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
Product: This project was designed to acquire and produce QL1 lidar data to support the Florida Division of Emergency Management (FDEM) "Florida Statewide Lidar" initiative. These lidar data are processed Classified LAS 1.4 files, formatted to individual 5000 ft x 5000 ft tiles; used to create intensity images, 3D breaklines, and hydro-flattened DEMs as necessary.
Geographic Extent: The project area covers 35 counties in peninsular Florida. A total of 39,217 tiles were produced for the project, providing approximately 34,950 sq. miles of coverage.
Dataset Description: The Florida Peninsular project called for the planning, acquisition, processing, and derivative products of lidar data to be collected at a nominal pulse spacing (NPS) of 0.35 meters. Project specifications are based on the U.S. Geological Survey National Geospatial Program Base LiDAR Specification, Version 1.3. The data were developed based on a horizontal projection/datum of NAD83(2011) / Florida North/East/West (ftUS), Foot US and vertical datum of NAVD88 GEOID12B, Foot US. LiDAR data were delivered as processed Classified LAS 1.4 files formatted to individual 5000 ft x 5000 ft tiles, as tiled intensity imagery, and as tiled bare earth DEMs; all tiled to the same 5000 ft x 5000 ft schema. Continuous breaklines were produced in Esri file geodatabase format.
Ground Conditions: LiDAR was collected in 2018, 2019 and 2020, while no snow was on the ground and rivers were at or below normal levels. In order to post process the LiDAR data to meet task order specifications and meet ASPRS vertical accuracy guidelines ground control points that were used to calibrate the LiDAR to known ground locations established throughout the project area. Additional independent accuracy checkpoints were used to assess the vertical accuracy of the data. These checkpoints were not used to calibrate or post process the data.
This metadata record supports the data entry in the NOAA Digital Coast Data Access Viewer (DAV). For this data set, the DAV is leveraging the Entwine Point Tiles (EPT) hosted by USGS on Amazon Web Services for all counties except for Collier. The DAV is using an on prem version of Collier County.
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):
The lidar data were collected for the Florida Department of Emergency Management (FDEM) and provided to the USGS. The NOAA Office for Coastal Management (OCM) ingested references for 34/35 counties that make up this dataset, to the USGS Entwine Point Tile (EPT) files hosted on Amazon Web Services (AWS) into the Digital Coast Data Access Viewer (DAV). The DAV accesses the point cloud as it resides on AWS under the usgs-lidar-public-container. For Collier County, the DAV is accessing on-prem files.
- 2019-12-16 00:00:00 - Raw Data and Boresight Processing: The boresight for each lift was done individually as the solution may change slightly from lift to lift. The following steps describe the Raw Data Processing and Boresight process: 1) Technicians processed the raw data to LAS format flight lines using the final GPS/IMU solution. This LAS data set was used as source data for boresight. 2) Technicians first used Quantum Spatial, Inc. proprietary and commercial software to calculate initial boresight adjustment angles based on sample areas selected in the lift. These areas cover calibration flight lines collected in the lift, cross tie, and production flight lines. These areas are well distributed in the lift coverage and cover multiple terrain types that are necessary for boresight angle calculation. The technicians then analyzed the results and made any necessary additional adjustment until it was acceptable for the selected areas. 3) Once the boresight angle calculation was completed for the selected areas, the adjusted settings were applied to all of the flight lines of the lift and checked for consistency. The technicians utilized commercial and proprietary software packages to analyze how well flight line overlaps matched for the entire lift and adjusted as necessary until the results met the project specifications. 4) Once all lifts were completed with individual boresight adjustment, the technicians checked and corrected the vertical misalignment of all flight lines and also the matching between data and ground truth. The relative accuracy was less than or equal to 7 cm RMSEz within individual swaths and less than or equal to 10 cm RMSEz or within swath overlap (between adjacent swaths). 5) The technicians ran a final vertical accuracy check of the boresighted flight lines against the surveyed checkpoints after the z correction to ensure the requirement of NVA = 19.6 cm 95% Confidence Level (Required Accuracy) was met.
