The Biodiversity Network for the Cape Town Municipal Area

C-PLAN & MARXAN ANALYSIS: 2016 METHODS & RESULTS

Patricia Holmes & Amalia Pugnalin, Environmental Resource Management Department (ERMD), City of Cape Town, June 2016 Biodiversity Network 2016 Analysis

TABLE OF CONTENTS Acronyms ...... 3 Acknowledgements ...... 3

INTRODUCTION ...... 4 History of Systematic Biodiversity Planning in the City ...... 4

DATA PREPARATION ...... 5 Software ...... 5 Analysis Data Inputs ...... 5 Formation of the Planning Units ...... 5 Threats to the Biodiversity Network ...... 6 Biodiversity Features Incorporated ...... 6 Excluded Biodiversity Features ...... 9 Allowing for Biodiversity Processes: Connectivity ...... 14 Allowing for Biodiversity Processes: Adaptation to Climate Change ...... 14 Assessment of Vegetation Type, Ecosystem Protection Level ...... 14 SANBI ecosystem threat status categories and thresholds ...... 15 SANBI ecosystem protection level categories ...... 15 Calculation of Biodiversity Feature per Planning Unit ...... 15 Setting Biodiversity Targets ...... 15 Indigenous Vegetation...... 15 Indigenous Flora Species Locations ...... 15 Wetlands ...... 16

ANALYSIS ...... 16 Software ...... 16 C-Plan Analysis...... 17 Selection from Good & Fair Habitat Condition Sites ...... 17 Selection from Poor Habitat Condition Sites ...... 17 Inclusion of SaSflora Data ...... 17 MARXAN Analysis ...... 17 Species Penalty Factor ...... 18

CLASSIFICATION OF CRITICAL BIODIVERSITY AREAS ...... 18

IN FUTURE ANALYSES ...... 18

RESULTS ...... 19 National Vegetation Types ...... 19 Species Biodiversity Targets ...... 20 Critical Biodiversity Area (CBA) Categories ...... 20 CBAs inside and outside of the urban edge ...... 23 City Vegetation Subtypes ...... 24 Wetlands ...... 24

Biodiversity Network 2016 Analysis

Table of Figures Figure 1: Natural remnants in the City of Cape Town showing i) habitat condition class (good, fair or poor), ii) protected areas, conservation areas and core flora sites, and iii) planning unit boundaries ...... 8 Figure 2: The threats to biodiversity layer used in the C-plan analysis ...... 9 Figure 3: National vegetation types in the City of Cape Town. City vegetation subtypes are hollow polygons overlapping the national types ...... 11 Figure 4: Coverage of species data localities ...... 12 Figure 5: Core climate adaptation and expert corridors ...... 12 Figure 6: Number of local endemic species per 100 ha hexagon grid ...... 13 Figure 7: National climate change resilience Layer ...... 13 Figure 8: December 2011 Biodiversity Network of the City of Cape Town ...... 22

List of Tables Table 1: Analysis Data Inputs ...... 10 Table 2: Results: General Vegetation Statistics ...... 21 Table 3: Results: BioNet CBA Category Statistics ...... 23 Table 4: Calculation of Critical Biodiversity Area Categories ...... 26 Table 5: CBA: Significance & Descriptions of Permissible Activities ...... 28 Table 6: Results: City Vegetation Type Statistics ...... 32 Table 7: Natural & Semi-Natural Wetland Prioritisation Study Statistics ...... 35

Acronyms

BioNet Biodiversity Network BLM Boundary Length Modifier CBA Critical Biodiversity Area CCT City of Cape Town CLUZ Conservation Land Use Zoning CR Critically Endangered (IUCN Red List) CREW Custodians of Rare & Endangered Wildflowers EN Endangered (IUCN Red List) ERMD Environmental Resource Management Department ESRI Environmental Systems Research Institute GIS Geographic Information System/s LT Least Threatened (IUCN Red List) NSBA National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment Red List Plant taxa assessed according to their risk of extinction in near future (See www.redlist.org) SANBI South African National Biodiversity Institute SPF Species Penalty Factor VU Vulnerable (IUCN Red List) WWF–SA TMF World Wildlife Fund – South Africa: Table Mountain Fund

Acknowledgements This analysis was not possible without the use of the conservation planning software so many thanks go to the creators of C-Plan1 and Marxan2. The 2008 unpublished report by Grant Benn of GeoCline Consulting CC entitled “City of Cape Town’s BioNet: Terrestrial Systematic Conservation Plan Re-Analysis: Methods and Results” formed the basis for this 2016 report (www.capetown.gov.za/environment – follow links to >Publications, >Reports and Scientific Papers). Thanks are due to Genevieve Pence of CapeNature for on-going discussion and advice, Dr Tony Rebelo (SANBI) for compiling the endemic flora layer for the city, Stephen Holness for use of the national Ecosystem-based Adaptation layer, and City Biodiversity Management Branch colleagues for reviewing the BioNet analysis outputs.

1 Pressey, R.L., Watts, M.E., Barrett, T.W. and Ridges, M.J. (2008). The C-Plan conservation planning system: origins, applications, and possible futures. In: Spatial Conservation Prioritization. Eds. A. Moilanen, H.P. Possingham and K.A. Wilson. Oxford University Press, Oxford (in press). 2 Ball, I.R., H.P. Possingham, and M. Watts. 2009. Marxan and relatives: Software for spatial conservation prioritisation. Chapter 14: Pages 185-195 in Spatial conservation prioritisation: Quantitative methods and computational tools. Eds Moilanen, A., K.A. Wilson, and H.P. Possingham. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

Biodiversity Network 2016 Analysis

INTRODUCTION

We have used a systematic biodiversity planning approach to prioritise remnant indigenous vegetation in the Cape Town Metropolitan area (=city) based on factors such as connectivity, habitat condition and location of threatened flora. Systematic biodiversity planning generally involves the following steps:  Subdividing a region into a series of planning units  Gathering data describing the distribution of biodiversity features within this region  Calculating the amount of each biodiversity feature found in each planning unit  Setting biodiversity targets for each biodiversity feature in order to ensure their adequate conservation  Using software to select a set of planning units which meets these biodiversity targets in an efficient manner.

The primary product of this approach is the Biodiversity Network (BioNet) for the city area, which exists in the form of a GIS shapefile, with associated tabular information. The shapefile can be mapped and analysed and statistics can be derived, giving users a picture of not only the situation on the ground but most importantly, where to focus their conservation efforts in light of limitations in staff, budget and available open space. Similarly, users can identify areas that are a low biodiversity priority and thus potential development areas. This report gives an overview of the methodology used but the technical process using GIS technology and the biodiversity planning software packages of C-Plan and MARXAN/CLUZ is described in a separate manual (contact [email protected]).

History of Systematic Biodiversity Planning in the City In 2002, the first systematic biodiversity planning study to identify the minimum set of conservation areas required in the city was initiated using the biodiversity planning software “C-Plan”. This study pre-dated the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (2004), the Vegetation Map of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland (Mucina et al. 20063) and the National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment (2004). The study built on earlier work done in partnership with the Botanical Society which resulted in a report entitled: “Core Flora Conservation Areas on the Cape Flats” (Maze & Rebelo 19994). In the latter report, 38 sites were identified as critically important contributors to Cape Town’s biodiversity and have since become known as the “Core Flora Sites”. Data informants for the 2002 study included a remnant layer based on 1998 aerial photography, available plant species information and a local vegetation map drawn up by botanical consultant A. B. Low. The study culminated in the Biodiversity Network Prioritization Report (20045).

In 2006, a revised desktop systematic biodiversity planning study was initiated to update the BioNet using the latest: 1) remnant layer based on 2005 aerial photography, 2) species information and 3) a vegetation map aligned to the 2006 national vegetation map (Mucina et al. 2006). Results from this re-analysis may be found in the 2007 report6. This version of the

3 Mucina, L., Rutherford, M. C. and Powrie, L., editors. 2006. Vegetation Map of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland: Shapefiles of basic mapping units. Beta version 4.0. February 2004. South African National Botanical Institute, Cape Town. 4 Maze K E & Rebelo A G 1999. Core Flora Conservation Areas on the Cape Flats. FCC Report 99/1. Botanical Society of South Africa. 5 Note: all City biodiversity reports are available on the ERMD website: http://www.capetown.gov.za/en/environmentalresourcemanagement/Pages/default.aspx; “publications > reports” City of Cape Town. 2004. Biodiversity Network Prioritisation Project, Final Draft Report prepared by MLA-Sustainability Matters, in association with GISCOE, Biodiversity & Conservation Biology Department UWC, Settlement Planning Services & Freshwater Consulting Group. 6 City of Cape Town. 2007. The Identification and Prioritisation of a Biodiversity Network for the City of Cape Town, Final Report prepared by MLA-Sustainability Matters, in association with GISCOE (Pty) Ltd.

Biodiversity Network 2016 Analysis

BioNet was approved by council (PEPCO, November 2006) subject to continuing collaborations with Spatial Planning and Urban Design.

In 2008, after extensive ground-truthing of vegetation remnants during 2007-8, the remnant layer was again updated and C-Plan was re-run using habitat condition as an additional informant. The programme “Marxan” was next applied, using a “Boundary Length Modifier” tool, to select additional remnants needed to improve connectivity among selected remnants. This, together with expert corridor sites, replaced the friction analysis used in the first analysis to identify corridors on the BioNet. Corridors help to conserve ecological processes, which include the dispersal and migration of plants and animals, and are necessary to conserve healthy populations in the long-term. All wetlands and rivers in this and earlier versions are considered part of the BioNet.

