Chapter 5 Minimal Constraints Scenario Anti-Development Protest Signs at Hastings No sensible decision can be made any longer without taking into account not only the world as it is but also the world as it will be. Isaac Asimov ~ 128 ~ CHAPTER 5 MINIMAL CONSTRAINT SCENARIO The minimal constraint scenario emulated continued urban growth throughout the region with few spatial restrictions to development. While many local government authorities have various environment and development controls they tend to be “pro-development” in an effort to increase local employment and income (Doyle & Kellow 1995). The landscape futures scenario set presented in this chapter were derived by modeling the „business-as-usual” parameters for future population growth (i.e. minimal constraints on development) based on past and current policies and trends (see also Chapters 3 and 4). Restrictions to building at a local government level are usually based on the suitability of the type of development for the desired location rather than a restriction on any new development for that location and an alternative development may be approved. The classification of „urban‟ area encompasses this development regardless of its actual structural form. While restrictions might vary between local government areas and at different times, this scenario forms a generalised „current trend‟ urban development scenario through application of few constraints to development. Policy trends include incremental land release and urban development with large areas of commercial space (e.g. shopping centres). ~ 129 ~ 5.1 CONSTRAINTS The constraints to building in this scenario mirror those that existed at the time of modeling and did not allow for future changes within the constraint parameter. Constraints on urban development were: land used by major roads (Figure 5.1); areas where the slope greater than 25% (Figure 5.2); and the area managed by the National Parks and Wildlife Service and State Forests (Figure 5.3); The primary development restrictions of roads are the Pacific Highway and two major inland highways (Figure 5.1). Existing roads within populated areas are also excluded by already being classified as urban area. Slope was calculated from the Digital Elevation Model produced as part of the Historical Land Use Cover Model (see Chapter 2). The areas excluded are predominately located in the Border Ranges near the Queensland border, around Mount Warning near Murwillambah and West of Grafton, where little growth is expected (Figure 5.2). Additionally a large portion of the high slope areas are also part of the National Parks estate, due to the legacy of National Parks being derived from areas of low agricultural or economic use (Scott et al 2001, Mendel & Kirkpatrick 2002; Pressey et al. 2002) (Figure 5.3). ~ 130 ~ In addition to the constraints mentioned, areas determined to be urban, water or beach in the 2004 Land Use Land Cover (LULC) model (see Chapter 3) were removed as possible buildable areas. FIGURE 5.1: MAJOR ROADS CONSTRAINT ~ 131 ~ FIGURE 5.2: AREAS WITH A SLOPE GREATER THAN 25% ~ 132 ~ FIGURE 5.3: STATE FORESTS AND THE NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE ESTATE ~ 133 ~ 5.1.1 BUILDABLE AREA The buildable area for the scenario was derived by using a raster mask of the region and subtracting the constraints or „not buildable‟ areas. A raster was produced comprising two states in which cells were either „no data‟ i.e. not buildable or value „1‟ and hence buildable and is shown in Figure 5.4. The placement algorithm (see Appendix 2) used the raster to determine placement of new urban areas. ~ 134 ~ FIGURE 5.4: BUILDABLE AREA MINIMAL CONSTRAINTS SCENARIO ~ 135 ~ 5.2 POPULATION 403839 SCENARIO RESULTS The population trend estimates for each zone, up to the total regional projected population for the study area of 403839, are provided in Table 5.1. The cells listed within the table are the 25 x 25 metre raster cells utilised by the LULC Model and the placement algorithm. TABLE 5.1: POPULATION 403839 Zone Current (2004) Population 403839 Number of urban cells Number of People Number of Cells / Person Estimated Population Estimated Cells / person Estimated Cells Required Number of Cells to be added 1 3818 5705 0.67 6186 1.36 8387 4569 2 20783 19677 1.06 23348 1.63 37973 17190 3 36325 25742 1.41 31400 2.40 75391 39066 4 149438 144387 1.03 246550 1.79 440649 291211 5 45071 46833 0.96 60729 1.75 106533 61462 6 35765 22114 1.62 35626 2.70 96282 60517 Sum 264458 403839 765215 474015 The estimated number of cells required for each zone was calculated by multiplying the estimated population by the estimated cells per person and hence shows the combined effect of increasing population and decreasing density. Subtracting the number of cells in 2004 within a zone from the estimated number of cells, the number of new urban cells for the placement algorithm was derived. These new urban cells were then compared by change analysis with the 2004 Land Use Land Cover Model to demonstrate qualitatively (map visualisation) and quantitatively (analysis of aerial changes to LULC classes) the landscape changes that the increased urban area, under ~ 136 ~ those constraints, would likely impose on the (Figures 5.5 and 5.6, Table 5.2). FIGURE 5.5: REGIONAL LULC CHANGE WITH POPULATION 403839 ~ 137 ~ FIGURE 5.6: REGIONAL LULC CHANGE WITH POPULATION 403839, FAR NORTH COAST PORTION ~ 138 ~ As expected from population growth trends, Figure 5.5 shows the strong growth in the north coast area, particularly around Tweed Heads, Byron Bay and Ballina. Significant growth has also occurred around Lismore and there has been an increase in urban sprawl along the length of the Pacific Highway throughout the region. While the highway itself was excluded it already had a number of communities at various points along its length and new development spread from these communities. The new urban area was merged then compared with the 2004 LULC model and the resultant land use / land cover maps were tabulated to show the change in area both as a percentage and total hectares (ha) for each LULC class (Table 5.2). TABLE 5.2: LAND USE CHANGE FOR POPULATION 403839 Land Use / Population 2004 403839 Total ha Total ha Difference (ha) % change Coastal Complex 67563 63368 -4195 -6.18% Forests 1205414 1200575 -4840 -0.4% Pasture/Crops 713725 697393 -16332 -2.29% Orchards 8730 8540 -190 -2.18% Sugar Cane 56069 52285 -3783 -6.75% Urban 20148 49488 29340 245.63% The amount of urban space more than doubled in area. About half of this gain was through the loss of pasture and cropland with the remaining areas of urbanisation coming from conversion of 4-5000 each of sugar cane, forests and coastal complex. A breakdown of the spatial impact, by ecosystem type, is provided in Table 5.3. ~ 139 ~ TABLE 5.3: CHANGE IN VEGETATION TYPES FOR POPULATION 403839 ECOSYSTEM JANIS STATUS 2004 (ha) Population 403839 Total (ha) Change % Change unclassified 151111 146025 -509 3.37% Baileys Stringybark 31076 30947 -13 0.42% Banksia Rare 1336 1251 -86 6.41% Casuarina Woodland Rare 21 15 -6 29.38% Clarence Lowland Needlebark Stringybark 10322 10281 -41 0.00% Lowlands Grey Box Vulnerable 14455 14440 -15 0.40% Coast Cypress Pine Rare 67 64 -3 0.10% Coast Range Bloodwood-Mahogany 5177 5160 -17 4.22% Clarence Lowlands Spotted Gum 128339 128141 -198 0.32% Coast Range Spotted Gum-Blackbutt Rare 625 625 -0.8 0.15% Coastal Sands Blackbutt 2821 2803 -17 0.62% Dry Foothills Blackbutt-Turpentine 2704 2697 -7 0.25% Dry Foothills Spotted Gum 73800 73797 -3 0.00% Dry Grassy Blackbutt-Tallowwood 5353 5327 -26 0.48% Dry Grassy Tallowwood-Grey Gum 2168 2150 -17 0.77% Dry Heathy Blackbutt-Bloodwood 42039 41847 -192 0.46% Dry Heathy Sandstone Blackbutt 16634 16592 -42 0.25% Escarpment Redgum 15211 15208 -3 0.02% Escarpment Scribbly Gum-Apple 3583 3583 -0.3 0.01% Wet Bangalow-Brushbox Vulnerable 8312 8275 -37 0.44% Foothill Grey Gum-Ironbark-Spotted Gum 39837 39755 -82 0.21% Foothills Grey Gum-Spotted Gum 5947 5928 -19 0.32% Gorge Ironbark-Grey Gum 22685 22684 -0.6 0.00% Heath Vulnerable 8138 8035 -104 1.28% Heathy Scribbly Gum - 7235 7198 -36 0.50% Herbfield and Fjaeldmark Rare 25 23 -3 10.22% High Elevation Open Spotted Gum 42550 42542 -9 0.02% Ironbark 5467 5458 -9 0.16% Lowland Red Gum 43876 43570 -306 0.70% Lowlands Scribbly Gum Vulnerable 3204 3154 -49 1.54% Lowlands Spotted Gum-Box 15578 15568 -9 0.06% Coastal Mallee Vulnerable 1240 1220 -20 1.62% Mangrove Rare 395 375 -20 5.17% Moist Foothills Spotted Gum 30780 30776 -4 0.01% Northern Moist Blackbutt 8700 8683 -17 0.19% Natural Grassland Rare 270 269 -0.9 0.32% Needlebark Stringybark-Large Fruited Blackbutt 9547 9501 -46 0.48% ~ 140 ~ Northern Open Grassy Blackbutt 18876 18808 -68 0.36% Northern Ranges Dry Tallowwood 19608 19606 -2 0.01% Open Coastal Brushbox 3440 3422 -18 0.54% Open Shrubby Brushbox-Tallowwood 9663 9662 -0.7 0.01% Paperbark Vulnerable 22405 21898 -507 2.26% Red Bloodwood Rare 207 207 -0.1 0.06% Red Mahogany 12510 1249 -2 0.15% Richmond Range Spotted Gum 16415 16410 -5 0.03% Richmond Range Spotted Gum-Box 171970 17197 -0.2 0.00% River Oak Vulnerable 824 821 -3 0.39% Rough-barked Apples Vulnerable 1396 1396 -0.5 0.04% Saltbush Rare 9 9 -0.5 5.30% Sandstone Spotted Gum-Blackbutt 3870 3864 -6 0.15% Sherwood Needlebark Stringybark 8249 8220 -29 0.35% South Coast Tallowwood-Blue Gum 2569 2568 -0.8 0.03% Stringybark-Apple 5044 5044 -0.5 0.01% Swamp Endangered 11569 11138 -432 3.73% Swamp Mahogany Rare 351 323 -27 7.79% Swamp Oak Rare 1946 1828 -118 6.07% Tallowwood 3563 3562 -0.9 0.03% Turpentine 2470 2429 -41 1.66% Wattle 783 773 -10 1.25% Wet Bloodwood-Tallowwood 25677 25648 -29 0.11% Wet Coastal Tallowwood-Brushbox 1526 1518 -9 0.56% Wet Flooded Gum-Tallowwood 5399 5350 -49 0.90% Forestry Plantations 10325 10309 -16 0.15% Improved Pasture and Cropland 507 5065 -0.7 0.14% Rainforest Endangered 111641 111448 -193 0.17% Scrub Vulnerable 4202 4119 -84 1.99% Cleared-Partially Cleared 3118 3103 -15 0.48% Camphor Laurel 6150 5933 -226 3.67% The largest area of land cover conversion was the unclassified native vegetation class, encompassing approximately half of the new urban area. In addition, 507 hectares of vulnerable paperbark, 432 hectares of endangered „swamp‟ and 306 hectares of lowland red gum were converted to urban. The paperbark and swamp form part of 171 hectares of land that is listed by the state government as endangered, rare, or ~ 141 ~ vulnerable. This area also includes 30% of the available Casuarina woodlands, 10% of the herbfield and fjaeldmark, and 8% of the available swamp mahogany ecosystems. 5.3 POPULATION 558911 SCENARIO RESULTS This section provides the LULC change scenario for a regional population increase of 558911, based on the trend population projections for each zone. Table 5.4 summarises the number of cells added for each zone. In comparison to the previous populations listed in Table 5.3, zone 1 increased by 17 cells for this new population level, whereas zone 4 increased by approximately 150000 cells. TABLE 5.4: POPULATION 558911 Zone Current Population 558911 Number of urban cells Number of People Number of Cells / Person Estimated Population Estimated Cells / person Estimated Cells Required Number of Cells to be added 1 3818 5705 0.67 6199 1.36 8404 4586 2 20783 19677 1.06 23945 1.63 38945 18162 3 36325 25742 1.41 32612 2.40 78303 41978 4 149438 144387 1.03 382186 1.79 683066 533628 5 45071 46833 0.96 65065 1.75 114139 69068 6 35765 22114 1.62 48902 2.70 132164 96399 Sum 264458 558911 1055021 763821 The results of the placement algorithm of these new urban areas are mapped on the 2004 Land Use Land Cover Model in Figures 5.7 and 5.8. ~ 142 ~ FIGURE 5.7: REGIONAL LULC CHANGE WITH POPULATION 558911 ~ 143 ~ FIGURE 5.8: REGIONAL LULC CHANGE WITH POPULATION 558911, FAR NORTH COAST PORTION ~ 144 ~ The most noticeable change was in the areas of urban growth between Tweed Heads and Byron Bay, particularly along the length of the Pacific Highway again. Communities south of Ballina also realised modest growth, as did the area between Ballina and Lismore. In the southern areas, the city of Maclean, east of Yamba grew but most other growth was dispersed between Yamba and Grafton. A number of areas around Grafton also became larger, where notably, growth can be attributed to decreasing population density more than increasing population levels. Table 5.5 shows the resultant changes in land use. TABLE 5.5: LAND USE CHANGE FOR POPULATION 558911 Land Use / Population 2004 558911 Total ha Total ha Difference (ha) % change Coastal Complex 67563 60299 -7263 -10.75% Forests 1205414 1197452 -7962 -0.66% Pasture/Crops 713725 689387 -24338 -3.41% Orchards 8730 8324 -405 -4.63% Sugar Cane 56069 48515 -7553 -3.47% Urban 20148 67670 47522 335.87% In this instance the amount of urban space more than trebled in area, through a paralleled loss of just over half of the available pasture and cropland with the remainder being the conversion of areas of sugar cane, forests and coastal complex. Some 24338 hectares of pasture / cropland became urbanised as did 7553 hectares (13.5%) of sugar cane. Depending on the spatial distribution of this change there is the possibility ~ 145 ~ for this loss to have a negative impact upon the viability of local sugarmills, employment, agricultural service industries and finally local economies and communities. In this scenario some 15000 hectares of native vegetation were lost when compared to the 2004 LULC. A breakdown of the change in area of ecosystem types is provided in Table 5.6 TABLE 5.6: CHANGE IN VEGETATION TYPES FOR POPULATION 558911 ECOSYSTEM JANIS STATUS 2004 (ha) Population 558911 Total (ha) Change (ha) Change % unclassified 151111 1432744 -78366 5.19% Baileys Stringybark 31076 308493.1 -2270 0.73% Banksia Rare 1336 11645 -1718 12.85% Casuarina Woodland Rare 21 106.25 -104 49.55% Central Mid Elevation Sydney Blue Gum 3278 32774.38 -8 0.02% Clarence Lowland Needlebark Stringybark 10322 102412.5 -805 0.78% Lowlands Grey Box Vulnerable 14455 144353.1 -192 0.13% Coast Cypress Pine Rare 67 627.5 -39 5.82% Coast Range Bloodwood-Mahogany 5177 51423.75 -346 0.67% Clarence Lowlands Spotted Gum 128339 1280028 -3362 0.26% Coast Range Spotted Gum-Blackbutt Rare 625 6241.25 -13 0.20% Coastal Flooded Gum 8039 80380 -5 0.01% Coastal Sands Blackbutt 2821 27937.5 -270 0.96% Dry Foothills Blackbutt-Turpentine 