Description: <DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><DIV><P><SPAN>Arch Sites sourced from Arch Site website on 12 March 2013., Sourced as a wfs and saved in g\special\nzaa\arch_site_20130312, A problem was encountered when taken as a wfs that the x and y coords were reversed., To get around this a temp event layer was created (with reversed x and y fields - NZTM E and NZTM N), an export of this created in a file geodatabase then exported again to SDE (Vector)</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></DIV>
Color: [0, 0, 0, 255] Background Color: N/A Outline Color: N/A Vertical Alignment: bottom Horizontal Alignment: left Right to Left: false Angle: 0 XOffset: 0 YOffset: 0 Size: 8 Font Family: Gotham Medium Font Style: normal Font Weight: normal Font Decoration: none
Description: <DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><DIV><P><SPAN>Significant features including Historic sites, Built heritage, Notable Trees, Historic Structures</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></DIV>
Color: [0, 0, 0, 255] Background Color: N/A Outline Color: N/A Vertical Alignment: bottom Horizontal Alignment: left Right to Left: false Angle: 0 XOffset: 0 YOffset: 0 Size: 8 Font Family: Gotham Medium Font Style: normal Font Weight: normal Font Decoration: none
Description: <DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><DIV><P><SPAN>Areas of Significant Features including </SPAN><SPAN>Notable Trees and Historic </SPAN><SPAN>Sites</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></DIV>
Color: [0, 0, 0, 255] Background Color: N/A Outline Color: N/A Vertical Alignment: bottom Horizontal Alignment: left Right to Left: false Angle: 0 XOffset: 0 YOffset: 0 Size: 8 Font Family: Gotham Medium Font Style: normal Font Weight: normal Font Decoration: none
Description: <DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><P><SPAN>Maraes as defined Mauriora Kingi. as listed in Appendix A of District Plan</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV>
Color: [0, 0, 0, 255] Background Color: N/A Outline Color: N/A Vertical Alignment: bottom Horizontal Alignment: left Right to Left: false Angle: 0 XOffset: 0 YOffset: 0 Size: 10 Font Family: Gotham Medium Font Style: normal Font Weight: normal Font Decoration: none
Description: <DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><DIV><P><SPAN>Sourced from Boffa Miskell report - 'Rotorua Caldera Rim - Caldera Rim Rural Character Design Guideline - October 2012' Document reference T11077</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>Caution that spatial data name is referred to as Ridge but within the report it is referred to as Rim.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>Refer G:\Project\GIS006xx\GIS00666\Data_Preparation\Sensitive\T11077gdb_20121011\T11077_Final_Design_Guideline_Final_20121019.pdf</SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P></DIV></DIV></DIV>
Description: <DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><DIV><P><SPAN>Sensitive Rural Areas </SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>Areas where the rural landscape is highly sensitive </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>landscape change have been mapped as part of the </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>identification of the Outstanding Natural Features and </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>Landscapes (ONFLs) , within the June 2010 Landscape </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>Study. Development in these areas require further </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>consideration of the assessment criteria set out in </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>the Regional Policy Statement and in turn the Rotorua </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>District Plan</SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>The identification of the Rotorua Caldera Rim as a </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>separate landscape area denotes the importance of </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>this landform has to the District. The elevated position </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>of the Caldera, its landform and representativeness </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>of the volcanic geomorphology is an important </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>component of Rotorua’s landscape character. </SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>The rural landscape of the Caldera Rim varies around </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>Lake Rotorua, but it is largely within pasture with </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>pocketed areas of rural residential subdivision. The </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>Caldera Rim varies in landform and landcover, with the </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>lower less steep slopes of the Caldera Rim containing </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>more extensive vegetation cover, including forestry. </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>The steeper slopes, conversely, are largely void of </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>significant vegetation cover. </SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P /><P><SPAN><SPAN>Refer G:\Project\GIS006xx\GIS00666\Data_Preparation\Sensitive\T11077gdb_20121011\T11077_Final_Design_Guideline_Final_20121019.pdf</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P></DIV></DIV></DIV>
Description: <DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><P><SPAN><SPAN>Streams digitised from 2006 aerial photography that were viewed to be over 3 m wide. Lines converted to polygons. Considered priority acquisition areas, and also Zoned Reserve 3 in District Plan. Stream Polygons overlay existing zoning. Not split out in zoning due to maintenance issues</SPAN></SPAN></P></DIV></DIV>
Description: <DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><P><SPAN>25m stream buffer for streams greater than 3 m for set back indication purposes in district plan rules</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV>
Description: <DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><P STYLE="font-size:16ptmargin:7 0 7 0;"><SPAN>25m Lake buffer for for set back indication purposes in district plan rules</SPAN></P><DIV><P><SPAN /></P></DIV></DIV>
Description: <DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><P><SPAN>Tors are a feature of the landscape on Mamaku Plateau Formation of ignimbrite, </SPAN></P></DIV></DIV>
Description: <DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><DIV><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>The dataset currently contains mapped polygons representing terrestrial vegetation, palustrine wetlands (degraded and non-degraded) of the Rotorua District within Waikato Regional Council boundary. The data set was digitised off the 2012 WRAPS orthophotography using a slightly simplified version of the LCDB1 and 2 classifications by an experienced land use classifier. The capture scale for digitising was 1:10,000 although the imagery may have been used at up to 1:5,000 for classifying polygons. Despite this the recommended scale of use is no greater than 1:10,000 (see section 5 below).</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>The LCDB classifications were used because a survey of potential data set users at Waikato Regional Council found the classification adequate to meet most users’ needs and also because it was the most nationally consistent land use/cover classification available at the time. It is acknowledged that there are many other vegetation classifications out there (such as Leathwick </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style:italic;"><SPAN>et al</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>(1995), Atkinson (1962) and Nicholls (1976)) that may be more suitable and/or detailed for some users such as ecologists but the goal of this project was to create a data set that had strong temporal and spatial consistency, was easily recognised nationwide and that met the needs of most users.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>For all districts only vegetation classes relevant to regional terrestrial vegetation and wetland biodiversity prioritisation were mapped. The classes are:</SPAN></SPAN></P><P /><TABLE><TBODY><TR><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;font-weight:bold;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Generalised Vegetation Group (GEN_VEG)</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;font-weight:bold;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>LCDB1 Name</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;font-weight:bold;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>LCDB2 Name</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD></TR><TR><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Predominantly Indigenous</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD><TD ROWSPAN="8"><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Shrubland</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Flaxland</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD></TR><TR><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Predominantly Indigenous</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Fernland</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>1</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD></TR><TR><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Predominantly Exotic</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Gorse and Broom</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD></TR><TR><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Predominantly Indigenous</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Manuka and or Kanuka</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD></TR><TR><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Predominantly Indigenous</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Broadleaved Indigenous Hardwoods</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>1</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD></TR><TR><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Predominantly Indigenous</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Sub Alpine Shrubland</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD></TR><TR><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Predominantly Exotic</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Mixed Exotic Shrubland</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>2</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD></TR><TR><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Predominantly Indigenous</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Grey Scrub</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD></TR><TR><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Predominantly Exotic</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD><TD ROWSPAN="5"><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Planted Forest</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Afforestation (not imaged</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>)</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>3, 4</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD></TR><TR><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Predominantly Exotic</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Forest Harvested</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>4, 5</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD></TR><TR><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Predominantly Exotic</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Pine Forest – Closed Canopy</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD></TR><TR><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Predominantly Exotic</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Pine Forest – Open Canopy</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>6</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD></TR><TR><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Predominantly Exotic</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Other Exotic Forest</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>2</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD></TR><TR><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Predominantly Exotic</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>(note this class is captured in SNA as pred.indig.)</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Exotic Hardwoods</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Deciduous Hardwoods</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD></TR><TR><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Predominantly Indigenous</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Indigenous Forest</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Indigenous Forest</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD></TR><TR><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Predominantly Indigenous</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Mangrove</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>7</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Mangrove</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>7</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD></TR><TR><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Mixed Indigenous and Exotic</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Inland Wetland</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Herbaceous Freshwater Vegetation</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD></TR><TR><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Mixed Indigenous and Exotic</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Coastal Wetland</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>7</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Herbaceous Saline Vegetation</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>7</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD></TR><TR><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Predominantly Indigenous</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Bare Ground</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Alpine Grass-/Herbfield</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD></TR><TR><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Mixed Indigenous and Exotic</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD><TD ROWSPAN="2"><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Coastal Sand</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Sand Dunes</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>8</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD></TR><TR><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Mixed Indigenous and Exotic</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Sand Dunes – Highly Modified</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>8</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD></TR><TR><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Mixed Indigenous and Exotic</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD><TD ROWSPAN="2"><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Tussock Grassland</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Tall Tussock Grassland</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD></TR><TR><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Mixed Indigenous and Exotic</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Depleted Tussock Grassland</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><P /><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>1</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>Fernland includes areas of dominant </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style:italic;"><SPAN>Pteridum esculentum</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>(Bracken Fern), </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style:italic;"><SPAN>Gleichenia species</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>(Umbrella Fern) amd </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style:italic;"><SPAN>Paesia scaberula</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>(Ring Fern). It is important to note that in the bioveg mapping project Fernland also includes trunk forming Tree Ferns (Pongas) (e.g. </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style:italic;"><SPAN>Cyathea dealbata</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>(Silver Fern), </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style:italic;"><SPAN>Cyathea medullaris</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>(Black Tree Fern), </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style:italic;"><SPAN>Cyathea smithii</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>(Soft Tree Fern), </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style:italic;"><SPAN>Dicksonia fibrosa</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>(Golden Tree Fern) and </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style:italic;"><SPAN>Dicksonia squarrosa</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>(Wheki Tree Fern)). In LCDB2 the tree ferns group is included in the Broadleaved Indigenous Hardwoods class but the classification deviates here for the purposes of this project.