DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS OF A BATHYMETRIC MODEL OF PINEVIEW RESERVOIR, UTAH

Mark Winkelaar* Utah State University

Utah Water Research Laboratory Logan, Utah 84322-8200

December 20, 2010

ABSTRACT 

An area capacity curve and sediment surface area estimate for Pineview Reservoir, Utah, was established using sonar and GPS methods. It provides accurate estimates of the water volume, water surface area and inundated sediment surface area of the reservoir at 1 ft elevation intervals below the reservoir’s spill elevation (4,900 ft, NGVD 1929). This relationship was calculated for each arm of the reservoir as well as the central area, i.e., for five distinct modelling areas, using a Geographic Information System (GIS). The analysis indicated that the capacity of the reservoir was between 106,970 and 110,100 acre feet (ac-ft) and that the storage capacity of the reservoir has decreased less than 5% over its 73 year life time. The data will be used to help describe thermal stratification effects on the water quality of the reservoir. The digital, three-dimensional GIS model of the reservoir will be available for further study.

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

AGRC Utah Automated Geographic Reference Center DEM Digital Elevation Model DNR Division of Natural Resources, Minnesota GRID Arc Info proprietary raster model SGID State Geographic Information Database TIN Triangulated Irregular Network. A list of points with their coordinates (x, y) and topology value

(z) USBOR United States Bureau of Reclamation USFS United States Forest Service USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS United States Geologic Survey USU Utah State University UWRL Utah Water Research Laboratory, Utah State University

                                                             * Telephone: (435) 797-1184; Email: mark.winkelaar@usu.edu 

2  

INTRODUCTION 

Pineview Reservoir is located in Weber County, Utah, near the town of Huntsville and approximately 9 miles east of Ogden. Pineview Dam and Reservoir are part of the US Bureau of Reclamation’s (USBOR) Ogden River Project. Water is stored in the reservoir principally for irrigation use and is managed by Pineview Water Systems, Ogden, UT, and Weber Basin Water Conservancy District, Layton, UT. Water is also used for hydroelectric power generation by Bountiful City Light & Power and as a seasonal raw municipal water source by Ogden City Water Services. Pineview Reservoir is a popular recreation area for boating, swimming and fishing. Public boating and camping at the reservoir is managed by the US Forest Service.

Water storage in Pineview Reservoir began in November 1936. In 1957 the dam was raised 34 ft to its current elevation. The Bureau of Reclamation (US Bureau of Reclamation, 1963) used planimetry of a 1937 topographic map of the reservoir basin to determine its maximum storage capacity of 110,150 acre-feet (ac-ft). A record of direct bathymetry of Pineview Reservoir since it began filling almost 73 years ago was not found and the effect of sedimentation on the reservoir’s volume was unknown.

Current water quality research on Pineview Reservoir and its watershed has included a calculation of a total phosphorus mass balance for the reservoir (Worwood, In Preparation). Without accurate water volume information the accuracy of the mass balance was very uncertain. The present bathymetric measurements and modelling were done to determine the current volume of the reservoir basin and the sediment surface area.

OBJECTIVES 

Determining the elevation-capacity relationship for Pineview Reservoir has provided useful information for current and future water quality assessments and it will provide confidence in storage capacity data for all Pineview water users. Specific objectives of the work reported here were to:

1. Determine the current elevation-capacity curve for Pineview Reservoir. 2. Determine the elevation-capacity curves and approximate sediment surface area for five

major sections of the reservoir that correspond to water quality and sediment geochemistry sampling data.

METHODS 

Data Collection

The entire shoreline was manually image interpreted and digitized prior to data collection using the Garmin 530s (Sonar) depth finder and Trimble GeoXH (GPS). The source image was the National Agricultural Imagery Program (National Agricultural Image Program, 2009) 1 m resolution orthoimage for Weber County, UT. ESRI’s (Redlands, CA) ArcPad software installed on a Fujitsu tablet PC and linked via a Bluetooth connection to a Trimble GPS Pathfinder XB Receiver made it

3  

possible to track the boat’s location and view the entire 1 m NAIP image as needed. This method was most useful in densely vegetated areas where channels enter the reservoir. The raw data was transferred from the sonar and GPS to the Fujitsu tablet PC, processed and made available for use in planning the next day’s data collection.

