Data Management Plan
DMP Template v2.0.1 (2015-01-01)Please provide the following information, and submit to the NOAA DM Plan Repository.
Reference to Master DM Plan (if applicable)
As stated in Section IV, Requirement 1.3, DM Plans may be hierarchical. If this DM Plan inherits provisions from a higher-level DM Plan already submitted to the Repository, then this more-specific Plan only needs to provide information that differs from what was provided in the Master DM Plan.
1. General Description of Data to be Managed
Watershed Sciences, Inc. collected Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data for the Sandy River study area in collaboration
with the USDA Forest Service. The areas for LiDAR collection have been designed as part of a collaborative effort of state,
federal, and local agencies in order to meet a wide range of project goals.
This LiDAR data set was collected Sept 29 - Oct 1, 2008 and falls mainly in Multnomah County, but also in small portions
of Clark and Clackamas Counties, Oregon. This data set consists of bare earth and unclassified points. The average pulse density
is 8.04 pulses per square meter over terrestrial surfaces. The area of interest (AOI) encompasses approximately 34,021 acres and
the total area flown (TAF) covers 35,873 acres. The TAF acreage is greater than the original AOI acreage due to buffering and
flight planning optimization.
In some areas of heavy vegetation or forest cover, there may be relatively few ground points in the LiDAR data. Elevation values
for open water surfaces are not valid elevation values because few lidar points are returned from water surfaces. Lidar intensity
values were also collected.
Original contact information:
Contact Name: Ian Madin
Contact Org: DOGAMI
Notes: Only a maximum of 4000 characters will be included.
Notes: Data collection is considered ongoing if a time frame of type "Continuous" exists.
Notes: All time frames from all extent groups are included.
Notes: All geographic areas from all extent groups are included.
(e.g., digital numeric data, imagery, photographs, video, audio, database, tabular data, etc.)
(e.g., satellite, airplane, unmanned aerial system, radar, weather station, moored buoy, research vessel, autonomous underwater vehicle, animal tagging, manual surveys, enforcement activities, numerical model, etc.)
2. Point of Contact for this Data Management Plan (author or maintainer)
Notes: The name of the Person of the most recent Support Role of type "Metadata Contact" is used. The support role must be in effect.
Notes: The name of the Organization of the most recent Support Role of type "Metadata Contact" is used. This field is required if applicable.
3. Responsible Party for Data Management
Program Managers, or their designee, shall be responsible for assuring the proper management of the data produced by their Program. Please indicate the responsible party below.
Notes: The name of the Person of the most recent Support Role of type "Data Steward" is used. The support role must be in effect.
Programs must identify resources within their own budget for managing the data they produce.
5. Data Lineage and Quality
NOAA has issued Information Quality Guidelines for ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information which it disseminates.
(describe or provide URL of description):
- No metadata was provided to NOAA OCM with this data set. The following process step is derived from the Watershed Sciences, Inc. lidar report. This report may be accessed at: https://noaa-nos-coastal-lidar-pds.s3.amazonaws.com/laz/geoid18/1432/supplemental/sandy_report.doc Acquisition 1. The lidar data were collected between Sept 29 - Oct 1, 2008. 2. The survey used a Leica ALS50 Phase II sensor. 3. Near nadir scan angles were used to increase penetration of vegetation to ground surfaces. 4. Ground level GPS and aircraft IMU were collected during the flight. Processing 1. Laser point coordinates were computed using the REALM software based on independent data from the LiDAR system (pulse time, scan angle), and aircraft trajectory data (SBET). Laser point returns (first through fourth) were assigned an associated (x, y, z) coordinate along with unique intensity values (0-255). The data were output into large LAS v. 1.1 files; each point maintains the corresponding scan angle, return number (echo), intensity, and x, y, z (easting, northing, and elevation) information. 2. These initial laser point files were too large for subsequent processing. To facilitate laser point processing, bins (polygons) were created to divide the dataset into manageable sizes (less than 500 MB). Flightlines and LiDAR data were then reviewed to ensure complete coverage of the study area and positional accuracy of the laser points. 3. Laser point data were imported into processing bins in TerraScan, and manual calibration was performed to assess the system offsets for pitch, roll, heading and scale (mirror flex). Using a geometric relationship developed by Watershed Sciences, each of these offsets was resolved and corrected if necessary. 4. LiDAR points were then filtered for noise, pits (artificial low points) and birds (true birds as well as erroneously high points) by screening for absolute elevation limits, isolated points and height above ground. Each bin was then manually inspected for remaining pits and birds and spurious points were removed. In a bin containing approximately 7.5 - 9.0 million points, an average of 50 - 100 points are typically found to be artificially low or high. Common sources of non-terrestrial returns are clouds, birds, vapor, haze, decks, brush piles, etc. 5. Internal calibration was refined using TerraMatch. Points from overlapping lines were tested for internal consistency and final adjustments were made for system misalignments (i.e., pitch, roll, heading offsets and scale). Automated sensor attitude and scale corrections yielded 3-5 cm improvements in the relative accuracy. Once system misalignments were corrected, vertical GPS drift was then resolved and removed per flight line, yielding a slight improvement (less than 1 cm) in relative accuracy. 6. The TerraScan software suite is designed specifically for classifying near-ground points (Soininen, 2004). The processing sequence began by removing all points that were not near the earth based on geometric constraints used to evaluate multi-return points. The resulting bare earth (ground) model was visually inspected and additional ground point modeling was performed in site-specific areas to improve ground detail. This manual editing of grounds often occurs in areas with known ground modeling deficiencies, such as: bedrock outcrops, cliffs, deeply incised stream banks, and dense vegetation. In some cases, automated ground point classification erroneously included known vegetation (i.e., understory, low/dense shrubs, etc.). These points were manually reclassified as non-grounds. Ground surface rasters were developed from triangulated irregular networks (TINs) of ground points.