- 2019-12-16 00:00:00 - LAS Point Classification: The point classification was performed as described below. The bare earth surface was manually reviewed to ensure correct classification on the Class 2 (Ground) points. After the bare-earth surface was finalized, it was then used to generate all hydro-breaklines through heads-up digitization. All ground (ASPRS Class 2) LiDAR data inside of the Lake Pond and Double Line Drain hydro-flattened breaklines were then classified to Water (ASPRS Class 9) using TerraScan macro functionality. A buffer of 1 meter was also used around each hydro-flattened feature to classify these ground (ASPRS Class 2) points to Ignored ground (ASPRS Class 20). All Lake Pond Island and Double Line Drain Island features were checked to ensure that the ground (ASPRS Class 2) points were reclassified to the correct classification after the automated classification was completed. All data were manually reviewed and any remaining artifacts removed using functionality provided by TerraScan and TerraModeler. Global Mapper was used as a final check of the bare earth dataset. GeoCue was then used to create the deliverable industry-standard LAS files for both the All Point Cloud Data and the Bare Earth. Quantum Spatial, Inc. proprietary software was used to perform final statistical analysis of the classes in the LAS files, on a per tile level to verify final classification metrics and full LAS header information.
- 2021-04-05 00:00:00 - The NOAA Office for Coastal Management (OCM) downloaded data sets from this USGS site: ftp://rockyftp.cr.usgs.gov/vdelivery/Datasets/Staged/Elevation/LPC/Projects/ The data sets downloaded were: FL_Peninsular_FDEM_2018_D19_DRRA/FL_Peninsular_FDEM_Collier_2018/ Number of files: 530 FL_Peninsular_FDEM_2018_D19_DRRA/FL_Peninsular_FDEM_KeyBiscayne_2020/ Number of files: 14 FL_Peninsular_FDEM_2018_D19_DRRA/FL_Peninsular_FDEM_Nassau_2018/ Number of files: 763 These files were processed to the Data Access Viewer (DAV) and https. Additional areas will be downloaded, processed, and added to this data set as they are made available from USGS. The data were in FL State Plane East (NAD83 2011), US survey feet coordinates and NAVD88 (Geoid12B) elevations in feet. The data were classified as: 1 - Unclassified, 2 - Ground, 6 - Buildings, 7 - Low Noise, 9 - Water, 17 - Bridge Decks, 18 - High Noise, 20 - Ignored Ground. OCM processed all classifications of points to the Digital Coast Data Access Viewer (DAV). Classes available on the DAV are: 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 17, 18, 20. OCM performed the following processing on the data for Digital Coast storage and provisioning purposes: 1. Internal OCM scripts were run to check the number of points by classification and by flight ID and the gps, elevation, and intensity ranges. 2. Internal OCM scripts were run on the laz files to: a. Convert from orthometric (NAVD88) elevations to ellipsoid elevations using the Geoid12B model b. Convert the Collier, Key Biscayne, and Nassau laz files from FL State Plane East Zone 0901 (NAD83 2011), US survey foot coordinates to geographic coordinates c. Convert from vertical units of feet to meters d. Filter points outside the elevation range of -100 to 3000 feet e. Filter points outside the geographic range of the bounding coordinates of -89, 24, -79, 31 degrees f. Assign the geokeys, sort the data by gps time and zip the data to database and to https.
- 2023-03-03 00:00:00 - With the release of the remainder of the counties in EPT format, the on prem versions of Nassau County and Key Biscayne were removed from the database and the USGS EPT versions were leveraged instead. Collier County was not available as EPT at this time and so the data for it was retained on prem. The dataset was however, converted from ellipsoid elevations to NAVD88 (GEOID12B) elevations in order to be in the same vertical datum as the leveraged USGS EPT county versions.
- 2021-01-01 00:00:00 - Original point clouds in LAS/LAZ format were restructured as Entwine Point Tiles and stored on Amazon Web Services. The data were re-projected horizontally to WGS84 web mercator (EPSG 3857) and no changes were made to the vertical elevations in NAVD88 (GEOID12B).
