where possible fish) eradication programme implemented to improve biodiversity and water supply, especially upstream areas of estuaries and wetlands.  Ensure implementation of the CBA Map and guidelines through Catchment Management Agencies.

BOX 3: MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR AREAS CLASSIFIED AS ECOLOGICAL SUPPORT AREAS (ESA)

 Extensive loss of habitat within ecological process areas should be minimized.  Fragmentation of habitat should be avoided within ecological process areas.  Natural linkages should be maintained and encouraged between ecosystems, e.g. rivers to associated wetlands.  Maintain ESA to ensure that ecological processes remain intact e.g. hydrological [river] processes and riparian areas, fire processes, vegetation boundaries which reflect soil interfaces or upland-lowland interfaces etc.), especially within landscape corridors.  After CBA areas, ESAs should be a secondary focus for rehabilitation, where possible e.g. alien clearing through an integrated alien management plan.  If degraded, disturbed or agricultural lands are identified as components of a landscape corridor, no further hardening of the surface should be allowed as this poses threats to the functioning of the corridor.  Avoid intensification of land-use where possible.  In fynbos and fire-prone thicket systems appropriate fire regimes should be maintained.  All the management conditions/controls provided in the land use definition table relating to the recommended land uses in ESA should be adhered to.  Any loss in ESA should be recorded, preferably in GIS format, to encourage monitoring of the CBA Map.

SPECIFIC MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS

 To protect river integrity a minimum buffer of 32m, including all riparian habitat, around rivers in ESA should be maintained. Where possible, the 1:100 year flood line should be used (or higher in areas that have experienced increased flooding). This reduces the incidence or severity of natural hazards.  Do not permit infilling, excavation, drainage, hardened surfaces (including buildings and asphalt), intensive agriculture or any new developments within a wetland and its associated buffer of natural vegetation (i.e. wetland marginal habitat).  Maintain water quantity, quality and flow regimes as close to natural as possible (desired Eco-status or Ecological Management Class of A: Natural or B: Largely Natural)  Large-scale groundwater abstraction should be avoided.  Areas that are degraded or disturbed should be rehabilitated through programmes such as Working for Water, Working for Wetlands; and a systematic alien vegetation (and where possible fish) eradication programme implemented to improve biodiversity and water supply, especially upstream areas of estuaries and wetlands.  Ensure implementation of the CBA Map and guidelines through Catchment Management Agencies.

Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 33

BOX 4: MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR AREAS CLASSIFIED AS OTHER NATURAL AREAS (ONA)

These are areas that have not been flagged as having critical biodiversity importance. However, it is possible that they contain important biodiversity features which are worthy of safeguarding, but which were not identified in the CBA Map, e.g. a previously unidentified rare species on the site.  Developments should attempt to avoid fragmentation of natural habitat.  Developments must still meet the NEMA principles and EIA requirements, including all other planning procedures (e.g. town and regional planning, water use licensing, agricultural subdivisions and cultivation).  Proposals should follow all relevant guidelines to minimize the impact of the proposed development.  Any loss in ONA should be recorded, preferably in GIS format, to encourage monitoring of the CBA Map.

Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 34

6.4 Land-use Activity Definitions Table 12. Land-use activity definitions adopted from the provincial Rural Land Use Planning and Management Guidelines (in preparation). Where land and resource use applications are processed (e.g. through EIAs), the land and resource use management guidelines, Section 4.4 on page 34, are encouraged.

LAND-USE ACTIVITY DEFINITIONS 1. CONSERVATION This is a land-use activity where conservation is the major objective. Subject to stringent controls the following biodiversity-compatible land-use activities (i.e. those of very low impact) may be accommodated in Critical Biodiversity Areas: 1a) Conservation management activities such as alien clearing, research and environmental education. 1b) Low intensity eco-tourism activities such as recreation and tourism (e.g. hiking trails, bird and game watching, and visitor overnight accommodation) with limited access points. 1c) Sustainable consumptive activities: Harvesting of natural resources (e.g. wild flowers for medicinal, culinary or commercial use), subject to an Environmental Management Plang (EMP) demonstrating the sustainability of harvesting.

Assumes the following conditions/controls: These land uses are limited to very low transformation levels for infrastructure development. Existing infrastructure and transformed areas should be utilized. Environmental Management Plans are required to ensure appropriate protection of the receiving environment e.g. harvesting volumes, periods etc. The entire property or a part thereof (depending on the land-use activity above) is under some form of conservation agreement or mechanism. These mechanisms would include formal Protected Areas in terms of NEM:PAA, appropriate zoning (in terms of the Land Use Planning Ordinance) and other conservation areas, such as stewardship agreements or conservancies (see Section 2.8 on page 23). 2. AGRICULTURE 2a) Intensive agriculture, including: - All areas of High Potential and Unique Agricultural Land (HPUAL), together with areas of lower agricultural potential where particular agricultural practices may themselves contribute to the character of the environment, the agricultural working landscape or the local economy

Forestry (Timber Production) - Includes: all timber plantations, mainly Pinus, Eucalyptus & Acacia plant species; Assumes the following conditions/controls: monoculture of alien timber species with heavy impact on hydrology and soil erosion and introduction and spread of a variety of the most aggressive alien invasive plants.

Irrigated Crop Cultivation - Includes: all irrigated crops (vegetables) and irrigated tree crops (orchards); Assumes the following conditions/controls: intensive production activity with high nutrient and agro-chemical inputs and often two crops per year [but even just ploughing, with no chemicals etc, results in irreversible loss of natural habitat].

Dryland Crop Cultivation - Includes: all tillage cultivation of non-irrigated crops, mostly single-season annuals, but including perennial and orchard-type tree crops if cultivated with an indigenous grass layer; Assumes the following conditions/controls: crop production methods that conserve water and protect against soil erosion; more-or-less limited and responsible use of fertilisers, pesticides and other agrochemicals and genetically modified organisms (GMOs). “Nuisance” and space extensive agricultural enterprises (e.g. intensive feed-lots, poultry battery houses) - Includes: all intensive animal production systems, of domestic or „wild‟ species, that are dependent primarily on imported foodstuffs and confinement; includes dairy farming and all areas in production support for dairy, including pastures, fodder and grain crops, much of which is usually irrigated; Assumes the following conditions/controls: To be located in close proximity to regional routes (including rail) to facilitate product and requisite (e.g. feed) movement and supply

2b) Extensive agriculture, including extensive livestock or game farming Includes: livestock or game production and related tourism activities on extensive land portions of natural land cover. Could include private game reserves, sustainable commercial hunting along with other consumptive and non-consumptive use of wild natural resources. Private game reserves to be officially protected through various mechanisms (e.g. NEM:PAA or other conservation agreements – see Section 2.8 on page 23), with strict limits on the level of development considered acceptable for lodge and other accommodation infrastructure. Assumes the following conditions/controls: application of minimum size criteria for economic sustainability as are applied to rangeland livestock farming; strictly limited development for revenue generating purposes such as intensified tourism or sectional ownership. Stringent management conditions applied, such as –

Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 35

. Faunal specialist to undertake carrying capacity study for game reserves/production. . For game reserves, indigenous species only to be stocked . Environmental Management Plan, including fire management measures, if necessary. . These land uses are limited to very low transformation levels for infrastructure development. . Location of infrastructure either within disturbed/transformed areas and existing buildings, where possible. 3) HOLIDAY ACCOMMODATION Provides tourist/holiday accommodation in rural areas.

(i) B&B Establishment; Backpackers Accommodation; Guesthouse; Boutique Hotel / Lodge; (ii) Resort (iii) Camping Sites Assumes the following conditions/controls: All forms of holiday accommodation are encouraged within existing structures or on existing disturbed or transformed areas and within close proximity to existing infrastructure (e.g. roads and electricity). Although encouraged for resort developments too, this is not always possible given the unique nature of the setting required, which will most likely be place-bound. Most holiday accommodation should be provided in or adjacent to existing towns and rural settlements, although it can be accommodated in the rural landscape. However, the form and scale of facilities should be aligned with the character, quality and environmental sensitivity of the rural landscape. Certain norms (e.g. number of guesthouses or B&B per farm) must be applied, as per the RLUP&M guidelines.

These land uses are restricted to small footprints and will be subject to the Western Cape Rural Land Use Planning and Management Guidelines, which restricts the number of new structures etc within the larger landscape and encourages densification to reduce cumulative impacts. Resort developments are subject to a density norm or formulae and the resort units are restricted to 120m² footprints in terms of these guidelines. 4) RURAL RESIDENTIAL 4a) Low density rural residential (consolidation of rural erven for conservation) This land use facilitates residential development rights outside the urban edge, is of a low density and occurs on extensive pieces of land thereby increasing the size of the conservation area or land under conservation, i.e. consolidation of the conservation area (area in hectares that is conserved through various mechanisms – see Section 2.8 on page 20), within the province. The following density norms, in addition to other land use factors, environmental constraints and strategic context, including the desirability to consolidate erven, shall be used to establish the maximum number of units permitted on land units outside the urban edge, namely: - Divide the total extent in hectares of the to-be-consolidated cadastral units by 1000 and multiply the answer by the number of cadastral units to be consolidated. Refer to the Rural Planning & Development Guidelines (in prep) if this calculation yields a number of dwelling units that is less than or equal to, or less than one-third more than, the total number of individual cadastral units to be consolidated.

development for „lifestyle‟ or investment-type recreational ownership such as share-block schemes, multi-ownership reserves, but only for extensive land portions with limited development (NB: excludes golf estates or residential eco-estates).

