DOCSLIB.ORG

Proposed Development of a New School and Associated Infrastructure on Erf 4742 and Erf 4743 Noordhoek, South Peninsula, City of Cape Town

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Proposed Development of a New School and Associated Infrastructure on Erf 4742 and Erf 4743 Noordhoek, South Peninsula, City of Cape Town 0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW SCHOOL AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE ON ERF 4742 AND ERF 4743 NOORDHOEK, SOUTH PENINSULA, CITY OF CAPE TOWN SPECIALIST FRESHWATER ASSESSMENT Prepared for: Propgen (Pty) Ltd Prepared by: Natasha van de Haar SACNASP Reg. no. 400229/11 Date: March 2017 KHULA Environmental Consultants Page 1 Executive Summary KHULA Environmental Consultants (hereafter “KHULA”) has been appointed by Propgen (Pty) Ltd to undertake a specialist assessment of the impact of the development of a new school and associated infrastructure on Erf 4742 and Erf 4743, Noordhoek (the proposed site) on the site’s freshwater features. The specialist assessment is required as part of the required Basic Assessment process in terms of the NEMA EIA Regulations, 2014. Summary of background Information: The proposed site falls within the quaternary catchment G22A and within the Berg Water Management Area (WMA) and Greater Cape Town sub-Water Management Area (sub-WMA) as defined by the National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas project (NFEPA, 2011). According to Mucina and Rutherford (2006, updated 2012), the proposed site is located within the Hangklip Sand Fynbos vegetation type. Hangklip Sand Fynbos is listed as endangered by the National List of Threatened Terrestrial Ecosystems (2011). Wetlands associated with the proposed site fall within the Southwest Sand Fynbos wetland vegetation group (NFEPA, 2011), listed as critically endangered within the region. No wetland features are indicated within 500m of the proposed site by NFEPA. However, the City of Cape Town’s wetland layer (2015) indicates three features within the proposed site of which two are considered to be natural. These two wetlands were chosen as Other Ecological Support Areas (OESAs). OESAs are lower ranking artificial wetlands and the lowest ranking natural or semi-natural wetlands. The objectives for these features are to maintain natural ecosystems, restore degraded land to natural and to manage for no further degradation. Summary of freshwater assessment results: Historically a large portion of the proposed site could have consisted of well-defined wetland habitat prior to disturbance. This assumption was supported by the presence of hydromorphic soil1 encountered at most areas throughout the proposed site where hand augering was conducted. However, the proposed site has been used as grazing pastures for decades. Infilling, tilling as well as possible irrigation has resulted in the transformation of the indigenous vegetation assemblage as well as the natural hydrological regime, to the extent that the larger portion of the proposed site can be described as severely degraded wetland habitat. Semi-degraded habitat is associated with three wetland seeps, the central channel and a dam where more diverse indigenous vegetation communities were identified. There is no pristine wetland habitat on the application site. Table A: Coverage of semi-degraded wetland habitat and severely degraded wetland habitat as determined during the infield delineation. Area Size Proposed site 25 511m2 Semi-degraded wetland habitat 3 900m2 Severely degraded wetland habitat 21 611m2 WET-Health2 is defined as a measure of the similarity of a wetland to a natural or reference condition and the assessment was undertaken in line with the findings of the field survey which suggest that the proposed site formed part of a larger wetland system historically. As a result, the proposed site was assessed as one wetland system, with the dam and the central channel contributing to impact incurred as a result of anthropogenic activity in the past. The overall wetland health3 score calculated for the wetland falls within a Present Ecological State (PES) Category E (The change in ecosystem processes and loss of natural habitat and biota is great but some remaining natural habitat features are still recognisable). Considering the extent to which the wetland habitat is already transformed, it would most likely remain in its current PES Category for the next 5 years, should development not take place. 1 A soil that, in its undrained condition, is saturated or flooded long enough to develop anaerobic conditions favouring the growth and regeneration of hydrophytic vegetation. 