Determining Site Values, with no Internal Data
Summary
- There are 10 posts — by 7 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by James Lambie at 2010 Mar 08 13:16 NZDT
One of the participants at a recent workshop described a situation where, to inform a consent process, it was necessary to try to find out about any ecological values that may be present at a site, for which no data can be found internally, and where a site visit would be expensive. If you have some experience with this, can you please share some pointers about this. Where would you look to find useful ecological data about a site in your region? How do you go about deciding what meaning the data actually has, for purposes such as a consent application?
Dan -- Dan Randow Chief Wrangler OnlineGroups.Net +64-3-377-5377 +64-27-431-4928 409 Kenton Chmbrs, 190 Hereford St, Christchurch PO Box 739, Christchurch, 8140 Aotearoa (New Zealand) http://onlinegroups.net http://groupserver.org http://twitter.com/danrandow Skype: vonrandow
Being someone who does work directly with the consenting
department......
I wonder.........
Without the relevant information, how can a consenting planner be in
receipt of all the facts pertaining to the effects of the proposal?
And as such how can an informed decision be made as to whether the
applicant has mitigated, remedied or alleviated the effects of the
proposal?
How many ecological/environmental reports has anyone read that don't
actually cover all of the issues on the site, or at best skim over the
facts based on reducing costs; which then require additional information
to be requested, pursuant of s92 of the 'Act'.
I would be very mindful about trying to give expert evidence based on
not having undertaken a site visit. An applicants expert witness raised
a few eyebrows at the Environment Court, only recently, having tried the
same approach.......
Costs don't really factor into the RMA, it's great customer service, but
not a requirement of the consent process
Rue Statham| Ecology Adviser | Resource Management |
Customer Service
p: 09 427 3396 | e: <email obscured>
Rodney District Council | 50 Centreway Road | Private Bag
500 | Orewa 0946 | New Zealand
p: 0800 426 5169 | f: 426 7280 | www.rodney.govt.nz
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
-----Original Message----- From: <email obscured> <email obscured> <email obscured>> ] On Behalf Of Dan Randow Sent: Tuesday, 2 March 2010 3:46 p.m. To: <email obscured> Subject: [dataversity public discussion] Determining Site Values, with no Internal Data One of the participants at a recent workshop described a situation where, to inform a consent process, it was necessary to try to find out about any ecological values that may be present at a site, for which no data can be found internally, and where a site visit would be expensive. If you have some experience with this, can you please share some pointers about this. Where would you look to find useful ecological data about a site in your region? How do you go about deciding what meaning the data actually has, for purposes such as a consent application? Dan -- Dan Randow Chief Wrangler OnlineGroups.Net +64-3-377-5377 +64-27-431-4928 409 Kenton Chmbrs, 190 Hereford St, Christchurch PO Box 739, Christchurch, 8140 Aotearoa (New Zealand) http://onlinegroups.net <http://onlinegroups.net> http://groupserver.org <http://groupserver.org> http://twitter.com/danrandow <http://twitter.com/danrandow> Skype: vonrandow ----------------------------------------- Full text of this topic in Dataversity Public Discussion: http://dataversity.org.nz/r/topic/i9GU1uFyuIIiLbIvDgpw9 <http://dataversity.org.nz/r/topic/i9GU1uFyuIIiLbIvDgpw9> To leave Dataversity Public Discussion, email <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscrib e> Start your own free groups and site with OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net <http://onlinegroups.net> Host your own online groups site with GroupServer http://groupserver.org <http://groupserver.org> DISCLAIMER: The information contained in this email message is confidential and for the attention of the intended recipient only. It is not necessarily the official view or communication of the Rodney District Council. If you are not the intended recipient you must not disclose, copy or distribute this message or the information in it. If you have received this message in error, please delete or destroy all copies of the email and notify the sender immediately. Rodney District Council accepts no responsibility for any effects this email message or attachments has on the recipient network or computer system.
Assessing ecological values of sites is a major part of my work. I would not assess a site without visiting it. If I had to, my initial list of information sources would look something like this: Vegetation - Hi Res Aerial imagery, LCDBII Database, PNAP Survey report Birds - OSNZ's Bird Atlas Database Herpetofauna - DOC's Herpetofauna database Freshwater - NIWA's Freshwater Fish Database In fact, we usually obtain the above information as a preliminary step even when know we will be conducting an on-site ecological assessment. The information can provide a useful 'heads up' on what to look out for during the fieldwork. Depending on the area concerned there may be other sources of relevant local information such as management plans for nearby reserves, or local state of the environment reports. Most of the information I've mentioned is at such a broad scale that it may not apply to the site at all. The report produced would therefore be meaningless without verification by site visit. I agree with Rue on the issue of expense: it is the consent applicant's responsibility to identify the ecological values at the site of their proposed activity. Applicants are also responsible for identifying and avoiding/mitigating/off-setting the ecological effects of their proposal. The consenting authority should request further information (RMA Section 92) from the applicant at the applicant's expense if there are any gaps. Expense shouldn't come into it. If the applicant doesn't provide an adequate assessment of environmental effects then consent should be refused. Simon Chapman Principal / Ecologist email: <email obscured> • ddi: 64 9 359 5247 • mob: 021 436 841 tel: 64 9 358 2526 • fax: 64 9 359 5300 PO BOX 91 250 • LEVEL 3, IBM CENTRE • 82 WYNDHAM STREET • AUCKLAND 1142 • NEW ZEALAND
www.boffamiskell.co.nz -----Original Message----- From: <email obscured> <email obscured>] On Behalf Of Dan Randow Sent: Tuesday, 2 March 2010 3:46 p.m. To: <email obscured> Subject: [dataversity public discussion] Determining Site Values, with no Internal Data One of the participants at a recent workshop described a situation where, to inform a consent process, it was necessary to try to find out about any ecological values that may be present at a site, for which no data can be found internally, and where a site visit would be expensive. If you have some experience with this, can you please share some pointers about this. Where would you look to find useful ecological data about a site in your region? How do you go about deciding what meaning the data actually has, for purposes such as a consent application? Dan -- Dan Randow Chief Wrangler OnlineGroups.Net +64-3-377-5377 +64-27-431-4928 409 Kenton Chmbrs, 190 Hereford St, Christchurch PO Box 739, Christchurch, 8140 Aotearoa (New Zealand) http://onlinegroups.net http://groupserver.org http://twitter.com/danrandow Skype: vonrandow ----------------------------------------- Full text of this topic in Dataversity Public Discussion: http://dataversity.org.nz/r/topic/i9GU1uFyuIIiLbIvDgpw9 To leave Dataversity Public Discussion, email <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe Start your own free groups and site with OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net Host your own online groups site with GroupServer http://groupserver.org ##################################################################################### This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not use, disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email and then delete the emails. Views expressed in this email may not be those of Boffa Miskell Ltd. This e-mail message has been scanned for Viruses and Content and cleared by MailMarshal ##################################################################################### Please consider the environment before printing this email.
