2016 - 2017 NRCS 30 County MI Lidar
OCM Partners
Data Set
(DS)
| ID: 55315
| Published / External
Created: 2018-12-18
|
Last Modified: 2023-10-17
Project (PRJ) | ID: 49401
ID: 55315
Data Set (DS)
* Discovery• First Pass
» Metadata Rubric
Item Identification
| * » Title | 2016 - 2017 NRCS 30 County MI Lidar |
|---|---|
| Short Name | Michigan_LiDAR_2017_LAS m8660.xml |
| * Status | Completed |
| Creation Date | |
| Revision Date | |
| • Publication Date | 2017 |
| * » Abstract |
This metadata record describes the Classified Point Cloud (LAS) for the 2016 - 2017 Michigan LiDAR project. The data collection was funded by NRCS and USGS and the State of Michigan was in charge of collection. Thirty counties were collected in total, though not all are available yet. This record will be updated as more counties are added. The NOAA Office for Coastal Management (OCM) downloaded USGS_LPC_MI_31Co laz files from this USGS site: ftp://rockyftp.cr.usgs.gov/vdelivery/Datasets/Staged/Elevation/LPC/Projects/ and processed the data to the Data Access Viewer (DAV) and to https. Counties included: Arenac, Barry, Bay, Chippewa, Clinton, Eaton, Gladwin, Hillsdale, Huron, Ingham, Ionia, Iosco, Isabella, Jackson, Kent, Lenawee, Livingston, Macomb, Mason, Midland, Monroe, Oakland, Oceana, Ogemaw, Ottawa, Sanilac, St. Clair, Tuscola, Washtenaw |
| * Purpose |
To acquire detailed surface elevation data for use in conservation planning, design, research, floodplain mapping, dam safety assessments, and hydrologic modeling. LAS data products are suitable for 1 foot contour generation. USGS LiDAR Base Specification 1.2, QL2. 19.6 cm NVA. |
| Notes | |
| Other Citation Details | |
| • Supplemental Information |
The following are the USGS lidar fields in JSON of the original input files: {
"ldrinfo" : {
"ldrspec" : "USGS Base Specification 1.2, QL2 meeting 19.6cm NVA", "ldrsens" : "Leica ALS70", "ldrmaxnr" : "4", "ldrnps" : "0.67", "ldrdens" : "2.2", "ldranps" : "0.67", "ldradens" : "2.2", "ldrfltht" : "2345", "ldrfltsp" : "130", "ldrscana" : "38", "ldrscanr" : "47.3", "ldrpulsr" : "235", "ldrpulsd" : "10", "ldrpulsw" : "0.53", "ldrwavel" : "1064", "ldrmpia" : "1", "ldrbmdiv" : "0.3", "ldrswatw" : "1615", "ldrswato" : "30", "ldrcrs" : "NAD_1983_2011_StatePlane_Michigan_South_FIPS_2113_Ft_Intl", "ldrgeoid" : "NGS Geoid12B" }, "ldraccur" : {
"ldrchacc" : "0", "rawnva" : "0.176", "rawnvan" : "58", "clsnva" : "0.178", "clsnvan" : "58", "clsvva" : "0.191", "clsvvan" : "48" }, "lasinfo" : {
"lasver" : "1.4", "lasprf" : "6", "laswheld" : "Withheld points were identified in these files with the withheld flag", "lasolap" : "Overlap points were identified in these files with the overlap flag", "lasintr" : "16", "lasclass" : {
"clascode" : "1", "clasitem" : "Unclassified" }, "lasclass" : {
"clascode" : "2", "clasitem" : "Bare earth" }, "lasclass" : {
"clascode" : "7", "clasitem" : "Noise" }, "lasclass" : {
"clascode" : "9", "clasitem" : "Water" }, "lasclass" : {
"clascode" : "10", "clasitem" : "Ignored Ground (Breakline Proximity)" }, "lasclass" : {
"clascode" : "17", "clasitem" : "Bridges" }, "lasclass" : {
"clascode" : "18", "clasitem" : "High Noise" } }} |
| DOI (Digital Object Identifier) | |
| DOI Registration Authority | |
| DOI Issue Date |
Keywords
Theme Keywords
| Thesaurus | Keyword |
|---|---|
| Global Change Master Directory (GCMD) Science Keywords | EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > TOPOGRAPHY > TERRAIN ELEVATION |
| Global Change Master Directory (GCMD) Science Keywords | EARTH SCIENCE > OCEANS > COASTAL PROCESSES > COASTAL ELEVATION |
| ISO 19115 Topic Category | elevation |
| MI | ALS70 |
| MI | Bare Earth |
| MI | First Return |
| MI | ground points |
| MI | Intensity return |
| MI | LAS |
| MI | mapping |
| MI | Overlap points |
| MI | point cloud |
| MI | Unclassified points |
| MI | Water points |
| None | erosion |
Temporal Keywords
| Thesaurus | Keyword |
|---|---|
* Spatial Keywords
| Thesaurus | Keyword |
|---|---|
| Global Change Master Directory (GCMD) Location Keywords | CONTINENT > NORTH AMERICA > UNITED STATES OF AMERICA |
| Global Change Master Directory (GCMD) Location Keywords | CONTINENT > NORTH AMERICA > UNITED STATES OF AMERICA > MICHIGAN |
| Global Change Master Directory (GCMD) Location Keywords | VERTICAL LOCATION > LAND SURFACE |
| None | Continent > North America > United States Of America > Michigan > Arenac County |
| None | Continent > North America > United States Of America > Michigan > Barry County |
| None | Continent > North America > United States Of America > Michigan > Bay County |
| None | Continent > North America > United States Of America > Michigan > Chippewa County |
| None | Continent > North America > United States Of America > Michigan > Clinton County |
| None | Continent > North America > United States Of America > Michigan > Eaton County |
| None | Continent > North America > United States Of America > Michigan > Gladwin County |
| None | Continent > North America > United States Of America > Michigan > Hillsdale County |
| None | Continent > North America > United States Of America > Michigan > Huron County |
| None | Continent > North America > United States Of America > Michigan > Ingham County |
| None | Continent > North America > United States Of America > Michigan > Ionia County |
| None | Continent > North America > United States Of America > Michigan > Iosco County |
| None | Continent > North America > United States Of America > Michigan > Isabella County |
| None | Continent > North America > United States Of America > Michigan > Jackson County |
| None | Continent > North America > United States Of America > Michigan > Kent County |
| None | Continent > North America > United States Of America > Michigan > Lenawee County |
| None | Continent > North America > United States Of America > Michigan > Livingston County |
| None | Continent > North America > United States Of America > Michigan > Macomb County |
