Little Karoo Biodiversity Assessment - Biodiversity GIS - SANBI

Biodiversity Assessment of the Kannalandand Oudtshoorn Local Municipalities, andEden District Management Area (Uniondale)Final ReportDate: 31 st August 2010DEADP REPORT Number: LB07/2008aCompiled By:Andrew Skowno, Dr StephenHolness & Dr Philip Desmet

Report Title:Biodiversity Assessment of the Kannaland and Oudtshoorn Local Municipalities, and EdenDistrict Management Area (Uniondale)Date:31 st August 2010Authors & contact details:Andrew Skowno (corresponding author)ECOSOL GIS – 21 Neapolis, Pier Street, South End, Port Elizabeth 6001Cell: 082 774 4613; Email: drew@sa.wild.orgDr Stephen HolnessPrivate Consultant , Port Elizabeth; Cell: 082 887 3735; Email: SHolness@nmmu.ac.zaDr Phillip DesmetPrivate Consultant, Pretoria; Cell: 082 352 2955; Email: factoryrider@absamail.co.zaClient:Western Cape Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, ContactMellisa Naiker (021) 483 2885Principle funding agent:Western Cape Provincial GovernmentCitation:Skowno, A.L., Holness, S.D. and P.G. Desmet (2010) Biodiversity Assessment of the Kannalandand Oudtshoorn Local Municipalities, and Eden District Management Area(Uniondale). DEADP Report LB07/2008a, 65 pages.Acknowledgements:Thanks to Mellisa Naiker and the rest of the project steering committee. In particularDonovan Kirkwood, Jeff Manual and Kerry Maree for providing technical and input andadvice. Thanks to Jan Vlok, Anna Lise Vlok, and John Gallo for expert biodiversity, andplanning input and helpful comments on draft manuscript.Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010i

Figure 1. Context map of the Kannaland and Oudtshoorn Local Municipalities, and Eden District Management AreaKannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010ii

Table of ContentsList of Figures ......................................................................................................................................................... ivList of Tables ........................................................................................................................................................... vObjectives and Deliverables from the TOR .................................................................................................. vi1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... 12 BIODIVERSITY INFORMATION ............................................................................................................................. 32.1 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................................. 32.2 BIODIVERSITY FEATURES ..................................................................................................................................... 32.2.1 Habitat Types .......................................................................................................................................... 32.2.2 Nationally Listed Threatened Ecosystems ....................................................................................... 52.2.3 Priorities identified in other conservation assessments within, or overlapping into, theplanning domain.................................................................................................................................................. 52.2.4 Existing data on species and biodiversity features ...................................................................... 62.2.5 Aquatic Features ................................................................................................................................... 62.3 ECOLOGICAL PROCESS .................................................................................................................................... 72.3.1 Connectivity ............................................................................................................................................ 82.3.2 Areas of potential importance in climate change adaptation ............................................... 82.3.3 Existing corridors from Gouritz Initiative ............................................................................................ 82.4 ALIGNMENT WITH ADJACENT CONSERVATION PLANS ......................................................................................... 92.5 LAND COVER ................................................................................................................................................. 102.6 TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM STATUS ...................................................................................................................... 123 PROTECTED AREA NETWORK GAP ANALYSIS ................................................................................................ 153.1 PROTECTION LEVEL AND URGENCY ................................................................................................................. 184 RETENTION AND RESTORATION OF BIODIVERSITY ....................................................................................... 205 CRITICAL BIODIVERSITY AREAS ........................................................................................................................ 235.1 WHAT ARE CBAS? ......................................................................................................................................... 235.2 CRITICAL BIODIVERSITY AREAS CATEGORIES ................................................................................................... 245.3 PLANNING APPROACH.................................................................................................................................... 245.4 DESCRIPTION OF CBA‟S FOR THE KANNALAND MUNICIPALITY, OUDTSHOORN MUNICIPALITY AND EDENDISTRICT MANAGEMENT AREA ...................................................................................................................................... 276 LAND-USE GUIDELINES ....................................................................................................................................... 306.1 DESIRED MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE ................................................................................................................ 306.2 RECOMMENDED BIODIVERSITY-COMPATIBLE LAND-USE GUIDELINES ................................................................ 306.3 GUIDELINES FOR THE SOUND MANAGEMENT OF LAND AND WATER RESOURCES................................................ 326.4 LAND-USE ACTIVITY DEFINITIONS ..................................................................................................................... 357 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................................... 398 APPENDIX 1: GIS METHODS AND TECHNICAL NOTES ................................................................................. 418.1 PLANNING DOMAIN ....................................................................................................................................... 418.2 GENERAL ........................................................................................................................................................ 418.3 TABLE SHOWING COLOURS USED IN THE CRITICAL BIODIVERSITY AREA MAP .................................................... 428.4 PROTECTED AREAS LAYER ................................................................................................................................ 428.5 LAND COVER MODEL ...................................................................................................................................... 428.6 BIODIVERSITY FEATURES ................................................................................................................................... 438.6.1 Habitat model ...................................................................................................................................... 438.6.2 Nationally listed threatened ecosystems ...................................................................................... 448.6.3 Special plant species .......................................................................................................................... 448.6.4 Forest patches ...................................................................................................................................... 448.6.5 Quartz patches .................................................................................................................................... 448.6.6 Leslie Hill Succulent Karoo Expert areas ........................................................................................ 458.6.7 John Gallo Expert areas ( including inputs from Jan Vlok) ...................................................... 45Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010iii

8.6.8 Priority areas from the STEP and SKEP Conservation Assessments.......................................... 458.6.9 Succulent Karoo Priorities .................................................................................................................. 458.6.10 Garden Route Initiative Critical Biodiversity Areas and Ecological Support Areas ...... 468.6.11 East Cape Priorities ......................................................................................................................... 468.7 AQUATIC FEATURES ............................................................................................................................................ 468.7.1 Priority Rivers and Catchments ........................................................................................................ 468.7.2 Additional rivers .................................................................................................................................... 468.7.3 Wetlands and pans ............................................................................................................................. 478.8 ECOSYSTEM STATUS ............................................................................................................................................ 478.9 PROTECTION LEVEL AND URGENCY .................................................................................................................... 478.10 CLIMATE CHANGE AND CORRIDORS ................................................................................................................ 478.10.1 High priority unfragmented landscapes................................................................................... 478.10.2 Riparian corridors ............................................................................................................................ 478.10.3 Topographic variability.................................................................................................................. 488.10.4 South-facing slopes ........................................................................................................................ 488.10.5 Kloof model ...................................................................................................................................... 498.10.6 Existing corridors from the Gouritz Initiative.............................................................................. 498.10.7 Alignment with adjacent conservation plans......................................................................... 498.11 NON-BIODIVERSITY ALIGNMENT LAYERS ...................................................................................................... 508.11.1 Important Natural Viewsheds ...................................................................................................... 508.12 COST LAYERS ................................................................................................................................................. 508.12.1 Landcover model ........................................................................................................................... 508.13 RESTORATION / REHABILITATION MODEL ...................................................................................................... 508.14 TECHNICAL METHODS USED IN THE ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................... 508.14.1 Planning Units ................................................................................................................................... 508.14.2 Biodiversity Features and Targets ............................................................................................... 508.14.3 Software methods........................................................................................................................... 508.14.4 Planning Unit Cost ........................................................................................................................... 508.14.5 Ecological Support Areas ............................................................................................................. 518.14.6 CBA Lookup Table .......................................................................................................................... 519 APPENDIX 2: ECOSYSTEM STATUS FOR HABITAT UNITS IN THE PLANNING DOMAINList of FiguresFigure 1. Context map of the Kannaland and Oudtshoorn Local Municipalities, and Eden DistrictManagement Area.Figure 2. Habitat units mapped by Vlok et al. (2005), showing the Little Karoo Region mapped andthe municipal areas on which this assessment is focussed . 235 distinct habitat units were identifiedin the three Municipal areas covered by this report, out of a total of 369 mapped for the region.Figure 3. Biomes represented in the planning domain following Vlok et al. (2005) classification.Figure 4. Seven NEMBA listed threatened ecosystems found in the planning domain. Based on theSouth African National Vegetation Map (Mucina and Rutherford, 2006).Figure 5. Priorities areas identified by other conservation assessments.Figure 6. Biodiversity rich areas and threatened species distributions identified by other projects.Figure 7. Aquatic features used in the assessment included sensitive wetlands and pans, based onCape Nature (Shaw 2007) and NFPA wetlands (Nel et al. in prep); priority sub-quaternary rivercatchments and river reaches , based on NFPA data, where FEPA are priority areas and FESA aresupport areas (Nel et al. in prep); additional order 2 and above rivers buffered by 100m.Figure 8. Features representing ecological processes, landscape connectivity and climate changeadaptation.Figure 9. Biodiversity Corridors Developed for the Gouritz Region by Lombard et al. 2004Figure 10. Critical Biodiversity Areas identified by other recent projects adjacent to the planningdomain; including the Central Karoo District, Eastern Cape Provincial Plan, CAPE Fine Scale plansfor Hessequa and Mossel Bay, and Garden Route Initiative.Figure 11. Land cover map of the Kannaland Municipality, Oudtshoorn Municipality, and EdenDistrict Management Area. No natural (Transformed) class includes, cultivation, mining, rural andurban development, high density alien, plantations, roads and railways. Degradation class includesseverely degraded areas mapped by Thompson et al. (2005).Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010iv

Figure 12. Terrestrial ecosystem status (transformation and degradation combined). Due to the highlevels of transformation and degradation 12 habitat types are Critically Endangered, 13 areEndangered and 19 are Vulnerable. A total of 235 habitat types are described in the planning areby Vlok et al. 2005.Figure 13. Protected areas in the Kannaland Municipality, Oudtshoorn Municipality and EdenDistrict Management Area. A small portion of the Garden Route National Park is represented, tenWestern Cape Provincial Reserves, one Eastern Cape Provincial Reserve and four MountainCatchment Areas. Seven Cape Nature biodiversity stewardship sites and numerous privateconservation areas. (provincial reserves, national parks, mountain catchment areas andcontracted biodiversity stewardship sites were considered formal PAs in protection statuscalculations, private reserves are classed as informal CAs).Figure 14. Habitat Protection Levels in the planning domain. A habitat is considered partiallyprotected if 25-100% of its target is met in protected areas; poorly protected if 5-25% of target met;very poorly protected < 5% target met. If More than 100% of target is met in PA it is consideredprotected (target met). If none of the habitat occurs in PA then it is considered completelyunprotected (Table 4).Figure 15. Habitat Protection urgency in the planning domain. A habitat is considered criticallyurgent if insufficient habitat remains to achieve its PA target.; high urgency if > 50% of remaininghabitat is required; moderate urgency if 25-50% of remaining habitat is required; low urgency if

Objectives and Deliverables from the TORObjective The identification of biodiversity features and areas where conservation compatibleland-use practices are required in order to meet nationally accepted targets forpattern and process. To provide a realistic picture of patterns of transformation by assessing degradation. To produce a conservation plan that is efficiently designed and will meet biodiversitytargets in a spatial configuration that avoids conflict with non-conservationcompatible land-use.Project Deliverables linked to his Report Map A: Biodiversity priority map(s) for Kannaland and Oudtshoorn Municipality andfor Eden District Municipal Areas; Land and resource use guidelines linked to the biodiversity features displayed inMap A; Management recommendations for priority ecosystems identified in Map ; Development of map A must conform closely to the methodology & work-plandeveloped in phase I of the project; A detailed report documenting the methodology and techniques used; The report is accompanied by an electronic archive of the spatial data used in thisstudy. Key spatial information layers (protected areas, vegetation types and criticalbiodiversity areas) will be available on SANBI‟s BGIS web site (http://bgis.sanbi.org).Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010vi

1 Introduction and SummaryThe Kannaland Municipality, Oudtshoorn Municipality, and Eden District Management Areatogether make up the bulk of what is known as the Little Karoo Region. Although the FynbosBiome is well represented in the mountainous areas of the region it is the prominence of theSucculent Karoo Biome that makes the region unique in the Western Cape Province.Kannaland Municipality, Oudtshoorn Municipality, and Eden District Management Area havebenefited from the ground breaking conservation planning projects that focused on the CFR in2000 (CAPE 2000), and more recent CEPF and World Bank funded biodiversity planningfocussed on the Gouritz Corridor and Little Karoo Region. However, a fine scale or mediumscale Critical Biodiversity Area (CBA) map has to date not been produced.In an attempt to fill this gap in biodiversity planning the Department of Environmental Affairsand Development Planning (DEADP) in conjunction with the Eden District Municipalitycommissioned this biodiversity assessment of the Kannaland Municipality, OudtshoornMunicipality, and Eden District Management Area to inform Spatial Development Frameworks(SDFs), Biodiversity Sector plans, Environmental Management Frameworks (EMFs), StrategicEnvironmental Assessments (SEAs) and the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process. Thisbiodiversity assessment, through the development of a critical biodiversity area (CBA) map forthe district, is aimed at assisting biodiversity and land use managers and decision makers in thisdemanding task. This report summarizes the results of the biodiversity assessment conducted.Details of the analyses performed are contained in the appendices.Biodiversity data: The habitat map developed by Vlok et al. (2005) was used in this assessment. In total 235habitat types were delineated in the planning domain;Expert mapping available for the region included the areas of special botanical interestcollected in the Leslie Hill Succulent Karoo Project, and ecological process related corridorsfrom the Gouritz Initiative;Areas of special biodiversity interest were obtained from various sources including CapeNature, CREW, Little Karoo Study Group and Gouritz Initiative;Priority conservation areas and critical biodiversity areas identified by other projects wereincorporated into the analysis where possible. All CBA outputs from this study were alignedwith outputs from adjoining studies to aid in implementation;Existing aquatic biodiversity data from NFEPA and other sources was combined for theanalysis; andAdditional process related features were modeled from the landscape, describing areaslikely to be important in terms of climate change adaptation and connectivity.Land cover data: This project developed a simplified land cover based on existing land cover maps for theregion developed by Kirkwood et al. (2010) and Thompson et al. (2005); and According to the model, the majority of the district is still natural vegetation (76%), while 10%is transformed by cultivation, mining, dams and urbanization, and 14 % can be considereddegraded.Ecosystem status and threats:Agriculture and urbanization are likely to be the principal drivers of biodiversity loss in thedistrict, at present about 23% of the district‟s ecosystems are transformed or degraded. Noinformation on agricultural developments and urban development was obtained; andDue to the high levels of transformation and degradation in specific areas of the planningdomain 12 habitat types are Critically Endangered, 13 are Endangered and 19 areVulnerable.Protected area network:Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 1

At present 19% of the planning domain is in formal Protected Areas. Approximately a thirdof the regions 235 vegetation types do not occur within any protected area, and a third arefully protected. The lowland and succulent Karoo habitat types in particular are poorlyconserved compared to the Fynbos habitats. Cape Nature‟s Biodiversity stewardshipProgramme is active in the region with 12,459 Ha of private land under some form of legalconservation stewardship agreement.Critical biodiversity areas:The biodiversity assessment for the Kannaland and Oudtshoorn Local Municipalities, andEden District Management Area is designed to identify an efficient set of Critical BiodiversityAreas ( and Ecological Support Areas) that meet the targets for the underlying biodiversityfeatures in as small an area as possible and in areas with least conflict with other activities.Of fundamental importance is that these areas are identified in a configuration thatdeliberately facilitates the functioning of ecological processes (both currently and in theface of climate change) which are required to ensure that the biodiversity features persist inthe long term;A critical biodiversity area (CBA) map has been developed for the planning domain.This CBA map is intended to act as the biodiversity sector‟s input into multi-sectoral plansand assessments (e.g. SDF, EMF EIA, IDP, etc.);The CBA map product is aligned with national standards for bioregional plans in terms ofterminology and methods;The CBA map should be integrated into the Eden district SDF, and the Kannaland andOudtshoorn Local SDFs; andLand use guidelines have been developed for each CBA category and aligned with landuse categories commonly used in SDFs.Data availability:All maps, report and data will be made available on SANBI‟s Biodiversity GIS web site(http://bgis.sanbi.org).Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 2

2 Biodiversity Information2.1 BackgroundA biodiversity dataset must meet several criteria if it is to be used in a spatial analysis such as thisassessment. The data must be: In an electronic format (e.g. spreadsheet or GIS database); Spatial (e.g. point, line or polygon coverage); At an appropriate spatial resolution to be compatible with the scale at which the assessment isbeing conducted; and Accessible to the people conducting the analysesRegion-wide biodiversity assessment and planning projects always face the problem of lack ofsuitable biodiversity data that is (a) geo-referenced; (b) is of relevant spatial resolution such aspoint locality data; and (c) that covers the majority of the planning domain.The Kannaland Municipality, Oudtshoorn Municipality, and Eden District Management Area do nothave an operational biodiversity information management system (BIMS). There are, however, quitefew high quality spatial biodiversity datasets that partially or completely cover the region. Theserange from Vlok et al.‟s (2005) excellent habitat map, to recent analyses by the Little Karoo studyGroup (Gallo et al. 2010), all of which are discussed in detail below.Some new biodiversity process surrogate datasets were generated during the course of this projectthrough spatial modelling, basic expert mapping, as well as integration of existing spatialinformation on habitat types, wetlands and pans, rivers and catchments.The land cover for the region and selected sensitive viewsheds are also discussed here. Whilst theseare not biodiversity datasets land cover is a key information layer in the biodiversity assessmentprocess, and sensitive viewsheds are included to align outcomes with areas important for tourism asan ecological service.2.2 Biodiversity FeaturesThe Little Karoo region, in which the Kannaland Municipality, Oudtshoorn Municipality, and EdenDistrict Management Area fall, has some excellent biodiversity planning layers developed over thelast few years. In addition to utilising these layers, incorporating expert knowledge into systematicconservation assessment is also an essential part of the conservation assessment and planningprocess that is widely used in South Africa. It can serve a number of important functions; theprocess serves as a cross reference to the predominantly data driven, mathematical/mechanisticprocess of irreplaceability analysis; it promotes confidence and credibility in the use of theinformation system; it can provide a rapidly gathered source of biodiversity information especiallywhere no other electronic spatial biodiversity databases exist.2.2.1 Habitat TypesThe conservation planning process made use of the finescale vegetation map producedby Jan Vlok (Vlok et al. 2005). This high quality vegetation map is based on a combination ofextensive field surveys during 2004, the subdivision of landscape into topo-geomorphic unitshand drawn on 1:50 000 LandSat images and additional remote sensing interpretation. Ahierarchical classification system was used with vegetation units, nested within habitats whichare nested within biomes. In transformed areas, the pre-transformation vegetation wasestimated and mapped based on surrounding vegetation and remaining patches. 235vegetation types are found within the Kannaland and Oudtshoorn Local Municipalities, andEden District Management Area (Uniondale) of the Little Karoo.Targets were based on those defined for the Little Karoo study region using a systematicapproach (Vlok & Reyers Unpublished). Each target was derived using the slope of the speciesareacurve (Desmet & Cowling 2004). This benefited habitats with greater species heterogeneity.Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 3