Assumes the following conditions/controls:  Maintenance of a large measure of natural land cover and biodiversity friendly management must be maintained; the development footprint should be extremely limited in relation to the property size.  Individual footprints to be limited to 250m² with maximum permissible floor space of 120m².  Clustered layout, sensitively placed to limit the transformation impact, development within already transformed or disturbed areas or use of existing buildings or built on timber piers (this will also ensure corridor linkages throughout the cadastral);  Sustainable water supply (within the allocated Reserve of the water resource).  Use off grid services (solar power, rainwater harvesting, grey water recycling, urine diversion/enviro- loos) & built from local recyclable materials.  No formal gardening.  Areas not developed are under some form of agreement or mechanism. These mechanisms would include formal Protected Areas in terms of NEM:PAA, appropriate zoning (in terms of the Land Use Planning Ordinance) and other conservation areas, such as stewardship agreements or conservancies (see Section 2.8 on page 23). 4b) “On-Farm” Settlement of Farm Workers This land use includes residences for farm workers and retirees “on-farm” i.e. where housing is available to farm workers who currently live on the farm and will be living there in future, either due to personal preference (e.g their tenure rights, rural surroundings, place for retirement, etc.) or because circumstances require it (e.g. working hours, etc.). Assumes the following conditions/controls: (a) Fragmentationg of agricultural landscape and land for agricultural purposes not being threatened by the “urbanization” or the rural areas. (b) Where possible, clustering of units in distinct housing precincts located in visually unobtrusive locations and existing footprints, but enjoying convenient access to rural access network 5) TOURIST AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES Includes a broad range of rural tourist and recreational facilities in support of sustainable rural tourism, rural Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 36 businesses and communities, as well as to provide for the rural recreational and leisure needs of urban dwellers, namely: 5a) Low impact facilities (i) lecture rooms, restrooms, restaurants, gift shops (ii) outdoor recreation (e.g. 4x4 trails and hiking trails) (iii) Non-place bound tourist and recreational activities and facilities (e.g. water parks, paint ball); and 5b) High impact facilities (iv) Golf Courses, Golf Estates, Polo Fields and Polo Estates (with or without residential component). Assumes the following conditions/controls:  Non-place bound tourist and recreational activities and facilities located in or peripheral to existing rural settlements  Rural tourist and recreational activities and facilities to be linked to a natural setting or feature.  Location of infrastructure either within disturbed/transformed areas and existing buildings, where possible.  Restricting large-scale recreational developments including a residential component to a location in the “urban periphery”, allowing for inclusion in the medium-term urban edge  Development outside of ecologically sensitive areas, for example river-beds, wetlands, flood-lines and priority ecological corridors. 6. RURAL BUSINESS This land use broadens tourist and visitor demand and strengthens rural and settlement economies. It includes Rural businesses ranging from a curio-shop in a National Park to a conference venue on a game farm, namely: 6a) Place-bound business - (i) Farm stall and farm shop (ii) Restaurant/tavern (iii) Venue facility (e.g. conference/ wedding) AND 6b) Non place-bound business e.g. agricultural co-operative, filling station/ petro-port, tourist retail outlet, plant nursery, hotel/motel, tourism office, commercial kennel. Assumes the following conditions/controls:  Farm stall restricted to selling products produced and processed on the farm to the general public, located either in the farmstead precinct or abutting a tourist route, if present.  Restaurant, tavern and venue facility located within the farmstead precinct.  Non place-bound business located in and peripheral to rural settlements, outside of environmentally sensitive areas e.g. Critical Biodiversity Areas.  Location of infrastructure either within disturbed/transformed areas and existing buildings, where possible. 7. RURAL INDUSTRY This land use accommodates a range of industry types serving rural areas, and include: 7(a) Non place-bound rural industry, for example - - Manufacturing agricultural requisites such as pallet making, bottle labeling - Processing of regionally sourced product such as fruit cannery, meat processing plant, abattoir, - Transport contractors, dairy depots, builder‟s yards; and - Processing rural sourced products (e.g. pottery manufacturing from kaolin mines) 7(b) Extractive industry which is place-bound given mineral resource i.e. quarrying and mining; including secondary beneficiation (e.g. cement block manufacturing plants, concrete batch plants, pre-mix asphalt plants). Includes all strip and opencast mining excavations or quarrying (sand mining); plus the visual, physical and chemical impacts of these activities, particularly on ground water reserves; all mine waste and refuse dumps, urban waste sites and landfill sites for whatever purposes. Assumes the following conditions/controls:  All non place-bound industry (i.e. rural industry and service trades) to be located in and peripheral to rural settlements outside of environmentally sensitive areas e.g. Critical Biodiversity Areas.  Extractive industry to be located at the mineral source within the rural area, and informed by environmental considerations and post mining rehabilitation. 8. SMALLHOLDINGS This land use accommodates smaller agricultural properties which may be used for agriculture, but may also be occupied as places of residence by people who seek a rural lifestyle, and usually includes agriculture, dwelling house, home occupation.

Assumes the following conditions/controls:  New smallholding development to be restricted to inside the urban edge.  Minimum smallholding unit size : 8 000m²  Compilation of a Management Plan for new and existing smallholding areas. 9. COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND INSTITUTIONS This land use provides facilities in support of rural community socio-economic development and well-being; including: (i) schools, places of assembly, churches (ii) primary and secondary health care (iii) institutions requiring a buffer or isolated location (e.g. infectious disease recovery facility) (iv) institutions requiring an agricultural production location (e.g. agricultural research stations and agricultural Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 37

schools). Assumes the following conditions/controls:  Facilities located within existing towns and rural settlements; in close proximity to a settlement or located on a regional route, outside of environmentally sensitive areas e.g. Critical Biodiversity Areas.  In the absence of public land, establish facilities “on-farm”, utilizing existing farm structures or existing footprints.  Location of facilities to target disturbed areas and areas of low agricultural potential in order to avoid fragmentation of super-blocks. 10. INFRASTRUCTURE INSTALLATIONS This land use accommodates infrastructure installations serving both the urban and rural areas where such installations include: (i) Wastewater treatment works, airport, water extraction purification plants, safety and security (e.g. Police stations); irrigation infrastructure; roads, power lines, railways, pipelines; and (ii) All substantial impoundments, reservoirs or dams and weirs, with associated pipelines, canals, access roads and bulk water transfer schemes), Assumes the following conditions/controls:  Installations be located on disturbed or low-value agricultural land.  A shared location and/or facility (e.g. police and clinic in a community service centre)  Infrastructure installations requiring a location outside the urban edge be restricted to extensive agricultural areas peripheral to settlements in close proximity to regional routes to facilitate access and to restrict fragmentation of the agricultural landscape  Installations in intensive agricultural areas be restricted to essential services (e.g. irrigation infrastructure, safety and security).  All water-use developments to be subject to the Ecological Reserve. 11. SETTLEMENT This category includes all human settlements, consisting of the following 2 sub-categories: (1) Existing settlements (& urban expansion), which include: Metropolitan areas, cities, larger towns, small towns, villages and hamlets. It comprises all physical, residential, educational, recreational (e.g. sports facilities, fields, parks), cemeteries, industrial and business development, including associated infrastructure etc, which are commonly known as urban land use activities (or the built environment). Existing settlements are frequently under significant pressure to expand due to in-migration & population increases, which require the provision of housing and services etc therefore causing urban expansion. Assumes the following conditions/controls:  The control of urban expansion through the delineation of an urban edge to prevent urban sprawl.  The delineation process is guided by the provincial urban edge guideline document and informed by a biodiversity plan, for example: a Critical Biodiversity Area is used to delineate a boundary of the urban edge.  The promotion of compact urban settlements, whilst maintaining an open space system (where possible) that is informed by a biodiversity plan.

(2) New settlements include areas that will - (i) Service geographically isolated farming areas (i.e. agri-village) (ii) Service rural resource exploitation (e.g. mines) (iii) Proclaim the urban component of existing rural settlements Assumes the following conditions/controls:  New Settlements located in the rural area when necessitated by unique circumstances (e.g. servicing of isolated large infrastructural projects outside the servicing sphere of existing settlements) or in order to proclaim the urban component of existing rural (i.e. Transformation of Certain Rural Areas) church, forestry or conservation settlements.

Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 38

7 References

Amis, M.A., Rouget, M., Balmford, A., Thuiller, W., Kleynhans, C.J., Day, J. and Nel, J., in press. Predicting Freshwater Habitat Integrity Using Land Use/Cover Surrogates. WATER SA. Anon (2001). C-Plan. Conservation Planning Software User Manual forC-PlanVersion 3.06. Armidale, New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service, Report. Anon (2008). Guideline regarding the Determination of Bioregions and the Preparation and Publication of Bioregional Plans. Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. Ardron, J.A., Possingham, H.P., and Klein, C.J., eds. (2008). Marxan Good Practices Handbook. External review version, pp 155. Pacific Marine Analysis and Research Association, www.pacmara.org, Vancouver, BC, Canada. Ball, I.R. and Possingham, H.P. (2000). MARXAN (V1.8.2): Marine Reserve Design Using Spatially Explicit Annealing, a Manual. The Ecology Centre, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. Berliner D. & Desmet P. (2007) Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan: Technical Report. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry Project No 2005-012, Pretoria. 1 August 2007 Cowling, R.M., A.T. Lombard, M. Rouget, G.I.H. Kerley, T. Wolf, R. Sims-Castley, A. Knight, J.H.J. Vlok, S.M. Pierce, A.F. Boshoff and S.L. Wilson. (2003). A conservation assessment for the Subtropical Thicket Biome. Terrestrial Ecology Research Unit, University of Port Elizabeth. Cowling, R.M. (1999). Planning for persistence –systematic reserve design in southern Africa‟s succulent Karoo desert. Parks, 9(1), February 1999 Desmet, P.G. (2006) A Strategic Land Acquisition Policy for the Leslie Hill Succulent Karoo Trust (ZA1415). Report for the Leslie Hill Succulent Karoo Trust (WWF), Stellenbosch, South Africa Driver, A, P. Desmet, M. Rouget, R. Cowling and K. Maze. 2003. Succulent Karoo Ecosystem Plan, Biodiversity Component, Technical Report. Cape Conservation Unit, Report No. CCU 1/03, Botanical Society of South Africa. Driver, A., Cowling, R.M. & Maze, K.E. (2003). Planning for living landscapes: Perspectives and lessons from South Africa. Cape Town: Botanical Society of South Africa, Center for Applied Diversity Science and Conservation International. Driver, A., Maze, K., Rouget, M., Lombard, A.T., Nel, J., Turpie, J.K., Cowling, R.M., Desmet, P., Goodman, P., Harris, J., Jonas, Z., Reyers, B. Sink, K. & Strauss, T. 2004. The National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment. Priorities for biodiversity conservation in South Africa. Strelitzia 17. SANBI. Forsyth, G., Vlok, J. And B. Reyers (2008) Retention and restoration of the biodiversity of the Little Karoo. CSIR Report No CSIR/NRE/ECO/ER/2008/0118/C Prepared for: Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund. Gallo, J.A., Lombard, A.T. and Cowling, R.M. (2010) Increasing the impact of systematic conservation planning: some suggestions, a decision support system framework, and a precursory model. Submitted to Conservation Biology. Holness, S.D, Bradshaw, P., & Brown, A. (2010). Critical Biodiversity Areas of the Garden Route. Garden Route Initiative, SANParks. Jackelman, J; Holness, S and Lechmere-Oertel, R (2008). The National Protected Area Expansion Strategy (NPAES): A Framework for Implementation. Report compiled for South African National Biodiversity Institute and National Department of Environment Affairs and Tourism, Pretoria Lombard, A.T., T. Wolf and N. Cole. 2003. GIS coverages and spatial analyses for the Subtropical Thicket Ecosystem Planning (STEP) Project. Terrestrial Ecology Research Unit, University of Port Elizabeth. TERU Report 42. Lombard, A.T., Wolf, T. and T. Strauss (2004) GIS Specialist Services, Gouritz Initiative (GI). Prepared for: Cape Nature Margules, C.R. & Pressey, R.L. (2000). Systematic conservation planning. Nature, 405. Marsh, A, Desmet, P & Oosthuysen, E (2009). Namakwa District Managementity Biodiversity Sector Plan, Version 2, February 2009. Northern Cape Province Department of Tourism, Environment & Conservation (DTEC), Directorate: Policy Coordination and Environmental Planning, Springbok Mucina L. & Rutherford, M.C. (eds) (2006). The Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Strelitzia 19. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.

Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 39

Nel, J.L., Reyers, B., Van Deventer, H., Smith-Adao, L. 2007. Protected Area Expansion Strategy: Spatial assessment of river priorities. Final Report. CSIR Report number CSIR/NRE/ECO/2007/0134/C. Noss, R.F. (1990). "Indicators for monitoring biodiversity - a hierarchical approach." Conservation Biology 4(4): 355-364. Pasquini, L. 2007. Privately –owned lands and biodiversity conservation: analysing the role of Private Conservation Areas in the Little Karoo, south Africa. University of Sheffield. Pence, Genevieve Q.K. 2008 (in prep). C.A.P.E. Fine-Scale Systematic Conservation Planning Assessment: Technical Report. Produced for Cape Nature. Reyers, B., P. J. O‟Farrell, R. M. Cowling, B. N. Egoh, D. C. Le Maitre and J. H. J. Vlok 2009. Ecosystem services, land-cover change, and stakeholders: finding a sustainable foothold for a semiarid biodiversity hotspot. Ecology and Society 14(1): 38. [online] Rouget, M., Reyers, B., Jonas, Z., Desmet, P., Driver, A., Maze, K., Egoh, B. & Cowling, R.M. (2004). South African National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment 2004: Technical Report. Volume1: terrestrial component. Pretoria: South African National Biodiversity Institute. Rutherford, M.C., Midgley, G.F., Bond, W.J., Powrie, L.W., Roberts, R. and Allsopp N. (1999). South African Country Study on Climate Change. Plant Biodiversity:vulnerability and Adaptation Assessment. NBI. SANBI (2007). Draft Guideline regarding the Determination of Bioregions and the Preparation and Publication of Bioregional Plans. March 2007. Prepared by the South African National Biodiversity Institute at the request of the Minister and Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism SANBI (2008). Threatened Ecosystems in South Africa: General Information. South African Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria. Scholes, R.J. & Biggs, R (2005) A biodiversity intactness index. Nature 434, 45-49 Skowno, A.L., Holness, S.D. and P.G. Desmet (2009) Biodiversity Assessment of the Central Karoo District Managementity. DEADP Report EADP05/2008, 52 pages. Thompson, M., J. Vlok, R. Cowling, S. Cundill and N. Mundau (2005). A land transformation map for the Little Karoo. Pretoria, GeoterraImage (Pty) Ltd. Vlok, J. H. J., R. M. Cowling and T. Wolf. 2005. A vegetation map for the Little Karoo. Unpublished maps and report for a SKEP project supported by Grant No 1064410304. (Cape Town, Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund) Vlok, J. And Reyers, B. Unpublished. Methods, Data, and Results for Determining the Representation Targets of the Little Karoo Vromans, D.C., Maree, K.S., Holness, S.D., Job, N. and Brown, A.E. 2010. The Garden Route Biodiversity Sector Plan for the George, Knysna and Bitou Municipalities. Supporting land-use planning and decision-making in Critical Biodiversity Areas and Ecological Support Areas for sustainable development. Garden Route Initiative. South African National Parks. Knysna. Vromans, D.C., Maree, K.S., Holness, S. D., Job, N. and Brown, A.E. 2010. The Garden Route Biodiversity Sector Plan for the southern regions of the Kouga and Koukamma Municipalities. Supporting land-use planning and decision-making in Critical Biodiversity Areas and Ecological Support Areas for sustainable development. Garden Route Initiative. South African National Parks. Knysna.

Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 40

8 Appendix 1: GIS methods and technical notes

8.1 Planning Domain The planning domain for this study includes the whole of the Kannaland Local Municipality, Oudtshoorn Local Municipality and the Eden District Management Area (DMA04) in which the town of Uniondale is situated. The latest municipal boundaries (Municipal Demarcation board 2008) were utilised. Many of the existing plans and data layers for the region follow the Little Karoo Planning domain defined by Vlok et al. (2005) and refined by Reyers et al. (2008). The Little Karoo Planning domain extends further west than this assessment and covers an area of 1,9 million hectares as opposed to the 1,25 million covered by this assessment (Figure A). Ecosystem Status and Protection level calculations were based on the larger Little Karoo Planning area and its 371 vegetation units.

Figure A. showing the Little Karoo Planning Domain defined by Vlok et al. (2005) in relation the planning domain of this study.

8.2 General All GIS analyses and processes were conducted by the authors in ESRI ARCGIS (9.3.1) , ARCVIEW (3.2) and IDRISI environments. The projection for all grids and shapefiles was set to UTM 34 South described below:

Projected Coordinate System: WGS_1984_UTM_Zone_34S Projection: Transverse_Mercator False_Easting: 500000.00000000 False_Northing: 10000000.00000000 Central_Meridian: 21.00000000 Scale_Factor: 0.99960000 Latitude_Of_Origin: 0.00000000 Linear Unit: Meter Geographic Coordinate System: GCS_WGS_1984 Datum: D_WGS_1984 Prime Meridian: Greenwich Angular Unit: Degree

Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 41

8.3 Table showing colours used in the Critical Biodiversity Area Map CODE NAME SOURCE DESCRIPTION NOTES FOR AV3.x CBA Critical CAPE Fine- Green (hue:saturation:va biodiversity scale (67:128:0 lue) area RGB) 63:255:128 ESA Ecological Central Olive support area Karoo (168:168:0 RGB) PA Protected CAPE Fine- Green (1:99:0 85:255:100 area (formal) scale RGB) + black 45° , 0.5 lines CA Conservation Central Olive area Karoo (115:115:0 (informal) RGB) + black 45°, 0.5 lines

OTHER NAT Other natural CAPE Fine- White areas scale TRANS Transformed CAPE Fine- Grey or converted scale (178:178:178 areas RGB)

8.4 Protected areas layer A protected area layer was developed for the planning domain based on existing Cape Nature Protected Areas data set, Cape Nature Stewardship Sites data set, Informal Conservation Ares in the NPAES (2008), and Private conservation areas Identified by Pasquini (2007). Only Formal Protected Areas and contracted Cape Nature Stewardship sites were considered as Protected Areas in the analysis. These sites are assumed to contribute to meeting biodiversity targets, and as such are “hard wired” into the CBA Model as PAs. Informal sites are not assumed to contribute to meeting biodiversity targets as there is no guarantee in the long term that the biodiversity contained in them will be conserved.

