79784 Data Set Published / External 49404 DEMs - partner (no harvest) Project Completed 2018 2026 Original Product: Breakline data was used to hydro-flatten the DEMs created for the Ottawa National Forest, MI 2017 QL2 LiDAR project. Breaklines were reviewed against lidar intensity imagery to verify completeness of capture. Full Dataset Geographic Extent: Four counties in Michigan, covering approximately 2,563 total square miles. Original Dataset Description: The Ottawa National Forest, MI, 2017 LiDAR project called for the planning, acquisition, processing, and derivative products of lidar data to be collected at a nominal pulse spacing (NPS) of 0.7 meters. Project specifications are based on the U.S. Geological Survey National Geospatial Program Base LiDAR Specification, Version 1.2. Original Dataset Collection Ground Conditions: LiDAR was collected in spring of 2018, 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, Quantum Spatial, Inc. utilized a total of 59 ground control points that were used to calibrate the LiDAR to known ground locations established throughout the project area. An additional 143 independent accuracy checkpoints, 81 in Bare Earth and Urban landcovers (81 NVA points), 62 in Tall Weeds categories (62 VVA points), 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 digital elevation model (DEM) data for the 2018 USGS Lidar DEM: Ottawa National Forest, MI dataset in the NOAA Digital Coast Data Access Viewer (DAV). For this data set, the DAV is leveraging the GeoTIFF files hosted by USGS on Amazon Web Services. To acquire detailed surface elevation data for use in conservation planning, design, research, floodplain mapping, dam safety assessments and elevation modeling, etc. Classified LAS files are used to show the manually reviewed bare earth surface. This allows the user to create intensity images, breaklines and raster DEMs. The purpose of these LiDAR data was to produce high accuracy 3D hydro-flattened digital elevation models (DEMs) with a 2.5-foot cell size. These raw LiDAR point cloud data were used to create classified LiDAR LAS files, intensity images, 3D breaklines, and hydro-flattened DEMs as necessary. Breakline File Type = GDB Breakline Elevation Units =International Feet Downhill Treatment Applied = Monotonic, Proprietary Type of Hydro Treatment Required = Hydro-flattened Theme Global Change Master Directory (GCMD) Science Keywords EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > TOPOGRAPHY > TERRAIN ELEVATION Theme Global Change Master Directory (GCMD) Science Keywords EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > TOPOGRAPHY > TERRAIN ELEVATION > DIGITAL ELEVATION/TERRAIN MODEL (DEM) Theme Global Change Master Directory (GCMD) Science Keywords EARTH SCIENCE > OCEANS > BATHYMETRY/SEAFLOOR TOPOGRAPHY > BATHYMETRY > COASTAL BATHYMETRY Theme Global Change Master Directory (GCMD) Science Keywords EARTH SCIENCE > OCEANS > COASTAL PROCESSES > COASTAL ELEVATION Theme ISO 19115 Topic Category elevation Spatial Global Change Master Directory (GCMD) Location Keywords CONTINENT > NORTH AMERICA > UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Spatial Global Change Master Directory (GCMD) Location Keywords CONTINENT > NORTH AMERICA > UNITED STATES OF AMERICA > MICHIGAN Spatial Global Change Master Directory (GCMD) Location Keywords VERTICAL LOCATION > LAND SURFACE Spatial Global Change Master Directory (GCMD) Location Keywords VERTICAL LOCATION > SEA FLOOR Instrument Global Change Master Directory (GCMD) Instrument Keywords LIDAR > Light Detection and Ranging Platform Global Change Master Directory (GCMD) Platform Keywords Airplane > Airplane Spatial Global Change Master Directory (GCMD) Location Keywords Continent > North America > United States Of America > U.S. Coastline Spatial Continent > North America > United States Of America > Michigan > Gogebic County Spatial Continent > North America > United States Of America > Michigan > Houghton County Spatial Continent > North America > United States Of America > Michigan > Iron County Spatial Continent > North America > United States Of America > Michigan > Ontonagon County Office for Coastal Management Charleston SC Data Set Elevation None Planned Model (digital) Any conclusions drawn from the analysis of this information are not the responsibility of NOAA, the Office for Coastal Management or its partners. USGS, State of Michigan, Quantum Spatial, Inc. Data Steward 2026 Organization NOAA Office for Coastal Management NOAA/OCM coastal.info@noaa.gov 2234 South Hobson Ave Charleston SC 29405-2413 (843) 740-1202 https://coast.noaa.gov NOAA Office for Coastal Management Home Page Online Resource Distributor 2026 Organization NOAA Office for Coastal Management NOAA/OCM coastal.info@noaa.gov 2234 South Hobson Ave Charleston SC 29405-2413 (843) 740-1202 https://coast.noaa.gov NOAA Office for Coastal Management Home Page Online Resource Distributor 2019 Organization U.S. Geological Survey 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive Reston VA 20191 USA https://usgs.gov USGS Home Home page for USGS Online Resource Metadata Contact 2026 Organization NOAA Office for Coastal Management NOAA/OCM coastal.info@noaa.gov 2234 South Hobson Ave Charleston SC 29405-2413 (843) 740-1202 https://coast.noaa.gov NOAA Office for Coastal Management Home Page Online Resource Point of Contact 2026 Organization NOAA Office for Coastal Management NOAA/OCM coastal.info@noaa.gov 2234 South Hobson Ave Charleston SC 29405-2413 (843) 740-1202 https://coast.noaa.gov NOAA Office for Coastal Management Home Page Online Resource Ground Condition -90.24306067 -88.6095749 46.77110143 46.01211535 Range 2018-05-15 2018-10-24 2.5 Foot Yes No No No No Projected EPSG:6496 NAD83(2011) / Michigan North (ft) NAD83(2011) 1 easting X ft east 2 northing Y ft north Vertical EPSG:6360 NAVD88 height (ftUS) North American Vertical Datum 1988 1 Gravity-related height H US survey foot up Custom Unclassified Data is available online for bulk and custom downloads. None 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. https://coast.noaa.gov/dataviewer/#/lidar/search/where:ID=14167/details/14167 2026 Organization NOAA Office for Coastal Management Customized Download Create custom data files by choosing data area, map projection, file format, etc. A new metadata will be produced to reflect your request using this record as a base. Zip Zip https://prd-tnm.s3.amazonaws.com/index.html?prefix=StagedProducts/Elevation/OPR/Projects/MI_Ottawa_NF_2017_D17/ 2019 Organization U.S. Geological Survey Bulk Download Bulk download of data files in GeoTIFF format and in original coordinates. LAZ GeoTIFF https://noaa-nos-coastal-lidar-pds.s3.amazonaws.com/laz/geoid18/9013/supplemental/extent_Ottawa_MI_m9013.kmz Browse graphic Browse Graphic KML This graphic displays the footprint for this lidar data set. https://rockyweb.usgs.gov/vdelivery/Datasets/Staged/Elevation/metadata/MI_Ottawa_NF_2017_D17/MI_Ottawa_NF_2017/ Breaklines Online Resource Zip Link to the breaklines. https://rockyweb.usgs.gov/vdelivery/Datasets/Staged/Elevation/metadata/MI_Ottawa_NF_2017_D17/MI_Ottawa_NF_2017/reports/Project_Report.pdf Lidar Report Online Resource pdf Link to the lidar report. The project specifications require the accuracy (ACCz) of the derived DEM be calculated and reported in two ways: 1. The required NVA is: 19.6 cm at a 95% confidence level, derived according to NSSDA, i.e., based on RMSE of 10 cm in the "bare earth" and "urban" land cover classes. This is a required accuracy. The NVA was tested with 81 checkpoints located in bare earth and urban (non-vegetated) areas. 2. Vegetated Vertical Accuracy (VVA): VVA shall be reported for "tall weeds" land cover classes. The target VVA is: 29.4 cm at the 95th percentile, derived according to ASPRS Guidelines, Vertical Accuracy Reporting for LiDAR Data, i.e., based on the 95th percentile error in all vegetated land cover classes combined. This is a target accuracy. The VVA was tested with 62 checkpoints located in forested and tall weeds (vegetated) areas. The checkpoints were distributed throughout the project area and were surveyed using GPS techniques. See survey report for additional survey methodologies. AccuracyZ has been tested to meet 19.6 cm or better Non-Vegetated Vertical Accuracy at 95% confidence level using RMSE(z) x 1.9600 as defined by the National Standards for Spatial Data Accuracy (NSSDA); assessed and reported using National Digital Elevation Program (NDEP)/ASRPS Guidelines. Tested 0.845 meters NVA at a 95% confidence level using RMSE(z) x 1.9600 as defined by the National Standards for Spatial Data Accuracy (NSSDA). The NVA of the DEM was calculated using 81 independent checkpoints located in the Bare Earth and Urban land cover categories. Tested 1.37 meters VVA was calculated using 62 checkpoints located in the Forested and Tall Weeds land cover categories at the 95th percentile, derived according to ASPRS Guidelines, Vertical Accuracy Reporting for LiDAR Data. Tested against the DEM. Datasets contain complete coverage of tiles. No points have been removed or excluded. A visual qualitative assessment was performed to ensure data completeness. There are no void areas or missing data. The raw point cloud is of good quality and data passes Non-Vegetated Vertical Accuracy specifications. Data cover the entire area specified for this project. Yes Unknown Yes NCEI-CO Data is backed up to tape and to cloud storage. The NOAA Office for Coastal Management (OCM) ingested references to the USGS GeoTIFF files that are hosted on Amazon Web Services (AWS), into the Digital Coast Data Access Viewer (DAV). The DAV accesses the raster data as it resides on AWS. USGS AWS GeoTIFF Files - MI_Ottawa_NF_2017 Organization USGS Publisher https://prd-tnm.s3.amazonaws.com/index.html?prefix=StagedProducts/Elevation/OPR/Projects/MI_Ottawa_NF_2017_D17/MI_Ottawa_NF_2017/TIFF/ USGS AWS GeoTIFF Files for MI_Ottawa_NF_2017 USGS AWS GeoTIFF Files - MI_Ottawa_NF_TL_2017 Organization USGS Publisher https://prd-tnm.s3.amazonaws.com/index.html?prefix=StagedProducts/Elevation/OPR/Projects/MI_Ottawa_NF_2017_D17/MI_Ottawa_NF_TL_2017/TIFF/ USGS AWS GeoTIFF Files for MI_Ottawa_NF_TL_2017 1 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 technician 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. 2018-01-01T00:00:00 10 The NOAA Office for Coastal Management (OCM) created references to the USGS GeoTIFF files that were ingested into the NOAA Digital Coast Data Access Viewer (DAV). No changes were made to the data. The DAV will access the raster data as it resides on Amazon Web Services (AWS). These are the GeoTIFF files that are being accessed: https://prd-tnm.s3.amazonaws.com/index.html?prefix=StagedProducts/Elevation/OPR/Projects/MI_Ottawa_NF_2017_D17/MI_Ottawa_NF_2017/TIFF/ https://prd-tnm.s3.amazonaws.com/index.html?prefix=StagedProducts/Elevation/OPR/Projects/MI_Ottawa_NF_2017_D17/MI_Ottawa_NF_TL_2017/TIFF/ 2026-05-18T00:00:00 Organization Office for Coastal Management OCM https://ror.org/05v14bq57 2234 South Hobson Avenue Charleston SC 29405-2413 https://www.coast.noaa.gov/ 2 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 10). 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 overlap data was processed through automated functionality provided by TerraScan to classify the overlapping flight line data to approved classes by USGS. The overlap data was classified using standard LAS overlap bit. These classes were created through automated processes only and were not verified for classification accuracy. Due to software limitations within TerraScan, these classes were used to trip the withheld bit within various software packages. These processes were reviewed and accepted by USGS through numerous conference calls and pilot study areas. 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. 2018-01-01T00:00:00 3 Hydro-Flattened Breakline Processing: Class 2 (ground) LiDAR points were used to create a bare earth surface model. The surface model was then used to heads-up digitize 2D breaklines of inland streams and rivers with a 100-foot nominal width and inland ponds and lakes of 2 acres or greater surface area. Elevation values were assigned to all Inland Ponds and Lakes, Inland Pond and Lake Islands, Inland Stream and River Islands, using TerraModeler functionality. Elevation values were assigned to all inland streams and rivers using Quantum Spatial, Inc. proprietary software. All Ground (ASPRS Class 2) LiDAR data inside of the collected inland 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. These points were moved from ground (ASPRS Class 2) to Ignored Ground (ASPRS Class 10). The breakline files were then translated to Esri file geodatabase format using Esri conversion tools. Breaklines were reviewed against LiDAR intensity imagery to verify completeness of capture. All breaklines were then compared to TINs (triangular irregular networks) created from ground only points prior to water classification. The horizontal placement of breaklines was compared to terrain features and the breakline elevations were compared to LiDAR elevations to ensure all breaklines matched the LiDAR within acceptable tolerances. Some deviation was expected between breakline and LiDAR elevations due to monotonicity, connectivity, and flattening rules that were enforced on the breaklines. Once completeness, horizontal placement, and vertical variance were reviewed, all breaklines were reviewed for topological consistency and data integrity using a combination of Esri Data Reviewer tools and proprietary tools. 2018-01-01T00:00:00 4 Hydro-Flattened Raster DEM Processing: Class 2 (Ground) LiDAR points in conjunction with the hydro-breaklines were used to create a 2.5-foot hydro-flattened raster DEM. Using automated scripting routines within ArcMap, an ERDAS Imagine .IMG file was created for each tile. Each surface was reviewed using Global Mapper to check for any surface anomalies or incorrect elevations found within the surface. 2018-01-01T00:00:00 58790 Data Set Cross Reference gov.noaa.nmfs.inport:79784 Rebecca Mataosky 2026-05-18T15:41:16 Rebecca Mataosky 2026-05-18T17:34:44 2026-05-18 OCM Partners OCMP 1002 Public No No 2022-03-16 1 Year 2023-03-16