Download File type: application/vnd.openxmlformats

End user feedback on proposed LakeSPI changes
Thank you to everyone who provided feedback to the initial LakeSPI outlook document sent
to key end-users earlier year. A collection of the comments, suggestions and questions we
received are listed below (blue text) and our response to them>>>
Will “appropriate acknowledgment be given in the presentation material to the org’s funding the
monitoring... we would be happy to provide our logo”.
We will aim to acknowledge all funded work made available on the web reporting pages. At
this stage likely to be comment at bottom of web report: ‘this survey was carried out with funding
from Environment Bay of Plenty www.boprc.govt.nz’. Will look further into possibility of including
organisation logos.
“Looks like a great communication format”
“Not sure how useful it is for us as we find the LakeSPI report fine for our purposes, but it will be
good to put people looking for further friendly information onto to the revamped webpage.”
An additional benefit of the web reporting pages will be the ability to search/view results for
other lakes regionally and nationally based on differing lake attributes (these may include: lake type,
size, depth and LakeSPI classification) and therefore allow you to make better comparisons between
your lakes and view where they are ranked nationally.
“I have not used the old website much, and tend to rely on the Lake SPI reports that you supply to
the Council when I want information”
Additional benefits of LakeSPI web reporting as above.
“On the whole, we think that the proposed changes look quite logical, although we had some
questions about the scope of the lakes discovery portal/Lake SPI website:
 What actual data will be accessible – i.e. will contract data (i.e. this Council’s data) be made
available through this portal and are there IP issues or privacy issues (for private lakes)
associated with that? “
Information released onto the website will continue to be by approval only, from the
funding organisation.

“Is there any provision in the project for population/updating the database via this project?”
This project will not be funding the entry of new data to into the database as this is
done as part of NIWA contracts to clients, but the uploading of the results to the web
reporting pages is and will continue to be a free NIWA initiative.

“Will the LakeSPI DB be linked to other Lake reporting pages/websites (e.g.. the one being
put together by the University of Waikato)? From a management perspective it would be
good to be able to view trends of a range of variables for a single lake in one place (or at
least have them linked) rather than have to visit several sites. “
At this stage access to other reporting sites won’t be possible from the LakeSPI
website. However we will use standard web-service technology for implementation and are
keen to talk in the future about integrating with other provider data sources.
“In terms of the actual LakeSPI DB, we had the following suggestions:
 Lake name – because of confusion around some lake names it would be good to be able to
search on all known names, and possibly also by grid reference/GPS co-ordinates.”
Lake search functionality will be improved with the addition of new mapping
software and it is hoped that the autocomplete lake search will include all alternate lake
names (where known) with lake location confirmed on accompanying map.

“Lake info – lake size, catchment cover/landuse, land ownership (e.g. private, public reserve
etc.) would be useful additions to lakes reports”
Possibilities for including additional lake attributes onto individual lake report pages
will be looked into further.

“Plant info – good to identify the presence of significant native species (e.g.
rare/threatened, type locality)”
The scope of this project is limited to LakeSPI data only, with FBIS dealing with
species-specific distribution data.

