| Alternate Views: |
|
| XML files: |
|
(NMMR Metadata gov.noaa.csc.maps:ms2003_pearlriver)
Metadata:
Identification Information:
Dataset Identifier:
gov.noaa.csc.maps:ms2003_pearlriver
Citation:
Citation Information:
Originator:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg District
Publication Date:
Unknown
Title:
2003 Pearl River County, Mississippi Lidar: Flood Plain Management
Project
Edition:
1
Geospatial Data Presentation Form:
Map
Publication Information:
Publication Place:
Charleston, SC
Publisher:
NOAA's Ocean Service, Coastal Services Center (CSC)
Online Linkage:
http://www.csc.noaa.gov/ldart
Description:
Abstract:
This lidar data was collected primarily for flood plain mapping
within Pearl River County, MS. The data were
processed into separate Bare Earth and First Surface products. The
two were subsequently classified (bare earth and
unclassified) and merged to create one data set. The data were
collected from 1-8 Feb 2003. One flight was reflown
on 30 March 2003.
Purpose:
The data set depicts topology within the project area and is to be
used for engineering purposes.
Supplemental Information:
The Pearl River County, MS Project Report may be viewed at:
ftp://ftp.csc.noaa.gov/pub/crs/beachmap/qa_docs/ms/pearl_river
Time Period of Content:
Time Period Information:
Range of Dates/Times:
Beginning Date:
20030201
Ending Date:
20030208
Currentness Reference:
Publication Date
Status:
Progress:
Complete
Maintenance and Update Frequency:
As needed
Spatial Domain:
Bounding Coordinates:
West Bounding Coordinate:
-089.512658
East Bounding Coordinate:
-089.201145
North Bounding Coordinate:
+31.010543
South Bounding Coordinate:
+30.263267
Keywords:
Theme:
Theme Keyword Thesaurus:
ISO 19115 Topic Category
Theme Keyword:
Elevation
Theme:
Theme Keyword Thesaurus:
None
Theme Keyword:
Topography/Bathymetry
Theme Keyword:
Airborne Light Detection and Ranging Systems
Theme Keyword:
LIDAR
Place:
Place Keyword Thesaurus:
None
Place Keyword:
United States
Place Keyword:
Mississippi
Place Keyword:
Pearl River County
Access Constraints:
None
Use Constraints:
Users should be aware that temporal changes may have occurred since this
data set was collected and some
parts of this data may no longer represent actual surface conditions.
Users should not use this data for critical
applications without a full awareness of its limitations.
Point of Contact:
Contact Information:
Contact Person Primary:
Contact Person:
Mr. Elijah Hunt
Contact Organization:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Vicksburg District
Contact Address:
Address Type:
Mailing address
Address:
Department of the Army Vicksburg District 4155 Clay Street
City:
Vicksburg
State or Province:
MS
Postal Code:
39183-3435
Country:
USA
Contact Voice Telephone:
601-631-7040
Contact Facsimile Telephone:
601-631-7044
Data Set Credit:
County of Pearl River, Mississippi and the Mississippi Department of
Environmental Quality.
MD Atlantic Technologies, Inc.