In the 2008 analysis, the national biodiversity targets were adopted for the first time. Methods and results of the 2008 analysis of the BioNet are reported in Benn (20087). In 2009, the analysis was redone closely following the methodology of the 2008 analysis but with improved input data. The methods and results of the 2009 analysis of the BioNet are reported in Holmes & Stipinovich (2009)8. The analysis was again run in 2011 with updated input data (Holmes et al. 2012)9. This analysis also took into account the need for the BioNet to allow for biodiversity processes to adapt ecosystems to climate change.

DATA PREPARATION

Software The data were prepared using ESRI’s GIS software versions ArcGIS 10.2 and ArcView 3.3. C-Plan 3.4, Spatial Analyst, Marxan and CLUZ extensions to ArcView 3.3 were used as well as Microsoft’s Excel. Further Marxan work was done within QGIS using the CLUZ plug-in.

Analysis Data Inputs See Table 1: Analysis Data Inputs on page 9.

Formation of the Planning Units The planning domain was the area enclosed by the administrative boundary of the City. The basis for the formation of the planning units within the planning domain was the city indigenous vegetation remnants coverage. The remnants had been ground-truthed in 2007-8 for the third C-Plan analysis and creation of the BioNet of 2008. Each remnant’s habitat condition was evaluated as being good, fair or poor. The status of these remnants is updated by the Environmental Resource Management Department (ERMD) on an ongoing basis, to ensure the information is as current as possible. In the 2009 analysis, the Protected Areas were considered to be in good habitat condition as time did not permit their being ground- truthed. Since the 2009 analysis, the Protected Areas have been ground-truthed.

Each good, fair or poor condition portion of a remnant formed a separate planning unit of variable size. Any remnants over 100 hectares in size that were not classified as Protected

7 Benn G. 2008. City of Cape Town BioNet: Terrestrial Systematic Conservation Plan Re-Analysis: Methods & Results. (Available for download from ERMD website) 8 Holmes P. M. & Stipinovich A. 2009. City of Cape Town’s Biodiversity Network: C-PLAN & MARXAN ANALYSIS: 2009 METHODS & RESULTS. (Available for download from ERMD website) 9 Holmes P.M, Stipinovich A. & Purves A. 2012. The Biodiversity Network for Cape Town. C-PLAN & MARXAN ANALYSIS: 2011 METHODS & RESULTS. (Available for download from ERMD website)

Biodiversity Network 2016 Analysis

Areas were further subdivided into hexagon grid cells of 100 hectares in area. Thus maximum planning unit size was 100 ha. Existing protected area boundaries were integrated into the remnant layer before this process was carried out. “Protected Areas” included those in process of being proclaimed that are managed by the City and other organizations. Core Flora Sites were also considered as a priori “protected areas” for the purposes of the analysis although not all are protected (Figure 1). Only features that were located on the existing remnants coverage were considered in the analysis.

Threats to the Biodiversity Network A combined threats layer was used, which included:  Urban expansion (based on the Urban Edge): all areas within the urban edge were considered under high threat, and those outside the urban edge low threat.  Potential agriculture: based on a soil productivity study for the city, all land considered agricultural is under high threat, other agricultural areas and mountain areas under medium threat and other areas (e.g. national parks, urban areas) under low threat from this land use.  Potential mining areas: based on a mining potential study and mined deposit layers, all areas with potential for mining are considered under high threat and the remaining areas under low threat.  New Development Areas: all such areas identified in the District Spatial Development Plans are considered under high threat.

The thresholds for high, medium or low threat are described above. The relative area of each threat level per planning unit was calculated. This information was used to select sites under least threat as a rule in the C-plan analysis.

Biodiversity Features Incorporated The indigenous vegetation (Figure 3) and flora (Figure 4) of a planning unit was used as a surrogate for biodiversity, as the coverage of the available GIS flora data was far greater than that available for indigenous fauna. Vegetation and flora generally are good indicators for the fauna. Included were the various national vegetation types and their local city subtypes as well as three plant species databases, additional city records and their individual Red List threatened species status. The variety, numbers or area, and rarity of each are considered by the conservation planning software. The biodiversity features brought into the analysis as factors were as follows:  Current indigenous vegetation extent with remnants classified as good, fair or poor habitat condition  Revised city indigenous vegetation: This aligns the city vegetation types with the South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) National Vegetation types; the city types are classed as subtypes at a finer scale  CREW10 indigenous flora species data  City indigenous flora species data  Protea Atlas Project (SANBI) indigenous flora species data  SaSflora11 indigenous flora species data

City wetlands were prioritized in a separate analysis (Snaddon & Day 2009)12 and incorporated into the terrestrial Critical Biodiversity Area (CBA) map. In addition, the internal

10 CREW = Custodians of Rare and Endangered Wildflowers 11 SaSflora = Site and Species flora database (Coastec) 12 Snaddon K. & Day E. (2009) Prioritization of City Wetlands. www.capetown.gov.za/environment - follow links to Publications > Reports and scientific papers.

Biodiversity Network 2016 Analysis expert review of the analysis ensured that Important Bird Areas, known localities of threatened and endemic fauna and Baboon home ranges were included in the BioNet.

Biodiversity Network 2016 Analysis

Figure 1: Natural remnants in the City of Cape Town showing habitat condition class (good, fair or poor), conservation and core flora site areas and planning unit boundaries

Biodiversity Network 2016 Analysis

Figure 2: The threats to biodiversity layer used in the C-plan analysis

Excluded Biodiversity Features

 The dunes at Atlantis were extracted from the vegetation coverage as they extend over an area of 270 hectares. Areas identified as “Reclaimed” areas in the Vegetation coverage were also excluded.  Beach vegetation types in the False Bay area were grouped with the False Bay subtype of Cape Flats Dune Strandveld. There were no Beach vegetation types in the West Coast area.  Subtypes of Southern Afrotemperate Forest vegetation were combined and brought in as one “Southern Afrotemperate Forest” unit as this type covers a very small area and is formally conserved in the Table Mountain National Park.  Any exotic flora species listed in the CREW, CCT, SaSflora or Protea Atlas Project data were excluded. Only those species listed as Critically Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable or Near Threatened on the IUCN Red List were included to cater for software limitations.  Large artificial water bodies and waste water treatment works (e.g. dams such as Steenbras and Kleinplasie) were extracted from the vegetation coverage so as not to bias vegetation statistics. Other areas of natural and semi-natural water bodies fell into the wetland vegetation types.

Biodiversity Network 2016 Analysis

Table 1: Analysis Data Inputs Data Content Source Version Format BioNet remnants (used to Remnants of indigenous City of Cape Town November Polygon shapefile mapped at varying scales and create Planning Units and to vegetation remnants classified as 2015 ground-truthed in 2008 but constantly being bring in habitat condition being of good, fair or poor refined to a scale of 1:2000 and updated. information) condition Indigenous vegetation Historic Indigenous vegetation City of Cape Town January 2015 Polygon shapefile originally mapped at national cover of city (based on national scale 1:50 000 but refined at a scale of 1:2000 in SANBI version of areas by City and SANBI staff 2005) CREW Red List Threatened Indigenous floral species CREW, SANBI November Point shapefile (accurate to within 10m) species locations 2015 Protea Atlas Project species Indigenous floral species Protea Atlas Project, September Centroid coordinates (point taken to be accurate locations SANBI 2011 within a radius of 250m) SaSflora Red List Threatened Indigenous floral species Barrie Low - Coastec September Centroid coordinates (point taken to be accurate species locations 2011 within a radius of 250m) City species (added to the Indigenous floral species City staff & BioNet November Point shapefile (accurate to within 10m) CREW data during the locations groundtruthing team. 2015 analysis) Also Nick Helme (consultant) Wetlands (used for comparison Natural and artificial wetlands City of Cape Town December Polygon shapefile digitized at 1:10 000 from purposes only) 2014 orthophotos and sample groundtruthed Threats to BioNet Agricultural, urban, mining and City of Cape Town November Polygon shapefile created from latest, best development threats 2011 available City shapefile inputs Local plant endemics Number of local endemic plant SANBI October 2011 Shapefile created from available data on local species per 100ha hexagon grid endemic plant species distribution Ecosystem-based adaptation Remaining vegetation areas in SANBI November Raster grid indicating importance scores for layer SA indicating importance for 2011 climate change resilience climate change resilience

Biodiversity Network 2016 Analysis

Figure 3: National vegetation types in the city. City vegetation subtypes are hollow polygons overlying the national

Biodiversity Network 2016 Analysis

Figure 4: Coverage of species data localities Figure 5: Core climate adaptation and expert corridors

Biodiversity Network 2016 Analysis

Figure 6: Number of local endemic species per 100ha hexagon grid Figure 7: National climate change resilience Layer

Biodiversity Network 2016 Analysis

Allowing for Biodiversity Processes: Connectivity

Potential corridors to ensure connectivity through the fragmented landscapes of the CCT were mapped by Biodiversity Management Branch’s experienced staff and included in the analysis as features (Figure 5):  Blaauwberg Nature Reserve to Koeberg Private Nature Reserve  Diep River Fynbos Corridor (Rietvlei to Blaauwberg Nature Reserve)  Kuils River Corridor (Driftsands Nature Reserve to the coast at Macassar Dunes)  False Bay Coastline  Dassenberg Coastal Catchment Corridor (Silverstroomstrand to Riverlands Nature Reserve)  Important linkages on the Cape Peninsula.