The percentage of species targeted for conservation was set at 75%. The targets were rescaledso that the target range was 16-34% as per the national standard.From a biome perspective (following Vlok et al. 2005) the planning domain has large areas ofFynbos (mostly mountains areas), thicket and thicket mosaics, Succulent Karoo, Renosterveld,and riverine habitats. (Table 1 and Figure 3)Table 1. Summary of extent of Biomes in the Planning Domain, Note Vlok et al. 2005 biomedefinitions followed not SA vegetation map definitions.BIOME Kannaland Oudtshoorn DMA04 Total Municipal PDFYNBOS 89,313 101,793 157,395 348,502RENOSTERVELD 8,444 15,758 91,582 115,784SUCCULENT KAROO 121,497 34,358 17,218 173,074THICKET 215,202 164,288 98,652 478,142AQUATIC/RIVERINE 40,992 37,159 51,781 129,933Total 475,449 353,357 416,629 1,245,435Figure 2. Habitat units mapped by Vlok et al. (2005), showing the Little Karoo Region mapped andthe municipal areas on which this assessment is focussed . 235 distinct habitat units were identifiedin the three Municipal areas covered by this report, out of a total of 369 mapped for the region.Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 4

Figure 3. Biomes represented in the planning domain following Vlok et al. (2005) classification.2.2.2 Nationally Listed Threatened EcosystemsVegetation types that will be listed as threatened under NEMBA were obtained from SANBI. Theboundaries of these units are based on the National Vegetation Map (Figure 4).Figure 4. Seven NEMBA listed threatened ecosystems found in the planning domain. Based on theSouth African National Vegetation Map (Mucina and Rutherford, 2006).2.2.3 Priorities identified in other conservation assessments within, oroverlapping into, the planning domainPriorities and CBA‟s identified in plans that covered all or part of the planning domain wereincorporated where appropriate (Figure 3); these included the following products: Leslie HillSucculent Karoo Priorities (Desmet 2006); John Gallo‟s Succulent Karoo priority reserve andstewardship areas tool (Gallo et al. 2010); Garden Route Initiative (Holness et al. 2010, Vromanset al. 2010) Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan (Berliner and Desmet 2008); STEP(Cowling et al. 2003) and SKEP (Driver et al. 2003) priorities (Figure 5).Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 5

2.2.4 Existing data on species and biodiversity featuresExisting spatial information on biodiversity “hot spots” and threatened species was included inthe analysis, including (Figure 5): Expert plant areas based on expert consultations from Leslie HillSucculent Karoo Project (Desmet 2006); Quartz patches and Forest Patches mapped by expertsfor Cape Nature (Kirkwood pers com); CREW and Cape Nature Database of Criticallyendangered, endangered and vulnerable plant species (Kirkwood pers com)(Figure 6).Figure 5. Priorities areas identified by other conservation assessmentsFigure 6. Biodiversity rich areas and threatened species distributions identified by other projects2.2.5 Aquatic Features2.2.5.1 Priority Rivers and CatchmentsOutputs of the National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Area assessment (NFEPA) which is currentlybeing completed (Nel et al. in prep) were incorporated. This project identifies the most importantrivers, river catchment and wetlands for meeting freshwater biodiversity targets and conservingecological processes.Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 6

The project identified Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (FEPAs) which are the freshwaterequivalent of a Critical Biodiversity Area, and Freshwater Ecosystem Support Areas (FESAs) whichare the freshwater equivalent of Ecological Support Areas. These are identified at a national scaleand require some finescaling before they can be incorporated into a Critical Biodiversity Areamap.2.2.5.2 Wetlands and PansThe sensitive wetland layer compiled by Cape Nature (Shaw 2007) was combined with NFEPAwetland layer (Nel et al. in prep) was used as the basis for analysis. To address ecological status orhealth of the wetlands. We applied the technique described by Amis (2009) in which the level ofterrestrial transformation/degradation immediately surrounding a wetland was used as a proxy ofwetland health. Each wetland feature was buffered by 500m and the percentage transformationand degradation in each of the buffered areas was calculated. Wetlands with low levels oftransformation in their buffer zone are assumed to be in a better ecological state that wetlandswith high levels of transformation. This ecological state analysis was used to categorize wetlandsinto critical and important wetlands for the CBA map. Wetlands that are in a better ecologicalstate are priorities for conservation and land use management (Figure 7).2.2.5.3 Additional RiversFrom a process perspective, it is not just the nationally selected rivers which are important. A riverbuffer layer developed by Don Kirkwood which buffered the larger (above 2nd order) 1:50 000rivers by 100m and the smaller rivers by 30m was included as a compulsory part of the EcologicalSupport Area layer in the second conservation run.Figure 7. Aquatic features used in the assessment included sensitive wetlands and pans, based onCape Nature (Shaw 2007) and NFPA wetlands (Nel et al. in prep); priority sub-quaternary rivercatchments and river reaches , based on NFPA data, where FEPA are priority areas and FESA aresupport areas (Nel et al. in prep); additional order 2 and above rivers buffered by 100m.2.3 Ecological ProcessNew ecological process layers were developed for the planning domain based on methodologiesapplied in the National Protected Areas Assessment but applied at a finer scale. These includeidentification of optimal ecological corridors and the identification of areas likely to provide climatechange resilience (Figure 8). Specific areas that were identified include:Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 7

2.3.1 ConnectivityHigh priority areas in unfragmented landscapes were identified to enhance landscapeconnectivity. The National Protected Areas Expansion Conservation Assessment (Holness 2008)identified high priority unfragmented areas that if protected would contribute most to meetingnational terrestrial and freshwater conservation targets. The areas identified are all over 5000ha insize. Every attempt should be made to avoid an activity that results in the fragmentation of theseareas. River corridors represent important linkages across the landscape, particularly in arid andpoorly differentiated habitats. In addition to the other river and aquatic features included in theplan, it was important to ensure that all major riparian corridor areas were included to ensure thatthe linkages important for climate change adaptation were protected.2.3.2 Areas of potential importance in climate change adaptationClimate change resilience areas: Modelled approaches were used to identify areas of potentialimportance for promoting climate change resilience in the landscape (Figure 8). These modelledlayers include: Kloofs, which provide important connectivity and provide both temperature and moisturerefuges;South facing slopes, which similar to kloofs provide refuge habitats;Topographically diverse areas, which contain important altitudinal and climatic gradientswhich are important for climate change adaptation as well as ensuring a range of microclimatesare protected; andRiverine corridors, which provide important connectivity in extensive arid environments,were identified.Details on the modelling of these features can be found in Appendix 1.Figure 8. Features representing ecological processes, landscape connectivity and climatechange adaptation.2.3.3 Existing corridors from Gouritz InitiativeThe Gouritz Initiative developed a set of priority process areas to support long term ecologicalprocesses in the region. These identified areas included the STEP Megaconservancy Network,identified mountain corridors and the core Gouritz north-south corridor. These identified areasincluded the STEP Megaconservancy Network, identified mountain corridors, quartz patches,connectivity areas important for nectavores, and the core Gouritz north-south corridor. Thesecomponents of the Gouritz plan were trimmed to their remaining natural extent and were includedinto the MARXAN run with a 60% target (Lombard et al. 2004)(Figure 9).Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 8

Figure 9. Biodiversity Corridors Developed for the Gouritz Region by Lombard et al. 2004.2.4 Alignment with adjacent conservation plansCorridors are worthless if the don‟t go anywhere. Fortunately, conservation plans have beenundertaken for almost all the areas surrounding the Little Karoo (Figure 10). Priority corridors andadjacent CBA areas were collated from the adjacent 6 systematic conservation plans:• Central Karoo District FSBP (Skowno et al. 2009);• Winelands DMA FSBP (Skowno et al. 2009);• Hessequa FSBP (Pence et al. 2010);• Mosselbay FSBP (Pence et al. 2010);• Garden Route Initiative Critical Biodiversity Areas (Holness et al. 2010); and• East Cape Province (Berliner and Desmet 2008)Figure 10. Critical Biodiversity Areas identified by other recent projects adjacent to the planningdomain; including the Central Karoo District, Eastern Cape Provincial Plan, CAPE Fine Scale plansfor Hessequa and Mossel Bay, and Garden Route Initiative.Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 9

2.5 Land CoverLand cover is one of the most important information layers used in a conservation assessment. Astransformed areas are generally considered to have very little biodiversity value, a land cover maptells us how much biodiversity is left and where this is located. There is generally a good inverserelationship between levels of transformation in a landscape and biodiversity intactness (e.g.Scholes and Biggs, 2005). In the absence of any actual biodiversity data we can still makeinferences about the state of the natural environment based purely on the land cover. Theecosystem status index for South African vegetation types is such an index. Therefore an up-to-daterepresentation of current land-cover is of key importance to the conservation and planningfraternity in the district, who require a detailed land cover map to help inform decisions on landuse. Ultimately this layer is critical in developing a strategy for the conservation of biodiversity in thedistrict (Figure 11).This project developed a simplified land cover based on a land cover map put together byKirkwood et al. (2010) as part of the Western Cape Biodiversity Framework (which in turn was basedon Thompson et al. 2005). The land cover used in the analyses includes the Chief DirectorateSurveys and Mapping 1:50 000 series roads, railways and built up areas buffered by 10-200m; theWestern Cape fields layer developed by Geo Terra Image for National Department of Agriculture(based on the SPOT5 2006 series) (Table 2).Land cover statistics with respect to the area of the target municipalities occupied by the differentland classes are summarized in Table 1. Just over 10% of the planning area has been transformedfrom natural ecosystems to other land uses, and just over 14% has been severely degraded (Table3).Table 2: The area covered by level one and level 2 land classes in the Kannaland and OudtshoornLocal Municipalities, and Eden District Management Area.Landcover (Hectares) Kannaland Oudtshoorn DMA04 Total Municipal PDLevel 1 Level 2Natural 380,884 251,232 320,205 952,320Natural Natural 118,886 133,629 217,416 469,931Natural Near Natural - AIP 18,199 17,882 11,028 47,108Natural Near Natural - Mod Degr 243,798 99,721 91,761 435,280Natural Unknown - - 0 0No Natural 21,795 41,092 57,925 120,812No Natural No Natural Agric 17,279 34,962 53,584 105,826No Natural No Natural Dam 775 1,261 934 2,970No Natural No Natural Urban 668 2,010 368 3,045No Natural No Natural - Other 3,074 2,859 3,039 8,972Degraded 72,770 61,033 38,499 172,302Grand Total 475,449 353,357 416,629 1,245,435Table 3: The percentage coverage of level one land classes in the Kannaland and OudtshoornLocal Municipalities, and Eden District Management Area.Land Cover (%) Kannaland Oudtshoorn DMA04 Total Municipal PDNatural 80 71 77 76No Natural 5 12 14 10Degraded 15 17 9 14Grand Total 100 100 100 100Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 10

Figure 11. Land cover map of the Kannaland Municipality, Oudtshoorn Municipality, and Eden District Management Area. No natural (Transformed)class includes, cultivation, mining, rural and urban development, high density alien, plantations, roads and railways. Degradation class includesseverely degraded areas mapped by Thompson et al. (2005).Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 11

2.6 Terrestrial Ecosystem StatusEcosystem status classification refers to the likelihood of an ecosystem, in this case defined as avegetation type, persisting into the future given the current amount of that ecosystem that hasalready been transformed to other land usesSANBI has developed a classification system that uses a suite of biodiversity loss indicators or criteriato assign national ecosystem status to South African vegetation types. For the district levelclassification for the Central Karoo District only criterion A (Table 5) was used to determineecosystem status of vegetation types. For criteria B to F the district level analyses have not beendone yet.The ecosystem status and protection level calculations presented here differ from the nationalassessment in three key areas. Firstly, the calculations consider only the extent of a vegetation typethat occurs within the Little Karoo region (defined by Vlok et al. 2005 - refer to Appendix 8.1 fordetails) and not the national extent of a vegetation type. From a municipal environmentalmanagement perspective the focus is on the state of biodiversity within the three municipal areasand not in neighbouring municipalities. Secondly, this assessment calculates ecosystem status usingtransformation and severe degradation combined (Figure 12). Finally, smaller vegetation units,specifically mapped in the region are used in this analysis not the SA vegetation units. This gives abetter picture of where ecosystems are threatened as it includes areas that are in the process ofundergoing transformation. Degradation here includes only severe degradation such as soil erosionand reduction in cover but does not include components of degradation such as species shifts dueto overgrazing, alien species or bush encroachment (Thompson et al. 2005).Due to the high levels of transformation and degradation in the planning domain 12 habitat typesare Critically Endangered, 13 are Endangered and 19 are Vulnerable. A total of 235 habitat typesare described in the Municipal planning area by Vlok et al. (2005).Note: The vegetation map produced by Vlok et al. (2005) covers a larger area than the municipalplanning domain used in this report (see point 8.1 in Appendix 1). The larger Little Karoo PlanningDomain includes 371 vegetation Units compared to the 235 habitat units in the smaller MunicipalPlanning Domain on which this report is focussed. However, all ecosystem status calculations andprotection level calculations were based on the larger Little Karoo PD. This is standard practise inbiodiversity assessment s and ensures that the entire extent of each habitat unit is considered in thecalculation of Ecosystem statistics (Table 4) (Appendix 1).Table 4. Summary table of number of vegetation types found in each Ecosystem Status ClassMunicipality Kannaland Oudtshoorn DMA04 Total Municipal PDEcosystem status(# Vegetation units)Critically Endangered 8 6 4 12Endangered 10 6 2 13Vulnerable 11 9 6 19Least Threatened 125 62 51 191Total Number 154 83 63 235Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 12

Table 5: Criteria used to identify threatened terrestrial ecosystems, with thresholds for criticallyendangered (CR), endangered (EN) and vulnerable (VU) ecosystems (SANBI 2008).Criterion CR EN VURemaining natural Remaining naturalhabitat ≤habitat ≤biodiversity target (biodiversity target +A1: Irreversible loss of naturalhabitatA2: Ecosystem degradationand loss of integrity*B: Rate of loss of naturalhabitat**C: Limited extent andimminent threat*D1: Threatened plant speciesassociationsD2: Threatened animal speciesassociations**E: Priority areas for meetingexplicit biodiversity targets asdefined in a systematicbiodiversity plan≥ 60% of ecosystemsignificantlydegraded15%)≥ 40% of ecosystemsignificantlydegraded-- Ecosystem extent ≤ 3000ha, and imminentthreat≥ 80 threatenedRed Data List plantspeciesVery highirreplaceability andhigh threat≥ 60 threatened RedData List plantspeciesVery highirreplaceability andmedium threatRemaining naturalhabitat ≤ 60% oforiginal area ofecosystem≥ 20% of ecosystemsignificantlydegradedEcosystem extent ≤ 6000ha, andimminent threat≥ 40 threatened RedData List plantspeciesVery highirreplaceability andlow threatF: Fragmentation*** Because of data constraints, Criteria A2 and C have been applied to forests but not to other vegetationtypes. ** Because of data constraints, Criteria B and D2 are dormant at this stage and thresholds have notbeen set for these criteria. Further testing of Criterion F is needed to determine whether it is a workable criterionfor terrestrial ecosystems.Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 13

Figure 12: Terrestrial ecosystem status (transformation and degradation combined). Due to the high levels of transformation and degradation 12 habitat typesare Critically Endangered, 13 are Endangered and 19 are Vulnerable. A total of 235 habitat types are described in the planning are by Vlok et al. 2005.Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 14