2704 26905 -134 0.49% Dry Foothills Spotted Gum 73800 737961.3 -37 0.00% Dry Grassy Blackbutt-Tallowwood 5353 53070.63 -454 0.85% Dry Grassy Tallowwood-Grey Gum 2167 21336.25 -336 1.55% Dry Heathy Blackbutt-Bloodwood 42039 416990.6 -3398 0.81% Dry Heathy Sandstone Blackbutt 16634 165662.5 -678 0.41% Escarpment Redgum 15211 152073.1 -32 0.02% Escarpment Scribbly Gum-Apple 3583 35827.5 -5 0.01% Wet Bangalow-Brushbox Vulnerable 8312 82360 -757 0.91% Foothill Grey Gum-Ironbark-Spotted Gum 39837 396793.1 -1573 0.39% Foothills Grey Gum-Spotted Gum 5947 59111.25 -363 0.61% Gorge Ironbark-Grey Gum 22685 226840 -10 0.00% ~ 146 ~ Heath Vulnerable 8138 7947 -192 2.35% Heathy Scribbly Gum 7235 7166 -68 0.94% Herbfield and Fjaeldmark Rare 25 21 -4 17.21% High Elevation Open Spotted Gum 42550 42532 -19 0.04% Ironbark 5467 5456 -11 0.21% Lowland Red Gum 43876 43291 -585 1.33% Lowlands Scribbly Gum Vulnerable 3204 3102 -101 3.17% Lowlands Spotted Gum-Box 15578 15564 -14 0.09% Coastal Mallee Vulnerable 1240 1207 -33 2.69% Mangrove Rare 395 350 -46 11.57% Moist Foothills Spotted Gum 30780 30774 -6 0.02% Northern Moist Blackbutt 8700 8657 -43 0.49% Natural Grassland Rare 270 269 -1 0.49% Needlebark Stringybark-Large Fruited Blackbutt 9547 9464 -84 0.87% Northern Open Grassy Blackbutt 18876 18750 -126 0.67% Northern Ranges Dry Tallowwood 19608 19603 -5 0.03% Open Coastal Brushbox 3440 3411 -29 0.84% Open Shrubby Brushbox-Tallowwood 9663 9662 -0.7 0.01% Paperbark Vulnerable 22405 21369 -1036 4.62% Red Bloodwood Rare 207 207 -0.3 0.15% Red Mahogany 1251 1248 -2 0.19% Richmond Range Spotted Gum 16415 16409 -6 0.04% Richmond Range Spotted Gum-Box 17197 17197 -0.4 0.00% River Oak Vulnerable 824 820 -4 0.49% Rough-barked Apples Vulnerable 1396 1396 -0.5 0.04% Saltbush Rare 9 8 -1 13.25% Sandstone Spotted Gum-Blackbutt 3870 3861 -9 0.23% Sherwood Needlebark Stringybark 8249 8186 -62 0.76% South Coast Tallowwood-Blue Gum 2569 2568 -1 0.05% Stringybark-Apple 5044 5043 -0.8 0.02% Swamp Endangered 11569 10759 -810 7.01% Swamp Mahogany Rare 351 290 -61 17.42% Swamp Oak Rare 1946 1690 -256 13.14% Tallowwood 3563 3561 -2 0.04% Turpentine 2470 2376 -94 3.79% Very Wet New England Blackbutt- Tallowwood 434 434 -0.1 0.01% Wattle 783 761 -23 2.89% Wet Bloodwood-Tallowwood 25677 25612 -65 0.25% Wet Coastal Tallowwood-Brushbox 1526 1508 -18 1.20% Wet Flooded Gum-Tallowwood 5399 52942.5 -104 1.93% Forestry Plantations 10325 10280 -44 0.43% Improved Pasture and Cropland 507 507 -0.7 0.14% Rainforest Endangered 111641 111276 -365 0.33% ~ 147 ~ Scrub Vulnerable 4202 4039 -164 3.90% Cleared-Partially Cleared 3118 3095 -23 0.75% Camphor Laurel 6159 5758 -401 6.51% The primary vegetation types affected were paperbark, swamp and lowland red gum. 401 Hectares of camphor laurel were urbanised, however as this is a non native and considered a weed species, it might be interpreted as a benefit of landcover conversion to urban development. However, 3357 hectares of rare, endangered or vulnerable native vegetation were lost, including almost 50% of the Casuarina woodlands, 17% of the swamp mahoghany and the herbfield and fjaeldmark, as well as approximately 13% of the swamp oak, saltbush and banksias. 5.4 POPULATION 727657 SCENARIO RESULTS Expanding the population to 727657 achieved the allocation of cells in Table 5.7 TABLE 5.7: POPULATION 727657 Zone Current Population 727657 Number of urban cells Number of People Number of Cells / Person Estimated Population Estimated Cells / person Estimated Cells Required Number of Cells to be added 1 3818 5705 0.67 6288 1.36 8524 4706 2 20783 19677 1.06 25316 1.63 41174 20391 3 36325 25742 1.41 35074 2.40 84214 47889 4 149438 144387 1.03 525599 1.79 939381 789943 5 45071 46833 0.96 72028 1.75 126354 81283 6 35765 22114 1.62 63351 2.70 171214 135449 Sum 264458 727657 1370862 1079662 ~ 148 ~ Over 75% of the total population allocation was located in zone 4, with the population reaching in excess of 500000 people. Zone 6 highlights the amount of space used by the trend for lower density development as it is estimated to contain 88% of the population of zone 5, however the less dense settlement pattern resulted in has 166% more cells allocated to new urban areas. The merging and comparison of this population settlement allocation with the 2004 LULC model produced the changes shown in Figures 5.9 and 5.10. ~ 149 ~ FIGURE 5.9: REGIONAL LULC CHANGE WITH POPULATION 727657 ~ 150 ~ FIGURE 5.10: REGIONAL LULC CHANGE WITH POPULATION 727657, FAR NORTH COAST PORTION ~ 151 ~ The disproportionate settlement pattern of the future population projection within the region became more obvious on the mapped visualisation, with the all of the available buildable area around Tweed Heads through to Murwillimbah being entirely filled with development (Figures 5.9 and 5.10). A thick band extending inland approximately 10-15 kilometres follows the coast to Byron Bay. Ballina more than doubled in size. To the immediate south, the towns of Wardell, Woodburn, and Evans Head have also grown extensively. Growth through the southern areas of the region was less and has again been sporadic, primarily occurring on the plains in and around the Maclean area. Growth within the inland areas was minimal. This is consistent with the past-present-future population and settlement trend calculations (Chapter 4). Overall change in land use throughout the region is presented in Table 5.8 TABLE 5.8: LAND USE CHANGE FOR POPULATION 727657 Land Use / Population 2004 727657 Total ha Total ha Difference (ha) % Change Coastal Complex 67563 57634 -9929 -14.7% Forests 1205414 1193523 -11891 -1% Pasture/Crops 713725 681001 -32724 -4.58% Orchards 8730 7962 -768 -8.8% Sugar Cane 56069 44195 -11873 -1.18% Urban 201477 87333 67185 433.46% Agricultural pasture and crop land was again the most affected landscape type in terms of total area, losing over 30000 hectares to urban ~ 152 ~ development. The loss of 21% of the area of sugar cane fields could have social and economic impacts on a number of communities within the region. Environmental impacts have increased in terms of the areas of ecosystems impacted. More than 20000 hectares of native vegetation including 15% of the coastal complex type were affected. A breakdown of the change in area of ecosystem type is provided in Table 5.9 TABLE 5.9: CHANGE IN VEGETATION TYPES FOR POPULATION 727657 ECOSYSTEM JANIS STATUS 2004 (ha) Population 727657 Total (ha) Change (ha) % Change unclassified 151111 140443 -10668 7.06% Baileys Stringybark 31076 30752 -324 1.04% Banksia Rare 1336 1094 -243 18.17% Casuarina Woodland Rare 21 5 -16 74.78% Central Mid Elevation Sydney Blue Gum 3278 3277 -1 0.03% Clarence Lowland Needlebark Stringybark 10322 10202 -120 1.16% Lowlands Grey Box Vulnerable 14455 14429 -26 0.18% Coast Cypress Pine Rare 67 63 -4 5.82% Coast Range Bloodwood-Mahogany 5177 5124 -53 1.02% Clarence Lowlands Spotted Gum 128339 127839 -500 0.39% Coast Range Spotted Gum-Blackbutt Rare 625 623 -3 0.44% Coastal Flooded Gum 8039 8035 -4 0.04% Coastal Sands Blackbutt 2821 2784 -37 1.31% Dry Foothills Blackbutt-Turpentine 2704 2684 -20 0.73% Dry Foothills Spotted Gum 73800 73793 -7 0.01% Dry Grassy Blackbutt-Tallowwood 5353 5284 -69 