Known Issue with Distributions: We have been made aware of an issue introduced in the current release with the new Distribution Format field. When creating a new Distribution, if Distribution Format is not populated, you will encounter an unintended application error. Until this issue is fixed, if you need to create Distributions without a Distribution Format, please use the following workar...
View All
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:
2017 NWFWMD Lidar DEM: Lower Choctawhatchee
1.2. Summary description of the data:

Airborne Imaging Inc. collected 3,081 square miles in northwest Florida over the Choctawhatchee Watershed and extending into the adjacent St. Andrews - St. Joseph Bays Watershed. Counties affected include, Holmes, Washington, Jackson, Bay, Gulf, and Walton. The nominal pulse spacing for this project was 1 point every 0.7 meters. Dewberry used proprietary procedures to classify the LAS according to project specifications: 0-Never Classified, 1-Unclassified, 2-Ground, 7-Low Noise, 9-Water, 10-Ignored Ground due to breakline proximity, 17- Bridges, 18-High Noise. Dewberry produced 3D breaklines and combined these with the final lidar data to produce seamless hydro flattened DEMs for the project area. The data was formatted according to the US National Grid tile naming convention with each tile covering an area of 1,500 meters by 1,500 meters. A total of 3,893 tiles were produced for the entire project.

The NOAA Office for Coastal Management (OCM) received this data from the Northwest Florida Water Management District and processed the data to the Data Access Viewer (DAV) and https.

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

Breaklines 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:
2017-04-09 to 2017-05-17
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: -86.403077, E: -84.994371, N: 31.005941, S: 29.649391
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.)
Model (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:

  • 2017-05-17 00:00:00 - Data for the Choctawhatchee Lidar project was acquired by Airborne Imaging, Inc. The project area included approximately 3,081 contiguous square miles or 7,980 square kilometers for portions of Florida. Lidar sensor data were collected with the Riegl LMS-Q1560 lidar system. The data was delivered in the UTM coordinate system, meters, zone 16, horizontal datum NAD83 (2011), vertical datum NAVD88, Geoid 12B. Deliverables for the project included a raw (unclassified) calibrated lidar point cloud, survey control, and a final acquisition/calibration report. The calibration process considered all errors inherent with the equipment including errors in GPS, IMU, and sensor specific parameters. Adjustments were made to achieve a flight line to flight line data match (relative calibration) and subsequently adjusted to control for absolute accuracy. Process steps to achieve this are as follows: Rigorous lidar calibration: all sources of error such as the sensor's ranging and torsion parameters, atmospheric variables, GPS conditions, and IMU offsets were analyzed and removed to the highest level possible. This method addresses all errors, both vertical and horizontal in nature. Ranging, atmospheric variables, and GPS conditions affect the vertical position of the surface, whereas IMU offsets and torsion parameters affect the data horizontally. The horizontal accuracy is proven through repeatability: when the position of features remains constant no matter what direction the plane was flying and no matter where the feature is positioned within the swath, relative horizontal accuracy is achieved. Absolute horizontal accuracy is achieved through the use of differential GPS with base lines shorter than 20 miles. The base station is set at a temporary monument that is 'tied-in' to the CORS network. The same position is used for every lift, ensuring that any errors in its position will affect all data equally and can therefore be removed equally. Vertical accuracy is achieved through the adjustment to ground control survey points within the finished product. Although the base station has absolute vertical accuracy, adjustments to sensor parameters introduces vertical error that must be normalized in the final (mean) adjustment. The withheld and overlap bits are set and all headers, appropriate point data records, and variable length records, including spatial reference information, are updated in GeoCue software and then verified using proprietary Dewberry tools.
  • 2017-06-01 00:00:00 - Dewberry utilizes a variety of software suites for inventory management, classification, and data processing. All lidar related processes begin by importing the data into the GeoCue task management software. The swath data is tiled according to project specifications (1,500 m x 1,500 m). The tiled data is then opened in Terrascan where Dewberry classifies edge of flight line points that may be geometrically unusable with the withheld bit. These points are separated from the main point cloud so that they are not used in the ground algorithms. Overage points are then identified with the overlap bit. Dewberry then uses proprietary ground classification routines to remove any non-ground points and generate an accurate ground surface. The ground routine consists of three main parameters (building size, iteration angle, and iteration distance); by adjusting these parameters and running several iterations of this routine an initial ground surface is developed. The building size parameter sets a roaming window size. Each tile is loaded with neighboring points from adjacent tiles and the routine classifies the data section by section based on this roaming window size. The second most important parameter is the maximum terrain angle, which sets the highest allowed terrain angle within the model. As part of the ground routine, low noise points are classified to class 7 and high noise points are classified to class 18. Once the ground routine has been completed, bridge decks are classified to class 17 using bridge breaklines compiled by Dewberry. A manual quality control routine is then performed using hillshades, cross-sections, and profiles within the Terrasolid software suite. After this QC step, a peer review is performed on all tiles and a supervisor manual inspection is completed on a percentage of the classified tiles based on the project size and variability of the terrain. After the ground classification and bridge deck corrections are completed, the dataset is processed through a water classification routine that utilizes breaklines compiled by Dewberry to automatically classify hydrographic features. The water classification routine selects ground points within the breakline polygons and automatically classifies them as class 9, water. During this water classification routine, points that are within 1x NPS or less of the hydrographic features are moved to class 10, an ignored ground due to breakline proximity. A final QC is performed on the data. All headers, appropriate point data records, and variable length records, including spatial reference information, are updated in GeoCue software and then verified using proprietary Dewberry tools. The data was classified as follows: Class 1 = Unclassified. This class includes vegetation, buildings, noise etc. Class 2 = Ground Class 7= Low Noise Class 9 = Water Class 10 = Ignored Ground due to breakline proximity Class 17 = Bridge Decks Class 18 = High Noise The LAS header information was verified to contain the following: Class (Integer) Adjusted GPS Time (0.0001 seconds) Easting (0.003 m) Northing (0.003 m) Elevation (0.003 m) Echo Number (Integer) Echo (Integer) Intensity (16 bit integer) Flight Line (Integer) Scan Angle (degree)
  • 2017-07-03 00:00:00 - Dewberry used GeoCue software to produce intensity imagery and raster stereo models from the source lidar. The raster resolution was 0.3 meters. Lidar intensity stereopairs were viewed in 3-D stereo using Socet Set for ArcGIS softcopy photogrammetric software. The breaklines are collected directly into an ArcGIS file geodatabase to ensure correct topology. The lidargrammetry was performed under the direct supervision of an ASPRS Certified Photogrammetrist. The breaklines were stereo-compiled in accordance with the Data Dictionary. Lakes and Ponds, Streams and Rivers, and Tidal were collected according to specifications for the Lower Choctawhatchee Lidar Project.
  • 2017-12-01 00:00:00 - Dewberry digitzed 2D bridge deck polygons from the intensity imagery and used these polygons to classify bridge deck points in the LAS to class 17. As some bridges are hard to identify in intensity imagery, Dewberry then used ESRI software to generate bare earth elevation rasters. Bare earth elevation rasters do not contain bridges. As bridges are removed from bare earth DEMs but DEMs are continuous surfaces, the area between bridge abutments must be interpolated. The rasters are reviewed to ensure all locations where the interpolation in a DEM indicates a bridge have been collected in the 2D bridge deck polygons.
  • 2017-12-01 00:00:00 - The bridge deck polygons are loaded into Terrascan software. Lidar points and surface models created from ground lidar points are reviewed and 3D bridge breaklines are compiled in Terrascan. Typically, two breaklines are compiled for each bridge deck-one breakline along the ground of each abutment. The bridge breaklines are placed perpendicular to the bridge deck and extend just beyond the extents of the bridge deck. Extending the bridge breaklines beyond the extent of the bridge deck allows the compiler to use ground elevations from the ground lidar data for each endpoint of the breakline. The 3D endpoints of each breakline are used to enforce a continous slope on the ground under the bridge deck along the collected breakline. These breaklines are used in the final DEM production and help to reduce the appearance of bridge saddles.
  • 2017-12-01 00:00:00 - Breaklines are reviewed against lidar intensity imagery to verify completeness of capture. All breaklines are then compared to ESRI terrains created from ground only points prior to water classification. The horizontal placement of breaklines is compared to terrain features and the breakline elevations are compared to lidar elevations to ensure all breaklines match the lidar within acceptable tolerances. Some deviation is expected between hydrographic breakline and lidar elevations due to monotonicity, connectivity, and flattening rules that are enforced on the hydrographic breaklines. Once completeness, horizontal placement, and vertical variance is reviewed, all breaklines are reviewed for topological consistency and data integrity using a combination of ESRI Data Reviewer tools and proprietary tools. Corrections are performed within the QC workflow and re-validated
  • 2018-01-02 00:00:00 - Class 2, ground, lidar points are exported from the LAS files into an Arc Geodatabase (GDB) in multipoint format. The 3D breaklines, Inland Lakes and Ponds, Inland Streams and Rivers, Tidal, and bridge breaklines are imported into the same GDB. An ESRI Terrain is generated from these inputs. The surface type of each input is as follows: Ground Multipoint: Masspoints Inland Lakes and Ponds: Hard Replace Inland Rivers and Streams : Hard Line Tidal Breaklines: Hard Line Bridge Breaklines: Hard Line
  • 2018-01-02 00:00:00 - The ESRI Terrain is converted to a raster. The raster is created using linear interpolation with a 1 meter cell size. The DEM is reviewed with hillshades in both ArcGIS and Global Mapper. Hillshades allow the analyst to view the DEMs in 3D and to more efficiently locate and identify potential issues. Analysts review the DEM for missed lidar classification issues, incorrect breakline elevations, incorrect hydro-flattening, and artifacts that are introduced during the raster creation process.
  • 2018-01-02 00:00:00 - The corrected and final DEM is clipped to individual tiles. Dewberry uses a proprietary tool that clips the DEM to each tile located within the final Tile Grid, names the clipped DEM to the Tile Grid Cell name, and verifies that final extents are correct. All individual tiles are loaded into Global Mapper for the last review. During this last review, an analsyt checks to ensure full, complete coverage, no issues along tile boundaries, tiles seamlessly edge-match, and that there are no remaining processing artifacts in the dataset.
  • 2019-03-21 00:00:00 - The NOAA Office for Coastal Management (OCM) received 3893 ESRI grid files from the NWFWMD. The data were in UTM Zone 16 North NAD83 2011 coordinates (meters) and NAVD88 (Geoid12B) elevations in US survey feet. This information however, was not present in the file georeferencing. NOAA OCM added the projection and vertical georeferencing information. The bare earth raster files were at a 1 meter grid spacing. OCM performed the following processing on the data for Digital Coast storage and provisioning purposes: 1. Used gdal_translate to add the projection and vertical georeferencing (EPSG codes 6345 and 6360) information to the files. 2. Used gdal_translate to convert the files from ESRI grid format to geotiff format. 3. Copied the files to https
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 bulk and custom 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