3 Protected Area Network GAP AnalysisProtected areas (PAs) are the primary strategy for ensuring that a representative portion of theregions biodiversity is conserved as a benchmark for the benefit of current and future generations.Whilst the long term persistence of biodiversity will require the management of biodiversity both inPAs and in the surrounding matrix of production landscapes, there are clear national guidelines asto the proportion of the district‟s surface area that should be under some form of formalconservation management. Comparing the proportion of the regions biodiversity represented andtargets achieved in the existing PA network to what is recommended in the national guidelinesprovides a quantitative measure of the conservation effectiveness of the provincial PA network. Thisalso gives an indication of the amount of work still required to reach the goal of a fullyrepresentative PA network .The National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act (57 of 2003) defines a „protectedarea‟ (PA) as one of the following types: Special Nature Reserves; National Parks; Nature Reserves;Protected Environments; World Heritage Sites; Marine Protected Areas; Specially Protected ForestAreas; and Mountain catchment areas. Collectively, the formal terrestrial and marine protectedareas comprise the National Protected Area System (National PAS).The protected area (PA) layer for the planning domain was based on that used in the NationalProtected Areas Expansion Strategy (NPAES). To this layer we added the official BiodiversityStewardship sites for the region (supplied by CAPE NATURE , A. Vlok pers com) as Formal Pas.Informal private conservation areas identified by Pasquini (2007) were added as Informal CAs in theProtected areas context map only and were not considered as CAs in the analysis (Figure 13).Only Formal Protected Areas and contracted Cape Nature Stewardship sites were considered asFormal Protected Areas in the analysis. These sites are assumed to contribute to meetingbiodiversity targets, and as such are “hard wired” into the CBA Model as PAs. Informal sites are notassumed to contribute to meeting biodiversity targets as there is no guarantee in the long term thatthe biodiversity contained in them will be conserved.Protected Areas (as recognized in the PA act): Special Nature Reserves; National Parks; Provincial Nature Reserves; Protected Environments; Contract Nature Reserves; and Also includes are: World Heritage Sites, Marine Protected Areas, MarineConservation Areas, specially protected forests.Conservation Areas (CAs) non-statutory protected areas not recognized in the PA act: Biodiversity agreements; and Conservancies.Note that this classification does not take into account PA management effectiveness. Thisclassification relates solely to the legal status of PAs with regards the PA Act.Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 15

Table 6: Summary table of protected areas in the Kannaland Municipality, Oudtshoorn Municipalityand Eden District Management Area.Protected Areas (Ha) v2 Kannaland Oudtshoorn DMA04 Total Municipal PDLevel 1 Level 2Formal 91,155 69,874 68,468 229,496National Park 4,383 4,383Provincial Nature Reserve 17,195 7,553 16,068 40,816State Forest Nature Reserve 25,666 41,175 21,993 88,834Wilderness Area 6,132 6,132Local Authority Nature Reserve 2,770 240 114 3,124Mountain Catchment Area 34,175 14,774 24,799 73,749CN Stewardship Site 11,348 1,110 12,459Informal 82,137 36,215 30,752 149,103Private Nature Reserve (NPAES) 10,882 1,236 3,137 15,255Pasquini Private Cons Sites 71,255 34,978 27,615 133,848Grand Total 173,292 106,088 99,219 378,599A small portion of one national park (Garden Route National Park), ten Western Cape ProvincialReserves, one Eastern Cape Provincial Reserve, four Mountain Catchment Areas, seven CapeNature biodiversity stewardship sites and numerous private conservation areas are represented inthe planning domain (provincial reserves, national parks, mountain catchment areas andcontracted biodiversity stewardship sites were considered Formal PAs in protection statuscalculations, private reserves are classed as informal CAs) (Figure 13).Protected Areas cover 30.4% of the planning domain with 229,4961ha (18.4%) being formalprotected areas and 149,103ha (12%) comprising conservation areas.Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 16

Figure 13: Protected areas in the Kannaland Municipality, Oudtshoorn Municipality and Eden District Management Area. A small portion ofthe Garden Route National Park is represented, ten Western Cape Provincial Reserves, one Eastern Cape Provincial Reserve and fourMountain Catchment Areas. Seven Cape Nature biodiversity stewardship sites and numerous private conservation areas. (provincial reserves,national parks, mountain catchment areas and contracted biodiversity stewardship sites were considered formal PAs in protection statuscalculations, private reserves are classed as informal CAs).Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 17

3.1 Protection Level and UrgencyProtection level is the measurement of how well the existing protected area network conserves thebiodiversity of the district. It is calculated as the percentage biodiversity target achieved by theprotected area network for each vegetation type. Protection urgency is based on irreplaceabilityof the remaining unfragmented areas of that vegetation type that are available to meet PAtargets. To do these calculations the vegetation layer for the district was unioned with theprotected areas layers and the proportion of each vegetation type within PAs was summarized(Table 7, Figures 14 & 15).Considering Formal Protected Areas only: 89 vegetation types have their targets achieved in the PA network; 27 vegetation type is partially protected, 10 vegetation types are very poorly protected, and 17are poorly protected; and 92 vegetation types are not represented within the PA network at all.In summary: The Protected Areas network covers the Fynbos biome component of the planning very well,and is under representative of the lowland and succulent Karoo components; and Conservancies play a vital role in the PA network and the biodiversity stewardship approach ofCape Nature.Table 7: Summary table of Habitat Protection Levels and Habitat Protection UrgencyMunicipality Kannaland Oudtshoorn DMA04 Total Municipal PDProtection level(# Vegetation units)Completely Unprotected 65 26 19 92Very Poorly Protected 5 7 5 10Poorly Protected 7 8 9 17Partially Protected 18 10 4 27PA Targets Met 59 32 26 89Protection urgency(# Vegetation units)Critically Urgent 5 3 2 7High Urgency 4 3 2 6Medium Urgency 19 11 7 27Low Urgency 67 34 26 106Fully Protected 59 32 26 89Total Number 154 83 63 235Protection LevelcategoriesCompletely unprotectedVery poorly protectedPoorly protectedPartially protectedTargets metProtection UrgencycategoriesTarget metLow urgencyMedium urgencyHigh urgencyCritically urgentDescriptionNo formal protectionUnder 5% of PA target met5% - under 25% of target met25-under 100% of target metTargets fully metDescriptionPA target met0->25% of remaining unfragmented areas required to meet PAtargets25->50% of remaining unfragmented areas required to meet PAtargets50->100% of remaining unfragmented areas required to meet PAtargetsInsufficient remaining unfragmented areas available to meet PAtargetsKannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 18

Figure 14. Habitat Protection Levels in the planning domain. A habitat is considered partiallyprotected if 25-100% of its target is met in protected areas; poorly protected if 5-25% of target met;very poorly protected < 5% target met. If More than 100% of target is met in PA it is consideredprotected (target met). If none of the habitat occurs in PA then it is considered completelyunprotected (Table 7).Figure 15. Habitat Protection urgency in the planning domain. A habitat is considered criticallyurgent if insufficient habitat remains to achieve its PA target.; high urgency if > 50% of remaininghabitat is required; moderate urgency if 25-50% of remaining habitat is required; low urgency if

4 Retention and Restoration of BiodiversityDrivers of biodiversity loss can also be referred to as “threats to biodiversity” or simply a site‟s “cost”or “vulnerability” in relation to identified threats.Threats to biodiversity are defined here as human-induced or mediated activities that result in theloss (transformation) or reduction (degradation) of biodiversity pattern and/or processes. Theimpacts of threats may manifest as changes in biodiversity structure (e.g. landscapefragmentation, over grazing, composition (e.g. species loss), or as changes in ecosystemfunctioning (e.g. altered hydrology, reduced net primary productivity)Agriculture and urbanisation are viewed as the direct agents of biodiversity loss and degradation.The direct impacts on biodiversity due to competing land-uses result in (a) loss of habitat andlandscape fragmentation, and (b) degradation of the natural environment, but their impact couldbe significantly mitigated if the institutions responsible for environmental and land-use planning andmanagement operated and applied the law effectively. Threats to biodiversity in the Little Karoowere only superficially considered in this assessment. A comprehensive report on the perceptions ofbiodiversity threat in the Namakwa District, based on a survey of karoo ecological and livestockmanagement experts was recently completed (Todd et al. 2009). This report (an extract from whichcan be found in Box 1.) is potentially very useful to planners in the Little Karoo region as the landuseand threats are similar.Specific threats to biodiversity and potential drivers of biodiversity loss for the region are addressedin a report entitled “Retention and restoration of the biodiversity of the Little Karoo” by Forsyth, Vlokand Reyers (2008). Recommendations on wildlife stocking, ostrich farming, fire management andveld restoration potential for the region are provided in the report. The report, maps and spatialdata is available from the Gouritz initiative web site (www.gouritz.com) and SANBI‟s BIS system(http://bgis.sanbi.org) (Figure 16 & 17).Figure 16. Map extracted from Forsyth et al. (2008) to illustrate the available tools for responsibleland management in the region; specifically the recommended stocking rates for Ostriches in thevarious habitats of the region .Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 20

Figure 17. Map extracted from Forsyth et al. (2008) to illustrate the available tools for responsibleland management in the region; specifically the spekboom thicket restoration potential of habitatsin the region.Ecosystem servicesThe Ecosystem services of forage production and carbon storage are addressed in the Forsyth et al.(2008) report, and a recent study has expanded this in the Little Karoo. Reyers et al. (2009) highlightthe impact of land use change on the following ecosystem services forage production; carbon storage; water flow regulation; erosion control ; and tourism view sheds.This biodiversity assessment, although not aimed at ecosystem services directly, addresses most ofthese issues. The NFEPA catchment prioritisation (Nel et al. iIn prep) specifically aims to includeareas important for flow regulation and catchment recharge. Wetlands and riparian areashighlighted in this assessment as CBA or ESA also specifically address water flow regulation.Important tourism viewsheds identified by Reyers et al. (2009) have been included in thisassessment as a connectivity layer (Figure 18).Figure 18. Important tourism view sheds identified in the region by Reyers et al.( 2009).Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 21

BOX 1. Perceptions of Biodiversity Threat in the Namakwa District -extract from Todd et al. (2009)“Of all the commonly reported threats to the biodiversity of the Namakwa District, livestockgrazing is the most pervasive as well as the most pernicious. While mining and cropping aresevere and conspicuous, their extent is limited. Less than 5% of the Namakwa District istransformed by mining and cropping. Other threats include illegal collection of plants, alieninvasive plants and unsustainable water abstraction, all of which are restricted to certain speciesor habitats. The importance of these threats should however not be overlooked because theimpact they have is often severe, resulting in the local extinction of affected species or extensivetransformation of habitats. More than 90% of the Namakwa District is however utilized for livestockgrazing, making this by far the most widespread landuse. Although well managed livestockgrazing is compatible with biodiversity conservation, poor grazing management can lead todegradation and significant biodiversity loss at the landscape scale. Changes in vegetationcomposition associated with grazing are frequently not obvious and as a result, grazing as athreat to biodiversity is frequently underestimated or overlooked. Furthermore, despite beingreported as a threat to many vegetation types, the actual impact of livestock grazing livestock isvery difficult to quantify at a broad scale and most assessments rely on remote sensing oranecdotal evidence to gauge grazing threat.Based on a survey of experts in the field of livestock production, overgrazing wasoverwhelmingly identified as the primary threat to biodiversity and ecosystem function in theregion (Figure A). Ploughing was identified as the next most significant threat to biodiversitywith wetland management and game farming also emerging as important threats. Alienplants were only ranked fifth, perhaps reflecting the positive impact that programs such asWorking for Water have had on the perception of alien plants as a continued threat tobiodiversity. The use of traps for predator management and the use of pesticides andlivestock remedies were identified as the lowest threats.”“Figure A. Priority ranking of threats to the biodiversity and ecosystem function of the NamakwaDistrict, as ranked by scientists and conservation officials working in the region. Higher scoresrepresent greater importance, the maximum potential score is 11. 0123456789 10 OvergrazingIllegal Ploughing Wetland Mismanagement Game Farming Invasive Plants Infrastructure ErosionPredator Poisoning Predator Trapping Herbicides & Pesticides Dips & Dosing”Extracted from : Todd, S., Milton, S. J., Dean, R., Carrick, P. and Meyer, A. (2009). Ecological bestpractice livestock production guidelines for the Namakwa District. Report for The BotanicalSociety of South Africa by The Karoo Consortium.Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 22

5 Critical Biodiversity Areas5.1 What are CBAs?The Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBA) map aims to guide sustainable development by providing asynthesis of biodiversity information to decision makers. It serves as the common reference for allmulti-sectoral planning procedures, advising which areas can be lost to development, and whichareas of critical biodiversity value and their support zones should be protected against anyimpacts.The CBA map indicates areas of land as well as aquatic features which must be safeguarded intheir natural state if biodiversity is to persist and ecosystems are to continue functioning. Land in thiscategory is referred to as a Critical Biodiversity Area. CBAs incorporate: (i) areas that need to besafeguarded in order to meet national biodiversity thresholds (ii) areas required to ensure thecontinued existence and functioning of species and ecosystems, including the delivery ofecosystem services; and/or (iii) important locations for biodiversity features or rare species.Ecological Support Areas (ESAs) are supporting zones required to prevent the degradation ofCritical Biodiversity Areas and Protected Areas. An ESA may be an ecological process area thatconnects and therefore sustains Critical Biodiversity Areas or a terrestrial feature, e.g. the riparianhabitat surrounding and supporting aquatic Critical Biodiversity Areas.Those areas of natural vegetation identified on the map as Other Natural Areas are sufficientlyextensive at this stage that they may withstand some loss through conversion of their natural state,and undergo development. It is important to note that in the future, such areas will be increasinglyconverted or impacted, and it is possible that they will eventually be reclassified as CriticalBiodiversity Areas. Therefore, in all decision making, the precautionary principle needs to beapplied.The CBA map identifies areas that have been irreversibly transformed through development (e.g.urban development, plantation, agriculture). These areas are referred to as No Natural AreasRemaining. They no longer contribute to the biodiversity of the area. However, there are areas ofland (partially or wholly transformed or degraded land) that have been classified as ESAs or evenCBAs. Although these areas are heavily degraded or transformed, they still play an important role insupporting ecological processes. This is particularly the case with riparian areas, some keycatchment areas and key pieces of corridors. No further intensification of land-use activities shouldbe permitted and they should be prioritized for rehabilitation, where possible.Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 23

5.2 Critical Biodiversity Areas CategoriesCriteria defining the CBA map categories are presented in Table 8. These criteria are closely linkedto those used in other plans such as the Garden Route Systematic Biodiversity Plan Report (Holness,2009).Table 8: Criteria used to define the CBA map categories (Figure 20)CBA MAPCRITERIA DEFINING THE CATEGORYCATEGORYProtected Formal Protected AreasAreasa) Nature Reserves & National Parks (protected by the National Environment Management:Protected Areas Act 57 of 2003);b) Forest Nature Reserves (declared in terms of the National Forest Act 84 of 1998).c) Mountain Catchment Areas (declared in terms of the Mountain Catchment Area Act 63of 1970); andd) World Heritage Sites (declared in terms of the World Heritage Convention Act 49 of1999).CriticalBiodiversityAreas1. Any terrestrial or aquatic area required to meet biodiversity pattern and/or processthresholds:a) Any area that is required for meeting pattern thresholds, namely:• Remaining areas of Critically Endangered vegetation types;• Special habitats (areas required to protect special species and habitats);• Listed Ecosystems in terms of the National Biodiversity Act (10 of 2004);• Remaining areas protected by the National Forest Act (84 of 1998); and• High priority river reaches.b) Any area that is required for meeting process thresholds including:• Ecological corridors;• Areas important for climate change adaptation; and• Riparian corridors.c) Hydrological process areas (wetlands, priority catchment areas).d) All 'best design' sites (largest, most intact, least disturbed, connected and/or adjacent) interms of meeting pattern and process thresholds. 'Best design' refers to an identified network ofnatural sites that meet pattern and process thresholds in all vegetation types in a spatiallyefficient and ecologically robust way, and aim to avoid conflict with other activities (e.g.economic activity) where it is possible to achieve biodiversity thresholds elsewhere.EcologicalSupport AreaOther NaturalAreasNo NaturalAreasRemainingSource Reference: Holness, 2009Supporting zone required to prevent degradation of Critical Biodiversity Areas and ProtectedAreas.a) Areas required to prevent degradation of Critical Biodiversity Areas and formal ProtectedAreas;b) Remaining catchment and other process areas that are required to prevent degradationof Critical Biodiversity Areas and formal Protected Areas; andc) Areas that are already transformed or degraded, but which are currently or potentially stillimportant for supporting ecological processes e.g. transformed or alien plant infestedareas that have transformed or degraded the natural buffer area of a wetland or river.These areas are a focus for rehabilitation rather than the intensification of land uses.Natural areas not included in the above categories.These areas include cultivated areas (intensive agriculture), afforested areas (plantationforestry), mined areas, urban areas, infrastructure, dams and areas under coastaldevelopment.5.3 Planning approachThe biodiversity assessment for the Kannaland Municipality, Oudtshoorn Municipality and EdenDistrict Management Area is designed to identify an efficient set of Critical Biodiversity Areas (andEcological Support Areas) that meet the targets for the underlying biodiversity features in as smallan area as possible and in areas with least conflict with other activities. Of fundamentalimportance is that these areas are identified in a configuration that deliberately facilitates theKannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 24

functioning of ecological processes (both currently and in the face of climate change) which arerequired to ensure that the biodiversity features persist in the long term.A two step optimization approach to systematic conservation planning was undertaken makinguse of MARXAN. This approach has the advantage of allowing an efficient network to be identified(i.e. one which uses the least possible space to achieve its targets and also minimizes cost to othersectors) as well as to promote the identification of a network which is sensible from an ecologicalpoint of view (the approach strongly favours connected and adjacent areas, and allowspreferential meeting of targets in priority catchments and areas important for climate changeresilience) (Figure 19). For details on the methods used refer to Appendix 1.Figure 19. The outputs on the initial MARXAN runs were used to identify the highest priority networkof Critical Biodiversity Areas. These include both irreplaceable sites (i.e. areas where there is nochoice) as well as significant “best design” areas which are not the only options but represent anefficient and ecologically coherent network of optimal sites.Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 25

Figure 20. Critical Biodiversity Areas in the Kannaland Municipality, Oudtshoorn Municipality and Eden District Management Area.Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 26