can i suggest that there is another source of pre-existing data you can use for surveys - nz biodiversity recording network (www.nzbrn.org.nz) - previously promoted on this forum. of course it is not site specific (unless data has been entered from your site before), but can provide lists of species previously recorded in an area. choose organism type (portal), select location (choose goole map option or an ecological district etc), zoom down to the area u want, select that area, select report, select list of records or excel spreadsheet. if it doesn't work without logging on, u may need to log on (assuming u have previously registered). cheers colin meurk
________________________________________ From: <email obscured> <email obscured>] On Behalf Of Simon Chapman <email obscured>] Sent: Tuesday, 2 March 2010 4:50 p.m. To: <email obscured> Subject: Re: [dataversity public discussion] Determining Site Values, with no Internal Data Assessing ecological values of sites is a major part of my work. I would not assess a site without visiting it. If I had to, my initial list of information sources would look something like this: Vegetation - Hi Res Aerial imagery, LCDBII Database, PNAP Survey report Birds - OSNZ's Bird Atlas Database Herpetofauna - DOC's Herpetofauna database Freshwater - NIWA's Freshwater Fish Database In fact, we usually obtain the above information as a preliminary step even when know we will be conducting an on-site ecological assessment. The information can provide a useful 'heads up' on what to look out for during the fieldwork. Depending on the area concerned there may be other sources of relevant local information such as management plans for nearby reserves, or local state of the environment reports. Most of the information I've mentioned is at such a broad scale that it may not apply to the site at all. The report produced would therefore be meaningless without verification by site visit. I agree with Rue on the issue of expense: it is the consent applicant's responsibility to identify the ecological values at the site of their proposed activity. Applicants are also responsible for identifying and avoiding/mitigating/off-setting the ecological effects of their proposal. The consenting authority should request further information (RMA Section 92) from the applicant at the applicant's expense if there are any gaps. Expense shouldn't come into it. If the applicant doesn't provide an adequate assessment of environmental effects then consent should be refused. Simon Chapman Principal / Ecologist email: <email obscured> • ddi: 64 9 359 5247 • mob: 021 436 841 tel: 64 9 358 2526 • fax: 64 9 359 5300 PO BOX 91 250 • LEVEL 3, IBM CENTRE • 82 WYNDHAM STREET • AUCKLAND 1142 • NEW ZEALAND www.boffamiskell.co.nz -----Original Message----- From: <email obscured> <email obscured>] On Behalf Of Dan Randow Sent: Tuesday, 2 March 2010 3:46 p.m. To: <email obscured> Subject: [dataversity public discussion] Determining Site Values, with no Internal Data One of the participants at a recent workshop described a situation where, to inform a consent process, it was necessary to try to find out about any ecological values that may be present at a site, for which no data can be found internally, and where a site visit would be expensive. If you have some experience with this, can you please share some pointers about this. Where would you look to find useful ecological data about a site in your region? How do you go about deciding what meaning the data actually has, for purposes such as a consent application? Dan -- Dan Randow Chief Wrangler OnlineGroups.Net +64-3-377-5377 +64-27-431-4928 409 Kenton Chmbrs, 190 Hereford St, Christchurch PO Box 739, Christchurch, 8140 Aotearoa (New Zealand) http://onlinegroups.net http://groupserver.org http://twitter.com/danrandow Skype: vonrandow ----------------------------------------- Full text of this topic in Dataversity Public Discussion: http://dataversity.org.nz/r/topic/i9GU1uFyuIIiLbIvDgpw9 To leave Dataversity Public Discussion, email <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe Start your own free groups and site with OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net Host your own online groups site with GroupServer http://groupserver.org ##################################################################################### This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not use, disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email and then delete the emails. Views expressed in this email may not be those of Boffa Miskell Ltd. This e-mail message has been scanned for Viruses and Content and cleared by MailMarshal ##################################################################################### Please consider the environment before printing this email. ----------------------------------------- Full text of this topic in Dataversity Public Discussion: http://dataversity.org.nz/r/topic/1bxMDBUFAhO63HGkIKGpJZ To leave Dataversity Public Discussion, email <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe Start your own free groups and site with OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net Host your own online groups site with GroupServer http://groupserver.org Please consider the environment before printing this email Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email and then delete the emails. The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz
National data - SSWI and WERI I am sitting on two of DOC's old national datasets at present - I'm trying to decide what we (DOC) should do with them. I'd appreciate feedback from dataversity participants. Both datasets seem relevant to the current discussion about where people can go to find information about ecological values. If you use, or would have a use for either of these datasets I'll like to hear about it. This will help us decide whether to spend money digitising them. SSWI (Sites of Special Wildlife Interest) This data was collected in the 1980s by the NZ Wildlife Service. Specialist staff visited likely looking sites all over NZ and recorded their impressions on the ecological value of each site. The focus was on birds and plants and they made species lists. Cards were made out for each area and I believe these cards were stored out in the areas. Some Conservancies and some councils seem to have access to electronic data from their areas but I don't think there was ever a national database or dataset. We have found a huge number of the cards in storage in DOC in Wellington. I'd be interested to hear whether your council has access to the data from their area and whether you think