The coordinate system for the project was UTM Zone 12 NAD83 meters. This was compatible with datasets available from the Utah Automated Geographic Reference Center’s (AGRC) State Geographic Information Database (SGID) (Utah GIS Portal, 2010). Elevation values, in feet, use the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD29). The Bureau of Reclamation reports ac-ft at pool elevations in NGVD29 (ft). Elevations, provided in meters, use the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88). Using both Corpscon 6 software and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) FIRM Website (Dewberry & Davis LLC, 2005), the vertical offset was determined to be 1.08m. For the purposes of this report, elevations can be calculated as NGVD29 +1.08 m = NAVD88. This offset value is only appropriate for the Pineview Reservoir area.

A 16 foot johnboat equipped with Garmin 530s Sonar and Trimble GeoXH GPS with an external Zephyr Antenna (Figure 1) was used to navigate and map the initial outline of the reservoir and the entire reservoir basin. Boat operators navigated as close to the shore as was deemed feasible to capture depths along the shoreline. Hard, deep riprap lined shorelines were avoided to prevent damage to the boat hull. Shallow water environments less than 2 ft deep were also avoided to prevent stirring up sediment, getting the boat stuck or fouling the motor. Data collection for less than 2 ft depths was unreliable.

GPS measurements can be accurate at the sub-foot level when using the Trimble GeoXH. Conditions need to be optimal and many points should be taken at a single location, while stationary, to achieve this accuracy. Conditions were not optimal while moving in the boat and in difficult environments including the steep, narrow canyon near the dam. For this reason, elevations were calculated by subtracting depths from the water surface elevation at the reservoir’s spill level, which was 4,900 ft (1,494.6 m), during the days of data collection. The Bureau of Reclamation reports (US Bureau of Reclamation, 2010) water surface elevations in NGVD29 feet above mean sea level (AMSL; Table 1).

The greatest variance from the 4,900 ft spill elevation was 0.1 ft, or 1.2 inches, on 6/25/2010. This difference was insignificant in consideration of the possible error from other sources.

Software Used

Software used in data collection and data analysis included: Corpscon 6, ArcGIS 9.3, Arcview 3.2, Microsoft Excel, DNR Garmin, Trimble Pathfinder Office, ArcView 3.2 extensions: 3D Analyst, CLU Quality Control Extension, Densify Polyline or Polygon, TIN Exporter, Geoprocessing, Geoprocessing M&Z shapes, GRID Pig Tools, Imagine Image Support, JPEG (JFIF) Image Support, Random Point Generator v. 1.3, Snap features to other theme, Spatial Analyst, Surface Tools (v. 1.6b), and Xtools 6/1/01.

Data Post Processing

Post processing steps included downloading data from the sonar and exporting it to shapefile format using the Minnesota Division of Natural Resources DNR Garmin software program

4  

FIGURE 1. SONAR AND GPS EQUIPMENT MOUNTED ON THE BOAT.

 

TABLE 1. WATER SURFACE ELEVATIONS DURING DATA COLLECTION PERIOD (US BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, 2010).

Date Elevation (ft AMSL)

20-Jun-10 4900.01 21-Jun-10 4899.99 22-Jun-10 4899.96 23-Jun-10 4899.94 24-Jun-10 4899.92 25-Jun-10 4899.9

 

5  

(Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 2008). GPS data was also downloaded to the Fujitsu tablet and exported to shapefile format using Trimble Pathfinder Office. The data sets for each day were compared and joined using the TIME fields in the format YYYY/MM/DD-hh:mm:ss in UTC coordinates. This format is the export from the DNR Garmin Software. Field calculations performed on the data fields from the GeoXH resulted in correct and equivalent unique time steps that match those of the sonar. The less horizontally accurate GPS Sonar data was joined to the GeoXH data, resulting in an accurate xyz position every 3 seconds.

The joined data was combined with the image interpreted and digitized shoreline, other line work and point elevation data to create an initial TIN. This TIN was refined, volume and surface area values were calculated, and obvious errors were found. The errors were then either eliminated or minimized. One example of this is where the shoreline shows steeply curving inlets but depth values are unavailable. In this case, the TIN will often create a small sliver without data. Using smoothed shorelines eliminated the more complex inlets and adding random points with the use of the ESRI ArcView extension Random Point Generator v. 1.3 to the entire interior of the shoreline insured that points were proximal to all inlets and allowed for proper triangulation.