2227 Drake Av SW Huntsville, Al 35805
Phone 256.882.7788 Fax 256.882.7774 E mail cjjaeger@atlantictech.com
Contract No. DACW38-02-D-0002
Security Information:
Security Classification System:
None
Security Classification:
Unclassified
Security Handling Description:
DOD
Native Data Set Environment:
ARC GEN files, bare earth and top surface ARC GRID files, bare earth and
top surface ARC TIN
files, bare earth and top surface XYZ files, bare earth and top surface
2' and 5' contours control, calibration and
validation dtm index ortho index, 100, 200 and 400 scales flight lines
breaklines Arc Project Orthos, 100, 200 and 400
scales,Reports
Data Quality Information:
Attribute Accuracy:
Attribute Accuracy Report:
LiDAR DEM Quality Control Report. The accuracy of a LiDAR DEM is
estimated by determining the root mean square error (RMSE). RMSE
is the square root of the average of the set of squared
differences between dataset co-ordinate values and co-ordinate
values from an independent source of higher accuracy for identical
points. If those differences are normally distributed and average
zero, 95 percent of any sufficiently large sample should be less
than 1.96 times the RMSE. Therefore 15-centimeter RMSE is often
referred to as "30-centimeter accuracy at the 95-percent
confidence level". Following that convention, the vertical
accuracy of any DEM is defined as 1.96 times the RMSE of linearly
interpolated elevations in the DEM, as compared with known
elevations from high-accuracy test points. DEMs should have a
maximum RMSE of 15 centimeters, which is roughly equivalent to
1-foot accuracy. Field verification of the vertical accuracy of
this DEM to ensure that the 15-centimeter RMSE requirement was
satisfied for all major vegetation categories that were predominate
a) Bare-earth and low grass (plowed fields, lawns, golf courses);
b) High grass and crops (hay fields, cornfields, wheat fields);
c) Brush lands and low trees (chaparrals, mesquite, mangrove swamps);
d) Fully covered by trees (hardwoods, evergreens, mixed forests); and
e) Urban areas (high, dense man-made structures). An even
distribution of sample points throughout each category area
evaluated was collected and not grouped in a small subarea. The
RMSE calculated from a sample of test points is not the RMSE of
the DEM. The calculated value may be higher or it may be lower
than that of the DEM. Confidence in the calculated value increases
with the number of test points. If the errors (lack of accuracy)
associated with the DEM are normally distributed and unbiased, the
confidence in the calculated RMSE can be determined as a function
of sample size. Similarly, the sample RMSE necessary to obtain
95-percent confidence that the DEM RMSE is less than 15
centimeters can also be
determined as a function of sample size. For each major vegetation
category, a sample of points was tested to show the test points
have an RMSE less than where n is the number of test points in the
sample. A minimum of 20 test points for each major vegetation
category was identified. Therefore, a minimum of 100 test points
was selected for the five major vegetation categories. The test
points were to be selected in areas to evaluate DEM accuracy under
trees and in vegetation representative of the study area. The PDOP
during the LiDAR data collection was consistently less than 3.0
and was determined to be of no issue. Test points on sloping or
irregular terrain would be unreasonably affected by the linear
interpolation of test points from surrounding DEM points and,
therefore, were not selected. Test points were collected by RTK
(Real-Time Kinematic) GPS techniques. Three thousand Two Hundred
and Sixty points were collected in total covering each of the five
main categories of ground cover in the survey areas. Furthermore,
six of the forty-eight control monuments falling within the
project area and installed as part of the survey network were used
as a further check. All RMSE calculations were performed on the
bare-earth, orthometric surface. Results The comparisons between
each validation point and the LiDAR DEM are shown in Appendix A.
The comparisons between each control point and the LiDAR DEM are
shown in Appendix B. The RMSE was determined for the project area.
US Survey Feet Meters Average dz 0.144 0.044 Average magnitude
0.332 0.101 Root mean square 0.395 0.120 Std deviation 0.369 0.112
US Survey Feet Meters Average dz 0.246 0.075 Average magnitude
0.451 0.137 Root mean square 0.571 0.174 Std deviation 0.520 0.158
The favorable result of the DEM comparison to the validation
points provides an overall confidence that the LiDAR system was
operating properly during data collection.
The scattering of the test points over the project area assists in
this determination. Those points in both the control and
validation sets marked as outside are such as they fall outside of
a predetermined maximum triangle size or are outside of the
project area. Therefore, there are an insufficient number of LiDAR
points hitting the ground in the immediate vicinity of these test
points. Two test points and four control points were removed from
the report as they fall on steeply sloping triangles. Hence, any
attempt to assign a value from the triangulated surface will
result in erroneous values and so these points are excluded from
the RMSE calculation. Due to the nature of the area and
in-definite spot of each individual LiDAR point, an RMSEh value
was not reported. Any particular point cannot be tested. However,
accuracy
statements can be made about the performance of the ABGPS, IMU and LiDAR sensor. The ABGPS data are quality controlled by comparing multiple solutions from multiple base stations. On this project, these solutions all agreed to better than 5 cm horizontally. The IMU sensor combines the post-processed GPS data with the raw inertial data to produce a best estimate of trajectory. Automated quality control checks will not allow the IMU solution to be of less accuracy than the provided input from the GPS solution. The altitude of the sensor on this project was 1220 meters (4003 US Survey Feet) AGL providing a spot size of 37 cm (1.2') in diameter. Each return is located somewhere within the spot on the ground, meaning the location of the point is located within 17.5 cm of the center of the spot. The stated horizontal accuracy of the system is 1/1000 of the altitude. On this project, the combination of all the errors from all the components of the sensor is much less than the stated accuracy. Conclusions. The final DEM generated for this project is accurate in all types of vegetation and ground cover with the exception of those areas of high grasses. High grass areas are expected to provide some discrepancies due to the density of the grasses and the inability to penetrate these areas sufficiently. The
accuracy of the DEM on bare-earth and low grasses, and the scattering
of those points over the study area, provides proof that the LiDAR
system that collected the DEM was operating correctly. Tested
0.235 meters consolidated vertical accuracy at ninety-five percent
confidence level in open terrain and grassy areas using RMSE (z) x
1.9600. Expected horizontal accuracy of elevation products as
determined from system studies and other methods is 1/1000th of
the flight height, which in the instance of this particular
project was 1220m (4002.6US survey feet) AGL, giving a horizontal
tolerance of less than 1.22m (4.0 US survey feet). Respectfully
Submitted, MD Atlantic Technologies, Inc. Darrick L. Wagg, P.Geo.
03Jun2004
Logical Consistency Report:
N/A
Completeness Report:
N/A
Positional Accuracy:
Horizontal Positional Accuracy:
Horizontal Positional Accuracy Report:
Expected horizontal accuracy of elevation products as determined
from system
studies and other methods is 1/1000th of the flight height, which
in the instance of this particular project was
1220m (4002.6 US survey feet) AGL, giving a horizontal tolerance
of less than 1.22m (4.0 US survey feet).
Vertical Positional Accuracy:
Vertical Positional Accuracy Report:
Tested 0.235 meters consolidated vertical accuracy at ninety-five
percent confidence
level in open terrain and grassy areas using RMSE (z) x 1.9600.
Lineage:
Source Information:
Source Citation:
Citation Information:
Originator:
N/A
Publication Date:
Unknown
Publication Time:
Unknown
Title:
0006
Type of Source Media:
Disc
Source Time Period of Content:
Time Period Information:
Single Date/Time:
Calendar Date:
20030100
Source Currentness Reference:
Publication Date
Source Citation Abbreviation:
N/A
Source Contribution:
N/A
Process Step:
Process Description:
Flight Report A Cessna Skymaster 337, N111AT, was mobilized from
Huntsville International Airport,
Huntsville, AL to Picayune Municipal Airport, Picayune, MS on 30
Jan 2003. This aircraft was outfitted with an Optech
ALTM 1210 LIDAR system. Mission planning for the project
determined that 103 flight lines would be needed to successfully
cover the specified area, including three control lines. These
lines would be flown at a 120-knot ground speed, 1250
meters above ground level and would take approximately 37.5 hours
to complete. Three GPS base stations supplied and
operated by Sea Systems Corporation were used to support precise
positioning and orientation of the ALTM's sensor head
during the entire duration of flight. The GPS base stations were
Trimble 5700 receiver units utilizing Zephyr Geodetic
antennas. Each GPS base station was located within the boundary of
the project area. The actual local flight times and
duration of flights were controlled by fuel consumption of the
aircraft, safety of flight operations in the particular
airspace and during times when the GPS constellation was most
favorable, producing the highest number of satellites
visible in the best geometric configuration relative to the GPS
receivers onboard the aircraft as well as at the master
stations on the ground. A standard of flying with no less than 7
satellites visible and a PDOP (position dilution of
precision) of less than 3.0 was adopted. The initial aerial survey
was completed over the course of 8 days. Data
collection started around 23h30 UTC on Saturday, 01 February 2003.
Flightlines completed during this flight were lines
one through 12. On 01 February the flight commenced at 02h50 UTC
and completed lines thirteen through twenty-nine.
The flight on 02 February began around 23h10 UTC and collected
lines thirty through thirty-eight. A second flight was
then flown beginning around 02h30 UTC on 03 February and
completing lines thirty-nine through forty-five. On 04
February the flight commenced around 22h40 UTC and covered lines
forty-five through fifty-four. The second flight
followed a refueling stop around 02h30 UTC and completed lines
fifty-five through sixty-six. The flight on 05 February
covering lines 67-69 and 97 through 100 began around 22h10 UTC and
ended around 00h30 due to weather. The final day of
initial data collection occurred on 08 February. Two flights were
flown this day. The initial flight began around
00h46 UTC and covered lines seventy through eighty-eight and line
103. The second flight began around 22h19 UTC and
completed lines 67-69, 89-96 and 101 and 102. This completed the
initial LIDAR data collection for the project and the
ground crews continued in their remaining work in and around the
project area. The aircraft and personnel involved
during the LIDAR portion of the survey were demobilized on the
night of Sunday, 09 Feb 2003. Following a preliminary
examination of the collected data it was determined that one
flight was required to refly some of the collected lines.
A Cessna Skymaster 337, N111AT, was mobilized from Huntsville
International Airport, Huntsville, AL to Picayune
Municipal Airport, Picayune, MS on 30 Mar 2003. This aircraft was
outfitted with an Optech ALTM 1210 LIDAR system.
Data collection commenced at approximately 22h35 UTC and
constituted reflying lines 5, 9, 86-88, 92 and 103 for various
technical reasons. This completed the LIDAR data collection for
the project and the ground crews continued in their
remaining work in and around the project area. The aircraft and
personnel involved during the LIDAR portion of the
survey were demobilized on Monday, 31 Mar 2003. A Cessna 210,
N732JE, was mobilized from Huntsville International
Airport, Huntsville, AL to Picayune Municipal Airport, Picayune,
MS on 11 FEB 2003. This aircraft was outfitted with
a RC30 Camera and AGFA Pan 80 film. Mission planning for the
project determined that 40 flight lines would be needed to
successfully cover the specified area at the various flying
altitudes. These lines would be flown at 4800 feet above
ground level with 80/30 overlap, 9030 feet above ground level with
60/30 overlap, 12000 feet above ground level with
80/30 overlap and would take approximately 18 hours to complete.
Three GPS base stations supplied and operated by Sea
Systems Corporation were used to support precise positioning and
orientation of the photo centers during the entire
duration of flight. Each GPS base station was located within the
boundary of the project area. The actual local flight
times and duration of flights were controlled by fuel consumption
of the aircraft, safety of flight operations in the
particular airspace and during times when the sun angle was most
favorable. The aerial survey was completed over the
course of 3 days. Data collection started around 11h19 local on
Tuesday, 11 February 2003. Flightlines completed on
this day ranged from one to nine at 4800 feet and one through five
at 9030 feet. Collection recommenced around 9h47
local on 12 February. Lines completed during this flight were six
through 12 at 9030. On 13 February collection began
around 09h26 local and lasting through 15h00 local. Lines
collected during this flight included ten to eighteen at 9030
and ten through twenty-three at 12000 feet. This completed the
photo collection for the project and the ground crews
continued in their remaining work in and around the project area.
The aircraft and personnel involved during the photo
portion of the survey were demobilized during the afternoon of
Thursday, 13 February 2003. Upon inspection of the film
it was determined that reflights would be necessary. On 23
February 2003 a Cessna 335, N918AA, was mobilized from
Huntsville International Airport, Huntsville, AL to Picayune
Municipal Airport, Picayune, MS outfitted with a RC30
Camera and AGFA Pan 80 film. Collection took place between 09h34
and 12h31 local. Lines six, eight and nine at 9030
and lines sixteen, seventeen, twenty and twenty-three at 12,000
were reflown. GPS/IMU Data Processing Upon completion of
the flight portions of the project the GPS data was post processed
for quality and backed up. For redundancy and accuracy
purposes, the airborne GPS data were processed from the base
stations using GrafNav from Waypoint Consulting, Inc.
Results from the LiDAR N111AT JD_032F01 Final Solution. The final
solution for this flight is PR43/PR43 FWD/REV. The
REV solution from PR15 and the FWD solution from B154 matched
fairly well with the final, but are not used in the final
due to the long baseline distances. PECK was not processed since
an incorrect point was occupied during the flight. This
solution is considered good. DLW 10 April 2003 JD_032F01 Final
Solution. The final solution for this flight is PR43/PR43
FWD/REV. The FWD solution from both PR15 and B154 matched very
well, within a couple of centimeters, with the final,
but are not used in the final due to the long baseline distances.
The REV solutions from PR 15 and B154 were both off by
about 10 cm. PECK was not processed since an incorrect point was
occupied during the flight. This solution is considered
very good. MWB 2 April 2003 JD_032F02 Final Solution The final
solution for this flight is PR43/PR43 FWD/REV. The
combined solution from PR15 matched, but adds noise. The FWD
solution from B154 matched but is not used in the final due
to the long baseline distance. PECK was not processed since an
incorrect point was occupied during the flight. This
solution is considered very good. MWB 2 April 2003 JD_033F01 Final
Solution The final solution for this flight is
B154/PR15 CMB/CMB. The solutions from PR43 matched, but added more
noise. PECK processed ok and could have been processed
to match, but it was not needed as part of the solution. This
solution is considered very good. MWB 2 April 2003
JD_033F02 Final Solution The final solution for this flight is
B154/PECK/PR15 CMB/CMB/CMB. All solutions from all bases
processed very well. PR43 matched, but was not used because of the
added noise. This solution is considered very good.
MWB 2 April 2003 JD_035F01 Final Solution The final solution for
this flight is B154/PR43 REV/CMB. The REV solution from
PR19 matched, but added noise. The FWD solutions from B154 and
PR19 did not process as well as the REV solutions.
PR05 did not process well in either direction, probably because of
baseline distance. This solution is considered good.
MWB 2 April 2003 JD_035F02 Final Solution The final solution for
this flight is B154/PR19/PR43 CMB/CMB/CMB. All solutions
from all stations processed very well. PR05 was not used because
of baseline distance. This solution is considered very
good. MWB 3 April 2003 JD_036F01 Final Solution The final solution
for this flight is PR05/PR19/PR43 REV/REV/CMB. All
solutions from the three stations processed well. The FWD
solutions from PR05 and PR19 could have been used with some
work. B154 needed some reprocessing, but was not needed because of
baseline distance. This solution is considered good.
MWB 3 April 2003 JD_038F01 Final Solution The final solution for
this flight is PR05/PR19/PR43 CMB/CMB/CMB. All solutions
from all stations processed well. B154 was not needed because of
baseline distance. This solution is considered very
good. MWB 3 April 2003 JD_039F01 Final Solution The final solution
for this flight is PR05/PR19/PR43 REV/CMB/CMB. All
solutions from all stations processed well. The FWD from PR05
processed ok, but was rather noisy. B154 was not needed
because of baseline distance. This solution is considered very
good. MWB 3 April 2003 JD_089F01 Final Solution The final
solution for this flight is PR17/PR17 FWD/REV. Station PR43 did
not process well. External noise seems to be influencing
the data. PR17 processed well during the data collection times of
the flight. The data were noisy during the
mobilization from the airport to the work site. This may be due to
baseline distance. This solution is considered good.
MWB 9 April 2003 These trajectories were used in the processing of
the inertial data. The inertial data were processed
using PosProc from Applanix, Inc. This software produces an SBET
("smooth best estimate of trajectory") using the GPS
trajectory from GrafNav and the roll, pitch and heading
information recorded by the POS (Position and Orientation
System).
Results were favorable for all flights and errors are estimated to
be less than 5cm.
Respectfully Submitted, MD Atlantic Technologies, Inc. Darrick L.
Wagg, P.Geo. 15Jun2004
Data Processing Report Data collection of the survey areas
resulted in a total of 103 flight lines covering the project
area including 3 control lines. The tapes, flight logs, raw air
and ground GPS files were then taken to the office for
data processing using Realm, a LiDAR processing software package
from Optech. Processing began by downloading these files
into a Realm database. Although Realm has the capability to
perform GPS processing and to utilize real-time inertial data,
MD Atlantic utilizes other methods of obtaining this information
as Realm only has the capability to produce a single-baseline
solution. For redundancy and accuracy purposes, the airborne GPS
data were processed from two base stations using GrafNav
from Waypoint Consulting, Inc. The agreement between a minimum of
two solutions checked or combined between a minimum of
two stations was better than 10 cm in each of X, Y, and Z. These
trajectories were used in the processing of the inertial
data. The inertial data were processed using PosProc from
Applanix, Inc. This software produces an SBET ("smooth best
estimate of trajectory") using the GPS trajectory from GrafNav and
the roll, pitch and heading information recorded by the
POS (Position Orientation System). Realm uses the SBET to generate
a set of XYZ data points for each laser return. Data can
be segregated based on the first- and last-pulse information.
First and last pulse files were created during the processing
of this dataset. This project's data were processed in strip form,
meaning each flight line was processed independently.
Processing the lines individually provides the data analyst with
the ability to QC the overlap between lines. Raw lidar data
are processed within the lidar manufacturer's software to produce
XYZI files. These files are output in UTM coordinates
with a corresponding Ellipsoid Height value. Output XYZI files
from Realm were converted from UTM co-ordinates with GRS80
ellipsoid elevations into State Plane Coordinate System (NAD83)
with NGVD29 orthometric heights using the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers' Corpscon, version 5.11.08. Corpscon utilizes the
Geoid96 model for the ellipsoid to orthometric height
conversions. The resultant XYZI files were subsequently imported
into a project, on a per pulse basis, using TerraScan
(Terrasolid Ltd.) where each line was checked against adjacent
lines. This check revealed an issue with the calibration
numbers being used for the system. Further investigation led to
the understanding that calibration parameters would have to
be determined on a line-by-line basis. Though uncommon, this
situation is not unheard of with airborne laser terrain mapper
systems. Once the calibration parameters for each line were
determined and the data recalculated, the data was checked
against
the control and validation points across the project area. The
results of these checks showed a bias in the dataset for all
lines, save for 97 and 99, of -1.2 U.S. Survey Feet. It was
determined that an adjustment to correct for this bias would be
best for the dataset. A subsequent check of the DEM found it
fitting the validation and control points well. See LiDAR DEM
Quality Control Report for results. The data from each line was
then combined and a classification routine performed to
determine the rough surface model. This initial surface model was
then reduced using MD Atlantic's proprietary methods to
create the final bare-earth dataset. A Triangular Irregular
Network (TIN) was generated using the final surface data.
Contours were then created from the TIN for use in performing a
quality control of the surface. The LiDAR data were taken
into a stereo environment and melded with photogrammetric data. Breaklines were subsequently compiled along hydro features
to support the contour generation.
Respectfully Submitted, MD Atlantic Technologies, Inc. Darrick L.
Wagg, P.Geo. 03Jun2004
ARC Grids Processing Procedures Processing of the ARC Grids and
Tins began by merging dtm models that overlaid the tile
boundary. The merged dtm file was then imported into an ARC/Info
point coverage that was utilized as an input source during
the tin processing. Along with the ARC/Info point coverage, the
ARC Generate file of the breaklines was also utilized as an
input source during the Tin process. The final input during the
Tin process was to use the tile polygon boundary to clip the
Tin file. Once the Tin was created, the generation of the 5ft
Grids was processed through the ARC/Info TINLATTICE command.
The final product is a Grid with 5ft postings, clipped to the tile
boundary. The final step to having deliverable Grids was
to ensure that the projection was defined for each Grid. The
ARC/Info command PROJECTDEFINE was utilized for this process.
ARC Shape Files Processing Procedures The first step in the
Shapefile process was to import the Microstation DGN files into
ARC/Info coverages. Once the files are in an ARC/Info coverage
file format, then a Join was performed on the Arc Attribute
Table with the ACODE Info file, which is produced during the
IGDSARC translation. The next step is to add any new items that
are to be converted over to the ARC shapefile DBF. Once all the
applicable items are properly calculated, then all
unnecessary items are dropped. The ARC coverages are then exported
as a shapefile, which will contain only the necessary
fields in the tables. Respectfully Submitted, MD Atlantic
Technologies, Inc. Jesse Gregg, GIS Technician
Process Date:
Unknown
Process Step:
Process Description:
The NOAA Coastal Services Center (CSC) received the files in ASCII
xyz format. The files contained Lidar
elevation measurements. The data consisted of a bare earth and a
first return data set. The two were subsequently classified
(bare earth and unclassified) and merged to create one data set.
The data was in Mississippi State Plane Projection,
Zone 2301 and NGVD29 vertical datum. CSC performed the following
processing to the data to make it available within the
LDART Retrieval Tool (LDART):
1. The data were converted from Mississippi State Plane
coordinates to geographic coordinates.
2. The data were converted from NGVD29 (orthometric) heights to
NAVD88 (orthometric) heights.
3. Bare earth data set and first return data set merged. 4. The
data were sorted by latitude and the headers were updated.