5.4 Description of CBA’s for the Kannaland Municipality,Oudtshoorn Municipality and Eden District ManagementAreaTable 9. Biodiversity criteria used to define Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBAs) in the Kannaland,Oudtshoorn Municipalities and DMA04 (Figure 20).CategoryTerrestrialFeaturesAquaticfeaturesClimatechange andconnectivityNameHabitat mapSpecial speciesNationally ListedthreatenedecosystemsLeslie Hill ExpertareasQuartz patchesForestHigh priority riverreachesHigh prioritycatchmentsSensitivewetlandsRipariancorridorsHigh priorityunfragmentedlandscapesDescription ofbiodiversity featuresused to define CBAcategoryBase habitat map of235 terrestrial habitatsmapped by Vlok et al.(2005).CR EN and VU plantlocations from theCREW and DKdatasets buffered by250mRemaining extent ofEN and VU vegetationtypes listed underNEMBA as threatened.Identified expertfeatures from theSucculent Karooassessmentundertaken for theLeslie Hill TrustQuartz patches fromDK datasetForest habitat from DKdatasetIdentified high priorityriver catchments fromthe NFEPA assessment(Nel et al. In prep)Identified high priorityriver reaches from theNFEPA assessment (Nelet al. In prep)Sensitive wetlandsfrom the Cape Natureassessment andNFEPAVariable widthbuffered corridorsalong major rivers inthe Little Karoo.High priorityunfragmented areasidentified within theNPAES conservationassessment. The studyidentified the largest,most intact areas forShp File NameLK_Region_veg_Ecostatus.shpCombined_rares_1.shpThreatened_veg_clipped_to_natural.shpLeslie_Hill_expert_areas_1.shpQuartz _1.shpForest_1.shpRivers_1.shpCatch_1.shpWetlands_notclipped_1.shpAll_Riparian_corridors_1.shpHigh_priority_unfragmented_landscapes_1.shpKannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 27

CategoryPrioritiesfrom otherconservation plansNameHightopographicvariabilityKloofsGouritz CorridorsSouth FacingSlopesRelated climatechange layersand inputsPriority areasfrom SKEPPriority areasfrom STEPSucculent Karoopriorities(Desmet 2006)Succulent KarooPriorities (GalloDescription ofbiodiversity featuresused to define CBAcategorymeeting nationalpattern and processtargets.Areas of potentialclimate changeresilience and climaterefuges based on amulti-scale modelledassessment oflandscapes of hightopographic diversity.These areas alsoinclude importantaltitude gradients.Modelled layer ofkloofs which areimportant refugehabitatsClimate Changeconnectivity corridorsdeveloped byLombard et al. 2004for Gouritz InitiativeModelled layer ofsouth facing slopeswhich represent areasof climate changeresilience due toprobable lowertemperatures andhigher moisture levels.o Ripariancorridors (seeabove)o River reaches(see above)o Marxananalysis whichfavours areaswith highvariety ofhabitatsIdentified highirreplaceability priorityareas from the SKEPassessmentIdentified pattern andprocess priority areasfrom the STEPassessmentPriority areas from theLeslie Hill SucculentKaroo assessmentPriority areas from theLeslie Hill SucculentShp File NameHigh_topo_variability_1.shpKloofs_1.shpGouritz_all_1.shpLarge_southernslopes_1.shpStepSkep_1.shpStepSkep_1.shpLeslie_hill_1.shpGallo _1.shpKannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 28

CategoryAlignmentwithadjacentconservation plansNameet al. 2010)East CapePrioritiesCorridor linkagesto adjacentplansDescription ofbiodiversity featuresused to define CBAcategoryKaroo assessment byGallo et al. (2010)Priority subcatchmentsfrom the Eastern CapeBiodiversity assessmentwhere these extendinto the Little KarooIdentified CBA areas inthe adjacent 6conservation plans:ooooooCentral KarooCapeWinelandsDMAHessequa FSBPMossel BayFSBPGarden RouteInitiativeEast CapeProvince BCPShp File NameEc_priorities_1.shpLK_Region_ProtectedAreas.shpKannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 29

6 Land-use Guidelines6.1 Desired Management ObjectiveThe Desired Management Objective refers to the ecological state that a parcel of land oraquatic ecosystem should be maintained in (Table 10). It guides the identification ofappropriate land or resource use activities and management guidelines. Only land-useactivities or resource use levels that are compatible with maintaining the DesiredManagement Objective should be encouraged.The Desired Management Objective refers to both biodiversity pattern and/or ecologicalprocesses. In formally Protected Areas and Critical Biodiversity Areas, it is important tomaintain both biodiversity pattern and ecological processes, whilst in Ecological SupportAreas it is important to maintain ecological processes only.Table 10. Desired Management Objective per mapped categoryCBA MapCriticalFormalCategory:Biodiversity Ecological Other Natural AreasProtectedAreas Support AreasAreasDesiredManagement Objective:Maintain natural land.Rehabilitate degraded tonatural or near naturaland manage for nofurther degradation.MaintainecologicalprocessesSustainableManagement withingeneral rural land useprinciplesNo Natural AreasRemainingFavoured areas fordevelopment.SustainableManagementwithin general ruralland use principles6.2 Recommended Biodiversity-compatible Land-useGuidelinesFor the biodiversity priority areas, namely formal Protected Areas, Critical Biodiversity Areasand Ecological Support Areas, the guidelines have been informed by:(1) the desired management objective (described above); and(2) the likely impact of land and resource use activities on biodiversity (i.e. the impact onthe receiving environment should guide development) (Table 11).In Other Natural Areas and No Natural Area Remaining, development guidelines should takeall sectors into consideration and must result in sustainable development. If beyond the urbanedge, guidance should be obtained from the provincial Rural Planning and ManagementGuidelines (in preparation) (Table 11).Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 30

Table 11. Recommended biodiversity-compatible land use guidelines matrixKEY: Biodiversity sector land-use recommendations Yes = Encouraged so long as conditions listed in the rural guidelines are adhered to. No = Discouraged; Restricted = Land-use possible so long as the overall desired management objective is maintained,impacts on biodiversity are mitigated where possible, and conditions listed in the rural guidelines areadhered to.CBA MAP CATEGORY: →DESIRED MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE: →RECOMMENDED PSDF SPATIAL PLANNINGCATEGORY: →LAND-USE ACTIVITY1) CONSERVATIONFormal ProtectedAreasMaintain naturalland. Rehabilitatedegraded to naturalor near natural andmanage for nofurther degradation.Critical BiodiversityAreasMaintain naturalland. Rehabilitatedegraded tonatural or nearnatural andmanage for nofurtherdegradation.EcologicalSupport AreasMaintainecologicalprocessesCore 1 Core 1 Core 22a) AGRICULTURE -HIGH IMPACT : IntensiveAgriculture(includes forestry plantation and spaceNoNoextensive agricultural enterprises)2b) AGRICULTURE - LOW IMPACT: ExtensiveAgriculture Restricted Yes3) HOLIDAY ACCOMMODATIONYesRestrictedYesRestrictedOther NaturalAreasSustainableManagementwithin generalrural land-useprinciplesBuffer 1 or 2at the discretion ofTown andRegional PlannersNo Natural AreasRemainingSustainableManagementwithin generalrural land-useprinciples.Favoured areasfor development.IntensiveAgriculture andSettlement4a) RURAL HOUSING:Low Density Rural Housing (ConsolidationRestricted Restrictedof rural erven for conservation)4b) RURAL HOUSING:On-Farm Workers Settlement No Restricted5a)TOURIST and RECREATIONAL FACILITIES- LOW IMPACT: Lecture rooms, restrooms,restaurants, gift shops and outdoorrecreation5b) TOURIST and RECREATIONAL FACILITIES- HIGH IMPACT: Golf , polo, and housingeco-estates6a) RURAL BUSINESS:LAND-USEGOVERNED BY THENATIONALENVIRONMENTALMANAGEMENT:PROTECTED AREASACT AND APROTECTED AREAMANAGEMENT PLANRestrictedNoRestrictedPlace Bound Restricted Restricted6b) RURAL BUSINESS:Non Place Bound No No7) RURAL INDUSTRYNoNoNoREFER TO THE PROVINCIAL RURALLAND-USE PLANNING ANDMANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FORGUIDANCE IN IDENTIFYINGAPPROPRIATE LAND-USE ACTIVITIESALWAYS MANAGE FOR SUSTAINABLEDEVELOPMENT WHEN CONSIDERINGLAND and WATER RESOURCE USEAPPLICATIONS IN NATURAL AREAS8) SMALL HOLDINGSNoNo9) COMMUNITY FACILITIES andINSTITUTIONS No No10) INFRASTRUCTURE INSTALLATIONS11a) SETTLEMENT:Existing Settlements (Urban Expansion)11b) SETTLEMENT:New SettlementsRestrictedNoNoRestrictedNoNoKannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 31

6.3 Guidelines for the sound management of land and waterresourcesThe land and water resource use management guidelines in the boxes 2 - 4 below can be used to guidedecision making by all parties involved in land-use planning and decision-making e.g. provincial and localgovernment (as part of the municipal LUMS), landowners, Interested and Affected Parties and developers etc.BOX 2: MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR AREAS CLASSIFIED AS CRITICAL BIODIVERSITY AREAS (CBA) Minimise loss of any natural habitat. Minimise further fragmentation of habitat. If degraded or disturbed lands are identified as components of a landscape corridor, no furtherhardening of the surface should be allowed as this poses threats to the functioning of the corridor. Prioritise as prime candidates for biodiversity offset receiving areas. Implement management programmes to maintain natural ecological processes; e.g. firemanagement in fynbos vegetation types. Implement regular environmental monitoring and reporting of biodiversity and/or change of land-useto prevent unauthorized development or degradation by neglect or ignorance. To be carried out byDEADP, Department of Water Affairs (of DWEA), and the Department of Agriculture (of DAFF). Prioritise as prime areas for conservation projects or activities and alien clearance programmes etc.by LandCare, Working for Water, Working for Wetlands, Working for the Coast (CoastCare) andNGOs. Implement restoration or rehabilitation programmes in degraded or disturbed sites i.e. an integratedalien management plan. Compile Environmental Management Plans, where possible, to include, e.g. alien plant control, firemanagement etc. Prioritise for incorporation into the protected areas network, and for stewardship agreements. Prioritize for rates rebates by Municipalities (in terms of the Municipal Property Rates Act 6 of 2004). Use CBA boundaries to demarcate urban edges to limit lateral expansion of urban developmentalong landscape corridors. Incorporate CBA into Urban Open Space Systems. All the management conditions/controls provided in the land use definition tables that correlate tothe recommended land-uses in CBA should be adhered to. These should be further supported bythe Western Cape Provincial Rural Land-Use Planning and Management Guidelines. Any loss in CBA should be recorded, preferably in GIS format, to encourage monitoring of the CBAMap.GUIDANCE TO ALL PARTIES INVOLVED IN LAND-USE CHANGE APPLICATIONS IN CBA(and as part of municipal LUMS) Land-use activities that are not compatible with a CBA should not be approved or applied for, unlessan adequate biodiversity offset receiving area is identified. Land-use activities that will result in major loss in natural habitat are incompatible with the DesiredManagement Objectives of a CBA. Subdivision of land likely to result in the loss of natural areas or more intensive use of CBA should bediscouraged. Where developments are unavoidable in a CBA, some form of conservation agreement ormechanism should be adopted in the undeveloped areas e.g. formal Protected Area status in termsof NEMPAA, appropriate zoning (in terms of LUPO) and other conservation areas, such as stewardshipagreements or conservancies. Appropriate biodiversity offset receiving areas must also be identifiedto compensate for the CBA loss.SPECIFIC MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS Do not permit development within at least 30m of the delineated wetland/estuary boundary orriparian edge, the 5m contour around estuaries or within the 1:100 year floodline (or higher whereincreased flooding has occurred), whichever is the more restrictive. This reduces the incidence orKannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 32

severity of natural hazards. The “buffer” may need to be wider than 30m. This should be determined on a case-by-case basis bya specialist ecologist or hydrologist in consultation with appropriate authorities to reflect site-specificfactors. The approach for determining buffer width should consider the current condition of theaquatic ecosystem and existing and proposed buffer, as well as the functioning of the system in thebroader landscape, plus an assessment of the impacts to the ecosystem of the existing andproposed adjacent land-use. Maintain water quantity, quality and flow regimes as close to natural as possible (desired Eco-statusor Ecological Management Class of A: Natural or B: Largely Natural). Large-scale groundwater abstraction should be avoided. Areas that are degraded or disturbed should be rehabilitated through programmes such as Workingfor Water, Working for Wetlands, Working for the Coast (Coastcare); and a systematic alienvegetation (and where possible fish) eradication programme implemented to improve biodiversityand water supply, especially upstream areas of estuaries and wetlands. Ensure implementation of the CBA Map and guidelines through Catchment Management Agencies.BOX 3: MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR AREAS CLASSIFIED AS ECOLOGICAL SUPPORT AREAS (ESA) Extensive loss of habitat within ecological process areas should be minimized. Fragmentation of habitat should be avoided within ecological process areas. Natural linkages should be maintained and encouraged between ecosystems, e.g. rivers to associatedwetlands. Maintain ESA to ensure that ecological processes remain intact e.g. hydrological [river] processes andriparian areas, fire processes, vegetation boundaries which reflect soil interfaces or upland-lowlandinterfaces etc.), especially within landscape corridors. After CBA areas, ESAs should be a secondary focus for rehabilitation, where possible e.g. alien clearingthrough an integrated alien management plan. If degraded, disturbed or agricultural lands are identified as components of a landscape corridor, nofurther hardening of the surface should be allowed as this poses threats to the functioning of the corridor. Avoid intensification of land-use where possible. In fynbos and fire-prone thicket systems appropriate fire regimes should be maintained. All the management conditions/controls provided in the land use definition table relating to therecommended land uses in ESA should be adhered to. Any loss in ESA should be recorded, preferably in GIS format, to encourage monitoring of the CBA Map.SPECIFIC MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS To protect river integrity a minimum buffer of 32m, including all riparian habitat, around rivers in ESAshould be maintained. Where possible, the 1:100 year flood line should be used (or higher in areas thathave experienced increased flooding). This reduces the incidence or severity of natural hazards. Do not permit infilling, excavation, drainage, hardened surfaces (including buildings and asphalt),intensive agriculture or any new developments within a wetland and its associated buffer of naturalvegetation (i.e. wetland marginal habitat). Maintain water quantity, quality and flow regimes as close to natural as possible (desired Eco-status orEcological Management Class of A: Natural or B: Largely Natural) Large-scale groundwater abstraction should be avoided. Areas that are degraded or disturbed should be rehabilitated through programmes such as Working forWater, Working for Wetlands; and a systematic alien vegetation (and where possible fish) eradicationprogramme implemented to improve biodiversity and water supply, especially upstream areas ofestuaries and wetlands. Ensure implementation of the CBA Map and guidelines through Catchment Management Agencies.Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 33

BOX 4: MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR AREAS CLASSIFIED AS OTHER NATURAL AREAS (ONA)These are areas that have not been flagged as having critical biodiversity importance. However, it ispossible that they contain important biodiversity features which are worthy of safeguarding, but whichwere not identified in the CBA Map, e.g. a previously unidentified rare species on the site. Developments should attempt to avoid fragmentation of natural habitat. Developments must still meet the NEMA principles and EIA requirements, including all other planningprocedures (e.g. town and regional planning, water use licensing, agricultural subdivisions andcultivation). Proposals should follow all relevant guidelines to minimize the impact of the proposed development. Any loss in ONA should be recorded, preferably in GIS format, to encourage monitoring of the CBAMap.Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 34

6.4 Land-use Activity DefinitionsTable 12. Land-use activity definitions adopted from the provincial Rural Land Use Planning andManagement Guidelines (in preparation). Where land and resource use applications are processed (e.g.through EIAs), the land and resource use management guidelines, Section 4.4 on page 34, areencouraged.1. CONSERVATIONLAND-USE ACTIVITY DEFINITIONSThis is a land-use activity where conservation is the major objective. Subject to stringent controls the followingbiodiversity-compatible land-use activities (i.e. those of very low impact) may be accommodated in CriticalBiodiversity Areas:1a) Conservation management activities such as alien clearing, research and environmental education.1b) Low intensity eco-tourism activities such as recreation and tourism (e.g. hiking trails, bird and game watching,and visitor overnight accommodation) with limited access points.1c) Sustainable consumptive activities: Harvesting of natural resources (e.g. wild flowers for medicinal, culinary orcommercial use), subject to an Environmental Management Plan g (EMP) demonstrating the sustainability ofharvesting.Assumes the following conditions/controls: These land uses are limited to very low transformation levels forinfrastructure development. Existing infrastructure and transformed areas should be utilized. EnvironmentalManagement Plans are required to ensure appropriate protection of the receiving environment e.g. harvestingvolumes, periods etc. The entire property or a part thereof (depending on the land-use activity above) is undersome form of conservation agreement or mechanism. These mechanisms would include formal Protected Areasin terms of NEM:PAA, appropriate zoning (in terms of the Land Use Planning Ordinance) and other conservationareas, such as stewardship agreements or conservancies (see Section 2.8 on page 23).2. AGRICULTURE2a) Intensive agriculture, including:- All areas of High Potential and Unique Agricultural Land (HPUAL), together with areas of lower agriculturalpotential where particular agricultural practices may themselves contribute to the character of theenvironment, the agricultural working landscape or the local economyForestry (Timber Production) -Includes: all timber plantations, mainly Pinus, Eucalyptus & Acacia plant species;Assumes the following conditions/controls: monoculture of alien timber species with heavy impact onhydrology and soil erosion and introduction and spread of a variety of the most aggressive alien invasive plants.Irrigated Crop Cultivation -Includes: all irrigated crops (vegetables) and irrigated tree crops (orchards);Assumes the following conditions/controls: intensive production activity with high nutrient and agro-chemicalinputs and often two crops per year [but even just ploughing, with no chemicals etc, results in irreversible loss ofnatural habitat].Dryland Crop Cultivation -Includes: all tillage cultivation of non-irrigated crops, mostly single-season annuals, but including perennial andorchard-type tree crops if cultivated with an indigenous grass layer;Assumes the following conditions/controls: crop production methods that conserve water and protect againstsoil erosion; more-or-less limited and responsible use of fertilisers, pesticides and other agrochemicals andgenetically modified organisms (GMOs).“Nuisance” and space extensive agricultural enterprises (e.g. intensive feed-lots, poultry battery houses) -Includes: all intensive animal production systems, of domestic or „wild‟ species, that are dependent primarilyon imported foodstuffs and confinement; includes dairy farming and all areas in production support for dairy,including pastures, fodder and grain crops, much of which is usually irrigated;Assumes the following conditions/controls: To be located in close proximity to regional routes (including rail) tofacilitate product and requisite (e.g. feed) movement and supply2b) Extensive agriculture, including extensive livestock or game farmingIncludes: livestock or game production and related tourism activities on extensive land portions of natural landcover. Could include private game reserves, sustainable commercial hunting along with other consumptive andnon-consumptive use of wild natural resources. Private game reserves to be officially protected through variousmechanisms (e.g. NEM:PAA or other conservation agreements – see Section 2.8 on page 23), with strict limits onthe level of development considered acceptable for lodge and other accommodation infrastructure.Assumes the following conditions/controls: application of minimum size criteria for economic sustainability asare applied to rangeland livestock farming; strictly limited development for revenue generating purposes such asintensified tourism or sectional ownership. Stringent management conditions applied, such as –Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 35