it would be useful if you did. It would be a huge job to digitise all these cards so I need some advice on how useful the data would be for people given it is from the 1980s. WERI (Wetlands of Ecological and Representative Importance) This was an early wetlands database that DOC inherited from the Wildlife Service and continued to work on for a while. The data in it came from cards that were filled in after visits to wetlands and estuaries all over New Zealand. There is data up until 1985 and there is an electronic database in MS Access. We have recently found the paper maps with the sites marked on them. At present the database identifies the sites by name and a single grid reference. We are trying to gauge whether it will be worthwhile digitising the polygons for each wetland (it seems to be about 4 months work so we only want to do this if people have a use for it). Thanks for your time Lynette Hartley Department of Conservation <email obscured> Ph (030 378 9562 Lynette Hartley, Data Analyst, Ecosystems and Species Unit Five Minute Bird Count Database Administrator 5MBC website Department of Conservation, Research and Development Group PO Box 13049, Christchurch 8141, New Zealand, DDI (03) 378 9562
-----Original Message----- From: <email obscured> <email obscured>] On Behalf Of Simon Chapman Sent: Tuesday, 2 March 2010 4:50 p.m. To: <email obscured> Subject: Re: [dataversity public discussion] Determining Site Values, with no Internal Data Assessing ecological values of sites is a major part of my work. I would not assess a site without visiting it. If I had to, my initial list of information sources would look something like this: Vegetation - Hi Res Aerial imagery, LCDBII Database, PNAP Survey report Birds - OSNZ's Bird Atlas Database Herpetofauna - DOC's Herpetofauna database Freshwater - NIWA's Freshwater Fish Database In fact, we usually obtain the above information as a preliminary step even when know we will be conducting an on-site ecological assessment. The information can provide a useful 'heads up' on what to look out for during the fieldwork. Depending on the area concerned there may be other sources of relevant local information such as management plans for nearby reserves, or local state of the environment reports. Most of the information I've mentioned is at such a broad scale that it may not apply to the site at all. The report produced would therefore be meaningless without verification by site visit. I agree with Rue on the issue of expense: it is the consent applicant's responsibility to identify the ecological values at the site of their proposed activity. Applicants are also responsible for identifying and avoiding/mitigating/off-setting the ecological effects of their proposal. The consenting authority should request further information (RMA Section 92) from the applicant at the applicant's expense if there are any gaps. Expense shouldn't come into it. If the applicant doesn't provide an adequate assessment of environmental effects then consent should be refused. Simon Chapman Principal / Ecologist email: <email obscured> * ddi: 64 9 359 5247 * mob: 021 436 841 tel: 64 9 358 2526 * fax: 64 9 359 5300 PO BOX 91 250 * LEVEL 3, IBM CENTRE * 82 WYNDHAM STREET * AUCKLAND 1142 * NEW ZEALAND www.boffamiskell.co.nz -----Original Message----- From: <email obscured> <email obscured>] On Behalf Of Dan Randow Sent: Tuesday, 2 March 2010 3:46 p.m. To: <email obscured> Subject: [dataversity public discussion] Determining Site Values, with no Internal Data One of the participants at a recent workshop described a situation where, to inform a consent process, it was necessary to try to find out about any ecological values that may be present at a site, for which no data can be found internally, and where a site visit would be expensive. If you have some experience with this, can you please share some pointers about this. Where would you look to find useful ecological data about a site in your region? How do you go about deciding what meaning the data actually has, for purposes such as a consent application? Dan -- Dan Randow Chief Wrangler OnlineGroups.Net +64-3-377-5377 +64-27-431-4928 409 Kenton Chmbrs, 190 Hereford St, Christchurch PO Box 739, Christchurch, 8140 Aotearoa (New Zealand) http://onlinegroups.net http://groupserver.org http://twitter.com/danrandow Skype: vonrandow ----------------------------------------- Full text of this topic in Dataversity Public Discussion: http://dataversity.org.nz/r/topic/i9GU1uFyuIIiLbIvDgpw9 To leave Dataversity Public Discussion, email <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe Start your own free groups and site with OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net Host your own online groups site with GroupServer http://groupserver.org ######################################################################## ############# This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not use, disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email and then delete the emails. Views expressed in this email may not be those of Boffa Miskell Ltd. This e-mail message has been scanned for Viruses and Content and cleared by MailMarshal ######################################################################## ############# Please consider the environment before printing this email. ----------------------------------------- Full text of this topic in Dataversity Public Discussion: http://dataversity.org.nz/r/topic/1bxMDBUFAhO63HGkIKGpJZ To leave Dataversity Public Discussion, email <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe Start your own free groups and site with OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net Host your own online groups site with GroupServer http://groupserver.org ############################################## This e-mail (and attachments) is confidential and may be legally privileged. ##############################################
Hey Lynette One thing I could suggest is writing some brief discovery-level metadata about your datasets into data.govt.nz and seeing who comes back to you wanting to use 'em. The DIA (Dept of INternal Affairs) hasn't done an enormous promotional push (yet?!) on this service but I think you might get some valuable exposure and if you have your own contact details in the entry there's a good chance you'll find some interesting stuff. (I"d recommend the MoRST / NZGO catalogue on environmental & geospatial data-holdings but we're not live yet - we are waiting for the go-ahead to build the full federated connection from it into data.govt.nz so people only have to make metadata once for both catalogues.)
Cheers!
