APPENDIX C: TECHNICAL NOTES

Transcription

1 APPENDIX C: TECHNICAL NOTES 1

2 Vhembe District Municipality Bioregional Plan CBA Map Update Technical Notes 27 June 2017 Philip Desmet 1 Area of Interest (AOI) The area of interest for the analysis is the Vhembe District Municipality. Used the shapefile downloaded from the Demarcation Board website (DistrictMunicipalities2011.shp) 2 Limpopo Integrated Land Cover 2017 Purpose: Integrate all available land cover datasets and update the DEA GTI 2013/14 National Land Cover Analysis extent: Limpopo Province Cell size: 30m snapped to GTI2014 UTM35S Date of land cover (most recent input layer): 2014 Baseline Layers: 1. SA_Lcov_ _GTI_utm35n_vs22b.img (GTI RSA 30m 2013/14) 2. map10_add_new_veg_edits.img (GTI ESKOM Limpopo 10m 2009) Additional Layers: _2014_class_change_codes_stnd_area_utm35n (GTI RSA 1990, 30m) 4. LimpoSec (Fields circa 1980, vector, SANBI) 5. LP_fields_030507_ll (Current fields, vector, ARC) 6. rsa_gulliesclipped (Digitised gullies, vector, ARC) All input land covers were classified into the following simplified classes: 0 = unclassified 1 = natural 2 = old field 3 = dryland field 4 = irrigated field 5 = plantation 6 = mine 7 = settlement 8 = water 9 = gully (degradation) Combining rules for reclassifying all combinations of input layers: 1. If GTI2013 > 2 THEN Reclass = GTI3013 (GTI 2013 takes precedence over all over layers for everything other than natural and old fields) 2. If ESKOM2009 > 2 AND GTI2013=<2 then Reclass= ESKOM2009 (If GTI2013 is 1 or 2 BUT ESKOM2009 is >2 then ESKOM2009 takes precedence) 3. If GTI2009 > 4 AND GTI2013 & ESKOM2009 =<2 THEN GTI2009 (GTI1990 classes plantation, mine, settlement and water take precedence if preceding 2 layers are natural or old field) 4. For all unclassified combination (ie Reclass = 0) AND SANBI FIELD and ARC FIELD = 2, THEN Reclass = 2 2

3 5. For all unclassified conbinations (ie Reclass = 0) AND ARC GULLY = 9 THEN Reclass = 9 6. All remaining unclassified combinations are natural (ie Reclass = 1). Order of combination precedence: GTI2013 ESKOM2009 GTI1990 (SANBI FIELD and ARC FIELD) ARC GULLY 3 Limpopo Ecosystem Status Ecosystem status was re-calculated for the province based on the integrated land cover and the vegetation map used in the LCPv2 NAME PC Natural in Limpopo 2017 TARGET ES2017 Cathedral Mopane Bushveld LT Central Sandy Bushveld LT Dwaalboom Thornveld LT Granite Lowveld LT Gravelotte Rocky Bushveld LT Ironwood Dry Forest LT Legogote Sour Bushveld LT Leolo Summit Sourveld LT Licuati Sand Forest LT Limpopo Ridge Bushveld LT Limpopo Sweet Bushveld LT Loskop Mountain Bushveld LT Loskop Thornveld VU Lowveld Riverine Forest LT Lowveld Rugged Mopaneveld LT Lydenburg Montane Grassland LT Lydenburg Thornveld LT Madikwe Dolomite Bushveld LT Makhado Sweet Bushveld LT Makuleke Sandy Bushveld LT Malmani Karstlands LT Mamabolo Mountain Bushveld LT Mopane Basalt Shrubland LT Mopane Gabbro Shrubland LT Mpumalanga Mistbelt Forest LT Musina Mopane Bushveld LT Northern Afrotemperate Forest VU Northern Escarpment Afromontane Fynbos LT Northern Escarpment Dolomite Grassland LT Northern Escarpment Quartzite Sourveld LT Northern Lebombo Bushveld LT Northern Mistbelt Forest LT Nwambyia-Pumbe Sandy Bushveld LT Ohrigstad Mountain Bushveld LT Phalaborwa-Timbavati Mopaneveld LT Polokwane Plateau Bushveld VU Poung Dolomite Mountain Bushveld LT Rand Highveld Grassland LT Roodeberg Bushveld LT Sand Forest LT Sekhukhune Montane Grassland VU Sekhukhune Mountain Bushveld LT Sekhukhune Mountainlands LT 3

