Free Download - HCCREMS

HClNC Vegetation Classification & mapping Project: Volume 1: Vegetation Classification Technical Report
difficult and costly to sample. At the local / coastal scale, 14 of the Quaternary geology units
contained less than three sites per unit while after sampling this was reduced to five units. In
terms of the proportional sampling priorities nine of the coastal units contained less than one
site per 1000 ha prior to sampling and this was reduced to four units.
The final site selection process was based on the areas identified by the expert review panel
(see section 3.2.3). Sampling of these areas mostly required liaison with landholders as the
majority were private tenure. This process is time consuming and generally yields poor
response rates from landholders. However, a number of surveys were carried out within
these areas, in particular, reasonably good sampling of the large poorly sampled area to the
north of Murrurundi was achieved. A number of areas identified through this process remain
under-sampled, in particular, areas to the north-east in the Taree hinterland and the foothills
of the tablelands escarpment proved difficult to access: these areas are both rugged terrain and
predominately privately owned.
4.3 Vegetation community classification
4.3.1 Expert review of the draft classification scheme
The draft final classification scheme presented to the expert review panel was based on a total
analysis dataset of 5531 sites and included 258 proposed groups of which 70 groups remained
unresolved at the time of review. The botanical team deferred finalisation of these 70 groups
until after the review workshop. Of the 5531 sites included in the draft classification 265 were
unallocated at the time of review, 164 were removed from the classification due to suspected
errors in the data and 39 individual sites were marked for review to determine whether they
belonged with an existing group or represented a poorly sampled community.
4.3.2 Outcomes of the expert review
During the classification review workshop all groups and individual sites marked for review
were discussed and all comments recorded. For each group considered, the expert panel could
advise that the group be removed, split or merged to create new groups, or flagged for further
analysis, along with providing additional details on reasons for proposed changes. In addition
possible outlier sites were identified for checking and removal. The collated feedback from the
review workshop is included in Appendix 6. To summarise the feedback on the 258 groups
presented to the review panel: 161 groups were accepted with no major changes, five were
identified for removal, 78 were identified for either merging or splitting and 14 for further
analysis (see Table 4.4). In addition 45 groups were identified as having possible outlier sites for
removal or reallocation.
A further 32 known communities were proposed by the panel which were considered to
be unrepresented in the classification. Of the 39 individual sites presented to the review for
consideration as possibly representing under-sampled communities 14 were identified as either
belonging to existing groups or representing under-sampled communities. Of these nine were
shrubby rock outcrop sites and five were identified as representing the only sample of possible
poorly sampled communities.
54