| None | Continent > North America > United States Of America > Michigan > Mason County |
| None | Continent > North America > United States Of America > Michigan > Midland County |
| None | Continent > North America > United States Of America > Michigan > Monroe County |
| None | Continent > North America > United States Of America > Michigan > Oakland County |
| None | Continent > North America > United States Of America > Michigan > Oceana County |
| None | Continent > North America > United States Of America > Michigan > Ogemaw County |
| None | Continent > North America > United States Of America > Michigan > Ottawa County |
| None | Continent > North America > United States Of America > Michigan > Sanilac County |
| None | Continent > North America > United States Of America > Michigan > St. Clair County |
| None | Continent > North America > United States Of America > Michigan > Tuscola County |
| None | Continent > North America > United States Of America > Michigan > Washtenaw County |
Stratum Keywords
| Thesaurus | Keyword |
|---|---|
Instrument Keywords
| Thesaurus | Keyword |
|---|---|
| Global Change Master Directory (GCMD) Instrument Keywords | LIDAR > Light Detection and Ranging |
Platform Keywords
| Thesaurus | Keyword |
|---|---|
| Global Change Master Directory (GCMD) Platform Keywords | Airplane > Airplane |
Physical Location
| • » Organization | Office for Coastal Management |
|---|---|
| • » City | Charleston |
| • » State/Province | SC |
| • Country | |
| • » Location Description |
Data Set Information
| * Data Set Scope Code | Data Set |
|---|---|
| • Data Set Type | Elevation |
| • Maintenance Frequency | Unknown |
| Maintenance Note | |
| » Data Presentation Form | Point Cloud (Digital) |
| • Entity Attribute Overview | |
| Entity Attribute Detail Citation |
USGA Base Specification 1.2, QL2 meeting 19.6 cm NVA |
| Entity Attribute Detail URL | |
| Distribution Liability |
The State of Michigan Geographic Information Systems digital data have been tested and their documentation carefully reviewed. However, the State of Michigan and its representatives make no warranty or representation, either expressed or implied, with respect to the digital data and their documentation, their quality, performance, merchantability, or fitness for a particular purpose. The digital data are distributed on "as is" basis, and the user assumes all risk to their quality, the results obtained from their use, and the performance of the data. In no event will the State of Michigan or its representatives be liable for any direct, indirect, special, incidental or consequential damages resulting from and defect in the State of Michigan or in their documentation. This disclaimer of warranty is exclusive and in lieu of all others, oral or written, express or implied. No agent or employee is authorized to make any modification, extension, or addition to this warranty. Any conclusions drawn from the analysis of this information are not the responsibility of NOAA, the Office for Coastal Management, or its partners. |
| Data Set Credit | State of Michigan (SOM) |
Support Roles
| * » Support Role | Data Steward |
|---|---|
| * » Date Effective From | 2019 |
| Date Effective To | |
| Organization | NOAA Office for Coastal Management (NOAA/OCM) |
| Address |
2234 South Hobson Ave Charleston, SC 29405-2413 |
| Email Address | coastal.info@noaa.gov |
| Phone | (843) 740-1202 |
| Fax | |
| Mobile | |
| URL | https://coast.noaa.gov |
| Business Hours | |
| Contact Instructions |
| * » Support Role | Distributor |
|---|---|
| * » Date Effective From | 2019 |
| Date Effective To | |
| Organization | U.S. Geological Survey |
| Address |
12201 Sunrise Valley Drive Reston, VA 20191 USA |
| Email Address | |
| Phone | |
| Fax | |
| Mobile | |
| URL | https://usgs.gov |
| Business Hours | |
| Contact Instructions |
| * » Support Role | Distributor |
|---|---|
| * » Date Effective From | 2019 |
| Date Effective To | |
| Organization | NOAA Office for Coastal Management (NOAA/OCM) |
| Address |
2234 South Hobson Ave Charleston, SC 29405-2413 |
| Email Address | coastal.info@noaa.gov |
| Phone | (843) 740-1202 |
| Fax | |
| Mobile | |
| URL | https://coast.noaa.gov |
| Business Hours | |
| Contact Instructions |
| * » Support Role | Metadata Contact |
|---|---|
| * » Date Effective From | 2019 |
| Date Effective To | |
| Organization | NOAA Office for Coastal Management (NOAA/OCM) |
| Address |
2234 South Hobson Ave Charleston, SC 29405-2413 |
| Email Address | coastal.info@noaa.gov |
| Phone | (843) 740-1202 |
| Fax | |
| Mobile | |
| URL | https://coast.noaa.gov |
| Business Hours | |
| Contact Instructions |
| * » Support Role | Point of Contact |
|---|---|
| * » Date Effective From | 2019 |
| Date Effective To | |
| Organization | NOAA Office for Coastal Management (NOAA/OCM) |
| Address |
2234 South Hobson Ave Charleston, SC 29405-2413 |
| Email Address | coastal.info@noaa.gov |
| Phone | (843) 740-1202 |
| Fax | |
| Mobile | |
| URL | https://coast.noaa.gov |
| Business Hours | |
| Contact Instructions |
| * » Support Role | |
|---|---|
| * » Date Effective From | |
| Date Effective To | |
| * » Contact | |
| * Contact Instructions |
| * » Support Role | |
|---|---|
| * » Date Effective From | |
| Date Effective To | |
| * » Contact | |
| * Contact Instructions |
| * » Support Role | |
|---|---|
| * » Date Effective From | |
| Date Effective To | |
| * » Contact | |
| * Contact Instructions |
Extents
| Currentness Reference | Ground Condition |
|---|
Extent Group 1
| Extent Description |
|---|
Extent Group 1 / Geographic Area 1
| * » W° Bound | -86.551555 |
|---|---|
| * » E° Bound | -82.49499 |
| * » N° Bound | 46.545735 |
| * » S° Bound | 41.717544 |
| * » Description |
Extent Group 1 / Vertical Extent
| EPSG Code | |
|---|---|
| Vertical Minimum | |
| Vertical Maximum |
Extent Group 1 / Time Frame 1