1.28% Dry Grassy Tallowwood-Grey Gum 2167 2117 -51 2.34% Dry Heathy Blackbutt-Bloodwood 42039 41523 -516 1.23% Dry Heathy Sandstone Blackbutt 16634 16537 -97 0.58% Escarpment Redgum 15211 15207 -3 0.02% Escarpment Scribbly Gum-Apple 3583 3582 -1 0.03% Wet Bangalow-Brushbox Vulnerable 8312 8175 -137 1.65% Foothill Grey Gum-Ironbark-Spotted Gum 39837 39591 -246 0.62% Foothills Grey Gum-Spotted Gum 5947 5894 -54 0.90% ~ 153 ~ Gorge Ironbark-Grey Gum 22685 22684 -1 0.01% Heath Vulnerable 8138 7852 -286 3.52% Heathy Scribbly Gum 7235 7130 -105 1.45% Herbfield and Fjaeldmark Rare 25 20 -5 21.20% High Elevation Open Spotted Gum 42550 42524 -26 0.06% Ironbark 5467 5451 -16 0.29% Lowland Red Gum 43876 43003 -874 1.99% Lowlands Scribbly Gum Vulnerable 3204 3044 -159 4.97% Lowlands Spotted Gum-Box 15578 15557 -21 0.13% Coastal Mallee Vulnerable 1240 1192 -48 3.90% Mangrove Rare 395 332 -63 15.98% Moist Foothills Spotted Gum 30780 30768 -12 0.04% Northern Moist Blackbutt 8700 8611 -88 1.01% Natural Grassland Rare 270 267 -3 1.02% Needlebark Stringybark-Large Fruited Blackbutt 9547 9427 -121 1.26% New England Stringybark-Blakelys Red Gum - 1067 1067 -0.1 0.01% Northern Grassy Sydney Blue Gum Vulnerable 2856 2855 -1 0.04% Northern Open Grassy Blackbutt 18876 18681 -194 1.03% Northern Ranges Dry Tallowwood 19608 19598 -11 0.05% Open Coastal Brushbox 3440 3398 -43 1.24% Open Shrubby Brushbox-Tallowwood 96623 9662 -0.7 0.01% Paperbark Vulnerable 22405 20765 -1640 7.32% Red Bloodwood Rare 207 207 -0.8 0.36% Red Mahogany 1251 1248 -3 0.21% Richmond Range Spotted Gum 16415 16408 -7 0.04% Richmond Range Spotted Gum-Box 17197 17196 -0.7 0.00% River Oak Vulnerable 824 819 -5 0.62% Rough-barked Apples Vulnerable 1396 1396 -0.5 0.04% Saltbush Rare 9 7 -2 22.52% Sandstone Spotted Gum-Blackbutt 3870 3858 -12 0.30% Sherwood Needlebark Stringybark 8249 8134 -115 1.39% South Coast Tallowwood-Blue Gum 2569 2566 -3 0.12% Stringybark-Apple 5044 5043 -1 0.03% Swamp Endangered 11569 10455 -1115 9.63% Swamp Mahogany Rare 351 259 -92 26.24% Swamp Oak Rare 1946 1626 -320 16.45% Tallowwood 3563 3561 -2 0.05% Turpentine 2470 2309 -161 6.53% Very Wet New England Blackbutt- Tallowwood 434 434 -0.1 0.03% Wattle 783 749 -35 4.44% Wet Bloodwood-Tallowwood 25677 25538 -139 0.54% Wet Coastal Tallowwood-Brushbox 1526 1495 -31 2.04% ~ 154 ~ Wet Flooded Gum-Tallowwood 5399 5191 -207 3.84% Forestry Plantations 0 10325 10229 -95 0.92% Improved Pasture and Cropland 0 507 507 -0.7 0.14% Rainforest Endangered 111641 111067 -574 0.51% Scrub Vulnerable 4202 3931 -271 6.45% Cleared-Partially Cleared 0 3118 3088 -30 0.95% Camphor Laurel 0 6159 5482 -677 10.98% Under this scenario there was approximately a 50% increase in the area of vegetation lost. The largest losses again included paperbark, swamp and lowlands red gum. In each of these cases the increase in the area of vegetation class lost was approximately proportional to the increase in lost vegetation for the region. The loss of state listed rare, threatened and vulnerable ecosystems was also proportional in its increase (5015 hectares). This group predominately comprised of paperbark, swamp and banksia, however only 25% of Casuarina woodlands remained and 26% of the swamp mahogany was lost. 5.5 POPULATION 955497 SCENARIO RESULTS For this scenario the regional population was set to 955497, resulting in more than one million 25x25m cells being added within zone 4, and was 76% of the new urban area (Table 5.10). In comparison zones 1 and 2 have increased by approximately 10 and 20% respectively since the 403839 scenario. ~ 155 ~ TABLE 5.10: POPULATION 955497 Zone Current Population 955497 Number of urban cells Number of People Number of Cells / Person Estimated Population Estimated Cells / person Estimated Cells Required Number of Cells to be added 1 3818 5705 0.67 6378 1.36 8646 4828 2 20783 19677 1.06 26765 1.63 43531 22748 3 36325 25742 1.41 37722 2.40 90571 54246 4 149438 144387 1.03 722826 1.79 1291878 1142440 5 45071 46833 0.96 79736 1.75 139876 94805 6 35765 22114 1.62 82069 2.70 221801 186036 Sum 264458 955497 1796304 1505104 This scenario had an obvious visual impact when the resultant LULC change was mapped (Figures 5.11 and 5.12) ~ 156 ~ FIGURE 5.10: REGIONAL LULC CHANGE WITH POPULATION 955497 ~ 157 ~ FIGURE 5.11: REGIONAL LULC CHANGE WITH POPULATION 955497, FAR NORTH COAST PORTION ~ 158 ~ Zone 4 population increased to over 700000 people and the effects of this are apparent along the north-eastern sea board. The placement algorithm extended the trend observed in previous scenarios. As development proceeded in the north east it also started “pushing” inland. Similarly the trend of new development adjacent to the Pacific Highway continued throughout the entire region. This suggests that when past trend data is utilised, specific considerations for development along road corridors is not required (as discussed in Chapter 2). As a result of the scenarios allocation of new urban development, areas from Byron Bay (spatially more than quadruple the 2004 size) to the Queensland border are represented by a constant sprawl of urban settlement with only a fragmented land use type of protected areas such as national parks. The urban sprawl extended inland some 20 kilometres in the north to Murwillimbah and Mount Warning. In the south, areas around Maclean through to Yamba continued to demonstrate steady growth of human settlements and inland zones showed little change. Table 5.11 details the landuse for the scenario. TABLE 5.11: LAND USE CHANGE FOR POPULATION 955497 Land Use / Population 2004 955497 Total ha Total ha Difference (ha) % Change Coastal Complex 67563 54680 -12882 -19.07% Forests 1205414 1187314 -18100 -1.5% Pasture/Crops 713725 669917 -43809 -6.14% Orchards 8730 7403 -1327 -15.2% Sugar Cane 56069 38417 -17651 -31.42% Urban 20148 113917 93769 565.41% ~ 159 ~ The spatial area of urban settlement grew to more than 500% of the 2004 area. Pasture and crops lost the largest physical area (43809 hectares) and sugar cane lost the largest proportion of its current area. 18100 hectares of forest were lost in this scenario. While the conversion of forest was not the largest loss in area or percentage, it is important because the majority of forest converted to urban usage is located in the upper north areas and not spread throughout the region. Similarly coastal complex vegetation types were reduced by almost 20% which included the loss of large patches of habitat. A breakdown of the change in area of ecosystem type is provided in Table 5.12. TABLE 5.12: CHANGE IN VEGETATION TYPES FOR POPULATION 955497 ECOSYSTEM JANIS STATUS 2004 (ha) Population 955497 Total (ha) Change (ha) % Change unclassified 151111 136688 -14423 9.54% Baileys Stringybark 31076 30604 -472 1.52% Banksia Rare 1336 1038 -298 22.29% Casuarina Woodland Rare 21 5 -16 74.78% Central Mid Elevation Sydney Blue Gum 3278 3277 -1 0.03% Clarence Lowland Needlebark Stringybark 10322 10122 -200 1.94% Lowlands Grey Box Vulnerable 14455 14420 -34 0.24% Coast Cypress Pine Rare 67 63 -4 5.82% Coast Range Bloodwood-Mahogany 5177 5103 -74 1.43% Clarence Lowlands Spotted Gum 128339 127592 -747 0.58% Coast Range Spotted Gum-Blackbutt Rare 625 620 -5 