20190320
19454200
1.0
FGDC CSDGM Metadata
FALSE
RasterCalculator Con(IsNull("LIDAR_CELLSIZE_3"),"LC","LIDAR_CELLSIZE_3") C:\Temp\GEOID12B\2018_LiDAR_GEOID12B.gdb\LIDAR_FILL
BuildPyramidsandStatistics C:\Temp\GEOID12B\2018_LiDAR_GEOID12B.gdb\LIDAR_FILL INCLUDE_SUBDIRECTORIES BUILD_PYRAMIDS CALCULATE_STATISTICS NONE # NONE 1 1 # -1 NONE NEAREST DEFAULT 75 SKIP_EXISTING
LIDAR_2018
2909184.000000
3284196.000000
13722030.000000
14119770.000000
1
file://\\svpitcgisimg\imagery\2018_LiDAR_GEOID12B.gdb
Local Area Network
002
Projected
GCS_NAD_1983_2011
Linear Unit: Foot_US (0.304801)
NAD_1983_2011_StatePlane_Texas_South_Central_FIPS_4204_FtUS
<ProjectedCoordinateSystem xsi:type='typens:ProjectedCoordinateSystem' xmlns:xsi='http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance' xmlns:xs='http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema' xmlns:typens='http://www.esri.com/schemas/ArcGIS/10.7'><WKT>PROJCS["NAD_1983_2011_StatePlane_Texas_South_Central_FIPS_4204_FtUS",GEOGCS["GCS_NAD_1983_2011",DATUM["D_NAD_1983_2011",SPHEROID["GRS_1980",6378137.0,298.257222101]],PRIMEM["Greenwich",0.0],UNIT["Degree",0.0174532925199433]],PROJECTION["Lambert_Conformal_Conic"],PARAMETER["False_Easting",1968500.0],PARAMETER["False_Northing",13123333.33333333],PARAMETER["Central_Meridian",-99.0],PARAMETER["Standard_Parallel_1",28.38333333333333],PARAMETER["Standard_Parallel_2",30.28333333333333],PARAMETER["Latitude_Of_Origin",27.83333333333333],UNIT["Foot_US",0.3048006096012192],AUTHORITY["EPSG",6588]]</WKT><XOrigin>-126725700</XOrigin><YOrigin>-77828800</YOrigin><XYScale>34994581.165044695</XYScale><ZOrigin>-100000</ZOrigin><ZScale>10000</ZScale><MOrigin>-100000</MOrigin><MScale>10000</MScale><XYTolerance>0.0032808333333333331</XYTolerance><ZTolerance>0.001</ZTolerance><MTolerance>0.001</MTolerance><HighPrecision>true</HighPrecision><WKID>103161</WKID><LatestWKID>6588</LatestWKID></ProjectedCoordinateSystem>
20201028
13492600
20201028
13492600
150000000
5000
ItemDescription
Texas Water Development Board
512-463-7847
1700 North Congress Avenue
Austin
Texas
78701
US
20201028
ArcGIS Metadata
1.0
Texas Water Development Board
512-463-7847
1700 North Congress Avenue
Austin
Texas
78701
US
File Geodatabase Raster Dataset
DEM_2018
2019-02-27
Fugro Geospatial, Inc.
Fugro Geospatial, Inc.
Frederick, Maryland
Lidar
<DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><P><SPAN>The Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) in cooperation with their project partners tasked Fugro Geospatial, Inc. (Fugro) under the Department of Information Resources (DIR) Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Hardware, Software and Services contract also known as the Texas Strategic Mapping (StratMap) Contract to acquire high resolution elevation data and associated products from airborne lidar systems during the 2017-2018 leaf-off season. The StratMap Program promotes inter-governmental collaboration and partnerships to purchase geospatial data products that provide cost savings and project efficiencies. Both the StratMap Program and the StratMap Contract are administered by the Texas Natural Resources Information System (TNRIS), a division of TWDB. Project partners include: Houston-Galveston Area Council (H-GAC), Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCD), and the United States Geological Survey (USGS). This Coastal Texas project consists of approximately 9,758 DO4Q tiles and is located on the Texas Coast covering much of Orange to Matagorda County along with Harris County and the surrounding area. The project includes large metropolitan areas as well as coastal areas. The Urban and Coastal AOIs consist of approximately 4.045 square miles and were acquired between January 12 and March 22, 2018 utilizing both Riegl LMS-Q680i and Riegl LMS-Q780 sensors; collecting multiple return x, y, and z as well as intensity data. Specialized in-house and commercial software processes the native lidar data into 3-dimensional positions that can be imported into GIS software for visualization and further analysis. The horizontal datum for the data is the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83, 2011) in feet and the vertical datum is the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88) in feet realized with GEOID12B</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV>
2018 Bare Earth DEM Data products generated from this project will be used for floodplain management and planning, feature extraction, water quality modeling, stream restoration potential analysis, change detection and emergency management services and will be made available in the public domain through TNRIS.