Allowing for Biodiversity Processes: Adaptation to Climate Change

As for the 2011 analysis, the 2016 methodology explicitly incorporated climate adaptation strategies based on international best practice (Pence 2009; Pence 2011)13,14. Previous analyses had addressed the protection of representative habitats, critical habitats & large intact habitats; risk-spreading through replication; incorporation of ecological connectivity; and reduction of threats. The potential for the BioNet to adapt to climate change was further strengthened by inclusion of the potential key climate refugia, identified as areas of high local endemic plant species richness (Figure 6) and prioritisation of regional connectivity. The latter adaptation features were incorporated into the C-plan Minset rules. In the Marxan analysis, an important climate change adaptation corridor that was identified in a WWF-SA TMF study (Pence 2009), aligning with the Dassenberg Coastal Catchment Corridor, was included as a conservation feature. It has been adapted slightly since 2011 to avoid areas planned for development. In addition, the national layer of areas important for climate change resilience (Holness et al. in prep)15 as outlined in the 2011 National Biodiversity Assessment (NBA), was used as the cost surface in Marxan to preferentially select areas of high resilience value (Figure 7). The climate change resilience layer incorporates the following areas:  Areas with a high diversity of habitats  Environmental gradients (including topographic, temperature, and precipitation)  Climate refugia (including south-facing slopes and gorges)  Corridors  Large unfragmented natural ecosystems  Intact centres of endemism; and  Buffer ecosystems (i.e. riparian and coastal).

Assessment of Vegetation Type, Ecosystem Protection Level

Ecosystem protection level status was calculated using the status categories developed by SANBI. The assessment of the status can be done at either the national vegetation type or the CCT vegetation subtype level. This analysis operated at the subtype level, but the results are also presented at the national vegetation level in order to summarize the contribution towards achieving biodiversity targets.

13 Pence, G.Q.K., 2009. Climate Adaptation Scenarios for the Cape Floristic Region: Technical Report. Unpublished Report, Table Mountain Fund, World Wildlife Fund-South Africa, Cape Town. 14Pence G. (2011). Incorporating Climate Change Adaptation Strategies into the Updating of the City of Cape Town’s Biodiversity Network Analysis. Unpublished Report City of Cape Town. 15 Holness, S. (2008) SANBI Ecosystem-based Adaptation layer. Unpublished GIS dataset prepared for South African National Biodiversity Institute and Department of Environmental Affairs, Pretoria. See also Driver et al. 2012 NBA.

Biodiversity Network 2016 Analysis

SANBI ecosystem threat status categories and thresholds16

 Critically Endangered (CR): current area less than biodiversity threshold area (e.g. 30% of historical distribution for fynbos vegetation types)  Endangered (EN): current area less than biodiversity threshold + 15% of historical distribution  Vulnerable (VU): current area < 60% of historic distribution  Least Threatened (LT): current area > 60% of historic distribution

SANBI ecosystem protection level categories

 Not protected: 0% of biodiversity threshold conserved } First 2 categories amal-  Hardly protected: 0-<5% of biodiversity threshold conserved } gamated in 2011 NBA  Poorly protected: 5> - <50% of biodiversity threshold conserved  Moderately protected:>50 - <100% of biodiversity threshold conserved  Well protected: 100% of biodiversity threshold conserved

Please see Table 2: Vegetation Statistics for the results of these calculations.

Calculation of Biodiversity Feature per Planning Unit The planning unit and biodiversity feature datasets were then brought together in GIS to summarise the features per planning unit. The inputs required for the C-plan and Marxan software were tables. Population figures for each recorded location of a species were rare. The species input tables were instead records of the frequency of a species’ locality data point intersecting with a planning unit. Only one occurrence of a species on a planning unit was retained so as to reduce the size of the input data as the software typically cannot process huge datasets. Available information on the IUCN Red List status of each species e.g.CR, EN, was included.

The above process was done for the planning units and vegetation and threats datasets, respectively. However, these recorded the areas in hectares of each vegetation type/ each level of threat as opposed to number of locations.

Setting Biodiversity Targets

Indigenous Vegetation

Biodiversity targets were based on national vegetation type percentages as determined for the 2004 National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment (NSBA) but were applied at the level of the city vegetation subtypes. Actual biodiversity target values were calculated from the historic area for each subtype in the city (Please refer to Table 2: General Vegetation Statistics).

Indigenous Flora Species Locations

For CREW, Protea Atlas Project, SaSflora and CCT’s recorded flora species, biodiversity targets were based on the number of known species locations. For species described in the

16 Note that in the latest ecosystem assessment: Driver A (2011) Threatened ecosystems for listing under NEM:BA 2004, South African Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria; vegetation types may be assessed as threatened owing to both habitat loss and the species criteria (i.e. containing high numbers of threatened species). In 2011 only two national vegetation types in the City were considered Least Threatened: Southern Afrotemperate Forest and Western Coastal Shaleband Vegetation. For the purposes of this analysis however, we adopt the habitat loss criterion to report on ecosystem threat status within the city.

Biodiversity Network 2016 Analysis datasets, a simple sliding scale target was used for each species on the basis of the number of locations:

 100% of all locations for Critically Endangered (CR) species  5 locations for Endangered (EN), Vulnerable (VU) and Near Threatened (NT) species. These targets were assigned on the basis that common, non-threatened species also will be conserved at localities of more threatened species and there are likely to be more unrecorded localities of the commoner species.

Wetlands

Wetlands were not brought into this C-plan/Marxan run directly. Wetland prioritization was analyzed separately by specialist consultants (Snaddon et al. 2009)9. This prioritization was done using a city-wide ranking approach within each major wetland type. The selection of ranking criteria resulted from a workshop organized by the Western Cape Wetlands Forum in 2008. All wetlands were scored and those natural or semi-natural wetlands scoring in the highest quarter were allocated to CBA1; those in the second quarter to CBA2 (for estuaries the lowest category was CBA2). High ranking artificial wetlands and third quarter natural or semi-natural wetlands were allocated to ‘Critical’ Ecological Support Area (CESA) and the remainder to ‘Other’ Ecological Support Area (OESA).

Priority wetlands occurring on natural vegetation remnants were included post-hoc into the BioNet as CBA wetlands, aligning to the prioritization study allocation to categories as far as possible. In some cases, subsequent wetland ground-truthing indicated that priority wetlands located in poor to irreversibly modified vegetation were degraded and in practice would be difficult to restore and conserve. The latter wetlands were re-assigned to either CESA or OESA status based on level of modification. Wetland ground-truthing has continued since the 2011 BioNet re-analysis and the wetland layer is updated on a continuous basis.

ANALYSIS

For the detailed biodiversity planning analysis technical manual please refer to Pugnalin & Holmes (2016)17.

Software The ArcView 3.3 extension C-Plan 3.4 was used to calculate the irreplaceability of a planning unit and to select an optimal and efficient set of remnants to meet the biodiversity targets. To assist in ensuring connectivity within the conservation network, MARXAN18 was also used in order to select additional planning units aimed at ensuring connectivity across the BioNet. MARXAN has the ability to consider spatial pattern in selecting reserve networks through the use of its Boundary Length Modifier (BLM). The BLM allows the selection process to consider landscape connectivity in the selection process. CLUZ19 is an extension to ArcView3.3 and QGIS20 and was used in the software to provide a user-friendly interface to MARXAN.

17 Pugnalin A. & Holmes P. M. 2016. City of Cape Town’s Biodiversity Network C-Plan and Marxan Analysis Manual. City of Cape Town: Unpublished. This is based on Benn 2009, City of Cape Town BioNet Analysis Manual. GeoCline Consulting: Cape Town. 18 Possingham et al. 2000, Ball and Possingham, 2000, http://www.ecology.uq.edu.au/ index.html 19 Smith 2004, http://www.mosaic-conservation.org/cluz 20 QGIS Development Team, 2016. QGIS Geographic Information System. Open Source Geospatial Foundation Project. http://qgis.osgeo.org

Biodiversity Network 2016 Analysis

C-Plan Analysis

Selection from Good & Fair Habitat Condition Sites

To ensure that good and fair condition planning units were selected preferentially over poor condition planning units, the latter were initially excluded from the analysis. Irreplaceability was then calculated, and those planning units with 100% irreplaceability scores selected. Irreplaceable planning units are those for which no alternatives exist if biodiversity targets are to be met.

The Minset Algorithm Outstanding biodiversity target values were then met by running C-Plan’s Minset algorithm that uses a series of rules. Successive rules in the Minset algorithm are only used when a tie occurs. The expert mapped corridors were used in the Minset to ensure that where possible, and if the preceding rules result in ties, planning units within these corridors were preferentially selected. The Minset algorithm rules were as follows:

1. Highest Irreplaceability score 2. Habitat condition = Good 3. Location of planning unit in one of the expert mapped corridors 4. Highest “local endemics” value 5. Lowest “High plus Medium” threat value 6. Highest percentage contribution to meeting biodiversity targets 7. Feature rarity 8. Summed rarity 9. Richness 10. Site Area Highest 11. Select first site in list

Selection from Poor Habitat Condition Sites

The poor condition planning units were then brought into the analysis and irreplaceability recalculated to try to meet any biodiversity targets that had not yet been met when only good and fair condition planning units were considered. Any poor condition planning units given a status of 100% irreplaceability were included in the set of selected planning units. At this point, all achievable biodiversity targets were attained.

Inclusion of SaSflora Data

The previous analyses in 2009 and 2011 attempted to include the entire large SaSflora species database, as well as the CREW, CCT and Protea Atlas plant species databases. However, during these analyses, software problems were experienced owing to the large size of the input data. For this reason a reduced and combined species database was used that included only the Red List Threatened species – CR, EN, VU and NT - as these are the species most likely to influence planning unit selection. In addition, any duplicates of a species on a planning unit within or between source datasets were removed. The C-plan output with the reduced species data was considered to produce the best result and was used as the input into Marxan.

