DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.14696487
title: Sawyer Mill Dam Removal Reservoir Response Study Survey Data Spreadsheets

description: These are the survey data spreadsheets used in the Evans et al. Sawyer Mill dam removal reservoir response manuscript. The survey data was collected throughout the Bellamy River Reservoir and the parking lots surrounding the Sawyer Mill Apartments located in Dover, New Hampshire, USA. Most survey dates were completed with a Topcon Hiper Lite +, except for the 9.11.2019 measurements that were collected with a total station.<br>Points were originally surveyed in NAD 1983 StatePlane New Hampshire FIPS 2800 (Feet), with elevation values corresponding to NAVD88 in feet. The survey processing workflow included steps to convert the StatePlane XY into WGS 84 and converting the elevation values from feet to meters. The survey data processing workflow used for the survey data can be found in the corresponding manuscript’s Appendix A (“Instructional Documents for Processing Survey Data” by Bonnie Turek). Raw survey data from the receiver for the Hiper Lite + measurements are available in the spreadsheets except for the vegetation area 8.22.2019 measurements, which have a raw text file in the figshare item that contains scanned copies of the field survey notes (see data availability section in the manuscript).<br>GCP, VCP, CP, transect point, etc. measurements were used after field notes were transcribed and rod height corrections were applied in a spreadsheet. If corrections were applicable, such as when half of the survey rod was unscrewed and not used to survey GCPs that were off the ground on top of the rebar, the removed rod height was added to the surveyed point to correct for the difference. Antennae heights for the Hiper Lite + were set to 0 during surveying as the rover and base were used with a tripod and rod with fixed identical heights.<br>Using the Hiper Lite +, points were surveyed off of either a known DoT marker on the bridge (Noted as BM.01 in the survey data, details here: https://granit.unh.edu/geodetic/datasheet?town=125&seq=810) or off of a base we established by driving a metal stake into the ground towards the center of the upper impoundment (Noted as BM.03 in the survey data, established via leaving the GPS base on the stake’s location for 2 hours and then post-process the collected data against the state OPUS system). Two of the points surveyed using the Hiper Lite + were used as a base and backshot for collecting total station measurements in the further downriver area of the middle impoundment due to poor satellite signal. These total station measurements were mainly collected for an area downstream of the apartments not discussed in the corresponding manuscript, but one of the total station points was used as a VCP for the middle impoundment SfM process.<br>Please see the corresponding manuscript’s SM 1 for a clarification on assuming rod height corrections for some GCPs surveyed in 2019 (8.6.2019) where field notes on rod height were missing and some GCP measurements were not averaged correctly in the spreadsheet. Additional survey-specific information and details can be found in the provided spreadsheets. The survey date is noted in the file name along with the study area(s) names. Please see the corresponding manuscript for additional information on the survey data.<br>----------------<br>Additional Correction Notes:<br>The survey spreadsheets, field notes, and terrain analysis spreadsheet for the CPs and transect points used in the manuscript were compared as a data quality check prior to publication for field note consistency. Some errors were discovered during this process (noted below), and were corrected/accounted for the in the corresponding manuscript and listed here for transparency (These errors were unnoticed for Alexandra's dissertation when she worked with a larger scope of data). Please see the terrain analysis spreadsheet from the manuscript's data availability section for corrected information (e.g. corrected terrain notes, corrected vegetation heights measured/estimated from the top of the survey rod, notes on transect terrain note misalignment in 8.23.2019 beaver measurements).<br>8.7.2020 vegetation area: - skipped cp.36 in numbering (see field notes) - first cp.69 should be labeled cp.68 to match field notes<br>8.22.2019 vegetation area:- cp.03 had no notes in field book- cp.36 veg height should be 35 inches from rover top (2.9972 m)- cp.39 veg height should be 32 inches from rover top (2.921 m)- cp.40 veg height should be 29 inches from rover top (2.8448 m)- cp.62 label not used (see field notes)- first cp.67 should be labeled cp.66 to match notes<br>8.23.2019 beaver dam area:- t3 terrain note misalignment; see terrain analysis spreadsheet<br>7.24.2020 beaver dam area:- cp.205 missing from spreadsheet but noted in survey field book, could have been removed in spreadsheet due to survey error<br>7.30.2019 sediment area:- cp.09 not used in analysis since rod sunk during measurement- cp.42 not used due to survey error (see field notes)<br>8.1.2019 sediment area:- t.17 wasn't converted from StatePlane to WGS 84 properly, fixed for survey transects and terrain analysis in manuscript<br>7.16.2020 sediment area:- cp.170 had a "don't use" note- cp.201 had a "don't use" note- cp.76 was cp.75 again (measured twice accidentally - see field notes)<br>8.6.2019:- t2.10 not used due to survey error- "vines" terrain note supposed to be "fines"<br><br>----------------<br><br>Special thanks to Scott Greenwood and the undergraduate and high school students who helped collect and process this survey data. These materials were made using resources from an NSF EPSCoR funded project “RII Track-2 FEC: Strengthening the scientific basis for decision-making about dams: Multi-scale, coupled-systems research on ecological, social, and economic trade-offs” (a.k.a. "Future of Dams"). Support for this project is provided by the National Science Foundation’s Research Infrastructure Improvement NSF #IIA-1539071. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.<br>