| * » Time Frame Type | Range |
|---|---|
| * » Start | 2015-03-24 |
| End | 2015-04-17 |
| Alternate Start As Of Info | |
| Alternate End As Of Info | |
| Description |
Bay County |
Extent Group 1 / Time Frame 2
| * » Time Frame Type | Range |
|---|---|
| * » Start | 2016-04-15 |
| End | 2018-04-21 |
| Alternate Start As Of Info | |
| Alternate End As Of Info | |
| Description |
Ottawa County |
Extent Group 1 / Time Frame 3
| * » Time Frame Type | Range |
|---|---|
| * » Start | 2016-11-11 |
| End | 2016-11-14 |
| Alternate Start As Of Info | |
| Alternate End As Of Info | |
| Description |
Iosco, Ogemaw County |
Extent Group 1 / Time Frame 4
| * » Time Frame Type | Range |
|---|---|
| * » Start | 2016-11-29 |
| End | 2017-05-03 |
| Alternate Start As Of Info | |
| Alternate End As Of Info | |
| Description |
Tuscola County |
Extent Group 1 / Time Frame 5
| * » Time Frame Type | Range |
|---|---|
| * » Start | 2016-11-29 |
| End | 2017-11-24 |
| Alternate Start As Of Info | |
| Alternate End As Of Info | |
| Description |
Huron County |
Extent Group 1 / Time Frame 6
| * » Time Frame Type | Range |
|---|---|
| * » Start | 2017-03-23 |
| End | 2017-04-23 |
| Alternate Start As Of Info | |
| Alternate End As Of Info | |
| Description |
Hillsdale County |
Extent Group 1 / Time Frame 7
| * » Time Frame Type | Range |
|---|---|
| * » Start | 2017-03-24 |
| End | 2017-05-07 |
| Alternate Start As Of Info | |
| Alternate End As Of Info | |
| Description |
Lenawee, Monroe County |
Extent Group 1 / Time Frame 8
| * » Time Frame Type | Range |
|---|---|
| * » Start | 2017-03-29 |
| End | 2017-05-03 |
| Alternate Start As Of Info | |
| Alternate End As Of Info | |
| Description |
Macomb, Oakland County |
Extent Group 1 / Time Frame 9
| * » Time Frame Type | Range |
|---|---|
| * » Start | 2017-04-01 |
| End | 2017-04-24 |
| Alternate Start As Of Info | |
| Alternate End As Of Info | |
| Description |
Washtenaw County |
Extent Group 1 / Time Frame 10
| * » Time Frame Type | Range |
|---|---|
| * » Start | 2017-04-02 |
| End | 2017-04-24 |
| Alternate Start As Of Info | |
| Alternate End As Of Info | |
| Description |
Sanilac County |
Extent Group 1 / Time Frame 11
| * » Time Frame Type | Range |
|---|---|
| * » Start | 2017-04-08 |
| End | 2017-04-09 |
| Alternate Start As Of Info | |
| Alternate End As Of Info | |
| Description |
Mason, Oceana County |
Extent Group 1 / Time Frame 12
| * » Time Frame Type | Range |
|---|---|
| * » Start | 2017-04-16 |
| End | 2017-04-18 |
| Alternate Start As Of Info | |
| Alternate End As Of Info | |
| Description |
Isabella, Midland County |
Extent Group 1 / Time Frame 13
| * » Time Frame Type | Range |
|---|---|
| * » Start | 2017-04-17 |
| End | 2017-04-24 |
| Alternate Start As Of Info | |
| Alternate End As Of Info | |
| Description |
Jackson County |
Extent Group 1 / Time Frame 14
| * » Time Frame Type | Range |
|---|---|
| * » Start | 2017-04-19 |
| End | 2017-04-24 |
| Alternate Start As Of Info | |
| Alternate End As Of Info | |
| Description |
St. Clair County |
Extent Group 1 / Time Frame 15
| * » Time Frame Type | Range |
|---|---|
| * » Start | 2017-04-28 |
| End | 2017-05-06 |
| Alternate Start As Of Info | |
| Alternate End As Of Info | |
| Description |
Arenac County |
Extent Group 1 / Time Frame 16
| * » Time Frame Type | Range |
|---|---|
| * » Start | 2017-04-28 |
| End | 2017-05-03 |
| Alternate Start As Of Info | |
| Alternate End As Of Info | |
| Description |
Gladwin County |
Extent Group 1 / Time Frame 17
| * » Time Frame Type | Range |
|---|---|
| * » Start | 2017-05-04 |
| End | 2017-05-11 |
| Alternate Start As Of Info | |
| Alternate End As Of Info | |
| Description |
Chippewa County |
Extent Group 1 / Time Frame 18
| * » Time Frame Type | Range |
|---|---|
| * » Start | 2017-11-20 |
| End | 2018-05-02 |
| Alternate Start As Of Info | |
| Alternate End As Of Info | |
| Description |
Ingham County |
Extent Group 1 / Time Frame 19
| * » Time Frame Type | Range |
|---|---|
| * » Start | 2017-11-26 |
| End | 2018-05-02 |
| Alternate Start As Of Info | |
| Alternate End As Of Info | |
| Description |
Kent County |
Extent Group 1 / Time Frame 20
| * » Time Frame Type | Range |
|---|---|
| * » Start | 2017-11-29 |
| End | 2017-12-01 |
| Alternate Start As Of Info | |
| Alternate End As Of Info | |
| Description |
Ionia, Clinton County |
Extent Group 1 / Time Frame 21
| * » Time Frame Type | Range |
|---|---|
| * » Start | 2017-12-01 |
| End | 2018-04-23 |
| Alternate Start As Of Info | |
| Alternate End As Of Info | |
| Description |
Barry, Eaton County |
Extent Group 1 / Time Frame 22
| * » Time Frame Type | Range |
|---|---|
| * » Start | 2017-12-02 |
| End | 2018-04-22 |
| Alternate Start As Of Info | |
| Alternate End As Of Info | |
| Description |
Livingston County |
Spatial Information
Spatial Resolution
| Angular Distance | |
|---|---|
| Angular Distance Units | |
| Horizontal Distance | 0.5 |
| Horizontal Distance Units | Meter |
| Vertical Distance | |
| Vertical Distance Units | |
| Equivalent Scale Denominator | |
| Level of Detail Description |
Spatial Representation
| Grid Representation Used? | |
|---|---|
| Vector Representation Used? | Yes |
| Text / Table Representation Used? | |
| TIN Representation Used? | |
| Stereo Model Representation Used? | |
| Video Representation Used? |
Grid Representation
| Dimension Count | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cell Geometry | |||||||||||||
| Transformation Parameter Available? | |||||||||||||
Axis Dimension |
|||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
Axis Dimension |
|||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
Vector Representation
| Topology Level | |
|---|---|
| Complex Object Present? | |
| Complex Object Count | |
| Composite Object Present? | |
| Composite Object Count | |
| Curve Object Present? | |
| Curve Object Count | |
| Point Object Present? | |