This discussion has thrown up some good suggestions of sources of data for ecological assessments. A couple of other primary sources I neglected to mention on my list are Landcare's Land Environments of New Zealand (LENZ) and NIWA's River Environment Classification (REC). The NZBRN site is an excellent resource for consultant ecologists although it would still be necessary to access the other data sources. I would be reluctant to submit lizard records to NZBRN because poachers/smugglers could access the information with few/no restrictions (cf. DOC's Herpetofauna database). By all accounts poachers are very good at tracking down such sources of information on lizard locations. Sites of Special Wildlife Interest (SSWI) information can be useful despite being quite old. It is especially useful for identifying biodiversity hotspots and species strongholds, or checking whether they still exist. The Protected Natural Area Programme Reports for the Auckland Region's Ecological Districts include SSWI data. In the case of the Waitakere Ecological District Report, the SSWI sites were resurveyed by DOC for inclusion in the PNA report. Coming back to the discussion about whether compiling ecological data from existing sources can substitute for a site visit: by the time the data sources have been accessed (and not all are free), in the vast majority of cases it would have been cheaper and quicker to send an ecologist to visit the site. The information generated during a site visit would be site-specific and up-to-date. On a related note: consultant ecologists often undertake assessments of ecological values/effects for consent applications but the reports usually end up gathering dust in council archives. This may well be a huge untapped biodiversity data resource sitting right under our noses... Do any councils capture information from consent-related ecological assessment reports to use for other purposes? Thanks Simon Chapman Principal / Ecologist email: <email obscured> • ddi: 64 9 359 5247 • mob: 021 436 841 tel: 64 9 358 2526 • fax: 64 9 359 5300 PO BOX 91 250 • LEVEL 3, IBM CENTRE • 82 WYNDHAM STREET • AUCKLAND 1142 • NEW ZEALAND
www.boffamiskell.co.nz -----Original Message----- From: <email obscured> <email obscured>] On Behalf Of Lynette Hartley Sent: Wednesday, 3 March 2010 9:47 a.m. To: <email obscured> Subject: Re: [dataversity public discussion] Determining Site Values, with no Internal Data National data - SSWI and WERI I am sitting on two of DOC's old national datasets at present - I'm trying to decide what we (DOC) should do with them. I'd appreciate feedback from dataversity participants. Both datasets seem relevant to the current discussion about where people can go to find information about ecological values. If you use, or would have a use for either of these datasets I'll like to hear about it. This will help us decide whether to spend money digitising them. SSWI (Sites of Special Wildlife Interest) This data was collected in the 1980s by the NZ Wildlife Service. Specialist staff visited likely looking sites all over NZ and recorded their impressions on the ecological value of each site. The focus was on birds and plants and they made species lists. Cards were made out for each area and I believe these cards were stored out in the areas. Some Conservancies and some councils seem to have access to electronic data from their areas but I don't think there was ever a national database or dataset. We have found a huge number of the cards in storage in DOC in Wellington. I'd be interested to hear whether your council has access to the data from their area and whether you think it would be useful if you did. It would be a huge job to digitise all these cards so I need some advice on how useful the data would be for people given it is from the 1980s. WERI (Wetlands of Ecological and Representative Importance) This was an early wetlands database that DOC inherited from the Wildlife Service and continued to work on for a while. The data in it came from cards that were filled in after visits to wetlands and estuaries all over New Zealand. There is data up until 1985 and there is an electronic database in MS Access. We have recently found the paper maps with the sites marked on them. At present the database identifies the sites by name and a single grid reference. We are trying to gauge whether it will be worthwhile digitising the polygons for each wetland (it seems to be about 4 months work so we only want to do this if people have a use for it). Thanks for your time Lynette Hartley Department of Conservation <email obscured> Ph (030 378 9562 Lynette Hartley, Data Analyst, Ecosystems and Species Unit Five Minute Bird Count Database Administrator 5MBC website Department of Conservation, Research and Development Group PO Box 13049, Christchurch 8141, New Zealand, DDI (03) 378 9562 -----Original Message----- From: <email obscured> <email obscured>] On Behalf Of Simon Chapman Sent: Tuesday, 2 March 2010 4:50 p.m. To: <email obscured> Subject: Re: [dataversity public discussion] Determining Site Values, with no Internal Data Assessing ecological values of sites is a major part of my work. I would not assess a site without visiting it. If I had to, my initial list of information sources would look something like this: Vegetation - Hi Res Aerial imagery, LCDBII Database, PNAP Survey report Birds - OSNZ's Bird Atlas Database Herpetofauna - DOC's Herpetofauna database Freshwater - NIWA's Freshwater Fish Database In fact, we usually obtain the above information as a preliminary step even when know we will be conducting an on-site ecological assessment. The information can provide a useful 'heads up' on what to look out for during the fieldwork. Depending on the area concerned there may be other sources of relevant local information such as management plans for nearby reserves, or local state of the environment reports. Most of the information I've mentioned is at such a broad scale that it may not apply to the site at all. The report produced would therefore be meaningless without verification by site visit. I agree with Rue on the issue of expense: it is the consent applicant's responsibility to identify the ecological values at the site of their proposed activity. Applicants are also responsible for identifying and avoiding/mitigating/off-setting the ecological effects of their proposal. The consenting authority should request further information (RMA Section 92) from the applicant at the applicant's expense if there are any gaps. Expense shouldn't come into it. If the applicant doesn't provide an adequate assessment of environmental effects then consent should be refused. Simon Chapman Principal / Ecologist email: <email obscured> * ddi: 64 9 359 5247 * mob: 021 436 841 tel: 64 9 358 2526 * fax: 64 9 359 5300 PO BOX 91 250 * LEVEL 3, IBM CENTRE * 82 WYNDHAM STREET * AUCKLAND 1142 * NEW ZEALAND www.boffamiskell.co.nz -----Original Message----- From: <email obscured> <email obscured>] On Behalf Of Dan Randow Sent: Tuesday, 2 March 2010 3:46 p.m. To: <email obscured> Subject: [dataversity public discussion] Determining Site Values, with no Internal Data One of the participants at a recent workshop described a situation where, to inform a consent process, it was necessary to try to find out about any ecological values that may be present at a site, for which no data can be found internally, and where a site visit would be expensive. If you have some experience with this, can you please share some pointers about this. Where would you look to find useful ecological data about a site in your region? How do you go about deciding what meaning the data actually has, for purposes such as a consent application? Dan -- Dan Randow Chief Wrangler OnlineGroups.Net +64-3-377-5377 +64-27-431-4928 409 Kenton Chmbrs, 190 Hereford St, Christchurch PO Box 739, Christchurch, 8140 Aotearoa (New Zealand) http://onlinegroups.net http://groupserver.org http://twitter.com/danrandow Skype: vonrandow ----------------------------------------- Full text of this topic in Dataversity Public Discussion: http://dataversity.org.nz/r/topic/i9GU1uFyuIIiLbIvDgpw9 To leave Dataversity Public Discussion, email <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe Start your own free groups and site with OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net Host your own online groups site with GroupServer http://groupserver.org ######################################################################## ############# This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not use, disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email and then delete the emails. Views expressed in this email may not be those of Boffa Miskell Ltd. This e-mail message has been scanned for Viruses and Content and cleared by MailMarshal ######################################################################## ############# Please consider the environment before printing this email. ----------------------------------------- Full text of this topic in Dataversity Public Discussion: http://dataversity.org.nz/r/topic/1bxMDBUFAhO63HGkIKGpJZ To leave Dataversity Public Discussion, email <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe Start your own free groups and site with OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net Host your own online groups site with GroupServer http://groupserver.org ############################################## This e-mail (and attachments) is confidential and may be legally privileged. ############################################## ----------------------------------------- Full text of this topic in Dataversity Public Discussion: http://dataversity.org.nz/r/topic/7lipt8Yg7jXV3JdZFAOv8u To leave Dataversity Public Discussion, email <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe Start your own free groups and site with OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net Host your own online groups site with GroupServer http://groupserver.org ##################################################################################### This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not use, disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email and then delete the emails. Views expressed in this email may not be those of Boffa Miskell Ltd. This e-mail message has been scanned for Viruses and Content and cleared by MailMarshal ##################################################################################### Please consider the environment before printing this email.