- 2023-03-24 00:00:00 - The NOAA Office for Coastal Management (OCM) created references to the Entwine Point Tile (EPT) files that were ingested into the NOAA Digital Coast Data Access Viewer (DAV). No changes were made to the data. At the time of processing, Collier County was not yet available via EPT. The DAV will access the point cloud as it resides on Amazon Web Services (AWS) under the usgs-lidar-public container. These are the AWS URLs being accessed: https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usgs-lidar-public/FL_Peninsular_FDEM_Alachua_2018/ept.json https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usgs-lidar-public/FL_Peninsular_FDEM_Baker_2018/ept.json https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usgs-lidar-public/FL_Peninsular_FDEM_Bradford_2018/ept.json https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usgs-lidar-public/FL_Peninsular_FDEM_Brevard_2018/ept.json https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usgs-lidar-public/FL_Peninsular_FDEM_Charlotte_2018/ept.json https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usgs-lidar-public/FL_Peninsular_FDEM_Clay_2018/ept.json https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usgs-lidar-public/FL_Peninsular_FDEM_Columbia_2018/ept.json https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usgs-lidar-public/FL_Peninsular_FDEM_Desoto_2018/ept.json https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usgs-lidar-public/FL_Peninsular_FDEM_Dixie_2018/ept.json https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usgs-lidar-public/FL_Peninsular_FDEM_Duval_2018/ept.json https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usgs-lidar-public/FL_Peninsular_FDEM_Gilchrist_2018/ept.json https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usgs-lidar-public/FL_Peninsular_FDEM_Glades_2018/ept.json https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usgs-lidar-public/FL_Peninsular_FDEM_Hamilton_2018/ept.json https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usgs-lidar-public/FL_Peninsular_FDEM_Hardee_2018/ept.json https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usgs-lidar-public/FL_Peninsular_FDEM_Hendry_2018/ept.json https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usgs-lidar-public/FL_Peninsular_FDEM_Highlands_2018/ept.json https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usgs-lidar-public/FL_Peninsular_FDEM_IndianRiver_2018/ept.json https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usgs-lidar-public/FL_Peninsular_FDEM_KeyBiscayne_2020/ept.json https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usgs-lidar-public/FL_Peninsular_FDEM_Lafayette_2018/ept.json https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usgs-lidar-public/FL_Peninsular_FDEM_Madison_2018/ept.json https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usgs-lidar-public/FL_Peninsular_FDEM_Manatee_2018/ept.json https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usgs-lidar-public/FL_Peninsular_FDEM_Martin_2018/ept.json https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usgs-lidar-public/FL_Peninsular_FDEM_Nassau_2018/ept.json https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usgs-lidar-public/FL_Peninsular_FDEM_Okeechobee_2018/ept.json https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usgs-lidar-public/FL_Peninsular_FDEM_Orange_2018/ept.json https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usgs-lidar-public/FL_Peninsular_FDEM_Osceola_2018/ept.json https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usgs-lidar-public/FL_Peninsular_FDEM_PalmBeach_2019/ept.json https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usgs-lidar-public/FL_Peninsular_FDEM_Polk_2018/ept.json https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usgs-lidar-public/FL_Peninsular_FDEM_Sarasota_2018/ept.json https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usgs-lidar-public/FL_Peninsular_FDEM_StJohns_2018/ept.json https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usgs-lidar-public/FL_Peninsular_FDEM_StLucie_2020/ept.json https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usgs-lidar-public/FL_Peninsular_FDEM_Suwannee_2018/ept.json https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usgs-lidar-public/FL_Peninsular_FDEM_Taylor_2018/ept.json https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usgs-lidar-public/FL_Peninsular_FDEM_Union_2018/ept.json
(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.
- 1.7. Data collection method(s)
- 3.1. Responsible Party for Data Management
- 5.2. Quality control procedures employed
- 7.1.1. If data are not available or has limitations, has a Waiver been filed?
- 7.4. Approximate delay between data collection and dissemination
- 8.3. Approximate delay between data collection and submission to an archive facility
(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.
Data is available online for bulk and custom downloads.
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
Data is backed up to tape and to cloud storage.
9. Additional Line Office or Staff Office Questions
Line and Staff Offices may extend this template by inserting additional questions in this section.