SNA mapping issues
Summary
- There are 2 posts — by 2 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by Peter Anderson at 2010 Mar 12 12:22 NZDT
Hi All, I have a couple of technical questions for you regarding the mapping of Significant Natural Areas (SNA). I would appreciate any feedback. 1.) How do you map indigenous vegetation that is unlikley to be cleared on "queens chain" or "paper road" land, and is surrounded by, or adjacent to, other large blocks of indigenous vegetation? - Do you consider it protected or unprotected? - Do you consider it private or public? - Should it be a separate long, narrow SNA or should it be merged with adjacent SNA? EW has taken the approach that it should be merged with whatever is the dominant adjacent SNA site no matter the status/tenure. What do you think of this approach? 2.) We have some SNA that are ecologically very similar and meet the same criteria for SNA significance but are spatially disjoint/fragmented, for example some unprotected blocks of indigenous forest on either side of, or nearby, a large protected block of indigenous forest but not necessarily that close to each other. - At what distance might you consider the separate unprotected blocks too disjoint/fragmented to be considered as one SNA site (i.e. the physical geography between them warrants them being considered separate SNA even though they are very similar in every other way)? Look forward to hearing from you. Thanks Yanbin <email obscured> ********************************************************************** This email message and any attached files may contain confidential information, and may be subject to legal professional privilege. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately and destroy the original message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of Environment Waikato. Environment Waikato makes reasonable efforts to ensure that its email has been scanned and is free of viruses. However, Environment Waikato can make no warranty that this email or any attachments to it are free from viruses. Visit our website at http://www.ew.govt.nz **********************************************************************
Hi Yanbin, The approach I would take is- 1. Agree with EW. Biota don't recognise human "invisible" boundaries within their home range or territories. Their home/habitat is the contiguous area and or close adjoining/adjacent habitat (depending on species and species mobility and requirements), regardless of tenure or protected/unprotected status. 2. In conjunction with the above conclusion, and accepting that "We have some SNA that are ecologically very similar and meet the same criteria for SNA significance but are spatially disjoint/fragmented," and thus would have the same ecological ranking, then I would identify the fragmented group as a single "suite" of SNA with its own generic number and ranking. In the past we have done this for bush remnants within a single discrete catchment and also for a number of small individual dune lakes. Had the lakes in particular, been ranked individually, they would have scored lowly and this simply did not reflect on their real value as a collective group or suite of habitats utilized by a number of mobile threatened species such as bittern (C. Ogle suggested they require over 40 ha of wetland for habitat, but that does not need to be contiguous habitat), scaup and NZ dabchick. Two basic criteria here - ecosystem rarity and habitat value for species.
Regards, Peter. -----Original Message----- From: <email obscured> <email obscured>] On Behalf Of Yanbin Deng Sent: Friday, 12 March 2010 11:28 a.m. To: <email obscured> Subject: [dataversity public discussion] SNA mapping issues Hi All, I have a couple of technical questions for you regarding the mapping of Significant Natural Areas (SNA). I would appreciate any feedback. 1.) How do you map indigenous vegetation that is unlikley to be cleared on "queens chain" or "paper road" land, and is surrounded by, or adjacent to, other large blocks of indigenous vegetation? - Do you consider it protected or unprotected? - Do you consider it private or public? - Should it be a separate long, narrow SNA or should it be merged with adjacent SNA? EW has taken the approach that it should be merged with whatever is the dominant adjacent SNA site no matter the status/tenure. What do you think of this approach? 2.) We have some SNA that are ecologically very similar and meet the same criteria for SNA significance but are spatially disjoint/fragmented, for example some unprotected blocks of indigenous forest on either side of, or nearby, a large protected block of indigenous forest but not necessarily that close to each other. - At what distance might you consider the separate unprotected blocks too disjoint/fragmented to be considered as one SNA site (i.e. the physical geography between them warrants them being considered separate SNA even though they are very similar in every other way)? Look forward to hearing from you. Thanks Yanbin <email obscured> ********************************************************************** This email message and any attached files may contain confidential information, and may be subject to legal professional privilege. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately and destroy the original message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of Environment Waikato. Environment Waikato makes reasonable efforts to ensure that its email has been scanned and is free of viruses. However, Environment Waikato can make no warranty that this email or any attachments to it are free from viruses. Visit our website at http://www.ew.govt.nz ********************************************************************** ----------------------------------------- Full text of this topic in Dataversity Public Discussion: http://dataversity.org.nz/r/topic/5FT2pYaLE34yESReSxqPVs 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 North Shore City Council 1 The Strand, Takapuna Private Bag 93500, Takapuna, North Shore City, New Zealand -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Find out what's up in North Shore City. Subscribe to shorelife, a free monthly email newsletter packed full of events, news, projects and activities throughout the shore. Sign up at www.northshorecity.govt.nz -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The information contained in this e-mail is privileged and confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you are asked to respect that confidentiality and not disclose, copy or make use of its contents. If received in error you are asked to destroy the e-mail and contact the sender immediately. Your assistance is appreciated. Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
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.