cheers simon regarding sensitive records in public databases. note that nzbrn allows you to hide completely or obscure the precise location of records. so u can use it as a private db if u wish, altho hopefully eventually all information can be made open. nzbrn is useful as a means of preparing reports from site visits because u can upload and download data using an excel spreadsheet. it is then an easy matter to reformat appropriately for your report and at the same time the data is archived for posterity - assuming there are no confidentiality issues. cheers
colin ________________________________________ From: <email obscured> <email obscured>] On Behalf Of Simon Chapman <email obscured>] Sent: Wednesday, 3 March 2010 3:24 p.m. To: <email obscured> Subject: Re: [dataversity public discussion] Determining Site Values, with no Internal Data This discussion has thrown up some good suggestions of sources of data for ecological assessments. A couple of other primary sources I neglected to mention on my list are Landcare's Land Environments of New Zealand (LENZ) and NIWA's River Environment Classification (REC). The NZBRN site is an excellent resource for consultant ecologists although it would still be necessary to access the other data sources. I would be reluctant to submit lizard records to NZBRN because poachers/smugglers could access the information with few/no restrictions (cf. DOC's Herpetofauna database). By all accounts poachers are very good at tracking down such sources of information on lizard locations. Sites of Special Wildlife Interest (SSWI) information can be useful despite being quite old. It is especially useful for identifying biodiversity hotspots and species strongholds, or checking whether they still exist. The Protected Natural Area Programme Reports for the Auckland Region's Ecological Districts include SSWI data. In the case of the Waitakere Ecological District Report, the SSWI sites were resurveyed by DOC for inclusion in the PNA report. Coming back to the discussion about whether compiling ecological data from existing sources can substitute for a site visit: by the time the data sources have been accessed (and not all are free), in the vast majority of cases it would have been cheaper and quicker to send an ecologist to visit the site. The information generated during a site visit would be site-specific and up-to-date. On a related note: consultant ecologists often undertake assessments of ecological values/effects for consent applications but the reports usually end up gathering dust in council archives. This may well be a huge untapped biodiversity data resource sitting right under our noses... Do any councils capture information from consent-related ecological assessment reports to use for other purposes? Thanks Simon Chapman Principal / Ecologist email: <email obscured> • ddi: 64 9 359 5247 • mob: 021 436 841 tel: 64 9 358 2526 • fax: 64 9 359 5300 PO BOX 91 250 • LEVEL 3, IBM CENTRE • 82 WYNDHAM STREET • AUCKLAND 1142 • NEW ZEALAND www.boffamiskell.co.nz -----Original Message----- From: <email obscured> <email obscured>] On Behalf Of Lynette Hartley Sent: Wednesday, 3 March 2010 9:47 a.m. To: <email obscured> Subject: Re: [dataversity public discussion] Determining Site Values, with no Internal Data National data - SSWI and WERI I am sitting on two of DOC's old national datasets at present - I'm trying to decide what we (DOC) should do with them. I'd appreciate feedback from dataversity participants. Both datasets seem relevant to the current discussion about where people can go to find information about ecological values. If you use, or would have a use for either of these datasets I'll like to hear about it. This will help us decide whether to spend money digitising them. SSWI (Sites of Special Wildlife Interest) This data was collected in the 1980s by the NZ Wildlife Service. Specialist staff visited likely looking sites all over NZ and recorded their impressions on the ecological value of each site. The focus was on birds and plants and they made species lists. Cards were made out for each area and I believe these cards were stored out in the areas. Some Conservancies and some councils seem to have access to electronic data from their areas but I don't think there was ever a national database or dataset. We have found a huge number of the cards in storage in DOC in Wellington. I'd be interested to hear whether your council has access to the data from their area and whether you think it would be useful if you did. It would be a huge job to digitise all these cards so I need some advice on how useful the data would be for people given it is from the 1980s. WERI (Wetlands of Ecological and Representative Importance) This was an early wetlands database that DOC inherited from the Wildlife Service and continued to work on for a while. The data in it came from cards that were filled in after visits to wetlands and estuaries all over New Zealand. There is data up until 1985 and there is an electronic database in MS Access. We have recently found the paper maps with the sites marked on them. At present the database identifies the sites by name and a single grid reference. We are trying to gauge whether it will be worthwhile digitising the polygons for each wetland (it seems to be about 4 months work so we only want to do this if people have a use for it). Thanks for your time Lynette Hartley Department of Conservation <email obscured> Ph (030 378 9562 Lynette Hartley, Data Analyst, Ecosystems and Species Unit Five Minute Bird Count Database Administrator 5MBC website Department of Conservation, Research and Development Group PO Box 13049, Christchurch 8141, New Zealand, DDI (03) 378 9562 -----Original Message----- From: <email obscured> <email obscured>] On Behalf Of Simon Chapman Sent: Tuesday, 2 March 2010 4:50 p.m. To: <email obscured> Subject: Re: [dataversity public discussion] Determining Site Values, with no Internal Data Assessing ecological values of sites is a major part of my work. I would not assess a site without visiting it. If I had to, my initial list of information sources would look something like this: Vegetation - Hi Res Aerial imagery, LCDBII Database, PNAP Survey report Birds - OSNZ's Bird Atlas Database Herpetofauna - DOC's Herpetofauna database Freshwater - NIWA's Freshwater Fish Database In fact, we usually obtain the above information as a preliminary step even when know we will be conducting an on-site ecological assessment. The information can provide a useful 'heads up' on what to look out for during the fieldwork. Depending on the area concerned there may be other sources of relevant local information such as management plans for nearby reserves, or local state of the environment reports. Most of the information I've mentioned is at such a broad scale that it may not apply to the site at all. The report produced would therefore be meaningless without verification by site visit. I agree with Rue on the issue of expense: it is the consent applicant's responsibility to identify the ecological values at the site of their proposed activity. Applicants are also responsible for identifying and avoiding/mitigating/off-setting the ecological effects of their proposal. The consenting authority should request further information (RMA Section 92) from the applicant at the applicant's expense if there are any gaps. Expense shouldn't come into it. If the applicant doesn't provide an adequate assessment of environmental effects then consent should be refused. Simon Chapman Principal / Ecologist email: <email obscured> * ddi: 64 9 359 5247 * mob: 021 436 841 tel: 64 9 358 2526 * fax: 64 9 359 5300 PO BOX 91 250 * LEVEL 3, IBM CENTRE * 82 WYNDHAM STREET * AUCKLAND 1142 * NEW ZEALAND www.boffamiskell.co.nz -----Original Message----- From: <email obscured> <email obscured>] On Behalf Of Dan Randow Sent: Tuesday, 2 March 2010 3:46 p.m. To: <email obscured> Subject: [dataversity public discussion] Determining Site Values, with no Internal Data One of the participants at a recent workshop described a situation where, to inform a consent process, it was necessary to try to find out about any ecological values that may be present at a site, for which no data can be found internally, and where a site visit would be expensive. If you have some experience with this, can you please share some pointers about this. Where would you look to find useful ecological data about a site in your region? How do you go about deciding what meaning the data actually has, for purposes such as a consent application? Dan -- Dan Randow Chief Wrangler OnlineGroups.Net +64-3-377-5377 +64-27-431-4928 409 Kenton Chmbrs, 190 Hereford St, Christchurch PO Box 739, Christchurch, 8140 Aotearoa (New Zealand) http://onlinegroups.net http://groupserver.org http://twitter.com/danrandow Skype: vonrandow ----------------------------------------- Full text of this topic in Dataversity Public Discussion: http://dataversity.org.nz/r/topic/i9GU1uFyuIIiLbIvDgpw9 To leave Dataversity Public Discussion, email <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe Start your own free groups and site with OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net Host your own online groups site with GroupServer http://groupserver.org ######################################################################## ############# This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not use, disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email and then delete the emails. Views expressed in this email may not be those of Boffa Miskell Ltd. This e-mail message has been scanned for Viruses and Content and cleared by MailMarshal ######################################################################## ############# Please consider the environment before printing this email. ----------------------------------------- Full text of this topic in Dataversity Public Discussion: http://dataversity.org.nz/r/topic/1bxMDBUFAhO63HGkIKGpJZ To leave Dataversity Public Discussion, email <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe Start your own free groups and site with OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net Host your own online groups site with GroupServer http://groupserver.org ############################################## This e-mail (and attachments) is confidential and may be legally privileged. ############################################## ----------------------------------------- Full text of this topic in Dataversity Public Discussion: http://dataversity.org.nz/r/topic/7lipt8Yg7jXV3JdZFAOv8u To leave Dataversity Public Discussion, email <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe Start your own free groups and site with OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net Host your own online groups site with GroupServer http://groupserver.org ##################################################################################### This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not use, disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email and then delete the emails. Views expressed in this email may not be those of Boffa Miskell Ltd. This e-mail message has been scanned for Viruses and Content and cleared by MailMarshal ##################################################################################### Please consider the environment before printing this email. ----------------------------------------- Full text of this topic in Dataversity Public Discussion: http://dataversity.org.nz/r/topic/3hs3J9fQyBpbTL7CJC5oxP To leave Dataversity Public Discussion, email <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe Start your own free groups and site with OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net Host your own online groups site with GroupServer http://groupserver.org Please consider the environment before printing this email Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email and then delete the emails. The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz
yes - more valuable sources. just to note that some older dbs are based on older concepts of conservation and can be used against comtemporary conservation initiatives. eg travis wetland in chch is a case in point. what some saw as a 'cow paddock' with large numbers of pukeko received rather scathing assessment from an older wildlife report. this was brought up during hearings to consider the fate of this area. history shows that the potential of travis was recognised and is now largely realised, but one can see how earlier assessments tended to downgrade cultural landscapes in favour of the 'pristine' which are generally not representative of the cross section of nz cheers
colin ________________________________________ From: <email obscured> <email obscured>] On Behalf Of Lynette Hartley <email obscured>] Sent: Wednesday, 3 March 2010 9:47 a.m. To: <email obscured> Subject: Re: [dataversity public discussion] Determining Site Values, with no Internal Data National data - SSWI and WERI I am sitting on two of DOC's old national datasets at present - I'm trying to decide what we (DOC) should do with them. I'd appreciate feedback from dataversity participants. Both datasets seem relevant to the current discussion about where people can go to find information about ecological values. If you use, or would have a use for either of these datasets I'll like to hear about it. This will help us decide whether to spend money digitising them. SSWI (Sites of Special Wildlife Interest) This data was collected in the 1980s by the NZ Wildlife Service. Specialist staff visited likely looking sites all over NZ and recorded their impressions on the ecological value of each site. The focus was on birds and plants and they made species lists. Cards were made out for each area and I believe these cards were stored out in the areas. Some Conservancies and some councils seem to have access to electronic data from their areas but I don't think there was ever a national database or dataset. We have found a huge number of the cards in storage in DOC in Wellington. I'd be interested to hear whether your council has access to the data from their area and whether you think it would be useful if you did. It would be a huge job to digitise all these cards so I need some advice on how useful the data would be for people given it is from the 1980s. WERI (Wetlands of Ecological and Representative Importance) This was an early wetlands database that DOC inherited from the Wildlife Service and continued to work on for a while. The data in it came from cards that were filled in after visits to wetlands and estuaries all over New Zealand. There is data up until 1985 and there is an electronic database in MS Access. We have recently found the paper maps with the sites marked on them. At present the database identifies the sites by name and a single grid reference. We are trying to gauge whether it will be worthwhile digitising the polygons for each wetland (it seems to be about 4 months work so we only want to do this if people have a use for it). Thanks for your time Lynette Hartley Department of Conservation <email obscured> Ph (030 378 9562 Lynette Hartley, Data Analyst, Ecosystems and Species Unit Five Minute Bird Count Database Administrator 5MBC website Department of Conservation, Research and Development Group PO Box 13049, Christchurch 8141, New Zealand, DDI (03) 378 9562 -----Original