• Faunal specialist to undertake carrying capacity study for game reserves/production.• For game reserves, indigenous species only to be stocked• Environmental Management Plan, including fire management measures, if necessary.• These land uses are limited to very low transformation levels for infrastructure development.• Location of infrastructure either within disturbed/transformed areas and existing buildings, where possible.3) HOLIDAY ACCOMMODATIONProvides tourist/holiday accommodation in rural areas.(i) B&B Establishment; Backpackers Accommodation; Guesthouse; Boutique Hotel / Lodge;(ii) Resort(iii) Camping SitesAssumes the following conditions/controls: All forms of holiday accommodation are encouraged withinexisting structures or on existing disturbed or transformed areas and within close proximity to existing infrastructure(e.g. roads and electricity). Although encouraged for resort developments too, this is not always possible giventhe unique nature of the setting required, which will most likely be place-bound. Most holiday accommodationshould be provided in or adjacent to existing towns and rural settlements, although it can be accommodated inthe rural landscape. However, the form and scale of facilities should be aligned with the character, quality andenvironmental sensitivity of the rural landscape. Certain norms (e.g. number of guesthouses or B&B per farm) mustbe applied, as per the RLUP&M guidelines.These land uses are restricted to small footprints and will be subject to the Western Cape Rural Land Use Planningand Management Guidelines, which restricts the number of new structures etc within the larger landscape andencourages densification to reduce cumulative impacts. Resort developments are subject to a density norm orformulae and the resort units are restricted to 120m² footprints in terms of these guidelines.4) RURAL RESIDENTIAL4a) Low density rural residential (consolidation of rural erven for conservation)This land use facilitates residential development rights outside the urban edge, is of a low density and occurs onextensive pieces of land thereby increasing the size of the conservation area or land under conservation, i.e.consolidation of the conservation area (area in hectares that is conserved through various mechanisms – seeSection 2.8 on page 20), within the province. The following density norms, in addition to other land use factors,environmental constraints and strategic context, including the desirability to consolidate erven, shall be used toestablish the maximum number of units permitted on land units outside the urban edge, namely:- Divide the total extent in hectares of the to-be-consolidated cadastral units by 1000 and multiply the answer bythe number of cadastral units to be consolidated. Refer to the Rural Planning & Development Guidelines (inprep) if this calculation yields a number of dwelling units that is less than or equal to, or less than one-third morethan, the total number of individual cadastral units to be consolidated.development for „lifestyle‟ or investment-type recreational ownership such as share-block schemes,multi-ownership reserves, but only for extensive land portions with limited development (NB: excludes golfestates or residential eco-estates).Assumes the following conditions/controls: Maintenance of a large measure of natural land cover and biodiversity friendly management must bemaintained; the development footprint should be extremely limited in relation to the property size. Individual footprints to be limited to 250m² with maximum permissible floor space of 120m². Clustered layout, sensitively placed to limit the transformation impact, development within already transformedor disturbed areas or use of existing buildings or built on timber piers (this will also ensure corridor linkagesthroughout the cadastral); Sustainable water supply (within the allocated Reserve of the water resource). Use off grid services (solar power, rainwater harvesting, grey water recycling, urine diversion/enviro- loos) & builtfrom local recyclable materials. No formal gardening. Areas not developed are under some form of agreement or mechanism. These mechanisms would includeformal Protected Areas in terms of NEM:PAA, appropriate zoning (in terms of the Land Use Planning Ordinance)and other conservation areas, such as stewardship agreements or conservancies (see Section 2.8 on page 23).4b) “On-Farm” Settlement of Farm WorkersThis land use includes residences for farm workers and retirees “on-farm” i.e. where housing isavailable to farm workers who currently live on the farm and will be living there in future, either due topersonal preference (e.g their tenure rights, rural surroundings, place for retirement, etc.) or becausecircumstances require it (e.g. working hours, etc.).Assumes the following conditions/controls:(a) Fragmentation g of agricultural landscape and land for agricultural purposes not being threatened by the“urbanization” or the rural areas.(b) Where possible, clustering of units in distinct housing precincts located in visually unobtrusive locations andexisting footprints, but enjoying convenient access to rural access network5) TOURIST AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIESIncludes a broad range of rural tourist and recreational facilities in support of sustainable rural tourism, ruralKannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 36

usinesses and communities, as well as to provide for the rural recreational and leisure needs of urban dwellers,namely:5a) Low impact facilities(i) lecture rooms, restrooms, restaurants, gift shops(ii) outdoor recreation (e.g. 4x4 trails and hiking trails)(iii) Non-place bound tourist and recreational activities and facilities (e.g. water parks, paint ball); and5b) High impact facilities(iv) Golf Courses, Golf Estates, Polo Fields and Polo Estates (with or without residential component).Assumes the following conditions/controls: Non-place bound tourist and recreational activities and facilities located in or peripheral to existing ruralsettlements Rural tourist and recreational activities and facilities to be linked to a natural setting or feature. Location of infrastructure either within disturbed/transformed areas and existing buildings, where possible. Restricting large-scale recreational developments including a residential component to a location in the“urban periphery”, allowing for inclusion in the medium-term urban edge Development outside of ecologically sensitive areas, for example river-beds, wetlands, flood-lines and priorityecological corridors.6. RURAL BUSINESSThis land use broadens tourist and visitor demand and strengthens rural and settlement economies. It includesRural businesses ranging from a curio-shop in a National Park to a conference venue on a game farm, namely:6a) Place-bound business -(i) Farm stall and farm shop(ii) Restaurant/tavern(iii) Venue facility (e.g. conference/ wedding)AND6b) Non place-bound business e.g. agricultural co-operative, filling station/ petro-port, tourist retail outlet, plantnursery, hotel/motel, tourism office, commercial kennel.Assumes the following conditions/controls: Farm stall restricted to selling products produced and processed on the farm to the general public, locatedeither in the farmstead precinct or abutting a tourist route, if present. Restaurant, tavern and venue facility located within the farmstead precinct. Non place-bound business located in and peripheral to rural settlements, outside of environmentally sensitiveareas e.g. Critical Biodiversity Areas. Location of infrastructure either within disturbed/transformed areas and existing buildings, where possible.7. RURAL INDUSTRYThis land use accommodates a range of industry types serving rural areas, and include:7(a) Non place-bound rural industry, for example -- Manufacturing agricultural requisites such as pallet making, bottle labeling- Processing of regionally sourced product such as fruit cannery, meat processing plant, abattoir,- Transport contractors, dairy depots, builder‟s yards; and- Processing rural sourced products (e.g. pottery manufacturing from kaolin mines)7(b) Extractive industry which is place-bound given mineral resource i.e. quarrying and mining; includingsecondary beneficiation (e.g. cement block manufacturing plants, concrete batch plants, pre-mix asphaltplants). Includes all strip and opencast mining excavations or quarrying (sand mining); plus the visual, physicaland chemical impacts of these activities, particularly on ground water reserves; all mine waste and refuse dumps,urban waste sites and landfill sites for whatever purposes.Assumes the following conditions/controls: All non place-bound industry (i.e. rural industry and service trades) to be located in and peripheral to ruralsettlements outside of environmentally sensitive areas e.g. Critical Biodiversity Areas. Extractive industry to be located at the mineral source within the rural area, and informed by environmentalconsiderations and post mining rehabilitation.8. SMALLHOLDINGSThis land use accommodates smaller agricultural properties which may be used for agriculture, but may also beoccupied as places of residence by people who seek a rural lifestyle, and usually includes agriculture, dwellinghouse, home occupation.Assumes the following conditions/controls: New smallholding development to be restricted to inside the urban edge. Minimum smallholding unit size : 8 000m² Compilation of a Management Plan for new and existing smallholding areas.9. COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND INSTITUTIONSThis land use provides facilities in support of rural community socio-economic development and well-being;including:(i) schools, places of assembly, churches(ii) primary and secondary health care(iii) institutions requiring a buffer or isolated location (e.g. infectious disease recovery facility)(iv) institutions requiring an agricultural production location (e.g. agricultural research stations and agriculturalKannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 37

schools).Assumes the following conditions/controls: Facilities located within existing towns and rural settlements; in close proximity to a settlement or located on aregional route, outside of environmentally sensitive areas e.g. Critical Biodiversity Areas. In the absence of public land, establish facilities “on-farm”, utilizing existing farm structures or existing footprints. Location of facilities to target disturbed areas and areas of low agricultural potential in order to avoidfragmentation of super-blocks.10. INFRASTRUCTURE INSTALLATIONSThis land use accommodates infrastructure installations serving both the urban and rural areas where suchinstallations include:(i) Wastewater treatment works, airport, water extraction purification plants, safety and security (e.g. Policestations); irrigation infrastructure; roads, power lines, railways, pipelines; and(ii) All substantial impoundments, reservoirs or dams and weirs, with associated pipelines, canals, access roadsand bulk water transfer schemes),Assumes the following conditions/controls: Installations be located on disturbed or low-value agricultural land. A shared location and/or facility (e.g. police and clinic in a community service centre) Infrastructure installations requiring a location outside the urban edge be restricted to extensive agriculturalareas peripheral to settlements in close proximity to regional routes to facilitate access and to restrictfragmentation of the agricultural landscape Installations in intensive agricultural areas be restricted to essential services (e.g. irrigation infrastructure, safetyand security). All water-use developments to be subject to the Ecological Reserve.11. SETTLEMENTThis category includes all human settlements, consisting of the following 2 sub-categories:(1) Existing settlements (& urban expansion), which include:Metropolitan areas, cities, larger towns, small towns, villages and hamlets.It comprises all physical, residential, educational, recreational (e.g. sports facilities, fields, parks), cemeteries,industrial and business development, including associated infrastructure etc, which are commonly known asurban land use activities (or the built environment). Existing settlements are frequently under significant pressure toexpand due to in-migration & population increases, which require the provision of housing and services etctherefore causing urban expansion.Assumes the following conditions/controls: The control of urban expansion through the delineation of an urban edge to prevent urban sprawl. The delineation process is guided by the provincial urban edge guideline document and informed by abiodiversity plan, for example: a Critical Biodiversity Area is used to delineate a boundary of the urban edge. The promotion of compact urban settlements, whilst maintaining an open space system (where possible) thatis informed by a biodiversity plan.(2) New settlements include areas that will -(i) Service geographically isolated farming areas (i.e. agri-village)(ii) Service rural resource exploitation (e.g. mines)(iii) Proclaim the urban component of existing rural settlementsAssumes the following conditions/controls: New Settlements located in the rural area when necessitated by unique circumstances (e.g. servicing ofisolated large infrastructural projects outside the servicing sphere of existing settlements) or in order to proclaimthe urban component of existing rural (i.e. Transformation of Certain Rural Areas) church, forestry orconservation settlements.Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 38

7 ReferencesAmis, M.A., Rouget, M., Balmford, A., Thuiller, W., Kleynhans, C.J., Day, J. and Nel, J., in press.Predicting Freshwater Habitat Integrity Using Land Use/Cover Surrogates. WATER SA.Anon (2001). C-Plan. Conservation Planning Software User Manual forC-PlanVersion 3.06. Armidale,New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service, Report.Anon (2008). Guideline regarding the Determination of Bioregions and the Preparation andPublication of Bioregional Plans. Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism.Ardron, J.A., Possingham, H.P., and Klein, C.J., eds. (2008). Marxan Good Practices Handbook.External review version, pp 155. Pacific Marine Analysis and Research Association,www.pacmara.org, Vancouver, BC, Canada.Ball, I.R. and Possingham, H.P. (2000). MARXAN (V1.8.2): Marine Reserve Design Using SpatiallyExplicit Annealing, a Manual. The Ecology Centre, University of Queensland, Brisbane,Australia.Berliner D. & Desmet P. (2007) Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan: Technical Report.Department of Water Affairs and Forestry Project No 2005-012, Pretoria. 1 August 2007Cowling, R.M., A.T. Lombard, M. Rouget, G.I.H. Kerley, T. Wolf, R. Sims-Castley, A. Knight, J.H.J. Vlok,S.M. Pierce, A.F. Boshoff and S.L. Wilson. (2003). A conservation assessment for theSubtropical Thicket Biome. Terrestrial Ecology Research Unit, University of Port Elizabeth.Cowling, R.M. (1999). Planning for persistence –systematic reserve design in southern Africa‟ssucculent Karoo desert. Parks, 9(1), February 1999Desmet, P.G. (2006) A Strategic Land Acquisition Policy for the Leslie Hill Succulent Karoo Trust(ZA1415). Report for the Leslie Hill Succulent Karoo Trust (WWF), Stellenbosch, South AfricaDriver, A, P. Desmet, M. Rouget, R. Cowling and K. Maze. 2003. Succulent Karoo Ecosystem Plan,Biodiversity Component, Technical Report. Cape Conservation Unit, Report No. CCU 1/03,Botanical Society of South Africa.Driver, A., Cowling, R.M. & Maze, K.E. (2003). Planning for living landscapes: Perspectives andlessons from South Africa. Cape Town: Botanical Society of South Africa, Center for AppliedDiversity Science and Conservation International.Driver, A., Maze, K., Rouget, M., Lombard, A.T., Nel, J., Turpie, J.K., Cowling, R.M., Desmet, P.,Goodman, P., Harris, J., Jonas, Z., Reyers, B. Sink, K. & Strauss, T. 2004. The National SpatialBiodiversity Assessment. Priorities for biodiversity conservation in South Africa. Strelitzia 17.SANBI.Forsyth, G., Vlok, J. And B. Reyers (2008) Retention and restoration of the biodiversity of the LittleKaroo. CSIR Report No CSIR/NRE/ECO/ER/2008/0118/C Prepared for: Critical EcosystemPartnership Fund.Gallo, J.A., Lombard, A.T. and Cowling, R.M. (2010) Increasing the impact of systematicconservation planning: some suggestions, a decision support system framework, and aprecursory model. Submitted to Conservation Biology.Holness, S.D, Bradshaw, P., & Brown, A. (2010). Critical Biodiversity Areas of the Garden Route.Garden Route Initiative, SANParks.Jackelman, J; Holness, S and Lechmere-Oertel, R (2008). The National Protected Area ExpansionStrategy (NPAES): A Framework for Implementation. Report compiled for South AfricanNational Biodiversity Institute and National Department of Environment Affairs and Tourism,PretoriaLombard, A.T., T. Wolf and N. Cole. 2003. GIS coverages and spatial analyses for the SubtropicalThicket Ecosystem Planning (STEP) Project. Terrestrial Ecology Research Unit, University of PortElizabeth. TERU Report 42.Lombard, A.T., Wolf, T. and T. Strauss (2004) GIS Specialist Services, Gouritz Initiative (GI). Preparedfor: Cape NatureMargules, C.R. & Pressey, R.L. (2000). Systematic conservation planning. Nature, 405.Marsh, A, Desmet, P & Oosthuysen, E (2009). Namakwa District Managementity Biodiversity SectorPlan, Version 2, February 2009. Northern Cape Province Department of Tourism, Environment& Conservation (DTEC), Directorate: Policy Coordination and Environmental Planning,SpringbokMucina L. & Rutherford, M.C. (eds) (2006). The Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland.Strelitzia 19. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 39