“Qualification of reference state. It would be good to ensure that some qualification is
provided regarding non-vegetated lakes to recognise those sites that would naturally have
been un-vegetated (e.g. dystrophic peat lakes) from those that have undergone a plant
collapse“
Will look into definition of this reference state further.
“Proposed changes look good”
“I think the plot of all lakes is useful to provide national context for local results”.
“The proposed changes look fantastic, as the old LakeSPI pages are definitely clunky!”
“The following search features strike me as very beneficial: multi lake search, and the ‘show only
lakes with reports’ feature”.
“The report section is the key, and needs to be carefully designed to avoid clutter, as it will be quite
busy”.
We will attempt to keep this as simple and user-friendly as possible. The technology we use
is template based and report formats can be easily changed / adopted, and end-users will have an
opportunity to make comments and suggest changes to final web report layout.
“For the single lake reports, I recommend:
- emphasising the number of surveys completed, making this the obvious option for navigating
around the report”.
Great suggestion – will do.
- “definitely go with the time-series plot”
Will do
- “are plant depths the most important data points, or is cover / density / height? I guess we risk
having the whole survey up on the web!”
The maximum depth of plant growth is the obvious data note but will consider other also.
“One major deviation from your plan would be the ability to output detailed info for multiple lakes.
In this scenario, the multi lake report should follow that of the single lake report, with a list of single
lake reports simply stacked in order of selection.
I would be interested in outputting that level of detail for a small number of lakes at once”.
We anticipate that the multiple lakes report will show all detailed LakeSPI information for
selected lakes. Your suggestion with regards to stacking the lakes in order of selection will be
considered further with regards to layout and functionality.
“I would rename the multi lake report shown in the outlook, as a ‘summary’ as it does not report the
same level of detail as the single lake report”.
After further discussions it is now envisaged that the single lake report will show all lake
results for a single lake over time. The multi lake report will show only the latest results for a
selection of lakes, and a national summary report will provide a summary of all LakeSPI available
nationally.
“The information that you have included in this summary is useful: colour-coded sites on the map;
the bar-chart with indexes; and the pie-chart. Links to the doco (reports) will no doubt provide the
context, ie how the categories are derived (excellent, high, mod, poor)”.
An explanation for interpreting LakeSPI results and report formats will be provided along
with links to accompanying LakeSPI manuals.
“I didn't know that I was able to access the LakeSPI database so that is good to know”.
“It’s looking pretty good to me”.
“Will you be able to select lakes by zooming in on the map etc. in case you don't know the lake
name?”
Yes – this should be possible.
“Will you be able to search by lake types e.g., FENZ, or depth, distance inland, LakeSPI score range,
water quality variables, TLI scores, or vegetation/species type? that might be useful to aid making
comparisons against other similar lake types”
Lake type is one of the possible lake attributes that we hope to be able to include in the lake search
function once upgraded.
“how integrated will this be with other DB such the NZFFD....e.g., will i be able to choose Lake
Pounui and see the LakeSPI stuff but also be able to see any fishing records etc”.
The LakeSPI upgrade is part of a larger NIWA initiative to link and allow access to NIWA data.
Since we are using web services technology to serve the information out to a client, this type of data
search should be available in the future. We want users to find ALL NIWA held sampling points
through one interface.
“love the sound of the proposed changes”
“A few thoughts:
 Wild card search for lake name would be helpful”
Wild card search for lake names will be possible.

“Would like to see the same sort of info available as we currently get in the Northland Lakes
Ecological Status report each year. At present we load that report as a series of pdfs on our
website each year, but it would be better for the info to be available on the LakeSPI site and
for us to provide a brief summary and the link on our website.”
LakeSPI results for lakes in the Northland region can be included on the LakeSPI web
reporting pages, however the scope of this project will not allow for us to upload other
ecological status results.

“An easy to spot overall ranking such as we have in that report would also be good. E.g.
good to know at a glance whether lake is Outstanding.”
LakeSPI is a different assessment process using different information but does report
on overall LakeSPI status using five lake condition categories.

“Graphs of changes over time good to have.”
Graphs showing change over time will be available.
“Need to be able to see detail of all surveys as well as most recent. Also, info on when lake
is likely to be resurveyed.”
Individual lake reports will show results for all LakeSPI surveys completed for a lake
over time. It won’t be possible in the scope of this project to include such details as when a
lake is likely to next be surveyed.


“Like the sound of the reporting tool. Would be good to be able to generate reports for
lakes within a region or part of a region, or by ranking, or lake type. Would be good to have
a variety of display options for the reports as you’ve suggested.”
Lake search functionality will be improved and it is hoped that a range of different
lake attributes will be able to be used in search criteria.
“Will you be able to search by lake types e.g., FENZ, or depth, distance inland, LakeSPI score range,
water quality variables, TLI scores, or vegetation/species type? that might be useful to aid making
comparisons against other similar lake types”
Lake type is one of the possible lake attributes that we hope to be able to include in the lake
search function once upgraded.
“how integrated will this be with other DB such the NZFFD....e.g., will i be able to choose Lake
Pounui and see the LakeSPI stuff but also be able to see any fishing records etc”.
The LakeSPI upgrade is part of a larger NIWA initiative to link and allow access to NIWA data. Since
we are using web services technology to serve the information out to a client, this type of data search
should be available in the future. We want users to find ALL NIWA held sampling points through one
interface.
>>>Thank you for your time in helping with this project and in particular making the services
which NIWA offers more useful. Please feel free to make further comment below.