FEMA RiskMAP Atlantic, Ocean, and Monmouth, NJ Area of Interest (AOI)

Create custom data files by choosing data area, product type, map projection, file format, datum, etc.

Simple download of data files.

This graphic shows the lidar coverage for the 2011 New Jersey ARRA Lidar Collection for Atlantic, Monmouth, and Ocean Counties.

Date that the source FGDC record was last modified.

Converted from FGDC Content Standards for Digital Geospatial Metadata (version FGDC-STD-001-1998) using 'fgdc_to_inport_xml.pl' script. Contact Tyler Christensen (NOS) for details.

Partial upload of Positional Accuracy fields only.

Partial upload to move data access links to Distribution Info.

TerraSurv under contract to Fugro EarthData, Inc. successfully established ground control for the New Jersey AOI. A total of 37 ground control points in the New Jersey AOI were acquired. GPS was used to establish the control network. The horizontal datum was the North American Datum of 1983, 2007 adjustment (NAD83/2007). The vertical datum was the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88).

The Fugro EarthData, Inc. acquisition team collected ALS60 derived lidar over the Atlantic, Ocean, and Monmouth AOI in the State of New Jersey with a 1m, nominal post spacing using a Piper Navajo Chieftain aircraft tailnumber N76JN. The collection for the entire project area was accomplished on April 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 10th. Coastal areas where only collected at low tide. The collection was performed using a Leica ALS60 MPiA lidar system, serial number ALS142, including an inertial measuring unit (IMU) and a dual frequency GPS receiver. This project required 14 lifts of flight lines to be collected. The lines were flown at an average of 8,700 feet above mean terrain using a maximum pulse rate frequency of 89,900 Hz. The sensor had a 40 degree FOV and a swath width of 1929 meters.

1. Lidar, GPS, and IMU data was processed together using lidar processing software.

2. The lidar data set for each flight line was checked for project area coverage and lidar post spacing was checked to ensure it meets project specifications.

3. The lidar collected at the calibration area and project area were used to correct the rotational, atmospheric, and vertical elevation differences that are inherent to lidar data.

4. Intensity rasters were generated to verify that intensity was recorded for each lidar point.

5. Lidar data was transformed to the specified project coordinate system.

6. By utilizing the ground survey data collected at the calibration site and project area, the lidar data was vertically biased to the ground.

7. Comparisons between the biased lidar data and ground survey data within the project area were evaluated and a final RMSEz value was generated to ensure the data meets project specifications.

8. Lidar data in overlap areas of project flight lines were trimmed and data from all swaths were merged into a single data set.

9. The data set was trimmed to the digital project boundary including an additional buffer zone of 100 meters.

10. The resulting data set is referred to as the raw lidar data.

1. The raw lidar data was processed through a minimum block mean algorithm, and points were classified as either bare earth or non-bare earth.

2. User developed "macros" that factor mean terrain angle and height from the ground were used to determine bare earth point classification.

3. The next phase of the surfacing process was a 2D edit procedure that ensures the accuracy of the automated feature classification.

4. Editors used a combination of imagery, intensity of the lidar reflection, profiles and tin-editing software to assess points.

5. The lidar data was filtered, as necessary, using a quadric error metric to remove redundant points. This method leaves points where there is a change in the slope of surfaces (road ditches) and eliminates points from evenly sloped terrain (flat field) where the points do not affect the surface.

6. The algorithms for filtering data were utilized within Fugro EarthData proprietary software and commercial software written by TerraSolid.

7. The flight line overlap points were merged back into filtered data set for delivery product.

8. The point cloud data were delivered tiled in LAS 1.2 format; class 1 - unclassified, class 2 - ground, class 7 - low point (noise), class 11 - overlap.

The NOAA Office for Coastal Management (OCM) received the files in laz format from USGS via an FTP online repository. The files contained lidar elevation and intensity measurements. The data were in State Plane Zone 2900, NAVD88 (orthometric) heights in feet. OCM performed the following processing for data storage and Digital Coast provisioning purposes:

1. The data were converted from State Plane coordinates to geographic coordinates.

2. Erroneous elevations were removed.

3. The data were converted from NAVD88 (orthometric) heights in meters to GRS80 (ellipsoid) heights in meters using Geoid 09.

4. The LAS data were sorted by latitude and the headers were updated.