Nel, J.L., Reyers, B., Van Deventer, H., Smith-Adao, L. 2007. Protected AreaExpansion Strategy: Spatial assessment of river priorities. Final Report. CSIR Reportnumber CSIR/NRE/ECO/2007/0134/C.Noss, R.F. (1990). "Indicators for monitoring biodiversity - a hierarchical approach." ConservationBiology 4(4): 355-364.Pasquini, L. 2007. Privately –owned lands and biodiversity conservation: analysing the role of PrivateConservation Areas in the Little Karoo, south Africa. University of Sheffield.Pence, Genevieve Q.K. 2008 (in prep). C.A.P.E. Fine-Scale Systematic Conservation PlanningAssessment: Technical Report. Produced for Cape Nature.Reyers, B., P. J. O‟Farrell, R. M. Cowling, B. N. Egoh, D. C. Le Maitre and J. H. J. Vlok 2009. Ecosystemservices, land-cover change, and stakeholders: finding a sustainable foothold for a semiaridbiodiversity hotspot. Ecology and Society 14(1): 38. [online]Rouget, M., Reyers, B., Jonas, Z., Desmet, P., Driver, A., Maze, K., Egoh, B. & Cowling, R.M. (2004).South African National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment 2004: Technical Report. Volume1:terrestrial component. Pretoria: South African National Biodiversity Institute.Rutherford, M.C., Midgley, G.F., Bond, W.J., Powrie, L.W., Roberts, R. and Allsopp N. (1999). SouthAfrican Country Study on Climate Change. Plant Biodiversity:vulnerability and AdaptationAssessment. NBI.SANBI (2007). Draft Guideline regarding the Determination of Bioregions and the Preparation andPublication of Bioregional Plans. March 2007. Prepared by the South African NationalBiodiversity Institute at the request of the Minister and Department of Environmental Affairsand TourismSANBI (2008). Threatened Ecosystems in South Africa: General Information. South African BiodiversityInstitute, Pretoria.Scholes, R.J. & Biggs, R (2005) A biodiversity intactness index. Nature 434, 45-49Skowno, A.L., Holness, S.D. and P.G. Desmet (2009) Biodiversity Assessment of the Central KarooDistrict Managementity. DEADP Report EADP05/2008, 52 pages.Thompson, M., J. Vlok, R. Cowling, S. Cundill and N. Mundau (2005). A land transformation map forthe Little Karoo. Pretoria, GeoterraImage (Pty) Ltd.Vlok, J. H. J., R. M. Cowling and T. Wolf. 2005. A vegetation map for the Little Karoo. Unpublishedmaps and report for a SKEP project supported by Grant No 1064410304. (Cape Town,Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund)Vlok, J. And Reyers, B. Unpublished. Methods, Data, and Results for Determining the RepresentationTargets of the Little KarooVromans, D.C., Maree, K.S., Holness, S.D., Job, N. and Brown, A.E. 2010. The Garden RouteBiodiversity Sector Plan for the George, Knysna and Bitou Municipalities. Supporting land-useplanning and decision-making in Critical Biodiversity Areas and Ecological Support Areas forsustainable development. Garden Route Initiative. South African National Parks. Knysna.Vromans, D.C., Maree, K.S., Holness, S. D., Job, N. and Brown, A.E. 2010. The Garden RouteBiodiversity Sector Plan for the southern regions of the Kouga and Koukamma Municipalities.Supporting land-use planning and decision-making in Critical Biodiversity Areas andEcological Support Areas for sustainable development. Garden Route Initiative. SouthAfrican National Parks. Knysna.Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 40

8 Appendix 1: GIS methods and technical notes8.1 Planning DomainThe planning domain for this study includes the whole of the Kannaland Local Municipality,Oudtshoorn Local Municipality and the Eden District Management Area (DMA04) in whichthe town of Uniondale is situated. The latest municipal boundaries (Municipal Demarcationboard 2008) were utilised. Many of the existing plans and data layers for the region followthe Little Karoo Planning domain defined by Vlok et al. (2005) and refined by Reyers et al.(2008). The Little Karoo Planning domain extends further west than this assessment andcovers an area of 1,9 million hectares as opposed to the 1,25 million covered by thisassessment (Figure A). Ecosystem Status and Protection level calculations were based onthe larger Little Karoo Planning area and its 371 vegetation units.Figure A. showing the Little Karoo Planning Domain defined by Vlok et al. (2005) in relationthe planning domain of this study.8.2 GeneralAll GIS analyses and processes were conducted by the authors in ESRI ARCGIS (9.3.1) ,ARCVIEW (3.2) and IDRISI environments. The projection for all grids and shapefiles was set toUTM 34 South described below:Projected Coordinate System: WGS_1984_UTM_Zone_34SProjection: Transverse_MercatorFalse_Easting: 500000.00000000False_Northing: 10000000.00000000Central_Meridian: 21.00000000Scale_Factor: 0.99960000Latitude_Of_Origin: 0.00000000Linear Unit: MeterGeographic Coordinate System: GCS_WGS_1984Datum: D_WGS_1984Prime Meridian: GreenwichAngular Unit: DegreeKannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 41

8.3 Table showing colours used in the Critical BiodiversityArea MapCODE NAME SOURCE DESCRIPTION NOTES FOR AV3.xCBA CriticalbiodiversityareaCAPE FinescaleGreen(67:128:0RGB)(hue:saturation:value)63:255:128ESAPACAEcologicalsupport areaProtectedarea (formal)Conservationarea(informal)CentralKarooCAPE FinescaleCentralKarooOlive(168:168:0RGB)Green (1:99:0RGB) + black45° , 0.5 linesOlive(115:115:0RGB) + black45°, 0.5 lines85:255:100OTHER NATTRANSOther naturalareasTransformedor convertedareasCAPE FinescaleCAPE FinescaleWhiteGrey(178:178:178RGB)8.4 Protected areas layerA protected area layer was developed for the planning domain based on existing CapeNature Protected Areas data set, Cape Nature Stewardship Sites data set, InformalConservation Ares in the NPAES (2008), and Private conservation areas Identified byPasquini (2007). Only Formal Protected Areas and contracted Cape Nature Stewardshipsites were considered as Protected Areas in the analysis. These sites are assumed tocontribute to meeting biodiversity targets, and as such are “hard wired” into the CBA Modelas PAs. Informal sites are not assumed to contribute to meeting biodiversity targets as thereis no guarantee in the long term that the biodiversity contained in them will be conserved.8.5 Land cover modelThis project developed a simplified land cover based on a land cover map put together byKirkwood et al. (2009) (specifically the land cover designed for ecosystem statuscalculations) as part of the Western Cape Biodiversity Framework (which in turn was basedon Thompson et al. 2005). The modifications made in this project include the addition of:Chief Directorate Surveys and Mapping 1:50 000 series data (roads and railways buffered by15m; dams and quarries un-buffered; built up areas buffered by 100m); and agriculturalfields layer developed by GTI for Department agriculture. Some reclassification wasnecessary: The DA fields layer is more accurate than the fields class of the Thompson dataset in delineating actual cultivated areas and old lands. The cultivated Class in this LandCover was based solely on the DA field layers. The areas classified as cultivated byThompson et al. (2005) that fall outside of the DA fields layer were reclassified as SeverelyDegraded. This decision was based on desktop SPOT image investigation. Two levels of landclassification were developed based on Kirkwood et al. (2009)The Land cover is available as shapefile or 10m resolution TIFF.Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 42

LandcoverLevel 1 Level 2Natural NaturalNear Natural - Alien invasive plantsNear Natural - Moderately DegradedUnknownNo Natural No Natural AgricNo Natural DamNo Natural UrbanNo Natural - OtherDegraded Severely Degraded8.6 Biodiversity Features8.6.1 Habitat modelThe conservation planning process made use of the finescale vegetation map producedby Jan Vlok (Vlok et al. 2005). This high quality vegetation map is based on a combinationof extensive field surveys during 2004, the subdivision of landscape into topogeomorphicunits hand drawn on 1:50 000 Landsat images and additional remote sensing interpretation.A hierarchical classification system was used with vegetation units, nested within habitatswhich are nested within biomes. In transformed areas, the pretransformation vegetationwas estimated and mapped based on surrounding vegetation and remaining patches. 235vegetation types are found within the Kannaland and Oudtshoorn Local Municipalities, andEden District Management Area (Uniondale) of the Little Karoo.Targets were based on those defined for the Little Karoo study region using a systematicapproach (Vlok & Reyers Unpublished). Each target was derived using the slope of thespecies-area curve (Desmet & Cowling 2004). This benefited habitats with greater speciesheterogeneity. The percentage of species targeted for conservation was set at 75%.. Thetargets were rescaled so that the target range was 16-34% as per the national standard.These are given in the Excel Spreadsheet targets.xls.A two stage approach to the identification of the priority areas for habitats was used :1.) Area targets were set based on the original extent of each habitat within the planningarea combined with the percentage target. The available natural areas of eachhabitat type were made available for selection. Targets could be not be met for 14types:a. Calitzdorp Gravel Apronveldb. Doornkloof Gannaveldc. Eensaamheid Renosterveldd. Elandsvlei Gwarrievelde. Gourits Asbos-Gwarrieveldf. Greylands Apronveldg. Grootkop Apronveldh. Kruisrivier Gannaveldi. Langkloof Renosterveldj. Oudtshoorn Gannaveldk. Rooirivier Apronveldl. Vanwyksdorp Gravel Apronveldm. Volmoed Gannaveldn. Witvlakte Arid Spekboomveld2.) For these vegetation types a second “shadow” feature was added in which includedboth natural and degraded areas of that vegetation type. The same target was usedfor this feature. Both the original feature (with natural areas only) and the “shadowfeature” (with natural and degraded areas) were included within the analysis. Theconsequence of this is that natural areas are always selected first (as they are requiredto meet the targets for both the original feature and the “shadow feature”, and that theadditional area required to meet the remaining target would then be met in degradedareas.Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 43

8.6.2 Nationally listed threatened ecosystemsVegetation types that will be listed at threatened under NEMBA were obtained from SANBI.The boundaries of these units are based on the National Vegetation Map. These weretrimmed to their remaining untransformed extent and these areas were included as featuresin the conservation assessment. For Critically Endangered vegetation types 100% of bothnatural and degraded areas were targeted for selection, while for other types only naturalareas were made available and targets were based on the original extent of eachvegetation type within the planning domain:Name Status Target%Eastern Coastal Vulnerable 27Shale BandVegetationEastern Little Vulnerable 16KarooKangoVulnerable 29LimestoneRenosterveldLangkloof Shale Critically Endangered 100RenosterveldMontagu Shale Vulnerable 29RenosterveldMuscadel Riviere Critically Endangered 1008.6.3 Special plant speciesCritically endangered, endangered and vulnerable plant species records from CapeNature and CREW Databases. The locations of threatened plant species (CriticallyEndangered, Endangered and Vulnerable) were buffered by 250m. Existing datasetsprovided by Don Kirkwood and John Gallo were combined with data provided by CREW.Only Critically Endangered, Endangered and Vulnerable species were included from theCREW records, with Data Deficient, Least Concern and “No Status” records being removed.From the John Gallo datasets (largely derived from CapeNature records), records with “lowlevel of concern” statuses similar to those listed above were removed from the dataset, aswere records with poor location accuracy (e.g. records tied to “nearest minute”, centroidsof farms etc). The above three datasets were combined, and trimmed to the remainingnatural and degraded area.Specific species data are not provided in this dataset, as certain elements of the CREWdataset are potentially sensitive. Should a site be identified as having potential specialspecies, the CREW dataset should be directly queried to find specific details of the speciesconcerned.A 100% target was set for remaining natural areas and degraded areas with potentialspecial plant species to ensure that these areas all fall within CBAs .8.6.4 Forest patchesForest patches from Cape Nature (Kirkwood pers com). An 30% target was used for theseareas to ensure that they were largely included in CBAs without forcing in all smallfragments. This analysis was redundant as all areas were already within existing protectedareas.8.6.5 Quartz patchesQuartz areas were derived from two datasets. Quartz patches from Cape Nature (Kirkwoodpers com) were combined with the quartz vegetation types from the Little Karoo vegetationKannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 44

map. These areas were trimmed to their remaining natural extent. Quartz patches are alsoincluded within the areas prioritized by the Gouritz assessment (Lombard et al, 2004).A 30% target was used for these areas to ensure that they were included in CBAs withoutforcing in all fragments.8.6.6 Leslie Hill Succulent Karoo Expert areasThe Leslie Hill Succulent Karoo Trust plant expert survey (Desmet, 2006) contains the results ofa survey of 16 Succulent Karoo plant experts (38 respondents were originally identified andapproached) who were asked to map the most important areas for conservation in theSucculent Karoo. The survey was conducted in 2005 as part of a study commission by theWWF to assess conservation priorities in the Succulent Karoo. Criteria for mapping areasincluded: Areas rich with endemic plant species or unique habitats; Good representativearea of the general habitats and vegetation of the surrounding area; Area is under threatfrom some activity and if not conserved will be lost.The expert group identified 134 areas within the Succulent Karoo as being important forconservation covering an area of 1.17 Million hectares or 9.7% of the core Succulent Karoobiome. The distribution of expert mapped areas is overwhelmingly skewed towards areas inNamaqualand with only a handful identified in Central Karoo planning domain.Targets were set based on the original extent of each expert area:0-1000ha 80% target1000-5000ha 50% target5000-10000ha 40% target10000ha+ 20% target8.6.7 John Gallo Expert areas ( including inputs from Jan Vlok)John Gallo recently completed a conservation planning tool and assessment of priorityareas for reserves and stewardship within the Little Karoo (Gallo et al, in press). Expertidentified areas included habitats with high endemism and richness of succulents andidentified priority sites identified by Jan Vlok. Areas above a threshold value of 0.5 wereextracted from the above datasets. These areas were clipped to their remaining naturalextent. A 30% target was used for these areas to ensure that they were included in CBAswithout forcing in all fragments.8.6.8 Priority areas from the STEP and SKEP Conservation AssessmentsFeatures were extracted from the STEP and SKEP conservation assessments High irreplaceability areas from the Succulent Karoo assessment (SKEP) were included. A20% target was used for the CBA run. Process areas were included from the thicket assessment (STEP). These were the riverand biome process areas. A 20% targets were used fro these features in the CBA run.The remaining natural extent of these features were included within the conservationassessment. Low targets were used in the Little Karoo assessment as more modern analyseswere available and the intention was to slightly skew the selection into these areas ratherthan forcing selection. Note that components of the STEP assessment such a the MegaConservancy Corridors are included via the “Gouritz Priorities” detailed below.8.6.9 Succulent Karoo PrioritiesPriority areas identified within the Leslie Hill Succulent Karoo Trust assessment (Desmet, 2006)were included as features. Any site with a Marxan score of greater than 25 was included. A30% target was used.Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 45

8.6.10 Garden Route Initiative Critical Biodiversity Areas and Ecological SupportAreasPriority areas identified within the Route Initiative Critical Biodiversity Areas and EcologicalSupport Areas assessment process that overlapped into the planning domain were included(Holness et al, 2010; Vromans et al, 2010a, Vromans et al, 2010b). A target of 30% of theseareas was used.8.6.11 East Cape PrioritiesPriority sub-catchments identified as CBAs within the Eastern Cape Biodiversity Assessment(Berliner & Desmet, 2007) were included as features where these extended into the CKDM.A target of 30% of the remaining intact area was used.8.7 Aquatic features8.7.1 Priority Rivers and CatchmentsOutputs of the National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Area assessment (NFEPA) which iscurrently being completed (Nel et al, in prep) were incorporated. This project identifies themost important rivers, river catchment and wetlands for meeting freshwater biodiversitytargets and conserving ecological processes.The project identified Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (FEPAs) which are the freshwaterequivalent of a Critical Biodiversity Area, and Freshwater Ecosystem Support Areas (FESAs)which are the freshwater equivalent of Ecological Support Areas. These are identified at anational scale and require some finescaling before they can be incorporated into a CriticalBiodiversity Area map:• FEPA priority catchments were trimmed to their remaining natural extent andthis was included as a feature in the conservation assessment with a target of70%. Any intact FEPA area that was not selected as a CBA in the assessmentwas included in the second run as a compulsory Ecological Support Area toensure that the catchment was sufficiently protected.• FESA support area catchments were trimmed to their remaining natural extentand this was included as a feature in the conservation assessment with atarget of 30% of original area.• FEPA priority river reaches and a buffer of 500m on either side were trimmedto their remaining natural extent and this was included as a feature in theconservation assessment with a target of 70%. Any intact FEPA river reacharea that was not selected as a CBA in the assessment was included in thesecond run as a compulsory Ecological Support Area to ensure that thecatchment was sufficiently protected.• FESA support area river reaches and a buffer of 500m on either side weretrimmed to their remaining natural extent and this was included as a featurein the conservation assessment with a target of 30% of original area. Anyintact FESPA river reach area that was not selected as a CBA in theassessment was included in the second run as a compulsory EcologicalSupport Area to ensure that the catchment was sufficiently protected.8.7.2 Additional riversFrom a process perspective, it is not just the nationally selected rivers which are important. Ariver buffer layer developed by Don Kirkwood which buffered the larger (above 2 nd order)1:50 000 rivers by 100m and the smaller rivers by 30m was included as a compulsory part ofthe Ecological Support Area layer in the second conservation run.Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 46

