the online meeting place for all who love our amphibians and reptiles |
|
NBN gateway and sharing data |
Post Reply | Page 123> |
Author | ||
sussexecology
Senior Member Joined: 30 Sep 2010 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 411 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: 28 Feb 2012 at 1:18am |
|
I noted in one of Caleb's other posts recently, that he made a comment about consultancies not putting in data requests from local record centres and using NBN gateway instead. Sorry can't remember where I found it as i was doing a bit surfing....
I would agree with you though on the point that NBN data is very limited, when compared to a full desktop study report from a local records centre. And you never know what data you might get from a local records centre. For instance, we recently did one for all protected species and it flagged up adder, virtually within 20 m from the proposed development site. That data I can tell you now was missing from the NBN gateway. That is pretty good going because it means the need for reptile surveys is now justified. We usually have a look on NBN gateway first before submitting a data request as it can give an outline of the area (but to a limited degree). But I can never imagine not doing a data request...... And as for prices for these, well that's nothing really. Pretty good value for money I would say.... And if a consultancy doesn't want to pay for the fee, well they can submit this to the client afterwards (or reimburse from client). Most clients don't mind about this providing that they are given this info beforehand - and we actually had one client recently who offered and paid for the desktop results himself. We find it helpful to add this "desktop study report fee" in the quote for new jobs. You'll see my point now that consultancies who don't want to pay the fee and would rather use NBN gateway data have no excuse ............. Equally important though, is sharing data as a records centre cannot function properly without up to date data. |
||
Suzy
Senior Member Joined: 06 Apr 2005 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 1447 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I would think that however long the list of worthy organisations involved with the NBN Gateway, it is fairly pointless unless there is compulsion for records to be submitted for inclusion.
The records for my area give a hopeless picture of what is out there and unless I'm mistaken the website now seems more complicated to use than it used to be. |
||
Suz
|
||
GemmaJF
Admin Group Joined: 25 Jan 2003 Location: Essex Status: Offline Points: 4359 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
The same seems to be true of most recording systems. Many consultants use records to 'see if they should survey', when in fact the absence of records probably merely indicates that nobody previously surveyed in the area, so in fact records should have no bearing on the need to survey at all.
Records are much more useful for bashing developers and planning authorities when required. Consultants should not be making a decision on whether to survey on the basis of previous recording which is certainly not representative of species distribution in many cases. Looking at county records quite often the only thing they really indicate is the location of the recorders, with plenty of dots within 15 miles of their houses. The usual case with consultants is that they simply do not pass on the information. There are several reasons but not least is 'confidentiality clauses' put in by the client regarding any data collected during surveys and mitigation. One should resists these clauses whenever possible.
|
||
Suzy
Senior Member Joined: 06 Apr 2005 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 1447 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Gemma's comment about county records showing plenty of dots within 15 miles of where recorders live shows up the other problem - high density surveying seems to show high density of species in an area, whereas it might be no more special than other un/or less surveyed areas. I would say Devon overall is undersurveyed and the fairly recently formed DRAG is not interested in involving non-specialists in surveying, great pity.
|
||
Suz
|
||
sussexecology
Senior Member Joined: 30 Sep 2010 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 411 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Gemma that is very true re "confidential clauses" and is something that i would rather get rid of if possible.
the desktop study report should really be used as a background for existing records and assessing the need for the surveys to be undertaken. I would agree that the NBN gateway website is too confusing now and I just annoyed with it. I just feel it is useful to do a background search via a records centre as data on NBN gateway is not always accessible like "you do not have access to this data". This is one reason why I prefer not to use NBN gateway because it is always the record that I want that comes up with "you do not have access....". I guess the point that was being made was that if you don't put in a data request from the records centre, then some data will get missed. For example, the adder within 20 m!!! The justification of surveys should not just be based on background info, but the general likelihood of a species being present based on the presence of suitable habitats - both on and adjacent to the site. All this info combined together should help the conssultant decide whether a survey is required or not. Also, the impacts of the development would trigger whether a survey should be undertaken. Also, the other thing is that if there is a strong likelihood a protected species being present, known records, suitable habitats, impacts of development, etc, then you have no choice but to recommend that surveys are undertaken. Unfortunately, come across some who don't recommend surveys when they are required. Bye for now Back later for a more lengthy discussion......
|
||
GemmaJF
Admin Group Joined: 25 Jan 2003 Location: Essex Status: Offline Points: 4359 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I do agree desk top studies serve a purpose, I always consult the field club local ARG etc for records for any project, not just herps but any species I need to consider.