0.81% Coastal Flooded Gum 8039 8027 -12 0.15% Coastal Sands Blackbutt 2821 2766 -55 1.94% Dry Foothills Blackbutt-Turpentine 2704 2673 -31 1.14% Dry Foothills Spotted Gum 73800 73789 -11 0.02% Dry Grassy Blackbutt-Tallowwood 5353 5245 -107 2.00% Dry Grassy Tallowwood-Grey Gum 2167 2090 -77 3.55% Dry Heathy Blackbutt-Bloodwood 42039 41260 -779 1.85% Dry Heathy Sandstone Blackbutt 16634 16494 -140 0.84% Escarpment Redgum 15211 15207 -4 0.03% ~ 160 ~ Escarpment Scribbly Gum-Apple 3583 3581 -2 0.05% Wet Bangalow-Brushbox Vulnerable 8312 8012 -300 3.60% Foothill Grey Gum-Ironbark-Spotted Gum 39837 39461 -376 0.94% Foothills Grey Gum-Spotted Gum 5947 5864 -84 1.40% Gorge Ironbark-Grey Gum 22685 22683 -2 0.01% Heath Vulnerable 8138 7753 -386 4.74% Heathy Scribbly Gum 7235 7081 -154 2.13% Herbfield and Fjaeldmark Rare 25 20 -5 21.20% High Elevation Open Spotted Gum 42550 42514 -36 0.09% Ironbark 5467 5443 -24 0.43% Lowland Red Gum 43876 42573 -1303 2.97% Lowlands Scribbly Gum Vulnerable 3204 2954 -250 7.79% Lowlands Spotted Gum-Box 15578 15550 -28 0.18% Coastal Mallee Vulnerable 1240 1177 -63 5.11% Mangrove Rare 395 300 -96 24.22% Moist Foothills Spotted Gum 30780 30757 -23 0.07% Northern Moist Blackbutt 8700 8492 -208 2.39% Natural Grassland Rare 270 266 -4 1.41% Needlebark Stringybark-Large Fruited Blackbutt 9547 9368 -179 1.87% New England Stringybark-Blakelys Red Gum 1067 1066 -0.4 0.04% Northern Grassy Sydney Blue Gum Vulnerable 2856 2855 -1 0.04% Northern Open Grassy Blackbutt 18876 18530 -346 1.83% Northern Ranges Dry Tallowwood 19608 19588 -21 0.11% Northern Wet Brushbox 10532 10532 -0.4 0.00% Northern Wet Tallowwood-Blue Gum 14647 14646 -0.2 0.00% Open Coastal Brushbox 3440 3369 -71 2.07% Open Shrubby Brushbox-Tallowwood 9663 9662 -0.7 0.01% Paperbark Vulnerable 22405 20108 -2297 10.25% Red Bloodwood Rare 207 205 -2 0.93% Red Mahogany 1251 1247 -4 0.32% Richmond Range Spotted Gum 16415 16406 -9 0.06% Richmond Range Spotted Gum-Box 17197 17196 -1 0.01% River Oak Vulnerable 824 817 -7 0.81% Rough-barked Apples Vulnerable 1396 1395 -1 0.09% Saltbush Rare 9 7 -2 25.17% Sandstone Spotted Gum-Blackbutt 3870 3851 -19 0.49% Sherwood Needlebark Stringybark 8249 8082 -166 2.01% South Coast Tallowwood-Blue Gum 2569 2564 -5 0.19% Stringybark-Apple 5044 5043 -1 0.03% Swamp Endangered 11569 10211 -1358 11.74% Swamp Mahogany Rare 351 227 -124 35.28% Swamp Oak Rare 1946 1535 -411 21.14% Tallowwood 3563 3561 -2 0.05% ~ 161 ~ Turpentine 2470 2196 -274 11.10% Very Wet New England Blackbutt- Tallowwood 434 434 -0.1 0.03% Wattle 783 734 -49 6.26% Wet Bloodwood-Tallowwood 25677 25378 -298 1.16% Wet Coastal Tallowwood-Brushbox 1526 1485 -42 2.72% Wet Flooded Gum-Tallowwood 5399 4992 -407 7.53% Wet Foothills Blackbutt-Turpentine 1014 1014 -0.1 0.01% Forestry Plantations 10325 10188 -137 1.33% Improved Pasture and Cropland 507 507 -0.7 0.14% Introduced Scrub 989 987 -2 0.20% Rainforest Endangered 111641 110705 -935 0.84% Scrub Vulnerable 4202 3778 -425 10.11% Cleared-Partially Cleared 3118 3087 -32 1.01% Camphor Laurel 6159 4994 -1165 18.91% This scenario has resulted in similar, though increasing, trend of ecosystem loss. As in previous models, the paperbark, swamp and lowlands redgum are the most affected. In this scenario however there are a number of classes impacted that had not been affected in previous models. These included wet foothills blackbutt-turpentine forests, northern wet brushbox and northern wet tallowwood-bluegum forests, although the loss within these classes was not large in either proportion or area. The rare, threatened and endangered vegetation classes lost 7023 hectares overall, however there was no change in the loss of casuarina woodlands which remained at 25%. Other rare classes such as swamp mahogany was been reduced to 65% of current levels. Similary banksia, saltbush, mangroves and herbfield and fjaeldmark classes each lost in excess of 20% of their original area. ~ 162 ~ 5.6 SUMMARY The population growth and human settlement futures scenarios modeled in this chapter are based on the past and current trend of linear and exponential population growth (see Chapter 4) and planning policies. The results highlighted the spatially disproportionate nature of population growth and human settlement within the region. The scenarios showed the settlement pattern likely to occur based on the past and current “business as usual”, minimal constraints planning approaches of government. The change analysis demonstrated large areas that will be converted from agricultural systems or ecological systems to urban areas. The creation of these current trend-trajectory scenarios provides a „futures‟ baseline for the generation of other models with different constraints. These other future scenarios are plausible alternative futures that might reduce negative effects of the current trajectory scenario, and/or create other positive or negative LULC. Comparison with those already generated then allows for the effectiveness of the constraints to be assessed and provides a tool for future planning. The scenarios in Chapters 6 through 9 focus on the impact and effectiveness of the applied constraints rather than the increasing urbanised area and are presented more succinctly in this regard. Chapter 6 Environmental Priority Scenario Anti-Development Protest Sign at Hastings We do not inherit the land from our ancestors, W e borrow it from our children. Native American Proverb ~ 164 ~ CHAPTER 6 ENVIRONMENTAL PRIORITY SCENARIO The trends of past urban settlement patterns provided a trajectory for where future population growth is most likely to locate and spaces it will consume. Such future minimal constraint development is likely to cause considerable ecological impact with a variety of rare, endangered and threatened species being greatly reduced in area and overall a loss in landscape functionality. As well as being recognized for having its own intrinsic value, the ecological heritage within the study area also provides the region with numerous environmental services and significant economic and tourism benefits which are directly related to environmental attributes of the coastal landscapes (NRRS 2003). Protection of this heritage was one of the priorities listed in NRRS (2003) and a model was produced that allowed for population growth within the region yet provided a level of ecological security. It was not intended by the NRRS (2003) community consultation process that these constraints would create a conservation plan that dictates nature reserve selection, as protection of these areas could be achieved through a number of institutions by various means; for example, inclusion into the reserve system, conservation covenants, easements or offsets and other similar methods. This chapter provides one scenario which demonstrates the capacity for a balance to be found between new development and ~ 165 ~ ecological concerns through scenario designs for planning using spatially relevant constraints on urban development. When applied on a large scale and at an early stage in urban and regional planning, designed alternative future scenarios can provide practical, long term vision to guide decision making. When different design parameters are given precedence however, externalities are likely to be created which might adversely affect other landscape elements. The LULC change analysis of alternative future scenarios elucidates spatially what, where and how much might be affected. This chapter describes an alternative future design for a scenario employing constraints aimed at environmental protection and the LULC consequences of the scenario. ~ 166 ~ 6.1 CONSTRAINTS The minimal constraints scenario utilized the following constraints, major roads; slope greater than 25%; National Parks and Wildlife Estate ; water and beach; and current urban areas The environmental priority scenario used these same constraints and then added a number of restrictions specific to the context and environmental attributes of the region. 