Texas Water Development Board
Texas Water Development Board
512-463-7847
1700 North Congress Avenue
Austin
Texas
78701
US
Geographic Names Information System
US
Harris County
Elevation
Terrain
Surface
Lidar
Model
US
Elevation
Terrain
Surface
Lidar
Harris County
Model
Any conclusions drawn from the analysis of this information are not the responsibility of the TWDB or its partners.
None
N/A
<DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><P><SPAN>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. Any conclusions drawn from the analysis of this information are not the responsibility of the TWDB or its partners.</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV>
Version 6.2 (Build 9200) ; Esri ArcGIS 10.7.0.10450
ground condition
2018-03-11
2018-03-07
2018-03-08
2018-03-03
2018-03-06
2018-01-17
2018-01-18
2018-01-25
2018-01-15
2018-03-22
2018-01-14
2018-02-19
2018-03-02
2018-03-01
2018-01-22
2018-03-20
2018-01-13
2018-03-12
2018-03-13
2018-03-21
2018-02-23
2018-02-02
2018-02-08
2018-01-30
2018-02-26
2018-03-14
2018-03-19
2018-01-24
2018-01-23
2018-01-31
2018-01-28
2018-01-29
0
0
0
0
N/A
1
-96.043903
-94.821643
30.540539
29.415944
Last metadata review date: 20181217
Compliance with the accuracy standard was ensured by the collection of ground control and the establishment of GPS base stations in the project area. The following checks were performed: 1) The lidar data accuracy was validated by performing a full boresight adjustment and then checking it against the ground control prior to generating a digital terrain model (DTM) or other products. 2) Lidar elevation data was validated through an inspection of edge matching and visual inspection for quality (artifact removal). The following software was used for the validation: 1) RiProcess 1.8.3, RiWorld 5.0.2, RiAnalyze 6.2, RiServer 1.99.5) Fugro proprietary software; 20870430.
A complete iteration of processing (GPS/IMU Processing, Raw Lidar Data Processing, and Verification of Coverage and Data Quality) was performed to ensure that the acquired data was complete, uncorrupted, and that the entire project area had been covered without gaps between flight lines. A sensor anomaly caused a few small areas of voids within tile stratmap17-50cm-2996134a1. The Classified Point Cloud data files include all data points collected except the ones from Cross ties and Calibration lines. The points that have been removed or excluded are the points fall outside the project delivery boundary. Points are classified. A visual qualitative assessment was performed to ensure data completeness. The Intensity Image files cover the entire project delivery boundary. A visual qualitative assessment was performed to ensure data completeness. The Intensity Image product is of good quality. The Hydro Breaklines cover the entire project delivery boundary and extend beyond the boundary in a few locations. A visual qualitative assessment was performed to ensure data completeness. No void areas or missing data exist. The Hydro Breakline product is of good quality. The DEM raster files cover the entire project delivery boundary. A visual qualitative assessment was performed to ensure data completeness.
During lidar data collection the airborne GPS receiver was collecting data at 2 Hz frequency and the Dilution of Precision (PDOP) was monitored. GPS base stations were also running at the operational airports and were recording data at 1 Hz. The airborne GPS data was post-processed in DGPS mode together with the base station data to provide high accuracy aircraft positions. The GPS trajectory then was combined with the IMU data using loosely coupled approach to yield high accuracy aircraft positions and attitude angles. Then the lidar data was processed using the aircraft trajectory and raw lidar data. After boresighting the lidar data, the ground control points were measured against the lidar data by technicians using TerraScan and proprietary software and the lidar data was adjusted vertically to the ground control. The horizontal datum is NAD83(2011) in feet and the vertical datum is the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88) in feet. The vertical datum was realized through the use of the published/calculated ellipsoidal heights of the base station to process the aircraft trajectory and then later applying the GEOID99 model to the processed LiDAR data to obtain orthometric heights.
AECOM followed the 2014 ASPRS Accuracy Standards for Digital Geospatial Data to compute the Non-vegetated Vertical Accuracy (NVA) RMSEz and Accuracyz at a 95% confidence interval (RMSEz*1.96) for checkpoints located in non-vegetated open terrain; the required NVA RMSEz is < 10 cm and the required NVA Accuracyz 95% is < 19.6 cm. AECOM utilized the 95th percentile method to determine the Vegetated Vertical Accuracy (VVA) for checkpoints located in vegetated terrain, regardless of vegetation type; the required VVA Accuracyz 95% is < 29.4 cm.
Tested meters. The NVA RMSEz of the DEM was calculated using 238 independent checkpoints.
All surveying activities were performed by Fugro USA Land, Inc. A total of 219 ground control points to support the lidar collection were collected in the Urban and Coastal AOIs; the points were a combination of gravel, dirt, asphalt, and concrete all in open terrain. The horizontal Datum was the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83, 2011). The vertical datum was the North American Datum of 1988 (NAVD88). The geoid model, GEOID12B, was used to obtain the NAVD88 orthometric heights from the GRS 1980 ellipsoidal heights.
Coastal Texas; Ground Control Survey Report
Ground Control
2018-04-06
Fugro USA Land, inc.
ground condition
2018-01-24
2018-03-16
Fugro collected Riegl-derived lidar over the Coastal Texas project AOI with a 0.5 meter Nominal Pulse Spacing (NPS). Data was collected when environmental conditions met the specified criteria: leaf-off and no significant snow cover or flood conditions; cloud, smoke, dust, and fog-free between the aircraft and ground. The collection for the Urban and Coastal AOIs was accomplished on January 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, and 31, February 2, 8, 19, 23, and 26, and March 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 19, 20, 21, and 22 2018; 982 flight lines were acquired in 117 lifts. The lines were flown at an average of 3,250 feet above mean terrain. The collection was performed using the Riegl LMS-Q680i and Riegl LMS-Q780i lidar systems, serial numbers 163, 165, 421, and 961.
Coastal TX Aerial Acquisition
Aerial Lidar Acquisition
2018-06-04
Fugro Geospatial, Inc.
ground condition
2018-03-13
2018-03-03
2018-03-06
2018-01-30
2018-03-01
2018-03-07
2018-02-08
2018-01-28
2018-01-25
2018-01-29
2018-01-23
2018-03-14
2018-03-19
2018-01-24
2018-03-21
2018-03-02
2018-03-12
2018-01-13
2018-01-15
2018-03-22
2018-01-31
2018-02-19
2018-01-18
2018-01-14
2018-02-02
2018-02-23
2018-03-11
2018-01-22
2018-01-17
2018-02-26
2018-03-08
2018-03-20
All acquired lidar data went through a preliminary review to assure that complete coverage had been obtained and that there were no gaps between flight lines before the flight crew left the project site. Once back in the office, the data was run through a complete iteration of processing to ensure that it is complete, uncorrupted, and that the entire project area has been covered without gaps between flight lines. There are essentially three steps to this processing: 1) GPS/IMU Processing - Airborne GPS and IMU data was processed using the airport GPS base station data. 2) Raw Lidar Data Processing - Technicians processed the raw data to LAS format flight lines with full resolution output before performing QC. A starting configuration file is used in this process, which contains the latest calibration parameters for the sensor. The technicians also generated flight line trajectories for each of the flight lines during this process. 3) Verification of Coverage and Data Quality - Technicians checked the trajectory files to ensure completeness of acquisition for the flight lines, calibration lines, and cross flight lines. The intensity images were generated for the entire lift at the required 0.5 meter NPS. Visual checks of the intensity images against the project boundary were performed to ensure full coverage to the 300 meter buffer beyond the project boundary. The intensity histogram was analyzed to ensure the quality of the intensity values. The technician also thoroughly reviewed the data for any gaps in project area. The technician generated a sample TIN surface to ensure no anomalies were present in the data. Turbulence was inspected for each flight line; if any adverse quality issues were discovered, the flight line was rejected and re-flown. The technician also evaluated the achieved post spacing against project specified 0.5 meter NPS as well as making sure no clustering in point distribution.
2018-04-01
Katie Springman
Fugro Geospatial, Inc.
Project Manager
301-948-8550
301-963-2064
7320 Executive Way
Frederick
MD
21704
US
k.springman@fugro.com
Mon-Fri 8:30am to 5:00pm
Raw Lidar Data
Verified Lidar Data
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 Fugro proprietary and commercial software to calculate initial boresight adjustment angles based on sample areas within 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 is 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 the matching between flight line overlaps 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 ? 3 cm RMSDz within swath overlap (between adjacent swaths) with a maximum difference of ± 17 cm. 5) The technicians ran a final vertical accuracy check of the boresighted flight lines against the surveyed ground control points after the z correction to ensure the requirement of RMSEz (non-vegetated) ? 10 cm, NVA ? 19.6 cm 95% Confidence Level was met.
2018-05-11
Katie Springman
Fugro Geospatial, Inc.
Project Manager
301-948-8550
301-963-2064
7320 Executive Way
Frederick
MD
21704
US
k.springman@fugro.com
Mon-Fri 8:30am to 5:00pm
Verified Lidar Data
Boresighted Lidar Data
Once boresighting was completed, the project was set up for automatic classification. First, the lidar data was cut into production tiles and the flight line overlap points, noise points, ground points, and building points were classified automatically. Fugro utilized commercial software, as well as proprietary, in-house developed software for automatic filtering. The parameters used in the process were customized for each terrain type to obtain optimum results. These parameters were also customized to capture multiple categories of vegetation based on height (low, medium, and high vegetation). After all “low” points are classified, points remaining are reclassified automatically based on height from the ground. Once the automated filtering was completed, the files were run through a visual inspection to ensure that the filtering was not too aggressive or not aggressive enough. In cases where the filtering was too aggressive and important terrain were filtered out, the data was either run through a different filter within local area or was corrected during the manual filtering process. Bridge deck points and culvert points were classified as well during the interactive editing process. Interactive editing was completed in visualization software that provides manual and automatic point classification tools. Fugro utilized commercial and proprietary software for this process. All manually inspected tiles went through a peer review to ensure proper editing and consistency. After the manual editing and peer review, all tiles went through another final automated classification routine. This process ensures only the required classifications are used in the final product (all points classified into any temporary classes during manual editing will be re-classified into the project specified classifications). Once manual inspection, QC and final autofilter is complete for the lidar tiles, the LAS data was packaged to the project specified tiling scheme, cut to the approved tile layout, and formatted to LAS v1.4. It was also re-projected to State Plane Texas S Central; NAD83(2011), feet; NAVD88(GEOID99), feet. The file header was formatted to meet the project specification. This Classified Point Cloud product was used for the generation of derived products. This product was delivered in fully compliant LAS v1.4, Point Record Format 6 with Adjusted Standard GPS Time. Georeferencing information is included in all LAS file headers. Each tile has File Source ID assigned to zero. The Point Source ID matches to the flight line ID in the flight trajectory files. Intensity values are included for each point, normalized to 16-bit. The following classifications are included: Class 1 – Processed, but unclassified; Class 2 – Bare earth ground; Class 3 – Low Vegetation (0.01m to 1.00m above ground); Class 4 – Medium Vegetation (1.01m to 3.00m above ground); Class 5 – High Vegetation (greater than 3.01m above ground); Class 6 – Building; Class 7 – Low Point (Noise); Class 9 – Water; Class 10 – Ignored Ground; Class 14 Culverts; and Class 17 Bridge Decks. The classified point cloud data was delivered in tiles without overlap using the project tiling scheme.
2018-05-29
Katie Springman
Fugro Geospatial, Inc.
Project Manager
301-948-8550
301-963-2064
7320 Executive Way
Frederick
MD
21704
US
k.springman@fugro.com
Mon-Fri 8:30am to 5:00pm
Boresighted Lidar Data
Classified Point Cloud
Hydro linework is produced by heads-up digitizing using classified lidar datasets. Additionally, products created from lidar including intensity images, shaded-relief TIN surfaces, and contours are used. Hydrographic features were collected as separate feature classes: 1) Inland Ponds and Lakes nominally larger than 2 acres in area (Ponds_and_Lakes) and 2) Inland Streams and Rivers nominally larger than 15.25 meters (Stream_and_River)(1_Acre_Islands). After initial collection, features were combined into working regions based on watershed sub-basins. Linework was then checked for the following topological and attribution rules: 1) Lines must be attributed with the correct feature code and 2) Lake and stream banklines must form closed polygons. Hydro features were collected as vector linework using lidar and its derived products listed above. This linework is initially 2D, meaning that it does not have elevation values assigned to individual line vertices. Vertex elevation values were assigned using a distance weighted distribution of lidar points closest to each vertex. This is similar to draping the 2D linework to a surface modeled from the lidar points. After the initial ‘drape’, the linework elevation values were further adjusted based on the following rules: 1) Lake feature vertices were re-assigned (flattened) to lowest draped vertex value, and 2) Double stream bankline vertices were re-assigned based on the vertices of the closest adjusted double stream connector line. Fugro proprietary software was used to create profiles to ensure bank to bank flatness, monotonicity check, and lake flatness. The hydro breaklines were delivered as polygons in Esri ArcGIS version 10.3 geodatabase format.
2018-05-30
Katie Springman
Fugro Geospatial, Inc.
Project Manager
301-948-8550
301-963-2064
7320 Executive Way
Frederick
MD
21704
US
k.springman@fugro.com
Mon-Fri 8:30am to 5:00pm
Lidar Data
Hydro Breaklines
The hydro-flattened bare earth DEM was generated using the lidar bare earth points and 3D hydro breaklines to a resolution of 1 meter. The bare earth points that fell within 1*NPS along the hydro breaklines (points in class 10) were excluded from the DEM generation process. This is analogous to the removal of mass points for the same reason in a traditional photogrammetrically compiled DTM. This process was done in batch using proprietary software. The technicians then used Fugro proprietary software for the production of the lidar-derived hydro-flattened bare earth DEM surface in initial grid format at 1 meter GSD. Water bodies (inland ponds and lakes), inland streams and rivers, and island holes were hydro-flattened within the DEM. Hydro-flattening was applied to all water impoundments, natural or man-made, nominally larger than 2 acres in area and to all streams nominally wider than 15.25 meters. This process was done in batch. Once the initial, hydro-flattened bare earth DEM was generated, the technicians checked the tiles to ensure that the grid spacing met specifications. The technicians also checked the surface to ensure proper hydro-flattening. The entire data set was checked for complete project coverage. Once the data was checked, the tiles were then converted to .IMG format. Georeference information is included in the raster files.
2018-06-01
Katie Springman
Fugro Geospatial, Inc.
Project Manager
301-948-8550
301-963-2064
7320 Executive Way
Frederick
MD
21704
US
k.springman@fugro.com
Mon-Fri 8:30am to 5:00pm
Lidar Data, 3D Hydro Breaklines
Hydro-flattened Bare Earth DEM
Upon the completion of lidar point cloud product creation, First Return points were used for intensity image generation automatically. The software considers points from neighboring tiles while creating the images for seamless edge matching. The intensity images were generated at 0.5 meter resolution in 16-bit. Georeferencing information was assigned to all images. The technician QC’ed the final intensity images before delivery. The intensity images were delivered in GeoTIFF format.
2018-06-01
Katie Springman
Fugro Geospatial, Inc.
Project Manager
301-948-8550
301-963-2064
7320 Executive Way
Frederick
MD
21704
US
k.springman@fugro.com
Mon-Fri 8:30am to 5:00pm
Lidar Point Cloud
Lidar Intensity Images
dataset
EPSG
8.9.3(10.3.1)
Pixel
132580
125004
3.000000
3.000000
32
1
Upper Left
FALSE
NONE
1
pixel codes
FGDBR
TRUE
row and column
3.000000
3.000000