Appendix 4. Summary of the spatial data used to create the protected area layer used in the Zonation analyses. Protected areas were ranked by their level of tenure security based on discussions with DotE & HCCREMS. Protected areas Spatial layer Criteria based on shapefile fields Level 1 NPWSReserves.shp reservetyp = “NP|NR|RP|SC” CAPAD_ext_LH.shp TYPE = "National Park|Nature Reserve|Aboriginal Area|State Conservation Area|Regional Park" ConservationAgreementsLowerHunter.shp WilliamtownRAAF_HeritageSites.shp Level 2 NPWSReserves.shp reservetyp = “SC” or “RP” CAPAD_ext_LH.shp TYPE = "Flora Reserve|Protected area" ramsar_wetlands_LH.shp sepp14_shape.shp SEPP22.shp ConservationAgreementsLowerHunter.shp commonwealth_heritage_public_LH.shp com_heritage$NAME != "Williamtown RAAF Base Group" ipa_declared.shp Level 3 RegisteredPropertyAgreementsLowerHunter.shp WildlifeRefugesLowerHunter.shp LH_Commonwealth_Lands.shp
Zoning information contained in this layer is correct as of 15 February 2015 PORTSLZN_20131022.shp DPE SEPP_Huntlee_LZN.shp DPE TOMAGO.shp DPE Inverstigation areas URA_Option_1_and_2.shp OEH Other development plans LMCC_Agricultural_Land_v1_region.shp HCCREMS TYPE = “Constrained (potential urban growth or conservation)” AND not overlapping with (‘proposed_awaba_reserve_region.shp’ | ‘Proposed_Coastal_Wetland_region.shp’) lh_proposed_urban_land.shp FutureResidentialAreas.shp Urban Release Area_LHRS_region.shp ps_plgstrategy2011_growthareas.shp Urban_Settlement_2011_region.shp DotE HCCREMS HCCREMS HCCREMS HCCREMS ProposedDevelopmentv2.shp HCCREMS 2: Expressway newFreewayCentreline.shp HCCREMS 3: Important Agricultural Areas Allagg1.shp HCCREMS Built from the following IAL layers: Broad Acre Agriculture, Cultivated Turf and Viticulture 4: Cumulative development LEPS, Growth Areas, Future Development, Expressway, Important Agricultural Areas and Small vegetation fragments As defined above 5: Mining titles coal_titles.shp UoM Appendix 7. Predicted proportion of each biodiversity feature’s LHSA distribution predicted to be lost under each development scenario. Table 19. The proportion of the LHSA distributions of 40 amphibian species predicted to be lost under each of the development scenarios. The scenarios are described in Chapter 5, with the impacts listed under the Urban scenario cumulative across its components.
Figure 3. The priority ranking of the areas likely to be developed under the Important Agricultural Lands scenario. The top priority conservation areas (coloured red to cyan) represent sites of high conservation value where development should be avoided if possible. Areas in dark grey have lower conservation value across the pool of biodiversity features included in this assessment, while grey areas are already cleared. Figure 4. The priority ranking of the areas likely to be developed under the Cumulative development scenario. The top priority conservation areas (coloured red to cyan) represent sites of high conservation value where development should be avoided if possible. Areas in dark grey have lower conservation value across the pool of biodiversity features included in this assessment, while grey areas are already cleared. Figure 5. The priority ranking of the areas likely to be developed under the Mining scenario.