6.1.1 ACID SULPHATE SOILS Acid sulfate soils are naturally occurring soils that are formed when water mixes with organic matter and land sediments containing iron oxides in anaerobic conditions. They are often associated with swamp and other wetlands. In their natural state below the water table they have no effect on human land uses. Once disturbed by drainage, lowering of the water table, excavation or other uses the iron sulfides oxidise and produce sulfuric acid lowering the pH of the soil to below 4. The release of this acid can also mobilize iron, arsenic and other metals. Combined, the acid and ~ 167 ~ metals can kill vegetation, acidify groundwater as well as drain into and denature waterways. When built upon, the levels of acidity can also be high enough to damage concrete and steel beyond repair and hence is also undesirable for new development (Fitzpatrick et al. 1996; Naylor et al. 1998, Woodhead 1999, 2000). The NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change supplied spatial data that mapped the location of known areas that have a significant risk of being comprised of acid sulphate soils. The data provided separate layers for areas classed as either low or high risk. Those areas designated as „high ris?‟ were chosen for e?clusion from development as shown in Figure 6.1. Most of these areas are located between Tweed Heads and Murwillumbah, the outlying areas of Ballina including the townships to its south and on the flood plains between Grafton and Yamba. These were all locations of strong urban growth in the minimal constraints scenario (Chapter 5). ~ 168 ~ FIGURE 6.1: AREAS WITH A HIGH RISK OF HAVING ACID-SULPHATE SOILS ~ 169 ~ 6.1.2 RIPARIAN VEGETATION The riparian zone plays an important role in the health of ecosystems. Vegetation in these areas reduces erosion, provides habitat, enhances nutrient cycling and provides biofiltration thereby reducing the effects of runoff and improving water quality (Wissmar 1998). Qureshi and Harrison (2001) state that a buffer of between 3 and 200 metres have all been shown to provide significant functionality for a waterway and recommend a minimum between 6 and 30 metres. The optimal minimum buffer width is dependent on soil, slope, vegetation type, ecosystem type and land use outside of the buffered area. With the scale of the region and the large amount of drainage within the area, to calculate and provide a variable buffer width for each ecosystem type would have been prohibitive. As such to protect these areas a 100m buffer was placed along each of the waterways, regardless of the size of the watercourse, vegetation extant or other factors. The vegetation from the forest and coastal complex classes in the 2004 LULC model that was contained within this buffer area was then extracted. The derived data layer provides an exclusion area for protection of any remaining vegetation within a 100m of a drainage channel, but does not include areas were the vegetation has been removed and similarly does not attempt to replace vegetation within this area. ~ 170 ~ This layer was then added to RAMSAR and other important wetlands map layers defined by NSW Department for Environment and Climate Change for inclusion as a scenario constraint on urban development. Overall this constraint covers 65407 hectares and is shown in Figure 6.2. FIGURE 6.2: RIPARIAN VEGETATION, RAMSAR AND IMPORTANT WETLANDS ~ 171 ~ 6.1.3 KEY HABITATS AND CORRIDORS Landscape connectivity is generally considered at landscape and bioregional scales. It is a key planning tool of landscape ecology that aims to reduce fragmentation and allow for species movement between areas of suitable habitat across a larger spatial range (Harris & Atkins 1991; Forman et al. 2003; Jongman & Pungetti 2004; Darcy & Eggleston 2005, Hilty et al. 2006). The NSW Department for Environment and Climate Change also supplied spatial data for key habitats and corridors within the region (Figure 6.3). Overall the designated area encompasses almost 800,000 hectares or 38% of the study area. However a large portion of this attribute is already contained within the National Parks system and was already considered a constraint to new urban development. The conservation planning tool, Marxan (Ball et al. 2000, Possingham et al. 2000) was used to produce a number of conservation models, however it was felt that the key habitats and corridors data provided a better and more complete landscape level conservation model (see Dramstead 1996). Of note, is the presence within this dataset of a line of vegetation extending along almost the entire coastline which highlights the value of the coastal complex class represented on the LULC maps. This vegetation ~ 172 ~ is under considerable pressure from new development, and was considerable impacted by the minimal constraints scenario. FIGURE 6.3: KEY HABITAT AND CORRIDORS ~ 173 ~ 6.1.4 BUILDABLE AREA Although the key habitats and corridors represented 798,982 hectares, high risk of acid sulphate soils 348,970 hectares and riparian vegetation some 65,406 hectares there was a large degree of overlap between these maps and with the existing national parks reserve system. When combined with the restrictions from the minimal constraints scenario the buildable area is reduced by 636,583 hectares from 1,628,330 hectares to 991,746 hectares. Overall this was approximately 50% of the study area that had been removed from potential urban development in this scenario (Figure 6.4). ~ 174 ~ FIGURE 6.4: BUILDABLE AREA ENVIRONMENTAL PRIORITY SCENARIO ~ 175 ~ 6.2 POPULATION This environmental priority scenario used the same zoning, population growth and urban settlement density as the minimum constraints scenario. The levels of growth and the number of cells to be added for each zone by the placement algorithm were presented in Tables 5.1, 5.4, 5.7 and 5.10 in Chapter 5. 