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>2</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>Not to be confused with each other.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>3</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>Includes all newly planted forestry that can not be clearly</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>seen in 2012 WRAPS orthophotography at 1:10,000 scale (usually up to four or five years old), or areas of newly planted forestry that look more like pasture or other vegetation types due to the young age and relatively small extent of the planted trees. Usually this class becomes more evident when viewing the orthophotography at scales of 1:5,000 or greater.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>4</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>These two classes are missing for Hauraki and Waitomo districts and will be mapped and added to the data if and when time and resources allow.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>5</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>Also known as “Clearfell”.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>6</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight:bold;"><SPAN>This class </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>includes the LCDB2 class of</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight:bold;"><SPAN>“</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>Afforestation (imaged, post LCDB1)”. This being only forestry that can be clearly seen in 2012 WRAPS orthophotography at 1:10,000 scale (would have to be at least a four or five years old).</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>7</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>Initially only mapped if evident in 2012 WRAPS orthophotography at 1:10,000 scale and </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>not</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>within</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>the boundaries of other estuarine vegetation feature classes that already exist. Estuarine Vegetation data sourced from Waikato Regional Council is being used to append these classes to the data set over time and may be missing for some districts at this stage.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>8</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>Sand dune classes were added to this classification for mapping for the biodiversity prioritisation project. The classes used are: </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>The descriptions at the equivalent LCDB2 level for these two classes are:</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Sand Dunes = </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>Sand dunes that are either unmodified or only slightly modified by human activity or are a recovering system. It includes those sand dunes that may contain coastal indigenous or exotic herbaceous vegetation such as Pingao, Spinifex or Marram Grass or appear to be bare sand. The bare sand dunes are included as they may have some coastal indigenous herbaceous vegetation on them but this can not be determined from aerial photography. In terms of dune landforms this class includes incipient and established foredunes, backdunes, parabolic dunes, transgressive dunefields or blowouts (see </SPAN></SPAN><A href="http://www.doc.govt.nz/publications/conservation/native-plants/pikao-or-pingao-the-golden-sand-sedge/coastal-sand-dunes-form-and-function/"><SPAN><SPAN>http://www.doc.govt.nz/publications/conservation/native-plants/pikao-or-pingao-the-golden-sand-sedge/coastal-sand-dunes-form-and-function/</SPAN></SPAN></A><SPAN><SPAN>for a detailed description of these features). Where a wetland over 0.5 hectares is present amongst sand dunes then that wetland should be mapped as a separate feature. Sand dunes should not be mapped if they are dominated by pasture or woody vegetation. In the case of woody vegetation these features should be mapped as a separate class.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Sand Dunes – Highly Modified = Sand dunes that are highly modified by human activity such as mining or earthworks but may still contain coastal indigenous or exotic herbaceous vegetation such as Pingao, Spinifex or Marram Grass or appear to be bare sand. The bare sand dunes are included as they may have some coastal indigenous herbaceous vegetation on them but this can not be determined from aerial photography. In terms of dune landforms this class includes foredunes, backdunes, parabolic dunes, transgressive dunefields or blowouts (see </SPAN></SPAN><A href="http://www.doc.govt.nz/publications/conservation/native-plants/pikao-or-pingao-the-golden-sand-sedge/coastal-sand-dunes-form-and-function/%20"><SPAN><SPAN>http://www.doc.govt.nz/publications/conservation/native-plants/pikao-or-pingao-the-golden-sand-sedge/coastal-sand-dunes-form-and-function/</SPAN></SPAN></A><SPAN><SPAN>for a detailed description of these features). Where a wetland over 0.5 hectares is present amongst sand dunes then that wetland should be mapped as a separate feature. Can include areas of newly planted forestry (usually less than 2 years old) where the sand is still the dominant land cover. Sand dunes should not be mapped if they are dominated by pasture or woody vegetation. In the case of woody vegetation these features should be mapped as a separate class.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>LCDB2 classes that are not mapped are:</SPAN></SPAN></P><P /><TABLE><TBODY><TR><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>LCDB1 Name</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>LCDB2 Name</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD></TR><TR><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Urban Open Space</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Urban Parkland/Open Space</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD></TR><TR><TD ROWSPAN="3"><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Primarily Horticulture</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Short-rotation Cropland</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD></TR><TR><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Vineyard</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD></TR><TR><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Orchard and Other Perennial Crops</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD></TR><TR><TD ROWSPAN="2"><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Primarily Pastoral</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>High Producing Exotic Grassland</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD></TR><TR><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Low Producing Grassland</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD></TR><TR><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;font-style:italic;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Not Mapped</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Minor Shelterbelts</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD></TR><TR><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Major Shelterbelts</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Major Shelterbelts</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Some users (such as biosecurity or some environmental scientists) may require these “non-mapped” classes to be mapped. If so this will have to be done as a separate project.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>The descriptions of the land use classes can be found in the New Zealand Land Cover Database Version 2 - Illustrated Guide to Target Classes Parts 1 and 2 (EW Docs # 1147074 and 1147076).</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Attributes used in the GIS data set are:</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;font-style:italic;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>LCDB2_NAME: </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>The dominant (at least 51% of area) LCDB2 class in a polygon or </SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 192;"><SPAN STYLE="font-style:italic;"><SPAN>“Estuarine Veg Extraction” where shapes have been added from the GIS_ALL.ESTUARINE_VEGETATION layer</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;font-style:italic;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>LCDB1_NAME: </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>The dominant (at least 51% of area) LCDB1 class in a polygon.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;font-style:italic;margin:8 0 0 192;"><SPAN><SPAN>GEN_VEG: </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>The generalised vegetation group (Predominantly Indigenous; Mixed Indigenous and Exotic; Predominantly Exotic; Uncertain or Boggy Pasture) assigned to the polygon by the Council. This is derived by running a nested IF functional attribute query on the LCDB2_NAME attribute. The query expression is recorded in section 4 below.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;font-style:italic;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>WETLAND: </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>Is the polygon wetland or contain wetland? (Yes/Null)</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;font-style:italic;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>ESTUARINE_VEG_TYPE</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>Is the VEG_TYPE field copied across from the </SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN STYLE="font-style:italic;"><SPAN>GIS_ALL.ESTUARINE_VEGETATION layer where applicable</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;font-style:italic;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>MINOR_CLSA: </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>A minor LCDB2 class also found within the boundaries of the polygon.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;font-style:italic;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>MINOR_CLSB:</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>A second minor LCDB2 class also found within the boundaries of the polygon.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;font-style:italic;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>MINOR_CLSC:</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>A third minor LCDB2 class also found within the boundaries of the polygon.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;font-style:italic;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>UNCERTAIN1:</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>Indicates if the classifier was uncertain about the classification used, the boundary delineated for the polygon, whether the polygon is wetland or not, or a combination of any of these three things.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;font-style:italic;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>UNCERTAIN2:</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>Indicates if the classifier was uncertain about any, or a combination of any, of the minor classes assigned.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;font-style:italic;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>COMMENTS:</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>Any comments contributed by the classifier.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;font-style:italic;margin:8 0 0 192;"><SPAN><SPAN>CLASS_COR: </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>If a polygon was field checked this attribute indicates if the polygon was classified correctly or not. (Yes; Yes (Orginally No); Uncertain; Can not see; Null)</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;font-style:italic;margin:8 0 0 192;"><SPAN><SPAN>BOUND_COR: </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>If a polygon was field checked this attribute indicates if the polygon had its boundary delineated correctly or not. (Yes; Yes (Orginally No); Uncertain; Can not see; Null)</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;font-style:italic;margin:8 0 0 192;"><SPAN><SPAN>WETLD_COR: </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>If a polygon was field checked this attribute indicates if the polygon had a wetland or not. (Yes; Yes (Orginally No); Uncertain; Can not see; Null)</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;font-style:italic;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>FIELD_COM:</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>If a polygon was field checked this attribute allows the field checker to enter any comments if they deemed it necessary.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;font-style:italic;margin:8 0 0 192;"><SPAN><SPAN>PHOTO_1:</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>An hyperlink to an oblique photo showing the polygon in question when viewed from the field.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>PHOTO_1_ID: </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style:italic;"><SPAN>If a photo is taken then this is the ID of the photo.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;font-style:italic;margin:8 0 0 192;"><SPAN><SPAN>PHOTO_EAST1:</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>The NZTM (begins with a 1) or NZMG (begins with a 2) easting of where photo1 was taken from (some photos only).</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;font-style:italic;margin:8 0 0 192;"><SPAN><SPAN>PHOTO_NTH1:</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>The NZTM (begins with a 5) or NZMG (begins with a 6) northing of where photo1 was taken from (some photos only).</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;font-style:italic;margin:8 0 0 192;"><SPAN><SPAN>PHOTO_2:</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>An sencond hyperlink to an oblique photo showing the polygon in question when viewed from the field.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>PHOTO_2_ID: </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style:italic;"><SPAN>If a second photo is taken then this is the ID of the photo.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;font-style:italic;margin:8 0 0 192;"><SPAN><SPAN>PHOTO_EAST2:</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>The NZTM (begins with a 1) or NZMG (begins with a 2) easting of where photo2 was taken from (some photos only).</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;font-style:italic;margin:8 0 0 192;"><SPAN><SPAN>PHOTO_NTH2:</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>The NZTM (begins with a 5) or NZMG (begins with a 6) northing of where photo2 was taken from (some photos only).</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;font-style:italic;margin:8 0 0 192;"><SPAN><SPAN>DISTRICT: </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>The district within which that polygon lies (polygons that overlap district boundaries are split by those boundaries although these will ultimately be merged together).</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 192;"><SPAN><SPAN>METADATA: </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style:italic;"><SPAN>A hyperlink to the metadata document (will only work internally atthe Council).</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;font-style:italic;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>ID:</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>The unique identifier for the polygon.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>For the purposes of this project “Wetland” areas that are mapped are the palustrine wetlands (</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>permanently or intermittently wet areas with</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>vegetation emergent over shallow or subsurface </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>freshwater, swamps, bogs and marsh – does not include floating plants)</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>It should be noted that some non-mapped classes were mapped if they were identified as being wetland. For example, Low Producing Grassland areas that were identified as being a degraded wetland with some native wetland plants still present were mapped but the only attribute field populated was the “WETLAND” or a “MINOR_CLS” field.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Coastal vegetation (Mangroves and Herbaceous Saline Vegetation) is mapped for some areas but for a more comprehensive data set on estuarine vegetation </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>GIS_ALL.ESTUARINE_VEGETATION (DOCS# 628521 for the metadata)</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>. There may be gaps in the coastal vegetation data for the Thames-Coromandel and Hauraki Districts.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN /></SPAN></P><OL STYLE="margin:0 0 0 0;padding:0 0 0 0;"><LI STYLE="margin:0 0 0 24;"><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;font-weight:bold;margin:16 0 4 38;padding:2 2 2 2;"><SPAN><SPAN>Data Acquisition History</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;font-weight:bold;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Period and Frequency of Record: </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN> </SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>The data set is seen as a relatively accurate version representing terrestrial vegetation and wetland cover as at 2012. It is intended that an equivalent data set will be created every five years or so but this is dependent on resource and budget availability and relevant policy and information requirements.