MARXAN Analysis The protected areas and the good and fair condition sites selected during the C-Plan analysis in order to reach biodiversity targets were set aside as having already been identified as essential to conserve (i.e. “mandatory”). MARXAN was then run to select further sites that would allow for connectivity between them in order to meet ecological process biodiversity targets. Sites could therefore be selected by Marxan even if they were not required to directly meet biodiversity pattern targets. The plant species features were not included in the 17

Biodiversity Network 2016 Analysis

MARXAN analysis as they cause the software to freeze. This was not considered to be of concern as the feasible flora biodiversity targets had already been met and the relevant sites selected in the C-Plan step of the analysis. Vegetation features and the climate change adaptation corridor feature were included.

The NBA’s Ecosystem-Based Adaptation layer was used as a cost surface (see description on p. 9) in order to connect the selected planning units using sites of high climate adaptation potential where possible.

A Boundary Length Modifier (BLM) of 0.5 was used, based on the findings of Benn21 in the 2008 BioNet run: the value 0.5 proved to be the least land-hungry, important in the case of the city where open land is at a premium. The higher the BLM is defined, the more land hungry a run will be with the selection being more biased towards reducing boundary length and less towards meeting feature biodiversity targets. In contrast to previous analyses, a bound.dat with an XY tolerance of 50 was used as opposed to the default of 0.002. This XY tolerance proved to select the most viable distribution of planning units.

External edges were included in the determination of boundary length, although certain edges could be excluded in future where they make up a natural boundary, such as a coastline.

Species Penalty Factor

The Species Penalty Factor (SPF) is the cost associated with not meeting the biodiversity target for a specific biodiversity feature. Setting a high cost value for a particular feature will increase the likelihood of that feature’s biodiversity target being met, as MARXAN acts to minimise the cost of the final portfolio that it identifies. 100 000, a very high value, was set for all features in the MARXAN analysis to ensure that all biodiversity targets were met.

The number of iterations was set at 1,000,000 and the number of runs at 100. Increasing the number of iterations and runs generally improves the efficiency of the portfolio that MARXAN identifies but also increases the processing time.

CLASSIFICATION OF CRITICAL BIODIVERSITY AREAS

The selected planning units were ranked and given specific attributes by both the C-Plan and the MARXAN software. These rankings and attributes were combined and used to identify a range of different Critical Biodiversity Area (CBA) categories (Tables 3, 5).

CBA 2 and Other Natural Vegetation areas that had additional importance in that they served to consolidate CBA 1b remnants were manually upgraded to CBA 1d status.

Unselected natural vegetation and irreversibly modified areas of open land were upgraded to CESA and OESA respectively wherever they fell within Baboon home ranges, Important Bird Area, a large mammal movement corridor or a management consolidation area.

IN FUTURE ANALYSES

In order to promote connectivity between established protected areas in addition to consolidation of fragments, known ecological corridors other than the climate change corridor

21 Benn, Grant. 2008. City of Cape Town’s BioNet: Terrestrial Systematic Conservation Plan Re-Analysis: Methods and Results. GeoCline Consulting CC (www.capetown.gov.za – follow links to ERMD/ Reports).

Biodiversity Network 2016 Analysis could be factored into the Marxan process rather than adding them in after C-Plan and Marxan have been run. Any additional fauna data needs to be assessed to gauge whether it should be incorporated in the future, software-permitting.

RESULTS

National Vegetation Types The results for 19 terrestrial and 3 wetland vegetation types are presented in Table 2. Three of the national types have been divided into two subtypes of regional importance: Cape Flats Dune Strandveld into False Bay and West Coast subtypes and Peninsula Granite Fynbos into North and South subtypes, the latter usually being located on wetter aspects and slopes. Thirdly, Peninsula Shale Fynbos is a locally significant subtype of Cape Winelands Shale Fynbos.

Six national vegetation types are endemic (i.e. confined to the city). These are: Cape Flats Dune Strandveld, Cape Flats Sand Fynbos, Lourensford Alluvium Fynbos, Peninsula Granite Fynbos, Peninsula Sandstone Fynbos and Peninsula Shale Renosterveld.

The biodiversity targets were calculated from species-area curves as the minimum area required for conserving 75% of the plant species in a vegetation type. Note that this is the minimum requirement and that additional areas may be needed to maintain ecological processes and to provide habitat for certain threatened plant and animal species. The 2012 National Biodiversity Assessment indicates which vegetation types have elevated threat status based on the species criterion: i.e. high concentrations of Red List threatened species. For the city this applies to Atlantis Sand Fynbos (CR), Peninsula Sandstone Fynbos (EN) and Kogelberg Sandstone Fynbos (CR). The areas required to meet the vegetation and species biodiversity targets are indicated on the map (Figure 1) as CBA1a-d and CBA2; and those areas required to conserve ecological processes as CBA1e. Additional ecological support areas required, primarily for Baboon home ranges and other large mammal movement corridors, are indicated on the map as CESA for natural remnants and OESA for irreversibly modified land (usually across extensive agriculture areas).

In 2016, eight of the national vegetation types in the city have insufficient habitat remaining to conserve the minimum biodiversity target. These are Cape Flats Sand Fynbos, Lourensford Alluvium Fynbos, Peninsula Shale Renosterveld, Swartland Alluvium Fynbos, and Swartland Alluvium, Granite, Shale and Silcrete Renosterveld vegetation types. Three of these national vegetation types are endemic to the city and thus cannot be conserved elsewhere: Cape Flats Sand Fynbos with 13.4%, Lourensford Alluvium Fynbos with 1.1% and Peninsula Shale Renosterveld with 11.5% habitat remaining. The latter type is mostly all conserved in the Table Mountain National Park, but the other two are an urgent priority for conserving remaining habitat. Unfortunately over half of this habitat is in poor condition. The five non- endemic types have traditionally been exploited for commercial agriculture (cereal & fruit crops) and little natural habitat remains either inside or outside of the city.

Although sufficient remnant habitat remains to meet biodiversity targets for the other 14 national terrestrial and wetland vegetation types, there is much work to be done in attaining adequate protection for them in nature reserves. Ten vegetation types, all in the lowlands or foothills, have no protection, or are hardly or poorly protected. Moderately to well-conserved types (i.e. proportion in proclaimed protected areas in the city relative to biodiversity targets) are Cape Estuarine Salt Marsh, Cape Lowland Freshwater Wetlands, Freshwater Lakes, Cape Winelands Shale Fynbos (including Peninsula Shale Fynbos subtype), Hangklip Sand Fynbos, Kogelberg Sandstone Fynbos, Peninsula Granite Fynbos (North subtype), Peninsula Sandstone Fynbos, Southern Afrotemperate Forest and Western Coastal Shaleband Vegetation (Table 2). These are mainly conserved in the Table Mountain National Park and various reserves in mountainous areas of the Helderberg district.

Biodiversity Network 2016 Analysis

It is important to note the anomaly in the city statistics for Elgin Shale Fynbos – a vegetation type occurring mainly outside of the city – which has largely been converted for intensive agriculture and orchards and is nationally Critically Endangered. However, within the city, a lower proportion has been lost and there is an opportunity to secure as much of this ecosystem as possible to improve its national ecosystem protection level. However, currently these remnants are under pine plantations in the land adjacent to the Steenbras Dam and are in need of restoration. Swartland Alluvium Renosterveld has no remaining habitat in the city.

Species Biodiversity Targets The comprehensive flora data sets available for the city enabled all the known locations of threatened species to be selected in the BioNet, or where these exceeded biodiversity targets for these to be met. Vegetation types rich in endemic and threatened species have more extensive areas selected in the BioNet in order to accommodate species populations, except for those types that largely been lost such as Cape Flats Sand Fynbos and Lourensford Alluvium Fynbos. An example of a vegetation type for which additional areas are selected for threatened species biodiversity targets is Atlantis Sand Fynbos. Two other vegetation types that are conserved as Mountain Catchment Areas (Kogelberg Sandstone Fynbos in the Steenbras Nature Reserve) and National Park (Peninsula Sandstone Fynbos in the Table Mountain National Park), conserve many endemic and threatened species.

Critical Biodiversity Area (CBA) Categories Table 3 presents the general statistics by CBA map category for the BioNet analysis. For an explanation of categories refer to Table 5. CBAs comprising natural remnants (from good to poor condition) cover 81,398 ha or 33.1% of the city; with CESAs included, this increases to 87,206ha or 35.4% of the city. Some proclaimed nature reserves and unproclaimed conservation areas include portions of irreversibly modified land, which increases the BioNet total area to 36.4% of the city, although these latter areas do not contribute towards meeting biodiversity targets.

Sixty percent of the BioNet is conserved, although some of these areas currently have no statutory protection (i.e. Conservation Areas in Table 3). Currently a process is underway to proclaim City-run nature reserves under the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act (NEM:PAA 57 of 2003). The 100% irreplaceable, good-fair condition remnants comprise the next highest category of the BioNet (CBA1a&b: 17.4%) followed by CBA1c (1.9%) and areas selected for ecological process biodiversity targets (CBA1e: 6.3%). A significant portion of the BioNet (11.6%) is in poor condition (i.e. CBA1d, CBA2, portions of CESA) and requires ecological restoration in order to promote long-term resilience and conservation of biodiversity.