| Point Object Count | |
| Solid Object Present? | |
| Solid Object Count | |
| Surface Object Present? | |
| Surface Object Count |
Reference Systems
Reference System
| EPSG Code | EPSG:6319 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Horizontal Resolution |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Vertical Resolution |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reference System
| EPSG Code | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Horizontal Resolution |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Vertical Resolution |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Access Information
| * » Security Class | Unclassified |
|---|---|
| * Security Classification System | |
| Security Handling Description | |
| • Data Access Policy | |
| » Data Access Procedure |
Data is available online for bulk and custom downloads. |
| • » Data Access Constraints |
None |
| • Data 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. |
| Metadata Access Constraints | |
| Metadata Use Constraints |
Distribution Information
| Start Date | 2018 |
|---|---|
| End Date | Present |
| » Download URL | https://coast.noaa.gov/dataviewer/#/lidar/search/where:ID=8660 |
| Distributor | NOAA Office for Coastal Management (NOAA/OCM) (2019 - Present) |
| File Name | Customized Download |
| Description |
Create custom data files by choosing data area, product type, map projection, file format, datum, etc. A new metadata will be produced to reflect your request using this record as a base. |
| File Date/Time | |
| File Type (Deprecated) | Zip |
| Distribution Format | |
| File Size | |
| Application Version | |
| Compression | Zip |
| Review Status |
| Start Date | 2018 |
|---|---|
| End Date | Present |
| » Download URL | https://rockyweb.usgs.gov/vdelivery/Datasets/Staged/Elevation/LPC/Projects/ |
| Distributor | U.S. Geological Survey (2019 - Present) |
| File Name | Bulk Download |
| Description |
Bulk download of data files in LAZ format from the USGS rockyweb site. Data available by county. Data for all counties are in folders that begin with USGS_LPC_MI_31Co. There is additional laz data in the folder that is titled MI_31County_2016_A16. |
| File Date/Time | |
| File Type (Deprecated) | LAZ |
| Distribution Format | LAS/LAZ - LASer |
| File Size | |
| Application Version | |
| Compression | Zip |
| Review Status |
| Start Date | |
|---|---|
| End Date | |
| » Download URL | |
| Distributor | |
| File Name | |
| Description | |
| File Date/Time | |
| File Type | |
| FGDC Content Type | |
| File Size | |
| Application Version | |
| Compression | |
| Review Status |
| Start Date | |
|---|---|
| End Date | |
| » Download URL | |
| Distributor | |
| File Name | |
| Description | |
| File Date/Time | |
| File Type | |
| FGDC Content Type | |
| File Size | |
| Application Version | |
| Compression | |
| Review Status |
| Start Date | |
|---|---|
| End Date | |
| » Download URL | |
| Distributor | |
| File Name | |
| Description | |
| File Date/Time | |
| File Type | |
| FGDC Content Type | |
| File Size | |
| Application Version | |
| Compression | |
| Review Status |
URLs
| URL | https://coast.noaa.gov/dataviewer/ |
|---|---|
| Name | NOAA's Office for Coastal Management (OCM) Data Access Viewer (DAV) |
| URL Type | Online Resource |
| File Resource Format | HTML |
| Description |
The Data Access Viewer (DAV) allows a user to search for and download elevation, imagery, and land cover data for the coastal U.S. and its territories. The data, hosted by the NOAA Office for Coastal Management, can be customized and requested for free download through a checkout interface. An email provides a link to the customized data, while the original data set is available through a link within the viewer. |
| URL | https://rockyweb.usgs.gov/vdelivery/Datasets/Staged/Elevation/metadata/MI_31County_2016_A16/ |
|---|---|
| Name | Breaklines |
| URL Type | Online Resource |
| File Resource Format | |
| Description |
Link to the hydro breaklines on the USGS rockyweb site. Breaklines are available by county. |
| URL | |
|---|---|
| Name | |
| URL Type | |
| File Resource Format | |
| Description |
| URL | |
|---|---|
| Name | |
| URL Type | |
| File Resource Format | |
| Description |
| URL | |
|---|---|
| Name | |
| URL Type | |
| File Resource Format | |
| Description |
Activity Log
| Activity Time | |
|---|---|
| Activity Type | |
| Responsible Party | |
| Description |
| Activity Time | |
|---|---|
| Activity Type | |
| Responsible Party | |
| Description |
| Activity Time | |
|---|---|
| Activity Type | |
| Responsible Party | |
| Description |
Issues
| Issue Date | |
|---|---|
| Author | |
| Issue |
| Issue Date | |
|---|---|
| Author | |
| Issue |
| Issue Date | |
|---|---|
| Author | |
| Issue |
Technical Environment
| Description |
Microsoft Windows 7; ESRI ArcCatalog 9.3.1.1850 |
|---|
Data Quality
| Representativeness | |
|---|---|
| Accuracy | |
| Analytical Accuracy | |
| Horizontal Positional Accuracy |
Horizontal positional accuracy is dependent upon the quality of the GPS/INS solution, sensor calibration and ground conditions at the time of data capture. The standard system results for horizontal accuracy meet or exceed the project specified 1.0 meter RMSE. This value is computed by comparing ground control to a DEM derived from the classified LiDAR data and represents the RMSE of residuals on controls within the project area. |
| Vertical Positional Accuracy |