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;font-weight:bold;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Data Acquisition Methods: </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN> </SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Detailed descriptions of the data acquisition methods for the 2002 and 2007 Bioveg versions of the data can be found in the following the Council documents:</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>EW DOCS #</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN> </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>Title </SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>1302276 Biodiversity Vegetation (BIOVEG) Mapping Process Summary</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>1315358 Waitomo Bioveg Field Checking - Specifications and Instructions</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>1330719 Specifications for Waitomo Woody Vegetation Classification Revision 2006</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>1339659 Specifications for South Waikato District Bioveg Mapping</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>1567467 Bioveg Specifications as at 16/10/09</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>1652855 Specifications for Waipa District Bioveg Change Mapping 2002-2007</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>1652850 Specifications for Otorohanga District Bioveg Change Mapping 2002-2007</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>1714160 Specifications for South Waikato District Bioveg Change Mapping 2002-2007</SPAN></SPAN></P><P /></LI><LI STYLE="margin:0 0 0 24;"><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;font-weight:bold;margin:16 0 4 38;padding:2 2 2 2;"><SPAN><SPAN>Data Quality Information</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;font-weight:bold;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Data Quality:</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Refer to Specification Documents (see Data Acquistion Methods).</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Maps or carrying out analysis on this data at any scale greater than 1:10,000 may result in the inaccuracies being much more evident, or obvious errors in the analysis. It is advised data sets derived off this data set also should not be used at any scale greater than 1:10,000.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;font-weight:bold;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Attribute Accuracy:</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN> </SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Shrubland classes and wetland boundaries are especially difficult to map and classify using orthophotography, and errors are more likely to be found in these areas. The difference between </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style:italic;"><SPAN>Indigenous Forest</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN> and </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style:italic;"><SPAN>Broadleaved Indigenous Hardwoods</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN> can be difficult to determine in some areas. Small plantings of </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style:italic;"><SPAN>Other Exotic Forest</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN> in rural areas can often be misinterpreted as </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style:italic;"><SPAN>Indigenous Forest</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Generally the broader the classification that is used the higher the classification accuracy. For example if the data was grouped into two classes such as indigenous versus exotic species or woody vegetation versus non woody vegetation the classification accuracy would be higher than for the LCDB2 or LCDB1 classes alone. Particular classes that the classifier acknowledged as being difficult to classify were shrubland species, mixed exotic forest and wetlands. </SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Shrubland classes and wetland boundaries are especially difficult to map and classify using orthophotography, and errors are more likely to be found in these areas. The difference between </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style:italic;"><SPAN>Indigenous Forest</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN> and </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style:italic;"><SPAN>Broadleaved Indigenous Hardwoods</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN> can be difficult to determine in some areas. Small plantings of </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style:italic;"><SPAN>Other Exotic Forest</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN> in rural areas can often be misinterpreted as </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-style:italic;"><SPAN>Indigenous Forest</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P /><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Anyone using the data should be aware of the recommended scale of use. Short of having a multi-million dollar budget, it is impossible to achieve 100% accuracy in classifications or to consistently delineate the boundary to within a few meters of where that boundary actually lies on the surface of the earth. The data should be considered indicative only and any use of the data for legal proceedings or purposes should be backed up by field checking of the relevant areas. For this reason the UNCERTAIN1 and UNCERTAIN2 fields were created (see “Content of Data Set” above).</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;font-weight:bold;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Completeness:</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN> </SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>As at 18/09/2014 the 2012 data is considered 99% complete for Rotorua District. There may be further changes or refinements to the data sets pending current and future Bioveg and SNA contracts and feedback from local authorities and other users. There may be some minor modifications to a few polygons during biodiversity prioritisation work in the future but only when approved by an ecologist doing the work are 100% certain in the change required.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P /><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;font-weight:bold;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Logical Consistency: </SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>All the data is from one provider, who created the data set based on detailed specifications provided by Waikato Regional Council. Quality assurance of the data involved several parties but was tightly monitored and controlled by one project leader at Waikato Regional Council. The attributes are considered logically consistent. Any cases of logical inconsistency found are likely a result of error and should be reported to the data set owner.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>As the data is captured on a district by district basis polygons that overlap district boundaries are currently split by those boundaries. There may be some inconsistencies in classification or boundaries of adjacent polygons that lie on either side of district boundaries (district boundaries can shift based on shifts in the underlying CRS parcel data over time). This issue will be remedied in due course should a merged regional data set be created.</SPAN></SPAN></P></LI><LI STYLE="margin:0 0 0 24;"><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;font-weight:bold;margin:16 0 4 38;padding:2 2 2 2;"><SPAN><SPAN>Distribution Information</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;font-weight:bold;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Data Form:</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN> </SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Digital GIS files (Oracle Spatial, GeoMedia Access Warehouse), Shapefile, Mapinfo), hard copy printed and digital (pdf, jpeg, tiff) GIS map outputs at a range of scales.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;font-weight:bold;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Digital Format: </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN> </SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>The data was captured in ESRI ArcGIS 10. It was then imported into GeoMedia for quality assurance purposes and is stored as a feature class in an Access Warehouse in GeoMedia. The final data set was exported to Oracle Spatial DB for corporate use </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>(Still to be completed).</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;font-weight:bold;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Data Set Availability: </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN> </SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>The data set is regarded as public information and freely available but with a cost-recovery on time spent extracting and supplying the data. </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight:bold;"><SPAN>Users will be provided with this Metadata and be expected to limit use of the data to within the data design specifications documented in this document.</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN> It is recommended that users do not pass the data on to third parties but rather direct third parties to Waikato Regional Council to get the data directly from the source or the data can be downloaded from the Council’s Data Download site: </SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>http://www.waikatoregion.govt.nz/Environment/Environmental-information/REDI/Data-download/</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;font-weight:bold;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Acknowledgement:</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>The standard Waikato Regional Council disclaimer applies to this data:</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>“</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>While Waikato Regional Council has exercised all reasonable skill and care in controlling the contents of this information, Waikato Regional Council accepts no liability in contract, tort or otherwise howsoever, for any loss, damage, injury or expense (whether direct, indirect or consequential) arising out of the provision of this information or its use by you.”</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>If the data set is used in analysis the following acknowledgment must be used:</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>“Derived from Waikato Regional Council Biodiversity Vegetation (BIOVEG) data dated 2012. Copyright Reserved.”</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>If the data set is used in digital or hard copy maps the following acknowledgment must be used:</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>“Biodiversity Vegetation (BIOVEG) data sourced from Waikato Regional Council dated 2012. Copyright Reserved.”</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>The data should be considered indicative only and any use of the data for legal proceedings or purposes should be backed up by field checking of the relevant areas.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;font-weight:bold;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Licence:</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><A href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/nz/legalcode"><SPAN><SPAN>Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 New Zealand</SPAN></SPAN></A></P></LI><LI STYLE="margin:0 0 0 24;"><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;font-weight:bold;margin:16 0 4 38;padding:2 2 2 2;"><SPAN><SPAN>Status Information</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;font-weight:bold;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Data Status:</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN> </SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>The data set is seen as an indicative version representing vegetation cover in the </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>Rotorua District </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>as at 2012. It is possible that the data set may undergo minor modifications in the future based on more accurate feedback and field work. It is intended that an equivalent data set will be created every five years or so for change analysis but this is dependent on resource and budget availability and relevant policy requirements. </SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>The methods used for updating the data set may be different depending on technological advancements (such as the use of remote sensing) and resources available. Methods used in the development of this current data set are well documented and will be closely followed in order to achieve consistency between this and future data sets.</SPAN></SPAN></P></LI><LI STYLE="margin:0 0 0 38;"><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;font-weight:bold;margin:16 0 4 0;padding:2 2 2 2;"><SPAN><SPAN>Further Metadata Information</SPAN></SPAN></P></LI></OL><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;font-weight:bold;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>WWW Links:</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Data download page: </SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><A href="http://www.waikatoregion.govt.nz/Environment/Environmental-information/REDI/Data-download/"><SPAN><SPAN>http://www.waikatoregion.govt.nz/Environment/Environmental-information/REDI/Data-download/</SPAN></SPAN></A></P><P /><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 New Zealand </SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><A href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/nz/legalcode"><SPAN><SPAN>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/nz/legalcode</SPAN></SPAN></A></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><A href="http://www.mfe.govt.nz/issues/land/land-cover-dbase/"><SPAN><SPAN>http://www.mfe.govt.nz/issues/land/land-cover-dbase/</SPAN></SPAN></A></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><A href="http://www.waikatoregion.govt.nz/enviroinfo/redi/datasets/redi1410510.htm"><SPAN><SPAN>http://www.waikatoregion.govt.nz/enviroinfo/redi/datasets/redi1410510.htm</SPAN></SPAN></A></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><A href="http://www.waikatoregion.govt.nz/enviroinfo/redi/datasets/redi1172690.htm"><SPAN><SPAN>http://www.waikatoregion.govt.nz/enviroinfo/redi/datasets/redi1172690.htm</SPAN></SPAN></A></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;font-weight:bold;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Need More Help?</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Email the Dataset Administrator.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="text-align:Justify;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN /></SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P></DIV></DIV></DIV>
Description: <DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><DIV><P><SPAN>See summary for background.</SPAN><SPAN>This is the source data and it will reside in the Recommendation database. (Decisions version of the District Plan 2014)</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></DIV>
Color: [0, 0, 0, 255] Background Color: N/A Outline Color: N/A Vertical Alignment: baseline Horizontal Alignment: left Right to Left: false Angle: 0 XOffset: 0 YOffset: 0 Size: 8 Font Family: Arial Font Style: normal Font Weight: normal Font Decoration: none
Description: <DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><DIV><P><SPAN>Significant Natural Areas from Recommendation Database including changes for Consent Orders that are still to be finalised / App</SPAN><SPAN>r</SPAN><SPAN>oved. </SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>Copy of Boundaries from 06_2010 with significance field added and calculated from previoiulsy supplied data set that was missing sna's </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>SNA 81 Boundary along road shifted to legal parcel. (no other boundaries updated to match parcels).</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>SNA 87 bdy updated. Also the name of "Lake Rotoma Scenic Reserve Extension" was removed.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>As at 20 October 2014 some SNA boundaries were reviewed by Wildlands in response to submissions to the District Plan. This dataset includes all submission based changes. This dataset is the set that will be used in the Decisions version November 2014 District Plan. NOTE that this does not include the work that identified new SNA's under EBOP's new/updated specs. These will most probably come in as a variation.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>As at June 2016 - This is the dataset used for the Operative District Plan</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></DIV>