Message----- From: <email obscured> <email obscured>] On Behalf Of Simon Chapman Sent: Tuesday, 2 March 2010 4:50 p.m. To: <email obscured> Subject: Re: [dataversity public discussion] Determining Site Values, with no Internal Data Assessing ecological values of sites is a major part of my work. I would not assess a site without visiting it. If I had to, my initial list of information sources would look something like this: Vegetation - Hi Res Aerial imagery, LCDBII Database, PNAP Survey report Birds - OSNZ's Bird Atlas Database Herpetofauna - DOC's Herpetofauna database Freshwater - NIWA's Freshwater Fish Database In fact, we usually obtain the above information as a preliminary step even when know we will be conducting an on-site ecological assessment. The information can provide a useful 'heads up' on what to look out for during the fieldwork. Depending on the area concerned there may be other sources of relevant local information such as management plans for nearby reserves, or local state of the environment reports. Most of the information I've mentioned is at such a broad scale that it may not apply to the site at all. The report produced would therefore be meaningless without verification by site visit. I agree with Rue on the issue of expense: it is the consent applicant's responsibility to identify the ecological values at the site of their proposed activity. Applicants are also responsible for identifying and avoiding/mitigating/off-setting the ecological effects of their proposal. The consenting authority should request further information (RMA Section 92) from the applicant at the applicant's expense if there are any gaps. Expense shouldn't come into it. If the applicant doesn't provide an adequate assessment of environmental effects then consent should be refused. Simon Chapman Principal / Ecologist email: <email obscured> * ddi: 64 9 359 5247 * mob: 021 436 841 tel: 64 9 358 2526 * fax: 64 9 359 5300 PO BOX 91 250 * LEVEL 3, IBM CENTRE * 82 WYNDHAM STREET * AUCKLAND 1142 * NEW ZEALAND www.boffamiskell.co.nz -----Original Message----- From: <email obscured> <email obscured>] On Behalf Of Dan Randow Sent: Tuesday, 2 March 2010 3:46 p.m. To: <email obscured> Subject: [dataversity public discussion] Determining Site Values, with no Internal Data One of the participants at a recent workshop described a situation where, to inform a consent process, it was necessary to try to find out about any ecological values that may be present at a site, for which no data can be found internally, and where a site visit would be expensive. If you have some experience with this, can you please share some pointers about this. Where would you look to find useful ecological data about a site in your region? How do you go about deciding what meaning the data actually has, for purposes such as a consent application? Dan -- Dan Randow Chief Wrangler OnlineGroups.Net +64-3-377-5377 +64-27-431-4928 409 Kenton Chmbrs, 190 Hereford St, Christchurch PO Box 739, Christchurch, 8140 Aotearoa (New Zealand) http://onlinegroups.net http://groupserver.org http://twitter.com/danrandow Skype: vonrandow ----------------------------------------- Full text of this topic in Dataversity Public Discussion: http://dataversity.org.nz/r/topic/i9GU1uFyuIIiLbIvDgpw9 To leave Dataversity Public Discussion, email <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe Start your own free groups and site with OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net Host your own online groups site with GroupServer http://groupserver.org ######################################################################## ############# This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not use, disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email and then delete the emails. Views expressed in this email may not be those of Boffa Miskell Ltd. This e-mail message has been scanned for Viruses and Content and cleared by MailMarshal ######################################################################## ############# Please consider the environment before printing this email. ----------------------------------------- Full text of this topic in Dataversity Public Discussion: http://dataversity.org.nz/r/topic/1bxMDBUFAhO63HGkIKGpJZ To leave Dataversity Public Discussion, email <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe Start your own free groups and site with OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net Host your own online groups site with GroupServer http://groupserver.org ############################################## This e-mail (and attachments) is confidential and may be legally privileged. ############################################## ----------------------------------------- Full text of this topic in Dataversity Public Discussion: http://dataversity.org.nz/r/topic/7lipt8Yg7jXV3JdZFAOv8u To leave Dataversity Public Discussion, email <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe Start your own free groups and site with OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net Host your own online groups site with GroupServer http://groupserver.org Please consider the environment before printing this email Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email and then delete the emails. The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz
Hi All, In response to your decision Lyn, I do use the SSBI and WERI (as well as a digitised RAP layer) from time to time to check for historic values. I believe there is already accessible metadata that describe the datasets and how to acquier them - though maybe they are not on the Dataversity site yet? We have a digital copy of SSBI that has the WERI score - not sure if it came from DoC or is a Horizons' thing. Anyway - look after the data - it is valuable even if it is not used every day. Rue - we do a lot of further info requests - very often the applicant skims over things. New consents planners can often miss important things and I am quite privileged in that the Consents team often ask the ecologists for advice - so we get to provide a lot of consents support. Simon - the check list is great, and it inspires me to do the same for our consents planners. Our Proposed One Plan has quite a number of values layers built from data from LCDBII and NZFWFDB, so the consents planners are obliged to refer to the data, but a list of "other things to look for" is very handy. I too prefer site visits, and largely concur with you and Rue on the costs falling back on the applicant. But you do have to watch where the costs lie in a big region when you have very little data. For instance (real situation), I have to head out the Republic of Whangamomona to check whether the LCDBII category of Indigenous Forest is in fact manuka scrub (which is what it looks like in the aerial photo), when the farmer has already told me it is scrub. Do I charge him the cost to travel from Palmy? And if his assessment was quite correct - do I charge him at all? The answer to this has little to do with dataversity - it is just a heads up. Regards, Jim JAMES LAMBIE | Environmental Scientist - Ecology DDI 06 9522 845 | M 021 2277 235
