gov.noaa.nmfs.inport:69338 eng UTF8 dataset Elevation National Geodetic Survey resourceProvider NGS Communications and Outreach Branch (301) 713-3242 (301) 713-4172 ngs.infocenter@noaa.gov pointOfContact 2026-03-04T19:17:17 ISO 19115-2 Geographic Information - Metadata Part 2 Extensions for imagery and gridded data ISO 19115-2:2009(E) EPSG::6345 EPSG::6346 EPSG::5703 2019 - 2020 NOAA NGS Topobathy Lidar DEM: Hurricane Michael (NW Florida) 2023-01 publication NOAA/NMFS/EDM 69338 https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/inport/item/69338 WWW:LINK-1.0-http--link Full Metadata Record View the complete metadata record on InPort for more information about this dataset. information https://coast.noaa.gov/dataviewer/ WWW:LINK-1.0-http--link NOAA's Office for Coastal Management (OCM) Data Access Viewer (DAV) 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. download The 2019 - 2020 NOAA NGS Topobathy Lidar DEM: Hurricane Michael data were collected by multiple contractors including NV5 and Dewberry. The 100 meter buffered project area consists of approximately 2,120,060 acres encompassing the Florida Panhandle and extending south to New Port Richey, Florida, and was collected between November 2019 - July 2020 using a Leica Chiroptera 4X system. The dataset includes topobathymetric digital elevation model data in geoTIFF format at 1 meter horizontal resolution. This lidar data are an ancillary product of NOAA's Coastal Mapping Program (CMP), created through a wider Integrated Ocean and Coastal Mapping (IOCM) initiative to increase support for multiple uses of the data. It is not intended for mapping, charting, or navigation. In addition, it will be used for ongoing research efforts for testing and developing standards for airborne lidar. We request that you credit the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) when you use these data in a report, publication, or presentation., Department of Commerce (DOC), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Geodetic Survey (NGS), Remote Sensing Division Department of Commerce (DOC), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Ocean Service (NOS), Office for Coastal Management (OCM) completed NGS Communications and Outreach Branch (301) 713-3242 (301) 713-4172 ngs.infocenter@noaa.gov pointOfContact NGS Communications and Outreach Branch (301) 713-3242 (301) 713-4172 ngs.infocenter@noaa.gov custodian notPlanned EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > TOPOGRAPHY > TERRAIN ELEVATION EARTH SCIENCE > OCEANS > COASTAL PROCESSES > COASTAL ELEVATION theme Global Change Master Directory (GCMD) Science Keywords 17.0 CONTINENT > NORTH AMERICA > UNITED STATES OF AMERICA VERTICAL LOCATION > LAND SURFACE place Global Change Master Directory (GCMD) Location Keywords 20.8 LIDAR > Light Detection and Ranging instrument Global Change Master Directory (GCMD) Instrument Keywords 17.2 Airplane > Airplane platform Global Change Master Directory (GCMD) Platform Keywords 17.2 EARTH SCIENCE > Oceans > Bathymetry/Seafloor Topography > Bathymetry theme CoRIS Theme Thesaurus CoRIS theme NOAA NOS Harvest Catalog COUNTRY/TERRITORY > United States of America > Florida OCEAN BASIN > Atlantic Ocean > North Atlantic Ocean > Florida place CoRIS Place Thesaurus DOC/NOAA/NOS/NGS > National Geodetic Survey, National Ocean Service, NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce dataCentre Global Change Master Directory (GCMD) Data Center Keywords 2017-04-24 publication 8.5 Earth Science Data and Information System, Earth Science Projects Division, Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) https://forum.earthdata.nasa.gov/app.php/tag/GCMD%2BKeywords GCMD Keyword Forum Page Global Change Master Directory (GCMD). 