Color: [0, 0, 0, 255] Background Color: N/A Outline Color: N/A Vertical Alignment: baseline Horizontal Alignment: left Right to Left: false Angle: 0 XOffset: 0 YOffset: 0 Size: 8 Font Family: Arial Font Style: normal Font Weight: normal Font Decoration: none
Description: <DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><DIV><P><SPAN>QEII CQEII CovPolys </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>- - 1/2</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>QEII Covenant Polygon Data Definition</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>Introduction</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>The digital layer of QEII covenant boundaries has been compiled from various sources around the</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>country, including regional and district councils, DOC conservancies, surveyors and LandOnline.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>Funding from TFBIS in 2005 enabled QEII to sub-contract the digital capture of covenant boundaries</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>from survey plans for the remaining parts of the country. Since 2005, new covenant boundaries are</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>supplied directly to QEII by the surveyors who produce the survey plans or are downloaded from</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>LandOnline. It should be noted that the digital boundaries of the covenants are a graphic</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>representation only and should not be taken as the definitive covenant boundary.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>Status – Completeness and Quality</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>As at 13 February 2015, the data are 100% complete (3980 registered and formalised covenants with</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>polygons). The quality of the data has been assessed by comparing the registered area of each</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>covenant (in hectares) with the geometric area as calculated in the GIS. Currently 95.7% of the</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>polygons are within +/- 10% of the registered area (QualCode = 1). The remaining 4.3% have to be</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>verified and either require re-digitising or some further amendment. We are working our way through</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>processing these to improve the quality. 594 polygons have not yet been verified against a survey plan</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>or photodiagram. Please note that the quality code described above is no reflection of the positional</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>accuracy.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>Updates</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>Each year, approximately 200 new covenants are approved by the QEII Board, but each may take, on</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>average, two years to complete the process to registration. At current rates of funding and processing,</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>QEII is able to register about 40-50 new covenants each quarter. In addition, there are a number of</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>changes to existing covenants as a result of sub-divisions, changes of ownership, variations and so</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>on.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>An update of the digital covenant polygon layer will therefore be issued every three to four months to</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>reflect the changes to the national dataset.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>Attributes</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>The covenant polygons have the following attributes from the covenants database:</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>Attribute Format Description</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>CovNumber Text 12 Unique file reference number for the covenant, e.g. 5-02-171. NB. Some</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>covenants are in the process of being re-numbered to simplify the numbering</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>system.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>All covenants start with a 5; QEII property numbers start with a P, eg. P 21.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>The second part of the covenant number defines the Land Registry District,</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>eg. 02 = Northland. Covenants are numbered sequentially within a Land</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>Registry District.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>CreatedBy Text 35 6 main categories defining how the polygon was derived:</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>- Digital file from surveyor – Captured from survey plan (as dxf, dwg or</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>.shp)</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>- Digitised from plan – Unverified – Digitised from plan or exact method</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>unknown and not yet verified</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>- Digitised from plan – Verified – Digitised from scanned plan or</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>photodiagram and verified</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>- Captured from CRS parcels – Captured from LINZ Data Service or LINZ</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>LandOnline</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>- DP Plan Distance and Bearing – Polygon constructed from distance and</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>bearing information on deposited plan.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>- Unconfirmed Boundaries – Approximate, unconfirmed location of</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>covenant boundaries.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>QEII CovPolys web 20150213 Data Definition.doc Last updated: 13/02/2015</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>- - 2/2</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>Attribute Format Description</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>Comment Text 254 Notes on:</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>- sources and method used for the polygon capture</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>- further processing required for certain polygons.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>PrevCovNum Text 20 Previous Covenant Number – used if covenant has been renumbered or</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>subdivided.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>LastUpdate Date Date polygon last updated by QEII</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>QualCode Short Quality code currently used to categorise accuracy of polygons until</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>verification is complete:</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>0 – cannot calculate QualCode because there is no survey area</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>(AreaSurvHa).</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>1 – polygon geometric area between +/- 10 – 50 % of registered survey</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>area (highest quality)</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>2 – polygon geometric area between +/- 10 – 50 % of registered survey</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>3 – polygon geometric area between greater than +/- 50 % of registered</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>survey area (worst quality)</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>NumBlocks Short Number of discontinuous blocks that make up the covenant. Covenants with</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>more than one block are represented as multi-part polygons.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>GeomArea Double Geometric area (in Ha) calculated by the GIS</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>QEIIRegion Text 254 Name of the QEII region containing the covenant. QEII has 27 regions, each</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>staffed by a representative.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>CovStatus Text 10 Status of the covenant – only registered and formalised covenants shown</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>DateRegd Date Date on which the covenant was registered.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>DateAppr Date Date on which the covenant was approved.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>AreaSurvHa Double Surveyed area of covenant at time of registration (in Ha). This figure comes</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>from the QEII covenants database.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>Mapref Text 11 Map reference of a point giving the rough location of the covenant, defined at</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>the proposal stage. May not lie within the actual covenant boundary.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>Easting Double NZTM Easting</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>Northing Double NZTM Northing.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>WholeTitle Text 5 Yes/No field indicating whether covenant applies to a whole property</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>(comprising one or more titles). If yes, then the covenant boundaries should</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>match the relevant parcel boundary for the title(s). [No survey plans are</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>prepared for whole-of-title covenants]</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>TA_Name Text 30 Territorial Authority</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>RegC_Name Text 30 Regional Council</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>Coordinate System</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>New Zealand Transverse Mercator 2000.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>Further information</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>For further information about QEII covenants or the business of the organisation, please refer to the</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>website: www.openspace.org.nz</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>Further details about the covenants database and GIS information are available from Joanna Haigh</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>(Senior Advisor Geospatial Services). Email: jhaigh@openspace.org.nzovenant Polygons</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></DIV>
Description: <DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><DIV><P><SPAN>Sourced from G/depart/planning/noise_contour/opt3a_2033_TM</SPAN><SPAN>. These were then used in the Notification version of the DP.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>Then copied and used in the Recommendations version of the District Plan November 2014.. There has not been any metadata provided in the g/depart/planning/airport directory. but data was provided by Marshall Day limited to The Rotorua Airport.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN /></P></DIV></DIV></DIV>
Description: <DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><DIV><P><SPAN>Sourced from a hardcopy A4 map produced by Marshall Day Acoustics. Provided by Paul Skinner. There is no reference number on the drawing. Scale 1:5,000</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></DIV>
Description: <DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><P><SPAN>Transpowers transmission lines and towers in the Rotorua District Council data are required to support a review of the Rotorua District Council for a District Plan and as a tool for internal planning processes.</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV>
Description: <DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><P><SPAN>Physical road centerlines.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>Source being Orthophotography (mainly 2006 but includes updates from 2007 and 2011). Please check attributes for capture date and accuracy.</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV>
Description: <DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><DIV><P><SPAN><SPAN>Created for Special Map 108 for the Draft 2010 District Plan</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>Created/copied as best as possible from a small district image taken from IT -648999.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>Accuracy unknown - will be in the region of 100's of metres</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN /><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN /></P></DIV></DIV></DIV>
Description: <DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><P><SPAN>Physical road centerlines.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>Source being Orthophotography (mainly 2006 but includes updates from 2007 and 2011). Please check attributes for capture date and accuracy.</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV>
Description: <DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><P><SPAN>Service lanes provided by Draughting - 28 August 2014</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>Originally supplied in NZMG.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>Reprojected to NZTM</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV>
Description: <DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><P><SPAN>Gas Transmisson lines provided by Vector for the purposes of display in the 2010 District Plan. The data is the corridor of each line and spatial accuracy is +/- 10m. Source was in NZMG License agreement in in G/project/gis00357</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV>
Description: <DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><P><SPAN>Shows a 1.5m exclusion zone around all 3 waters pipework for building inspector purposes</SPAN></P></DIV>
Description: <DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><DIV><P><SPAN>Height difference between ground and Obstacle limitation surface (OLS) banded</SPAN><SPAN>in to 10m bands</SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>The Site to Which the Requirement Applies is as Follows:</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>Airspace above Rotorua Airport and part of the surrounding Rotorua district (as more particularly detailed in Planning Map 208 and Figures 3 and 4).</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>The height restrictions used in this notice are based on Civil Aviation Authority (“CAA”) Rule part 139.51 and the associated Advisory Circular AC 139-06A “Aerodrome Design – Aeroplanes above 5,700kg” specifications for OLS applicable to code 4C aircraft operating from an instrument non-precision runway. All elevations are provided in metres above mean sea level (“AMSL”) unless otherwise stated.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>Note: The CAA uses a coding system that defines the airport operational requirements for aircraft based on their size and takeoff performance. Under this system the Boeing 737 and Airbus A320 are defined as code 4C aircraft.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>It is proposed to extend the existing sealed runway (1622m long x 30m wide) by a total of 487m to the south, including a 122m starter extension to be used only for takeoff to the north and 145m of sealed runway to be used only for landing from the north and take-off. In addition it is proposed to extend the existing sealed runway by a total of 150m to the north, including a 130m starter extension to be used only for takeoff to the south and 20m of sealed runway to be used only for landing from the south and take-off.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>For the purpose of determining the scope and extent of the airspace controls an overall runway length of 2259m including starter extensions has been adopted. The runway identification is 18/36, runway 18 being for takeoffs to the south and landings from the north, and runway 36 the opposite. A grass runway running parallel to the main runway and 833m x 50m has the same identification.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>2. Description of the Activity is:</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>The designation shall be for all operational aspects of the Rotorua Regional Airport (“Airport”) including operations on the expanded Airport area authorised by the Rotorua District Council Designation 1; and airspace protection in the vicinity of the Airport, by defining essential obstacle limitation surfaces (“OLS”) for the protection of aircraft flight paths. (Figures 3 and 4 show these surfaces in plan view). </SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>The operations authorised by this designation are operations on the existing runway and future runway extensions, and provision of all infrastructure associated with the Airport including buildings, drainage navigational aids and lighting, within the areas shown on the Figure titled - Rotorua Airport Plan of Development. Ancillary aviation related uses of the buildings are for recreation, conference and function purposes but excludes visitor accommodation.