4 Sekhukhune Plains Bushveld VU Sekhukune Norite Bushveld LT Soutpansberg Mountain Bushveld LT Soutpansberg Summit Sourveld LT Springbokvlakte Thornveld VU Strydpoort Summit Sourveld LT Subtropical Alluvial Vegetation LT Subtropical Freshwater Wetlands LT Subtropical Salt Pans LT Tsende Mopaneveld LT Tshokwane-Hlane Basalt Lowveld LT Tzaneen Sour Bushveld VU VhaVenda Miombo LT Waterberg Mountain Bushveld LT Waterberg-Magaliesberg Summit Sourveld LT Western Sandy Bushveld LT Wolkberg Dolomite Grassland LT Woodbush Granite Grassland CR 4 Vhembe Protected Areas and Conservation Areas (PACA) Purpose: Create a Vhembe DM bioregional plan PACA 2017 that is an approximate and reasonable representation of all reserves (declared and de facto) in the district from available data sources. Integrated PACA layer inputs: 1. DEA SAPAD 2016 Q4 all areas 2. Limpopo Conservation Plan v2 (LCPv2) de facto LEDET Provincial Nature Reserves not represented in the SAPAD layer. 3. Trans Frontier Conservation Areas 2017 from Peace Parks Foundation 4. Other de facto conservation areas captured from NGI 1: topographical maps 5 Levels of Protection Levels of ecosystem protection remain unchanged as the extent of formal PAs (national parks and provincial nature reserves) in the DM has remained unchanged since LCPv2. 4

5 Figure 1: Limpopo Integrated Land Cover 5

6 Figure 2: Vhembe District Municipality Protected Areas and Conservation Areas 6

7 Figure 3: Vhembe District Municipality Protected Areas and Conservation Areas 7

8 6 Land Use Alignment Purpose: Revise the CBA map for the Vhembe DM where possible to: Avoid conflict with other land use plans (proposed development zones); Align with harmonious land uses (environmental zones and biosphere); and, Exclude areas indicated as no longer natural. Other plans considered: Plan Name Relevant Zones CBA Map Alignment 1 Vhembe Biosphere Reserve Core and Buffer zones Align as CBA and ESA 2 Greater Mapungubwe Trans Frontier Integrated Development Plan: Align as CBA and ESA Conservation Area Ecotourism and wildlife Zones 3 Musina-Makhado SEZ All zones Avoid where possible 4 Makhado SDF Mining Potential and Strategic Avoid where possible Development Areas Environmentally sensitive Align as CBA and ESA 5 Musina SDF All zones Avoid where possible 6 Thulamela SDF Mountains and Ridges Align as CBA and ESA All other zones Avoid where possible 7 SANParks interface Viewshed protection Align as CBA and ESA 8 Vhembe Integrated Land Cover Non-natural land classes Exclude areas. Summary of the technical approach to revising the CBA map: 1. Revise the LCPv2 Planning Unit layer (CBA1 and 2 categories) to: a. Select/remove PU s to improve clumping, connectivity, alignment and avoid development. b. Digitise PAs from Vhembe PACA2017 into the PU layer. c. Corridors adapt where possible to avoid development 2. River FEPAs remain unchanged. They are included as ESA s in the LCPv2 map and incorporated as is here. 3. Union together revised Planning Unit CBA inputs with unchanged ecological support input layers from LCPv2 4. Extract non-natural classes from Integrated Land Cover and union with CBA map inputs. 5. Dissolve map based on CBA map category to create a simplified shapefile with a similar structure to that used in LCPv2. 6. Check CBA map target achievement and total area selected. Results: 1. Musina SDF mostly avoided. Conflict issue still remains with town border on neighbouring PA as development zone abuts the reserve with no provision for a buffer. 2. The Musina-Makhado SEZ is difficult to plan around as it lies on top of several landscape corridors and river FEPAs. Resolutions of land use conflicts in this landscape will have to happen during the development application process. There is flexibility as to where some targets can be achieved, such as for SA vegetation types. However, there is no flexibility around features such as FEPAs, wetlands and edaphic interfaces. Any development within the SEZ that impacts on CBAs will require biodiversity offsets. 3. Only one small area of the KNP was added to the PA category in the PU layer. 4. SANParks interface zones and TFCA already included in LVPv2 ESA input layers. 5. Biosphere management zones are based on the LCPv2 CBA map but at a coarse spatial scale. No alignments are necessary to incorporate the biosphere zones into the revised CBA map. 8

9 6. Makhado and Thulamela alignments/avoidance zones all align with land cover natural or nonnatural classes. Conflict still remains around the mining zone in the Makhado SDF. This zone aligns with the SEZ discussed in point 2 above, and this conflict remains in the CBA map. Comparison of the extent of the CBA map categories between the LCPv2 and Vhembe Bioregional Plan: CBA Map Category CBA Code 2013 % of DM 2017 % of DM 1 Critical Biodiversity Area 1 CBA Critical Biodiversity Area 2 CBA Ecological Support Area 1 ESA Ecological Support Area 2 ESA No Natural Remaining NNR Other Natural Area ONA Protected Area PA Other plans considered in this revision of the CBA map: Local municipality Spatial development Frameworks Vhembe Biosphere Zones Protected Area Interface Zones. Core CBA map (planning units) before and after revision. Refer to Figure 4 9

10 Figure 4: Core CBA map (planning units) before and after revision 10

11 Figure 5: Final CBA Maps compared: 11