2 Macfarlane et al., 2007 WRC Report No TT 340/09 3 (hydrology score) x 3 + (geomorphology score) x 2 + (vegetation score) x 2 / 7 = overall wetland health Freshwater Assessment: Generation School March 2017 KHULA Environmental Consultants Page 2 The WET-Ecoservices tool was applied to severely degraded wetland habitat and semi-degraded wetland habitat4, separately. The assessment was repeated for wetland habitat after construction of the Applicants Preferred Alternative (assuming successful implementation of the rehabilitation and management plan); in order to determine the potential loss or gain of Ecosystem Services should the development proceed. The Residential Alternative was also assessed, however due to isolation of the dam and central channel these features were assessed separately. Wetland habitat associated with the proposed site, regardless of degree of transformation, can be considered the most important in terms of assimilation of nitrate, phosphate and toxicants as well as erosion control (all falling within a moderate to high class). None of the results indicate a significant decrease of any Ecosystem Services after development of the Applicants Preferred Alternative. However, six Ecosystem Services showed a potential to increase. Indicating an opportunity to increase Ecosystem Services with environmentally sensitive design and rehabilitation. All rates calculated for Ecoservices as part of the Residential Alternative decreased. The method that was used to determine the Ecological Importance and Sensitivity (EIS) of the different areas as described for the Ecosystem Services assessment above, is based on the assessment tool developed by Rountree et. al. (2014). The EIS score calculated for the semi-degraded wetland habitat (seeps, dam and central channel) fall within a High Category, and for the remaining degraded wetland habitat, within a Low Category. It should be noted that PES determines the similarity of a wetland to its natural or reference condition and EIS is used to determine its present importance and sensitivity regardless of transformation. Impact assessment: Two development alternatives have been proposed, namely the Applicants Preferred Alternative and the Residential Alternative. Both alternatives are briefly summarised below. Applicants Preferred Alternative: • Development of a school. • Rehabilitation of semi-degraded wetland habitat e.g. wetland habitat falling within a High EIS Category. • Incorporation of a wetland corridor along the eastern boundary of the proposed site. Residential Alternative: • 6 residential developments with associated infrastructure. • Conservation of the dam and the central channel, all other wetland habitat infilled. • Landscaping in between residences and infrastructure. Potential direct impacts expected to occur as a result of the construction and operation of both development alternatives as well as potential impacts associated with the ‘no go’ alternative are summarised in the tables below. Table B: Impact assessment results for the ‘No Go’ Scenario. Probability Significance Status Confidence Highly probable Medium -ve High Table C: Impact assessment results for the construction phase for the Applicants Preferred Alternative. Loss of wetland habitat Probability Significance Status Confidence Without mitigation Definite Medium -ve High With mitigation No mitigation possible Sedimentation of retained wetland habitat due to rehabilitation activities and replacement of soil within adjacent construction areas Probability Significance Status Confidence Without mitigation Definite High -ve High With mitigation Definite Very Low -ve Medium 4 4 Considering all characteristics of the dam, seep wetlands and central channel as presented in Figure 10. Freshwater Assessment: Generation School March 2017 KHULA Environmental Consultants Page 3 Transformation of the present hydrological regime of retained wetland habitat Probability Significance Status Confidence Without mitigation Definite Medium -ve High With mitigation Definite Low -ve Medium Disturbance of the retained wetland habitat and the eastern wetland corridor as result of rehabilitation Probability Significance Status Confidence Without mitigation Definite High -ve High With mitigation Definite Very Low -ve Medium Table D: Impact assessment results for the operational phase for the Applicants Preferred Alternative Increased stormwater runoff into retained wetland habitat from hard surfaces Probability Significance Status