2025. GCMD Keywords, Version 22. Greenbelt, MD: Earth Science Data and Information System, Earth Science Projects Division, Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). URL (GCMD Keyword Forum Page): https://forum.earthdata.nasa.gov/app.php/tag/GCMD+Keywords information custodian NGS Lidar project InPort otherRestrictions Cite As: National Geodetic Survey, [Date of Access]: 2019 - 2020 NOAA NGS Topobathy Lidar DEM: Hurricane Michael (NW Florida) [Data Date Range], https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/inport/item/69338. NOAA provides no warranty, nor accepts any liability occurring from any incomplete, incorrect, or misleading data, or from any incorrect, incomplete, or misleading use of the data. It is the responsibility of the user to determine whether or not the data is suitable for the intended purpose. otherRestrictions Access Constraints: None otherRestrictions 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. otherRestrictions Distribution Liability: Any conclusions drawn from the analysis of this information are not the responsibility of NOAA, the National Geodetic Survey, the Office for Coastal Management, or its partners. Any conclusions drawn from the analysis of this information are not the responsibility of NOAA, the Office for Coastal Management or its partners unclassified NOAA Data Management Plan (DMP) NOAA/NMFS/EDM 69338 https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/inportserve/waf/noaa/nos/ngs/dmp/pdf/69338.pdf WWW:LINK-1.0-http--link NOAA Data Management Plan (DMP) NOAA Data Management Plan for this record on InPort. information crossReference grid tin 1 eng; US elevation OS Independent Below are both the individual block extents as well as the overall dataset's extent. -85.668247 -85.270902 29.909435 30.177297 The NOAA Michael Topobathymetric Lidar Delivery 1 extent covers 95,557 acres of the full project boundary. This Delivery 1 dataset is comprised of 2,286 - 500 m x 500 m LAS tiles. -85.451502 -83.989269 29.544044 30.177686 The NOAA Michael Topobathymetric Lidar Delivery 3 UTM 16 extent covers 341,153 acres of the full project boundary. -84.010594 -83.337362 29.526019 30.161341 The NOAA Michael Topobathymetric Lidar Delivery 3 UTM 17 extent covers 341,153 acres of the full project boundary. -86.27383 -85.490947 30.047483 30.38344 The NOAA Michael Topobathymetric Lidar Delivery 41 (Block 04) extent covers 192,811 acres of the full project boundary. -88.05557 -82.55326 28.186447 30.662192 -84.830004 -84.301645 29.663345 30.123719 The NOAA Michael Topobathymetric Lidar Delivery 2 extent covers 166,578 acres of the full project boundary. This Delivery 2 dataset is comprised of 3,549 - 500 m x 500 m LAS tiles. -87.313157 -86.029265 30.291658 30.665212 The NOAA Michael Topobathymetric Lidar Delivery 42 (Block 05) extent covers 95,557 acres of the full project boundary. This Block 05 dataset is comprised of 9,006 - 500 m x 500 m LAS tiles. -88.062939 -87.311719 30.209728 30.506921 The NOAA Michael Topobathymetric Lidar Delivery 43 (Block 06) extent covers 153,351 acres of the full project boundary. This Block 06 dataset is comprised of 3,539 - 500 m x 500 m LAS tiles. -83.435325 -82.558583 28.861074 29.550452 The NOAA Michael Topobathymetric Lidar Delivery 44AA (Block 07)extent covers 276,009 acres of the full project boundary. This Block 07 dataset is comprised of 5,706 - 500 m x 500 m LAS tiles. -82.841248 -82.543431 28.184556 28.918952 The NOAA Michael Topobathymetric Lidar Delivery 44B (Block 08) extent covers 327,801 acres of the full project boundary. This Delivery 44B dataset is comprised of 5,826 - 500 m x 500 m LAS tiles. Delivery 44B (Block 08) acquisition dates spanned from 20191126-20200428 in 24 missions. | Currentness: Ground Condition 2019-11-26 2020-04-28 Delivery 41 (Blcok 04) acquisition dates spanned from 20201127-20200409 in twenty-one missions. | Currentness: Ground Condition 2019-11-27 2020-04-09 Block 1 collection dates. | Currentness: Ground Condition 2019-11-27 2020-02-22 Delivery 3 UTM 16 acquisition dates spanned from 20201127-20200730 in forty-seven missions. | Currentness: Ground Condition 2019-11-27 2020-07-30 Delivery 43 (Block 06) acquisition dates spanned from 20191204-20200502 in twenty one missions. | Currentness: Ground Condition 2019-12-04 2020-05-02 Delivery 42 (Block 05) acquisition dates spanned from 20191215-20200627 in thirty-three missions. | Currentness: Ground Condition 2019-12-15 2020-06-27 Delivery 2 acquisition dates spanned from 20200101-20200730 in twenty one missions. | Currentness: Ground Condition 2020-01-01 2020-07-30 Delivery 44AA (Block 07) acquisition dates spanned from 20200127-20200428 in twenty-two missions. | Currentness: Ground Condition 2020-01-27 2020-04-28 Delivery 3 UTM 17 acquisition dates spanned from 20200215-20200519 in fifteen missions. | Currentness: Ground Condition 2020-02-15 2020-05-19 An automated ground classification algorithm was used to determine bare earth point classification. It should be noted that not all returns were correctly classified; therefore the user should examine for acceptability. Zip Zip GeoTIFF NOAA Office for Coastal Management (843) 740-1202 2234 South Hobson Ave Charleston SC 29405-2413 coastal.info@noaa.gov https://coast.noaa.gov WWW:LINK-1.0-http--link NOAA Office for Coastal Management Website NOAA Office for Coastal Management Home Page information distributor https://coast.noaa.gov/dataviewer/#/lidar/search/where:ID=9708/details/9708 WWW:LINK-1.0-http--link Customized Download 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. download https://noaa-nos-coastal-lidar-pds.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/dem/NGS_NW_Florida_Topobathy_DEM_2020_9708/ WWW:LINK-1.0-http--link Bulk Download Simple download of data files. download dataset Horizontal Positional Accuracy Lidar horizontal accuracy is a function of Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) derived positional error, flying altitude, and INS derived attitude error. The obtained RMSEr value is multiplied by a conversion factor of 1.7308 to yield the horizontal component of the National Standards for Spatial Data Accuracy (NSSDA) reporting standard where a theoretical point will fall within the obtained radius 95 percent of the time (ACCr). Based on a flying altitude of 400 meters, an IMU error of 0.004 decimal degrees, and a GNSS positional error of 0.008 meters, the RMSEr value for the Delivery 1 area is 0.05 meters, with a ACCr of 0.09 meters at the 95% confidence level. The project specification requires horizontal positions to be accurate to 1.0m(RMSE). Based on a flying altitude of 400 meters, an IMU error of 0.007 decimal degrees, and a GNSS positional error of 0.027 meters, the RMSEr value for the Delivery 2 area is 0.09 meters, with a ACCr of 0.16 meters at the 95% confidence level. Horizontal Accuracy was not reported in the contractor provided metadata for the remaining blocks. Vertical Positional Accuracy Block 1 UTM 16: Non-Vegetated Vertical Accuracy tested 0.061 m at 95% confidence level against the derived bare earth DEM in open terrain using 5 ground check points, based on RMSEz (0.031 m) x 1.9600. Vegetated Vertical Accuracy tested 0.209 m at the 95th% against the bare earth DEM using 8 landclass points. The dataset tested 0.053 m vertical accuracy at 95% confidence level against the derived topobathymetric bare earth DEM using 10 submerged check points, based on RMSEz (0.027 m) x 1.9600. Block 2 UTM 16: NVA tested 0.046 m at 95% confidence level against the derived bare earth DEM in open terrain using 9 ground check points, based on RMSEz (0.024 m) x 1.9600. VVA tested 0.090 m at the 95th % against the derived bare earth DEM using 4 landclass points. The dataset tested 0.247 m at 95% confidence against the derived topbathy bare earth DEM using 82 submerged checkpoints, RMSEz (0.126 m) x 1.9600. Block 3 UTM 16: NVA tested 0.096 m at 95% confidence level against the derived bare earth DEM in open terrain using 29 ground check points, based on RMSEz (0.049 m) x 1.9600.VVA tested 0.146 m at the 95th % against the derived bare earth DEM using 18 landclass points. The dataset tested 0.258 m at 95% confidence against the derived topobathy bare earth DEM using 78 submerged checkpoints, RMSEz (0.134 m) x 1.9600. BLock 3 UTM 17: NVA tested 0.096 m at 95% confidence level against the derived bare earth DEM in open terrain using 29 ground check points, based on RMSEz (0.049 m) x 1.9600. VVA tested 0.146 m vertical accuracy at the 95th % against the derived bare earth DEM using 18 landclass points. The dataset tested 0.258 m at 95% confidence against the derived topobathy bare earth DEM using 78 submerged checkpoints, RMSEz (0.134 m) x 1.9600. Block 4 UTM 16: NVA tested 0.107 m at 95% confidence level against the derived bare earth DEM in open terrain using 12 ground check points, based on RMSEz (0.055 m) x 1.9600. VVA tested 0.218 m at the 95th % against the derived bare earth DEM using 7 landclass points. The dataset tested 0.231 m at 95% confidence against the derived topobathy bare earth DEM using 29 submerged checkpoints, RMSEz (0.118 m) x 1.9600. Block 5 UTM 16: NVA tested 0.106 m at 95% confidence level against the derived bare earth DEM in open terrain using 23 ground check points, based on RMSEz (0.054 m) x 1.9600. VVA tested 0.367 m at the 95th % against the derived bare earth DEM using 13 landclass points The dataset tested 0.230 m at 95% confidence against the derived topobathy bare earth DEM using 78 submerged checkpoints, RMSEz (0.117 m) x 1.9600. Block 6 UTM 16: NVA tested 0.098 m vertical accuracy at 95% confidence level against the derived bare earth DEM in open terrain using 6 ground check points, based on RMSEz (0.050 m) x 1.9600. VVA tested 0.088 m at the 95th % against the derived bare earth DEM using 6 landclass points. The dataset tested 0.294 m at 95% confidence against the derived topobathy bare earth DEM using 55 submerged checkpoints, RMSEz (0.150 m) x 1.9600. Block 7 UTM 17: NVA tested 0.067 m at 95% confidence level against the derived bare earth DEM in open terrain using 10 ground check points, based on RMSEz (0.034 m) x 1.9600. VVA tested 0.146 m vertical accuracy at the 95th % against the derived bare earth DEM using 13 landclass points. The dataset tested 0.117 m vertical accuracy at 95% confidence against the derived topobathymetric bare earth DEM using 26 submerged checkpoints, RMSEz (0.060 m) x 1.9600. Block 8 UTM 17: NVA tested 0.060 m at 95% confidence level against the derived bare earth DEM in open terrain using 8 ground check points, based on RMSEz (0.031 m) x 1.9600. VVA tested 0.188 m at the 95th % against the derived bare earth DEM using 6 land class points. The dataset tested 0.139 m at 95% confidence against the derived topobathy bare earth DEM using 83 submerged checkpoints, RMSEz (0.071 m) x 1.9600. Completeness Report Data covers the 599 tiles (5000m x 5000m tiles). Conceptual Consistency Not applicable Data for the NOAA Michael Topobathymetric Lidar project area was acquired by Quantum Spatial (QSI) using a Leica Chiroptera 4X Topobathy lidar system. All derived LAS data was referenced to: Horizontal Datum-NAD83(2011) epoch: 2010.00 Projection-UTM Zone 16N and UTM17N Horizontal Units-meters Vertical Datum-GRS80 Ellipsoid Vertical Units-meters The collected Lidar data were immediately processed in the field by QSI to a level that will allow QA\QC measures to determine if the sensor is functioning properly and assess the coverage of submerged topography. An initial SBET was created in POSPAC MMS 8.3 SP3 and loaded into RiProcess which applies pre-calibrated angular misalignment corrections of scanner position to extract the raw point cloud into geo-referenced LAS files. These files were inspected for sensor malfunctions and then passed through automated raster generation using LAStools to develop an initial assessment of bathymetric coverage. QSI reviewed all acquired flight lines to ensure complete coverage and positional accuracy of the laser points. These rasters were also used to create an initial product in Quick Look Coverage Maps. These Quick Look files are not fully processed data or final products but provide rapid assessment of approximate coverage and depth penetration. QSI resolved kinematic corrections for aircraft position data using aircraft GNSS and Applanix's proprietary PP-RTX solution. When PP-RTX was not used QSI conducted static Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) ground surveys (1 Hz recording frequency) using base stations over known monument locations during flights. After the airborne survey, static GPS data were triangulated with nearby Continuously Operating Reference Stations (CORS) using the Online Positioning User Service (OPUS) for precise positioning. Multiple independent sessions over the same base station were performed to confirm antenna height measurements and to refine position accuracy. This data was used to correct the continuous on board measurements of the aircraft position recorded throughout the flight. A final smoothed best estimate trajectory (SBET) was developed that blends post-processed aircraft position with attitude data. Using the SBETs, sensor head position and attitude were then calculated throughout the survey. Trimble Business Center v.3.90, Blue Marble Geographic Calculator 2019, and PosPac MMS 8.3 SP3 were used for these processes. Following final SBET creation, QSI used Leica Lidar Survey Studio (LSS) to calculate laser point positioning by associating SBET positions to each laser point return time, scan angle, and intensity. Leica LSS was used to derive a synthetic water surface to create a water surface model. All LiDAR data below water surface models were classified as water column to correct for refraction. Light travels at different speeds in air versus water and its direction of travel or angle is changed or refracted when entering the water column. The refraction tool corrects for this difference by adjusting the depth (distance traveled) and horizontal positioning (change of angle/direction) of the LiDAR data. Using raster-based QC methods, the output data is verified to ensure the refraction tool functioned properly. Dewberry performed the calibration of the NOAA Michael Delivery 1 Lidar dataset in addition to the point cloud classification in order to create the final topobathymetric lidar deliverables which were subsequently reviewed by QSI. 2020-06-26T00:00:00 Relative accuracy of the green swaths compared to overlapping and adjacent green swaths as well as the relative accuracy of green swaths compared to overlapping and adjacent NIR swaths was verified through the use of Delta-Z (DZ) orthos. Dewberry created DZ rasters using proprietary processing tools. The intraswath or within a swath accuracy were verified using GIS software. Profiles of elevated planar features, such as roofs, were used to verify horizontal alignment between overlapping swaths. All lidar data was peer-reviewed. QAQC also included creating void polygons for use during review. All necessary edits were applied to the dataset. NV5 Geospatial's proprietary software, LAS Monkey, was used to update LAS header information, including all projection and coordinate reference system information. The final lidar data is in LAS format 1.4 and point data record format 6. The contractor delivered classification scheme is as follows: 1- Unclassified 2- Ground 7- Noise 40- Bathymetric bottom or submerged topography 41- Water surface 43- Submerged object 45- water column 46- overlap bathy bottom - temporally different from a separate lift 71- unclassified associated with areas of overlap bathy bottom/temporal bathymetric differences 72- ground associated with areas of overlap bathy bottom/temporal bathymetric differences 81- water surface associated with areas of overlap bathy bottom/temporal bathymetric differences 85- water column associated with areas of overlap bathy bottom/temporal bathymetric differences 1Overlap- Edge clip 1Withheld- Green laser returns in topo only areas 42Synthetic- derived water surface All data was then verified by an Independent QC department. The independent QC was performed by separate analysts who did not perform manual classification or editing. The independent QC involved quantitative and qualitative reviews. Dewberry transformed the final LiDAR data from ellipsoid heights to orthometric heights referenced to NAVD88, Geoid12b to create the final topobathymetric void clipped DEMs. The topobathymetric bare earth DEMs were output at 1 meter resolution in GeoTIFF format into 5000 m x 5000 m tiles. The rasters are clipped to the extent of the project boundary and named according to project specifications. A bathymetric void shapefile was created to indicate areas where there was a lack of bathymetric returns. This shape was created by triangulating bathymetric bottom points with an edge length maximum of 4.56m to identify all areas greater then 9 square meters without bathymetric returns. This shapefile was used to clip and exclude interpolated elevation data from these areas in the bathymetric void clipped topobathymetric bare earth model. The NOAA Office for Coastal Management (OCM) received tiff files in UTM Zone 17N and 16N NAD83(2011), meters coordinates. Vertical positions were provided in NAVD88 (Geoid18) elevations and in meters. OCM performed the following processing for data storage and Digital Coast provisioning purposes: 1. The data were converted to Cloud Optimized GeoTiff (COG) format and the projection and vertical datum EPSG codes were assigned. 2. The data were copied to https Office for Coastal Management processor Processed Lidar NV5 originator