For the DEM data derived from the classified point cloud, the NVA and VVA were computed. The vertical accuracy was tested with independent survey check points located in various terrain types within the project area. These check points were not used in the calibration or post processing of the lidar point cloud data. The survey check points were distributed throughout the block area. Specifications for this project require that the NVA be 19.6 cm or better @ 95 percent confidence level and the VVA to be 30.0 cm or better at the 95th percentile. Raw NVA was tested using a number of independent survey check points located in flat terrain types. The NVA was tested using a number of independent survey check points located in bare earth terrain types.The VVA was tested using a number of independent survey check points located in various vegetation terrain types. The survey checkpoints were distributed throughout the block area. The independent check points were surveyed using static GPS base stations collecting point location for 20 minute intervals. Elevations were measured for the x,y,z location of each check point. Elevations interpolated from the DEM surface were then compared to the elevation values of the surveyed control. These values are provided as defined by the National Standards for Spatial Data Accuracy (NSSDA); assessed and reported using National Digital Elevation Program (NDEP)/ASPRS Guidelines. Arenac, Gladwin, Iosco, Midland, Ogemaw Counties Raw NVA - 0.081 m RMSE or 0.16 m NVA at 95% conf level; 104 check points NVA - 0.080 m RMSE or 0.16 m NVA at 95% conf level; 104 check points VVA - 0.085 m RMSE or 0.16 m VVA at 95% conf level, 82 check points Bay County Raw NVA - 0.044 m RMSE or 0.086 m NVA at 95% conf level; 35 check points NVA - 0.047 m RMSE or 0.085 m NVA at 95% conf level; 36 check points VVA - 0.063 m RMSE or 0.107 m VVA at 95% conf level, 24 check points Chippewa County Raw NVA - 0.084 m RMSE or 0.165 NVA at 95% conf level; 61 check points NVA - 0.087 m RMSE or 0.171 m NVA at 95% conf level; 61 check points VVA - 0.091 m RMSE or 0.180 m VVA at 95% conf level, 52 check points Hillsdale, Huron, Jackson, Macomb, Oakland, Sanilac, St.Clair, Tuscola, Washtenaw Counties Raw NVA - 0.066 m RMSE or 0.13 m at 95% conf level; 185 check points NVA - 0.066 m RMSE, or 0.13 m at 95% conf level; 185 check points VVA - 0.104 m RMSE or 0.20 m at 95th Percentile; 132 check points Isabella County Raw NVA - 0.060 m RMSE or 0.12 m at 95% conf level; 18 check points NVA - 0.045 m RMSE or 0.090 m at 95% conf Level; 18 check points VVA - 0.086 m RMSE or 0.159 m at 95th Percentile; 16 check points Lenawee County Raw NVA - 0.039 m RMSE or 0.076 m at 95% conf level; 13 check points NVA - 0.039 m RMSE or 0.076 m at 95% conf Level; 13 check points VVA - 0.080 m RMSE or 0.148 m at 95th Percentile; 27 check points Mason, Oceana Counties Raw NVA - 0.090 m RMSE or 0.176 m at 95% conf level; 58 check points NVA - 0.091 m RMSE or 0.078 m at 95% conf Level; 58 check points VVA - 0.089 m RMSE or 0.191 m at 95th Percentile; 48 check points Monroe County Raw NVA - 0.070 m RMSE or 0.137 m at 95% conf level; 11 check points NVA - 0.074 m RMSE, or 0.145 m at 95% conf level; 11 check points VVA - 0.072 m RMSE or 0.131 m at 95th Percentile; 14 check points Barry, Clinton, Eaton, Ingham, Ionia, Kent, Livingston, Ottawa Counties Raw NVA - 0.064 m RMSE or 0.125 m at 95% conf level; 134 check points NVA - 0.062 m RMSE, or 0.122 m at 95% conf level; 134 check points VVA - 0.092 m RMSE or 0.195 m at 95th Percentile; 100 check points |
| Quantitation Limits | |
| Bias | |
| Comparability | |
| Completeness Measure | |
| Precision | |
| Analytical Precision | |
| Field Precision | |
| Sensitivity | |
| Detection Limit | |
| Completeness Report |
LiDAR data is collected for the project area. Post processing of the simultaneously acquired GPS/INS is performed and applied to the laser returns to output a point cloud in the specified project coordinate system and datums. The point cloud data is then subjected to automated classification routines to assign all points in the point cloud to ground, water, overlap and unclassified point classes. Anomalous laser returns that occur infrequently are removed entirely from the data set. Once clean bare earth points are established, DEMs are created using bare earth points and hydro features. The DEM surface is then compared to the survey checkpoints. These accuracies must pass the Non-Vegetated and Vegetated Vertical Accuracy specifications. |
| Conceptual Consistency |
LiDAR data is collected within the project area and processed. After the DEMs were created, the dataset was verified against control. |
| » Quality Control Procedures Employed |
Data Management
| » Have Resources for Management of these Data Been Identified? | Yes |
|---|---|
| » Approximate Percentage of Budget for these Data Devoted to Data Management | Unknown |
| » Do these Data Comply with the Data Access Directive? | Yes |
| » Is Access to the Data Limited Based on an Approved Waiver? | No |
| » If Distributor (Data Hosting Service) is Needed, Please Indicate | |
| » Approximate Delay Between Data Collection and Dissemination | |
| » If Delay is Longer than Latency of Automated Processing, Indicate Under What Authority Data Access is Delayed | |
| » Actual or Planned Long-Term Data Archive Location | NCEI-CO |
| » Approximate Delay Between Data Collection and Archiving | |
| » How Will the Data Be Protected from Accidental or Malicious Modification or Deletion Prior to Receipt by the Archive? |
Lineage
| » Lineage Statement |
Lidar data were collected via an airborne platform and lidar sensor. They were then processed to a classified point cloud. |
|---|
Sources
| Citation Title | Classified lidar |
|---|---|
| Contact Role Type | Originator |
| Contact Type | Organization |
| Contact Name | Sanborn Map Company Inc. |
| Publish Date | |
| Extent Type | Discrete |
| Extent Start Date/Time | 2017 |
| Extent End Date/Time | |
| Scale Denominator | 1200 |
| Citation URL | |
| Citation URL Name | |
| Citation URL Description | |
| Source Contribution |
The classified lidar point cloud is used to derive various data products such as, but not limited to, bare earth gridded DEM, triangulated irregular networks (TIN), contours, digital surface models (DSM). The output format is fully compliant LAS v1.4, Point Record Format 6 |