8.7.3 Wetlands and pansCape Nature sensitive wetlands layer (Shaw 2007) combined with the NFEPA wetland layer(see above) were clipped to Planning Domain, and a unique ID was assigned to eachwetland. The Wetlands were then buffered by 500m and the percentage transformationand degradation around each wetland was calculated using zonal statistics (ARCGIS9.2),this attribute was then joined to the original wetland layer. Wetlands with more than 30% oftheir buffer area transformed or degraded were considered to be in a poor ecologicalstate.The wetlands were clipped to remaining natural and degraded areas and included as afeature in the MARXAN run with a target of 30%. Any natural wetland not selected as a CBAwas included in the second run as a compulsory Ecological Support Area to ensure thatwetlands are sufficiently protected.8.8 Ecosystem statusEcosystem status calculations are based on a union between the vegetation,transformation and protected areas layers. A pivot table was used in Excel to calculate pervegetation type summary statistics of transformation, degradation and protection.Separate ecosystem status calculations were performed using transformation only andtransformation and degradation together. The Status of the habitat types is summarized inAppendix 2.8.9 Protection Level and UrgencyProtection level is calculated as the percentage biodiversity target achievement by theprotected area network for each vegetation type. Protection urgency is based onirreplaceability of the remaining unfragmented areas of that vegetation type that areavailable to meet PA targets. The union between vegetation types, transformation andprotected areas described in the ecosystem status methods above was used to calculateprotection summary statistics. (full details for each vegetation type in Appendix 2)8.10 Climate change and corridors8.10.1 High priority unfragmented landscapesUnfragmented areas play an important role in climate change adaptation as they allowrelatively unrestricted movement of species across the landscape, which ensures that theycan adapt naturally to climate change. Further, these large areas represent landscapeswhere a range of ecological processes that require extensive areas (e.g. habitat for wideranging scavengers such as Brown Hyaena) can either currently operate or where there isreasonable potential for these processes to be reinstated.The National Protected Areas Expansion Conservation Assessment (Holness 2008) identifiedhigh priority unfragmented areas that if protected would contribute most to meetingnational terrestrial and freshwater conservation targets. The areas identified are all over5000ha in size. Every attempt should be made to avoid an activity that results in thefragmentation of these areas.A 30% target was used for these areas to ensure preferential selection of other biodiversityfeatures in these areas without forcing the whole area into the plan.8.10.2 Riparian corridorsRiver corridors represent important linkages across the landscape, particularly in arid andpoorly differentiated habitats. In addition to the other river and aquatic features included inthe plan, it was important to ensure that all major riparian corridor areas were included toensure that the linkages important for climate change adaptation were protected.Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 47

The DWAF 1:500 000 rivers layer was used as the basis for the assessment. Rivers werebuffered as follows:3rd order and larger rivers2nd order riversAll remaining rivers1000m500m250mAll intact natural areas within these riparian corridors were targeted as Critical BiodiversityAreas with 100% target set. A 100% target for both natural and transformed areas for theserivers was set for the second run, ie. they were fully included in the Ecological Support Areascategory.8.10.3 Topographic variabilityAreas of potential climate change resilience and climate refuges based on a multi-scalemodeled assessment of landscapes of high topographic diversity. These topographicallydiverse areas are important for a number of reasons: The representation of rare or unique features that are not encountered morewidely in the landscape; Associated with keystone ecological process features such as inselbergs, clifffaces, springs and caves;Are an important refuge habitat in the face of climate change; andThese areas also include important altitude, temperature and moisturegradients which need to be protected to allow climate change adaptation.The 90m resolution SRTM Digital Elevation Model was used as the basis for the assessment.This layer was processed in IDRISI according to the following method: The data were filtered at a variety of scales: 7x7, 15x15, 25x25, 45x45 pixels; A standard deviation was calculated at each scale; Areas with a top quartile SD at any of these scales were classified as having hightopographic variability; and A combined multi-scale layer of areas of high topographic variability was producedby combining these layers. Small areas were removed (>100ha).A 30% target for these areas was set for the first CBA run, while the remaining unselectedareas were included as Ecological Support Areas if they were not transformed.8.10.4 South-facing slopesSouth facing slopes represent important climate change refuges. These areas are likely toserve as refuge habitats during period of temperature increase and moisture decrease asthey naturally have lower temperatures and higher moisture levels that the generallandscape.The 90m resolution SRTM Digital Elevation Model was used as the basis for the assessment.This layer was processed in IDRISI according to the following method: Areas with a south facing aspect were identified using IDRISI modelling tools (aspectof between 110° and 250°); Areas of a slope of 10° or greater were identified using IDRISI modelling tools; These two layers were intersected to identify areas with steep south facing slopes;The layer was clipped to the remaining natural extent; and Small areas were removed (>100ha).Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 48

A 30% target for these larger intact south facing was set for the first CBA run.8.10.5 Kloof modelKloofs are an important habitat for biodiversity for a variety of reasons: The representation of rare or unique features that are not encountered more wideyin the landscape; Associated with keystone ecological process features such as springs and caves;and Are an important refuge habitat in the face of climate change.A simplified model was developed for identifying kloofs, which concentrates on findingsteep slopes in close proximity to streams. The 90m resolution SRTM Digital Elevation Modelwas used as the basis for the assessment. This layer was processed in IDRISI according to thefollowing method: Areas of a slope of 15° or greater were identified using IDRISI modelling tools; The larger rivers (above 2nd order) from a river buffer layer developed by DonKirkwood which buffered the larger 1:50 000 rivers by 100m, were buffered by anadditional 150m to give a total buffer of 250m on each side of larger rivers. Thisfootprint which was defined as “close proximity to a river” was imported into IDRISI; The layers were intersected; The layer was clipped to the remaining natural extent; and Small areas were removed (>100ha).A 30% target for these areas was set for the first CBA run, while the remaining unselectedareas were included as Ecological Support Areas.8.10.6 Existing corridors from the Gouritz InitiativeThe Gouritz Initiative developed a set of priority process areas to support long termecological processes in the region. These identified process areas form the backbone of theprocess component of the CBA layer, and attempts were made to include this layer as fullyas possible within the constraints of producing an efficient CBA solution. These identifiedareas included the STEP Megaconservancy Network, identified mountain corridors,connecting areas important for nectavores, quartz patch related processes, and the coreGouritz north-south corridor. These components of the Gouritz plan were trimmed to theirremaining natural extent and were included into the MARXAN run with a 60% target.Remaining unselected areas were included with a 100% target in the second run (i.e. theyare fully included as Ecological Support Areas).8.10.7 Alignment with adjacent conservation plansCorridors are worthless if the don‟t go anywhere. Fortunately, conservation plans have beenundertaken for almost all the areas surrounding the Little Karoo. Priority corridors andadjacent CBA areas were collated from the adjacent 6 systematic conservation plans: Central Karoo District FSBP; Winelands DMA FSBP; Hessequa FSBP; Mosselbay FSBP; Garden Route Initiative Critical Biodiversity Areas; and East Cape Province Biodiversity Conservation Plan.The linkages were identified and then included as features in the Little Karoo MARXAN run.Targets of 80% were set for the linkage areas.Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 49

8.11 Non-Biodiversity Alignment layers8.11.1 Important Natural ViewshedsThe CSIR ecosystem services project developed a viewshed layer of areas within the Little Karoothat are highly visible from known tourism access routes. High value areas (above a score of 5)were selected from this layer. These areas were clipped to remaining natural areas to define a“High visibility natural areas” layer. This was included as a feature in the conservation planning runwith a 30% target to prioritize areas where intact biodiversity may be contributing to tourism in thearea (Reyers et al. 2008).8.12 Cost Layers8.12.1 Landcover modelThe landcover model was used as part of the cost surface. See 8.14.48.13 Restoration / Rehabilitation modelPotential thicket restoration areas were generated using STEP (2001) vegetation,Thompson‟s 2005 landcover and distance to settlements data (CDSM) by CSIR team in CEPFfunded project in 2008 (Forsyth et.al 2008).8.14 Technical methods used in the assessment8.14.1 Planning UnitsHexagon planning units of 25ha size were used as the base planning units.8.14.2 Biodiversity Features and TargetsTargets for habitat types followed Vlok et al. 2005, Reyers et al. 2008 and Gallo et al (inpress) . Targets for other features were set based on those used in other similar plans, as wellas the underlying nature of the feature. For example, remaining natural and degradedareas of Critically Endangered habitat listed under NEM:BA were given a 100% target toensure that they were reflected in the final CBA map, while more notional features such ashigh priority quarter degree squares from the SKEP assessment or modelled areas importantfor climate change adaptation were given far lower targets to encourage preferentialselection of these areas without forcing them into the plan. High targets were set forselected priority river catchments and river reaches from the aquatic assessment as thesewere required to form the backbone of the conservation design. The targets are detailed inthe individual descriptions of features in the preceding chapter.8.14.3 Software methodsA similar planning process was used to that of that used in the Central Karoo and GardenRoute to ensure optimal alignment between these adjacent plans and to facilitate userunderstanding of these plans. A two step optimization approach to systematic conservationplanning was undertaken making use of MARXAN. This approach has the advantage ofallowing an efficient network to be identified (i.e. one which uses the least possible space toachieve its targets and also minimizes cost to other sectors) as well as to promote theidentification of a network which is sensible from an ecological point of view (the approachstrongly favours connected and adjacent areas, and allows preferential meeting of targetsin priority catchments and areas important for climate change resilience). MARXAN wasalso used to integrate the corridors and selected areas with those CBA and corridor areasfrom the adjacent conservation plans.8.14.4 Planning Unit CostA cost surface was prepared based on the integrated transformation and degradationlayer. Highest costs were associated with transformed areas, and lowest costs with naturalareas. Natural areas received a base cost of 1 unit, near natural areas were 3 units,Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 50

degraded areas had a cost of 10 units, rural transformed areas (agricultural fields, damsetc) had a cost of 100 and urban areas a cost of 500 units. These were summarised for theplanning units based on an area weighted mean. In addition, identified stewardship siteswithin the Pasquini 2007 protected area layer were discounted by 50% to allow forpreferential selection of these areas.High costs for not meeting targets (“spf” values) were assigned to features that needed tobe fixed into the plan design while lower costs were associated with features where therewas less risk associated with not fully meeting the targets or where features existed whichneeded to guide but not force the conservation planning algorithm.Remaining extent of biodiversity features (i.e. the area available for selection) wereidentified using the transformed classes in the compiled landcover. Degraded areas werestill available for selection for some features such as endangered and critically endangeredhabitats but were strongly avoided where possible.8.14.5 Ecological Support AreasEcological Support Areas were then identified by increasing the targets for selected processfeatures (such as the remaining areas of high priority catchments, riverine corridors and climatechange adaptation areas) to an effective 100%, which forces these areas into the conservationplan. For this second iteration (in addition to the MARXAN based integration), the exact selectedfeatures were used in the selection.8.14.6 CBA Lookup TableIt is important that the users of the CBA and ESA layer can quickly and easily identify why aspecific area was selected within the conservation plan. The use of MARXAN as an optimizingtool invariably means that selected planning units were prioritized on the basis of a range ofunderlying features found within the unit. One negative consequence of the methodology isthat it is sometimes difficult to pin-point the specific feature that resulted in the selection of theplanning unit, as all features present will be contributing to meeting targets. Nevertheless, it isimportant when dealing with development applications that as good an idea of possible of thespecific features found at a site are known to the person scrutinizing the application. Therefore asimplified look-up table or layer was created to show at a glance what the major featurespresent at a site are and hence contributed most to its selection. It should be emphasized thatthis table is designed to allow quick and easy understanding of the over-all plan and give areasonably robust feature list for a site, and not a comprehensive listing of the specific features.The shapefile is designed to allow the user to select or query any polygon. The table has thefollowing fields:CBA category: This gives the CBA category for the polygon. It indicates whether thepolygon is a Formal Protected Area, a Conservation Area, a Critical Biodiversity Area or anEcological Support Area.Objective: This field outlines the management objective for the land parcel. This relates toeither maintaining ecological patterns or processes.Habitat: This field indicates areas where the remaining intact habitat within that planningunit is contributing significantly to targets. Habitats are indicated as contributing to bestdesign if this was likely to be a major reason why the polygon was selected.Aquatic features: These are areas where developments should be carefully screened toensure no major impact on the rivers, their riparian corridors and wetlands are likely.Specials: This field indicates if threatened species are likely to occur at the site. Polygons areindicated as “Potential threatened species” .Expert: These are areas identified within the various expert layers included in theconservation plan. Polygons are flagged as having “Potential occurrence of expertidentified special feature” and this will relate to a feature such as a quartz patch, area ofhigh value for succulents, or a forest.PlanPriori: These areas are the sites that were identified in other conservation plans asimportant. They are likely to include possible important habitats, for example thoseidentified in the Leslie Hill Succulent Karoo Assessment. Note that the Gouritz corridors areindicated in the "Process" category rather than here.Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 51

Catch: This indicates priority catchments and are areas where special attention needs tobe given to avoiding major impacts on hydrological processes and aquatic features.Process: These are all the climate change process, corridor and linkage areas, importantboth for links within the district and to adjacent areas. These areas include potential climaterefugia, and are flagged as “Maintain ecological processes and linkages especially forclimate change”.Threatened: These are threatened habitats listed under NEMBA.Unfrag: These are important unfragmented areas which potentially contribute significantlyto the climate change resilience of the area. Developments which result in these areasbeing fragmented should be avoided.Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 52

9 Appendix 2 – Ecosystem status for habitat types identified by Vlok et al. (2005)Vegetation UnitTotalExtentNaturalExtentNo NaturalExtentDegradedExtentTARGET(%)Eco-StatusProtectionLevelProtectionUrgencyAardvark Quartz Gannaveld 16 11 0 5 32 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedAdamskraal Gwarrieveld 6,348 5,683 40 625 27 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedAlgerynskraal Gannaveld 666 340 106 220 23 VU Completely Unprotected Low urgencyAlgerynskraal Gravel Apronveld 644 503 18 123 34 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgencyAllemorgens Kalkveld 21 21 28 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedAnysberg Arid Asteraceous Fynbos 755 744 11 28 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedAnysberg Arid Proteoid Fynbos 4,311 4,311 33 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedAnysberg Mesic Proteid Fynbos 586 586 32 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedAnysberg Perennial Stream 144 140 0 3 28 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedAnysberg Renosterveld 2,046 1,953 88 5 26 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedAssegaaibosch Arid Spekboomveld 1,548 1,532 14 2 26 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgencyAttaquas Mesic Proteoid Fynbos 1,563 1,558 5 32 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedBarandas Arid Spekboomveld 13,880 12,249 125 1,506 26 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgencyBellair Quartz Apronveld 1,830 1,799 1 30 33 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgencyBellair Quartz Gannaveld 1,220 1,149 8 63 32 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgencyBergplaas Sandolien-Renosterveld 800 706 19 75 26 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedBergplaas Waboom-Thicket 3,910 2,552 75 1,283 25 LT Partially Protected Low urgencyBiljetsfontein Apronveld 2,178 1,512 281 385 34 LT Partially Protected Low urgencyBlossoms Asbos-Gwarrieveld 45,207 15,343 11,972 17,893 25 EN Very Poorly Protected Medium urgencyBoerbonefontein Pruimveld 3,393 2,212 31 1,151 24 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedBoerboonleegte Gannaveld 433 358 10 66 23 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgencyBosluiskloof Grassy Fynbos 230 220 9 28 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedBrakrivier Gannaveld 2,456 2,007 102 347 23 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgencyBrandrivier Renoster-Gwarrieveld 5 5 27 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgencyBuffels Arid Spekboomveld 7,514 6,059 40 1,415 26 LT Partially Protected Low urgencyBuffels River & floodplain 7,452 2,456 2,749 2,247 27 EN Partially Protected Medium urgencyCalitzdorp Arid Spekboomveld 6,166 5,960 121 85 22 LT Very Poorly Protected Low urgencyCalitzdorp Gannaveld 4,269 1,157 68 3,045 23 EN Completely Unprotected Medium urgencyCalitzdorp Gravel Apronveld 9,078 2,994 1,616 4,468 34 CR Poorly Protected High urgencyCalitzdorp Valley Spekboomveld 14,142 10,838 125 3,179 27 LT Partially Protected Low urgencyCango Renoster-Thicket 32,440 12,901 2,271 17,268 27 EN Very Poorly Protected Medium urgencyCentral Swartberg Perennial stream 12,468 9,946 1,446 1,075 28 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedDe Rust Sandolien-Spekboomveld 17,157 13,619 2,483 1,055 27 LT Very Poorly Protected Low urgencyDe Vlugt Forest-Waboomveld 862 851 6 5 24 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedDe Vlugt Sandolien-Renosterveld 1,198 637 379 182 26 VU Partially Protected Low urgencyDoornboom Fynbos-Gwarrieveld 2,101 2,062 39 27 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgencyDoornkloof Gannaveld 34 4 3 27 23 EN PA Target Met Fully protectedDoornkloof Gwarrieveld 2,482 2,165 22 296 27 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedDoornrivier Mesic Proteoid Fynbos 7,059 6,154 596 309 32 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedDoringrivier Arid Proteoid Fynbos 824 824 33 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedKannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 53