Biodiversity Network 2016 Analysis

Table 2: Results: National Vegetation Type Statistics These statistics are for the vegetation extent of the major national vegetation types within city only and exclude portions of the vegetation type occurring outside city boundaries. Note that six national vegetation types – marked with “*” are endemic to the city. The azonal ‘beach’ vegetation is included under strandveld. Historic Current % National Target Selected in % Target In % National Status based on area remaining in City City SANBI exent extent (ha) Remain Ecosys- Area BioNet (PAs/ Selected Proclaimed Target Ecosys- Ecosys- Protection (ha) -ing tem (ha) Conservation in BioNet PAs - In met in tem Status tem Level Vegetation Type from Target Areas/CBA Perpetuity/ procl- 2012 Target + CR EN VU Status Historic % 1&2) For Limited aimed 15% < target < target < 60% Extent Period (ha) PAs +15% Atlantis Sand Fynbos 25177 14810 58.8 30 7553 10342 137.3 3844 50.9 CR-D1 11330 FALSE FALSE TRUE LT Moderately Boland Granite Fynbos 9379 5631 60.0 30 2814 4229 150.3 272 9.7 VU 4221 FALSE FALSE FALSE LT Poorly Cape Estuarine Salt Marshes 201 201 100.0 24 48 197 408.4 197 408.4 LT 78 FALSE FALSE FALSE LT Well Cape Flats Dune Strandveld - False Bay* 28189 8012 28.4 24 6765 7314 109.5 2866 42.4 EN 10851 FALSE TRUE TRUE EN Poorly Cape Flats Dune Strandveld - West Coast 12734 10373 81.5 24 3056 7595 248.5 6373 208.5 EN 4966 FALSE FALSE FALSE LT Well Cape Flats Sand Fynbos* 54335 7303 13.4 30 16300 7302 45.8 1087 6.7 CR 24451 TRUE TRUE TRUE CR Poorly Cape Lowland Freshwater Wetlands 1656 1122 67.7 24 397 1103 277.6 771 194.0 LT 646 FALSE FALSE FALSE LT Well Cape Winelands Shale Fynbos 4006 2277 56.8 30 1202 1794 149.3 1281 106.6 VU 1803 FALSE FALSE TRUE VU Well Elgin Shale Fynbos 841 330 39.3 30 252 328 130.0 324 128.4 CR 379 FALSE TRUE TRUE EN Well Freshwater Lake 82 82 100.0 24 20 82 416.7 82 416.7 LT 32 FALSE FALSE FALSE LT Well Hangklip Sand Fynbos 3295 1850 56.2 30 989 1553 157.1 1241 125.5 VU 1483 FALSE FALSE TRUE VU Well Kogelberg Sandstone Fynbos 9435 9203 97.5 30 2831 8572 304.0 7285 257.3 CR-D1 4246 FALSE FALSE FALSE LT Well Lourensford Alluvium Fynbos* 3585 239 6.7 30 1076 239 22.2 9 0.8 CR 1613 TRUE TRUE TRUE CR Hardly Peninsula Granite Fynbos North* 2070 1476 71.3 30 621 1323 213.0 889 143.1 CR 932 FALSE FALSE FALSE LT Well Peninsula Granite Fynbos South* 7158 2471 34.5 30 2147 2234 104.0 1567 73.0 CR 3221 FALSE TRUE TRUE EN Moderately Peninsula Sandstone Fynbos* 21936 21043 95.9 30 6581 19950 303.2 15634 237.6 EN-D1 9871 FALSE FALSE FALSE LT Well Peninsula Shale Fynbos 1263 660 52.3 30 379 657 173.4 571 150.7 LT 568 FALSE FALSE TRUE VU Well Peninsula Shale Renosterveld* 2384 275 11.6 26 620 275 44.4 268 35.2 CR 978 TRUE TRUE TRUE CR Poorly Southern Afrotemperate Forest 348 345 99.4 34 118 343 290.3 218 184.5 LT 170 FALSE FALSE FALSE LT Well Swartland Alluvium Fynbos 1734 56 3.2 30 520 56 10.8 0 0.0 CR 780 TRUE TRUE TRUE CR Not Swartland Alluvium Renosterveld 61 0 0.0 26 16 0 0.0 0 0.0 VU 25 TRUE TRUE TRUE CR Not Swartland Granite Renosterveld 7292 1844 25.3 26 1896 1823 97.6 93 4.9 CR 2990 TRUE TRUE TRUE CR Hardly Swartland Shale Renosterveld 47316 3607 7.6 26 12302 3607 30.0 719 5.8 CR 19399 TRUE TRUE TRUE CR Poorly Swartland Silcrete Renosterveld 1091 151 13.8 26 284 151 53.2 4 1.4 CR 447 TRUE TRUE TRUE CR Hardly Western Shaleband Vegetation 317 316 99.7 30 95 314 329.8 232 243.7 LT 143 FALSE FALSE FALSE LT Well

Biodiversity Network 2016 Analysis

Figure 8: March 2016 Biodiversity Network for the City of Cape Town Municipal Area

Biodiversity Network 2016 Analysis

Table 3: Results: BioNet CBA Category Statistics BioNet category Natural (ha) Irreversibly Total (ha) % of BioNet modified (ha) Protected: In Perpetuity 41060 2061 43121 48.1 Protected: Not In Perpetuity 4810 85 4895 5.5 Conservation Area 5498 202 5700 6.4 CBA 1a 2931 0 2931 3.3 CBA 1b 12654 0 12654 14.1 CBA 1c 1711 0 1711 1.9 CBA 1d 1971 0 1971 2.2 CBA 1e 5620 0 5620 6.3 CBA 2 5142 0 5142 5.7 CESA 5808 0 5808 6.5 Total 87206 2348 89554 100

In terms of ecological processes, the Marxan analysis selected the larger non-fragmented natural remnants, achieving connectivity where most efficient and meaningful in terms of expert corridors and areas important for climate change resilience. On a scale of 0-60 only 11% of the city has a climate change resilience score of >30, whereas 32% of the BioNet has a score of >30, equating to an area of 27,000 ha (Figure 7) and includes the majority of the high-scoring climate change resilience land in the city. It is anticipated that this area will have higher climate change resilience than the surrounding landscape (Pence 2011).

The 1 km-wide core climate change adaptation corridor in the north of the city, which is nested within part of the Dassenberg Coastal Catchment Corridor, was included in its entirety, linking several existing conservation areas to each other and the coast. This is one of the few areas of the city where significant choices can be made without forfeiting biodiversity targets. This important corridor influenced the selections of adjacent planning units for meeting associated vegetation type biodiversity targets as well as buffering the core corridor, the result of which is an effective corridor width of 2 km-wide along most of its length.

The BioNet also includes significant areas of potential climate refugia, corresponding with known concentrations of local endemic plant species (Figure 6), where it is postulated that ecological communities are more stable despite past climate change and will be less likely to undergo significant climate-induced changes in future. Some of these areas are embedded in the BioNet and are relatively secure inside the Table Mountain National Park, but in other areas comprise irreplaceable sites requiring urgent conservation and restoration.

The City Local Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (LBSAP 2016-2026)22 includes a Local Biodiversity Implementation Plan which outlines the conservation implementation priorities for CBA remnants in the BioNet.

CBAs inside and outside of the urban edge The BioNet lies mainly outside the urban edge with only 15% located inside the urban edge (Table 4). Of the latter, about 5% is protected in perpetuity; and the remainder comprises mostly the 100% irreplaceable vegetation (such as Cape Flats Sand Fynbos) for which thresholds can no longer be met, either in good to fair condition (CBA1b) or poor condition

22 LBSAP www.capetown.gov.za/environment - follow links to Publications > Reports and scientific papers.

Biodiversity Network 2016 Analysis

(CBA2). Some of this vegetation occurs either along the coast inside the Coastal Protection Zone, or in flood-prone areas of the Cape Flats, which are not suitable for urban developments.

Table 4. CBA categories as distributed between inside and outside the urban edge

CBA category Inside Urban edge Outside urban edge ha %BioNet ha % BioNet Protected:In perpetuity 4115 4.6 39006 43.6 Protected: limited period 13 0.0 4881 5.5 Conservation area 278 0.3 5422 6.1 CBA1a 381 0.4 2550 2.8 CBA1b 3204 3.6 9450 10.5 CBA1c 49 0.1 1662 1.9 CBA1d 851 0.9 1120 1.3 CBA1e 424 0.4 5196 5.8 CBA2 3402 3.8 1740 1.9 CESA 773 0.9 5036 5.6 Total 13480 15.0 76064 85.0

City Vegetation Subtypes A more detailed break-down of the biodiversity planning analysis results by the 65 city vegetation types is presented in Table 7. Twelve of the types historically covered very small areas of <100ha and of these, five are extinct in the city. In addition to the extinct subtypes, 18 subtypes have insufficient remnant remaining to meet minimum biodiversity targets. The general patterns remain the same as for the national vegetation types, with lowland vegetation types and those on richer soils having the lowest proportion of natural habitat remaining. Many of these subtypes are hardly or poorly protected.

Wetlands The city’s wetlands were studied at a finer scale than the vegetation types and are mainly seasonal wetland plant communities nested within the vegetation units (Table 8). City wetland extent thus exceeds that recognized at the national scale under Cape Lowland Freshwater Wetland, Cape Estuarine Salt Marsh and Freshwater Lake national types. Since 2009, wetland ground-truthing and mapping corrections have been ongoing by the Biodiversity Management Branch, and in addition, wetlands lost to developments have been removed from the wetland layer. Currently 4,176 of natural and semi-natural wetlands covering an extent of 8,028 ha remain in the city. This represents a loss of 160 ha of wetland habitat since the 2011 analysis. Although some of this loss comprises improved wetland mapping the remainder represents wetland lost to developments. All wetlands are included in the BioNet, either as CBA or Ecological Support Area (ESA) wetlands. 41% of this wetland extent is conserved in nature reserves or non-proclaimed conservation areas. A total of 1,597 (or 38% of) wetlands have CBA1 status.