-----Original Message----- From: <email obscured> <email obscured>] On Behalf Of Lynette Hartley Sent: Wednesday, 3 March 2010 9:47 a.m. To: <email obscured> Subject: Re: [dataversity public discussion] Determining Site Values, with no Internal Data National data - SSWI and WERI I am sitting on two of DOC's old national datasets at present - I'm trying to decide what we (DOC) should do with them. I'd appreciate feedback from dataversity participants. Both datasets seem relevant to the current discussion about where people can go to find information about ecological values. If you use, or would have a use for either of these datasets I'll like to hear about it. This will help us decide whether to spend money digitising them. SSWI (Sites of Special Wildlife Interest) This data was collected in the 1980s by the NZ Wildlife Service. Specialist staff visited likely looking sites all over NZ and recorded their impressions on the ecological value of each site. The focus was on birds and plants and they made species lists. Cards were made out for each area and I believe these cards were stored out in the areas. Some Conservancies and some councils seem to have access to electronic data from their areas but I don't think there was ever a national database or dataset. We have found a huge number of the cards in storage in DOC in Wellington. I'd be interested to hear whether your council has access to the data from their area and whether you think it would be useful if you did. It would be a huge job to digitise all these cards so I need some advice on how useful the data would be for people given it is from the 1980s. WERI (Wetlands of Ecological and Representative Importance) This was an early wetlands database that DOC inherited from the Wildlife Service and continued to work on for a while. The data in it came from cards that were filled in after visits to wetlands and estuaries all over New Zealand. There is data up until 1985 and there is an electronic database in MS Access. We have recently found the paper maps with the sites marked on them. At present the database identifies the sites by name and a single grid reference. We are trying to gauge whether it will be worthwhile digitising the polygons for each wetland (it seems to be about 4 months work so we only want to do this if people have a use for it). Thanks for your time Lynette Hartley Department of Conservation <email obscured> Ph (030 378 9562 Lynette Hartley, Data Analyst, Ecosystems and Species Unit Five Minute Bird Count Database Administrator 5MBC website Department of Conservation, Research and Development Group PO Box 13049, Christchurch 8141, New Zealand, DDI (03) 378 9562 -----Original Message----- From: <email obscured> <email obscured>] On Behalf Of Simon Chapman Sent: Tuesday, 2 March 2010 4:50 p.m. To: <email obscured> Subject: Re: [dataversity public discussion] Determining Site Values, with no Internal Data Assessing ecological values of sites is a major part of my work. I would not assess a site without visiting it. If I had to, my initial list of information sources would look something like this: Vegetation - Hi Res Aerial imagery, LCDBII Database, PNAP Survey report Birds - OSNZ's Bird Atlas Database Herpetofauna - DOC's Herpetofauna database Freshwater - NIWA's Freshwater Fish Database In fact, we usually obtain the above information as a preliminary step even when know we will be conducting an on-site ecological assessment. The information can provide a useful 'heads up' on what to look out for during the fieldwork. Depending on the area concerned there may be other sources of relevant local information such as management plans for nearby reserves, or local state of the environment reports. Most of the information I've mentioned is at such a broad scale that it may not apply to the site at all. The report produced would therefore be meaningless without verification by site visit. I agree with Rue on the issue of expense: it is the consent applicant's responsibility to identify the ecological values at the site of their proposed activity. Applicants are also responsible for identifying and avoiding/mitigating/off-setting the ecological effects of their proposal. The consenting authority should request further information (RMA Section 92) from the applicant at the applicant's expense if there are any gaps. Expense shouldn't come into it. If the applicant doesn't provide an adequate assessment of environmental effects then consent should be refused. Simon Chapman Principal / Ecologist email: <email obscured> * ddi: 64 9 359 5247 * mob: 021 436 841 tel: 64 9 358 2526 * fax: 64 9 359 5300 PO BOX 91 250 * LEVEL 3, IBM CENTRE * 82 WYNDHAM STREET * AUCKLAND 1142 * NEW ZEALAND www.boffamiskell.co.nz -----Original Message----- From: <email obscured> <email obscured>] On Behalf Of Dan Randow Sent: Tuesday, 2 March 2010 3:46 p.m. To: <email obscured> Subject: [dataversity public discussion] Determining Site Values, with no Internal Data One of the participants at a recent workshop described a situation where, to inform a consent process, it was necessary to try to find out about any ecological values that may be present at a site, for which no data can be found internally, and where a site visit would be expensive. If you have some experience with this, can you please share some pointers about this. Where would you look to find useful ecological data about a site in your region? How do you go about deciding what meaning the data actually has, for purposes such as a consent application? Dan -- Dan Randow Chief Wrangler OnlineGroups.Net +64-3-377-5377 +64-27-431-4928 409 Kenton Chmbrs, 190 Hereford St, Christchurch PO Box 739, Christchurch, 8140 Aotearoa (New Zealand) http://onlinegroups.net http://groupserver.org http://twitter.com/danrandow Skype: vonrandow ----------------------------------------- Full text of this topic in Dataversity Public Discussion: http://dataversity.org.nz/r/topic/i9GU1uFyuIIiLbIvDgpw9 To leave Dataversity Public Discussion, email <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe Start your own free groups and site with OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net Host your own online groups site with GroupServer http://groupserver.org ######################################################################## ############# This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not use, disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email and then delete the emails. Views expressed in this email may not be those of Boffa Miskell Ltd. This e-mail message has been scanned for Viruses and Content and cleared by MailMarshal ######################################################################## ############# Please consider the environment before printing this email. ----------------------------------------- Full text of this topic in Dataversity Public Discussion: http://dataversity.org.nz/r/topic/1bxMDBUFAhO63HGkIKGpJZ To leave Dataversity Public Discussion, email <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe Start your own free groups and site with OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net Host your own online groups site with GroupServer http://groupserver.org ############################################## This e-mail (and attachments) is confidential and may be legally privileged. ############################################## ----------------------------------------- Full text of this topic in Dataversity Public Discussion: http://dataversity.org.nz/r/topic/7lipt8Yg7jXV3JdZFAOv8u To leave Dataversity Public Discussion, email <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe Start your own free groups and site with OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net Host your own online groups site with GroupServer http://groupserver.org Horizons Regional Council | 24 hr freephone 0508 800 800 | www.horizons.govt.nz This email is covered by the disclaimers which can be found here: http://www.horizons.govt.nz/default.aspx?pageid=219
Loading…
Privacy | Acceptable Use | Terms of Service | About OnlineGroups.Net | Contact OnlineGroups.Net
Start an OnlineGroups.Net site for easier email collaboration in your organization.
Powered by GroupServer, the open source web-based mailing list manager.