8.5 Land cover model This project developed a simplified land cover based on a land cover map put together by Kirkwood et al. (2009) (specifically the land cover designed for ecosystem status calculations) as part of the Western Cape Biodiversity Framework (which in turn was based on Thompson et al. 2005). The modifications made in this project include the addition of: Chief Directorate Surveys and Mapping 1:50 000 series data (roads and railways buffered by 15m; dams and quarries un-buffered; built up areas buffered by 100m); and agricultural fields layer developed by GTI for Department agriculture. Some reclassification was necessary: The DA fields layer is more accurate than the fields class of the Thompson data set in delineating actual cultivated areas and old lands. The cultivated Class in this Land Cover was based solely on the DA field layers. The areas classified as cultivated by Thompson et al. (2005) that fall outside of the DA fields layer were reclassified as Severely Degraded. This decision was based on desktop SPOT image investigation. Two levels of land classification were developed based on Kirkwood et al. (2009) The Land cover is available as shapefile or 10m resolution TIFF.

Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 42

Landcover Level 1 Level 2 Natural Natural Near Natural - Alien invasive plants Near Natural - Moderately Degraded Unknown No Natural No Natural Agric No Natural Dam No Natural Urban No Natural - Other Degraded Severely Degraded 8.6 Biodiversity Features

8.6.1 Habitat model The conservation planning process made use of the finescale vegetation map produced by Jan Vlok (Vlok et al. 2005). This high quality vegetation map is based on a combination of extensive field surveys during 2004, the subdivision of landscape into topogeomorphic units hand drawn on 1:50 000 Landsat images and additional remote sensing interpretation. A hierarchical classification system was used with vegetation units, nested within habitats which are nested within biomes. In transformed areas, the pretransformation vegetation was estimated and mapped based on surrounding vegetation and remaining patches. 235 vegetation types are found within the Kannaland and Oudtshoorn Local Municipalities, and Eden District Management Area (Uniondale) of the Little Karoo.

Targets were based on those defined for the Little Karoo study region using a systematic approach (Vlok & Reyers Unpublished). Each target was derived using the slope of the species-area curve (Desmet & Cowling 2004). This benefited habitats with greater species heterogeneity. The percentage of species targeted for conservation was set at 75%.. The targets were rescaled so that the target range was 16-34% as per the national standard. These are given in the Excel Spreadsheet targets.xls.

A two stage approach to the identification of the priority areas for habitats was used : 1.) Area targets were set based on the original extent of each habitat within the planning area combined with the percentage target. The available natural areas of each habitat type were made available for selection. Targets could be not be met for 14 types: a. Calitzdorp Gravel Apronveld b. Doornkloof Gannaveld c. Eensaamheid Renosterveld d. Elandsvlei Gwarrieveld e. Gourits Asbos-Gwarrieveld f. Greylands Apronveld g. Grootkop Apronveld h. Kruisrivier Gannaveld i. Langkloof Renosterveld j. Oudtshoorn Gannaveld k. Rooirivier Apronveld l. Vanwyksdorp Gravel Apronveld m. Volmoed Gannaveld n. Witvlakte Arid Spekboomveld 2.) For these vegetation types a second “shadow” feature was added in which included both natural and degraded areas of that vegetation type. The same target was used for this feature. Both the original feature (with natural areas only) and the “shadow feature” (with natural and degraded areas) were included within the analysis. The consequence of this is that natural areas are always selected first (as they are required to meet the targets for both the original feature and the “shadow feature”, and that the additional area required to meet the remaining target would then be met in degraded areas.

Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 43

8.6.2 Nationally listed threatened ecosystems Vegetation types that will be listed at threatened under NEMBA were obtained from SANBI. The boundaries of these units are based on the National Vegetation Map. These were trimmed to their remaining untransformed extent and these areas were included as features in the conservation assessment. For Critically Endangered vegetation types 100% of both natural and degraded areas were targeted for selection, while for other types only natural areas were made available and targets were based on the original extent of each vegetation type within the planning domain:

Name Status Target % Eastern Coastal Vulnerable 27 Shale Band Vegetation Eastern Little Vulnerable 16 Karoo Kango Vulnerable 29 Limestone Renosterveld Langkloof Shale Critically Endangered 100 Renosterveld Montagu Shale Vulnerable 29 Renosterveld Muscadel Riviere Critically Endangered 100

8.6.3 Special plant species Critically endangered, endangered and vulnerable plant species records from Cape Nature and CREW Databases. The locations of threatened plant species (Critically Endangered, Endangered and Vulnerable) were buffered by 250m. Existing datasets provided by Don Kirkwood and John Gallo were combined with data provided by CREW. Only Critically Endangered, Endangered and Vulnerable species were included from the CREW records, with Data Deficient, Least Concern and “No Status” records being removed. From the John Gallo datasets (largely derived from CapeNature records), records with “low level of concern” statuses similar to those listed above were removed from the dataset, as were records with poor location accuracy (e.g. records tied to “nearest minute”, centroids of farms etc). The above three datasets were combined, and trimmed to the remaining natural and degraded area.

Specific species data are not provided in this dataset, as certain elements of the CREW dataset are potentially sensitive. Should a site be identified as having potential special species, the CREW dataset should be directly queried to find specific details of the species concerned.

A 100% target was set for remaining natural areas and degraded areas with potential special plant species to ensure that these areas all fall within CBAs .

8.6.4 Forest patches Forest patches from Cape Nature (Kirkwood pers com). An 30% target was used for these areas to ensure that they were largely included in CBAs without forcing in all small fragments. This analysis was redundant as all areas were already within existing protected areas.

8.6.5 Quartz patches Quartz areas were derived from two datasets. Quartz patches from Cape Nature (Kirkwood pers com) were combined with the quartz vegetation types from the Little Karoo vegetation

Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 44

map. These areas were trimmed to their remaining natural extent. Quartz patches are also included within the areas prioritized by the Gouritz assessment (Lombard et al, 2004).

A 30% target was used for these areas to ensure that they were included in CBAs without forcing in all fragments.

8.6.6 Leslie Hill Succulent Karoo Expert areas The Leslie Hill Succulent Karoo Trust plant expert survey (Desmet, 2006) contains the results of a survey of 16 Succulent Karoo plant experts (38 respondents were originally identified and approached) who were asked to map the most important areas for conservation in the Succulent Karoo. The survey was conducted in 2005 as part of a study commission by the WWF to assess conservation priorities in the Succulent Karoo. Criteria for mapping areas included: Areas rich with endemic plant species or unique habitats; Good representative area of the general habitats and vegetation of the surrounding area; Area is under threat from some activity and if not conserved will be lost.

The expert group identified 134 areas within the Succulent Karoo as being important for conservation covering an area of 1.17 Million hectares or 9.7% of the core Succulent Karoo biome. The distribution of expert mapped areas is overwhelmingly skewed towards areas in Namaqualand with only a handful identified in Central Karoo planning domain.

Targets were set based on the original extent of each expert area: 0-1000ha 80% target 1000-5000ha 50% target 5000-10000ha 40% target 10000ha+ 20% target

8.6.7 John Gallo Expert areas ( including inputs from Jan Vlok) John Gallo recently completed a conservation planning tool and assessment of priority areas for reserves and stewardship within the Little Karoo (Gallo et al, in press). Expert identified areas included habitats with high endemism and richness of succulents and identified priority sites identified by Jan Vlok. Areas above a threshold value of 0.5 were extracted from the above datasets. These areas were clipped to their remaining natural extent. A 30% target was used for these areas to ensure that they were included in CBAs without forcing in all fragments.

8.6.8 Priority areas from the STEP and SKEP Conservation Assessments Features were extracted from the STEP and SKEP conservation assessments  High irreplaceability areas from the Succulent Karoo assessment (SKEP) were included. A 20% target was used for the CBA run.  Process areas were included from the thicket assessment (STEP). These were the river and biome process areas. A 20% targets were used fro these features in the CBA run.

The remaining natural extent of these features were included within the conservation assessment. Low targets were used in the Little Karoo assessment as more modern analyses were available and the intention was to slightly skew the selection into these areas rather than forcing selection. Note that components of the STEP assessment such a the Mega Conservancy Corridors are included via the “Gouritz Priorities” detailed below.

8.6.9 Succulent Karoo Priorities Priority areas identified within the Leslie Hill Succulent Karoo Trust assessment (Desmet, 2006) were included as features. Any site with a Marxan score of greater than 25 was included. A 30% target was used.

Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 45

8.6.10 Garden Route Initiative Critical Biodiversity Areas and Ecological Support Areas Priority areas identified within the Route Initiative Critical Biodiversity Areas and Ecological Support Areas assessment process that overlapped into the planning domain were included (Holness et al, 2010; Vromans et al, 2010a, Vromans et al, 2010b). A target of 30% of these areas was used.

8.6.11 East Cape Priorities Priority sub-catchments identified as CBAs within the Eastern Cape Biodiversity Assessment (Berliner & Desmet, 2007) were included as features where these extended into the CKDM. A target of 30% of the remaining intact area was used.

8.7 Aquatic features

8.7.1 Priority Rivers and Catchments Outputs of the National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Area assessment (NFEPA) which is currently being completed (Nel et al, in prep) were incorporated. This project identifies the most important rivers, river catchment and wetlands for meeting freshwater biodiversity targets and conserving ecological processes.