6.3 RESULTS The future population urban settlement areas for each scenario were compared then merged into the 2004 LULC Map and are shown with extracts of the Far North Coast in Figures 6.5-6.12 respectively. In the north eastern coastal zone, removal of high risk acid sulphate soils reduced the conversion of sugar cane into urban areas, particularly between Tweed Heads and Murwillumbah and in the area around Ballina. Combined with the other constraints there is less buildable area at the northern and southern most areas within the zone and new urban development therefore became more concentrated within a smaller area between these towns. Together with protection of vegetation along the coastline the growth of the coastal population centres has been significantly reduced. This has caused urban development to extend ~ 176 ~ further inland and urban sprawl reached approximately 20 kilometres wide in the population 955497 scenario. In the southern areas the high risk acid soils constraint stopped new urban development on the sugar cane fields around Yamba and Maclean. This caused a slight increase in the amount of urban area bordering these soils and increased the amount of development along the Pacific Highway further to the south. Inland areas were relatively unchanged from the minimal constraints scenario. ~ 177 ~ FIGURE 6.5: ENVIRONMENTAL PRIORITY LULC FOR POPULATION 403839 ~ 178 ~ FIGURE 6.6: ENVIRONMENTAL PRIORITY LULC FOR POPULATION 403839, FAR NORTH COAST PORTION ~ 179 ~ FIGURE 6.7: ENVIRONMENTAL PRIORITY LULC FOR POPULATION 558911 ~ 180 ~ FIGURE 6.8: ENVIRONMENTAL PRIORITY LULC FOR POPULATION 558911, FAR NORTH COAST PORTION ~ 181 ~ FIGURE 6.9: ENVIRONMENTAL PRIORITY LULC FOR POPULATION 727657 ~ 182 ~ FIGURE 6.10: ENVIRONMENTAL PRIORITY LULC FOR POPULATION 727657, FAR NORTH COAST PORTION ~ 183 ~ FIGURE 6.11: ENVIRONMENTAL PRIORITY LULC FOR POPULATION 955497, FAR NORTH COAST PORTION ~ 184 ~ FIGURE 6.12: ENVIRONMENTAL PRIORITY LULC FOR POPULATION 955497, FAR NORTH COAST PORTION ~ 185 ~ 6.3.1 CHANGE TABLES The change in land use for each population level is presented in Table 6.1 TABLE 6.1 LAND USE CHANGE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PRIORITY SCENARIOS Land Use / Population 2004 Population 403839 Population 558911 Population 727657 Population 955497 Total ha Total ha Change (ha) % Change Total ha Change (ha) % Change Total ha Change (ha) % Change Total ha Change (ha) % Change Coastal Complex 67563 65471 -2092 -3.10% 64279 -3283 -4.86% 63486 -4076 -6.03% 62751 -4811 -7.12% Forests 1205414 1200020 -5394 -0.45% 1195582 -9832 -0.82% 1190098 -15316 -1.27% 1180879 -24535 -2.04% Pasture/ Crops 713725 694423 -19303 -2.70% 683944 -29781 -4.17% 672539 -41186 -5.77% 658727 -54998 -7.71% Orchards 8730 8323 -407 -4.66% 7672 -1058 -12.12% 6852 -1877 -21.51% 5742 -2988 -34.22% Sugar Cane 56069 53924 -2145 -3.83% 52501 -3568 -6.36% 51339 -4729 -8.43% 49632 -6437 -11.48% Urban 20148 49488 29340 145.63% 67670 47522 335.87% 87333 67185 433.46% 113917 93769 565.41% ~ 186 ~ The amount of urban area for the environmental priority scenarios is the same as in the minimal constraints scenario and grows to 113917 hectares in the 955497 population scenario. For each land use class the conversion to urban area has been at a relatively constant linear rate as the population has increased. The constraints have protected a large portion of the coastal complex class with 4881 hectares (7.12%) being converted to urban area compared 12882 hectares (19.07%) in the minimal constraints scenarios. Conversely the area of the forests class impacted increased from 18100 hectares (1.5%) to 24535 hectares (2.04%). There was an overall reduction in the total area of native vegetation converted to urban area. This is detailed by ecosystem type in Table 6.2 As sugar cane tends to be grown on acidic soils the removal of acid sulphate soils from potential urban development provided strong protection for this agricultural class. 6437 hectares (-11.48%) of sugar cane became urban in comparison to 17651 hectares (31.42%) in the minimal constraints scenarios. Reducing the loss of native vegetation and sugar cane has meant that an additional 1.57% of pasture and crops became urbanised elsewhere, and that the loss of orchards more than doubled from 1327 hectares to 2988 hectares. This comprises 34.22% of the orchards that were recognized in the 2004 LULC. Orchards cover a small area but play an important role in local economies. ~ 187 ~ 6.3.2 ECOSYSTEM CHANGE TABLE 6.2 LAND USE CHANGE BY ECOSYSTEM TYPE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PRIORITY SCENARIOS Population 403839 Population 558911 Population 727657 Population 955497 ECOSYSTEM STATUS_A LULC 2004 Total (ha) Change (ha) % Change Total (ha) Change (ha) % Change Total (ha) Change (ha) % Change Total (ha) Change (ha) % Change Unclassified 151111 146828 -4283 -2.83% 144058 -7053 -4.67% 141103 -10008 -6.62% 136765 -14346 -9.49% Baileys Stringybark Vulnerable 31076 30896 -181 -0.58% 30748 -328 -1.06% 30599 -478 -1.54% 30397 -680 -2.19% Banksia 1336 1256 -80 -5.98% 1203 -133 -9.96% 1178 -158 -11.85% 1165 -171 -12.83% Casuarina Woodland Rare 21 21 0 -0.89% 21 0 -0.89% 21 0 -0.89% 21 0 -0.89% Central Mid Elevation Sydney Blue Gum Rare 3278 3277 -1 -0.03% 3277 -1 -0.03% 3277 -1 -0.03% 3277 -1 -0.03% Clarence Lowland Needlebark Stringybark Rare 10322 10257 -65 -0.63% 10189 -133 -1.28% 10111 -211 -2.04% 10022 -300 -2.90% Lowlands Grey Box Rare 14455 14440 -15 -0.10% 14436 -18 -0.13% 14432 -23 -0.16% 14424 -30 -0.21% Coast Cypress Pine Rare 67 63 -4 -5.63% 63 -4 -5.63% 63 -4 -5.63% 63 -4 -5.63% Coast Range Bloodwood- Mahogany 5177 5156 -21 -0.41% 5140 -37 -0.71% 5120 -57 -1.11% 5070 -107 -2.06% Clarence Lowlands Spotted Gum 128339 128055 -284 -0.22% 127861 -478 -0.37% 127605 -734 -0.57% 127144 -1195 -0.93% Coast Range Spotted Gum- Blackbutt Vulnerable 625 625 0 0.00% 625 0 0.00% 625 0 -0.01% 616 -9 -1.47% Coastal Flooded Gum Rare 8039 8039 0 0.00% 8038 -1 -0.01% 8034 -5 -0.06% 7996 -42 -0.53% Coastal Sands Blackbutt 2821 2804 -17 -0.59% 2801 -20 -0.71% 2796 -25 -0.87% 2792 -28 -1.01% Dry Foothills Blackbutt- 2704 2693 -11 -0.40% 2683 -21 -0.76% 2678 -26 -0.96% 2661 -43 -1.59% ~ 188 ~ Turpentine Dry Foothills Spotted Gum Rare 73800 73797 -3 0.00% 73791 -9 -0.01% 73785 -15 -0.02% 73768 -32 -0.04% Dry Grassy Blackbutt- Tallowwood 5353 5320 -33 -0.62% 5287 -65 -1.22% 5257 -95 -1.78% 5218 -135 -2.51% Dry Grassy Tallowwood-Grey Gum 2167 2135 -32 -1.50% 2112 -55 -2.54% 2087 -80 -3.70% 2057 -111 -5.10% Dry Heathy Blackbutt- Bloodwood 42039 41775 -264 -0.63% 41548 -491 -1.17% 41301 -738 -1.75% 40949 -1090 -2.59% Dry Heathy Sandstone Blackbutt Rare 16634 16580 -54 -0.32% 16536 -98 -0.59% 16489 -145 -0.87% 16431 -203 -1.22% Dry open Redgum-Broad Leaved Apple Rare 1129 1129 0 0.00% 1129 0 0.00% 1129 0 0.00% 1129 0 0.00% Dunns White Gum 291 291 0 0.00% 291 0 0.00% 291 0 0.00% 291 0 0.00% Eastern Red Gums 1774 1774 0 0.00% 1774 0 0.00% 1774 0 0.00% 1774 0 0.00% Escarpment Redgum 15211 15208 -3 -0.02% 15208 -3 -0.02% 15207 -3 -0.02% 15207 -4 -0.02% Escarpment Scribbly Gum- Apple 3583 3583 -1 -0.01% 3583 -1 -0.02% 3581 -2 -0.07% 3580 -3 -0.08% Wet Bangalow-Brushbox 8312 8291 -21 -0.25% 8248 -63 -0.76% 8163 -149 -1.79% 7995 -316 -3.81% Foothill Grey Gum-Ironbark- Spotted Gum 39837 39705 -132 -0.33% 39577 -260 -0.65% 39430 -406 -1.02% 39233 -604 -1.52% Foothills Grey Gum-Spotted Gum 5947 5923 -25 -0.42% 5901 -46 -0.78% 5867 -81 -1.36% 5809 -139 -2.34% Gorge Grey Gum 697 697 0 0.00% 697 0 0.00% 697 0 0.00% 697 0 0.00% Gorge Ironbark-Grey Gum 22685 22684 -1 0.00% 22683 -3 -0.01% 22680 -5 -0.02% 22675 -10 -0.04% Heath 8138 8033 -106 -1.30% 7963 -175 -2.15% 7911 -227 -2.79% 7865 -273 -3.36% Heathy