I just hear far too often from some consultants that they need the information to decide if survey is needed - when in fact it is almost completely irrelevant - though it can be used to persuade a client, one then has the situation that if there are no records it might appear there is no need to survey. For example take a pipe line project where the consultant wanted records x metres from the proposed pipe line to target GCN survey, in fact they should have been looking for ponds x metres from the pipe line not previous records.
I agree with Suz too, concentrated recording can give a false view. I remember well Lee showing me GCN records for Kent which showed a very high proportion of records around Canterbury. One might call it the KRAG/DICE factor! Certainly in Essex we have some massive holes regarding county data and I'm more than happy to help set-up surveys in the county and provide training to anyone who wants to start recording. |
||
sussexecology
Senior Member Joined: 30 Sep 2010 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 411 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Agreed on that one for sure. If there is a lack of records for the area, it doesn't mean that the species won't be there; it just means that the area has probably been under recorded. We here tend to use the NE guidelines to decide when a survey is required or not. Each site is going to be different. Absolutely agree with you re: the pipeline example looking for records, rather than looking at the ponds x meres from the pipeline. I would have said that the ponds should have been the first pointer, especially if there is a cluster of them together. The problem is there is no consistency between consultancies or consultants. Canterbury records of GCN Yes I agree with that and is probably down to recording effort. In fact, KRAG produced an guidance sheet on GCN and development. It states that if there are any of the three factors that are outlined in the GCN mitigation guidelines, then a survey should be undertaken. I think it is down to judgement at the end of the day because sometimes a survey isn't required, and sometimes it is - it's recognising when it's needed and when it's not that is important. bye for now.... |
||
Caleb
Senior Member Joined: 11 Apr 2011 Status: Offline Points: 660 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Don't think it was me, but I feel obliged to comment now! It's worth remembering that the NBN Gateway is just that- a gateway to various datasets. There are datasets from local record centres on there, as well as from centralised schemes. Anyone using it should examine the individual results very carefully- some of them are clearly misidentifications, and some of them are over 100 years old.
The old-style maps are back on there, alongside the new ones, so it should be possible to use it pretty much as it was a few years ago. All the data you can see in the interface is exposed for web queries (using SOAP), so in theory anyone could build their own application or web page to access and/or display the data in any way they wanted. It would be trivial (for example) to get all herp records within ten km of a given grid ref. |
||
sussexecology
Senior Member Joined: 30 Sep 2010 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 411 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Sorry Caleb = thought it was! no worries. Thanks for commenting though I just find NBN gateway annoying for the reasons i stated earlier, and feel that a data trawl from a local records centre will give much more detailed info. i usually look on NBN gateway for records before submitting a data request to get a "feel" for the area, as well as looking at aerial photographs - that's even before I've stepped out on the site to do a walkover. I would agree on your point in relation to records being very historic - which for herps is not really good enough for us, and we will mention historic records if we think it is relevant. I don't want to give the impression that NBN gateway is bad news, because it can be very useful indeed, but I feel that the info contained within is limited somewhat - esp for herp records. I prefer to put in data requests though to the local records centre - that's just a personal preference. The adder record was a very nice surprise I must admit and I became quite excited. But that's half the fun of desktop reports - you just never know what might be thrown up. Edited by sussexecology - 29 Feb 2012 at 11:52am |
||
Noodles
Senior Member Joined: 05 Dec 2010 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 534 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
A lot of the NBN records are old and many are unreliable. In fact i was once told by a planning ecologist and CCW combined not to bother with GCN survey (despite huge potential terrestrial habitat loss within 5-150m of a pool) since the county did not support GCNs! (Apparently) unreliable NBN data suggested otherwise (illustrating several GCN records within the county and some within 2km of the site).
Biological data can rarely be used to omit survey effort and frankly with many smaller development schemes i would not even bother accessing it. I can survey the bloody site and surrounds myself and i know when and what further survey is required based on the habitats present and my experience of protected and priority species survey (especially on my home patch). This may sometimes include purchasing biological data after the field survey, if i think it is necessary or likely to exist! In my county the various species recording groups sell their yearly records to a central database, which in turn sells data to consultants accessing biological information for commercial purposes. Now many of these species recording groups have key recorders and often one recorder can submit up to 90%, or more, of the yearly records; however, the county recorder ends up making all the money from these! Fair? Depending on your outlook on life, not necessarily. So, if such an individual wishes he or she can sell those data direct to the central records office thus making a bit of well earned bootle for themselves! (in some cases by outbidding the species recorders if they wish to send records to both parties [for better conservation effort etc])
|
||
Post Reply | Page 123> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |