| 2003 Pearl River County, Mississippi Lidar: Flood Plain Management Project | spatialRepresentationInfo|
|---|---|
| (MI_Metadata) fileIdentifier: gov.noaa.nmfs.inport:49813 language: LanguageCode: eng characterSet: (MD_CharacterSetCode) UTF8 hierarchyLevel: (MD_ScopeCode) dataset contact: (CI_ResponsibleParty) organisationName: OCM Partners contactInfo: (CI_Contact) phone: (CI_Telephone) voice: (missing) address: (CI_Address) role: (CI_RoleCode) resourceProvider contact: (CI_ResponsibleParty) organisationName: NOAA Office for Coastal Management contactInfo: (CI_Contact) phone: (CI_Telephone) voice: (843) 740-1202 address: (CI_Address) deliveryPoint: 2234 South Hobson Ave city: Charleston administrativeArea: SC postalCode: 29405-2413 country: (missing) electronicMailAddress: coastal.info@noaa.gov onlineResource: (CI_OnlineResource) linkage: https://coast.noaa.gov protocol: WWW:LINK-1.0-http--link name: NOAA Office for Coastal Management Website description: NOAA Office for Coastal Management Home Page function: (CI_OnLineFunctionCode) information role: (CI_RoleCode) pointOfContact dateStamp: DateTime: 2022-08-09T17:11:36 metadataStandardName: ISO 19115-2 Geographic Information - Metadata Part 2 Extensions for imagery and gridded data metadataStandardVersion: ISO 19115-2:2009(E) return to top spatialRepresentationInfo: return to top referenceSystemInfo: return to top referenceSystemInfo: (MD_ReferenceSystem) referenceSystemIdentifier: (RS_Identifier) authority: (CI_Citation) title: NAD83(HARN) date: (CI_Date) date: 2008-11-12 dateType: (CI_DateTypeCode) publication citedResponsibleParty: (CI_ResponsibleParty) organisationName: European Petroleum Survey Group contactInfo: (CI_Contact) onlineResource: (CI_OnlineResource) linkage: https://apps.epsg.org/api/v1/CoordRefSystem/4152/export/?format=gml role: (missing) code: urn:ogc:def:crs:EPSG:4152 version: 6.18.3 return to top referenceSystemInfo: (MD_ReferenceSystem) referenceSystemIdentifier: (RS_Identifier) authority: (CI_Citation) title: North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88) (GEOID18) meters alternateTitle: North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88) (GEOID18) meters citedResponsibleParty: (CI_ResponsibleParty) organisationName: (withheld) contactInfo: (CI_Contact) onlineResource: (CI_OnlineResource) linkage: https://apps.epsg.org/api/v1/VerticalCoordRefSystem/5703/?api_key=gml name: North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88) (GEOID18) meters description: Link to Geographic Markup Language (GML) description of reference system. function: (CI_OnLineFunctionCode) information role: (CI_RoleCode) resourceProvider citedResponsibleParty: (CI_ResponsibleParty) organisationName: European Petroleum Survey Group contactInfo: (CI_Contact) onlineResource: (CI_OnlineResource) linkage: https://www.epsg.org/ name: European Petroleum Survey Group Geodetic Parameter Registry description: Registry that accesses the EPSG Geodetic Parameter Dataset, which is a structured dataset of Coordinate Reference Systems and Coordinate Transformations. function: (CI_OnLineFunctionCode) search role: (CI_RoleCode) publisher VerticalCS: metaDataProperty: CommonMetaData: type: vertical informationSource: OGP revisionDate: 2006-11-28 isDeprecated: false identifier: urn:ogc:def:cs:EPSG::6499 name: Vertical CS. Axis: height (H). Orientation: up. UoM: meter. remarks: Used in vertical coordinate reference systems. axis: CoordinateSystemAxis: descriptionReference: urn:ogc:def:axis-name:EPSG::9904 identifier: urn:ogc:def:axis:EPSG::114 axisAbbrev: H axisDirection: up code: urn:ogc:def:crs:EPSG::5703 return to top identificationInfo: (MD_DataIdentification) citation: (CI_Citation) title: 2003 Pearl River County, Mississippi Lidar: Flood Plain Management Project alternateTitle: ms2003_m64_metadata date: (CI_Date) date: 2011-06 dateType: (CI_DateTypeCode) publication identifier: (MD_Identifier) authority: (CI_Citation) title: NOAA/NMFS/EDM date: (inapplicable) code: Anchor: InPort Catalog ID 49813 citedResponsibleParty: (CI_ResponsibleParty) organisationName: (inapplicable) contactInfo: (CI_Contact) onlineResource: (CI_OnlineResource) linkage: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/inport/item/49813 protocol: WWW:LINK-1.0-http--link name: Full Metadata Record description: View the complete metadata record on InPort for more information about this dataset. function: (CI_OnLineFunctionCode) information role: (inapplicable) citedResponsibleParty: (CI_ResponsibleParty) organisationName: (inapplicable) contactInfo: (CI_Contact) onlineResource: (CI_OnlineResource) linkage: https://coast.noaa.gov protocol: WWW:LINK-1.0-http--link name: Citation URL description: Online Resource function: (CI_OnLineFunctionCode) download role: (inapplicable) citedResponsibleParty: (CI_ResponsibleParty) organisationName: (inapplicable) contactInfo: (CI_Contact) onlineResource: (CI_OnlineResource) linkage: https://coast.noaa.gov/dataviewer protocol: WWW:LINK-1.0-http--link name: Citation URL description: Online Resource function: (CI_OnLineFunctionCode) download role: (inapplicable) 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. Original contact information: Contact Name: Mr. Elijah Hunt Contact Org: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Vicksburg District Phone: 601-631-7040 This data set is an LAZ (compressed LAS) format file containing LIDAR point cloud data. purpose: The data set depicts topology within the project area and is to be used for engineering purposes. 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 The custom download may be cited as National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Digital Coast Data Access Viewer. Charleston, SC: NOAA Office for Coastal Management. Accessed Aug 01, 2023 at https://coast.noaa.gov/dataviewer. status: (MD_ProgressCode) completed pointOfContact: (CI_ResponsibleParty) organisationName: NOAA Office for Coastal Management contactInfo: (CI_Contact) phone: (CI_Telephone) voice: (843) 740-1202 address: (CI_Address) deliveryPoint: 2234 South Hobson Ave city: Charleston administrativeArea: SC postalCode: 29405-2413 country: (missing) electronicMailAddress: coastal.info@noaa.gov onlineResource: (CI_OnlineResource) linkage: https://coast.noaa.gov protocol: WWW:LINK-1.0-http--link name: NOAA Office for Coastal Management Website description: NOAA Office for Coastal Management Home Page function: (CI_OnLineFunctionCode) information role: (CI_RoleCode) pointOfContact pointOfContact: (CI_ResponsibleParty) organisationName: NOAA Office for Coastal Management contactInfo: (CI_Contact) phone: (CI_Telephone) voice: (843) 740-1202 address: (CI_Address) deliveryPoint: 2234 South Hobson Ave city: Charleston administrativeArea: SC postalCode: 29405-2413 country: (missing) electronicMailAddress: coastal.info@noaa.gov onlineResource: (CI_OnlineResource) linkage: https://coast.noaa.gov protocol: WWW:LINK-1.0-http--link name: NOAA Office for Coastal Management Website description: NOAA Office for Coastal Management Home Page function: (CI_OnLineFunctionCode) information role: (CI_RoleCode) custodian resourceMaintenance: (MD_MaintenanceInformation) maintenanceAndUpdateFrequency: (MD_MaintenanceFrequencyCode) asNeeded descriptiveKeywords: (MD_Keywords) keyword: Airborne Light Detection and Ranging Systems type: (MD_KeywordTypeCode) theme descriptiveKeywords: (MD_Keywords) keyword: Lidar - partner (no harvest) type: (MD_KeywordTypeCode) project thesaurusName: (CI_Citation) title: InPort date: (inapplicable) resourceConstraints: (MD_LegalConstraints) useConstraints: (MD_RestrictionCode) otherRestrictions otherConstraints: Cite As: OCM Partners, [Date of Access]: 2003 Pearl River County, Mississippi Lidar: Flood Plain Management Project [Data Date Range], https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/inport/item/49813. resourceConstraints: (MD_Constraints) useLimitation: NOAA provides no warranty, nor accepts any liability occurring from any incomplete, incorrect, or misleading data, or from any incorrect, incomplete, or misleading use of the data. It is the responsibility of the user to determine whether or not the data is suitable for the intended purpose. resourceConstraints: (MD_LegalConstraints) accessConstraints: (MD_RestrictionCode) otherRestrictions useConstraints: (MD_RestrictionCode) otherRestrictions otherConstraints: 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. | Distribution Liability: Any conclusions drawn from the analysis of this information are not the responsibility of the Office for Coastal Management or its partners. resourceConstraints: (MD_SecurityConstraints) classification: (MD_ClassificationCode) unclassified classificationSystem: None handlingDescription: DOD aggregationInfo: (MD_AggregateInformation) aggregateDataSetName: (CI_Citation) title: NOAA Data Management Plan (DMP) date: (unknown) identifier: (MD_Identifier) authority: (CI_Citation) title: NOAA/NMFS/EDM date: (inapplicable) code: 49813 citedResponsibleParty: (CI_ResponsibleParty) organisationName: (inapplicable) contactInfo: (CI_Contact) onlineResource: (CI_OnlineResource) linkage: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/inportserve/waf/noaa/nos/ocmp/dmp/pdf/49813.pdf protocol: WWW:LINK-1.0-http--link name: NOAA Data Management Plan (DMP) description: NOAA Data Management Plan for this record on InPort. function: (CI_OnLineFunctionCode) information role: (inapplicable) associationType: (DS_AssociationTypeCode) crossReference language: eng; US topicCategory: (MD_TopicCategoryCode) elevation environmentDescription: 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 extent: (EX_Extent) geographicElement: (EX_GeographicBoundingBox) westBoundLongitude: -89.512658 eastBoundLongitude: -89.201145 southBoundLatitude: 30.263267 northBoundLatitude: 31.010543 temporalElement: (EX_TemporalExtent) extent: TimePeriod: description: | Currentness: Publication Date beginPosition: 2003-02-01 endPosition: 2003-02-08 supplementalInformation: The Pearl River County, MS Project Report may be viewed at: https://noaa-nos-coastal-lidar-pds.s3.amazonaws.com/laz/geoid18/64/supplemental 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 return to top distributionInfo: (MD_Distribution) distributor: (MD_Distributor) distributorContact: (CI_ResponsibleParty) organisationName: NOAA Office for Coastal Management contactInfo: (CI_Contact) phone: (CI_Telephone) voice: (843) 740-1202 address: (CI_Address) deliveryPoint: 2234 South Hobson Ave city: Charleston administrativeArea: SC postalCode: 29405-2413 country: (missing) electronicMailAddress: coastal.info@noaa.gov onlineResource: (CI_OnlineResource) linkage: https://coast.noaa.gov protocol: WWW:LINK-1.0-http--link name: NOAA Office for Coastal Management Website description: NOAA Office for Coastal Management Home Page function: (CI_OnLineFunctionCode) information role: (CI_RoleCode) distributor transferOptions: (MD_DigitalTransferOptions) onLine: (CI_OnlineResource) linkage: https://coast.noaa.gov/dataviewer/#/lidar/search/where:ID=64 protocol: WWW:LINK-1.0-http--link name: Customized Download description: Create custom data files by choosing data area, product type, map projection, file format, datum, etc. function: (CI_OnLineFunctionCode) download transferOptions: (MD_DigitalTransferOptions) onLine: (CI_OnlineResource) linkage: https://noaa-nos-coastal-lidar-pds.s3.amazonaws.com/laz/geoid18/64/index.html protocol: WWW:LINK-1.0-http--link name: Bulk Download description: Simple download of data files. function: (CI_OnLineFunctionCode) download return to top dataQualityInfo: (DQ_DataQuality) scope: (DQ_Scope) level: (MD_ScopeCode) dataset report: (DQ_QuantitativeAttributeAccuracy) nameOfMeasure: Accuracy evaluationMethodDescription: For information on the LiDAR DEM Quality Control Report, please see the Supplemental field. result: (missing) report: (DQ_AbsoluteExternalPositionalAccuracy) nameOfMeasure: Horizontal Positional Accuracy evaluationMethodDescription: 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). result: (missing) report: (DQ_AbsoluteExternalPositionalAccuracy) nameOfMeasure: Vertical Positional Accuracy evaluationMethodDescription: 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. result: (missing) report: (DQ_CompletenessCommission) nameOfMeasure: Completeness Report evaluationMethodDescription: N/A result: (missing) report: (DQ_ConceptualConsistency) nameOfMeasure: Conceptual Consistency evaluationMethodDescription: N/A result: (missing) lineage: (LI_Lineage) statement: (missing) processStep: (LI_ProcessStep) 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. processStep: (LI_ProcessStep) description: 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. processStep: (LI_ProcessStep) description: 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. processStep: (LI_ProcessStep) description: 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. processStep: (LI_ProcessStep) description: 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. processStep: (LI_ProcessStep) description: 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 processStep: (LI_ProcessStep) description: The NOAA Office for Coastal Management (OCM) 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. OCM performed the following processing for data storage and Digital Coast provisioning purposes: 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. The data were converted from NAVD88 (orthometric) heights to GRS80 Ellipsoid heights using Geoid99. 4. Bare earth data set and first return data set merged. 5. The data were sorted by latitude and the headers were updated. dateTime: DateTime: 2008-02-20T00:00:00 source: (LI_Source) description: Source Contribution: N/A | Type of Source Media: Disc sourceCitation: (CI_Citation) title: 0006 date: (missing) sourceExtent: (EX_Extent) temporalElement: (EX_TemporalExtent) extent: TimeInstant: timePosition: 2003-01 processStep: (LI_ProcessStep) description: The vertical values in this data set have been converted to reference North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88) (GEOID18) meters, using the GEOID18 grids provided by the National Geodetic Survey. Any datum and projection transformations were then done with the Office for Coastal Management 'datum_shift' program. Compression to an LAZ file was done with the LAStools 'laszip' program and can be unzipped with the same free program (laszip.org) Processing notes: dateTime: DateTime: 2023-08-01T06:27:29 processor: (CI_ResponsibleParty) individualName: NOAA Office for Coastal Management contactInfo: (CI_Contact) address: (CI_Address) electronicMailAddress: coastal.info@noaa.gov role: (CI_RoleCode) processor | |