The project identified Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (FEPAs) which are the freshwater equivalent of a Critical Biodiversity Area, and Freshwater Ecosystem Support Areas (FESAs) which are the freshwater equivalent of Ecological Support Areas. These are identified at a national scale and require some finescaling before they can be incorporated into a Critical Biodiversity Area map: • FEPA priority catchments were trimmed to their remaining natural extent and this was included as a feature in the conservation assessment with a target of 70%. Any intact FEPA area that was not selected as a CBA in the assessment was included in the second run as a compulsory Ecological Support Area to ensure that the catchment was sufficiently protected. • FESA support area catchments were trimmed to their remaining natural extent and this was included as a feature in the conservation assessment with a target of 30% of original area. • FEPA priority river reaches and a buffer of 500m on either side were trimmed to their remaining natural extent and this was included as a feature in the conservation assessment with a target of 70%. Any intact FEPA river reach area that was not selected as a CBA in the assessment was included in the second run as a compulsory Ecological Support Area to ensure that the catchment was sufficiently protected. • FESA support area river reaches and a buffer of 500m on either side were trimmed to their remaining natural extent and this was included as a feature in the conservation assessment with a target of 30% of original area. Any intact FESPA river reach area that was not selected as a CBA in the assessment was included in the second run as a compulsory Ecological Support Area to ensure that the catchment was sufficiently protected.

8.7.2 Additional rivers From a process perspective, it is not just the nationally selected rivers which are important. A river buffer layer developed by Don Kirkwood which buffered the larger (above 2nd order) 1:50 000 rivers by 100m and the smaller rivers by 30m was included as a compulsory part of the Ecological Support Area layer in the second conservation run.

Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 46

8.7.3 Wetlands and pans Cape Nature sensitive wetlands layer (Shaw 2007) combined with the NFEPA wetland layer (see above) were clipped to Planning Domain, and a unique ID was assigned to each wetland. The Wetlands were then buffered by 500m and the percentage transformation and degradation around each wetland was calculated using zonal statistics (ARCGIS9.2), this attribute was then joined to the original wetland layer. Wetlands with more than 30% of their buffer area transformed or degraded were considered to be in a poor ecological state.

The wetlands were clipped to remaining natural and degraded areas and included as a feature in the MARXAN run with a target of 30%. Any natural wetland not selected as a CBA was included in the second run as a compulsory Ecological Support Area to ensure that wetlands are sufficiently protected. 8.8 Ecosystem status Ecosystem status calculations are based on a union between the vegetation, transformation and protected areas layers. A pivot table was used in Excel to calculate per vegetation type summary statistics of transformation, degradation and protection. Separate ecosystem status calculations were performed using transformation only and transformation and degradation together. The Status of the habitat types is summarized in Appendix 2. 8.9 Protection Level and Urgency Protection level is calculated as the percentage biodiversity target achievement by the protected area network for each vegetation type. Protection urgency is based on irreplaceability of the remaining unfragmented areas of that vegetation type that are available to meet PA targets. The union between vegetation types, transformation and protected areas described in the ecosystem status methods above was used to calculate protection summary statistics. (full details for each vegetation type in Appendix 2)

8.10 Climate change and corridors

8.10.1 High priority unfragmented landscapes Unfragmented areas play an important role in climate change adaptation as they allow relatively unrestricted movement of species across the landscape, which ensures that they can adapt naturally to climate change. Further, these large areas represent landscapes where a range of ecological processes that require extensive areas (e.g. habitat for wide ranging scavengers such as Brown Hyaena) can either currently operate or where there is reasonable potential for these processes to be reinstated.

The National Protected Areas Expansion Conservation Assessment (Holness 2008) identified high priority unfragmented areas that if protected would contribute most to meeting national terrestrial and freshwater conservation targets. The areas identified are all over 5000ha in size. Every attempt should be made to avoid an activity that results in the fragmentation of these areas. A 30% target was used for these areas to ensure preferential selection of other biodiversity features in these areas without forcing the whole area into the plan.

8.10.2 Riparian corridors River corridors represent important linkages across the landscape, particularly in arid and poorly differentiated habitats. In addition to the other river and aquatic features included in the plan, it was important to ensure that all major riparian corridor areas were included to ensure that the linkages important for climate change adaptation were protected.

Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 47

The DWAF 1:500 000 rivers layer was used as the basis for the assessment. Rivers were buffered as follows: 3rd order and larger rivers 1000m 2nd order rivers 500m All remaining rivers 250m

All intact natural areas within these riparian corridors were targeted as Critical Biodiversity Areas with 100% target set. A 100% target for both natural and transformed areas for these rivers was set for the second run, ie. they were fully included in the Ecological Support Areas category.

8.10.3 Topographic variability Areas of potential climate change resilience and climate refuges based on a multi-scale modeled assessment of landscapes of high topographic diversity. These topographically diverse areas are important for a number of reasons:  The representation of rare or unique features that are not encountered more widely in the landscape;  Associated with keystone ecological process features such as inselbergs, cliff faces, springs and caves;  Are an important refuge habitat in the face of climate change; and  These areas also include important altitude, temperature and moisture gradients which need to be protected to allow climate change adaptation.

The 90m resolution SRTM Digital Elevation Model was used as the basis for the assessment. This layer was processed in IDRISI according to the following method:  The data were filtered at a variety of scales: 7x7, 15x15, 25x25, 45x45 pixels;  A standard deviation was calculated at each scale;  Areas with a top quartile SD at any of these scales were classified as having high topographic variability; and  A combined multi-scale layer of areas of high topographic variability was produced by combining these layers. Small areas were removed (>100ha).

A 30% target for these areas was set for the first CBA run, while the remaining unselected areas were included as Ecological Support Areas if they were not transformed.

8.10.4 South-facing slopes South facing slopes represent important climate change refuges. These areas are likely to serve as refuge habitats during period of temperature increase and moisture decrease as they naturally have lower temperatures and higher moisture levels that the general landscape.

The 90m resolution SRTM Digital Elevation Model was used as the basis for the assessment. This layer was processed in IDRISI according to the following method:  Areas with a south facing aspect were identified using IDRISI modelling tools (aspect of between 110° and 250°);  Areas of a slope of 10° or greater were identified using IDRISI modelling tools;  These two layers were intersected to identify areas with steep south facing slopes; The layer was clipped to the remaining natural extent; and  Small areas were removed (>100ha).

Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 48

A 30% target for these larger intact south facing was set for the first CBA run.

8.10.5 Kloof model Kloofs are an important habitat for biodiversity for a variety of reasons:  The representation of rare or unique features that are not encountered more widey in the landscape;  Associated with keystone ecological process features such as springs and caves; and  Are an important refuge habitat in the face of climate change.

A simplified model was developed for identifying kloofs, which concentrates on finding steep slopes in close proximity to streams. The 90m resolution SRTM Digital Elevation Model was used as the basis for the assessment. This layer was processed in IDRISI according to the following method:  Areas of a slope of 15° or greater were identified using IDRISI modelling tools;  The larger rivers (above 2nd order) from a river buffer layer developed by Don Kirkwood which buffered the larger 1:50 000 rivers by 100m, were buffered by an additional 150m to give a total buffer of 250m on each side of larger rivers. This footprint which was defined as “close proximity to a river” was imported into IDRISI;  The layers were intersected;  The layer was clipped to the remaining natural extent; and  Small areas were removed (>100ha).

A 30% target for these areas was set for the first CBA run, while the remaining unselected areas were included as Ecological Support Areas.

8.10.6 Existing corridors from the Gouritz Initiative The Gouritz Initiative developed a set of priority process areas to support long term ecological processes in the region. These identified process areas form the backbone of the process component of the CBA layer, and attempts were made to include this layer as fully as possible within the constraints of producing an efficient CBA solution. These identified areas included the STEP Megaconservancy Network, identified mountain corridors, connecting areas important for nectavores, quartz patch related processes, and the core Gouritz north-south corridor. These components of the Gouritz plan were trimmed to their remaining natural extent and were included into the MARXAN run with a 60% target. Remaining unselected areas were included with a 100% target in the second run (i.e. they are fully included as Ecological Support Areas).

8.10.7 Alignment with adjacent conservation plans Corridors are worthless if the don‟t go anywhere. Fortunately, conservation plans have been undertaken for almost all the areas surrounding the Little Karoo. Priority corridors and adjacent CBA areas were collated from the adjacent 6 systematic conservation plans:  Central Karoo District FSBP;  Winelands DMA FSBP;  Hessequa FSBP;  Mosselbay FSBP;  Garden Route Initiative Critical Biodiversity Areas; and  East Cape Province Biodiversity Conservation Plan.

The linkages were identified and then included as features in the Little Karoo MARXAN run. Targets of 80% were set for the linkage areas.

Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 49

8.11 Non-Biodiversity Alignment layers

8.11.1 Important Natural Viewsheds The CSIR ecosystem services project developed a viewshed layer of areas within the Little Karoo that are highly visible from known tourism access routes. High value areas (above a score of 5) were selected from this layer. These areas were clipped to remaining natural areas to define a “High visibility natural areas” layer. This was included as a feature in the conservation planning run with a 30% target to prioritize areas where intact biodiversity may be contributing to tourism in the area (Reyers et al. 2008). 8.12 Cost Layers

8.12.1 Landcover model The landcover model was used as part of the cost surface. See 8.14.4 8.13 Restoration / Rehabilitation model Potential thicket restoration areas were generated using STEP (2001) vegetation, Thompson‟s 2005 landcover and distance to settlements data (CDSM) by CSIR team in CEPF funded project in 2008 (Forsyth et.al 2008). 8.14 Technical methods used in the assessment

8.14.1 Planning Units Hexagon planning units of 25ha size were used as the base planning units.

8.14.2 Biodiversity Features and Targets Targets for habitat types followed Vlok et al. 2005, Reyers et al. 2008 and Gallo et al (in press) . Targets for other features were set based on those used in other similar plans, as well as the underlying nature of the feature. For example, remaining natural and degraded areas of Critically Endangered habitat listed under NEM:BA were given a 100% target to ensure that they were reflected in the final CBA map, while more notional features such as high priority quarter degree squares from the SKEP assessment or modelled areas important for climate change adaptation were given far lower targets to encourage preferential selection of these areas without forcing them into the plan. High targets were set for selected priority river catchments and river reaches from the aquatic assessment as these were required to form the backbone of the conservation design. The targets are detailed in the individual descriptions of features in the preceding chapter.

8.14.3 Software methods A similar planning process was used to that of that used in the Central Karoo and Garden Route to ensure optimal alignment between these adjacent plans and to facilitate user understanding of these plans. A two step optimization approach to systematic conservation planning was undertaken making use of MARXAN. This approach has the advantage of allowing an efficient network to be identified (i.e. one which uses the least possible space to achieve its targets and also minimizes cost to other sectors) as well as to promote the identification of a network which is sensible from an ecological point of view (the approach strongly favours connected and adjacent areas, and allows preferential meeting of targets in priority catchments and areas important for climate change resilience). MARXAN was also used to integrate the corridors and selected areas with those CBA and corridor areas from the adjacent conservation plans.

8.14.4 Planning Unit Cost  A cost surface was prepared based on the integrated transformation and degradation layer. Highest costs were associated with transformed areas, and lowest costs with natural areas. Natural areas received a base cost of 1 unit, near natural areas were 3 units,

Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 50

degraded areas had a cost of 10 units, rural transformed areas (agricultural fields, dams etc) had a cost of 100 and urban areas a cost of 500 units. These were summarised for the planning units based on an area weighted mean. In addition, identified stewardship sites within the Pasquini 2007 protected area layer were discounted by 50% to allow for preferential selection of these areas.  High costs for not meeting targets (“spf” values) were assigned to features that needed to be fixed into the plan design while lower costs were associated with features where there was less risk associated with not fully meeting the targets or where features existed which needed to guide but not force the conservation planning algorithm.  Remaining extent of biodiversity features (i.e. the area available for selection) were identified using the transformed classes in the compiled landcover. Degraded areas were still available for selection for some features such as endangered and critically endangered habitats but were strongly avoided where possible.

8.14.5 Ecological Support Areas Ecological Support Areas were then identified by increasing the targets for selected process features (such as the remaining areas of high priority catchments, riverine corridors and climate change adaptation areas) to an effective 100%, which forces these areas into the conservation plan. For this second iteration (in addition to the MARXAN based integration), the exact selected features were used in the selection.

8.14.6 CBA Lookup Table It is important that the users of the CBA and ESA layer can quickly and easily identify why a specific area was selected within the conservation plan. The use of MARXAN as an optimizing tool invariably means that selected planning units were prioritized on the basis of a range of underlying features found within the unit. One negative consequence of the methodology is that it is sometimes difficult to pin-point the specific feature that resulted in the selection of the planning unit, as all features present will be contributing to meeting targets. Nevertheless, it is important when dealing with development applications that as good an idea of possible of the specific features found at a site are known to the person scrutinizing the application. Therefore a simplified look-up table or layer was created to show at a glance what the major features present at a site are and hence contributed most to its selection. It should be emphasized that this table is designed to allow quick and easy understanding of the over-all plan and give a reasonably robust feature list for a site, and not a comprehensive listing of the specific features. The shapefile is designed to allow the user to select or query any polygon. The table has the following fields:

 CBA category: This gives the CBA category for the polygon. It indicates whether the polygon is a Formal Protected Area, a Conservation Area, a Critical Biodiversity Area or an Ecological Support Area.  Objective: This field outlines the management objective for the land parcel. This relates to either maintaining ecological patterns or processes.  Habitat: This field indicates areas where the remaining intact habitat within that planning unit is contributing significantly to targets. Habitats are indicated as contributing to best design if this was likely to be a major reason why the polygon was selected.  Aquatic features: These are areas where developments should be carefully screened to ensure no major impact on the rivers, their riparian corridors and wetlands are likely.  Specials: This field indicates if threatened species are likely to occur at the site. Polygons are indicated as “Potential threatened species” .  Expert: These are areas identified within the various expert layers included in the conservation plan. Polygons are flagged as having “Potential occurrence of expert identified special feature” and this will relate to a feature such as a quartz patch, area of high value for succulents, or a forest.  PlanPriori: These areas are the sites that were identified in other conservation plans as important. They are likely to include possible important habitats, for example those identified in the Leslie Hill Succulent Karoo Assessment. Note that the Gouritz corridors are indicated in the "Process" category rather than here.

Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 51

 Catch: This indicates priority catchments and are areas where special attention needs to be given to avoiding major impacts on hydrological processes and aquatic features.  Process: These are all the climate change process, corridor and linkage areas, important both for links within the district and to adjacent areas. These areas include potential climate refugia, and are flagged as “Maintain ecological processes and linkages especially for climate change”.  Threatened: These are threatened habitats listed under NEMBA.  Unfrag: These are important unfragmented areas which potentially contribute significantly to the climate change resilience of the area. Developments which result in these areas being fragmented should be avoided.

Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 52 9 Appendix 2 – Ecosystem status for habitat types identified by Vlok et al. (2005) Vegetation Unit Total Natural No Natural Degraded TARGET Eco- Protection Protection Extent Extent Extent Extent (%) Status Level Urgency Aardvark Quartz Gannaveld 16 11 0 5 32 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Adamskraal Gwarrieveld 6,348 5,683 40 625 27 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Algerynskraal Gannaveld 666 340 106 220 23 VU Completely Unprotected Low urgency Algerynskraal Gravel Apronveld 644 503 18 123 34 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency Allemorgens Kalkveld 21 21 28 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Anysberg Arid Asteraceous Fynbos 755 744 11 28 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Anysberg Arid Proteoid Fynbos 4,311 4,311 33 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Anysberg Mesic Proteid Fynbos 586 586 32 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Anysberg Perennial Stream 144 140 0 3 28 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Anysberg Renosterveld 2,046 1,953 88 5 26 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Assegaaibosch Arid Spekboomveld 1,548 1,532 14 2 26 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency Attaquas Mesic Proteoid Fynbos 1,563 1,558 5 32 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Barandas Arid Spekboomveld 13,880 12,249 125 1,506 26 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency Bellair Quartz Apronveld 1,830 1,799 1 30 33 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency Bellair Quartz Gannaveld 1,220 1,149 8 63 32 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency Bergplaas Sandolien-Renosterveld 800 706 19 75 26 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Bergplaas Waboom-Thicket 3,910 2,552 75 1,283 25 LT Partially Protected Low urgency Biljetsfontein Apronveld 2,178 1,512 281 385 34 LT Partially Protected Low urgency Blossoms Asbos-Gwarrieveld 45,207 15,343 11,972 17,893 25 EN Very Poorly Protected Medium urgency Boerbonefontein Pruimveld 3,393 2,212 31 1,151 24 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Boerboonleegte Gannaveld 433 358 10 66 23 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency Bosluiskloof Grassy Fynbos 230 220 9 28 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Brakrivier Gannaveld 2,456 2,007 102 347 23 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency Brandrivier Renoster-Gwarrieveld 5 5 27 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency Buffels Arid Spekboomveld 7,514 6,059 40 1,415 26 LT Partially Protected Low urgency Buffels River & floodplain 7,452 2,456 2,749 2,247 27 EN Partially Protected Medium urgency Calitzdorp Arid Spekboomveld 6,166 5,960 121 85 22 LT Very Poorly Protected Low urgency Calitzdorp Gannaveld 4,269 1,157 68 3,045 23 EN Completely Unprotected Medium urgency Calitzdorp Gravel Apronveld 9,078 2,994 1,616 4,468 34 CR Poorly Protected High urgency Calitzdorp Valley Spekboomveld 14,142 10,838 125 3,179 27 LT Partially Protected Low urgency Cango Renoster-Thicket 32,440 12,901 2,271 17,268 27 EN Very Poorly Protected Medium urgency Central Swartberg Perennial stream 12,468 9,946 1,446 1,075 28 LT PA Target Met Fully protected De Rust Sandolien-Spekboomveld 17,157 13,619 2,483 1,055 27 LT Very Poorly Protected Low urgency De Vlugt Forest-Waboomveld 862 851 6 5 24 LT PA Target Met Fully protected De Vlugt Sandolien-Renosterveld 1,198 637 379 182 26 VU Partially Protected Low urgency Doornboom Fynbos-Gwarrieveld 2,101 2,062 39 27 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency Doornkloof Gannaveld 34 4 3 27 23 EN PA Target Met Fully protected Doornkloof Gwarrieveld 2,482 2,165 22 296 27 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Doornrivier Mesic Proteoid Fynbos 7,059 6,154 596 309 32 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Doringrivier Arid Proteoid Fynbos 824 824 33 LT PA Target Met Fully protected

Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 53 9 Appendix 2 – Ecosystem status for habitat types identified by Vlok et al. (2005) Vegetation Unit Total Natural No Natural Degraded TARGET Eco- Protection Protection Extent Extent Extent Extent (%) Status Level Urgency Doringrivier Waboomveld 1,695 1,693 1 0 33 LT Partially Protected Low urgency Dwars-in-die-weg Pruimveld 2,452 2,350 14 88 24 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Dwars-in-die-weg Sandolienveld 6,233 6,081 33 119 28 LT Partially Protected Low urgency Eastern Swartberg Fynbos-Gwarrieveld 3,913 3,509 404 28 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Eastern Swartberg Grassy Fynbos 6,134 6,101 33 27 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Eastern Swartberg Mesic Proteoid Fynbos 7,786 7,786 28 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Eensaamheid Renosterveld 7,638 443 6,110 1,085 32 CR PA Target Met Critically urgent Elandsvlei Gwarrieveld 1,194 107 899 188 34 CR Completely Unprotected Critically urgent E-Langeberg Perennial Stream 199 198 1 27 LT Completely Unprotected Fully protected Eyerpoort Quartz Apronveld 230 227 3 33 LT Partially Protected Low urgency Eyerpoort Quartz Gannaveld 489 458 3 28 32 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency Fouriesberg Renoster-Sandolienveld 9,286 6,922 1,227 1,137 28 LT Partially Protected Low urgency Fouriesberg Waboomveld 6,482 6,342 78 63 33 LT Partially Protected Low urgency Gamka River & floodplain 5,727 2,590 2,361 776 27 VU PA Target Met Fully protected Gamkaberg Grassy Fynbos 602 602 28 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Gamkaberg Sandolienveld 624 471 6 146 28 LT Partially Protected Low urgency Gamkaberg Waboom-Grassy Fynbos 6,798 6,792 1 5 27 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Gamkaberg Waboom-Mesic Proteoid Fynbos 1,145 1,145 28 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Gamkaberg Waboomveld 3,924 3,924 33 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Gamkaskloof Arid Asteraceous Fynbos 378 374 5 28 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Gamkaskloof Arid Proteoid Fynbos 862 853 8 33 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Gamkaskloof Fynbos-Gwarrieveld 68 65 3 27 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Georgida Arid Spekboomveld 3,420 3,187 100 132 26 LT Poorly Protected Low urgency Gourits Asbos-Gwarrieveld 5,886 1,865 480 3,541 25 EN Completely Unprotected Medium urgency Gouritsrivier River & floodplain 3,911 2,767 244 900 27 LT Partially Protected Low urgency Gouritsrivier Sandolien-Ruigtewoud 2,712 838 455 1,418 27 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency Greylands Apronveld 6,918 785 697 5,436 34 CR Completely Unprotected Critically urgent Groenefontein Gravel Apronveld 651 411 12 228 34 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Groot River & floodplain 7,478 4,902 923 1,653 27 LT Partially Protected Low urgency Groot Spekboomveld 161 146 7 9 27 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency Groot Swartberg Fynbos-Gwarrieveld 38 37 1 27 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Groot Swartberg Mesic Proteoid Fynbos 19,602 19,579 9 14 32 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Groot Swartberg perennial stream-north 19 19 30 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Groot Swartberg Subalpine Fynbos 3,604 3,587 9 8 33 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Groot Swartberg Waboomveld 6,792 6,721 17 54 28 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Grootkop Apronveld 9,935 1,398 4,055 4,483 34 CR Completely Unprotected Critically urgent Grootkop Arid Spekboomveld 16,275 15,134 553 588 26 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency Grootrivier Gannaveld 2,121 1,215 59 847 23 VU Completely Unprotected Medium urgency Haarlem Fynbos-Renosterveld 9,203 5,567 2,681 956 31 LT Completely Unprotected Medium urgency Hartbeesvlakte Asbos-Gwarrieveld 348 111 138 99 25 EN Completely Unprotected Medium urgency

Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 54 9 Appendix 2 – Ecosystem status for habitat types identified by Vlok et al. (2005) Vegetation Unit Total Natural No Natural Degraded TARGET Eco- Protection Protection Extent Extent Extent Extent (%) Status Level Urgency Hartbeesvlakte Fynbos-Spekboomveld 4,820 4,812 1 6 28 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Hartbeesvlakte Gannaveld 2,514 1,407 48 1,060 23 VU Completely Unprotected Low urgency Hartbeesvlakte Sandolien-Renosterveld 14,668 13,947 437 284 26 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency Hartbeesvlakte Spekboomveld 5,718 5,262 81 375 27 LT Partially Protected Low urgency Hermanuskraal Quartz Gannaveld 114 71 8 35 32 VU Completely Unprotected Medium urgency Herold Renoster-Sandolienveld 3,072 1,094 1,710 268 28 EN Poorly Protected Medium urgency Hondewater Randteveld 569 461 0 108 24 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency Kamanassie Arid Proteoid Fynbos 4,762 4,751 9 1 33 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Kamanassie Arid Restioid Fynbos 3,748 3,724 4 19 23 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Kamanassie Grassy Fynbos 6,009 5,897 53 59 28 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Kamanassie Mesic Proteoid Fynbos 9,024 8,976 47 1 32 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Kamanassie northern Perennial Stream 2,497 2,463 28 7 28 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Kamanassie Perennial Stream 3,874 3,642 108 124 30 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Kamanassie Subalpine Fynbos 818 818 33 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Kamanassie Waboomveld 30,003 27,405 1,721 877 28 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Kandelaars Arid Spekboomveld 16,922 16,145 415 363 26 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency Kandelaars Gannaveld 1,622 1,096 243 283 23 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency Kareebosch Apronveld 1,145 1,066 44 35 34 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency Kareebosch Randteveld 2,081 2,035 35 11 24 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency Kareevlakte Quartz Gannaveld 556 389 29 138 32 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency Keurbooms River & Perennial Streams 6,974 6,353 367 254 28 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Keurbosch Arid Spekboomveld 5,259 5,120 22 117 26 LT Poorly Protected Low urgency Keurbosch Fynbos-Gwarrieveld 1,172 1,164 1 7 27 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Klein Swartberg Arid Proteoid Fynbos 2,791 2,785 6 33 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Klein Swartberg Fynbos-Gwarrieveld 419 419 27 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Klein Swartberg Grassy Fynbos 6,129 6,121 0 8 28 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Klein Swartberg Mesic Proteoid Fynbos 15,372 15,370 1 32 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Klein Swartberg Perennial Stream 1,335 1,088 198 49 28 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Klein Swartberg Subalpine Fynbos 849 849 30 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Klein Swartberg Waboomveld 1,530 1,481 23 25 33 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Klipgat Apronveld 9,738 9,470 125 142 34 LT Poorly Protected Low urgency Koeniekuils Apronveld 7 7 34 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency Koeniekuils Gannaveld 17,489 11,942 518 5,029 23 LT Poorly Protected Low urgency Koenieleegte Randteveld 4,095 3,269 13 813 24 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency Koenieleegte Scholtzbosveld 2,432 799 23 1,610 16 EN Completely Unprotected Medium urgency Kouga Arid Proteoid Fynbos 9,844 9,584 151 109 33 LT Poorly Protected Low urgency Kouga Asbos-Renosterveld 1,435 1,284 124 27 27 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency Kouga Grassy Fynbos 19,425 19,028 234 163 28 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Kouga Mesic Proteoid Fynbos 25,492 25,197 189 106 32 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Kouga Perennial Stream 8,699 7,209 1,105 385 28 LT PA Target Met Fully protected

Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 55 9 Appendix 2 – Ecosystem status for habitat types identified by Vlok et al. (2005) Vegetation Unit Total Natural No Natural Degraded TARGET Eco- Protection Protection Extent Extent Extent Extent (%) Status Level Urgency Kouga Sandolien-Renosterveld 4,793 4,273 397 124 26 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency Kouga Subalpine Fynbos 1,355 1,354 1 30 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Kruisrivier Arid Spekboomveld 3,657 3,279 174 204 27 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency Kruisrivier Gannaveld 2,440 457 19 1,964 23 CR Completely Unprotected High urgency Kruisrivier Renoster-Sandolienveld 3,155 2,206 698 251 28 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency Kruisrivier Sandolien-Spekboomveld 3,246 3,059 90 97 28 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency Kruisrivier Spekboom-Pruimveld 29,424 27,089 1,103 1,232 24 LT Very Poorly Protected Low urgency Kruisrivier Waboom-Renosterveld 2,505 2,040 247 218 31 LT Very Poorly Protected Low urgency Kruisrivier Waboom-Thicket 5,612 2,728 57 2,827 25 VU Completely Unprotected Medium urgency Kwessie Arid Spekboomveld 1,174 859 10 306 26 LT Partially Protected Low urgency Ladismith Arid Spekboomveld 11,024 9,353 283 1,388 26 LT Partially Protected Low urgency Ladismith Fynbos-Sandolienveld 1,255 1,039 3 213 28 LT Partially Protected Low urgency Ladismith Gannaveld 7,270 3,944 142 3,184 23 VU PA Target Met Fully protected Ladismith Sandolien-Renosterveld 4,353 3,782 386 186 26 LT Partially Protected Low urgency Langkloof Renosterveld 5,930 1,480 3,810 640 34 CR Completely Unprotected High urgency Leeublad Sandolien-Renosterveld 21,703 11,818 7,167 2,719 26 VU Poorly Protected Low urgency Lemoenshoek Gannaveld 350 102 5 243 23 VU Completely Unprotected Medium urgency Matjiesrivier Arid Proteoid Fynbos 1,061 1,051 9 33 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency Matjiesrivier Asbos-Renosterveld 2,291 823 1,145 324 27 EN Completely Unprotected Medium urgency Matjiesrivier Sandolienveld 3,132 2,180 765 188 28 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency Matjiesrivier Waboom-Renosterveld 5,039 4,836 202 31 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency Matjiesvlei Sandolien-Thicket 2,620 2,199 74 348 27 LT Very Poorly Protected Low urgency Meiringspoort Spekboom Thicket 362 356 5 2 28 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Meiringspoort Waboomveld 1,629 1,596 1 32 33 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Mistkraal Fynbos-Gwarrieveld 3,110 3,086 3 20 27 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency Mistkraal Gwarrieveld 2,119 2,035 21 63 27 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency Mons Ruber Waboom-Thicket 10,477 8,718 285 1,474 26 LT Poorly Protected Low urgency Nooitgedacht Gwarrieveld 4,399 1,798 47 2,555 27 EN Completely Unprotected Medium urgency Noukloof Arid Spekboomveld 10,532 9,293 751 488 26 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Ockertskraal Arid Spekboomveld 32,411 20,221 138 12,052 26 LT Poorly Protected Low urgency Ockertskraal Quartz Apronveld 1,629 1,544 55 30 33 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency Ockertskraal Randteveld 6,493 6,042 36 415 24 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency Olifants River & floodplain 48,227 22,666 14,842 10,719 27 VU Poorly Protected Medium urgency Opsoek Asbos-Thicket 370 188 49 133 24 VU Completely Unprotected Medium urgency Ortmansgat Randteveld 2,110 1,786 37 287 24 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency Oudtshoorn Gannaveld 9,980 733 6,525 2,722 23 CR Completely Unprotected Critically urgent Oudtshoorn Scholtzbosveld 1,623 638 11 974 16 VU Completely Unprotected Low urgency Outeniqua Perennial Stream 6,012 3,170 1,953 889 28 VU PA Target Met Fully protected Outeniqua Waboomveld 7,572 5,564 1,253 756 33 LT Poorly Protected Low urgency Paardeberg Fynbos-Sandolienveld 2,832 1,759 658 415 28 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency

Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 56 9 Appendix 2 – Ecosystem status for habitat types identified by Vlok et al. (2005) Vegetation Unit Total Natural No Natural Degraded TARGET Eco- Protection Protection Extent Extent Extent Extent (%) Status Level Urgency Paardeberg Mesic Proteoid Fynbos 486 486 32 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency Paardebont Fynbos-Sandolienveld 1,036 598 183 255 28 VU Completely Unprotected Medium urgency Perdefontein Fynbos-Gwarrieveld 906 890 4 13 27 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Pietslaagte Apronveld 10,724 8,125 473 2,126 34 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency Pietslaagte Arid Spekboomveld 16,650 15,807 199 643 26 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency Pietslaagte Asbos-Gwarrieveld 17,380 15,536 775 1,068 25 LT Very Poorly Protected Low urgency Plathuis Randteveld 9,905 9,605 33 267 24 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency Poortfontein Randteveld 3,554 2,731 13 810 24 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency Potjiesrivier Waboomveld 14,152 12,315 1,430 407 33 LT Very Poorly Protected Low urgency Prinspoort Arid Gwarrieveld 1,577 1,476 57 44 27 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency Prinspoort Pruimveld 3,203 2,954 78 171 25 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency Ratelfontein Gannaveld 732 637 1 94 23 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Request Quartz Apronveld 49 13 0 36 33 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency Request Quartz Gannaveld 583 469 38 76 32 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency Request Randteveld 1,295 957 7 330 24 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency Rooiberg Arid Asteraceous Fynbos 3,062 3,062 28 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Rooiberg Arid Proteoid Fynbos 3,789 3,789 33 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Rooiberg Arid Restioid Fynbos 6,357 6,345 7 6 23 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Rooiberg Fynbos-Spekboomveld 6,788 6,670 4 114 28 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Rooiberg Grassy Fynbos 2,219 2,219 28 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Rooiberg Mesic Proteoid Fynbos 10,033 10,033 32 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Rooiberg Perennial Stream 2,068 2,006 22 40 28 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Rooiberg Subalpine Fynbos 51 51 30 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Rooiberg Waboomveld 4,946 4,938 8 33 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Rooirivier Apronveld 1,582 452 246 884 34 CR Completely Unprotected High urgency Rouxpos Gwarrieveld 209 196 1 12 27 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency Rouxpos Randteveld 834 749 5 81 24 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency Saffraanrivier Waboom-Renosterveld 3,409 2,028 497 884 31 VU Poorly Protected Low urgency Sandberg Arid Restioid Fynbos 6,625 6,564 7 55 23 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Sandberg Fynbos-Spekboomveld 3,822 3,816 0 5 28 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency Sandkraal Gwarrieveld 2,066 1,944 7 114 27 LT Partially Protected Low urgency Seweweekspoort Perennial Stream 3,501 2,269 738 494 28 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Seweweekspoort Waboomveld 1,010 1,001 1 7 33 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Snyberg Gravel Apronveld 1,866 1,217 180 469 34 LT Completely Unprotected Medium urgency Snyberg Gwarrieveld 1,087 707 118 262 27 LT Poorly Protected Low urgency Stompdrift Arid Spekboomveld 9,030 8,312 528 190 26 LT Very Poorly Protected Low urgency Stormberg Randteveld 524 428 1 96 24 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency Swartberg Renosterveld 2,916 2,332 370 215 34 LT Partially Protected Low urgency Tafelberg Renoster-Sandolienveld 6,231 5,625 277 329 28 LT Partially Protected Low urgency Touws River & floodplain 6,060 3,692 1,014 1,354 27 LT PA Target Met Fully protected

Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 57 9 Appendix 2 – Ecosystem status for habitat types identified by Vlok et al. (2005) Vegetation Unit Total Natural No Natural Degraded TARGET Eco- Protection Protection Extent Extent Extent Extent (%) Status Level Urgency Touws River Pruimveld 1,299 1,296 0 2 25 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Touwsberg Fynbos-Gwarrieveld 2,371 2,357 2 11 27 LT Partially Protected Low urgency Touwsberg Mesic Proteoid Fynbos 1,700 1,700 32 LT Completely Unprotected High urgency Touwsberg perennial stream 106 96 10 28 LT Completely Unprotected Critically urgent Touwsfontein Randteveld 2,135 2,066 15 54 24 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Touwsfontein Scholtzbosveld 1,034 1,008 13 13 16 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Toverwater Sandolien-Spekboomveld 9,793 9,195 88 510 27 LT Poorly Protected Low urgency Tsitsikamma Mesic Proteoid Fynbos 18,098 17,896 85 117 32 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Tsitsikamma Perennial Stream 3,182 2,662 342 178 28 LT Partially Protected Low urgency Uniondale Asbos-Renosterveld 17,324 8,389 6,607 2,328 27 VU Completely Unprotected Medium urgency Uniondale Waboom-Renosterveld 8,530 5,299 2,264 967 31 LT Poorly Protected Low urgency Vaalhoek Arid Spekboomveld 12,399 11,848 121 430 26 LT Poorly Protected Low urgency Van Zylsdamme Gannaveld 730 207 306 217 23 EN Completely Unprotected Medium urgency Vanwyksdorp Arid Spekboomveld 4,804 4,313 236 256 26 LT Partially Protected Low urgency Vanwyksdorp Gravel Apronveld 266 82 28 157 34 CR Partially Protected Medium urgency Visgat Apronveld 101 95 6 34 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency Vlakteplaas Gannaveld 4,102 1,763 1,136 1,203 23 VU Completely Unprotected Medium urgency Volmoed Arid Spekboomveld 5,535 5,405 9 121 26 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency Volmoed Gannaveld 6,712 1,103 3,853 1,756 23 CR Completely Unprotected High urgency Voorsorg Fynbos-Spekboomveld 7,689 7,499 76 114 28 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Vrede Arid Gwarrieveld 1,194 1,194 0 27 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Vrede Randteveld 2,400 2,331 8 61 24 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Waterval Randteveld 454 190 265 24 VU Completely Unprotected Medium urgency Witberg Arid Proteoid Fynbos 2,524 2,524 0 33 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Witberg Waboomveld 7,181 6,876 153 152 33 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Witvlakte Apronveld 4,267 3,616 61 589 34 LT Very Poorly Protected Low urgency Witvlakte Arid Spekboomveld 2,233 238 15 1,980 26 CR Completely Unprotected Critically urgent Witvlakte Quartz Gannaveld 979 626 22 332 32 LT Completely Unprotected Medium urgency Woeska Waboomveld 5 4 1 33 LT Partially Protected Low urgency Zewefontein Arid Gwarrieveld 5,318 5,176 76 66 27 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency Zoar Fynbos-Spekboomveld 7,558 6,170 133 1,256 27 LT PA Target Met Fully protected Zoar Gwarrieveld 972 291 289 392 27 EN Completely Unprotected Medium urgency Zorgvliet Apronveld 801 741 49 11 34 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency Zorgvliet Fynbos-Gwarrieveld 951 943 2 5 27 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgency Zorgvliet Pruimveld 5,700 5,517 100 82 25 LT Completely Unprotected Medium urgency Totals 1,245,435 952,320 120,812 172,302

Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 58