Scribbly Gum Rare 7235 7197 -37 -0.52% 7158 -77 -1.06% 7105 -130 -1.80% 7038 -196 -2.71% Herbfield and Fjaeldmark 25 25 0 0.00% 25 0 0.00% 25 0 0.00% 25 0 0.00% ~ 189 ~ High Elevation Open Spotted Gum 42550 42536 -14 -0.03% 42528 -23 -0.05% 42517 -33 -0.08% 42507 -43 -0.10% Ironbark Rare 5467 5459 -8 -0.14% 5458 -9 -0.16% 5454 -12 -0.23% 5450 -16 -0.30% Lowland Red Gum Vulnerable 43876 43622 -254 -0.58% 43411 -465 -1.06% 43119 -757 -1.73% 42782 -1094 -2.49% Lowlands Scribbly Gum 3204 3180 -24 -0.74% 3162 -41 -1.29% 3139 -65 -2.02% 3083 -121 -3.77% Lowlands Spotted Gum-Box 15578 15567 -10 -0.07% 15559 -19 -0.12% 15557 -21 -0.13% 15551 -27 -0.17% Coastal Mallee Vulnerable 1240 1229 -11 -0.92% 1221 -19 -1.57% 1217 -23 -1.85% 1215 -25 -2.03% Mangrove 395 394 -1 -0.24% 394 -1 -0.33% 394 -1 -0.33% 394 -1 -0.33% Moist Foothills Spotted Gum 30780 30775 -5 -0.02% 30771 -9 -0.03% 30766 -14 -0.05% 30758 -22 -0.07% Northern Moist Blackbutt 8700 8690 -9 -0.11% 8654 -46 -0.53% 8607 -93 -1.07% 8356 -344 -3.96% Natural Grassland 270 270 0 0.00% 270 0 -0.07% 270 0 -0.07% 270 0 -0.09% Needlebark Stringybark-Large Fruited Blackbutt 9547 9469 -78 -0.82% 9407 -140 -1.47% 9330 -218 -2.28% 9233 -314 -3.29% New England Stringybark- Blakelys Red Gum 1067 1067 0 0.00% 1067 0 0.00% 1067 0 0.00% 1067 0 0.00% Northern Grassy Sydney Blue Gum 2856 2856 0 0.00% 2856 0 0.00% 2856 0 0.00% 2856 0 0.00% Northern Open Grassy Blackbutt 18876 18779 -97 -0.51% 18681 -195 -1.03% 18550 -325 -1.72% 18297 -578 -3.06% Northern Ranges Dry Tallowwood 19608 19606 -3 -0.01% 19602 -7 -0.03% 19592 -16 -0.08% 19551 -58 -0.29% Northern Wet Brushbox Rare 10532 10532 0 0.00% 10532 0 0.00% 10532 0 0.00% 10528 -4 -0.04% Northern Wet Tallowwood- Blue Gum Rare 14647 14647 0 0.00% 14647 0 0.00% 14646 0 0.00% 14643 -3 -0.02% Nymboida Tallowwood- Turpentine 2322 2322 0 0.00% 2322 0 0.00% 2322 0 0.00% 2322 0 0.00% Open Coastal Brushbox Vulnerable 3440 3427 -13 -0.39% 3403 -37 -1.07% 3385 -55 -1.60% 3354 -87 -2.52% ~ 190 ~ Open Shrubby Brushbox- Tallowwood 9663 9662 -1 -0.01% 9662 -1 -0.01% 9662 -1 -0.01% 9662 -1 -0.01% Paperbark Rare 22405 22253 -152 -0.68% 22066 -339 -1.51% 21886 -519 -2.32% 21683 -722 -3.22% Red Bloodwood 207 207 0 0.00% 207 0 0.00% 207 0 0.00% 207 0 0.00% Red Mahogany Rare 1251 1248 -2 -0.18% 1248 -2 -0.19% 1248 -2 -0.19% 1248 -2 -0.19% Richmond Range Spotted Gum 16415 16409 -6 -0.03% 16408 -7 -0.04% 16406 -9 -0.05% 16399 -16 -0.10% Richmond Range Spotted Gum-Box 17197 17196 -1 0.00% 17196 -1 0.00% 17196 -1 -0.01% 17195 -2 -0.01% River Oak 824 824 0 -0.04% 822 -2 -0.24% 821 -3 -0.41% 819 -5 -0.58% Rough-barked Apples Rare 1396 1396 -1 -0.04% 1396 -1 -0.04% 1396 -1 -0.04% 1394 -2 -0.13% Saltbush 9 9 0 -3.97% 9 -1 -7.95% 8 -2 -15.89% 8 -2 -15.89% Sandstone Spotted Gum- Blackbutt Vulnerable 3870 3860 -9 -0.24% 3853 -16 -0.42% 3848 -22 -0.56% 3839 -31 -0.80% Sherwood Needlebark Stringybark 8249 8205 -43 -0.52% 8171 -78 -0.94% 8134 -115 -1.39% 8064 -185 -2.24% South Coast Tallowwood-Blue Gum Vulnerable 2569 2568 -1 -0.05% 2565 -4 -0.16% 2564 -5 -0.21% 2553 -16 -0.63% Stringybark-Apple Rare 5044 5043 -1 -0.01% 5043 -1 -0.02% 5043 -1 -0.02% 5043 -1 -0.02% Swamp 11569 11386 -183 -1.58% 11275 -294 -2.54% 11247 -322 -2.79% 11209 -360 -3.11% Swamp Mahogany Rare 351 350 -1 -0.27% 350 -1 -0.27% 350 -1 -0.27% 350 -1 -0.29% Swamp Oak Vulnerable 1946 1914 -32 -1.63% 1891 -55 -2.84% 1884 -62 -3.21% 1875 -71 -3.63% Sydney Peppermint- Stringybark 205 203 -2 -0.92% 203 -2 -0.92% 203 -2 -0.92% 203 -2 -0.76% Tallowwood 3563 3563 0 0.00% 3563 0 0.00% 3563 0 0.00% 3561 -2 -0.05% Turpentine Rare 2470 2437 -33 -1.33% 2390 -80 -3.25% 2320 -150 -6.06% 2208 -263 -10.63% ~ 191 ~ Very Wet New England Blackbutt-Tallowwood 434 434 0 0.00% 434 0 0.00% 434 0 0.00% 434 0 0.00% Wattle 783 771 -12 -1.56% 765 -18 -2.35% 745 -39 -4.92% 720 -63 -8.09% Wet Bloodwood-Tallowwood 25677 25646 -31 -0.12% 25572 -105 -0.41% 25477 -199 -0.78% 25238 -438 -1.71% Wet Coastal Tallowwood- Brushbox 1526 1512 -14 -0.94% 1498 -28 -1.83% 1485 -42 -2.73% 1465 -62 -4.03% Wet Flooded Gum- Tallowwood 5399 5357 -42 -0.77% 5287 -112 -2.07% 5178 -220 -4.08% 4954 -445 -8.24% Wet Foothills Blackbutt- Turpentine 1014 1014 0 0.00% 1014 0 0.00% 1014 0 0.00% 1012 -2 -0.17% Forestry Plantations 10325 10313 -12 -0.12% 10310 -15 -0.15% 10310 -15 -0.15% 10310 -15 -0.15% Improved Pasture and Cropland 507 507 -1 -0.14% 507 -1 -0.14% 507 -1 -0.14% 507 -1 -0.14% Introduced Scrub 989 989 0 0.00% 989 0 0.00% 987 -2 -0.20% 982 -8 -0.76% Rainforest Rare 111641 111517 -124 -0.11% 111365 -275 -0.25% 111100 -541 -0.48% 110623 -1018 -0.91% Scrub 4202 4168 -35 -0.83% 4136 -66 -1.57% 4125 -78 -1.85% 4082 -121 -2.87% Sand Ridge 822 819 -4 -0.46% 818 -5 -0.58% 814 -8 -1.02% 813 -10 -1.17% Cleared-Partially Cleared 3118 3115 -3 -0.10% 3115 -3 -0.10% 3115 -4 -0.11% 3113 -5 -0.17% Camphor Laurel Vulnerable 6159 5914 -245 -3.98% 5564 -594 -9.65% 5136 -1023 -16.60% 4233 -1925 -31.26% ~ 192 ~ In the population 955497 scenario, the largest change amongst vegetation classes was for the non-native camphor laurel which is considered an undesirable weed species. 1095 hectares (31.26% of its 2004 area) was converted to urban area. The most affected native species was the Clarence lowlands spotted gum of which 1195 hectares (0.93%) became urbanised; a reduced loss of extent compared to the minimal constraints scenarios. The lowland red gum (1094 hectares), dry heathy blackbutt-bloodwood (1090 hectares) and rainforest (1018 hectares) had the next highest conversion to urban and in each case had a greater area converted to urban than the minimal constraints scenarios. 6778 hectares of endangered, rare and threatened native vegetation were lost when the population reached 955497. Most of the individual species of these at risk designations were less impacted and lost proportionally less area to urbanization than the previous scenarios. In particular, the impact on Casuarina woodlands reduced from a loss of 75% of its area within the minimal constraints scenario to 0.89% of its area, mangroves from 24.22% to 0.33% and paperbark from 10.22% to 3.22%. Swamp reduced from 11.74% to 3.11% and the rare herbfield and fjaeldmark, which lost 21.2% of its area, was not affected in this environmental protection scenario. ~ 193 ~ 6.4 SUMMARY Whilst there was an increase in the forest area converted to urban area, there was a reduction on the impact of the coastal complex class and an overall reduction in the areas of native vegetation lost. The losses that occurred were spread across species. The rare, threatened and endangered species were more effectively protected. Additionally areas of key habitat were protected as was the structure, functionality and connectivity in the landscape. A „side effect‟ of constraining development on acid sulphate soils was protection of large areas of sugar cane production. However the environmental protection design for these scenarios increased the impact of urbanization on other agricultural land-pasture, croplands and orchards. Chapter 3 showed that orchards are a growth industry within the region and the next chapter examines their growth and provides a scenario for greater overall protection for valued agricultural areas.