Confidence Without mitigation Probable Medium -ve High With mitigation Improbable Very Low -ve Medium Increase in wetland biodiversity and function Probability Significance Status Confidence Without mitigation Probable Low +ve Medium With mitigation Highly probable Medium +ve High Table E: Impact assessment results for the construction phase for the Residential Alternative. Loss of wetland habitat Probability Significance Status Confidence Without mitigation Definite High -ve High Sedimentation of the dam and central channel Probability Significance Status Confidence Without mitigation Definite Medium -ve High With mitigation Probable Very Low -ve Medium Table F: Impact assessment results for the operational phase for the Residential Alternative. Increased stormwater runoff Probability Significance Status Confidence
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Freshwater Fishes
    WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE state oF BIODIVERSITY 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 Introduction 2 Chapter 2 Methods 17 Chapter 3 Freshwater fishes 18 Chapter 4 Amphibians 36 Chapter 5 Reptiles 55 Chapter 6 Mammals 75 Chapter 7 Avifauna 89 Chapter 8 Flora & Vegetation 112 Chapter 9 Land and Protected Areas 139 Chapter 10 Status of River Health 159 Cover page photographs by Andrew Turner (CapeNature), Roger Bills (SAIAB) & Wicus Leeuwner. ISBN 978-0-620-39289-1 SCIENTIFIC SERVICES 2 Western Cape Province State of Biodiversity 2007 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Andrew Turner [email protected] 1 “We live at a historic moment, a time in which the world’s biological diversity is being rapidly destroyed. The present geological period has more species than any other, yet the current rate of extinction of species is greater now than at any time in the past. Ecosystems and communities are being degraded and destroyed, and species are being driven to extinction. The species that persist are losing genetic variation as the number of individuals in populations shrinks, unique populations and subspecies are destroyed, and remaining populations become increasingly isolated from one another. The cause of this loss of biological diversity at all levels is the range of human activity that alters and destroys natural habitats to suit human needs.” (Primack, 2002). CapeNature launched its State of Biodiversity Programme (SoBP) to assess and monitor the state of biodiversity in the Western Cape in 1999. This programme delivered its first report in 2002 and these reports are updated every five years. The current report (2007) reports on the changes to the state of vertebrate biodiversity and land under conservation usage.
    [Show full text]
  • NYMPHALIDAE Nationally As Rare (Range Restricted)
    Mecenero et al. / Metamorphosis 31(4): 1–160 134 DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4314/met.v31i4.6 localities for this species. This taxon thus qualifies globally under the IUCN criteria as Least Concern and is classified FAMILY: NYMPHALIDAE nationally as Rare (Range Restricted). Genus Cassionympha Dickson, 1981. Change in status from SABCA: The status has not changed from the previous assessment. Cassionympha camdeboo (Dickson, [1981]) Camdeboo Dull Brown; Kamdeboo Bosbruintjie Threats: No threats at present. Ernest L. Pringle Conservation measures and research required: No conservation actions recommended. Research is required LC into its taxonomy, life history and ecology. Better Rare – Restricted Range appreciation of its distribution and subpopulation sizes is Endemic needed. Cassionympha perissinottoi Pringle, 2013 Southern Rainforest Dull Brown; Kusbruintjie Ernest L. Pringle LC Rare – Restricted Range, Habitat Specialist Endemic Type locality: Eastern Cape province: Aberdeen. Taxonomy: There are no notable issues. Distribution: Endemic to the Eastern Cape province of South Africa, in the Aberdeen district. Habitat: Comparatively moist woodland and scrub at high altitude. Vegetation types: NKl2 Eastern Lower Karoo, NKu2 Upper Type locality: Cape Aghulas, Western Cape. Karoo Hardeveld. Taxonomy: Although there is no lack of clarity about the Assessment rationale: This is a range restricted endemic differences between this taxon and its close congeners, all species found in the Eastern Cape province, South Africa 2 records from the southern Cape for Cassionympha cassius (EOO 30 km ). There are two known subpopulations, which and C. detecta will have to be reexamined, because many are not threatened and are in remote areas. Further could represent this new species.