| Citation Title | Ground control |
|---|---|
| Contact Role Type | Originator |
| Contact Type | Organization |
| Contact Name | Sanborn Map Company Inc. |
| Publish Date | 2010-01-01 |
| Extent Type | Discrete |
| Extent Start Date/Time | 2017 |
| Extent End Date/Time | |
| Scale Denominator | |
| Citation URL | |
| Citation URL Name | |
| Citation URL Description | |
| Source Contribution |
Targeted ground control is used to create a digital control file and control report as well as QC check of LiDAR accuracy. Predefined points (NGS when available) within the project area are targeted. |
| Citation Title | LiDAR Data |
|---|---|
| Contact Role Type | Originator |
| Contact Type | Organization |
| Contact Name | Sanborn Map Company Inc. |
| Publish Date | |
| Extent Type | Discrete |
| Extent Start Date/Time | 2017 |
| Extent End Date/Time | |
| Scale Denominator | |
| Citation URL | |
| Citation URL Name | |
| Citation URL Description | |
| Source Contribution |
Aerial LiDAR and GPS/IMU data are recorded for the defined project area at an altitude, flight speed, scanner swath width and scanner pulse frequency to achieve the design goals of the project. |
| Citation Title | Post processed GPS/INS |
|---|---|
| Contact Role Type | Originator |
| Contact Type | Organization |
| Contact Name | Sanborn Map Company Inc. |
| Publish Date | |
| Extent Type | Discrete |
| Extent Start Date/Time | 2017 |
| Extent End Date/Time | |
| Scale Denominator | 1200 |
| Citation URL | |
| Citation URL Name | |
| Citation URL Description | |
| Source Contribution |
Post processed GPS/INS is applied to the lidar point data to georeference each point in the project coordinate system |
| Citation Title | Post processed lidar |
|---|---|
| Contact Role Type | Originator |
| Contact Type | Organization |
| Contact Name | Sanborn Map Company Inc. |
| Publish Date | |
| Extent Type | Discrete |
| Extent Start Date/Time | 2017 |
| Extent End Date/Time | |
| Scale Denominator | 1200 |
| Citation URL | |
| Citation URL Name | |
| Citation URL Description | |
| Source Contribution |
The post processed lidar data has been projected and oriented in the specified coordinate system as an un-classified point cloud. |
| Citation Title | Tile Definition |
|---|---|
| Contact Role Type | Originator |
| Contact Type | Organization |
| Contact Name | State of Michigan |
| Publish Date | |
| Extent Type | Discrete |
| Extent Start Date/Time | 2017 |
| Extent End Date/Time | |
| Scale Denominator | 1200 |
| Citation URL | |
| Citation URL Name | |
| Citation URL Description | |
| Source Contribution |
The tile definition defines discreet non-overlapping rectangular areas used as cut lines to break up the large classified lidar dataset into smaller, more manageable data tiles. Each tile is 2500ft by 2500ft in dimension. |
| Citation Title | |
|---|---|
| Contact Role Type | |
| Contact Type | |
| Contact Name | |
| Publish Date | |
| Extent Type | |
| Extent Start Date/Time | |
| Extent End Date/Time | |
| Citation URL | |
| Citation URL Name | |
| Citation URL Description | |
| Scale Denominator |
| Citation Title | |
|---|---|
| Contact Role Type | |
| Contact Type | |
| Contact Name | |
| Publish Date | |
| Extent Type | |
| Extent Start Date/Time | |
| Extent End Date/Time | |
| Citation URL | |
| Citation URL Name | |
| Citation URL Description | |
| Scale Denominator |
| Citation Title | |
|---|---|
| Contact Role Type | |
| Contact Type | |
| Contact Name | |
| Publish Date | |
| Extent Type | |
| Extent Start Date/Time | |
| Extent End Date/Time | |
| Citation URL | |
| Citation URL Name | |
| Citation URL Description | |
| Scale Denominator |
Process Steps
| Process Step Number | 1 |
|---|---|
| » Description |
At selected locations throughout the site, accurate GPS coordinates and elevations are surveyed and the points are marked with targets. |
| Process Date/Time | 2017-01-01 00:00:00 |
| Process Contact | |
| Phone (Voice) | |
| Email Address | |
| Source |
| Process Step Number | 2 |
|---|---|
| » Description |
New LiDAR data is captured for the project area using a Leica ALS70 LiDAR instrument an integrated IPAS20 GPS/INS system mounted within a Aero Commander twin engine airplane. |
| Process Date/Time | 2017-01-01 00:00:00 |
| Process Contact | |
| Phone (Voice) | |
| Email Address | |
| Source |
| Process Step Number | 3 |
|---|---|
| » Description |
The airborne GPS data is post-processed in Inertial Explorer software and LEICA CloudPro software to determine the LiDAR sensor's angle and orientation in the terrain (project) coordinate system and datums during the survey. |
| Process Date/Time | 2017-01-01 00:00:00 |
| Process Contact | |
| Phone (Voice) | |
| Email Address | |
| Source |
| Process Step Number | 4 |
|---|---|
| » Description |
The post processed GPS/INS solution is applied to the raw lidar data to orient and project the data points into the project area reference system as an unclassified point cloud. |
| Process Date/Time | 2017-01-01 00:00:00 |
| Process Contact | |
| Phone (Voice) | |
| Email Address | |
| Source |
| Process Step Number | 5 |
|---|---|
| » Description |
The georeferenced lidar data is then classified and edited in Terrasolid Terrascan software. Data is classified to produce: Class 1: unclassified, Class 2: ground, Class 7: low point, Class 9: water, Class 10: ignored ground, Class 11: withheld. |
| Process Date/Time | 2017-01-01 00:00:00 |
| Process Contact | |
| Phone (Voice) | |
| Email Address | |
| Source |
| Process Step Number | 6 |
|---|---|
| » Description |
The classified lidar data is exported as 2500 X 2500 foot tiles in the LAS format with any or all classes required to produce derivative products. |
| Process Date/Time | 2017-01-01 00:00:00 |
| Process Contact | |
| Phone (Voice) | |
| Email Address | |
| Source |
| Process Step Number | 7 |
|---|---|
| » Description |
Data for Oceana County were downloaded from the USGS Rocky ftp site in NAD83(2011) Michigan South State Plane (ft) coordinates with vertical feet NAVD88 (Geoid12b). Data were converted to geographic coordinates and ellipsoid heights for ingest in the NOAA Digital Coast Data Access Viewer. Classes listed in step 5 were noted to be incorrect. The observed classes fit the USGS LBS 1.2 with 1 = unclassified, 2 = ground, 7 = low noise, 9 = water, 10 = ignored ground near breakline, 17 = bridge deck, 18 = high noise |
| Process Date/Time | 2018-12-18 00:00:00 |
| Process Contact | Office for Coastal Management (OCM) |
| Phone (Voice) | |
| Email Address | |
| Source | Classified lidar |
| Process Step Number | 8 |
|---|---|
| » Description |
Data for Mason and Ottawa counties were downloaded from the USGS Rocky ftp site in NAD83 (2011) Michigan South State Plane (ft) coordinates (Ottawa) and Michigan Central State Plane (ft) coordinates (Mason) with vertical feet NAVD88 (Geoid12b). Data were converted to geographic coordinates and ellipsoid heights for ingest in the NOAA Digital Coast Data Access Viewer. The observed classes fit the USGS LBS 1.2 with 1 = unclassified, 2 = ground, 7 = low noise, 9 = water, 10 = ignored ground near breakline, 17 = bridge deck, 18 = high noise |
| Process Date/Time | 2019-04-05 00:00:00 |
| Process Contact | Office for Coastal Management (OCM) |
| Phone (Voice) | |
| Email Address | |
| Source |
| Process Step Number | 9 |
|---|---|
| » Description |
Data for Chippewa County were downloaded from the USGS Rocky ftp site in NAD83(2011) Michigan North State Plane (ft) coordinates with vertical feet NAVD88 (Geoid12b). Data were converted to geographic coordinates and ellipsoid heights for ingest in the NOAA Digital Coast Data Access Viewer. The observed classes fit the USGS LBS 1.2 with 1 = unclassified, 2 = ground, 7 = low noise, 9 = water, 10 = ignored ground near breakline, 17 = bridge deck, 18 = high noise |
| Process Date/Time | 2019-06-07 00:00:00 |
| Process Contact | Office for Coastal Management (OCM) |
| Phone (Voice) | |
| Email Address | |
| Source |
| Process Step Number | 10 |
|---|---|
| » Description |
Data for Arenac and Iosco counties were downloaded from the USGS Rocky ftp site in NAD83(2011) Michigan Central State Plane (ft) coordinates with vertical feet NAVD88 (Geoid12b). Data were converted to geographic coordinates and ellipsoid heights for ingest in the NOAA Digital Coast Data Access Viewer. The observed classes fit the USGS LBS 1.2 with 1 = unclassified, 2 = ground, 7 = low noise, 9 = water, 10 = ignored ground near breakline, 17 = bridge deck, 18 = high noise |
| Process Date/Time | 2019-06-14 00:00:00 |
| Process Contact | Office for Coastal Management (OCM) |
| Phone (Voice) | |
| Email Address | |
| Source |
| Process Step Number | 11 |
|---|---|
| » Description |
Data for Macomb, Monroe, and Sanilac counties were downloaded from the USGS Rocky ftp site in NAD83 (2011) Michigan South State Plane (ft) coordinates in NAVD88 (Geoid 12b) vertical feet. Data were converted to geographic coordinates and ellipsoid heights for ingest in the NOAA Digital Coast Data Access Viewer. The observed classes fit the USGS LBS 1.2 with 1 = unclassified, 2 = ground, 7 = low noise, 9 = water, 10 = ignored ground near breakline, 17 = bridge deck, 18 = high noise |
| Process Date/Time | 2019-06-21 00:00:00 |
| Process Contact | Office for Coastal Management (OCM) |
| Phone (Voice) | |
| Email Address | |
| Source |
| Process Step Number | 12 |
|---|---|
| » Description |
Data for Bay, Huron, St. Clair, and Tuscola counties were downloaded from the USGS Rocky ftp site in NAD83 (2011) Michigan South State Plane (ft) coordinates in NAVD88 (Geoid 12b) vertical feet. Data were converted to geographic coordinates and ellipsoid heights for ingest in the NOAA Digital Coast Data Access Viewer. The observed classes fit the USGS LBS 1.2 with 1 = unclassified, 2 = ground, 7 = low noise, 9 = water, 10 = ignored ground near breakline, 17 = bridge deck, 18 = high noise |
| Process Date/Time | 2019-12-19 00:00:00 |
| Process Contact | Office for Coastal Management (OCM) |
| Phone (Voice) | |
| Email Address | |
| Source |
| Process Step Number | 13 |
|---|---|
| » Description |
Data for Hillsdale, Kent and Oakland counties were downloaded from the USGS Rocky ftp site in NAD83 (2011) Michigan South State Plane (ft) coordinates in NAVD88 (Geoid 12b) vertical feet. Data were converted to geographic coordinates, from feet to meters, and to ellipsoid heights (using Geoid 12b) for ingest in the NOAA Digital Coast Data Access Viewer. The observed classes fit the USGS LBS 1.2 with 1 = unclassified, 2 = ground, 7 = low noise, 9 = water, 10 = ignored ground near breakline, 17 = bridge deck, 18 = high noise |
| Process Date/Time | 2020-08-14 00:00:00 |
| Process Contact | Office for Coastal Management (OCM) |
| Phone (Voice) | |
| Email Address | |
| Source |
| Process Step Number | 14 |
|---|---|
| » Description |
Data for Ogemaw county was downloaded from the USGS Rocky ftp site in NAD83(2011) Michigan Central State Plane (Int ft) coordinates with vertical feet NAVD88 (Geoid12b) elevations. Data were converted to geographic coordinates, from vertical feet to meters, and to ellipsoid heights (using Geoid 12b) for ingest in the NOAA Digital Coast Data Access Viewer. The observed classes fit the USGS LBS 1.2 with 1 = unclassified, 2 = ground, 7 = low noise, 9 = water, 10 = ignored ground near breakline, 17 = bridge deck, 18 = high noise |
| Process Date/Time | 2020-08-21 00:00:00 |
| Process Contact | Office for Coastal Management (OCM) |
| Phone (Voice) | |
| Email Address | |
| Source |
| Process Step Number | 15 |
|---|---|
| » Description |
