Significant Natural Areas (SNA) of the Waikato Region - Karst ecosystems

Report: TR 2022/43

Authors: Gerry Kessels and Briar Taylor-Smith (Bluewattle Ecology)

Waikato Regional Council aims to prioritise natural areas in the Waikato region for biodiversity management. The main component of this assessment is setting up inventories by Biodiversity Vegetation, GIS mapping, using Waikato Regional Policy Statement (WRPS) criteria to identify Significant Natural Areas (SNA’s) and prioritising SNA sites for biodiversity management.

This process is required for Council to fulfil its obligations in relation to Section 6(c) of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) to maintain and enhance biodiversity. Karst ecosystems can comprise of indigenous vegetation or habitats of indigenous fauna and flora that is nationally uncommon, or historically rare. In this context, the council wishes to provide the baseline information for karst ecological restoration and assist with further policy development.

This report outlines the methodological processes used to:

• An overview of information used for scoring the biotic values of karst ecosystems based on the WRPS ecological significance determination criteria (Table 11-A) ;
• A list of criteria and their definitions for assigning threats karst ecosystems face and management priority rankings, including how to apply these criteria and the relative importance (i.e. weight) of each criterion; and
• The results of applying this methodology to the previously determined ‘Top 58’ Karst ecosystems (SNAs) in the Waikato Region.

The assessment process considers only the ecological (i.e. biotic) values of the top 58 karst SNA. Karst systems will have a range of other values, such as landscape, geological, paleontological, archaeological and cultural values, which are not included in the scope of this assessment. The ecological criteria use in the ranking assessment are based on the WRPS criteria to identify Significant Natural Areas (SNA’s) and management criteria (including threat and vulnerability factors)

From this process 58 sites were ranked in terms of their ecological value, the threats they face and the effort of management requirements to restore their values.