- 2012-12-01 00:00:00 - The NOAA Office for Coastal Management (OCM) received the files in las format. The files contained LiDAR elevation and intensity measurements. The data were in UTM Zone 10 NAD83(CORS96) projection, NAVD88 (Geoid03) vertical datum and units were in meters. OCM performed the following processing for data storage and Digital Coast provisioning purposes: 1. The data were converted from UTM Zone 10 coordinates to geographic coordinates. 2. The data were converted from NAVD88 (orthometric) heights to GRS80 (ellipsoid) heights using Geoid03. 3. The data were sorted by time and zipped to laz format.
(describe or provide URL of description):
6. Data Documentation
The EDMC Data Documentation Procedural Directive requires that NOAA data be well documented, specifies the use of ISO 19115 and related standards for documentation of new data, and provides links to resources and tools for metadata creation and validation.
- 1.6. Type(s) of data
- 1.7. Data collection method(s)
- 3.1. Responsible Party for Data Management
- 4.1. Have resources for management of these data been identified?
- 4.2. Approximate percentage of the budget for these data devoted to data management
- 5.2. Quality control procedures employed
- 7.1. Do these data comply with the Data Access directive?
- 7.1.1. If data are not available or has limitations, has a Waiver been filed?
- 7.1.2. If there are limitations to data access, describe how data are protected
- 7.4. Approximate delay between data collection and dissemination
- 8.1. Actual or planned long-term data archive location
- 8.3. Approximate delay between data collection and submission to an archive facility
- 8.4. How will the data be protected from accidental or malicious modification or deletion prior to receipt by the archive?
(describe or provide URL of description):
7. Data Access
NAO 212-15 states that access to environmental data may only be restricted when distribution is explicitly limited by law, regulation, policy (such as those applicable to personally identifiable information or protected critical infrastructure information or proprietary trade information) or by security requirements. The EDMC Data Access Procedural Directive contains specific guidance, recommends the use of open-standard, interoperable, non-proprietary web services, provides information about resources and tools to enable data access, and includes a Waiver to be submitted to justify any approach other than full, unrestricted public access.
Notes: The name of the Organization of the most recent Support Role of type "Distributor" is used. The support role must be in effect. This information is not required if an approved access waiver exists for this data.
Notes: This field is required if a Distributor has not been specified.
Notes: All URLs listed in the Distribution Info section will be included. This field is required if applicable.
This data can be obtained on-line at the following URL:
This data set is dynamically generated based on user-specified parameters.
Notes: This field is required if applicable.
8. Data Preservation and Protection
The NOAA Procedure for Scientific Records Appraisal and Archive Approval describes how to identify, appraise and decide what scientific records are to be preserved in a NOAA archive.
(Specify NCEI-MD, NCEI-CO, NCEI-NC, NCEI-MS, World Data Center (WDC) facility, Other, To Be Determined, Unable to Archive, or No Archiving Intended)
Notes: This field is required if archive location is World Data Center or Other.
Notes: This field is required if archive location is To Be Determined, Unable to Archive, or No Archiving Intended.
Notes: Physical Location Organization, City and State are required, or a Location Description is required.
Discuss data back-up, disaster recovery/contingency planning, and off-site data storage relevant to the data collection
9. Additional Line Office or Staff Office Questions
Line and Staff Offices may extend this template by inserting additional questions in this section.