9 Appendix 2 – Ecosystem status for habitat types identified by Vlok et al. (2005)Vegetation UnitTotalExtentNaturalExtentNo NaturalExtentDegradedExtentTARGET(%)Eco-StatusProtectionLevelProtectionUrgencyDoringrivier Waboomveld 1,695 1,693 1 0 33 LT Partially Protected Low urgencyDwars-in-die-weg Pruimveld 2,452 2,350 14 88 24 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedDwars-in-die-weg Sandolienveld 6,233 6,081 33 119 28 LT Partially Protected Low urgencyEastern Swartberg Fynbos-Gwarrieveld 3,913 3,509 404 28 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedEastern Swartberg Grassy Fynbos 6,134 6,101 33 27 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedEastern Swartberg Mesic Proteoid Fynbos 7,786 7,786 28 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedEensaamheid Renosterveld 7,638 443 6,110 1,085 32 CR PA Target Met Critically urgentElandsvlei Gwarrieveld 1,194 107 899 188 34 CR Completely Unprotected Critically urgentE-Langeberg Perennial Stream 199 198 1 27 LT Completely Unprotected Fully protectedEyerpoort Quartz Apronveld 230 227 3 33 LT Partially Protected Low urgencyEyerpoort Quartz Gannaveld 489 458 3 28 32 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgencyFouriesberg Renoster-Sandolienveld 9,286 6,922 1,227 1,137 28 LT Partially Protected Low urgencyFouriesberg Waboomveld 6,482 6,342 78 63 33 LT Partially Protected Low urgencyGamka River & floodplain 5,727 2,590 2,361 776 27 VU PA Target Met Fully protectedGamkaberg Grassy Fynbos 602 602 28 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedGamkaberg Sandolienveld 624 471 6 146 28 LT Partially Protected Low urgencyGamkaberg Waboom-Grassy Fynbos 6,798 6,792 1 5 27 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedGamkaberg Waboom-Mesic Proteoid Fynbos 1,145 1,145 28 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedGamkaberg Waboomveld 3,924 3,924 33 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedGamkaskloof Arid Asteraceous Fynbos 378 374 5 28 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedGamkaskloof Arid Proteoid Fynbos 862 853 8 33 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedGamkaskloof Fynbos-Gwarrieveld 68 65 3 27 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedGeorgida Arid Spekboomveld 3,420 3,187 100 132 26 LT Poorly Protected Low urgencyGourits Asbos-Gwarrieveld 5,886 1,865 480 3,541 25 EN Completely Unprotected Medium urgencyGouritsrivier River & floodplain 3,911 2,767 244 900 27 LT Partially Protected Low urgencyGouritsrivier Sandolien-Ruigtewoud 2,712 838 455 1,418 27 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgencyGreylands Apronveld 6,918 785 697 5,436 34 CR Completely Unprotected Critically urgentGroenefontein Gravel Apronveld 651 411 12 228 34 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedGroot River & floodplain 7,478 4,902 923 1,653 27 LT Partially Protected Low urgencyGroot Spekboomveld 161 146 7 9 27 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgencyGroot Swartberg Fynbos-Gwarrieveld 38 37 1 27 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedGroot Swartberg Mesic Proteoid Fynbos 19,602 19,579 9 14 32 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedGroot Swartberg perennial stream-north 19 19 30 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedGroot Swartberg Subalpine Fynbos 3,604 3,587 9 8 33 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedGroot Swartberg Waboomveld 6,792 6,721 17 54 28 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedGrootkop Apronveld 9,935 1,398 4,055 4,483 34 CR Completely Unprotected Critically urgentGrootkop Arid Spekboomveld 16,275 15,134 553 588 26 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgencyGrootrivier Gannaveld 2,121 1,215 59 847 23 VU Completely Unprotected Medium urgencyHaarlem Fynbos-Renosterveld 9,203 5,567 2,681 956 31 LT Completely Unprotected Medium urgencyHartbeesvlakte Asbos-Gwarrieveld 348 111 138 99 25 EN Completely Unprotected Medium urgencyKannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 54

9 Appendix 2 – Ecosystem status for habitat types identified by Vlok et al. (2005)Vegetation UnitTotalExtentNaturalExtentNo NaturalExtentDegradedExtentTARGET(%)Eco-StatusProtectionLevelProtectionUrgencyHartbeesvlakte Fynbos-Spekboomveld 4,820 4,812 1 6 28 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedHartbeesvlakte Gannaveld 2,514 1,407 48 1,060 23 VU Completely Unprotected Low urgencyHartbeesvlakte Sandolien-Renosterveld 14,668 13,947 437 284 26 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgencyHartbeesvlakte Spekboomveld 5,718 5,262 81 375 27 LT Partially Protected Low urgencyHermanuskraal Quartz Gannaveld 114 71 8 35 32 VU Completely Unprotected Medium urgencyHerold Renoster-Sandolienveld 3,072 1,094 1,710 268 28 EN Poorly Protected Medium urgencyHondewater Randteveld 569 461 0 108 24 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgencyKamanassie Arid Proteoid Fynbos 4,762 4,751 9 1 33 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedKamanassie Arid Restioid Fynbos 3,748 3,724 4 19 23 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedKamanassie Grassy Fynbos 6,009 5,897 53 59 28 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedKamanassie Mesic Proteoid Fynbos 9,024 8,976 47 1 32 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedKamanassie northern Perennial Stream 2,497 2,463 28 7 28 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedKamanassie Perennial Stream 3,874 3,642 108 124 30 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedKamanassie Subalpine Fynbos 818 818 33 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedKamanassie Waboomveld 30,003 27,405 1,721 877 28 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedKandelaars Arid Spekboomveld 16,922 16,145 415 363 26 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgencyKandelaars Gannaveld 1,622 1,096 243 283 23 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgencyKareebosch Apronveld 1,145 1,066 44 35 34 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgencyKareebosch Randteveld 2,081 2,035 35 11 24 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgencyKareevlakte Quartz Gannaveld 556 389 29 138 32 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgencyKeurbooms River & Perennial Streams 6,974 6,353 367 254 28 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedKeurbosch Arid Spekboomveld 5,259 5,120 22 117 26 LT Poorly Protected Low urgencyKeurbosch Fynbos-Gwarrieveld 1,172 1,164 1 7 27 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedKlein Swartberg Arid Proteoid Fynbos 2,791 2,785 6 33 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedKlein Swartberg Fynbos-Gwarrieveld 419 419 27 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedKlein Swartberg Grassy Fynbos 6,129 6,121 0 8 28 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedKlein Swartberg Mesic Proteoid Fynbos 15,372 15,370 1 32 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedKlein Swartberg Perennial Stream 1,335 1,088 198 49 28 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedKlein Swartberg Subalpine Fynbos 849 849 30 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedKlein Swartberg Waboomveld 1,530 1,481 23 25 33 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedKlipgat Apronveld 9,738 9,470 125 142 34 LT Poorly Protected Low urgencyKoeniekuils Apronveld 7 7 34 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgencyKoeniekuils Gannaveld 17,489 11,942 518 5,029 23 LT Poorly Protected Low urgencyKoenieleegte Randteveld 4,095 3,269 13 813 24 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgencyKoenieleegte Scholtzbosveld 2,432 799 23 1,610 16 EN Completely Unprotected Medium urgencyKouga Arid Proteoid Fynbos 9,844 9,584 151 109 33 LT Poorly Protected Low urgencyKouga Asbos-Renosterveld 1,435 1,284 124 27 27 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgencyKouga Grassy Fynbos 19,425 19,028 234 163 28 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedKouga Mesic Proteoid Fynbos 25,492 25,197 189 106 32 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedKouga Perennial Stream 8,699 7,209 1,105 385 28 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedKannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 55

9 Appendix 2 – Ecosystem status for habitat types identified by Vlok et al. (2005)Vegetation UnitTotalExtentNaturalExtentNo NaturalExtentDegradedExtentTARGET(%)Eco-StatusProtectionLevelProtectionUrgencyKouga Sandolien-Renosterveld 4,793 4,273 397 124 26 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgencyKouga Subalpine Fynbos 1,355 1,354 1 30 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedKruisrivier Arid Spekboomveld 3,657 3,279 174 204 27 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgencyKruisrivier Gannaveld 2,440 457 19 1,964 23 CR Completely Unprotected High urgencyKruisrivier Renoster-Sandolienveld 3,155 2,206 698 251 28 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgencyKruisrivier Sandolien-Spekboomveld 3,246 3,059 90 97 28 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgencyKruisrivier Spekboom-Pruimveld 29,424 27,089 1,103 1,232 24 LT Very Poorly Protected Low urgencyKruisrivier Waboom-Renosterveld 2,505 2,040 247 218 31 LT Very Poorly Protected Low urgencyKruisrivier Waboom-Thicket 5,612 2,728 57 2,827 25 VU Completely Unprotected Medium urgencyKwessie Arid Spekboomveld 1,174 859 10 306 26 LT Partially Protected Low urgencyLadismith Arid Spekboomveld 11,024 9,353 283 1,388 26 LT Partially Protected Low urgencyLadismith Fynbos-Sandolienveld 1,255 1,039 3 213 28 LT Partially Protected Low urgencyLadismith Gannaveld 7,270 3,944 142 3,184 23 VU PA Target Met Fully protectedLadismith Sandolien-Renosterveld 4,353 3,782 386 186 26 LT Partially Protected Low urgencyLangkloof Renosterveld 5,930 1,480 3,810 640 34 CR Completely Unprotected High urgencyLeeublad Sandolien-Renosterveld 21,703 11,818 7,167 2,719 26 VU Poorly Protected Low urgencyLemoenshoek Gannaveld 350 102 5 243 23 VU Completely Unprotected Medium urgencyMatjiesrivier Arid Proteoid Fynbos 1,061 1,051 9 33 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgencyMatjiesrivier Asbos-Renosterveld 2,291 823 1,145 324 27 EN Completely Unprotected Medium urgencyMatjiesrivier Sandolienveld 3,132 2,180 765 188 28 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgencyMatjiesrivier Waboom-Renosterveld 5,039 4,836 202 31 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgencyMatjiesvlei Sandolien-Thicket 2,620 2,199 74 348 27 LT Very Poorly Protected Low urgencyMeiringspoort Spekboom Thicket 362 356 5 2 28 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedMeiringspoort Waboomveld 1,629 1,596 1 32 33 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedMistkraal Fynbos-Gwarrieveld 3,110 3,086 3 20 27 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgencyMistkraal Gwarrieveld 2,119 2,035 21 63 27 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgencyMons Ruber Waboom-Thicket 10,477 8,718 285 1,474 26 LT Poorly Protected Low urgencyNooitgedacht Gwarrieveld 4,399 1,798 47 2,555 27 EN Completely Unprotected Medium urgencyNoukloof Arid Spekboomveld 10,532 9,293 751 488 26 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedOckertskraal Arid Spekboomveld 32,411 20,221 138 12,052 26 LT Poorly Protected Low urgencyOckertskraal Quartz Apronveld 1,629 1,544 55 30 33 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgencyOckertskraal Randteveld 6,493 6,042 36 415 24 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgencyOlifants River & floodplain 48,227 22,666 14,842 10,719 27 VU Poorly Protected Medium urgencyOpsoek Asbos-Thicket 370 188 49 133 24 VU Completely Unprotected Medium urgencyOrtmansgat Randteveld 2,110 1,786 37 287 24 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgencyOudtshoorn Gannaveld 9,980 733 6,525 2,722 23 CR Completely Unprotected Critically urgentOudtshoorn Scholtzbosveld 1,623 638 11 974 16 VU Completely Unprotected Low urgencyOuteniqua Perennial Stream 6,012 3,170 1,953 889 28 VU PA Target Met Fully protectedOuteniqua Waboomveld 7,572 5,564 1,253 756 33 LT Poorly Protected Low urgencyPaardeberg Fynbos-Sandolienveld 2,832 1,759 658 415 28 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgencyKannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 56

9 Appendix 2 – Ecosystem status for habitat types identified by Vlok et al. (2005)Vegetation UnitTotalExtentNaturalExtentNo NaturalExtentDegradedExtentTARGET(%)Eco-StatusProtectionLevelProtectionUrgencyPaardeberg Mesic Proteoid Fynbos 486 486 32 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgencyPaardebont Fynbos-Sandolienveld 1,036 598 183 255 28 VU Completely Unprotected Medium urgencyPerdefontein Fynbos-Gwarrieveld 906 890 4 13 27 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedPietslaagte Apronveld 10,724 8,125 473 2,126 34 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgencyPietslaagte Arid Spekboomveld 16,650 15,807 199 643 26 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgencyPietslaagte Asbos-Gwarrieveld 17,380 15,536 775 1,068 25 LT Very Poorly Protected Low urgencyPlathuis Randteveld 9,905 9,605 33 267 24 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgencyPoortfontein Randteveld 3,554 2,731 13 810 24 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgencyPotjiesrivier Waboomveld 14,152 12,315 1,430 407 33 LT Very Poorly Protected Low urgencyPrinspoort Arid Gwarrieveld 1,577 1,476 57 44 27 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgencyPrinspoort Pruimveld 3,203 2,954 78 171 25 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgencyRatelfontein Gannaveld 732 637 1 94 23 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedRequest Quartz Apronveld 49 13 0 36 33 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgencyRequest Quartz Gannaveld 583 469 38 76 32 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgencyRequest Randteveld 1,295 957 7 330 24 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgencyRooiberg Arid Asteraceous Fynbos 3,062 3,062 28 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedRooiberg Arid Proteoid Fynbos 3,789 3,789 33 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedRooiberg Arid Restioid Fynbos 6,357 6,345 7 6 23 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedRooiberg Fynbos-Spekboomveld 6,788 6,670 4 114 28 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedRooiberg Grassy Fynbos 2,219 2,219 28 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedRooiberg Mesic Proteoid Fynbos 10,033 10,033 32 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedRooiberg Perennial Stream 2,068 2,006 22 40 28 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedRooiberg Subalpine Fynbos 51 51 30 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedRooiberg Waboomveld 4,946 4,938 8 33 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedRooirivier Apronveld 1,582 452 246 884 34 CR Completely Unprotected High urgencyRouxpos Gwarrieveld 209 196 1 12 27 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgencyRouxpos Randteveld 834 749 5 81 24 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgencySaffraanrivier Waboom-Renosterveld 3,409 2,028 497 884 31 VU Poorly Protected Low urgencySandberg Arid Restioid Fynbos 6,625 6,564 7 55 23 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedSandberg Fynbos-Spekboomveld 3,822 3,816 0 5 28 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgencySandkraal Gwarrieveld 2,066 1,944 7 114 27 LT Partially Protected Low urgencySeweweekspoort Perennial Stream 3,501 2,269 738 494 28 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedSeweweekspoort Waboomveld 1,010 1,001 1 7 33 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedSnyberg Gravel Apronveld 1,866 1,217 180 469 34 LT Completely Unprotected Medium urgencySnyberg Gwarrieveld 1,087 707 118 262 27 LT Poorly Protected Low urgencyStompdrift Arid Spekboomveld 9,030 8,312 528 190 26 LT Very Poorly Protected Low urgencyStormberg Randteveld 524 428 1 96 24 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgencySwartberg Renosterveld 2,916 2,332 370 215 34 LT Partially Protected Low urgencyTafelberg Renoster-Sandolienveld 6,231 5,625 277 329 28 LT Partially Protected Low urgencyTouws River & floodplain 6,060 3,692 1,014 1,354 27 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedKannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 57

9 Appendix 2 – Ecosystem status for habitat types identified by Vlok et al. (2005)Vegetation UnitTotalExtentNaturalExtentNo NaturalExtentDegradedExtentTARGET(%)Eco-StatusProtectionLevelProtectionUrgencyTouws River Pruimveld 1,299 1,296 0 2 25 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedTouwsberg Fynbos-Gwarrieveld 2,371 2,357 2 11 27 LT Partially Protected Low urgencyTouwsberg Mesic Proteoid Fynbos 1,700 1,700 32 LT Completely Unprotected High urgencyTouwsberg perennial stream 106 96 10 28 LT Completely Unprotected Critically urgentTouwsfontein Randteveld 2,135 2,066 15 54 24 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedTouwsfontein Scholtzbosveld 1,034 1,008 13 13 16 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedToverwater Sandolien-Spekboomveld 9,793 9,195 88 510 27 LT Poorly Protected Low urgencyTsitsikamma Mesic Proteoid Fynbos 18,098 17,896 85 117 32 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedTsitsikamma Perennial Stream 3,182 2,662 342 178 28 LT Partially Protected Low urgencyUniondale Asbos-Renosterveld 17,324 8,389 6,607 2,328 27 VU Completely Unprotected Medium urgencyUniondale Waboom-Renosterveld 8,530 5,299 2,264 967 31 LT Poorly Protected Low urgencyVaalhoek Arid Spekboomveld 12,399 11,848 121 430 26 LT Poorly Protected Low urgencyVan Zylsdamme Gannaveld 730 207 306 217 23 EN Completely Unprotected Medium urgencyVanwyksdorp Arid Spekboomveld 4,804 4,313 236 256 26 LT Partially Protected Low urgencyVanwyksdorp Gravel Apronveld 266 82 28 157 34 CR Partially Protected Medium urgencyVisgat Apronveld 101 95 6 34 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgencyVlakteplaas Gannaveld 4,102 1,763 1,136 1,203 23 VU Completely Unprotected Medium urgencyVolmoed Arid Spekboomveld 5,535 5,405 9 121 26 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgencyVolmoed Gannaveld 6,712 1,103 3,853 1,756 23 CR Completely Unprotected High urgencyVoorsorg Fynbos-Spekboomveld 7,689 7,499 76 114 28 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedVrede Arid Gwarrieveld 1,194 1,194 0 27 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedVrede Randteveld 2,400 2,331 8 61 24 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedWaterval Randteveld 454 190 265 24 VU Completely Unprotected Medium urgencyWitberg Arid Proteoid Fynbos 2,524 2,524 0 33 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedWitberg Waboomveld 7,181 6,876 153 152 33 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedWitvlakte Apronveld 4,267 3,616 61 589 34 LT Very Poorly Protected Low urgencyWitvlakte Arid Spekboomveld 2,233 238 15 1,980 26 CR Completely Unprotected Critically urgentWitvlakte Quartz Gannaveld 979 626 22 332 32 LT Completely Unprotected Medium urgencyWoeska Waboomveld 5 4 1 33 LT Partially Protected Low urgencyZewefontein Arid Gwarrieveld 5,318 5,176 76 66 27 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgencyZoar Fynbos-Spekboomveld 7,558 6,170 133 1,256 27 LT PA Target Met Fully protectedZoar Gwarrieveld 972 291 289 392 27 EN Completely Unprotected Medium urgencyZorgvliet Apronveld 801 741 49 11 34 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgencyZorgvliet Fynbos-Gwarrieveld 951 943 2 5 27 LT Completely Unprotected Low urgencyZorgvliet Pruimveld 5,700 5,517 100 82 25 LT Completely Unprotected Medium urgencyTotals 1,245,435 952,320 120,812 172,302Kannaland, Oudtshoorn and DMA04 Biodiversity Assessment – Final Report August 2010 58