Data for Livingston, Midland, and Washtenaw counties were downloaded from the USGS Rocky ftp site in NAD83(2011) Michigan South State Plane (Int ft) coordinates with vertical feet NAVD88 (Geoid12b) elevations. Data were converted to geographic coordinates, from vertical feet to meters, and to ellipsoid heights (using Geoid 12b) for ingest in the NOAA Digital Coast Data Access Viewer. The observed classes fit the USGS LBS 1.2 with 1 = unclassified, 2 = ground, 7 = low noise, 9 = water, 10 = ignored ground near breakline, 17 = bridge deck, 18 = high noise |
| Process Date/Time | 2020-08-28 00:00:00 |
| Process Contact | Office for Coastal Management (OCM) |
| Phone (Voice) | |
| Email Address | |
| Source |
| Process Step Number | 16 |
|---|---|
| » Description |
Data for Isabella, Jackson, and Lenawee counties were downloaded from the USGS Rocky ftp site in NAD83(2011) Michigan South State Plane (Int ft) coordinates with vertical feet NAVD88 (Geoid12b) elevations. Data were converted to geographic coordinates, from vertical feet to meters, and to ellipsoid heights (using Geoid 12b) for ingest in the NOAA Digital Coast Data Access Viewer. The observed classes fit the USGS LBS 1.2 with 1 = unclassified, 2 = ground, 7 = low noise, 9 = water, 10 = ignored ground near breakline, 17 = bridge deck, 18 = high noise |
| Process Date/Time | 2020-09-10 00:00:00 |
| Process Contact | Office for Coastal Management (OCM) |
| Phone (Voice) | |
| Email Address | |
| Source |
| Process Step Number | 17 |
|---|---|
| » Description |
Data for Clinton, Eaton, and Ingham counties were downloaded from the USGS Rocky ftp site in NAD83(2011) Michigan South State Plane (Int ft) coordinates with vertical feet NAVD88 (Geoid12b) elevations. Data were converted to geographic coordinates, from vertical feet to meters, and to ellipsoid heights (using Geoid 12b) for ingest in the NOAA Digital Coast Data Access Viewer. The observed classes fit the USGS LBS 1.2 with 1 = unclassified, 2 = ground, 7 = low noise, 9 = water, 10 = ignored ground near breakline, 17 = bridge deck, 18 = high noise |
| Process Date/Time | 2020-10-22 00:00:00 |
| Process Contact | Office for Coastal Management (OCM) |
| Phone (Voice) | |
| Email Address | |
| Source |
| Process Step Number | 18 |
|---|---|
| » Description |
Data for Ingham county was downloaded from the USGS Rocky ftp site in NAD83(2011) Michigan Central State Plane (Int ft) coordinates with vertical feet NAVD88 (Geoid12b) elevations. Data were converted to geographic coordinates, from vertical feet to meters, and to ellipsoid heights (using Geoid 12b) for ingest in the NOAA Digital Coast Data Access Viewer. The observed classes fit the USGS LBS 1.2 with 1 = unclassified, 2 = ground, 7 = low noise, 9 = water, 10 = ignored ground near breakline, 17 = bridge deck, 18 = high noise |
| Process Date/Time | 2020-10-23 00:00:00 |
| Process Contact | Office for Coastal Management (OCM) |
| Phone (Voice) | |
| Email Address | |
| Source |
| Process Step Number | 19 |
|---|---|
| » Description |
Data for Eaton (EatonB folder) and Arenac (Arenac_TL folder) counties were downloaded from the USGS Rocky ftp site in NAD83(2011) Michigan South & Central State Plane (Int ft) coordinates with vertical feet in NAVD88 (Geoid12b) elevations. Data were converted to geographic coordinates, from vertical feet to meters, and to ellipsoid heights (using Geoid 12b) for ingest in the NOAA Digital Coast Data Access Viewer. The observed classes fit the USGS LBS 1.2 with 1 = unclassified, 2 = ground, 7 = low noise, 9 = water, 10 = ignored ground near breakline, 17 = bridge deck, 18 = high noise |
| Process Date/Time | 2022-04-07 00:00:00 |
| Process Contact | Office for Coastal Management (OCM) |
| Phone (Voice) | |
| Email Address | |
| Source |
| Process Step Number | |
|---|---|
| » Description | |
| Process Date/Time | |
| Process Contact | |
| Phone (Voice) | |
| Email Address | |
| Source |
| Process Step Number | |
|---|---|
| » Description | |
| Process Date/Time | |
| Process Contact | |
| Phone (Voice) | |
| Email Address | |
| Source |
| Process Step Number | |
|---|---|
| » Description | |
| Process Date/Time | |
| Process Contact | |
| Phone (Voice) | |
| Email Address | |
| Source |
Acquisition Information
Instruments
| Instrument Unavailable Reason |
|---|
| Identifier | |
|---|---|
| Docucomp UUID | |
| Instrument / Gear | |
| Instrument Type | |
| Description |
| Identifier | |
|---|---|
| Docucomp UUID | |
| Instrument / Gear | |
| Instrument Type | |
| Description |
| Identifier | |
|---|---|
| Docucomp UUID | |
| Instrument / Gear | |
| Instrument Type | |
| Description |
Platforms
| Platform Unavailable Reason |
|---|
| Identifier | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Docucomp UUID | |||||||
| Description | |||||||
Mounted Instruments |
|||||||
|
|||||||
| Identifier | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Docucomp UUID | |||||||
| Description | |||||||
Mounted Instruments |
|||||||
|
|||||||
| Identifier | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Docucomp UUID | |||||||
| Description | |||||||
Mounted Instruments |
|||||||
|
|||||||
FAQs
| Date | |
|---|---|
| Author | |
| Question | |
| Answer |
Child Items
Rubric scores updated every 15m
| Score | Type | Title |
|---|---|---|
Related Items
| Item Type | Relationship Type | Title |
|---|---|---|
| Data Set (DS) | Cross Reference |
Oceana County - Michigan Lidar DEM 2017 DEMs created from this data. |
Catalog Details
| Catalog Item ID | 55315 |
|---|---|
| Metadata Record Created By | Kirk Waters |
| Metadata Record Created | 2018-12-18 10:52+0000 |
| Metadata Record Last Modified By | SysAdmin InPortAdmin |
| » Metadata Record Last Modified | 2023-10-17 16:12+0000 |
| Metadata Record Published | 2022-03-16 |
| Owner Org | OCMP |
| Metadata Publication Status | Published Externally |
| Do Not Publish? | N |
| Metadata Workflow State | Published / External |
| Metadata Last Review Date | 2022-03-16 |
| Metadata Review Frequency | 1 Year |
| Metadata Next Review Date | 2023-03-16 |
| Tags |
|---|