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>CAA rule part 139.51 requires an airport operator to provide OLS around the airport to ensure the safe operation of aircraft approaching and departing the airport. This is done by means of height controls based on a series of geometric surfaces projecting up from the edges of the strip which surrounds the sealed runway, the intention being to prevent structures and trees from penetrating these surfaces in areas critical to operational safety and efficiency.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>CAA Advisory Circular AC 139-06A provides details on the extent of the OLS. The surfaces adopted for Rotorua Regional Airport are for an instrument non-precision runway able to accommodate aircraft up to Code 4C in size.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>This requirement protects Rotorua Airport from possible intrusion of over-height obstacles into the necessary approach and take-off areas required for the safe operation of the airport by all types of aircraft in use, or expected to be in use, at the airport in recognition of its role as an integral part of the national aviation infrastructure.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>A ‘user-friendly’ explanatory guide as to how these height controls work in practice is attached at the end of this designation.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>3. Height Restrictions</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>Height restrictions will apply to objects including buildings, structures, masts, poles and trees under the Airport Approach And Take-Off Obstacle Limitation Surfaces as described below.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>4. Runway, strip and OLS inner edges</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>The main runway is to be extended to the north by a total of 150m, which includes a 130m starter extension and 20m of sealed runway that is only available for takeoff on runway 18, landing on runway 36 and take-off. </SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>The main runway is also to be extended to the south by a total of 487m, which includes a 122m starter extension and 365m of sealed runway that is only available for takeoff on runway 36, landing on runway 18 and take-off.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>The runway will be contained within a rectangular strip with edges 75m either side of and parallel to the runway centreline. For the purpose of this NOR, the strip ends are co-incident with the OLS inner edge locations at each end of the runway.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>The take-off and approach OLS commence from an “inner edge” that crosses the runway centreline at right angles at the following survey locations:</SPAN></SPAN></P><TABLE><TBODY><TR><TD><P /></TD><TD><P><SPAN><SPAN>Northing m</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD><TD><P><SPAN><SPAN>Easting m</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD><TD><P><SPAN><SPAN>AMSL m</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD></TR><TR><TD><P><SPAN><SPAN>North end inner edge</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Center;"><SPAN><SPAN>662193.69</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Center;"><SPAN><SPAN>287211.57</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Center;"><SPAN><SPAN>284.81</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD></TR><TR><TD><P><SPAN><SPAN>South end inner edge</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Center;"><SPAN><SPAN>660415.16</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Center;"><SPAN><SPAN>286383.14</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD><TD><P STYLE="text-align:Center;"><SPAN><SPAN>286.00</SPAN></SPAN></P></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><P><SPAN><SPAN>Note: Survey co-ordinates are referenced to the Bay of Plenty (49) circuit.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>5. Northern Take-off OLS </SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>There are two northern takeoff paths and two corresponding takeoff OLS.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>Both takeoff OLS commence at the north end inner edge location. The surface edges commence at each end of the inner edge, located 90m either side to the runway centreline and rise at a gradient of 2.0% (1:50) over a horizontal distance of 15,000m.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>a. Turning Take-off (Figure 3 path 7a)</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>The surface edges diverge from each end of the inner edge at a rate of 12.5% (1:8) to a final width of 1800m (900m either side of the surface centreline).</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>The surface centreline follows the extended runway centreline north to a point 1,716m from the inner edge. At this point the surface steps down 4.6m in height and its centreline commences a left turn of radius 1,620m through an arc of 80 degrees. The surface centreline then steps up 4.6m and continues straight for a further 11,022m to a total distance of 15,000m from the inner edge measured along the surface centreline.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>b. Straight-ahead Take-off (Figure 3 path 8a)</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>The surface edges diverge from each end of the inner edge at a rate of 12.5% (1:8) to a final width of 1200m (600m either side of the surface centreline). The surface centreline follows the extended runway centreline over its full 15,000m length.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>6. Northern Approach OLS</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>There are two northern approach paths and two corresponding approach OLS.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>Both approach OLS commence at the north end inner edge location. The surface edges commence at each end of the inner edge, located 75m either side of the runway centreline.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>a. Straight-in Approach (Figure 3 path 10a)</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>The straight-in approach surface from the north commences at the inner edge and rises at a gradient of 2.0% (1:50) over a horizontal distance of 15,000m.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>The surface edges diverge from each end of the inner edge at a rate of 15.0% (1:6.6) to a final width of 4,650m (2325m either side of centreline).</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>The surface centreline follows the extended runway centreline over its full 15,000m length. </SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>b. Curved Approach (Figure 3 path 9a)</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>The curved approach surface from the north commences at the inner edge and rises at a gradient of 2.5% (1:40) over a horizontal distance of 3,243m, extending to the edge of the lakeshore. The surface edges diverge from each end of the inner edge at a rate of 10% (1:10) to a final width of 799m.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>The surface centreline follows the extended runway centreline to a point 1,716m from the inner edge. At this point the surface centreline commences a left turn of radius 1,067m through an arc of 82 degrees at which point the surface ends. </SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>7. Southern Take-off OLS (Figure 3 path 2b)</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>The southern take-off OLS commences at the south end inner edge and rises at a gradient of 2.0% (1:50) over a horizontal distance of 15,000m. The surface edges commence at each end of the inner edge, located 90m either side of the runway centreline.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>The surface edges diverge from each end of the inner edge at a rate of 12.5% (1:8) to a final width of 1,800m (900m either side of the surface centreline).</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>The surface centreline follows the extended runway centreline south to a point 946m from the inner edge. At this point the surface steps down 4.6m in height and its centreline commences a right turn of radius 2,480m through an arc of 185 degrees. The surface centreline then steps up 4.6m and continues straight for a further 6,046m to a total distance of 15,000m from the inner edge measured along the surface centreline.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>8. Southern Approach OLS </SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>There are two southern approach paths and two corresponding approach OLS.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>Both approach OLS commence at the south end inner edge. The surface edges commence at each end of the inner edge, located 75m either side to the runway centreline.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>a. Straight-in Approach (Figure 3 path 4b)</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>The straight-in approach surface from the south commences at the inner edge and rises at a gradient of 2.0% (1:50) over a horizontal distance of 15,000m. </SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>The surface edges diverge from each end of the inner edge at a rate of 15.0% (1:6.6) to a final width of 4,650m (2,325m either side of centreline). </SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>The surface centreline follows the runway extended centreline to a point 1,318m from the inner edge. At this point the surface skews 14°59’ to the west of the extended runway centreline (effectively a clockwise rotation of 14°59’) and continues straight for a further 13,682m. </SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>b. Curved Approach (Figure 3 path 6b)</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>The curved approach surface from the south commences at the inner edge and rises at a gradient of 2.5% (1:40) over a horizontal distance of 9,109m, extending to the edge of the lake shore. The surface edges diverge from each end of the inner edge at a rate of 10% (1:10) to a final width of 1,972m.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>The surface centreline follows the extended runway centreline to a point 1,318m from the inner edge. At this point the surface centreline commences a right turn of radius 2,480m through an arc of 180 degrees. </SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>9. Transitional Side Surface (Figure 4)</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>The transitional side surface extends from the side of the strip upwards and outwards at a gradient of 1:7 until it reaches the inner horizontal surface. North of the inner edge location, the transitional side surface extends to meet the outer edge of the straight-in approach path 10a OLS such that the outer edge of the side surface meets the outer edge of path 10a OLS 2,250m from the inner edge, measured along the centreline of path 10a.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>10. Inner Horizontal Surface (Figure 3)</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>The inner horizontal plane is located at a height of 330m above mean sea level (45m above the runway reference height) and extends out to a distance of 4,000m measured from the periphery of the runway strip.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>11. Conical Surface (Figure 3)</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>The conical surface slopes upward and outward from the periphery of the inner horizontal surface rising at a gradient of 5.0% (1:20) to a height of 435m AMSL (150m above the runway reference height).</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>Note: The inner horizontal and conical surfaces are penetrated by terrain and existing trees and structures predominantly to the south and east of the runway. RRAL, at its discretion, may permit further penetration of the surfaces by trees and structures in this area.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P></DIV></DIV></DIV>
Description: <DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><DIV><P><SPAN>Designation compiled from: ----------------------------------------------------------- Doc Land as notified in letter Document number RDC-110876 REQUIREMENTS TO BE INSERTED PRIOR TO NOTIFICATION OF PROPOSED DISTRICT PLAN : DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION DESIGNATIONS. Please accept this letter as an update to the 27 March 2009 letter sent to Council. This letter constitutes written notice, pursuant to clauses 4(1) and (3) of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991, as to which existing designations will be required to be retained and any modifications to the description of these areas in the Rotorua District Plan. The Department requires the retention of eight existing designations, some of which have diffbrent legal descriptions to those contained in the District Plan, due to changes in land ownership as a result of land exchanges, updated surveys or Treaty Settlement processes. It is considered that, despite this, the basic land units and purposes of the designations remains unchanged and the alterations are considered no more than minor. All of these areas contain significant geothermal features or values that the Department wishes to see given additional protection under the district plan. For the other designations contained within the District Plan, the Department considers that the values of these lands are protected through the requirements of the legislation that the land is held under, either the Reserves or the Conservation Act. Some of these existing designations in the District Plan refer to land that the Department does not, or has never administered, while other land has heer~ surveyed and gazetted with new status or amalgamated with adjacent public conservation lands. There is also an ongoing issue with some of these designations to be removed, as where land exchanges occur, the pasture transferred to private ownership is still encumbered with the designation, and land added to the reserve is not covered by the designation. The removal of these designations will address these issues. Details of changes to retained designations; The updated legal descriptions of the designations included in the 27 March 2009 letter are as follows on the table. Three of these areas have undergone changes to their extent and ownership, or been gazetted in the interim. Details of these are given below; Lake Orotu Wildlife Management Reserve The Lake Orotu Wildlife Management Reserve is part of the areas of 'Waiotapu Crown Land' currently designated. This land is Crown Land that was allocated to the Department, and has since designation, been surveyed, and gazetted as either scenic reserve, and amalgamated with the adjacent Waiotapu Scenic Reserve, or formed into the new Wildlife Management Reserve. In either case, the land has an existing designation and the management of the land will not change from that covered in the existing designation. Waiotapu Scenic Reserve These are the sections of the Waiotapu Scenic Reserve retained as public Conservation land administered by the Department, and the existing designation over these sections is required to be retained. As part of Treaty Settlements completed in mid 2009, the Waiotapu Scenic Reserve was surveyed, with some of the land being gazetted as private scenic reserve, and ownership transferred to Te Ptimautanga O Te Arawa. As the Department no longer administers this private scenic reserve land, it is not requiring that the designation over private land be retained. We encourage Council to discuss these designations with the new land owners. Please note that the land currently designated as Waiotapu Crown Land (Pt Paeroa East 4B 1B 1 ) has been determined to be remnant Crown Land administered by L1NZ. As the Department does not administer this land, the designation is not required to be retained. Te Kopia Scenic Reserve Te Kopia Scenic Reserve has also had areas freeholded as private scenic reserve as part of Treaty Settlements, which has resulted in some changed appellations. Secs 1 SO 387596 and SO 389459 have been gazetted as private scenic reserve, and ownership transferred to Te PiJmautanga O Te Arawa. As the Department does not administer this land, the designation over these sections is not required to be retained. Again, we encourage Council to discuss these designations with the new land owners. The remainder of the designated scenic reserve is to be retained. ----------------------------------------------------------- Other features have been complied from the carry-over features of the 1996 District Plan, description updates from Requiring Authorities and the Appendix B document for the District Plan words.</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></DIV>