    [Show full text]
  • 6. Cape Flats Sand Fynbos Temperature Is 27.1°C in February, and the Mean Daily Minimum 7.3°C in July
    CAPE TOWN’S UNIQUE BIODIVERSITY ENDEMIC ECOSYSTEMS Climate: CFSF occurs in a winter-rainfall regime with 575 mm of rain per annum, peaking from May to August. The mean daily maximum 6. Cape Flats Sand Fynbos temperature is 27.1°C in February, and the mean daily minimum 7.3°C in July. Mists occur frequently in winter. Frost is uncommon, at only three days per year. CFSF is the wettest and the coolest of General: This used to be the most widespread veld type in Cape the Sand Fynbos types on the West Coast. Town. Although not important for agriculture or grazing, Cape Flats Sand Fynbos (CFSF) was easily drained and is suitable for housing. Vegetation: CFSF is a Fynbos type consisting of a dense, It was avoided by the early travellers, as the sandy conditions moderately tall, ericoid shrubland containing scattered, emergent, tall bogged down ox wagons and buggies, and the old main roads to shrubs. Proteoid and Restioid Fynbos are dominant, with Somerset West and Paarl skirt on the edge of this veld type. Asteraceous and Ericaceous Fynbos occurring in drier and wetter However, following the World War II, rapid urbanization eradicated areas, respectively. Seasonal vleis and wetlands are prominent in most of the CFSF. With only 15% left, it is now Critically depressions during winter. Annuals and bulbs are prominent in Endangered, but only 5% is in a good condition. spring. CFSF has more ericas, proteas and other shrub species and more vleis, than Sand Fynbos types to the north. Distribution: CFSF is endemic to the city, and occurs on the Cape Flats from Blaauwberg Hill west of the Tygerberg Hills, to Lakeside in What is left? This is the most transformed of the Sand Fynbos types, the south, to Klapmuts and Joostenberg Hill in the east, as well as and more than 85% of the area has been transformed by urban southwest of the Bottelary Hills to Macassar in the south.
    [Show full text]
  • Nick Helme Botanical Surveys Updated Botanical Baseline
    ____________________________________________________________________ NICK HELME BOTANICAL SURVEYS PO Box 22652 Scarborough 7975 Ph: 021 780 1420 cell: 082 82 38350 email: [email protected] Pri.Sci.Nat # 400045/08 UPDATED BOTANICAL BASELINE AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF PROPOSED PROTEA RIDGE DEVELOPMENT SITE (REMAINDER OF FARM 948 KOMMETJIE ESTATES), KOMMETJIE, CAPE PENINSULA. Compiled for: Doug Jeffery Environmental Consultants, Klapmuts Applicant: Kommetjie Estates (Pty) Ltd., Kommetjie 14 November 2011 DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE In terms of Chapter 5 of the National Environmental Management Act of 1998 specialists involved in Impact Assessment processes must declare their independence and include an abbreviated Curriculum Vitae. I, N.A. Helme, do hereby declare that I am financially and otherwise independent of the client and their consultants, and that all opinions expressed in this document are substantially my own. NA Helme ABRIDGED CV: Contact details as per letterhead. Surname : HELME First names : NICHOLAS ALEXANDER Date of birth : 29 January 1969 University of Cape Town, South Africa. BSc (Honours) – Botany (Ecology & Systematics), 1990. Since 1997 I have been based in Cape Town, and have been working as a specialist botanical consultant, specialising in the diverse flora of the south-western Cape. Since the end of 2001 I have been the Sole Proprietor of Nick Helme Botanical Surveys, and have undertaken over 900 site assessments in this period. South Peninsula and Cape Flats botanical surveys include: Ocean View Erf 5144 updated
    [Show full text]
  • Western Cape Biodiversity Spatial Plan Handbook 2017
    WESTERN CAPE BIODIVERSITY SPATIAL PLAN HANDBOOK Drafted by: CapeNature Scientific Services Land Use Team Jonkershoek, Stellenbosch 2017 Editor: Ruida Pool-Stanvliet Contributing Authors: Alana Duffell-Canham, Genevieve Pence, Rhett Smart i Western Cape Biodiversity Spatial Plan Handbook 2017 Citation: Pool-Stanvliet, R., Duffell-Canham, A., Pence, G. & Smart, R. 2017. The Western Cape Biodiversity Spatial Plan Handbook. Stellenbosch: CapeNature. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The compilation of the Biodiversity Spatial Plan and Handbook has been a collective effort of the Scientific Services Section of CapeNature. We acknowledge the assistance of Benjamin Walton, Colin Fordham, Jeanne Gouws, Antoinette Veldtman, Martine Jordaan, Andrew Turner, Coral Birss, Alexis Olds, Kevin Shaw and Garth Mortimer. CapeNature’s Conservation Planning Scientist, Genevieve Pence, is thanked for conducting the spatial analyses and compiling the Biodiversity Spatial Plan Map datasets, with assistance from Scientific Service’s GIS Team members: Therese Forsyth, Cher-Lynn Petersen, Riki de Villiers, and Sheila Henning. Invaluable assistance was also provided by Jason Pretorius at the Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, and Andrew Skowno and Leslie Powrie at the South African National Biodiversity Institute. Patricia Holmes and Amalia Pugnalin at the City of Cape Town are thanked for advice regarding the inclusion of the BioNet. We are very grateful to the South African National Biodiversity Institute for providing funding support through the GEF5 Programme towards layout and printing costs of the Handbook. We would like to acknowledge the Mpumalanga Biodiversity Sector Plan Steering Committee, specifically Mervyn Lotter, for granting permission to use the Mpumalanga Biodiversity Sector Plan Handbook as a blueprint for the Western Cape Biodiversity Spatial Plan Handbook.
