11.11.2014 Views

Report Cover Vol I - Clare County Library

Report Cover Vol I - Clare County Library

Report Cover Vol I - Clare County Library

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

The <strong>County</strong> <strong>Clare</strong> Wetlands Survey Patrick Crushell & Peter Foss 2008<br />

____________________________________________________________________________________<br />

• There is a significant lack of information on the true extent of wetland habitat types occurring on<br />

many sites, making it difficult to assign more than estimated area data to many sites, and<br />

limiting our knowledge of the exact extent of the complete wetland resource in <strong>County</strong> <strong>Clare</strong>.<br />

• Improvements in our knowledge of the wetland resource in <strong>County</strong> <strong>Clare</strong>, will only be achieved<br />

when a systematic wetland survey of the county, where classification of wetland type follows<br />

strict criteria, where extent of wetland type(s) is accurately mapped, and where previously<br />

unsurveyed areas identified as being potentially important for wetlands are surveyed. Any future<br />

wetland surveys of the county should prioritise key habitats that are deemed most threatened<br />

and for which information is lacking.<br />

To this end, Table 8.1 is an overall appraisal of the necessity to carry out further research or surveys on<br />

the various wetland habitats in <strong>Clare</strong> based on the results of this survey and with reference to previous<br />

experience of wetland habitat conservation. Habitats are scored according to their requirement for future<br />

survey.<br />

The scoring system applied is based on a priority scale: low priority (1) – medium priority (2) – high<br />

priority (3). Scores are applied to three different criteria including conservation importance of the habitat,<br />

the occurrence of an information deficit and perceived threat and sensitivity of the habitat (see caption of<br />

Table 8.1). These scores are then summed for each habitat type and ranked from highest to lowest.<br />

Those habitats with a higher score are deemed to be of the highest priority for future research or<br />

investigation using a ‘traffic light’ system. Red being high priority (score 11-15), orange being medium<br />

(score 6-10) and green being of low priority (score 1-5). This ranking system has been developed for use<br />

in the CWS and should be considered provisional. We believe however, that it is a relatively robust<br />

objective means of determining survey priorities.<br />

Those habitats that came out with the highest priority include fens, turloughs, lakes and springs. In<br />

the case of raised bogs they came out high due to their high conservation importance and threatened<br />

status. However since surveys have been carried out on these habitat type before it scored low for<br />

information gaps. We believe in this case the high ranking indicates that restoration or management<br />

measures should be applied to safeguard the habitat from future loss.<br />

68

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!