Color: [0, 0, 0, 255] Background Color: N/A Outline Color: N/A Vertical Alignment: baseline Horizontal Alignment: left Right to Left: false Angle: 0 XOffset: 0 YOffset: 0 Size: 8 Font Family: Arial Font Style: normal Font Weight: normal Font Decoration: none
Description: <DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><DIV><P><SPAN>In response to the Ministry for the Environment’s request to nominate Local Air Management Areas (LAMA), Environment Bay of Plenty has proposed one LAMA for the Bay of Plenty region: That LAMA being Rotorua.This layer describes the extent of the Rotorua LAMA.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>By 2013 the Rotorua LAMA (airshed) ambient air quality has to meet the standard.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>In 2016, as a response to growing concerns over the air quality in Rotorua and growing residential zones in the Rotorua Lakes District plan,</SPAN><SPAN>the Bay of Plenty Regional Council</SPAN><SPAN>set out to re-design the airshed boundary. Simon Allard, GIS Analyst, BOPRC</SPAN><SPAN /><SPAN>- under GSP-52438</SPAN><SPAN>6</SPAN><SPAN>, </SPAN><SPAN>created this new airshed based mainly on the Rotorua Lakes District Council Zones and the existing airshed. The airshed follows the boundaries of the LINZ Parcels. Plans for the airshed were approved and signed off by LINZ on</SPAN><SPAN>27/6/2017. The copy of the approved plans can be found in the following </SPAN><A href="https://objective.envbop.net/id:A2639778/document/versions/latest"><SPAN>objective url link</SPAN></A><SPAN>. </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>As of 18/08/2017 the Ministry for the Environment has yet to Gazette the new Rotorua Airshed but when this does occur, this metadata will be updated to include the date it is gazetted and include a link to the approval document.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>NOTE: The old Rotorua Airshed boundary was ARCHIVED on 18/08/2017. For more information on the new airshed boundary, please see Karen Purcell, Senior Policy Analyst (Natural Resources Policy) or Shane Iremonger (Science Team Leader - Coastal, Land & Air).</SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P></DIV></DIV></DIV>
Description: <DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><DIV><P><SPAN>Operating Easements for waikato river covering Ohakuri and Atiamuri</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></DIV>
Description: <DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><P STYLE="font-size:16ptmargin:7 0 7 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Area supplid for rules relating to Henderson Quarry in the district plan.</SPAN></SPAN></P><DIV><P><SPAN /></P></DIV></DIV>
Description: <DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><DIV><P><SPAN>Areas defined by planning as potential areas for development, due to land availability, prior interest etc</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></DIV>
Color: [0, 0, 0, 255] Background Color: N/A Outline Color: N/A Vertical Alignment: bottom Horizontal Alignment: left Right to Left: false Angle: 0 XOffset: 0 YOffset: 0 Size: 8 Font Family: Gotham Medium Font Style: normal Font Weight: normal Font Decoration: none
Description: <DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><DIV><P><SPAN>Areas defined by planning as potential areas for development, due to land availability, prior interest etc</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></DIV>
Color: [0, 0, 0, 255] Background Color: N/A Outline Color: N/A Vertical Alignment: bottom Horizontal Alignment: center Right to Left: false Angle: 0 XOffset: 0 YOffset: 0 Size: 8 Font Family: Arial Font Style: normal Font Weight: normal Font Decoration: none
Description: <DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><DIV><P><SPAN>Recognised geothermal systems in the Rotorua District</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>Sourced from GNS 7 February 2010</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>Metadata within RDC-154249 - Final Report CR 2010-67 Volcano and Geothermal Hazards Part 1</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>Protection status field added. Supplied by Planning, in consultation wtih EBOP.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>Classifications (per Waikato Regional Council):</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>Development: In areas classified for Development, large-scale uses are allowed as long as they are undertaken in a sustainable and environmentally responsible manner.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>Limited Development: In Limited Development systems, takes that will not damage surface features are allowed.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>Research: Research systems are those where not enough about the system is known to classify it as either Development, Limited Development, or Protected. In these systems, only small takes and those undertaken for scientific research into the system are allowed.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>Protected: Protected systems contain vulnerable geothermal features valued for their cultural and scientific characteristics. Their protected status ensures that their underground geothermal water source cannot be extracted and that the surface features are not damaged by unsuitable land uses.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>Small: Small systems are isolated springs or sets of springs. These can only sustain small takes and are not suitable for electricity generation.</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></DIV>
Description: <DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><DIV><P><SPAN>This file contains Fault Avoidance Zones for active faults in Eastside (Clark 2020). The faults were mapped using LiDAR data as well as existing fault data extracted from the current Geological Map of New Zealand 1:250,000 (Heron 2018) and updated where possible. Faults were typically mapped at 1:5000-1:10,000 scale. </SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>These data should be used to assist future land use planning, particularly with regard to building on "Greenfield" (i.e. previously undeveloped land) sites or in the renovation of buildings in areas adjacent to active faults in accordance to the Ministry for the Environment "Planning for Development on or Close to Active Faults" (Kerr et al. 2003).</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN>These data should be used in conjunction with the associated GNS Science report (CR2020/</SPAN><SPAN>49</SPAN><SPAN> LR).</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></DIV>
Description: <DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><DIV><P><SPAN>The location of Fault Avoidance Zones (with setbacks) relating to active faults and possibly active faults mapped as part of a project to assess the absence or presence of active faults at 10 sites identified for proposed urban development in the Rotorua, Whakatāne-Opotiki and Western Bay of Plenty areas. The 10 sites are referred to in the associated report (CR2018/143) as Katikati, Omokoroa (Western Bay of Plenty), Ngongotaha, Pukehangi Road, Eastside, Airport, Peka, Wharenui (Rotorua), Whakatāne, and Opotiki (Whakatāne). Created by GNS Science using LiDAR imagery and existing knowledge of active fault locations and landform age information. This data should be used in conjunction with the associated GNS Science report (CR 2018/143).</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></DIV>
Service Item Id: ab638295e74843ddaaaa0705b8223b95
Copyright Text: GNS Science, K. Clark, P. Villamor, J.M. Lee
Description: <DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><DIV><P><SPAN>EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Rotorua District Council (RDC) has commissioned GNS Science to update information currently used to locate active faults and to provide recommendations for best practice management in high risk areas. GNS Science has produced an updated active fault map of the Rotorua District and compiled information that is relevant to active fault hazards. The two main hazards directly related to active faulting In Rotorua District are strong ground shaking and surface deformation. The report presents information and data that is relevant to these two types of hazard. The assessment of ground shaking hazard relies on the characterisation of the earthquake potential of active faults and the transfer of that information (together with seismicity and geodetic information) to probabilistic seismic hazard maps. In the Rotorua District, there are at least 45 major active faults that are capable of generating large earthquakes (Mw 5.5 to 6.9) that will produce strong ground shaking. Individually, these faults rupture with recurrence intervals between 500 and 10,000 years, so the likelihood of ground shaking in the area is high because of the large number of faults. In this report, we provide earthquake data (maximum magnitude, slip rate and recurrence interval) relevant for seismic hazard assessment for at least half of the 45 major active faults. Seismic hazard maps define the probability that a certain level of ground shaking will be exceeded in a certain time interval. These maps are used to evaluate requirements for seismic-resistant design of a site, a region or a country, and are essential for emergency response (combined with building vulnerability) and understanding of other hazards associated with ground shaking (e.g., landsides and liquefaction). Information on probability of exceedance of high levels of ground shaking in the Rotorua area is currently contained in a nationwide seismic hazard map. In the Rotorua District, the level of ground shaking varies from 0.2 to 0.5 g (g or gravitational acceleration = 9.8 m/s2) for 10% probability in the next 10 years, based on results from the 2002 National Seismic Hazard map. The resolution of nationwide maps is too coarse to be used for District level planning. It is recommended that region specific maps are produced to fully understand the level of ground shaking hazard in the area. In addition, the current national map (2002) and the new national map that is close to completion (2010) do not include all the active faults that have been recently (including this report) defined for the Rotorua District. Ground deformation associated with surface fault rupture only occurs along active fault traces. However, Rotorua District has the largest density of active faults in New Zealand, and thus large areas of the district are likely to be affected by surface rupture (ground deformation) hazard. Although faults can often be located accurately (to within a few metres), there is no currently technology to prevent earthquake damage to buildings built across faults (Kerr et al., 2003). For this reason, we recommend the use of the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) guidelines to avoid building across hazardous faults (Kerr et al., 2003). GNS Science Consultancy Report 2010/182</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></DIV>
Description: <DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><DIV><P><SPAN>For proposed building work, any habitable building should have a floor level not less than 0.3 m above the potential inundation level. Building platform level should be no lower than Elevation level with in close prozimity of the lake. Elevation in metres (M</SPAN><SPAN>o</SPAN><SPAN>turiki Datum)</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>See RDC TRIM Record IT-247 - </SPAN><SPAN>"PIM - Processing Sheet Conditions" - </SPAN><SPAN>Section 302 Parts J - O</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></DIV>
Description: <DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><DIV><P STYLE="font-weight:bold;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Reference Document File: A4132542</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="font-weight:bold;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN>RDC GIS Project SDP62933</SPAN></P><P STYLE="font-weight:bold;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN>Note: </SPAN><SPAN>This dataset is a polygon version of the raster supplied by BOPRC. It is intended for temporary use only for LIM Maps until raster source is ready.</SPAN></P><P STYLE="font-weight:bold;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN /><SPAN /></P><P STYLE="font-weight:bold;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Data Set Name</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="font-weight:bold;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Greater Utuhina Catchment Model (GUCM)</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="font-weight:bold;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Data Set Abstract</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>These map layers represent data from the Greater Utuhina Catchment flood study (a Bay of Plenty Regional Council contracted analysis) and shows a set of spatial data layers that indicate areas of land at risk of fluvial flooding from the Utuhina Stream, Mangakakahe Stream and Otamatea Stream.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>The GUCM deliverables depict and quantify the flood susceptibility from fluvial (riverine) flooding for the study area, e.g. the river channels are no longer able to hold the volume of water and breach the banks. </SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="font-weight:bold;margin:8 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>The data set contains:</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="font-weight:bold;margin:8 0 0 48;"><SPAN><SPAN>Current built environment</SPAN></SPAN></P><UL STYLE="margin:0 0 0 0;padding:0 0 0 0;"><LI><P STYLE="margin:0 0 11 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Design flood levels predicted during 1% AEP RCP8.5 2130 scenario data including an allowance for estimate imprecision and phenomena not explicitly included in the calculations (Moturiki Datum).</SPAN></SPAN></P></LI><LI><P STYLE="margin:0 0 11 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Design max flood depths predicted during 1% AEP RCP8.5 2130 scenario data including an allowance for estimate imprecision and phenomena not explicitly included in the calculations</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>.</SPAN></SPAN></P></LI><LI><P STYLE="margin:0 0 11 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Flood extent for design flood 1% AEP RCP8.5 2130 scenario data including an allowance for estimate imprecision and phenomena not explicitly included in the calculations</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>.</SPAN></SPAN></P></LI></UL><P STYLE="font-weight:bold;margin:8 0 0 48;"><SPAN><SPAN>Potential future built environment</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="margin:8 0 0 48;"><SPAN><SPAN>Two future development scenarios for the 1% AEP RCP8.5 2130 as supporting information for RLCs infill plan change.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="margin:0 0 0 48;"><SPAN><SPAN>Scenario a - Current allowance in the district plan</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="margin:0 0 0 48;"><SPAN><SPAN>maximum impervious surface standards in residential zones </SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="margin:0 0 11 123;"><SPAN><SPAN>–</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>Residential 1 Zone: 80%</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="margin:0 0 11 123;"><SPAN><SPAN>–</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>Residential 2 Zone: from 100%</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="margin:0 0 0 48;"><SPAN><SPAN>Scenario b - Proposed reduced allowance in the district plan</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="margin:0 0 0 48;"><SPAN><SPAN>maximum impervious surface standards in residential zones </SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="margin:0 0 11 123;"><SPAN><SPAN>–</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>Residential 1 Zone: 70%</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="margin:0 0 11 123;"><SPAN><SPAN>–</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>Residential 2 Zone: from 80%</SPAN></SPAN></P><UL STYLE="margin:0 0 0 0;padding:0 0 0 0;"><LI><P STYLE="margin:0 0 11 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Design flood levels predicted during 1% AEP RCP8.5 2130 scenario data including an allowance for estimate imprecision and phenomena not explicitly included in the calculations (Moturiki Datum)</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>-</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>infill scenario a.</SPAN></SPAN></P></LI><LI><P STYLE="margin:0 0 11 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Design flood levels predicted during 1% AEP RCP8.5 2130 scenario data including an allowance for estimate imprecision and phenomena not explicitly included in the calculations (Moturiki Datum)- infill scenario b. </SPAN></SPAN></P></LI><LI><P STYLE="margin:0 0 11 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Design max flood depths predicted during 1% AEP RCP8.5 2130 scenario data including an allowance for estimate imprecision and phenomena not explicitly included in the calculations - infill scenario a.</SPAN></SPAN></P></LI><LI><P STYLE="margin:0 0 11 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Design max flood depths predicted during 1% AEP RCP8.5 2130 scenario data including an allowance for estimate imprecision and phenomena not explicitly included in the calculations - infill scenario b.