There are 52 identified wetland types that have natural or semi-natural wetlands remaining in the city, but ten types are degraded by surrounding land use and are classed as ESA rather than CBA. About 10% of all wetlands occur in irreversibly modified habitat but are retained as OESA wetlands as they may perform some ecosystem functioning. The latter particularly applies to some Alluvium Fynbos, Alluvium Renosterveld, Granite Fynbos, Granite Renosterveld and Silcrete Renosterveld wetland types.

The historical extent of wetlands in lowland areas is unknown owing to the high level of land modification (from both intensive agriculture and urbanization) which obscures former wetland pattern. The biodiversity target of 24% may be appropriate for mountain systems which 24

Biodiversity Network 2016 Analysis remain relatively intact, but in the modified lowlands will underestimate the requirement if based on current wetland extent. Therefore we have assessed whether wetland biodiversity targets are met based only on the CBA wetlands, which remain relatively natural. ESA wetlands are excluded as meeting biodiversity targets, although they may be important for some ecological processes. On this basis, 71% (37) of wetland types have the minimum biodiversity target (by area) selected in the BioNet and the remainder (15) do not. Of the latter, seven have no selected CBA wetlands, as the remaining sites are all in irreversibly modified landscapes (Table 8: Alluvium Fynbos isolated depression, Alluvium Renosterveld valley bottom, Granite Fynbos depression, Granite Renosterveld floodplain, Sand Fynbos isolated depression, Silcrete Renosterveld seep and valley bottom). In general, these wetlands have a lower habitat condition and will be difficult to restore given current land-use.

Nineteen wetland types have the minimum biodiversity target met within conservation areas. These comprise mainly the strandveld and sandstone fynbos wetland types. However, Sand Fynbos depression is also well conserved owing to water bodies such as Princessvlei, Rondevlei and Zeekoevlei being included in this type (Table 8). Historically, these vleis would have been seasonal wetlands, but have become permanent water bodies following urban development and altered drainage patterns. This has altered their ecological and biodiversity characteristics.

Biodiversity Network 2016 Analysis Table 5: Calculation of Critical Biodiversity Area Categories

CRITICAL BIODIVERSITY AREA CATEGORY Habitat condition C-plan Result Marxan Result Good Protected (in perpetuity, not in perpetuity and managed but Fair Res Conserved not proclaimed) Poor Good CBA 1a (Core Flora Site) Fair Res Conserved Poor Good CBA 1b R 2 Conserved Fair Good CBA 1c R1 Conserved Fair CBA 1d (selection from CBA 2 and Other Natural Vegetation Poor R1_low/ R2_low/ 0co Available/ Earmarked sites based on expert opinion) Good CBA 1e Fair 0Co/ Exc/ Earmarked ═ ┼ ┼ Poor Poor R1_low/ R2_low CBA 2 Available/ Earmarked

Good Available/ Excluded/ CESA (selection from Other Natural Vegetation based on 0Co/ Exc/ Fair expert opinion) Poor Available/ Excluded/ OESA (selection from modified based on expert opinion) Irreversibly modified 0Co/ Exc/ Good 0Co/ Exc/ Available Other Natural Vegetation unless CESA Fair

Poor Irreversibly modified Exc/ Excluded Irreversibly modified unless OESA

C-Plan Outputs

Res Sites that are set as reserved in analysis as they have a Protected status

R 2 Mandatory sites (Irreplaceability =1) selected by C-plan when poor habitat condition sites excluded from analysis

R2_low Mandatory sites (Irreplaceability =1) selected by Minset algorithm when poor habitat condition sites brought into analysis

Biodiversity Network 2016 Analysis

R 1 Negotiable sites selected by C-plan

R1_low Negotiable sites selected by Minset algorithm when poor habitat condition sites brought into analysis

0Co Sites that are not selected by C-plan

Sites that are excluded in C-plan initially due to having either Poor habitat condition or for being irreversibly modified so that better Exc condition sites are considered first

Marxan Outputs

Conserved Sites that are set as reserved in analysis as they have a Protected status or were selected in C-plan as R2 or R1 sites

Earmarked Sites that were earmarked by Marxan

Available Sites that were available for Marxan to choose from but were not earmarked by Marxan

Excluded Sites that were excluded from the analysis as they are irreversibly modified

Biodiversity Network 2016 Analysis

Table 6: CBA: Significance & Descriptions of Permissible Activities

Critical Spatial Development Biodiversity CBA Name Subtype Description Significance of Habitat Objective Action Compatible Activities Framework Category Area (CBA) Category Maintain natural ecosystems, Conservation, low impact restore degraded recreation & environmental Statutory Protected Protected Areas Local, National & International land to natural & education as outlined in the Areas. Ensure National, (National, significance: Loss of habitat will manage for no management plan for the site; Protected: In management plans Core 1 Protected: In Provincial, Provincial, Local & probably result in extinction of further hard infrastructure should not be Perpetuity are in place, Perpetuity Local Contractual Nature some species & inability to attain degradation. situated in critical biodiversity implemented and Reserves) biodiversity targets. Ensure site is an areas, but outside & adjacent to audited. asset to the these, or in existing highly surrounding degraded areas only. communities. Secure formal ecosystem protection level Conservation, low impact These areas are under the Protected National, Maintain natural recreation & environmental currently being Areas Act. Provincial or Local, National & International ecosystems, education as outlined in the managed as part of Consolidate into Protected: Local significance: Loss of habitat will restore degraded management plan for the site; existing reserves or existing provincial or Core 1 Not In Protected: Not government probably result in extinction of land to natural & hard infrastructure should not be core flora sites, but local authority Perpetuity In Perpetuity land managed some species & inability to attain manage for no situated in critical biodiversity have no formal reserves where they but with no biodiversity targets. further areas, but outside & adjacent to protected area lie adjacent. Ensure status degradation. these, or in existing highly status as yet. management plans degraded areas only. are in place, implemented and audited. Pursue appropriate Conservation, low impact stewardship Local or Private Maintain natural recreation & environmental conservation status areas managed Local, National & International ecosystems, education as outlined in the (contractual or for Non- proclaimed significance: Loss of habitat will restore degraded management plan for the site; Conservation biodiversity Core 1 Conservation conservation local and private probably result in extinction of land to natural and hard infrastructure should not be Area agreement). Ensure Area but without conservation areas. some species & inability to attain manage for no situated in critical biodiversity management plans statutory biodiversity targets. further areas, but outside & adjacent to are in place, protection degradation. these, or in existing highly implemented and degraded areas only. audited.

Biodiversity Network 2016 Analysis

Critical Spatial Development Biodiversity CBA Name Subtype Description Significance of Habitat Objective Action Compatible Activities Framework Category Area (CBA) Category Obtain appropriate Core Flora sites to Conservation, low impact formal ecosystem be gazetted ASAP - recreation & environmental protection level. Core Flora Sites: Local, National & International we need action. education as outlined in the Maintain natural Irreplaceable Irreplaceable sites significance: Loss of habitat will High priority, very management plan for the site; Non-protected ecosystems, Core 1 CBA 1a Core Flora of historical probably result in extinction of high urgency hard infrastructure should not be core flora sites restore degraded sites significance & very some species & inability to attain (immediate). Land situated in critical biodiversity land to natural & high priority biodiversity targets. owner negotiations. areas, but outside & adjacent to manage for no Invasive aliens to be these, or in existing highly further controlled. degraded areas only. degradation. Obtain appropriate Critically Conservation, low impact ecosystem Endangered Needed for recreation & environmental protection level. vegetation of Good Local, National & International biodiversity targets. education as outlined in the Maintain natural Irreplaceable & Fair quality. significance: Loss of habitat will High priority, very management plan for the site; Irreplaceable ecosystems, Core 1 CBA 1b Good & Fair Needed for probably result in extinction of high urgency hard infrastructure should not be sites restore degraded Condition sites biodiversity targets. some species & inability to attain (immediate). situated in critical biodiversity land to natural & Any loss is a biodiversity targets. Invasive aliens to be areas, but outside & adjacent to manage for no permanent & controlled. these, or in existing highly further irrevocable loss. degraded areas only. degradation. Good & Fair Local, National & International condition significance: Any loss will require Obtain appropriate vegetation that is Conservation, low impact specific alternative areas to be ecosystem selected on the Needed for recreation & environmental targeted for conservation, but protection level. Biodiversity biodiversity targets. education as outlined in the these areas have been set as Maintain natural Minset Good & Minset Network for High priority, high management plan for the site; not negotiable so that the ecosystems, Core 1 CBA 1c Fair Condition biodiversity meeting urgency (5-10 year hard infrastructure should not be alternative sites can be freed up restore degraded sites Targets biodiversity targets horizon). Invasive situated in critical biodiversity for development. Consequently land to natural & (C Plan). Loss can aliens to be areas, but outside & adjacent to these are not negotiable unless manage for no be replaced by controlled. these, or in existing highly alternative, equivalent sites not further obtaining specific degraded areas only. on the Biodiversity Network are degradation. Unselected Natural secured first. Vegetation sites. Critically Local, National & International Obtain appropriate As above, but higher impact Endangered significance: These areas are ecosystem Needed for activities (picnic sites, vegetation of poor/ required to make existing protection level. biodiversity targets. conservation offices, restaurants, restorable remnants ecologically viable. Maintain natural Irreplaceable Minset High priority, high EE centres etc) may be situated condition. Essential Loss would result in higher ecosystems, Core 1 CBA 1d Consolidation biodiversity urgency (10 year on highly degraded areas on for management condition remnants being lost restore degraded sites Targets horizon). Invasive existing development footprints consolidation & through degradation of land to natural & aliens to be where this does not impact viability of CBA1a, ecological processes & manage for no controlled. negatively on ecological CBA1b & protected exorbitant interventionary further processes. sites. ecosystem management costs. degradation.