Process Date:
20080220
Process Contact:
Contact Information:
Contact Organization Primary:
Contact Organization:
Department of Commerce (DOC), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
National Ocean Service (NOS), Coastal Services Center (CSC)
Contact Position:
Coastal Elevation Mapping (CEM) Project Scientist
Contact Address:
Address Type:
Mailing and physical address
Address:
2234 South Hobson Ave.
City:
Charleston
State or Province:
SC
Postal Code:
29405-2413
Contact Voice Telephone:
843-740-1200
Contact Electronic Mail Address:
tcm@csc.noaa.gov
Spatial Reference Information:
Horizontal Coordinate System Definition:
Geographic:
Latitude Resolution:
0.000000001
Longitude Resolution:
0.000000001
Geographic Coordinate Units:
Decimal degrees
Geodetic Model:
Horizontal Datum Name:
North American Datum of 1983
Ellipsoid Name:
Geodetic Reference System 80
Semi-major Axis:
6378137.000000
Denominator of Flattening Ratio:
298.257222
Vertical Coordinate System Definition:
Altitude System Definition:
Altitude Datum Name:
North American Vertical Datum of 1988
Altitude Resolution:
.001
Altitude Distance Units:
Meters
Altitude Encoding Method:
Explicit elevation coordinate included with horizontal coordinates
Distribution Information:
Distributor:
Contact Information:
Contact Organization Primary:
Contact Organization:
Department of Commerce (DOC), National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA),
National Ocean Service (NOS), Coastal Services Center (CSC)
Contact Position:
CEM Project Scientist
Contact Address:
Address Type:
Mailing and physical address
Address:
2234 South Hobson Ave.
City:
Charleston
State or Province:
SC
Postal Code:
29405-2413
Contact Voice Telephone:
843-740-1200
Contact Electronic Mail Address:
tcm@csc.noaa.gov
Resource Description:
Downloadable Data
Distribution Liability:
Any conclusions drawn from the analysis of this information are not the
responsibility of the Coastal
Services Center or its partners.
Custom Order Process:
This data can be obtained on-line at the following URL:
http://www.csc.noaa.gov/ldart
Distribution Information:
Distributor:
Contact Information:
Contact Organization Primary:
Contact Organization:
DOC/NOAA/NESDIS/NGDC > National Geophysical Data Center,
NESDIS, NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce
Contact Person:
Kelly Stroker
Contact Address:
Address Type:
Mailing and Physical Address
Address:
NOAA/NESDIS/NGDC E/GC1 325 Broadway
City:
Boulder
State or Province:
CO
Postal Code:
80305-3328
Country:
USA
Contact Voice Telephone:
(303) 497-4603
Contact TDD/TTY Telephone:
(303) 497-6958
Contact Facsimile Telephone:
(303) 497-6513
Contact Electronic Mail Address:
kelly.stroker@noaa.gov
Hours of Service:
7:30-5:00 Mountain
Contact Instructions:
Contact Data Center
Distribution Liability:
Disclaimer While every effort has been made to ensure that these data
are accurate and reliable within the limits of the current state of
the art, NOAA cannot assume liability for any damages caused by any
errors or omissions in the data, nor as a result of the failure of
the data to function on a particular system. NOAA makes no warranty,
expressed or implied, nor does the fact of distribution constitute
such a warranty.
Custom Order Process:
The National Geophysical Data Center serves as the archive for this
LIDAR data. NGDC should only be contacted for this data if it cannot
be obtained from NOAA Coastal Services Center.
Metadata Reference Information:
Metadata Date:
20090408
Metadata Review Date:
20080220
Metadata Contact:
Contact Information:
Contact Organization Primary:
Contact Organization:
Department of Commerce (DOC), National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA),
National Ocean Service (NOS), Coastal Services Center (CSC)
Contact Position:
CEM Project Scientist
Contact Address:
Address Type:
Mailing and physical address
Address:
2234 South Hobson Ave.
City:
Charleston
State or Province:
SC
Postal Code:
29405-2413
Contact Voice Telephone:
843-740-1200
Contact Electronic Mail Address:
tcm@csc.noaa.gov
Metadata Standard Name:
FGDC Content Standards for Digital Geospatial Metadata
Metadata Standard Version:
FGDC-STD-001-1998