Classification of deep water and shallow water values was helpful in identifying and understanding wetlands vegetation classes in inundated areas. To characterize shallow water areas, U.S.F.W.S. Wetlands Geodatabase 1:100,000 scale data were available, but were too coarse to use directly. Both digitized and scanned images of the original hand drawn maps were available. As with all other datasets, the wetlands line work was compared to the USGS 1:24,000 Digital Raster Graph Quadrangle map DRG, a Digital Elevation Model (DEM) hillshade model, and a hillshade model of the mean GRID of bathymetric elevations. Contours at the 4,900 ft elevation are derived from the raw 5 m DEM, a smoothed GRID of the 5 m DEM, and the various versions of the TIN. The contours were compared to the image-interpreted shoreline. Finally, the mean 5 m DEM contour was adjusted to align with the obvious shorelines. The NAIP imagery captured on 07/09/09 was coincident with a lake level at 4,899.25 feet according to USBOR records (US Bureau of Reclamation, 2010). In steeper areas, the shorelines would be very similar at 4900 feet. In shallower areas, the distance was greater between the 4,899.25 feet shoreline derived from NAIP interpreted imagery and the 4,900 feet elevation derived from the TIN, DEM, or smoothed GRID. As a final check, the Inundation Area derived from National Hydrologic Dataset (NHD) line work and verified by the 1:24,000 scale DRG was converted to a GRID with a value of one and multiplied by the 5 m GRID elevations. The resulting Inundated Areas GRID was color coded to re-examine elevations and slopes near the shoreline, and adjusted to fit the 4,900 foot elevation level. Oftentimes this was within the wetland areas with various density levels of vegetation. The newly adjusted shoreline was not without error. There were locations that were excluded that were wet, and locations where the shoreline included dry land. However, care was taken to interpret the best available data. Previously digitized GIS line work from the NHD or USFWS was much coarser. Ground based survey methods of the water surface elevation at the spill elevation or the use of remote sensing methodologies could be used to improve the confidence in the shoreline. However, for the level of effort required and the modest improvements that could result, it is doubtful that the additional expense and effort would be worthwhile.

6  

Sediment Surface Area Estimation

Sediment surface area was estimated using ESRI’s ArcGIS Desktop 9.3 3D Analyst Tools. The Surface Volume command calculated sediment surface area relative to a reference plane using the reservoir bottom TIN.

Quality Control and Corrective Action

Depth data from each day was displayed, and reviewed using ESRI’s 3D Analyst package with depths extended downward from 4,900 feet. Unlikely depths were identified and interpreted as either holes or peaks. These were later reviewed and compared against the 1 ft contours of the TIN and with the contours of the mean 3x3 GRID. A hillshade model was useful in interpreting the outliers. All of these methods combined made an explicit way of detecting errors. Tight contours with a single outlier in the middle usually occurred at the end of a string of data. Identification of a “fence” in the middle of the reservoir or a deep groove in shallow water was an easy way to spot errors. In one case, a single shift of one hour’s worth of GPS collected data resulted in this kind of error. The data was deemed unreliable if the TIN showed tall, single point peaks or deep, single point holes. Errors could have occurred when the boat was travelling at too high a rate of speed and cavitation impeded the sensor, the boat encountered a wake and the sonar sensor came out of the water, or aquatic vegetation surrounded the sensor and blocked the sonar path.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 

Reservoir Capacity

Table 2 itemizes the data points collected and post processed, including the results of quality control analysis and corrective procedures. The GIS layers produced from the data collected and from supporting data are listed in Table 3. Figures 2 through 6 show the boat data collection pathways and the resulting reservoir bottom elevation contours for the central, dam, north, middle and south sections of the reservoir. The bathymetric contours for the entire reservoir are shown in Figure 7 and a three-dimensional projection of Pineview Reservoir depths is in Figure 8. The elevation-capacity curve developed in the present study is in Figure 9 and the elevation-capacity curves for each of the five sections are shown in Figure 10. Figure 10 also shows the summation curve for the five sections and compares it to the curve developed in 1963 (US Bureau of Reclamation, 1963). Figure 11 shows the surface area-elevation curves for the five sections, their summation curve and its comparison to the 1963 surface area-elevation curve. The capacity volumes and surface areas of each of the five reservoir sections are compared in Figures 12 and 13. Comparisons of estimated reservoir volumes and surface areas using the various maximum elevation assumptions and calculation approaches are shown in Figures 14 and 15.

At the 4,900 ft spill elevation, the total volume calculated using the ArcGIS SurfaceVolume command was 107,306 ac-ft. This differed from the 1963 (US Bureau of Reclamation, 1963) value of 110,150 ac-ft by 2.6%. Similarly, the water surface area at 2,784.3 acres was within 3.1% of the previously published 2,874 acres for the reservoir. The estimate for the total volume of Pineview Reservoir calculated in the present study was very close to that reported in 1963 and suggests that there has been less than 3% loss in storage capacity in Pineview Reservoir over the 73 years of its existence. This result was lower than expected but given the accuracy of the methods and the

7  

TABLE 2. NUMBERS OF DATA POINTS COLLECTED BY DATE AND TYPE. RELIABLE POINTS ARE THOSE CLEARING QUALITY CONTROL PROCEDURES.

Date

Collection Interval Post Processing 3 seconds 1 second

Total JoinedPoints

Reliable Points

Sonar Points

Position (GPS)Points

6/21/2010 8103 21082 7403 6402 6/22/2010 11399 31842 9999 8896 6/23/2010 10840 28270 8740 7984 6/24/2010 11761 31576 11061 9583 6/25/2010 3767 11279 3767 3278

Total 45870 124049 40970 36143 Equivalent hrs 38.2 34.5 34.1 30.1

8  

TABLE 3. GIS LAYERS LIST. 

Pineview_shoreline_NAIP2009.shp Shoreline Polygon from NAIP 2009 Imagery

Final_pineview_shoreline_1494_6m.shp Revised Shoreline Polygon after QAQC of 1494 m or 4900 ft contours were examined using the initial TIN, 5m DEM, and smoothed mean GRID.

350 m buffer of initial image interpreted shoreline 350 m buffer of revised shoreline NAIP2009_pineview.img: NAIP 2009 Weber County, Trimmed to area surrounding

Pineview Reservoir. 5m DEM derived from Autocorrelation of NAIP imagery (Lidar data) and Hillshade for area

surrounding Pineview Reservoir. Inundation area from USGS 1:24,000 scale DRG, and NHD line work.

Pv_nhdarea_utm12.shp USFWS Wetlands Geodatabase, subset to area surrounding Pineview Reservoir. Random points within the Pineview shoreline generated using ArcView 3.2 and the Random

Point Generator v. 1.3 extension. Island Polygons at 4,900 ft or 1,494.6 m within the reservoir. Mass points within the Island Polygon above. Elevations are greater than 4,900 ft or 1,494.6

m. 1 foot contours from elevation 4,817 ft to 4,901 ft with Index contours at every 10 ft Model Break lines, polygons, and elevation GRIDs for Dam, Central, North, Middle, and

South Arms. USU/UWRL GPS survey at the Dam, and Monitoring Wells. Schnabel, Noah, 03/30/2010 36143 finalized QAQC’ed depth values. This was equivalent to one point every three

seconds, resulting in over thirty hours of continuous data collection. Northchan.shp is a point shapefile for a small area where depths are modified in the open

water of the northern most channel by subtracting 2.69 m (6 ft) from the 5m DEM points within the channel. This was an attempt at defining open water where it was obvious. We used a sample point at the mouth of the channel to determine the value.

SGID93_cadastre_landownership.shp is the Land Ownership Cadastral Fabric, and was consulted for basic ownership questions. It was not used in any analysis or creation of the bathymetric model.

9  

 

FIGURE 2 CENTRAL MODEL DEPTHS, CONTOURS, AND GPS TRACK POINT LOCATIONS.

10  

 

FIGURE 3 DAM MODEL DEPTHS, CONTOURS, AND GPS TRACK POINT LOCATIONS.

11  

 

FIGURE 4. NORTH MODEL DEPTHS, CONTOURS, AND GPS TRACK POINT LOCATIONS.

12  

 

 

FIGURE 5. MIDDLE MODEL DEPTHS, CONTOURS, AND GPS TRACK POINT LOCATIONS.

13  

 

FIGURE 6. SOUTH MODEL DEPTHS, CONTOURS, AND GPS TRACK POINT LOCATIONS.

 

14  

 

FIGURE 7. BATHYMETRIC CONTOURS.

 

15  

 

 

FIGURE 8. THREE-DIMENSIONAL VIEW OF PINEVIEW RESERVOIR, NAIP 2009 DRAPED ONTO TIN DEVELOPED FROM 5M DEM AND BATHYMETRIC DATA. VIEW IS FROM NE TO SW LOOKING TOWARD THE DAM AND OGDEN CANYON.

16  

 

 

FIGURE 9. PINEVIEW RESERVOIR CAPACITY CURVE

17  

FIGURE 10. PINEVIEW RESERVOIR CAPACITY CURVES FOR FIVE MODELS, SUM, AND BOR (1963).

18  

FIGURE 11. RESERVOIR AREA CURVES FOR FIVE MODELS, SUM, AND BOR (1963).

19  

 

FIGURE 12. VOLUME OF 5 MODELED REGIONS BELOW 4900 FT.

 

FIGURE 13. ACREAGE OF FIVE MODELED REGIONS BELOW 4900 FT.

 

20  

 

FIGURE 14. VOLUME CALCULATIONS FOR THE TOTAL OF 5 MODELS, MEAN GRIDS AT ELEVATIONS BELOW 4899, 4900, AND 4901 FT, AND 1963 PLANIMETERED VALUES AT 4900 FT.

 

 

FIGURE 15. AREA CALCULATIONS FOR THE TOTAL OF 5 MODELS, MEAN GRIDS AT ELEVATIONS BELOW 4899, 4900, AND 4901 FT, AND 1963 PLANIMETERED VALUES AT 4900 FT.

21  

quality control procedures employed, it is very unlikely that the loss in volume has, in fact, exceeded 6%.

The sensitivity of the three-dimensional bathymetric model was explored by comparing the water volume and water surface area that would be calculated with hypothetical water surface elevations of 4,901 and 4,899 ft, i.e., 1 ft above and 1 ft below the elevation when bathymetric data were collected. The 1-foot shift is within the accuracy limits of the model considering the accuracy of the collected depth and additional GIS datasets that were used to create the initial and final TINs. Calculations of total volume and area for the 4,901 ft level resulted in a volume of 110,102 ac-ft and an area of 2,811 acres. This volume was within 0.04% of what was planimetered in 1963 at 4,900 ft and the surface area was within 2.2% of the area determined in 1963. The volume below the hypothetical 4,899 ft level was 106,971 ac-ft and the surface area was 2,765 acres. These values were within 5% and 3.8%, respectively, of the total volume and area planimetered in 1963.

The actual maximum volume and surface area for the reservoir were between 106,971 and 110,102 ac-ft and 2,765 and 2,811 acres, respectively. Again, the best estimates of maximum volume and water surface area were 107,306 ac-ft and 2,784.3 acres, respectively. Depth values collected during the week of June 20-25, 2010, present a more complete picture of the bathymetry of Pineview Reservoir than has been available previously.

See Supplementary Material at http://colossus.uwrl.usu.edu/downloads/pineview/ for full details of all the results including raw data obtained from this study.

Sediment Area

Table 4 lists approximate inundated sediment surface areas for Pineview Reservoir water elevations in 1 ft intervals. These areas could be used in calculations related to sediment processes. They have been used to estimate the mass of phosphorus released from anoxic sediments below the summer thermocline, for example (Worwood, In Preparation).

Potential Accuracy Improvement

The GIS SurfaceVolume command does not provide equivalent values between the Vector line work and the individual GRID calculations. There are many possible factors that cause this, one of which is that the mean filter readjusts elevations by a small value. Other methods might show more promise in developing a surface for Pineview Reservoir. By providing raw and processed datasets, it is hoped that other scientists will be able to build on this effort.

Further investigation of the plan map and digitization of the contours as well as registration to a known coordinate system would be helpful in assessing where the disparity in area exists. Improvements to the bathymetric model could be made by increasing the accuracy of the shoreline delineation. This could be accomplished using remote sensing methods to separate land from water, and should result in higher confidence in the volume calculations. This would entail separating water from land, and more accurately identifying the extent of inundated areas. The boat and equipment used had difficulty obtaining depths less than 2 feet reliably. It was very time consuming to navigate in shallow waters with dense canopy that interfered with and degraded GPS signals. More accurate elevation data could be obtained using cm grade GPS technology at the shoreline but much more time and effort would be required. The use of higher resolution RGB and near IR imagery along the shoreline, captured at the spill elevation period could be reclassified to separate land from water. An accurate shoreline is essential to obtaining correct area and volume values.

22  

TABLE .4 RESERVOIR DEPTH-SEDIMENT AREA TABLE.

Elevation ElevationDepth (ft) (ft, NVGD29) Dam North Middle South Central Sum Depth (ft) (ft, NVGD29) Dam North Middle South Central Sum

1 4819 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.60 42 4860 145.12 193.69 398.06 334.03 211.25 1282.16

2 4820 1.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 2.07 43 4861 146.24 203.37 414.83 348.79 211.76 1324.98

3 4821 7.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.29 7.82 44 4862 147.37 212.59 432.18 361.04 212.25 1365.44

4 4822 20.72 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.55 21.31 45 4863 148.49 221.15 447.91 372.65 212.74 1402.93

5 4823 30.67 0.00 0.09 0.01 1.03 31.79 46 4864 149.61 231.19 464.53 384.52 213.22 1443.07

6 4824 46.13 0.00 0.15 0.02 2.39 48.68 47 4865 150.72 244.07 481.39 395.00 213.70 1484.87

7 4825 73.52 0.00 0.25 0.05 8.14 81.95 48 4866 151.83 256.09 497.35 405.66 214.17 1525.11

8 4826 84.79 0.00 0.48 0.07 33.75 119.10 49 4867 152.93 268.31 512.58 417.66 214.65 1566.13

9 4827 92.12 0.01 1.24 0.16 71.22 164.76 50 4868 154.06 279.85 528.38 429.64 215.12 1607.06

10 4828 98.09 0.03 10.63 0.60 100.72 210.07 51 4869 155.19 289.49 544.92 442.04 215.59 1647.23

11 4829 101.05 0.10 26.32 1.75 121.37 250.60 52 4870 156.32 298.42 561.27 455.94 216.06 1688.02

12 4830 103.54 0.21 38.46 3.69 133.60 279.51 53 4871 157.46 307.79 577.16 466.34 216.54 1725.29

13 4831 105.79 0.40 46.41 8.99 144.23 305.83 54 4872 158.60 317.97 594.15 476.29 217.01 1764.03

14 4832 107.82 0.73 54.98 16.20 156.13 335.86 55 4873 159.74 326.91 611.67 487.57 217.48 1803.38

15 4833 109.69 1.30 62.14 26.60 165.55 365.28 56 4874 160.89 334.55 627.69 499.10 217.96 1840.19

16 4834 111.44 2.08 74.36 34.63 176.97 399.48 57 4875 162.06 340.56 643.36 509.19 218.43 1873.60

17 4835 113.09 3.57 89.20 42.26 184.67 432.79 58 4876 163.26 347.25 660.86 523.01 218.91 1913.29

18 4836 114.67 6.50 106.91 49.02 187.79 464.89 59 4877 164.45 353.85 678.06 534.21 219.38 1949.96

19 4837 116.21 11.20 115.93 58.52 190.03 491.89 60 4878 165.62 359.53 695.50 543.77 219.86 1984.27

20 4838 117.72 18.20 125.28 70.18 192.17 523.56 61 4879 166.78 365.27 712.80 554.81 220.33 2019.99

21 4839 119.22 23.50 135.36 83.75 194.87 556.71 62 4880 167.93 373.61 730.99 568.80 220.80 2062.12

22 4840 120.67 29.05 145.96 98.10 196.66 590.43 63 4881 169.08 384.02 751.28 583.76 221.26 2109.39

23 4841 122.06 36.02 156.30 112.70 198.02 625.11 64 4882 170.20 392.69 774.27 598.50 221.72 2157.37

24 4842 123.43 41.09 166.74 126.16 199.17 656.59 65 4883 171.31 400.86 799.59 614.08 222.16 2208.01

25 4843 124.76 46.02 175.25 139.49 200.15 685.67 66 4884 172.39 408.22 827.30 628.56 222.59 2259.05

26 4844 126.07 53.03 185.27 151.71 201.06 717.12 67 4885 173.45 415.67 853.30 642.33 223.01 2307.76

27 4845 127.35 60.46 196.20 164.71 201.90 750.62 68 4886 174.49 422.81 876.33 654.89 223.41 2351.92

28 4846 128.61 66.84 209.25 178.18 202.67 785.56 69 4887 175.48 432.14 897.33 668.13 223.78 2396.86

29 4847 129.86 75.79 223.75 190.66 203.42 823.47 70 4888 176.41 440.81 918.08 680.28 224.12 2439.70

30 4848 131.09 84.22 235.50 204.62 204.14 859.58 71 4889 177.28 448.77 940.60 691.45 224.42 2482.52

31 4849 132.31 93.89 246.92 218.28 204.82 896.21 72 4890 178.09 458.09 964.92 704.21 224.70 2530.00

32 4850 133.51 103.47 258.61 231.31 205.46 932.36 73 4891 178.81 465.87 987.08 716.78 224.96 2573.50

33 4851 134.72 111.99 270.89 241.84 206.07 965.51 74 4892 179.46 473.59 1008.34 727.79 225.20 2614.39

34 4852 135.91 121.04 282.15 252.90 206.67 998.68 75 4893 180.03 481.00 1024.83 736.58 225.42 2647.85

35 4853 137.10 130.72 294.16 263.94 207.27 1033.19 76 4894 180.52 486.95 1036.25 743.72 225.60 2673.04

36 4854 138.27 140.72 307.47 274.15 207.87 1068.47 77 4895 180.94 490.91 1047.63 750.06 225.76 2695.30

37 4855 139.43 149.58 320.09 283.00 208.45 1100.55 78 4896 181.28 494.17 1057.11 755.84 225.89 2714.29

38 4856 140.58 157.15 333.38 294.35 209.03 1134.49 79 4897 181.54 496.06 1065.03 759.42 225.99 2728.04

39 4857 141.72 164.96 348.82 303.70 209.62 1168.82 80 4898 181.74 497.52 1071.30 762.01 226.05 2738.62

40 4858 142.86 175.03 363.34 312.72 210.19 1204.15 81 4899 181.88 498.48 1075.66 763.76 226.09 2745.87

41 4859 143.99 184.41 381.38 323.27 210.74 1243.79 82 4900 181.96 498.99 1079.34 765.11 226.12 2751.53

Sediment Area (acres)Sediment Area (acres)

 

23  

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

Funding for this work was provided by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Quality (FY 2010 Nonpoint Source Grant Agreement, Water Quality Hardship Grant Fund, June 28, 2010) and by the Utah Water Research Laboratory (project WR-1074). Kari Lundeen served as the liaison for the Division of Water Quality. Darwin L. Sorensen, Ph.D., provided project oversight and editorial review of the report. The many hours of technical assistance by graduate students Brady Worwood and Noah Schmadel and undergraduate assistant Erik Nilson were greatly appreciated.

REFERENCES 

[1] US Bureau of Reclamation (1963). "Pineview Reservoir area and capacity tables." US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation Region 4, Salt Lake City, UT.

[2] Worwood, B. (In Preparation). "Analysis of the import, export, and bioavailability of nitrogen and phosphorus within Pineview Reservoir." MS, Utah State University, Logan, UT.

[3] National Agricultural Image Program (2009). "National Agricultural Image Program information sheet." <http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/naip_2009_info_final.pdf>. (June, 2010).

[4] Utah GIS Portal (2010). "Digital Elevation Model using ISTAR (an EDI application) and GPRO (a Horizons application)." <http://gis.utah.gov/images/sgidraster/DEM_Auto-correlation.doc>. (June, 2010).

[5] Dewberry & Davis LLC (2005). "Evaluation of alternatives in obtaining structural elevation data, Appendix C Elevation surveys." <http://www.fema.gov/pdf/nfip/alt_elevations/elevations_appc.pdf>. (July, 2010).

[6] US Bureau of Reclamation (2010). "Upper Colorado Region Reservoir Operations." <http://www.usbr.gov/uc/crsp/GetSiteInfo>. (June, 2010).

[7] Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (2008). "DNR Garmin Application." <http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/mis/gis/tools/arcview/extensions/DNRGarmin/DNRGarmin.html>. (December, 2010). 

[8] US Bureau of the Budget (1947). "National Mapping Program Technical Instructions." <http://rockyweb.cr.usgs.gov/nmpstd/acrodocs/nmas/NMAS647.PDF>. (June, 2010).

24  

DISCLAIMERS 

AGRC Disclaimer and Policy

http://gis.utah.gov/disclaimer

The Utah Automated Geographic Reference Center has adopted the following spatial data disclaimer to be explicitly included or referenced in all geospatial data, mapping products, and services created or hosted at AGRC including the contents of State Geographic Information Database (SGID). "This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. AGRC provides these data in good faith and shall in no event be liable for any incorrect results, any lost profits and special, indirect or consequential damages to any party, arising out of or in connection with the use or the inability to use the data hereon or the services provided. AGRC shall not be held liable for any third party's interpretation of data provided by AGRC. AGRC provides these data and services as a convenience to the public. Furthermore, AGRC reserves the right to change or revise published data and/or these services at any time." Furthermore, it is the official policy of the AGRC: that the adopted disclaimer be used on all hard copy maps produced from geospatial data, and that the date and source of the data be included on the map; that spatial data producers be allowed to extend the adopted disclaimer with additional language further defining the limits of their liability; that a more robust disclaimer may be used in conjunction with any and all geospatial data published on the Internet, on a separate page preceding access to the data, with an accept/reject option for users; that standardized metadata be included with any distribution of all geospatial data; and that the disclaimer above may be used as a blanket disclaimer for documents containing a number of small maps.

Utah State University shall not be held liable for improper or incorrect use of the data described and/or contained herein. These data and related graphics (i.e. "GIF or JPG" format files) are not legal documents and are not intended to be used as such. The information contained in these data is dynamic and may change over time. The data are not better than the original sources from which they were derived. It is the responsibility of the data user to use the data appropriately and consistent within the limitations of geospatial data in general and these data in particular. The related graphics are intended to aid the data user in acquiring relevant data; it is not appropriate to use the related graphics as data. Utah State University gives no warranty, expressed or implied, as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data. Data have been provided to the Utah Division of Water Quality, Weber Basin Water Conservancy District, and Pineview Water Systems with this document. Although these data have been processed successfully on computer systems at Utah State University, no warranty expressed or implied is made regarding the utility of the data on other systems for general or scientific purposes, nor shall the act of distribution constitute any such warranty. This disclaimer applies both to individual use of the data and aggregate use with other data.

25  

APPENDIX 

General Accuracy Limitations and Assumptions: 5 m DEM elevation data has a Horizontal Accuracy of RMSE 3 m, NSSDA 95% of 5.2 m

and a vertical Accuracy of RMSE 4 m, NSSDA 95% of 9.8 m Estimated error due to wake interference was approximately ± 1 m during high traffic

periods. This was only a factor during data collection for a few hours in the North Arm. Wakes were avoided by adjusting our path to run parallel to the wake instead of directly across.

Error due to vegetation in shallow water environments was eliminated by identifying them ahead of time and avoiding the thickest areas. We also frequently removed vegetation from the sensor when the sonar signal was lost.

Date capture errors were minimized during poor GPS Satellite Geometry by using the Trimble Plan feature to avoid poor geometry timeframes.

Possible error during image interpretation of the shoreline using the National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) 2009 orthoimage for Weber County is approximately equal to the stated ± 5 m Horizontal Accuracy. The density of the canopy also affects the image interpretation of shorelines.

The accuracy of GPS locations is stated as ± 5-7 m once exported from the Trimble Pathfinder Office software. Data quality made it impossible to differentially correct the GPS data. At best, with differential correction, positions would be at sub-meter resolution. However, the stated accuracy is appropriate considering the resolution of the final output at 5 m per pixel.

1:24,000 scale U.S.G.S. Digital Raster Graphic (DRG ) stated National Map Accuracy (US Bureau of the Budget, 1947) is, “not more than 10 percent of the points tested shall be in error by more than 1/30 inch, measured on the publication scale; for maps on publication scales of 1:20,000 or smaller, 1/50 inch. These limits of accuracy shall apply in all cases to positions of well-defined points only.” (http://rockyweb.cr.usgs.gov/nmpstds/acrodocs/nmas/NMAS647.PDF)

Relative errors (Datums) “NGVD 29 was based on an erroneous assumption that mean sea level at 26 tidal gauge sites all represented the same (zero) elevation. Furthermore, NGVD 29 benchmarks throughout the U.S. suffered from an accumulation of relative errors, exceeding 1.5 meters in some locations” FEMA (2005)

Contour areas were captured using a planimeter in 1963. They were used for comparisons only: The error of these areas is unknown.