    [Show full text]
  • Spatial Dev Plan Southern Dist Technical
    Technical draft 1: SDP / EMF Southern District (H) - for comment and discussion only August 2009 1 Technical draft 1: SDP / EMF Southern District (H) - for comment and discussion only August 2009 2 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 PURPOSE ............................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 LEGAL STATUS AND VALIDITY .............................................................................................................................. 2 1.3 KEY COMPONENTS OF THE DISTRICT SDP AND EMF ............................................................................................ 2 1.4 PROCESS ................................................................................................................................................................ 3 1.5 STUDY AREA ......................................................................................................................................................... 3 2. DIRECTIVES ............................................................................................................................................................... 5 2.1 NATIONAL AND REGIONAL PLANNING INFORMANTS ............................................................................................ 5 2.2 METROPOLITAN AND DISTRICT PLANNING INFORMANTS .....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Threatened Ecosystems in South Africa: Descriptions and Maps
    Threatened Ecosystems in South Africa: Descriptions and Maps DRAFT May 2009 South African National Biodiversity Institute Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism Contents List of tables .............................................................................................................................. vii List of figures............................................................................................................................. vii 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 8 2 Criteria for identifying threatened ecosystems............................................................... 10 3 Summary of listed ecosystems ........................................................................................ 12 4 Descriptions and individual maps of threatened ecosystems ...................................... 14 4.1 Explanation of descriptions ........................................................................................................ 14 4.2 Listed threatened ecosystems ................................................................................................... 16 4.2.1 Critically Endangered (CR) ................................................................................................................ 16 1. Atlantis Sand Fynbos (FFd 4) .......................................................................................................................... 16 2. Blesbokspruit Highveld Grassland
    [Show full text]
  • The Biodiversity Network for the Cape Town Municipal Area
    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 ......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Integrated Development Plan 1St Review 2018/19
    INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1ST REVIEW 2018/19 CAPE AGULHAS MUNICIPALITY INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1ST REVIEW 2018/19 Resolution 59/2018 29 May 2018 Together for excellence Saam vir uitnemendheid Sisonke siyagqwesa 1 | P a g e INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1ST REVIEW 2018/19 REVIEW TABLE OF CONTENTS 5- Review Year 1st 2nd 3rd 4th IDP FOREWORD BY THE EXECUTIVE MAYOR 6 6 FOREWORD BY THE MUNICIPAL MANAGER 8 7 1 INTRODUCTION 10 8 1.1 INTRODUCTION TO CAPE AGULHAS MUNICIPALITY 10 8 1.1.1 THE MUNICIPAL AREA 10 - 1.1.2 WARD DELIMITATION 10 - 1.1.3 OUR TOWNS 11 - 1.2 THE INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PROCESS 13 10 1.2.1 PURPOSE OF THE INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT PLAN 13 - 1.2.2 FIVE YEAR IDP CYCLE 14 - 1.2.3 ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE IDP 15 10 1.2.4 PROCESS PLAN AND SCHEDULE OF KEY DEADLINES 15 10 1.2.5 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 16 - 1.2.6 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE IDP, BUDGET, 18 - PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT AND RISK 1.3 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRUCTURES, PROCESSES AND 19 11 OUTCOMES 1.3.1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 19 11 1.3.2 COMMUNITY NEEDS ANALYSIS 23 13 2 LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL 26 - STRATEGY ALIGNMENT 2.1 LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND STATUS 26 - 2.1.1 THE CONSTITUTION 26 - 2.1.2 LOCAL GOVERNMENT: MUNICIPAL DEMARCATION 26 - ACT, (Act 27 of 1998) 2.1.3 LOCAL GOVERNMENT MUNICIPAL STRUCTURES ACT 26 - (ACT 117 OF 1998) 2.1.4 LOCAL GOVERNMENT MUNICIPAL SYSTEMS ACT (ACT 28 - 32 OF 2000) 2.1.5 LOCAL GOVERNMENT MUNICIPAL FINANCE 31 - MANAGEMENT ACT (ACT 56 OF 2003) 2.2 INTERGOVERNMENTAL STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK 32 15 2.2.1 NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE 32 - 2.2.2 WESTERN CAPE
    [Show full text]
  • The Great Green Outdoors
    R ive r S w r a r ive t r r R ivi ve e i p r e R i 01 WITZANDS AQUIFER NATURE RESERVE D Cape Town is the world’s #1 water-saving city. S p w e i a D Please keep using water wisely. r t MAMRE r i Protecting the Atlantis aquifer and the THE GREAT GREEN OUTDOORS vi e aquifer re-charge areas, it is the main r FOR MORE VISIT C APETOWN.GOV.ZA / THINKWATER water supply for the Atlantis, Mamre FOLLOW @CITYOFCT ON FACEBOOK AND TWITTER Sustaining Cape Town’s Water Supply GOUDA and Pella communities. The reserve FOR MORE VISIT C APETOWN.GOV.ZA / THINKWATER has impressive sand dunes and views of Table Mountain. Add on a visit to FOLLOW @CITYOFCT ON FACEBOOK AND TWITTER the quaint mission village of Mamre, ATLANTIS RIEBEEK VOELVLEI DAM KASTEEL Only flush when Take short, stop- Don’t leave the established in the 17th century. The Cape Town is a water-scarce city that is diversifying its sources of water, but it you really need to. start showers. tap running while original water mill has been restored brushing teeth. still gets most of its water from rain-fed dams. The catchment areas feeding our WATER WOLSELEY and is used as a museum today. dams are relatively pristine, but need to be preserved. The alien invasive plants REPORTING in the catchments suck up water before it can get to our dams, and there are HERMON Help preserve our precious water resources. D WITZANDS i e To report burst pipes, faulty p R SILWERSTROOMSTRAND AQUIFER ive programmes to remove them to increase the yield of water to the Western Cape r Use alternative water safely.