</SPAN></SPAN></P></LI></UL><P /><P /><P /><P STYLE="font-weight:bold;margin:0 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Meta data</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="margin:0 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>All data layers need to be saved with reference to the following metadata. A limited number of the supplied data will be available in Bay hazards viewer for external parties.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P /><P STYLE="margin:0 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Meta data Text to be finalised</SPAN></SPAN></P><P /><P STYLE="font-weight:bold;margin:0 0 11 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Overview of Model</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="margin:0 0 11 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Regional Council has engaged Blue Duck Consultants and DHI Water and Environment Ltd to prepare a hydrological and hydraulic model, which combined we refer to as the Greater Utuhina Catchment Model (GUCM).</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="margin:0 0 11 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>The hydrological model (a Non-Linear Reservoir model) is intended for flood forecasting purposes and support design investigations within the catchment. The hydrological model calculates runoff from rainfall at 122 separate sub-catchments within the wider Utuhina Stream catchment. Stream flows from runoff are tracked through a network of routing branches to Lake Rotorua. </SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="margin:0 0 11 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>DHI extended the existing 2014 hydraulic model of the lower Utuhina reach to include the Utuhina Stream and its tributaries (Mangakakahi Stream and Otamatea Stream) upstream of the urban environment. The hydraulic model does not explicitly include the Rotorua Lakes Council's stormwater pipe network. Inflow hydrographs, each representing the flow contribution from a sub-catchment, were derived from the hydrological model and applied as a point or distributed inflows to the hydraulic model. </SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="margin:0 0 11 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>These two models were built and calibrated in unison for current land use and current climate change scenarios, following which climate change prediction where made to the year 2130.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="font-style:italic;font-weight:bold;margin:0 0 11 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>For further information refer to </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>DHI “Utuhina - Phases 2 and 3 Numerical Modelling”</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>, August 2021.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="margin:0 0 11 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Note an addendum to the report is currently being prepared for the design flood data including an allowance for estimate imprecision and phenomena not explicitly included in the calculations</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P /><P STYLE="font-weight:bold;margin:0 0 11 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Purpose of Model</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="margin:0 0 11 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>The GUCM has primarily been built to undertake a capacity review of the lower Utuhina Stream flood protection scheme and to assess the relative impacts of any potential flood mitigation measures on a catchment-wide scale. </SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="margin:0 0 11 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Its secondary purpose is to provide information on areas susceptible to fluvial (riverine) flooding for emergency planning, provide flood level advice in the vicinity of the streams, and provide boundary conditions for the stormwater network assessments.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="font-weight:bold;margin:0 0 11 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Limitation of data</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="margin:0 0 0 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>The fluvial (riverine) flood maps derived in </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight:bold;"><SPAN>DHI “Utuhina - Phases 2 and 3 Numerical Modelling”</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight:bold;"><SPAN>, August 2021</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>do not include data include any allowance for estimate imprecision and phenomena not explicitly included in the calculations</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P /><P STYLE="margin:0 0 11 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>There are multiple sources of uncertainty in deriving these maps including:</SPAN></SPAN></P><UL STYLE="margin:0 0 0 0;padding:0 0 0 0;"><LI><P STYLE="margin:0 0 11 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>The accuracy of gauging data and rating curves and associated estimated flood discharge for the chosen design events.</SPAN></SPAN></P></LI><LI><P STYLE="margin:0 0 11 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>The definition of floodplain topography and channel cross-sections.</SPAN></SPAN></P></LI><LI><P STYLE="margin:0 0 11 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>The choice of effective hydraulic roughness coefficients.</SPAN></SPAN></P></LI><LI><P STYLE="margin:0 0 11 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>The choice of the hydraulic model and its representation of the physics.</SPAN></SPAN></P></LI><LI><P STYLE="margin:0 0 11 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>The treatment of floodplain infrastructure.</SPAN></SPAN></P></LI><LI><P STYLE="margin:0 0 11 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>The consideration of the performance of flood defences.</SPAN></SPAN></P></LI><LI><P STYLE="margin:0 0 11 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>The potential for non-stationarity processes arising from both catchment change (land-use and/or land management changes) and climate variability and/or change.</SPAN></SPAN></P></LI></UL><P STYLE="margin:0 0 11 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>No detailed uncertainty analysis has been carried out. However, an allowance for estimate imprecision and phenomena not explicitly included in the calculations (factor of safety) has been applied to the </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight:bold;"><SPAN>design flood levels</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>to account for uncertainties. Areas of greater uncertainties received a greater allowance for the design levels, such as the lower portion of the catchment.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="margin:0 0 11 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>The flood maps shown</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN /><SPAN /><SPAN><SPAN>are</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-weight:bold;"><SPAN>fluvial (riverine)</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN /><SPAN /><SPAN STYLE="font-weight:bold;"><SPAN>flooding maps only</SPAN></SPAN><SPAN><SPAN>, e.g. flooding from the streams but do not explicitly show flooding from direct localised rainfall or from pipe surcharges. </SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="margin:0 0 11 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Urban flooding from direct localised rainfall and from pipe surcharges are beyond this study and would need to be established by a suitable rain-on-grid model.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="margin:0 0 11 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>As such, the design flood levels cannot solemnly relied upon for finished floor level determination within the urbanised subcatchment area as these areas may have other contributing (localised) factors that are not considered.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P STYLE="margin:0 0 11 0;"><SPAN><SPAN>Please note that both the estimates for estimate imprecision and phenomena not explicitly included in the calculations scenario as well as the future scenarios are not covered within the modelling report and an addendum report covering these scenarios is not yet available.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P /><P STYLE="margin:0 0 11 0;"><SPAN /><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN /></P></DIV></DIV></DIV>
Description: <DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><DIV><P><SPAN>Stormwater flood modelling data</SPAN><SPAN>.</SPAN><SPAN /><SPAN>Depth values in metres.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>RLC data</SPAN><SPAN>: </SPAN><SPAN>This modelling was produced to inform infrastructure planning and is indicative only. It is produced at a catchment rather than property-specific level and incorporates a range of assumptions and limitations. Rotorua Lakes Council and its consultants accept no responsibility for the accuracy of the mapping or any decisions based on it.</SPAN><SPAN>NOTE: Catchments may be part of more than one model - make sure to use appropriate queries on the data. </SPAN></P><P STYLE="margin:0 0 14 0;"><SPAN>Catchment-specific comments/assumptions:</SPAN></P><P STYLE="margin:0 0 14 0;"><SPAN STYLE="font-size:10pt">* Catchment 4 Updated Assumptions: </SPAN><SPAN>Original report based on HIRDS v3 rainfall including climate change to 2090 with a temperature increase of 2.1°C. The flood map is updated using Rainfall: HIRDSv4 rainfall with climate change to 2100 IPCC scenario RCP8.5</SPAN></P><P STYLE="margin:0 0 14 0;"><SPAN>+ Catchment 4 Related Reports: Catchment 4 Stormwater Model Build and System Performance Report, April 2017, Opus International Consultants Ltd, RDC-772974; Memorandum on Catchments 4 and 6: Additional results for 1% AEP event, January 2018, RDC-797296</SPAN></P><P STYLE="margin:0 0 14 0;"><SPAN>* Catchment 5 Updated Assumptions: Original report based on HIRDS v3 rainfall including climate change to 2090 with a temperature increase of 2.1°C. The flood map is updated using Rainfall: HIRDSv4 rainfall with climate change to 2100 IPCC scenario RCP8.5</SPAN></P><P STYLE="margin:0 0 14 0;"><SPAN>+ Catchment 5 Related Reports: Catchment 5 Stormwater Model Build and System Performance Report, August 2016, Opus International Consultants Ltd, RDC-687530</SPAN></P><P STYLE="margin:0 0 14 0;"><SPAN>* Catchment 6 Updated Assumptions: Original report based on HIRDS v3 rainfall including climate change to 2090 with a temperature increase of 2.1°C. The flood map is updated using Rainfall: HIRDSv4 rainfall with climate change to 2100 IPCC scenario RCP8.5</SPAN></P><P STYLE="margin:0 0 14 0;"><SPAN>+ Catchment 6 Related Reports: Catchment 6 Stormwater Model Build and System Performance Report, March 2017, Opus International Consultants, RDC-772471; Memorandum on Catchments 4 and 6: Additional results for 1% AEP event, January 2018, RDC-797296</SPAN></P><P STYLE="margin:0 0 14 0;"><SPAN>* Catchment 8 Updated Assumptions (data with dateStart 26/4/2023): Original report based on HIRDS v3 rainfall including climate change to 2090 with a temperature increase of 2.1°C. The flood map is updated using Rainfall: HIRDSv4 rainfall with climate change to 2100 IPCC scenario RCP8.5; updated data use 2120 rainfall</SPAN></P><P STYLE="margin:0 0 14 0;"><SPAN>* Catchment 8 Updated Assumptions (data with dateEnd 26/4/2023): Original report based on HIRDS v3 rainfall including climate change to 2090 with a temperature increase of 2.1°C. The flood map is updated using Rainfall: HIRDSv4 rainfall with climate change to 2100 IPCC scenario RCP8.5</SPAN></P><P STYLE="margin:0 0 14 0;"><SPAN>+ Catchment 8 Related Reports: Under development</SPAN></P><P STYLE="margin:0 0 14 0;"><SPAN>* Catchment 12 Updated Assumptions (data with dateStart 26/4/2023): Original report based on HIRDS v3 rainfall including climate change to 2090 with a temperature increase of 2.1°C. The flood map is updated using Rainfall: HIRDSv4 rainfall with climate change to 2100 IPCC scenario RCP8.5; updated data use 2120 rainfall</SPAN></P><P STYLE="margin:0 0 14 0;"><SPAN>* Catchment 12 Updated Assumptions (data with dateEnd 26/4/2023): Original report based on HIRDS v3 rainfall including climate change to 2090 with a temperature increase of 2.1°C. The flood map is updated using Rainfall: HIRDSv4 rainfall with climate change to 2100 IPCC scenario RCP8.5</SPAN></P><P STYLE="margin:0 0 14 0;"><SPAN>+ Catchment 12 Related Reports: Under development</SPAN></P><P STYLE="margin:0 0 14 0;"><SPAN>* Catchment 14 Updated Assumptions: Original report based on HIRDS v3 rainfall including climate change to 2090 with a temperature increase of 2.1°C. The flood map is updated using Rainfall: HIRDSv4 rainfall with climate change to 2100 IPCC scenario RCP8.5</SPAN></P><P STYLE="margin:0 0 14 0;"><SPAN>+ Catchment 14 Related Reports: Catchment 14 Stormwater Model Build and System Performance Report, May 2018, Opus International Consultants Ltd, RDC-828920</SPAN></P><P STYLE="margin:0 0 14 0;"><SPAN>* Catchment 18 Updated Assumptions:</SPAN></P><P STYLE="margin:0 0 14 0;"><SPAN>+ Catchment 18 Related Reports: SW Catchment 18 Model Development Memo and System Performance Report, Jeff Booth Consulting Ltd, RDC-876679</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></DIV>
Description: <DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><DIV><P><SPAN>Stormwater flood modelling boundaries. (NOTE: Modelling boundaries -- *not* stormwater catchments.)</SPAN></P><P STYLE="margin:0 0 14 0;"><SPAN>RLC data: This modelling was produced to inform infrastructure planning and is indicative only</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="font-size:10pt">. </SPAN><SPAN>It is produced at a catchment rather than property-specific level and incorporates a range of assumptions and limitations. Rotorua Lakes Council and its consultants accept no responsibility for the accuracy of the mapping or any decisions based on it.</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></DIV>
Description: <DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><DIV><P><SPAN>Design levels (1%) for the twelve Rotorua Lakes have originally been contained in the Regional Council’s Environmental Data Summaries – Air Quality, Meteorology, Hydrology and Water Temperature, Environmental Report 2001/01. They were subsequently updated in Environmental Data Summaries – Air Quality, Meteorology, Hydrology and Water Temperature, Report to 31 December 2005 (published) and again in Environmental Data Summaries 2010 (audited but not published).</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>The most recent analysis using recorded data and standard frequency analysis up to 31 December 2020 is contained within this report. The derived design levels include a freeboard to account for estimate imprecision; local wind set up; wave run-up; seiche; construction tolerances; and the likely joint probability of the above factors. All recorded levels and design levels are to Moturiki Datum (1953)</SPAN></P><P><SPAN STYLE="font-weight:bold;font-size:12pt">Flood analysis methodolgy</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>Lake level data is available for the twelve Rotorua Lakes (Figure 1). Records began as early as 1925. Some of the lakes have natural surface outlets, some have controlled surface outlets, and some have no surface outlets.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>The data used in this analysis is the annual maximum level record for the period of time since the recorder was installed, or since outlet control was put in place. The annual maxima and frequency analyses are presented in Parts 3 to 14.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>A number of analysis methods were used. At site flood frequency analyses were applied to:</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>• The continuous series of annual maxima for the period of record, or since lake level control</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>was installed.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>Analyses of statistical gauged data involved plotting calendar year annual maxima from the gauged level data. Event probability positions were plotted based on Gringoten formula as follows:</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>F(Qi) = (i - 0.44) / (n + 0.12)</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>Where i is the rank of each flood in the order of flow magnitude, and n is the total number of years in the record.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>A range of methods were used to calculate the annual exceedance probability, these include the EV1, GEV, Log Pearson 3, Generalized Pareto and the Generalized Logistic. Probability distributions were then fitted to plotted points by the method of L-Moments (Hosking, 1990).</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>Exceedance probabilities for annual (AEP) probabilities were plotted using the Gumbel reduced variate, described by McKerchar and Pearson (1989) as follows:</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>Annual Probability: y (Qi) = -ln [- ln (1-1/T)]</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>Where T is the desired recurrence interval. The resulting Gumbel plots were assessed by means of visual comparison for best fit.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>The best fitting distribution was selected based on visual inspection of the analysis plots. Where the analysis did not include the large flood events of the early 1960s (either because no recorder was in place at the time or outlet controls were installed later) an EV1 distribution was selected.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN STYLE="font-weight:bold;font-size:12pt">Dataset creation methodolgy</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>Elevation data - DEM created from BOPLASS 2011 LiDAR - both at 2K and 1K. Lake Rotorua heights generated with the 1K DEM whilst all other lakes from the 2K DEM. 1K DEM has a 1m cell size, 2K DEM 2m cell size.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>All data is NZTM and Moturiki 1953</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>All lakes had the lake level generated with freeboard added - lake level FB</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>Rotorua, Rotoiti and Tarawera had lake level generated minus 0.3m + 0.1m (climate change value) - lake level 200</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>All other lakes minus 0.3m - lake level 300</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>Extent boundaries between lakes Rotorua and Rotoiti is the State Highway over the Ohau Channel</SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN STYLE="font-weight:bold;font-size:12pt">Lake level data source</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>Table 25, pg 37</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>Rotorua Lakes Design Levels Technical report 2022 </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>ISSN: 1176-5550 (Print) ISSN: 1179-9587 (Online)</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></DIV>
Description: <DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><DIV><P><SPAN>280.</SPAN><SPAN>4</SPAN><SPAN>6 contour generated for lake Rotoiti. NZTm, Moturiki 1953</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>This was recrested as the contour supplied by draughting was positioned incorrectly and was discovered on planning Map 374 amongst others.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>A 2m DEM was genarated from the LiDAR (Moturiki, BOPLASS) and the contour generated from this DEM.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>The contour was manually edited to remove obvious spikes etc and other unwanted lines.</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></DIV>
Description: <DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><DIV><P><SPAN>Data sourced from Draughting. Drawing number 10383-05. D/O created a shapefile of the Lake Rotorua flood area at an elevation of 281.18m. Lake was at 279.8m at time of ortho capture. Data reprojected to TM and small polys deleted. Data put into DP_2010_Draft as Flood_level_Lake_Rotorua</SPAN><SPAN>. Heights based on Moturiki Vertical Datum1953</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></DIV>
Description: <DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><DIV><P><SPAN>Clipped to Rotorua TLA</SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>Layer last updated: 04/10/2021</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>Report Reference - A3787391</SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>LIQUEFACTION ASSESSMENT SUMMARY</SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>This liquefaction assessment has been undertaken in general accordance with the guidance document </SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>‘Assessment of Liquefaction-induced Ground Damage to Inform Planning Processes’ published by the </SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>Ministry for the Environment and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment in 2017.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>https://www.building.govt.nz/building-code-compliance/b-stability/b1-structure/planning-engineeringliquefaction-land/</SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>Client Bay of Plenty Regional Council (BOPRC)</SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>Assessment undertaken </SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>by</SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>Tonkin & Taylor Ltd, PO Box 317, Tauranga 3140</SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>Extent of the Study Area The Study Area aligns with the Bay of Plenty Regional Council boundary</SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>excluding the Tauranga City Council territory. The Study Area also includes </SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>two areas outside of the regional boundary, that being a small area to the </SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>west of Mamaku and a large area south of Lake Rotorua to incorporate all of </SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>the Rotorua Lakes Council Territory.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>Intended RMA planning </SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>and consenting purposes</SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>To provide BOPRC with a region-wide liquefaction vulnerability assessment to</SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>identify areas of land susceptible to liquefaction as required in the Regional </SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>Policy Statement (RPS). The technical report and resulting map outputs will be </SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>used to inform land use, subdivision and building consent applications. In </SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>particular the vulnerability assessment outputs will be utilised by stake </SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>holders to inform the risk assessment requirements for liquefaction prone </SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>land. </SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>Other intended purposes Not applicable</SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>Level of detail Level A (basic desktop assessment)</SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>Notes regarding base </SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>information</SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>The available base information provides enough information for a Level A </SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>(basic desktop assessment) level of detail across the Study Area. The main </SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>factor controlling this level of detail is the spatial extent of the available </SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>geotechnical investigations and groundwater information across the Study </SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>Area. There are some small areas (e.g. parts of Whakatāne and Rotorua) </SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>where higher levels of detail could be supported by the available base </SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>information. Undertaking these studies at a higher level of detail is outside of </SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>the scope of work for this project. </SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>Other notes This assessment has been made at a broad scale across the entire region and </SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>is intended to approximately describe the typical range of liquefaction </SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>vulnerability across neighbourhood-sized areas. It is not intended to precisely </SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>describe liquefaction vulnerability at individual property scale. This </SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>information is general in nature, and more detailed site-specific liquefaction </SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>assessment may be required for some purposes (e.g. for design of building </SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>foundations).</SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>A key consideration of the liquefaction vulnerability categorisation </SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>undertaken in accordance with the MBIE/MfE Guidelines (2017) is the degree </SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>of uncertainty in the assessment. Discussion about the key uncertainties in </SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>this assessment is provided in sections 3.3 and 3.4 of this report.</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></DIV>
Description: <DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><DIV><P><SPAN>Data created as part of GNS report 2010/81.</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>TRIM ref RDC-154258</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>Description that was added to the maps:</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>Zone A: Areas of volcanic-derived rocks and soils. Volcanic processes by their very </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>nature are high-energy. No soft ground is expected in zone A as the dominant </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>processes preclude the conditions necessary for its development. </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>Zone B: Huka Group sediments and Hinuera Formation. These sediments were formed in </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>a range of environments. Sediments with soft and very soft strengths at the time </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>of formation have consolidated over time and are now likely to meet the </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>requirements for being defined as good ground as per the draft New Zealand </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>Standard for timber framed buildings (DZ3604). </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>Zone C: Undifferentiated Holocene alluvium. Sites from a range of environmental </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>conditions are present within this zone. Small areas of soft to very soft ground </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>may be present as a surficial layer in some places. </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>Zone D: Sites of Holocene (last 10,000 years) swamp deposits and Holocene lake or delta </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>sediments between the 9000 ka and modern shorelines. Four of the five </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>documented sites of soft ground (Fitchett, 2007; Phillips, 2009; and Cowbourne </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>2009, 2010) are located at sites mapped as Zone D. </SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></DIV>
Unique Value Renderer: Field 1: DESCRIPTIO Field 2: N/A Field 3: N/A Field Delimiter: ; Default Symbol:
N/A
Default Label: N/A UniqueValueInfos:
Value: Areas of volcanic-derived rocks and soils. No soft ground is expected in zone A as the dominant high-energy volcanic processes preclude the development of soft to very soft soils. Label: A: Areas of volcanic-derived rocks and soils. Description: N/A Symbol:
Value: Huka Group sediments and Hinuera Formation (older sediments). These sediments were formed in a range of environments. Sediments with soft and very soft strengths at the time of formation are likely to have consolidated over time. Label: B: Huka Group sediments and Hinuera Formation (older sediments). Description: N/A Symbol:
Value: Undifferentiated Holocene alluvium (<10,000 years old). Sites from a range of environmental conditions are present within this zone. Small areas of soft to very soft ground may be present as a surficial layer in some places. Label: C: Undifferentiated Holocene alluvium (<10,000 years old). Description: N/A Symbol:
Value: Holocene (last 10,000 years) swamp deposits and Holocene lake or delta sediments between the 9000 ka and modern Lake Rotorua shorelines. Four of five documented sites of soft ground in the Rotorua district are located in Zone D. Label: D: Holocene (last 10,000 years) swamp deposits and Holocene lake or delta sediments. Description: N/A Symbol:
Description: <DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><P><SPAN>EXECUTIVE SUMMARY </SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>GNS Science (GNS) has been commissioned by Rotorua District Council (RDC) to describe </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>landslide hazards within the Rotorua district. The project has assessed landslides throughout </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>the district in order to differentiate areas where the landslide hazard is similar. The report </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>and accompanying map explain and show the variation in relative landslide susceptibility </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>throughout the district. This information will help RDC develop policies and rules for dealing </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>with landslide hazards in the new district plan. </SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>The landslide susceptibility map prepared using the methodology outlined in this report is in </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>good agreement with the known landslide information in the Rotorua district. The agreement </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>between the susceptibility model and historical landslide data provides confidence that the </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>relative landslide susceptibility displayed on the map effectively discriminates relative </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>landslide hazard. </SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>Two rainfall events generated multiple landslides over a 14 year period between 1996 and </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>2010. Analysis of rainfall data indicates that 200 mm of rainfall in 24 hours is the threshold for </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>causing multiple landslides. Given that the rainfall events were limited in their extent in the </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>district and a threshold of 200 mm of rain in 24 hours (approximately a 1-in-20 year return </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>period event based on HIRDS data), to have two multiple landslide generating rainstorms </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>(greater than 20-year return period storms) in 14 years matches rainfall data (the rainfall and </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>landslide datasets were collected independently). </SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>The landslide damage caused by the 2004 Rotoehu earthquake is equivalent to MM8 in the </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>epicentral area around Lakes Rotoehu and Rotoma. The 1987 Edgecumbe earthquake </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>caused landslide damage equivalent to MM6 in the same area. In Rotorua City MM8 </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>intensity has a return period of about 2500 years but for areas east of the city MM8 has a </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>return period of 500 years. Thus the landslide distribution in the epicentral area of the </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>Rotoehu earthquake is an analog for the type of landslide damage that might be expected </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>during MM8 shaking in Rotorua city, which is expected to occur an average once every 2500 </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>years. </SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>Large pre-existing landslides have been searched for by systematically examining vertical </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>aerial photographs. No pre-existing large landslides have been identified in the Rotorua </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>district. Based on the lack of evidence for large landslides in these terrains nationally, there </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>is no large, pre-existing landslide hazard in the Rotorua district. </SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>First-time landslides not triggered by high-intensity rainfall or earthquake-shaking occur </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>occasionally. Some of these occur in association with rainfall but there are often other </SPAN></P><P><SPAN>contributing factors such as recent slope modification. </SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P><P><SPAN>GNS Science Consultancy Report 2010/82</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV>