Search Help Show/Hide Menu

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.

URL of higher-level DM Plan (if any) as submitted to DM Plan Repository:
Always left blank

1. General Description of Data to be Managed

1.1. Name of the Data, data collection Project, or data-producing Program:
2015 Lidar: Miami-Dade County, FL
1.2. Summary description of the data:

This metadata record describes the 1798 las files (version 1.3) received by the NOAA Office for Coastal Management (OCM), provided by the Miami-Dade County Information Technology Department (ITD). Aerial Cartographics of America, Inc. (ACA) LB 6748, operating under the authority of Miami-Dade County Aviation Department, as per contract number E10-MDAD-03, was tasked by Miami-Dade County's Information Technology Department (ITD) to provide LiDAR data for 1612 square miles. The dates of collection were February 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 2015 and April 2, 3, 11, 12, 13, 2015, collected in 366 flight lines. Tiles were delivered to follow FDOR tiling scheme.

Upon receipt and review of the data from Miami-Dade County's ITD, NOAA OCM noticed some inconsistencies in the classifications of the data and informed Miami-Dade County ITD. OCM decided to improve the usability of the data by contracting out the reclassification of the lidar las files. The original, unclassified point data were sent to Tetra Tech by Aerial Cartographics of America (ACA) for the re-classification work. The re-classified point data were delivered to NOAA OCM. The data classifications included are: 1 (unclassified), 2 (ground), 6 (building), 7 (low noise), 9 (water), 10 (buffered ground around breaklines), 17 (bridge decks), 18 (high noise). NOAA OCM did not determine a new vertical accuracy for the re-classified data. The vertical accuracy value listed in this metadata record is the value for the original Miami-Dade County's ITD data.

In addition to these lidar point data, the bare earth Digital Elevation Models (DEMs) created from the lidar point data are also available. These data are are available for custom download at the link provided in the URL section of this metadata record.

Hydro breaklines and a large building footprint (with highest elevation) are also available. These data are available for download at the link provided in the URL section of this metadata record. Please note that these products have not been reviewed by the NOAA Office for Coastal Management (OCM) and any conclusions drawn from the analysis of this information are not the responsibility of NOAA or OCM.

Taken From: Item Identification | Abstract
Notes: Only a maximum of 4000 characters will be included.
1.3. Is this a one-time data collection, or an ongoing series of measurements?
One-time data collection
Taken From: Extents / Time Frames | Time Frame Type
Notes: Data collection is considered ongoing if a time frame of type "Continuous" exists.
1.4. Actual or planned temporal coverage of the data:
2015-02-15 to 2015-04-13
Taken From: Extents | Time Frame - Start, Time Frame - End
Notes: All time frames from all extent groups are included.
1.5. Actual or planned geographic coverage of the data:
W: -80.8825255556, E: -80.105244, N: 26.0255653056, S: 25.2250032222
Taken From: Extents | Geographic Area Bounds, Geographic Area Description
Notes: All geographic areas from all extent groups are included.
1.6. Type(s) of data:
(e.g., digital numeric data, imagery, photographs, video, audio, database, tabular data, etc.)
Point Cloud (Digital)
1.7. Data collection method(s):
(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.)
No information found
1.8. If data are from a NOAA Observing System of Record, indicate name of system:
Always left blank due to field exemption
1.8.1. If data are from another observing system, please specify:
Always left blank due to field exemption

2. Point of Contact for this Data Management Plan (author or maintainer)

2.1. Name:
NOAA Office for Coastal Management (NOAA/OCM)
Taken From: Support Roles (Metadata Contact) | Person
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.
2.2. Title:
Metadata Contact
Always listed as "Metadata Contact"
2.3. Affiliation or facility:
NOAA Office for Coastal Management (NOAA/OCM)
Taken From: Support Roles (Metadata Contact) | Organization
Notes: The name of the Organization of the most recent Support Role of type "Metadata Contact" is used. This field is required if applicable.
2.4. E-mail address:
coastal.info@noaa.gov
Notes: The email address is taken from the address listed for the Person assigned as the Metadata Contact in Support Roles.
2.5. Phone number:
(843) 740-1202
Notes: The phone number is taken from the number listed for the Person assigned as the Metadata Contact in Support Roles. If the phone number is missing or incorrect, please contact your Librarian to update the Person record.

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.

3.1. Name:
No information found
Taken From: Support Roles (Data Steward) | Person
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.
3.2. Position Title:
Data Steward
Always listed as "Data Steward"

4. Resources

Programs must identify resources within their own budget for managing the data they produce.

4.1. Have resources for management of these data been identified?
No information found
4.2. Approximate percentage of the budget for these data devoted to data management (specify percentage or "unknown"):
No information found

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.

5.1. Processing workflow of the data from collection or acquisition to making it publicly accessible
(describe or provide URL of description):

Process Steps:

  • 2015-01-01 00:00:00 - The LiDAR data was collected utilizing a Riegl LMS-Q680i in a Cessna 206 from an approximate altitude of 1,800 feet above ground level, an approximate ground speed of 110 knots at a pulse rate repetition of 400kH, resulting in a minimum of 8.2 points per square meter. The sensor used a 60 degree field of view. The project was flown to have 50 percent overlap between swaths. The Global Positioning System (GPS) data were processed using Applanix POSPac Mobile Mapping Suite version 6.2 using Smart Base method and single base methods. A fixed bias carrier phase solution was computed in forward and reverse directions. The LiDAR collection took place when Positional Dilution of Precision (PDOP) was at or below 3. Occasionally, the PDOP rose slightly above 3. This had no affect on the data. The GPS trajectory was combined with the IMU data using the Applanix POSPac software. The resulting Smoothed Best Estimate of Trajectory (SBET) was exported and used in Riegl RiProcess software to compute the laser mass point positions in Northing, Easting, and Elevations coordinates. The raw laser data were merged with the SBET using Riegl RiProcess software. The data set was processed using RiProcess, RiAnalyze, and RiWorld software where each flight line was processed to a point cloud. The data were adjusted flight line to flight line using Riegl's Scan Data Adjustment tool to ensure a proper relative calibration match between flight lines. Each flight was checked for project coverage, data gaps between overlapping flight lines, point density and then exported in LAS 1.2 format. The entire project was collected without gaps. The files were projected to the NAD_1983_HARN_StatePlane_Florida_East_FIPS_0901_Feet, and National American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88). Ellipsoidal heights were converted to orthometric heights using the current Geoid12A. All units are U.S. Survey Feet. The LAS files were imported to TerraSolid, LTD TerraScan software to be classified to bare earth ground and later feature coded to USGS specifications. The LAS files contain 8 classifications: 1 = unclassified; 2 = ground; 7 = noise points; 9 = water; 10 = buffered ground points surrounding breaklines; 12 = overlap; 15 = overpass and bridges. The tiles dataset was imported to Digital Transfer Solutions EarthShaper degrees software to collect breaklines from LiDAR data. The single and double line linear hydrographic features were hydro-enforced with downhill constraints to model correct flow patterns. Water bodies were hydro-flattened to ensure uniform elevation across the feature. A Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of the bare earth surface was created as a hydro-enforced 32-bit floating point grid format and constructed with a 5' cell size. ESRI ArcHydro was used to check the data met project specifications.
  • The NOAA Office for Coastal Management (OCM) received 1798 topographic files in las (version 1.3 format) from the Miami-Dade County Information Technology Department (ITD). The files contained lidar elevation, intensity, return number, classification, scan angle and adjusted GPS time measurements. The data were received in Florida State Plane East Zone 0901, NAD83 HARN coordinates and were vertically referenced to NAVD88 using the GEOID12A model. The vertical units of the data were US Survey feet. OCM noticed some inconsistencies in the classifications of the data and informed Miami-Dade County ITD. NOAA OCM decided to improve the usability of the data by contracting out the re-classification of the lidar las files and accordingly, the re-creation of the DEM img files. The original, unclassified data from Aerial Cartographics of America (ACA) were sent to Tetra Tech for the re-classification work. The reclassification of the las files and creation of new DEM img files was done by Tetra Tech in August 2017.
  • 2017-08-29 00:00:00 - Tetra Tech took delivery of the data from NOAA and began review on 29 August 2017. The data was initially reviewed for completeness using LP360 and ArcMap 10.2. Some gaps were found in the data and these were reported to NOAA. The LiDAR was then run through an initial classification, where Classes 3, 4 and 5 (Vegetation were classed to Class 1 (Unclassified). Extraneous classes beyond the classification scheme were also identified and moved to an appropriate class. The LiDAR data was then run through a step designed to add to, and improve the Class 2 – Ground classified points, as well as improvement in the building class (Class 6). 5 foot DEMs were then created using LP360. These DEMs were reviewed for quality, and this review was used to correct the classification in the LAS point cloud, where needed. Final 5 foot DEMs were then created in LP360.
  • 2018-03-27 00:00:00 - The NOAA Office for Coastal Management (OCM) received 1798 topographic files in las (version 1.4 format) from Tetra Tech. The files contained lidar elevation, intensity, return number, classification, scan angle and adjusted GPS time measurements. The data were received in Florida State Plane East Zone 0901, NAD83 HARN coordinates and were vertically referenced to NAVD88 using the GEOID12A model. The vertical units of the data were US Survey feet. NOAA OCM did not determine a new vertical accuracy for the re-classified data. The vertical accuracy value listed in this metadata record is the value for the original Miami-Dade County's ITD data. OCM performed the following processing for data storage and Digital Coast provisioning purposes: 1. The files were converted from las to laz using laszip. 2. LAStools lasinfo and lasvalidate were run for general QC checks. There were never classified points with erroneous GPS times. These points were dropped using LAStools (Adjusted GPS times above 300000000 and below 0 were dropped). 3. An internal OCM script was run to provide a list of the min and max z values per tile and a point classification count. 4. An internal OCM script was run to convert the las files from NAVD88 (GEOID12A) elevations to ellipsoidal elevations using GEOID12A, to convert from Florida State Plane East Zone 0901 (NAD83 HARN) to a geographic coordinate system, to convert from US Survey feet to meters, and to create laz files to database and to the http site.
5.1.1. If data at different stages of the workflow, or products derived from these data, are subject to a separate data management plan, provide reference to other plan:
Always left blank
5.2. Quality control procedures employed
(describe or provide URL of description):
No information found

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.

6.1. Does metadata comply with EDMC Data Documentation directive?
No
Notes: All required DMP fields must be populated and valid to comply with the directive.
6.1.1. If metadata are non-existent or non-compliant, please explain:

Missing/invalid information:

  • 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?
Notes: Required DMP fields that are not populated or invalid are listed here.
6.2. Name of organization or facility providing metadata hosting:
NMFS Office of Science and Technology
Always listed as "NMFS Office of Science and Technology"
6.2.1. If service is needed for metadata hosting, please indicate:
Always left blank
6.3. URL of metadata folder or data catalog, if known:
Always listed as the URL to the InPort Data Set record
6.4. Process for producing and maintaining metadata
(describe or provide URL of description):
Metadata produced and maintained in accordance with the NOAA Data Documentation Procedural Directive: https://nosc.noaa.gov/EDMC/DAARWG/docs/EDMC_PD-Data_Documentation_v1.pdf
Always listed with the above statement

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.

7.1. Do these data comply with the Data Access directive?
No information found
7.1.1. If the data are not to be made available to the public at all, or with limitations, has a Waiver (Appendix A of Data Access directive) been filed?
No information found
7.1.2. If there are limitations to public data access, describe how data are protected from unauthorized access or disclosure:

None

7.2. Name of organization of facility providing data access:
NOAA Office for Coastal Management (NOAA/OCM)
Taken From: Support Roles (Distributor) | Organization
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.
7.2.1. If data hosting service is needed, please indicate:
Taken From: Data Management | If data hosting service is needed, please indicate
Notes: This field is required if a Distributor has not been specified.
7.2.2. URL of data access service, if known:
Taken From: Distribution Info | Download URL
Notes: All URLs listed in the Distribution Info section will be included. This field is required if applicable.
7.3. Data access methods or services offered:

Data is available online for custom and bulk downloads.

7.4. Approximate delay between data collection and dissemination:
No information found
7.4.1. If delay is longer than latency of automated processing, indicate under what authority data access is delayed:

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.

8.1. Actual or planned long-term data archive location:
(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)
No information found
8.1.1. If World Data Center or Other, specify:
Taken From: Data Management | Actual or planned long-term data archive location
Notes: This field is required if archive location is World Data Center or Other.
8.1.2. If To Be Determined, Unable to Archive or No Archiving Intended, explain:
Taken From: Data Management | If To Be Determined, Unable to Archive or No Archiving Intended, explain
Notes: This field is required if archive location is To Be Determined, Unable to Archive, or No Archiving Intended.
8.2. Data storage facility prior to being sent to an archive facility (if any):
Office for Coastal Management - Charleston, SC
Taken From: Physical Location | Organization, City, State, Location Description
Notes: Physical Location Organization, City and State are required, or a Location Description is required.
8.3. Approximate delay between data collection and submission to an archive facility:
No information found
8.4. How will the data be protected from accidental or malicious modification or deletion prior to receipt by the archive?
Discuss data back-up, disaster recovery/contingency planning, and off-site data storage relevant to the data collection
No information found

9. Additional Line Office or Staff Office Questions

Line and Staff Offices may extend this template by inserting additional questions in this section.

Always left blank