    [Show full text]
  • Biodiversity Management Annual Report 2019-2020
    BIODIVERSITY MANAGEMENT ANNUAL REPORT 2019-2020 Biodiversity Management Branch Environmental Management Department Spatial Planning and Environment Directorate CONTEXT 3 Cape Town • Most biodiverse city in the world (United Nations, Thomas Elmqvist) • The Protected Area network helps make our city sustainable and resilient, through the ecosystem services provided by nature. • People need biodiversity, not only for survival as we rely on essential ecosystem services, but also for recreation, stress reduction, general health and well-being, employment, income-generating opportunities and education. • Cape Town’s natural beauty and biodiversity are part of what makes this city a unique and desirable place to live and work. 4Cape Town’s Biodiversity Network 2019 Cape Town in context • 1 of 35 global biodiversity hotspots • 21 vegetation types in Cape Town • 10 Critically Endangered national vegetation types • 7 vegetation types endemic to Cape Town (3 CR) • Over 3 000 plant species • 6th of South Africa’s plants in <0,1% of the surface area • 190 plant species locally endemic to Cape Town • Of 660 Red List plant taxa, 405 threatened with extinction • Already lost 49 plant species; 14 plants globally extinct • Rich small mammal, frog, reptile, insect & invertebrate faunas THREATS Cape6 Town’s Biodiversity Network 2019 Historical vegetation types vs. current (2018) extent Veg7 stats 2020 Vegetation statistics Historic Historic 2018 2018 National National # National Vegetation Type extent in extent in remaining in remaining in Threat Conservation
    [Show full text]
  • Vegetation Units
    SVkd1 SVk15 Dn5 RICHTERSVELD NKb2 SVkd1 SVk16 AZi4 SKr2 SKr8 NKb5 AZa3 AZi5 NKb1 AZa3 NATIONAL PARK NKb5 NKu3 SKr4 NKb5 SVk10 SVk10 SVk10 AUGRABIES FALLS NATIONAL PARK KANONEILAND KALKWERF NKb3 SVk13 SVk15 Dn4 AZa3 NKb5 NKb3 Orange SVk7 SKr3 NKb1 NKb1 NKb1 AZi4 NKb3 AUGRABIES SVk10 SVk13 SKr2 LOXTONVALE KEIMOES AZi4 Orange SKr1 NKb2 K SVk13 aree NKb1 SVk10 ALEXANDER BAY s NKb3 bo NKu3 SVk10 Dg5 NOUS e MARCHAND AZa3 o m NKb3 Dn2 SKr6 e AZe1 NKb1 b NEILERSDRIF SVk10 FFq1 AZa3 Dg10 ra AZa3 SKr4 AZa3 B SVk6 Vegetation Units Dn3 KOTZESHOOP AZi5 CAMPBELL SKr4 KAKAMAS NKb1 Alexander Bay SKr7 SVk13 SVk13 ONSEEPKANS SVkd1 SVk10 Dn1 AZi2 SKs5 NKb1 NKb3 GRIEKWASTAD Dg9 NKb1 SVkd1 VIOOLSDRIF Dg9 SVkd1 SVkd1 SVk15 SVk10 Dg6 O NKb5 NKb3 SKs4 ra AZa3 BOEGOEBERG SVk10 SVk10 n NKb3 GROBLERSHOOP SKs2 Dg7 g SVkd1 SVk15 SVk10 Dg10 e NKb1 AZi4 NKb5 NKb1 AZi5 NKb1 AZa3 AZa4 AZa3 NKb1 NKb1 SVk10 Dg9 AZa3 NKb4 SVkd1 AZi5 SVkd1 SVk6 Silcrete Fynbos EKSTEENFONTEIN NKb3 SVk7 AZi4 AZi2 SKr4 SKr11 Dg10 Dg10 AZa3 NKb1 SVk15 NKu3 AZi2 K NKb1 SVkd1 ab SVk15 Dg9 oe SVk13 SVk10 FFc 1 Swellendam Silcrete Fynbos SKr4 SKr1 Dg9 Dg10 p NKb1 AZi5 NKb1 AZd1 Holgat Dg9 Sout NKb1 SKs1 Dg8 GOODHOUSE Dg9 Dg9 Dg10 NKb3 SVkd1 BUCKLANDS Dg10 AZi5 NKb3 NKb1 SVkd1 DOUGLAS SKr12 Dg9 Dg9 SVkd1 NKb3 SVk10 SVk4 SKr16 AZi5 SVk13 SVk13 NKu3 SKr10 SKr17 Dg9 PELLA NKb3 NKb4 Dg10 NKb1 SVk15 NKb4 Dg10 SVk10 E AZa4 SKs4 SKr12 AZi5 NKb1 NKu3 G NKu3 Ferricrete Fynbos SKr18 NKb3 N SKs5 LEKKERSING SKr13 SKr16 Dg10 NKu3 A SVk5 SKr19 NKb1 NKu3 R k SKr19 O AZi2 ra SVkd1 NKb1 SVk5 SVk4 FFf 1 Elim Ferricrete
    [Show full text]