Biodiversity Network 2016 Analysis

Critical Spatial Development Biodiversity CBA Name Subtype Description Significance of Habitat Objective Action Compatible Activities Framework Category Area (CBA) Category Low impact recreation (hiking, environmental education, bird watching etc); higher impact Vegetation that is Consideration can Local, National & International activities only where environment selected on the only be given if significance: required to As above but with is suitable (e.g. mountain biking; Biodiversity suitable alternatives maintain large-scale ecosystem a focus on the horse riding on existing roads; Connectivity Marxan & Network for exist. High priority, Core 1 CBA1e processes, climate change maintenance of boating on vleis etc); hard sites expert corridor connectivity & medium urgency mitigation, animal migration & ecological infrastructure should not be ecological (10-20 year horizon). other long-term, large-scale processes. situated in critical biodiversity processes Invasive aliens to be effects. areas, but outside & adjacent to (Marxan) controlled. these, or in existing highly degraded areas on existing development footprints only. Some higher impact activities Critically Conserve & restore. (play parks, braai areas, picnic Endangered Alternatives can be Obtain appropriate sites, conservation offices, vegetation of negotiated with the ecosystem restaurants, EE centres etc) may restorable use of compensation protection level. be situated on the edges of these condition. Needed Although irreplaceable these are for the securing of Maintain natural sites or where the activity does Restorable Irreplaceable for biodiversity degraded. Their loss will have priority sites. ecosystems, not impact negatively on Core 1 CBA 2 Irreplaceable poor condition targets but not for Local, National & International Medium priority, low restore degraded ecological processes, provided sites sites management significance but low impact on urgency. Will require land to natural & the remainder is restored; consolidation, good quality remnants. a bylaw: High manage for no resource harvesting may be connectivity or priority, immediate further considered in accordance with viability of priority urgency. Invasive degradation. the management plan for the Biodiversity aliens to be site, but under strictly controlled Network sites. controlled. conditions only. Obtain appropriate Local, national & international formal status, such Map areas & check Unselected areas significance. Required to make as open space zoning is Unselected that are in natural existing remnants ecologically zoning. Maintain appropriate. Where Natural vegetation. more viable & for larger fauna Consolidation & as open space & possible rehabilitate Activities that do not impinge on Vegetation Essential movement. Loss would result in Core 2 CESA ecological where appropriate to enhance ecological functioning & water Sites of ecological support the remnants or faunal species support areas restore degraded ecosystem quality are permissible. Conservation for CBA 1, CBA 2 & being lost & exorbitant land to natural or functioning, Significance protected sites. interventionary ecosystem near-natural for including invasive management costs. consolidation of alien control.

other remnants.

Biodiversity Network 2016 Analysis

Critical Spatial Development Biodiversity CBA Name Subtype Description Significance of Habitat Objective Action Compatible Activities Framework Category Area (CBA) Category Ensure agricultural Maintain as open Local significance: These areas activity is compatible Generally outside urban edge. Open space space & where may be required for long-term with ecosystem Existing agricultural practices Irreversibly irreversibly appropriate ecological functioning of processes. Where may continue or other compatible modified Other modified by restore degraded neighbouring natural possible, acquire, farming may occur but the long- Buffer 2 OESA Site of Ecological agriculture or other land to natural or ecosystems. Loss would result rezone & term vision is to restore natural Conservation support areas activities. Essential near-natural for in degradation of ecological rehabilitate. High ecosystem structure to some of Significance for protected sites. improved processes & potential loss of priority but low the area to improve ecological ecological biodiversity elements. urgency (15 year processes. functioning. horizon). Until Biodiversity Network is secured elsewhere, these areas Unselected Natural vegetation may become important if Local significance. Will result in Sustainable natural in Endangered, Negotiable. Low required as biodiversity offset impaired ability to meet management Other Natural vegetation in Vulnerable & Least priority, no urgency. sites. Some higher impact Buffer 1 Not selected biodiversity targets, given that within general Vegetation good, fair or Concern in good, Invasive alien activities could be considered on Higher categories will not always rural land-use restorable fair or restorable control degraded portions, but be achievable. principles condition condition. vegetation in good condition should be subject to low impact activities only. Irreversibly Sustainable In terms of Unselected modified land of no Intensive Agriculture/ Irreversibly management biodiversity irreversibly Not selected currently known No significance. Agriculture & urban development Settlement modified applying accepted conservation, no modified Sites conservation land-use principles action is required. significance

Biodiversity Network 2016 Analysis

Table 7: Results: City Vegetation Subtype Statistics National vegetation type plus subtype Historic Current % National Target Selected in % In % Target National Thres- Status based on area remaining City SANBI exent extent Remain Ecosys- Area BioNet (PAs/ Thresh- Proclaime met in Ecosys- hold in City Ecosys- Protection (ha) (ha) -ing tem (ha) Conservation old d PAs - In procl- tem Extent + tem Level from Thresh- Areas/ Select- Perpetuity/ aimed PAs Status 15% Status Historic old % CBA1&2 ed in For 2012 Historic Extent BioNet Limited Exent CR EN VU Period

Biodiversity Network 2016 Analysis

Cape Flats Sand Fynbos-on recent non-aeolian colluvium 435 129 29.7 30 130 129 98.9 48 36.5 CR 196 TRUE TRUE TRUE CR Poorly Cape Flats Sand Fynbos-Strandveld/Fynbos transition (on calcareous/acidic/neutral sands) 267 8 3.0 30 80 8 10.1 6 7.2 CR 120 TRUE TRUE TRUE CR Poorly Cape Lowland Freshwater Wetlands-Wetlands 1656 1122 67.8 24 497 1103 222.2 771 155.1 VU 745 FALSE FALSE FALSE LT Well Cape Winelands Shale Fynbos-on Gritty sand 416 334 80.3 30 125 266 212.8 108 86.6 VU 187 FALSE FALSE FALSE LT Moderately Cape Winelands Shale Fynbos-on Loam and sandy loam 863 206 23.9 30 259 206 79.7 103 39.9 VU 389 TRUE TRUE TRUE CR Poorly Cape Winelands Shale Fynbos-on recent non-aeolian colluvium 8 0 0.0 30 2 0 0.0 0 0.0 VU 3 TRUE TRUE TRUE CR Not Cape Winelands Shale Fynbos-on Scree 740 698 94.4 30 222 698 314.6 698 314.6 VU 333 FALSE FALSE FALSE LT Well Cape Winelands Shale Fynbos-on Shale 1979 1037 52.4 30 594 623 105.0 371 62.5 VU 891 FALSE FALSE TRUE VU Moderately Elgin Shale Fynbos-on Shale 841 330 39.2 30 252 328 130.1 324 128.5 CR 379 FALSE TRUE TRUE EN Well Hangklip Sand Fynbos-on marine-derived acid sands 2261 1092 48.3 30 678 953 140.5 784 115.6 EN 1017 FALSE FALSE TRUE VU Well Hangklip Sand Fynbos-on sands 1034 758 73.3 30 310 600 193.4 457 147.3 EN 465 FALSE FALSE FALSE LT Well Kogelberg Sandstone Fynbos-on Sandstone 9435 9203 97.5 30 2831 8572 302.8 7285 257.3 CR_D1 4246 FALSE FALSE FALSE LT Well Lourensford Alluvium Fynbos-on Alluvium 355 103 29.0 30 106 103 96.6 1 0.5 CR 160 TRUE TRUE TRUE CR Hardly Lourensford Alluvium Fynbos-on Loam and sandy loam 328 0 0.0 30 99 0 0.0 0 0.0 CR 148 TRUE TRUE TRUE CR Not Lourensford Alluvium Fynbos-on recent non-aeolian colluvium 2902 689 23.7 30 871 136 15.7 9 1.0 CR 1306 TRUE TRUE TRUE CR Hardly Peninsula Granite Fynbos North -on Granite 1190 787 66.1 30 357 727 203.6 522 146.1 CR 536 FALSE FALSE FALSE LT Well Peninsula Granite Fynbos North -on recent non-aeolian colluvium 880 689 78.3 30 264 597 226.1 367 139.2 CR 396 FALSE FALSE FALSE LT Well Peninsula Granite Fynbos South -on Granite 3279 1065 32.5 30 984 996 101.2 778 79.0 CR 1476 FALSE TRUE TRUE EN Moderately Peninsula Granite Fynbos South -on marine-derived acid sands 233 113 48.6 30 70 101 144.6 84 120.5 CR 105 FALSE FALSE TRUE VU Well Peninsula Granite Fynbos South -on recent non-aeolian colluvium 3646 1292 35.4 30 1094 1136 103.9 706 64.5 CR 1641 FALSE TRUE TRUE EN Moderately Peninsula Sandstone Fynbos-on marine-derived acid sands 31 30 98.3 30 9 27 290.3 0 0.0 EN_D1 14 FALSE FALSE FALSE LT Not Peninsula Sandstone Fynbos-on Mudstone 869 765 88.0 30 261 721 276.7 603 231.2 EN_D1 391 FALSE FALSE FALSE LT Well Peninsula Sandstone Fynbos-on Pakhuis formation diamictics 20 20 100.0 30 6 20 333.3 19 305.2 EN_D1 9 FALSE FALSE FALSE LT Well Peninsula Sandstone Fynbos-on sands 552 528 95.7 30 165 526 317.7 522 315.5 EN_D1 248 FALSE FALSE FALSE LT Well Peninsula Sandstone Fynbos-on Sandstone 20465 19700 96.3 30 6139 18656 303.9 14521 236.5 EN_D1 9209 FALSE FALSE FALSE LT Well Peninsula Shale Fynbos-on recent non-aeolian colluvium 805 363 45.1 30 242 361 149.2 306 126.6 VU 362 FALSE FALSE TRUE VU Well Peninsula Shale Fynbos-on Shale 457 297 64.9 30 137 296 215.7 265 193.0 VU 206 FALSE FALSE FALSE LT Well Peninsula Shale Renosterveld-on recent non-aeolian colluvium 492 14 2.9 26 148 14 9.7 11 7.2 CR 221 TRUE TRUE TRUE CR Poorly Peninsula Shale Renosterveld-on Shale 1892 261 13.8 26 568 261 46.0 208 36.6 CR 852 TRUE TRUE TRUE CR Poorly Southern Afrotemperate Forest-All subtypes 348 345 99.3 34 104 344 329.8 268 257.5 LT 156 FALSE FALSE FALSE LT Well

Biodiversity Network 2016 Analysis

Swartland Alluvium Fynbos-on Malmesbury Sandstone 1734 56 3.2 30 520 56 10.8 0 0.0 CR 780 TRUE TRUE TRUE CR Not Swartland Alluvium Renosterveld-on recent non-aeolian colluvium 61 0 0.0 26 18 0 0.0 0 0.0 CR 27 TRUE TRUE TRUE CR Not Swartland Granite Renosterveld-on Granite 5020 1432 28.5 26 1506 1411 95.5 63 4.2 CR 2259 FALSE TRUE TRUE CR Hardly Swartland Granite Renosterveld-on older non-aeolian colluvium 2111 371 17.6 26 633 371 58.5 0 0.0 CR 950 TRUE TRUE TRUE CR Not Swartland Granite Renosterveld-on recent non-aeolian colluvium 161 41 25.7 26 48 41 88.8 30 63.2 CR 72 TRUE TRUE TRUE CR Moderately Swartland Shale Renosterveld-on Loam and sandy loam 712 17 2.4 26 214 17 7.9 10 4.5 CR 321 TRUE TRUE TRUE CR Hardly Swartland Shale Renosterveld-on recent non-aeolian colluvium 5224 243 4.7 26 1567 243 15.5 32 2.1 CR 2351 FALSE FALSE FALSE CR Hardly Swartland Shale Renosterveld-on Shale 41379 3346 8.1 26 12414 3346 27.6 677 5.5 CR 18621 TRUE TRUE TRUE CR Poorly Swartland Silcrete Renosterveld-on recent non-aeolian colluvium 1091 151 13.8 26 327 151 46.2 4 1.3 CR 491 TRUE TRUE TRUE CR Hardly Western Shaleband Vegetation-on Cedarberg Shale Band 317 316 99.6 30 95 314 330.2 232 243.3 LT 143 FALSE FALSE FALSE LT Well

* (on calcareous/acidic/neutral sands)

Note: The vegetation type “Reclaimed” was excluded as little to no vegetation exists there; the “Beach” vegetation type was grouped with “Strandveld” for national type. Wetland types remain the same as for national.

Biodiversity Network 2016 Analysis

Table 8: Natural & Semi-Natural Wetland Prioritisation Study Statistics General statistics from the wetland prioritization study, including only the natural and semi-natural wetlands, where prioritization ranking was performed within each wetland type. CBA = Critical Biodiversity Area; CESA = Critical Ecological Support Area; OESA = Other Ecological Support Area (i.e. irreversibly modified habitat); updated from Snaddon & Day (2009).

Wetland Type Area in No of Area of No. of CBA Area of No. of CBA Area of No. of Area of No. of Total Area Total No. of proclaimed proclaimed CBA 1 1 Wetlands CBA 2 2 Wetlands CESA CESA OESA OESA of CBA 1, CBA 1, (In Wetlands Wetlands Wetlands Wetlands Wetlands Wetlands Wetlands CBA 2, CBA 2, Perpetuity/ (ha) (ha) (ha (ha) CESA & CESA & Limited OESA OESA Period) Wetlands Wetlands P.A.s (ha) (ha) (ha) Alluvium fynbos floodplain 0.0 0 2.4 3 0.0 0 0.4 10 0.6 1 3.4 14 Alluvium fynbos isolated depression 0.2 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.9 2 0.9 2 1.8 4 Alluvium fynbos isolated seep 2.0 1 2.0 1 0.0 0 12.6 16 0.0 0 14.6 17 Alluvium fynbos seep 13.1 9 11.6 10 0.0 0 64.2 38 0.0 0 75.8 48 Alluvium fynbos valley bottom 0.0 0 38.7 3 2.2 1 2.8 3 0.0 0 43.6 7 Alluvium renosterveld valley bottom 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.7 1 0.0 0 0.7 1 Cape estuarine channel 101.2 12 100.6 10 0.4 1 3.1 3 0.0 0 104.0 14 Cape estuarine depression 130.9 16 130.9 15 0.7 2 1.9 2 0.0 0 133.6 19 Cape river mouth 0.0 0 20.6 4 0.3 1 1.7 2 0.6 1 23.1 8 Dune strandveld depression 46.9 15 35.3 13 11.8 5 13.2 7 15.3 2 75.6 27 Dune strandveld floodplain 307.1 48 193.5 30 488.8 102 51.7 31 4.7 1 738.7 164 Dune strandveld isolated depression 192.0 133 170.9 127 267.1 258 193.6 196 24.2 50 655.7 631 Dune strandveld isolated seep 74.9 38 74.2 27 22.5 21 176.7 67 5.3 9 278.7 124 Dune strandveld seep 70.8 19 81.2 31 0.6 2 0.6 2 1.6 1 84.0 36 Dune strandveld valley bottom 46.1 20 45.0 15 12.8 4 2.0 9 0.8 2 60.6 30 Granite fynbos depression 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.6 2 0.0 0 0.6 2 Granite fynbos floodplain 0.0 0 43.5 3 0.0 0 51.1 25 125.8 4 220.3 32 Granite fynbos isolated 0.3 1 0.3 2 0.0 0 0.6 2 0.3 5 1.1 9 35

Biodiversity Network 2016 Analysis

Wetland Type Area in No of Area of No. of CBA Area of No. of CBA Area of No. of Area of No. of Total Area Total No. of proclaimed proclaimed CBA 1 1 Wetlands CBA 2 2 Wetlands CESA CESA OESA OESA of CBA 1, CBA 1, (In Wetlands Wetlands Wetlands Wetlands Wetlands Wetlands Wetlands CBA 2, CBA 2, Perpetuity/ (ha) (ha) (ha (ha) CESA & CESA & Limited OESA OESA Period) Wetlands Wetlands P.A.s (ha) (ha) (ha) depression Granite fynbos isolated seep 6.9 11 33.2 43 6.5 4 22.7 23 4.2 6 66.6 76 Granite fynbos seep 33.1 35 246.6 122 30.1 49 45.7 27 4.8 2 327.1 200 Granite fynbos valley bottom 24.3 8 74.7 20 1.0 3 49.0 51 1.5 1 126.3 75 Granite renosterveld depression 0.0 0 0.0 0 1.1 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 1.1 1 Granite renosterveld floodplain 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 1.8 1 1.8 1 Granite renosterveld isolated depression 0.0 0 0.2 1 0.0 0 0.3 1 0.0 0 0.5 2 Granite renosterveld isolated seep 0.0 0 1.7 1 0.0 0 4.1 5 0.4 1 6.2 7 Granite renosterveld seep 0.0 0 0.7 1 8.8 4 42.1 20 0.0 0 51.6 25 Granite renosterveld valley bottom 0.0 0 37.0 4 26.3 2 15.0 14 0.0 0 78.3 20 Sand fynbos depression 522.6 22 160.4 14 57.4 17 357.7 19 5.4 9 581.0 59 Sand fynbos floodplain 405.4 83 488.7 74 39.7 10 228.1 59 4.6 10 761.1 153 Sand fynbos isolated depression 49.9 49 68.0 44 184.5 122 100.9 119 87.4 154 440.7 439 Sand fynbos isolated seep 81.5 40 74.8 36 121.6 64 336.6 173 58.0 48 591.0 321 Sand fynbos non-isolated depression 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 1.6 2 1.6 2 Sand fynbos seep 4.3 4 15.2 9 85.9 33 87.4 49 19.3 16 207.8 107 Sand fynbos valley bottom 157.6 15 153.2 9 15.4 14 78.4 35 60.6 42 307.6 100 Sandstone fynbos depression 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.4 1 0.4 1 Sandstone fynbos isolated depression 19.7 30 20.4 35 0.0 2 0.2 1 0.1 1 20.7 39 Sandstone fynbos isolated seep 204.2 369 208.8 385 16.6 36 3.6 4 0.0 0 228.9 425 Sandstone fynbos seep 414.8 340 435.3 371 26.2 47 10.3 14 0.8 2 472.7 434 Sandstone fynbos valley bottom 308.4 100 312.1 103 13.0 7 7.4 8 0.2 1 332.7 119 Shale band seep 15.9 1 17.1 5 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 17.1 5

Biodiversity Network 2016 Analysis

* Note: historical extent for wetlands is unknown; therefore biodiversity targets are based on current extent. For highly modified environments, such as the Cape Flats, the biodiversity target should be set higher than 24% of current extent as Cape Lowland Freshwater Wetlands are considered Critically Endangered.